Top 10 MFP community falsehoods

BoomstickChick

I have to disagree with you there about the metabolism and gluten issues. People with hypothyroidism are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to their metabolism and it's not just because of being obese or history. It's a medical condition through no fault of our own. Also, there's been studies showing that people with Hashimoto's and hypothyroidism benefit from gluten free diets.

Bebubble

I get really tired of reading all of the broscience and bad information passed around here as if it's going to help someone. I thought I'd compile a list of things that irritate me the most. Feel free to add your own. I'm writing this post because IMHO this community *should* be a place for people to come and get support, advice, and techniques that will help them with their fitness goals. I hope that in some small way I can help push the group back in that direction and away from the "I know better than everyone, listen to me!!!" theme that we currently seem to have. And yes, I do recognize the irony in that statement, as I'm about to list out a bunch of things that I know to be correct in spite of the trends. I'll add that I didn't come up with this stuff on my own. Much smarter people than me have done the real work, the real research, and published their real findings. I'm just summarizing their efforts in my own words. I hope someone finds it helpful.

Before I start the list, a personal disclaimer: I'm not a doctor. I'm not a nutritionist. I'm a fat, nerdy engineer. I'm less fat than I used to be (down a total of almost 70 lbs from a year ago, 34 since joining MFP about 10 weeks ago) but I'm still working on my own weight loss journey. That said, my job... nay, my very nature is to gather as much credible information as I can and sort the wheat (OMG GLUTEN!) from the chaff, as it were. I am very good at troubleshooting and problem solving. Historically I'm not very good with discipline, but that's something I'm working on. I recognize that as a personal weakness. I'm willing to bet that it's something almost all of us are working on. That segues nicely into the first item on the list:

1.) Something else is to blame, not me!

This is the biggest problem in the fitness community, so I've kinda grouped lots of falsehoods into this one item. Many reputable studies have found that the one thing lacking from every unsuccessful diet plan is discipline. Whatever goals you choose to set for yourself, you have to stick with a plan that gets you to those goals. The falsehoods surrounding discipline are too many to list entirely, but pretty much everything from "I did that and then gained back all the weight" to "that won't work because it didn't work for me" all boil down to a lack of discipline. Of *course* you gained weight after you stopped adhering to your diet plan... i mean... duh, amirite? You can't eat nothing but chicken and veggies for a year then go back to pigging out at Pizza Hut every day and feign surprise at your resulting spare tire. You definitely can't blame it on the chicken and veggies. A *lot* of people do, though. The diet gets blamed for what happened after you stopped the diet... that's crazy, IMO. Before you start looking for a place to point a finger, ask yourself honestly: "am I really being as disciplined as I should be?" Less discipline (and/or falling prey to broscience) will result in slower results. For some people that slower pace is fine, but it's not necessary or even more "healthy". If you are obese or overweight, you can lose weight quickly. It only needs to slow down as you get closer to your goal. Plateaus are not "just a part of weight loss", they are usually either a failure in diet and exercise plan adherence or failure to properly adjust one's diet and exercise plan. Blaming that plateau on something else, or even accepting it as normal, will only slow your progress.

2.) This must be right because it feels right, or it's easier

I almost made this #1 because it really results in a lot more false information than anything else. People seem to think that there is some kind of magic behind weight loss. As if there is one plan out there that is better than the rest, and only the people on that plan will ever have real or lasting results. Sounds a lot like religion for a reason... basic human nature is to make oneself comfortable. We have a goal, but we justify not meeting it or adjusting it because we want to make ourselves more comfortable. "Eat more to lose" is the best example I know of. Yes, you can eat more and still lose weight. Of course you can. That's a fantastic plan for a lot of people, psychologically. It makes us more comfortable and even though it slows down progress it does get results. The problem with it is that 2-3 times per day I read a response from someone that "you need to eat more to lose weight". That's 100% incorrect. Science has proven this 10 ways in every direction, but people still believe it because it makes them feel good about the amount they are currently eating. Convincing oneself that it's necessary is a great way to avoid guilt. The same goes for people who swear that even for obese people, a specific number of lbs per week is the maximum "healthy" rate of loss. There is no science to support that exact number. 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.

Another good example is the "your problem is that you are addicted to the scale" argument. Preposterous. There is nothing wrong with weighing yourself every 5 minutes if you want to. All data is good data. I personally don't have time to weigh every 5 minutes but if I were a scientist conducting a weight loss experiment, I would be pretty pissed off if the guy assigned to taking measurements decided that once every 7 days was enough because he didn't understand or like what the daily values said. In essence, we are all scientists in this experiment. No, the number on the scale isn't going to give you warm fuzzies every time you step on it... but knowing what you weigh each and every day has real value. Being able to trend and adjust accordingly will get you faster results. Psychology strikes again... people don't like the way something *feels* so they tell everyone that it's bad to do that thing. And other people *believe* it. People use words like "healthy" and "recommended" to bolster the credibility of the thing they're pushing.

The only real truth behind these things lies in the psychological benefits. People who exercise their willpower as much as their bodies will have faster success and keep it off. And they'll do it in a perfectly healthy way.

3.) Heavy Lifting makes women bulky

Nope. For men, eating at a surplus, heavy lifting can result in a decent rate of muscle growth. 20 lbs per year on a large-framed and very dedicated man is possible, but not very common. For women (who have a normal hormonal balance) it takes even longer than that. An average woman with an average frame (let's say 5'4") could potentially gain 5-10 lbs of muscle in a full year of dedicated heavy lifting. it's usually on the lower end of that scale, and 5 lbs of muscle spread out over the entire body is not incredibly obvious. Certainly not to the point of being considered bulky. What heavy lifting *does* accomplish, for both sexes, is a solid caloric burn that is not nearly as affected by muscle efficiency. As we lose body weight, cardio exercises like walking and running become less effective for two primary reasons. The first is that our workload (body weight) is decreasing, so it takes fewer calories to accomplish the same level of effort. The second is that our muscles become much better at performing those tasks. Cardio exercises work the same muscle groups every time, at the same (usually even decreasing) levels of effort. Heavy lifting helps counter the effects of muscle efficiency by not relying on pure body weight for workload. Increasing your workload regularly, instead of decreasing it, means constantly challenging your muscles to do more work than they're used to. This plan works well for women and for men. HIIT can have similar effects, but still relies on body weight for workload.

4.) Muscle gain is not possible on a deficit, and LBM loss always happens with fat loss

Not really. Muscle gain on a daily deficit is slower, that much is true. It is a lot slower in most cases. But it's not impossible, nor is LBM loss a requirement for fat loss. People preach these two ideas every single day on these forums, but science does not support them. For starters, the concept of a daily deficit is inherently flawed. You body is constantly (as in, all day every day) going through peaks and valleys of available nutrients. In the peaks it will use as much of these nutrients as it needs and either "flush" or store the rest. There are natural rate limiters on how fast you can digest and absorb nutrients into the bloodstream, and how fast you can use and store them. Anything that cannot be absorbed and used or stored before it is eliminated… well, gets flushed. As a whole, these limits are commonly referred to as your "metabolism" (which I will get into on the next point). when your body needs to do things like "perform this exercise" or "repair this muscle" it will find a way to do that. If there are carbs and fats available in the bloodstream, they get used. If there are not, fat stores are used. If fat isn't available, or if your fat is currently at maximum energy-providing capacity, proteins are used. If you don't have proteins available from dietary sources, LBM is used.

The body finds a way, but it only hurts itself if necessary to survive. Not all LBM loss is damaging, but the body prefers to avoid that scenario as long as it can. Assuming you have the right mix of nutrients available for muscle repair when muscles need to be repaired, they will be. It doesn't matter that you were in a valley earlier today if you're in a peak right now. Granted, muscle repair and building are a long process that usually takes a day or two post-workout... so being at an overall daily deficit (more valleys than peaks during the day, etc) will generally not result in much hypertrophy (muscles getting bigger than they were before) because there just isn't spare stuff to go around. Some will still happen though, assuming you are lifting heavy and eating lots of protein. More importantly, a high protein diet coupled with a heavy lifting routine will help *spare* the LBM you already have. That should be the primary goal of anyone (like me) who started this thing fat and wants to end up with a muscular physique. Hypertrophy happens when there are nutrients available during the repair phase. They are converted and stored in muscle rather than fat more readily during this process. That said, if you are at a caloric deficit for the majority of time you are in muscle repair, your body just won't have enough to increase your muscle stores. Gaining muscle on a daily deficit is difficult, but again - possible.

5.) I have a slow Metabolism

Your metabolism is not by default faster or slower than everyone else's. It just isn't. Your level of physical activity, your diet, your current state of and/or history of obesity, and your overall size and frame do affect your metabolism. But yours is going to be pretty much the same as someone else with the same background and stats. As with all things, there is some variation within those groups, but it's not a significant amount. Your Metabolism, as we commonly call it, is actually a measure of the rate at which your body can digest, absorb, and put nutrients to use. This rate is primarily governed by the health of your organs and the levels of several different hormones in your bloodstream. There *are* people with naturally higher levels of these hormones, or natural resistance to them... but it's not nearly common enough for so many weight problems to be blamed on genetics or "slow metabolisms". But, we still like to blame things (see point #2), so we do. Also, eating 9x per day will not keep your metabolism in high gear. Nor will eating certain foods like raspberry ketones. Your metabolism just doesn't have multiple speeds that you can control in such ways.

6.) Gluten

Yes, a very (very) small percentage of the population has Celiac disease. Another very small percentage has a general intolerance to gluten. But, you almost certainly are not one of them. It seems like an easy out (see point #2... again) and this is currently a very popular place to point the blame cannon... but chances are going Gluten free will not help you lose anything other than money. For those who truly are affected, there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Trying gluten-free as a "lifestyle choice" when it isn't necessary is bordering on insane (by Einstein's poignant definition of the word), regardless of if you have convinced yourself that it has had some positive effect. If you really think you might need to go gluten-free, go see your doctor first. There are ways to know for sure if it's a necessary sacrifice or if you're just falling prey to the latest craze. Either way, a real intolerance to gluten does not generally result in weight gain.

7.) Starvation mode

No. Just... No. Most people here know by now that starvation mode is complete BS, but I had to include it. Your body will not "hold onto fat" because you are eating too few calories, that's silly. And impossible. Stop it. Seriously.

8.) Trainers know best

This one is touchy because there really are some good trainers out there. But, it does not take a medical (or any other type of) genius to become a trainer. There are certifications to be had, but most of them don't really prove anything either. Again, some people really are good at it, but as with any scientific profession that doesn't require scientific proficiency... there are plenty of bad ones out there making money off of the unsuspecting public. Being a bad trainer for a long time does not make one a good trainer. Having a good build and a fancy logo on one's under armor shirt doesn't either. Be careful when you select a trainer. Just because what they're doing works, doesn't mean it's the best or the only way to accomplish your goal. A perfect example is a friend of mine who is paying a trainer over $400 per month to give him bad advice. I won't go into details of how bad that advice is... but he is guilty of pretty much every item on this list. And he's getting paid well for it. Again, be careful. Be selective. Do your own research first... you probably don't need a trainer. If you do decide to hire one, arm yourself with enough knowledge to be able to tell on your own whether or not he's full of sh… er, broscience.

9.) TDEE / BMR

This one is a big problem, and really should be higher on the list... but I guess they're all big problems. Relying on TDEE and BMR calculators is bonkers. They're estimates, and some of the methods can be pretty accurate for some people. That said, *most* people use them incorrectly. There are so many factors that determine what your actual daily nutritional needs are, that no online calculator can ever give you a perfect answer. The first mistake people make is under or overestimating the normal level of activity they have in a day (and/or counting normal activity twice by adding it to TDEE). The second is believing that the resulting number (or even an average of several methods' numbers) is truly accurate. It isn't. It can't be. It can be close at times, and I'm sure that just like with the lottery sometimes the number is actually hit on the head... but that's pure luck. The chances of you being one of the few people who gets that right number are so slim that you might as well just not use the calculator. If you do still want to use it, understand that it is a *tool* just like all the other tools we have at our disposal. It may well get you in the general vicinity of where you need to be, but it's an exercise in futility to attempt precision in the measurement and execution of a diet plan when you are basing it on an inherently imprecise number. TDEE and BMR are both touted as some magic numbers that must have some specific method applied to them. BMR is *not* the minimum number of calories you need to eat to survive. TDEE - 20% is *not* the only, the best, or the fastest way to lose fat. It's not even a really good way. It doesn't line up with science in any but the most average of scenarios. Since almost none of us will start or finish our weight loss journey as an average person… why use something that is designed for the average person? 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. Find a point somewhere between maintenance and that number that gets you to your goal as fast or as slow as you want to get there.

10.) I did something and got results, so that is the way.

This might as well be #1... I give up on prioritizing these things. Regardless of its place on my list this is very important. Things get repeated as gospel because they "worked" for someone. 9 times out of 10 the "results" of a fad diet or some random broscience are just a side effect. Correlation does not equal causation. If every dieter on this board were to start rubbing their heads while patting their bellies every day as they walked for 3 miles, I can pretty much guarantee that the success would get attributed to the rubbing and the patting, not the walking. Similarly, every fad diet is 10% solid advice dressed up with 90% new/special/ultimate crap. People start paying a lot more attention to the number of calories they take in because they now have the new, perfect, secret plan... when really all they needed to do was just pay attention to the calories. But, they did the crazy thing and they got results... so the crazy thing gets the glory.

footnote - Adaptive Thermogenesis

AT itself is not a falsehood. I already have 10 of those on my list, but AT deserves a mention on this list because it *is* a real thing that gets manipulated and otherwise falsified quite often. People will see the effects of AT and call it something else. Or, they will think that they have done irreparable damage to their bodies because of the effects of AT. Adaptive Thermogenesis is, when simplified, a reduction in overall body temperature. The body generates heat while metabolizing food (and doing lots of other things), keeping it at a regular 98.6F for the average person as often as possible. Evolution has produced that magic number because that's where our bodies are generally the most efficient. Adaptive Thermogenesis is a process by which the body recognizes a need to survive on a consistently lower intake of food and thus concedes some efficiency in the name of overall survival. It does not happen immediately and it is not permanent. Hormone levels change slightly to alter the rate at which food is metabolized. There is a limit to this adjustment, though. At a certain point the body has to keep on living, so it can't slow these processes down any more. The limit on the effects of AT has been proven to be about 20%, and only in extreme cases.

Think of it like a campfire. You would like to keep that fire nice and big to cook on, to warm your feet on, and to toast those marshmallows. But, if the guy bringing you firewood isn't bringing it as fast as you'd like, you have to let that fire get a little bit smaller so you can keep it going long-term. The same analogy can be used for repairing your metabolic rate (the size of your campfire). Once you are satisfied that the firewood guy is going to supply you with enough to keep that campfire at optimum levels, you will add more wood to the fire more quickly. It doesn't take a very long time for your body to adjust its hormonal balance and regulate its temperature (and therefore metabolic rate) back up to normal. a few days to a few months, depending on how long you were at a significant deficit. One interesting exception is that of formerly obese people. AT effects can take much longer to overcome, primarily because people who are obese for a very long time have significant hormonal imbalances to repair. This is true whether they used a small or large deficit to lose their weight, however. It's not quite the same as the normal AT discussion, but it's part of the same puzzle.

references

I have far too many references to list. I originally intended to list the most useful ones, but in my mind that sort of defeats the purpose of this post. I'd much prefer that people actually do some research for themselves. Real, scientific studies are out there and available for your perusal. I don't put much stock in forum posts (more irony!) or non-scientific websites. I do enjoy authors like Lyle MacDonald and Mike Roussel, but I mainly use their writings as jumping-off points to go read the actual studies. It is vitally important to compare and contrast the results of every study you can find. The keys to success are applying the knowledge you gain to your own plan, and adjusting based on your personal results. I'm sure I have a few errors in there somewhere, but I've tried hard to lean as heavily as possible on the actual science and avoid putting my own spin on things.

TL;DR - There is no secret to fat loss. The only way to lose fat is to force your body to burn fat. The only way to do that is to consume fewer calories than you burn every day. The only way to know for sure if you're doing that is to measure your intake, your weight, and your fat mass as precisely and as often as possible. Use these measurements to verify and adjust your diet and exercise plan, and you will succeed. All the rest of the crap is just crap.

YOU have spread BS here. I have to laugh.
The Hypothyroidism / Metabolism Connection

If you have undiagnosed hypothyroidism, or your condition is not adequately treated by your doctor, almost anything you do to raise your metabolism on the output side may fail. So the first, essential step is to get a thyroid test. And if you have been tested and are being treated, you need to make sure your treatment is optimized -- including the proper drug and dosage, as well as supplements to support thyroid function.

Hadabetter

For the most part, the OP is correct in most of what he says, but his rationale for why it is correct is not scientifically based, and that is further cemented with the reality that the OP didn't provide any references, didn't feel obliged to, but did feel obliged to tell us he had them.

OP, there are many discrepancies in your post. While your intentions are well-meaning, it is usually best not to come into a community by declaring you have all the knowledge. You make yourself look a bit foolish. There is a lot of misinformation floating around here, but there are a lot of people who combat misinformation with factual information AND provide references.

Again, there are lots of discrepancies in your post. You should review your excessive list of references again because you seemed to have missed some things.

So many discrepancies, but apparently no time to point out what they are. :laugh: (And you talk about a lack of references!)

Bry_Fitness70

Science. Do you guys even know how it works?

"I think spinach causes cancer."
"You have no proof of that, only anecdotal evidence"
"People once said the Earth was flat because of anecdotal evidence, therefore I'm right"

MFP has more scientists than any other web site in the world!!!!

So tobacco doesn’t cause lung cancer? I wish a scientist or two would look into that…

cmcollins001

amyljl77

Thank you for including 7 and 9. Those two drive me nuts only because I think they sabotage other people's weight loss...and I still see people telling others to UP their calories based on TDEE. Insane.

Mr_Knight

If you're springing for a Dexa every 3 weeks, I'm sure you recognize that BMR/TDEE estimations are just that, and was also asking the accuracy of your intake measurements.

Input #1: Starting weight and BF%
Input #2: Current weight and BF%
Input #3: Number of days between weighings

Calculation result: average daily caloric deficit

You appear to be confusing pre- with post-. Note the complete lack of tracked input of calories or exercises or TDEE or BMR in the above. The only "estimation" going into this is the "estimate" that one pound of fat loss represents a caloric deficit of 3500 calories.

In my case, the estimated deficit from tracking calories and exercise is approximately 10%-15% different than the actual reality, but as I've said twice before now, that isn't what I use to figure out my *actual* deficit, I use the actual results. Tracking is just a tool to get in the ballpark - measuring is what closes the feedback loop.

RLDeShazo

bump to read later

joshdann

Holy crap., I went to bed and came back to a huge thread... cool, I guess . I'll choose this one to respond to, because I respect this person's opinion and knowledge more than perhaps even my own.

The biggest falsehoods are "I'm experiencing X, therefore X is the truth for everyone" followed closely by "that doesn't apply to me, we are all different".

The balance is not in either statement.

Yes, plateaus are a phenomenon mostly generated by improper adherence and inconsistency in diet and/or exercise. But they are very much a real experience - people do see weight loss plateau and stop and the reasons vary. It seems that you make the assumption that one just "needs to stick to the plan" and everything will be resolved. Except this clearly ignores the simple fact the adherence (you have problems with "discipline"?) is a multi-faceted element that touches on emotional and physiological interactions. Why do binges occur? Why is adherence hard? Why do most diets fail?
"You have no discipline" is not only patently false but not helpful. Inconsistent discipline in most things is a fact of life as priorities change or get impacted by external influences - how well one adjusts to them matters.

Eat more to lose weight actually works for many people if it reduces cravings and increases adherence and provides sufficient energy to perform. Your rapid loss project is not the way everyone needs or wants to go. I'm quite comfortable at my very slow recomp as I eat food I enjoy. And that enjoyment is part of the lifestyle I want to life. I would not stick to it long term if I was eating 1200. Adherence and satisfaction can be key long term elements for many.

The same goes for people who swear that even for obese people, a specific number of lbs per week is the maximum "healthy" rate of loss. There is no science to support that exact number. 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.

Actually not true. There are a lot of possible complications due to rapid weight loss - from pituitary damage to gall stones. Nutritional needs are a lot harder to meet at larger cuts. When we see people on the boards complaining of hair loss or other medical issues due to hard cuts, it is incorrect to tell then there isn't medical reasons to increase calories.

As to the 6% number, that science is based on a weak interpretation of studies from the 50s. Would suggest you review the source of that one.

OK, so you pointed out one thing here that I definitely left out of my diatribe. Nutritional needs are not to be ignored. I most certainly was not advocating VLCDs as a long-term solution, which is where the majority of those problems come from. I completely intended to mention the value of macro intake and vitamin supplementation, but I glossed over that important part. To help clarify, I am trying to advocate the creation of caloric deficit through exercise, armed with the knowledge that in the extreme ends of the spectrum, the rates of loss that are sworn by on MFP boards do not necessarily apply. Thanks for setting that straight.

Another good example is the "your problem is that you are addicted to the scale" argument. Preposterous. There is nothing wrong with weighing yourself every 5 minutes if you want to. All data is good data.

Misses out on the psychological aspect of weighing oneself all the time. Obsessing over weight can result in adherence problems. That you don't doesn't mean others don't.

I think I covered the psychology aspect, but in case I once again glossed over it too quickly: I do understand that there are psychological benefits associated with many techniques. My argument is that of mind over matter. I strongly believe that for most people, simply taking the time to understand what things mean and not letting them "scare" us will remove the psychological impact that otherwise harmless data has. People fear what they do not understand, I'm hoping to help people get over that love/hate relationship with the scale and embrace the raw data.

Your metabolism is not by default faster or slower than everyone else's. It just isn't. Your level of physical activity, your diet, your current state of and/or history of obesity, and your overall size and frame do affect your metabolism. But yours is going to be pretty much the same as someone else with the same background and stats. As with all things, there is some variation within those groups, but it's not a significant amount.

Metabolic variation exist and are significant. We are just beginning to understand this.
Suggested start ... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2581785/
Variations can be well above/below 20% estimated although LBM weight remains the largest indicator of change.

Added to my reading list, thank you. I'm not perfect by any means and I'm *always* looking for ways to increase my own knowledge. I'll start today's journey with this one.

footnote - Adaptive Thermogenesis

AT itself is not a falsehood. I already have 10 of those on my list, but AT deserves a mention on this list because it *is* a real thing that gets manipulated and otherwise falsified quite often. People will see the effects of AT and call it something else. Or, they will think that they have done irreparable damage to their bodies because of the effects of AT. Adaptive Thermogenesis is, when simplified, a reduction in overall body temperature.

Already dealt with this in an entire thread - AT has a variety of other elements which you are chosing to ignore.

Overall you have some great info but I suggest temperance in that your experience or method might not suit everyone.

I don't think I ignored them, but I did cut a lot of things out of this already massive post in an effort to save the reader's time. You did cover AT very well in that thread, and I should have included a link to it here. I was attempting to summarize and explain in a way that would make sense to the most people.

I do recognize that my method does not suit everyone, primarily for reasons that I believe to be psychological. But, I'm also honestly not trying to preach any particular method. If I could boil my entire list down to one sentence, it would be this: Educate yourself with readily available science before you buy into *any* hype, including any hype that you find in my post(s).

5ftnFun

In. For science and what not.

PJ64

WHO ARE YOU!!??:drinker:

BigGuy47

InB4 Coach Reddy.

james6998

simple math.
I weigh myself = loss in weight
I measure myself= increased size
tests indicate BF% dropped.
Eating at 1950 was calculated at least 500- deficit, most likely more.

Most importantly for me, I am getting bigger, more ripped, and stronger, while eating less than i "so called" should, getting results.
Then again i could just be special.

MaiLinna

Too bad I can't upvote. ^_^

ArroganceInStep

Science. Do you guys even know how it works?

"I think spinach causes cancer."
"You have no proof of that, only anecdotal evidence"
"People once said the Earth was flat because of anecdotal evidence, therefore I'm right"

MFP has more scientists than any other web site in the world!!!!

So tobacco doesn’t cause lung cancer? I wish a scientist or two would look into that…

The point

---

>


















Your head

---

>

UsedToBeHusky

For the most part, the OP is correct in most of what he says, but his rationale for why it is correct is not scientifically based, and that is further cemented with the reality that the OP didn't provide any references, didn't feel obliged to, but did feel obliged to tell us he had them.

OP, there are many discrepancies in your post. While your intentions are well-meaning, it is usually best not to come into a community by declaring you have all the knowledge. You make yourself look a bit foolish. There is a lot of misinformation floating around here, but there are a lot of people who combat misinformation with factual information AND provide references.

Again, there are lots of discrepancies in your post. You should review your excessive list of references again because you seemed to have missed some things.

So many discrepancies, but apparently no time to point out what they are. :laugh: (And you talk about a lack of references!)

Well for one thing, starvation mode does exist. No, it doesn't exist in the way he described it, and the way many people refer to it, but it is legitimate. If you deprive the body of proper nutrition, as occurs on VLCD, the body will produce hormones that force it to perform more efficiently (burning less calories) and cause intense hunger. It is referred to as starvation mode because it is a reflex to prevent starvation. This doesn't occur immediately if you are obese and have excess fat stores. For reference: New Rules of Lifting for Women

And just like with the starvation mode reflex, lean mass gains can only be achieved in a deficit if you have excess fat stores. Once those have been depleted, you will no longer build muscle without the extra calories to fuel the process of building muscle. Again, for reference: New Rules of Lifting for Women

For any other research needs might I suggest you go here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

FizikallyFit

Bump to come back and read!

ArroganceInStep

If you're springing for a Dexa every 3 weeks, I'm sure you recognize that BMR/TDEE estimations are just that, and was also asking the accuracy of your intake measurements.

Input #1: Starting weight and BF%
Input #2: Current weight and BF%
Input #3: Number of days between weighings

Calculation result: average daily caloric deficit

You appear to be confusing pre- with post-. Note the complete lack of tracked input of calories or exercises or TDEE or BMR in the above. The only "estimation" going into this is the "estimate" that one pound of fat loss represents a caloric deficit of 3500 calories.

In my case, the estimated deficit from tracking calories and exercise is approximately 10%-15% different than the actual reality, but as I've said twice before now, that isn't what I use to figure out my *actual* deficit, I use the actual results. Tracking is just a tool to get in the ballpark - measuring is what closes the feedback loop.

And what were the results?

ArroganceInStep

simple math.
I weigh myself = loss in weight
I measure myself= increased size
tests indicate BF% dropped.
Eating at 1950 was calculated at least 500- deficit, most likely more.

Most importantly for me, I am getting bigger, more ripped, and stronger, while eating less than i "so called" should, getting results.
Then again i could just be special.

What are the details?

Mischievous_Rascal

High five!