Trendweight Creeping Gain

Options
13»

Replies

  • AudreyJDuke
    AudreyJDuke Posts: 1,092 Member
    Options
    This is great info, timely for my own situation, thanks!
  • cparsons_60
    cparsons_60 Posts: 95 Member
    Options
    [quote="VintageFeline;c-40777736
    It's also not a carb free for all either. The "trendy" version of refeeds isn't used correctly by most people who do indeed just have a 5 hours free for all. If done correctly as advised by the total charlatan Lyle McDonald then you do it for a minimum of 2 days. You still log and track, your focus is on increasing calorie intake through carbs.[/quote]

    Lyle a charlatan? (a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill; a fraud.
    synonyms: quack, sham, fraud, fake, impostor, hoaxer, cheat, deceiver, double-dealer, swindler, fraudster, mountebank)

    Is this what you meant to say?
  • cparsons_60
    cparsons_60 Posts: 95 Member
    Options
    @GottaBurnEmAll

    Ah. Thanks.
  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    Options
    newheavensearth wrote: »
    Psychgrrl wrote: »
    OP, you might want to take a look at the "Of Refeeds and Diet Breaks" thread. This article was posted within (so much good stuff in that thread) and reading your post made me think of it. https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/

    I just skimmed this and yes this is me. :( I was exercising so much to try to offset the stress in my life instead of binging. And lose weight of course. Looks like it backfired. :/

    Please don’t be hard on yourself, it’s been me too—that’s why it resonated so much. Maybe find some other (less active) coping strategies to help with the stress?
  • weighmeless
    weighmeless Posts: 42 Member
    edited November 2017
    Options
    newheavensearth wrote: »
    Great answers! I have been suspicious of my Fit bit recently. Sometimes it gives me a 2500 daily expenditure at the end of the day and I'm just like huh? So definitely will factor in less exercise calorie usage.

    Fitbit basically gives your daily calorie expenditure based on your activity for the last 24-48hrs.. So one day you burn 800-1000 cals and next day you burn only 400, your calorie expenditure will remain same as the day you did 800-1000 calorie burn. Bottom line, watch out your calorie intake - I am 5'3 and my activity level is "active" ( about 10000+ steps a day . So i take my calorie intake depending on my activity level. I don't go by fitbit or MF even though it gives me anywhere between 1290-1300 cals per day.. Regardless, I try to have a minimum of 300-500 calorie deficit because I am looking forward to atleast 1 pound loss per week. So I am helping myself with more fiber, water etc.. Again, if you burn more, you have more calories to save but for that we have to feed ourselves less BUT high fiber food. Just because I burn 300 calories I wouldn't eat them up all. It's like I deposit in savings and use very minimum.
  • davidylin
    davidylin Posts: 228 Member
    edited November 2017
    Options
    Nony_Mouse wrote: »
    davidylin wrote: »
    I looked around for twenty minutes last night but i could find no controlled study on diet breaks. The closest I have seen to actual science is a very small study on calorie shifting diets that only tracked for a short period of time, where any additional weight loss could have easily been explained by the placement of the days where less food was consumed. Without a controlled experiment to study the long term effect of a diet method that includes controlled periods of carbohydrate overloading, the concept is by definition pseudoscience. Now, pseudoscience doesn't necessarily mean wrong, it just indicates that the matter is not actually well studied via the scientific method.

    That being said, five hours of eating noodle soup, rice, bread, and crackers once every other week won't exactly hurt you or your diet. In fact, it should make your diet easier to stick to. I've done this a few times myself and I believe it is contributing to my success.

    Pseudoscience: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Twenty minutes? Look harder. Listen to the podcast on refeeds. Backed by science.

    And have you read this? http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ijo2017206a.html?foxtrotcallback=true? 28 or 42 weeks for trial depending on group, with a six month follow up. I'm sure you'll find fault with it though.
    That study had less than 20 individuals completing the study in either group. They're not really achieving a minimal statistical significance of p=0.05. Mind you I'm not saying that it is invalid (it is interesting and suggests that further study is needed), rather, what is invalid is trying to cite this study to say that you're not talking pseudoscience.

    Finally intermittant energy restriction is a method that is not the one you are discussing. What I am saying is that you are mistaking somewhat similar or related studies for proof of your theory. That is pseudoscience because the theory presented by Lyle McDonald has, as far as I can tell and from what I've seen you try to cite - untested.

    It is literally not backed by science. It's an interesting theory with some of its principle concepts demonstrated, but to call it anything more than a theory or imply that an experiment has been conducted to verify its long term efficacy is untrue/mistaken and therefore pseudoscience.
  • davidylin
    davidylin Posts: 228 Member
    edited November 2017
    Options
    So here's what I'm looking for before I sing the gospel of Lyle as science: a well controlled study of at least 300 individuals with at least 250 staying observably compliant with the study protocols, demonstrating statistically significantly more fat or weight loss over a period of at least two years greater in the McDonald protocol vs a CCR protocol (classic calorie restriction).

    And I think this is what everyone that believes in it should ask for/work toward as well.

    Lacking that, I cannot say that the McDonald protocol is better than CCR according to science (that does not yet exist). So I'm asking for help to see if any such study has been done.
  • Nony_Mouse
    Nony_Mouse Posts: 5,646 Member
    Options
    davidylin wrote: »
    So here's what I'm looking for before I sing the gospel of Lyle as science: a well controlled study of at least 300 individuals with at least 250 staying observably compliant with the study protocols, demonstrating statistically significantly more fat or weight loss over a period of at least two years greater in the McDonald protocol vs a CCR protocol (classic calorie restriction).

    And I think this is what everyone that believes in it should ask for/work toward as well.

    Lacking that, I cannot say that the McDonald protocol is better than CCR according to science (that does not yet exist). So I'm asking for help to see if any such study has been done.

    Do you have any idea of how much a study like that would cost? Obviously not.
  • davidylin
    davidylin Posts: 228 Member
    edited November 2017
    Options
    Nony_Mouse wrote: »
    Do you have any idea of how much a study like that would cost? Obviously not.
    A study like could be done at a cost of about USD 90k, although you would likely have to do this in Asia.

    If you attract the interest of lead scientists say, at the National Institutes of Health with the clear scientific strengths of your method, it's very likely they'll allocate public money to study it.

    Like I said, I found Lyle's theories to be fascinating and I've been modifying my diet personally to see if I can change the way I feel by juggling the balance of my calories between the macronutrients (I had a 70% carbohydrate day yesterday while maintaining my calorie goal). I believe in about 50% of what he says (not implying disbelief in the other 50%) and I'm putting it personally to the test.

    Unfortunately my responses to you have been off topic for the thread. I don't think that the concepts are dangerous and therefore I should hold my comments on the subject of Lyle.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    weighmeless wrote: »
    newheavensearth wrote: »
    Great answers! I have been suspicious of my Fit bit recently. Sometimes it gives me a 2500 daily expenditure at the end of the day and I'm just like huh? So definitely will factor in less exercise calorie usage.

    Fitbit basically gives your daily calorie expenditure based on your activity for the last 24-48hrs.. So one day you burn 800-1000 cals and next day you burn only 400, your calorie expenditure will remain same as the day you did 800-1000 calorie burn. Bottom line, watch out your calorie intake - I am 5'3 and my activity level is "active" ( about 10000+ steps a day . So i take my calorie intake depending on my activity level. I don't go by fitbit or MF even though it gives me anywhere between 1290-1300 cals per day.. Regardless, I try to have a minimum of 300-500 calorie deficit because I am looking forward to atleast 1 pound loss per week. So I am helping myself with more fiber, water etc.. Again, if you burn more, you have more calories to save but for that we have to feed ourselves less BUT high fiber food. Just because I burn 300 calories I wouldn't eat them up all. It's like I deposit in savings and use very minimum.

    2 day averaging is NOT how Fitbit works. The day ends at midnight.

    Absolutely does NOT do like you suggested.

    Perhaps you have observed something that makes you assume it works that way, but that would be because of not knowing what they are doing.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories