The fitness industry is bullshitting you: stay away!!

Page 2 of 3 [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 53,039
Location: Stendec

01 Jul 2021, 11:31 am

badRobot wrote:
Fnord wrote:
It is not I who is ignorant of the subject, it is you.
My diet is predominantly ketogenic for the last 5+ years, I'm reading publications on metabolism and nutrition weekly to keep up with recent research and adjust my diet.  As a long distance cyclist I'm interested in performance, fat adaptation and application of ketosis in endurance sports.  It is pretty freaking obvious you have no the slightest idea what you are talking about, just stop embarrassing yourself already.
I am not at all embarrassed.  While I do not read every off-the-wall publication on dieting, I am certain of my facts.

Eat less, exercise more, and lose weight.  This is fact, not fantasy.



salad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2011
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,226

01 Jul 2021, 11:34 am

Fnord wrote:
badRobot wrote:
Fnord wrote:
It is not I who is ignorant of the subject, it is you.
My diet is predominantly ketogenic for the last 5+ years, I'm reading publications on metabolism and nutrition weekly to keep up with recent research and adjust my diet.  As a long distance cyclist I'm interested in performance, fat adaptation and application of ketosis in endurance sports.  It is pretty freaking obvious you have no the slightest idea what you are talking about, just stop embarrassing yourself already.
I am not at all embarrassed.  While I do not read every off-the-wall publication on dieting, I am certain of my facts.

Eat less, exercise more, and lose weight.  This is fact, not fantasy.


Eating less is rather tricky

A person who eats 1000 calories of chips and junk doesnt have the same chance of losing weight as the same person eating 2000 calories of whole food

Quality always beats quantity as far as losing weight


_________________
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Master Oogway


badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

01 Jul 2021, 11:36 am

Fnord wrote:
Eat less, exercise more, and lose weight.  This is fact, not fantasy.[/color]


Yeah, and if you just keep eating the same food that you ate gaining weight, but less, this weight loss is going to be your lean body mass, not body fat, you will trigger metabolic adaptation, develop protein debt - potentially some serious health issues. And when you'll be unable to comply, you will gain even more fat than you had in the beginning.

Your advise is harmful, you have no idea what you are talking about. This is fact, not fantasy.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 53,039
Location: Stendec

01 Jul 2021, 11:49 am

salad wrote:
Fnord wrote:
... Eat less, exercise more, and lose weight.  This is fact, not fantasy.
Eating less is rather tricky.  A person who eats 1000 calories of chips and junk doesn't have the same chance of losing weight as the same person eating 2000 calories of whole food.  Quality always beats quantity as far as losing weight.
Well, of course quality matters too -- 1500 calories per day of beer and pretzels will likely kill a person if it does not ruin their kidneys first, while 1500 calories per day of nuts, cruciform veggies, and lean meats (or meat substitutes) is likely to cause less damage while still shedding body mass.

I never advocated for eating junk food, anyway; only for eating less and exercising more.  I should have mentioned "eat healthy" as well, so thanks for the polite reminder!


:D



badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

01 Jul 2021, 12:17 pm

Fnord wrote:
Well, of course quality matters too -- 1500 calories per day of beer and pretzels will likely kill a person if it does not ruin their kidneys first, while 1500 calories per day of nuts, cruciform veggies, and lean meats (or meat substitutes) is likely to cause less damage while still shedding body mass.
:D

You will not lose any weight if you are eating 1500 kcal per day of beer and pretzels - this is almost 100% carbs. Your insulin level will be elevated almost constantly, TDEE will drop to about the same 1500 calories, you'll feel exhausted and hungry, exercise would be a torture and there will be no de facto caloric deficit.

If you are eating 1500 kcal of nuts, green veggies, and meat - this is pretty much zero carb diet. It will induce high rate of nutritional ketosis, your TDDE will increase and your hunger would be extremely low, you will have a lot of energy. You will lose weight almost effortlessly even without trying to resist your hunger trying to eat less.

Calories are less important for weight loss than what you are eating. De facto caloric deficit is a function of macrocomposition of your food, not the other way around.



salad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2011
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,226

01 Jul 2021, 12:24 pm

Fnord wrote:
salad wrote:
Fnord wrote:
... Eat less, exercise more, and lose weight.  This is fact, not fantasy.
Eating less is rather tricky.  A person who eats 1000 calories of chips and junk doesn't have the same chance of losing weight as the same person eating 2000 calories of whole food.  Quality always beats quantity as far as losing weight.
Well, of course quality matters too -- 1500 calories per day of beer and pretzels will likely kill a person if it does not ruin their kidneys first, while 1500 calories per day of nuts, cruciform veggies, and lean meats (or meat substitutes) is likely to cause less damage while still shedding body mass.

I never advocated for eating junk food, anyway; only for eating less and exercising more.  I should have mentioned "eat healthy" as well, so thanks for the polite reminder!


:D


The reason I brought this up is because theres a nasty trend in the fitness community, especially by charlatans such as Jeff Nippard and his girlfriend Stephanie Buttermore, who promote dirty eating so long as one is within caloric limits. That rubs me all types of wrong, especially as someone who lives by clean eating and has never touched a candy bar in his life except during a period of obesity where I was wheelchair bound


_________________
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Master Oogway


badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

01 Jul 2021, 12:33 pm

salad wrote:
The reason I brought this up is because theres a nasty trend in the fitness community, especially by charlatans such as Jeff Nippard and his girlfriend Stephanie Buttermore, who promote dirty eating so long as one is within caloric limits. That rubs me all types of wrong, especially as someone who lives by clean eating and has never touched a candy bar in his life except during a period of obesity where I was wheelchair bound


They are not even charlatans, I can't even come up with the right term. They present fundamental law, definition of a goal as a solution.

How do I lose weight? - Just eat less and exercise more!
How do I get rich? - Just earn more and spend less!
How do I win a race? - Just run fast and finish first!

Every time I hear such advise I think "No s**t Sherlock!". Fundamentally this is kind of true, but as advise how to achieve it this is the most meaningless and harmful recommendation possible.



SabbraCadabra
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,276
Location: Michigan

02 Jul 2021, 1:34 am

FleaOfTheChill wrote:
Fair note...I didn't watch the video. My attention span isn't going to let me sit through half an hour this morning. Sorry, I suck like that :lol:

I put it on 2x speed with CC and got about halfway through...the main message is "less processed food, more real food, sugar is the #1 enemy".
Kevin Smith would agree.


_________________
he had a lot to say, he had a lot of nothing to say
we'll miss him


TenMinutes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2021
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 873

13 Aug 2021, 8:07 pm

The best diet is one you can maintain, and most people cannot maintain ketosis. For most diets, CICO is a real thing. Within your calorie budget it certainly does matter what you eat, healthwise, but the law of thermodynamics applies. Calorie surplus is weight gain, calorie deficit is weight loss. Jeff Nippard is not an idiot. Greg Doucette says that palatable, calorie-dense foods will keep you hungry, while foods that are bulky or high in fiber for their calorie content will keep you full, but he also says CICO. If you can eat calorie dense foods without a calorie surplus, then you won't gain weight. It's just really hard to do so.

Your linked video contains nothing but common knowledge in the few minutes I've listened so far. ANd it doesn't disagree with Jeff Nippard et al. I'm going to be disappointed, aren't I?

ETA: "I don't believe you can actually gain fat, if you reduce sugar"

He is factually wrong.

"...insulin starts producing fat..."

No, it doesn't.

I was prepared to report that he said nothing that disagrees with Jeff Nippard et al, until he just went off the rails.

Greg Doucette has a lot to say about satiety. If counting calories is hard, a calorie deficit is hard, and you just want to be told how to succeed and think you outsmarted the nutrition guidelines, Greg will show you how to operate in a calorie deficit without suffering, and about building muscle without "bulking". He'll tell you about ghrelin without mistakes in his understanding. But even his diet is not without sacrifice. Living in a world with yummy, bad foods is just hard.

ETA: dude has a fundamental misunderstanding of what the "fitness people" are saying. I don't know any of them that are promoting eating crap.

ETA: 44:40, Ah, now I see. He's selling coaching services.



badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

17 Aug 2021, 9:13 am

TenMinutes wrote:
The best diet is one you can maintain, and most people cannot maintain ketosis. For most diets, CICO is a real thing. Within your calorie budget it certainly does matter what you eat, healthwise, but the law of thermodynamics applies. Calorie surplus is weight gain, calorie deficit is weight loss. Jeff Nippard is not an idiot. Greg Doucette says that palatable, calorie-dense foods will keep you hungry, while foods that are bulky or high in fiber for their calorie content will keep you full, but he also says CICO. If you can eat calorie dense foods without a calorie surplus, then you won't gain weight. It's just really hard to do so.

Your linked video contains nothing but common knowledge in the few minutes I've listened so far. ANd it doesn't disagree with Jeff Nippard et al. I'm going to be disappointed, aren't I?

ETA: "I don't believe you can actually gain fat, if you reduce sugar"

He is factually wrong.

"...insulin starts producing fat..."

No, it doesn't.

I was prepared to report that he said nothing that disagrees with Jeff Nippard et al, until he just went off the rails.

Greg Doucette has a lot to say about satiety. If counting calories is hard, a calorie deficit is hard, and you just want to be told how to succeed and think you outsmarted the nutrition guidelines, Greg will show you how to operate in a calorie deficit without suffering, and about building muscle without "bulking". He'll tell you about ghrelin without mistakes in his understanding. But even his diet is not without sacrifice. Living in a world with yummy, bad foods is just hard.

ETA: dude has a fundamental misunderstanding of what the "fitness people" are saying. I don't know any of them that are promoting eating crap.

ETA: 44:40, Ah, now I see. He's selling coaching services.


The point is, CICO is not a method to lose weight, it is a fundamental law of conservation of mass and energy. De facto caloric deficit is not how you achieve weight loss, it IS weight loss, this is not a method, this is a goal. And people don't want to lose weight, they want to lose excess fat. To lose excess fat your body needs to be able to utilize body fat for energy. How much fat it can utilize depends on metabolic state, it depends on what you are eating, what kinds of response this food triggers in your body. For example, skimmed milk leads to insulin spikes. Same amount of calories eaten as food with different hormonal responses would have dramatically different effects on your TDEE, hunger, starvation response etc. The most important property in this regard is not satiety, caloric density, etc. it's insulin index.



Evan103
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

Joined: 5 Aug 2021
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 4
Location: London

20 Aug 2021, 7:09 am

Why harm of yourself and your body, you can choose the right food and exercise on the gym. This gives a great result!



EdCase
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 50
Location: Limbo

29 Aug 2021, 8:37 pm

The whole CICO argument makes me laugh.

The calorie was originally defined as the amount of heat required at a pressure of 1 standard atmosphere to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1° Celsius. Calories were determined by following a single thermochemical process. Later the calculation was modified to be based on the type of food, fat, protein, carbohydrate etc., The Atwater System. Wikipedia - Calorie

The point is, what does the body do to food when it ingests it? The process is not the same for the various classifications of food. The body makes different decisions and treats them very differently. Carbohydrates spike insulin, fat doesn't etc. What are the long term effects of ingesting the various types (and amounts) of food constituents? What about the individual; we aren't the same? The thermodynamic law is simplistic and universal. The same caloric ingestion is handled differently in two individuals depending on all sorts of variables, which is why CICO is an overly simplistic statement IMO.

Just read through some of the other responses and realised I'm kind of repeating what badRobot was saying (but maybe less emotionally :wink: ). I'll leave this post anyway


_________________
ASD (Lvl2), ADHD Inattentive Moderate


EdCase
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 50
Location: Limbo

29 Aug 2021, 8:38 pm

Evan103 wrote:
Why harm of yourself and your body, you can choose the right food and exercise on the gym. This gives a great result!


Ah, I remember when I was 27..


_________________
ASD (Lvl2), ADHD Inattentive Moderate


Fixxer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2021
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,178

21 Sep 2021, 11:47 am

The fitness industry is not about health, but about looks. It's about the Ego a lot of the time and people look nice on the outside, but how many issues are they creating within, for them to see once the benefits of their training goes down the drain.



Minervx_2
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 22 May 2016
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 227

06 Oct 2021, 11:29 am

Calories and nutrition are 2 separate things, but you should have both. You need a caloric deficit to lose weight. But you need proper nutrition to have energy and be healthy in many other aspects.

A 1500 calorie diet of twinkies may make you lose weight, but isn't healthy.

A 3000+ calorie diet of whole foods may be nutritious. But let's be honest, you're not going to lose weight on that.



badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 824

06 Oct 2021, 12:22 pm

Minervx_2 wrote:
Calories and nutrition are 2 separate things, but you should have both. You need a caloric deficit to lose weight. But you need proper nutrition to have energy and be healthy in many other aspects.

A 1500 calorie diet of twinkies may make you lose weight, but isn't healthy.

A 3000+ calorie diet of whole foods may be nutritious. But let's be honest, you're not going to lose weight on that.

This is just wrong. Caloric deficit is something you should observe, not impose. Counting calories and imposing caloric deficit by caloric restriction is not healthy. PERIOD. You body has the best calorie counter - hunger regulation. If you feel genuinely hungry, not to be confused with cravings and habitual urge to eat or eating out of boredom, it means macronutrient composition or some compounds in your food lead to metabolic response that doesn't cover energy demands. If you want to avoid starvation response and negative consequences of energy deficit, you should always eat enough to not feel hungry, but eat in such a way that allows your body fat to be metabolized in addition to food you eat to cover all the energy requirements without internal deficit, this is what will make you less hungry. Numbers always add up, this is fundamental law of caloric deficit, this is a goal, not the way how to reach this goal.