Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 69

Thread: Runners: Are you fat? page 6

  1. #51
    jakejoh10's Avatar
    jakejoh10 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Quote 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:

  2. #52
    jakejoh10's Avatar
    jakejoh10 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Quote 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:

  3. #53
    eKatherine's Avatar
    eKatherine is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    4,873
    Quote 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.

  4. #54
    heatseeker's Avatar
    heatseeker is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    593
    Quote 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.

  5. #55
    jakejoh10's Avatar
    jakejoh10 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Quote 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:

  6. #56
    meloroaster's Avatar
    meloroaster is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    119
    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!

  7. #57
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,179
    Quote 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???
    "When a person is poor in knowledge then he is rich in ignorance and stubbornness, carefully heeding around the little that he knows ..."
    - Gorbag

  8. #58
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    8,740
    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", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    Starting squat: 45lbs. Highest squat: 167.5 x 2. Current Deadlift: 195 x 3

  9. #59
    loafingcactus's Avatar
    loafingcactus is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    1,473
    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

  10. #60
    jakejoh10's Avatar
    jakejoh10 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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:

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •