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.
Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
Huskeryogi wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »Huskeryogi wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »Huskeryogi wrote: »That calories in/out works....but not all the time. If it worked all the time people wouldn't plateau. Since there's no way to do controlled long term studies there's a lot about weight and health that we don't know.
CI/CO is an energy equation - so yes it always works - a plateau comes out when CI and CO are equalized - which means either one or the other side of the equation (or both) needs to be adjusted
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories
yeah that doesn't actually dispute CICO...all is says is just cause you work out, doesn't mean you can go whole hog on eating and drinking, you still need to watch what you eat and make sure you eat less than you burn...
But if calories you burn aren't linear (rates changes based on the amount of exercise/other factors WE DO NOT KNOW) it's an unknownable variable. If we can't accurately calculate calories out, calories in/calories out doesn't work.
One of my biggest problems with anything weight loss or fitness related is anyone saying anything works ALL the time.
Your confusion, in my opinion, is in the subtle re-wording of the study results in the VOX article.
In the study it states (emphasis mine):
In Additive total energy expenditure models, total energy expenditure is a simple linear function of physical activity, and variation in physical activity energy expenditure (PA) determines variation in total energy expenditure. In Constrained total energy expenditure models, the body adapts to increased physical activity by reducing energy spent on other physiological activity, maintaining total energy expenditure within a narrow range.
in the VOX article this is paraphrased as:
"In other words, after a certain amount of exercise, you don't keep burning calories at the same rate: Total energy expenditure may eventually plateau."
This is incorrect according to the findings of the study and implies that increased exercise leads to a proportionally smaller exercise burn.
What they (VOX) could have said, if I'm interpreting the results correctly is:
"Above a certain level of exercise, people tend to compensate for excessive calorific burns by expending less during the rest of the day: In other words, you run a marathon in the morning and sit on the sofa for the next two days"
This seems to be the "exercise side" of what people refer to when discussing NEAT - where people talk about a drop in input calories causing a person to move about much less than otherwise, and therefore lose at a slower rate than the deficit would predict.
So, CICO still stands - we (or at least Pontzer) are not saying that the 85th minute of running on a treadmill burns less energy than the 14th but rather, if you run on the treadmill for a longtime, you're likely to feel tired and sit on your *kitten* for the rest of the day. Knowing that means that we can put strategies in place to reduce the "sofa time" or, split our exercise up into smaller chunks.11 -
Neurotic22 wrote: »Against popular opinion... I don't weigh everything. I overestimate unless it's a calorie-dense food (e.g. estimate - carrot, weigh - cheese).
This is because I can't handle it - I end up constantly doing the numbers in my head due to my anxiety disorder.
...and I am another believer that junk food exists/it matters what you eat!
I don't see any issue with this and do the same. This is a matter of prioritizing what matters. One point is that calorie estimations carry an inherent 20% margin of error. In the beginning I simply entered 1.2 to ensure a deficit. Now I just use my output to ensure a deficit.1 -
I'm not just starting. My feelings are based on 15 years of paying attention to my body and as much research as I can stand to consume.
Nothing you have said has contradicted my assertion that we don't have the tools to accurately calculate Calories Out. So we're arguing in circles.2 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »Huskeryogi wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »Huskeryogi wrote: »That calories in/out works....but not all the time. If it worked all the time people wouldn't plateau. Since there's no way to do controlled long term studies there's a lot about weight and health that we don't know.
CI/CO is an energy equation - so yes it always works - a plateau comes out when CI and CO are equalized - which means either one or the other side of the equation (or both) needs to be adjusted
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories
yeah that doesn't actually dispute CICO...all is says is just cause you work out, doesn't mean you can go whole hog on eating and drinking, you still need to watch what you eat and make sure you eat less than you burn...
But if calories you burn aren't linear (rates changes based on the amount of exercise/other factors WE DO NOT KNOW) it's an unknownable variable. If we can't accurately calculate calories out, calories in/calories out doesn't work.
One of my biggest problems with anything weight loss or fitness related is anyone saying anything works ALL the time.
Any measurement in the physical world is an estimate. Perfection only exists in the abstract. The key is to focus on the level of precision and accuracy required for a desired output.
If my speedometer and gas gauge are both defective the car still runs and I'm still traveling from point A to point B. This does not invalidate the fact that acceleration occurred, that gas was burned, etc.
12 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »I'm not just starting. My feelings are based on 15 years of paying attention to my body and as much research as I can stand to consume.
Nothing you have said has contradicted my assertion that we don't have the tools to accurately calculate Calories Out. So we're arguing in circles.
Just because you can't accurately determine calories out doesn't mean that CICO doesn't work? If you eat more than calories out, you gain... Right?7 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »I'm not just starting. My feelings are based on 15 years of paying attention to my body and as much research as I can stand to consume.
Nothing you have said has contradicted my assertion that we don't have the tools to accurately calculate Calories Out. So we're arguing in circles.
But you don't need to accurately calculate CO to the hundredth, tenth, individual calorie, or even tens of calories. You need to have a reasonable estimate of your CO so that you can reasonably estimate the CI requirements to balance the equation to your desire (lose, maintain, or gain weight). Our bodies are not a closed system, we are not a bomb calorimeter, and so subtle variations on both sides of the equation neither negate the validity or usefulness of the equation.
We don't need to be 100% accurate. Close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades is fine.
It is helpful to be precise. Repeatability, and appropriate adjustments based on real results over time, is far more relevant.
https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-accuracy-and-precision-60932810 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »I'm not just starting. My feelings are based on 15 years of paying attention to my body and as much research as I can stand to consume.
Nothing you have said has contradicted my assertion that we don't have the tools to accurately calculate Calories Out. So we're arguing in circles.
You seem to be making a (possibly valid) argument that calorie counting doesn't work (for you, anyway) because actual calories in/out can't be determined accurately. But you're telling us that's a valid argument that CICO (the energy balance equation) is incorrect. That doesn't follow.4 -
Huskeryogi wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »Huskeryogi wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »Huskeryogi wrote: »That calories in/out works....but not all the time. If it worked all the time people wouldn't plateau. Since there's no way to do controlled long term studies there's a lot about weight and health that we don't know.
CI/CO is an energy equation - so yes it always works - a plateau comes out when CI and CO are equalized - which means either one or the other side of the equation (or both) needs to be adjusted
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories
yeah that doesn't actually dispute CICO...all is says is just cause you work out, doesn't mean you can go whole hog on eating and drinking, you still need to watch what you eat and make sure you eat less than you burn...
But if calories you burn aren't linear (rates changes based on the amount of exercise/other factors WE DO NOT KNOW) it's an unknownable variable. If we can't accurately calculate calories out, calories in/calories out doesn't work.
One of my biggest problems with anything weight loss or fitness related is anyone saying anything works ALL the time.
Your calories out isn't going to swing up and down wildly from day to day. It's going to be pretty similar to make an educated guess. In maths you employ approximation techniques for getting results of formulas that would be too complicated to calculate properly.3 -
I disagree that what you eat doesn't matter. Sure you'll lose weight eating at a deficit, but HEALTH should be the ultimate goal. Natural is better and I'm sticking to it!12
-
I disagree that what you eat doesn't matter. Sure you'll lose weight eating at a deficit, but HEALTH should be the ultimate goal. Natural is better and I'm sticking to it!
What does that even mean?
I can design you a "natural" diet that will be the death of you in less than a year.
12 -
I disagree that what you eat doesn't matter. Sure you'll lose weight eating at a deficit, but HEALTH should be the ultimate goal. Natural is better and I'm sticking to it!
Twinkie diet, Fat head and at least 2 threads on mfp where people improved their health simply through weight loss.
Also hemlock is natural.10 -
I disagree that what you eat doesn't matter. Sure you'll lose weight eating at a deficit, but HEALTH should be the ultimate goal. Natural is better and I'm sticking to it!
A person on my friends list today posted an exuberantly excited and inspirational message that she has:
Lost 175 pounds
Reversed her prediabetes
Gotten off of high blood pressure medication she's been on for years.
Simply by cutting calories and losing weight.
I'd say HEALTH is her ultimate goal too, and she's rocking it, but you disagree?
11 -
stevencloser wrote: »I disagree that what you eat doesn't matter. Sure you'll lose weight eating at a deficit, but HEALTH should be the ultimate goal. Natural is better and I'm sticking to it!
Twinkie diet, Fat head and at least 2 threads on mfp where people improved their health simply through weight loss.
Also hemlock is natural.
Sure an obese individual losing weight will generally improve health markers. Don't you think long term an individual will have better health markers eating a diet that is 80-90% nutrient dense vs the same person eating the same number of calories on the Twinkie diet or something similar?2 -
You can improve all your numbers by losing weight. That's a fact. But saying the quality of your food doesn't matter? Saying it's ok to eat foods laden with chemicals we cannot pronounce and are PROVEN to cause cancer and are even banned in other countries, doesn't matter? Dyes, preservatives, pesticides...they matter.26
-
You can improve all your numbers by losing weight. That's a fact. But saying the quality of your food doesn't matter? Saying it's ok to eat foods laden with chemicals we cannot pronounce and are PROVEN to cause cancer and are even banned in other countries, doesn't matter? Dyes, preservatives, pesticides...they matter.
We all die anyway. *shrug*6 -
You can improve all your numbers by losing weight. That's a fact. But saying the quality of your food doesn't matter? Saying it's ok to eat foods laden with chemicals we cannot pronounce and are PROVEN to cause cancer and are even banned in other countries, doesn't matter? Dyes, preservatives, pesticides...they matter.
Lots of things are banned in other countries... Doesn't mean it's right or smart.
And as far as "proven to cause cancer" Go ahead.7 -
You can improve all your numbers by losing weight. That's a fact. But saying the quality of your food doesn't matter? Saying it's ok to eat foods laden with chemicals we cannot pronounce and are PROVEN to cause cancer and are even banned in other countries, doesn't matter? Dyes, preservatives, pesticides...they matter.
Fortunately for me, I have a chemistry degree, so I can pronounce most of those things AND I understand them well enough to not be duped by fear mongering websites. But maybe if you wanted to provide some specific examples, we could discuss them?20 -
Hemlock, lol. Certainly natural, but kind of ignores the "healthy" part. Keep it relevant.2
-
-
The link between sodium nitrites and cancer
CTCA
May 31, 2013
A study by the Cancer Research Center of Hawaii and the University of Southern California suggests a link between eating processed meats and cancer risk. The study followed 190,000 people, ages 45-75, for seven years and found that people who ate the most processed meats had a 67% higher risk of pancreatic cancer than those who ate the least amount.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 413 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions