The Clean Eating Myth
Options
Replies
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
What would you term to be a reliable source? I think this is where he discusses the issue of "research zombies". Sounds like he knows what he discusses and some of things that are discussed were things of discussion with my own doctor here in MO.
1. Something that actually references peer-reviewed research (and said references actually support the claims being made.
2. Isn't selling a product related to the subject at hand.
3. Doesn't use pseudoscientific terms to support the claims (ie "adrenal fatigue").
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
What would you term to be a reliable source? I think this is where he discusses the issue of "research zombies". Sounds like he knows what he discusses and some of things that are discussed were things of discussion with my own doctor here in MO.
1. Something that actually references peer-reviewed research (and said references actually support the claims being made.
2. Isn't selling a product related to the subject at hand.
3. Doesn't use pseudoscientific terms to support the claims (ie "adrenal fatigue").
About Jade Teta
Integrative Physician, Author The Metabolic Effect Diet, Founder CEO Metabolic Effect Inc., Health, Fitness and fat loss expert
Uses this as basis: http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v37/n6/full/ijo2012124a.html?WT.ec_id=IJO-201306
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
What would you term to be a reliable source? I think this is where he discusses the issue of "research zombies". Sounds like he knows what he discusses and some of things that are discussed were things of discussion with my own doctor here in MO.
1. Something that actually references peer-reviewed research (and said references actually support the claims being made.
2. Isn't selling a product related to the subject at hand.
3. Doesn't use pseudoscientific terms to support the claims (ie "adrenal fatigue").
What was his product, his own business? Advice? He wasn't selling anything I could tell other than advice and analysis.0 -
Comment from the site - perfect example of the use of the 1500 calorie threshold as set by the OP.
sniccifit November 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM #
I am always looking for ammo to use against the “calorie zealots,” but this bit could almost prove them right:
“Each woman was put on a strict 1500 calorie a day diet.
At the end of the 3 week period most of the women ended up losing weight. However, 10 women did not lose any weight, and 1 of the women actually gained weight.”
Was 1500 “very low calorie intake” for all of the women, including the one who gained weight? I mean, if she was a 4’11” petite woman who sat at a desk all day on the couch all night, would 1500 be a calorie excess for her? I’m basically playing devil’s advocate, because that’s what a “calorie zealot” might ask, but really I wouldn’t have an answer for them.
Jade Teta November 15, 2013 at 7:59 PM #
It is a very good question. The study is old and one major flaw is they did not measure BMR prior to the study. If they were really going to do this correctly they would have assessed BMR and then prescribed calorie intake based on that. However, the larger point we are making here is that even if the BMR was matched to consumption, the body is still going to compensate. Then you will assess and have even a lower BMR and have to match again. Until finally, the person is essentially eating
a 500kcal a day diet with unrelenting hunger, cravings and a metabolism primed to regain the weight like a swollen water balloon. Is this really a smart game to be playing? The stats on the success of diets say not………….the track record for success is atrocious and hints that we make things worse………i.e 2/3 of people end up fatter. From my perspective it is a lot like saying the tired horse won’t run so whip them harder……….it is a no when scenario and requires a more nuanced approach than just treating the metabolism like a rudimentary calculator.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
What would you term to be a reliable source? I think this is where he discusses the issue of "research zombies". Sounds like he knows what he discusses and some of things that are discussed were things of discussion with my own doctor here in MO.
1. Something that actually references peer-reviewed research (and said references actually support the claims being made.
2. Isn't selling a product related to the subject at hand.
3. Doesn't use pseudoscientific terms to support the claims (ie "adrenal fatigue").
What was his product, his own business? Advice? He wasn't selling anything I could tell other than advice and analysis.
Either you're lying or completely oblivious to what you're linking to. You really didn't see all the ads for his products on the sidebar? And get the pop-up for the "free chapter" to his book?0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
What would you term to be a reliable source? I think this is where he discusses the issue of "research zombies". Sounds like he knows what he discusses and some of things that are discussed were things of discussion with my own doctor here in MO.
1. Something that actually references peer-reviewed research (and said references actually support the claims being made.
2. Isn't selling a product related to the subject at hand.
3. Doesn't use pseudoscientific terms to support the claims (ie "adrenal fatigue").
About Jade Teta
Integrative Physician, Author The Metabolic Effect Diet, Founder CEO Metabolic Effect Inc., Health, Fitness and fat loss expert
Integrative physician is just another word for naturopath (aka quack).
Nobody said adaptive thermogenesis doesn't exist. But "clean eating" has nothing to do with it.
BTW: This is what your link recommends:
Nutrition= 3 meals – 2 of those three meals should be 30-50g protein shakes and 1 regular meal that includes carbs preferably at the end of the day (it aids sleep).
Sounds like a far cry from what you said you were doing.
-2 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
What would you term to be a reliable source? I think this is where he discusses the issue of "research zombies". Sounds like he knows what he discusses and some of things that are discussed were things of discussion with my own doctor here in MO.
1. Something that actually references peer-reviewed research (and said references actually support the claims being made.
2. Isn't selling a product related to the subject at hand.
3. Doesn't use pseudoscientific terms to support the claims (ie "adrenal fatigue").
What was his product, his own business? Advice? He wasn't selling anything I could tell other than advice and analysis.
Either you're lying or completely oblivious to what you're linking to. You really didn't see all the ads for his products on the sidebar? And get the pop-up for the "free chapter" to his book?
Who cares? Did he sell those things in what he wrote? If he said "but if you just buy my products, then you will circumnavigate the issue" He never did never implies it. Just a simple article.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Here's a great article I found written by a doctor/researcher on the topic of metabolic damage. I find it interesting because it discusses the very things I talk about in terms of a sustainable diet over the long-term, a "clean" diet versus a "dirty" diet. It also includes the very issues I was going through personally.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage-symptoms/
With regard to metabolic damage as a myth:
"Saying, “metabolic damage is a myth” is a lot like saying, “prediabetes is a myth”. Saying, “adrenal fatigue does not exist” is a lot like saying, “over-training doesn’t exist”. These are functional disturbances that have clinical signs & symptoms that can be picked up on physical exams and blood labs. These disturbances may or may not have a corresponding diagnostic label. It is the gray area between optimal health and disease; the area where function starts becoming compromised.
Why do I bring this up? Because a lot of people in the internet space, many who are overstepping their boundaries of expertise in my opinion, are speaking about this issue as if they are well versed in it. I am a little tired of these “if there is no research it does not exist” people. It is these types that denied the existence of fibromyalgia, autism, ADD and a whole host of other conditions while at the same time many front line doctors were successfully treating patients. All of those aforementioned diseases were called “myths” before they weren’t."
With regard to Metabolic Compensation:
"When this stress is prolonged past a few days or weeks the metabolism begins to compensate. This is one of the most agreed upon and well understood mechanisms in all of weight loss. I call it the law of metabolic compensation. This compensation creates hunger, energy changes, and cravings, as well as a metabolic slowdown led by a decline in thyroid hormone.
This slow down is very individual and can be almost absent in some while resulting in metabolic depression of 500 to 800 calories per day. For those with the biggest metabolic compensations, this can halt progress or even reverse it. For more on this compensatory mechanism and the research behind it, see this blog: http://www.metaboliceffect.com/how-to-maintain-weight-loss/."
There's tons more - but I find it curious that this person who writes on the subject is discussing the very thing that I had to avoid when I started my journey last year to ditch all of this fat weight - there's no question that I lost the weight without regard for caloric intake and did so in a sustainable progression. Once I hit a point where my body said enough did I finally plateau, I would say that's been in the past month. Since last October, I've dumped an additional 10 pounds eating in a variety of caloric increments, 1500, 2000, 2500 etc. There's no way at my age that one can consistently drop fat pounds and do so while eating in the volume I am unless that person was eating a very clean diet and a cyclical approach with regard to exercise and diet volume.
I didn't even know this article existed until now. Did a search called:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=can+you+damage+your+metabolism
LOL. Not exactly what I would call a reliable source.
What would you term to be a reliable source? I think this is where he discusses the issue of "research zombies". Sounds like he knows what he discusses and some of things that are discussed were things of discussion with my own doctor here in MO.
1. Something that actually references peer-reviewed research (and said references actually support the claims being made.
2. Isn't selling a product related to the subject at hand.
3. Doesn't use pseudoscientific terms to support the claims (ie "adrenal fatigue").
About Jade Teta
Integrative Physician, Author The Metabolic Effect Diet, Founder CEO Metabolic Effect Inc., Health, Fitness and fat loss expert
Integrative physician is just another word for naturopath (aka quack).
Nobody said adaptive thermogenesis doesn't exist. But "clean eating" has nothing to do with it.
BTW: This is what your link recommends:
Nutrition= 3 meals – 2 of those three meals should be 30-50g protein shakes and 1 regular meal that includes carbs preferably at the end of the day (it aids sleep).
Sounds like a far cry from what you said you were doing.
Try again - you are libeling me and I don't like it one bit. My diary speaks for itself. Read it from today and yesterday - I have two meals of protein shakes that are custom - and my last meal is with a baked potato.-1 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Comment from the site - perfect example of the use of the 1500 calorie threshold as set by the OP.
sniccifit November 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM #
I am always looking for ammo to use against the “calorie zealots,” but this bit could almost prove them right:
“Each woman was put on a strict 1500 calorie a day diet.
At the end of the 3 week period most of the women ended up losing weight. However, 10 women did not lose any weight, and 1 of the women actually gained weight.”
Was 1500 “very low calorie intake” for all of the women, including the one who gained weight? I mean, if she was a 4’11” petite woman who sat at a desk all day on the couch all night, would 1500 be a calorie excess for her? I’m basically playing devil’s advocate, because that’s what a “calorie zealot” might ask, but really I wouldn’t have an answer for them.
Jade Teta November 15, 2013 at 7:59 PM #
It is a very good question. The study is old and one major flaw is they did not measure BMR prior to the study. If they were really going to do this correctly they would have assessed BMR and then prescribed calorie intake based on that. However, the larger point we are making here is that even if the BMR was matched to consumption, the body is still going to compensate. Then you will assess and have even a lower BMR and have to match again. Until finally, the person is essentially eating
a 500kcal a day diet with unrelenting hunger, cravings and a metabolism primed to regain the weight like a swollen water balloon. Is this really a smart game to be playing? The stats on the success of diets say not………….the track record for success is atrocious and hints that we make things worse………i.e 2/3 of people end up fatter. From my perspective it is a lot like saying the tired horse won’t run so whip them harder……….it is a no when scenario and requires a more nuanced approach than just treating the metabolism like a rudimentary calculator.
You can minimize and/or eliminate metabolic adaptation through weight training and higher protein diets. In fact, I will see if I can find the article from the same website that did an experiment with an 800 calorie diet with two groups of people... one with resistance training and one with cardio. The cardio group had a down tick in metabolic rate, while WT group had an up tick.
Edit: here is the NIH study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826
0 -
Today's meal post-lunch
Meal 3
Generic - Silk Pure Almond Unsweetened Vanilla Almond Milk, 2 cup 60 2 5 1 1 4
Nancy's - Organic Whole Milk Plain Yogurt, 0.5 cup 90 6 4 8 0 0
Woodstock - Frozen Chopped Kale, 1 cup 25 2 0 3 2 4
Generic - Chia Seed, 1 Tbsp 75 3 5 7 5 3
Legion - Pulse Pre Workout, 2 rounded scoops 5 0 0 5 0 0
Woodstock Farms - Organic Frozen Raspberries, 1 cup 70 2 0 17 9 6
Natural Force Organic Whey - Whey Protein, 44 g 173 32 3 5 1 3
Add Food Quick Tools
498 47 17 46 18 20
Meal 4
Nancy's - Organic Whole Milk Plain Yogurt, 0.5 cup 90 6 4 8 0 0
Generic - Silk Pure Almond Unsweetened Vanilla Almond Milk, 2 cup 60 2 5 1 1 4
Legion Supplements - Recharge, 7 Grams 2 0 0 1 0 0
Bananas - Raw, 210 g 187 2 1 48 5 3
Strawberries - Frozen, unsweetened, 140 g 49 1 0 13 3 6
Natural Force Organic Whey - Whey Protein, 44 g 173 32 3 5 1 3
Add Food Quick Tools
561 43 13 76 10 16
Meal 5
Potatoes - Russet, flesh and skin, baked, 323 g(s) 313 8 0 69 7 19
Generic - Filet Mignon, 9 oz 362 57 13 0 0 17
Add Food Quick Tools
675 65 13 69 7 36
0 -
It's easier to eat 1500 clean than 1500 junk. They doc who ate 1500 in junk food has strong will power and a fixed period to focus on (he's a doctor!). You can eat 1500 calories of doritos and be REALLY hungry throughout the day -- who in the normal population can sustain that? No one. I'm eating less than 1500 calories per day, but my macros are like ~50g carb, 160 g protein, 60-80g fat and i feel fine. This is 'good' food like chicken, greek yogurt, cheese, avocados, some chocolate, vegetables, etc.0
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Today's meal post-lunch
Meal 3
Generic - Silk Pure Almond Unsweetened Vanilla Almond Milk, 2 cup 60 2 5 1 1 4
Nancy's - Organic Whole Milk Plain Yogurt, 0.5 cup 90 6 4 8 0 0
Woodstock - Frozen Chopped Kale, 1 cup 25 2 0 3 2 4
Generic - Chia Seed, 1 Tbsp 75 3 5 7 5 3
Legion - Pulse Pre Workout, 2 rounded scoops 5 0 0 5 0 0
Woodstock Farms - Organic Frozen Raspberries, 1 cup 70 2 0 17 9 6
Natural Force Organic Whey - Whey Protein, 44 g 173 32 3 5 1 3
Add Food Quick Tools
498 47 17 46 18 20
Meal 4
Nancy's - Organic Whole Milk Plain Yogurt, 0.5 cup 90 6 4 8 0 0
Generic - Silk Pure Almond Unsweetened Vanilla Almond Milk, 2 cup 60 2 5 1 1 4
Legion Supplements - Recharge, 7 Grams 2 0 0 1 0 0
Bananas - Raw, 210 g 187 2 1 48 5 3
Strawberries - Frozen, unsweetened, 140 g 49 1 0 13 3 6
Natural Force Organic Whey - Whey Protein, 44 g 173 32 3 5 1 3
Add Food Quick Tools
561 43 13 76 10 16
Meal 5
Potatoes - Russet, flesh and skin, baked, 323 g(s) 313 8 0 69 7 19
Generic - Filet Mignon, 9 oz 362 57 13 0 0 17
Add Food Quick Tools
675 65 13 69 7 36
So why are you posting this?
0 -
Do you happen to be in the US, Ted?0
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Comment from the site - perfect example of the use of the 1500 calorie threshold as set by the OP.
sniccifit November 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM #
I am always looking for ammo to use against the “calorie zealots,” but this bit could almost prove them right:
“Each woman was put on a strict 1500 calorie a day diet.
At the end of the 3 week period most of the women ended up losing weight. However, 10 women did not lose any weight, and 1 of the women actually gained weight.”
Was 1500 “very low calorie intake” for all of the women, including the one who gained weight? I mean, if she was a 4’11” petite woman who sat at a desk all day on the couch all night, would 1500 be a calorie excess for her? I’m basically playing devil’s advocate, because that’s what a “calorie zealot” might ask, but really I wouldn’t have an answer for them.
Jade Teta November 15, 2013 at 7:59 PM #
It is a very good question. The study is old and one major flaw is they did not measure BMR prior to the study. If they were really going to do this correctly they would have assessed BMR and then prescribed calorie intake based on that. However, the larger point we are making here is that even if the BMR was matched to consumption, the body is still going to compensate. Then you will assess and have even a lower BMR and have to match again. Until finally, the person is essentially eating
a 500kcal a day diet with unrelenting hunger, cravings and a metabolism primed to regain the weight like a swollen water balloon. Is this really a smart game to be playing? The stats on the success of diets say not………….the track record for success is atrocious and hints that we make things worse………i.e 2/3 of people end up fatter. From my perspective it is a lot like saying the tired horse won’t run so whip them harder……….it is a no when scenario and requires a more nuanced approach than just treating the metabolism like a rudimentary calculator.
You can minimize and/or eliminate metabolic adaptation through weight training and higher protein diets. In fact, I will see if I can find the article from the same website that did an experiment with an 800 calorie diet with two groups of people... one with resistance training and one with cardio. The cardio group had a down tick in metabolic rate, while WT group had an up tick.
Edit: here is the NIH study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826
Right, one can find a way to cycle to compensate for any deficiencies - OP's original post said nothing about having two high protein diets BTW. Two average people two average macro settings with different food complements.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Today's meal post-lunch
Meal 3
Generic - Silk Pure Almond Unsweetened Vanilla Almond Milk, 2 cup 60 2 5 1 1 4
Nancy's - Organic Whole Milk Plain Yogurt, 0.5 cup 90 6 4 8 0 0
Woodstock - Frozen Chopped Kale, 1 cup 25 2 0 3 2 4
Generic - Chia Seed, 1 Tbsp 75 3 5 7 5 3
Legion - Pulse Pre Workout, 2 rounded scoops 5 0 0 5 0 0
Woodstock Farms - Organic Frozen Raspberries, 1 cup 70 2 0 17 9 6
Natural Force Organic Whey - Whey Protein, 44 g 173 32 3 5 1 3
Add Food Quick Tools
498 47 17 46 18 20
Meal 4
Nancy's - Organic Whole Milk Plain Yogurt, 0.5 cup 90 6 4 8 0 0
Generic - Silk Pure Almond Unsweetened Vanilla Almond Milk, 2 cup 60 2 5 1 1 4
Legion Supplements - Recharge, 7 Grams 2 0 0 1 0 0
Bananas - Raw, 210 g 187 2 1 48 5 3
Strawberries - Frozen, unsweetened, 140 g 49 1 0 13 3 6
Natural Force Organic Whey - Whey Protein, 44 g 173 32 3 5 1 3
Add Food Quick Tools
561 43 13 76 10 16
Meal 5
Potatoes - Russet, flesh and skin, baked, 323 g(s) 313 8 0 69 7 19
Generic - Filet Mignon, 9 oz 362 57 13 0 0 17
Add Food Quick Tools
675 65 13 69 7 36
The only thing I am impressed with is that you go to chipotle every day. Although, 4oz of rice seems low. Generally, each spoonful is 3oz.
0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »Comment from the site - perfect example of the use of the 1500 calorie threshold as set by the OP.
sniccifit November 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM #
I am always looking for ammo to use against the “calorie zealots,” but this bit could almost prove them right:
“Each woman was put on a strict 1500 calorie a day diet.
At the end of the 3 week period most of the women ended up losing weight. However, 10 women did not lose any weight, and 1 of the women actually gained weight.”
Was 1500 “very low calorie intake” for all of the women, including the one who gained weight? I mean, if she was a 4’11” petite woman who sat at a desk all day on the couch all night, would 1500 be a calorie excess for her? I’m basically playing devil’s advocate, because that’s what a “calorie zealot” might ask, but really I wouldn’t have an answer for them.
Jade Teta November 15, 2013 at 7:59 PM #
It is a very good question. The study is old and one major flaw is they did not measure BMR prior to the study. If they were really going to do this correctly they would have assessed BMR and then prescribed calorie intake based on that. However, the larger point we are making here is that even if the BMR was matched to consumption, the body is still going to compensate. Then you will assess and have even a lower BMR and have to match again. Until finally, the person is essentially eating
a 500kcal a day diet with unrelenting hunger, cravings and a metabolism primed to regain the weight like a swollen water balloon. Is this really a smart game to be playing? The stats on the success of diets say not………….the track record for success is atrocious and hints that we make things worse………i.e 2/3 of people end up fatter. From my perspective it is a lot like saying the tired horse won’t run so whip them harder……….it is a no when scenario and requires a more nuanced approach than just treating the metabolism like a rudimentary calculator.
You can minimize and/or eliminate metabolic adaptation through weight training and higher protein diets. In fact, I will see if I can find the article from the same website that did an experiment with an 800 calorie diet with two groups of people... one with resistance training and one with cardio. The cardio group had a down tick in metabolic rate, while WT group had an up tick.
Edit: here is the NIH study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826
Right, one can find a way to cycle to compensate for any deficiencies - OP's original post said nothing about having two high protein diets BTW. Two average people two average macro settings with different food complements.
In the OP situation, they had similar macronutrient profiles and both did resistance training, which generally means improved metabolics (as you call it).0 -
0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »LiftAllThePizzas wrote: »
You believe he weighed out 1500 calories of cake each day and ate nothing else, and gained weight over a long period?Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
You are simply taking his word for everything he said but there is no proof to back up his claims.
Yes, I believe he is truthful, just as I believe you are telling the truth and others who have posted here... if we have to suspect everyone of lying, there would be no point to any of these discussions at all. Anyone could fake their diary, photoshop their photos, how do we know?
So why don't we all agree to trust one another.
I have no response to that.
How ironic that you are questioning someone's honesty by yourself making an allegation that is untrue.
You may want to read this post of his again:Okay - eat 1500 calories of cake - and I will eat 1500 calories of pure nutritious food (as I do now but MORE) and I will flat out not only lose fat pounds but I will retain my muscle mass over the course of one year.
I did the above - it doesn't work. DOESN'T WORK.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Comment from the site - perfect example of the use of the 1500 calorie threshold as set by the OP.
sniccifit November 10, 2013 at 9:47 AM #
I am always looking for ammo to use against the “calorie zealots,” but this bit could almost prove them right:
“Each woman was put on a strict 1500 calorie a day diet.
At the end of the 3 week period most of the women ended up losing weight. However, 10 women did not lose any weight, and 1 of the women actually gained weight.”
Was 1500 “very low calorie intake” for all of the women, including the one who gained weight? I mean, if she was a 4’11” petite woman who sat at a desk all day on the couch all night, would 1500 be a calorie excess for her? I’m basically playing devil’s advocate, because that’s what a “calorie zealot” might ask, but really I wouldn’t have an answer for them.
Jade Teta November 15, 2013 at 7:59 PM #
It is a very good question. The study is old and one major flaw is they did not measure BMR prior to the study. If they were really going to do this correctly they would have assessed BMR and then prescribed calorie intake based on that. However, the larger point we are making here is that even if the BMR was matched to consumption, the body is still going to compensate. Then you will assess and have even a lower BMR and have to match again. Until finally, the person is essentially eating
a 500kcal a day diet with unrelenting hunger, cravings and a metabolism primed to regain the weight like a swollen water balloon. Is this really a smart game to be playing? The stats on the success of diets say not………….the track record for success is atrocious and hints that we make things worse………i.e 2/3 of people end up fatter. From my perspective it is a lot like saying the tired horse won’t run so whip them harder……….it is a no when scenario and requires a more nuanced approach than just treating the metabolism like a rudimentary calculator.
You can minimize and/or eliminate metabolic adaptation through weight training and higher protein diets. In fact, I will see if I can find the article from the same website that did an experiment with an 800 calorie diet with two groups of people... one with resistance training and one with cardio. The cardio group had a down tick in metabolic rate, while WT group had an up tick.
Edit: here is the NIH study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826
Interesting study. WT group also lost no lbm, on 800 cals per day! (Brutal ugg).0 -
kuriakos_chris wrote: »It depends on the food.
For example person B will eat an ice cream at afternoon-> he will spike his insuline levels-> he ll be more likely to store fat from the nearby meal.
Person A will eat complex carbs with low glycemic index -> less % to store fat from nearby meal.
Furthermore Person A will have more Vitamins,etc from Person B.
Not tested but in my opinion they will loose about the same weight.
Its like IIFYM. As for me i would choose healthy vs unhealthy diet.
So how many multiples of my daily need for Vitamin A will maximize my health? If I eat 17 times as much vitamin A as my body needs, how much healthier will I become?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions