11–20 of 293 posts
I guess it's just a coincidence that most athletes aren't overweight. It doesn't have anything to do with them exercising?
But, wait.... #10 - eat less fat? That runs counter to science too... http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-con...
It you a eat a lot of fat you will get fat too. Its all about moderation. If you eat 4000 calories of FAT everyday you will get fat.
But, wait.... #10 - eat less fat? That runs counter to science too... http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-con...
It you a eat a lot of fat you will get fat too. Its all about moderation. If you eat 4000 calories of FAT everyday you will get fat.
Don't expect to be able to exercise enough to lose much weight.
a
I guess it's just a coincidence that most athletes aren't overweight. It doesn't have anything to do with them exercising?
It's also true that many endurance athletes are pretty careful about what they eat. My brother, who was a pretty good high school and college runner (5ks and 10ks especially), used to say he had a high body fat for a runner because he ate ice cream. His BMI? Maybe 20, 21 at most, and he was lifting weights back then.
A more contemporary discussion would include the idea that the different state of being caused by exercise causes less food intake ... which incidentally is true for me personally.
It is entirely possible that people that exercise regularly never have any trouble with their weight and thus never show up in these studies.
I guess it's just a coincidence that most athletes aren't overweight. It doesn't have anything to do with them exercising?
I thought the same thing at first, but then I read this. We're talking us regular folks getting maybe an hour of exercise. If you're an athlete you're getting WAY WAY more so it makes sense that you're burning off calories like mad.
I'm not sure about the hunter gatherer example. That was interesting. Maybe they are in much better shape and can be active a large portion of the day without expending much more energy. Or simply, the activity isn't extremely high-level.
But, wait.... #10 - eat less fat? That runs counter to science too... http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-con...
It you a eat a lot of fat you will get fat too. Its all about moderation. If you eat 4000 calories of FAT everyday you will get fat.
Calories-in-calories-out without considering the hormones that drive both satiety and crucially fat-storage-vs-fat-mobilization (and thus drive both how many calories are craved and how many are burned) is misguided. CICO isn't wrong, but for all practical purposes what drives CICO in real life are those hormones, which are in turn affected by the ratio of fats and carbs in diet: chiefly insulin and leptin. How those are affected by 4000kcal-of-carbs-low-fat (badly) vs 4000kcal-of-fat-no-carbs (benign/beneficially) is easy to find out.
4000kcal of fat and low carbs, if one could stomach it for years, after a few weeks of keto-adaptation? They'd be a tad little bit fatter than they'd like, and feel profusely hot and sweaty. As their leptin and insulin sensitivity gets ever-better, 4000kcal will soon become impossible to stomach, however. 4000kcal of carbs and low fat for years, just become obese and get metabolic syndrome.
Healthy eating is super super important.