move less and eat less
Replies
-
A lot of speculative and nonsense science spewed at the body re-composition web site.
"Welcome to Bodyrecomposition, the home of Lyle McDonald. "
And McDonald is......?
lol....if you have to ask.....
I'm asking.
Who is he?
A snake oil salesman, far as I can tell.
Not exactly.0 -
A lot of speculative and nonsense science spewed at the body re-composition web site.
"Welcome to Bodyrecomposition, the home of Lyle McDonald. "
And McDonald is......?
lol....if you have to ask.....
I'm asking.
Who is he?
A snake oil salesman, far as I can tell.
ummmmmm.....0 -
It has taken me a year to figure out, and I'd be a jerk if I didn't share.
Trying to lose weight? Working out more than 3 times a week? There is your problem.
Take a look around at posts from people "doing everything right and not losing". What do almost all of them have in common? Crazy exercise regimen.
Losing weight is a destructive process. By definition. While you are tearing down the body you have now, don't think of training as anything but a way to reduce the damage from this process. Eat less, move less. Find a distraction that isn't going to prolong your weight loss. Working out is not a good one!
I was going to guess an inability to count.
You would be guessing wrong, the truth is that most people are pretty much around your intelligence, and definitely smart enough to count calories.
Lots of intelligent people on here choosing to set up a straw man and attack that instead of actually discussing the idea of BACKING OFF YOUR TRAINING WHILE YOU LOSE WEIGHT (which implies you put it back in when you are eating, which believe it or not, is actually going to happen someday if you stick with it).
No, I think the smarter you are, the harder this is. You just wind up better at coming up with reasons why YOU don't need the same rest, or that your rest doesn't need to be rest, or any other version of unicornism.
I'm going to stick with 'inability to count.' (With special focus on improper counting methods/lack of understanding of what food should have what calories. If I had a dollar for every "6ounce chicken thigh-130 calories I've seen in people's diaries)
I don't attribute this to a lack of intelligence (or else I would have said "because stupid.") But a lack of knowledge.
But hey, opinions and all that.
I remember when I used to think that, because sometimes it is true.
But other times, it's just freaking overtraining.0 -
If anyone wants to discuss further, please keep in mind it doesn't matter if your program works. They pretty much all work. This is about working BETTER.
Lol.
So what makes one program better?
I've had pretty much the opposite experience and fantastic results, both with fitness and weight loss.
Better would mean "accomplishing the stated goal more effectively or at less cost".
Which means you decide your goals and we can drop all the "isn't that totally subjective?" canard.
If you aren't overtraining or about to, you don't really need this thread anyway, and you probably aren't on the weight loss forum looking for answers. You ARE the good example.0 -
A lot of speculative and nonsense science spewed at the body re-composition web site.
"Welcome to Bodyrecomposition, the home of Lyle McDonald. "
And McDonald is......?
lol....if you have to ask.....
I'm asking.
Who is he?
Take the time to check out his site a little more
No.
If he were legit you would swamp me with his credentials.
Another fraud preying off the unwary.
BTW, hi McDonald!
lmao0 -
I think part of the problem is we don't mean the same thing by "fitness".
Health is not a weight, or a shape.
Fitness, likewise, is not necessarily a weight or a shape.
ANYONE losing weight and building muscle is becoming more fit. Period. They may not look like The Rock, but they are becoming more fit.
That said, Many of those big guys are actually less healthy, in a number of ways, than people who aren't overmuscled and at ridiculously low body fat percentages.
You cannot honestly tell me that weight loss and fitness are competing goals.
perhaps weight loss and muscle building.. (which, is to say, using weights to build the muscles beyond what a body-weight only regimen can do for you).
but being overly muscled is not any more a sign of "fitness" than being moderately muscled on a body-weight only routine.0 -
I also don't think that weight loss and being fit have to be competing goals; but fitness and competition of sports sometimes are...0
-
I think part of the problem is we don't mean the same thing by "fitness".
Health is not a weight, or a shape.
Fitness, likewise, is not necessarily a weight or a shape.
ANYONE losing weight and building muscle is becoming more fit. Period. They may not look like The Rock, but they are becoming more fit.
That said, Many of those big guys are actually less healthy, in a number of ways, than people who aren't overmuscled and at ridiculously low body fat percentages.
You cannot honestly tell me that weight loss and fitness are competing goals.
perhaps weight loss and muscle building.. (which, is to say, using weights to build the muscles beyond what a body-weight only regimen can do for you).
but being overly muscled is not any more a sign of "fitness" than being moderately muscled on a body-weight only routine.
Yes, I can tell you that weight loss and fitness are competing goals, and in can also expect you to put enough thought into it to understand the statement before attacking a loosely related idea that actually doesn't match this one at all.
But that would be naive.0 -
If anyone wants to discuss further, please keep in mind it doesn't matter if your program works. They pretty much all work. This is about working BETTER.
Lol.
So what makes one program better?
I've had pretty much the opposite experience and fantastic results, both with fitness and weight loss.
Better would mean "accomplishing the stated goal more effectively or at less cost".
Which means you decide your goals and we can drop all the "isn't that totally subjective?" canard.
If you aren't overtraining or about to, you don't really need this thread anyway, and you probably aren't on the weight loss forum looking for answers. You ARE the good example.
I dont understand though, I was overweight. I lost my weight doing the opposite as you recommend, mind you I did have a strict food plan (which as others have mentioned, I believe plays a big role) I followed along with a lot of exercise, both strength and cardio. Not only did I lose weight, I got stronger, ran faster, swam faster, and biked faster.
I don't agree with the kill yourself working out thing either, my case was a little different, but I don't put all the blame on "overtraining" particularly saying that more than 3 times a week is overtraining.0 -
read later0
-
I think part of the problem is we don't mean the same thing by "fitness".
Health is not a weight, or a shape.
Fitness, likewise, is not necessarily a weight or a shape.
ANYONE losing weight and building muscle is becoming more fit. Period. They may not look like The Rock, but they are becoming more fit.
That said, Many of those big guys are actually less healthy, in a number of ways, than people who aren't overmuscled and at ridiculously low body fat percentages.
You cannot honestly tell me that weight loss and fitness are competing goals.
perhaps weight loss and muscle building.. (which, is to say, using weights to build the muscles beyond what a body-weight only regimen can do for you).
but being overly muscled is not any more a sign of "fitness" than being moderately muscled on a body-weight only routine.
Yes, I can tell you that weight loss and fitness are competing goals, and in can also expect you to put enough thought into it to understand the statement before attacking a loosely related idea that actually doesn't match this one at all.
But that would be naive.
Yes, it is naive for you to say something like that, again, without any parameters of what you mean by "Weight loss" and "Fitness".
clearly "Weight loss" and "building muscle mass" may be at cross purposes.
But unless you explain what you mean by "Fitness", I'm going to say, well, you remain rather confusing.
Nebulous terms, an apparently inability to frame what you mean clearly, and statements like "less exercise means you'll lose weight faster!" pretty much guarantee nobody is going to get what you mean.
Because they are all meaningless.0 -
When someone consistently has a problem with everyone else...
...I wonder if they ever consider that the problem isn't with everyone else.0 -
Your lack of context, sources and well general arrogance makes me just want to post this...
:flowerforyou:0 -
I think part of the problem is we don't mean the same thing by "fitness".
Health is not a weight, or a shape.
Fitness, likewise, is not necessarily a weight or a shape.
ANYONE losing weight and building muscle is becoming more fit. Period. They may not look like The Rock, but they are becoming more fit.
That said, Many of those big guys are actually less healthy, in a number of ways, than people who aren't overmuscled and at ridiculously low body fat percentages.
You cannot honestly tell me that weight loss and fitness are competing goals.
perhaps weight loss and muscle building.. (which, is to say, using weights to build the muscles beyond what a body-weight only regimen can do for you).
but being overly muscled is not any more a sign of "fitness" than being moderately muscled on a body-weight only routine.
Yes, I can tell you that weight loss and fitness are competing goals, and in can also expect you to put enough thought into it to understand the statement before attacking a loosely related idea that actually doesn't match this one at all.
But that would be naive.
Yes, it is naive for you to say something like that, again, without any parameters of what you mean by "Weight loss" and "Fitness".
clearly "Weight loss" and "building muscle mass" may be at cross purposes.
But unless you explain what you mean by "Fitness", I'm going to say, well, you remain rather confusing.
Nebulous terms, an apparently inability to frame what you mean clearly, and statements like "less exercise means you'll lose weight faster!" pretty much guarantee nobody is going to get what you mean.
Because they are all meaningless.
Weight loss= a bunch of decomposition reactions
Fitness = a bunch of synthesis
You know this though, Sara. You know everything and apply everything really well, and following my own advice here makes my program look more like yours.
What I said was "eat less, move less". It's a play in a phrase we all know.
Further, if I'm SO crazy, why did some people immediately understand where I am coming from and where I'm going?
No, I think you'll find there is a particular audience, people like me, who need to be told this with some pretty strong emphasis to get it.0 -
If anyone wants to discuss further, please keep in mind it doesn't matter if your program works. They pretty much all work. This is about working BETTER.
Lol.
So what makes one program better?
I've had pretty much the opposite experience and fantastic results, both with fitness and weight loss.
Better would mean "accomplishing the stated goal more effectively or at less cost".
Which means you decide your goals and we can drop all the "isn't that totally subjective?" canard.
If you aren't overtraining or about to, you don't really need this thread anyway, and you probably aren't on the weight loss forum looking for answers. You ARE the good example.
I dont understand though, I was overweight. I lost my weight doing the opposite as you recommend, mind you I did have a strict food plan (which as others have mentioned, I believe plays a big role) I followed along with a lot of exercise, both strength and cardio. Not only did I lose weight, I got stronger, ran faster, swam faster, and biked faster.
I don't agree with the kill yourself working out thing either, my case was a little different, but I don't put all the blame on "overtraining" particularly saying that more than 3 times a week is overtraining.
I also lost a lot of weight doing the opposite of what I recommend. It proves nothing. I would be more fit now had I done something better. I would be closer to my goal.0 -
Weight loss= a bunch of decomposition reactions
Fitness = a bunch of synthesis
You know this though, Sara. You know everything and apply everything really well, and following my own advice here makes my program look more like yours.
What I said was "eat less, move less". It's a play in a phrase we all know.
Further, if I'm SO crazy, why did some people immediately understand where I am coming from and where I'm going?
No, I think you'll find there is a particular audience, people like me, who need to be told this with some pretty strong emphasis to get it.
Heh. So the standard has been lowered to "Some people on MFP agree with me" now? Have you seen some of the derp that people subscribe to in this forum? I could say that I was starting an all shoe sole diet and people would join me.
So, congrats?0 -
I think part of the problem is we don't mean the same thing by "fitness".
Health is not a weight, or a shape.
Fitness, likewise, is not necessarily a weight or a shape.
ANYONE losing weight and building muscle is becoming more fit. Period. They may not look like The Rock, but they are becoming more fit.
That said, Many of those big guys are actually less healthy, in a number of ways, than people who aren't overmuscled and at ridiculously low body fat percentages.
You cannot honestly tell me that weight loss and fitness are competing goals.
perhaps weight loss and muscle building.. (which, is to say, using weights to build the muscles beyond what a body-weight only regimen can do for you).
but being overly muscled is not any more a sign of "fitness" than being moderately muscled on a body-weight only routine.
Yes, I can tell you that weight loss and fitness are competing goals, and in can also expect you to put enough thought into it to understand the statement before attacking a loosely related idea that actually doesn't match this one at all.
But that would be naive.
Yes, it is naive for you to say something like that, again, without any parameters of what you mean by "Weight loss" and "Fitness".
clearly "Weight loss" and "building muscle mass" may be at cross purposes.
But unless you explain what you mean by "Fitness", I'm going to say, well, you remain rather confusing.
Nebulous terms, an apparently inability to frame what you mean clearly, and statements like "less exercise means you'll lose weight faster!" pretty much guarantee nobody is going to get what you mean.
Because they are all meaningless.
Weight loss= a bunch of decomposition reactions
Fitness = a bunch of synthesis
You know this though, Sara. You know everything and apply everything really well, and following my own advice here makes my program look more like yours.
What I said was "eat less, move less". It's a play in a phrase we all know.
Further, if I'm SO crazy, why did some people immediately understand where I am coming from and where I'm going?
No, I think you'll find there is a particular audience, people like me, who need to be told this with some pretty strong emphasis to get it.
Who on EARTH is Sara, and why do you seem to think I am them?0 -
Has any actual science been introduced yet supporting this theory, or are we still stuck on someone saying it will work better with no actual proof? Because these nice people at the University of Copenhagen are giving the thumbs up to my current six day a week, 30 min of exercise plan for weight loss. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/228552770
-
I think part of the problem is we don't mean the same thing by "fitness".
Health is not a weight, or a shape.
Fitness, likewise, is not necessarily a weight or a shape.
ANYONE losing weight and building muscle is becoming more fit. Period. They may not look like The Rock, but they are becoming more fit.
That said, Many of those big guys are actually less healthy, in a number of ways, than people who aren't overmuscled and at ridiculously low body fat percentages.
You cannot honestly tell me that weight loss and fitness are competing goals.
perhaps weight loss and muscle building.. (which, is to say, using weights to build the muscles beyond what a body-weight only regimen can do for you).
but being overly muscled is not any more a sign of "fitness" than being moderately muscled on a body-weight only routine.
Yes, I can tell you that weight loss and fitness are competing goals, and in can also expect you to put enough thought into it to understand the statement before attacking a loosely related idea that actually doesn't match this one at all.
But that would be naive.
Yes, it is naive for you to say something like that, again, without any parameters of what you mean by "Weight loss" and "Fitness".
clearly "Weight loss" and "building muscle mass" may be at cross purposes.
But unless you explain what you mean by "Fitness", I'm going to say, well, you remain rather confusing.
Nebulous terms, an apparently inability to frame what you mean clearly, and statements like "less exercise means you'll lose weight faster!" pretty much guarantee nobody is going to get what you mean.
Because they are all meaningless.
Weight loss= a bunch of decomposition reactions
Fitness = a bunch of synthesis
You know this though, Sara. You know everything and apply everything really well, and following my own advice here makes my program look more like yours.
What I said was "eat less, move less". It's a play in a phrase we all know.
Further, if I'm SO crazy, why did some people immediately understand where I am coming from and where I'm going?
No, I think you'll find there is a particular audience, people like me, who need to be told this with some pretty strong emphasis to get it.
Who on EARTH is Sara, and why do you seem to think I am them?
It's me I think - but that was your post being responded to, not mine.0 -
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHO IS THIS SARA PERSON???0
-
If anyone wants to discuss further, please keep in mind it doesn't matter if your program works. They pretty much all work. This is about working BETTER.
Lol.
So what makes one program better?
I've had pretty much the opposite experience and fantastic results, both with fitness and weight loss.
Better would mean "accomplishing the stated goal more effectively or at less cost".
Which means you decide your goals and we can drop all the "isn't that totally subjective?" canard.
If you aren't overtraining or about to, you don't really need this thread anyway, and you probably aren't on the weight loss forum looking for answers. You ARE the good example.
I dont understand though, I was overweight. I lost my weight doing the opposite as you recommend, mind you I did have a strict food plan (which as others have mentioned, I believe plays a big role) I followed along with a lot of exercise, both strength and cardio. Not only did I lose weight, I got stronger, ran faster, swam faster, and biked faster.
I don't agree with the kill yourself working out thing either, my case was a little different, but I don't put all the blame on "overtraining" particularly saying that more than 3 times a week is overtraining.
I also lost a lot of weight doing the opposite of what I recommend. It proves nothing. I would be more fit now had I done something better. I would be closer to my goal.
I didn't just lose weight. I can't imagine gaining more fitness than I did in that time frame.
How do you determine that there was a better way?
ETA- I don't get how your experience = proof but my experience = not proof.0 -
No. I don't want to. I like exercising, and I like eating. But in all seriousness, many people don't realize the importance of diet in combination with exercise. I just try to meet my macros and remain in a reasonable deficit, and things have been going well.0
-
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHO IS THIS SARA PERSON???
No freaking clue! Although I have heard rumor that she has a shill account for some dude called Lyle something.0 -
Take a look around at posts from people "doing everything right and not losing". What do almost all of them have in common? Crazy exercise regimen.
The problem isn't "crazy exercise regimen", it's over-eating because they're not being honest about their exercise regimen burn.
That said, from what I've seen most people would be more successful doing one thing at a time - lose the weight, and then go get fit. Not because of biological issues (doing both at once is certainly possible) but because of psychological issues and "only one thing to break at a time" issues.0 -
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHO IS THIS SARA PERSON???
No freaking clue! Although I have heard rumor that she has a shill account for some dude called Lyle something.
? 0 -
Take a look around at posts from people "doing everything right and not losing". What do almost all of them have in common? Crazy exercise regimen.
The problem isn't "crazy exercise regimen", it's over-eating because they're not being honest about their exercise regimen burn.
DING! DING! DING!
10 points.0 -
It has taken me a year to figure out, and I'd be a jerk if I didn't share.
Trying to lose weight? Working out more than 3 times a week? There is your problem.
Take a look around at posts from people "doing everything right and not losing". What do almost all of them have in common? Crazy exercise regimen.
Losing weight is a destructive process. By definition. While you are tearing down the body you have now, don't think of training as anything but a way to reduce the damage from this process. Eat less, move less. Find a distraction that isn't going to prolong your weight loss. Working out is not a good one!
Your theory works for only two types of people: people who (like you used to apparently) work out WAY too much and people who only care about getting to a very low number on the scale and couldn't care less about fitness, strength, muscle, or body fat. For everyone else, your theory doesn't really work that well.
It certainly wouldn't have worked for me. I like balance in my life and I don't enjoy killing myself doing things to the extreme. For me to keep workouts to a bare minimum and still lose weight would mean cutting my calories down to a ridiculously low number where it's unrealistic to keep that up for more than a week while living a normal life. Moderation is key, in my opinion. I don't believe in doing anything to the extreme, whether it's working out or cutting calories.
But, like I said, for some people, your words of advice are exactly what they need to hear. For people who are working out, say, 6-7 days a week for 3-4 hours, it probably would be better for them to move a little less and eat a little less.0 -
Take a look around at posts from people "doing everything right and not losing". What do almost all of them have in common? Crazy exercise regimen.
The problem isn't "crazy exercise regimen", it's over-eating because they're not being honest about their exercise regimen burn.
DING! DING! DING!
10 points.
This simply isn't always true, although I'm sure it is for a large percentage. MFP is full of stories of people exercising like crazy and eating 1200 calories. When they increase their calories a little, the weight starts coming off again. I have been in here for over a year and have seen it over and over again.
There have also been threads on those who have been surprised when they had a few weeks where they couldn't exercise as much, but actually lost more weight.0 -
Take a look around at posts from people "doing everything right and not losing". What do almost all of them have in common? Crazy exercise regimen.
The problem isn't "crazy exercise regimen", it's over-eating because they're not being honest about their exercise regimen burn.
DING! DING! DING!
10 points.
This simply isn't always true, although I'm sure it is for a large percentage. MFP is full of stories of people exercising like crazy and eating 1200 calories. When they increase their calories a little, the weight starts coming off again. I have been in here for over a year and have seen it over and over again.
There have also been threads on those who have been surprised when they had a few weeks where they couldn't exercise as much, but actually lost more weight.
100% isn't required to earn points.
And I'm a card-carrying member of the "eat more" club, so I understand what you're saying...it's just that it seems like *most* of the time it is bad logging, not insufficient calories.
And weight loss isn't linear....so when something happens that seems to defy expectation, such as losing weight when decreasing exercise, they note it and report it. When the norm happens, it's expected so it goes unnoticed and unreported. Finally, weight loss after ceasing exercise for a short period can easily be explained by decreased "water weight".0 -
Weight loss= a bunch of decomposition reactions
Fitness = a bunch of synthesis
You know this though, Sara. You know everything and apply everything really well, and following my own advice here makes my program look more like yours.
What I said was "eat less, move less". It's a play in a phrase we all know.
Further, if I'm SO crazy, why did some people immediately understand where I am coming from and where I'm going?
No, I think you'll find there is a particular audience, people like me, who need to be told this with some pretty strong emphasis to get it.
Heh. So the standard has been lowered to "Some people on MFP agree with me" now? Have you seen some of the derp that people subscribe to in this forum? I could say that I was starting an all shoe sole diet and people would join me.
So, congrats?
Didn't I lose this argument to you, back when I was on the other side? Lol0
This discussion has been closed.
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