mister_mister

for stress on the ligaments and joints weight is one the most important factors. Be it from a weighted vest, fat, or muscle. Joints of humans are not made to carry the weight of a strongman.

I would advice to lose the barbell and focus on dumbbells and machines. Try training more like bodybuilders instead of power lifters. Using the full range of motion, and being able to rotate while performing the movement will decrease the tension on your joints and ligaments.

> "This idea of 'a calorie in and a calorie out' when it comes to weight loss is not only antiquated, it's just wrong,"[0]

Would it be possible to share sources of the claims that you're making? Instead of demanding them and not reading them when they are presented.

There is no reason for those Ad hominem attacks. We can have civil disagreement.

[0]https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/stop-counting...

Low carb diet is about lowering the amount of carbs someone consumes, only some vegetables that have many carbs or starches are best to avoided, because they have more then 60% of their content in the form of carbs vs less then 10% for other vegetables. on the list to avoid, or eat limited amounts are Potatoes, rice, grains.

For example: Broccoli has 6 gram of carbs per 100 gram vs rice that has 80 grams of carbs per 100 gram.

Would it be possible to at least look at the sources and argue against them? A appeal to authority, and an Ad hominem won't help the discussion along.

Thank you, for at least reading the sources:) At this moment you'll be aware that are other ideas out there. To explain the link with biggest loser, the show used CICO model for the contestants to lose weight. And they did lose weight, So that would suggest CICO is working. But there was follow up and almost all contestants got their original weight back, and others could only eat 1200 calories in a day, that's unsustainable.

And the reason is only the missing of one hormone, and fat cells won't store energy. The opposite also true, there are people with too much insulin that will gain allot weight.

> Despite intensive research, the causes of the obesity epidemic remain incompletely understood and conventional calorie-restricted diets continue to lack long-term efficacy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082688/

> A model being difficult or tedious to quantify doesn't make it false. And, all models are wrong, but some are useful.

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-...

[2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082688/

> "This idea of 'a calorie in and a calorie out' when it comes to weight loss is not only antiquated, it's just wrong,"[0] Link from havard.

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

[2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082688/

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle

That is problem with CICO proponents start with scientific terms. But it always ends up with magic what does or does not count based and whatever the argument they are in. CICO models doesn't state anything they claim, but it in the end it's argument into nothing. Because human cells does not use calories it uses ATP through the kerb cycle. That whole process so bizarre complex, and then also based on so many confounded factors, that CICO is just too simplistic and it's almost impossible to lose weight and keep it off according to the model. Link to study about how the biggest losers contestants are doing after the show. Hint not well...

https://www.health.harvard.edu/diet-and-weight-loss/lessons-...

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 body use ATP not calories. As such calories are at best a proxy for how much food.

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. Because we are unable to reproduce anything.

I have posted the article before, have you read it? https://www.everydayhealth.com/eating-disorders/diabulimia/

They do have glucose metabolism[0], but that is the issue with CICO model already you have to start making extra rules about what is digestable and what is not. Calories doesn't state that all. Offcourse it wouldn't because the Calories concept was made for steam engines in 1800's.[1] Not that is matter from when it is. But maybe it's time for new ideas that do explain that conundrum of those type 1 diabetics. The Carbohydrate-Insulin Model of Obesity[2] does have a explanation.

[0]https://www.healthline.com/health/diabetes/insulin-effects-o...

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie

[2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082688/

I'm afraid that is incorrect, type 1 diabetes still have glucose metabolism, with diabetes type 2 glucose metabolism could be impaired but with type 1 that is not the case.

What has changed is that without insulin glucose will stay in their blood damaging organs and veins.

Insulin signals to cells take up glucose and other nutrients, first organs like the liver, then the muscles.

More information in the link from healthline. https://www.healthline.com/health/diabetes/insulin-effects-o...

That's the point it will not lead to weight gain. But according to CICO they should become fat, but they won't. And if this is possible by not having one hormone. That is quite a big discovery. The human body is way more complex then one hormone. And fat gain can be due to many reasons, another hormone could be cortisol, bad sleep, Obesogens[0].

If CICO does not factor in what is not stored or digested. Therefor it's a flawed model. Therefor it would be better to look at what is working, and wath was working before we got unto the low fat craze. In the 1950 up to 1980 bodybuilders where eating low carb high protein diets. Everyone was thin back then, just now we are returning to knowlegde.

But the thing is according to latest science obesity the focus is not on CICO anymore. Would be great if more people would be willing to conduct their own N=1 studies and try low carb dieet, keto, or intermittent fasting. It works the same way by keeping insulin low. It might do wonders.

[0]https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/what-are-obesogens

[1]https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/stop-counting...

They are genetic outliers because are able to operate at a elite level, but if you would learn more about sport and nutrition then those diets wouldn't look so extreme. They are eating goal based diets, that's different diet then normal person could or should consume. Hall and Phelps diet is not one that very sustainable but Metcalf one is actually the quite similiar to longevity diets. As such statements about that they are just genetic freaks this a disservice to diets they are eating and what we can learn from that.

If they would 4k their bodies will start to adjust to those levels, would that be their top performance probably not. The human body is very adaptable to any kind of circumstance.

Calories concept is from 1819.[0]

Are you aware how calories are measured?

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie

yup, Someone might even die because of refeeding syndrome.[0]

Continuing on your point the body is there not a closed system as defined as:

> In a closed system, no mass may be transferred in or out of the system boundaries. The system always contains the same amount of matter, but (sensible) heat and (boundary) work can be exchanged across the boundary of the system. Whether a system can exchange heat, work, or both is dependent on the property of its boundary. [1]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refeeding_syndrome [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system

The question how do we explain why people without insulin are able to stay thin, while eating massive amounts of calories with the CICO model. Because that case is breaking the model.

Since your stating that eating once a day is the same as eating once a day. Would you have any sources for that claim?

Did you know there is allot of research going into the effects of intermittent fasting[0]?

If you would search for OMAD (one meal a day) on google or reddit you would see that that statement does not hold. There are many changes because blood sugar will stay stable during the day. Nor will there be insulin spikes. There are health startups starting just for stable glucose levels and the health benefits by using continuous glucose monitors[1].

They already attracted many from the health and longevity communities. It's also possible not to use their product by just eating once a day.

[0]https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-preventi... [1]https://www.levelshealth.com/

They are unit of energy and that is correct. But they are not the unit of energy that cells use, they use ATP that is created from ketones, fatty-acids, glucose and oxygen[0]

Measuring food through calories, which are derived from burning food is therefor quite old technology, it's from 1800 when steam engines where main way of powering the western world.

As a thought example to push CICO model to it's end: For example we can't eat coal, but it's very calorie dense. According to CICO model we should be able to eat just little bit of coal, and drink tiny amount of fuel. So that would also suggest there is more to the story of nutrition then CICO.

Mammals are not as simple as factory machines.

For example CICO would suggest to lose weight to eat 500 calories less then normal, as average that would be 2500 for men. But if we would rephrase that: In order to lose weight eat 1/5 less then normal. Then that would have the same effect, that is issue with calories they tell a story about food but it's not the full story. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycle

During the exercise the body is in a state of flight or flight[0], the other mode is rest and digest. So during hunger will go away, but the body will want to be able to exert the same or more(because that amount was at least needed), and as such it will start fighting against rapid weight loss by exercise, by increasing hunger, and or slowing metabolism.

The reason why this is quite simple, body is unable to see the difference betweenexercise and staying alive in a hostile world. As such staying alive will always be prioritized. If CICO would work then we wouldn't be obesity pandemic[1]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_nervous_system [1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28292617/

The body is not closed system if it would be perfect close system then eating once a day or once per week would have the same effect spreading that over the day. The cells do not use calories. They use ATP, converted different pathways such as glucose, fatty acids, ketones and oxygen.

Calories are measured by burning them, so that means we are using two different measurements that may overlap but are not compatible.

In the Calories model would it be possible to explain why people with diabetics type 1, that don't use insulin stay thin even though they would eat massive amounts?

https://www.everydayhealth.com/eating-disorders/diabulimia/

Reading about the diet of DK Metcalf that is Low carb, Intermittent fasting, with plenty of vegetables is according to the latest science. Eddie Hall has goal based diets, Normal people wouldn't be able to process the amount of food he eats, can't be healthy to eat that much. But at the same time it's clearly working for him. Just saying genetics does a disservice to them.

It means that are other metrics such as torque, Fuel economy, Noise/Vibration, Power-to-weight ratio.

Here is a link to the metrics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_metrics

Here is video explaining why horsepower doesn't really make that much sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC2-JKO0c2I

Just like calories, horsepower doesn't explain much.

The reason it's so difficult, to almost impossible to get fat on those foods you have listed. Is because you'll become too full to overeat. Not only is it healthier for plethora of reasons. But you'll eat less.

On top of that, if eating for long enough your gut biome will change and you'll start craving whole food.

"yes, plain broccoli for the win"

Obviously since some of them dance around the topic, and won't say outright say it. We just have the occasional hiccups during interviews where they give it away.

naturals shouldn't take advice from people that juiced up. The amount of volume they can do bizarre, and way more then naturals can do. The wear and tear on the ligaments, joints and spine is dangerous.

It's even dangerous for them, at least one of them got very badly hurt.

"I just barely started taking creatine. And what I do know of their opinions are squarely against them - this is why I was asking for concrete examples"

That is great example you found, there way more. Because creatine is one of most research supplement. It is safe with clear benefits[0]. Since they are using steroids they might miss the clear effects of creatine and are giving information that is incorrect and therefor harmful. What science is actually saying that creatine is safe and can not only help with muscles it can also help with brain performance[1].

> Creatine is one of the most popular nutritional ergogenic aids for athletes. Studies have consistently shown that creatine supplementation increases intramuscular creatine concentrations which may help explain the observed improvements in high intensity exercise performance leading to greater training adaptations. In addition to athletic and exercise improvement, research has shown that creatine supplementation may enhance post-exercise recovery, injury prevention, thermoregulation, rehabilitation, and concussion and/or spinal cord neuroprotection. Additionally, a number of clinical applications of creatine supplementation have been studied involving neurodegenerative diseases (e.g., muscular dystrophy, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s disease), diabetes, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, aging, brain and heart ischemia, adolescent depression, and pregnancy. These studies provide a large body of evidence that creatine can not only improve exercise performance, but can play a role in preventing and/or reducing the severity of injury, enhancing rehabilitation from injuries, and helping athletes tolerate heavy training loads. Additionally, researchers have identified a number of potentially beneficial clinical uses of creatine supplementation.

For almost anyone that is not training hard their body is still in what is called the nooby phase, where incredible growth in power, size, endurance can happen. After 1 of 2 years of training this will stop however and gains will be become more difficult. Within that period anyone can get the feeling as if they are taking steroids.

unto your question: > Part of my (very idle and intellectual) curiosity is if steroids can be used safely If you are able to source Medical grade steroids, from reputable sellers. And you have health professionals, and doing regular blood work. Then yes it can be safely done. And you'll need good sporting coach to make sure you won't strain your joints too much.

Many athletes take them without the above, because their livelihood depends on it. But there are young people dying because they buy programs that only work for enhanced people. And they are failing to progress with that program and start using weird pills from the internet that are containing many weird substances. You don't know what you are going to get. And with drugs you can at least feel the effects, but can't feel the difference between different steroids or other molecules interacting with your organs.

[0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5469049/ [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691485/

Because I've actually watched their content, Some of them are open about it, some are not. Other commenters in this thread now about it. But you are not aware while linking their content?

But selling programs based on pictures that have been achieved with steroids is not helpful for getting people to optimal health.

Some of the people behind linked programs even have life altering injuries from the strain of working out with steroids.

The original article is about daily exercise.

The issue with steroids is that they can alter your body organs permanently.

https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/steroids-...

" Cardiovascular system

    high blood pressure
    blood clots
    heart attacks
    stroke
    artery damage

Hormonal system

Men

    decreased sperm production
    enlarged breasts
    shrinking of the testicles
    male-pattern baldness
    testicular cancer

Women

    voice deepening
    decreased breast size
    coarse skin
    excessive body hair growth
    male-pattern baldness
"

The original article is encouraging that even little bit of daily exercise is great. But the links are about doing conventional gym stuff.

If you take steroids your body will respond different then normal people. Using steroids and then to promote your programs that act like it's possible to achieve them without is dangerous.

The strain they will be able to put on their bodies are not the same as without. Even with steroids the strain is so high it can lead to serious life changing injuries like at least one the some of the linked have found out. There many young people that have used steroids and have completely worn out joints.

Actually that is right. Horsepower is quite meaningless, engines of today with same horsepower will out perform 40 years old engines in all metrics that are important to us.

Yeah, It's starting point. if it would lead into Macro and micro nutrients that would be great.