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.
CICO/Thermodynamics/Insulin- discuss!!
Replies
-
Well sugar tastes good. Ask any kid. Even a baby can tell the difference between something sweet tasting and will gravitate towards that than say a brussel sprout. This is a NATURAL response to foods.CynthiasChoice wrote: »It's harder to overeat on Keto foods than it is on ho-ho's and nachos, IMO. Keto foods are very satisfying and I naturally want to stop after a reasonable serving. But ho-ho's and nachos? Back in the day, I could easily eat 4 servings without ever feeling satisfied. Well maybe not ho-ho's - those are disgusting - but donuts or cookies:)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
CynthiasChoice wrote: »It's harder to overeat on Keto foods than it is on ho-ho's and nachos, IMO. Keto foods are very satisfying and I naturally want to stop after a reasonable serving. But ho-ho's and nachos? Back in the day, I could easily eat 4 servings without ever feeling satisfied. Well maybe not ho-ho's - those are disgusting - but donuts or cookies:)
For you. Not for everyone.
I ate 5 donuts yesterday, one of those days. Barely wanted to eat anything else. Those donuts totalled 1000 calories. As far as feeling sated on fewer calories, it appears carbs with some fat are my best friends. Just a shame they weren't protein donuts really, could have hit all those macros, heh.4 -
CynthiasChoice wrote: »It's harder to overeat on Keto foods than it is on ho-ho's and nachos, IMO. Keto foods are very satisfying and I naturally want to stop after a reasonable serving. But ho-ho's and nachos? Back in the day, I could easily eat 4 servings without ever feeling satisfied. Well maybe not ho-ho's - those are disgusting - but donuts or cookies:)
I'm not keto and I've never had a hoho in my life and occasionally have nachos...
Just because one is not keto does not mean they're just eating *kitten*...I seem to see this from keto people a lot...this odd assumption that if you're not eating keto then you're just eating nothing but highly processed and refined carbs...it's utterly ridiculous.15 -
CynthiasChoice wrote: »It's harder to overeat on Keto foods than it is on ho-ho's and nachos, IMO. Keto foods are very satisfying and I naturally want to stop after a reasonable serving. But ho-ho's and nachos? Back in the day, I could easily eat 4 servings without ever feeling satisfied. Well maybe not ho-ho's - those are disgusting - but donuts or cookies:)
There's a reason I don't make egg salad any more.
Zero self-control.
When I was low carbing, I'd make massive amounts of it and down it all in one sitting.
Satiety is really, really individual, and what people can and do binge on varies widely.6 -
If people claim they eat less on Keto, then my thoughts are more power to them. Even if it is all psychosomatic and total nonsense from a biology standpoint, if it is something that they find helpful then good luck and god speed.
What I am unwilling to do is give them one inch of latitude that their choice in diet is some kind of magic wand waving for weight loss or health, because it's not. Keto, like any diet to induce weight loss, operates on the simple principle of a deficit. Period. That's it. End of story. Denying themselves carbs is a personal choice that has no bearing on such matters.8 -
supaflyrobby1 wrote: »If people claim they eat less on Keto, then my thoughts are more power to them. Even if it is all psychosomatic and total nonsense from a biology standpoint, if it is something that they find helpful then good luck and god speed.
What I am unwilling to do is give them one inch of latitude that their choice in diet is some kind of magic wand waving for weight loss or health, because it's not. Keto, like any diet to induce weight loss, operates on the simple principle of a deficit. Period. That's it. End of story. Denying themselves carbs is a personal choice that has no bearing on such matters.
The only thing that gets me is we argue dogma with new dogma. How can we go from fat is bad for you, to carbs are bad for you, while complaining about all the people who "made up" or "influenced" scientist for arguing against fat. And all this is done while ignoring all the research around plant based foods and links to improved health markers and ignoring the healthiest and longest living countries are 70% carbs.9 -
CynthiasChoice wrote: »It's harder to overeat on Keto foods than it is on ho-ho's and nachos, IMO. Keto foods are very satisfying and I naturally want to stop after a reasonable serving. But ho-ho's and nachos? Back in the day, I could easily eat 4 servings without ever feeling satisfied. Well maybe not ho-ho's - those are disgusting - but donuts or cookies:)
It's weird to talk about "keto foods." The foods I ate when keto-ing were the same as those I eat anyway, but I just also eat some starchier sides and the like when not keto-ing. One reason I liked very low carb is that I don't much miss bread, rice, potatoes, legumes (although I think legumes are extremely healthy). I never overeat those foods.
I did find it was too difficult to fit in fruit, as much veg as I like, nuts (which have carbs as well as fat), yogurt, which is one reason I raised my carbs a bit, but with the exception of nuts I find those to be foods I don't overeat.
Before I watched calories I easily overate cheese, nuts, olives, and could have easily overeaten a restaurant meal that was 100% keto -- meat and veg with a cream sauce, steak salad with blue cheese dressing, etc.
I think it's weird to focus on foods that are half carb half fat (pretty much all the ones you mention) as what are cut out on a low carb diet. They'd be hard to fit into a low fat diet too, and people who keto and want to can make all kinds of substitute sweets that I would personally find really easy to overeat.4 -
I undulate between eating low carb and keto, and being an admin to a keto group online, I'll tell anyone there's nothing special about the diet other than it naturally creating a deficit because you're basically excluding an entire macro group and by nature, protein intake increases, further creating satiety.
Leaner, insulin sensitive people tend to do better on LFHC diets and insulin resistant people tend to do better on LCHF diets, assuming adequate protein is equal between both groups.
All in all, calories aren't the only thing that affects body mass, but it works because they're good enough to use as a proxy for what really goes on.0 -
supaflyrobby1 wrote: »If people claim they eat less on Keto, then my thoughts are more power to them. Even if it is all psychosomatic and total nonsense from a biology standpoint, if it is something that they find helpful then good luck and god speed.
What I am unwilling to do is give them one inch of latitude that their choice in diet is some kind of magic wand waving for weight loss or health, because it's not. Keto, like any diet to induce weight loss, operates on the simple principle of a deficit. Period. That's it. End of story. Denying themselves carbs is a personal choice that has no bearing on such matters.
The only thing that gets me is we argue dogma with new dogma. How can we go from fat is bad for you, to carbs are bad for you, while complaining about all the people who "made up" or "influenced" scientist for arguing against fat. And all this is done while ignoring all the research around plant based foods and links to improved health markers and ignoring the healthiest and longest living countries are 70% carbs.
I think people just needlessly conflate and confuse the issue far more than is necessary because of the prevalence of fad diets. And pseudoscience and rank nonsense perpetuated by those seeking to sell self help guides or book TV appearances do not help matters much either. The NIH, WHO and most other health oversight organizations have not changed their views much on what constitutes a healthy diet in decades. What has changed is pop culture, which has little basis in actual science on the whole.
Too many people seem to believe that the only way to be successful in this game is to radically change their diet and turn their life upside down, which is simply not true. Furthermore, most people who do try to radically change their life all at once end up failing. Probably the most valuable lesson anyone can learn who is on this path has nothing to do with carbs, protein, gluten, GMO, organic, or any other trend in the diet or nutrition industry. It's calories and portion control. If you can master this, you will inevitably drop BMI. This is a biological and physiological certainty of the human body. This also has far more and immeasurable long term health benefits than fixating on pop culture trends or magazine rack headlines ever will.3 -
Of course hormones matter. But you're speaking of the general population. I betting you're more on the level of concern with COMPETITION since you compete. And if we're being honest in competition, there are no competitors I know of who just use FOOD ONLY to prep for a contest and low body fat %. Supplements and other drugs are definitely implemented into their diets.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Firstly, just because your friends doing competitions are on drugs, doesn't mean everyone is.
Secondly, hormones play more of a role than anything in terms of fat loss and muscle gain. They literally change the way your body works for the good or for the bad depending on what they're doing. They literally effect CICO to the point people can have a lot of trouble losing any weight at all and to the point where muscle gain is pretty much inevitable. They change the way your body absorbs nutrients, it's literally the most important part in determining our body composition.17 -
Lol, I want to see someone sitting on their *kitten* eating no protein who has "pretty much inevitable" muscle gain because of hormones that did not come out of a syringe.13
-
RAD_Fitness wrote: »
Of course hormones matter. But you're speaking of the general population. I betting you're more on the level of concern with COMPETITION since you compete. And if we're being honest in competition, there are no competitors I know of who just use FOOD ONLY to prep for a contest and low body fat %. Supplements and other drugs are definitely implemented into their diets.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Firstly, just because your friends doing competitions are on drugs, doesn't mean everyone is.
Secondly, hormones play more of a role than anything in terms of fat loss and muscle gain. They literally change the way your body works for the good or for the bad depending on what they're doing. They literally effect CICO to the point people can have a lot of trouble losing any weight at all and to the point where muscle gain is pretty much inevitable. They change the way your body absorbs nutrients, it's literally the most important part in determining our body composition.
While I don't doubt hormones changes during weight loss (I know ghrelin and leptin do) but not to the magnitude you are suggesting. Or maybe you can expand on which specific hormones you are talking about. Test is generally a concern for lean males (more so competitors) during contest prep who aggressively cut fat. But that doesn't apply to the average dieter.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
Except, the primary way to maintain muscle and maximise fat loss is adequate protein alongside strength training. And that is stressed quite a lot.
For the vast majority of the population, including those with specific aesthetic goals that will achieved through some sort of strength straining then nutrient partitioning, hormone levels (which, incidentally, is also often addressed by the recommendation to take diet breaks and eat at maintenance for one or two weeks) and macros beyond hitting protein and enough fat for nutrient absorption then we get to majoring in the minors.
There's not many wanting to get a physique for bikini or bodybuilding competitions. There's not many who want to look like a fitness model. Most people just want to be a healthy weight and look good, to them, in their clothes.
Do you really think 50 year old Joe or Josephine Blogs wants to be drowned in the minors you're so obsessed with?
I'm obsessed with helping people succeed.
Hormones is not a "minor".
And I'm not even sure what you're saying in the second paragraph so I can't even respond.
So tell me. A 300lb female comes to you because she's been told by her doctor she needs to get control of her weight. It's the kick up her backside she needed but is overwhelmed and doesn't know where to start. She's always been overweight, grew up in a family where everyone is obese. What is your advice? Exactly as you would give it, not a vague synopsis but exactly what you would say at that initial consultation.
Going to quote myself because I genuinely want to know the answer from @RAD_Fitness7 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »
Of course hormones matter. But you're speaking of the general population. I betting you're more on the level of concern with COMPETITION since you compete. And if we're being honest in competition, there are no competitors I know of who just use FOOD ONLY to prep for a contest and low body fat %. Supplements and other drugs are definitely implemented into their diets.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Firstly, just because your friends doing competitions are on drugs, doesn't mean everyone is.
Secondly, hormones play more of a role than anything in terms of fat loss and muscle gain. They literally change the way your body works for the good or for the bad depending on what they're doing. They literally effect CICO to the point people can have a lot of trouble losing any weight at all and to the point where muscle gain is pretty much inevitable. They change the way your body absorbs nutrients, it's literally the most important part in determining our body composition.
I want proof - literally I do.6 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »
Of course hormones matter. But you're speaking of the general population. I betting you're more on the level of concern with COMPETITION since you compete. And if we're being honest in competition, there are no competitors I know of who just use FOOD ONLY to prep for a contest and low body fat %. Supplements and other drugs are definitely implemented into their diets.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Firstly, just because your friends doing competitions are on drugs, doesn't mean everyone is.
Secondly, hormones play more of a role than anything in terms of fat loss and muscle gain. They literally change the way your body works for the good or for the bad depending on what they're doing. They literally effect CICO to the point people can have a lot of trouble losing any weight at all and to the point where muscle gain is pretty much inevitable. They change the way your body absorbs nutrients, it's literally the most important part in determining our body composition.
I want proof - literally I do.
Technically, I think Test can be categorized as a hormone.1 -
supaflyrobby1 wrote: »supaflyrobby1 wrote: »If people claim they eat less on Keto, then my thoughts are more power to them. Even if it is all psychosomatic and total nonsense from a biology standpoint, if it is something that they find helpful then good luck and god speed.
What I am unwilling to do is give them one inch of latitude that their choice in diet is some kind of magic wand waving for weight loss or health, because it's not. Keto, like any diet to induce weight loss, operates on the simple principle of a deficit. Period. That's it. End of story. Denying themselves carbs is a personal choice that has no bearing on such matters.
The only thing that gets me is we argue dogma with new dogma. How can we go from fat is bad for you, to carbs are bad for you, while complaining about all the people who "made up" or "influenced" scientist for arguing against fat. And all this is done while ignoring all the research around plant based foods and links to improved health markers and ignoring the healthiest and longest living countries are 70% carbs.
I think people just needlessly conflate and confuse the issue far more than is necessary because of the prevalence of fad diets. And pseudoscience and rank nonsense perpetuated by those seeking to sell self help guides or book TV appearances do not help matters much either. The NIH, WHO and most other health oversight organizations have not changed their views much on what constitutes a healthy diet in decades. What has changed is pop culture, which has little basis in actual science on the whole.
Too many people seem to believe that the only way to be successful in this game is to radically change their diet and turn their life upside down, which is simply not true. Furthermore, most people who do try to radically change their life all at once end up failing. Probably the most valuable lesson anyone can learn who is on this path has nothing to do with carbs, protein, gluten, GMO, organic, or any other trend in the diet or nutrition industry. It's calories and portion control. If you can master this, you will inevitably drop BMI. This is a biological and physiological certainty of the human body. This also has far more and immeasurable long term health benefits than fixating on pop culture trends or magazine rack headlines ever will.
The state of journalism is simply abhorrent and science journalism is no better. This has crossed the boundary of misinformation to pure disinformation in many cases.
Scientists tend to do an excellent job when conducting research, but extremely poor when this crosses over to establishing policy. Hence the dramatic difference between a study and actuated policy. Note that in nearly all cases - cholesterol, salt, fat, gluten, carbs, protein, BPA, etc. the actual study results tend to be very simple and parrot "Moderation is key. If you have a diagnosed condition with higher risk, minimize or avoid." Somehow this gets conflated to "AVOID GLUTEN!!!"
Medical advice to weight management has not changed in decades and essentially boils down to "Make gradual changes" and "Eat less, move more".2 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »
Of course hormones matter. But you're speaking of the general population. I betting you're more on the level of concern with COMPETITION since you compete. And if we're being honest in competition, there are no competitors I know of who just use FOOD ONLY to prep for a contest and low body fat %. Supplements and other drugs are definitely implemented into their diets.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Firstly, just because your friends doing competitions are on drugs, doesn't mean everyone is.
Secondly, hormones play more of a role than anything in terms of fat loss and muscle gain. They literally change the way your body works for the good or for the bad depending on what they're doing. They literally effect CICO to the point people can have a lot of trouble losing any weight at all and to the point where muscle gain is pretty much inevitable. They change the way your body absorbs nutrients, it's literally the most important part in determining our body composition.
...more than anything?
Methinks this is incorrect.
Edit: I ate 3000 calories yesterday- but its probably my hormones more than anything that caused 1600 of them to be stored as fat.4 -
theledger5 wrote: »Read this article and a few others after a FB discussion on losing weight. I am confused now that losing weight is not just about CICO. Discuss!
https://www.dietdoctor.com/first-law-thermodynamics-utterly-irrelevant
This is incorrect and the foundation of what he basis much on.
"You reduce your intake to 1200 calories per day. Since insulin remains high, you cannot get any energy from fat stores. Why? Because the dietary strategy you are using (Caloric Reduction as Primary) only concerns itself with reducing calories, not insulin. Remember that the high insulin is telling the body to store energy as fat, or at a minimum, not burn fat (inhibits lipolysis)."
If you have just reduced your intake from 2000 to 1200 calories - your insulin does NOT remain as high for as long.
Even if you kept your macro ratio's the same as you used to.
So as his pre-amble mentioned, yes you store carbs as glucose and fat as fat for what is not used as energy right then while insulin is elevated.
But you just ate less than you used to - so it's not elevated for as long - so the carbs aren't enough to refill all the storage perhaps (depends on the meal and what you've been doing), the fat you ate is used more as energy source as it would have been if released from fat cells, and if anything in excess by the time insulin drops, it's stored away as needed - and then fat release happens quicker than normal.
His whole premise doesn't take into account reduced time under insulin when in a diet. He never does.
At least this article compared to other things I've seen by him shares the fact what you ate for carbs does go to liver/muscle glucose storage.
Other articles just say it goes to fat storage. Totally wrong there.8 -
supaflyrobby1 wrote: »supaflyrobby1 wrote: »If people claim they eat less on Keto, then my thoughts are more power to them. Even if it is all psychosomatic and total nonsense from a biology standpoint, if it is something that they find helpful then good luck and god speed.
What I am unwilling to do is give them one inch of latitude that their choice in diet is some kind of magic wand waving for weight loss or health, because it's not. Keto, like any diet to induce weight loss, operates on the simple principle of a deficit. Period. That's it. End of story. Denying themselves carbs is a personal choice that has no bearing on such matters.
The only thing that gets me is we argue dogma with new dogma. How can we go from fat is bad for you, to carbs are bad for you, while complaining about all the people who "made up" or "influenced" scientist for arguing against fat. And all this is done while ignoring all the research around plant based foods and links to improved health markers and ignoring the healthiest and longest living countries are 70% carbs.
I think people just needlessly conflate and confuse the issue far more than is necessary because of the prevalence of fad diets. And pseudoscience and rank nonsense perpetuated by those seeking to sell self help guides or book TV appearances do not help matters much either. The NIH, WHO and most other health oversight organizations have not changed their views much on what constitutes a healthy diet in decades. What has changed is pop culture, which has little basis in actual science on the whole.
Too many people seem to believe that the only way to be successful in this game is to radically change their diet and turn their life upside down, which is simply not true. Furthermore, most people who do try to radically change their life all at once end up failing. Probably the most valuable lesson anyone can learn who is on this path has nothing to do with carbs, protein, gluten, GMO, organic, or any other trend in the diet or nutrition industry. It's calories and portion control. If you can master this, you will inevitably drop BMI. This is a biological and physiological certainty of the human body. This also has far more and immeasurable long term health benefits than fixating on pop culture trends or magazine rack headlines ever will.
The state of journalism is simply abhorrent and science journalism is no better. This has crossed the boundary of misinformation to pure disinformation in many cases.
Scientists tend to do an excellent job when conducting research, but extremely poor when this crosses over to establishing policy. Hence the dramatic difference between a study and actuated policy. Note that in nearly all cases - cholesterol, salt, fat, gluten, carbs, protein, BPA, etc. the actual study results tend to be very simple and parrot "Moderation is key. If you have a diagnosed condition with higher risk, minimize or avoid." Somehow this gets conflated to "AVOID GLUTEN!!!"
Medical advice to weight management has not changed in decades and essentially boils down to "Make gradual changes" and "Eat less, move more".
I would agree, and I think part of the problem lies in the fact that the vast majority of scientific research is articulated mainly amongst peers in the field, not the general public. When was the last time the average Joe Blow citizen picked up a copy of Science, Nature, or most any other highly respected peer reviewed journal with a ridiculously hight impact factor? The answer to this is probably never. Scientific literacy in the US is atrocious.
What this leads to is sometimes journalists get ahold of an abstract which they grossly take out of context and then embellish to the point of absurdity, as you alluded to. If you were to ask the scientist that actually wrote the paper (or hell, any reasonably intelligent person who has even read it) they would tell you "WHOA, don't put words in my mouth, that is not what the research was pointing to at all." Science is a game of incrementalism in most fields. Most researchers are not going to stake their reputation on wide reaching and outrageous claims. Doing so would dry up their grant money and tarnish their credibility in short order. They are almost always humble and calculated when they report their findings, and nearly always end with "further research is needed". Eventually concepts and theories do become so widely accepted they become "scientific law", but only after lab after lab after lab repeats the experiment with similar methodology and gets conclusively similar results.
Granted that some folks in science do spend a significant amount of time and energy pointing out the nonsense in pop culture health claims. Organizations like https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ , http://www.quackwatch.org/ and others do a great job with this. But the overwhelming majority simply think such claims are too ridiculous to spend the time refuting, which is why many of them are allowed to persist in the public consciousness.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »Lol, I want to see someone sitting on their *kitten* eating no protein who has "pretty much inevitable" muscle gain because of hormones that did not come out of a syringe.
Well that it exactly what I am saying. Guys or girls are on drugs are able to put on muscle essentially without doing anything. Same goes the opposite when guys or girls are low on test, they will have a lot of trouble putting on muscle mass. Same goes for your thyroid hormone, if you have a issue with your thyroid, it doesn't matter what mfp says it thinks your calories burned are, they can be significantly lower. I am not saying CICO is not true because of your hormones, I am saying, hormones effect where excess calories get stored (muscle or fat) and where additional calories are taken from (muscle or fat) to a large extent.7 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »
Of course hormones matter. But you're speaking of the general population. I betting you're more on the level of concern with COMPETITION since you compete. And if we're being honest in competition, there are no competitors I know of who just use FOOD ONLY to prep for a contest and low body fat %. Supplements and other drugs are definitely implemented into their diets.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Firstly, just because your friends doing competitions are on drugs, doesn't mean everyone is.
Secondly, hormones play more of a role than anything in terms of fat loss and muscle gain. They literally change the way your body works for the good or for the bad depending on what they're doing. They literally effect CICO to the point people can have a lot of trouble losing any weight at all and to the point where muscle gain is pretty much inevitable. They change the way your body absorbs nutrients, it's literally the most important part in determining our body composition.RAD_Fitness wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Lol, I want to see someone sitting on their *kitten* eating no protein who has "pretty much inevitable" muscle gain because of hormones that did not come out of a syringe.
Well that it exactly what I am saying. Guys or girls are on drugs are able to put on muscle essentially without doing anything. Same goes the opposite when guys or girls are low on test, they will have a lot of trouble putting on muscle mass. Same goes for your thyroid hormone, if you have a issue with your thyroid, it doesn't matter what mfp says it thinks your calories burned are, they can be significantly lower. I am not saying CICO is not true because of your hormones, I am saying, hormones effect where excess calories get stored (muscle or fat) and where additional calories are taken from (muscle or fat) to a large extent.
Make up your mind.6 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Lol, I want to see someone sitting on their *kitten* eating no protein who has "pretty much inevitable" muscle gain because of hormones that did not come out of a syringe.
Well that it exactly what I am saying. Guys or girls are on drugs are able to put on muscle essentially without doing anything. Same goes the opposite when guys or girls are low on test, they will have a lot of trouble putting on muscle mass. Same goes for your thyroid hormone, if you have a issue with your thyroid, it doesn't matter what mfp says it thinks your calories burned are, they can be significantly lower. I am not saying CICO is not true because of your hormones, I am saying, hormones effect where excess calories get stored (muscle or fat) and where additional calories are taken from (muscle or fat) to a large extent.
Put on muscle without doing anything?
I've actually seen complaints from people using the juice complaining they aren't gaining much, while not able to do much. And the regular forum users (not here on MFP) inform them they still need to workout hard to see results.
If in a diet, there will almost always be available room in the liver and muscles for more glucose storage.
Muscle glucose is only going to be available to the working muscle BTW - that's not available for general energy source, can't be put back into the bloodstream.
While the hormones can indeed effect where they are put, and where pulled from while present (insulin) - in the face of deficit eating - it really doesn't matter enough in the course of a day.
Just as some blogs have done using research study numbers, you can go through the day and figure out what's being used when, for 2 difference eating diets, and the end result is the same when the day is done.
Personal adherence during that day may indeed be a factor, but those factors don't apply to all equally.
Only with huge extremes of lots of protein compared to very little protein and lots of fat, is TEF a decent factor.
edited to add - define significant in terms of thyroid issues and lowered metabolism. Because there are survey's of people to show just how minor it is. Now, their TDEE because they are tired not wanting to move - sure.5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
Of course hormones matter. But you're speaking of the general population. I betting you're more on the level of concern with COMPETITION since you compete. And if we're being honest in competition, there are no competitors I know of who just use FOOD ONLY to prep for a contest and low body fat %. Supplements and other drugs are definitely implemented into their diets.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Firstly, just because your friends doing competitions are on drugs, doesn't mean everyone is.
Secondly, hormones play more of a role than anything in terms of fat loss and muscle gain. They literally change the way your body works for the good or for the bad depending on what they're doing. They literally effect CICO to the point people can have a lot of trouble losing any weight at all and to the point where muscle gain is pretty much inevitable. They change the way your body absorbs nutrients, it's literally the most important part in determining our body composition.RAD_Fitness wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Lol, I want to see someone sitting on their *kitten* eating no protein who has "pretty much inevitable" muscle gain because of hormones that did not come out of a syringe.
Well that it exactly what I am saying. Guys or girls are on drugs are able to put on muscle essentially without doing anything. Same goes the opposite when guys or girls are low on test, they will have a lot of trouble putting on muscle mass. Same goes for your thyroid hormone, if you have a issue with your thyroid, it doesn't matter what mfp says it thinks your calories burned are, they can be significantly lower. I am not saying CICO is not true because of your hormones, I am saying, hormones effect where excess calories get stored (muscle or fat) and where additional calories are taken from (muscle or fat) to a large extent.
Make up your mind.
About what?1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Lol, I want to see someone sitting on their *kitten* eating no protein who has "pretty much inevitable" muscle gain because of hormones that did not come out of a syringe.
Well that it exactly what I am saying. Guys or girls are on drugs are able to put on muscle essentially without doing anything. Same goes the opposite when guys or girls are low on test, they will have a lot of trouble putting on muscle mass. Same goes for your thyroid hormone, if you have a issue with your thyroid, it doesn't matter what mfp says it thinks your calories burned are, they can be significantly lower. I am not saying CICO is not true because of your hormones, I am saying, hormones effect where excess calories get stored (muscle or fat) and where additional calories are taken from (muscle or fat) to a large extent.
So you're suggesting that muscle mass is simply constructed due to increased testosterone and diminished due to lack of testosterone? It plays a factor, but a statistically minor one.
Same with thyroid. I am sans thyroid and lose/gain very similar to anyone else - the primary driver to metabolism being muscle mass. Clinical evidence shows that thyroid hormone impacts Resting Energy Expenditure (REE) by ~5% over population and this is among people with no thyroid and no supplementation. This amounts to 80 kcals/day out of a 1600 kcal/day budget.
Hormonal shifts result in increased cellular uptake (water weight), but this is very short term and an essential defensive measure. While this may impact your weight it has little to do with changes to body fat %.6 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
Of course hormones matter. But you're speaking of the general population. I betting you're more on the level of concern with COMPETITION since you compete. And if we're being honest in competition, there are no competitors I know of who just use FOOD ONLY to prep for a contest and low body fat %. Supplements and other drugs are definitely implemented into their diets.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Firstly, just because your friends doing competitions are on drugs, doesn't mean everyone is.
Secondly, hormones play more of a role than anything in terms of fat loss and muscle gain. They literally change the way your body works for the good or for the bad depending on what they're doing. They literally effect CICO to the point people can have a lot of trouble losing any weight at all and to the point where muscle gain is pretty much inevitable. They change the way your body absorbs nutrients, it's literally the most important part in determining our body composition.RAD_Fitness wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Lol, I want to see someone sitting on their *kitten* eating no protein who has "pretty much inevitable" muscle gain because of hormones that did not come out of a syringe.
Well that it exactly what I am saying. Guys or girls are on drugs are able to put on muscle essentially without doing anything. Same goes the opposite when guys or girls are low on test, they will have a lot of trouble putting on muscle mass. Same goes for your thyroid hormone, if you have a issue with your thyroid, it doesn't matter what mfp says it thinks your calories burned are, they can be significantly lower. I am not saying CICO is not true because of your hormones, I am saying, hormones effect where excess calories get stored (muscle or fat) and where additional calories are taken from (muscle or fat) to a large extent.
Make up your mind.
About what?
Whether it's drugs or diet.
0 -
VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
Except, the primary way to maintain muscle and maximise fat loss is adequate protein alongside strength training. And that is stressed quite a lot.
For the vast majority of the population, including those with specific aesthetic goals that will achieved through some sort of strength straining then nutrient partitioning, hormone levels (which, incidentally, is also often addressed by the recommendation to take diet breaks and eat at maintenance for one or two weeks) and macros beyond hitting protein and enough fat for nutrient absorption then we get to majoring in the minors.
There's not many wanting to get a physique for bikini or bodybuilding competitions. There's not many who want to look like a fitness model. Most people just want to be a healthy weight and look good, to them, in their clothes.
Do you really think 50 year old Joe or Josephine Blogs wants to be drowned in the minors you're so obsessed with?
I'm obsessed with helping people succeed.
Hormones is not a "minor".
And I'm not even sure what you're saying in the second paragraph so I can't even respond.
So tell me. A 300lb female comes to you because she's been told by her doctor she needs to get control of her weight. It's the kick up her backside she needed but is overwhelmed and doesn't know where to start. She's always been overweight, grew up in a family where everyone is obese. What is your advice? Exactly as you would give it, not a vague synopsis but exactly what you would say at that initial consultation.
Going to quote myself because I genuinely want to know the answer from @RAD_Fitness
Still waiting.8 -
VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
Except, the primary way to maintain muscle and maximise fat loss is adequate protein alongside strength training. And that is stressed quite a lot.
For the vast majority of the population, including those with specific aesthetic goals that will achieved through some sort of strength straining then nutrient partitioning, hormone levels (which, incidentally, is also often addressed by the recommendation to take diet breaks and eat at maintenance for one or two weeks) and macros beyond hitting protein and enough fat for nutrient absorption then we get to majoring in the minors.
There's not many wanting to get a physique for bikini or bodybuilding competitions. There's not many who want to look like a fitness model. Most people just want to be a healthy weight and look good, to them, in their clothes.
Do you really think 50 year old Joe or Josephine Blogs wants to be drowned in the minors you're so obsessed with?
I'm obsessed with helping people succeed.
Hormones is not a "minor".
And I'm not even sure what you're saying in the second paragraph so I can't even respond.
So tell me. A 300lb female comes to you because she's been told by her doctor she needs to get control of her weight. It's the kick up her backside she needed but is overwhelmed and doesn't know where to start. She's always been overweight, grew up in a family where everyone is obese. What is your advice? Exactly as you would give it, not a vague synopsis but exactly what you would say at that initial consultation.
Going to quote myself because I genuinely want to know the answer from @RAD_Fitness
Still waiting.
Don't hold your breath......1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
Of course hormones matter. But you're speaking of the general population. I betting you're more on the level of concern with COMPETITION since you compete. And if we're being honest in competition, there are no competitors I know of who just use FOOD ONLY to prep for a contest and low body fat %. Supplements and other drugs are definitely implemented into their diets.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Firstly, just because your friends doing competitions are on drugs, doesn't mean everyone is.
Secondly, hormones play more of a role than anything in terms of fat loss and muscle gain. They literally change the way your body works for the good or for the bad depending on what they're doing. They literally effect CICO to the point people can have a lot of trouble losing any weight at all and to the point where muscle gain is pretty much inevitable. They change the way your body absorbs nutrients, it's literally the most important part in determining our body composition.RAD_Fitness wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Lol, I want to see someone sitting on their *kitten* eating no protein who has "pretty much inevitable" muscle gain because of hormones that did not come out of a syringe.
Well that it exactly what I am saying. Guys or girls are on drugs are able to put on muscle essentially without doing anything. Same goes the opposite when guys or girls are low on test, they will have a lot of trouble putting on muscle mass. Same goes for your thyroid hormone, if you have a issue with your thyroid, it doesn't matter what mfp says it thinks your calories burned are, they can be significantly lower. I am not saying CICO is not true because of your hormones, I am saying, hormones effect where excess calories get stored (muscle or fat) and where additional calories are taken from (muscle or fat) to a large extent.
Make up your mind.
About what?
Whether it's drugs or diet.
The whole point I am making is that hormones are not a minor factor, but a major factor in body composition. The drugs were brought on when it seemed as though ninerbuff seemed to imply that not only do I, but others I work with use other things than just food to get to a low bf %.6 -
Yes that's true, but it sounds more like you're insisting that everyone in the general population is bereft of correct hormone levels. The general population just needs to do CICO to lose weight, not try to manipulate their hormones. There are people that have hormonal issues, but then they need to discuss that with their endocrinologist and get a on plan to balance that out.RAD_Fitness wrote: »
Of course hormones matter. But you're speaking of the general population. I betting you're more on the level of concern with COMPETITION since you compete. And if we're being honest in competition, there are no competitors I know of who just use FOOD ONLY to prep for a contest and low body fat %. Supplements and other drugs are definitely implemented into their diets.RAD_Fitness wrote: »Firstly, I'm not trying to bash anyone for how you've lost your weight. That's the last thing I want anyone to see this as.
But just because you lose a lot of weight doing something, doesn't mean what you did was efficient or the best way. And losing a lot of weight and doing a little research doesn't instantly make you a Nutrition expert.
I just hate how on here it's ALL about CICO when there are a lot more things that effect FAT LOSS.
Edited: to explain what I mean by there are a lot more things that effect fat loss; hormone levels (testosterone, estrogen, insulin, growth hormone), stress levels, types of food you're eating (macro split)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Firstly, just because your friends doing competitions are on drugs, doesn't mean everyone is.
Secondly, hormones play more of a role than anything in terms of fat loss and muscle gain. They literally change the way your body works for the good or for the bad depending on what they're doing. They literally effect CICO to the point people can have a lot of trouble losing any weight at all and to the point where muscle gain is pretty much inevitable. They change the way your body absorbs nutrients, it's literally the most important part in determining our body composition.
Lol, who said I'm affiliated with anyone doing competitions? I've competed and have first hand experience of all the shenanigans that competitors do to get ready for a comp. You gonna be honest here? Did you use anything supplement or drug wise to get ready for competition or did you just do it with just food and exercise? Because again realize that the majority of people in the general population aren't looking to look like a competitor and don't need to manipulate their hormones to just lose some weight.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
Again it sounds like you are insisting that the general population has a problem with hormone regulation. The majority don't and don't need to worry about this.RAD_Fitness wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Lol, I want to see someone sitting on their *kitten* eating no protein who has "pretty much inevitable" muscle gain because of hormones that did not come out of a syringe.
Well that it exactly what I am saying. Guys or girls are on drugs are able to put on muscle essentially without doing anything. Same goes the opposite when guys or girls are low on test, they will have a lot of trouble putting on muscle mass. Same goes for your thyroid hormone, if you have a issue with your thyroid, it doesn't matter what mfp says it thinks your calories burned are, they can be significantly lower. I am not saying CICO is not true because of your hormones, I am saying, hormones effect where excess calories get stored (muscle or fat) and where additional calories are taken from (muscle or fat) to a large extent.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions