[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
Some of them pick a diet and adhere to it, but the diet itself fails them
[/quote]
That’s a pretty lame pretense, and finding the perfect diet will not mean that people will follow it.
I suppose that SOME people just randomly pick a diet and hope for success. I honestly don’t think the choice of diet is the real reason why such people will fail. Lack of effort would be my top guess. Beating obesity is less about choice of diet and more about determination and consistency.
[/quote]
Considering that you have countless people doing well with carb heavy diets, people doing well with keto diets, cyclical diets, PSMF’s… I find it very hard to buy into the “diet failed me” excuse.
[/quote]
So what happens when an obese person stops losing weight because no BMR equation takes into account reductions of BMR from both drops in leptin and caloric reduction. Therefore they’re eating at maintenance levels unknowingly. Meanwhile all their literature is making them scared of eating less because of “starvation mode” and “metabolic damage”.
The person was also told to exercise more - it’s as simple as that. So they just added another 15 minutes on top of their elliptical training (which happens to be the only thing they’re doing).
[/quote]
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
So what happens when an obese person stops losing weight because no BMR equation takes into account reductions of BMR from both drops in leptin and caloric reduction. Therefore they’re eating at maintenance levels unknowingly. Meanwhile all their literature is making them scared of eating less because of “starvation mode” and “metabolic damage”.
The person was also told to exercise more - it’s as simple as that. So they just added another 15 minutes on top of their elliptical training (which happens to be the only thing they’re doing).
[/quote]
THere’s a hell of a lot more to weight loss than just balancing cals in vs cals out. THat’s why you have so many clients of popular nutrition coaches raving about the ‘magical’ diets they’re on.
The same goes for exercise. You don’t just keep adding cardio and taking away food. Anyone worth their salt knows this. Just what wonderful literature do you think everyone without your guidance is resorting to?
The more you write, the more it just sounds like you’re regurgitating things you’ve read from several pretty established people in the field. (This specific reply sounds like you just finished reading Aragon’s quoted email dismissing metabolic damage. Am I right? Am I right?! -lol)
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
LOL, OP your diet sucks. You could’ve been eating not-raw food every day and been just fine. What will you do now that your GOD science has failed you!?[/quote]
Yes, science is a failure.
So I started at 175 lbs with 134 lbs of lean tissue (19.5% BF, 7 lbs BMC). I’m losing weight right now and am down to 158 lbs in 42 days. The goal of losing weight is of course to maximize fat loss while minimizing lean mass losses. How much lean mass would I need to preserve in order for this to be considered a successful weight loss diet? How much fat mass would I need to lose by 90 days for this to be considered successful?
Let’s qualify these and we can judge at the end if this is successful or not.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
LOL, OP your diet sucks. You could’ve been eating not-raw food every day and been just fine. What will you do now that your GOD science has failed you!?[/quote]
Yes, science is a failure.
So I started at 175 lbs with 134 lbs of lean tissue (19.5% BF, 7 lbs BMC). I’m losing weight right now and am down to 158 lbs in 42 days. The goal of losing weight is of course to maximize fat loss while minimizing lean mass losses. How much lean mass would I need to preserve in order for this to be considered a successful weight loss diet? How much fat mass would I need to lose by 90 days for this to be considered successful?
Let’s qualify these and we can judge at the end if this is successful or not.[/quote]
So… you decided to “see what happened”, and then retroactively – based on the results you’re seeing – decide what the purpose of the diet is?
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
LOL, OP your diet sucks. You could’ve been eating not-raw food every day and been just fine. What will you do now that your GOD science has failed you!?[/quote]
Yes, science is a failure.
So I started at 175 lbs with 134 lbs of lean tissue (19.5% BF, 7 lbs BMC). I’m losing weight right now and am down to 158 lbs in 42 days. The goal of losing weight is of course to maximize fat loss while minimizing lean mass losses. How much lean mass would I need to preserve in order for this to be considered a successful weight loss diet? How much fat mass would I need to lose by 90 days for this to be considered successful?
Let’s qualify these and we can judge at the end if this is successful or not.[/quote]
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
The more you write, the more it just sounds like you’re regurgitating things you’ve read from several pretty established people in the field.[/quote]
When you give advice to people isn’t that part of what you should be doing, quoting the experts? Isn’t that what people are doing here helping me work on form?
I discuss the concept and studies on metabolic damage in the FAQ so no I didn’t just read up on it.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
LOL, OP your diet sucks. You could’ve been eating not-raw food every day and been just fine. What will you do now that your GOD science has failed you!?[/quote]
Yes, science is a failure.
So I started at 175 lbs with 134 lbs of lean tissue (19.5% BF, 7 lbs BMC). I’m losing weight right now and am down to 158 lbs in 42 days. The goal of losing weight is of course to maximize fat loss while minimizing lean mass losses. How much lean mass would I need to preserve in order for this to be considered a successful weight loss diet? How much fat mass would I need to lose by 90 days for this to be considered successful?
Let’s qualify these and we can judge at the end if this is successful or not.[/quote]
So… you decided to “see what happened”, and then retroactively – based on the results you’re seeing – decide what the purpose of the diet is?[/quote]
No, but it’s producing results. If someone wants to say my diet sucks and it produces good results in any area I’d disagree that it sucks. Seeing how weight loss is emerging as the forerunner in effects I want to establish what would qualify this as a successful cutting diet.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
LOL, OP your diet sucks. You could’ve been eating not-raw food every day and been just fine. What will you do now that your GOD science has failed you!?[/quote]
Yes, science is a failure.
So I started at 175 lbs with 134 lbs of lean tissue (19.5% BF, 7 lbs BMC). I’m losing weight right now and am down to 158 lbs in 42 days. The goal of losing weight is of course to maximize fat loss while minimizing lean mass losses. How much lean mass would I need to preserve in order for this to be considered a successful weight loss diet? How much fat mass would I need to lose by 90 days for this to be considered successful?
Let’s qualify these and we can judge at the end if this is successful or not.[/quote]
I would say a grown man taller than 4’8" dropping his weight from 175 to 158 is a completely failed diet. How short are you that you were 175 pounds at 20% body fat? Why are you trying to maximize fat loss while maintaining muscle? Why aren’t you trying to slam on muscle while minimizing fat gain? If your target audience is men trying to look like they’re stuck in puberty that’s fine, but who the hell cares about how well your diet cut the fat off of your skeleton?
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
The more you write, the more it just sounds like you’re regurgitating things you’ve read from several pretty established people in the field.[/quote]
When you give advice to people isn’t that part of what you should be doing, quoting the experts? Isn’t that what people are doing here helping me work on form?
I discuss the concept and studies on metabolic damage in the FAQ so no I didn’t just read up on it.[/quote]
I doubt most people who’ve offered to help your form are “quoting the experts” but rather relaying the accumulated knowledge of their own experience and those of others. It’s far far less “scientific” than I think you realize, and yet still just based as much or more in reality.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
The more you write, the more it just sounds like you’re regurgitating things you’ve read from several pretty established people in the field.[/quote]
When you give advice to people isn’t that part of what you should be doing, quoting the experts? Isn’t that what people are doing here helping me work on form?
I discuss the concept and studies on metabolic damage in the FAQ so no I didn’t just read up on it.[/quote]
Stu doesn’t quote the experts, he IS the expert. That’s what you aren’t getting. It’s all about the legwork. If you had a PhD after your name you wouldn’t be catching half of the slack you are (maybe).
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
You don’t just keep adding cardio and taking away food. Anyone worth their salt knows this. Just what wonderful literature do you think everyone without your guidance is resorting to? [/quote]
This is how many people interpret “eat less, exercise more”. Go visit the MFP forums and have a field day…
[quote]PureNsanity wrote:
Seeing how weight loss is emerging as the forerunner in effects I want to establish what would qualify this as a successful cutting diet.
[/quote]
Without getting sciency or anything, I’d say it has to do with the high amount of protein and the caloric deficit.
You know, like all the other successful cutting diets.
Although I have a feeling that you’ll come up with something completely different and think it has to do primarily with the infrequent feedings or something.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Stu doesn’t quote the experts, he IS the expert. That’s what you aren’t getting. It’s all about the legwork. If you had a PhD after your name you wouldn’t be catching half of the slack you are (maybe).
[/quote]
Are you suggesting that an expert never learns from, or quotes anyone other experts? That’s pretty ridiculous…
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
You don’t just keep adding cardio and taking away food. Anyone worth their salt knows this. Just what wonderful literature do you think everyone without your guidance is resorting to? [/quote]
This is how many people interpret “eat less, exercise more”. Go visit the MFP forums and have a field day…
[/quote]
From a recent article on this very site: “The more I study the metabolism the more convinced I become that dieting by eating less and exercising more is by far one of the major blocks to permanent change.”
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Stu doesn’t quote the experts, he IS the expert. That’s what you aren’t getting. It’s all about the legwork. If you had a PhD after your name you wouldn’t be catching half of the slack you are (maybe).
[/quote]
Are you suggesting that an expert never learns from, or quotes anyone other experts? That’s pretty ridiculous…[/quote]
Yes but you are not an expert
You are a hipster of the nutrition and exercise world.
Seriously, who the fuck wants to eat raw meat all the time? You would get the same results, with much less chance of serious illness, by cooking your food. It would also be more delicious. I suppose you will finish this “experiment” just to say you finished your “experiment.”
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Stu doesn’t quote the experts, he IS the expert. That’s what you aren’t getting. It’s all about the legwork. If you had a PhD after your name you wouldn’t be catching half of the slack you are (maybe).
[/quote]
Are you suggesting that an expert never learns from, or quotes anyone other experts? That’s pretty ridiculous…[/quote]
Yes but you are not an expert[/quote]
Stu doesn’t quote the experts, he IS the expert.
No I’m not, and Stu is, but that doesn’t mean Stu doesn’t learn from or quote other experts. To suggest so is ridiculous…
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Stu doesn’t quote the experts, he IS the expert. That’s what you aren’t getting. It’s all about the legwork. If you had a PhD after your name you wouldn’t be catching half of the slack you are (maybe).
[/quote]
Are you suggesting that an expert never learns from, or quotes anyone other experts? That’s pretty ridiculous…[/quote]
I’m not suggesting anything. I’m outright saying that you are not an expert at anything fitness related. You are the literal manifestation of the TNation article today. You are someone with no legs to stand on whom the internet has given a giant microphone.