Top 10 MFP community falsehoods
Replies
-
Figure out how much your fat mass weighs. Calculate 31kcal per day per lb of fat mass. That's your maximum sustainable deficit, without cutting into LBM too often.
According to this I can happily have just 650 cals a day without losing my LBM. :noway:
I would suggest that this is neither healthy nor sustainable. :noway:
The 31 cals per day is based on a theoretical calculation and should not be applied out of context. It also only refers to the theoretical maximum fat that can be oxidized a day, and does not refer to the minimum needed to sustain hormonal balance. It also assumes that enough protein is consumed to minimize muscle protein breakdown.
Thank you :flowerforyou:
And this is why it is important to post extra information when you list information like this.
I bet a few people would have thought the same thing and used it to justify their VLCD.0 -
that's correct. I included that macros should be hit when trying to generate that large of a deficit, but it's a good idea to have that detailed info laid out as well.
ETA: My primary goal for that piece of the post was for people who are very overweight or obese to (hopefully) realize that when they satisfy their nutritional needs (i.e. macros) they don't have to worry about "eating back" exercise calories. Those who are very close to their goal *will* need to worry about that. I just see a lot of people with 80-100+ lbs to lose who are also trying to measure their 150 calories burned doing housework or mowing the lawn so they can then be sure to eat the proper number of grapes or something to maintain an unnecessarily small deficit. The long and short of it is, if you have a lot to lose, it's going to be *really* tough to out-exercise your maximum "healthy" deficit. I did not intend for people to justify an unmonitored VLCD using that information.
Thanks to those who have already helped clarify this.0 -
that's correct. I included that macros should be hit when trying to generate that large of a deficit, but it's a good idea to have that detailed info laid out as well.
ETA: My primary goal for that piece of the post was for people who are very overweight or obese to (hopefully) realize that when they satisfy their nutritional needs (i.e. macros) they don't have to worry about "eating back" exercise calories. Those who are very close to their goal *will* need to worry about that. I just see a lot of people with 80-100+ lbs to lose who are also trying to measure their 150 calories burned doing housework or mowing the lawn so they can then be sure to eat the proper number of grapes or something to maintain an unnecessarily small deficit. The long and short of it is, if you have a lot to lose, it's going to be *really* tough to out-exercise your maximum "healthy" deficit. I did not intend for people to justify an unmonitored VLCD using that information.
Thanks to those who have already helped clarify this.
I did not see any mention that the OP was directed at very overweight or obese people.
You do mention in the OP that you like Lyle.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html
You also mention "There *is* science to support the limit of roughly 6% of your body's fat mass per week as an upper limit on the rate of fat loss.". Where is this from? Not saying it is wrong - just that I have not seen this noted before.0 -
My latest favorite: That HRM-reported calorie burn is inaccurate for weight-training.
What??0 -
My latest favorite: That HRM-reported calorie burn is inaccurate for weight-training.
What??
It is.0 -
that's correct. I included that macros should be hit when trying to generate that large of a deficit, but it's a good idea to have that detailed info laid out as well.
ETA: My primary goal for that piece of the post was for people who are very overweight or obese to (hopefully) realize that when they satisfy their nutritional needs (i.e. macros) they don't have to worry about "eating back" exercise calories. Those who are very close to their goal *will* need to worry about that. I just see a lot of people with 80-100+ lbs to lose who are also trying to measure their 150 calories burned doing housework or mowing the lawn so they can then be sure to eat the proper number of grapes or something to maintain an unnecessarily small deficit. The long and short of it is, if you have a lot to lose, it's going to be *really* tough to out-exercise your maximum "healthy" deficit. I did not intend for people to justify an unmonitored VLCD using that information.
Thanks to those who have already helped clarify this.
This is your biggest blindness, Joshdann. You start posts and threads from YOUR viewpoint and fail to understand that these forums are read by a wide range of people who are not at all like you. Your posts in many threads come from "where you are" - which is a youngish man who had over 100 pounds to lose, was out of shape, and now has had a little success in losing 34 pounds.
Make your audience aware of your viewpoint. You come off as, "This is what works. Everyone else on this site is wrong." Really, Joshdann, you are a newbie and have found something that works. You're excited. You think you know everything. Just learn your audience, stop talking down to people, and realize that not everyone is where you are. Then, try to be a little humble.
VLCDs are a really bad idea for that 23 year old woman who has 15 pounds to lose. Be careful with your high horse.
As I step off mine.0 -
My latest favorite: That HRM-reported calorie burn is inaccurate for weight-training.
What??
It is.
I just talked about this in another thread.
From my personal experience, my Polar FT7 has given me a 700-800 burn (more than once) for a 60 minute weight training session. I wish it were true..but it isn't. Truthfully, it is closer to 250-300 burn.
But here is a more technical explanation.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1044313-this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories
I believe the same OP of that thread did a blog explanation but I didn't bookmark it.0 -
My latest favorite: That HRM-reported calorie burn is inaccurate for weight-training.
What??
It is.
I just talked about this in another thread.
From my personal experience, my Polar FT7 has given me a 700-800 burn (more than once) for a 60 minute weight training session. I wish it were true..but it isn't. Truthfully, it is closer to 250-300 burn.
But here is a more technical explanation.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1044313-this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories
I believe the same OP of that thread did a blog explanation but I didn't bookmark it.
The OP of that thread is very knowledgeable re the use of HRMs - it's a great thread.0 -
that's correct. I included that macros should be hit when trying to generate that large of a deficit, but it's a good idea to have that detailed info laid out as well.
ETA: My primary goal for that piece of the post was for people who are very overweight or obese to (hopefully) realize that when they satisfy their nutritional needs (i.e. macros) they don't have to worry about "eating back" exercise calories. Those who are very close to their goal *will* need to worry about that. I just see a lot of people with 80-100+ lbs to lose who are also trying to measure their 150 calories burned doing housework or mowing the lawn so they can then be sure to eat the proper number of grapes or something to maintain an unnecessarily small deficit. The long and short of it is, if you have a lot to lose, it's going to be *really* tough to out-exercise your maximum "healthy" deficit. I did not intend for people to justify an unmonitored VLCD using that information.
Thanks to those who have already helped clarify this.
This is your biggest blindness, Joshdann. You start posts and threads from YOUR viewpoint and fail to understand that these forums are read by a wide range of people who are not at all like you. Your posts in many threads come from "where you are" - which is a youngish man who had over 100 pounds to lose, was out of shape, and now has had a little success in losing 34 pounds.
Make your audience aware of your viewpoint. You come off as, "This is what works. Everyone else on this site is wrong." Really, Joshdann, you are a newbie and have found something that works. You're excited. You think you know everything. Just learn your audience, stop talking down to people, and realize that not everyone is where you are. Then, try to be a little humble.
VLCDs are a really bad idea for that 23 year old woman who has 15 pounds to lose. Be careful with your high horse.
As I step off mine.
0 -
^that's correct. I included that macros should be hit when trying to generate that large of a deficit, but it's a good idea to have that detailed info laid out as well.
ETA: My primary goal for that piece of the post was for people who are very overweight or obese to (hopefully) realize that when they satisfy their nutritional needs (i.e. macros) they don't have to worry about "eating back" exercise calories. Those who are very close to their goal *will* need to worry about that. I just see a lot of people with 80-100+ lbs to lose who are also trying to measure their 150 calories burned doing housework or mowing the lawn so they can then be sure to eat the proper number of grapes or something to maintain an unnecessarily small deficit. The long and short of it is, if you have a lot to lose, it's going to be *really* tough to out-exercise your maximum "healthy" deficit. I did not intend for people to justify an unmonitored VLCD using that information.
Thanks to those who have already helped clarify this.
This is your biggest blindness, Joshdann. You start posts and threads from YOUR viewpoint and fail to understand that these forums are read by a wide range of people who are not at all like you. Your posts in many threads come from "where you are" - which is a youngish man who had over 100 pounds to lose, was out of shape, and now has had a little success in losing 34 pounds.
Make your audience aware of your viewpoint. You come off as, "This is what works. Everyone else on this site is wrong." Really, Joshdann, you are a newbie and have found something that works. You're excited. You think you know everything. Just learn your audience, stop talking down to people, and realize that not everyone is where you are. Then, try to be a little humble.
VLCDs are a really bad idea for that 23 year old woman who has 15 pounds to lose. Be careful with your high horse.
As I step off mine.0 -
My latest favorite: That HRM-reported calorie burn is inaccurate for weight-training.
What??
Falsehood. Doesn't mean what you think it means.0 -
For me: Eat less, move more...
And the rest just seems to be detail....0 -
My latest favorite: That HRM-reported calorie burn is inaccurate for weight-training.
What??
It is.
I just talked about this in another thread.
From my personal experience, my Polar FT7 has given me a 700-800 burn (more than once) for a 60 minute weight training session. I wish it were true..but it isn't. Truthfully, it is closer to 250-300 burn.
But here is a more technical explanation.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1044313-this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories
I believe the same OP of that thread did a blog explanation but I didn't bookmark it.
The OP of that thread is very knowledgeable re the use of HRMs - it's a great thread.
This one?
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-214720 -
I agree with Joy and Sara about Azdak's thread:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1044313-this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories
Azdak has been in the Fitness industry for several decades. He knows his stuff.
His blog has lots of info, in many installments (re: HRMs and more):
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/azdak
Scroll down, there are probably ten different blog posts about Cardio, Weights, HIIT, HRMs, etc. Worth reading all of them.
.0 -
My latest favorite: That HRM-reported calorie burn is inaccurate for weight-training.
What??
It is.
I just talked about this in another thread.
From my personal experience, my Polar FT7 has given me a 700-800 burn (more than once) for a 60 minute weight training session. I wish it were true..but it isn't. Truthfully, it is closer to 250-300 burn.
But here is a more technical explanation.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1044313-this-is-why-hrms-have-limited-use-for-tracking-calories
I believe the same OP of that thread did a blog explanation but I didn't bookmark it.
The OP of that thread is very knowledgeable re the use of HRMs - it's a great thread.
This one?
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/Azdak/view/the-real-facts-about-hrms-and-calories-what-you-need-to-know-before-purchasing-an-hrm-or-using-one-21472
Yes! Thank you!!!!!0 -
Oooh...interesting links guys!0
-
I stand corrected. And it's been years and years of apparently inaccurate readings.0
-
I stand corrected. And it's been years and years of apparently inaccurate readings.
Are you comparing cardio burns with strength training burns again?0 -
Love 'ya, Mr. Sanity!0
-
Beautiful.....best piece of literature today.0
-
Dammit your ruined my "special cookie" feeling I had going and TBH I love everything you said and agree with it all. Especially the Starvation Mode, I agree just stop it.0
-
I stand corrected. And it's been years and years of apparently inaccurate readings.
Are you comparing cardio burns with strength training burns again?
All day every day!
0 -
Dammit your ruined my "special cookie" feeling I had going and TBH I love everything you said and agree with it all. Especially the Starvation Mode, I agree just stop it.
Yes. It works WHEN YOU ARE OBESE!!
Once again, you have 50 pounds or more left to lose. Don't preach to the entire site (which, BTW has lots of young people with 20 pounds to lose - if that.)
You can have large deficits when you are overweight. Your body can live on stored fat - to a point.
Come back here with your knowledge once you've reached goal.0 -
So true.
GO LIONS!0 -
VLCDs are a really bad idea for that 23 year old woman who has 15 pounds to lose. Be careful with your high horse.
The OP has said that himself. He has explicitly, and frequently, made it clear that using VLCD in conjunction with fat stores only works if you have enough fat stores, otherwise you're going to be disassembling your own body. He has even quantified the level of fat stores needed, and shown how to calculate appropriate intake, which clearly shows that caloric intake needs go up as fat stores go down.
IMO that particular criticism of the OP is unsupportable.0 -
I had no idea people were blaming fatness on gluten. I figured most people who are avoiding gluten do so to feel better, not to lose weight. I have a diagnosed gluten intolerance and I've always been slim. In fact, I lose too much weight when I eat gluten because I'm sick all the time.
ETA: Bloating is NOT the same thing as fatness.
0 -
I had no idea people were blaming fatness on gluten. I figured most people who are avoiding gluten do so to feel better, not to lose weight. I have a diagnosed gluten intolerance and I've always been slim. In fact, I lose too much weight when I eat gluten because I'm sick all the time.
ETA: Bloating is NOT the same thing as fatness.
It has become an unfortunate trend and is why there tends to be a butting of heads on the topic due to people turning a legit medical condition into a diet fad or/and result of fear mongering.0 -
bump
very well worded
thank you0 -
I think the OP has articulated common sense for the majority of people on MFP who just want to lose a few (or many) pounds. For those whose main reason for being here is fitness and gaining muscle mass it may be different.
It's very easy to get caught up in the latest craze. If there's one thing I've realized (disclaimer....for ME) it's to eat a healthy diet of nutritious foods at a caloric deficit and move more.
The end.0 -
To be fair, I intended that as the primary audience, I just did not articulate it. From my perspective, that accounts for the majority of the people here. I at least managed to post it in the weight loss thread, even if I didn't manage to make that part clear.that's correct. I included that macros should be hit when trying to generate that large of a deficit, but it's a good idea to have that detailed info laid out as well.
ETA: My primary goal for that piece of the post was for people who are very overweight or obese to (hopefully) realize that when they satisfy their nutritional needs (i.e. macros) they don't have to worry about "eating back" exercise calories. Those who are very close to their goal *will* need to worry about that. I just see a lot of people with 80-100+ lbs to lose who are also trying to measure their 150 calories burned doing housework or mowing the lawn so they can then be sure to eat the proper number of grapes or something to maintain an unnecessarily small deficit. The long and short of it is, if you have a lot to lose, it's going to be *really* tough to out-exercise your maximum "healthy" deficit. I did not intend for people to justify an unmonitored VLCD using that information.
Thanks to those who have already helped clarify this.
I did not see any mention that the OP was directed at very overweight or obese people.
You do mention in the OP that you like Lyle.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html
You also mention "There *is* science to support the limit of roughly 6% of your body's fat mass per week as an upper limit on the rate of fat loss.". Where is this from? Not saying it is wrong - just that I have not seen this noted before.
As for Lyle, I do like him and I've even had some email exchange with him to help clarify some theories I came up with a few months ago. He's been doing research for a very long time and has seen just about ever scenario possible.... as it turns out he had already tested those theories and proven one correct and one incorrect. He's been very helpful to me both directly and indirectly, and I have read *I think* everything he's ever published online or in print. The link you're referring to is one that made me originally think there was some truth behind the "you need to eat more to lose weight" theory. And yes, there is... he details some of that in that link. However, IMO it gets misapplied all the time here. He uses examples that are extreme in one direction, but somehow those concepts get applied to people that are extreme in the other direction. The issues of a woman who eats 600 kcal per day and runs marathons are not going to have very much intersection with those of someone who eats 1200 and exercises comparatively little.
the 6% number is based off of the 31kcal per lb of fat mass number, extrapolated to include the 3500 kcal per lb of fat loss estimate. If you have 100 lbs of fat mass, your theoretical maximum loss for the week would be 6.2 lbs. With 50 lbs of fat, it comes to 3.1 lbs. with 25 lbs, 1.5, etc.
To the poster who said something about my blindness and my high horse... I just posted a thread with a bunch of things that people get wrong here every single day. I never intended this to turn into "the fitness bible" nor am I trying to pitch it as anything of the sort. I don't have any high horse to get off of. For what it's worth, the 34 lbs I've lost is just since I started with MFP. A little over a year ago I was 350 lbs. So my ticker would say 64lbs if I had started here then.
If you read my profile you'll see that I also underwent this journey once before, years ago when I was in my very early twenties. I got down to 215 then and I was in great shape... but got lazy and slowly gained a crapload of weight over the following 12ish years. Married, happy, etc. etc... I had every excuse in the book. A few months ago I decided I'm done with that. I set a goal for myself to get back to 215, and get back to the weights I used to lift at 21. I will finish this journey and I will be in the best shape of my life by the time I hit 35 next year. I'm driven to reach that goal and I'm well ahead of schedule. I have embraced the science behind weight loss and have learned an amazing amount that has helped me get this far... and I will continue to learn.
I have read every piece of credible scientific data on the subject I've been able to find, and I'll keep doing that as long as there is more out there to find. That's the big reason I didn't list a ton of references at the time... I plainly didn't have them at my fingertips to list when I wrote it. I read and read but I rarely bookmark so I can "prove" it to someone later. Gaining knowledge is a never-ending process, and I even noted at the top of my rant that I'm just a nerd who likes research and wants to help dispel some of the nonsense that gets thrown around as fact, even though science doesn't support it. I never said I was anything more than that.
All I hope is that people will do their own research and stop buying into the hype of things that have no real foundation in fact. That's why I started this thread and so far I've gotten tons of responses from people who are doing just that. You can't please everyone, but I'm more than happy that I've helped at least a few people become skeptical and start actually reading credible scientific work themselves. I consider that my own little NSV.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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