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.
Why do people deny CICO ?
Replies
-
@jofjltncb6 You want a dumpster fire? Go check out the "It's my body..." thread.1
-
OK, fake woman aside. I eat anywhere between 2000-3000 calories/day. I also run anywhere from 4 - 7 miles/day and walk a bit. I am 59 years old, have been here for a few years and have been on maintenance for over 2 years. My weight stays constant. Height has nothing to do with anything. CICO
Okay I thought of one thing. Height is going to be some indication of skeletal mass. Picture a person who is 5' tall and 180 pounds versus someone who is 6' tall and 180. Of course the 5' tall person is going to be a lot fatter or a lot more muscular looking but they might actually have the same amount of muscle or fat pound for pound as the taller person. What the taller person definitely has though is a larger and therefore heavier skeleton right? So because of that the 5' persons fat + muscle has to be greater than the tall persons fat plus muscle because the short person skeleton/water is less heavy than the tall persons and yet they weigh the same. A heavier skeleton likely takes more muscle to move so I would think, statistically speaking, the taller person with the larger skeleton would need more muscle mass than the shorter person and therefore the tall person would tend to have a much much lower bodyfat percentage than the short and have more muscle which is related to CO. That said that would be just how a distribution would skew, you could find examples of 5' tall body builders with 5% bodyfat who would certainly have more CO than a 6' tall person of the same weight who is just average. It would be sort of like BMI in that way, an assumption based on a statistical distribution that if you are taller at the same weight you likely have more muscle and therefore you likely require slightly more calories.
All of the above is guesswork, I didn't read that anywhere and I don't know that it is true...just spitballing.4 -
Well, taller people generally have longer limbs. As such, whenever they move (lift their limbs, get out of bed, rise from sitting, etc.), they're likely moving their bodyweight (parts of it) higher, which would require slightly more energy.
Of course, that's just looking at it from a pure physics POV. There may be other things, such as more work in transporting nutrients/energy to extremities?2 -
Per Steve Reeves
Presumes a male somewhere around 8% - 10% body fat
"Ideal muscular body weight for male by height"
5'5" 160lbs
5'6" 165lbs
5'7" 170lbs
5'8" 175lbs
5'9" 180lbs
5'10" 185lbs
5'11" 190lbs
6'0" 200lbs
6'1" 210lbs
6'2" 220lbs
6'3" 230lbs
6'4" 240lbs
6'5" 250lbs
Measurements:
Arm size = 252% of Wrist size
Calf size = 192% of Ankle size
Neck Size = 79% of Head size
Chest Size = 148% of Pelvis size
Waist size = 86% of Pelvis size
Thigh size = 175% of Knee size
The numbers for the "Grecian Ideal" (based on the Golden Ratio), as well as John McCallum's numbers are all close / similar.
Being too far from these numbers is considered to be not symmetrical and out of proportion.
But in my experience, the Resting Heart Rate has a greater impact on TDEE than 5 or 10 pounds of extra body fat.
I haven't seen any calculators that take RHR into account.
Of course there is a big difference between 5 pounds of extra fat vs 50 pounds of extra fat, so YMMV.
https://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson207.htm
0 -
Well, taller people generally have longer limbs. As such, whenever they move (lift their limbs, get out of bed, rise from sitting, etc.), they're likely moving their bodyweight (parts of it) higher, which would require slightly more energy.
Of course, that's just looking at it from a pure physics POV. There may be other things, such as more work in transporting nutrients/energy to extremities?
Well if we want to get into that the taller person's head experiences slightly less downward force from the atmosphere due to there being several inches less atmosphere above them than a shorter person. Therefore if a tall person weighs exactly the same as a shorter person (weight includes that downward force from the atmosphere) then that would mean that the taller person actually has slightly more mass. And by slightly more I probably mean like micrograms.
Also their head would experience less downforce due to gravity because it is slightly further from the center of mass of the earth...so gotta account for that.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »OK, fake woman aside. I eat anywhere between 2000-3000 calories/day. I also run anywhere from 4 - 7 miles/day and walk a bit. I am 59 years old, have been here for a few years and have been on maintenance for over 2 years. My weight stays constant. Height has nothing to do with anything. CICO
Interesting point about height...I don't see why it in and of itself should influence CO other than through its correlation to weight. Weight matters and the amount of muscle you have matters but yeah I don't know that the distance from the ground the top of your head matters. Maybe there is something I'm not thinking of though.
Height matters because a 6'0 person who is 200 is going to have a lot more muscle mass on average than a 5'3 person who is 200 lb. The calculators estimate what your muscle mass is from other factors (like weight, height, age, sex). The calculator (Katch-McArdle) that uses body fat percentage only asks weight, and in theory if you knew body fat percentage that would be all you'd need. (Also, activity level/exercise to take it to TDEE, of course.)
So yeah, height on its own doesn't matter, but it being a good way (with weight) to estimate muscle mass does matter.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »OK, fake woman aside. I eat anywhere between 2000-3000 calories/day. I also run anywhere from 4 - 7 miles/day and walk a bit. I am 59 years old, have been here for a few years and have been on maintenance for over 2 years. My weight stays constant. Height has nothing to do with anything. CICO
Interesting point about height...I don't see why it in and of itself should influence CO other than through its correlation to weight. Weight matters and the amount of muscle you have matters but yeah I don't know that the distance from the ground the top of your head matters. Maybe there is something I'm not thinking of though.
Height matters because a 6'0 person who is 200 is going to have a lot more muscle mass on average than a 5'3 person who is 200 lb. The calculators estimate what your muscle mass is from other factors (like weight, height, age, sex). The calculator (Katch-McArdle) that uses body fat percentage only asks weight, and in theory if you knew body fat percentage that would be all you'd need. (Also, activity level/exercise to take it to TDEE, of course.)
So yeah, height on its own doesn't matter, but it being a good way (with weight) to estimate muscle mass does matter.
I don't think that is a guaranteed thing at all. A 5'3 person who is 200 lb could be obese or they could be a completely jacked body builder. A 6' tall person who is 200 lb could be average or they could be low muscle and overweight.0 -
Whatever it is I assume height is being used with some sort of population average to make assumptions about muscle content. Sort of like Height to weight gives you BMI which makes assumptions about your percent bodyfat based on population averages. I think people understand that, the question for me is more esoteric...does height itself matter at all for CO or is it just a corollary for something else like muscle content?2
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I don't think that is a guaranteed thing at all. A 5'3 person who is 200 lb could be obese or they could be a completely jacked body builder. A 6' tall person who is 200 lb could be average or they could be low muscle and overweight.
A 5'3" guy "jacked" at 200 lbs seems to be impossible without large amounts of steroids, HGH and the like.
150 lbs is around "perfect" muscular weight for that frame and presumes literally world-class genetics at ~9% body fat.
Your example implies he managed to add 50 lbs of additional muscle beyond that; enough to fit the frame of a 6 foot tall "natural" body builder, i.e. someone 7 inches taller than him.
200 lbs of natural, lean muscle at 6 foot is nearly perfect, presuming symmetry, balanced muscle mass and ~9% body fat; way beyond "average".
It is about as "jacked" as a natural body builder can get at that height. Again, we are talking in terms of world-class genetics and training.
One might be able to cut a percent or two off the body fat, but in doing so they will not be able to naturally sustain the muscle mass and training intensity to build new muscle forever.
Diminishing returns kicks in without supraphysiologic doses of drugs.
People often have distorted ideas of how big some guys are (or should be) due to a number of factors.
Things like steroid abuse, fake / exaggerated "measurements" and inaccurate accounts / ideas of body fat levels are among some of the main reasons.
Those people also have probably never seen a real, properly measured 18.5" arm up close in their life and if they did there is a better than 50% chance that the person who owns the arm used|uses chemical assistance to get|keep it.
Your point is completely valid -that is why I warn the people I coach against using terms like BMI in my presence- but the math falls apart in your particular examples.3 -
I think when you tell people you lost weight by calorie counting and eating less calories than you burn, (CICO), their response is usually “well of course you lost weight, you were starving yourself!” And “once you go back to eating normal, you’ll just gain it all back!” So then people (my past self included lol), believe that oh no, I don’t want to lower my metabolism by eating at a deficit, so I must do some other fad diet to lose the weight...and then they try every crazy fad diet out there, fail, start over on some other fad, fail...over the course of a few years & gain weight cause they can’t stick to it & are denying CICO.4
-
I think when you tell people you lost weight by calorie counting and eating less calories than you burn, (CICO), their response is usually “well of course you lost weight, you were starving yourself!” And “once you go back to eating normal, you’ll just gain it all back!” So then people (my past self included lol), believe that oh no, I don’t want to lower my metabolism by eating at a deficit, so I must do some other fad diet to lose the weight...and then they try every crazy fad diet out there, fail, start over on some other fad, fail...over the course of a few years & gain weight cause they can’t stick to it & are denying CICO.
I think it's safe to say that eating in a way that makes/made you fat is not "normal". Eat less does not, IMO mean eat a little. To me it means eat less then you did to become fat. After the weight is lost the dieter needs to find an appropriate, "normal" amount of food to maintain.6 -
I think when you tell people you lost weight by calorie counting and eating less calories than you burn, (CICO), their response is usually “well of course you lost weight, you were starving yourself!” And “once you go back to eating normal, you’ll just gain it all back!” So then people (my past self included lol), believe that oh no, I don’t want to lower my metabolism by eating at a deficit, so I must do some other fad diet to lose the weight...and then they try every crazy fad diet out there, fail, start over on some other fad, fail...over the course of a few years & gain weight cause they can’t stick to it & are denying CICO.
I think it's safe to say that eating in a way that makes/made you fat is not "normal". Eat less does not, IMO mean eat a little. To me it means eat less then you did to become fat. After the weight is lost the dieter needs to find an appropriate, "normal" amount of food to maintain.
Agree :-)0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »OK, fake woman aside. I eat anywhere between 2000-3000 calories/day. I also run anywhere from 4 - 7 miles/day and walk a bit. I am 59 years old, have been here for a few years and have been on maintenance for over 2 years. My weight stays constant. Height has nothing to do with anything. CICO
Interesting point about height...I don't see why it in and of itself should influence CO other than through its correlation to weight. Weight matters and the amount of muscle you have matters but yeah I don't know that the distance from the ground the top of your head matters. Maybe there is something I'm not thinking of though.
Height matters because a 6'0 person who is 200 is going to have a lot more muscle mass on average than a 5'3 person who is 200 lb. The calculators estimate what your muscle mass is from other factors (like weight, height, age, sex). The calculator (Katch-McArdle) that uses body fat percentage only asks weight, and in theory if you knew body fat percentage that would be all you'd need. (Also, activity level/exercise to take it to TDEE, of course.)
So yeah, height on its own doesn't matter, but it being a good way (with weight) to estimate muscle mass does matter.
I don't think that is a guaranteed thing at all. A 5'3 person who is 200 lb could be obese or they could be a completely jacked body builder. A 6' tall person who is 200 lb could be average or they could be low muscle and overweight.
Right, that's why I said "on average," not "guaranteed." But it's a reasonable assumption barring outliers and why the calculators that do not use a body fat percentage take age, sex, and height into account, while the one that does have a body fat percentage does not. Age, sex, and height help estimate muscle mass.
On average, a 6'2 woman is more likely to have a 2500 TDEE than a 5'2 woman. Not guaranteed, I can think of contrary examples, but it's hardly wrong to say that the height is relevant (which is what the original discussion was about).1 -
fitoverfortymom wrote: »Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »CICO is problematic to many because:
1) There is no marketable product associated with it. Who is going to make money if you switch to CICO? You don’t need a commercial product to make it work, and if you can’t sell it, no one is going to push it.
This is pretty funny because Under Armor owns MFP and they don't even sell a kitchen scale.
Why would Under Armor sell a kitchen scale?
DYE4.Profit!?4 -
@jofjltncb6 You want a dumpster fire? Go check out the "It's my body..." thread.
Don't make me work for it! Give me that link!3 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »@jofjltncb6 You want a dumpster fire? Go check out the "It's my body..." thread.
Don't make me work for it! Give me that link!
Two doors down, same category(debate)2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I don't think that is a guaranteed thing at all. A 5'3 person who is 200 lb could be obese or they could be a completely jacked body builder. A 6' tall person who is 200 lb could be average or they could be low muscle and overweight.
A 5'3" guy "jacked" at 200 lbs seems to be impossible without large amounts of steroids, HGH and the like.
150 lbs is around "perfect" muscular weight for that frame and presumes literally world-class genetics at ~9% body fat.
Your example implies he managed to add 50 lbs of additional muscle beyond that; enough to fit the frame of a 6 foot tall "natural" body builder, i.e. someone 7 inches taller than him.
200 lbs of natural, lean muscle at 6 foot is nearly perfect, presuming symmetry, balanced muscle mass and ~9% body fat; way beyond "average".
It is about as "jacked" as a natural body builder can get at that height. Again, we are talking in terms of world-class genetics and training.
One might be able to cut a percent or two off the body fat, but in doing so they will not be able to naturally sustain the muscle mass and training intensity to build new muscle forever.
Diminishing returns kicks in without supraphysiologic doses of drugs.
People often have distorted ideas of how big some guys are (or should be) due to a number of factors.
Things like steroid abuse, fake / exaggerated "measurements" and inaccurate accounts / ideas of body fat levels are among some of the main reasons.
Those people also have probably never seen a real, properly measured 18.5" arm up close in their life and if they did there is a better than 50% chance that the person who owns the arm used|uses chemical assistance to get|keep it.
Your point is completely valid -that is why I warn the people I coach against using terms like BMI in my presence- but the math falls apart in your particular examples.
Yeah I just picked two numbers without thinking much about them as I figured whether or not the particular weight or height combo I picked was possible or not wasn't really relevant to my point. Than you for the added detail and clarification.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I'm going to stick to the original topic. People are simultaneously too good and too bad at spotting patterns - they can see patterns where there are none and they can fail to see patterns if the connections aren't tangibly direct or generalizable. You can see it in all kinds of diet claims that try to tie weight to a more tangible part.
"My weight has been increasing lately. I have been eating more fast food, therefore, fast food causes weight gain". That's a straight easier to spot connection than "my overall calories have increased".
"I ate pasta and woke up heavier" translates into "pasta made me gain weight". It doesn't translate into "pasta is high in carbs and likely sodium and my weight fluctuated accordingly".
Calories are such an abstract concept. They're not directly and consistently observable. The same volume of different foods can have vastly different calories. The direct observation that many "healthy foods are not generally fattening" misses a whole lot of healthy foods that are higher in calories. The direct observation that many "processed foods are generally fattening" can cause a person to fixate on the processing, not on the actual reason these foods can be fattening.
Same can be said for activity. People tend to notice the trend of purposeful activity and forget about all kinds of activity that aren't purposeful. They also tend to fail to connect their activity to their overall in and out.
People being poor at estimating intake and activity ties directly into this flawed pattern recognition: they just see a pattern of "I'm exercising and eating healthy but not losing weight, it must be my metabolism".
I know this was 3+weeks and 35 pages ago, but I just wanted to bump this comment in case it has been overlooked and forgotten during that time.
And if it hasn't and this is redundant, then so be it. It's worth repeating.
Also, someone said this earlier:Which is why people are usually advised to apply a reasonable deficit for 4 to 6 weeks and then adjust based on their own results as reflected by their trending weight changes and their logging.
Which is what I preach to those who are new or struggling. It isn't so much important that they arrive at the "correct" number of calories consumed or burned, but that they are consistent. Inevitably, adjustments will need to be made, which is simple enough to do to consistent data (and impossible to do to inconsistent data). If they're off 25% in their numbers but have adjusted their daily targets accordingly based on their rate of progress, then their progress will continue even though their absolute numbers are "wrong".
(Okay, now back to reading. I should be caught up by sometime next Wednesday.)12 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »OK, fake woman aside. I eat anywhere between 2000-3000 calories/day. I also run anywhere from 4 - 7 miles/day and walk a bit. I am 59 years old, have been here for a few years and have been on maintenance for over 2 years. My weight stays constant. Height has nothing to do with anything. CICO
Interesting point about height...I don't see why it in and of itself should influence CO other than through its correlation to weight. Weight matters and the amount of muscle you have matters but yeah I don't know that the distance from the ground the top of your head matters. Maybe there is something I'm not thinking of though.
I just recently read, I think someone linked it in one of the discussions here actually, a breakdown of how the body utilizes energy and the main usage is by the major organs of course; and they said height is the main predictor of RMR because the taller a person is, the larger their organs and the more energy they will use. Don't know if that's scientific fact or not..3 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
Dammit!
I actually made a note to myself to make a thread where I posted the advice that so many claim is so frequently given so I can provide a link to it to help them out.
Eat whatever you want! Nutrition be damned! 2000 daily calories in table sugar for the rest of your life is just fine!7 -
So many people just don't grasp the concept of calories in calories out. They tell me that not all calories are equal and that you have to eat healthy to lose weight. I used to argue with these people but lately I just smile and nod. It's worked for me.. I eat basically anything I want and have lost 5 kg. I feel so many more people would be successful at weight loss if they just grasped this simple scientific concept. I'm hoping to reach my ultimate weight and then write a blog list about how I did it and prove all the CICO deniers wrong
I agree it has to do with CICO, but for me, it's also about which nutrients my bod needs, so I work my macros in. You like the way you eat, it works for you. I totally "grasp" what you do, it's just not for me.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Eating processed foods, carbs and sugar really do make me feel like garbage. I don't think I am alone in this. It is WAY easier to eat vegetables, eggs, lean meat and water only if you are going for a steep cut (2lbs+ per week). With a clean diet I can go to bed full on 1700 calories easy (1200 cal deficit). I can't imagine getting through a day after having a 400+ calorie sugary snack. I would wake up the next day with a sugar hangover unable to move. Whatever keeps you sane though.
Calories in-- calories out means everything though. I maintain and gain weight on the same foods, just more volume (and a lot of added butter!)
Vegetables have carbohydrates.
Also, fruit is one of the foods highest in carbs by percentage, and yet few people claim to feel like garbage because they eat fruit. So yeah, I do think that's kind of unusual, although there are others who claim carbs in general make them feel bad.
Of course, most of the healthiest human diets (the blue zones) are reasonably high carb.
and high in fiber.
What does this have to do with you claiming that carbohydrates make you feel like garbage?
The main difference between eating bread and broccoli is the fiber. It is a lot about glucose spikes. It has also been shown that diets absent of fiber create breeding grounds for an unhealthy micro-biome. A lot of it comes down to inflammation.
Surely someone suggests in the yet unread 28 pages having a spoon of metamucil with their delicious bread to comply with his dietary rules, right? Surely. Otherwise, MFP, you're dead to me.4 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
Dammit!
I actually made a note to myself to make a thread where I posted the advice that so many claim is so frequently given so I can provide a link to it to help them out.
Eat whatever you want! Nutrition be damned! 2000 daily calories in table sugar for the rest of your life is just fine!
Can't agree more, LOL!!
7 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Eating processed foods, carbs and sugar really do make me feel like garbage. I don't think I am alone in this. It is WAY easier to eat vegetables, eggs, lean meat and water only if you are going for a steep cut (2lbs+ per week). With a clean diet I can go to bed full on 1700 calories easy (1200 cal deficit). I can't imagine getting through a day after having a 400+ calorie sugary snack. I would wake up the next day with a sugar hangover unable to move. Whatever keeps you sane though.
Calories in-- calories out means everything though. I maintain and gain weight on the same foods, just more volume (and a lot of added butter!)
Vegetables have carbohydrates.
Also, fruit is one of the foods highest in carbs by percentage, and yet few people claim to feel like garbage because they eat fruit. So yeah, I do think that's kind of unusual, although there are others who claim carbs in general make them feel bad.
Of course, most of the healthiest human diets (the blue zones) are reasonably high carb.
and high in fiber.
What does this have to do with you claiming that carbohydrates make you feel like garbage?
The main difference between eating bread and broccoli is the fiber. It is a lot about glucose spikes. It has also been shown that diets absent of fiber create breeding grounds for an unhealthy micro-biome. A lot of it comes down to inflammation.
Surely someone suggests in the yet unread 28 pages having a spoon of metamucil with their delicious bread to comply with his dietary rules, right? Surely. Otherwise, MFP, you're dead to me.
I love this, it's like you're playing the Top 10 hits for us. I'm over here going, oh yeah! I remember that one! Those were the days, when this thread was young and wild
13 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Eating processed foods, carbs and sugar really do make me feel like garbage. I don't think I am alone in this. It is WAY easier to eat vegetables, eggs, lean meat and water only if you are going for a steep cut (2lbs+ per week). With a clean diet I can go to bed full on 1700 calories easy (1200 cal deficit). I can't imagine getting through a day after having a 400+ calorie sugary snack. I would wake up the next day with a sugar hangover unable to move. Whatever keeps you sane though.
Calories in-- calories out means everything though. I maintain and gain weight on the same foods, just more volume (and a lot of added butter!)
Vegetables have carbohydrates.
Also, fruit is one of the foods highest in carbs by percentage, and yet few people claim to feel like garbage because they eat fruit. So yeah, I do think that's kind of unusual, although there are others who claim carbs in general make them feel bad.
Of course, most of the healthiest human diets (the blue zones) are reasonably high carb.
and high in fiber.
What does this have to do with you claiming that carbohydrates make you feel like garbage?
The main difference between eating bread and broccoli is the fiber. It is a lot about glucose spikes. It has also been shown that diets absent of fiber create breeding grounds for an unhealthy micro-biome. A lot of it comes down to inflammation.
Surely someone suggests in the yet unread 28 pages having a spoon of metamucil with their delicious bread to comply with his dietary rules, right? Surely. Otherwise, MFP, you're dead to me.
I love this, it's like you're playing the Top 10 hits for us. I'm over here going, oh yeah! I remember that one! Those were the days, when this thread was young and wild
It's actually causing me physical pain not to bump more of them. (I'm MFP-infamous for doing that on these kinds of threads.)
But that was then. This is now. This is the new and improved me. I'm trying to do better. I'm trying to be better.
But it's not easy.
Especially since this is day 4 (of scheduled 50ish days) of my Annual Summer Unfattening Adventure...and I'm hungry. So hungry. Fortunately, I'm starting from around 14% BF this time, so it won't be as long as has been necessary years ago. But still...hungry. So hungry.
But enough about me. Back to catching up. I need to knock out a few more pages before my commute.11 -
2
-
Well, taller people generally have longer limbs. As such, whenever they move (lift their limbs, get out of bed, rise from sitting, etc.), they're likely moving their bodyweight (parts of it) higher, which would require slightly more energy.
Of course, that's just looking at it from a pure physics POV. There may be other things, such as more work in transporting nutrients/energy to extremities?
What you talkin bout??
1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »TicoCortez wrote: »
Dom is funny and obviously satirical but most of the guys and gals I know that are in fantastic shape follow strict "bro diets" (chicken breast and broccoli) and "bro splits" (low frequency/ high volume training).
correlation =/= casuation
I agree that a lot of it is correlation. Still, me thinks that healthy food (high fiber, high protein, low sugar) = more energy = harder training and better recovery.
And for people who have no interest in "harder training" and following bro diets and bro splits to achieve "fantastic shape"? What do you recommend for them? Still need to avoid eating whatever your definition of processed food/junk food is?
I recommend trying eating a diet full of whole foods for a month and pay attention to how it affects your cognition and energy levels. If you think eating pasta if worth it still then go for it.
Have any objective evidence supporting superiority of this practice?WinoGelato wrote: »TicoCortez wrote: »
Dom is funny and obviously satirical but most of the guys and gals I know that are in fantastic shape follow strict "bro diets" (chicken breast and broccoli) and "bro splits" (low frequency/ high volume training).
correlation =/= casuation
I agree that a lot of it is correlation. Still, me thinks that healthy food (high fiber, high protein, low sugar) = more energy = harder training and better recovery.
And for people who have no interest in "harder training" and following bro diets and bro splits to achieve "fantastic shape"? What do you recommend for them? Still need to avoid eating whatever your definition of processed food/junk food is?
I recommend trying eating a diet full of whole foods for a month and pay attention to how it affects your cognition and energy levels. If you think eating pasta if worth it still then go for it.
Have any objective evidence supporting superiority of this practice?
Try google. Keywords: inflammation, gut micro-biome, cognition, sugar/ glucose.
Surprise, surprise. Guy won't even cite his sources.
"What, you don't believe me? To the google machine with you!"
Would you really read a 20 page research paper?
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
**wheeze**
LOLOLOLOLOL9 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »cheyennecall91 wrote: »I know a girl that lost a significant amount of weight. She literally looks like a totally different person and all while doing so, she ate anywhere from 2,000-3,000 calories a day. Mind you, this was following a ketogenic diet.
How tall is she?
I can lose on 2000 calories per day. So if I kept the 3000 calorie days to a minimum, it's totally do-able. Keto or no.
7'2"
0 -
The main difference between eating bread and broccoli is the fiber. It is a lot about glucose spikes. It has also been shown that diets absent of fiber create breeding grounds for an unhealthy micro-biome. A lot of it comes down to inflammation.
In the context of a varied diet this point is moot..
5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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