The Smarter Science of Slim
Replies
-
All the old people I know who have maintained their health are the ones that are active and have maintained their weight and muscle mass. I know a lot of old people (and people who are not old) who eat nothing but "whole" foods and whatnot but are not active and are either fat or suffer from some associated disease.
In my opinion and experience, maintaining activity and body composition are by far the most important things you can do.
I agree that exercise is essential for good health, but it is hard to deny that good nutrition is a part of the health equation. Do you?0 -
All the old people I know who have maintained their health are the ones that are active and have maintained their weight and muscle mass. I know a lot of old people (and people who are not old) who eat nothing but "whole" foods and whatnot but are not active and are either fat or suffer from some associated disease.
In my opinion and experience, maintaining activity and body composition are by far the most important things you can do.
I agree that exercise is essential for good health, but it is hard to deny that good nutrition is a part of the health equation. Do you?
We define "good nutrition" differently.
I agree that good nutrition is essential. I like to keep things simple. Here are my maxims, that really seem to work for everyone I see who follows them:
1) Eat appropriate quantities of the macronutrients
2) Make sure to get a couple servings of veggies a day.
3) Achieve/maintain a healthy weight with good body composition
4) Get at least an hour of cardio a week
5) Do resistance training of some kind
That's it. There's so much more to worry and stress over in life to make this any more complicated than that.0 -
All the old people I know who have maintained their health are the ones that are active and have maintained their weight and muscle mass. I know a lot of old people (and people who are not old) who eat nothing but "whole" foods and whatnot but are not active and are either fat or suffer from some associated disease.
In my opinion and experience, maintaining activity and body composition are by far the most important things you can do.
I agree that exercise is essential for good health, but it is hard to deny that good nutrition is a part of the health equation. Do you?
We define "good nutrition" differently.
I agree that good nutrition is essential. I like to keep things simple. Here are my maxims, that really seem to work for everyone I see who follows them:
1) Eat appropriate quantities of the macronutrients
2) Make sure to get a couple servings of veggies a day.
3) Achieve/maintain a healthy weight with good body composition
4) Get at least an hour of cardio a week
5) Do resistance training of some kind
That's it. There's so much more to worry and stress over in life to make this any more complicated than that.
I do all of those. I don't think we are very different in that respect. I just don't eat sucrose and wheat because they place a burden on my efforts.0 -
I'm a clean eater. I do it for my health. It's easier to maintain a diet for weight loss eating clean for a multitude of reasons, but you can overeat clean food as well. You still have to eat an amount of calories that's right for your metabolism.0
-
I'd be happy to elaborate. Most have not gotten morbidly obese by overindulging in all foods. Healthy and not. Some have. It really as simple as that. For the majority (those that haven't but have gotten out of shape and a little overweight over the years) a moderate exercise program, managing calories and macronutrients will dramatically improve health. For some, they will need to repair the damage they did through years of willful ignorance and/or neglect of basic health concepts.This is my usual response when people go on about the evils of sugar:
http://www.simplyshredded.com/the-science-of-nutrition-is-a-carb-a-carb.html
It cites a good few scientific studies for reference.
>>A meta-analysis and systematic review also supported these findings and concluded that the effects on health markers were dependent on their initial values. Low glycemic load diets are good for your health if you’re initially unhealthy (like obese or diabetic), but in healthy populations there was no effect. This is an example of a ceiling effect. You can’t fix what isn’t broken, so if you’re already healthy, eating ‘healthy’ foods at some point stops making you even healthier.
If you’re lean, watch your diet and are physically active, it’s safe to say you belong in the healthy category and the glycemic load of your diet has no considerable effect on your health.<<
For now...but everyone gets old and why not enter old age with healthier habits? It will help to stave off the ravages of "old age". Everyone exclaims that I look 20 years younger than my age since I lost weight and nod respectfully when I mention exercise and will often comment on exercise being essential for "keeping you young". But I often then smile and say, "Well, I also watch what I eat and try to eat as healthfully as I can. I am a lifetime vegetable eater too. I cut out sugar and junk food three years ago." Then I watch as their eyes glaze over and they say, "Oh, I could never do that. I have to have my *fill in the blank with some sugary junk*." I think to myself, that they would if they knew the benefits---but then again, maybe not. *shrug* :ohwell:
They are not eliminating anything because most people don't need to as most haven't damaged their metabolism with years of bad choices earlier in life. Some have but not most. Most just need to control their calories and balance their macros.
Well good for you mamapags. You may have won the genetic sweepstakes. Not everyone is so fortunate. My inheritance is just not great but I work with what I have. I notice that you put a caveat on your statement, "...most people don't need to [eliminate a food] as most people haven't damaged their metabolism with years of bad choices earlier in life..." Would you elaborate on what you think this means, please?
You have been working at improving the damage you did for 62 years by taking drastic measures over the last 3 years. You are the exception. That colors your perception dramatically. Thus you paint every situation as the same as yours. When the only tool you posses is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
As for me and others, I have maintained a reasonable diet and exercise for years. Sometimes more diligently, sometimes less. I believe more people are like me than you. For those people it's simple:
Move more
Eat less
Mind your macros.
Lol, and no, I didn't win any genetic sweepstakes. I just didn't spend most of my life screwing up what I had. I ate reasonable well and got a decent amount of activity. That's all. It really isn't that complicated. Just a few simple things for a loooong time.
You are the exception not me.0 -
The article I linked to suggests that it's not as important to take it nearly as seriously as many do.I agree that exercise is essential for good health, but it is hard to deny that good nutrition is a part of the health equation. Do you?0 -
All the old people I know who have maintained their health are the ones that are active and have maintained their weight and muscle mass. I know a lot of old people (and people who are not old) who eat nothing but "whole" foods and whatnot but are not active and are either fat or suffer from some associated disease.
In my opinion and experience, maintaining activity and body composition are by far the most important things you can do.
I agree that exercise is essential for good health, but it is hard to deny that good nutrition is a part of the health equation. Do you?
We define "good nutrition" differently.
I agree that good nutrition is essential. I like to keep things simple. Here are my maxims, that really seem to work for everyone I see who follows them:
1) Eat appropriate quantities of the macronutrients
2) Make sure to get a couple servings of veggies a day.
3) Achieve/maintain a healthy weight with good body composition
4) Get at least an hour of cardio a week
5) Do resistance training of some kind
That's it. There's so much more to worry and stress over in life to make this any more complicated than that.
Seems to be a reoccurring theme.0 -
All the old people I know who have maintained their health are the ones that are active and have maintained their weight and muscle mass. I know a lot of old people (and people who are not old) who eat nothing but "whole" foods and whatnot but are not active and are either fat or suffer from some associated disease.
In my opinion and experience, maintaining activity and body composition are by far the most important things you can do.
I agree that exercise is essential for good health, but it is hard to deny that good nutrition is a part of the health equation. Do you?
We define "good nutrition" differently.
I agree that good nutrition is essential. I like to keep things simple. Here are my maxims, that really seem to work for everyone I see who follows them:
1) Eat appropriate quantities of the macronutrients
2) Make sure to get a couple servings of veggies a day.
3) Achieve/maintain a healthy weight with good body composition
4) Get at least an hour of cardio a week
5) Do resistance training of some kind
That's it. There's so much more to worry and stress over in life to make this any more complicated than that.
I do all of those. I don't think we are very different in that respect. I just don't eat sucrose and wheat because they place a burden on my efforts.
[/quote
I do. And have absolutely no ill effects by any reasonable measure. I must be a unicorn??0 -
All the old people I know who have maintained their health are the ones that are active and have maintained their weight and muscle mass. I know a lot of old people (and people who are not old) who eat nothing but "whole" foods and whatnot but are not active and are either fat or suffer from some associated disease.
In my opinion and experience, maintaining activity and body composition are by far the most important things you can do.
I agree that exercise is essential for good health, but it is hard to deny that good nutrition is a part of the health equation. Do you?
We define "good nutrition" differently.
I agree that good nutrition is essential. I like to keep things simple. Here are my maxims, that really seem to work for everyone I see who follows them:
1) Eat appropriate quantities of the macronutrients
2) Make sure to get a couple servings of veggies a day.
3) Achieve/maintain a healthy weight with good body composition
4) Get at least an hour of cardio a week
5) Do resistance training of some kind
That's it. There's so much more to worry and stress over in life to make this any more complicated than that.
I do all of those. I don't think we are very different in that respect. I just don't eat sucrose and wheat because they place a burden on my efforts.
[/quote
I do. And have absolutely no ill effects by any reasonable measure. I must be a unicorn??
Well...at least that you know of. One big difference between us is that you are a man and I am a woman. Men, it appears, can abuse their health without immediate effect more than women can and do. Men smoke more, drink harder and...generally die younger. But as for the weight issues. It is much harder for women to lose body fat than it is for men. There have been several peer-reviewed research papers recently that points to the differences. There is a lot of research being done on health gender differences. One of the differences is leptin resistance. Women are much more prone to it because they produce 2 to 3 times the amount of leptin AT THE SAME LEVEL OF BODY FAT AS A MAN. This is very significant. Childbearing and lactation have a profound effect on fat storage as well.
I simply do not need to sabotage my weight loss efforts with foods that are not health-building.0 -
All the old people I know who have maintained their health are the ones that are active and have maintained their weight and muscle mass. I know a lot of old people (and people who are not old) who eat nothing but "whole" foods and whatnot but are not active and are either fat or suffer from some associated disease.
In my opinion and experience, maintaining activity and body composition are by far the most important things you can do.
I agree that exercise is essential for good health, but it is hard to deny that good nutrition is a part of the health equation. Do you?
We define "good nutrition" differently.
I agree that good nutrition is essential. I like to keep things simple. Here are my maxims, that really seem to work for everyone I see who follows them:
1) Eat appropriate quantities of the macronutrients
2) Make sure to get a couple servings of veggies a day.
3) Achieve/maintain a healthy weight with good body composition
4) Get at least an hour of cardio a week
5) Do resistance training of some kind
That's it. There's so much more to worry and stress over in life to make this any more complicated than that.
I do all of those. I don't think we are very different in that respect. I just don't eat sucrose and wheat because they place a burden on my efforts.
[/quote
I do. And have absolutely no ill effects by any reasonable measure. I must be a unicorn??
Well...at least that you know of. One big difference between us is that you are a man and I am a woman. Men, it appears, can abuse their health without immediate effect more than women can and do. Men smoke more, drink harder and...generally die younger. But as for the weight issues. It is much harder for women to lose body fat than it is for men. There have been several peer-reviewed research papers recently that points to the differences. There is a lot of research being done on health gender differences. One of the differences is leptin resistance. Women are much more prone to it because they produce 2 to 3 times the amount of leptin AT THE SAME LEVEL OF BODY FAT AS A MAN. This is very significant. Childbearing and lactation have a profound effect on fat storage as well.
I simply do not need to sabotage my weight loss efforts with foods that are not health-building.
You are inventive at finding excuses! There are many women here that do just fine with IIFYM.0 -
I had 2 servings of Twizzlers today. It's okay because they are low fat.0
-
"...I'd be happy to elaborate. Most have not gotten morbidly obese by overindulging in all foods..."
Actually, for the last 25 years, I have NOT been "overindulging in all foods" if that was meant as a personal insult to me.
"...For some, they will need to repair the damage they did through years of willful ignorance and/or neglect of basic health concepts..."
Again, if that was meant as a personal insult to me--I have not been "willfully ignorant or neglectful of basic health concepts". I have simply had a number of unfortunate health situations that you don't even know about, so don't pretend that you know so much about me.
"...You have been working at improving the damage you did for 62 years by taking drastic measures over the last 3 years..."
Actually, I am very much like a LOT of the female MFP members.
"...You are the exception. That colors your perception dramatically. Thus you paint every situation as the same as yours. When the only tool you posses is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail..."
Sorry to disagree but there are a great number of members here who are very much like me.
"...Lol, and no, I didn't win any genetic sweepstakes. I just didn't spend most of my life screwing up what I had..."
And neither did I. You are way out of line, mister.0 -
All the old people I know who have maintained their health are the ones that are active and have maintained their weight and muscle mass. I know a lot of old people (and people who are not old) who eat nothing but "whole" foods and whatnot but are not active and are either fat or suffer from some associated disease.
In my opinion and experience, maintaining activity and body composition are by far the most important things you can do.
I agree that exercise is essential for good health, but it is hard to deny that good nutrition is a part of the health equation. Do you?
We define "good nutrition" differently.
I agree that good nutrition is essential. I like to keep things simple. Here are my maxims, that really seem to work for everyone I see who follows them:
1) Eat appropriate quantities of the macronutrients
2) Make sure to get a couple servings of veggies a day.
3) Achieve/maintain a healthy weight with good body composition
4) Get at least an hour of cardio a week
5) Do resistance training of some kind
That's it. There's so much more to worry and stress over in life to make this any more complicated than that.
I do all of those. I don't think we are very different in that respect. I just don't eat sucrose and wheat because they place a burden on my efforts.
[/quote
I do. And have absolutely no ill effects by any reasonable measure. I must be a unicorn??
Well...at least that you know of. One big difference between us is that you are a man and I am a woman. Men, it appears, can abuse their health without immediate effect more than women can and do. Men smoke more, drink harder and...generally die younger. But as for the weight issues. It is much harder for women to lose body fat than it is for men. There have been several peer-reviewed research papers recently that points to the differences. There is a lot of research being done on health gender differences. One of the differences is leptin resistance. Women are much more prone to it because they produce 2 to 3 times the amount of leptin AT THE SAME LEVEL OF BODY FAT AS A MAN. This is very significant. Childbearing and lactation have a profound effect on fat storage as well.
I simply do not need to sabotage my weight loss efforts with foods that are not health-building.
You are inventive at finding excuses! There are many women here that do just fine with IIFYM.
What on earth are you talking about? What excuses?? If a woman can do fine with the traditional approach, I say more power to her. It just isn't that simple for some of us and we don't need you and your cohorts coming on here insulting us and berating us because "your" solutions don't work for everyone. I have found something that works for me and I have tried every other method over the years. Optimal nutrition is what works for me and I will not stop telling others about it, no matter how ugly you and your type get. Eat all the crap you want--I couldn't care less. But is it really necessary to foam at the mouth over everyone who demurs from your program?0 -
I havnt read it but it sounds alot like how I eat, fresh natural produce as much as possible. I do sometimes treat myself but if you eat well and nourish your body the odd treat wont affect it, its only if it becomes a bad habit hen it will.
I hate how everyone advocates "eat what you like as long as its in your calorie goal". I mean seriously? Eat for health not just weight loss!
^^^THIS^^^0 -
I really like the sink analogy. I'm going to check out the book for sure. John Romaniello and Adam Bornstein just released a book called Man 2.0 Engineering the Alpha that also places a lot of importance on hormone optimization for fat loss/muscle gain. This is an excellent read as well.
I'm a fan of podcasts also and my favorite one right now is Road to Ripped by Greg O'Gallagher and Chris Walker. I highly recommend this for guys interested in getting to single-digit body fat.0 -
"...I'd be happy to elaborate. Most have not gotten morbidly obese by overindulging in all foods..."
Actually, for the last 25 years, I have NOT been "overindulging in all foods" if that was meant as a personal insult to me.
"...For some, they will need to repair the damage they did through years of willful ignorance and/or neglect of basic health concepts..."
Again, if that was meant as a personal insult to me--I have not been "willfully ignorant or neglectful of basic health concepts". I have simply had a number of unfortunate health situations that you don't even know about, so don't pretend that you know so much about me.
"...You have been working at improving the damage you did for 62 years by taking drastic measures over the last 3 years..."
Actually, I am very much like a LOT of the female MFP members.
"...You are the exception. That colors your perception dramatically. Thus you paint every situation as the same as yours. When the only tool you posses is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail..."
Sorry to disagree but there are a great number of members here who are very much like me.
"...Lol, and no, I didn't win any genetic sweepstakes. I just didn't spend most of my life screwing up what I had..."
And neither did I. You are way out of line, mister.
Well, I guess I just have to soldier on while bearing your disapproval somehow. I just don't know how I'll manage. :yawn:0 -
I thought this was worth repeating:
=============================================================
So what should we eat?
Our bodies require Essential Amino Acids and Essential Fatty Acids or we will die. There are no such things as essential carbohydrates. Biology is not an opinion, this is a matter of fact.
Do you understand how the body works? Just because carbohydrates doesn't have the name "essential" in front of it doesn't mean that it's not important, that's just silly.
Just an FYI - our bodies (actually, most organisms) get their energy source, by and large, from carbohydrates. Even though it's not named something like "super major important carbohydrates", it is essential, as without it we would die.0 -
bump for later!0
-
"Eat less, exercise more and you will lose weight. Hmm.. How's that working for us? Record levels of obesity around the globe, surely this is NOT working"
I gave up after reading the logical fallacy of this premise which sets up the argument. Those who are obese are simply not eating less and exercising more, and they are not, as the statement implies, a result of people failing in an endeavour to exercise more and eat less. This statement is trying to portray diet and exercise as pointless exercises by means of a totally absurd argument. How can you take the intelligence of such an article seriously?
I kind of thought the same...I do not know any obese people that eat less and exercise more ....do any of you?0 -
All the old people I know who have maintained their health are the ones that are active and have maintained their weight and muscle mass. I know a lot of old people (and people who are not old) who eat nothing but "whole" foods and whatnot but are not active and are either fat or suffer from some associated disease.
In my opinion and experience, maintaining activity and body composition are by far the most important things you can do.
I agree that exercise is essential for good health, but it is hard to deny that good nutrition is a part of the health equation. Do you?
We define "good nutrition" differently.
I agree that good nutrition is essential. I like to keep things simple. Here are my maxims, that really seem to work for everyone I see who follows them:
1) Eat appropriate quantities of the macronutrients
2) Make sure to get a couple servings of veggies a day.
3) Achieve/maintain a healthy weight with good body composition
4) Get at least an hour of cardio a week
5) Do resistance training of some kind
That's it. There's so much more to worry and stress over in life to make this any more complicated than that.
I do all of those. I don't think we are very different in that respect. I just don't eat sucrose and wheat because they place a burden on my efforts.
[/quote
I do. And have absolutely no ill effects by any reasonable measure. I must be a unicorn??
Well...at least that you know of. One big difference between us is that you are a man and I am a woman. Men, it appears, can abuse their health without immediate effect more than women can and do. Men smoke more, drink harder and...generally die younger. But as for the weight issues. It is much harder for women to lose body fat than it is for men. There have been several peer-reviewed research papers recently that points to the differences. There is a lot of research being done on health gender differences. One of the differences is leptin resistance. Women are much more prone to it because they produce 2 to 3 times the amount of leptin AT THE SAME LEVEL OF BODY FAT AS A MAN. This is very significant. Childbearing and lactation have a profound effect on fat storage as well.
I simply do not need to sabotage my weight loss efforts with foods that are not health-building.
You are inventive at finding excuses! There are many women here that do just fine with IIFYM.
What on earth are you talking about? What excuses?? If a woman can do fine with the traditional approach, I say more power to her. It just isn't that simple for some of us and we don't need you and your cohorts coming on here insulting us and berating us because "your" solutions don't work for everyone. I have found something that works for me and I have tried every other method over the years. Optimal nutrition is what works for me and I will not stop telling others about it, no matter how ugly you and your type get. Eat all the crap you want--I couldn't care less. But is it really necessary to foam at the mouth over everyone who demurs from your program?
Easy on the stress now. Cortisol level and all...0 -
Am I the only one reading this post purely as an advertisement pushing product?
it does sound like one of those 2am infomercials...0 -
"Eat less, exercise more and you will lose weight. Hmm.. How's that working for us? Record levels of obesity around the globe, surely this is NOT working"
I gave up after reading the logical fallacy of this premise which sets up the argument. Those who are obese are simply not eating less and exercising more, and they are not, as the statement implies, a result of people failing in an endeavour to exercise more and eat less. This statement is trying to portray diet and exercise as pointless exercises by means of a totally absurd argument. How can you take the intelligence of such an article seriously?
I kind of thought the same...I do not know any obese people that eat less and exercise more ....do any of you?
(forehead smack) Who'da thunk??0 -
Just eat food. Food that you can find in nature. Eat plenty of non-starchy vegetables, seafood, lean meat, low fat cottage cheese and low fat greek yoghurt, eggs, berries and citrus fruits natural fats, nuts, drink plenty of water. Fill your body with good QUALITY food and it will have no room for anything else
idk where you find low fat cottage cheese and greek yoghurt in nature o.0
We don't find milk-bearing animals in nature?? Then where did they come from--are they sophisticated robots do you think?
there is a cottage cheese cow or greek yogurt cow, really?0 -
"Eat less, exercise more and you will lose weight. Hmm.. How's that working for us? Record levels of obesity around the globe, surely this is NOT working"
I gave up after reading the logical fallacy of this premise which sets up the argument. Those who are obese are simply not eating less and exercising more, and they are not, as the statement implies, a result of people failing in an endeavour to exercise more and eat less. This statement is trying to portray diet and exercise as pointless exercises by means of a totally absurd argument. How can you take the intelligence of such an article seriously?
I kind of thought the same...I do not know any obese people that eat less and exercise more ....do any of you?
(forehead smack) Who'da thunk??
LOL pags....0 -
When cornered he admits that calories ultimately rule but eating the right foods can help the process and address metabolic issues.
I think this is spot on.
Obviously calories do matter but in a real world scenario certain foods or dieting structures make it easier for people to stay consistently in deficit, others make it harder. Unless you're a masochist then choosing the way that makes adherence easier is your best bet.
The "right" combination is due to a myriad of factors both physiological and psychological in my view but what seems clear to me is that it is quite a personal thing.
While this type of dieting may sound "restrictive" to one person it may not seem restrictive at all to another - how can you feel restricted if you are not craving something and have little desire to eat it?
It may seem astonishing but some people end up in a situation where they can take or leave pasta, bread, booze etc. They hold little sway. It is not a case of "never eating something again" - but rather having the flexibility to not be overly bothered in having it (or not as he case may be.)
^^^^THIS TOTALLY^^^^^ I am never bothered by not eating the foods that formerly made me fat and sick. I rarely, if ever, miss them now.
did foods make you fat, or did eating too much of them make you fat?
I can eat a pizza and not gain a pound...if I eat pizza three times a dayI will gain weight...so what made me gain weight pizza in general, or eating too much pizza?0 -
Sorry... but how did you link the fact that it's accepted that exercising more and eating less calories with people being over weight?For some time we have been given the concept of calories in vs calories out using the model of a scale if we want to lose weight... Eat less, exercise more and you will lose weight. Hmm.. How's that working for us? Record levels of obesity around the globe, surely this is NOT working.
Do you actually believe that the majority of people that are over weight are ones that are trying to get their calories out lower than than calories in by exercising more and eating less?
Massive and erroneous jump of logic there, to my mind.
I will always argue for 'CICO' because it's basics physics.
I won't argue that the 'CI' can affect the 'CO' to varying degrees.
I get the feeling that for people that are actually fairly fit, it probably doesn't make a big difference.
Perhaps not in terms of excess body fat, but the metabolizing of sugar does other things to the body besides just adding body fat. Google "advanced glycation end-products" sometime. Sugar consumption leads to frequent and excessive high blood glucose, which, in turn, causes the body to have to deal with it in the best way it can. It also contributes to high uric acid levels which cause a cascade of metabolic problems. The level of what was considered "normal" uric acid now, would have been considered elevated back in the 1920s (before our national sugar habit was well-established). We went from a per capita yearly sugar consumption of less than a pound in 1900 to an estimated 150 pounds today. Sugar consumption accelerated a lot in the 1980s with the advent of including it in most processed foods. Today, only 40% of sugar consumed is from sugary foods--the rest is "hidden" in processed food. The rise in sugar consumption tracks perfectly with the epidemic of obesity and Type II diabetes.
I stopped reading at "google it"....0 -
All the old people I know who have maintained their health are the ones that are active and have maintained their weight and muscle mass. I know a lot of old people (and people who are not old) who eat nothing but "whole" foods and whatnot but are not active and are either fat or suffer from some associated disease.
In my opinion and experience, maintaining activity and body composition are by far the most important things you can do.
I agree that exercise is essential for good health, but it is hard to deny that good nutrition is a part of the health equation. Do you?
We define "good nutrition" differently.
I agree that good nutrition is essential. I like to keep things simple. Here are my maxims, that really seem to work for everyone I see who follows them:
1) Eat appropriate quantities of the macronutrients
2) Make sure to get a couple servings of veggies a day.
3) Achieve/maintain a healthy weight with good body composition
4) Get at least an hour of cardio a week
5) Do resistance training of some kind
That's it. There's so much more to worry and stress over in life to make this any more complicated than that.
I do all of those. I don't think we are very different in that respect. I just don't eat sucrose and wheat because they place a burden on my efforts.
[/quote
I do. And have absolutely no ill effects by any reasonable measure. I must be a unicorn??
Well...at least that you know of. One big difference between us is that you are a man and I am a woman. Men, it appears, can abuse their health without immediate effect more than women can and do. Men smoke more, drink harder and...generally die younger. But as for the weight issues. It is much harder for women to lose body fat than it is for men. There have been several peer-reviewed research papers recently that points to the differences. There is a lot of research being done on health gender differences. One of the differences is leptin resistance. Women are much more prone to it because they produce 2 to 3 times the amount of leptin AT THE SAME LEVEL OF BODY FAT AS A MAN. This is very significant. Childbearing and lactation have a profound effect on fat storage as well.
I simply do not need to sabotage my weight loss efforts with foods that are not health-building.
You are inventive at finding excuses! There are many women here that do just fine with IIFYM.
What on earth are you talking about? What excuses?? If a woman can do fine with the traditional approach, I say more power to her. It just isn't that simple for some of us and we don't need you and your cohorts coming on here insulting us and berating us because "your" solutions don't work for everyone. I have found something that works for me and I have tried every other method over the years. Optimal nutrition is what works for me and I will not stop telling others about it, no matter how ugly you and your type get. Eat all the crap you want--I couldn't care less. But is it really necessary to foam at the mouth over everyone who demurs from your program?
Easy on the stress now. Cortisol level and all...
LOL---my serenity has not been disturbed in the slightest.
0 -
Sorry... but how did you link the fact that it's accepted that exercising more and eating less calories with people being over weight?For some time we have been given the concept of calories in vs calories out using the model of a scale if we want to lose weight... Eat less, exercise more and you will lose weight. Hmm.. How's that working for us? Record levels of obesity around the globe, surely this is NOT working.
Do you actually believe that the majority of people that are over weight are ones that are trying to get their calories out lower than than calories in by exercising more and eating less?
Massive and erroneous jump of logic there, to my mind.
I will always argue for 'CICO' because it's basics physics.
I won't argue that the 'CI' can affect the 'CO' to varying degrees.
I get the feeling that for people that are actually fairly fit, it probably doesn't make a big difference.
Perhaps not in terms of excess body fat, but the metabolizing of sugar does other things to the body besides just adding body fat. Google "advanced glycation end-products" sometime. Sugar consumption leads to frequent and excessive high blood glucose, which, in turn, causes the body to have to deal with it in the best way it can. It also contributes to high uric acid levels which cause a cascade of metabolic problems. The level of what was considered "normal" uric acid now, would have been considered elevated back in the 1920s (before our national sugar habit was well-established). We went from a per capita yearly sugar consumption of less than a pound in 1900 to an estimated 150 pounds today. Sugar consumption accelerated a lot in the 1980s with the advent of including it in most processed foods. Today, only 40% of sugar consumed is from sugary foods--the rest is "hidden" in processed food. The rise in sugar consumption tracks perfectly with the epidemic of obesity and Type II diabetes.
I stopped reading at "google it"....
And why would I care if you want to remain ignorant of bio-chemistry? You can read about a lot of interesting research on the internet. Peer-reviewed papers and all!
0 -
When cornered he admits that calories ultimately rule but eating the right foods can help the process and address metabolic issues.
I think this is spot on.
Obviously calories do matter but in a real world scenario certain foods or dieting structures make it easier for people to stay consistently in deficit, others make it harder. Unless you're a masochist then choosing the way that makes adherence easier is your best bet.
The "right" combination is due to a myriad of factors both physiological and psychological in my view but what seems clear to me is that it is quite a personal thing.
While this type of dieting may sound "restrictive" to one person it may not seem restrictive at all to another - how can you feel restricted if you are not craving something and have little desire to eat it?
It may seem astonishing but some people end up in a situation where they can take or leave pasta, bread, booze etc. They hold little sway. It is not a case of "never eating something again" - but rather having the flexibility to not be overly bothered in having it (or not as he case may be.)
^^^^THIS TOTALLY^^^^^ I am never bothered by not eating the foods that formerly made me fat and sick. I rarely, if ever, miss them now.
did foods make you fat, or did eating too much of them make you fat?
I can eat a pizza and not gain a pound...if I eat pizza three times a dayI will gain weight...so what made me gain weight pizza in general, or eating too much pizza?
The research is clear that many individuals simply cannot afford empty calories. Women have much more efficient metabolisms than do men. Recent research (it was done at Harvard Med I believe) has shown that most women must cut 3,500 calories to lose a pound of body fat but most men must only cut 2,500 calories to lose a pound of body fat. The research has also shown that MANY obese women do NOT eat excessively.0 -
Hey, hey, hey! That sounds like logic and making sense. We'll have none of that around here mister!! Pizza = bad. Simple......now that you mention it, it's been more that a week since I had me some pizza. Got to do something about that.When cornered he admits that calories ultimately rule but eating the right foods can help the process and address metabolic issues.
I think this is spot on.
Obviously calories do matter but in a real world scenario certain foods or dieting structures make it easier for people to stay consistently in deficit, others make it harder. Unless you're a masochist then choosing the way that makes adherence easier is your best bet.
The "right" combination is due to a myriad of factors both physiological and psychological in my view but what seems clear to me is that it is quite a personal thing.
While this type of dieting may sound "restrictive" to one person it may not seem restrictive at all to another - how can you feel restricted if you are not craving something and have little desire to eat it?
It may seem astonishing but some people end up in a situation where they can take or leave pasta, bread, booze etc. They hold little sway. It is not a case of "never eating something again" - but rather having the flexibility to not be overly bothered in having it (or not as he case may be.)
^^^^THIS TOTALLY^^^^^ I am never bothered by not eating the foods that formerly made me fat and sick. I rarely, if ever, miss them now.
did foods make you fat, or did eating too much of them make you fat?
I can eat a pizza and not gain a pound...if I eat pizza three times a dayI will gain weight...so what made me gain weight pizza in general, or eating too much pizza?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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