INTERMITTENT FASTING - A LIFESTYLE MAKEOVER
Options
Replies
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't eat low carb at all, but have never had an issue fasting. I do it from time to time for religious reasons (full day fast).
That is because you went ZERO carb for the day. Carbs are the driver of most all cravings. Hungry is real so we do not die but cravings are not so much.
I don't have cravings and I eat plenty of carbs (about 45-50%). The last time I recall having a real craving was when I was vegetarian for Lent and started thinking about my planned Easter dinner with lamb (and it was the lamb I was thinking about, not the potatoes or dessert). Obviously, that was some months ago. Occasionally I really want a particular food item or meal, but I wouldn't call it a craving, and it's something I can choose to fit in or not.
The idea that I was "keto" or "fat adapted" (more than usual) because I fasted for a day makes no sense. We all know there's an adjustment period before one is fully keto. It doesn't just kick in the minute you miss a usual breakfast.
I agree with you. This is why Keto long term or IF short term is NOT of interest to many for improving weight or lab numbers.
So if you agree with me now, you admit that you were wrong to claim that one must be LCHF to successfully fast?
I claim fasting is nothing more than a window of time without carbs, proteins and fats. food Water is OK to drink in my view. I know there are egg, etc fast but that is not true fasting but just a limited macro.
Fixed it for you. Why turn a discussion about IF into a discussion about macros? Fasting is the avoidance of food, ie calories, for a particular period of time.
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way. Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
The problem is that if you take a young person who is slightly overweight they don't tend to die and they often have decent blood screens so this was often taken as evidence that you can be fat and healthy. Well, the issue is that youth hides a lot of health issues and eventually the weight catches up with you and as you age. Add to that the propensity to gain fat and become more sedentary as we age and the long term health trends start to look bleaker. My understanding of the current research is that, outside of the link to obesity, there isn't any solids links between diets as long as you meet all your nutritional requirements. Any way you can lose weight (isocaloric, high carb, low carb etc) seems to be associated with improvement in overall health and blood screens.
Exactly!
Low Carb > lose weight > improve health
Low Fat > lose weight > improve health
Low Calorie > lose weight > improve health
Keto > lose weight > improve health
Vegan > lose weight > improve health
Palep > lose weight > improve health
Vegetarian > lose weight > improve health
IF > lose weight > improve health
yada yada yada...13 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't eat low carb at all, but have never had an issue fasting. I do it from time to time for religious reasons (full day fast).
That is because you went ZERO carb for the day. Carbs are the driver of most all cravings. Hungry is real so we do not die but cravings are not so much.
I don't have cravings and I eat plenty of carbs (about 45-50%). The last time I recall having a real craving was when I was vegetarian for Lent and started thinking about my planned Easter dinner with lamb (and it was the lamb I was thinking about, not the potatoes or dessert). Obviously, that was some months ago. Occasionally I really want a particular food item or meal, but I wouldn't call it a craving, and it's something I can choose to fit in or not.
The idea that I was "keto" or "fat adapted" (more than usual) because I fasted for a day makes no sense. We all know there's an adjustment period before one is fully keto. It doesn't just kick in the minute you miss a usual breakfast.
I agree with you. This is why Keto long term or IF short term is NOT of interest to many for improving weight or lab numbers.
So if you agree with me now, you admit that you were wrong to claim that one must be LCHF to successfully fast?
I claim fasting is nothing more than a window of time without carbs, proteins and fats. food Water is OK to drink in my view. I know there are egg, etc fast but that is not true fasting but just a limited macro.
Fixed it for you. Why turn a discussion about IF into a discussion about macros? Fasting is the avoidance of food, ie calories, for a particular period of time.
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way. Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
The problem is that if you take a young person who is slightly overweight they don't tend to die and they often have decent blood screens so this was often taken as evidence that you can be fat and healthy. Well, the issue is that youth hides a lot of health issues and eventually the weight catches up with you and as you age. Add to that the propensity to gain fat and become more sedentary as we age and the long term health trends start to look bleaker. My understanding of the current research is that, outside of the link to obesity, there isn't any solids links between diets as long as you meet all your nutritional requirements. Any way you can lose weight (isocaloric, high carb, low carb etc) seems to be associated with improvement in overall health and blood screens.
I couldn't agree more. I've learned a lot since I used to post here. I now refer to extra weight as a ticking time bomb. There's another study that supports this (and what you're saying), but I'm not sure I remember enough about its title to search it out.
It is very sad to see a growing number of young people on social media fooling themselves into complacency due to "perfect bloodwork".
Extra weight, irrespective of how someone is eating is a major health risk, and I cannot agree with the original assertion I was trying to answer to that it would be better to be slightly overweight and eat well than it would to maintain a normal weight and not have your nutrition nailed down perfectly. Obviously, the best choice is to eat a nutritionally balanced diet and maintain a normal weight if you're not being forced into false dichotomies.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
1 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases.
And that idea of being overweight being protective is shown to be wrong in what I posted. The original studies didn't control for smokers, which increased the death rates among people with lower BMI's. The study I posted did.
I was talking about being overweight, that's "the obesity paradox" (it's a bit of a misnomer).
Long term, being underweight, overweight, or obese is a ticking time bomb and leads to higher all cause mortality rates among people who never smoked than maintaining a normal weight does.
2 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't eat low carb at all, but have never had an issue fasting. I do it from time to time for religious reasons (full day fast).
That is because you went ZERO carb for the day. Carbs are the driver of most all cravings. Hungry is real so we do not die but cravings are not so much.
I don't have cravings and I eat plenty of carbs (about 45-50%). The last time I recall having a real craving was when I was vegetarian for Lent and started thinking about my planned Easter dinner with lamb (and it was the lamb I was thinking about, not the potatoes or dessert). Obviously, that was some months ago. Occasionally I really want a particular food item or meal, but I wouldn't call it a craving, and it's something I can choose to fit in or not.
The idea that I was "keto" or "fat adapted" (more than usual) because I fasted for a day makes no sense. We all know there's an adjustment period before one is fully keto. It doesn't just kick in the minute you miss a usual breakfast.
I agree with you. This is why Keto long term or IF short term is NOT of interest to many for improving weight or lab numbers.
So if you agree with me now, you admit that you were wrong to claim that one must be LCHF to successfully fast?
I claim fasting is nothing more than a window of time without carbs, proteins and fats. food Water is OK to drink in my view. I know there are egg, etc fast but that is not true fasting but just a limited macro.
Fixed it for you. Why turn a discussion about IF into a discussion about macros? Fasting is the avoidance of food, ie calories, for a particular period of time.
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way. Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
The problem is that if you take a young person who is slightly overweight they don't tend to die and they often have decent blood screens so this was often taken as evidence that you can be fat and healthy. Well, the issue is that youth hides a lot of health issues and eventually the weight catches up with you and as you age. Add to that the propensity to gain fat and become more sedentary as we age and the long term health trends start to look bleaker. My understanding of the current research is that, outside of the link to obesity, there isn't any solids links between diets as long as you meet all your nutritional requirements. Any way you can lose weight (isocaloric, high carb, low carb etc) seems to be associated with improvement in overall health and blood screens.
Exactly!
Low Carb > lose weight > improve health
Low Fat > lose weight > improve health
Low Calorie > lose weight > improve health
Keto > lose weight > improve health
Vegan > lose weight > improve health
Palep > lose weight > improve health
Vegetarian > lose weight > improve health
IF > lose weight > improve health
yada yada yada...
Yup!
This would be a good point to reiterate that all of the above ways of eating still rely on CI<CO to achieve weight loss. 3 -
You reacted very quickly. I did not see how your link shattered the obesity paradox.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases.
And that idea of being overweight being protective is shown to be wrong in what I posted. The original studies didn't control for smokers, which increased the death rates among people with lower BMI's. The study I posted did.
I was talking about being overweight, that's "the obesity paradox" (it's a bit of a misnomer).
Long term, being underweight, overweight, or obese is a ticking time bomb and leads to higher all cause mortality rates among people who never smoked than maintaining a normal weight does.1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't eat low carb at all, but have never had an issue fasting. I do it from time to time for religious reasons (full day fast).
That is because you went ZERO carb for the day. Carbs are the driver of most all cravings. Hungry is real so we do not die but cravings are not so much.
I don't have cravings and I eat plenty of carbs (about 45-50%). The last time I recall having a real craving was when I was vegetarian for Lent and started thinking about my planned Easter dinner with lamb (and it was the lamb I was thinking about, not the potatoes or dessert). Obviously, that was some months ago. Occasionally I really want a particular food item or meal, but I wouldn't call it a craving, and it's something I can choose to fit in or not.
The idea that I was "keto" or "fat adapted" (more than usual) because I fasted for a day makes no sense. We all know there's an adjustment period before one is fully keto. It doesn't just kick in the minute you miss a usual breakfast.
I agree with you. This is why Keto long term or IF short term is NOT of interest to many for improving weight or lab numbers.
So if you agree with me now, you admit that you were wrong to claim that one must be LCHF to successfully fast?
I claim fasting is nothing more than a window of time without carbs, proteins and fats. food Water is OK to drink in my view. I know there are egg, etc fast but that is not true fasting but just a limited macro.
Fixed it for you. Why turn a discussion about IF into a discussion about macros? Fasting is the avoidance of food, ie calories, for a particular period of time.
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way. Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
The problem is that if you take a young person who is slightly overweight they don't tend to die and they often have decent blood screens so this was often taken as evidence that you can be fat and healthy. Well, the issue is that youth hides a lot of health issues and eventually the weight catches up with you and as you age. Add to that the propensity to gain fat and become more sedentary as we age and the long term health trends start to look bleaker. My understanding of the current research is that, outside of the link to obesity, there isn't any solids links between diets as long as you meet all your nutritional requirements. Any way you can lose weight (isocaloric, high carb, low carb etc) seems to be associated with improvement in overall health and blood screens.
Exactly!
Low Carb > lose weight > improve health
Low Fat > lose weight > improve health
Low Calorie > lose weight > improve health
Keto > lose weight > improve health
Vegan > lose weight > improve health
Palep > lose weight > improve health
Vegetarian > lose weight > improve health
IF > lose weight > improve health
yada yada yada...
Too much logic in this post. I reject it!!!!
5 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »
You reacted very quickly. I did not see how your link shattered the obesity paradox.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases.
And that idea of being overweight being protective is shown to be wrong in what I posted. The original studies didn't control for smokers, which increased the death rates among people with lower BMI's. The study I posted did.
I was talking about being overweight, that's "the obesity paradox" (it's a bit of a misnomer).
Long term, being underweight, overweight, or obese is a ticking time bomb and leads to higher all cause mortality rates among people who never smoked than maintaining a normal weight does.
????
When controlling for smokers, the all cause mortality rates were highest in the overweight and obese categories. There is no protective effect to being overweight as previously thought.
"Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association."
What does my being on the computer having tea and being able to answer have to do with anything?0 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
I'm glad that you clarified in some cases, because this was based on people with known metabolic disease and this might mean that the pathology of the disease differs among those with more or less body weight. It might mean that people who contract the disease at a lower body weight are ones who have a weaker constitution already. This is certainly something worth following up on to see why this should be the case. What it seems here is that higher BMI was associated with higher incidents of cardiac events but seem to be able to survive it better, although causes of death were not catalogue so we don't know if the risk of death from cardiac arrest differed.
One of the issues I see with this study is that they did not account for the length of time that people had T2D. It's not unusual for people to get it when they are heavy then lose weight to try to help manage the disease. If those who have higher BMI are more recent patients then this might explain the variance all on it's own, we can't know by the data as presented.
However, one major thing to note is that the life expectancy of all subjects in these study has already been compromised in any case.
2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »
You reacted very quickly. I did not see how your link shattered the obesity paradox.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases.
And that idea of being overweight being protective is shown to be wrong in what I posted. The original studies didn't control for smokers, which increased the death rates among people with lower BMI's. The study I posted did.
I was talking about being overweight, that's "the obesity paradox" (it's a bit of a misnomer).
Long term, being underweight, overweight, or obese is a ticking time bomb and leads to higher all cause mortality rates among people who never smoked than maintaining a normal weight does.
????
When controlling for smokers, the all cause mortality rates were highest in the overweight and obese categories. There is no protective effect to being overweight as previously thought.
What does my being on the computer having tea and being able to answer have to do with anything?
I don't disagree with your first sentence, but your second one is not definitive.
Your argument with me started when I suggested that nutrition was important for longevity and calories for weight loss. In my extreme example that I provided, I said that somebody who was severely malnourished (eating nothing but skittles) would die much faster than somebody eating a varied diet, but slightly overweight. You have still not proven to me that being overweight (not morbidly obese) is worse (higher mortality rates) than being malnourished (and severely malnourished if you use my example). All I am saying is that there is a place where malnourishment will kill you before being overweight. I don't think that you can prove me wrong. And it was just an example! Last time I try to clarify one of Gale's comments ever, lol.2 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »
You reacted very quickly. I did not see how your link shattered the obesity paradox.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases.
And that idea of being overweight being protective is shown to be wrong in what I posted. The original studies didn't control for smokers, which increased the death rates among people with lower BMI's. The study I posted did.
I was talking about being overweight, that's "the obesity paradox" (it's a bit of a misnomer).
Long term, being underweight, overweight, or obese is a ticking time bomb and leads to higher all cause mortality rates among people who never smoked than maintaining a normal weight does.
????
When controlling for smokers, the all cause mortality rates were highest in the overweight and obese categories. There is no protective effect to being overweight as previously thought.
What does my being on the computer having tea and being able to answer have to do with anything?
I don't disagree with your first sentence, but your second one is not definitive.
Your argument with me started when I suggested that nutrition was important for longevity and calories for weight loss. In my extreme example that I provided, I said that somebody who was severely malnourished (eating nothing but skittles) would die much faster than somebody eating a varied diet, but slightly overweight. You have still not proven to me that being overweight (not morbidly obese) is worse (higher mortality rates) than being malnourished (and severely malnourished if you use my example). All I am saying is that there is a place where malnourishment will kill you before being overweight. I don't think that you can prove me wrong. And it was just an example! Last time I try to clarify one of Gale's comments ever, lol.
It's probably safer if no one tries to clarify Gale's statements.8 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »
You reacted very quickly. I did not see how your link shattered the obesity paradox.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases.
And that idea of being overweight being protective is shown to be wrong in what I posted. The original studies didn't control for smokers, which increased the death rates among people with lower BMI's. The study I posted did.
I was talking about being overweight, that's "the obesity paradox" (it's a bit of a misnomer).
Long term, being underweight, overweight, or obese is a ticking time bomb and leads to higher all cause mortality rates among people who never smoked than maintaining a normal weight does.
????
When controlling for smokers, the all cause mortality rates were highest in the overweight and obese categories. There is no protective effect to being overweight as previously thought.
What does my being on the computer having tea and being able to answer have to do with anything?
I don't disagree with your first sentence, but your second one is not definitive.
Your argument with me started when I suggested that nutrition was important for longevity and calories for weight loss. In my extreme example that I provided, I said that somebody who was severely malnourished (eating nothing but skittles) would die much faster than somebody eating a varied diet, but slightly overweight. You have still not proven to me that being overweight (not morbidly obese) is worse (higher mortality rates) than being malnourished (and severely malnourished if you use my example). All I am saying is that there is a place where malnourishment will kill you before being overweight. I don't think that you can prove me wrong. And it was just an example! Last time I try to clarify one of Gale's comments ever, lol.
Well, we all know that calories are just for energy balance and nutrition is for living a healthful life so can't disagree there. Although I'm going out on a limb and say that eating nothing but candy pretty extreme even if it is fruit flavoured lol. However, you can certainly be severely obese AND malnourished as hard as it may be to believe, the two are actually not exclusive and if you at nothing but Skittles you would find that out I'm guessing. I believe that people who are significantly underweight (below 17 BMI) actually have life expectancy below all but the extremely obese.
Oh, and don't make that mistake again lol!
1 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »
You reacted very quickly. I did not see how your link shattered the obesity paradox.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases.
And that idea of being overweight being protective is shown to be wrong in what I posted. The original studies didn't control for smokers, which increased the death rates among people with lower BMI's. The study I posted did.
I was talking about being overweight, that's "the obesity paradox" (it's a bit of a misnomer).
Long term, being underweight, overweight, or obese is a ticking time bomb and leads to higher all cause mortality rates among people who never smoked than maintaining a normal weight does.
????
When controlling for smokers, the all cause mortality rates were highest in the overweight and obese categories. There is no protective effect to being overweight as previously thought.
What does my being on the computer having tea and being able to answer have to do with anything?
I don't disagree with your first sentence, but your second one is not definitive.
Your argument with me started when I suggested that nutrition was important for longevity and calories for weight loss. In my extreme example that I provided, I said that somebody who was severely malnourished (eating nothing but skittles) would die much faster than somebody eating a varied diet, but slightly overweight. You have still not proven to me that being overweight (not morbidly obese) is worse (higher mortality rates) than being malnourished (and severely malnourished if you use my example). All I am saying is that there is a place where malnourishment will kill you before being overweight. I don't think that you can prove me wrong. And it was just an example! Last time I try to clarify one of Gale's comments ever, lol.
Oh, if you're trying to clarify one of Gale's comments by posting an extreme that would never really happen, I think you've gone down a rabbit hole of an argument I'll let you win.
Suffice to say that I can't agree with Gale. You broadened his point to an extreme beyond which he was making it, I think.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »
You reacted very quickly. I did not see how your link shattered the obesity paradox.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases.
And that idea of being overweight being protective is shown to be wrong in what I posted. The original studies didn't control for smokers, which increased the death rates among people with lower BMI's. The study I posted did.
I was talking about being overweight, that's "the obesity paradox" (it's a bit of a misnomer).
Long term, being underweight, overweight, or obese is a ticking time bomb and leads to higher all cause mortality rates among people who never smoked than maintaining a normal weight does.
????
When controlling for smokers, the all cause mortality rates were highest in the overweight and obese categories. There is no protective effect to being overweight as previously thought.
What does my being on the computer having tea and being able to answer have to do with anything?
I don't disagree with your first sentence, but your second one is not definitive.
Your argument with me started when I suggested that nutrition was important for longevity and calories for weight loss. In my extreme example that I provided, I said that somebody who was severely malnourished (eating nothing but skittles) would die much faster than somebody eating a varied diet, but slightly overweight. You have still not proven to me that being overweight (not morbidly obese) is worse (higher mortality rates) than being malnourished (and severely malnourished if you use my example). All I am saying is that there is a place where malnourishment will kill you before being overweight. I don't think that you can prove me wrong. And it was just an example! Last time I try to clarify one of Gale's comments ever, lol.
Oh, if you're trying to clarify one of Gale's comments by posting an extreme that would never really happen, I think you've gone down a rabbit hole of an argument I'll let you win.
Suffice to say that I can't agree with Gale. You broadened his point to an extreme beyond which he was making it, I think.
In @CorneliusPhoton 's case I think he went down a portal!
3 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
0 -
*Hugs companion cube*
So, fasting enhances autophagy which may be beneficial to longevity. Autophagy is the body’s mechanism of getting rid of all the broken down, old cell organelles, proteins and cell membranes. It is suspected that a buildup of these types of things causes cancer, alzheimers, accelerated aging. <-- those are links
More goodies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17934054
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20880415
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/203000802 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »*Hugs companion cube*
So, fasting enhances autophagy which may be beneficial to longevity. Autophagy is the body’s mechanism of getting rid of all the broken down, old cell organelles, proteins and cell membranes. It is suspected that a buildup of these types of things causes cancer, alzheimers, accelerated aging. <-- those are links
More goodies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17934054
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20880415
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300080
3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
I thought all people were equally as likely to die.
5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.
bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html
"I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."
This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.
No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?
As for VLCD, why are you going there?
I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.
But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions