In a calorie deficit, scale isn't moving, Split
Replies
-
hmmm.... you may have screenshot the guideline but I still fear that your comprehension that it says 5% = 300 minutes ergo 10% = 600 minutes is incorrect.
I will also posit that you may be over-estimating the importance of a pre-set dosage and under-estimating the power of consistency, gradual improvement and different/good/better and evolving habits.
You don't need to set out to perform 20 minutes of 70% heart rate max exercise to see improvement.
All some of us may have needed to do to START, is walk to McDonald's and then back home as opposed to driving through the drive through. Just saying.3 -
You'lle get no argument from me: this is what I wrote:hmmm.... you may have screenshot the guideline but I still fear that your comprehension that it says 5% = 300 minutes ergo 10% = 600 minutes is incorrect.
I will also posit that you may be over-estimating the importance of a pre-set dosage and under-estimating the power of consistency, gradual improvement and different/good/better and evolving habits.
You don't need to set out to perform 20 minutes of 70% heart rate max exercise to see improvement.
All some of us may have needed to do to START, is walk to McDonald's and then back home as opposed to driving through the drive through. Just saying.
I would submit that consistency is both needed and problematic. So far, I have lost a little over half my highest weight, that is almost 64 kg. I have had to adjust my dietary intake numerous times. you do not have to believe me, but if/when you try it, you will quickly notice that the difference between 2.3 kg of vegetables and 750 g of vegetables is not one that goes unnoticed and can simply be ignored. In fact, that is why I always say that there is no such thing as a sustainable weightloss diet. A diet can be sustainable and it can be a weightloss diet, not both. There can be sustained diets that continue to lead to weight loss, but those end in death, so even though they are sustained, it is difficult to argue that they are sustainable since they kill the loser.
Of course, we are talking about physical activity, not dietary intake, but the problem is largely the same and that is one reason I insist that we cannot disentangle exercise-related energy deficit and food-related energy deficit. They both are food-related. All the exercise does is increase energy use, and then only IF you are lucky enough to notice it.
Increased physical activity will, if all goes well, cause a tiny bit of extra weight loss, but a lot is needed. One of the papers I found when looking for papers in favour of "exercise" stated that 127 km consumes 1 kg of fat. Let's assume this to be correct. It is not, but that does not matter here. That means I would have had to walk/run 8128 km. At 5 km a day, that is 1,626 days or 4.45 years on the express condition that: energy intake matches exactly outgoing energy (moving target) minus exercise energy (moving target) for 4.45 years. Taking the assumed value of 127 km per 1 kg of body fat, that is a difference of 40 g of fat a day, or 360 kcal. All these number are not much more than wild guesses, by the way.
Is that really doable? Perhaps, but I think that some skepticism is not completely misplaced. I may be wrong, but I can't help but think that this weightloss-through-exercise regime will change to a weightloss-through-food-intake diet before very long.
0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
You'lle get no argument from me: this is what I wrote:hmmm.... you may have screenshot the guideline but I still fear that your comprehension that it says 5% = 300 minutes ergo 10% = 600 minutes is incorrect.
I will also posit that you may be over-estimating the importance of a pre-set dosage and under-estimating the power of consistency, gradual improvement and different/good/better and evolving habits.
You don't need to set out to perform 20 minutes of 70% heart rate max exercise to see improvement.
All some of us may have needed to do to START, is walk to McDonald's and then back home as opposed to driving through the drive through. Just saying.
I would submit that consistency is both needed and problematic. So far, I have lost a little over half my highest weight, that is almost 64 kg. I have had to adjust my dietary intake numerous times. you do not have to believe me, but if/when you try it, you will quickly notice that the difference between 2.3 kg of vegetables and 750 g of vegetables is not one that goes unnoticed and can simply be ignored. In fact, that is why I always say that there is no such thing as a sustainable weightloss diet. A diet can be sustainable and it can be a weightloss diet, not both. There can be sustained diets that continue to lead to weight loss, but those end in death, so even though they are sustained, it is difficult to argue that they are sustainable since they kill the loser.
Of course, we are talking about physical activity, not dietary intake, but the problem is largely the same and that is one reason I insist that we cannot disentangle exercise-related energy deficit and food-related energy deficit. They both are food-related. All the exercise does is increase energy use, and then only IF you are lucky enough to notice it.
Increased physical activity will, if all goes well, cause a tiny bit of extra weight loss, but a lot is needed. One of the papers I found when looking for papers in favour of "exercise" stated that 127 km consumes 1 kg of fat. Let's assume this to be correct. It is not, but that does not matter here. That means I would have had to walk/run 8128 km. At 5 km a day, that is 1,626 days or 4.45 years on the express condition that: energy intake matches exactly outgoing energy (moving target) minus exercise energy (moving target) for 4.45 years. Taking the assumed value of 127 km per 1 kg of body fat, that is a difference of 40 g of fat a day, or 360 kcal. All these number are not much more than wild guesses, by the way.
Is that really doable? Perhaps, but I think that some skepticism is not completely misplaced. I may be wrong, but I can't help but think that this weightloss-through-exercise regime will change to a weightloss-through-food-intake diet before very long.
You still did not answer my questions. The "science" is there. I'll ask again now for the FIFTH time:
You say that exercise does not burn calories for most people. If I walk to the post office and back, it takes me about an hour. I should oxidize about 250 calories ACCORDING TO NUMBERS YOU PROVIDED IN THIS DISCUSSION. If I do not eat an additional 250 calories to put that energy back into my body versus what I would have eaten without taking the walk, I will be in a greater calorie deficit than if I had not taken the walk. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS? Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language.
If I do that walk every day for seven days and do not add additional calories to my diet, I would expect to lose a half pound. Do you disagree with THIS? Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language. If I eat a pint of ice cream on the way home, that's different. Nobody is talking about doing exercise and undoing it by eating an additional amount of food that would exceed what just burned. People here are simply stating fact; moving your body burns calories. Calories are energy. Being in an energy deficit over time results in weight loss. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS? Because that is what you keep repeating. Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language.
Here is a very direct question: Do you disagree with a statement I made earlier (yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language) which said: "If you are eating at your goal and you add some activity every day but don’t increase your caloric intake, your loss rate will be faster. If you do some activity, like walking for about an hour every day, that burns an additional 250 calories over whatever your loss rate is set to (or if you are maintaining), you should lose an ADDITIONAL half pound per week."
Not a single person who has responded to your drivel has suggested that the amount we eat is unimportant for weight loss. It is CRITICAL. It would be really easy for me to not only eat back those 250 calories, but an additional 250 and then gain a half pound a week. Fifty grams of pistachios would cancel that 250 calorie deficit. One ounce of cheddar cheese would too. So would 2.6 tablespoons of peanut butter. What we eat is important. Even you agree on that. What you can't seem to wrap your brain around is the fact that you can create a calorie deficit not only by reducing what you eat but also by increasing your activity. That defies logic. It's a pity you can't see that.
What you are saying over and over is that exercise does not burn calories to an appreciable extent. Many others continue to show you that it does. Guess what? It does. In spades if you pay attention.
5 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
You'lle get no argument from me: this is what I wrote:hmmm.... you may have screenshot the guideline but I still fear that your comprehension that it says 5% = 300 minutes ergo 10% = 600 minutes is incorrect.
I will also posit that you may be over-estimating the importance of a pre-set dosage and under-estimating the power of consistency, gradual improvement and different/good/better and evolving habits.
You don't need to set out to perform 20 minutes of 70% heart rate max exercise to see improvement.
All some of us may have needed to do to START, is walk to McDonald's and then back home as opposed to driving through the drive through. Just saying.
I would submit that consistency is both needed and problematic. So far, I have lost a little over half my highest weight, that is almost 64 kg. I have had to adjust my dietary intake numerous times. you do not have to believe me, but if/when you try it, you will quickly notice that the difference between 2.3 kg of vegetables and 750 g of vegetables is not one that goes unnoticed and can simply be ignored. In fact, that is why I always say that there is no such thing as a sustainable weightloss diet. A diet can be sustainable and it can be a weightloss diet, not both. There can be sustained diets that continue to lead to weight loss, but those end in death, so even though they are sustained, it is difficult to argue that they are sustainable since they kill the loser.
Of course, we are talking about physical activity, not dietary intake, but the problem is largely the same and that is one reason I insist that we cannot disentangle exercise-related energy deficit and food-related energy deficit. They both are food-related. All the exercise does is increase energy use, and then only IF you are lucky enough to notice it.
Increased physical activity will, if all goes well, cause a tiny bit of extra weight loss, but a lot is needed. One of the papers I found when looking for papers in favour of "exercise" stated that 127 km consumes 1 kg of fat. Let's assume this to be correct. It is not, but that does not matter here. That means I would have had to walk/run 8128 km. At 5 km a day, that is 1,626 days or 4.45 years on the express condition that: energy intake matches exactly outgoing energy (moving target) minus exercise energy (moving target) for 4.45 years. Taking the assumed value of 127 km per 1 kg of body fat, that is a difference of 40 g of fat a day, or 360 kcal. All these number are not much more than wild guesses, by the way.
Is that really doable? Perhaps, but I think that some skepticism is not completely misplaced. I may be wrong, but I can't help but think that this weightloss-through-exercise regime will change to a weightloss-through-food-intake diet before very long.
You still did not answer my questions. The "science" is there. I'll ask again now for the FIFTH time:
You say that exercise does not burn calories for most people. If I walk to the post office and back, it takes me about an hour. I should oxidize about 250 calories ACCORDING TO NUMBERS YOU PROVIDED IN THIS DISCUSSION. If I do not eat an additional 250 calories to put that energy back into my body versus what I would have eaten without taking the walk, I will be in a greater calorie deficit than if I had not taken the walk. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS? Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language.
If I do that walk every day for seven days and do not add additional calories to my diet, I would expect to lose a half pound. Do you disagree with THIS? Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language. If I eat a pint of ice cream on the way home, that's different. Nobody is talking about doing exercise and undoing it by eating an additional amount of food that would exceed what just burned. People here are simply stating fact; moving your body burns calories. Calories are energy. Being in an energy deficit over time results in weight loss. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS? Because that is what you keep repeating. Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language.
Here is a very direct question: Do you disagree with a statement I made earlier (yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language) which said: "If you are eating at your goal and you add some activity every day but don’t increase your caloric intake, your loss rate will be faster. If you do some activity, like walking for about an hour every day, that burns an additional 250 calories over whatever your loss rate is set to (or if you are maintaining), you should lose an ADDITIONAL half pound per week."
Not a single person who has responded to your drivel has suggested that the amount we eat is unimportant for weight loss. It is CRITICAL. It would be really easy for me to not only eat back those 250 calories, but an additional 250 and then gain a half pound a week. Fifty grams of pistachios would cancel that 250 calorie deficit. One ounce of cheddar cheese would too. So would 2.6 tablespoons of peanut butter. What we eat is important. Even you agree on that. What you can't seem to wrap your brain around is the fact that you can create a calorie deficit not only by reducing what you eat but also by increasing your activity. That defies logic. It's a pity you can't see that.
What you are saying over and over is that exercise does not burn calories to an appreciable extent. Many others continue to show you that it does. Guess what? It does. In spades if you pay attention.
I think you're being ignored.
For Bart. I don't consider myself a stupid person, but your examples and descriptions just don't ring true with me. Too "over thinking". All these long repeated "losing weight is dying" and "exercise doesn't count" are giving me a headache. We get your position, but so far haven't found a soul that agrees with you. That can only mean that you are smarter than us all, or............7 -
Thank you for response, Snowflake954.snowflake954 wrote: »For Bart. I don't consider myself a stupid person, but your examples and descriptions just don't ring true with me. Too "over thinking". All these long repeated "losing weight is dying" and "exercise doesn't count" are giving me a headache. We get your position, but so far haven't found a soul that agrees with you. That can only mean that you are smarter than us all, or............
The problem with that is:
1. some of my examples *are* exaggerations in order to make a point. I thought I made that clear, maybe I should make it clearer. One can disagree with that. There is nothing wrong with that.
2. "exercise doesn't count". I have NOT said that. I have said it tends to be negligible/undetectable/useless for *weight loss*, I have made abundantly clear that for just about every other health aspect, exercise (which I personally loathe) or physical activity (which personally love) is VERY relevant. That is also the consensus medical position and more than anything, that is why I espouse it.
3. "exercise is next to useless for weight loss". That is also the consensus medical position. That (next to) no one agrees with that is fine. People do not have to "believe" the consensus medical position. Medicine is not a religion where one will land on the eternal barbecue for not believing whatever that religion claims. People should, however, *know* that they are oing against medical opinion and stand therefore a good chance of being wrong. Taking up the wrong position is a choice one can and is allowed to make. As the COVID-19 crisis has shown and is still showing, it is a choice that can lead to severe harm and even death.
In the case of weight loss, the danger of death is rather remote, but it can lead to discouragement and disillusion and it often does at least that, as can be seen on MFP and the Internet as a whole (in combination or separate from other mistakes, such as taking calculators and counters at face value, inaccurate measuring and more). Such a choice is only a choice if all positions are known, a choice made due to partial information or misinformation is not a true choice even if the person making the choice thinks it is.
4. If nobody agrees with my position, that does indeed entice me to look further. I have, extensively, tried to find credible information that exercise *is* very important for weight loss. Except for a small questionable study here or there, I have not found such information which probably/possibly explains why no one has posted any links to such credible information.
5. There are exceptional cases, the Biggest Loser comes to mind, that seem to indicate that exercise *can* be useful for weight loss and it seems logical and is probably correct, but these examples are extreme, to be taken as "results not typical" and very dangerous. As the world of professional sports demonstrates over and over: one *can* go too far, and not only risk death but actually drop dead by such practices. People don't like to hear that and invent all type of conspiracy theories to explain the phenomenon, but that does not change reality.
That said, in the words of a video I saw while looking for information that is easier to digest by non-scientists: if the Biggest Loser would consist of shot after shot of people not overeating, the Biggest Loser would be a very boring show. If you watch the show very carefully, you will see that many participants are "exercising" for eight hours or more, being bullied by "trainers" to give it their all. Even then, there is no way of knowing what the effect of the exercise versus the diet is, those are scientific details that are impossible to figure out outside of a lab setting and only the crudest (i.e. unreliable) estimates can be made.
That said, the Biggest Loser is quite present in the medical literature because it presents a unique case with information that we would not have without them since no ethical doctor would ever recommend this. So, better use the information rather than let it go to waste. After all, all participants were willing to do this, they weren't forced, at least not when they went into it. The Biggest Loser is medically unethical, but it would be equally unethical not to use the information now that it exists (which is a controversial position nevertheless).
7. "Losing weight is dying". I never said that. My standpoint is this:
There is no such thing as a sustainable weight loss diet.
There are weight loss diets and there are sustainable diets. They cannot possibly be both because a weight loss diet, will automatically become a sustainable diet (which is why Robert Baron talks about "the forever diet") once a certain weight has been reached.
One *can*, at least in principle, sustain a diet that never stops reducing weight. Such a diet is not a sustainable diet because it ends in death. Think about it: once all your energy stores have been used up, you start to cannibalise your own body to stay alive. At some point, death will follow. I am unaware of any case where this has been done, but we see something that comes awfully close with prisoners in World War II concentration camps, hunger strikers, famine victims, and anorexia nervosa patients: they continue to get an energy intake that is too low to keep them alive. The result is that they don't. The people die.
Therefore, sustainable weight loss diets do not and cannot exist. I realise the term is often used, but it is a misnomer that obfuscates reality. It is not unlike the claim that one is safe when using a mask to protect from the Corona virus. That is also untrue. One is simply safeR, a.k.a. one reduces the probability of infection. I realise that this is "common language" but when people are into one-bit thinking, it becomes a problem.
I hope that clarifies things. Thank you for the question.0 -
Err, you are literally quoted in this thread saying this nonsense, which was the same nonsense you posted in multiple threads despite numerous posters asking you to stop posting misinformation. And this isn't even a complicated example where you need to go sourcing medical literature. Just a simple understanding of what "maintenance" is was missing, yet you persisted, and now here you are blatantly lying by trying to spin that you never said it.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »4. If nobody agrees with my position, that does indeed entice me to look further.
7. "Losing weight is dying". I never said that.
"The reality remains that the only way to lose fat weight is to ingest less energy than needed to stay alive, and the only way to gain fat weight is to ingest more energy than needed to stay alive. While other factors may influence that process somewhat, the fundamentals will not and cannot change. Only quacks claim something else, and they have zero evidence to back it up."
I understand why the site did away with the "dislike" button but there are times when it would be helpful...7 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
3. "exercise is next to useless for weight loss". That is also the consensus medical position. That (next to) no one agrees with that is fine. People do not have to "believe" the consensus medical position. Medicine is not a religion where one will land on the eternal barbecue for not believing whatever that religion claims. People should, however, *know* that they are oing against medical opinion and stand therefore a good chance of being wrong. Taking up the wrong position is a choice one can and is allowed to make. As the COVID-19 crisis has shown and is still showing, it is a choice that can lead to severe harm and even death.
A consensus? Hardly. You have selected some resources and are distilling down to a conclusion that is not sound.
Someone who wants to lose weight and joins a gym but has no intention of reducing the food they eat will probably struggle to lose weight. And, burning a couple hundred extra calories might make them hungry, so they might eat more. So yep, you’re right that IN THAT CASE, most would agree. (To be honest, I didn’t read through everything because of the staggering volume of words. Someone correct me if needed.)
It’s also not helpful to split hairs about “working out” vs. “activity.” Both burn calories, and if I reduce my food intake by 250 calories per day and burn 250 through any type of activity/exercise, they are equal contributors to my weight loss. I’ll take a long walk so I can have ice cream, thank you. I know zero doctors that would EVER just blatantly say that exercise doesn’t matter for weight loss.
The combo of diet and activity makes it a sustainable weight loss plan. Yes, sustainable! Not because I will sustain the calorie deficit until I waste away and die, but because I am learning how to comfortably sustain a balance of in/out.
Edited to add: Bart, comparing this to the COVID crisis… 🙄
6 -
snowflake954 wrote: »
I think you're being ignored.
For Bart. I don't consider myself a stupid person, but your examples and descriptions just don't ring true with me. Too "over thinking". All these long repeated "losing weight is dying" and "exercise doesn't count" are giving me a headache. We get your position, but so far haven't found a soul that agrees with you. That can only mean that you are smarter than us all, or............
@snowflake954
As the member who explained how to put someone on ignore, it would be humorous if I was set on "ignore." I actually considered @BartBVanBockstaele did that. I wouldn't be surprised. Ignore the difficult questions you cannot answer honestly and still spout disinformation.
With that especially in mind, thank you for quoting my post. I can now be assured that Bart has seen my post and is now refusing to respond. He won't see my other posts in other threads whether or not they support some of the well reasoned things he says or criticize the disinformation.
There's apparently no more reason for me to keep repeating the same questions if they will go unanswered. It is also silly for me to continue to try to reason with an unreasonable person. As such, I guess I will refrain from further statements here. I have written more than my share perhaps, and there's quite a lot of well-reasoned people who have been working on their weight loss and fitness journeys who echo the same messages. I sincerely hope that any new users will be able to use their critical thought processes to sort through the posts here and ignore Bart's blatant disinformation. I expect he actually knows better and is trolling. I will no longer feed this troll.
Thanks again, and may you continue to have success with all your endeavors, fitness related or other.
8 -
The "science" is there.
Indeed it is! Literally less than 30 seconds with ye olde interwebz confirms:
Efficacy of Exercise Intervention for Weight Loss in Overweight and Obese Adolescents: Meta-Analysis and Implications
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27139723/
Diet, exercise or diet with exercise: comparing the effectiveness of treatment options for weight-loss and changes in fitness for adults (18-65 years old) who are overfat, or obese; systematic review and meta-analysis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25973403/
A meta-analysis of the past 25 years of weight loss research using diet, exercise or diet plus exercise intervention
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9347414/
And now, yet again, I shall disappear from the forums for weeks on end...ciao!
7 -
Well I'm starting to think that Bart for some reason makes cartain assumptions about what something should, could and does mean that he doesn't always explicitly disclose but which leads to lack of comprehension because the rest of us (including perhaps the quoted articles) do not share the same assumptions.
Example: a weight loss diet is sustainable.
Bart: it is not sustainable because you die.
Why? because the word "diet" for Bart includes the amount of calories consumed and the act of eating at a deficit.
The rest of us: diet: is the type of food we eat, the way it is cooked, the time we eat it, the proportion of tasty snacks to nutritious food, etc.
Whether we eat a quantity of that diet such that we are or are not in a caloric deficit is for most of us separated from what's included in the diet. And not part of the same word.🤷♂️
2 -
After reading through this thread, though I'm still not sure why I did
, this is the conclusion I've come to:
Bart is sharing sources that assert that most people who try to lose weight are unsuccessful - either they don't lose the weight to begin with or they can't keep it off. I don't think any of the other posters would disagree with that; in fact, I see references to the statistics on this all the time. I know a lot of people who have not been successful. I was one of them for a long time, too.
I think where Bart is losing people is when he asserts that because it often doesn't work for people's lived experiences, the math must be wrong.
I don't think the math is wrong. I think a lot of people don't track well enough to get good estimates, overcompensate, have unrealistic expectations, etc. But none of those things mean the math doesn't work. Just that lots of stuff can get in the way of doing good math.
Do I have it about right?7 -
Well I'm starting to think that Bart for some reason makes cartain assumptions about what something should, could and does mean that he doesn't always explicitly disclose but which leads to lack of comprehension because the rest of us (including perhaps the quoted articles) do not share the same assumptions.
Example: a weight loss diet is sustainable.
Bart: it is not sustainable because you die.
Why? because the word "diet" for Bart includes the amount of calories consumed and the act of eating at a deficit.
And for some reason that definition of "diet" seems to be permanent? (That's the only way I can see that it would lead a person to die because it's just that unsustainable.)
I feel like that's absolutely the opposite of how most people think of a weight loss diet, oddly.
I think the common conception of a weight-loss diet is something a person does temporarily. In that context, "sustainable" would be rationally (perhaps generously) interpreted by most people as "something a person can continue long enough to lose the desired amount of weight"
I don't really like thinking of weight loss as a temporary intervention (for someone like me with a tendency to overweight, anyway). I prefer to think of weight management, which to me is a long-term shift of orientation to eating and activity, that reaches and then maintains a healthy weight (ideally permanently).The rest of us: diet: is the type of food we eat, the way it is cooked, the time we eat it, the proportion of tasty snacks to nutritious food, etc.
Whether we eat a quantity of that diet such that we are or are not in a caloric deficit is for most of us separated from what's included in the diet. And not part of the same word.🤷♂️
Yeah, I sort of agree with that definition of "diet", but I'd also include the possibility of "diet" referring to a point in time or period of time, because whether I'm talking calories, nutrients, food choices, timing, etc., that stuff for sure changes for me over time, with different things happening (and different things "sustainable") for me at different times.
I don't really agree with your definition in that sense. It can be IMO a reasonable usage to say that I'm on a "lower calorie diet" for a while, or some such thing.
Besides, I think the default common-conversation definition of "diet" implies "for weight loss" (or some other special goal like cholesterol reduction or whatever), though I don't personally like that definition either.
If someone in my daily life tells me they're "on a diet", I don't usually assume that they necessarily mean a change in the type of food they eat, the way it is cooked, the time they eat it, or the proportion of tasty snacks to nutritious food. I usually assume they mean they're trying to lose weight.
ETA: Yes, my posts above is entirely about semantics, i.e., meanings and relationships of words. Semantics is interesting to some word nerds like me.1 -
Well I'm starting to think that Bart for some reason makes cartain assumptions about what something should, could and does mean that he doesn't always explicitly disclose but which leads to lack of comprehension because the rest of us (including perhaps the quoted articles) do not share the same assumptions.
Example: a weight loss diet is sustainable.
Bart: it is not sustainable because you die.
Why? because the word "diet" for Bart includes the amount of calories consumed and the act of eating at a deficit.
The rest of us: diet: is the type of food we eat, the way it is cooked, the time we eat it, the proportion of tasty snacks to nutritious food, etc.
Whether we eat a quantity of that diet such that we are or are not in a caloric deficit is for most of us separated from what's included in the diet. And not part of the same word.🤷♂️
This made me laugh. I just realized "die" + t = diet. Maybe that's where Bart is getting it. What a stitch.2 -
That could be it. If people were able to diet without dying then it would be called livet not diet.snowflake954 wrote: »This made me laugh. I just realized "die" + t = diet. Maybe that's where Bart is getting it. What a stitch.
Q.E.D.
3 -
I don't really agree with your definition in that sense.
(znipping nice stuff) ....
ETA: Yes, my posts above is entirely about semantics, i.e., meanings and relationships of words. Semantics is interesting to some word nerds like me.
I guess I am guilty too, and in no way am I putting my above definition of sustainable diet as an all inclusive final definition as it was written in haste to try to demonstrate my main point.... and I won't even mention "eating clean" if we want to have fun with definitions!
My main point was that I now believe that there may be some distance between how some of us in this thread understand some of the words we use vs how Bart interprets their definitions.🤷♂️0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »
I think you're being ignored.
For Bart. I don't consider myself a stupid person, but your examples and descriptions just don't ring true with me. Too "over thinking". All these long repeated "losing weight is dying" and "exercise doesn't count" are giving me a headache. We get your position, but so far haven't found a soul that agrees with you. That can only mean that you are smarter than us all, or............
@snowflake954
As the member who explained how to put someone on ignore, it would be humorous if I was set on "ignore." I actually considered @BartBVanBockstaele did that. I wouldn't be surprised. Ignore the difficult questions you cannot answer honestly and still spout disinformation.
With that especially in mind, thank you for quoting my post. I can now be assured that Bart has seen my post and is now refusing to respond. He won't see my other posts in other threads whether or not they support some of the well reasoned things he says or criticize the disinformation.
There's apparently no more reason for me to keep repeating the same questions if they will go unanswered. It is also silly for me to continue to try to reason with an unreasonable person. As such, I guess I will refrain from further statements here. I have written more than my share perhaps, and there's quite a lot of well-reasoned people who have been working on their weight loss and fitness journeys who echo the same messages. I sincerely hope that any new users will be able to use their critical thought processes to sort through the posts here and ignore Bart's blatant disinformation. I expect he actually knows better and is trolling. I will no longer feed this troll.
Thanks again, and may you continue to have success with all your endeavors, fitness related or other.
Your questions are definitely BEING ignored, but I didn't think YOU were on ignore.
1 -
However, I do have to thank Bart!
Due to his mention of sardines they actually jumped out at me as I was walking down the aisle! And I actually bought some Brunswick sardine fillets no skin no bones about 150 Cal per 84g drained! My first lemon flavor can was closer to 98g drained and the contents weren't half bad!2 -
Sardines are awesome. Brislings are especially good. Trader Joe's has skinless boneless sardines in oil; definitely more calories, but good for some things. The skin-on and bone-in sardines in water are good for other things. Mashed with avocado... Mmm.
If you ever see FRESH sardines at your fishmonger, consider getting some. They are a rare treat if fresh. I don't see them very often. They are good grilled or roasted.
Canned fish is great; super portable, lots of protein, and if packed in olive oil has healthy fat. If I'm not in bear country, I sometimes bring some for lunch on kayak trips. If I'm feeling wealthy, smoked salmon instead.1 -
Glad you like them. I have never understood why so many people say they hate them. I am guessing it may have something to do with the ones that are sold in tomato sauce? I definitely dislike those. I don't know what it is, since I haven't eaten them anymore since childhood, but I have a suspicion it is because of the sugar. I have to check it out before I am sure.However, I do have to thank Bart!
Due to his mention of sardines they actually jumped out at me as I was walking down the aisle! And I actually bought some Brunswick sardine fillets no skin no bones about 150 Cal per 84g drained! My first lemon flavor can was closer to 98g drained and the contents weren't half bad!
As for the Brunswick sardine fillets, I am a great fan of the golden smoked ones and the water-packed ones. The lemon-pepper ones and the kippered ones are a close second.
That said, I almost only buy the non-filletted water-packed ones now. They are more "complete". I still prefer frozen whole sardines, but they take up space in the freezer and they are very often not available. Corona helped putting me completely in the canned camp: they take no space in the freezer and you can buy a lot of them, reducing the need of going to the store.
By the way, I do not drain them. The liquid is a bit like fish stock, so I just pour it over my vegetables. Very tasty, at least to me. They are my very first meal of the day, regardless of the timing, and they are my favourite meal of the day.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Retroguy2000 wrote: »Things I have learned from Bart:
- You can only lose fat by taking in fewer calories than you need to stay alive.
- You can't lose fat by exercising, because the calories burned are insignificant and can only be measured in a lab.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »That is fine. After all, freedom of religion is guaranteed by most constitutions in the western world.
I prefer reality, but that is just me.
Yeah, you've made the first claim multiple times. Here's the first one I found, but not the thread I was thinking of:BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Wise words. For the rest, even if there is something to it, it is going to be minimal. The reality remains that the only way to lose fat weight is to ingest less energy than needed to stay alive, and the only way to gain fat weight is to ingest more energy than needed to stay alive. While other factors may influence that process somewhat, the fundamentals will not and cannot change. Only quacks claim something else, and they have zero evidence to back it up.the_real_me_lissa wrote: »Fasting? Oh, you mean privileged starving!!
Way over hyped & totally unnecessary!!
There is, of course, fat removal surgery, and that is just about the most ill-advised thing one can do.
And you're making the second claim on this thread.
That *is* a correct quote. Note that I did NOT write that losing weight is dying. I wrote that losing weight is taking in less energy than you need to stay alive. Most people don't die from that: they use their energy stores to get that energy. Once those energy stores are depleted, their body starts to cannibalise itself and the person eventually dies, but –and that is something I usually don't mention because it doesn't change anything related to energy– it is *possible* though not certain, that the person will continue to live for some time but with death as a guaranteed outcome no matter the therapies that are tried to save her/him: if death is caused by lack of energy intake, the person will lose the ability to synthesise protein at some point and die, I assume rather painfully, but I have never seen a credible report on that.You can only lose fat by taking in fewer calories than you need to stay alive.
Note that this is almost the same as for a car: if you give your car less fuel than it needs to continue, it will simply consume the contents of its fuel tank. Once there is no longer enough fuel in the tank, you will most likely still be able to use the electric equipment for some time, but the car is dead in the water. The difference being that you can revive the car by giving it the fuel it needs. You cannot revive a corpse, at least not yet. Who knows? It might become possible in the future, but whether we like it or not, it is unlikely we will live to see that day.
In other words, you must be taking in less energy than you need to stay alive, or you will not lose weight, UNLESS you have some form of a lipolytic disease. There are some theories that obesity might be caused by an impairment of the lipolytic process. You could conceivably suffer from a disease that accelerates lipolysis. Those are certainly interesting thoughts, but it does not change anything to the fundamentals. It would change the speed at which weight loss or weight gain occurs, not the fact of it, i.e. another skirmish in the margin.
0 -
A couple of people were still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, Bart. I expect you just lost them too.2 -
I thought I made it abundantly clear that I agree with that. I called it a "caricature". I even highlighted the word with a red frame in the screen shot. The point was not about the exact numbers, nobody knows those and nobody can know those. It is just about the principle. If a person who has 5% of her/his body weight to lose, does what it takes to lose 5%, that person will be OK. If a person who has 60% of her/his body weight to lose, and that person does what it takes to lose 5%, that person will still be very far from OK.hmmm.... you may have screenshot the guideline but I still fear that your comprehension that it says 5% = 300 minutes ergo 10% = 600 minutes is incorrect.
I have ZERO argument with that. The only potential problem here is that IF a person does something gradual, that person may become very ill before reaching the goal or even die. My favourite example remains Angus Barbieri because his case is so extreme that there is no other that trumps his, but also because it gives us a reasonably plausible estimate for the fastest weight loss a human can possibly have by dieting, namely 327 g a day. That is 2,289 g a week. That is important, because it indicates that people who claim that they have a diet that will make you lose 10 kg a week, do not have credibility on their side. Who knows? It MIGHT be possible, but I definitely would like to see verifiable proof -not mere evidence- of that and I will not hold my breath until they do.I will also posit that you may be over-estimating the importance of a pre-set dosage and under-estimating the power of consistency, gradual improvement and different/good/better and evolving habits.
You don't need to set out to perform 20 minutes of 70% heart rate max exercise to see improvement.
All some of us may have needed to do to START, is walk to McDonald's and then back home as opposed to driving through the drive through. Just saying.
The main issue with averages is of course that he will have lost quite a bit more in the beginning and quite a bit less in the end phase, but then, many people are fooled by that phenomenon when they start their first diet (the NIH body weight planner is the only one I know that takes this rapid initial loss into account), because they see the kilos fly off, until a few days to a week later, where fat loss starts to peek through the noise of the waste and water loss of the beginning.
Another calculation one could make that is more in line with the "gradual" position is a constant deficit of 500 kcal. If a person has 10 kg to lose, assuming the agreed upon energy content of human fat is 7,700 kcal per kg, that is 77,000 kcal / 500 kcal or 154 days or 5 months. The first days/weeks... will be less painful, the last ones a bit more but the difference will not be particulary impressive.
Now, assuming the same 500 kcal and 7,700 kcal, a person needing to lose 60 kg will need 7,700 * 60 / 500 or 924 days or 2 years, 6 months and 14 days. Never have it said that this is what I claim. I do not, I am merely trying to point out that someone who has more to lose needs more time if doing it gradually. The problem with this is that the person stands a non-negligible chance of being dead before getting there and not even because of the energy deficit, but simply as a consequence of the obesity itself. That is one of the reasons bariatric surgery is considered and usually recommended for people who are very heavy. It is not because doctors are too stupid or too greedy to get it through their thick skulls that a patient can do it on her/his own, but because they are considering the dangers associated with being fat.
As luck will have it, there is a real-life example of someone avoiding bariatric surgery by diet alone below. It was posted yesterday. In six months, this man went down from 151 kg to 120.5 kg, a loss of 5 kg a month. That is no small feat. When I had reached 97.9 kg I changed my diet and lost 34.5 kg since then... which took me a few days more than 4 years and 1 month.
The segment is produced by the NDR, a major German television station, and they have several case reports on dieting for weight loss. They are interesting, because it shows that while the general approaches are the same, details can really vary from country to country (and doctor to doctor).
Here, the patient is complaining that doctors did not offer him an alternative to bariatric surgery. He survived, but some people of his age and his weight do not. He took the risk and it worked out, but would they have made the programme if he had died? Probably not, they only show success stories. I find that problematic because it gives people the wrong impression. Nevertheless, it *is* interesting to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuL3Tp3j0UU
0 -
TL/dr: something wrong with 2.5 years?
60kg is 132lbs. A lot of people on this site have lost similar amounts, many of them quickly, and a few at a more leisurely pace. And most of us had a starting point above 120kg, because, let's face it, if we didn't we wouldn't have had an extra 60kg waiting to get lost!
Which means that a good number of us started as Class III obese.
Now I am not disputing that some Class III obese people ARE in immediate danger. Yes. There are many who are.
But beyond them there exist a good number of people who are not in immediate danger, but who are realizing that they are facing increased health risks as well as social and health related detriments. A loss of even 14 years of life expectancy does NOT equal almost guaranteed death during the next 5 years for most of us!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4087039/ "The estimated 6.5 to 13.7 y of life lost for BMI values between 40 and 59 kg/m2 versus 18.5–24.9 kg/m2 were in line with those of a previous pooled analysis that found that individuals with BMI values of 35–50 kg/m2 had a median 8–10 fewer years of life than those with BMI 22.5–24.9 kg/m2 [2]. Our study further demonstrates that the expected number of years of life lost continued to increase for BMI values beyond 50 kg/m2, at which point the loss in life expectancy (9.8 y) exceeded that observed for current versus never smoking (8.9 y) in this study"
So, considering that we are dealing with how to manage a chronic condition... knowing that you will be spending the next 5+ years managing your condition and you should develop strategies that will allow you to do so is NOT a terrible burden to impose on the brain of someone starting out.
To the contrary, it is probably a dis-service to make someone believe that losing the weight in a fire and forget manner is all they will have to do, and somewhat helpful, I believe, to convince them that they should view the time of weight loss as an opportunity to START on a process of gradual substitution and change.
I found MFP ready to give up because I was trying to apply unsustainable deficits. Kind-a-happy that I didn't. And that I realized that sustainability was more important than speed, which allowed me to ease up before it was too late.
P.S. I am currently at 163lbs, halfway through 2016. I just pulled the past 180 days (165 logged between July 28, 2022 and today), and I can see that I've been eating 3081 Cal on average... which explains why I am heading up. AND also shows the elasticity that (sometimes) exists both going up and going down. My expected weight gain would be over 7.5lbs, but the actual is closer to 52 -
Who am I to contradict a clairvoyant?A consensus? Hardly. You have selected some resources and are distilling down to a conclusion that is not sound.
I thought I made it clear that this is a personal view, nothing else. I loathe working out, and I love physical activity. The difference, for me, is that "working out" is activity as a goal while "activity" is activity as a means to get something done. Other people may have other views, there is nothing wrong with that, but this is the way I approach it. I do not drive my car to the gym, but I walk to the grocery store.It’s also not helpful to split hairs about “working out” vs. “activity.” Both burn calories, [snip]
I have never said otherwise, and I have even given examples of it. I usually quote the Biggest Loser because there can be no doubt there. The point is merely, and that is also what you will find in the literature, that most people struggle to get to that point. For the rest, calories are units to measure energy, the source of that energy does not matter in any way.[snip]and if I reduce my food intake by 250 calories per day and burn 250 through any type of activity/exercise, they are equal contributors to my weight loss.
Well then, let me help you out:I’ll take a long walk so I can have ice cream, thank you. I know zero doctors that would EVER just blatantly say that exercise doesn’t matter for weight loss.
This is a well-known doctor who also writes for the New York Times:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtn4Ap8kDM
This is Robert Baron, a professor of medicine at UCSF:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=yzqvgRrNCQM&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE&t=920
So now, you know two. Your statement is no longer true.
You do whatever you want to do. I have never said that you are not allowed to do what you want to do. My standpoint is simply that the choice of a person who is in possession of less information is making less of a conscious choice and more of an arbitrary one.The combo of diet and activity makes it a sustainable weight loss plan. Yes, sustainable! Not because I will sustain the calorie deficit until I waste away and die, but because I am learning how to comfortably sustain a balance of in/out.
I could almost predict this was coming up. I am NOT comparing this to the COVID crisis. I am trying to illustrate how people make mistakes in reasoning by showing another error in reasoning. COVID is simply the first example I was thinking of. Maybe I should learn to add something like:Edited to add: Bart, comparing this to the COVID crisis… 🙄*****************************************************
*****************************************************
THIS IS NOT A COMPARISON OF SUBJECTS
BUT AN ANALOGY TO SHOW HOW
REASONING ****CAN*** BE WRONG.
*****************************************************
*****************************************************
2 -
TL/dr: something wrong with 2.5 years?
60kg is 132lbs. A lot of people on this site have lost similar amounts, many of them quickly, and a few at a more leisurely pace. And most of us had a starting point above 120kg, because, let's face it, if we didn't we wouldn't have had an extra 60kg waiting to get lost!
Which means that a good number of us started as Class III obese.
Now I am not disputing that some Class III obese people ARE in immediate danger. Yes. There are many who are.
But beyond them there exist a good number of people who are not in immediate danger, but who are realizing that they are facing increased health risks as well as social and health related detriments. A loss of even 14 years of life expectancy does NOT equal almost guaranteed death during the next 5 years for most of us!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4087039/ "The estimated 6.5 to 13.7 y of life lost for BMI values between 40 and 59 kg/m2 versus 18.5–24.9 kg/m2 were in line with those of a previous pooled analysis that found that individuals with BMI values of 35–50 kg/m2 had a median 8–10 fewer years of life than those with BMI 22.5–24.9 kg/m2 [2]. Our study further demonstrates that the expected number of years of life lost continued to increase for BMI values beyond 50 kg/m2, at which point the loss in life expectancy (9.8 y) exceeded that observed for current versus never smoking (8.9 y) in this study"
So, considering that we are dealing with how to manage a chronic condition... knowing that you will be spending the next 5+ years managing your condition and you should develop strategies that will allow you to do so is NOT a terrible burden to impose on the brain of someone starting out.
To the contrary, it is probably a dis-service to make someone believe that losing the weight in a fire and forget manner is all they will have to do, and somewhat helpful, I believe, to convince them that they should view the time of weight loss as an opportunity to START on a process of gradual substitution and change.
I found MFP ready to give up because I was trying to apply unsustainable deficits. Kind-a-happy that I didn't. And that I realized that sustainability was more important than speed, which allowed me to ease up before it was too late.
You do not need to prove that to me. I know that. The problem is that we only know that when the diet is (almost) over, it is something we cannot predict, even if we can guess/estimatem but that is not the same as certainty and people who were thought to be safe sometimes die, and that is tragic for the family... and come the lawsuits claiming that there was malpractice and incompetence, something that is almost always impossible to prove.
That is why it is a judgment call. Some doctors will tell the patient he/she should try, others will say it is better not to. In this precise example, the patient, after having been informed CHOSE not to go with the surgery. He survived. But what would have happened if he died? He would not have appeared in the programme.
Of that point I have, sadly, been confronted very recently with exactly that, albeit not with obesity but with recreational drug use. I was trying to help out with a difficult case who was continuously telling me that I was wrong. Who knows? I could very well have been wrong. What did I tell him? That people who are singing the delights of recreational drugs on several Internet fora, are always survivors. The dead ones or the mentally destroyed ones never come back to tell their tale: they are too busy being dead or too busy being locked in for their own protection. The point of that is that these sites are giving people a skeqed impression of the safety of recreational drugs.
Well, he is not going to go back to those fora either. He died exactly, to the day, 3 months ago...of an overdose. I sacrificed more than 15 years of my life to him. It was in vain. I was warned by others who had tried that failure was almost guaranteed. I acknowledged the warnings and invested my time anyway. It was a failure. The point is, it was not predictable and life is precious to me. Do I now regret it? Not for a second. I did my best to help and it was not enough. I would have never forgiven myself for not trying.
To protect against the accusation in a previous comment: I am NOT comparing obesity with drug use. I am just giving another example of how unpredictability means exactly that. I often also use the lottery as an example. Reality is that, if you buy a ticket, you will not win. If anyone else buys a ticket, that person will not win. However, there *are* winners almost every week. People are only shown the winners. Nobody wants to see the losers. And they couldn't. There are millions of those, also almost every week.
You survived, so did I. There are many of those cases. We don't know the ones that are dead because they can no longer tell the tale. They will not come to MFP to tell their story, so many people will not be aware these cases are -sadly- very real.
As for the numbers you are giving, I know those, but it is great that you mention them. Far too many people do not know them and, alas, even (I think) far more people do not understand the nature of statistics: they have no predictive value. It is something that is routinely shown in commercials/advertisements for investments: "past performance is not indicative of future results". Even worse (perhaps), is that too many people do not understand that the numbers used in medicine are markers, screening tools, based on population studies and that they have less than stellar predictive value or even diagnostic value for the individual.
A good example of that would indeed be the BMI classes. When you have a BMI of 24.999 you are of healthy weight, when you have a BMI of 25.001 you are overweight. The difference between the two is ridiculous. They are exactly the same from a clinical standpoint. Unfortunately, that is equally true for all other points on the scale. Of course, my example is rather extreme but I am just trying to be as unambiguous as I can. The CDC has tried to address that:
It is my opinion that some people will have a problem with that solution. I prefer to use: "Healthy weight is ≥18.5 and <25.0, but I have been heavily criticised for that. There comes a point where one just has to accept that not everyone communicates in the same way. I don't like it, I actually hate it, but I have learned -with difficulty- to accept it, at least most of the time and I have no idea whether "most" stands for 50.01% or 99.999% ^_^.
I often compare that problem with that of Richard Dawkins when he tried to explain that there never was a "first human". He used the human lifespan as an example (among others): from day to day, babies look exactly the same. But, when you look after a few weeks/months/years/decades, the changes are phenomenal. So, when does a baby become something that looks like an adult? And when exactly does that adult morph into an old person? All categories are largely arbitrary.
What you are seeing is indeed what everybody sees. So do I.P.S. I am currently at 163lbs, halfway through 2016. I just pulled the past 180 days (165 logged between July 28, 2022 and today), and I can see that I've been eating 3081 Cal on average... which explains why I am heading up. AND also shows the elasticity that (sometimes) exists both going up and going down. My expected weight gain would be over 7.5lbs, but the actual is closer to 5.
And you are completely correct, there is indeed some elasticity. I have the same experience. It is also logical. We don't only have reserves in our fat stores but also distributed just about everywhere else. One of the first things I learned in med school was the case of vitamin C. It was known to be a water-soluble vitamin that cannot be stored, except that it can and is, and it had been known for a very log time, but we don't much about how and where. If that were not the case, people who have no access to vitamin C would start to develop disease and drop dead almost immediately when they don't get any. However, people don't experience that. So, we *postulate* that there are reserves of Vitamin C, possibly/probably in the interstitial fluids but we don't really know much with certainty.
That is why I always say that an energy deficit is guaranteed to lead to fat weight loss, but that there is some wiggle room at the other end, because not everyone is able to extract all the available energy out of their food. That said, if there is no energy excess, there cannot possibly be fat weight gain for if that happened, the person would not survive, at least not for very long, a few days perhaps, who knows? Some people call that "all calories are not created equal". I see that as a misnomer and a very misleading statement because it leads some people to think that we eat calories, and we don't. We eat molecules that can be(and hopefully are ^_^) processed to generate usable energy.
What you mention as your daily intake is a lot higher than mine, but, I am still in a weight loss phase, even if the end of that phase is coming closer. I have several strategies for the maintenance phase in mind, and I started to experiment with them, but I am very careful. After all, energy content i not the only thing to take into account. Nevertheless, I started, because the last thing I need is descending into underweight or shooting up into overweight again, but nobody knows what my ideal weight is. Right now, at 63.4 kg I am of "normal" weight, but no doctor who sees me will actually think that, and they don't. I hear the expression "you could stand to lose a few pounds" more often than is agreeable. On the other hand, if there is any iminent danger, it is highly unlikely to be a weight issue, and I have no other known conditions that could be life threatening. We have to be thankful for small favours.
For the rest, I agree with you even if I usually formulate it somewhat differently. Many people call it "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" and Robert Baron calls it "if you can't have the best, take the better option".
As for the Fibit, how does that work out for you? I have had one for a few days, but it didn't work for me. I still have a Powerwatch 2, but that was essentially a fraud. I quite liked it because you *never* have to recharge it... until you do, and returning it is no longer possible.1 -
One good thing - mods splitting the threads.
If anyone wants to post long convoluted irelevant posts - generally best to start your own thread - even use the debate section which is specifically for debating
Of course even in debate one should stick to the topic - but at least it isnt hijacking any OP's personal threads.
6 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
As for the numbers you are giving, I know those, but it is great that you mention them. Far too many people do not know them and, alas, even (I think) far more people do not understand the nature of statistics: they have no predictive value.
Actually, statistics DO have predictive value. That's the way science works. A well-designed experiment starts with a null hypothesis and a research design that asks a question to try to disprove the null hypothesis. Data are collected. Typically it's a sample that should be large enough to make inference on a larger population. That population DOES have to be defined. It may or may not be all humanity; a good scientific design identifies the population. Statistical analysis can show if the hypothesis was disproved. It can never be proved, but it can be disproved which lends support to the alternate hypothesis, which is the point of the experiment. Then, similar data can be used to make predictions about populations and sometimes individuals. That's how science works. Statistics allow us to make predictions. The bigger the sample size, and the less variability in the data, the stronger the predictions are.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »That is why I always say that an energy deficit is guaranteed to lead to fat weight loss,
Ladies and gentlemen; Here it is. Finally what I've been asking for all along. An admission that a calorie deficit leads to fat loss. Rational people recognize that a combination of the amount of calories eaten and the amount of calories oxidized by normal daily activity AND EXERCISE are part of the calorie balance equation. Quod erat demonstrandum (QED). Thank you.
Oh well, too bad I'm set on "ignore" because Bart won't ever see this. But most others who are trying to be entertained by this circus might.
9 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
As for the numbers you are giving, I know those, but it is great that you mention them. Far too many people do not know them and, alas, even (I think) far more people do not understand the nature of statistics: they have no predictive value.
Actually, statistics DO have predictive value. That's the way science works. A well-designed experiment starts with a null hypothesis and a research design that asks a question to try to disprove the null hypothesis. Data are collected. Typically it's a sample that should be large enough to make inference on a larger population. That population DOES have to be defined. It may or may not be all humanity; a good scientific design identifies the population. Statistical analysis can show if the hypothesis was disproved. It can never be proved, but it can be disproved which lends support to the alternate hypothesis, which is the point of the experiment. Then, similar data can be used to make predictions about populations and sometimes individuals. That's how science works. Statistics allow us to make predictions. The bigger the sample size, and the less variability in the data, the stronger the predictions are.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »That is why I always say that an energy deficit is guaranteed to lead to fat weight loss,
Ladies and gentlemen; Here it is. Finally what I've been asking for all along. An admission that a calorie deficit leads to fat loss. Rational people recognize that a combination of the amount of calories eaten and the amount of calories oxidized by normal daily activity AND EXERCISE are part of the calorie balance equation. Quod erat demonstrandum (QED). Thank you.
Oh well, too bad I'm set on "ignore" because Bart won't ever see this. But most others who are trying to be entertained by this circus might.
Great analysis!
Even I, not the greatest in the sciences and math (I'm into art and color), understood this. Thanks.
5 -
snowflake954 wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
As for the numbers you are giving, I know those, but it is great that you mention them. Far too many people do not know them and, alas, even (I think) far more people do not understand the nature of statistics: they have no predictive value.
Actually, statistics DO have predictive value. That's the way science works. A well-designed experiment starts with a null hypothesis and a research design that asks a question to try to disprove the null hypothesis. Data are collected. Typically it's a sample that should be large enough to make inference on a larger population. That population DOES have to be defined. It may or may not be all humanity; a good scientific design identifies the population. Statistical analysis can show if the hypothesis was disproved. It can never be proved, but it can be disproved which lends support to the alternate hypothesis, which is the point of the experiment. Then, similar data can be used to make predictions about populations and sometimes individuals. That's how science works. Statistics allow us to make predictions. The bigger the sample size, and the less variability in the data, the stronger the predictions are.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »That is why I always say that an energy deficit is guaranteed to lead to fat weight loss,
Ladies and gentlemen; Here it is. Finally what I've been asking for all along. An admission that a calorie deficit leads to fat loss. Rational people recognize that a combination of the amount of calories eaten and the amount of calories oxidized by normal daily activity AND EXERCISE are part of the calorie balance equation. Quod erat demonstrandum (QED). Thank you.
Oh well, too bad I'm set on "ignore" because Bart won't ever see this. But most others who are trying to be entertained by this circus might.
Great analysis!
Even I, not the greatest in the sciences and math (I'm into art and color), understood this. Thanks.
I am a recovering scientist. I spent part of my career as faculty on a respected research University. I am retired, and I no longer "science." But I still know how it is supposed to work.
At the same time, an unscrupulous person can cherry-pick statistics to make an argument that isn't true. The REAL challenge is good experimental design. Many experiments aren't designed well, or the data really aren't high quality.
We read a book in grad school called "Shark Attack." It's out of print. It was when the US Navy was looking into when and why sharks "attack." As a SCUBA diver, I know they don't usually "attack" people, they usually mistake us as lunch. We aren't tasty, but the interaction can be devastating or fatal. There were ideas about sharks. One was that "most attacks happen close to shore." The author of the study looked at the data and concluded that most people who are in the ocean are close to shore. It's not that sharks are more likely to bite a person if that person is close to shore, it's just where those people are. A similar idea was that sharks attack in water around a certain temperature. Yep. You guessed it - that is around the temperature where people are comfortable in the water. The temperature doesn't induce sharks to bite; there's just more opportunities because there are people in the water.3 -
Well, there goes my New Year's resolution. I'm going to keep arguing on the Internet even though it won't land.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I thought I made it clear that this is a personal view, nothing else. I loathe working out, and I love physical activity. The difference, for me, is that "working out" is activity as a goal while "activity" is activity as a means to get something done. Other people may have other views, there is nothing wrong with that, but this is the way I approach it. I do not drive my car to the gym, but I walk to the grocery store.It’s also not helpful to split hairs about “working out” vs. “activity.” Both burn calories, [snip]
Right. That's why I said it's not helpful to split hairs. I also do not "work out"--my exercise of choice is to walk everywhere.
I have never said otherwise, and I have even given examples of it. I usually quote the Biggest Loser because there can be no doubt there. The point is merely, and that is also what you will find in the literature, that most people struggle to get to that point. For the rest, calories are units to measure energy, the source of that energy does not matter in any way.[snip]and if I reduce my food intake by 250 calories per day and burn 250 through any type of activity/exercise, they are equal contributors to my weight loss.
You have indeed said otherwise. You've said that exercise doesn't matter for weight loss. (I'm paraphrasing; you've said it many ways). In my example, exercise is 50% of the calorie reduction.
Well then, let me help you out:I’ll take a long walk so I can have ice cream, thank you. I know zero doctors that would EVER just blatantly say that exercise doesn’t matter for weight loss.
This is a well-known doctor who also writes for the New York Times:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtn4Ap8kDM
This is Robert Baron, a professor of medicine at UCSF:https://youtube.com/watch?v=yzqvgRrNCQM&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE&t=920
So now, you know two. Your statement is no longer true.
Ah. Now we're getting somewhere. Both of these doctors stress the importance of calorie reduction from food. I wholeheartedly agree, and so do many others on this thread. In the second video (the talk on obesity), he said something like, "You spend 45 minutes on the stair climber and see it burned 300 calories and you just ate a 1200 calorie muffin." What I take away is that exercise is not going to help as much as eating less for losing weight. I can agree that this is probably the medical consensus, especially when we look at average statistical results.
But doesn't the example I gave above (where I've reduced my food intake by 250 calories below what I burn and increased my activity to burn 250 additional calories) make it true that exercise does matter for those who do it that way? Like lots and lots of us on MFP who are doing it that way?
It seems to be really important for you to make sure the MFP community knows that exercise doesn't matter. Why?
You do whatever you want to do. I have never said that you are not allowed to do what you want to do. My standpoint is simply that the choice of a person who is in possession of less information is making less of a conscious choice and more of an arbitrary one.The combo of diet and activity makes it a sustainable weight loss plan. Yes, sustainable! Not because I will sustain the calorie deficit until I waste away and die, but because I am learning how to comfortably sustain a balance of in/out.
I could have saved myself some thought and just snipped your rebuttal here, because why would you argue with what I've said here?
Also, it's incredibly presumptuous to assume anyone has less information than you and is therefore making an arbitrary choice.
I could almost predict this was coming up. I am NOT comparing this to the COVID crisis. I am trying to illustrate how people make mistakes in reasoning by showing another error in reasoning. COVID is simply the first example I was thinking of. Maybe I should learn to add something like:Edited to add: Bart, comparing this to the COVID crisis… 🙄*****************************************************
*****************************************************
THIS IS NOT A COMPARISON OF SUBJECTS
BUT AN ANALOGY TO SHOW HOW
REASONING ****CAN*** BE WRONG.
*****************************************************
*****************************************************
I get what you're trying to do, it's just not a useful analogy and even (gasp) wades into the false-logic pool. Weight loss is a widely studied field with lots and lots of information and data published, read, reread, retooled, updated, compared, contrasted, changed, [add your own verb] for decades. When COVID hit, we had to make fast decisions and put our trust in experts who were also learning at the same time, and it was scary.
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions