Top 10 MFP community falsehoods
Replies
-
THANK YOU! it's a pleasure to see something legit & worth reading on here!0
-
Oh yay, another person that doesn't understand that starvation mode is a medical diagnosis and exists, very significantly, for members of our community.
I find several of these statements to be either really judgmental, one-faceted, or just wrong. Just because a person speaks with authority doesn't mean they are the best educated. There are exceptions to many of these points.
Ultimately, what you need to state is that while sometimes these things are true and impact a person, the reality is that it happens rarely, and that the likelihood of a person's struggles being because of anything other than lack of accountability is rather low.
It's just plain dangerous to make blanket statements though.
Have you ever watched Survivor? If starvation mode exists , it would show itself on that show. These people lose so much weight and it is from a huge calorie deficit plus all the darn physical exertion everyday. So maybe people just are really NOT aware of what they are actually consuming... I think what happens is when they starve themselves they are more likely to binge and thus gain weight.... not rocket science....js0 -
yes, yes and YES
perfection0 -
Thank you thank you! I came on line today specifically to research the whole you must eat a minimum of 1200 calories deal. Yours is the first post I saw and it resolved my inquiry.0
-
glad it could help. Please also consider that there *are* minimum caloric needs. The most hassle-free way to figure out what they are is to establish a baseline of essential macronutrients. 1200 calories per day may or may not be necessary, based on your LBM. That number is thrown around too loosely for my liking but it can sometimes be correct. I just take exception to the idea that such a round number is a good blind recommendation for anyone... do the math and if you come up with 1200, then coolThank you thank you! I came on line today specifically to research the whole you must eat a minimum of 1200 calories deal. Yours is the first post I saw and it resolved my inquiry.
0 -
1. Broscience
January 8, 2013 Urban Word of the Day
Broscience is the predominant brand of reasoning in bodybuilding circles where the anecdotal reports of jacked dudes are considered more credible than scientific research.
2. Broscience
A sarcastic term implying that the time tested, muscle building wealth of knowledge developed and utilized by successful, experienced bodybuilders is inferior to the continually shifting hypotheses of articulate, textbook-savvy 155lb. chemists with little or no real world first-person experience to substantiate their conclusions. The term "Broscience" is oft repeated on bodybuilding and fitness oriented internet forums in an attempt to demonstrate online dominance as a substitution for success in the arena of actual bodybuilding.
I've wondered about this term since I never heard of it before coming to MFP. I looked it up and came up with these two definitions in the Urban Dictionary. I'm kind of tired so, maybe, I am misunderstanding. But, do these two definitions slam both physically fit folks AND scientists?
LOL the first seems to be knocking the physically fit. The second, scientists.
Not sure i'ts all about these particular types of forums. All sorts of forums have their resident experts ( or so they say )
What I found funny was that both 1 & 2 have good access to steroids .. 1 uses them and 1 supplies them , but joking aside many forums on many subjects all over the internet have those who just log on to ridicule, spew nonsense and others who will copy and paste their new found wisdom from wikipedia to make themselves sound superior.
I think information is all good but you do have to separate the wheat from the chaff. What works for person(a) may not work for others and I find people who are destructive / sarcastic in their postings are only really here for their own entertainment.
OP is trying to help, enjoyed the post but recognise it's flaws in some areas and I know diddly ..0 -
Every competing amateur and national level bodybuilder in the world wants to know how to gain muscle in a calorie deficit. Share the secret, they all want to know and would probably pay good money for it!0
-
Kris Gethin did it.
Hey, did anyone bother to answer my question? Hello....page two. I think.0 -
Neither of those definitions lines up with how I use the term broscience. It's not only bodybuilders or only nerds who are guilty. It's anyone who blindly repeats bad advice for any reason. Bodybuilders often seem to think that they have the answers because of their personal success. Some of them do, some don't. Personal success is not scientific research, and is prone to all sorts of error. Not the least of which is the attribution of results to things that have no causal link, only a correlative one. Nerdy kids also are guilty of it. It's difficult to see how a theory plays out if you don't put it into practice. That doesn't mean you have to have already lost 200 lbs of fat and gained 100 lbs of muscle to know whether a particular bit of research is sane... but it does help to have the context of seeing a theory in action.1. Broscience
January 8, 2013 Urban Word of the Day
Broscience is the predominant brand of reasoning in bodybuilding circles where the anecdotal reports of jacked dudes are considered more credible than scientific research.
2. Broscience
A sarcastic term implying that the time tested, muscle building wealth of knowledge developed and utilized by successful, experienced bodybuilders is inferior to the continually shifting hypotheses of articulate, textbook-savvy 155lb. chemists with little or no real world first-person experience to substantiate their conclusions. The term "Broscience" is oft repeated on bodybuilding and fitness oriented internet forums in an attempt to demonstrate online dominance as a substitution for success in the arena of actual bodybuilding.
I've wondered about this term since I never heard of it before coming to MFP. I looked it up and came up with these two definitions in the Urban Dictionary. I'm kind of tired so, maybe, I am misunderstanding. But, do these two definitions slam both physically fit folks AND scientists?
LOL the first seems to be knocking the physically fit. The second, scientists.
Not sure i'ts all about these particular types of forums. All sorts of forums have their resident experts ( or so they say )
What I found funny was that both 1 & 2 have good access to steroids .. 1 uses them and 1 supplies them , but joking aside many forums on many subjects all over the internet have those who just log on to ridicule, spew nonsense and others who will copy and paste their new found wisdom from wikipedia to make themselves sound superior.
I think information is all good but you do have to separate the wheat from the chaff. What works for person(a) may not work for others and I find people who are destructive / sarcastic in their postings are only really here for their own entertainment.
OP is trying to help, enjoyed the post but recognise it's flaws in some areas and I know diddly ..
The way I use the term "broscience":
3) Preaching of unfounded ideas or unproven methods as fact because "it worked for a guy I know". That sort of thing.0 -
When it comes to muscle building demands, bodybuilders are clearly at one end the end of spectrum. The very modest muscle building that is possible during a calorie deficit is of no interest to these folks. If you're interested in the concept though, I would suggest you read "Advanced Sports Nutrition" by Dan Benardot.Every competing amateur and national level bodybuilder in the world wants to know how to gain muscle in a calorie deficit. Share the secret, they all want to know and would probably pay good money for it!0 -
bump. and thank you0
-
I think the problem lies in the definition of "building muscle". It seems that so many people only consider the addition of large, noticeable amounts of mass to meet the qualification for building muscle. I define it as any increase in muscle mass. LBM loss is the enemy in this scenario... avoiding it or moving (even just a little) in the direction of a net positive is a victory in my book. If you add only one pound of muscle in a year you have still gained muscle. There are many examples of incredibly dedicated people adding more than that. No, it's not going to equal or even approach the gains possible when eating at a surplus... but it is still muscle gain.Every competing amateur and national level bodybuilder in the world wants to know how to gain muscle in a calorie deficit. Share the secret, they all want to know and would probably pay good money for it!
edit: hadabetter had a better reply above0 -
This makes me want to sing a happy "Yes Yes Yes" song! It's possible to lose weight eating nothing but snickers bars ... it won't be healthy and you'll always feel hungry, but you can do it if your body is forced to burn fat for fuel.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.0 -
Every competing amateur and national level bodybuilder in the world wants to know how to gain muscle in a calorie deficit. Share the secret, they all want to know and would probably pay good money for it!
I'll tell you...
Start out at 175 lbs with 126 lbs of lbm/28% bodyfat.
Google a strength routine that can be done everyday.
Run vigorously 6x a week then lift.
Gain lbm and lose weight to 18% bodyfat.
Wait... you mean natty bodybuilders my height have 160 lbs of lbm and hit 12% bodyfat at the peaks of their bulks? Well I guess we shouldn't make stupid comparisons.0 -
Neither of those definitions lines up with how I use the term broscience. It's not only bodybuilders or only nerds who are guilty. It's anyone who blindly repeats bad advice for any reason. Bodybuilders often seem to think that they have the answers because of their personal success. Some of them do, some don't. Personal success is not scientific research, and is prone to all sorts of error. Not the least of which is the attribution of results to things that have no causal link, only a correlative one. Nerdy kids also are guilty of it. It's difficult to see how a theory plays out if you don't put it into practice. That doesn't mean you have to have already lost 200 lbs of fat and gained 100 lbs of muscle to know whether a particular bit of research is sane... but it does help to have the context of seeing a theory in action.1. Broscience
January 8, 2013 Urban Word of the Day
Broscience is the predominant brand of reasoning in bodybuilding circles where the anecdotal reports of jacked dudes are considered more credible than scientific research.
2. Broscience
A sarcastic term implying that the time tested, muscle building wealth of knowledge developed and utilized by successful, experienced bodybuilders is inferior to the continually shifting hypotheses of articulate, textbook-savvy 155lb. chemists with little or no real world first-person experience to substantiate their conclusions. The term "Broscience" is oft repeated on bodybuilding and fitness oriented internet forums in an attempt to demonstrate online dominance as a substitution for success in the arena of actual bodybuilding.
I've wondered about this term since I never heard of it before coming to MFP. I looked it up and came up with these two definitions in the Urban Dictionary. I'm kind of tired so, maybe, I am misunderstanding. But, do these two definitions slam both physically fit folks AND scientists?
LOL the first seems to be knocking the physically fit. The second, scientists.
Not sure i'ts all about these particular types of forums. All sorts of forums have their resident experts ( or so they say )
What I found funny was that both 1 & 2 have good access to steroids .. 1 uses them and 1 supplies them , but joking aside many forums on many subjects all over the internet have those who just log on to ridicule, spew nonsense and others who will copy and paste their new found wisdom from wikipedia to make themselves sound superior.
I think information is all good but you do have to separate the wheat from the chaff. What works for person(a) may not work for others and I find people who are destructive / sarcastic in their postings are only really here for their own entertainment.
OP is trying to help, enjoyed the post but recognise it's flaws in some areas and I know diddly ..
The way I use the term "broscience":
3) Preaching of unfounded ideas or unproven methods as fact because "it worked for a guy I know". That sort of thing.
I didn't post that due to the OP. I joined just 100 days ago and kept reading the term. I didn't know exactly what it meant and decided to look it up. I just found it funny that the two definitions kind of contradict one another.0 -
Oh yay, another person that doesn't understand that starvation mode is a medical diagnosis and exists, very significantly, for members of our community.
I find several of these statements to be either really judgmental, one-faceted, or just wrong. Just because a person speaks with authority doesn't mean they are the best educated. There are exceptions to many of these points.
Ultimately, what you need to state is that while sometimes these things are true and impact a person, the reality is that it happens rarely, and that the likelihood of a person's struggles being because of anything other than lack of accountability is rather low.
It's just plain dangerous to make blanket statements though.
Have you ever watched Survivor? If starvation mode exists , it would show itself on that show. These people lose so much weight and it is from a huge calorie deficit plus all the darn physical exertion everyday. So maybe people just are really NOT aware of what they are actually consuming... I think what happens is when they starve themselves they are more likely to binge and thus gain weight.... not rocket science....js
Obviously you don't know what the definition of starvation mode really is or what is entailed in developing the condition. A show like Survivor isn't going to generate the condition in the people because 1. No show on television is going to allow people to risk their lives to starvation, and 2. the participants eat too regularly.
Starvation mode is a condition that is developed after a long, extended period of habitual lack of nutrition. By eating an extreme deficit every single day for a long period of time, a person can develop the syndrome. It is commonly seen in anorexics, bulimics, and those in 3rd world countries. We're talking eating one meal of limited calories a day, if that.
The idea that starvation mode can be achieved by eating a modest deficit is ill-educated. However, the claim that it flat out does not exist or that no one in developed countries could suffer its effects or the difficulties of refeeding syndrome is preposterous, and completely ignores very real problems that many people on MFP could be facing.
I've written several blog entries about my own diagnosis, my struggle with RS, and my difficulties with allowing people to ignore the issue because they aren't well read enough on the subject. They include research, excerpts from medical journals, the Mayo Clinic, and more.
The problem with starvation is not only the nutritional deficit, but the dangerous issues that come with refeeding. RS is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition that should not be ignored or taken lightly.0 -
Why would they not be interested? Any muscle gain is good muscle gain to a bodybuilder
When it comes to muscle building demands, bodybuilders are clearly at one end the end of spectrum. The very modest muscle building that is possible during a calorie deficit is of no interest to these folks.Every competing amateur and national level bodybuilder in the world wants to know how to gain muscle in a calorie deficit. Share the secret, they all want to know and would probably pay good money for it!0 -
SLOW CLAP!
BRAVO!0 -
Thanks - I've been around for a while, but never posted before; this (and all the subsequent meaningful discussion) was too good not to comment.0
-
tl;dr --bumping for later.0
-
You're describing an actual starvation response (the ultimate result of an advanced level of AT) and not the common, incorrect "starvation mode" that we're talking about. You're basically arguing the same side. What you're talking about is definitely real, but it's not what most people call "starvation mode". That mythical thing is based on the misguided idea that eating too little in the short term will cause your body to suddenly freak out and "hold onto" its fat stores. A real starvation response is *generally* not possible in overweight and obese individuals, because the fat stores will be depleted long before that point is ever reached. Some exceptions have been seen, but drastic hormonal imbalances are usually to blame. This is not the same thing as "starvation mode".Obviously you don't know what the definition of starvation mode really is or what is entailed in developing the condition. A show like Survivor isn't going to generate the condition in the people because 1. No show on television is going to allow people to risk their lives to starvation, and 2. the participants eat too regularly.
Starvation mode is a condition that is developed after a long, extended period of habitual lack of nutrition. By eating an extreme deficit every single day for a long period of time, a person can develop the syndrome. It is commonly seen in anorexics, bulimics, and those in 3rd world countries. We're talking eating one meal of limited calories a day, if that.
The idea that starvation mode can be achieved by eating a modest deficit is ill-educated. However, the claim that it flat out does not exist or that no one in developed countries could suffer its effects or the difficulties of refeeding syndrome is preposterous, and completely ignores very real problems that many people on MFP could be facing.
I've written several blog entries about my own diagnosis, my struggle with RS, and my difficulties with allowing people to ignore the issue because they aren't well read enough on the subject. They include research, excerpts from medical journals, the Mayo Clinic, and more.
The problem with starvation is not only the nutritional deficit, but the dangerous issues that come with refeeding. RS is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition that should not be ignored or taken lightly.0 -
Finally! Peace of Mind. I was looking for answers in all the wrong places when I should have just stuck with my instincts.
Thanks Joshdann!0 -
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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 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).
Thank you, that's a well thought out response. And I appreciate the bolded.0 -
My buddy thought yours was the best post on this forum, good points.
We have a good trainer and he says there are not short cuts to a healthy life style, We spent a number of years getting fat so we have to give ourselves time to become unfat and not to crash diet.
It is a life time change a life comminttment to better health.
Our fat gain was cuz we didn't have the knowledge we thought that getting older and a slower metabolism was part of it. We didn't know how bad was junk food , we knew there was some sugar it tasted good but we came to realize real food does not need sugar added it tastes good on its own, even oatmeal has a good taste . We learned if they took away the chemicals , the false flavors, the sugar and fat mixtures the stuff processed foods would taste like stale straw and c ardboard. They couldn't sell.
We have had to rethink our beliefs about sugar food, it is no longer a treat, we don't fool ourselves , we are cold turkey and lovin it.0 -
Bump!0
-
OP, I think I love you.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.
[REDACTED.] You know what, I'll just let them stew in that one for a while. No need to attract harpies to this thread. LOL0 -
well you got one thing right. The first half of that name.0
-
OP, I think I love you.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.
[REDACTED.] You know what, I'll just let them stew in that one for a while. No need to attract harpies to this thread. LOL
You might have been a little slow in your redaction. :flowerforyou:0 -
are u a rocket scientist?0
-
Should be a sticky IMO....I see all those "myths" posted so many times a day it is just funny.
Great and well thought out post.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