Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Metabolism "healing" or going back to "normal"
Replies
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »From what I see from reading these boards though, when most landwhales get that, they go cry into a tub of Ben and Jerry's for the rest of the night.
Potentially one of my favorite quotes I've ever seen on here!2 -
I really have little more to say, you all believe your version of the science, I will continue to research and read it all. And as FYI, Bosnia and Herzegovina 62.9% overweight. So maybe they weren't quite as large as the US but they were certainly at bmi's over 25!Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Those are all ideas that I could get behind. It appears that most people cannot though. No one seems to want to put effort into "normal". If they did, it would sell better, and Oz would have been out of a job decades ago. No, it's apparently much easier to just crusade to make obese the new normal.
The problem, in all reality, is we are discussing this as if all fat people need the same thing to fix their problem. Once again, I am an example of someone who needed something that most people swear they don't want. I needed someone to actually tell me what a fat, disgusting, slovenly heap of *kitten* I had allowed myself to become. I needed brutal honesty. From what I see from reading these boards though, when most landwhales get that, they go cry into a tub of Ben and Jerry's for the rest of the night.
Truthfully, I don't believe that this is a problem that can be solved, short of literal mind control measures.
Humans are adaptable to their situations so they adapt to being heavier than they should be. I know a lot of people that are overweight by several pounds yet think they would look great "unhealthy" if they lost a bit more because they've never seen themselves at a lower weight. They tend to come from heavier families and aren't used to seeing people who are fit in their normal lives except on TV etc.
I remember when I first came back from my deployment in Bosnia and I couldn't believe how heavy people in my city looked after living in a country where the vast majority were in the ideal weight range. After a week or so I adjusted and everything looked normal again. I also have a lot of pictures and films of when I was growing up in the 70's and people were definitely much thinner back then. I saw a show with Eric Estrada, an actor on the TV show CHiPs back in the 70's who was on a beach in board shorts and he was considered to have an ideal physique back then (thin and lightly muscled) yet he would look scrawny by today's standards.
0 -
Parkersspace wrote: »I really have little more to say, you all believe your version of the science, I will continue to research and read it all. And as FYI, Bosnia and Herzegovina 62.9% overweight. So maybe they weren't quite as large as the US but they were certainly at bmi's over 25!Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Those are all ideas that I could get behind. It appears that most people cannot though. No one seems to want to put effort into "normal". If they did, it would sell better, and Oz would have been out of a job decades ago. No, it's apparently much easier to just crusade to make obese the new normal.
The problem, in all reality, is we are discussing this as if all fat people need the same thing to fix their problem. Once again, I am an example of someone who needed something that most people swear they don't want. I needed someone to actually tell me what a fat, disgusting, slovenly heap of *kitten* I had allowed myself to become. I needed brutal honesty. From what I see from reading these boards though, when most landwhales get that, they go cry into a tub of Ben and Jerry's for the rest of the night.
Truthfully, I don't believe that this is a problem that can be solved, short of literal mind control measures.
Humans are adaptable to their situations so they adapt to being heavier than they should be. I know a lot of people that are overweight by several pounds yet think they would look great "unhealthy" if they lost a bit more because they've never seen themselves at a lower weight. They tend to come from heavier families and aren't used to seeing people who are fit in their normal lives except on TV etc.
I remember when I first came back from my deployment in Bosnia and I couldn't believe how heavy people in my city looked after living in a country where the vast majority were in the ideal weight range. After a week or so I adjusted and everything looked normal again. I also have a lot of pictures and films of when I was growing up in the 70's and people were definitely much thinner back then. I saw a show with Eric Estrada, an actor on the TV show CHiPs back in the 70's who was on a beach in board shorts and he was considered to have an ideal physique back then (thin and lightly muscled) yet he would look scrawny by today's standards.
Not sure when that stat was taken but I was there just post war and trust me, there was nowhere near that number of overweight people. There was no fast food chains when I was there, but that was years ago. If you saw a young person (under 40) who was overweight when I was their they were almost always foreign or returned refugees.
As for science, there are no versions, just science. You are entitled to interpreting the facts, as long as it can be logically defended, but you aren't entitled to you own facts.
ETA: just checked the obesity stats and 25% of women and 17% of men, that makes it a LOT lower than the US (40% women and 35% men).
3 -
http://obesity.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004371
You can find it in a few spots but this one is clear in listing their country on the second list of world countries non developed. They have carried the same average BMI for decades but when you were there the WHO listed healthy bmi as 20 to 27 so they had much less over weight by that statistic as did the USA but the insurance companies convinced the medical community that it would be wise to lower the BMI (expecially as Asian countries would be over weight and bmi of 18 wouldn't be unhealthy there) doubling over weight people in most countries in 1993). WHO adopted the lower BMI stat in 1993 if i recall properly. Bosnia does not have the same obesity rating as the US they are about 21% obese but very high on that overweight scale due to the BMI topping out at 24.9.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »I really have little more to say, you all believe your version of the science, I will continue to research and read it all. And as FYI, Bosnia and Herzegovina 62.9% overweight. So maybe they weren't quite as large as the US but they were certainly at bmi's over 25!Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Those are all ideas that I could get behind. It appears that most people cannot though. No one seems to want to put effort into "normal". If they did, it would sell better, and Oz would have been out of a job decades ago. No, it's apparently much easier to just crusade to make obese the new normal.
The problem, in all reality, is we are discussing this as if all fat people need the same thing to fix their problem. Once again, I am an example of someone who needed something that most people swear they don't want. I needed someone to actually tell me what a fat, disgusting, slovenly heap of *kitten* I had allowed myself to become. I needed brutal honesty. From what I see from reading these boards though, when most landwhales get that, they go cry into a tub of Ben and Jerry's for the rest of the night.
Truthfully, I don't believe that this is a problem that can be solved, short of literal mind control measures.
Humans are adaptable to their situations so they adapt to being heavier than they should be. I know a lot of people that are overweight by several pounds yet think they would look great "unhealthy" if they lost a bit more because they've never seen themselves at a lower weight. They tend to come from heavier families and aren't used to seeing people who are fit in their normal lives except on TV etc.
I remember when I first came back from my deployment in Bosnia and I couldn't believe how heavy people in my city looked after living in a country where the vast majority were in the ideal weight range. After a week or so I adjusted and everything looked normal again. I also have a lot of pictures and films of when I was growing up in the 70's and people were definitely much thinner back then. I saw a show with Eric Estrada, an actor on the TV show CHiPs back in the 70's who was on a beach in board shorts and he was considered to have an ideal physique back then (thin and lightly muscled) yet he would look scrawny by today's standards.
Not sure when that stat was taken but I was there just post war and trust me, there was nowhere near that number of overweight people. There was no fast food chains when I was there, but that was years ago. If you saw a young person (under 40) who was overweight when I was their they were almost always foreign or returned refugees.
As for science, there are no versions, just science. You are entitled to interpreting the facts, as long as it can be logically defended, but you aren't entitled to you own facts.
ETA: just checked the obesity stats and 25% of women and 17% of men, that makes it a LOT lower than the US (40% women and 35% men).
1 -
Parkersspace wrote: »http://obesity.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004371
You can find it in a few spots but this one is clear in listing their country on the second list of world countries non developed. They have carried the same average BMI for decades but when you were there the WHO listed healthy bmi as 20 to 27 so they had much less over weight by that statistic as did the USA but the insurance companies convinced the medical community that it would be wise to lower the BMI (expecially as Asian countries would be over weight and bmi of 18 wouldn't be unhealthy there) doubling over weight people in most countries in 1993). WHO adopted the lower BMI stat in 1993 if i recall properly. Bosnia does not have the same obesity rating as the US they are about 21% obese but very high on that overweight scale due to the BMI topping out at 24.9.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »I really have little more to say, you all believe your version of the science, I will continue to research and read it all. And as FYI, Bosnia and Herzegovina 62.9% overweight. So maybe they weren't quite as large as the US but they were certainly at bmi's over 25!Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Those are all ideas that I could get behind. It appears that most people cannot though. No one seems to want to put effort into "normal". If they did, it would sell better, and Oz would have been out of a job decades ago. No, it's apparently much easier to just crusade to make obese the new normal.
The problem, in all reality, is we are discussing this as if all fat people need the same thing to fix their problem. Once again, I am an example of someone who needed something that most people swear they don't want. I needed someone to actually tell me what a fat, disgusting, slovenly heap of *kitten* I had allowed myself to become. I needed brutal honesty. From what I see from reading these boards though, when most landwhales get that, they go cry into a tub of Ben and Jerry's for the rest of the night.
Truthfully, I don't believe that this is a problem that can be solved, short of literal mind control measures.
Humans are adaptable to their situations so they adapt to being heavier than they should be. I know a lot of people that are overweight by several pounds yet think they would look great "unhealthy" if they lost a bit more because they've never seen themselves at a lower weight. They tend to come from heavier families and aren't used to seeing people who are fit in their normal lives except on TV etc.
I remember when I first came back from my deployment in Bosnia and I couldn't believe how heavy people in my city looked after living in a country where the vast majority were in the ideal weight range. After a week or so I adjusted and everything looked normal again. I also have a lot of pictures and films of when I was growing up in the 70's and people were definitely much thinner back then. I saw a show with Eric Estrada, an actor on the TV show CHiPs back in the 70's who was on a beach in board shorts and he was considered to have an ideal physique back then (thin and lightly muscled) yet he would look scrawny by today's standards.
Not sure when that stat was taken but I was there just post war and trust me, there was nowhere near that number of overweight people. There was no fast food chains when I was there, but that was years ago. If you saw a young person (under 40) who was overweight when I was their they were almost always foreign or returned refugees.
As for science, there are no versions, just science. You are entitled to interpreting the facts, as long as it can be logically defended, but you aren't entitled to you own facts.
ETA: just checked the obesity stats and 25% of women and 17% of men, that makes it a LOT lower than the US (40% women and 35% men).
I remember when I was younger 27 was always the BMI given as the cut off, but no clue why it was changed but AFIAK. My main point was, however, is that it is very noticeable difference when you travel to a poorer country like BiH and then return home.3 -
Wow great info here! FYI; I'm on a PSMF and have been for a good 2-3 weeks now. It's T O U G H, but gets results quick. I'm having my RMR and body fat scanned via DEXA before the diet and after. I'll update when I get the results (if I remember).0
-
Wow great info here! FYI; I'm on a PSMF and have been for a good 2-3 weeks now. It's T O U G H, but gets results quick. I'm having my RMR and body fat scanned via DEXA before the diet and after. I'll update when I get the results (if I remember).
I'll definitely be interested in seeing them. It might go a long way in shutting up all of the "zomg you're losing all the muscle" zealots, who don't realize how fat some people are, as opposed to how they appear.
That being said, more details of your PSMF run itself would be useful as well.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow great info here! FYI; I'm on a PSMF and have been for a good 2-3 weeks now. It's T O U G H, but gets results quick. I'm having my RMR and body fat scanned via DEXA before the diet and after. I'll update when I get the results (if I remember).
I'll definitely be interested in seeing them. It might go a long way in shutting up all of the "zomg you're losing all the muscle" zealots, who don't realize how fat some people are, as opposed to how they appear.
That being said, more details of your PSMF run itself would be useful as well.
I can't give you any exact quotes but Lyle McDonald has some doubts as to whether or not when will lose muscle if the PSMF diet is done correctly. He says muscle loss should be minimal if at all.
Most the time people just don't get enough protein to outweigh the catabolic affects of a diet but whatever. We will see :-)0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow great info here! FYI; I'm on a PSMF and have been for a good 2-3 weeks now. It's T O U G H, but gets results quick. I'm having my RMR and body fat scanned via DEXA before the diet and after. I'll update when I get the results (if I remember).
I'll definitely be interested in seeing them. It might go a long way in shutting up all of the "zomg you're losing all the muscle" zealots, who don't realize how fat some people are, as opposed to how they appear.
That being said, more details of your PSMF run itself would be useful as well.
I can't give you any exact quotes but Lyle McDonald has some doubts as to whether or not when will lose muscle if the PSMF diet is done correctly. He says muscle loss should be minimal if at all.
Most the time people just don't get enough protein to outweigh the catabolic affects of a diet but whatever. We will see :-)
If it's done over a short period of time and protein/training stimuli are adequate, it's unlikely you would lose a lot. But I would be interested as well.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow great info here! FYI; I'm on a PSMF and have been for a good 2-3 weeks now. It's T O U G H, but gets results quick. I'm having my RMR and body fat scanned via DEXA before the diet and after. I'll update when I get the results (if I remember).
I'll definitely be interested in seeing them. It might go a long way in shutting up all of the "zomg you're losing all the muscle" zealots, who don't realize how fat some people are, as opposed to how they appear.
That being said, more details of your PSMF run itself would be useful as well.
I can't give you any exact quotes but Lyle McDonald has some doubts as to whether or not when will lose muscle if the PSMF diet is done correctly. He says muscle loss should be minimal if at all.
Most the time people just don't get enough protein to outweigh the catabolic affects of a diet but whatever. We will see :-)
I am a huge fan of Lyle's work, and an occasional user of RFL myself. However, in my area, all of the imaging centers require a referral from a PCP for a DEXA, and since I'm not a post menopausal woman, it's not happening.
I already know what your results will be, assuming that you follow protocol, but having an actual DEXA before and after will shut more people up than my just telling them to stop being idiots.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow great info here! FYI; I'm on a PSMF and have been for a good 2-3 weeks now. It's T O U G H, but gets results quick. I'm having my RMR and body fat scanned via DEXA before the diet and after. I'll update when I get the results (if I remember).
I'll definitely be interested in seeing them. It might go a long way in shutting up all of the "zomg you're losing all the muscle" zealots, who don't realize how fat some people are, as opposed to how they appear.
That being said, more details of your PSMF run itself would be useful as well.
I can't give you any exact quotes but Lyle McDonald has some doubts as to whether or not when will lose muscle if the PSMF diet is done correctly. He says muscle loss should be minimal if at all.
Most the time people just don't get enough protein to outweigh the catabolic affects of a diet but whatever. We will see :-)
I am a huge fan of Lyle's work, and an occasional user of RFL myself. However, in my area, all of the imaging centers require a referral from a PCP for a DEXA, and since I'm not a post menopausal woman, it's not happening.
I already know what your results will be, assuming that you follow protocol, but having an actual DEXA before and after will shut more people up than my just telling them to stop being idiots.
Yeah I hear you. Lucky enough, where I live we don't require a referral from a doctor.
What did you mean by that last part? Do some people believe that a PSMF doesn't work?0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow great info here! FYI; I'm on a PSMF and have been for a good 2-3 weeks now. It's T O U G H, but gets results quick. I'm having my RMR and body fat scanned via DEXA before the diet and after. I'll update when I get the results (if I remember).
I'll definitely be interested in seeing them. It might go a long way in shutting up all of the "zomg you're losing all the muscle" zealots, who don't realize how fat some people are, as opposed to how they appear.
That being said, more details of your PSMF run itself would be useful as well.
I can't give you any exact quotes but Lyle McDonald has some doubts as to whether or not when will lose muscle if the PSMF diet is done correctly. He says muscle loss should be minimal if at all.
Most the time people just don't get enough protein to outweigh the catabolic affects of a diet but whatever. We will see :-)
I am a huge fan of Lyle's work, and an occasional user of RFL myself. However, in my area, all of the imaging centers require a referral from a PCP for a DEXA, and since I'm not a post menopausal woman, it's not happening.
I already know what your results will be, assuming that you follow protocol, but having an actual DEXA before and after will shut more people up than my just telling them to stop being idiots.
Yeah I hear you. Lucky enough, where I live we don't require a referral from a doctor.
What did you mean by that last part? Do some people believe that a PSMF doesn't work?
There is a general stigma on this site against cutting calories below the arbitrary number of 1200. Go ahead and bring up RFL numbers and watch heads explode, and people swear that your heart is being eaten by your liver to make fuel for your brain.2 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow great info here! FYI; I'm on a PSMF and have been for a good 2-3 weeks now. It's T O U G H, but gets results quick. I'm having my RMR and body fat scanned via DEXA before the diet and after. I'll update when I get the results (if I remember).
I'll definitely be interested in seeing them. It might go a long way in shutting up all of the "zomg you're losing all the muscle" zealots, who don't realize how fat some people are, as opposed to how they appear.
That being said, more details of your PSMF run itself would be useful as well.
I can't give you any exact quotes but Lyle McDonald has some doubts as to whether or not when will lose muscle if the PSMF diet is done correctly. He says muscle loss should be minimal if at all.
Most the time people just don't get enough protein to outweigh the catabolic affects of a diet but whatever. We will see :-)
I am a huge fan of Lyle's work, and an occasional user of RFL myself. However, in my area, all of the imaging centers require a referral from a PCP for a DEXA, and since I'm not a post menopausal woman, it's not happening.
I already know what your results will be, assuming that you follow protocol, but having an actual DEXA before and after will shut more people up than my just telling them to stop being idiots.
Yeah I hear you. Lucky enough, where I live we don't require a referral from a doctor.
What did you mean by that last part? Do some people believe that a PSMF doesn't work?
There is a general stigma on this site against cutting calories below the arbitrary number of 1200. Go ahead and bring up RFL numbers and watch heads explode, and people swear that your heart is being eaten by your liver to make fuel for your brain.
Hahaha that's hilarious. Yeah, I've found through horrid trail and error that there are some seriously ignorant people.
It's as if they come up with ONE idea for how weight loss works and if the science doesn't fit that idea, it's crap.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow great info here! FYI; I'm on a PSMF and have been for a good 2-3 weeks now. It's T O U G H, but gets results quick. I'm having my RMR and body fat scanned via DEXA before the diet and after. I'll update when I get the results (if I remember).
I'll definitely be interested in seeing them. It might go a long way in shutting up all of the "zomg you're losing all the muscle" zealots, who don't realize how fat some people are, as opposed to how they appear.
That being said, more details of your PSMF run itself would be useful as well.
I can't give you any exact quotes but Lyle McDonald has some doubts as to whether or not when will lose muscle if the PSMF diet is done correctly. He says muscle loss should be minimal if at all.
Most the time people just don't get enough protein to outweigh the catabolic affects of a diet but whatever. We will see :-)
I am a huge fan of Lyle's work, and an occasional user of RFL myself. However, in my area, all of the imaging centers require a referral from a PCP for a DEXA, and since I'm not a post menopausal woman, it's not happening.
I already know what your results will be, assuming that you follow protocol, but having an actual DEXA before and after will shut more people up than my just telling them to stop being idiots.
Yeah I hear you. Lucky enough, where I live we don't require a referral from a doctor.
What did you mean by that last part? Do some people believe that a PSMF doesn't work?
There is a general stigma on this site against cutting calories below the arbitrary number of 1200. Go ahead and bring up RFL numbers and watch heads explode, and people swear that your heart is being eaten by your liver to make fuel for your brain.
Hahaha that's hilarious. Yeah, I've found through horrid trail and error that there are some seriously ignorant people.
It's as if they come up with ONE idea for how weight loss works and if the science doesn't fit that idea, it's crap.
Pretty much. The funny part is, everything in all of Lyle's work is researched to death. That's just how he does. For *kitten*'s sake, have you read The Ketogenic Diet? It's rare to see a widely published book that's so involved with sourcing and research. It might as well be a medical text.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow great info here! FYI; I'm on a PSMF and have been for a good 2-3 weeks now. It's T O U G H, but gets results quick. I'm having my RMR and body fat scanned via DEXA before the diet and after. I'll update when I get the results (if I remember).
I'll definitely be interested in seeing them. It might go a long way in shutting up all of the "zomg you're losing all the muscle" zealots, who don't realize how fat some people are, as opposed to how they appear.
That being said, more details of your PSMF run itself would be useful as well.
I can't give you any exact quotes but Lyle McDonald has some doubts as to whether or not when will lose muscle if the PSMF diet is done correctly. He says muscle loss should be minimal if at all.
Most the time people just don't get enough protein to outweigh the catabolic affects of a diet but whatever. We will see :-)
I am a huge fan of Lyle's work, and an occasional user of RFL myself. However, in my area, all of the imaging centers require a referral from a PCP for a DEXA, and since I'm not a post menopausal woman, it's not happening.
I already know what your results will be, assuming that you follow protocol, but having an actual DEXA before and after will shut more people up than my just telling them to stop being idiots.
Yeah I hear you. Lucky enough, where I live we don't require a referral from a doctor.
What did you mean by that last part? Do some people believe that a PSMF doesn't work?
There is a general stigma on this site against cutting calories below the arbitrary number of 1200. Go ahead and bring up RFL numbers and watch heads explode, and people swear that your heart is being eaten by your liver to make fuel for your brain.
Hahaha that's hilarious. Yeah, I've found through horrid trail and error that there are some seriously ignorant people.
It's as if they come up with ONE idea for how weight loss works and if the science doesn't fit that idea, it's crap.
Pretty much. The funny part is, everything in all of Lyle's work is researched to death. That's just how he does. For *kitten*'s sake, have you read The Ketogenic Diet? It's rare to see a widely published book that's so involved with sourcing and research. It might as well be a medical text.
Dude!!! Tell me about it!! All of his books are researched to death! I have read it actually.
Funny thing I think I noticed with his writing; as he gets older he tends to not include citations and instead just says something like "i'm not going to cite this because they're so much research on it anyways that if you didn't know it already then you shouldn't be reading this". Lyle is awesome.
I'm glad to know somebody else who appreciates his work as much as me.
I brought up a different topic a while back that Lyle talked about in one of his books (which I won't mention here because there was some serious bloodshed) and I was met with such animosity and opposition. The one thing I kept thinking was; "if only these people knew Lyle like I do, there'd be no arguement"1 -
Send the user StealthHealth a PM for an invite to the BodyRecompisition support group. There's only a handful of us right now, but every time I see someone here who's interested in Lyle's work, I suggest that they join.2
-
It seems PSMF is meant for obese individuals. Those most successful are those who weigh the most and keep strictly to the diet regime. Doctors permission and guidance is required as the electrolyte shifts can be problemstic on account of the heavy water loss on such a diet. Although Calories do Count, its only 800 - 900. Which explains why its not advocated here on mfp.
Basically its coined as a protien sparing low calorie diet for obese people and it needs medical supervision..
0 -
It seems PSMF is meant for obese individuals. Those most successful are those who weigh the most and keep strictly to the diet regime. Doctors permission and guidance is required as the electrolyte shifts can be problemstic on account of the heavy water loss on such a diet. Although Calories do Count, its only 800 - 900. Which explains why its not advocated here on mfp.
Basically its coined as a protien sparing low calorie diet for obese people and it needs medical supervision..
Nope. It's used all of the time by low BF people to cut for comps, or post bulk. There are three different protocols, each for a bodyfat based class. Cat 1 for people who are 15% and below. Cat 2 (what I am running) for people who are 16-25%. Cat 3 for 26%+. Thhe percentages that I have here are for males. There's a separate line in the table for women, but I don't have that one memorized.
It's funny though, because I always see the obese saying "oh, that's for bodybuilders cutting for shows".1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »It seems PSMF is meant for obese individuals. Those most successful are those who weigh the most and keep strictly to the diet regime. Doctors permission and guidance is required as the electrolyte shifts can be problemstic on account of the heavy water loss on such a diet. Although Calories do Count, its only 800 - 900. Which explains why its not advocated here on mfp.
Basically its coined as a protien sparing low calorie diet for obese people and it needs medical supervision..
Nope. It's used all of the time by low BF people to cut for comps, or post bulk. There are three different protocols, each for a bodyfat based class. Cat 1 for people who are 15% and below. Cat 2 (what I am running) for people who are 16-25%. Cat 3 for 26%+. Thhe percentages that I have here are for males. There's a separate line in the table for women, but I don't have that one memorized.
It's funny though, because I always see the obese saying "oh, that's for bodybuilders cutting for shows".
I second that. Definitely not just for obese people. I'm not obese ~20% BF and I've been doing it for almost a month with no negative side effects. Unless you count losing weight a negative side effect. See what I did there??? -.-0 -
Thanks for clarifying.1
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow great info here! FYI; I'm on a PSMF and have been for a good 2-3 weeks now. It's T O U G H, but gets results quick. I'm having my RMR and body fat scanned via DEXA before the diet and after. I'll update when I get the results (if I remember).
I'll definitely be interested in seeing them. It might go a long way in shutting up all of the "zomg you're losing all the muscle" zealots, who don't realize how fat some people are, as opposed to how they appear.
That being said, more details of your PSMF run itself would be useful as well.
I can't give you any exact quotes but Lyle McDonald has some doubts as to whether or not when will lose muscle if the PSMF diet is done correctly. He says muscle loss should be minimal if at all.
Most the time people just don't get enough protein to outweigh the catabolic affects of a diet but whatever. We will see :-)
I am a huge fan of Lyle's work, and an occasional user of RFL myself. However, in my area, all of the imaging centers require a referral from a PCP for a DEXA, and since I'm not a post menopausal woman, it's not happening.
I already know what your results will be, assuming that you follow protocol, but having an actual DEXA before and after will shut more people up than my just telling them to stop being idiots.
Yeah I hear you. Lucky enough, where I live we don't require a referral from a doctor.
What did you mean by that last part? Do some people believe that a PSMF doesn't work?
There is a general stigma on this site against cutting calories below the arbitrary number of 1200. Go ahead and bring up RFL numbers and watch heads explode, and people swear that your heart is being eaten by your liver to make fuel for your brain.
I wish I had the fortitude to stick with RFL, but I just don't.
Having read the book, I honestly only think it's a valid choice for people with a certain personality.
For me, 1200 is a bottom line cut.
Please understand that most people on this site who are against going below 1200 don't know about this type of protocol and the precautions it takes. Also, the people who post who do go below 1200 aren't using RFL type protocols and are going to end up causing problems. Most people shouldn't eat below 1200 because they don't know what they're doing.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow great info here! FYI; I'm on a PSMF and have been for a good 2-3 weeks now. It's T O U G H, but gets results quick. I'm having my RMR and body fat scanned via DEXA before the diet and after. I'll update when I get the results (if I remember).
I'll definitely be interested in seeing them. It might go a long way in shutting up all of the "zomg you're losing all the muscle" zealots, who don't realize how fat some people are, as opposed to how they appear.
That being said, more details of your PSMF run itself would be useful as well.
I can't give you any exact quotes but Lyle McDonald has some doubts as to whether or not when will lose muscle if the PSMF diet is done correctly. He says muscle loss should be minimal if at all.
Most the time people just don't get enough protein to outweigh the catabolic affects of a diet but whatever. We will see :-)
I am a huge fan of Lyle's work, and an occasional user of RFL myself. However, in my area, all of the imaging centers require a referral from a PCP for a DEXA, and since I'm not a post menopausal woman, it's not happening.
I already know what your results will be, assuming that you follow protocol, but having an actual DEXA before and after will shut more people up than my just telling them to stop being idiots.
Yeah I hear you. Lucky enough, where I live we don't require a referral from a doctor.
What did you mean by that last part? Do some people believe that a PSMF doesn't work?
There is a general stigma on this site against cutting calories below the arbitrary number of 1200. Go ahead and bring up RFL numbers and watch heads explode, and people swear that your heart is being eaten by your liver to make fuel for your brain.
I wish I had the fortitude to stick with RFL, but I just don't.
Having read the book, I honestly only think it's a valid choice for people with a certain personality.
For me, 1200 is a bottom line cut.
Please understand that most people on this site who are against going below 1200 don't know about this type of protocol and the precautions it takes. Also, the people who post who do go below 1200 aren't using RFL type protocols and are going to end up causing problems. Most people shouldn't eat below 1200 because they don't know what they're doing.
Those are all extremely valid points. As I've mentioned before, the earliest attempts at VLCD research failed miserably due to the lack of sufficient proteins in the diets. The amounts of muscle wasting were absurd.
All of your points are exactly why I do as I do though. I do not advocate for the use of the diet, but I absolutely will answer questions and correct misinformation. Lyle even put the following in the introduction, for good reason: "Trust me, I'd love to live in a world where nobody crash dieted, where everybody followed sane and safe dieting strategies and stuck with it in the long term until they reached their goals. I also want a pony and to be six feet tall and to be an astronaut. And how about to end world hunger while I'm at it. My point? When idealism and reality slam together it's never pretty."
Honestly, I'd never suggest this dietary method to anyone that I didn't know personally, and knew that they could handle it. Just like with any severe deficit, the possibility of things going wrong if you *kitten* up... Well, it's not a possibility; it's a definite.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow great info here! FYI; I'm on a PSMF and have been for a good 2-3 weeks now. It's T O U G H, but gets results quick. I'm having my RMR and body fat scanned via DEXA before the diet and after. I'll update when I get the results (if I remember).
I'll definitely be interested in seeing them. It might go a long way in shutting up all of the "zomg you're losing all the muscle" zealots, who don't realize how fat some people are, as opposed to how they appear.
That being said, more details of your PSMF run itself would be useful as well.
I can't give you any exact quotes but Lyle McDonald has some doubts as to whether or not when will lose muscle if the PSMF diet is done correctly. He says muscle loss should be minimal if at all.
Most the time people just don't get enough protein to outweigh the catabolic affects of a diet but whatever. We will see :-)
I am a huge fan of Lyle's work, and an occasional user of RFL myself. However, in my area, all of the imaging centers require a referral from a PCP for a DEXA, and since I'm not a post menopausal woman, it's not happening.
I already know what your results will be, assuming that you follow protocol, but having an actual DEXA before and after will shut more people up than my just telling them to stop being idiots.
Yeah I hear you. Lucky enough, where I live we don't require a referral from a doctor.
What did you mean by that last part? Do some people believe that a PSMF doesn't work?
There is a general stigma on this site against cutting calories below the arbitrary number of 1200. Go ahead and bring up RFL numbers and watch heads explode, and people swear that your heart is being eaten by your liver to make fuel for your brain.
For once I agree with you openly. There is no real studies around 1200 cal this I BELIEVE (too lazy to look up) came from AMSSM.
But I really do implore you to rethink your use of the term land whales. Especially on a weight loss board, some folks are afraid to go to the gym because they think this is what everyone is thinking about them.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow great info here! FYI; I'm on a PSMF and have been for a good 2-3 weeks now. It's T O U G H, but gets results quick. I'm having my RMR and body fat scanned via DEXA before the diet and after. I'll update when I get the results (if I remember).
I'll definitely be interested in seeing them. It might go a long way in shutting up all of the "zomg you're losing all the muscle" zealots, who don't realize how fat some people are, as opposed to how they appear.
That being said, more details of your PSMF run itself would be useful as well.
I can't give you any exact quotes but Lyle McDonald has some doubts as to whether or not when will lose muscle if the PSMF diet is done correctly. He says muscle loss should be minimal if at all.
Most the time people just don't get enough protein to outweigh the catabolic affects of a diet but whatever. We will see :-)
I am a huge fan of Lyle's work, and an occasional user of RFL myself. However, in my area, all of the imaging centers require a referral from a PCP for a DEXA, and since I'm not a post menopausal woman, it's not happening.
I already know what your results will be, assuming that you follow protocol, but having an actual DEXA before and after will shut more people up than my just telling them to stop being idiots.
Yeah I hear you. Lucky enough, where I live we don't require a referral from a doctor.
What did you mean by that last part? Do some people believe that a PSMF doesn't work?
There is a general stigma on this site against cutting calories below the arbitrary number of 1200. Go ahead and bring up RFL numbers and watch heads explode, and people swear that your heart is being eaten by your liver to make fuel for your brain.
For once I agree with you openly. There is no real studies around 1200 cal this I BELIEVE (too lazy to look up) came from AMSSM.
But I really do implore you to rethink your use of the term land whales. Especially on a weight loss board, some folks are afraid to go to the gym because they think this is what everyone is thinking about them.
When I see one of them rolling around Walmart on a motorized scooter, with 23,000 calories worth of baked goods in ther basket that is what I think.
When I see them in the gym I think "goddamn man...I remember being there. That *kitten* sucked. Hopefully they keep at it." To me, it's only pathetic when you're not actively fixing it.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow great info here! FYI; I'm on a PSMF and have been for a good 2-3 weeks now. It's T O U G H, but gets results quick. I'm having my RMR and body fat scanned via DEXA before the diet and after. I'll update when I get the results (if I remember).
I'll definitely be interested in seeing them. It might go a long way in shutting up all of the "zomg you're losing all the muscle" zealots, who don't realize how fat some people are, as opposed to how they appear.
That being said, more details of your PSMF run itself would be useful as well.
I can't give you any exact quotes but Lyle McDonald has some doubts as to whether or not when will lose muscle if the PSMF diet is done correctly. He says muscle loss should be minimal if at all.
Most the time people just don't get enough protein to outweigh the catabolic affects of a diet but whatever. We will see :-)
I am a huge fan of Lyle's work, and an occasional user of RFL myself. However, in my area, all of the imaging centers require a referral from a PCP for a DEXA, and since I'm not a post menopausal woman, it's not happening.
I already know what your results will be, assuming that you follow protocol, but having an actual DEXA before and after will shut more people up than my just telling them to stop being idiots.
Yeah I hear you. Lucky enough, where I live we don't require a referral from a doctor.
What did you mean by that last part? Do some people believe that a PSMF doesn't work?
There is a general stigma on this site against cutting calories below the arbitrary number of 1200. Go ahead and bring up RFL numbers and watch heads explode, and people swear that your heart is being eaten by your liver to make fuel for your brain.
For once I agree with you openly. There is no real studies around 1200 cal this I BELIEVE (too lazy to look up) came from AMSSM.
But I really do implore you to rethink your use of the term land whales. Especially on a weight loss board, some folks are afraid to go to the gym because they think this is what everyone is thinking about them.
When I see one of them rolling around Walmart on a motorized scooter, with 23,000 calories worth of baked goods in ther basket that is what I think.
When I see them in the gym I think "goddamn man...I remember being there. That *kitten* sucked. Hopefully they keep at it." To me, it's only pathetic when you're not actively fixing it.
In my weight loss journey one of my mantra's is "never give up".
But in this...I give up:). Sorta.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
Thank you. I needed to hear that.
1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
The overall rate is higher, but that factors in repeated attempts.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
The overall rate is higher, but that factors in repeated attempts.
so...... 115th time's the charm....?
edit: right you are. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060414/Want-quit-smoking-Study-finds-6-cent-try-succeed---graduates-likely-kick-habit.html0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Parkersspace wrote: »It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.
I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.
As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.
Here's a more heartening figure:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short
This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.
I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.
Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.
I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.
Holy crap is smoking cessation really that low!? I honestly thought it was comparable (quitting smoking vs losing weight) and as I quit smoking cold turkey without any issue, I thought maybe that meant I had a chance but then I was reading some study that posits that "most people" are able to quit smoking without any aids and was sort of disheartened. Maybe it is comparable though.
Doesn't shock me. I stopped being fat and sloppy six years ago. I haven't been able to kick smoking entirely yet. Vaping works great for me, but *kitten* always wants to seem to break at the worst time, and there are plenty of 24 hour places that sell smokes. Not so much for box mods, coils, etc.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions