Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Periodized Nutrition

BreezeDoveal
BreezeDoveal Posts: 566 Member
edited December 2024 in Debate Club
For anyone advanced in athletic conditioning, it becomes obvious that the body won't react without switching up the stimulus - eventually it takes more and varied changes in training to produce a response.

Why do we think diets are exempt from this? We already see that so many people can't lose weight as their insulin lacks sensitivity. We now have enough people doing things like keto diets where they hit a wall and can't lose weight, what if that is because they've been keto so long they have glucagon insensitivity? Maybe they can no longer lose weight from the standard american diet or keto diet and they should switch to a vegan diet, or maybe both keto and vegan.

Calorie counters might have it the worse way. So far, I see a lot of them have to adapt by simply lowering the number over and over again. Not enough them experiment with upping the number and seeing if they'd still lose weight just from that change in stimulus.

Replies

  • ouryve
    ouryve Posts: 572 Member
    Insulin isn't sensitive to....

    Aah. Pffft.

    <Nods and smiles>
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • tomteboda
    tomteboda Posts: 2,171 Member
    edited August 2016
    She's not a troll, she's a fanatic with a quasi- religious zeal about veganism. This is obviously prosetylizing.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    tomteboda wrote: »
    She's not a troll, she's a fanatic with a quasi- religious zeal about veganism. This is obviously prosetylizing.

    Freelee???
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    She's not a troll, she's a fanatic with a quasi- religious zeal about veganism. This is obviously prosetylizing.

    Freelee???

    Oooh, good call!!
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,590 Member
    I... don't think the laws of physics work like that?

    Insulin requires a delicate balance which is part of homeostasis. You don't really want to try to manipulate it except as directed by your doctor to treat specific medical conditions.
  • jessiferrrb
    jessiferrrb Posts: 1,758 Member
    BreezeDoveal wrote: »
    mskessler89 wrote: »
    BreezeDoveal wrote: »
    I have at least one person who kindly said she doesn't think I'm a troll.

    You mean this person? :)
    jmbmilholland wrote: »
    Okay, now I'm swinging back to "not a troll, just impressively stupid."

    At over 200 posts, you're one of the most tenacious trolls I've seen, you've delivered some good one-liners, and your ability to bring studies into threads to further confound the already thoroughly-screwed-up has been impressive. However, everyone is onto you now, and some have found you irksome enough to set you on Ignore. You need a new angle. Play it straight for a while. Earn some credibility. Then, when the dumpster fires around the forum have gotten too serious, flip back to telling us how the kind of sugar in cow's milk delivers quality fats to our system that prevents diabetes, or whatever other nonsense floats your boat.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534658/

    that article isn't related to your op at all. i did enjoy that comic about dungeons and dragons being satanic in your thread about the limitations of "science" and "the gazebo effect"
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,590 Member
    I want to cast magic missile. I'm attacking the darkness.
  • Mycophilia
    Mycophilia Posts: 1,225 Member
    BreezeDoveal wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    BreezeDoveal wrote: »
    Not enough them experiment with upping the number and seeing if they'd still lose weight just from that change in stimulus.

    Totally. Everybody knows it's when your metabolites get lazy that you get fat, you have to shock those fools into submission. Always try something new to keep them guessing! One day you eat a calorie deficit, the next day you dress like a clown, then you lift 100 weights and smoke crack. Some people say you just eat less and exercise but that's not gimmicky enough. My workout is copyrighted and you have to send me $200 just for reading about it.

    If you don't understand, you don't have to pretend just to go along.
    Metabolites don't get lazy. You downregulate ones. Once they're down regulated enough, you can't get the maximum out of that food, you have to increase your thermos effect of food (having to store it longer and hotter to digest it) in order to get more out of it.
    I think think there is even epidemeological data for this. Okinawans eat a vastly varied diet and are one of the longest lived people on Earth.

    78milam2ojm4.gif
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    BreezeDoveal wrote: »
    For anyone advanced in athletic conditioning, it becomes obvious that the body won't react without switching up the stimulus - eventually it takes more and varied changes in training to produce a response.

    Why do we think diets are exempt from this? We already see that so many people can't lose weight as their insulin lacks sensitivity. We now have enough people doing things like keto diets where they hit a wall and can't lose weight, what if that is because they've been keto so long they have glucagon insensitivity? Maybe they can no longer lose weight from the standard american diet or keto diet and they should switch to a vegan diet, or maybe both keto and vegan.

    Calorie counters might have it the worse way. So far, I see a lot of them have to adapt by simply lowering the number over and over again. Not enough them experiment with upping the number and seeing if they'd still lose weight just from that change in stimulus.

    If I'm interpreting this correctly, you are saying that people are becoming increasingly insensitive. I concur. I know I have been.
  • ogmomma2012
    ogmomma2012 Posts: 1,520 Member
    I eat keto and a carb-cycle, in a way. My usual goal is around 25-30g total carbs per day, but every two weeks or so I will have keto treats and end up at 55-60g total carbs instead. I think it helps prevent stalls.
  • Charis50
    Charis50 Posts: 181 Member
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    BreezeDoveal wrote: »
    Not enough them experiment with upping the number and seeing if they'd still lose weight just from that change in stimulus.

    Totally. Everybody knows it's when your metabolites get lazy that you get fat, you have to shock those fools into submission. Always try something new to keep them guessing! One day you eat a calorie deficit, the next day you dress like a clown, then you lift 100 weights and smoke crack. Some people say you just eat less and exercise but that's not gimmicky enough. My workout is copyrighted and you have to send me $200 just for reading about it.

    I just lost 12 pounds by laughing at this post. Thank you. (My $200 check is in the mail.)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories