The problem with science

1356

Replies

  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,221 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    RoxieDawn wrote: »
    So we need to post pictures of ourselves (before and after) to prove what exactly? ;)

    I'm actually wondering if this wasn't a ploy for people to post pics for him to creep...

    My pictures are all over this website, not getting anything exciting or new here. :laugh:
  • CoffeeNCardio
    CoffeeNCardio Posts: 1,847 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    RoxieDawn wrote: »
    So we need to post pictures of ourselves (before and after) to prove what exactly? ;)

    I'm actually wondering if this wasn't a ploy for people to post pics for him to creep...

    Meh. I'm all for an excuse to show off:) even if it's delivered by creepers. Besides, there's only a million photos on the success stories page, and most porn is free so it's not like he needs US.
  • CoffeeNCardio
    CoffeeNCardio Posts: 1,847 Member
    usmcmp wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    RoxieDawn wrote: »
    So we need to post pictures of ourselves (before and after) to prove what exactly? ;)

    I'm actually wondering if this wasn't a ploy for people to post pics for him to creep...

    My pictures are all over this website, not getting anything exciting or new here. :laugh:

    When I have abs like yours my picture will be everywhere too :)
  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,221 Member
    usmcmp wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    RoxieDawn wrote: »
    So we need to post pictures of ourselves (before and after) to prove what exactly? ;)

    I'm actually wondering if this wasn't a ploy for people to post pics for him to creep...

    My pictures are all over this website, not getting anything exciting or new here. :laugh:

    When I have abs like yours my picture will be everywhere too :)

    :blush: You'll get there! I look forward to when you reach it!
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,490 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    RoxieDawn wrote: »
    So we need to post pictures of ourselves (before and after) to prove what exactly? ;)

    I'm actually wondering if this wasn't a ploy for people to post pics for him to creep...

    I think I might be showing too much skin in my profile pic... :(
  • mph323
    mph323 Posts: 3,566 Member
    Vortex88 wrote: »
    Science has added *so* much to the fitness / weight loss / physique world and I feel very grateful that there are people out there publishing some really high quality studies which help us to get results but science is not the be-all and end-all that some people on these forums suggest so I wanted to mention a few points that I think it’s worth keeping in mind:

    For example:

    1) Science has been described as "observing the world around you”. That’s the best definition I have found. Notice it doesn’t say “listening only to people who observed results in laboratories” ;)

    2) Studies, by definition, publish averages. For example: 15 subjects did x and got y result. In reality, perhaps 8 of the subjects got almost identical results, 4 got results which were close to the 8 and 3 got totally different results. Those 3 are *20%* of the test group…. and their results are completely hidden in the averages.

    3) Science is just the latest opinion on a subject, albeit a hopefully very educated one. The "science" of weight loss is totally different today compared to 10 years ago. 10 years from now it will be completely different again. Don’t get *too” attached to the studies we have today ;)

    4) CICO is a great place to start for weight loss but it is definitely not an absolute. I work in the fitness industry and know professional physique athletes who dramatically *increase* their calories to get lean for a show. Now, for an average person with 30 lbs to lose this may or may not apply to them but some people need to eat more to lose bodyfat and some people need to eat less. (I recently came across a great article on this which I will try to find and post below.)

    5) The main problem with CICO relates to hormones. I have seen a few snarky comments on this forum say things like “oh so your body is breaking the laws of physics is it??” when one poster says that they lose more fat on higher calories (which I have observed in myself and others many times). The thing is that the person making the comment definitely isn’t a physicist (and doesn’t really understand the laws of physics) and isn’t a physiologist either (so definitely doesn’t understand how the laws of physics relate the the trillions of processes taking place in the human body every second) so their comment is a case of “a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing”. The confusion with CICO relates to CO. The body is actually very good at down-regulating fat loss when calorie intake is reduced (if you don’t agree, see point 2 ;). You are alive today because a few thousand generations of your ancestors survived on very little food for most of their lives. What often produces the result is the *change*. Moving from a long period of higher calories to reduced calories or moving from a long period of lower calories to high calories. So, when someone tells you they are losing more fat on higher calories, remember that you are not a physiologist; you are a weight loss forummer; and you don’t actually have enough experience to know if someone is absolutely wrong when they are observing their own body right in front of their eyes. It’s very important to keep our minds open in this field. I can guarantee that you will have a different opinion on this subject in 10 years so why assume you are 100% correct today.

    Anyway, these are a few points I wanted to put out there in case someone finds them useful. I’ve been involved in the fitness / physique world for more than 20 years so I have seen a few things along the way and whilst the current trend towards science-based fitness is extremely positive, I personally feel that we mustn’t become a slave to it.

    some people need to eat more to lose bodyfat and some people need to eat less.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but body fat isn't the same as body weight, right? People may gain or lose weight while losing fat, but CICO still applies.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    RoxieDawn wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    RoxieDawn wrote: »
    So we need to post pictures of ourselves (before and after) to prove what exactly? ;)

    I'm actually wondering if this wasn't a ploy for people to post pics for him to creep...

    I think I might be showing too much skin in my profile pic... :(

    Cover up the 'Bama logo and you're good.
  • CoffeeNCardio
    CoffeeNCardio Posts: 1,847 Member
    edited September 2016
    RoxieDawn wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    RoxieDawn wrote: »
    So we need to post pictures of ourselves (before and after) to prove what exactly? ;)

    I'm actually wondering if this wasn't a ploy for people to post pics for him to creep...

    I think I might be showing too much skin in my profile pic... :(

    Gurl, you mispelled SWAG
  • CoffeeNCardio
    CoffeeNCardio Posts: 1,847 Member
    Well, realistically, no one normal wants to have sex with someone's skin.

    Hey now, speak for yourself

    d3w3sqkcdcxc.jpg

    8aco7va5j01m.gif
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    edited September 2016
    psulemon wrote: »
    RoxieDawn wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    RoxieDawn wrote: »
    So we need to post pictures of ourselves (before and after) to prove what exactly? ;)

    I'm actually wondering if this wasn't a ploy for people to post pics for him to creep...

    I think I might be showing too much skin in my profile pic... :(

    I just like to show off my wheels. B)

    Your wheels are far too sexy and distracting, @psulemon
    Staaaaahhhhp!

    I went from 28 BMI to abs. All thanks to science.
    No pics for you.

    I are disappoint @stevencloser *sigh*
  • CoffeeNCardio
    CoffeeNCardio Posts: 1,847 Member
    I went from 28 BMI to abs. All thanks to science.
    No pics for you.

    I am depressingly naive. I have thought this whole time that you just superimposed a picture of a mouse on your face after coating yourself in oil and taking a selfie ;)
  • extra_medium
    extra_medium Posts: 1,525 Member
    edited September 2016
    Vortex88 wrote: »
    5) The main problem with CICO relates to hormones. I have seen a few snarky comments on this forum say things like “oh so your body is breaking the laws of physics is it??” when one poster says that they lose more fat on higher calories (which I have observed in myself and others many times). The thing is that the person making the comment definitely isn’t a physicist (and doesn’t really understand the laws of physics) and isn’t a physiologist either (so definitely doesn’t understand how the laws of physics relate the the trillions of processes taking place in the human body every second) so their comment is a case of “a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing”. The confusion with CICO relates to CO. The body is actually very good at down-regulating fat loss when calorie intake is reduced (if you don’t agree, see point 2 ;). You are alive today because a few thousand generations of your ancestors survived on very little food for most of their lives. What often produces the result is the *change*. Moving from a long period of higher calories to reduced calories or moving from a long period of lower calories to high calories. So, when someone tells you they are losing more fat on higher calories, remember that you are not a physiologist; you are a weight loss forummer; and you don’t actually have enough experience to know if someone is absolutely wrong when they are observing their own body right in front of their eyes. It’s very important to keep our minds open in this field. I can guarantee that you will have a different opinion on this subject in 10 years so why assume you are 100% correct today.

    The funny thing is that even though a lot of what you said here is not true, still not a single bit of it violates CICO. If you are losing weight on higher CI, that means your CO is also higher. Whether you attribute it to harder workouts from more energy, or some hormonal/metabolistic nonsense you heard on Dr. Oz, you're still talking about calories in vs. calories out.

    ;)