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/TDEE related question
Replies
-
It’s not straw man argument. He stated it’s calories in vs calories out but it isn’t. Eating just donuts proves it because your just consuming the calories. Hence why bodybuilders do not consume those food when competing. It won’t get you lean.lukejoycePT wrote: »Thats a blanket statement and untrue. Your gut does affect weight management, of course it does. Your gut biome effects many factors and It is not just calories in vs calories out. If you want a six pack and decent muscle mass eating 1500 calories of donuts a day will not give you those results.I collect woo's too.
I know the state of one's digestive biome plays an important role in one's health. I learned the hard way about the effects of antibiotics and different medications can have on health. Over the years last 10 years I've turn to the functional side of medicine because they use exactly the same tests as general medicine but instead of putting sticking plaster medications over an issue, Functional Medics look to the base cause of the issues and address those, usually with diet and or supplements, occasionally with medications when the body needs more time to correct itself.
Its only when your life really hits the buffers, when here in the UK when the NHS does not provide the help you need personally. What would you do if your symptoms did not fit into the designated areas/boxes for treatment, we need to research for yourself and follow the scientific information we have available. I hope no one's health deteriorates as mine did or similar.
No I do not assume everyone who disapproves of my understanding of the microbiome and the difficulties lacking certain microbes can cause, like b 12 deficiency and various vitamin deficiencies all come from the US only that most of them do.
Inside Health was very interesting last night. The UK could well be following Canada and Australia in ensuring those on many medication young and old, actually "still" need them because the treatment had worked, or to ensure there are no crossover reactions between the medications being taken. It all comes down to taking better care of ourselves.
being deficient in vitamins and minerals has nothing to do with weight management, that is all cals in cals out. I agree that when it comes to health the state of one's digestive biome is important.. but health =/= weight management.
that is body composition, not weight. You are mixing and matching arguments here.
Also, 1500 cals of donuts is a strawman argument and has way less protein than the typical junk food/fast food heavy diets that some real people eat. Plenty of people have six-packs eating a non optimal from a health perspective diet.
17 -
Body composition and weight go hand in hand, you can’t change your body composition without losing or gaining weight. If you lose weight you change you body composition , so na mate I’m not mixing them up.lukejoycePT wrote: »Thats a blanket statement and untrue. Your gut does affect weight management, of course it does. Your gut biome effects many factors and It is not just calories in vs calories out. If you want a six pack and decent muscle mass eating 1500 calories of donuts a day will not give you those results.I collect woo's too.
I know the state of one's digestive biome plays an important role in one's health. I learned the hard way about the effects of antibiotics and different medications can have on health. Over the years last 10 years I've turn to the functional side of medicine because they use exactly the same tests as general medicine but instead of putting sticking plaster medications over an issue, Functional Medics look to the base cause of the issues and address those, usually with diet and or supplements, occasionally with medications when the body needs more time to correct itself.
Its only when your life really hits the buffers, when here in the UK when the NHS does not provide the help you need personally. What would you do if your symptoms did not fit into the designated areas/boxes for treatment, we need to research for yourself and follow the scientific information we have available. I hope no one's health deteriorates as mine did or similar.
No I do not assume everyone who disapproves of my understanding of the microbiome and the difficulties lacking certain microbes can cause, like b 12 deficiency and various vitamin deficiencies all come from the US only that most of them do.
Inside Health was very interesting last night. The UK could well be following Canada and Australia in ensuring those on many medication young and old, actually "still" need them because the treatment had worked, or to ensure there are no crossover reactions between the medications being taken. It all comes down to taking better care of ourselves.
being deficient in vitamins and minerals has nothing to do with weight management, that is all cals in cals out. I agree that when it comes to health the state of one's digestive biome is important.. but health =/= weight management.
that is body composition, not weight. You are mixing and matching arguments here.
15 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »It’s not straw man argument. He stated it’s calories in vs calories out but it isn’t. Eating just donuts proves it because your just consuming the calories. Hence why bodybuilders do not consume those food when competing. It won’t get you lean.lukejoycePT wrote: »Thats a blanket statement and untrue. Your gut does affect weight management, of course it does. Your gut biome effects many factors and It is not just calories in vs calories out. If you want a six pack and decent muscle mass eating 1500 calories of donuts a day will not give you those results.I collect woo's too.
I know the state of one's digestive biome plays an important role in one's health. I learned the hard way about the effects of antibiotics and different medications can have on health. Over the years last 10 years I've turn to the functional side of medicine because they use exactly the same tests as general medicine but instead of putting sticking plaster medications over an issue, Functional Medics look to the base cause of the issues and address those, usually with diet and or supplements, occasionally with medications when the body needs more time to correct itself.
Its only when your life really hits the buffers, when here in the UK when the NHS does not provide the help you need personally. What would you do if your symptoms did not fit into the designated areas/boxes for treatment, we need to research for yourself and follow the scientific information we have available. I hope no one's health deteriorates as mine did or similar.
No I do not assume everyone who disapproves of my understanding of the microbiome and the difficulties lacking certain microbes can cause, like b 12 deficiency and various vitamin deficiencies all come from the US only that most of them do.
Inside Health was very interesting last night. The UK could well be following Canada and Australia in ensuring those on many medication young and old, actually "still" need them because the treatment had worked, or to ensure there are no crossover reactions between the medications being taken. It all comes down to taking better care of ourselves.
being deficient in vitamins and minerals has nothing to do with weight management, that is all cals in cals out. I agree that when it comes to health the state of one's digestive biome is important.. but health =/= weight management.
that is body composition, not weight. You are mixing and matching arguments here.
Also, 1500 cals of donuts is a strawman argument and has way less protein than the typical junk food/fast food heavy diets that some real people eat. Plenty of people have six-packs eating a non optimal from a health perspective diet.
but the conversation was about weight loss, not body composition, you are changing the question/point that was being made8 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »Body composition and weight go hand in hand, you can’t change your body composition without losing or gaining weight. If you lose weight you change you body composition , so na mate I’m not mixing them up.lukejoycePT wrote: »Thats a blanket statement and untrue. Your gut does affect weight management, of course it does. Your gut biome effects many factors and It is not just calories in vs calories out. If you want a six pack and decent muscle mass eating 1500 calories of donuts a day will not give you those results.I collect woo's too.
I know the state of one's digestive biome plays an important role in one's health. I learned the hard way about the effects of antibiotics and different medications can have on health. Over the years last 10 years I've turn to the functional side of medicine because they use exactly the same tests as general medicine but instead of putting sticking plaster medications over an issue, Functional Medics look to the base cause of the issues and address those, usually with diet and or supplements, occasionally with medications when the body needs more time to correct itself.
Its only when your life really hits the buffers, when here in the UK when the NHS does not provide the help you need personally. What would you do if your symptoms did not fit into the designated areas/boxes for treatment, we need to research for yourself and follow the scientific information we have available. I hope no one's health deteriorates as mine did or similar.
No I do not assume everyone who disapproves of my understanding of the microbiome and the difficulties lacking certain microbes can cause, like b 12 deficiency and various vitamin deficiencies all come from the US only that most of them do.
Inside Health was very interesting last night. The UK could well be following Canada and Australia in ensuring those on many medication young and old, actually "still" need them because the treatment had worked, or to ensure there are no crossover reactions between the medications being taken. It all comes down to taking better care of ourselves.
being deficient in vitamins and minerals has nothing to do with weight management, that is all cals in cals out. I agree that when it comes to health the state of one's digestive biome is important.. but health =/= weight management.
that is body composition, not weight. You are mixing and matching arguments here.
Yes you are. to lose weight is CICO, body composition also requires training and adequate macros. we are only talking weight here10 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »It’s not straw man argument. He stated it’s calories in vs calories out but it isn’t. Eating just donuts proves it because your just consuming the calories. Hence why bodybuilders do not consume those food when competing. It won’t get you lean.lukejoycePT wrote: »Thats a blanket statement and untrue. Your gut does affect weight management, of course it does. Your gut biome effects many factors and It is not just calories in vs calories out. If you want a six pack and decent muscle mass eating 1500 calories of donuts a day will not give you those results.I collect woo's too.
I know the state of one's digestive biome plays an important role in one's health. I learned the hard way about the effects of antibiotics and different medications can have on health. Over the years last 10 years I've turn to the functional side of medicine because they use exactly the same tests as general medicine but instead of putting sticking plaster medications over an issue, Functional Medics look to the base cause of the issues and address those, usually with diet and or supplements, occasionally with medications when the body needs more time to correct itself.
Its only when your life really hits the buffers, when here in the UK when the NHS does not provide the help you need personally. What would you do if your symptoms did not fit into the designated areas/boxes for treatment, we need to research for yourself and follow the scientific information we have available. I hope no one's health deteriorates as mine did or similar.
No I do not assume everyone who disapproves of my understanding of the microbiome and the difficulties lacking certain microbes can cause, like b 12 deficiency and various vitamin deficiencies all come from the US only that most of them do.
Inside Health was very interesting last night. The UK could well be following Canada and Australia in ensuring those on many medication young and old, actually "still" need them because the treatment had worked, or to ensure there are no crossover reactions between the medications being taken. It all comes down to taking better care of ourselves.
being deficient in vitamins and minerals has nothing to do with weight management, that is all cals in cals out. I agree that when it comes to health the state of one's digestive biome is important.. but health =/= weight management.
that is body composition, not weight. You are mixing and matching arguments here.
Also, 1500 cals of donuts is a strawman argument and has way less protein than the typical junk food/fast food heavy diets that some real people eat. Plenty of people have six-packs eating a non optimal from a health perspective diet.
It is a strawman diet. The problem with 1500 cals of donuts and body comp is that it wouldn't provide enough protein and you'd be in poor health. The average American eats pretty poorly, but does not eat a diet that is super low in protein or doesn't adequately cover the nutritional basics sufficiently to avoid looking like you are in poor health due to diet. I am into nutrition, but you really don't have to be, and can eat an average American diet, controlling cals, and with the right workout can make gains in body comp.
And back to the question about weight loss -- you can lose weight on pretty much any diet a real person might follow if calories are controlled. You could lose weight on 1500 cal of donuts too, in the short term, but it would be hard to sustain and bad for your health and is rather irrelevant as no one actually eats that way.
Gut biome affects health (although what is currently understood is not a lot), but it doesn't make weight loss impossible. And going more broadly, messed up gut often means you are less able to obtain cals/nutrients from what you eat, which is a problem, but clearly can't make you fat. Eating too much for your activity level makes someone fat.9 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »Here comes the woo part... there are some people who literally eat what they like and as much as they want and struggle to gain weight. I’ve had skinny clients who consume well over 3000 calories a day and see no gains. They are just genetically predisposed to do so. In my experience these people do exist. So, I don’t know what to tell ya! They are either gifted or cursed depending on how you look at it.
I would not woo it out of hand. I've seen the same people growing up. I have a friend who only now, in his late forties, is noticing a little bit of weight gain and can't "eat what he wants now". I don't woo what I myself can not explain...
4 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »It’s not straw man argument. He stated it’s calories in vs calories out but it isn’t. Eating just donuts proves it because your just consuming the calories. Hence why bodybuilders do not consume those food when competing. It won’t get you lean.lukejoycePT wrote: »Thats a blanket statement and untrue. Your gut does affect weight management, of course it does. Your gut biome effects many factors and It is not just calories in vs calories out. If you want a six pack and decent muscle mass eating 1500 calories of donuts a day will not give you those results.I collect woo's too.
I know the state of one's digestive biome plays an important role in one's health. I learned the hard way about the effects of antibiotics and different medications can have on health. Over the years last 10 years I've turn to the functional side of medicine because they use exactly the same tests as general medicine but instead of putting sticking plaster medications over an issue, Functional Medics look to the base cause of the issues and address those, usually with diet and or supplements, occasionally with medications when the body needs more time to correct itself.
Its only when your life really hits the buffers, when here in the UK when the NHS does not provide the help you need personally. What would you do if your symptoms did not fit into the designated areas/boxes for treatment, we need to research for yourself and follow the scientific information we have available. I hope no one's health deteriorates as mine did or similar.
No I do not assume everyone who disapproves of my understanding of the microbiome and the difficulties lacking certain microbes can cause, like b 12 deficiency and various vitamin deficiencies all come from the US only that most of them do.
Inside Health was very interesting last night. The UK could well be following Canada and Australia in ensuring those on many medication young and old, actually "still" need them because the treatment had worked, or to ensure there are no crossover reactions between the medications being taken. It all comes down to taking better care of ourselves.
being deficient in vitamins and minerals has nothing to do with weight management, that is all cals in cals out. I agree that when it comes to health the state of one's digestive biome is important.. but health =/= weight management.
that is body composition, not weight. You are mixing and matching arguments here.
Also, 1500 cals of donuts is a strawman argument and has way less protein than the typical junk food/fast food heavy diets that some real people eat. Plenty of people have six-packs eating a non optimal from a health perspective diet.
It's just not a realistic example. You would be just as malnourished eating only 1500 calories of broccoli. It's not an either or thing...11 -
It kind of bugs me when people mention metabolism, I feel its an excuse for explaining why people are overweight.
As others have said, the people who are slim and eat what they want (or at least that's how it looks to others), are usually extremely active so therefore can eat pretty much what they want - which isn't probably as much as we all think either!
There's no doubt about it that some have better hunger cues than others, that comes down to personality but thats a whole other topic.
People probably look at me now and think 'she has a great metabolism' just because I'm slim. What I have is a pretty active life style, I'm an always on the go type of person but I can't actually eat what I want, I know exactly how many calories I can eat to maintain my weight even being active. My metabolism isn't broken, no, its more than I'm petite, slim, middle aged and I have to work to stay slim.
It is true that metabolism slows a bit as we get older but its something like us losing around 10 cals per day each year, if its even that much - someone I'm sure will jump in and enlighten us properly on this, because I have read that on the forums here before, just can't think of the source.
Also as we age we are inclined to move a bit less, so if we eat what we always did but move less, then its obvious we would gain gradually.
9 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »It amazes me how I’ve got 6 woo’s for my comment. I’ve basically said exactly the same as everyone else, except I’ve got the experience to know there are outliers. I’ve literally trained them, they exist.
But you are not with them 24/7, you don't know their real food intake or how much they move when not exercising. Though a fast metabolism is possible due to hormonal imbalances such as hyperthyroidism, opposite of hypothyroidism, so possible your client has that, or they just eat less and move more than reported.
I have spent many hours with these particular clients because of this issue and i can tell you it's not down to their activity or lack of food.
Also, after a prolonged diet you do realised your metabolic rate slows down and your body actually stops involuntary movements as much as possible in order to conserve energy.
Unless you are spending weeks and weeks 24/7 with these clients, a few hours means nothing. MANY "naturally thin" people eat a lot when they are with others and when asked say oh I eat like this all the time, yet when alone, "naturally" just end up not eating as much without realizing.11 -
Please don't insinuate that i am incompetent at my job. I have just stated that i have spent many hours with them, if you think that i have not considered these factors and applied these rules then you are mistaken. I am not just a regular PT in a gym, i am a health and wellbeing coach. I work closely with my clients beyond just Gym training and basic diet advice. I've been working with a diverse client base for over 5 years, there are outliers.
People on here sit behind their computers and preach because of their own experiences of diet and health. They read a few studies and spit out information that they have no real experience with, While their individual experience is valid it is not gospel. There is way more at play here than just calories in vs calories out. I don't claim to know why exactly some of the outliers don't put on weight but i do know it's not down to calories in vs calories out.Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »It amazes me how I’ve got 6 woo’s for my comment. I’ve basically said exactly the same as everyone else, except I’ve got the experience to know there are outliers. I’ve literally trained them, they exist.
But you are not with them 24/7, you don't know their real food intake or how much they move when not exercising. Though a fast metabolism is possible due to hormonal imbalances such as hyperthyroidism, opposite of hypothyroidism, so possible your client has that, or they just eat less and move more than reported.
I have spent many hours with these particular clients because of this issue and i can tell you it's not down to their activity or lack of food.
Also, after a prolonged diet you do realised your metabolic rate slows down and your body actually stops involuntary movements as much as possible in order to conserve energy.
Unless you are spending weeks and weeks 24/7 with these clients, a few hours means nothing. MANY "naturally thin" people eat a lot when they are with others and when asked say oh I eat like this all the time, yet when alone, "naturally" just end up not eating as much without realizing.
27 -
You are saying that it's a matter of calories in vs calories out, every single time. I am saying that's not the case. If what you were saying were to be true then eating 1500 calories of donuts or 1500 calories of chicken rice and vegetables would produce the same results > weight loss. But we all know that it's not the case.
We all have six packs, whether we train or not. If your body fat is above 12% you just don't see them because of the fatius tissue covering them. If you lose enough body fat you will see them, even if you canobolise your muscle mass through nutrient deficiency. But your body doesn't work in this way...
The human body has so many mechanisms in place that it can trigger to prevent you from starving to death. It's only goal is to keep you alive. It doesn't care about your weight or aesthetics.
If what you all say is true then just by staying in that deficit long enough you would see them but eating donuts will not produce this result. There will come a point where you will not be able to lose anymore weight. You will just be "skinny fat" as your body consumes as much non essential muscle as possible and storing as much fat as possible too prevent you from starving.
The only way around this is to eat the right macro nutrient dense foods and do some kind of resistance training. This should also apply to the opposite end of the scale with gaining weight but for some it just doesn't.
Some people can lose weight but just can't gain weight, especially muscle, no matter how much they eat, no matter how hard they train. Their body just doesn't respond to that stimulus. This may be because their genetic limit for muscle gain is set super low or their metabolism is set super high or both. It could be to do with their lack of production of growth Hormone. They may have issues in their gut or a hormone/thyroid anomaly. We just don't know, the science is still in its infancy.
But it is not as simple as calories in VS calories out because if it was you could get a guy to eat 5000 calories a day and see results.lukejoycePT wrote: »It’s not straw man argument. He stated it’s calories in vs calories out but it isn’t. Eating just donuts proves it because your just consuming the calories. Hence why bodybuilders do not consume those food when competing. It won’t get you lean.lukejoycePT wrote: »Thats a blanket statement and untrue. Your gut does affect weight management, of course it does. Your gut biome effects many factors and It is not just calories in vs calories out. If you want a six pack and decent muscle mass eating 1500 calories of donuts a day will not give you those results.I collect woo's too.
I know the state of one's digestive biome plays an important role in one's health. I learned the hard way about the effects of antibiotics and different medications can have on health. Over the years last 10 years I've turn to the functional side of medicine because they use exactly the same tests as general medicine but instead of putting sticking plaster medications over an issue, Functional Medics look to the base cause of the issues and address those, usually with diet and or supplements, occasionally with medications when the body needs more time to correct itself.
Its only when your life really hits the buffers, when here in the UK when the NHS does not provide the help you need personally. What would you do if your symptoms did not fit into the designated areas/boxes for treatment, we need to research for yourself and follow the scientific information we have available. I hope no one's health deteriorates as mine did or similar.
No I do not assume everyone who disapproves of my understanding of the microbiome and the difficulties lacking certain microbes can cause, like b 12 deficiency and various vitamin deficiencies all come from the US only that most of them do.
Inside Health was very interesting last night. The UK could well be following Canada and Australia in ensuring those on many medication young and old, actually "still" need them because the treatment had worked, or to ensure there are no crossover reactions between the medications being taken. It all comes down to taking better care of ourselves.
being deficient in vitamins and minerals has nothing to do with weight management, that is all cals in cals out. I agree that when it comes to health the state of one's digestive biome is important.. but health =/= weight management.
that is body composition, not weight. You are mixing and matching arguments here.
Also, 1500 cals of donuts is a strawman argument and has way less protein than the typical junk food/fast food heavy diets that some real people eat. Plenty of people have six-packs eating a non optimal from a health perspective diet.
It is a strawman diet. The problem with 1500 cals of donuts and body comp is that it wouldn't provide enough protein and you'd be in poor health. The average American eats pretty poorly, but does not eat a diet that is super low in protein or doesn't adequately cover the nutritional basics sufficiently to avoid looking like you are in poor health due to diet. I am into nutrition, but you really don't have to be, and can eat an average American diet, controlling cals, and with the right workout can make gains in body comp.
And back to the question about weight loss -- you can lose weight on pretty much any diet a real person might follow if calories are controlled. You could lose weight on 1500 cal of donuts too, in the short term, but it would be hard to sustain and bad for your health and is rather irrelevant as no one actually eats that way.
Gut biome affects health (although what is currently understood is not a lot), but it doesn't make weight loss impossible. And going more broadly, messed up gut often means you are less able to obtain cals/nutrients from what you eat, which is a problem, but clearly can't make you fat. Eating too much for your activity level makes someone fat.
29 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »You are saying that it's a matter of calories in vs calories out, every single time. I am saying that's not the case. If what you were saying were to be true then eating 1500 calories of donuts or 1500 calories of chicken rice and vegetables would produce the same results > weight loss. But we all know that it's not the case.
We all have six packs, whether we train or not. If your body fat is above 12% you just don't see them because of the fatius tissue covering them. If you lose enough body fat you will see them, even if you canobolise your muscle mass through nutrient deficiency. But your body doesn't work in this way...
The human body has so many mechanisms in place that it can trigger to prevent you from starving to death. It's only goal is to keep you alive. It doesn't care about your weight or aesthetics.
If what you all say is true then just by staying in that deficit long enough you would see them but eating donuts will not produce this result. There will come a point where you will not be able to lose anymore weight. You will just be "skinny fat" as your body consumes as much non essential muscle as possible and storing as much fat as possible too prevent you from starving.
The only way around this is to eat the right macro nutrient dense foods and do some kind of resistance training. This should also apply to the opposite end of the scale with gaining weight but for some it just doesn't.
Some people can lose weight but just can't gain weight, especially muscle, no matter how much they eat, no matter how hard they train. Their body just doesn't respond to that stimulus. This may be because their genetic limit for muscle gain is set super low or their metabolism is set super high or both. It could be to do with their lack of production of growth Hormone. They may have issues in their gut or a hormone/thyroid anomaly. We just don't know, the science is still in its infancy.
But it is not as simple as calories in VS calories out because if it was you could get a guy to eat 5000 calories a day and see results.lukejoycePT wrote: »It’s not straw man argument. He stated it’s calories in vs calories out but it isn’t. Eating just donuts proves it because your just consuming the calories. Hence why bodybuilders do not consume those food when competing. It won’t get you lean.lukejoycePT wrote: »Thats a blanket statement and untrue. Your gut does affect weight management, of course it does. Your gut biome effects many factors and It is not just calories in vs calories out. If you want a six pack and decent muscle mass eating 1500 calories of donuts a day will not give you those results.I collect woo's too.
I know the state of one's digestive biome plays an important role in one's health. I learned the hard way about the effects of antibiotics and different medications can have on health. Over the years last 10 years I've turn to the functional side of medicine because they use exactly the same tests as general medicine but instead of putting sticking plaster medications over an issue, Functional Medics look to the base cause of the issues and address those, usually with diet and or supplements, occasionally with medications when the body needs more time to correct itself.
Its only when your life really hits the buffers, when here in the UK when the NHS does not provide the help you need personally. What would you do if your symptoms did not fit into the designated areas/boxes for treatment, we need to research for yourself and follow the scientific information we have available. I hope no one's health deteriorates as mine did or similar.
No I do not assume everyone who disapproves of my understanding of the microbiome and the difficulties lacking certain microbes can cause, like b 12 deficiency and various vitamin deficiencies all come from the US only that most of them do.
Inside Health was very interesting last night. The UK could well be following Canada and Australia in ensuring those on many medication young and old, actually "still" need them because the treatment had worked, or to ensure there are no crossover reactions between the medications being taken. It all comes down to taking better care of ourselves.
being deficient in vitamins and minerals has nothing to do with weight management, that is all cals in cals out. I agree that when it comes to health the state of one's digestive biome is important.. but health =/= weight management.
that is body composition, not weight. You are mixing and matching arguments here.
Also, 1500 cals of donuts is a strawman argument and has way less protein than the typical junk food/fast food heavy diets that some real people eat. Plenty of people have six-packs eating a non optimal from a health perspective diet.
It is a strawman diet. The problem with 1500 cals of donuts and body comp is that it wouldn't provide enough protein and you'd be in poor health. The average American eats pretty poorly, but does not eat a diet that is super low in protein or doesn't adequately cover the nutritional basics sufficiently to avoid looking like you are in poor health due to diet. I am into nutrition, but you really don't have to be, and can eat an average American diet, controlling cals, and with the right workout can make gains in body comp.
And back to the question about weight loss -- you can lose weight on pretty much any diet a real person might follow if calories are controlled. You could lose weight on 1500 cal of donuts too, in the short term, but it would be hard to sustain and bad for your health and is rather irrelevant as no one actually eats that way.
Gut biome affects health (although what is currently understood is not a lot), but it doesn't make weight loss impossible. And going more broadly, messed up gut often means you are less able to obtain cals/nutrients from what you eat, which is a problem, but clearly can't make you fat. Eating too much for your activity level makes someone fat.
some people naturally move more when in a caloric surplus, thereby increasing thier NEAT and TDEE meaning their surplus is much smaller than they think it is, hence not gaining or gaining slow. as for muscle growth, some of that will def come down to genetics, but they would still put fat on if in a true surplus.
You seem to keep ignoring increased movement in a surplus, yet overplay moving less when in a deficit for some reason.12 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »You are saying that it's a matter of calories in vs calories out, every single time. I am saying that's not the case. If what you were saying were to be true then eating 1500 calories of donuts or 1500 calories of chicken rice and vegetables would produce the same results > weight loss. But we all know that it's not the case.
If two groups were in a metabolic ward and we could control for activity and they were provided with vitamin supplements, I think the effect of the two diets over a month would be about the same on weight. The people on the donuts would likely have some negative health effects and worse body comp effects.
But once again, this makes no difference, because no one eats only 1500 cals of donuts and nothing else other than as a short term experiment (like the Twinkie guy or some guy who ate only Gu for a week).We all have six packs, whether we train or not. If your body fat is above 12% you just don't see them because of the fatius tissue covering them. If you lose enough body fat you will see them, even if you canobolise your muscle mass through nutrient deficiency.
Yes, we all know we are talking about getting lean enough to see the muscle beneath. Having a six pack is shorthand for that.But your body doesn't work in this way...
Again, what we are talking about is whether one can get lean on a diet that an average American follows (which is not how I recommend eating anyway, for health reasons) or whether one must eat some super special weight loss diet.
A hypothetic person with a TDEE of 2000 can lose eating 1500 cals of a mix of meat, cereal, bread, fast food, pasta, and sweets, with maybe a serving each of veg and fruit a day, and fat content in the 30-35% range, too much of it sat fat (the typical American diet). And he/she can lose eating 1500 cals of whatever super special diet you are into. And that's what this discussion is about. Could he also lose following an experiment of eating 1500 cals of donuts? IMO, generally no, but that's not because donuts prevent weight loss, it's because no one is going to be able to stick to that diet long term and he/she will actually eat more. Also, he/she will probably feel bad and move less, and may have some water retention effects, lose somewhat more muscle/less fat. But if we controlled for the movement and calories and it was a short term experiment (no one but an n=1 would do it, because it's pretty unethical IMO), a person on that diet would indeed lose weight. That you think the person would not is quite odd.The human body has so many mechanisms in place that it can trigger to prevent you from starving to death. It's only goal is to keep you alive. It doesn't care about your weight or aesthetics.
Again, as a basic point this is true and what everyone here knows. What does not happen (and cannot) is dropping the metabolism so much that it prevents weight loss at a significant starting deficit (the starvation experiments show this, as well as anorexics and people starving due to food scarcity).
What is not true is that this won't happen if you eat no fast food or no sweets, but will happen on the average American diet. (Instead, the latter person might be eating more than they think if they aren't losing, and this happens to the first group too.) If someone with a TDEE of 2500 isn't losing at 1500 over a reasonable period of time, their TDEE is wrong or their calorie counting is wrong. And their TDEE isn't 1000 cals lower than it should be because they are eating too much McDs or some donuts or because they have a non optimal gut biome.If what you all say is true then just by staying in that deficit long enough you would see them but eating donuts will not produce this result. There will come a point where you will not be able to lose anymore weight. You will just be "skinny fat" as your body consumes as much non essential muscle as possible and storing as much fat as possible too prevent you from starving.
No, if one long-term followed the 1500 cal donut diet (which again is a pointless strawman because it's basically impossible) what will happen is you continue to lose weight, but a higher than normal percentage of muscle vs. fat loss, because you are getting way, way, way below recommended protein (even for just basic health). You are also in bad health generally, probably, and so your TDEE goes down somewhat because you will move less.
However, someone absolutely can get lean enough to have a six pack, and appear to be in great health and active on an average American diet (even though I think there are better ways to eat). We both likely know people for whom that is true. And that is the topic here.The only way around this is to eat the right macro nutrient dense foods and do some kind of resistance training. This should also apply to the opposite end of the scale with gaining weight but for some it just doesn't.
What you are ignoring is that "right macro" foods for someone who just wants to become lean is a really broad range. The macros in the typical American diet are fine, so are many others.
Nutrient dense foods? I personally think having a diet largely (but no need to say entirely) make it more likely that someone will move more and not overeat, but not necessarily. Eating 1500 cal typical American diet won't prevent leanness. I get your incentive to want to tell people they need to eat a carefully formulated (by someone who claims expertise!) diet is necessary for weight loss or leanness, but really it is not. Nor is it going to cause weight loss if one eats too much. I'm a nutrition geek and I like to cook, so my diet even when I was fat looked pretty good from a nutrition and macros perspective (I ate whole grains, a variety of farm sourced meats cooked at home, whole food sources of carbs, way more veg than most Americans (I like them), so on). I also wasn't losing weight, because I was eating too much. As soon as I dropped my calories and increased my activity (i.e., raised my TDEE), the weight dropped off. Calories are what matter for weight loss.
I do believe there are hard gainers, people whose bodies overcompensate more as they eat more with natural movement and such, but often these are people who don't have huge appetites and already have high TDEEs. (A friend of mine in college was pretty built, so he obviously could gain muscle, but I recall him consuming high cal shake supplements to help with that, as he couldn't do it just eating or at least thought that was true.)9 -
I agree with much of what you are saying. I honestly think we are on the same page with this but my opinion differs in from yours on the subject whether there are some who can not add weight even in a calorie surplus. I truly believe from my
experience that these people exist. I am happy to be proven wrong.
To throw something in on the extremely out there category (again outliers) at the other end of the spectrum there are few who practices breatharianism. I don’t know if these are real cases or just people lieing, I’m leaning towards BS but If what these people claim to be true is true then it proves my previous point.
What we know about nutritional science is limited, even now. We can debate this all day but I doubt we will be able to prove it.
All I can go off is my studies and what I’ve experienced.
Thanks for your points tho, I found some of it informative and it’s nice to have a discussion on here instead of being spoken to rudely.
Peace.lukejoycePT wrote: »You are saying that it's a matter of calories in vs calories out, every single time. I am saying that's not the case. If what you were saying were to be true then eating 1500 calories of donuts or 1500 calories of chicken rice and vegetables would produce the same results > weight loss. But we all know that it's not the case.
If two groups were in a metabolic ward and we could control for activity and they were provided with vitamin supplements, I think the effect of the two diets over a month would be about the same on weight. The people on the donuts would likely have some negative health effects and worse body comp effects.
But once again, this makes no difference, because no one eats only 1500 cals of donuts and nothing else other than as a short term experiment (like the Twinkie guy or some guy who ate only Gu for a week).We all have six packs, whether we train or not. If your body fat is above 12% you just don't see them because of the fatius tissue covering them. If you lose enough body fat you will see them, even if you canobolise your muscle mass through nutrient deficiency.
Yes, we all know we are talking about getting lean enough to see the muscle beneath. Having a six pack is shorthand for that.But your body doesn't work in this way...
Again, what we are talking about is whether one can get lean on a diet that an average American follows (which is not how I recommend eating anyway, for health reasons) or whether one must eat some super special weight loss diet.
A hypothetic person with a TDEE of 2000 can lose eating 1500 cals of a mix of meat, cereal, bread, fast food, pasta, and sweets, with maybe a serving each of veg and fruit a day, and fat content in the 30-35% range, too much of it sat fat (the typical American diet). And he/she can lose eating 1500 cals of whatever super special diet you are into. And that's what this discussion is about. Could he also lose following an experiment of eating 1500 cals of donuts? IMO, generally no, but that's not because donuts prevent weight loss, it's because no one is going to be able to stick to that diet long term and he/she will actually eat more. Also, he/she will probably feel bad and move less, and may have some water retention effects, lose somewhat more muscle/less fat. But if we controlled for the movement and calories and it was a short term experiment (no one but an n=1 would do it, because it's pretty unethical IMO), a person on that diet would indeed lose weight. That you think the person would not is quite odd.The human body has so many mechanisms in place that it can trigger to prevent you from starving to death. It's only goal is to keep you alive. It doesn't care about your weight or aesthetics.
Again, as a basic point this is true and what everyone here knows. What does not happen (and cannot) is dropping the metabolism so much that it prevents weight loss at a significant starting deficit (the starvation experiments show this, as well as anorexics and people starving due to food scarcity).
What is not true is that this won't happen if you eat no fast food or no sweets, but will happen on the average American diet. (Instead, the latter person might be eating more than they think if they aren't losing, and this happens to the first group too.) If someone with a TDEE of 2500 isn't losing at 1500 over a reasonable period of time, their TDEE is wrong or their calorie counting is wrong. And their TDEE isn't 1000 cals lower than it should be because they are eating too much McDs or some donuts or because they have a non optimal gut biome.If what you all say is true then just by staying in that deficit long enough you would see them but eating donuts will not produce this result. There will come a point where you will not be able to lose anymore weight. You will just be "skinny fat" as your body consumes as much non essential muscle as possible and storing as much fat as possible too prevent you from starving.
No, if one long-term followed the 1500 cal donut diet (which again is a pointless strawman because it's basically impossible) what will happen is you continue to lose weight, but a higher than normal percentage of muscle vs. fat loss, because you are getting way, way, way below recommended protein (even for just basic health). You are also in bad health generally, probably, and so your TDEE goes down somewhat because you will move less.
However, someone absolutely can get lean enough to have a six pack, and appear to be in great health and active on an average American diet (even though I think there are better ways to eat). We both likely know people for whom that is true. And that is the topic here.The only way around this is to eat the right macro nutrient dense foods and do some kind of resistance training. This should also apply to the opposite end of the scale with gaining weight but for some it just doesn't.
What you are ignoring is that "right macro" foods for someone who just wants to become lean is a really broad range. The macros in the typical American diet are fine, so are many others.
Nutrient dense foods? I personally think having a diet largely (but no need to say entirely) make it more likely that someone will move more and not overeat, but not necessarily. Eating 1500 cal typical American diet won't prevent leanness. I get your incentive to want to tell people they need to eat a carefully formulated (by someone who claims expertise!) diet is necessary for weight loss or leanness, but really it is not. Nor is it going to cause weight loss if one eats too much. I'm a nutrition geek and I like to cook, so my diet even when I was fat looked pretty good from a nutrition and macros perspective (I ate whole grains, a variety of farm sourced meats cooked at home, whole food sources of carbs, way more veg than most Americans (I like them), so on). I also wasn't losing weight, because I was eating too much. As soon as I dropped my calories and increased my activity (i.e., raised my TDEE), the weight dropped off. Calories are what matter for weight loss.
I do believe there are hard gainers, people whose bodies overcompensate more as they eat more with natural movement and such, but often these are people who don't have huge appetites and already have high TDEEs. (A friend of mine in college was pretty built, so he obviously could gain muscle, but I recall him consuming high cal shake supplements to help with that, as he couldn't do it just eating or at least thought that was true.)5 -
I’m not ignoring it buddy, I thought i was clear, apologies if I wasn’t. Increased movement is definitely a factor like the latter in a deficit but this was factored in, again I’ve seen different in my experience.
I’m open to the idea that these people were just extremely good at adaption but what perplexed me most was I could get them to drop weight i a simple deficit but gaining was incredibly difficultlukejoycePT wrote: »You are saying that it's a matter of calories in vs calories out, every single time. I am saying that's not the case. If what you were saying were to be true then eating 1500 calories of donuts or 1500 calories of chicken rice and vegetables would produce the same results > weight loss. But we all know that it's not the case.
We all have six packs, whether we train or not. If your body fat is above 12% you just don't see them because of the fatius tissue covering them. If you lose enough body fat you will see them, even if you canobolise your muscle mass through nutrient deficiency. But your body doesn't work in this way...
The human body has so many mechanisms in place that it can trigger to prevent you from starving to death. It's only goal is to keep you alive. It doesn't care about your weight or aesthetics.
If what you all say is true then just by staying in that deficit long enough you would see them but eating donuts will not produce this result. There will come a point where you will not be able to lose anymore weight. You will just be "skinny fat" as your body consumes as much non essential muscle as possible and storing as much fat as possible too prevent you from starving.
The only way around this is to eat the right macro nutrient dense foods and do some kind of resistance training. This should also apply to the opposite end of the scale with gaining weight but for some it just doesn't.
Some people can lose weight but just can't gain weight, especially muscle, no matter how much they eat, no matter how hard they train. Their body just doesn't respond to that stimulus. This may be because their genetic limit for muscle gain is set super low or their metabolism is set super high or both. It could be to do with their lack of production of growth Hormone. They may have issues in their gut or a hormone/thyroid anomaly. We just don't know, the science is still in its infancy.
But it is not as simple as calories in VS calories out because if it was you could get a guy to eat 5000 calories a day and see results.lukejoycePT wrote: »It’s not straw man argument. He stated it’s calories in vs calories out but it isn’t. Eating just donuts proves it because your just consuming the calories. Hence why bodybuilders do not consume those food when competing. It won’t get you lean.lukejoycePT wrote: »Thats a blanket statement and untrue. Your gut does affect weight management, of course it does. Your gut biome effects many factors and It is not just calories in vs calories out. If you want a six pack and decent muscle mass eating 1500 calories of donuts a day will not give you those results.I collect woo's too.
I know the state of one's digestive biome plays an important role in one's health. I learned the hard way about the effects of antibiotics and different medications can have on health. Over the years last 10 years I've turn to the functional side of medicine because they use exactly the same tests as general medicine but instead of putting sticking plaster medications over an issue, Functional Medics look to the base cause of the issues and address those, usually with diet and or supplements, occasionally with medications when the body needs more time to correct itself.
Its only when your life really hits the buffers, when here in the UK when the NHS does not provide the help you need personally. What would you do if your symptoms did not fit into the designated areas/boxes for treatment, we need to research for yourself and follow the scientific information we have available. I hope no one's health deteriorates as mine did or similar.
No I do not assume everyone who disapproves of my understanding of the microbiome and the difficulties lacking certain microbes can cause, like b 12 deficiency and various vitamin deficiencies all come from the US only that most of them do.
Inside Health was very interesting last night. The UK could well be following Canada and Australia in ensuring those on many medication young and old, actually "still" need them because the treatment had worked, or to ensure there are no crossover reactions between the medications being taken. It all comes down to taking better care of ourselves.
being deficient in vitamins and minerals has nothing to do with weight management, that is all cals in cals out. I agree that when it comes to health the state of one's digestive biome is important.. but health =/= weight management.
that is body composition, not weight. You are mixing and matching arguments here.
Also, 1500 cals of donuts is a strawman argument and has way less protein than the typical junk food/fast food heavy diets that some real people eat. Plenty of people have six-packs eating a non optimal from a health perspective diet.
It is a strawman diet. The problem with 1500 cals of donuts and body comp is that it wouldn't provide enough protein and you'd be in poor health. The average American eats pretty poorly, but does not eat a diet that is super low in protein or doesn't adequately cover the nutritional basics sufficiently to avoid looking like you are in poor health due to diet. I am into nutrition, but you really don't have to be, and can eat an average American diet, controlling cals, and with the right workout can make gains in body comp.
And back to the question about weight loss -- you can lose weight on pretty much any diet a real person might follow if calories are controlled. You could lose weight on 1500 cal of donuts too, in the short term, but it would be hard to sustain and bad for your health and is rather irrelevant as no one actually eats that way.
Gut biome affects health (although what is currently understood is not a lot), but it doesn't make weight loss impossible. And going more broadly, messed up gut often means you are less able to obtain cals/nutrients from what you eat, which is a problem, but clearly can't make you fat. Eating too much for your activity level makes someone fat.
some people naturally move more when in a caloric surplus, thereby increasing thier NEAT and TDEE meaning their surplus is much smaller than they think it is, hence not gaining or gaining slow. as for muscle growth, some of that will def come down to genetics, but they would still put fat on if in a true surplus.
You seem to keep ignoring increased movement in a surplus, yet overplay moving less when in a deficit for some reason.
4 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »To throw something in on the extremely out there category (again outliers) at the other end of the spectrum there are few who practices breatharianism. I don’t know if these are real cases or just people lieing, I’m leaning towards BS but If what these people claim to be true is true then it proves my previous point.
This is one of the more non-sensical arguments I've seen made here. You think people are lying (hint, they are) but in the off chance they are not lying it proves your point?
There is no question there are hard gainers, but there are underlying reasons for it that you just are not seeing. Whether it is overestimating calories eaten, underestimating calories burned exercising or not including increased neat, it does all come down to to a lower than thought surplus. That they could drop weight easily just kinda proves that point.
There is nothing special happening here.14 -
How about you try and not be so rude in your response, Or are you incapable of being polite to people? If we were face to face you definitely wouldn’t talk to me like that.
I was literally joking about the breathariansm! Honestly!? Are you for real!? It’s impossible.Tacklewasher wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »To throw something in on the extremely out there category (again outliers) at the other end of the spectrum there are few who practices breatharianism. I don’t know if these are real cases or just people lieing, I’m leaning towards BS but If what these people claim to be true is true then it proves my previous point.
This is one of the more non-sensical arguments I've seen made here. You think people are lying (hint, they are) but in the off chance they are not lying it proves your point?
There is no question there are hard gainers, but there are underlying reasons for it that you just are not seeing. Whether it is overestimating calories eaten, underestimating calories burned exercising or not including increased neat, it does all come down to to a lower than thought surplus. That they could drop weight easily just kinda proves that point.
There is nothing special happening here.
10 -
People with Hyperthyroidism, often have difficulties gaining weight. Achieving any thyroid diagnosis is incredibly difficult because the numbers people are held against are scientifically flawed. STTM - the bloods for the observations were taken from the residue after the reason for the blood sample was take. No information such as the diagnostic status of the sample nor related familial status, donation being effected by thyroid treatment or any similar information was kept. a simple format was use, numbers of samples at this level and so on. Which makes the results very questionable. Not to mention we can all have different thyroid numbers at which our body functions.
Type 1 diabetes, insufficient insulin made in the body because its an autoimmune condition. Often diagnosed in maturity, again not readily diagnosed.
Crones and other gastrointestinal problems leading to malabsorption of nutrients. Not easily rectified because there are so many possible variables. (Sorry in many persons this can come down to the microbiome - various research paper. (Not permissible in this forum to consider the microbiome, various medical papers))
Livestrong.com. gives these three conditions as reasons why someone does not gain weight. When someone has lived with what others consider abnormal they do not know their body is reacting differently to what is considered normal and so do not look to change what they accept as the way they are.8 -
Someone at least does not like Livestrong.com. giggle0
-
People with Hyperthyroidism, often have difficulties gaining weight. Achieving any thyroid diagnosis is incredibly difficult because the numbers people are held against are scientifically flawed. STTM - the bloods for the observations were taken from the residue after the reason for the blood sample was take. No information such as the diagnostic status of the sample nor related familial status, donation being effected by thyroid treatment or any similar information was kept. a simple format was use, numbers of samples at this level and so on. Which makes the results very questionable. Not to mention we can all have different thyroid numbers at which our body functions.
Type 1 diabetes, insufficient insulin made in the body because its an autoimmune condition. Often diagnosed in maturity, again not readily diagnosed.
Crones and other gastrointestinal problems leading to malabsorption of nutrients. Not easily rectified because there are so many possible variables. (Sorry in many persons this can come down to the microbiome - various research paper. (Not permissible in this forum to consider the microbiome, various medical papers))
Livestrong.com. gives these three conditions as reasons why someone does not gain weight. When someone has lived with what others consider abnormal they do not know their body is reacting differently to what is considered normal and so do not look to change what they accept as the way they are.
I think you get wooed by talking about the microbiome and its relation to weight control but have yet to produce any links to peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate what you are claiming.8 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »How about you try and not be so rude in your response, Or are you incapable of being polite to people? If we were face to face you definitely wouldn’t talk to me like that.
Yes, yes I would. Except the language would have been more colourful.
7 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »I agree with much of what you are saying. I honestly think we are on the same page with this but my opinion differs in from yours on the subject whether there are some who can not add weight even in a calorie surplus. I truly believe from my
experience that these people exist. I am happy to be proven wrong.
Possibly part of the communication wire-crossing is terminology, too? I would say that there are outliers with respect to calorie utilization **, but that no one "can not add weight even in a calorie surplus", by definition.
** Someone who's a "hard gainer" may have a malabsorption issue, they may have an extreme uptick in CO in the presence of increased CI, they may have some compensation issue in some other way in their lives, but if they take in and actually absorb surplus calories over and above their actual resultant calorie expenditure, they will gain weight. Energy goes somewhere; it doesn't simply disappear. It's completely understandable that some people will not gain weight on what theoretically ought to be a calorie surplus for someone of their demographic.To throw something in on the extremely out there category (again outliers) at the other end of the spectrum there are few who practices breatharianism. I don’t know if these are real cases or just people lieing, I’m leaning towards BS but If what these people claim to be true is true then it proves my previous point.
What we know about nutritional science is limited, even now. We can debate this all day but I doubt we will be able to prove it.
All I can go off is my studies and what I’ve experienced.
Thanks for your points tho, I found some of it informative and it’s nice to have a discussion on here instead of being spoken to rudely.
Peace.lukejoycePT wrote: »You are saying that it's a matter of calories in vs calories out, every single time. I am saying that's not the case. If what you were saying were to be true then eating 1500 calories of donuts or 1500 calories of chicken rice and vegetables would produce the same results > weight loss. But we all know that it's not the case.
If two groups were in a metabolic ward and we could control for activity and they were provided with vitamin supplements, I think the effect of the two diets over a month would be about the same on weight. The people on the donuts would likely have some negative health effects and worse body comp effects.
But once again, this makes no difference, because no one eats only 1500 cals of donuts and nothing else other than as a short term experiment (like the Twinkie guy or some guy who ate only Gu for a week).We all have six packs, whether we train or not. If your body fat is above 12% you just don't see them because of the fatius tissue covering them. If you lose enough body fat you will see them, even if you canobolise your muscle mass through nutrient deficiency.
Yes, we all know we are talking about getting lean enough to see the muscle beneath. Having a six pack is shorthand for that.But your body doesn't work in this way...
Again, what we are talking about is whether one can get lean on a diet that an average American follows (which is not how I recommend eating anyway, for health reasons) or whether one must eat some super special weight loss diet.
A hypothetic person with a TDEE of 2000 can lose eating 1500 cals of a mix of meat, cereal, bread, fast food, pasta, and sweets, with maybe a serving each of veg and fruit a day, and fat content in the 30-35% range, too much of it sat fat (the typical American diet). And he/she can lose eating 1500 cals of whatever super special diet you are into. And that's what this discussion is about. Could he also lose following an experiment of eating 1500 cals of donuts? IMO, generally no, but that's not because donuts prevent weight loss, it's because no one is going to be able to stick to that diet long term and he/she will actually eat more. Also, he/she will probably feel bad and move less, and may have some water retention effects, lose somewhat more muscle/less fat. But if we controlled for the movement and calories and it was a short term experiment (no one but an n=1 would do it, because it's pretty unethical IMO), a person on that diet would indeed lose weight. That you think the person would not is quite odd.The human body has so many mechanisms in place that it can trigger to prevent you from starving to death. It's only goal is to keep you alive. It doesn't care about your weight or aesthetics.
Again, as a basic point this is true and what everyone here knows. What does not happen (and cannot) is dropping the metabolism so much that it prevents weight loss at a significant starting deficit (the starvation experiments show this, as well as anorexics and people starving due to food scarcity).
What is not true is that this won't happen if you eat no fast food or no sweets, but will happen on the average American diet. (Instead, the latter person might be eating more than they think if they aren't losing, and this happens to the first group too.) If someone with a TDEE of 2500 isn't losing at 1500 over a reasonable period of time, their TDEE is wrong or their calorie counting is wrong. And their TDEE isn't 1000 cals lower than it should be because they are eating too much McDs or some donuts or because they have a non optimal gut biome.If what you all say is true then just by staying in that deficit long enough you would see them but eating donuts will not produce this result. There will come a point where you will not be able to lose anymore weight. You will just be "skinny fat" as your body consumes as much non essential muscle as possible and storing as much fat as possible too prevent you from starving.
No, if one long-term followed the 1500 cal donut diet (which again is a pointless strawman because it's basically impossible) what will happen is you continue to lose weight, but a higher than normal percentage of muscle vs. fat loss, because you are getting way, way, way below recommended protein (even for just basic health). You are also in bad health generally, probably, and so your TDEE goes down somewhat because you will move less.
However, someone absolutely can get lean enough to have a six pack, and appear to be in great health and active on an average American diet (even though I think there are better ways to eat). We both likely know people for whom that is true. And that is the topic here.The only way around this is to eat the right macro nutrient dense foods and do some kind of resistance training. This should also apply to the opposite end of the scale with gaining weight but for some it just doesn't.
What you are ignoring is that "right macro" foods for someone who just wants to become lean is a really broad range. The macros in the typical American diet are fine, so are many others.
Nutrient dense foods? I personally think having a diet largely (but no need to say entirely) make it more likely that someone will move more and not overeat, but not necessarily. Eating 1500 cal typical American diet won't prevent leanness. I get your incentive to want to tell people they need to eat a carefully formulated (by someone who claims expertise!) diet is necessary for weight loss or leanness, but really it is not. Nor is it going to cause weight loss if one eats too much. I'm a nutrition geek and I like to cook, so my diet even when I was fat looked pretty good from a nutrition and macros perspective (I ate whole grains, a variety of farm sourced meats cooked at home, whole food sources of carbs, way more veg than most Americans (I like them), so on). I also wasn't losing weight, because I was eating too much. As soon as I dropped my calories and increased my activity (i.e., raised my TDEE), the weight dropped off. Calories are what matter for weight loss.
I do believe there are hard gainers, people whose bodies overcompensate more as they eat more with natural movement and such, but often these are people who don't have huge appetites and already have high TDEEs. (A friend of mine in college was pretty built, so he obviously could gain muscle, but I recall him consuming high cal shake supplements to help with that, as he couldn't do it just eating or at least thought that was true.)
8 -
Dear Posters,
I wanted to offer a brief explanation for the locking of this thread.
The forum guidelines include this item:
If you would like to review the forum guidelines, please visit the following link:1. Play Nice
I WILL:
• I will be respectful and understand that everyone is different. Some members are new to this, so be kind to the newbies.
• I will remember the human on the other side of the screen.
• I will share my opinions while respecting others' thoughts and feelings as well.
• I will be ready to hear and accept other opinions that I might not always agree with.
• I will ignore users.
I WON’T:
• I won’t be a jerk.
• I will not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. I can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but I cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the member’s spelling or command of written English, belittling a member for posting a duplicate discussion, or attacking a member for posting in an older discussion. (ie. It’s lose not loose, strong first post, didn’t you already post this today, etc.) Not every member has the same level of education, so I’ll refrain from criticizing a member for not framing their content in a manner befitting a university-level science paper.
• I won’t pick apart how something is said; I will focus on the meaning/message.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
It is fine to debate the issues at hand, but personal attacks are not allowed. Debate the issue, not the person.
At our discretion, this locked thread may be deleted entirely in the near future.
With respect,
Sugar
MyFitnessPal Moderator6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 445 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions