EPTBest article I've seen on diet and nutrition in general in a while
http://physiqonomics.com/eating-too-much/
TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 - Page 126
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
decafchicken
United States20063 Posts
Best article I've seen on diet and nutrition in general in a while http://physiqonomics.com/eating-too-much/ | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
Is there any explanation for why one wouldn't gain weight despite having a pretty high caloric intake though? I don't have an explicit food diary (probably should), but I keep rough track of what I eat/drink every day; I think I get quite a bit in calories and it's highly unlikely I'm overreporting from what he mentions. I drink soda semi-regularly, eat as much as my friends who are similar height and weigh 20-40 lbs more than I do, eat 3 meals a day, work out 3-4x a week, and get my body weight in pounds in grams of protein, but I'm unable to gain weight/mass for whatever reason :/ | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On September 02 2016 03:15 Aerisky wrote: Whoa, that was a pretty great read. Fun too :p Is there any explanation for why one wouldn't gain weight despite having a pretty high caloric intake though? I don't have an explicit food diary (probably should), but I keep rough track of what I eat/drink every day; I think I get quite a bit in calories and it's highly unlikely I'm overreporting from what he mentions. I drink soda semi-regularly, eat as much as my friends who are similar height and weigh 20-40 lbs more than I do, eat 3 meals a day, work out 3-4x a week, and get my body weight in pounds in grams of protein, but I'm unable to gain weight/mass for whatever reason :/ Are you lifting heavy weights regularly? And putting weight on the bar? For some people it's harder, but putting on muscle mass is essentially lifting more in the compound lifts over time, doing some accesory work and getting enough protein and PWO carbs. It is that simple. | ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
On September 01 2016 23:19 Jerubaal wrote: I'm going to run a little bit as an experiment to see if that helps weight loss. I actually don't expect too much, but I hope it will get me into shape enough to play full games of basketball. running is amazing im making a s3rl mix il post it for you sometime maybe tomorrow | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
but so should playing basketball | ||
|
phyre112
United States3090 Posts
On September 02 2016 03:15 Aerisky wrote: Whoa, that was a pretty great read. Fun too :p Is there any explanation for why one wouldn't gain weight despite having a pretty high caloric intake though? I don't have an explicit food diary (probably should), but I keep rough track of what I eat/drink every day; I think I get quite a bit in calories and it's highly unlikely I'm overreporting from what he mentions. I drink soda semi-regularly, eat as much as my friends who are similar height and weigh 20-40 lbs more than I do, eat 3 meals a day, work out 3-4x a week, and get my body weight in pounds in grams of protein, but I'm unable to gain weight/mass for whatever reason :/ Your friends are probably eating snacks in between those 3 meals and you aren't (or moreso than you are.). It's absolutely astounding the amount of calories the average person gets from snacking in between meals without realizing it. If you're really serious about gaining weight, get a food scale and start a log (MFP or on paper.) I've been "gaining weight" for years (seven years now), but when I'm not tracking and just eat intuitively, my weight stagnates for six to eight months at a time, then I get serious and start tracking and it jumps up 10 pounds in 10-15 weeks like I want it to, until I get lazy again. Every single time it happens that way. Even if I'm "trying to eat more" while not tracking, I sit within a +/-4 pound range (based on salt/water/carbs) until I do decide to track. On September 02 2016 03:31 IgnE wrote: running should get you in shape to play basketball but so should playing basketball Running will get you in shape to play basketball faster than playing basketball will. It will also give you a chance to work on your running form, because RSI problems are huge in basketball, especially in people that don't do complementary strength training. | ||
|
decafchicken
United States20063 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
He starts off by describing a fairly common phenomenon: Someone has cut calories (allegedly) and probably added in some exercise, but they are not seeing much in the way of results. His conclusion? You must be lying. Not lying really, but basically stupid. Now I'm quite sure that this happens. I'm sure that plenty of people miscount or just don't know. But that argument is actually monumental. Because if we are going to believe him, then we aren't just saying a few people do this. We're saying that almost everyone who tries a calorie restricted diet does this, because almost everyone who tries it fails. I don't have a problem with admitting this possibility as a methodological problem, but the problem comes when researchers test low calorie diets and say: "We know low calorie diets work (hurr durr 1st Law of Thermodynamics), therefore they must be lying. Call up NIH and get another 10 million for yet another wash, rinse and repeat." This has basically been the last 50 years of nutritional science. Now he gives us a lot of interesting information, but then he basically says none of it matters. -Metabolism slows as you lose weight. Interesting, but fairly irrelevant unless you are losing a large amount of weight. His mistake though is thinking that this is the only mechanism that contributes to calorie input/output. He says right there what we all know...if you're on a calorie restriction, you are going to have less energy. It's like the reverse of the dinner party story. If I had a child that I wanted to keep very still and inactive, how would I do that? I'd underfeed them. Telling people to eat less and exercise more seems like a losing proposition from that angle. -I also think he's misevaluating homeostasis. He's talking about a car that changes its speed based on how much fuel it has, but what if it's a car that wants to stay at the same speed no matter how much fuel it has. He says that if you're using the same amount of energy metabolically, you must be consuming the same amount. But what if the body was diverting energy or was getting energy from somewhere else? I think it's really telling that his starvation subjects still had 5% bodyfat. They had lost 25% of their total mass and yet still weren't in body builder fat range. Where was the mass going? The body was cannibalizing itself. So even if the body is getting into massive panic mode, it still hasn't used a sizeable portion of its fat reserve. -The section on food density and hyper palatibility is kind of dumb. Does anyone really think that an apple has less calories than a donut? This also contradicts his more reasonable point that people don't know that "natural" foods like fruits have an excessive amount of calories, especially when consumed as juice. Yeah, we aren't eating straight table sugar, but we aren't eating a combination of sugar, fat and salt in a big ball either. These things don't taste good by themselves, they make other things taste better. There are lots of "hyperpalatible" sugar only things. I can't really think of any fat only "hyperpalatible" things. Are there any foods that they add fat to? Really just trans fats. It's sad because he has all the facts there, he just doesn't put two and two together. To him, though, fat accumulation is just a calorie equation, so if reality doesn't fit his theory, it will have to be changed. | ||
|
phyre112
United States3090 Posts
On September 02 2016 11:36 FFGenerations wrote: this is s3rl I think the answer people were looking for (I was confused too but Google is neat) was "s3rl is an edm dj" | ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
i just made that video it should answer any questions you have LOL its my best songs from him | ||
|
Garbels
Austria653 Posts
On September 02 2016 13:03 Jerubaal wrote: -The section on food density and hyper palatibility is kind of dumb. Does anyone really think that an apple has less calories than a donut? This also contradicts his more reasonable point that people don't know that "natural" foods like fruits have an excessive amount of calories, especially when consumed as juice.. Are you saying an apple has more calories than a donut? | ||
tofucake
Hyrule19144 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 02 2016 13:03 Jerubaal wrote: Ok, so this guy has pretty horrible organization and layout, but, based on what I think he's saying... He starts off by describing a fairly common phenomenon: Someone has cut calories (allegedly) and probably added in some exercise, but they are not seeing much in the way of results. His conclusion? You must be lying. Not lying really, but basically stupid. Now I'm quite sure that this happens. I'm sure that plenty of people miscount or just don't know. But that argument is actually monumental. Because if we are going to believe him, then we aren't just saying a few people do this. We're saying that almost everyone who tries a calorie restricted diet does this, because almost everyone who tries it fails. I don't have a problem with admitting this possibility as a methodological problem, but the problem comes when researchers test low calorie diets and say: "We know low calorie diets work (hurr durr 1st Law of Thermodynamics), therefore they must be lying. Call up NIH and get another 10 million for yet another wash, rinse and repeat." This has basically been the last 50 years of nutritional science. Now he gives us a lot of interesting information, but then he basically says none of it matters. -Metabolism slows as you lose weight. Interesting, but fairly irrelevant unless you are losing a large amount of weight. His mistake though is thinking that this is the only mechanism that contributes to calorie input/output. He says right there what we all know...if you're on a calorie restriction, you are going to have less energy. It's like the reverse of the dinner party story. If I had a child that I wanted to keep very still and inactive, how would I do that? I'd underfeed them. Telling people to eat less and exercise more seems like a losing proposition from that angle. -I also think he's misevaluating homeostasis. He's talking about a car that changes its speed based on how much fuel it has, but what if it's a car that wants to stay at the same speed no matter how much fuel it has. He says that if you're using the same amount of energy metabolically, you must be consuming the same amount. But what if the body was diverting energy or was getting energy from somewhere else? I think it's really telling that his starvation subjects still had 5% bodyfat. They had lost 25% of their total mass and yet still weren't in body builder fat range. Where was the mass going? The body was cannibalizing itself. So even if the body is getting into massive panic mode, it still hasn't used a sizeable portion of its fat reserve. -The section on food density and hyper palatibility is kind of dumb. Does anyone really think that an apple has less calories than a donut? This also contradicts his more reasonable point that people don't know that "natural" foods like fruits have an excessive amount of calories, especially when consumed as juice. Yeah, we aren't eating straight table sugar, but we aren't eating a combination of sugar, fat and salt in a big ball either. These things don't taste good by themselves, they make other things taste better. There are lots of "hyperpalatible" sugar only things. I can't really think of any fat only "hyperpalatible" things. Are there any foods that they add fat to? Really just trans fats. It's sad because he has all the facts there, he just doesn't put two and two together. To him, though, fat accumulation is just a calorie equation, so if reality doesn't fit his theory, it will have to be changed. He says its not as simple as calories in vs calories out. But I think he's basically right in that the vast majority of people who are trying to lose weight are just doing it wrong. One easy response to your criticisms is that dieters aren't rational people. People don't pick their food for the month beforehand and only eat what's on the list for the day. So yeah people get fooled by things like food density and especially hyper palability all the time. | ||
|
Garbels
Austria653 Posts
| ||
|
Garbels
Austria653 Posts
On September 02 2016 21:47 tofucake wrote: when consumed as juice because the part with calories (the juice) is separated from most of the mass of the fruit (indigestible fiber) which means for a glass of apple juice is like eating 3 or 4 apples Thats not how it is. The fiber content is pretty low. Most of the apple is water same as the juice. So they are similar in calories. But typically one would drink more juice than one would eat the whole thing(in terms of grams) but I don't think this is what he was saying. Probably just meant to say more instead of less. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On September 02 2016 17:38 Garbels wrote: Are you saying an apple has more calories than a donut? I mistyped there, yes. I was trying to say "does anyone really think an apple has more calories than a donut". Although, it's pretty telling that an apple has only half many calories as a donut. Miscounting calories could absolutely be an issue, but considering nutritionists can't get good results out of calorie restricted diets in even in controlled environments, I can't blame the average dieter too much. It's also clear that he seems to think sugar and fat are interchangeable and that you just need to count calories more. Maybe I should settle for the two lines quips. I try to be thorough in my analyses, but I might come off as a tad obsessive. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 03 2016 04:13 Jerubaal wrote: I mistyped there, yes. I was trying to say "does anyone really think an apple has more calories than a donut". Although, it's pretty telling that an apple has only half many calories as a donut. Miscounting calories could absolutely be an issue, but considering nutritionists can't get good results out of calorie restricted diets in even in controlled environments, I can't blame the average dieter too much. It's also clear that he seems to think sugar and fat are interchangeable and that you just need to count calories more. Maybe I should settle for the two lines quips. I try to be thorough in my analyses, but I might come off as a tad obsessive. Have you looked at how most diet studies are done? There aren't many over an appreciable time frame with a significant population conducted in a completely controlled lab setting where everything ingested is recorded by third parties. Although I'll be the first to admit that I think any dieter can eat as many apples as they want as long the rest of their diet is completely in order. It's the "rest of their diet is completely in order" part that 99% of people cannot achieve. | ||
|
phyre112
United States3090 Posts
Calves are my least favorite muscle on my entire body. | ||
| ||
