Things I don't believe about nutrition...

WendyTerry420

I feel that the entire concept of "health food" is a myth.

A diet can be healthy or unhealthy. Individual items cannot be. A McDonalds cheeseburger is just as healthy as an apple; neither are healthy or unhealthy. The healthiness or lack thereof of food is utter nonsense.

I'll choose to respectfully disagree with you on this point. While there is some nutritional value in a McDonalds cheeseburger and it will actually provide some nutrients that you can't get from an apple, the apple will do the same and provide some that you can't get from the cheeseburger. The difference, however, is that the apple, does not have additives that are unhealthy for you as that cheeseburger does.

Of course, there's no proteins or fats in an apple, while a cheeseburger provides all three macros.

Ergo,

Cheeseburger > apple

dave4d

I feel that the entire concept of "health food" is a myth.

A diet can be healthy or unhealthy. Individual items cannot be. A McDonalds cheeseburger is just as healthy as an apple; neither are healthy or unhealthy. The healthiness or lack thereof of food is utter nonsense.

I'll choose to respectfully disagree with you on this point. While there is some nutritional value in a McDonalds cheeseburger and it will actually provide some nutrients that you can't get from an apple, the apple will do the same and provide some that you can't get from the cheeseburger. The difference, however, is that the apple, does not have additives that are unhealthy for you as that cheeseburger does.

I read an article in a fitness magazine, once that compared Popeye's diet to Wimpy. Wimpy's hamburgers do a lot better at building muscle than Popeye's spinach.

dave4d

Some questions I have are:

I read on one site that it doesn't matter how much you eat, or when you eat. On another site I read that your body can only process about 30 grams of protein at a time, so it is better to split your meals into smaller portions. Which is correct?

Which produces the greatest hypertrophy, compound lifts, or isolation work? Best rep range? I've read conflicting articles.

Keeping your heartrate in "fat burning Zone"? Strenuous cardio burns muscle? HIIT is best for fat loss?

Ab work will get you a six pack? Ab work is not necessary. Compound lifts will hit give you enough core work?

public forums should not be the first choice to find answers for these type of questions....unless you are looking for opinions

I actually wasn't looking for answers. I have my own opinions on some of these. These were things I've read articles on lately, that were brought up as things that people "should do" to lose weight. They were written by professional personal trainers, bodybuilders, and nutritionists. Many experts still believe the myths, and write accordingly.

As others have mentioned, it leaves some people confused, and discouraged.... It would be nice to dispel some of the actual myths, but for some people, those myths seem to work.

WinnerVictorious

First of all I agree that the individual absolutely needs to "find what works" for them.

However, I think that people tend to miss the mark when it comes to "my body is different" statements.

Physiologically, the processes that take place are very similar from person to person, medical conditions aside.
From a preferential standpoint, these things are going to differ greatly and those are the things that are very important to figure out.

I think this is a great article on it:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html

This doesn't take away from the fact that dietary adherence is at the top of the list, and individual preferences vary a great deal and should be learned/optimized.


I also believe that in the context of forum discussions, "what works for me" tends to get twisted into statements that basically turn into misinformation because someone (just as an example, and I'm possibly not being clear on this) may make a statement about a preferential feature of their diet or training and think that their success stems from that preferential item and not the other necessities that they are also doing.

For instance, someone may come along and say "I got fat because I ate 2 meals per day. When I came to MFP I started eating every 2 hours I started losing weight. Eating frequently boosted my metabolism". When in reality, they started creating an energy deficit by eating less. Eating frequently may make it easier for that individual to eat less, but they could easily mistake the cause of the weight loss as meal frequency when (I would like to think) it's well established that this just isn't true.

I don't mean to go off on a tangent here -- it's just that people can very quickly confuse aspects of dieting that are well within the personal preference category, and confuse them for the small list of things that fall under the "you need to do this" category.

whenever i hear somebody say that something ABSOLUTELY must be true because they know that when they made a certain change, they got a certain result, the first thing i always think of is...

"Correlation does not imply causation".

i see this all the time with quack findings from medical studies being reported on the evening news as fact.

we've all seen those... for example, "children with large feet are better spellers!" gets reported as a scientific fact by people who wouldn't know the scientific method it if hit them in the head. sure, there was one study out there that found that better spelling children have bigger feet, but one does not imply the other.