Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Talkback: Biggest weight loss myth revealed
*bugger*
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
Pfft, you're a distance runner- you can burn calories easily, like you need to worry.
Use smaller plates, and you'll be golden (no, really, it works). Also, the standard advice of avoiding snacking late at night, too.. See also:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35290671
You have a level of fitness that lets you run many miles at a stretch, so adaptation effects or no, it's really easy for you to increase your calorie burn. Most people would love to have your sort of problem
Hmmmm... Mathematician enters new field and reinvents the wheel. Yes, weight loss will taper after a few weeks. Your body weight decreases, less body, needs less energy, needs fewer calories etc. So you reset the baseline calorie intake. Or just settle at a new weight. If done correctly it's self limiting and you don't have to work out a new diet that stops you gaining weight at the end of the process.
Of course you can just figure it out at 100 calories a mile and stuff yourself as much as you like.
This new rule is crap.
100 calorie a mile sint going to be accurate though is it idiot...
it cant be the same for a 18 stone man than a 8 stone one.....also effort must take a part.....
all I know i can gain weight on 16 hr training weeks because of a twist of genetics.....I was born greedy...Its not my fault.i was born like it
I was born greedy, I love that. I suffer from the same problem myself!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35193414
I am most disappointed, as I reckon cakes and doughnuts aren't on my good list
i wonder what is on mine..i adore bread.
That was good reading Book. I always wondered where this 3500 rule came from and bloody heck 1958. I always thought it was more than that as well. I went through a spell on very high cals and now on low cals without budging the scales apart from muscle. I have never been overweight thank god but one thing I will always swear by is shocking the system. No matter where one is at or what they are aiming for the body will adapt and the process becomes much harder.
No Seren, I doubt it's accurate. It's roughly the figure on my Timex GPS at my casual pace. It does however give a baseline to work off. As does the 500 a day deficit. YOu set your initial estimate about there, see how it goes and then adjust as necessary.
1958 So What. Has 1lb of fat changed composition since then? They burn it in a lab it is 3,500 then and now. How do they calculate kcal in food? They burn them. So same measure.
Note he doesn't state that the calculation for kcal in food is wrong because we eat them not burn them. Odd that.
He uses Mifflin St Joer to calculate the calorie burn, which is only an estimation, as we are all different. I prefer Harris Benedict it works better for me. But he only gives a start and end calorie deficit, it needs to be calculated for every new weight. His model worked out about 4000kcal per lb of fat. But that is using the average of the start end deficits. But we lose more at the start (the clever man says so). So the average deficit would be less than that. Reducing the actual kcal per lb of fat to roughly 3927 based on 1/3 at the higher rate and 2/3 at the lower rate.
I wouldn't give him a PHD for that.
Of course its complicated, we are all different and some burn more some burn less.
I wonder how long the steady state calculations were done to create a bespoke RMR for the participants of the study where they maintained weight in a lab for say 6-months. I suspect this didn't happen and the first assumption is they fit the Mifflin or Harris models perfectly.
I'll give him a A overall for his report. Assuming it is an A-level project.
More food for thought:
http://mosaicscience.com/story/why-calorie-broken
Food for thought it may be. The actual margin for error is still less than 20%. Calorie counting and exercise energy calculations are not much more accurate then that.
The main thrust of that article is still an obsession with food. The focus of a lot of weight loss programmes seems to be on food. Not self control, not lifestyle, not health.
There is a booming market in recipe books, low calorie chocolate bars, low calorie biscuits, even, so help me, low calorie beer.
The main market for weight loss programmes is lazy so and so's who just want to get their weight loss over with so that they can go back to shovelling down the paunch pudding. The internet is awash with articles and adverts that tell you that there is a magic food that will guarantee you a beach body (probably beetroot, yuck!), that THIS ONE EXERCISE WILL MAKE YOU SLIM, that running will make you fat and kill you stone dead. All this tripe has a common theme, you aren't capable of managing your own life, so download the free ebook (advert) and then spend $19.99 on the magic programme.
I'll let you into the one big secret. Doctors don't want you to know this. Government scientists have suppressed this knowledge. The exercise industry doesn't want you to know this. This is the secret that will put aerobics instructors and personal trainers out of a job. So here it is.
If you want to lose weight, you have to eat less. If you want to get fitter you need to exercise more.
Mind blowing!
Only if you buy the special supplement for ten dollars a capsule.
Si idiot...... If i change my large healthy meals......for smaller meals that are full of crap and fat and sugar....I will lose weight.......as I am now eating less volume of food
Idiot - I am eating more now than I ever have done. My weight is not changing. Maybe the secret isn't so straightforward?
Shush, don't ruin the simple-minded rant with actual thought
You're dealing with study that describes 4mph. as 'running' and has subjects sneaking bags of M&Ms in with them.
Do you think that the problem is the precise measurement of calories ?
of course its not accurate.....
but its not simple like you indicate...
Its a vast complex problem......and excessive eating is as complex and psychological as undereating.....
the problem is we are now all aiming for the unattainable.and so noone is happy with what they have .....making it a vicious circle..
Come and live with me for a month. I guarantee you will loose weight then you can go and write books, become rich and give the money to me. job done.
Blow that for a lark Asitis. I've put on a stone since July and intend to carry on.
Also, what is it that you are proposing that will
a) burn a lot of calories and
b) Require payment ?
Seren. The human metabolic system is a massively complex thing, but it can be reduced to input and output. Eat nothing, waste away, eat until you burst, burst. Somewhere between the two you have balance.
If calorie calculations are within twenty percent then you are dong pretty well. The average food diary can be out by 50%.
If the approach to dealing with excess weight is based on obsessing about food, then the problem is likely to reappear.
if you over estimate by 20% then over a few years you will have a serious weight problem..
I am also intrigued by asitis offer.....It does sound a bit dodgy
Also, what is it that you are proposing that will
a) burn a lot of calories and
b) Require payment ?
Simple...
Train with me and eat what I do.
Yes your suspicions are correct Seren. The above formula is just for the ugly ones
so i will have to train then
If you are out by 20% and keep going for years, you'd have to be daft. Like I said, take a baseline figure, try it and adjust as necessary.
VDOT52. the health related components of fitness are: muscular strength, muscular endurance, cardio vascular, flexibility and body composition.
We'll leave out speed agility, power, reaction time and the other stuff as they are merely conflations of the first five.
If all you do is lose weight, you may be lucky enough to improve body composition a bit, but overall you are going to lose some lean mass as well as fat and need to take that into account. Your bloodstream is going to be less in volume and if you waste leg muscles then your running will not be improved. You can only hope that your strength to weight ratio will improve. For the very overweight this might work, but it's a poor way of seeking improvement.
By way of illustration, there was a guy over on a strength forum looking for a quick weight loss plan to improve his mile and a half run time. Yada yada entry test, he only has to do it in fifteen minutes and was thirty seconds over. Like I said, it's a strength forum, so the advice was all about pushing prowlers and dong 100m sprints. The idea that lifting heavy three times a week on the notorious Texas programme might be a drain on his resources didn't seem to occur to anyone. Eating less would have left the guy a physical wreck in a short space of time.
Anyway, I shall pass up the offers as I have another stone to gain.
I kind of think we are saying the same thing in broad terms but I think you are living in mythland.
Idiot, in one of your first comments you seemed to imply the author of this Talk Back article is a mathematician. That's not what he is best known for.
Is it not more to do with that a lot of people do not know (or maybe don't want to know?) how many calories are in food, and how much exercise it takes to burn calories in comparison? I think in my view (as someone who has lost a lot of weight in the past), getting the food right goes along way to losing weight and I started slowly with the exercise and slowly built it up. And then, for me, I found that instead of running to help lose weight, I was losing weight to help with the running. Now I hardly check the scales, except for after Xmas when I knew I'd put a bit on, but I soon got it off again