[stone monkey]

Obviously, if you don't eat enough then you're going to lose body mass - and end up with malnutrition. But a combination of both healthy eating and exercise is probably for the best if you want to lose weight. You do want to remain healthy whilst you're doing this.

I mean, if you want to reduce total body mass and not just fat (not that I'd know, I've had the opposite issue for most of my life - I've often wished I could put on weight) then that's going to involve reduction in muscle mass too. Appropriate exercise means that the remaining muscle mass remains healthy too. And that's just sensible.

You can argue all you want about various diets (although the paleo-diet is pretty much evidence-less bullshit - it's an exercise in imagination and wishful thinking) but the fact remains that you'll want to be losing weight whilst remaining healthy. For instance; if your body starts to cannibalise heart muscle you're in a world of hurt, after all.

So whilst diet is not the magic bullet, neither is exercise.

[gulex]

Quote

Obviously, if you don't eat enough then you're going to lose body mass - and end up with malnutrition

This is what i am trying to get at. Many scientists are now coming around on this idea that eating more means weight gain and eating less means weight loss. This new opinon within academia is so far primarily held by lipidologists and endocrinologists. It is sort of a complicated idea actually and im not sure i myself understand the implications totally.


Some seem to work from the premise that 'calories-in-calories-out' is false. That increased consumption does not lead directly to increased weight. They'll argue that people can lose weight even though eating 120% of their caloric requirement simply by restricting carbohydrates sufficiently (the idea is that carbs -> drives insulin -> insulin prevents bodyfat from being burned and makes us store glucose as fat in our fat cells)


Others seem to believe that the casuality is upside down. Ie we do not get fat because we eat too much. Rather we eat too much because we get fat. The idea here is that our consumption of increased consumption of carbohydrates drives the body to store energy as fat and makes us want to eat more - an urge that is out of our control and which will give in to eventually. Hence (in their opinion) the extremely high fail-rates experienced when people 'diet'.


I'm trying to convey ideas within modern nutrition here - im not trying to tell anyone what is right or what is wrong. In this relation i do feel that stone monkey's Bertrand Russell quotation has been far too relevant at some points within the debate.

[amphibian]

stone monkey, on 25 August 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

I've often wished I could put on weight

You need to eat more and lift heavy things. GOMAD and 5x5, Starting Strength or MBP exist for a reason.

[Use Of Weapons]

gulex, on 25 August 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

Use of Weapons: No i do not. I mean fat loss but i dont really see a discussion with you going anywhere to be honest.

I was trying to understand where you're coming from. You seem like a sensible guy, and you're referencing sources. So coming out with statements that are contrary to all the advice I have seen or received from elite athletes is leading me to a cognitive dissonance. Given that the mechanism by which exercise leads to increased energy usage from glycogen and then fat stores is well-understood, I am failing to understand for whom you think exercise is contra-indicated.

[Sir Thursday]

Macros, on 24 August 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

Off topic a second:
YMMV?

Your Mileage May Vary. Basically Abyss was saying that some people can run further than others .

ST

[gulex]

Use Of Weapons, on 26 August 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

gulex, on 25 August 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

Use of Weapons: No i do not. I mean fat loss but i dont really see a discussion with you going anywhere to be honest.

I was trying to understand where you're coming from. You seem like a sensible guy, and you're referencing sources. So coming out with statements that are contrary to all the advice I have seen or received from elite athletes is leading me to a cognitive dissonance. Given that the mechanism by which exercise leads to increased energy usage from glycogen and then fat stores is well-understood, I am failing to understand for whom you think exercise is contra-indicated.

Thats fine - your previous comment just wasn't fostering much 'understanding'.

The right exercise at the right times is good and can contribute to fat loss - but alot of people do cardio 4-6 times a week to lose weight (refered to as chronic cardio) this does not contribute significantly to weight loss as it raises cortisol secretion. This inhibts fat loss since the body thinks its 'in a tough spot' and will try to hold on to fat... Or well thats the theory at least.
People in the paleo community will argue that this is because our ancestors didn't due cardio - they either walked or sprinted (ie you dont jog away from a sabertooth tiger lol) and so we are adapted to these forms of exercise. Imo you could aswell make the argument that, if walking and sprinting are what we are evolved to do, our bodies should secrete cortisol to inhibit fat loss and so protect us from starvation in these cases. So the logic isn't entirely satisfying.

This study was just published a few days ago from the university of Copenhagen: http://www.medicalne...cles/249356.php
To sum up they found that people doing 30 minutes of exercise lost more weight relative to their prediction (calories-in-calories-out) than the people doing 1 hour of exercise. They hypothesize that this failure to predict the outcome satisfyingly is due to the people on 1 hour exercise scheduels probably ate more to compensate for their increased activity (also a problem for people who tries to lose weight through too much exercise) Had they been a bit more rigorous they would follow this guess up with a questionnare aimed at the 1 hour exercise group to see if this reflected reality.

My personal opinion is that it may aswell have been increased cortisol that prevented fat loss.

This article by Gary Taubes 'What if its all been a big fat lie?' -(http://www.nytimes.c...nted=all&src=pm) gives a nicely historical explanation of how our conceptions of 'a healthy diet' has changed and what - lacking - evidence there has been to support it.

As you will notice if you're interested in the article the safety and health of low carbohydrate diets still seems shaky (it was written in 2002) but as you will see from modern randomized trials: http://onlinelibrary...8B132AF9.d04t04 a metastudy concluding, unambigiously, that a diet low in carbohydrate improves cholesterol (yes the lipid hypothesis is in trouble), decreases weight and decreases fasting blood glucose levels (paramount for diabetics and the reason a truly vast amount of diabetics are going low carb. Try lurking around on some diabetes forums and you'll notice)
And remember this isn't the only meta-study (this one comprises and concludes upon 17 randomized trials) on the subject - i believe there are at least 3 others out there.

On a different note this is why i hate the media: They only ever report epidemiological studies (at least in Denmark). And they are for the most part utterly worthless.

This post has been edited by gulex: 26 August 2012 - 12:27 PM

[Use Of Weapons]

Doesn't that sound very like interval training? Most physical training people who know what they're talking about will recommend HIIT cardio for both fat loss and peak performance rather than the sustained low-intensity exercise that you are describing. As soon as they can get people who are overweight onto a HIIT programme without killing them, they do so.

[gulex]

HIIT indeed - but to my experience this will often involve some form of slow running inbetween sprints also. Imo walking + sprinting is much more effective.

Im not familiar with alot of physical trainers so i could be wrong though.

btw regarding the Copenhagen study i cited:
Their hypothesis (calories-in-calories-out: Increased energy expenditure will result in a proportionally decreased weight) fails to predict the outcome of their experiment accurately. Instead of INVESTIGATING this rigoriously they just have faith in 'ouh .. The high-exercise group PROBABLY just ate more'. The validity of their hypothesis is at stake and they dont even bother checking out if it is wrong. This is why nutrition is a soft science. Imagine if they were this sloppy in physics ...

This post has been edited by gulex: 26 August 2012 - 12:41 PM

[Morgoth]

Wait, are you saying we've evolved to sprinting rather than endurance? Humans are ideally made for endurance, while we are rather slow sprinters.

Quote

Persistence hunting is a hunting technique in which hunters use a combination of running and tracking to pursue prey to the point of exhaustion. While humans can sweat to reduce body heat, their quadrupedal prey would need to slow from a gallop in order to pant.[1] Today, it is very rare and seen only in a few groups such as Kalahari bushmen and the Tarahumara or Raramuri people of Northern Mexico. Persistence hunting requires endurance running – running many miles for extended periods of time. Among primates, endurance running is only seen in humans, and persistence hunting is thought to have been one of the earliest forms of human hunting, having evolved 2 million years ago.

(...)

In this regard one has to bear in mind that, as hominids adapted to bipedalism they would have lost some speed, becoming less able to catch prey with short, fast charges. They would, however, have gained endurance and become better adapted to persistence hunting.[2] Although many mammals sweat, few have evolved to use sweating for effective thermoregulation, humans and horses being notable exceptions. This coupled with relative hairlessness would have given human hunters an additional advantage by keeping their bodies cool in the midday heat.

Source http://en.wikipedia....istence_hunting

[Slow Ben]

Anyone in the fitness industry who knows what they're talking about will tell you that endurance cardio, such as running and using the elliptical, is a poor way to try and lose weight. that's not to say its not good for you, just not optimal for fat loss.
The best cardio for fat loss is,hands down, sprints. Or some variation of interval training, if done correctly.
But, just in case not everyone knows this, resistance training is far superior to cardio for fat loss. Lift heavy shit.
But Gulex is right about one thing. The most important part of fat loss is your diet, by far. There's a saying in the industry, "you can't outtrain a bad diet".

The best program, of course, contains all three. Proper nutrition, resistance training and interval cardio.

This post has been edited by Slow Ben: 26 August 2012 - 03:14 PM

[amphibian]

Slow Ben, on 26 August 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

There's a saying in the industry, "you can't outtrain a bad diet".

You can outtrain a bad diet. Olympic, NBA and NFL athletes do it all the time. Usain Bolt sets world records on chicken nuggets. You'd just have to work to incredibly high levels in order to outtrain that Michael Phelps eating 2 whole pizzas a day diet though.

[Slow Ben]

amphibian said:

1345995316[/url]' post='991090']

Slow Ben said:

1345994012[/url]' post='991088']There's a saying in the industry, "you can't outtrain a bad diet".

You can outtrain a bad diet. Olympic, NBA and NFL athletes do it all the time. Usain Bolt sets world records on chicken nuggets. You'd just have to work to incredibly high levels in order to outtrain that Michael Phelps eating 2 whole pizzas a day diet though.

There's a difference, they're already lean. I mean if you're overweight trying to lose fat.

[gulex]

Quote

But Gulex is right about one thing. The most important part of fat loss is your diet, by far. There's a saying in the industry, "you can't outtrain a bad diet".

Imo im right about most things but this is a start i guess

[Macros]

amphibian, on 26 August 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

Slow Ben, on 26 August 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

There's a saying in the industry, "you can't outtrain a bad diet".

You can outtrain a bad diet. Olympic, NBA and NFL athletes do it all the time. Usain Bolt sets world records on chicken nuggets. You'd just have to work to incredibly high levels in order to outtrain that Michael Phelps eating 2 whole pizzas a day diet though.

I loved that interview, when Clarkson asked him about bejing bolt said he ate mcnuggets the whole time because he didn't like Chinese food

[JLV]

Ya know what I just considered?

How is anyone supposed to go low carb/keto diet when beer is so delicious?

[Macros]

A valid concern, one I considered myself this weekend.
The way I see it, its a LOW carb existence not a NO carb deal.
Now personally I will be acting like a very crude and pointless experiment, I've been off the drink 4/5 weeks now, won't be drinking this weekend either.
But the weekend after, I can see me drinking a quite disgraceful ammount of guiness.
My week in Dubai will hardly be dry either, and my subsequent return to Ireland will be nothing short of abominable, but I'll be trying to keep to my same fitness regime, or as near as possible and hopefully my diet shouldn't alter considerably either.
Lets see what the good stuff does to me shall we?

[King Lear]

JLV, on 27 August 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

Ya know what I just considered?

How is anyone supposed to go low carb/keto diet when beer is so delicious?

acquire a taste for whiskey instead

[Morgoth]

King Lear, on 27 August 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

JLV, on 27 August 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

Ya know what I just considered?

How is anyone supposed to go low carb/keto diet when beer is so delicious?

acquire a taste for whiskey instead

I don't see how you can use 'instead'. Rather, the correct word would have been 'too'.

[Kruppe's snacky cakes]

I guess this is now the thread where we list our favorite booze "diets", so:

Vodka collins (with grey goose brand)
Irish car bomb
Lambic beer

[Slow Ben]

When i want low cal beer I switch to Guinness Draught.

Only 120 calories!

As much as i love my brew, I've switched to whiskey lately while i'm trying to drop the last 10.