Your favorite health & fitness myths

[Centered]

Do you have any evidence that calorie counting is any better than fad diets in terms of weight loss? I mean long term weight loss in the empirical sense.

Calorie counting is scientifically valid. A fad diet like the one where people only eat fruit is extremely dangerous and very much invalid.

Fad diets are generally fads because they aren't good. If they're good they tend to have staying power.

Fad diets like the Atkins are successful at helping people lose weight. Calorie counting is helpful in getting people to lose weight. However, both these methods tend to fail in the longer run, because people don't keep doing the same thing. I doubt many people count calories the whole of their life.

People can lose weight in many unhealthy ways. Weight loss itself isn't the main issue. The issue is what is scientific and what isn't. That's why I addressed. As far as high protein diets go, my Ph.D Nutrition professor said ketosis is unhealthy and should be avoided.

A calorie is a unit of energy. Measuring how many calories a person takes in versus how many they burn is a scientific matter. Eating just fruit is unscientific because people need things like protein, B-12, and so forth.

I've seen a lot of people on calorie counting diets and few keep the weight off. I suppose most fail because they don't continue counting calories their whole life, but I'm open to other reasons that people gain weight. Most skinny people I know don't count calories. Is the difference simply genetic?

I am not addressing how easy it is to count calories. I am simply saying it has a scientific basis unlike many fad diets and "lose weight quickly" products.

 

[r2473]

In other words, no rebuttal.

I don't understand.

I saw a post that compared calorie counting with fad diets and snake oil weight loss products—as if they're all similarly bad.

Calorie counting is scientifically valid. Fad diets and snake oil products generally are not.

If you were responding to my original post, then as I said, I think you misunderstood what I said. Your point about fad diets and calorie counting being different is certainly correct, but again, it has nothing to do with my original post.

As endless arguing about nonsense seems to interest you, could you at least point out what part about my original post has led you to believe that I equate fad diets and calorie counting.

 

[TnTBigman]

How about those "shape up" shoes by Sketchers and Reebok. What a load of crap.

 

[OrangeOne]

Fad diets like the Atkins are successful at helping people lose weight. Calorie counting is helpful in getting people to lose weight. However, both these methods tend to fail in the longer run, because people don't keep doing the same thing. I doubt many people count calories the whole of their life.

Calorie counting is a useful education tool. It teaches people, it guides them. It's useful for a month or two for people to learn what's going on. Just because someone stops counting doesn't necessarily mean they fail - indeed they may stop as they know how to succeed without it now, whereas falling off a horrid 'eat only this' diet usually has guaranteed consequences.

 

[Centered]

Your point about fad diets and calorie counting being different is certainly correct, but again, it has nothing to do with my original post. As endless arguing about nonsense seems to interest you, could you at least point out what part about my original post has led you to believe that I equate fad diets and calorie counting.

I would if you would have enough courtesy to refrain from posting flame bait.

 

[r2473]

I would if you would have enough courtesy to refrain from posting flame bait.

Only if you would have enough courtesy to refrain from ad hominem attacks........or is this a red herring. Damn, I need to go back and review my logical fallacies.

 

[Power Player]

It's fascinating how every thread Centered posts in ends up with him having back and forth with multiple posters. I am not sure if it is the complete know it all attitude of this guy that causes this, but it sure seems like he needs to prove something. He obviously finds the internet to be a safer venue for doing such a thing.

 

[polski]

Myth: You can lose weight by eating less & excercising more

Fact: You can lose weight by burning more calories than you consume

If you consume less quantity, but you eat a high calorie diet, it will take much more excercise to burn off those calories. However, if you can control the total number of calories you intake (food & beverage) you can establish a successful calorie burning life style that will allow you to lose weight.

 

[r2473]

Myth: You can lose weight by eating less & excercising more

Fact: You can lose weight by burning more calories than you consume

If you consume less quantity, but you eat a high calorie diet, it will take much more excercise to burn off those calories. However, if you can control the total number of calories you intake (food & beverage) you can establish a successful calorie burning life style that will allow you to lose weight.

How do you know how many calories you burn (or use in some way)?

Is it simple addition?

Is it static and perfectly predictable? Meaning, the same actions will always result in the same number of calories burned no matter what?

Does your body compensate in any way for your changes in diet and exercise? In other words, if you consume fewer calories (and / or burn a greater number), does your body adjust as well?

If it is not static and perfectly predictable, how will a person know how many calories to consume to ensure they are burning more than they are consuming?

In other words, even if your equation is valid, how do we know that we are satisfying both sides such that we lose weight?

Or is the body mathematically perfectly static (or close enough) and I am making a bigger deal out of this than is necessary?

 

[El Diablo]

Yes, the body makes some adjustments in metabolism if you lose weight, BMR slows a bit to conserve mass. It even grows more body hair if weight loss is severe (the fine "lanugo" hair seen on anorexic teenage girls) to hold the body heat better so BMR can be lower.

 

[achokshi99]

Centered would you then think Verdasco or Feli Lopez or JM Gambill need more bodyfat or would benefit from it? Verdasco is probably lb for lb the strongest and fittest dude on the tour (yes we know he's a mental midget relative to his peers when it comes to match play).

15% bf is pretty avg, I think 10% is about as good as it gets where you don't compromise lower testosterone . What does that 5+% differential serve that you seem to be advocating for as in what's the benefit of having bf at that level if one is a high performance athlete?

Also what surveys/studies suggest that women prefer men w/higher bf levels? I would think the Verdasco, JM Gambill build is what the chicks dig.

 

[Fee]

Well I personally think JMG is nearly physically perfect, whatever his body fat % is. I am perfectly willing to post (many) pictures to prove it, if necessary. For scientific purposes, of course.

 

[Kevin T]

"Is it true that if you don't use it, you lose it?"

 

[polski]

How do you know how many calories you burn (or use in some way)?

Is it simple addition?

Is it static and perfectly predictable? Meaning, the same actions will always result in the same number of calories burned no matter what?

Does your body compensate in any way for your changes in diet and exercise? In other words, if you consume fewer calories (and / or burn a greater number), does your body adjust as well?

If it is not static and perfectly predictable, how will a person know how many calories to consume to ensure they are burning more than they are consuming?

In other words, even if your equation is valid, how do we know that we are satisfying both sides such that we lose weight?

Or is the body mathematically perfectly static (or close enough) and I am making a bigger deal out of this than is necessary?

It ain't that complicated. K.I.S.S.

And yes, you are making too big a deal of it.

I'd hate to see you when your spouse asks you what movie you want to see.

 

[r2473]

It ain't that complicated. K.I.S.S.

And yes, you are making too big a deal of it.

I'd hate to see you when your spouse asks you what movie you want to see.

You're probably right.

As I said, everyone reacts differently. Whenever I have lost weight, my body was unpredictable and didn't seem to obey "calories burned > calories consumed = weight loss". In my case, I attribute that to the unpredictability of "calories burned".

I think your experience is different from mine. Your body is obviously quite predictable.

 

[Centered]

It's fascinating how every thread Centered posts in ends up with him having back and forth with multiple posters. I am not sure if it is the complete know it all attitude of this guy that causes this, but it sure seems like he needs to prove something. He obviously finds the internet to be a safer venue for doing such a thing.

Troll elsewhere.

 

[Centered]

Centered would you then think Verdasco or Feli Lopez or JM Gambill need more bodyfat or would benefit from it? Verdasco is probably lb for lb the strongest and fittest dude on the tour (yes we know he's a mental midget relative to his peers when it comes to match play).

15% bf is pretty avg, I think 10% is about as good as it gets where you don't compromise lower testosterone . What does that 5+% differential serve that you seem to be advocating for as in what's the benefit of having bf at that level if one is a high performance athlete?

Also what surveys/studies suggest that women prefer men w/higher bf levels? I would think the Verdasco, JM Gambill build is what the chicks dig.

Optimal body fat percentage varies by sport. As for "what the chicks dig", that's a matter of fashion and a matter of the specific group/type of chicks we're talking about.

Ideal body types are largely culturally based. In China, men used to go wild for women with deformed feet. Michelangelo, who was mentioned earlier, used people we would call overweight today for the Sistine Chapel -- for his ideal.

 

[NLBwell]

Worst myth: Eating Low Fat foods will make you lose weight.

Low Fat Foods often have as high or higher calories than the regular kind (added sugar, etc. for taste) AND as a poster mentioned earlier, fat is processed more slowly than carbs and so you get hungry again quicker if you are eating carbs instead of fat.
The low fat craze coincided with a rise in obesity.

Grandma used to cook everything with lard, but few people were fat back then. (not saying lard is good for you, though)

 

[achokshi99]

Centered-

Re Verdasco and JMB, they likely have different bf % than Federer or Roddick so my question is in your opinion should these guys have more bf and how would they benefit from that? Their bf is not sport specific, there are tennis players with high bf and low bf.

what specific studies can you post here -> ie empirical data do you have that shows that today's women prefer men at x% bodyfat. Anything where it's x amount of women in the US or say UK or wherever were surveyed and this is what the results were?

We all know preferences change over history, yes during the renaissance curvier, by far what would be consider fat, was considered attractive. But I am speaking today. Any actual evidence that you can present which suggests any sample set of women in any society prefer men at bf levels above x?

 

[Avles]

Michelangelo, who was mentioned earlier, used people we would call overweight today for the Sistine Chapel -- for his ideal.

Really? I don't see too many people I'd call overweight here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_Sistine_Chapel_ceiling

Some of the feminine figures are a little beefy looking I suppose, but I think that he was in part basing them on male models.

And I certainly wouldn't call the David (maybe the best candidate for Michelangelo's ideal) overweight by any standard. What figures are you referring to?

 

[Centered]

We all know preferences change over history, yes during the renaissance curvier, by far what would be consider fat, was considered attractive. But I am speaking today. Any actual evidence that you can present which suggests any sample set of women in any society prefer men at bf levels above x?

I believe I already addressed this. When I was searching earlier in the topic and posted the illustrations of the men with different body fat percentages that site, or one that came up during the search, said 15% is considered the most sexy percentage. I don't have the link. Anyone who wants to use Google to find stuff about this is bound to eventually turn up that info.

I just don't have the motivation at this point to look for it again, especially given the rudeness of some of the posts so far. Given that body ideals have changed throughout history and have included things like deformed feet and waists so tight they caused organ damage, I think it's definitely reasonable to argue the super low body fat look is a fad, too.

 

[Centered]

What figures are you referring to?

I already discussed the physique of David.

Here is the link I posted about the Sistine Chapel.

The body fat percentage of many of those people is very well above 15%.

 

[sn1974]

People tend to think most others share their taste.

There's also a reason why female fashion models look like this in ads:

And like this in reality:

I don't like people with no body fat, male or female.

Interesting. Women tend to deposit body fat in their hips and breasts, which is sexy and attractive (see all the studies about preferences for women with a certain hip/waist ratio). Men tend to deposit it in their guts. Is that sexy? Perhaps to you and some small set of the population but not to most.

And anyway, you can't really compare verdasco, nakata, brooks and lutz to a fashion model in good faith.

 

[Power Player]

Hi guys I am going to talk down to you, tell you my subjective opinion on looks is better and then when asked for facts, state that I am offended and do not want to post the data now.