The Smarter Science of Slim
Replies
-
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.
if a person is losing a pound on 2500 calori cut, they are more than likely losing more lean mass
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html
"There is a built in assumption in the above that turns out to not be necessarily correct but also throws a wrench into expectations about the energy balance equation. That assumption is that 100% fat is being lost when a deficit is created. Now, if you diet correctly (e.g. the way I describe in my books), this is a pretty good assumption but it’s not universally true. Often people also lose muscle and connective tissue on a diet.
And the issue is that muscle and connective tissue doesn’t provide as much energy to the body as a pound of fat. Rather than 3,500 calories to break down a pound of fat, a pound of muscle provides about 600 calories to the body when it’s broken down for energy.
Let me put this in mathematical terms, to show you how the identical 3,500 calorie/week deficit can yield drastically different changes in body mass depending on what percentage of tissue you’re losing. I’m going to use the extremes of 100% fat, 50/50 fat and muscle, and 100% muscle.
Condition
Energy Yield
Total Weight Lost
100% Fat
3500 cal/lb
1 pound
50%Fat/50% Muscle
2050 cal/lb
1.7 pounds
100% Muscle
600 cal/lb
5.8 pounds
See what’s going on? The assumption of one pound per week (3,500 cal/week deficit) is only valid for the condition where you lose 100% fat. If you lose 50% fat and 50% muscle, you will lose 1.7 pounds in a week for the same 3,500 calorie deficit. Lose 100% muscle (this never happens, mind you, it’s just for illustration) and you lose 5.8 pounds per week."
"
Yes.0 -
There are millions upon millions of us who must use a much more radical approach to fat loss.
I don't think this is true, at all. The fact that you're an aging woman doesn't make you a super special snowflake that can't eat sugar without becoming obese within the confines of a given calorie intake. It just doesn't make any sense.
Well, I think if you investigate it further, it will. People use calories in different ways. Because of her estrogen supply, a woman's body will run higher blood sugar on fewer calories than a man, contributing to her fat stores and her body will also pretty resistant to burning fat---that's just the way it is. There are things that she can do to mitigate the effects, but she must know about them to do them.0 -
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.
Agreed (although I do have certain reservations about the fairly fit part but I think it is generally true.)
Yes, the ultimate determinant of body weight is calorie balance. No question.
But biochemistry and the individual's metabolic profile is important is well. The fate of all calories are not the same and the biochemical pathways adopted depending on the individual can change what use is made of them.
We are in the main concerned with body fatness. Body fatness is based in part on a number of various hormones within the body working as they are intended to regulate body weight. In a normally functioning metabolism the body, when faced with a calorie deficit, many different uses are employed appropriately (cellular integrity, respiratory function etc.) with some to fat storage and burning and so forth (yes, I know this is a radical simplification but bear with me
In a metabolism that isn't working on par then yes, negative energy will result in fat loss. It must do. However, the amount of fat lost maybe so little that an individual simply cannot bear to maintain the deficit for long enough. Who wants to be running a calorie deficit for years? It is hugely inefficient for them so simply saying "eat less, move more" isn't particularly helpful.
For some people food choices really do matter a lot initially in my personal opinion and can make or break their fat loss attempts until their hormonal status (or psychological status or both!) has been returned to normal (that may not be possible for people with medical conditions however.)
I think the majority of people certainly can and do well with a flexible approach straight off the bat however. I think some people, the minority, do not. However, the minority can make up tens of millions of people. Sometimes a diet which is structured with minimisation or even avoidance of certain foods at the beginning before being slowly re introduced can work well for them.
Not everyone responds to the same solution.
Totally agree with all of this. Where I have a real issue is when the few start prescribing their solution on the many. For most, the energy balance equation and well set macros are all they need. In the end, for all, as Kreiger said, nothing trumps the energy balance equation.0 -
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.
Agreed (although I do have certain reservations about the fairly fit part but I think it is generally true.)
Yes, the ultimate determinant of body weight is calorie balance. No question.
But biochemistry and the individual's metabolic profile is important is well. The fate of all calories are not the same and the biochemical pathways adopted depending on the individual can change what use is made of them.
We are in the main concerned with body fatness. Body fatness is based in part on a number of various hormones within the body working as they are intended to regulate body weight. In a normally functioning metabolism the body, when faced with a calorie deficit, many different uses are employed appropriately (cellular integrity, respiratory function etc.) with some to fat storage and burning and so forth (yes, I know this is a radical simplification but bear with me
In a metabolism that isn't working on par then yes, negative energy will result in fat loss. It must do. However, the amount of fat lost maybe so little that an individual simply cannot bear to maintain the deficit for long enough. Who wants to be running a calorie deficit for years? It is hugely inefficient for them so simply saying "eat less, move more" isn't particularly helpful.
For some people food choices really do matter a lot initially in my personal opinion and can make or break their fat loss attempts until their hormonal status (or psychological status or both!) has been returned to normal (that may not be possible for people with medical conditions however.)
I think the majority of people certainly can and do well with a flexible approach straight off the bat however. I think some people, the minority, do not. However, the minority can make up tens of millions of people. Sometimes a diet which is structured with minimisation or even avoidance of certain foods at the beginning before being slowly re introduced can work well for them.
Not everyone responds to the same solution.
Totally agree with all of this. Where I have a real issue is when the few start prescribing their solution on the many. For most, the energy balance equation and well set macros are all they need. In the end, for all, as Kreiger said, nothing trumps the energy balance equation.
The problem that many have is determining what that is. I eat more calories now (and yes, I weighed and counted faithfully) than I did before but they are different calories. When I counted calories, I gained slightly or stayed the same. I adopted this program and I am able to lose body fat.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.)
^ totally agree0 -
Still looking for the thread that cites the study on man/woman differences but here is an interesting tidbit that I came upon so far:
Formula
The Journal of Sports Sciences provides a calorie expenditure formula for each gender. Men use the following formula: Calories Burned = [(Age x 0.2017) -- (Weight x 0.09036) + (Heart Rate x 0.6309) -- 55.0969] x Time / 4.184. Women use the following formula: Calories Burned = [(Age x 0.074) -- (Weight x 0.05741) + (Heart Rate x 0.4472) -- 20.4022] x Time / 4.184.
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/221621-formula-for-calories-burned-during-exercise/#ixzz2QYu1uT6Y0 -
Thanks for posting this - just tagging for future reference.
Anyone know the best ways of doing HIIT without a gym? Also, how hard is it to actually do HIIT - I always worry it's not going to be intensive enough and then I'm just going a lesser amount of normal cardio
0 -
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.
Agreed (although I do have certain reservations about the fairly fit part but I think it is generally true.)
Yes, the ultimate determinant of body weight is calorie balance. No question.
But biochemistry and the individual's metabolic profile is important is well. The fate of all calories are not the same and the biochemical pathways adopted depending on the individual can change what use is made of them.
We are in the main concerned with body fatness. Body fatness is based in part on a number of various hormones within the body working as they are intended to regulate body weight. In a normally functioning metabolism the body, when faced with a calorie deficit, many different uses are employed appropriately (cellular integrity, respiratory function etc.) with some to fat storage and burning and so forth (yes, I know this is a radical simplification but bear with me
In a metabolism that isn't working on par then yes, negative energy will result in fat loss. It must do. However, the amount of fat lost maybe so little that an individual simply cannot bear to maintain the deficit for long enough. Who wants to be running a calorie deficit for years? It is hugely inefficient for them so simply saying "eat less, move more" isn't particularly helpful.
For some people food choices really do matter a lot initially in my personal opinion and can make or break their fat loss attempts until their hormonal status (or psychological status or both!) has been returned to normal (that may not be possible for people with medical conditions however.)
I think the majority of people certainly can and do well with a flexible approach straight off the bat however. I think some people, the minority, do not. However, the minority can make up tens of millions of people. Sometimes a diet which is structured with minimisation or even avoidance of certain foods at the beginning before being slowly re introduced can work well for them.
Not everyone responds to the same solution.
Totally agree with all of this. Where I have a real issue is when the few start prescribing their solution on the many. For most, the energy balance equation and well set macros are all they need. In the end, for all, as Kreiger said, nothing trumps the energy balance equation.
The problem that some have is determining what that is. I eat more calories now (and yes, I weighed and counted faithfully) than I did before but they are different calories. When I counted calories, I gained slightly or stayed the same. I adopted this program and I am able to lose body fat.
Fixed0 -
The problem that many have is determining what that is. I eat more calories now (and yes, I weighed and counted faithfully) than I did before but they are different calories. When I counted calories, I gained slightly or stayed the same. I adopted this program and I am able to lose body fat.
I think you probably do eat many more calories yet still are able to maintain your weight but as alluded to by one of the previous posters it is because the Cals out side changed as well. (Incidentally this is principal reason that "Eat More To Weigh Less" can work...)
You before: less calories, hormonally "clogged", lethargic, less unconscious NEPA (non exercise physical activity), higher efficiency of movement = low deficit and greater amount of calorie / nutrient intake partioned to fat storage than other body functions.
You after: more calories, hormonally "unclogged" higher NEPA, lower efficiency of movement = higher deficit and lower amount of calories / nutrients partioned to fat storage and other body systems preferred.
The quality of your food intake, given your particular metabolic profile, absolutely could have made a difference in changing this.
I don't have any issue with the energy balance equation. However, in a real world scenario it can be next to useless for some people to apply. We need practical solutions for a practical problem sometimes
I think it's terrific you have found what works for you. More power to your arm...0 -
BINGO!
Found the thread on 3,500 calorie deficit/ pound of body fat perhaps being only a number for women. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/954272-3500-calories-might-only-be-a-pound-for-women?hl=men+lose+on+2,500+calorie+deficits?&page=1#posts-14546362
Had the university research group wrong--it was obesity researchers at Columbia, but they present an interesting, thought-provoking study. While women are not "special snowflakes" (as many of you men love to deride) we are different in the way that our bodies store and use calories. Period.0 -
The problem that many have is determining what that is. I eat more calories now (and yes, I weighed and counted faithfully) than I did before but they are different calories. When I counted calories, I gained slightly or stayed the same. I adopted this program and I am able to lose body fat.
I think you probably do eat many more calories yet still are able to maintain your weight but as alluded to by one of the previous posters it is because the Cals out side changed as well. (Incidentally this is principal reason that "Eat More To Weigh Less" can work...)
You before: less calories, hormonally "clogged", lethargic, less unconscious NEPA (non exercise physical activity), higher efficiency of movement = low deficit and greater amount of calorie / nutrient intake partioned to fat storage than other body functions.
You after: more calories, hormonally "unclogged" higher NEPA, lower efficiency of movement = higher deficit and lower amount of calories / nutrients partioned to fat storage and other body systems preferred.
The quality of your food intake, given your particular metabolic profile, absolutely could have made a difference in changing this.
I don't have any issue with the energy balance equation. However, in a real world scenario it can be next to useless for some people to apply. We need practical solutions for a practical problem sometimes
I think it's terrific you have found what works for you. More power to your arm...
Thanks! I'm working on it! My muscles are getting good and the flab is disappearing! I wish I had known that women could lift weights for fat control years ago. :frown: My hubby jokes that I will soon be able to out-lift him (not a chance, he was a collegiate athlete and has stayed in good shape his whole life).
0 -
BINGO!
Found the thread on 3,500 calorie deficit/ pound of body fat perhaps being only a number for women. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/954272-3500-calories-might-only-be-a-pound-for-women?hl=men+lose+on+2,500+calorie+deficits?&page=1#posts-14546362
Had the university research group wrong--it was obesity researchers at Columbia, but they present an interesting, thought-provoking study. While women are not "special snowflakes" (as many of you men love to deride) we are different in the way that our bodies store and use calories. Period.
A link to an MFP thread that links to an "active.com" article that talks about a "study" in vague terms but does not mention its name or cite it in any way. Awesome.
I can't even find the research paper. Sounds like 100% bull**** to me.
Find the research paper, then we can talk about it.0 -
Thanks! I'm working on it! My muscles are getting good and the flab is disappearing! I wish I had known that women could lift weights for fat control years ago. :frown: My hubby jokes that I will soon be able to out-lift him (not a chance, he was a collegiate athlete and has stayed in good shape his whole life).
Good stuff. Weights are absolutely terrific for improving insulin sensitivity amongst making you look all round awesome.
On a final note as I have spent waaaaaaaay too long on this thread: yes, you need a calorie deficit but no, you never need to track calories, or wear a HRM to track your burn or obsess over the macro breakdown of what you are eating. The quality of the calories you are ingesting can certainly help to achieve that desired state.
Old school 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.)
^ totally agree
Yep--it's just a matter of coping with what we have been given--like grownups. My hubby could sit around lamenting that he cannot eat dairy products without breaking out in terrible patches of eczema, but what would that accomplish? Or worse, he could insist that he could "just have a little ice cream once in a while"---and set off a round of eczema that lasts for at least six months of misery at a stretch. No, much better to just keep the problem under control by avoiding dairy products for the rest of his life. 0 -
Raw vegan add specific dairy. That's been around for a long time now. I like meat. Unfortunately, I like meat. I eat meat. Some people eat meat and lose lots of weight and become healthy. So now I can't eat meat and be healthy? Just some people can, but not me? Oh.. this is just all too much for me to believe.0
-
Thanks for posting this - just tagging for future reference.
Anyone know the best ways of doing HIIT without a gym? Also, how hard is it to actually do HIIT - I always worry it's not going to be intensive enough and then I'm just going a lesser amount of normal cardio
ummm find some pavement and do 30 second sprints with x amount of rest time in between....0 -
Raw vegan add specific dairy. That's been around for a long time now. I like meat. Unfortunately, I like meat. I eat meat. Some people eat meat and lose lots of weight and become healthy. So now I can't eat meat and be healthy? Just some people can, but not me? Oh.. this is just all too much for me to believe.
What does any of this thread have to do with meat consumption? Who's arguing against eating meat? I eat very little meat as it happens, but my hubby would get sick if I put him on a meat-free diet. We were ovo-lacto vegetarians for a while and he went off first because he just didn't feel well (plus he was losing too much weight--probably his dairy allergy kicking-in). Because someone told me that it was a good way to lose weight, I stayed on it longer. I am the only person I know who gained weight on a vegetarian diet. I use whey protein now as a supplement and I'm feeling really great on it. 0 -
BINGO!
Found the thread on 3,500 calorie deficit/ pound of body fat perhaps being only a number for women. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/954272-3500-calories-might-only-be-a-pound-for-women?hl=men+lose+on+2,500+calorie+deficits?&page=1#posts-14546362
Had the university research group wrong--it was obesity researchers at Columbia, but they present an interesting, thought-provoking study. While women are not "special snowflakes" (as many of you men love to deride) we are different in the way that our bodies store and use calories. Period.
A link to an MFP thread that links to an "active.com" article that talks about a "study" in vague terms but does not mention its name or cite it in any way. Awesome.
I can't even find the research paper. Sounds like 100% bull**** to me.
Find the research paper, then we can talk about it.
Didn't find the Columbia study but the article did link to a University of Kansas study:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12796071 that was interesting because it highlights the differences between men and women (even though both were able to manage their weight with "moderate exercise". Will keep looking for the Columbia study.0 -
BINGO!
Found the thread on 3,500 calorie deficit/ pound of body fat perhaps being only a number for women. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/954272-3500-calories-might-only-be-a-pound-for-women?hl=men+lose+on+2,500+calorie+deficits?&page=1#posts-14546362
Had the university research group wrong--it was obesity researchers at Columbia, but they present an interesting, thought-provoking study. While women are not "special snowflakes" (as many of you men love to deride) we are different in the way that our bodies store and use calories. Period.
A link to an MFP thread that links to an "active.com" article that talks about a "study" in vague terms but does not mention its name or cite it in any way. Awesome.
I can't even find the research paper. Sounds like 100% bull**** to me.
Find the research paper, then we can talk about it.
Didn't find the Columbia study but the article did link to a University of Kansas study:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12796071 that was interesting because it highlights the differences between men and women (even though both were able to manage their weight with "moderate exercise". Will keep looking for the Columbia study.
74 participants not eating calorie-controlled diets. Both men and women had reduced visceral fat.
Doesn't seem to support any of your claims.
Women aren't special. You're not a special snowflake, no matter how hard you believe it.0 -
BINGO!
Found the thread on 3,500 calorie deficit/ pound of body fat perhaps being only a number for women. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/954272-3500-calories-might-only-be-a-pound-for-women?hl=men+lose+on+2,500+calorie+deficits?&page=1#posts-14546362
Had the university research group wrong--it was obesity researchers at Columbia, but they present an interesting, thought-provoking study. While women are not "special snowflakes" (as many of you men love to deride) we are different in the way that our bodies store and use calories. Period.
A link to an MFP thread that links to an "active.com" article that talks about a "study" in vague terms but does not mention its name or cite it in any way. Awesome.
I can't even find the research paper. Sounds like 100% bull**** to me.
Find the research paper, then we can talk about it.
This may be the paper that was referred to: http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC3139779/
The study was done in cooperation with Columbia and the paper speaks specifically to "gender differences" in use of calories and body composition.0 -
BINGO!
Found the thread on 3,500 calorie deficit/ pound of body fat perhaps being only a number for women. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/954272-3500-calories-might-only-be-a-pound-for-women?hl=men+lose+on+2,500+calorie+deficits?&page=1#posts-14546362
Had the university research group wrong--it was obesity researchers at Columbia, but they present an interesting, thought-provoking study. While women are not "special snowflakes" (as many of you men love to deride) we are different in the way that our bodies store and use calories. Period.
A link to an MFP thread that links to an "active.com" article that talks about a "study" in vague terms but does not mention its name or cite it in any way. Awesome.
I can't even find the research paper. Sounds like 100% bull**** to me.
Find the research paper, then we can talk about it.
This may be the paper that was referred to: http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC3139779/
The study was done in cooperation with Columbia and the paper speaks specifically to "gender differences" in use of calories and body composition.
They couldn't have been referring to that paper because that paper doesn't say anything remotely close to "women need 3500 calories to lose a pound while women need 2500."0 -
BINGO!
Found the thread on 3,500 calorie deficit/ pound of body fat perhaps being only a number for women. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/954272-3500-calories-might-only-be-a-pound-for-women?hl=men+lose+on+2,500+calorie+deficits?&page=1#posts-14546362
Had the university research group wrong--it was obesity researchers at Columbia, but they present an interesting, thought-provoking study. While women are not "special snowflakes" (as many of you men love to deride) we are different in the way that our bodies store and use calories. Period.
A link to an MFP thread that links to an "active.com" article that talks about a "study" in vague terms but does not mention its name or cite it in any way. Awesome.
I can't even find the research paper. Sounds like 100% bull**** to me.
Find the research paper, then we can talk about it.
Didn't find the Columbia study but the article did link to a University of Kansas study:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12796071 that was interesting because it highlights the differences between men and women (even though both were able to manage their weight with "moderate exercise". Will keep looking for the Columbia study.
74 participants not eating calorie-controlled diets. Both men and women had reduced visceral fat.
Doesn't seem to support any of your claims.
Women aren't special. You're not a special snowflake, no matter how hard you believe it.
Maybe--maybe not. I have just found what works for me--why do you insist that everyone has to follow your rules?0 -
BINGO!
Found the thread on 3,500 calorie deficit/ pound of body fat perhaps being only a number for women. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/954272-3500-calories-might-only-be-a-pound-for-women?hl=men+lose+on+2,500+calorie+deficits?&page=1#posts-14546362
Had the university research group wrong--it was obesity researchers at Columbia, but they present an interesting, thought-provoking study. While women are not "special snowflakes" (as many of you men love to deride) we are different in the way that our bodies store and use calories. Period.
A link to an MFP thread that links to an "active.com" article that talks about a "study" in vague terms but does not mention its name or cite it in any way. Awesome.
I can't even find the research paper. Sounds like 100% bull**** to me.
Find the research paper, then we can talk about it.
This may be the paper that was referred to: http://pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC3139779/
The study was done in cooperation with Columbia and the paper speaks specifically to "gender differences" in use of calories and body composition.
They couldn't have been referring to that paper because that paper doesn't say anything remotely close to "women need 3500 calories to lose a pound while women need 2500."
Maybe the news article got it wrong but I will keep looking to see if I can did up any research papers.0 -
BINGO!
Found the thread on 3,500 calorie deficit/ pound of body fat perhaps being only a number for women. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/954272-3500-calories-might-only-be-a-pound-for-women?hl=men+lose+on+2,500+calorie+deficits?&page=1#posts-14546362
Had the university research group wrong--it was obesity researchers at Columbia, but they present an interesting, thought-provoking study. While women are not "special snowflakes" (as many of you men love to deride) we are different in the way that our bodies store and use calories. Period.
A link to an MFP thread that links to an "active.com" article that talks about a "study" in vague terms but does not mention its name or cite it in any way. Awesome.
I can't even find the research paper. Sounds like 100% bull**** to me.
Find the research paper, then we can talk about it.
Didn't find the Columbia study but the article did link to a University of Kansas study:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12796071 that was interesting because it highlights the differences between men and women (even though both were able to manage their weight with "moderate exercise". Will keep looking for the Columbia study.
74 participants not eating calorie-controlled diets. Both men and women had reduced visceral fat.
Doesn't seem to support any of your claims.
Women aren't special. You're not a special snowflake, no matter how hard you believe it.
Maybe--maybe not. I have just found what works for me--why do you insist that everyone has to follow your rules?
They're not my rules. They're the laws of physics.0 -
BINGO!
Found the thread on 3,500 calorie deficit/ pound of body fat perhaps being only a number for women. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/954272-3500-calories-might-only-be-a-pound-for-women?hl=men+lose+on+2,500+calorie+deficits?&page=1#posts-14546362
Had the university research group wrong--it was obesity researchers at Columbia, but they present an interesting, thought-provoking study. While women are not "special snowflakes" (as many of you men love to deride) we are different in the way that our bodies store and use calories. Period.
A link to an MFP thread that links to an "active.com" article that talks about a "study" in vague terms but does not mention its name or cite it in any way. Awesome.
I can't even find the research paper. Sounds like 100% bull**** to me.
Find the research paper, then we can talk about it.
Didn't find the Columbia study but the article did link to a University of Kansas study:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12796071 that was interesting because it highlights the differences between men and women (even though both were able to manage their weight with "moderate exercise". Will keep looking for the Columbia study.
74 participants not eating calorie-controlled diets. Both men and women had reduced visceral fat.
Doesn't seem to support any of your claims.
Women aren't special. You're not a special snowflake, no matter how hard you believe it.
Maybe--maybe not. I have just found what works for me--why do you insist that everyone has to follow your rules?
They're not my rules. They're the laws of physics.
don't you get it..woman are outside the universal laws of math and physics....we really are breaking new ground here...!!! Exciting *kitten*0 -
BINGO!
Found the thread on 3,500 calorie deficit/ pound of body fat perhaps being only a number for women. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/954272-3500-calories-might-only-be-a-pound-for-women?hl=men+lose+on+2,500+calorie+deficits?&page=1#posts-14546362
Had the university research group wrong--it was obesity researchers at Columbia, but they present an interesting, thought-provoking study. While women are not "special snowflakes" (as many of you men love to deride) we are different in the way that our bodies store and use calories. Period.
A link to an MFP thread that links to an "active.com" article that talks about a "study" in vague terms but does not mention its name or cite it in any way. Awesome.
I can't even find the research paper. Sounds like 100% bull**** to me.
Find the research paper, then we can talk about it.
Didn't find the Columbia study but the article did link to a University of Kansas study:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12796071 that was interesting because it highlights the differences between men and women (even though both were able to manage their weight with "moderate exercise". Will keep looking for the Columbia study.
74 participants not eating calorie-controlled diets. Both men and women had reduced visceral fat.
Doesn't seem to support any of your claims.
Women aren't special. You're not a special snowflake, no matter how hard you believe it.
Maybe--maybe not. I have just found what works for me--why do you insist that everyone has to follow your rules?
They're not my rules. They're the laws of physics.
don't you get it..woman are outside the universal laws of math and physics....we really are breaking new ground here...!!! Exciting *kitten*
There are clearly gender differences in body composition. Why would it be a stretch to think that there are differences in the way that calories are used. Here's another interesting article that looks at, among other factors, gender differences. http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20120827/butler.html0 -
BINGO!
Found the thread on 3,500 calorie deficit/ pound of body fat perhaps being only a number for women. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/954272-3500-calories-might-only-be-a-pound-for-women?hl=men+lose+on+2,500+calorie+deficits?&page=1#posts-14546362
Had the university research group wrong--it was obesity researchers at Columbia, but they present an interesting, thought-provoking study. While women are not "special snowflakes" (as many of you men love to deride) we are different in the way that our bodies store and use calories. Period.
A link to an MFP thread that links to an "active.com" article that talks about a "study" in vague terms but does not mention its name or cite it in any way. Awesome.
I can't even find the research paper. Sounds like 100% bull**** to me.
Find the research paper, then we can talk about it.
Didn't find the Columbia study but the article did link to a University of Kansas study:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12796071 that was interesting because it highlights the differences between men and women (even though both were able to manage their weight with "moderate exercise". Will keep looking for the Columbia study.
74 participants not eating calorie-controlled diets. Both men and women had reduced visceral fat.
Doesn't seem to support any of your claims.
Women aren't special. You're not a special snowflake, no matter how hard you believe it.
Maybe--maybe not. I have just found what works for me--why do you insist that everyone has to follow your rules?
They're not my rules. They're the laws of physics.
don't you get it..woman are outside the universal laws of math and physics....we really are breaking new ground here...!!! Exciting *kitten*
There are clearly gender differences in body composition. Why would it be a stretch to think that there are differences in the way that calories are used. Here's another interesting article that looks at, among other factors, gender differences. http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20120827/butler.html
Differences in the way that calories are used? Tell about these differences in how calories are used. I figured they were used for energy.0 -
BINGO!
Found the thread on 3,500 calorie deficit/ pound of body fat perhaps being only a number for women. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/954272-3500-calories-might-only-be-a-pound-for-women?hl=men+lose+on+2,500+calorie+deficits?&page=1#posts-14546362
Had the university research group wrong--it was obesity researchers at Columbia, but they present an interesting, thought-provoking study. While women are not "special snowflakes" (as many of you men love to deride) we are different in the way that our bodies store and use calories. Period.
A link to an MFP thread that links to an "active.com" article that talks about a "study" in vague terms but does not mention its name or cite it in any way. Awesome.
I can't even find the research paper. Sounds like 100% bull**** to me.
Find the research paper, then we can talk about it.
Didn't find the Columbia study but the article did link to a University of Kansas study:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12796071 that was interesting because it highlights the differences between men and women (even though both were able to manage their weight with "moderate exercise". Will keep looking for the Columbia study.
74 participants not eating calorie-controlled diets. Both men and women had reduced visceral fat.
Doesn't seem to support any of your claims.
Women aren't special. You're not a special snowflake, no matter how hard you believe it.
Maybe--maybe not. I have just found what works for me--why do you insist that everyone has to follow your rules?
They're not my rules. They're the laws of physics.
You are shifting the goalposts. No one is doubting the laws of physics but we are talking about bio-chemistry which is extremely complex and subject to a multitude of influences. Why can't you accept that I have found something that works for me and (and lots of other people---thus all the people who do Paleo/Primal and attest to its efficacy)?0 -
You are shifting the goalposts. No one is doubting the laws of physics but we are talking about bio-chemistry which is extremely complex and subject to a multitude of influences. Why can't you accept that I have found something that works for me and (and lots of other people---thus all the people who do Paleo/Primal and attest to its efficacy)?
I don't doubt that you've found something that works for you. The issue is that you are making false assumptions about why and how it works, and trying to convince people of your misinformation.0 -
BINGO!
Found the thread on 3,500 calorie deficit/ pound of body fat perhaps being only a number for women. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/954272-3500-calories-might-only-be-a-pound-for-women?hl=men+lose+on+2,500+calorie+deficits?&page=1#posts-14546362
Had the university research group wrong--it was obesity researchers at Columbia, but they present an interesting, thought-provoking study. While women are not "special snowflakes" (as many of you men love to deride) we are different in the way that our bodies store and use calories. Period.
A link to an MFP thread that links to an "active.com" article that talks about a "study" in vague terms but does not mention its name or cite it in any way. Awesome.
I can't even find the research paper. Sounds like 100% bull**** to me.
Find the research paper, then we can talk about it.
Didn't find the Columbia study but the article did link to a University of Kansas study:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12796071 that was interesting because it highlights the differences between men and women (even though both were able to manage their weight with "moderate exercise". Will keep looking for the Columbia study.
74 participants not eating calorie-controlled diets. Both men and women had reduced visceral fat.
Doesn't seem to support any of your claims.
Women aren't special. You're not a special snowflake, no matter how hard you believe it.
Maybe--maybe not. I have just found what works for me--why do you insist that everyone has to follow your rules?
They're not my rules. They're the laws of physics.
don't you get it..woman are outside the universal laws of math and physics....we really are breaking new ground here...!!! Exciting *kitten*
There are clearly gender differences in body composition. Why would it be a stretch to think that there are differences in the way that calories are used. Here's another interesting article that looks at, among other factors, gender differences. http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20120827/butler.html
Differences in the way that calories are used? Tell about these differences in how calories are used. I figured they were used for energy.
Sometimes they are stored and sometimes they are used to fuel muscular activity. And sometimes they are used solely to keep the organism alive. Muscular activity is an extravagance for those who are starving. Sometimes the meager calories that are taken in must be used almost entirely to keep the organs functioning.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions