I'm trying to shread/ not lose muscle
Options
Replies
-
RayInMotion wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
Funny because the ones you listed do not.
I was merely pointing out how easily it is to find the information. Now that you know it's out there, you can look them up. Those articles posted are written and published by doctors, certified nutrionists and/or CTPs. I usually find that they are educated in their fields and consider them reputable sources.
You can't just make claims then not back them up and keep fighting for them and expect people to take you seriously. Not a way to be credible at all. You make the claim the onus is on you to back it up.0 -
RayInMotion wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
Funny because the ones you listed do not.
I was merely pointing out how easily it is to find the information. Now that you know it's out there, you can look them up. Those articles posted are written and published by doctors, certified nutrionists and/or CTPs. I usually find that they are educated in their fields and consider them reputable sources.
It's not about how easy it is to find, it's easy to find UFO sightings by assumedly reputable people. It's about actual science backing up your and their claims. Studies, and not just a single one when everything else says the opposite.0 -
RayInMotion wrote: »
challenge accepted..
here you go:
The Minnesota Study
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment
Every controlled study where a deficit was created resulted in weight loss 100% of the time. Regardless of every other factor. A caloric deficit = weight loss. Always. Even in actual starvation studies like the often cited Minnesota Starvation Experiment.
In this study, 36 men were put on a 24 week long “starvation diet” consisting of two meals per day containing a total of 1560 calories, and that amount was then reduced further throughout the study to ensure weight loss kept happening
For these men, this represented a daily deficit of 50% below maintenance (compare that to a typically recommended “ideal” moderate deficit of 20%). Oh, and they all had to walk 22 miles per week as well.
Guess what happened? All of the participants lost approximately 25% of their starting body weight and reached about 5% body fat. So they were purposely (semi) starved for 6 straight months, and they all lost tons of weight/body fat.
So if you were correct the participants would of gained weight, because survival mode....0 -
stevencloser wrote: »RayInMotion wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
Funny because the ones you listed do not.
I was merely pointing out how easily it is to find the information. Now that you know it's out there, you can look them up. Those articles posted are written and published by doctors, certified nutrionists and/or CTPs. I usually find that they are educated in their fields and consider them reputable sources.
It's not about how easy it is to find, it's easy to find UFO sightings by assumedly reputable people. It's about actual science backing up your and their claims. Studies, and not just a single one when everything else says the opposite.
you mean like this..
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/blueplanetproject/blueplanetproject02.htm
snippet:
"There are some one hundred sixty (160) or more known types of Aliens visiting our world (Earth) at the present time, these are the most commonly seen types..."
it must be true because article on the internet...0 -
Another thing.
http://www.cancer.net/research-and-advocacy/introduction-cancer-research/medical-news-how-know-if-its-accurate
It's about articles talking about cancer in particular but can be extended to pretty much any article talking about research.0 -
Ray, i've done zero HIIT cardio in the last three months, but have lost 18 lbs0
-
Fat comes off where your genetics tell it to come off, during a caloric deficit.Capt_Apollo wrote: »Ray, i've done zero HIIT cardio in the last three twelve months, but have lost 18 100 lbs
All other things being equal, if sprinting for 10 minutes burns X total calories and then you eat back those X calories, you won't ever lose the belly fat (while you're alive).
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Fat comes off where your genetics tell it to come off, during a caloric deficit.Capt_Apollo wrote: »Ray, i've done zero HIIT cardio in the last three twelve months, but have lost 18 100 lbs
All other things being equal, if sprinting for 10 minutes burns X total calories and then you eat back those X calories, you won't ever lose the belly fat (while you're alive).
Yes you will still lose belly fat (eventually) by eating back exercise calories, assuming you are in a deficit with your calorie target. That is how MFP is designed to work.
The body will choose where it comes from, but lose enough and you will lose everywhere.0 -
"All other things being equal..."DeguelloTex wrote: »
Fat comes off where your genetics tell it to come off, during a caloric deficit.Capt_Apollo wrote: »Ray, i've done zero HIIT cardio in the last three twelve months, but have lost 18 100 lbs
All other things being equal, if sprinting for 10 minutes burns X total calories and then you eat back those X calories, you won't ever lose the belly fat (while you're alive).
Yes you will still lose belly fat (eventually) by eating back exercise calories, assuming you are in a deficit with your calorie target. That is how MFP is designed to work.
The body will choose where it comes from, but lose enough and you will lose everywhere.
If you burn X with exercise and eat back X, there will be no net change.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
"All other things being equal..."DeguelloTex wrote: »
Fat comes off where your genetics tell it to come off, during a caloric deficit.Capt_Apollo wrote: »Ray, i've done zero HIIT cardio in the last three twelve months, but have lost 18 100 lbs
All other things being equal, if sprinting for 10 minutes burns X total calories and then you eat back those X calories, you won't ever lose the belly fat (while you're alive).
Yes you will still lose belly fat (eventually) by eating back exercise calories, assuming you are in a deficit with your calorie target. That is how MFP is designed to work.
The body will choose where it comes from, but lose enough and you will lose everywhere.
If you burn X with exercise and eat back X, there will be no net change.
Of course, but that isn't how MFP is set up or what he was talking about.
Eating 1500 and not exercising would have the same weight loss effect of eating 1900 and burning 400 cals from cardio. both net to 1500.0 -
Which is what I said about 45 posts ago.DeguelloTex wrote: »
"All other things being equal..."DeguelloTex wrote: »
Fat comes off where your genetics tell it to come off, during a caloric deficit.Capt_Apollo wrote: »Ray, i've done zero HIIT cardio in the last three twelve months, but have lost 18 100 lbs
All other things being equal, if sprinting for 10 minutes burns X total calories and then you eat back those X calories, you won't ever lose the belly fat (while you're alive).
Yes you will still lose belly fat (eventually) by eating back exercise calories, assuming you are in a deficit with your calorie target. That is how MFP is designed to work.
The body will choose where it comes from, but lose enough and you will lose everywhere.
If you burn X with exercise and eat back X, there will be no net change.
Of course, but that isn't how MFP is set up or what he was talking about.
Eating 1500 and not exercising would have the same weight loss effect of eating 1900 and burning 400 cals from cardio. both net to 1500.
Ultimately, the belly fat goes away because of the caloric deficit, with or without cardio.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Which is what I said about 45 posts ago.DeguelloTex wrote: »
"All other things being equal..."DeguelloTex wrote: »
Fat comes off where your genetics tell it to come off, during a caloric deficit.Capt_Apollo wrote: »Ray, i've done zero HIIT cardio in the last three twelve months, but have lost 18 100 lbs
All other things being equal, if sprinting for 10 minutes burns X total calories and then you eat back those X calories, you won't ever lose the belly fat (while you're alive).
Yes you will still lose belly fat (eventually) by eating back exercise calories, assuming you are in a deficit with your calorie target. That is how MFP is designed to work.
The body will choose where it comes from, but lose enough and you will lose everywhere.
If you burn X with exercise and eat back X, there will be no net change.
Of course, but that isn't how MFP is set up or what he was talking about.
Eating 1500 and not exercising would have the same weight loss effect of eating 1900 and burning 400 cals from cardio. both net to 1500.
Ultimately, the belly fat goes away because of the caloric deficit, with or without cardio.
I saw that... I guess I don't get why you quoted Cap apollo and made your statement0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Fat comes off where your genetics tell it to come off, during a caloric deficit.Capt_Apollo wrote: »Ray, i've done zero HIIT cardio in the last three twelve months, but have lost 18 100 lbs
All other things being equal, if sprinting for 10 minutes burns X total calories and then you eat back those X calories, you won't ever lose the belly fat (while you're alive).
i know all i'm saying is just n=1 anecdotal evidence but....
i've ate at a 1lb per week deficit January through March. i added a lot more fruits and vegetables to my diet, and cut back on alcohol. i started being much more accurate with my diet, to the point that if i couldn't find it in the database, i wouldn't eat it.
like i said, i've lost about 18 pounds.
this is a triathlete talking here, and i'm saying it doesn't matter how much cardio you do. it's all about how, what, and in some cases, when you eat.0 -
The (modified) quote was to agree with Capt_Apollo and the statement was to disagree with RayInMotion. Sorry for the lack of clarity.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Which is what I said about 45 posts ago.DeguelloTex wrote: »
"All other things being equal..."DeguelloTex wrote: »
Fat comes off where your genetics tell it to come off, during a caloric deficit.Capt_Apollo wrote: »Ray, i've done zero HIIT cardio in the last three twelve months, but have lost 18 100 lbs
All other things being equal, if sprinting for 10 minutes burns X total calories and then you eat back those X calories, you won't ever lose the belly fat (while you're alive).
Yes you will still lose belly fat (eventually) by eating back exercise calories, assuming you are in a deficit with your calorie target. That is how MFP is designed to work.
The body will choose where it comes from, but lose enough and you will lose everywhere.
If you burn X with exercise and eat back X, there will be no net change.
Of course, but that isn't how MFP is set up or what he was talking about.
Eating 1500 and not exercising would have the same weight loss effect of eating 1900 and burning 400 cals from cardio. both net to 1500.
Ultimately, the belly fat goes away because of the caloric deficit, with or without cardio.
I saw that... I guess I don't get why you quoted Cap apollo and made your statement
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
The (modified) quote was to agree with Capt_Apollo and the statement was to disagree with RayInMotion. Sorry for the lack of clarity.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Which is what I said about 45 posts ago.DeguelloTex wrote: »
"All other things being equal..."DeguelloTex wrote: »
Fat comes off where your genetics tell it to come off, during a caloric deficit.Capt_Apollo wrote: »Ray, i've done zero HIIT cardio in the last three twelve months, but have lost 18 100 lbs
All other things being equal, if sprinting for 10 minutes burns X total calories and then you eat back those X calories, you won't ever lose the belly fat (while you're alive).
