Overload /limitations to adaptation.
100 karma · joined July 19, 2012
Yeah, weight loss is greater because of the bigger WATER loss. (1g Glycogen = 3g Water) Which results in greater intial weight loss. Besides the possibility of low carb being a better treatment for adipose patients/people suffering from Metabolic Syndrome.
"In short, whatever facts anyone wants to bring up, there will always be more that either disprove, or at least throw them into doubt." > Mostly, if you don't know what you are talking about and haven't dived into the actual primary literature. Most just lack some basic domain knowledge and read some Taubes. Now they think there must be some big controversy with carbohydrates and low carb going on. Meh.
Self experimentation is great if you use a non retarded approach. I find too many people trying to reinvent the wheel instead of focusing on some basics and then experimenting with how to integrate them into their life/habit.
How adipocytes "should" behave depends on circumstances... Insulin resistance is probably more a defensive mechanism against the deleterious effects of overeating.
"The flawed thinking, that calories burned by the body is a fixed amount that doesn't vary based on calories consumed, is simply wrong." Who believes that nonsense? Of course we have adaptive mechanisms that regulate energy output (especially NEAT) based on energy intake. The kcal in/out model is very much valid. You just have to account for fluctuating variables in the formula.
"The key is that energy expenditures only rise when the calories consumed are not being partitioned for storage. Elevated insulin levels cause storage of fatty acids, and inhibit release of fatty acids from fat cells by triggering them to be bound up into triglyceride molecules." But this does not happen in a vaccum. This does not matter if you undereat. And if you overeat on mostly fat we still have extremely significant mechanisms to store these TAGs independently of insulin : HSL / ASP.
So it's useless. Regarding Crossfit: There are some very valid reasons I think very badly about CF. It has amazing marketing and can offer a great community (though cult-like). But harms a lot of people long term > see comment above.
If I say I swim, but I actually bareknuckle fight with other guys. Would it be correct to call this "swimming"? Kind of weird to just rename an activity. Regarding empty stomach: http://examine.com/faq/is-it-better-to-do-aerobic-exercise-f...
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/should-you-be-...
People just call clean, whatever they like/think is beneficial. Everything they deem harmful is unclean.
An anti-inflammatory An anxiolytic A brain booster A heart health compound A liver health compound
How is this misleading? See: http://examine.com/about/#support
Trans fat page is in the works AFAIK. Also it's mainly a supplement site. (wiki for the evidence on supps) FAQ is just a useful addition.
What kind of questions do you have?
Spillover can be very significant, regardless of training. It depends on the makeup of the trainee. The body doesn't work like that (first muscle, than fat) for most people. It's a constant flux in and out of the cells and the overall trend over weeks and months matters for your body composition. For that reason muscle gain (as a more advanced trainee) tends to require some with fat gain if you want progress at any decent speed (Leangainers often don't). Why wait for a couple hours btw? There is no magical switch flipped, which prevents fat gain after waiting a bit longer. You probably misunderstood how important some of the processes after a high intensity training session will be for body composition. Read the article above for an explanation.
Depends on caloric density. I have no problem overeating vastly on good ice cream or nuts& dried berries. Easy to get down an additional 3000kcal.
Agree on the crossfit comment.
Also you can get fat on a very low carb diet if you eat too much fat/energy. As a lot of low carb "gurus" do (such a jimmy moore). As a biochem major you should be aware of other mechanisms besides insulin. (ASP & HSL) Insulin is so terribly overrated.
Regarding fructose: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... http://weightology.net/?p=434
Gluten is extremism overhyped, but sensitivity to it can be a problem.
When people go on a low carb diet they: a. restrict their food intake by restricing their choices (less processed foods if you exclude a massiv part of " b. increase protein intake (protein has a higher thermic effect than any other macronutrient and drastically cuts down total kcal consumption in ad lib feeding trials by reducing appetite)
You can do something similar with a low fat diet (on which another part of the population will feel better - skewed towards more active and leaner people).
Low carb (whatever that means - not clearly defined) isn't a better choice for your health than a mixed diet with a high(er) protein intake. If it works for you: great. But that doesn't mean calories don't count and carbohydrates/insulin cause obesity. Nor that it works for everyone.
The problem lies in intentional deceit. Tim is a smart guy and had access to very accomplished, smart people. Very unlikely that he can't think critically about some of the nonsense he puts out. For example he gets very basic physiological mechanisms astonishingly wrong and can't reach his own fitness or language goals with his own advice.
"If I'm upset, it's just because I happen to lose out in today's culture." Make the most out of yourself and play the numbers game. The culture is better than at any point in the past. More choice, more freedom for both sides (it's not a war or a competition - everybody wins). You just "loose" if you don't invest in yourself and overcome fears.
> Toxins everywhere
> Fear mongering
Seems very much you are wasting your 7$: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/your-disease-y...
His formula doesn't make any sense. Health=micronutrients/kcal is a useless approximation. Implies that if you reduce kcal by switiching to more micronutrient dense foods, you'll always be healthier. Which is untrue (there are problems such as starvation, hypervitaminosis, drinking saltwater would be a great idea...) and highly depends on a plethora of other factors.
It's pseudoscience.
(And I say that as a future MD who also does science based sports/nutritional consulting, so be assured I know of the importance of diet and exercise in disease&health.) There are far better sources out there.
But the first and most important (!) factor for body composition and fatness is still caloric balance. As confirmed by a vast amount of experimental data in real humans under controlled conditions. Which is Jacques Point. Macronutrients (as well as micronutrients) do have very significant consequences (Leptin, Insulin blabla.). But that won't help at all if caloric intake/output don't match your goal. It seems you read some of that nonsense Gary Taubes & co perpetuate?
Source: I'm a med student & fitness professional, who also writes fitness books. And gets results.
Does it really?