431–440 of 506 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ahh so you’re a Covid denying loon. This makes a lot of sense now.
That seems like a very uncharitable interpretation of what the poster said. I interpreted it as "Medical studies and statistics don't always map perfectly to the individual case."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how do we calculate Calories In and Out according to you? Becausr it sounds like that we have to deal with real world that really complex digestion, hormones, gut biome. You just start adding and subtracting numbers. At that moment CICO dies, because you won't be able to measure anything and just have black box which you give whatever number makes sense in the end. Not that it matters because the cells in human bo…
You have several misunderstandings of basic science. "Calories" are simply a unit of energy. The energy released by the utilization of ATP can be measured in any unit of measure you like for energy. It won't change the fact that the unit can be calories. This is like arguing about Celsius vs some other unit. Likewise, the CICO model has been replicated over and over again in high quality studies that don't rely on se…
You are under the incorrect understanding that human body is closed system. Food doesn't need to be digested and what is digested doesn't need to be stored in fat cells.
Question if you would eat all the food once a week would it have the same effect? Because in a closed system it would, you can fuel the car little by little each day or fill the whole tank. But after one week of fasting they body will respond much different, a person can even die of even trying that scenario [1]
Did anyone lose 5 kilo by switching to a light product?
But the issue at hand was why people without insulin can eat massive amounts of food but won't gain any weight? Can't explain that with CICO, you can with other models[2].
> "Calories" are simply a unit of energy. The energy released by the utilization of ATP can be measured in any unit of measure you like for energy. It won't change the fact that the unit can be calories.
This statement is not correct, Calories is burning food. While metabolism goes through absolutely complex system. Kerb cycle, where glucose, ketones, fatty-acids and oxygen are turned in ATP, Link is only 1 small part and doesn't even cover how food was digested before that, by the gut biom, stomach acids. [3]
Human metabolism is too complex to discuss here in the comments.
[0]https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/stop-counting...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refeeding_syndrome
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how do we calculate Calories In and Out according to you? Becausr it sounds like that we have to deal with real world that really complex digestion, hormones, gut biome. You just start adding and subtracting numbers. At that moment CICO dies, because you won't be able to measure anything and just have black box which you give whatever number makes sense in the end. Not that it matters because the cells in human bo…
A model being difficult or tedious to quantify doesn't make it false. And, all models are wrong, but some are useful. > But that is issue with CICO, it's like magic box and we only have to count IN, as much at what makes the calculation correct later on, also with OUT. That is not very scientific. The whole physics is a magic box. We find qualities of materials after we measure them, because that's how the model is c…
Here is a link from Harvard saying to stop counting calories[0]. Here is another link from Havard[1] going over the contestants of the biggest loser and how they are doing now.
There is new model The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of Obesity[2] which has explanation that does explain the edge cases CICO is missing.
But calories are measuring food, and at the moment there is no better way to have overview of how much across different types of food. But CICO itself doesn't help with long term weight loss.
[0]https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/stop-counting...
[1]https://www.health.harvard.edu/diet-and-weight-loss/lessons-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> HIT (High intensity training, what is discussed in the article) training achieves the same effects as much longer endurance training at much shorter times Certainly not the same effect. HIT training doesn’t improve respiratory or cardiovascular fitness as effectively as continuous training does, and it doesn’t condition the muscles for endurance as effectively as continuous training does either. I don’t know much a…
>Certainly not the same effect. HIT training doesn’t improve respiratory or cardiovascular fitness as effectively as continuous training does, and it doesn’t condition the muscles for endurance as effectively as continuous training does either. This is actually incorrect. It's not well known, but the science is actually very clear about this. HIIT is much more effective then long term continuous exercise for VO2 max.…
HIIT doesn't "work better" than continuous training in this respect, it simply targets a different part of the system than continuous training does. For instance if you wanted to increase the stroke volume of your heart (a component of VO2 max), then the scientifically proven best way to do that is with extended aerobic exercise (continuous training).
VO2 max is also not the only measure of fitness. For example, lactate threshold is an incredibly important factor for distance running, and it is improved by extended periods of training at your lactate threshold (continuous training). Incidentally, you wouldn't be excepted to reach your lactate threshold during a 1 mile run. For even more context, Eliud Kipchoge doesn't have an especially remarkable VO2 max, it's about what you'd expect from any elite athlete. But he does have an absolutely insane lactate threshold.
Modern endurance training is incredibly science based. That's why if you go and look for a marathon training plan on the internet, even the most basic ones are going to include a mixture of different training intensities, distances and durations. It's also why the athletics team who made that video I posted also have other videos describing the high intensity components of their training regime, and why the members of this athletics team have succeeded in pushing the limits endurance performance much further than they ever have been pushed before.
If you'd like to take up debunking training myths, I'd suggest you look a little bit further into what VO2 max actually is, and what other types of fitness metrics also exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pooping out excess calories is not usually what people mean by “calories out” in CICO
Right, because excreted calories are typically consistently small for most people. That’s not necessarily true for diabetics, so someone with that condition will have a different experience with it.
> Despite intensive research, the causes of the obesity epidemic remain incompletely understood and conventional calorie-restricted diets continue to lack long-term efficacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't stand this "it's just physics" talking point when it comes to calories and weight loss. Why don't you try consuming exactly as many calories of gasoline as your body burns each day and then tell me whether you lose or gain any weight?
I think the assumption with trying to be healthy and track your calories is you are eating a healthy and balanced diet, and not things like potato chips, candy, or gasoline all day. Then with healthier food choices a consistent value for you in your life, you don't have to worry about that Starbucks drink that's 600 calories because you just wouldn't be drinking those things with this new mindset. Then it doesn't eve…
It's 8 minutes, not one minute The people in the study were out of shape to start with The improved measures were insulin sensitivity index, peak oxygen uptake, and "skeletal muscle mitochondrial content" No change in body mass In conclusion, if you're out of shape, you can improve a limited number of fitness measures just as much doing 3x8 minutes of higher intensity exercise as much 3×45m less intense exercise over…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Everybody knows that high intensity exercise does more than low intensity ones per hour invested. At least in running world. No. This is actually wrong. You should read Scott Johnston's "Training for the Uphill Athlete" to understand why.
I read that book, and as with most other sources of information about endurance training, I found it to be very focused on the situation where people are limited by their recovery budget. I couldn't tease out what the guidance would be for someone who only works out 3-4 hours per week. There would be physiological explanations of the unique value of low-intensity training, and I would think, "Sounds like this applies…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I cut my calorie intake by a moderate amount, I don't lose any fat. If I cut my calorie intake by an extreme amount, I start to lose fat. My hypothesis is that the equation that weight loss is related to calorie intake minus expenditure, but I think the conclusions one draws from it fail to take into account how much the body can control expenditure. My body seems to naturally drift up in fat weight, very slowly -…
That was my exact personal diagnostic, until 2018. My weight very slowly drifted upward, but you start adding 0.5kg-1kg per year over a couple of decades, with a few dips here and there on dietary effort, and the result was a health disaster. My solution, and mine alone after trying oh so many different diets and strategies, went through regular aerobic exercise, at a rate of 3-4 hours per week. In my case it was swi…
I *still* had to really starve myself to lose fat. My aerobic fitness was excellent, as was my flexibility. My core strength was awesome. Fat was another matter.
I'm not the only one like that.
I know people for whom cutting down eating works, and people for whom exercise works. I'm not one of them.
As a footnote, I couldn't lose 30kg without seriously injuring myself. I'm overweight, but not deeply obese. Losing 15-20kg would put me at an ideal fat level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with that, as do most people. What I object to is that calories-in-calories-out is the ONLY thing at play, and people claiming "simple physics" are working against any deeper understanding of the issues. I think this side of the argument is "Just eat less and you won't be fat. Duh." What they don't understand is that if a body has a hormonal anomaly, it might need to 5000 kcal/day just meet the 1500kc/day bas…
More is more and less is less. If this wasn't the case, you'd have discovered a solution to famine. And gastric bypasses are one of the most effective interventions available for people with such disorderd eating that lifestyle changes can't stick.