Eat, Train, Progress Interview with Steve Troutman
Options
Replies
-
I'm shocked there weren't more questions stemming from this interview. Hopefully that's a good thing!
You blinded us with science.
How's that for an '80's throwback.0 -
I'm shocked there weren't more questions stemming from this interview. Hopefully that's a good thing!
When SideSteel and I were going through your responses, we seriously tried to come up with follow up questions, but you were so thorough in your responses to our initial questions, we were having a hard time thinking of any. You gave really detailed, expansive and well thought out responses.
Well thanks!1 -
thanks!0
-
Awesome info. :flowerforyou:0
-
I've been following Steve for quite a while now. I value most any thing he contributes, and this interview was no exception.0
-
That was a great read!
You have no idea how much I appreciate the references to genetics and other factors that can influence the journey for some people.0 -
I've been following Steve for quite a while now. I value most any thing he contributes, and this interview was no exception.
Thanks!0 -
That was a great read!
You have no idea how much I appreciate the references to genetics and other factors that can influence the journey for some people.
Of course... I'm the last person you're going to see rapping about fitness without the context of individual circumstances.0 -
I joined the party late, just got around to reading this. Fantastic interview with a lot of good, very helpful information. Thanks and kudos to Steve, Sara and Sidesteel!0
-
Thanks man, glad you enjoyed! Hopefully they can cycle me back into the interview circuit down the road for round 2!0
-
Thanks man, glad you enjoyed! Hopefully they can cycle me back into the interview circuit down the road for round 2!
Absolutely.0 -
I, too , missed this excellent read pre-Christmas. I'm relatively new here , and probably fall into your categorisation of "small female" albeit my body fat isn't quite as low as I would like it to be. I know I am only repeating what basically everyone else has said , but many many thanks to all three of you for such an informative post. ( And indeed more generally for giving up so much of your time towards helping me , and others like me , on this site----newbies don't always ask lots of questions but I certainly read a lot of the forum content out there)0
-
There are some real gems in this interview....Can't wait to suggest it to my friends and use the quote "deprivation and consistency are inversely related." Well said.0
-
I, too , missed this excellent read pre-Christmas. I'm relatively new here , and probably fall into your categorisation of "small female" albeit my body fat isn't quite as low as I would like it to be. I know I am only repeating what basically everyone else has said , but many many thanks to all three of you for such an informative post. ( And indeed more generally for giving up so much of your time towards helping me , and others like me , on this site----newbies don't always ask lots of questions but I certainly read a lot of the forum content out there)
You're welcome... always good to hear from people who are reading the information. It provides purpose. Thanks for tuning in.0 -
There are some real gems in this interview....Can't wait to suggest it to my friends and use the quote "deprivation and consistency are inversely related." Well said.
I just wish more people understood that... it seems the MFP community is littered with people eating 1200 calories and from what I can tell, they're only picking that number because that's what the MFP calculator spits out for them. And the only reason it's spitting that out for them is it's using 1200 as the minimum.0 -
Thank you Steve, Sara, and Sidesteel, for always being such an exceptional source of information. :flowerforyou:0
-
Thank you, I got a lot from that0
-
There are some real gems in this interview....Can't wait to suggest it to my friends and use the quote "deprivation and consistency are inversely related." Well said.
I just wish more people understood that... it seems the MFP community is littered with people eating 1200 calories and from what I can tell, they're only picking that number because that's what the MFP calculator spits out for them. And the only reason it's spitting that out for them is it's using 1200 as the minimum.
I'd suggest it's even worse than that.
Too many down at that level have seen and perhaps tried and failed ultimately on the lose 2-5 lbs a week fad diets, so they see MFP, perhaps told about it, and figure this time, I'm going to do it better and make it work this time. This seems like a better method.
Oh, 2 lb weekly loss, yeah, that's what I want (never mind it recommends 1 lb weekly). Oh sedentary or lightly active, well, just in case, sedentary.
Oh look, I finished my diary and said I'd be this weight in 5 weeks, and that was by missing my goal by 150 calories, I'll do that or more tomorrow.
Ok look, when I log my exercise, my eating goal goes up, I wonder why, must be a mistake. Wow, in 5 weeks I'll weigh even less now, that's great.
They've probably never looked at any nutrition label (for US anyway) to see the comments regarding values based on 2000 calorie eating level, to have any concept of calorie ranges. 1200 is all they've ever seen when they cared to look. Never mind they could add up probably 3 avg meals normally eaten and hit 2500 calories for a day easily.0 -
There are some real gems in this interview....Can't wait to suggest it to my friends and use the quote "deprivation and consistency are inversely related." Well said.
I just wish more people understood that... it seems the MFP community is littered with people eating 1200 calories and from what I can tell, they're only picking that number because that's what the MFP calculator spits out for them. And the only reason it's spitting that out for them is it's using 1200 as the minimum.
I'd suggest it's even worse than that.
Too many down at that level have seen and perhaps tried and failed ultimately on the lose 2-5 lbs a week fad diets, so they see MFP, perhaps told about it, and figure this time, I'm going to do it better and make it work this time. This seems like a better method.
Oh, 2 lb weekly loss, yeah, that's what I want (never mind it recommends 1 lb weekly). Oh sedentary or lightly active, well, just in case, sedentary.
Oh look, I finished my diary and said I'd be this weight in 5 weeks, and that was by missing my goal by 150 calories, I'll do that or more tomorrow.
Ok look, when I log my exercise, my eating goal goes up, I wonder why, must be a mistake. Wow, in 5 weeks I'll weigh even less now, that's great.
They've probably never looked at any nutrition label (for US anyway) to see the comments regarding values based on 2000 calorie eating level, to have any concept of calorie ranges. 1200 is all they've ever seen when they cared to look. Never mind they could add up probably 3 avg meals normally eaten and hit 2500 calories for a day easily.
Hammer meet nail head.0 -
This is fantastic stuff. Thank you for posting this.0
