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.
What commonly given MFP Forum advice do you personally disagree with?
Replies
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »I disagree with some of the advice I see a lot regarding preventing loose/saggy skin. Lots of people seem to chime in saying slow weight loss can help with this. While I don't disagree that slow weight loss is preferable and healthier, I don't really think it can help prevent loose skin. Losing slowly does give the skin more time to adapt, so may look a little better during weight loss, but the end result will likely be the same regardless of how slowly you go.
Genetics and age are the biggest factors and how fast you gained the weight or how long you were overweight probably plays a much bigger part than how fast or slow you lose the weight. Gaining the weight is what stretched the skin so the "damage" is already done before you start losing.
This is not to discourage others from slow healthy weight loss, but I do think it's setting people up for possible disappointment... on other forums I see a lot of "I lost the weight slowly and still have all this loose skin"
I see you got "woo"ed for this. Hopefully not a negative woo as I suspect you may be correct. It would be nice to see some backup for either position though. Not sure if there are studies on this or not.
There probably aren't many studies for this as hopefully researchers wouldn't put subjects on an unsafe rate of loss just for comparing their skin to others after the study is over. Also, interviewing people after weight loss and comparing results would be relying on people to accurately recount their rate of loss and that would be a big limitation.
I did find this article that mentioned length of time overweight and amount of weight lost as factors but did not mention rate of loss as a factor
http://www.healthline.com/nutrition/loose-skin-after-weight-loss#section2
That was just an article and not a peer reviewed study but it did site this study that analyzed skin samples of people taken during operations they were having anyway. It was basically comparing skin of people with no history of massive weight loss having contouring surgery, morbidly obese people undergoing bariatric surgery, and patients with history of massive weight loss who were having cosmetic contouring.
It found that the massive weight loss group had elastic fiber loss as well as did most of the patients who were still morbidly obese and undergoing bariatric surgery.
Here is the URL for that skin sample study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311578/
Also, I'm not sure if that is the correct way to link an article, so if it's not, maybe someone can post something telling me how to do that from an iPhone?
1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »I disagree with some of the advice I see a lot regarding preventing loose/saggy skin. Lots of people seem to chime in saying slow weight loss can help with this. While I don't disagree that slow weight loss is preferable and healthier, I don't really think it can help prevent loose skin. Losing slowly does give the skin more time to adapt, so may look a little better during weight loss, but the end result will likely be the same regardless of how slowly you go.
Genetics and age are the biggest factors and how fast you gained the weight or how long you were overweight probably plays a much bigger part than how fast or slow you lose the weight. Gaining the weight is what stretched the skin so the "damage" is already done before you start losing.
This is not to discourage others from slow healthy weight loss, but I do think it's setting people up for possible disappointment... on other forums I see a lot of "I lost the weight slowly and still have all this loose skin"
I see you got "woo"ed for this. Hopefully not a negative woo as I suspect you may be correct. It would be nice to see some backup for either position though. Not sure if there are studies on this or not.
There probably aren't many studies for this as hopefully researchers wouldn't put subjects on an unsafe rate of loss just for comparing their skin to others after the study is over. Also, interviewing people after weight loss and comparing results would be relying on people to accurately recount their rate of loss and that would be a big limitation.
I did find this article that mentioned length of time overweight and amount of weight lost as factors but did not mention rate of loss as a factor
http:www.healthline.com/nutrition/loose-skin-after-weight-loss#section2
That was just an article and not a peer reviewed study but it did site this study that analyzed skin samples of people taken during operations they were having anyway. It was basically comparing skin of people with no history of massive weight loss having contouring surgery, morbidly obese people undergoing bariatric surgery, and patients with history of massive weight loss who were having cosmetic contouring.
It found that the massive weight loss group had elastic fiber loss as well as did most of the patients who were still morbidly obese and undergoing bariatric surgery.
Here is the URL for that skin sample study.
https:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pic/articles/PMC4311578/
Also, I'm not sure if that is the correct way to link an article, so if it's not, maybe someone can post something telling me how to do that from an iPhone?
I think this is the one you're looking for:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311578/
The link you posted was a bit wonky
I find this topic interesting and tend to agree with you, but based on nothing beyond my own experience and opinion, which is far from scientifically valid, so I'm back to lurking in this thread now! 2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »I disagree with some of the advice I see a lot regarding preventing loose/saggy skin. Lots of people seem to chime in saying slow weight loss can help with this. While I don't disagree that slow weight loss is preferable and healthier, I don't really think it can help prevent loose skin. Losing slowly does give the skin more time to adapt, so may look a little better during weight loss, but the end result will likely be the same regardless of how slowly you go.
Genetics and age are the biggest factors and how fast you gained the weight or how long you were overweight probably plays a much bigger part than how fast or slow you lose the weight. Gaining the weight is what stretched the skin so the "damage" is already done before you start losing.
This is not to discourage others from slow healthy weight loss, but I do think it's setting people up for possible disappointment... on other forums I see a lot of "I lost the weight slowly and still have all this loose skin"
I see you got "woo"ed for this. Hopefully not a negative woo as I suspect you may be correct. It would be nice to see some backup for either position though. Not sure if there are studies on this or not.
There probably aren't many studies for this as hopefully researchers wouldn't put subjects on an unsafe rate of loss just for comparing their skin to others after the study is over. Also, interviewing people after weight loss and comparing results would be relying on people to accurately recount their rate of loss and that would be a big limitation.
I did find this article that mentioned length of time overweight and amount of weight lost as factors but did not mention rate of loss as a factor
http:www.healthline.com/nutrition/loose-skin-after-weight-loss#section2
That was just an article and not a peer reviewed study but it did site this study that analyzed skin samples of people taken during operations they were having anyway. It was basically comparing skin of people with no history of massive weight loss having contouring surgery, morbidly obese people undergoing bariatric surgery, and patients with history of massive weight loss who were having cosmetic contouring.
It found that the massive weight loss group had elastic fiber loss as well as did most of the patients who were still morbidly obese and undergoing bariatric surgery.
Here is the URL for that skin sample study.
https:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pic/articles/PMC4311578/
Also, I'm not sure if that is the correct way to link an article, so if it's not, maybe someone can post something telling me how to do that from an iPhone?
I think this is the one you're looking for:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311578/
The link you posted was a bit wonky I find this topic interesting and tend to agree with you, but based on nothing beyond my own experience and opinion, which is far from scientifically valid, so I'm back to lurking in this thread now!
That's the one! Thanks. I see when I posted the links, I left out some dashes. I just edited that post to add them in, so hopefully my links will work now for anyone who happens to want to click on them?
1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »I disagree with some of the advice I see a lot regarding preventing loose/saggy skin. Lots of people seem to chime in saying slow weight loss can help with this. While I don't disagree that slow weight loss is preferable and healthier, I don't really think it can help prevent loose skin. Losing slowly does give the skin more time to adapt, so may look a little better during weight loss, but the end result will likely be the same regardless of how slowly you go.
Genetics and age are the biggest factors and how fast you gained the weight or how long you were overweight probably plays a much bigger part than how fast or slow you lose the weight. Gaining the weight is what stretched the skin so the "damage" is already done before you start losing.
This is not to discourage others from slow healthy weight loss, but I do think it's setting people up for possible disappointment... on other forums I see a lot of "I lost the weight slowly and still have all this loose skin"
I see you got "woo"ed for this. Hopefully not a negative woo as I suspect you may be correct. It would be nice to see some backup for either position though. Not sure if there are studies on this or not.
There probably aren't many studies for this as hopefully researchers wouldn't put subjects on an unsafe rate of loss just for comparing their skin to others after the study is over. Also, interviewing people after weight loss and comparing results would be relying on people to accurately recount their rate of loss and that would be a big limitation.
I did find this article that mentioned length of time overweight and amount of weight lost as factors but did not mention rate of loss as a factor
http://www.healthline.com/nutrition/loose-skin-after-weight-loss#section2
That was just an article and not a peer reviewed study but it did site this study that analyzed skin samples of people taken during operations they were having anyway. It was basically comparing skin of people with no history of massive weight loss having contouring surgery, morbidly obese people undergoing bariatric surgery, and patients with history of massive weight loss who were having cosmetic contouring.
It found that the massive weight loss group had elastic fiber loss as well as did most of the patients who were still morbidly obese and undergoing bariatric surgery.
Here is the URL for that skin sample study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311578/
Also, I'm not sure if that is the correct way to link an article, so if it's not, maybe someone can post something telling me how to do that from an iPhone?
Interesting!
I'm down 125 lbs, lost about 2 lbs/ wk for most of that weight loss, and have a bunch of skin on my lower belly and some on my thighs but otherwise okay. So it's a subject of interest to me.
It seems to me, thinking about it logically, that the most rapid weight loss most people ever have is a woman having a baby. Women go within a couple of months from a giant stretched belly to an ordinary sized one. And yet, the majority of women who give birth don't have lasting issues with loose skin. Maybe a little loose skin, but not huge issues, for most women. So it seems unlikely to me that rapidness of losing weight is a major factor in loose skin.4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »I disagree with some of the advice I see a lot regarding preventing loose/saggy skin. Lots of people seem to chime in saying slow weight loss can help with this. While I don't disagree that slow weight loss is preferable and healthier, I don't really think it can help prevent loose skin. Losing slowly does give the skin more time to adapt, so may look a little better during weight loss, but the end result will likely be the same regardless of how slowly you go.
Genetics and age are the biggest factors and how fast you gained the weight or how long you were overweight probably plays a much bigger part than how fast or slow you lose the weight. Gaining the weight is what stretched the skin so the "damage" is already done before you start losing.
This is not to discourage others from slow healthy weight loss, but I do think it's setting people up for possible disappointment... on other forums I see a lot of "I lost the weight slowly and still have all this loose skin"
I see you got "woo"ed for this. Hopefully not a negative woo as I suspect you may be correct. It would be nice to see some backup for either position though. Not sure if there are studies on this or not.
There probably aren't many studies for this as hopefully researchers wouldn't put subjects on an unsafe rate of loss just for comparing their skin to others after the study is over. Also, interviewing people after weight loss and comparing results would be relying on people to accurately recount their rate of loss and that would be a big limitation.
I did find this article that mentioned length of time overweight and amount of weight lost as factors but did not mention rate of loss as a factor
http://www.healthline.com/nutrition/loose-skin-after-weight-loss#section2
That was just an article and not a peer reviewed study but it did site this study that analyzed skin samples of people taken during operations they were having anyway. It was basically comparing skin of people with no history of massive weight loss having contouring surgery, morbidly obese people undergoing bariatric surgery, and patients with history of massive weight loss who were having cosmetic contouring.
It found that the massive weight loss group had elastic fiber loss as well as did most of the patients who were still morbidly obese and undergoing bariatric surgery.
Here is the URL for that skin sample study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311578/
Also, I'm not sure if that is the correct way to link an article, so if it's not, maybe someone can post something telling me how to do that from an iPhone?
Interesting!
I'm down 125 lbs, lost about 2 lbs/ wk for most of that weight loss, and have a bunch of skin on my lower belly and some on my thighs but otherwise okay. So it's a subject of interest to me.
It seems to me, thinking about it logically, that the most rapid weight loss most people ever have is a woman having a baby. Women go within a couple of months from a giant stretched belly to an ordinary sized one. And yet, the majority of women who give birth don't have lasting issues with loose skin. Maybe a little loose skin, but not huge issues, for most women. So it seems unlikely to me that rapidness of losing weight is a major factor in loose skin.
The stretching here is localized and relatively temporary (although rapid when compared to normal weight gain). Most women do have at least a small pouch of loose skin remaining even after returning to normal weight and fitness levels, and quite a few have much more (the so-called mommy apron).
Personal experience: I saw my first stretch marks ridiculously early (like, 17 or 18 weeks) and wound up with many, plus the associated loose skin. I did not get stretch marks in puberty, so this surprised (and dismayed) me, but what can you do? I weigh 15 pounds less now than at the beginning of my first pregnancy and am at least an equivalent fitness level, but my stomach is much looser and less flat.6 -
i'm a little late to the party but my biggest frustration is the lack of context when the advice is given. Most of the time someone found success with something so they assume that advice should be given to everyone.
"Hi, I'm 150 lbs overweight, I smoke, haven't exercised in years and I have a bad back."
"Ok, Put in your TDEE here, lift weights 4 times a week with squats, run 20 miles, etc."
The one requirement is a calorie deficit, everything else is negotiable and tailorable to the person when it comes to fat loss.8 -
_aenyeweddien_ wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »A calorie is a calorie is a calorie... Bull that's perpetually spouted but in my many years of experience totally false.
...yet it's still a scientifically proven fact. Assuming that you're speaking strictly in terms of weight loss, that is.
In that case why do I loose much more/faster on macro with lower carbs comparing to the same amount of kcal with higher carbs?
But WHAT are you losing?
For every gram of glycogen you use, you use 3-4 grams of water. So sure, if I go on a ketogenic diet, I can lose big weight.
Doesn't mean I'm losing fat. If 75% of what I've lost is water, that doesn't really help.
I'm not saying one cannot lose on a keto diet. The question is always, WHAT are you losing?4 -
I disagree with some of the advice I see a lot regarding preventing loose/saggy skin. Lots of people seem to chime in saying slow weight loss can help with this. While I don't disagree that slow weight loss is preferable and healthier, I don't really think it can help prevent loose skin. Losing slowly does give the skin more time to adapt, so may look a little better during weight loss, but the end result will likely be the same regardless of how slowly you go.
Genetics and age are the biggest factors and how fast you gained the weight or how long you were overweight probably plays a much bigger part than how fast or slow you lose the weight. Gaining the weight is what stretched the skin so the "damage" is already done before you start losing.
This is not to discourage others from slow healthy weight loss, but I do think it's setting people up for possible disappointment... on other forums I see a lot of "I lost the weight slowly and still have all this loose skin"
Well, here's my n=1 with age as the confounder for fast "weight" loss.
Pregnancy!
I had my first baby at 33. She was large, 8 lbs, 4 oz. My stomach shrank right back into place just fine. No loose skin.
I had my second baby at 40. He was large, 9 lbs, 4 oz. My stomach was a sad sack afterwards and I still have the loose skin from it.6 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »I disagree with some of the advice I see a lot regarding preventing loose/saggy skin. Lots of people seem to chime in saying slow weight loss can help with this. While I don't disagree that slow weight loss is preferable and healthier, I don't really think it can help prevent loose skin. Losing slowly does give the skin more time to adapt, so may look a little better during weight loss, but the end result will likely be the same regardless of how slowly you go.
Genetics and age are the biggest factors and how fast you gained the weight or how long you were overweight probably plays a much bigger part than how fast or slow you lose the weight. Gaining the weight is what stretched the skin so the "damage" is already done before you start losing.
This is not to discourage others from slow healthy weight loss, but I do think it's setting people up for possible disappointment... on other forums I see a lot of "I lost the weight slowly and still have all this loose skin"
I see you got "woo"ed for this. Hopefully not a negative woo as I suspect you may be correct. It would be nice to see some backup for either position though. Not sure if there are studies on this or not.
There probably aren't many studies for this as hopefully researchers wouldn't put subjects on an unsafe rate of loss just for comparing their skin to others after the study is over. Also, interviewing people after weight loss and comparing results would be relying on people to accurately recount their rate of loss and that would be a big limitation.
I did find this article that mentioned length of time overweight and amount of weight lost as factors but did not mention rate of loss as a factor
http://www.healthline.com/nutrition/loose-skin-after-weight-loss#section2
That was just an article and not a peer reviewed study but it did site this study that analyzed skin samples of people taken during operations they were having anyway. It was basically comparing skin of people with no history of massive weight loss having contouring surgery, morbidly obese people undergoing bariatric surgery, and patients with history of massive weight loss who were having cosmetic contouring.
It found that the massive weight loss group had elastic fiber loss as well as did most of the patients who were still morbidly obese and undergoing bariatric surgery.
Here is the URL for that skin sample study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311578/
Also, I'm not sure if that is the correct way to link an article, so if it's not, maybe someone can post something telling me how to do that from an iPhone?
Interesting!
I'm down 125 lbs, lost about 2 lbs/ wk for most of that weight loss, and have a bunch of skin on my lower belly and some on my thighs but otherwise okay. So it's a subject of interest to me.
It seems to me, thinking about it logically, that the most rapid weight loss most people ever have is a woman having a baby. Women go within a couple of months from a giant stretched belly to an ordinary sized one. And yet, the majority of women who give birth don't have lasting issues with loose skin. Maybe a little loose skin, but not huge issues, for most women. So it seems unlikely to me that rapidness of losing weight is a major factor in loose skin.
Ah, you beat me to the pregnancy issue.
Age was definitely a factor in loose skin for me with my second pregnancy.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »I disagree with some of the advice I see a lot regarding preventing loose/saggy skin. Lots of people seem to chime in saying slow weight loss can help with this. While I don't disagree that slow weight loss is preferable and healthier, I don't really think it can help prevent loose skin. Losing slowly does give the skin more time to adapt, so may look a little better during weight loss, but the end result will likely be the same regardless of how slowly you go.
Genetics and age are the biggest factors and how fast you gained the weight or how long you were overweight probably plays a much bigger part than how fast or slow you lose the weight. Gaining the weight is what stretched the skin so the "damage" is already done before you start losing.
This is not to discourage others from slow healthy weight loss, but I do think it's setting people up for possible disappointment... on other forums I see a lot of "I lost the weight slowly and still have all this loose skin"
I see you got "woo"ed for this. Hopefully not a negative woo as I suspect you may be correct. It would be nice to see some backup for either position though. Not sure if there are studies on this or not.
There probably aren't many studies for this as hopefully researchers wouldn't put subjects on an unsafe rate of loss just for comparing their skin to others after the study is over. Also, interviewing people after weight loss and comparing results would be relying on people to accurately recount their rate of loss and that would be a big limitation.
I did find this article that mentioned length of time overweight and amount of weight lost as factors but did not mention rate of loss as a factor
http://www.healthline.com/nutrition/loose-skin-after-weight-loss#section2
That was just an article and not a peer reviewed study but it did site this study that analyzed skin samples of people taken during operations they were having anyway. It was basically comparing skin of people with no history of massive weight loss having contouring surgery, morbidly obese people undergoing bariatric surgery, and patients with history of massive weight loss who were having cosmetic contouring.
It found that the massive weight loss group had elastic fiber loss as well as did most of the patients who were still morbidly obese and undergoing bariatric surgery.
Here is the URL for that skin sample study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311578/
Also, I'm not sure if that is the correct way to link an article, so if it's not, maybe someone can post something telling me how to do that from an iPhone?
That was a very interesting link. Thank you for posting it. Tempts one to hypothesize there might be a fueling/nutritional dimension, I think.2 -
Early in this thread (p1), a couple people referred to reading the "stickies". What does that mean?1
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Posters saying to not be concerned about intake of added sugars even though the WHO, USDA, American Heart Association etc all say their intake should be limited.
It might be that's because we are on a weight loss/gain site not a diabetes prevention one. And a lot of question will be phrased like "can I eat this ans still lose weight ?". If someone is obese, I think them losing weight is more critical than how much sugar they eat in order of priority.
But yeah I agree with you, and it should always be contextual to the question asked.
Actually the USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines on sugar don't really call out diabetes prevention and don't say these recommendations aren't just for those overweight/obese.
Is losing weigh important of course. These organization's recommendations based on the research say that consuming fewer added sugars is a big bang for the buck way to get there for the general population.
USDA
What’s the Problem with Added Sugars?
Eating and drinking too many foods and beverages with added sugars makes
it difficult to achieve a healthy eating pattern without taking in too many
calories. Added sugars contribute calories, but no essential nutrients.
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf
WHO
The recommendations are based on analysis of the latest scientific evidence. This evidence shows, first, that adults who consume less sugars have lower body weight and, second, that increasing the amount of sugars in the diet is associated with a weight increase.
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2015/sugar-guideline/en/
The best researchers in the world on this topic are in agreement that added sugars should be significantly reduced from current levels of consumption. Not really sure who else you want to be listening to on this topic.
Exactly. Both orgs recommend limiting added sugars because they tend to cause people to eat too many calories. If you are already controlling your calories on MFP, you probably don't have to worry about watching your sugar intake. And if you are watching your macros and making sure you're getting enough protein and fat, it would be incredibly difficult to do that and still end up with too much added sugar.
Once someone has their calories, protein, fat, and fiber down, if they want to play with another variable, go for it and watch your "added sugar". But I'd bet that if they have everything else down, their added sugar isn't even close to being a problem.
Your response is exactly what my original disagreement was. The USDA/WHO/AHA guidelines say people should limit added sugar not "people except those that track on MFP and think they are doing okay should limit added sugar".
You mention watching macros, the carbs number on MFP doesn't tell one if their carb intake is made up of nutrient dense carbs or soda
That's not what I was saying. The guidelines were put out there as a good way of reducing calories/weight. My point is that it's 6 of 1, half dozen of the other.
If person A focuses on avoiding added sugar and ignores calories, they will probably end up reducing their calorie intake without realizing it (though there is no guarantee).
If person B focuses on reducing calorie consumption and ignores sugar, they will probably end up with a healthy level of added sugar without realizing it (though there is no guarantee).
Maybe I give people too much credit, but if person B is drinking a good amount of soda and limiting their calories overall, they will end up hungry and either figure it out for themselves or come here asking about it. We see posts all the time from people who drink too much soda and are looking for tips on how to stop. And we give them tips - diet soda, black coffee, carry a water bottle, ween yourself down, etc. They want to stop due to the calories, but the net effect will be less sugar.
And I can imagine it's possible to eat a low added sugar diet and still not eat a nutritionally complete diet, I'm thinking of keto/low carb dieters who happen to eat a lot of convenience "low carb" foods rather than whole foods. Sugar level is not inherently proportional to nutrition density.
There is no confirmed "health" benefit to reducing added sugar (according to these major health organizations) beyond controlling calorie intake/weight. So if you are already controlling your calorie intake and weight, there is nothing in these guidelines (at least as far as I'm seeing) to suggest focusing on added sugar is necessary.
ETA: To be clear, I'm not saying (and I don't think anyone here is really saying) that a diet loaded with added sugar is healthy. We're saying that any attempt to get your calories in line will naturally over time lead to a healthy level of added sugar.
Expanding on my disagreement/unpopular opinion.
I just find it odd that the "regulars" pooh-pooh the guidelines of these organizations regarding added sugar, but virtually high five posts from a guy that posts pictures of the obscene quantities of high calorie nutrient poor food he is supposedly consuming and still keeping in shape (may be *kitten* up his health long term but that's between him and his doctor). Seems to blow the moderation thing out of the water.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it#latest
If it's really the guy's picture and he is really eating all that he's a snowflake and not representative of the real world due to his activity level. Where are the people on that thread saying this isn't realistic for 99%+ of us?
People get excited about this modeling but talk down recommendations from the best scientists in the world.
SMH.
Even if his activity level is higher than most, it doesn't disprove any of what his point actually is in that post. He is still eating in moderation because he is not going over his TDEE. That number is going to be different for each individual and he basically proves that as long as you stick to your numbers calorically, you can achieve desired results. The OP in that post meticulously documents everything, and that includes following up with blood test results and posting progress pictures. I personally believe him sharing his n=1 and documenting it in the way he did is far more valuable to users on this site than you continuously spouting different organizations recommended guidelines, or attempting to shame parents for promoting obesity because they bought their children a battery controlled car. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the OP in that post will suffer health issues long-term, and your claims seem to come from a place of ignorance, and to be honest, jealousy. At least he has the guts to share his photos. Where are yours?16 -
bobsburgersfan wrote: »Early in this thread (p1), a couple people referred to reading the "stickies". What does that mean?
The posts that are "stuck" at the top of each forum. Basically, they're answers and tips for FAQ.3 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »bobsburgersfan wrote: »Early in this thread (p1), a couple people referred to reading the "stickies". What does that mean?
The posts that are "stuck" at the top of each forum. Basically, they're answers and tips for FAQ.
To add: Look under the "Most Helpful Posts" link in each forum. Gold in those posts!0 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »bobsburgersfan wrote: »Early in this thread (p1), a couple people referred to reading the "stickies". What does that mean?
The posts that are "stuck" at the top of each forum. Basically, they're answers and tips for FAQ.
Gotcha. Thanks!1 -
[/quote]
Expanding on my disagreement/unpopular opinion.
I just find it odd that the "regulars" pooh-pooh the guidelines of these organizations regarding added sugar, but virtually high five posts from a guy that posts pictures of the obscene quantities of high calorie nutrient poor food he is supposedly consuming and still keeping in shape (may be *kitten* up his health long term but that's between him and his doctor). Seems to blow the moderation thing out of the water.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it#latest
If it's really the guy's picture and he is really eating all that he's a snowflake and not representative of the real world due to his activity level. Where are the people on that thread saying this isn't realistic for 99%+ of us?
People get excited about this modeling but talk down recommendations from the best scientists in the world.
SMH.
[/quote]
So you don't really need to SYH I think you're over thinking/complicating/debating this.
First he said in his very first post that it was an experiment and..."Before I get accused of promoting bad nutrition, I simply did this as an extreme test because I didn't fully believe that you could eat anything and still lose fat. I tried most other fad diets and never wanted to get on board with counting calories. I did this to prove it could work to myself and for others to witness."
Secondly, a lot of people are misinformed about dieting and think they have to restrict things and then end up binging or falling off their diet. Perhaps you don't binge and you are able to completly restrict foods and I think that's great and admirable, but that's not sustainable for everyone.
Simply telling them to eat like they normally do but stay within the calorie requirements helps people to see that they can find a sustainable diet. Time, time and time again in the sucess stories and followup comments posters will say that they eventually learned to eat more satiating and nutritious foods. It's almost a given that when actively watching and loging what you eat that one will try to find ways to stick to that calorie restriction and figure out how to make their new calorie restriction sustainable. Some can moderate others can't, we are all different in terms of environment/lifesyle/support/mental makeup.
I think you are taking one off posts and not taking in the follow up posts or thread as a whole or in context when you point out that posters are not encouraging nutrition or are ignoring recommendations.
Finally I'd ask this question...would you rather someone who is obese lose weight however they eat or continue to stay obese and eat nutritiously? Because it seems to me that obesity alone is a determent to overall health and linked to all kinds of issues.
At any rate best!13 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Expanding on my disagreement/unpopular opinion.
I just find it odd that the "regulars" pooh-pooh the guidelines of these organizations regarding added sugar, but virtually high five posts from a guy that posts pictures of the obscene quantities of high calorie nutrient poor food he is supposedly consuming and still keeping in shape (may be *kitten* up his health long term but that's between him and his doctor). Seems to blow the moderation thing out of the water.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it#latest
If it's really the guy's picture and he is really eating all that he's a snowflake and not representative of the real world due to his activity level. Where are the people on that thread saying this isn't realistic for 99%+ of us?
People get excited about this modeling but talk down recommendations from the best scientists in the world.
SMH.
Most diets fail. They fail for all kinds of reasons but they fail. Trying to find the easiest path for someone new to get started and stick with it has to be the priority. When you start tacking on extra rules and regulations for the right way to lose weight you are making it harder and thus more likely to fail. I believe that everyone here, myself included, that has told someone to eat the way they naturally do just less assumes that with logging and time they will make changes as they are needed.
Good nutrition is important but if the diet fails do you think most of these people are going to be eating any better than they were before the diet began? On the other hand if they start making some progress without a lot of additional hardships I think they will be more willing to accept small changes over time that gives them both weight loss and better nutrition.
18 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Expanding on my disagreement/unpopular opinion.
I just find it odd that the "regulars" pooh-pooh the guidelines of these organizations regarding added sugar, but virtually high five posts from a guy that posts pictures of the obscene quantities of high calorie nutrient poor food he is supposedly consuming and still keeping in shape (may be *kitten* up his health long term but that's between him and his doctor). Seems to blow the moderation thing out of the water.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it#latest
If it's really the guy's picture and he is really eating all that he's a snowflake and not representative of the real world due to his activity level. Where are the people on that thread saying this isn't realistic for 99%+ of us?
People get excited about this modeling but talk down recommendations from the best scientists in the world.
SMH.
Most diets fail. They fail for all kinds of reasons but they fail. Trying to find the easiest path for someone new to get started and stick with it has to be the priority. When you start tacking on extra rules and regulations for the right way to lose weight you are making it harder and thus more likely to fail. I believe that everyone here, myself included, that has told someone to eat the way they naturally do just less assumes that with logging and time they will make changes as they are needed.
Good nutrition is important but if the diet fails do you think most of these people are going to be eating any better than they were before the diet began? On the other hand if they start making some progress without a lot of additional hardships I think they will be more willing to accept small changes over time that gives them both weight loss and better nutrition.
I'd also add that IIRC, Dvdgzz logged elsewhere and shared some diary info for a time, and his overall macro profile, and even micro intake, weren't all that terrible (not canonically perfect for sure, but not terrible). He's very active, has a high TDEE, has a lot of calories to work with, and can make some really goofy-looking food choices and still be on reasonably solid ground nutritionally. Which is kind of the point, I think.12 -
Back on the original topic, a piece of commonly given advice I tend to disagree with is the dispensation of SS and/or SL5x5 as the bestest strength training program for everybody all the time.11
-
Back on the original topic, a piece of commonly given advice I tend to disagree with is the dispensation of SS and/or SL5x5 as the bestest strength training program for everybody all the time.
Do you think they are good programs for those starting out? Because that's how I usually see it suggested.3 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Back on the original topic, a piece of commonly given advice I tend to disagree with is the dispensation of SS and/or SL5x5 as the bestest strength training program for everybody all the time.
Do you think they are good programs for those starting out? Because that's how I usually see it suggested.
Personally, No. Unless your goals are strength / athletically oriented.
"I want to build a nice chest with big arms!"
"Go squat three times a week."5 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Back on the original topic, a piece of commonly given advice I tend to disagree with is the dispensation of SS and/or SL5x5 as the bestest strength training program for everybody all the time.
Do you think they are good programs for those starting out? Because that's how I usually see it suggested.
Maybe. Sometimes. It depends upon their goals, limitations and desires.
I think there are a lot of solid, well-written programs for those starting out. I'm not saying that SS/SL5x5 aren't good programs, I just don't always agree with the blanket recommendation for them.6 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Back on the original topic, a piece of commonly given advice I tend to disagree with is the dispensation of SS and/or SL5x5 as the bestest strength training program for everybody all the time.
Do you think they are good programs for those starting out? Because that's how I usually see it suggested.
Maybe. Sometimes. It depends upon their goals, limitations and desires.
I think there are a lot of solid, well-written programs for those starting out. I'm not saying that SS/SL5x5 aren't good programs, I just don't always agree with the blanket recommendation for them.
I'll confess to doing this. I promote this because I used it. I see so many beginners overwhelmed and think they have to live in a gym, where this basic program can be implemented with minimal time investment.
Good point in stressing other programs and tailoring advice.3 -
That brings up an interesting point. I am a moderator, but that doesn't give me leave to feel morally superior to someone who is an abstainer. Alternately, my daily chocolate habit doesn't mean I'm weaker than someone who hasn't had a chocolate bar since Doc Martens were cool.
Wait... are you saying my Doc Martens aren't cool anymore?!?1 -
That brings up an interesting point. I am a moderator, but that doesn't give me leave to feel morally superior to someone who is an abstainer. Alternately, my daily chocolate habit doesn't mean I'm weaker than someone who hasn't had a chocolate bar since Doc Martens were cool.
Wait... are you saying my Doc Martens aren't cool anymore?!?
I think bulky shoes are coming back into style. I knew if I waited long enough they would. So are boot-cut jeans (hallelujah!) I'm almost almost old enough to be cool again.6 -
That brings up an interesting point. I am a moderator, but that doesn't give me leave to feel morally superior to someone who is an abstainer. Alternately, my daily chocolate habit doesn't mean I'm weaker than someone who hasn't had a chocolate bar since Doc Martens were cool.
Wait... are you saying my Doc Martens aren't cool anymore?!?
I think bulky shoes are coming back into style. I knew if I waited long enough they would. So are boot-cut jeans (hallelujah!) I'm almost almost old enough to be cool again.
I feel the same way about flannel and beards, although have an instinct to shave and wear pastels or risk being part of a trend.5 -
This content has been removed.
-
That there is a universal “best” for everyone.
A “best” exercise.
A “best” diet etc.
All the diets out there only moderate the number of calories that you eat. Different people will respond to different diet plans and the best for them will be the one that allows them to feel full and satisfied with the foods that they eat and not have strong cravings. For some people that will be the one big meal a day plan, or perhaps intermittent fasting, for others that will be 6 or more small meals spaced over the day. Some people respond to low carb others to low fats.
What works for a person is their personal best and there will be a different best for a different best for a different person.
Exercise is similar, some people say all cardio or one best cardio, others say strength and one best exercise. You should balance cardio, strength, flexibility training, mix up the different exercises run, walk, swim, bike, jump rope are all cardio and you should have several of them in your workout scheme. The one “best” exercise is not as popular as the one “best” diet but is generally pushed more by people selling the equipment for their “best” workout.
The best diet and exercise plan is one that you will follow, others may not be able for many reasons to follow the same plan but will have a different personal best plan.,
3 -
modusoperandi1412 wrote: »DawnOfTheDead_Lift wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Back on the original topic, a piece of commonly given advice I tend to disagree with is the dispensation of SS and/or SL5x5 as the bestest strength training program for everybody all the time.
Do you think they are good programs for those starting out? Because that's how I usually see it suggested.
Personally, No. Unless your goals are strength / athletically oriented.
"I want to build a nice chest with big arms!"
"Go squat three times a week."
You should still do your legs if you want a big chest and arms unless you want that Johnny Bravo look.
And hey, you do 1.5 times bench press per week on those programs. I've seen some progress photos of someone who followed SS to the word and it looked pretty balanced and good despite the 3 times per week squatting.
I'm not saying it's bad and I'm not saying you shouldn't do legs. I more think its overrated for the general population.
A common thread I've seen is wanting to bring up lagging body parts in the upper body.
And I suppose the program just annoys me from all of the GOMAD nonsense and the fact that the program rose to prominence in the online fitness community during the whole "systemic hypertrophy" craze and "squats cause crazy releases of HGH and will build muscle all around". Most of that has been tossed out but the routine has remained as some sort of pillar.
I find Rippertoe rather insufferable so maybe I'm biased. The form and technique is top notch though.6 -
You have to find what works for you. Everyone is different. For me it was working out with weights, getting cardio in, and most importantly nutrition. For my body type as an endomorph it ended up being carbs. Cutting down slowly in phases and getting used to it worked for me. In conjunction with that it was also keeping a check on fat and keeping my protein levels where i needed it. This all took a while to learn my body's responses to each method and macros. I am now implementing intermittent fasting on top of it as I am fascinated with ketosis but do not prefer strict keto diets or nutrition. Also it is not a diet but a lifestyle. You have to get that in your head. I am a novice on this and not an expert. All I know is everyone is different and this continues to work for me. When I hit a plateau I analyze, adjust and attack. Track everything. It keeps you motivated and you can pull reports with some apps.13
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