Nutrition Myths
Replies
-
Most people fail at it.
CICO as "science" is of course completely correct - as weight loss advice, though, it sucks.
0 -
Fail at doing it correctly, or do it correctly but don't lose weight?0 -
How does "it doesn't work for some people" equate to "it doesn't work," though?
Most people fail at it.
CICO as "science" is of course completely correct - as weight loss advice, though, it sucks.
Would you say that progressive resistance doesn't work to build muscle because not everyone who tried it succeeded?
0 -
Most people fail at it.
CICO as "science" is of course completely correct - as weight loss advice, though, it sucks.
I think that's evidence most people aren't good at it, which is entirely different than implying that calorie counting doesn't work. The fact that it works for some people supports the idea that calorie counting can work.
I think the myth there is that calorie counting is the most sustainable, and therefore best, method for everyone. But you can say the same thing about any method of reducing calories.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does "it doesn't work for some people" equate to "it doesn't work," though?
Most people fail at it.
CICO as "science" is of course completely correct - as weight loss advice, though, it sucks.
Because in the real world, unimplementable advice is by definition not good advice, no matter how well intentioned or supported by theory.
It's *fantastic* advice for me, because it fits the way I do things. But I recognize that it does not fit most other people.Would you say that progressive resistance doesn't work to build muscle because not everyone who tried it succeeded?
If the goal is to build strength - yep.0 -
It is implementable. I implemented it.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does "it doesn't work for some people" equate to "it doesn't work," though?
Most people fail at it.
CICO as "science" is of course completely correct - as weight loss advice, though, it sucks.
Because in the real world, unimplementable advice is by definition not good advice.Would you say that progressive resistance doesn't work to build muscle because not everyone who tried it succeeded?
If the goal is to build strength - yep.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
It is implementable for me. I implemented it.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does "it doesn't work for some people" equate to "it doesn't work," though?
Most people fail at it.
CICO as "science" is of course completely correct - as weight loss advice, though, it sucks.
Because in the real world, unimplementable advice is by definition not good advice.Would you say that progressive resistance doesn't work to build muscle because not everyone who tried it succeeded?
If the goal is to build strength - yep.
FTFY.-1 -
This content has been removed.
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does "it doesn't work for some people" equate to "it doesn't work," though?
Most people fail at it.
CICO as "science" is of course completely correct - as weight loss advice, though, it sucks.
Because in the real world, unimplementable advice is by definition not good advice.Would you say that progressive resistance doesn't work to build muscle because not everyone who tried it succeeded?
If the goal is to build strength - yep.
I would hardly call it "unimplementable." I think you're over reaching. It's implementable for people with motivation and a good mindset.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does "it doesn't work for some people" equate to "it doesn't work," though?
Most people fail at it.
CICO as "science" is of course completely correct - as weight loss advice, though, it sucks.
Because in the real world, unimplementable advice is by definition not good advice.Would you say that progressive resistance doesn't work to build muscle because not everyone who tried it succeeded?
If the goal is to build strength - yep.
I would hardly call it "unimplementable." I think you're over reaching. It's implementable for people with motivation and a good mindset.
Now that....is an awfully judgemental statement.
Interesting.
0 -
You clearly don't understand what unimplementable means, then. If it can be implemented it is, by definition, not unimplementable. It only takes one case to disprove your assertion. It has been disproven.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It is implementable for me. I implemented it.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does "it doesn't work for some people" equate to "it doesn't work," though?
Most people fail at it.
CICO as "science" is of course completely correct - as weight loss advice, though, it sucks.
Because in the real world, unimplementable advice is by definition not good advice.Would you say that progressive resistance doesn't work to build muscle because not everyone who tried it succeeded?
If the goal is to build strength - yep.
FTFY.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
If that's the case, why are YOU here? After all, this is a calorie counting website.
If it doesn't work, how is it that I'm losing weight counting calories?
I'm lost.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does "it doesn't work for some people" equate to "it doesn't work," though?
Most people fail at it.
CICO as "science" is of course completely correct - as weight loss advice, though, it sucks.
Because in the real world, unimplementable advice is by definition not good advice.Would you say that progressive resistance doesn't work to build muscle because not everyone who tried it succeeded?
If the goal is to build strength - yep.
I would hardly call it "unimplementable." I think you're over reaching. It's implementable for people with motivation and a good mindset.
Now that....is an awfully judgemental statement.
Interesting.
That's not judgmental. It takes motivation and a proper mindset to do ANYTHING. You don't sustain a diet just for the heck of it.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
You clearly don't understand what unimplementable means, then. If it can be implemented it is, by definition, not unimplementable. It only takes one case to disprove your assertion. It has been disproven.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It is implementable for me. I implemented it.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does "it doesn't work for some people" equate to "it doesn't work," though?
Most people fail at it.
CICO as "science" is of course completely correct - as weight loss advice, though, it sucks.
Because in the real world, unimplementable advice is by definition not good advice.Would you say that progressive resistance doesn't work to build muscle because not everyone who tried it succeeded?
If the goal is to build strength - yep.
FTFY.
That's a self-centric choice of definition.
I don't accept that definition.
Anyway, I've said my piece, y'all do with it what you like! :drinker:0 -
Unimplementable means "impossible to implement." You've been proven wrong so, yeah, no surprise that you're done.DeguelloTex wrote: »
You clearly don't understand what unimplementable means, then. If it can be implemented it is, by definition, not unimplementable. It only takes one case to disprove your assertion. It has been disproven.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It is implementable for me. I implemented it.DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does "it doesn't work for some people" equate to "it doesn't work," though?
Most people fail at it.
CICO as "science" is of course completely correct - as weight loss advice, though, it sucks.
Because in the real world, unimplementable advice is by definition not good advice.Would you say that progressive resistance doesn't work to build muscle because not everyone who tried it succeeded?
If the goal is to build strength - yep.
FTFY.
That's a self-centric choice of definition.
I don't accept that definition.
Anyway, I've said my piece, y'all do with it what you like! :drinker:
-1 -
" You have to eat after working out so much, you need energy to workout. You will die if you don't eat after heavy work out..and they ask why are they gaining weight even after joining gym??...ughh0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does "it doesn't work for some people" equate to "it doesn't work," though?
Most people fail at it.
CICO as "science" is of course completely correct - as weight loss advice, though, it sucks.
Because in the real world, unimplementable advice is by definition not good advice, no matter how well intentioned or supported by theory.
It's *fantastic* advice for me, because it fits the way I do things. But I recognize that it does not fit most other people.
Perhaps the people in question simply are not ready to or do not really wish to make the sacrifices--i.e., eating less or moving more--that would fix their calorie imbalance.
That doesn't mean the tool doesn't work. It means they don't care enough.
I maintained 120-130 for 5 years and then I didn't. Was that because CICO was no longer accurate or that watching what I ate and moving more was no longer an effective tool for me? Or was it because for various reasons I did not care enough to do those things (and wouldn't have cared enough to cut calories through some other method that is really just a veiled way of doing that that people like)? It is indeed because I didn't care enough.
When I see posters saying calorie counting isn't working who are choosing obviously bad entries (absurdly low calorie for what they are logging) or likely inaccurate amounts or skipping days or the like or, in many cases, who log grossly inflated exercise counts or insist that their maintenance is much higher than seems likely, I don't think that's the method not working. It's the user not being ready to do what needs to be done.
Which is fine, of course.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does "it doesn't work for some people" equate to "it doesn't work," though?
Most people fail at it.
CICO as "science" is of course completely correct - as weight loss advice, though, it sucks.
Because in the real world, unimplementable advice is by definition not good advice.Would you say that progressive resistance doesn't work to build muscle because not everyone who tried it succeeded?
If the goal is to build strength - yep.
I would hardly call it "unimplementable." I think you're over reaching. It's implementable for people with motivation and a good mindset.
I agree with this.
I don't think it's judgmental, because there's nothing negative about not having the motivation to do this.0 -
That 1lb of fat is somehow not 1lb when compared to the same weight of muscle...0
-
You could take a statement made in this thread and put in any weight loss method, apply the logic used by the poster, and make the same argument.
That Weight Watchers works.
That Low Carbing works.
That Medifast works.
That Jenny Craig works.
That portion control works.
It's a silly argument because different methods suit different people. People are overweight for different reasons, and the solution to their problem will suit THEIR personality and THEIR reasons for being overweight.
For those of us for whom calorie counting clicks, it's a great solution. For some people, it's not. For me, Weight Watchers would be horrible; for someone else, it's fantastic.
The records from the National Weight Control Registry show that the people who have maintained their weight loss all lost their weight in MANY different ways, confirming that there's no one true way. Thus, to badly assert the reverse, that one way will absolutely fail? Is equally false.0 -
It's not the myths that get me, because this site has helped me see what is and what isn't. What I can't stand is the people who have a huge platform, like Dr. Oz, promote people like David Perlmutter who claims carbs cause alzheimers, among other fear mongering nonsense. As much as Oz is a charlatan and heretic, he has a wide audience and shows a lack of responsibility to them by giving that kind of rhetoric airtime.0
-
What are your favorite myths that people will argue to the death over?
I must be living on a different planet. I have never in all my life ( 42 years of that spent working in Humanitarian Aid nutrition) heard, been witness to, or participated in a nutritional discussion where people argue at all.
Do in general people outside of MFP really discuss nutritional myths ?
0 -
Let's see nutrition myths:
- no eating past 7pm
- cleanses/detoxes
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
How does "it doesn't work for some people" equate to "it doesn't work," though?
Most people fail at it.
CICO as "science" is of course completely correct - as weight loss advice, though, it sucks.
Because in the real world, unimplementable advice is by definition not good advice, no matter how well intentioned or supported by theory.
It's *fantastic* advice for me, because it fits the way I do things. But I recognize that it does not fit most other people.Would you say that progressive resistance doesn't work to build muscle because not everyone who tried it succeeded?
If the goal is to build strength - yep.
I still don't follow. If it has worked for you and others on this form, isn't it implementable advice?
Would it be fair to say that pure calorie counting is not unimplementable, but rather impractical, or lacking tools to make it something people can apply?0 -
Calorie counting is a tool to achieve a caloric deficit just like a hammer and blueprints are tools used to build a house.
Just because some people end up with this:
Instead of this:
Doesn't mean that there was something inherently wrong with the hammer or the blueprints. The plans were not unexecutable.0 -
That people who follow flexible dieting eat nothing but ice cream and doritos all day long.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »That people who follow flexible dieting eat nothing but ice cream and doritos all day long.
You forgot pop-tarts and doughnuts.....0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 420 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions