Top 10 MFP community falsehoods
Replies
-
Cliffs?
TL;DR - stuff you already know about misconceptions you have been battling on MFP for a very long time.0 -
that snippet describes three observed states of LBM loss (called FFM here). One in which LBM remains constant, one in which it slowly decreases, and one in which it rapidly decreases. The loss of LBM is observed to correlate with a decrease in metabolic rate. He is basically describing the point at which caloric deficit starts to overcome the energy-supplying capabilities of fat stores. I don't understand how that disagrees with anything I said in my original post. The concept of fat stores having a rate limit on their ability to supply energy was an eye-opener for me when I first read it, and really spurred me towards gathering more info. Please help me understand how this disagrees with what I posted.
Have you really read the Alpert study?
I mean even the abstract disagrees with you
" The solution shows a steady-state term which is in agreement with conventional ideas, a term indicating a slow decrease of much of the FFM moderated by the limited energy transferred from the fat store, and a final term showing an unprotected rapid decrease of the remaining part of the FFM. The average resting metabolic rate of subjects undergoing hypophagia is shown to decrease linearly as a function of the FFM with a slope of (249±25) kJ/kg d. This value disagrees with the results of other observers who have measured metabolic rates of diverse groups. The disagreement is explained in terms of individual metabolic properties as opposed to those of the larger population."
What do you think he's saying?0 -
Straight from the abstract:"A dietary restriction which exceeds the limited capability of the fat store to compensate for the energy deficiency results in an immediate decrease in the fat free mass (FFM). In cases of a less severe dietary deficiency, the FFM will not be depleted."
Basically, if you out-diet your fat stores, meaning your deficit is larger than the (relatively slow) rate of energy your fat stores can provide, you're going to lose LBM.0 -
WELL DONE!!!0
-
Right... that's what I said, isn't it? I mean not as eloquently or (obviously) succinctly, but that is certainly the gist of what I was trying to say with the whole 6% of fat mass / 31Cal per day per lb concept. Did I screw that up?Straight from the abstract:"A dietary restriction which exceeds the limited capability of the fat store to compensate for the energy deficiency results in an immediate decrease in the fat free mass (FFM). In cases of a less severe dietary deficiency, the FFM will not be depleted."
Basically, if you out-diet your fat stores, meaning your deficit is larger than the (relatively slow) rate of energy your fat stores can provide, you're going to lose LBM.0 -
You were a bodybuilder before, too. Are you growing above and beyond what your muscles ever were back in the day?You tell me, I am 219lbs 6' and have a daily calorie goal of 1850 just reduced from 1950 and i weigh everything and don't go over.
Still losing weight, BF%, size is getting bigger in measurements. My results speak for themselves, i am living proof what more do you need to debunk a myth.0 -
Tobacco causes lung cancer, therefore I can confabulate any cause-effect relationship I want and it's true, because tobacco.
Science. Do you guys even know how it works?
"I think spinach causes cancer."
"You have no proof of that, only anecdotal evidence"
"People once said the Earth was flat because of anecdotal evidence, therefore I'm right"
MFP has more scientists than any other web site in the world!!!!
So tobacco doesn’t cause lung cancer? I wish a scientist or two would look into that…
Miasma causes cholera. It's true because tobacco.0 -
A lot of good info here. Thanks man.0
-
Apparently, the concept of self-education isn't going to be embraced on this thread
Since you know so much and have been on MFP so long...this^ should NOT surprise you At. All. Or haven't you seen the amount of period threads on here?
that's just one example.
Oh no far too many people on MFP have decided to self-educate. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.0 -
Right... that's what I said, isn't it? I mean not as eloquently or (obviously) succinctly, but that is certainly the gist of what I was trying to say with the whole 6% of fat mass / 31Cal per day per lb concept. Did I screw that up?Straight from the abstract:"A dietary restriction which exceeds the limited capability of the fat store to compensate for the energy deficiency results in an immediate decrease in the fat free mass (FFM). In cases of a less severe dietary deficiency, the FFM will not be depleted."
Basically, if you out-diet your fat stores, meaning your deficit is larger than the (relatively slow) rate of energy your fat stores can provide, you're going to lose LBM.
Lol, no mate, you didn't screw it up.
According to that theory, a 250 pound, 35% BF individual could maximize fat loss by eating 1,050 calories/day, consisting of 170g protein, 50g carbs, 22g fat, if they could push their TDEE to ~3700 (equivalent to about 800 calories/day of solid exercise (run 5 miles, bike 15 miles, don't forget at least 2x/week 5x5 or whatever). This would create a caloric deficit equivalent to weight loss of nearly 2/3 of a pound per day, or about 5 pounds per week.
All numbers ballpark.
But man, that would be a brutal way to live, at least for me...don't know if I could actually find the motivation outside of being stranded in the wilderness and not having a choice, lol.0 -
Thanks for the info! I needed to hear this today. I never heard of using 31 cals times lbs of fat mass to estimate calorie needs.0
-
heh, good... I thought I had another error to add to my list. At a minimum I didn't describe it very thoroughly. I did cut a lot out of the post, since it was already growing longer than I had originally intended. Your example is a much better synopsis of what I was going for.Lol, no mate, you didn't screw it up.
According to that theory, a 250 pound, 35% BF individual could maximize fat loss by eating 1,050 calories/day, consisting of 170g protein, 50g carbs, 22g fat, if they could push their TDEE to ~3700 (equivalent to about 800 calories/day of solid exercise (run 5 miles, bike 15 miles). This would create a caloric deficit equivalent to weight loss of nearly 2/3 of a pound per day, or about 5 pounds per week.
All numbers ballpark.
But man, that would be a brutal way to live, at least for me...don't know if I could actually find the motivation outside of being stranded in the wilderness and not having a choice, lol.
When I first started my current push to lose fat, I was getting pretty close to those numbers. I had a fat mass of about 100 lbs (which could support a theoretical max of 6.2 lbs per week) and was hitting an average of 4.5 lbs per week. Sadly, that has fallen off a bit. Partly because my fat stores are smaller and cannot tolerate quite as much of a deficit. Partly because I've experimented a bit with some refeed concepts that just haven't proven out for me. But mainly because I haven't been able to keep up the pace. I am hoping to find the motivation to get back to my previous pace and approach my maximum rate of fat-only loss once again. My ultimate goal is being at 215ish lbs by 10/30/2014. I say "ish" because I'll know a lot more about where to set the actual number once I get closer to my goal. I'm still well ahead of the pace needed to reach that goal, but if I can get close to it a few months early I'll have even more time for fine-tuning.
FWIW, I have always had the fantasy of purposefully stranding myself in the wilderness for a couple weeks, forcing myself to survive through hunting, gathering, etc. I don't know if I could hack it, but I'd like to find out. I'm a country boy at heart, so I at least like to imagine that I could make it. Maybe some day 0 -
Great information. Getting in on this topic.
I think having pinned posts here would be quite helpful for the general population here. =\0 -
A pretty solid post, I'd say. And EvgeniZyntx added a nice clarification.
For the record, I am hypothyroid and gluten intolerant. And yes, I can still lose weight like everyone else. And anyone who wants to try to lose weight by going gluten free can have my intolerance. I've had to re-learn how to cook and my pie crust is no longer award winning (yet).
The only thing you didn't address is how cardio is evil. Oh....and I forgot about how skipping breakfast makes you fat. Maybe this should be a top 20!!0 -
The numbers checked for me (although I didn't know it at the time). I ended up losing 2-2.5 lbs/week because I set MFP to 'sedentary' and the only calorie burn I logged was my running 6x/week. TDEE estimated that I needed to eat 2400 cal/day for maintenance, but I ended up about 1600/day. In the past two months, I gained about 4 lb of LBM. Turns out that according to those numbers, I could have been more aggressive with weight loss @ 1500 cal/day deficit when I started.When I first started my current push to lose fat, I was getting pretty close to those numbers. I had a fat mass of about 100 lbs (which could support a theoretical max of 6.2 lbs per week) and was hitting an average of 4.5 lbs per week. Sadly, that has fallen off a bit. Partly because my fat stores are smaller and cannot tolerate quite as much of a deficit. Partly because I've experimented a bit with some refeed concepts that just haven't proven out for me. But mainly because I haven't been able to keep up the pace. I am hoping to find the motivation to get back to my previous pace and approach my maximum rate of fat-only loss once again. My ultimate goal is being at 215ish lbs by 10/30/2014. I say "ish" because I'll know a lot more about where to set the actual number once I get closer to my goal. I'm still well ahead of the pace needed to reach that goal, but if I can get close to it a few months early I'll have even more time for fine-tuning.
Now I can only go as low as 600 cal/day deficit, which probably explains why I still lost 2 lbs last week and also lost 0.5 lb of LBM.
Note: Yes, I know that methods to measure LBM have error, but those errors are largely due to body composition and how one stores fat. For comparison purposes, since it's the same body, it's pretty damn close. I ran the numbers with worst case 1/4" measurement error and it moves LBM/BF% estimate by less than 0.5%.
My biggest thing is a lot of posters don't understand what BMR is and also don't understand that it's drastically overestimated for a lot of people. It's simply an estimate of how many calories you burn at rest. Nothing more. It's also a bad estimate because few of them (none that I've ever seen) ask you to input bodyfat %, which is an important part of calculating how many g of specific nutrients your body needs to survive, which is the basis for the calorie estimate.
Eating under BMR won't put you into 'starvation mode' or necessarily have any negative health effects at all. If you lead an exceptionally sedentary lifestyle, the only way you will lose weight is to eat under your BMR because that's all you're using on a daily basis. If you're an active person, then BMR shouldn't even be a thought -- your TDEE represents your daily needs.0 -
TL;DR - There is no secret to fat loss. The only way to lose fat is to force your body to burn fat. The only way to do that is to consume fewer calories than you burn every day. The only way to know for sure if you're doing that is to measure your intake, your weight, and your fat mass as precisely and as often as possible. Use these measurements to verify and adjust your diet and exercise plan, and you will succeed. All the rest of the crap is just crap.
Don't know how to highlight the part I am wondering about but I'll ask anyway.
Does this mean that I should be recalculating how many calories I should eat and how much exercise I should be doing as I lose weight? If so, when? And, how do I do this?
Or, does MFP automatically adjust these numbers at some point?0 -
:::headdesk::::
bacon
that is all :flowerforyou:0 -
Yes.Does this mean that I should be recalculating how many calories I should eat and how much exercise I should be doing as I lose weight? If so, when? And, how do I do this?
Each pound I lost reduced my calorie intake by 10 to produce the same weight loss the following week. I don't know if that holds for women, too. You have to go into MFP goals and update them. You can put in the same goals, the auto-calculator will recalculate the daily calories needed (albeit with jacked up macros).0 -
Yes.Does this mean that I should be recalculating how many calories I should eat and how much exercise I should be doing as I lose weight? If so, when? And, how do I do this?
Each pound I lost reduced my calorie intake by 10 to produce the same weight loss the following week. I don't know if that holds for women, too. You have to go into MFP goals and update them. You can put in the same goals, the auto-calculator will recalculate the daily calories needed (albeit with jacked up macros).
Thank you! This is good to know. Possibly something to mention to people if they hit a "plateau"?0 -
And I'm out....before the broscience peaks.0
-
1. Broscience
January 8, 2013 Urban Word of the Day
Broscience is the predominant brand of reasoning in bodybuilding circles where the anecdotal reports of jacked dudes are considered more credible than scientific research.
2. Broscience
A sarcastic term implying that the time tested, muscle building wealth of knowledge developed and utilized by successful, experienced bodybuilders is inferior to the continually shifting hypotheses of articulate, textbook-savvy 155lb. chemists with little or no real world first-person experience to substantiate their conclusions. The term "Broscience" is oft repeated on bodybuilding and fitness oriented internet forums in an attempt to demonstrate online dominance as a substitution for success in the arena of actual bodybuilding.
I've wondered about this term since I never heard of it before coming to MFP. I looked it up and came up with these two definitions in the Urban Dictionary. I'm kind of tired so, maybe, I am misunderstanding. But, do these two definitions slam both physically fit folks AND scientists?
LOL the first seems to be knocking the physically fit. The second, scientists.0 -
Thanks for the info! I needed to hear this today. I never heard of using 31 cals times lbs of fat mass to estimate calorie needs.
That....can't....be....right....0 -
Oh yay, another person that doesn't understand that starvation mode is a medical diagnosis and exists, very significantly, for members of our community.
I find several of these statements to be either really judgmental, one-faceted, or just wrong. Just because a person speaks with authority doesn't mean they are the best educated. There are exceptions to many of these points.
Ultimately, what you need to state is that while sometimes these things are true and impact a person, the reality is that it happens rarely, and that the likelihood of a person's struggles being because of anything other than lack of accountability is rather low.
It's just plain dangerous to make blanket statements though.0 -
It's not. It's the amount of deficit you can sustain and maintain your LBM with strength training.That....can't....be....right....
So if you have 30 lbs of fat, you can do a deficit of 930 cal/day and not lose LBM. So if your TDEE were 2400 cal, you can eat as little as 1500/day before you start to lose LBM even with strength training.0 -
I think she just stated it a little funky. The actual method we're talking about is this:Thanks for the info! I needed to hear this today. I never heard of using 31 cals times lbs of fat mass to estimate calorie needs.
That....can't....be....right....
31kcal per lb of fat mass = maximum daily caloric deficit that can be supported by fat alone
In other words, each pound of fat mass can release enough energy in a day to cover 31 kcal of deficit.0 -
That is, without a doubt, the most intelligent and well-articulated post that I've ever read on these forums, and I agree with you 100%. Well done, sir.
THIS THIS THIS!!!!!! :drinker:0 -
1. Broscience
January 8, 2013 Urban Word of the Day
Broscience is the predominant brand of reasoning in bodybuilding circles where the anecdotal reports of jacked dudes are considered more credible than scientific research.
2. Broscience
A sarcastic term implying that the time tested, muscle building wealth of knowledge developed and utilized by successful, experienced bodybuilders is inferior to the continually shifting hypotheses of articulate, textbook-savvy 155lb. chemists with little or no real world first-person experience to substantiate their conclusions. The term "Broscience" is oft repeated on bodybuilding and fitness oriented internet forums in an attempt to demonstrate online dominance as a substitution for success in the arena of actual bodybuilding.
I've wondered about this term since I never heard of it before coming to MFP. I looked it up and came up with these two definitions in the Urban Dictionary. I'm kind of tired so, maybe, I am misunderstanding. But, do these two definitions slam both physically fit folks AND scientists?
LOL the first seems to be knocking the physically fit. The second, scientists.
definition #2 is the way I see the term most often used on MFP. i won't lie; it irks me0 -
I didn't read the study...does this need to be calculated on excess bodyfat (e.g., subtract 8% essential bodyfat for men/15% for women?)
I think she just stated it a little funky. The actual method we're talking about is this:Thanks for the info! I needed to hear this today. I never heard of using 31 cals times lbs of fat mass to estimate calorie needs.
That....can't....be....right....
31kcal per lb of fat mass = maximum daily caloric deficit that can be supported by fat alone
In other words, each pound of fat mass can release enough energy in a day to cover 31 kcal of deficit.0 -
Tagging for later because I'm supposed to be working.0
-
the way I read it, no. But please do read the study and see if you come up with a different conclusion.I didn't read the study...does this need to be calculated on excess bodyfat (e.g., subtract 8% essential bodyfat for men/15% for women?)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions