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
-
Oh I'm not implying it. I'm betting on it. Again be honest: Did you ONLY USE FOOD to get in competition shape? I doubt it. And I don't really care cause I have yet to see anyone (even a natural) do it with only food and nothing else.RAD_Fitness wrote: »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 %.
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 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »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.
The ho-ho's and nachos reference came from the post prior to mine from supaflyrobby1. I didn't say a Keto diet was superior or that those not on Keto were eating only "junk" food. I'm not even a "Keto person" and as another poster pointed out, my term "Keto foods" is strange. I agree. Further, my use of IMO should really have been "in my own experience" as VintageFeline points out. So many errors in so few words! lol! I'll make an effort to be more precise in future comments.
Rewrite: In my own personal experience, it's easier for me to eat moderately when I'm eating foods that contain primarily protein and fat, and it's difficult for me to eat moderately when I'm eating foods that contain high glycemic load carbs and fat. I'm sure there are lots of people like me, and lots of people who don't share my experience. I have no desire for us all to be the same and I don't seek to convert anyone.
Point is, for those like me that tend to binge on things like nachos and donuts, following a low carb diet facilitates compliance with a calorie restricted diet. I prefer to focus my attention on what will help me comply. Focusing only on CICO spelled disaster for me in the past because I hadn't yet discovered that it's not in my best interest to satisfy my cravings for carbs until I hit my calorie limit for the day. I would end up hungry and cranky and so miserable that I ended up abandoning my plan. Once I experienced how eating sufficient protein and fat could turn off my appetite, compliance was easy and sustainable.
We are not all the same, thank God. Some people manage very well focusing on CICO regardless of what their macro balance is. Others like me need to fine tune their macros in order to comply with a calorie deficit happily.5 -
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
That has been my impression too. And of course that's as silly as saying that your neurons are the most important thing for running because your legs don't work properly if your brain doesn't send the signals to your leg muscles so you don't look like the guy from QWOP. Technically correct but not something any healthy person has to waste even a single thought on as those things work fine subconsciously.4 -
This content has been removed.
-
I know I'm labouring the point but I asked what advice @RAD_Fitness would give my theoretical 300lb newb on page 1. Then twice again on page 3. If someone thinks they want to help people with better advice than the rest of us have because of factoring in hormones and nutrient partitioning then I want to know what that looks like in practice. What specific advice are you giving that morbidly obese individual who comes from a morbidly obese family with little knowledge of human physiology or what a well rounded diet looks like?
I'm interested to know. Because you are so vehement in your assertion we are all giving out terrible advice but I have yet to see you putting into practice by way of detailed answer how to implement the use of nutrient partitioning or exactly how we figure out what our hormones are doing and how to maximise their functioning to help weight loss.10 -
In denouncing CICO early in the article, Dr. Fung creates this strawman: "So, eating a calorie reduced, low fat, high carbohydrate diet, insulin levels stay high, but calories comes down." I stopped reading there with the assumption that Dr. Fung then demolishes his strawman and goes on about insulin regulation.
That wasn't the first strawman he created in that article, either. He is a credentialed doctor and he is trained in understanding and treating pancreatic production of insulin, but he's talking down to us and that grates on me.
5 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »In denouncing CICO early in the article, Dr. Fung creates this strawman: "So, eating a calorie reduced, low fat, high carbohydrate diet, insulin levels stay high, but calories comes down." I stopped reading there with the assumption that Dr. Fung then demolishes his strawman and goes on about insulin regulation.
That wasn't the first strawman he created in that article, either. He is a credentialed doctor and he is trained in understanding and treating pancreatic production of insulin, but he's talking down to us and that grates on me.
It's interesting that you should mention Dr. Fung's "credentials", especially when you consider that a quick check on PubMed reveals that he has authored exactly ZERO articles in the peer reviewed medical literature on Nephrology or anything else for that matter. This is a common tactic of quacks. They will shout it to the mountaintops in glorified blogs or in books they might author, but they are unwilling to subject their conclusions to the rigors of scientific evidence which can be properly evaluated for efficacy and validity. There is a common phrase in scientific research which states that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It's up to him to provide this or he can go back to signing books at Barnes and Noble.3 -
I can't post ALL of my clients obviously, but this is one who was featured in our local paper. And in the article, he states that all I did for him to lose weight was have him learn how to moderate food and get some form of exercise in. Got him from 355lbs down to 265lbs in a year and he's kept it off since then.
No need of "manipulating" hormones as mention by RAD_fitness. Again, CICO works just fine if applied correctly.
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
13 -
I can't post ALL of my clients obviously, but this is one who was featured in our local paper. And in the article, he states that all I did for him to lose weight was have him learn how to moderate food and get some form of exercise in. Got him from 355lbs down to 265lbs in a year and he's kept it off since then.
No need of "manipulating" hormones as mention by RAD_fitness. Again, CICO works just fine if applied correctly.
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
But do you really care about helping people be successful? Because sure he lost 90lbs but 90lbs of what? Were his hormones such that all that wasn't muscle?7 -
CynthiasChoice wrote: »Rewrite: In my own personal experience, it's easier for me to eat moderately when I'm eating foods that contain primarily protein and fat, and it's difficult for me to eat moderately when I'm eating foods that contain high glycemic load carbs and fat. I'm sure there are lots of people like me, and lots of people who don't share my experience. I have no desire for us all to be the same and I don't seek to convert anyone.
I think there are lots of people like you in this. I am (to some extent, I also find foods that include more fiber and whole food carbs like potatoes and sweet potatoes and legumes quite easy to eat moderately and some foods that are primarily fat, like cheese, harder to eat moderately). More significantly, since I don't eat just one kind of food, I also find it easy enough to eat moderately when I eat MOSTLY foods that have protein, fiber, and some fat (I find fat in a food doesn't make it more filling, but fat in my overall diet makes me more satisfied). If I also include, in smaller amounts, some foods that would be less filling on their own (like a little cheese or a little ice cream or some chocolate), that doesn't affect how filling my overall diet is. It might be different if I were trying to keep a huge deficit, of course.Point is, for those like me that tend to binge on things like nachos and donuts, following a low carb diet facilitates compliance with a calorie restricted diet.
Well, bingeing is really a separate thing from not finding food filling, and I think will differ from binger to binger, although for some bingers putting foods off-limits can be harmful.
To the extent you mean to be talking about foods being filling or not, and these foods not being filling, or simply avoiding these foods, AGAIN, following a low fat diet would have the same effect, or following simply a nutrition conscious diet, as you aren't going to be eating lots of nachos or donuts within a limited number of calories if focusing on getting nutrition. There's nothing special about low carbing here. (I low carb, but I eat nachos and donuts about as often as I did before low carbing, which is almost never. For me the calories from those foods aren't really worth it. If I loved them, I'd find a way to fit them in, of course.)Focusing only on CICO spelled disaster for me in the past because I hadn't yet discovered that it's not in my best interest to satisfy my cravings for carbs until I hit my calorie limit for the day.
Well, first, from what you said above, it's NOT carbs you were craving, but foods that are a mix of certain kinds of carbs and fat. I hate that people act as if all carbs are the same and the usual so called junk food is all "carbs" when it's as much fat.
Beyond that, this idea of "only focusing on CICO" meaning ignoring the effect of foods on you, satiety, nutrition is a strawman. I do CICO to lose, and also tend to low carb, because I prefer eating that way, and don't eat a lot of low nutritent foods because I find it easier when I do not. That doesn't mean CICO is wrong or doesn't work or isn't what I'm doing (or what people keto-ing are doing).
The main thing is that there ARE differences between people in what helps them keep a deficit or eat at maintenance when that's appropriate, so that's why CICO is the right answer -- each person then gets to figure out what works for them to eat the right amounts vs. thinking the solution for everyone is low carb or whatever.
NOTHING about CICO means ignore macros or nutrition. That seems to be something that you created as a strawman. It does mean there's no correct macro breakdown that's best for weight loss in general or that everyone needs to follow.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CynthiasChoice wrote: »Rewrite: In my own personal experience, it's easier for me to eat moderately when I'm eating foods that contain primarily protein and fat, and it's difficult for me to eat moderately when I'm eating foods that contain high glycemic load carbs and fat. I'm sure there are lots of people like me, and lots of people who don't share my experience. I have no desire for us all to be the same and I don't seek to convert anyone.
I think there are lots of people like you in this. I am (to some extent, I also find foods that include more fiber and whole food carbs like potatoes and sweet potatoes and legumes quite easy to eat moderately and some foods that are primarily fat, like cheese, harder to eat moderately). More significantly, since I don't eat just one kind of food, I also find it easy enough to eat moderately when I eat MOSTLY foods that have protein, fiber, and some fat (I find fat in a food doesn't make it more filling, but fat in my overall diet makes me more satisfied). If I also include, in smaller amounts, some foods that would be less filling on their own (like a little cheese or a little ice cream or some chocolate), that doesn't affect how filling my overall diet is. It might be different if I were trying to keep a huge deficit, of course.Point is, for those like me that tend to binge on things like nachos and donuts, following a low carb diet facilitates compliance with a calorie restricted diet.
Well, bingeing is really a separate thing from not finding food filling, and I think will differ from binger to binger, although for some bingers putting foods off-limits can be harmful.
To the extent you mean to be talking about foods being filling or not, and these foods not being filling, or simply avoiding these foods, AGAIN, following a low fat diet would have the same effect, or following simply a nutrition conscious diet, as you aren't going to be eating lots of nachos or donuts within a limited number of calories if focusing on getting nutrition. There's nothing special about low carbing here. (I low carb, but I eat nachos and donuts about as often as I did before low carbing, which is almost never. For me the calories from those foods aren't really worth it. If I loved them, I'd find a way to fit them in, of course.)Focusing only on CICO spelled disaster for me in the past because I hadn't yet discovered that it's not in my best interest to satisfy my cravings for carbs until I hit my calorie limit for the day.
Well, first, from what you said above, it's NOT carbs you were craving, but foods that are a mix of certain kinds of carbs and fat. I hate that people act as if all carbs are the same and the usual so called junk food is all "carbs" when it's as much fat.
Beyond that, this idea of "only focusing on CICO" meaning ignoring the effect of foods on you, satiety, nutrition is a strawman. I do CICO to lose, and also tend to low carb, because I prefer eating that way, and don't eat a lot of low nutritent foods because I find it easier when I do not. That doesn't mean CICO is wrong or doesn't work or isn't what I'm doing (or what people keto-ing are doing).
The main thing is that there ARE differences between people in what helps them keep a deficit or eat at maintenance when that's appropriate, so that's why CICO is the right answer -- each person then gets to figure out what works for them to eat the right amounts vs. thinking the solution for everyone is low carb or whatever.
NOTHING about CICO means ignore macros or nutrition. That seems to be something that you created as a strawman. It does mean there's no correct macro breakdown that's best for weight loss in general or that everyone needs to follow.
You have one of the most pragmatic takes on LC that I have heard in awhile, which I frankly find quite refreshing in the sea of nonsense that I typically hear from the Keto crowd here and elsewhere. Many of those folks tend to talk about everything but CICO, or else intentionally try to downplay or minimize it's fundamental importance. It's both laughable and pure pseudoscientific drivel most of the time, and yet I guess I understand. People generally feel the need to defend their choices as the correct one. Part of the human condition.
I am a 100% advocate for any diet plan that can consistently achieve a deficit in those who are overweight or obese. There is almost nothing these folks could possibly do that would have a larger long term impact on their overall health and lessen their chances for a plethora of preventable illnesses. The NIH and most other US and EU based health governing bodies have been increasingly clear on caloric restriction. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/pathways-underlying-benefits-calorie-restriction.
I guess the thrust of my argument is that I would not mind the Keto (or really any of the fad diet) crowd nearly as much if they did not constantly try to make outrageous and unproven claims and would simply state that it's what they find most personally helpful to them in maintaining a caloric deficit or limit.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CynthiasChoice wrote: »Rewrite: In my own personal experience, it's easier for me to eat moderately when I'm eating foods that contain primarily protein and fat, and it's difficult for me to eat moderately when I'm eating foods that contain high glycemic load carbs and fat. I'm sure there are lots of people like me, and lots of people who don't share my experience. I have no desire for us all to be the same and I don't seek to convert anyone.
I think there are lots of people like you in this. I am (to some extent, I also find foods that include more fiber and whole food carbs like potatoes and sweet potatoes and legumes quite easy to eat moderately and some foods that are primarily fat, like cheese, harder to eat moderately). More significantly, since I don't eat just one kind of food, I also find it easy enough to eat moderately when I eat MOSTLY foods that have protein, fiber, and some fat (I find fat in a food doesn't make it more filling, but fat in my overall diet makes me more satisfied). If I also include, in smaller amounts, some foods that would be less filling on their own (like a little cheese or a little ice cream or some chocolate), that doesn't affect how filling my overall diet is. It might be different if I were trying to keep a huge deficit, of course.Point is, for those like me that tend to binge on things like nachos and donuts, following a low carb diet facilitates compliance with a calorie restricted diet.
Well, bingeing is really a separate thing from not finding food filling, and I think will differ from binger to binger, although for some bingers putting foods off-limits can be harmful.
To the extent you mean to be talking about foods being filling or not, and these foods not being filling, or simply avoiding these foods, AGAIN, following a low fat diet would have the same effect, or following simply a nutrition conscious diet, as you aren't going to be eating lots of nachos or donuts within a limited number of calories if focusing on getting nutrition. There's nothing special about low carbing here. (I low carb, but I eat nachos and donuts about as often as I did before low carbing, which is almost never. For me the calories from those foods aren't really worth it. If I loved them, I'd find a way to fit them in, of course.)Focusing only on CICO spelled disaster for me in the past because I hadn't yet discovered that it's not in my best interest to satisfy my cravings for carbs until I hit my calorie limit for the day.
Well, first, from what you said above, it's NOT carbs you were craving, but foods that are a mix of certain kinds of carbs and fat. I hate that people act as if all carbs are the same and the usual so called junk food is all "carbs" when it's as much fat.
Beyond that, this idea of "only focusing on CICO" meaning ignoring the effect of foods on you, satiety, nutrition is a strawman. I do CICO to lose, and also tend to low carb, because I prefer eating that way, and don't eat a lot of low nutritent foods because I find it easier when I do not. That doesn't mean CICO is wrong or doesn't work or isn't what I'm doing (or what people keto-ing are doing).
The main thing is that there ARE differences between people in what helps them keep a deficit or eat at maintenance when that's appropriate, so that's why CICO is the right answer -- each person then gets to figure out what works for them to eat the right amounts vs. thinking the solution for everyone is low carb or whatever.
NOTHING about CICO means ignore macros or nutrition. That seems to be something that you created as a strawman. It does mean there's no correct macro breakdown that's best for weight loss in general or that everyone needs to follow.
I'm sitting here nodding my head. I attempted to address this earlier this morning but wanted to get out and run.
I had a problem the past year with controlling foods and being able to moderate and it was because of food choice and macro balance. It took me a very long time to figure that out.
I'm still controlling my food environment, but I no longer have the urge and impetus to grab my car keys and run to the grocery store (and yes, that has happened over the past year, and yes, I gave into that urge) to satisfy my cravings.
My ideal macro mix is a low fat, decent protein, high carb diet that contains plenty of starch. Potatoes and whole grains are my favorite sources. When I want something sweet, I have some fruit. I'm going to guess that fiber is playing some role in my satiety as well since I'm getting plenty, but then again, I got lots before and it wasn't doing the trick until I started piling on the starchy foods.
Of course, all of this macro balancing happens within the context of CICO, and I'm just sharing my experience to show that everyone is different.
I see so many people talk about how satiating fat is, but there are only a few of us who get satiated best by starch and protein. But trust me, we're out here!
And really, it's not just that it's satiating. It's completely eliminated my urge to overeat, overindulge, and be non-compliant. Considering that potatoes are one of my favorite foods, I'm quite happy about this.5 -
Absolutely care. We didn't do a lot of cardio at all. The majority of his exercise was strength. He didn't like to do cardio and only did it sparingly. He did get really strong though. He played football when he was younger as a lineman and at 6'3" he was about 240lbs at the time. As he aged, like most linemen he just wasn't physical anymore, but still ate the same. He developed Type II diabetes and went on insulin. With the weight loss, his endocrinologist lowered his dosage to just minimal amounts now. We didn't get rid of it, but vast improvement.VintageFeline wrote: »I can't post ALL of my clients obviously, but this is one who was featured in our local paper. And in the article, he states that all I did for him to lose weight was have him learn how to moderate food and get some form of exercise in. Got him from 355lbs down to 265lbs in a year and he's kept it off since then.
No need of "manipulating" hormones as mention by RAD_fitness. Again, CICO works just fine if applied correctly.
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
But do you really care about helping people be successful? Because sure he lost 90lbs but 90lbs of what? Were his hormones such that all that wasn't muscle?
I do what I do not because of the money. I made more money being a manager in several retail places. I do it because I like teaching people and helping them get to their best if they want. The gratitude you get from that when they succeed is what makes it worth making less than I could doing a job where profit is the only bottom line.
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 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I know I'm labouring the point but I asked what advice @RAD_Fitness would give my theoretical 300lb newb on page 1. Then twice again on page 3. If someone thinks they want to help people with better advice than the rest of us have because of factoring in hormones and nutrient partitioning then I want to know what that looks like in practice. What specific advice are you giving that morbidly obese individual who comes from a morbidly obese family with little knowledge of human physiology or what a well rounded diet looks like?
I'm interested to know. Because you are so vehement in your assertion we are all giving out terrible advice but I have yet to see you putting into practice by way of detailed answer how to implement the use of nutrient partitioning or exactly how we figure out what our hormones are doing and how to maximise their functioning to help weight loss.
Well, I'm getting exhausted watching you repeat yourself so I will add what I learned in another thread. Rad would suggest an obese person do 150 minutes of cardio, but should not lift weights since all obese people are too weak and out of shape for such things. Or that's how I read it anyways. I'm not too keen on his diet ideas either. Eating a SAD while counting calories and lifting as heavy as I can with good form has gotten me excellent results.2 -
jennybearlv wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I know I'm labouring the point but I asked what advice @RAD_Fitness would give my theoretical 300lb newb on page 1. Then twice again on page 3. If someone thinks they want to help people with better advice than the rest of us have because of factoring in hormones and nutrient partitioning then I want to know what that looks like in practice. What specific advice are you giving that morbidly obese individual who comes from a morbidly obese family with little knowledge of human physiology or what a well rounded diet looks like?
I'm interested to know. Because you are so vehement in your assertion we are all giving out terrible advice but I have yet to see you putting into practice by way of detailed answer how to implement the use of nutrient partitioning or exactly how we figure out what our hormones are doing and how to maximise their functioning to help weight loss.
Well, I'm getting exhausted watching you repeat yourself so I will add what I learned in another thread. Rad would suggest an obese person do 150 minutes of cardio, but should not lift weights since all obese people are too weak and out of shape for such things. Or that's how I read it anyways. I'm not too keen on his diet ideas either. Eating a SAD while counting calories and lifting as heavy as I can with good form has gotten me excellent results.
As a minor point, I have also requested some cited evidence from him on a previous thread for some highly spurious claims that immediately sent the red flags a flying and got no further response. Granted that if I had a dime for the number of time I have heard nonsense posted here on the forums I would be a billionaire by now, but I thought it was worth noting.
What I have managed to ascertain over time is that many supposed "gurus" within the fitness industry make a living, or at least draw attention to themselves, by pitching bogus "secrets" to those who are too green to understand that they have been trolled for all practical purposes. There are only so many ways you can tell people to cut calories to drop weight and increase calories and add protein to pack muscle. In order to keep people (and often consumers) engaged and coming back for more, they pretty much just make stuff up.4 -
Absolutely care. We didn't do a lot of cardio at all. The majority of his exercise was strength. He didn't like to do cardio and only did it sparingly. He did get really strong though. He played football when he was younger as a lineman and at 6'3" he was about 240lbs at the time. As he aged, like most linemen he just wasn't physical anymore, but still ate the same. He developed Type II diabetes and went on insulin. With the weight loss, his endocrinologist lowered his dosage to just minimal amounts now. We didn't get rid of it, but vast improvement.VintageFeline wrote: »I can't post ALL of my clients obviously, but this is one who was featured in our local paper. And in the article, he states that all I did for him to lose weight was have him learn how to moderate food and get some form of exercise in. Got him from 355lbs down to 265lbs in a year and he's kept it off since then.
No need of "manipulating" hormones as mention by RAD_fitness. Again, CICO works just fine if applied correctly.
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
But do you really care about helping people be successful? Because sure he lost 90lbs but 90lbs of what? Were his hormones such that all that wasn't muscle?
I do what I do not because of the money. I made more money being a manager in several retail places. I do it because I like teaching people and helping them get to their best if they want. The gratitude you get from that when they succeed is what makes it worth making less than I could doing a job where profit is the only bottom line.
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
I might have been being facetious. I should've added smilies.4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »
Absolutely care. We didn't do a lot of cardio at all. The majority of his exercise was strength. He didn't like to do cardio and only did it sparingly. He did get really strong though. He played football when he was younger as a lineman and at 6'3" he was about 240lbs at the time. As he aged, like most linemen he just wasn't physical anymore, but still ate the same. He developed Type II diabetes and went on insulin. With the weight loss, his endocrinologist lowered his dosage to just minimal amounts now. We didn't get rid of it, but vast improvement.VintageFeline wrote: »I can't post ALL of my clients obviously, but this is one who was featured in our local paper. And in the article, he states that all I did for him to lose weight was have him learn how to moderate food and get some form of exercise in. Got him from 355lbs down to 265lbs in a year and he's kept it off since then.
No need of "manipulating" hormones as mention by RAD_fitness. Again, CICO works just fine if applied correctly.
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
But do you really care about helping people be successful? Because sure he lost 90lbs but 90lbs of what? Were his hormones such that all that wasn't muscle?
I do what I do not because of the money. I made more money being a manager in several retail places. I do it because I like teaching people and helping them get to their best if they want. The gratitude you get from that when they succeed is what makes it worth making less than I could doing a job where profit is the only bottom line.
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
I might have been being facetious. I should've added smilies.
30 of them. 29 is unclear and 31 is condescending. :laugh:6 -
supaflyrobby1 wrote: »jennybearlv wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I know I'm labouring the point but I asked what advice @RAD_Fitness would give my theoretical 300lb newb on page 1. Then twice again on page 3. If someone thinks they want to help people with better advice than the rest of us have because of factoring in hormones and nutrient partitioning then I want to know what that looks like in practice. What specific advice are you giving that morbidly obese individual who comes from a morbidly obese family with little knowledge of human physiology or what a well rounded diet looks like?
I'm interested to know. Because you are so vehement in your assertion we are all giving out terrible advice but I have yet to see you putting into practice by way of detailed answer how to implement the use of nutrient partitioning or exactly how we figure out what our hormones are doing and how to maximise their functioning to help weight loss.
Well, I'm getting exhausted watching you repeat yourself so I will add what I learned in another thread. Rad would suggest an obese person do 150 minutes of cardio, but should not lift weights since all obese people are too weak and out of shape for such things. Or that's how I read it anyways. I'm not too keen on his diet ideas either. Eating a SAD while counting calories and lifting as heavy as I can with good form has gotten me excellent results.
As a minor point, I have also requested some cited evidence from him on a previous thread for some highly spurious claims that immediately sent the red flags a flying and got no further response.
Unfortunately, that is his M.O. He likes to start arguments he can't finish. Unfortunately, some less well read might heed his advice.2 -
supaflyrobby1 wrote: »jennybearlv wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I know I'm labouring the point but I asked what advice @RAD_Fitness would give my theoretical 300lb newb on page 1. Then twice again on page 3. If someone thinks they want to help people with better advice than the rest of us have because of factoring in hormones and nutrient partitioning then I want to know what that looks like in practice. What specific advice are you giving that morbidly obese individual who comes from a morbidly obese family with little knowledge of human physiology or what a well rounded diet looks like?
I'm interested to know. Because you are so vehement in your assertion we are all giving out terrible advice but I have yet to see you putting into practice by way of detailed answer how to implement the use of nutrient partitioning or exactly how we figure out what our hormones are doing and how to maximise their functioning to help weight loss.
Well, I'm getting exhausted watching you repeat yourself so I will add what I learned in another thread. Rad would suggest an obese person do 150 minutes of cardio, but should not lift weights since all obese people are too weak and out of shape for such things. Or that's how I read it anyways. I'm not too keen on his diet ideas either. Eating a SAD while counting calories and lifting as heavy as I can with good form has gotten me excellent results.
As a minor point, I have also requested some cited evidence from him on a previous thread for some highly spurious claims that immediately sent the red flags a flying and got no further response.
Unfortunately, that is his M.O. He likes to start arguments he can't finish. Unfortunately, some less well read might heed his advice.
I believe it's the "look it up if you want to know" approach. Which isn't really how it works.
And a lot of what is said appears to be lifted/parroted straight from an article, well, series of articles, by Lyle McDonald but without actually understanding how it's applied IRL.5 -
VintageFeline wrote: »supaflyrobby1 wrote: »jennybearlv wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I know I'm labouring the point but I asked what advice @RAD_Fitness would give my theoretical 300lb newb on page 1. Then twice again on page 3. If someone thinks they want to help people with better advice than the rest of us have because of factoring in hormones and nutrient partitioning then I want to know what that looks like in practice. What specific advice are you giving that morbidly obese individual who comes from a morbidly obese family with little knowledge of human physiology or what a well rounded diet looks like?
I'm interested to know. Because you are so vehement in your assertion we are all giving out terrible advice but I have yet to see you putting into practice by way of detailed answer how to implement the use of nutrient partitioning or exactly how we figure out what our hormones are doing and how to maximise their functioning to help weight loss.
Well, I'm getting exhausted watching you repeat yourself so I will add what I learned in another thread. Rad would suggest an obese person do 150 minutes of cardio, but should not lift weights since all obese people are too weak and out of shape for such things. Or that's how I read it anyways. I'm not too keen on his diet ideas either. Eating a SAD while counting calories and lifting as heavy as I can with good form has gotten me excellent results.
As a minor point, I have also requested some cited evidence from him on a previous thread for some highly spurious claims that immediately sent the red flags a flying and got no further response.
Unfortunately, that is his M.O. He likes to start arguments he can't finish. Unfortunately, some less well read might heed his advice.
I believe it's the "look it up if you want to know" approach. Which isn't really how it works.
And a lot of what is said appears to be lifted/parroted straight from an article, well, series of articles, by Lyle McDonald but without actually understanding how it's applied IRL.
I think he states a bunch of stuff he believes without the rationale to back it up. He does seem to recommend Kyle's Rapid Fat Loss protocol without saying that and with a shallow understanding of what it really is.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »supaflyrobby1 wrote: »jennybearlv wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I know I'm labouring the point but I asked what advice @RAD_Fitness would give my theoretical 300lb newb on page 1. Then twice again on page 3. If someone thinks they want to help people with better advice than the rest of us have because of factoring in hormones and nutrient partitioning then I want to know what that looks like in practice. What specific advice are you giving that morbidly obese individual who comes from a morbidly obese family with little knowledge of human physiology or what a well rounded diet looks like?
I'm interested to know. Because you are so vehement in your assertion we are all giving out terrible advice but I have yet to see you putting into practice by way of detailed answer how to implement the use of nutrient partitioning or exactly how we figure out what our hormones are doing and how to maximise their functioning to help weight loss.
Well, I'm getting exhausted watching you repeat yourself so I will add what I learned in another thread. Rad would suggest an obese person do 150 minutes of cardio, but should not lift weights since all obese people are too weak and out of shape for such things. Or that's how I read it anyways. I'm not too keen on his diet ideas either. Eating a SAD while counting calories and lifting as heavy as I can with good form has gotten me excellent results.
As a minor point, I have also requested some cited evidence from him on a previous thread for some highly spurious claims that immediately sent the red flags a flying and got no further response.
Unfortunately, that is his M.O. He likes to start arguments he can't finish. Unfortunately, some less well read might heed his advice.
I believe it's the "look it up if you want to know" approach. Which isn't really how it works.
And a lot of what is said appears to be lifted/parroted straight from an article, well, series of articles, by Lyle McDonald but without actually understanding how it's applied IRL.
I think he states a bunch of stuff he believes without the rationale to back it up. He does seem to recommend Kyle's Rapid Fat Loss protocol without saying that and with a shallow understanding of what it really is.
I think it's more UD2.0 to be honest, that seems to be where it's more practically applied by Lyle. RFL is a whole other ballgame (and one I've given a go a couple of times) but both protocols are very prescribed and not for, or of interest, to the average person.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »supaflyrobby1 wrote: »jennybearlv wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I know I'm labouring the point but I asked what advice @RAD_Fitness would give my theoretical 300lb newb on page 1. Then twice again on page 3. If someone thinks they want to help people with better advice than the rest of us have because of factoring in hormones and nutrient partitioning then I want to know what that looks like in practice. What specific advice are you giving that morbidly obese individual who comes from a morbidly obese family with little knowledge of human physiology or what a well rounded diet looks like?
I'm interested to know. Because you are so vehement in your assertion we are all giving out terrible advice but I have yet to see you putting into practice by way of detailed answer how to implement the use of nutrient partitioning or exactly how we figure out what our hormones are doing and how to maximise their functioning to help weight loss.
Well, I'm getting exhausted watching you repeat yourself so I will add what I learned in another thread. Rad would suggest an obese person do 150 minutes of cardio, but should not lift weights since all obese people are too weak and out of shape for such things. Or that's how I read it anyways. I'm not too keen on his diet ideas either. Eating a SAD while counting calories and lifting as heavy as I can with good form has gotten me excellent results.
As a minor point, I have also requested some cited evidence from him on a previous thread for some highly spurious claims that immediately sent the red flags a flying and got no further response.
Unfortunately, that is his M.O. He likes to start arguments he can't finish. Unfortunately, some less well read might heed his advice.
I believe it's the "look it up if you want to know" approach. Which isn't really how it works.
And a lot of what is said appears to be lifted/parroted straight from an article, well, series of articles, by Lyle McDonald but without actually understanding how it's applied IRL.
I think he states a bunch of stuff he believes without the rationale to back it up. He does seem to recommend Kyle's Rapid Fat Loss protocol without saying that and with a shallow understanding of what it really is.
I think it's more UD2.0 to be honest, that seems to be where it's more practically applied by Lyle. RFL is a whole other ballgame (and one I've given a go a couple of times) but both protocols are very prescribed and not for, or of interest, to the average person.
Exactly!2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CynthiasChoice wrote: »Rewrite: In my own personal experience, it's easier for me to eat moderately when I'm eating foods that contain primarily protein and fat, and it's difficult for me to eat moderately when I'm eating foods that contain high glycemic load carbs and fat. I'm sure there are lots of people like me, and lots of people who don't share my experience. I have no desire for us all to be the same and I don't seek to convert anyone.
I think there are lots of people like you in this. I am (to some extent, I also find foods that include more fiber and whole food carbs like potatoes and sweet potatoes and legumes quite easy to eat moderately and some foods that are primarily fat, like cheese, harder to eat moderately). More significantly, since I don't eat just one kind of food, I also find it easy enough to eat moderately when I eat MOSTLY foods that have protein, fiber, and some fat (I find fat in a food doesn't make it more filling, but fat in my overall diet makes me more satisfied). If I also include, in smaller amounts, some foods that would be less filling on their own (like a little cheese or a little ice cream or some chocolate), that doesn't affect how filling my overall diet is. It might be different if I were trying to keep a huge deficit, of course.Point is, for those like me that tend to binge on things like nachos and donuts, following a low carb diet facilitates compliance with a calorie restricted diet.
Well, bingeing is really a separate thing from not finding food filling, and I think will differ from binger to binger, although for some bingers putting foods off-limits can be harmful.
To the extent you mean to be talking about foods being filling or not, and these foods not being filling, or simply avoiding these foods, AGAIN, following a low fat diet would have the same effect, or following simply a nutrition conscious diet, as you aren't going to be eating lots of nachos or donuts within a limited number of calories if focusing on getting nutrition. There's nothing special about low carbing here. (I low carb, but I eat nachos and donuts about as often as I did before low carbing, which is almost never. For me the calories from those foods aren't really worth it. If I loved them, I'd find a way to fit them in, of course.)Focusing only on CICO spelled disaster for me in the past because I hadn't yet discovered that it's not in my best interest to satisfy my cravings for carbs until I hit my calorie limit for the day.
Well, first, from what you said above, it's NOT carbs you were craving, but foods that are a mix of certain kinds of carbs and fat. I hate that people act as if all carbs are the same and the usual so called junk food is all "carbs" when it's as much fat.
Beyond that, this idea of "only focusing on CICO" meaning ignoring the effect of foods on you, satiety, nutrition is a strawman. I do CICO to lose, and also tend to low carb, because I prefer eating that way, and don't eat a lot of low nutritent foods because I find it easier when I do not. That doesn't mean CICO is wrong or doesn't work or isn't what I'm doing (or what people keto-ing are doing).
The main thing is that there ARE differences between people in what helps them keep a deficit or eat at maintenance when that's appropriate, so that's why CICO is the right answer -- each person then gets to figure out what works for them to eat the right amounts vs. thinking the solution for everyone is low carb or whatever.
NOTHING about CICO means ignore macros or nutrition. That seems to be something that you created as a strawman. It does mean there's no correct macro breakdown that's best for weight loss in general or that everyone needs to follow.
I spoke only of my own experience. No strawman accusation necessary here. I simply explained what didn't work for me: focusing only on CICO and not macro balance. It was a mistake born of stubbornness and lack of experience on my part to ignore macro balance and focus exclusively on how many calories I was consuming. I enjoyed my carb heavy diet and was unwilling to add more protein. I had to be pushed very hard into increasing protein and decreasing carbs, and once I did that I learned something very valuable for myself that was life changing and life saving. This lesson was for me, not for the world. I didn't say it was for the world.
3 -
Is it saying that CICO = believers in starvation mode?
I couldn't help but cringe when he said something about Biggest Loser studies and made a Justin Bieber quote.
That totally correlates. Must be the cause.We’ve recommended cutting calories for weight loss for the last 40 years. During that time, we’ve had a huge obesity epidemic.
0 -
Lol, noted. At least people now know I really care.VintageFeline wrote: »
Absolutely care. We didn't do a lot of cardio at all. The majority of his exercise was strength. He didn't like to do cardio and only did it sparingly. He did get really strong though. He played football when he was younger as a lineman and at 6'3" he was about 240lbs at the time. As he aged, like most linemen he just wasn't physical anymore, but still ate the same. He developed Type II diabetes and went on insulin. With the weight loss, his endocrinologist lowered his dosage to just minimal amounts now. We didn't get rid of it, but vast improvement.VintageFeline wrote: »I can't post ALL of my clients obviously, but this is one who was featured in our local paper. And in the article, he states that all I did for him to lose weight was have him learn how to moderate food and get some form of exercise in. Got him from 355lbs down to 265lbs in a year and he's kept it off since then.
No need of "manipulating" hormones as mention by RAD_fitness. Again, CICO works just fine if applied correctly.
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
But do you really care about helping people be successful? Because sure he lost 90lbs but 90lbs of what? Were his hormones such that all that wasn't muscle?
I do what I do not because of the money. I made more money being a manager in several retail places. I do it because I like teaching people and helping them get to their best if they want. The gratitude you get from that when they succeed is what makes it worth making less than I could doing a job where profit is the only bottom line.
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
I might have been being facetious. I should've added smilies.
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 -
Hmm, I lost weight following CICO when one specific hormone was, as the Dr put it "if I saw this report without meeting you or knowing your age I would have said it's from someone who's in their 80's".
And I didn't gain scads of LBM after being put on therapy. It wasn't until I started lifting weights again that I saw an increase in LBM.
Biggest increase I saw was in energy levels. I actually felt like doing something as opposed to just flopping on the couch or not willing to go anywhere or do anything.0
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
- 422 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions