Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   12/08/21

      Thanks for visiting Cascadeclimbers.com.   Yep, we are still going!    Just put a new coat of paint on the site. Still the same old community of climbers, skiers, and people who love to get outdoors. Hope you had a great 2021, and wish you the best for 2022 and beyond.  Thanks again for stopping by.
Sign in to follow this  
astrov

how to burn fat

Recommended Posts

In a world where gaining a 1-5% advantage will get you written into history as a great athlete, no expenses are spared, and every effort goes into peak performance. Training, recovery, nutrition, and psychological status all come together to make a bid at greatness. I know nothing of these things, and I'm tired of people pretending that they, in fact, do.

 

Opinions are great. Especially, well-defended opinions. Furthermore, I wish people had stronger ones and actually stood by them but my optimism fades when I hear reductionists who peer through a microscope at the world and babble pronouncements based on what they see and read. Scientific research is great at one thing: correlating evidence to a point of confusing the fuck out of everyone. