In a calorie deficit, scale isn't moving, Split
Options
Replies
-
hmmm.... you may have screenshot the guideline but I still fear that your comprehension that it says 5% = 300 minutes ergo 10% = 600 minutes is incorrect.
I will also posit that you may be over-estimating the importance of a pre-set dosage and under-estimating the power of consistency, gradual improvement and different/good/better and evolving habits.
You don't need to set out to perform 20 minutes of 70% heart rate max exercise to see improvement.
All some of us may have needed to do to START, is walk to McDonald's and then back home as opposed to driving through the drive through. Just saying.3 -
You'lle get no argument from me: this is what I wrote:hmmm.... you may have screenshot the guideline but I still fear that your comprehension that it says 5% = 300 minutes ergo 10% = 600 minutes is incorrect.
I will also posit that you may be over-estimating the importance of a pre-set dosage and under-estimating the power of consistency, gradual improvement and different/good/better and evolving habits.
You don't need to set out to perform 20 minutes of 70% heart rate max exercise to see improvement.
All some of us may have needed to do to START, is walk to McDonald's and then back home as opposed to driving through the drive through. Just saying.
I would submit that consistency is both needed and problematic. So far, I have lost a little over half my highest weight, that is almost 64 kg. I have had to adjust my dietary intake numerous times. you do not have to believe me, but if/when you try it, you will quickly notice that the difference between 2.3 kg of vegetables and 750 g of vegetables is not one that goes unnoticed and can simply be ignored. In fact, that is why I always say that there is no such thing as a sustainable weightloss diet. A diet can be sustainable and it can be a weightloss diet, not both. There can be sustained diets that continue to lead to weight loss, but those end in death, so even though they are sustained, it is difficult to argue that they are sustainable since they kill the loser.
Of course, we are talking about physical activity, not dietary intake, but the problem is largely the same and that is one reason I insist that we cannot disentangle exercise-related energy deficit and food-related energy deficit. They both are food-related. All the exercise does is increase energy use, and then only IF you are lucky enough to notice it.
Increased physical activity will, if all goes well, cause a tiny bit of extra weight loss, but a lot is needed. One of the papers I found when looking for papers in favour of "exercise" stated that 127 km consumes 1 kg of fat. Let's assume this to be correct. It is not, but that does not matter here. That means I would have had to walk/run 8128 km. At 5 km a day, that is 1,626 days or 4.45 years on the express condition that: energy intake matches exactly outgoing energy (moving target) minus exercise energy (moving target) for 4.45 years. Taking the assumed value of 127 km per 1 kg of body fat, that is a difference of 40 g of fat a day, or 360 kcal. All these number are not much more than wild guesses, by the way.
Is that really doable? Perhaps, but I think that some skepticism is not completely misplaced. I may be wrong, but I can't help but think that this weightloss-through-exercise regime will change to a weightloss-through-food-intake diet before very long.
0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
You'lle get no argument from me: this is what I wrote:hmmm.... you may have screenshot the guideline but I still fear that your comprehension that it says 5% = 300 minutes ergo 10% = 600 minutes is incorrect.
I will also posit that you may be over-estimating the importance of a pre-set dosage and under-estimating the power of consistency, gradual improvement and different/good/better and evolving habits.
You don't need to set out to perform 20 minutes of 70% heart rate max exercise to see improvement.
All some of us may have needed to do to START, is walk to McDonald's and then back home as opposed to driving through the drive through. Just saying.
I would submit that consistency is both needed and problematic. So far, I have lost a little over half my highest weight, that is almost 64 kg. I have had to adjust my dietary intake numerous times. you do not have to believe me, but if/when you try it, you will quickly notice that the difference between 2.3 kg of vegetables and 750 g of vegetables is not one that goes unnoticed and can simply be ignored. In fact, that is why I always say that there is no such thing as a sustainable weightloss diet. A diet can be sustainable and it can be a weightloss diet, not both. There can be sustained diets that continue to lead to weight loss, but those end in death, so even though they are sustained, it is difficult to argue that they are sustainable since they kill the loser.
Of course, we are talking about physical activity, not dietary intake, but the problem is largely the same and that is one reason I insist that we cannot disentangle exercise-related energy deficit and food-related energy deficit. They both are food-related. All the exercise does is increase energy use, and then only IF you are lucky enough to notice it.
Increased physical activity will, if all goes well, cause a tiny bit of extra weight loss, but a lot is needed. One of the papers I found when looking for papers in favour of "exercise" stated that 127 km consumes 1 kg of fat. Let's assume this to be correct. It is not, but that does not matter here. That means I would have had to walk/run 8128 km. At 5 km a day, that is 1,626 days or 4.45 years on the express condition that: energy intake matches exactly outgoing energy (moving target) minus exercise energy (moving target) for 4.45 years. Taking the assumed value of 127 km per 1 kg of body fat, that is a difference of 40 g of fat a day, or 360 kcal. All these number are not much more than wild guesses, by the way.
Is that really doable? Perhaps, but I think that some skepticism is not completely misplaced. I may be wrong, but I can't help but think that this weightloss-through-exercise regime will change to a weightloss-through-food-intake diet before very long.
You still did not answer my questions. The "science" is there. I'll ask again now for the FIFTH time:
You say that exercise does not burn calories for most people. If I walk to the post office and back, it takes me about an hour. I should oxidize about 250 calories ACCORDING TO NUMBERS YOU PROVIDED IN THIS DISCUSSION. If I do not eat an additional 250 calories to put that energy back into my body versus what I would have eaten without taking the walk, I will be in a greater calorie deficit than if I had not taken the walk. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS? Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language.
If I do that walk every day for seven days and do not add additional calories to my diet, I would expect to lose a half pound. Do you disagree with THIS? Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language. If I eat a pint of ice cream on the way home, that's different. Nobody is talking about doing exercise and undoing it by eating an additional amount of food that would exceed what just burned. People here are simply stating fact; moving your body burns calories. Calories are energy. Being in an energy deficit over time results in weight loss. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS? Because that is what you keep repeating. Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language.
Here is a very direct question: Do you disagree with a statement I made earlier (yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language) which said: "If you are eating at your goal and you add some activity every day but don’t increase your caloric intake, your loss rate will be faster. If you do some activity, like walking for about an hour every day, that burns an additional 250 calories over whatever your loss rate is set to (or if you are maintaining), you should lose an ADDITIONAL half pound per week."
Not a single person who has responded to your drivel has suggested that the amount we eat is unimportant for weight loss. It is CRITICAL. It would be really easy for me to not only eat back those 250 calories, but an additional 250 and then gain a half pound a week. Fifty grams of pistachios would cancel that 250 calorie deficit. One ounce of cheddar cheese would too. So would 2.6 tablespoons of peanut butter. What we eat is important. Even you agree on that. What you can't seem to wrap your brain around is the fact that you can create a calorie deficit not only by reducing what you eat but also by increasing your activity. That defies logic. It's a pity you can't see that.
What you are saying over and over is that exercise does not burn calories to an appreciable extent. Many others continue to show you that it does. Guess what? It does. In spades if you pay attention.
5 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
You'lle get no argument from me: this is what I wrote:hmmm.... you may have screenshot the guideline but I still fear that your comprehension that it says 5% = 300 minutes ergo 10% = 600 minutes is incorrect.
I will also posit that you may be over-estimating the importance of a pre-set dosage and under-estimating the power of consistency, gradual improvement and different/good/better and evolving habits.
You don't need to set out to perform 20 minutes of 70% heart rate max exercise to see improvement.
All some of us may have needed to do to START, is walk to McDonald's and then back home as opposed to driving through the drive through. Just saying.
I would submit that consistency is both needed and problematic. So far, I have lost a little over half my highest weight, that is almost 64 kg. I have had to adjust my dietary intake numerous times. you do not have to believe me, but if/when you try it, you will quickly notice that the difference between 2.3 kg of vegetables and 750 g of vegetables is not one that goes unnoticed and can simply be ignored. In fact, that is why I always say that there is no such thing as a sustainable weightloss diet. A diet can be sustainable and it can be a weightloss diet, not both. There can be sustained diets that continue to lead to weight loss, but those end in death, so even though they are sustained, it is difficult to argue that they are sustainable since they kill the loser.
Of course, we are talking about physical activity, not dietary intake, but the problem is largely the same and that is one reason I insist that we cannot disentangle exercise-related energy deficit and food-related energy deficit. They both are food-related. All the exercise does is increase energy use, and then only IF you are lucky enough to notice it.
Increased physical activity will, if all goes well, cause a tiny bit of extra weight loss, but a lot is needed. One of the papers I found when looking for papers in favour of "exercise" stated that 127 km consumes 1 kg of fat. Let's assume this to be correct. It is not, but that does not matter here. That means I would have had to walk/run 8128 km. At 5 km a day, that is 1,626 days or 4.45 years on the express condition that: energy intake matches exactly outgoing energy (moving target) minus exercise energy (moving target) for 4.45 years. Taking the assumed value of 127 km per 1 kg of body fat, that is a difference of 40 g of fat a day, or 360 kcal. All these number are not much more than wild guesses, by the way.
Is that really doable? Perhaps, but I think that some skepticism is not completely misplaced. I may be wrong, but I can't help but think that this weightloss-through-exercise regime will change to a weightloss-through-food-intake diet before very long.
You still did not answer my questions. The "science" is there. I'll ask again now for the FIFTH time:
You say that exercise does not burn calories for most people. If I walk to the post office and back, it takes me about an hour. I should oxidize about 250 calories ACCORDING TO NUMBERS YOU PROVIDED IN THIS DISCUSSION. If I do not eat an additional 250 calories to put that energy back into my body versus what I would have eaten without taking the walk, I will be in a greater calorie deficit than if I had not taken the walk. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS? Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language.
If I do that walk every day for seven days and do not add additional calories to my diet, I would expect to lose a half pound. Do you disagree with THIS? Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language. If I eat a pint of ice cream on the way home, that's different. Nobody is talking about doing exercise and undoing it by eating an additional amount of food that would exceed what just burned. People here are simply stating fact; moving your body burns calories. Calories are energy. Being in an energy deficit over time results in weight loss. DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS? Because that is what you keep repeating. Please provide a yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language.
Here is a very direct question: Do you disagree with a statement I made earlier (yes or no answer, not a bunch of convoluted language) which said: "If you are eating at your goal and you add some activity every day but don’t increase your caloric intake, your loss rate will be faster. If you do some activity, like walking for about an hour every day, that burns an additional 250 calories over whatever your loss rate is set to (or if you are maintaining), you should lose an ADDITIONAL half pound per week."
Not a single person who has responded to your drivel has suggested that the amount we eat is unimportant for weight loss. It is CRITICAL. It would be really easy for me to not only eat back those 250 calories, but an additional 250 and then gain a half pound a week. Fifty grams of pistachios would cancel that 250 calorie deficit. One ounce of cheddar cheese would too. So would 2.6 tablespoons of peanut butter. What we eat is important. Even you agree on that. What you can't seem to wrap your brain around is the fact that you can create a calorie deficit not only by reducing what you eat but also by increasing your activity. That defies logic. It's a pity you can't see that.
What you are saying over and over is that exercise does not burn calories to an appreciable extent. Many others continue to show you that it does. Guess what? It does. In spades if you pay attention.
I think you're being ignored.
For Bart. I don't consider myself a stupid person, but your examples and descriptions just don't ring true with me. Too "over thinking". All these long repeated "losing weight is dying" and "exercise doesn't count" are giving me a headache. We get your position, but so far haven't found a soul that agrees with you. That can only mean that you are smarter than us all, or............7 -
Thank you for response, Snowflake954.snowflake954 wrote: »For Bart. I don't consider myself a stupid person, but your examples and descriptions just don't ring true with me. Too "over thinking". All these long repeated "losing weight is dying" and "exercise doesn't count" are giving me a headache. We get your position, but so far haven't found a soul that agrees with you. That can only mean that you are smarter than us all, or............
The problem with that is:
1. some of my examples *are* exaggerations in order to make a point. I thought I made that clear, maybe I should make it clearer. One can disagree with that. There is nothing wrong with that.
2. "exercise doesn't count". I have NOT said that. I have said it tends to be negligible/undetectable/useless for *weight loss*, I have made abundantly clear that for just about every other health aspect, exercise (which I personally loathe) or physical activity (which personally love) is VERY relevant. That is also the consensus medical position and more than anything, that is why I espouse it.
3. "exercise is next to useless for weight loss". That is also the consensus medical position. That (next to) no one agrees with that is fine. People do not have to "believe" the consensus medical position. Medicine is not a religion where one will land on the eternal barbecue for not believing whatever that religion claims. People should, however, *know* that they are oing against medical opinion and stand therefore a good chance of being wrong. Taking up the wrong position is a choice one can and is allowed to make. As the COVID-19 crisis has shown and is still showing, it is a choice that can lead to severe harm and even death.
In the case of weight loss, the danger of death is rather remote, but it can lead to discouragement and disillusion and it often does at least that, as can be seen on MFP and the Internet as a whole (in combination or separate from other mistakes, such as taking calculators and counters at face value, inaccurate measuring and more). Such a choice is only a choice if all positions are known, a choice made due to partial information or misinformation is not a true choice even if the person making the choice thinks it is.
4. If nobody agrees with my position, that does indeed entice me to look further. I have, extensively, tried to find credible information that exercise *is* very important for weight loss. Except for a small questionable study here or there, I have not found such information which probably/possibly explains why no one has posted any links to such credible information.
5. There are exceptional cases, the Biggest Loser comes to mind, that seem to indicate that exercise *can* be useful for weight loss and it seems logical and is probably correct, but these examples are extreme, to be taken as "results not typical" and very dangerous. As the world of professional sports demonstrates over and over: one *can* go too far, and not only risk death but actually drop dead by such practices. People don't like to hear that and invent all type of conspiracy theories to explain the phenomenon, but that does not change reality.
That said, in the words of a video I saw while looking for information that is easier to digest by non-scientists: if the Biggest Loser would consist of shot after shot of people not overeating, the Biggest Loser would be a very boring show. If you watch the show very carefully, you will see that many participants are "exercising" for eight hours or more, being bullied by "trainers" to give it their all. Even then, there is no way of knowing what the effect of the exercise versus the diet is, those are scientific details that are impossible to figure out outside of a lab setting and only the crudest (i.e. unreliable) estimates can be made.
That said, the Biggest Loser is quite present in the medical literature because it presents a unique case with information that we would not have without them since no ethical doctor would ever recommend this. So, better use the information rather than let it go to waste. After all, all participants were willing to do this, they weren't forced, at least not when they went into it. The Biggest Loser is medically unethical, but it would be equally unethical not to use the information now that it exists (which is a controversial position nevertheless).
7. "Losing weight is dying". I never said that. My standpoint is this:
There is no such thing as a sustainable weight loss diet.
There are weight loss diets and there are sustainable diets. They cannot possibly be both because a weight loss diet, will automatically become a sustainable diet (which is why Robert Baron talks about "the forever diet") once a certain weight has been reached.
One *can*, at least in principle, sustain a diet that never stops reducing weight. Such a diet is not a sustainable diet because it ends in death. Think about it: once all your energy stores have been used up, you start to cannibalise your own body to stay alive. At some point, death will follow. I am unaware of any case where this has been done, but we see something that comes awfully close with prisoners in World War II concentration camps, hunger strikers, famine victims, and anorexia nervosa patients: they continue to get an energy intake that is too low to keep them alive. The result is that they don't. The people die.
Therefore, sustainable weight loss diets do not and cannot exist. I realise the term is often used, but it is a misnomer that obfuscates reality. It is not unlike the claim that one is safe when using a mask to protect from the Corona virus. That is also untrue. One is simply safeR, a.k.a. one reduces the probability of infection. I realise that this is "common language" but when people are into one-bit thinking, it becomes a problem.
I hope that clarifies things. Thank you for the question.0 -
Err, you are literally quoted in this thread saying this nonsense, which was the same nonsense you posted in multiple threads despite numerous posters asking you to stop posting misinformation. And this isn't even a complicated example where you need to go sourcing medical literature. Just a simple understanding of what "maintenance" is was missing, yet you persisted, and now here you are blatantly lying by trying to spin that you never said it.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »4. If nobody agrees with my position, that does indeed entice me to look further.
7. "Losing weight is dying". I never said that.
"The reality remains that the only way to lose fat weight is to ingest less energy than needed to stay alive, and the only way to gain fat weight is to ingest more energy than needed to stay alive. While other factors may influence that process somewhat, the fundamentals will not and cannot change. Only quacks claim something else, and they have zero evidence to back it up."
I understand why the site did away with the "dislike" button but there are times when it would be helpful...7 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
3. "exercise is next to useless for weight loss". That is also the consensus medical position. That (next to) no one agrees with that is fine. People do not have to "believe" the consensus medical position. Medicine is not a religion where one will land on the eternal barbecue for not believing whatever that religion claims. People should, however, *know* that they are oing against medical opinion and stand therefore a good chance of being wrong. Taking up the wrong position is a choice one can and is allowed to make. As the COVID-19 crisis has shown and is still showing, it is a choice that can lead to severe harm and even death.
A consensus? Hardly. You have selected some resources and are distilling down to a conclusion that is not sound.
Someone who wants to lose weight and joins a gym but has no intention of reducing the food they eat will probably struggle to lose weight. And, burning a couple hundred extra calories might make them hungry, so they might eat more. So yep, you’re right that IN THAT CASE, most would agree. (To be honest, I didn’t read through everything because of the staggering volume of words. Someone correct me if needed.)
It’s also not helpful to split hairs about “working out” vs. “activity.” Both burn calories, and if I reduce my food intake by 250 calories per day and burn 250 through any type of activity/exercise, they are equal contributors to my weight loss. I’ll take a long walk so I can have ice cream, thank you. I know zero doctors that would EVER just blatantly say that exercise doesn’t matter for weight loss.
The combo of diet and activity makes it a sustainable weight loss plan. Yes, sustainable! Not because I will sustain the calorie deficit until I waste away and die, but because I am learning how to comfortably sustain a balance of in/out.
Edited to add: Bart, comparing this to the COVID crisis… 🙄
6 -
snowflake954 wrote: »
I think you're being ignored.
For Bart. I don't consider myself a stupid person, but your examples and descriptions just don't ring true with me. Too "over thinking". All these long repeated "losing weight is dying" and "exercise doesn't count" are giving me a headache. We get your position, but so far haven't found a soul that agrees with you. That can only mean that you are smarter than us all, or............
@snowflake954
As the member who explained how to put someone on ignore, it would be humorous if I was set on "ignore." I actually considered @BartBVanBockstaele did that. I wouldn't be surprised. Ignore the difficult questions you cannot answer honestly and still spout disinformation.
With that especially in mind, thank you for quoting my post. I can now be assured that Bart has seen my post and is now refusing to respond. He won't see my other posts in other threads whether or not they support some of the well reasoned things he says or criticize the disinformation.
There's apparently no more reason for me to keep repeating the same questions if they will go unanswered. It is also silly for me to continue to try to reason with an unreasonable person. As such, I guess I will refrain from further statements here. I have written more than my share perhaps, and there's quite a lot of well-reasoned people who have been working on their weight loss and fitness journeys who echo the same messages. I sincerely hope that any new users will be able to use their critical thought processes to sort through the posts here and ignore Bart's blatant disinformation. I expect he actually knows better and is trolling. I will no longer feed this troll.
Thanks again, and may you continue to have success with all your endeavors, fitness related or other.
8 -
The "science" is there.
Indeed it is! Literally less than 30 seconds with ye olde interwebz confirms:
Efficacy of Exercise Intervention for Weight Loss in Overweight and Obese Adolescents: Meta-Analysis and Implications
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27139723/
Diet, exercise or diet with exercise: comparing the effectiveness of treatment options for weight-loss and changes in fitness for adults (18-65 years old) who are overfat, or obese; systematic review and meta-analysis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25973403/
A meta-analysis of the past 25 years of weight loss research using diet, exercise or diet plus exercise intervention
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9347414/
And now, yet again, I shall disappear from the forums for weeks on end...ciao!
7 -
Well I'm starting to think that Bart for some reason makes cartain assumptions about what something should, could and does mean that he doesn't always explicitly disclose but which leads to lack of comprehension because the rest of us (including perhaps the quoted articles) do not share the same assumptions.
Example: a weight loss diet is sustainable.
Bart: it is not sustainable because you die.
Why? because the word "diet" for Bart includes the amount of calories consumed and the act of eating at a deficit.
The rest of us: diet: is the type of food we eat, the way it is cooked, the time we eat it, the proportion of tasty snacks to nutritious food, etc.
Whether we eat a quantity of that diet such that we are or are not in a caloric deficit is for most of us separated from what's included in the diet. And not part of the same word.🤷♂️
2 -
After reading through this thread, though I'm still not sure why I did
, this is the conclusion I've come to:
Bart is sharing sources that assert that most people who try to lose weight are unsuccessful - either they don't lose the weight to begin with or they can't keep it off. I don't think any of the other posters would disagree with that; in fact, I see references to the statistics on this all the time. I know a lot of people who have not been successful. I was one of them for a long time, too.
I think where Bart is losing people is when he asserts that because it often doesn't work for people's lived experiences, the math must be wrong.
I don't think the math is wrong. I think a lot of people don't track well enough to get good estimates, overcompensate, have unrealistic expectations, etc. But none of those things mean the math doesn't work. Just that lots of stuff can get in the way of doing good math.
Do I have it about right?7 -
Well I'm starting to think that Bart for some reason makes cartain assumptions about what something should, could and does mean that he doesn't always explicitly disclose but which leads to lack of comprehension because the rest of us (including perhaps the quoted articles) do not share the same assumptions.
Example: a weight loss diet is sustainable.
Bart: it is not sustainable because you die.
Why? because the word "diet" for Bart includes the amount of calories consumed and the act of eating at a deficit.
And for some reason that definition of "diet" seems to be permanent? (That's the only way I can see that it would lead a person to die because it's just that unsustainable.)
I feel like that's absolutely the opposite of how most people think of a weight loss diet, oddly.
I think the common conception of a weight-loss diet is something a person does temporarily. In that context, "sustainable" would be rationally (perhaps generously) interpreted by most people as "something a person can continue long enough to lose the desired amount of weight"
I don't really like thinking of weight loss as a temporary intervention (for someone like me with a tendency to overweight, anyway). I prefer to think of weight management, which to me is a long-term shift of orientation to eating and activity, that reaches and then maintains a healthy weight (ideally permanently).The rest of us: diet: is the type of food we eat, the way it is cooked, the time we eat it, the proportion of tasty snacks to nutritious food, etc.
Whether we eat a quantity of that diet such that we are or are not in a caloric deficit is for most of us separated from what's included in the diet. And not part of the same word.🤷♂️
Yeah, I sort of agree with that definition of "diet", but I'd also include the possibility of "diet" referring to a point in time or period of time, because whether I'm talking calories, nutrients, food choices, timing, etc., that stuff for sure changes for me over time, with different things happening (and different things "sustainable") for me at different times.
I don't really agree with your definition in that sense. It can be IMO a reasonable usage to say that I'm on a "lower calorie diet" for a while, or some such thing.
Besides, I think the default common-conversation definition of "diet" implies "for weight loss" (or some other special goal like cholesterol reduction or whatever), though I don't personally like that definition either.
If someone in my daily life tells me they're "on a diet", I don't usually assume that they necessarily mean a change in the type of food they eat, the way it is cooked, the time they eat it, or the proportion of tasty snacks to nutritious food. I usually assume they mean they're trying to lose weight.
ETA: Yes, my posts above is entirely about semantics, i.e., meanings and relationships of words. Semantics is interesting to some word nerds like me.1 -
Well I'm starting to think that Bart for some reason makes cartain assumptions about what something should, could and does mean that he doesn't always explicitly disclose but which leads to lack of comprehension because the rest of us (including perhaps the quoted articles) do not share the same assumptions.
Example: a weight loss diet is sustainable.
Bart: it is not sustainable because you die.
Why? because the word "diet" for Bart includes the amount of calories consumed and the act of eating at a deficit.
The rest of us: diet: is the type of food we eat, the way it is cooked, the time we eat it, the proportion of tasty snacks to nutritious food, etc.
Whether we eat a quantity of that diet such that we are or are not in a caloric deficit is for most of us separated from what's included in the diet. And not part of the same word.🤷♂️
This made me laugh. I just realized "die" + t = diet. Maybe that's where Bart is getting it. What a stitch.2 -
That could be it. If people were able to diet without dying then it would be called livet not diet.snowflake954 wrote: »This made me laugh. I just realized "die" + t = diet. Maybe that's where Bart is getting it. What a stitch.
Q.E.D.
3 -
I don't really agree with your definition in that sense.
(znipping nice stuff) ....
ETA: Yes, my posts above is entirely about semantics, i.e., meanings and relationships of words. Semantics is interesting to some word nerds like me.
I guess I am guilty too, and in no way am I putting my above definition of sustainable diet as an all inclusive final definition as it was written in haste to try to demonstrate my main point.... and I won't even mention "eating clean" if we want to have fun with definitions!
My main point was that I now believe that there may be some distance between how some of us in this thread understand some of the words we use vs how Bart interprets their definitions.🤷♂️0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »
I think you're being ignored.
For Bart. I don't consider myself a stupid person, but your examples and descriptions just don't ring true with me. Too "over thinking". All these long repeated "losing weight is dying" and "exercise doesn't count" are giving me a headache. We get your position, but so far haven't found a soul that agrees with you. That can only mean that you are smarter than us all, or............
@snowflake954
As the member who explained how to put someone on ignore, it would be humorous if I was set on "ignore." I actually considered @BartBVanBockstaele did that. I wouldn't be surprised. Ignore the difficult questions you cannot answer honestly and still spout disinformation.
With that especially in mind, thank you for quoting my post. I can now be assured that Bart has seen my post and is now refusing to respond. He won't see my other posts in other threads whether or not they support some of the well reasoned things he says or criticize the disinformation.
There's apparently no more reason for me to keep repeating the same questions if they will go unanswered. It is also silly for me to continue to try to reason with an unreasonable person. As such, I guess I will refrain from further statements here. I have written more than my share perhaps, and there's quite a lot of well-reasoned people who have been working on their weight loss and fitness journeys who echo the same messages. I sincerely hope that any new users will be able to use their critical thought processes to sort through the posts here and ignore Bart's blatant disinformation. I expect he actually knows better and is trolling. I will no longer feed this troll.
Thanks again, and may you continue to have success with all your endeavors, fitness related or other.
Your questions are definitely BEING ignored, but I didn't think YOU were on ignore.
1 -
However, I do have to thank Bart!
Due to his mention of sardines they actually jumped out at me as I was walking down the aisle! And I actually bought some Brunswick sardine fillets no skin no bones about 150 Cal per 84g drained! My first lemon flavor can was closer to 98g drained and the contents weren't half bad!2 -
Sardines are awesome. Brislings are especially good. Trader Joe's has skinless boneless sardines in oil; definitely more calories, but good for some things. The skin-on and bone-in sardines in water are good for other things. Mashed with avocado... Mmm.
If you ever see FRESH sardines at your fishmonger, consider getting some. They are a rare treat if fresh. I don't see them very often. They are good grilled or roasted.
Canned fish is great; super portable, lots of protein, and if packed in olive oil has healthy fat. If I'm not in bear country, I sometimes bring some for lunch on kayak trips. If I'm feeling wealthy, smoked salmon instead.1 -
Glad you like them. I have never understood why so many people say they hate them. I am guessing it may have something to do with the ones that are sold in tomato sauce? I definitely dislike those. I don't know what it is, since I haven't eaten them anymore since childhood, but I have a suspicion it is because of the sugar. I have to check it out before I am sure.However, I do have to thank Bart!
Due to his mention of sardines they actually jumped out at me as I was walking down the aisle! And I actually bought some Brunswick sardine fillets no skin no bones about 150 Cal per 84g drained! My first lemon flavor can was closer to 98g drained and the contents weren't half bad!
As for the Brunswick sardine fillets, I am a great fan of the golden smoked ones and the water-packed ones. The lemon-pepper ones and the kippered ones are a close second.
That said, I almost only buy the non-filletted water-packed ones now. They are more "complete". I still prefer frozen whole sardines, but they take up space in the freezer and they are very often not available. Corona helped putting me completely in the canned camp: they take no space in the freezer and you can buy a lot of them, reducing the need of going to the store.
By the way, I do not drain them. The liquid is a bit like fish stock, so I just pour it over my vegetables. Very tasty, at least to me. They are my very first meal of the day, regardless of the timing, and they are my favourite meal of the day.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Retroguy2000 wrote: »Things I have learned from Bart:
- You can only lose fat by taking in fewer calories than you need to stay alive.
- You can't lose fat by exercising, because the calories burned are insignificant and can only be measured in a lab.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »That is fine. After all, freedom of religion is guaranteed by most constitutions in the western world.
I prefer reality, but that is just me.
Yeah, you've made the first claim multiple times. Here's the first one I found, but not the thread I was thinking of:BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Wise words. For the rest, even if there is something to it, it is going to be minimal. The reality remains that the only way to lose fat weight is to ingest less energy than needed to stay alive, and the only way to gain fat weight is to ingest more energy than needed to stay alive. While other factors may influence that process somewhat, the fundamentals will not and cannot change. Only quacks claim something else, and they have zero evidence to back it up.the_real_me_lissa wrote: »Fasting? Oh, you mean privileged starving!!
Way over hyped & totally unnecessary!!
There is, of course, fat removal surgery, and that is just about the most ill-advised thing one can do.
And you're making the second claim on this thread.
That *is* a correct quote. Note that I did NOT write that losing weight is dying. I wrote that losing weight is taking in less energy than you need to stay alive. Most people don't die from that: they use their energy stores to get that energy. Once those energy stores are depleted, their body starts to cannibalise itself and the person eventually dies, but –and that is something I usually don't mention because it doesn't change anything related to energy– it is *possible* though not certain, that the person will continue to live for some time but with death as a guaranteed outcome no matter the therapies that are tried to save her/him: if death is caused by lack of energy intake, the person will lose the ability to synthesise protein at some point and die, I assume rather painfully, but I have never seen a credible report on that.You can only lose fat by taking in fewer calories than you need to stay alive.
Note that this is almost the same as for a car: if you give your car less fuel than it needs to continue, it will simply consume the contents of its fuel tank. Once there is no longer enough fuel in the tank, you will most likely still be able to use the electric equipment for some time, but the car is dead in the water. The difference being that you can revive the car by giving it the fuel it needs. You cannot revive a corpse, at least not yet. Who knows? It might become possible in the future, but whether we like it or not, it is unlikely we will live to see that day.
In other words, you must be taking in less energy than you need to stay alive, or you will not lose weight, UNLESS you have some form of a lipolytic disease. There are some theories that obesity might be caused by an impairment of the lipolytic process. You could conceivably suffer from a disease that accelerates lipolysis. Those are certainly interesting thoughts, but it does not change anything to the fundamentals. It would change the speed at which weight loss or weight gain occurs, not the fact of it, i.e. another skirmish in the margin.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions