Diet Fads!!

2

Replies

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    bump because I'm interested in sarauk's input...

    Also, why? As if you value my input anyway - seems like you are just trying to start and argument...as usual.
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    I'm a huge fan of the one where I can eat anything I want and as long as I'm in a calorie deficit, I lose weight. You know, sort of the default MFP setup. Pizza, McDonalds, ice cream and cookies seem to be working well for me.

    Highly recommend

    and this is what's dangerous about MFP and IIFYM, because you left out the part where you should still be meeting your macro and micro nutritional goals with whole foods, and the junk should only be a small % of your overall intake.

    pkLAzAQ.gif

    I didn't leave out that part. That part doesn't exist. You'll find that if you eat the things you like and fall within your calorie guidelines, most of your macros and micros will be taken care of. And anything that isn't only requires a minute adjustment. I guess if we built a straw man that ate nothing but candy bars we'd have a problem, but no one does IIFYM that way.

    i guess you and sarauk don't agree on IIFYM then...... she told me that the majority of IIFYM is eating nutritious whole foods

    Don't misquote me

    really? that's exactly what you told me. getting your nutrition from whole foods ideally and then filling out the rest with whatever you want as long as it fits your macros. do you want me to go search for the quote? what thread was it in?
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    bump because I'm interested in sarauk's input...

    Also, why? As if you value my input anyway - seems like you are just trying to start and argument...as usual.

    no really i'm not. i'm tying to put what you told me yesterday into context with what davpul said - that's it. no ulterior motive i promise.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    I'm a huge fan of the one where I can eat anything I want and as long as I'm in a calorie deficit, I lose weight. You know, sort of the default MFP setup. Pizza, McDonalds, ice cream and cookies seem to be working well for me.

    Highly recommend

    and this is what's dangerous about MFP and IIFYM, because you left out the part where you should still be meeting your macro and micro nutritional goals with whole foods, and the junk should only be a small % of your overall intake.

    pkLAzAQ.gif

    I didn't leave out that part. That part doesn't exist. You'll find that if you eat the things you like and fall within your calorie guidelines, most of your macros and micros will be taken care of. And anything that isn't only requires a minute adjustment. I guess if we built a straw man that ate nothing but candy bars we'd have a problem, but no one does IIFYM that way.

    i guess you and sarauk don't agree on IIFYM then...... she told me that the majority of IIFYM is eating nutritious whole foods

    Don't misquote me

    really? that's exactly what you told me. getting your nutrition from whole foods ideally and then filling out the rest with whatever you want as long as it fits your macros. do you want me to go search for the quote? what thread was it in?

    Majority of people or majority of food?
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    bump because I'm interested in sarauk's input...

    Also, why? As if you value my input anyway - seems like you are just trying to start and argument...as usual.

    no really i'm not. i'm tying to put what you told me yesterday into context with what davpul said - that's it. no ulterior motive i promise.

    DavPul is one person...not exactly a representative sample. I am not even sure has even said he applied the same definitions.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Actually Coach - you seem to forget as usual, you are not the OP. This is her thread so please do not derail it. You want to have a discussion, either PM me or start your own thread. It has already been dominated enough by your personal agenda.
  • IronPlayground
    IronPlayground Posts: 1,594 Member
    In sports, or in finance or what have you, tiny, almost unnoticeable changes can reap huge benefits over time correct? an extra couple swings in the batting cage, an extra penny put in a savings account can - over time - make a HUGE difference. It's called the "compound effect". I BELIEVE (not fact, opinion) that the compound effect also works with food, and I think that minor tweaks in a diet can have significant effects over a lifetime, even if they don't make a difference today, tomorrow, next week or next year.

    I will disagree with you on this one. If you are consistently in a calorie deficit while meeting macros and micros and that is filled with 10-15% nutritious foods, then the pop tarts, ice cream, cheesecake, etc. is not going to have some compounding effect on your health long term.

    ETA: Now to respond to the OP. Log your food, stay at a deficit if weight loss is you goal, eat 10-20% nutritious foods and fill in the remainder with foods you love. You may hear that certain eating plans work well for some folks. That's fine. Not too many of them have been eating like that for 10, 15, 20, 25 years. Mostly been 2-5 years tops. Just make sure whatever you choose is something you enjoy and can continue doing.
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    In sports, or in finance or what have you, tiny, almost unnoticeable changes can reap huge benefits over time correct? an extra couple swings in the batting cage, an extra penny put in a savings account can - over time - make a HUGE difference. It's called the "compound effect". I BELIEVE (not fact, opinion) that the compound effect also works with food, and I think that minor tweaks in a diet can have significant effects over a lifetime, even if they don't make a difference today, tomorrow, next week or next year.

    I will disagree with you on this one. If you are consistently in a calorie deficit while meeting macros and micros and that is filled with 10-15% nutritious foods, then the pop tarts, ice cream, cheesecake, etc. is not going to have some compounding effect on your health long term.

    ETA: Now to respond to the OP. Log your food, stay at a deficit if weight loss is you goal, eat 10-20% nutritious foods and fill in the remainder with foods you love. You may hear that certain eating plans work well for some folks. That's fine. Not too many of them have been eating like that for 10, 15, 20, 25 years. Mostly been 2-5 years tops. Just make sure whatever you choose is something you enjoy and can continue doing.

    so why does an extra 1 or 2% in every other area of life outside of nutrition make a significant difference when compounded over time?

    (also why would you be at a deficit long-term?)
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    so why does an extra 1 or 2% in every other area of life outside of nutrition make a significant difference when compounded over time?

    Didn't we beat this to compounding theory of yours to death in some thread like a month ago?

    First of all, it would be cumulative, not compounding. If you were to take a small dose of cyanide every week for several weeks, it wouldn't compound into more and more cyanide in your body. It would accumulate. And actually that's not true either. Your body is so damn clever that it will actually flush out the "toxins". If the dose is low enough, it doesn't even accumulate; it diminishes.

    But one thing, with certainty, that does not happen, is it does not compound.
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    so why does an extra 1 or 2% in every other area of life outside of nutrition make a significant difference when compounded over time?

    Didn't we beat this to compounding theory of yours to death in some thread like a month ago?

    First of all, it would be cumulative, not compounding. If you were to take a small dose of cyanide, it doesn't compound into more and more cyanide in your body. It accumulates. And actually that's not true either. Your body is so damn clever that it will actually flush out the "toxins", so that if the dose is low enough, it doesn't even accumulate; it diminishes.

    But if your body has to work even a little harder than normal to flush out hose toxins, and it has to work a little harder on a daily basis than someone who didnt ingest the toxins, you dont think that extra work would add up over a lifetime?
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    The best one is the one that YOU can stick with for life.

    Something different works for everyone. Find the lifestyle you can stick with and rock on with it.
    THIS

    Find what works for you. And only time will tell. Everyone here is an expert at losing weight. Some will be successful at keeping it off. The more honestly you assess your situation, the better your chances.
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    so why does an extra 1 or 2% in every other area of life outside of nutrition make a significant difference when compounded over time?

    Didn't we beat this to compounding theory of yours to death in some thread like a month ago?

    First of all, it would be cumulative, not compounding. If you were to take a small dose of cyanide, it doesn't compound into more and more cyanide in your body. It accumulates. And actually that's not true either. Your body is so damn clever that it will actually flush out the "toxins", so that if the dose is low enough, it doesn't even accumulate; it diminishes.

    But if your body has to work even a little harder than normal to flush out hose toxins, and it has to work a little harder on a daily basis than someone who didnt ingest the toxins, you dont think that extra work would add up over a lifetime?

    Extra work would add up how? Maybe it would make me stronger and more resilient, just like when I break down my muscles by working out and letting my body heal them.
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    so why does an extra 1 or 2% in every other area of life outside of nutrition make a significant difference when compounded over time?

    Didn't we beat this to compounding theory of yours to death in some thread like a month ago?

    First of all, it would be cumulative, not compounding. If you were to take a small dose of cyanide, it doesn't compound into more and more cyanide in your body. It accumulates. And actually that's not true either. Your body is so damn clever that it will actually flush out the "toxins", so that if the dose is low enough, it doesn't even accumulate; it diminishes.

    But if your body has to work even a little harder than normal to flush out hose toxins, and it has to work a little harder on a daily basis than someone who didnt ingest the toxins, you dont think that extra work would add up over a lifetime?

    Extra work would add up how? Maybe it would make me stronger and more resilient, just like when I break down my muscles by working out and letting my body heal them.

    Your body working harder to digest equals higher nutritional stress, and over time it adds up. Thats my view. More stress means lower immune function which equals more disease. Simple.
  • Mr_Bad_Example
    Mr_Bad_Example Posts: 2,403 Member
    The best diet is the Moderation diet.

    Eat whatever you like, but eat it in moderation. It's kind of awesome and seems to work, at least for me.
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    so why does an extra 1 or 2% in every other area of life outside of nutrition make a significant difference when compounded over time?

    Didn't we beat this to compounding theory of yours to death in some thread like a month ago?

    First of all, it would be cumulative, not compounding. If you were to take a small dose of cyanide, it doesn't compound into more and more cyanide in your body. It accumulates. And actually that's not true either. Your body is so damn clever that it will actually flush out the "toxins", so that if the dose is low enough, it doesn't even accumulate; it diminishes.

    But if your body has to work even a little harder than normal to flush out hose toxins, and it has to work a little harder on a daily basis than someone who didnt ingest the toxins, you dont think that extra work would add up over a lifetime?

    Extra work would add up how? Maybe it would make me stronger and more resilient, just like when I break down my muscles by working out and letting my body heal them.

    Your body working harder to digest equals higher nutritional stress, and over time it adds up. Thats my view. More stress means lower immune function which equals more disease. Simple.

    By that same logic I shouldn't bother to do heavy lifting because it puts stress on my CNS, bones, muscles, respiratory system, and cardiovascular system. Yet over time it makes me stronger and stronger.

    I'm not really suggesting that eating poptarts will have some cumulative effect on strengthening my body. But I amsuggestting that the stress on the body caused by eating "junk food", even doing so every single day, in the absence of any nutritional deficiencies, is minuscule and negligible. In the whole scheme of things it's lower on the worry list than, say, driving in stop and go traffic.

    And on that note, I'm off to stress myself out big time with some heavy *kitten* deadlifts. :drinker:
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    so why does an extra 1 or 2% in every other area of life outside of nutrition make a significant difference when compounded over time?

    Didn't we beat this to compounding theory of yours to death in some thread like a month ago?

    First of all, it would be cumulative, not compounding. If you were to take a small dose of cyanide, it doesn't compound into more and more cyanide in your body. It accumulates. And actually that's not true either. Your body is so damn clever that it will actually flush out the "toxins", so that if the dose is low enough, it doesn't even accumulate; it diminishes.

    But if your body has to work even a little harder than normal to flush out hose toxins, and it has to work a little harder on a daily basis than someone who didnt ingest the toxins, you dont think that extra work would add up over a lifetime?

    Extra work would add up how? Maybe it would make me stronger and more resilient, just like when I break down my muscles by working out and letting my body heal them.

    Your body working harder to digest equals higher nutritional stress, and over time it adds up. Thats my view. More stress means lower immune function which equals more disease. Simple.

    By that same logic I shouldn't bother to do heavy lifting because it puts stress on my CNS, bones, muscles, respiratory system, and cardiovascular system. Yet over time it makes me stronger and stronger.

    I'm not really suggesting that eating poptarts will have some cumulative effect on strengthening my body. But I amsuggestting that the stress on the body caused by eating "junk food", even doing so every single day, in the absence of any nutritional deficiencies, is minuscule and negligible. In the whole scheme of things it's lower on the worry list than, say, driving in stop and go traffic.

    And on that note, I'm off to stress myself out big time with some heavy *kitten* deadlifts. :drinker:

    Organs arent muscles and dont respond to stress in anywhere NEAR the same way - or do you think they do?
  • redladywitch
    redladywitch Posts: 799 Member
    OP- I can speak for what works for me. I do well with moderation. I try to keep my sodium and sugar in check due to health reasons. I pretty much eat what I want to. Yesterday, I had pop tarts with Nutella on top. GAWD it was yummy! I only do that once in a while.
  • NaBroski
    NaBroski Posts: 206
    Organs arent muscles and dont respond to stress in anywhere NEAR the same way - or do you think they do?

    Do you actually read the posts you respond to?
    ]I'm not really suggesting that eating poptarts will have some cumulative effect on strengthening my body.

    Looks like you missed the point

    But I amsuggestting that the stress on the body caused by eating "junk food", even doing so every single day, in the absence of any nutritional deficiencies, is minuscule and negligible.

    The point
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member


    Organs arent muscles and dont respond to stress in anywhere NEAR the same way - or do you think they do?

    Do you actually read the posts you respond to?
    I'm not really suggesting that eating poptarts will have some cumulative effect on strengthening my body.[/b]

    Looks like you missed the point

    But I amsuggestting that the stress on the body caused by eating "junk food", even doing so every single day, in the absence of any nutritional deficiencies, is minuscule and negligible.

    The point

    And why is that opinion more valid than mine? It's backed up with the same amount of proof. None. I just feel mine's more logical based on comparative real life scenarios where compound interest is proven to exist. (Or cumulative, if taso likes that better, though I'll still stand by compound)
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    Do you understand the meaning of compound interest? Just checking.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest
  • DaniH826
    DaniH826 Posts: 1,335 Member
    Any sustainable diet that includes good nutrition.

    ^^ What he said.
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Do you understand the meaning of compound interest? Just checking.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest
    I absolutely do. Aren't you supposed to be lifting?
  • taso42
    taso42 Posts: 8,980 Member
    Do you understand the meaning of compound interest? Just checking.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest
    I absolutely do. Aren't you supposed to be lifting?

    That's curious.

    Yep, I'm between sets. :wink:
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Do you understand the meaning of compound interest? Just checking.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest
    I absolutely do. Aren't you supposed to be lifting?

    That's curious.

    Yep, I'm between sets. :wink:

    Haha nice. I do the same thing.
  • NaBroski
    NaBroski Posts: 206


    Organs arent muscles and dont respond to stress in anywhere NEAR the same way - or do you think they do?

    Do you actually read the posts you respond to?
    I'm not really suggesting that eating poptarts will have some cumulative effect on strengthening my body.[/b]

    Looks like you missed the point

    But I amsuggestting that the stress on the body caused by eating "junk food", even doing so every single day, in the absence of any nutritional deficiencies, is minuscule and negligible.

    The point

    And why is that opinion more valid than mine?

    Perhaps because mine is based on an understanding of human physiology, rather than poor analogies.
    It's backed up with the same amount of proof. None. I just feel mine's more logical based on comparative real life scenarios where compound interest is proven to exist. (Or cumulative, if taso likes that better, though I'll still stand by compound)

    Your body is not a bank. Very few contaminants have a cumulative effect (in small doses), except for heavy metals -- and even those are eliminated as long as the dose is within the normal tolerances of our system (ie mercury, iron, etc.)

    If you're so worried about the cumulative effect of "toxins", then why don't you preach against eating fish?
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member


    Organs arent muscles and dont respond to stress in anywhere NEAR the same way - or do you think they do?

    Do you actually read the posts you respond to?
    I'm not really suggesting that eating poptarts will have some cumulative effect on strengthening my body.[/b]

    Looks like you missed the point

    But I amsuggestting that the stress on the body caused by eating "junk food", even doing so every single day, in the absence of any nutritional deficiencies, is minuscule and negligible.

    The point

    And why is that opinion more valid than mine?

    Perhaps because mine is based on an understanding of human physiology, rather than poor analogies.
    It's backed up with the same amount of proof. None. I just feel mine's more logical based on comparative real life scenarios where compound interest is proven to exist. (Or cumulative, if taso likes that better, though I'll still stand by compound)

    Your body is not a bank. Very few contaminants have a cumulative effect (in small doses), except for heavy metals -- and even those are eliminated as long as the dose is within the normal tolerances of our system (ie mercury, iron, etc.)

    If you're so worried about the cumulative effect of "toxins", then why don't you preach against eating fish?

    I actually dont eat fish more than once or twice a week max for that very reason.
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member


    Organs arent muscles and dont respond to stress in anywhere NEAR the same way - or do you think they do?

    Do you actually read the posts you respond to?
    I'm not really suggesting that eating poptarts will have some cumulative effect on strengthening my body.[/b]

    Looks like you missed the point

    But I amsuggestting that the stress on the body caused by eating "junk food", even doing so every single day, in the absence of any nutritional deficiencies, is minuscule and negligible.

    The point

    And why is that opinion more valid than mine?

    Perhaps because mine is based on an understanding of human physiology, rather than poor analogies.
    It's backed up with the same amount of proof. None. I just feel mine's more logical based on comparative real life scenarios where compound interest is proven to exist. (Or cumulative, if taso likes that better, though I'll still stand by compound)

    Your body is not a bank. Very few contaminants have a cumulative effect (in small doses) except for heavy metals -- and even those are eliminated as long as the dose is within the normal tolerances of our system (ie mercury, iron, etc.)

    If you're so worried about the cumulative effect of "toxins", then why don't you preach against eating fish?
    Oh, and can you prove that?
  • NaBroski
    NaBroski Posts: 206


    Organs arent muscles and dont respond to stress in anywhere NEAR the same way - or do you think they do?

    Do you actually read the posts you respond to?
    I'm not really suggesting that eating poptarts will have some cumulative effect on strengthening my body.[/b]

    Looks like you missed the point

    But I amsuggestting that the stress on the body caused by eating "junk food", even doing so every single day, in the absence of any nutritional deficiencies, is minuscule and negligible.

    The point

    And why is that opinion more valid than mine?

    Perhaps because mine is based on an understanding of human physiology, rather than poor analogies.
    It's backed up with the same amount of proof. None. I just feel mine's more logical based on comparative real life scenarios where compound interest is proven to exist. (Or cumulative, if taso likes that better, though I'll still stand by compound)

    Your body is not a bank. Very few contaminants have a cumulative effect (in small doses) except for heavy metals -- and even those are eliminated as long as the dose is within the normal tolerances of our system (ie mercury, iron, etc.)

    If you're so worried about the cumulative effect of "toxins", then why don't you preach against eating fish?
    Oh, and can you prove that?

    How about you offer a single shred of evidence for a cumulative effect on the body for ANY dietary substance (apart from heavy metals)

    Or are you just shifting the goalposts, as usual?
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member


    Organs arent muscles and dont respond to stress in anywhere NEAR the same way - or do you think they do?

    Do you actually read the posts you respond to?
    I'm not really suggesting that eating poptarts will have some cumulative effect on strengthening my body.[/b]

    Looks like you missed the point

    But I amsuggestting that the stress on the body caused by eating "junk food", even doing so every single day, in the absence of any nutritional deficiencies, is minuscule and negligible.

    The point

    And why is that opinion more valid than mine?

    Perhaps because mine is based on an understanding of human physiology, rather than poor analogies.
    It's backed up with the same amount of proof. None. I just feel mine's more logical based on comparative real life scenarios where compound interest is proven to exist. (Or cumulative, if taso likes that better, though I'll still stand by compound)

    I don't have to. I said it was an opinion, not fact. You stated your position as fact, thus I asked you to prove it.

    Your body is not a bank. Very few contaminants have a cumulative effect (in small doses) except for heavy metals -- and even those are eliminated as long as the dose is within the normal tolerances of our system (ie mercury, iron, etc.)

    If you're so worried about the cumulative effect of "toxins", then why don't you preach against eating fish?
    Oh, and can you prove that?

    How about you offer a single shred of evidence for a cumulative effect on the body for ANY dietary substance (apart from heavy metals)

    Or are you just shifting the goalposts, as usual?
    You keep using this phrase... I do not think it means what you think it means...

    I don't have to prove it. I said it was an opinion, not fact. I said I had no proof. You stated your position as fact, thus I asked you to prove it.

    Show of that keen understanding of human physiology for me.
  • NaBroski
    NaBroski Posts: 206


    Organs arent muscles and dont respond to stress in anywhere NEAR the same way - or do you think they do?

    Do you actually read the posts you respond to?
    I'm not really suggesting that eating poptarts will have some cumulative effect on strengthening my body.[/b]

    Looks like you missed the point

    But I amsuggestting that the stress on the body caused by eating "junk food", even doing so every single day, in the absence of any nutritional deficiencies, is minuscule and negligible.

    The point

    And why is that opinion more valid than mine?

    Perhaps because mine is based on an understanding of human physiology, rather than poor analogies.
    It's backed up with the same amount of proof. None. I just feel mine's more logical based on comparative real life scenarios where compound interest is proven to exist. (Or cumulative, if taso likes that better, though I'll still stand by compound)

    I don't have to. I said it was an opinion, not fact. You stated your position as fact, thus I asked you to prove it.

    Your body is not a bank. Very few contaminants have a cumulative effect (in small doses) except for heavy metals -- and even those are eliminated as long as the dose is within the normal tolerances of our system (ie mercury, iron, etc.)

    If you're so worried about the cumulative effect of "toxins", then why don't you preach against eating fish?
    Oh, and can you prove that?

    How about you offer a single shred of evidence for a cumulative effect on the body for ANY dietary substance (apart from heavy metals)

    Or are you just shifting the goalposts, as usual?
    You keep using this phrase... I do not think it means what you think it means...

    I don't have to prove it. I said it was an opinion, not fact. I said I had no proof. You stated your position as fact, thus I asked you to prove it.

    Show of that keen understanding of human physiology for me.


    Liver? Kidneys?

    Ever heard of these things?

    What do you think they do?

Categories