Yes you will still lose belly fat (eventually) by eating back exercise calories, assuming you are in a deficit with your calorie target. That is how MFP is designed to work.
The body will choose where it comes from, but lose enough and you will lose everywhere.
If you burn X with exercise and eat back X, there will be no net change.
Of course, but that isn't how MFP is set up or what he was talking about.
Eating 1500 and not exercising would have the same weight loss effect of eating 1900 and burning 400 cals from cardio. both net to 1500.
Ultimately, the belly fat goes away because of the caloric deficit, with or without cardio.
I saw that... I guess I don't get why you quoted Cap apollo and made your statement
Gotchya, sorry I missed that. Probably since he didn't quote Ray, just wrote his name. I am tracking now.0 -
happyfeetrebel1 wrote: »
Complete and utter BS
Since you guys don't want to read the articles I reference or do your own research into how lower calories lower your metabolism, here's something from Oxford University on a study of reduced calorie intake, and how it reduces metabolism and causes you to lose lean body mass. Took me all of 30 seconds to find:
"Subjects lost a significant amount of weight, approximately 9% of baseline weight (95.2 ± 3.2 kg), a significant amount of fat-free mass, approximately 5% of baseline (52.6 ± 2.7 kg), and a significant amount of fat mass, approximately 15% of baseline (42.6 ± 1.8 kg). In addition to losing mass, the following significant changes from baseline measurements were reported in the post-diet assessment period: a 15% decrease in absolute resting metabolic rate (1789.8 ± 80.2 kcal/24 hours, baseline), and an 8% decrease in resting metabolic rate relative to fat-free mass (33.8 ± 0.7 kcal/24 hours/kg fat-free mass, baseline)."0 -
Do you think you burn 9% of your baseline weight, 5% of lean body mass, or 15% of baseline fat when you sprint for 10 minutes?
If so, I could've lost almost 100 pounds by sprinting for 30 minutes. If not, how's that relevant to not eating a handful of calories rather than sprint off those calories?0 -
RayInMotion wrote: »happyfeetrebel1 wrote: »
Complete and utter BS
Since you guys don't want to read the articles I reference or do your own research into how lower calories lower your metabolism, here's something from Oxford University on a study of reduced calorie intake, and how it reduces metabolism and causes you to lose lean body mass. Took me all of 30 seconds to find:
"Subjects lost a significant amount of weight, approximately 9% of baseline weight (95.2 ± 3.2 kg), a significant amount of fat-free mass, approximately 5% of baseline (52.6 ± 2.7 kg), and a significant amount of fat mass, approximately 15% of baseline (42.6 ± 1.8 kg). In addition to losing mass, the following significant changes from baseline measurements were reported in the post-diet assessment period: a 15% decrease in absolute resting metabolic rate (1789.8 ± 80.2 kcal/24 hours, baseline), and an 8% decrease in resting metabolic rate relative to fat-free mass (33.8 ± 0.7 kcal/24 hours/kg fat-free mass, baseline)."
http://m.fampra.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/2/196.full
That's extremely pathetic of you to misrepresent that study to try and back up what you are claiming.
Let's look at the stuff you just decided to leave out of quoting.
Like 1100 calorie diets and 15% protein intake. I guess you didn't think that was relevant huh?Subjects in all three diet groups attended a weekly nutrition class on weight loss. Subjects kept diet records that were evaluated each week. Corrections were made to facilitate a gradual and consistent weight loss of approximately one to two pounds per week. The nutrition intervention included use of a high-fibre, high-carbohydrate supplement. Based on participants' food records, there were no significant differences in nutrient intake among the three diet groups. Intakes approximated 1194 kilocalories per day, 70% from carbohydrate, 15% from protein and less than 15% from fat.
AlsoThe control group showed no change in body composition over the 12-week period. All three intervention groups had a significant decline in body mass at 6 weeks, and again at 12 weeks for an average total weight loss of 6.2 kg in the diet-only group, 6.8 kg for the diet plus aerobic exercise group, and 7.0 kg for the diet, aerobic and resistance training group (standard deviations only presented graphically). By 12 weeks there were also significant decreases in percentage body fat: 5.8, 8.0 and 4.3%, respectively. However, there were no significant differences between groups. There were no significant changes in fat-free mass in any of the groups at any time period. There were also no significant changes in resting metabolic rate (measured in absolute terms or relative to body mass) within groups over time or between groups over time. Linear regression models between resting metabolic rate and fat-free mass were also tested. These models demonstrated a significant relation only in the diet and aerobic exercise group, such that resting metabolic rate increased as fat-free mass increased (at baseline, y = 442.74 + 23.00x, r = 0.89, P ≤ 0.05; at week 12, y = 88.574 + 29.77x, r = 0.79, P ≤ 0.05).
someone just got busted....0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions