Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Runners: Are you fat?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by heatseeker View Post
    Caloric deficit, with or without exercise, did not work for me. It depends on if your metabolism is healthy or not, I think. My busted metabolism refused to let go of fat no matter how few calories or how much exercise I did. The rules aren't as black and white as you state, jakejoh.
    If you're metabolism is damaged, that's a different story. I never stated the rules are black and white, metabolism is essentially a moving target. However, saying a caloric deficit did not work for you doesn't say anything against the efficacy of thermodynamics.

    You must be in an energy deficit to lose weight. It's not only about calories in calories out, as metabolism, dietary induced thermogenesis, non exercise activity thermogenesis, etc. all play a role, but, again, you must be in an energy deficit to lose weight.
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
      I cannot agree with this, and there's not sufficient evidence to back this up.
      This is my experience, though maybe "young" was not quite right. Guys, absolutely. Evidence is that going on a diet results in a net gain of weight, and the more diets a person goes on, the more weight they gain and the harder they find it to lose. Women diet a lot more than men. Are you really trying to tell me that young guys who have never been overweight have maintained their weight through yoyo dieting?

      What do you mean studies show that isn't what happens? It would be helpful to link the studies that you're referring to, as I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.
      Your problem is that you are falling into the fallacy of thinking that it's easy (for THOSE PEOPLE) to lose weight, all THEY have to do is eat less and move more. Really easy. Simple as pie. Exercise a little willpower for a change. Exercise a lot of willpower for the rest of their lives.

      In real life, people get hungrier when they eat less, and they get hungrier when they exercise more. Do people actually starve to death from regular exercise because they don't get hungrier? I would like to see your references if you are making that claim.

      People who simply exercise more lose very little weight without drastically restricting their diets, and weight loss is incredibly slow, less than a pound a month. In real life, people who go on a diet and lose weight eventually run out of willpower and binge.

      The idea that humans can naturally and indefinitely behave like laboratory subjects who are locked up and prevented from access to normal foods is fantasy.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
        This is my experience, though maybe "young" was not quite right. Guys, absolutely. Evidence is that going on a diet results in a net gain of weight, and the more diets a person goes on, the more weight they gain and the harder they find it to lose.
        I would venture to guess that this is because people tend to crash diet and become overly restrictive in their eating habits because they think that's what they're supposed to do. That being said, you keep saying the word "evidence", yet you're not providing any?

        Women diet a lot more than men. Are you really trying to tell me that young guys who have never been overweight have maintained their weight through yoyo dieting?
        Strawman. I never said this, and it doesn't even make sense to begin with.

        Your problem is that you are falling into the fallacy of thinking that it's easy (for THOSE PEOPLE) to lose weight, all THEY have to do is eat less and move more. Really easy. Simple as pie. Exercise a little willpower for a change. Exercise a lot of willpower for the rest of their lives.
        It's simple, not easy. There's a big difference. Anyways, again, you're not making your point very clear. Yes, you have to exercise some form of willpower. So?

        In real life, people get hungrier when they eat less, and they get hungrier when they exercise more. Do people actually starve to death from regular exercise because they don't get hungrier? I would like to see your references if you are making that claim.
        C'mon, are you going to argue like a logical person for once? Stop attacking strawmen arguments. Also, it's funny how I've asked you several times for references to "evidence", and then you try to shift the burden of proof onto me. Anyways, like I said, exercise does not always equal more hunger. It's highly individual.

        People who simply exercise more lose very little weight without drastically restricting their diets, and weight loss is incredibly slow, less than a pound a month. In real life, people who go on a diet and lose weight eventually run out of willpower and binge.
        Where are you pulling these numbers from? And yes, like I said, most women crash-diet and turn to extreme restriction rather than sensible and flexible dieting, which causes them to fail. It's time to stop citing this as proof that dieting is flawed. It's quite obvious that crash dieting is not beneficial and causes rebound weight gain. How does this support your points?

        The idea that humans can naturally and indefinitely behave like laboratory subjects who are locked up and prevented from access to normal foods is fantasy.
        Strawman.
        My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
          If you're metabolism is damaged, that's a different story. I never stated the rules are black and white, metabolism is essentially a moving target. However, saying a caloric deficit did not work for you doesn't say anything against the efficacy of thermodynamics.

          You must be in an energy deficit to lose weight. It's not only about calories in calories out, as metabolism, dietary induced thermogenesis, non exercise activity thermogenesis, etc. all play a role, but, again, you must be in an energy deficit to lose weight.
          The last sentence that erks me a little. I believe our bodies that are the result of millions of years of evolution understand and follow the laws of thermodynamics far better than the 100 years of physiology science our conscious thinking minds follow.

          If what you mean is that our underlying physiology happens to be in a calorie deficit unbeknownst to our conscious mind then we'll burn fat. If you mean that if we throw a known (conscious) calorie deficit (ie diet restriction, exercise) at our metabolisms and it will result in fat loss, then it is false.


          Sent from my iPhone
          A little primal gem - My Success Story
          Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
            If you're metabolism is damaged, that's a different story. I never stated the rules are black and white, metabolism is essentially a moving target. However, saying a caloric deficit did not work for you doesn't say anything against the efficacy of thermodynamics.

            You must be in an energy deficit to lose weight. It's not only about calories in calories out, as metabolism, dietary induced thermogenesis, non exercise activity thermogenesis, etc. all play a role, but, again, you must be in an energy deficit to lose weight.
            Okay, yeah, I agree with all of this. I was just offering an alternate point of view for why thermodynamics might not necessarily work the way it's supposed to for everyone. Because believe me, for those of us who are metabolically damaged, it's insanely frustrating to come here and keep seeing posts that are basically like, "If you restrict calories and exercise, you will definitely lose weight, it's SCIENCE."

            The important distinction to make is this: All people who lose weight are in an energy deficit, but not all people in an energy deficit lose weight.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by dilberryhoundog View Post
              If what you mean is that our underlying physiology happens to be in a calorie deficit unbeknownst to our conscious mind then we'll burn fat. If you mean that if we throw a known (conscious) calorie deficit (ie diet restriction, exercise) at our metabolisms and it will result in fat loss, then it is false.
              Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying here. If you could rephrase, that would be great, I'm caffeine deprived at the moment
              My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by heatseeker View Post
                Okay, yeah, I agree with all of this. I was just offering an alternate point of view for why thermodynamics might not necessarily work the way it's supposed to for everyone. Because believe me, for those of us who are metabolically damaged, it's insanely frustrating to come here and keep seeing posts that are basically like, "If you restrict calories and exercise, you will definitely lose weight, it's SCIENCE."

                The important distinction to make is this: All people who lose weight are in an energy deficit, but not all people in an energy deficit lose weight.
                Yeah, my problem is that people tend to site metabolically damaged individuals as the reasons why "calories don't matter", which is just wrong.
                My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
                  I would venture to guess that this is because people tend to crash diet and become overly restrictive in their eating habits because they think that's what they're supposed to do. That being said, you keep saying the word "evidence", yet you're not providing any?
                  What is "crash diet"? What is "overly restrictive"? If a person loses weight, at what point does the body say, "Oh, that was a sensible diet, when it ends there won't be a binge."

                  The unfortunate answer is that it is conventional wisdom to say that a sensible diet won't result in regain or rebound. But the number of people who lose weight and keep it off permanently is so small as to be insignificant.

                  It's simple, not easy. There's a big difference. Anyways, again, you're not making your point very clear. Yes, you have to exercise some form of willpower. So?
                  "Simple", but not "easy". "Some form of willpower". How much less than total control for the rest of a person's life is that?

                  Anyways, like I said, exercise does not always equal more hunger. It's highly individual.
                  Okay, how often does exercise not equal more hunger, and when is it realistic for someone to expect (or demand) that this happen?

                  Where are you pulling these numbers from? And yes, like I said, most women crash-diet and turn to extreme restriction rather than sensible and flexible dieting, which causes them to fail.
                  Do you have data on crash diets vs conventional "sensible" ones? Because I'm not seeing any evidence of success out there.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
                    Yeah, my problem is that people tend to site metabolically damaged individuals as the reasons why "calories don't matter", which is just wrong.
                    Totally agree. IMO, at the end of the day, CICO is correct. If CICO isn't working for you, it's not that CICO is wrong, it's that you have to figure out why it's not working for you and fix that thing first.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
                      What is "crash diet"? What is "overly restrictive"? If a person loses weight, at what point does the body say, "Oh, that was a sensible diet, when it ends there won't be a binge."
                      Really? Maybe overly restrictive means overly restrictive, as in avoiding all food that tastes good, only eating salad and celery, etc. etc. Crash diet means a short term solution, as in reducing calories drastically in order to lose weight quickly. Not sure how this is difficult to comprehend.

                      The unfortunate answer is that it is conventional wisdom to say that a sensible diet won't result in regain or rebound. But the number of people who lose weight and keep it off permanently is so small as to be insignificant.
                      Evidence?

                      "Simple", but not "easy". "Some form of willpower". How much less than total control for the rest of a person's life is that?
                      I have no idea what kind of argument you're trying to make here. You seem to have something against willpower as if it's a bad thing. Yes, shocker, if someone wants to lose weight they will have to exercise some willpower to not eat everything in sight. Again, so what?

                      Okay, how often does exercise not equal more hunger, and when is it realistic for someone to expect (or demand) that this happen?
                      What in the world are you talking about? I said it's highly individual. Meaning, some people get hungry after exercise, some people are less hungry after exercising, and some people see absolutely no difference. Demand what to happen?

                      Do you have data on crash diets vs conventional "sensible" ones? Because I'm not seeing any evidence of success out there.
                      Are you asking for evidence that caloric restriction = weight loss? You keep saying you're not seeing evidence of success. And what does out there mean? You're being overly broad and it's hard to comprehend your argument from any angle.
                      My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        oooof! this is getting a little heated!

                        my experience is that when i trained for half/full marathons I did not loose weight. But I wasn't paying close attention to diet and didn't really have that much to lose (maybe 10lbs?? i'm 5'8" and about 150lbs). but i do have a little persistent belly fat.

                        i still run because i love it and right now have reduced my weight training because it's so damn nice out. i feel the difference. i don't feel as strong and i don't like it. but i also refuse to set foot in a dark gym during prime vit D season. i'm cool with that and try to incorporate body weight exercises during my runs (squats, pushups...).

                        for my body type ("amazonian" as some people call it) i will never be marathon-skinny while ALSO being healthy. weights and shorter distances are much better for me and i enjoy mixing it up. so marathons are now out for me and my max is maybe an annual half. otherwise i plan on increasing trail runs and continuing doing the things i love like SUP, swimming, weights etc.

                        Also, may I end on an alternate theory? I think the overall concern for fat loss as opposed to health gain may be a contributor. I think we all stress out way too much about weight and that focus is misplaces. For those wanting some references
                        10 ways stress makes you fat and diabetic

                        so my advice? eat healthy, do the exercise that makes YOU feel good, spend time with family and friends, meditate. enjoy your life!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
                          Evidence?
                          How dare you ask such a rude question jakejoh10? From when became "evidence" relevant to dieting? - I still remember that eKathrine gained so much weight on a PSMF diet below 800 kcal/day that she had to stop, isn't that evidence enough???
                          "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                          - Schopenhauer

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Here's a good article and a follow-up approximately 2 years later.
                            T NATION | The Final Nail in the Cardio Coffin
                            The Final Nail in the Coffin of the Scale - Rachel Cosgrove
                            Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              You can look at the National Weight Loss Registry and PubMed for evidence. For people who lose 65 pounds or more, less than 1% keep it off for five years or more. It is amazing to say that a person who doesn't keep their weight off somehow has a personal moral problem when they are actually acting like a completely normal human being.* Weight loss is never going to be the answer to the obesity epidemic. The place for intervention is between conception and about five years of age.

                              *But we tend to grade the morality of people battling obesity on a different curve than normal people- if they aren't amazing heroic they are a failure.
                              “In God we trust; all others must bring data.” W. Edwards Deming
                              Blogging at http://loafingcactus.com

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
                                Yes, I've read these articles. There are two sides of the argument, however, and some are of the opinion that cardio is a necessity (You NEED Long Duration, Low Intensity Cardio » Robertson Training Systems). I lean to the side of whatever works for you.

                                Originally posted by loafingcactus View Post
                                You can look at the National Weight Loss Registry and PubMed for evidence. For people who lose 65 pounds or more, less than 1% keep it off for five years or more. It is amazing to say that a person who doesn't keep their weight off somehow has a personal moral problem when they are actually acting like a completely normal human being.*
                                I hope you're not saying that I've said it's a moral problem (I don't think you are, but just making sure).

                                I agree that dieting fails time and time again. However, I think the reason why is up for debate. The issue is that, like I've said many times in this thread, people tend to create an all or nothing approach to dieting. Either they're extremely restrictive and drastically cutting calories along with intense exercise, or they're overeating and sedentary. For the most part, there doesn't seem to be a happy medium, which would bring more consistent long term results.

                                People need to understand that it's not all or nothing, and there is such thing as flexible dieting. There is such thing as not being so restrictive that you're overwhelmed with food cravings and starving, as this is obviously a recipe for disaster. I'm not saying I have the answer to obesity (no one does), but if more people would embrace the idea of being flexible and taking a long-term approach to losing fat, we would be much better off as a whole.
                                My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X