Have Fun With This One

springlering62

So, I have a confession. The Daily Mail has replaced chocolate as my secret vice.

Have fun with this gem, y’all.

Be sure to read the comments that follow.

Grabbing popcorn...3...2...1...now.

lgfrie

That was well worth hitting the link.

springlering62

It was, wasn’t it. It’s like a total anti-MFP’ism.

MelanieCN77

All talking points and no info. Guess he is hawking a book or service? Also that website gave me cancer.

quiksylver296

Did he gather all the woo, and take it though the looking glass?!?

ccrdragon

The comments are as bad as the article - but a hoot to read.

lgfrie

The problem and challenge for the gazillion people who want to be experts / gurus / sages / paid speakers / consultants in the diet industry is, it really just boils down to eat less, move more. There's nothing else to say about the matter, so they just ... say stuff, and to the extent it deviates from "eat less, move more" it's always dumb.

psychod787

Myth 1 actually has SOME scientific backing. Strange as it might sound. More of a bw/bf range. Otherwise interesting....

psychod787

lgfrie wrote: »

The problem and challenge for the gazillion people who want to be experts / gurus / sages / paid speakers / consultants in the diet industry is, it really just boils down to eat less, move more. There's nothing else to say about the matter, so they just ... say stuff, and to the extent it deviates from "eat less, move more" it's always dumb.

Yes and no, weight loss is, but what controls EI is a much larger equation. Might just get my first disagree!😏

lgfrie

psychod787 wrote: »

lgfrie wrote: »

The problem and challenge for the gazillion people who want to be experts / gurus / sages / paid speakers / consultants in the diet industry is, it really just boils down to eat less, move more. There's nothing else to say about the matter, so they just ... say stuff, and to the extent it deviates from "eat less, move more" it's always dumb.

Yes and no, weight loss is, but what controls EI is a much larger equation. Might just get my first disagree!😏

No! Don't do it! I can't live with the shame of getting a Disagree on the rollout day

What is "EI"? Never heard of it.

Sure, there's more to overall health than "eat less, move more", but the article is about "weight loss myths" and according to Dr. Fuller, Myth # 2 is "You have to eat less and move more". That is no myth; it's the Alpha and Omega of weight loss. Kinda ludicrous to say "eat less and move more" is a myth of weight loss, imho.

psychod787

EI = ENERGY IN...move more eat less DOES work if you can maintain it. Though, as we see in the recidivism rate of regain, many can't. Hormonal and brain changes make it harder. Now eat less calories and burn more energy, yes. I prefer move more eat smarter.😉

**edit** If anyone needs research links... let me know

**edit 2** I'm no expert, but spend 2 years reading about this subject and obsessing... well... you can say I might have learned 1 or 2 small things.

GummiMundi

"Put simply, your body weight set point is your 'default' weight. The number of kilograms you're most constantly at and naturally revert back to after either losing or gaining weight. 'Everybody has a set point – a weight that they will remember being at for a prolonged period of time during their adult life (over 20),' said Dr Fuller".

Awww. So my set point is "way too overweight". Gee, thanks Doc.

psychod787

GummiMundi wrote: »

"Put simply, your body weight set point is your 'default' weight. The number of kilograms you're most constantly at and naturally revert back to after either losing or gaining weight. 'Everybody has a set point – a weight that they will remember being at for a prolonged period of time during their adult life (over 20),' said Dr Fuller".

Awww. So my set point is "way too overweight". Gee, thanks Doc.

Set point seems to be very environmental. Food choice, activity, some genetics ( not that great of an influencer). Let's look at it like this. If you were to make the choice to eat a lower energy dense diet. Say going from 2.5 cals/gram, then lowering to 1.25 cals a gram. You would probably feel just as satisfied on fewer calories. Your body weight would drop, but only to a level. As long as you pretty much continued said behaviors. BAMM new set range. Let's just say now you wanted more. So, you add some cardio while continuing the same diet. You burn 200 calories doing that, but only compensate by eating 150. Weight lowers. As long as you continue. BAMM new set range. Though there is a point to where the body says no more before it bumps back. So, one day you say kitten it! No more cardio. Weight goes back to old set range. So one say you say. You know, I want to eat a SAD. Bamm, back to old set range, maybe higher dt. Body fat over shooting. Now weight history plays a part. If you were obese as a child you may carry more fat cells. If you were heavy for a long time, you may have some leptin resistance. Those factors may play a part in keeping you at a higher bf than someone never overweight. So, no "fat" is not your settling range, it's a multitude of things that all add up to where you are. Wanted to add bw defense works in both directions. I.E. hard gainers. They cant seem to gain weight? Why? Well... there appetites might just be tuned to a lower level (genetics). They might have adoptions in NEAT. They eat more and there brain makes them get more active to burn it off. There muscles burn more energy per contraction than normal. Lots of evidence for this.

Jzaback004

What?

thanos5

ftfa: 'the body holds onto its fat reserves to make sure you don't continue to lose weight. '

ha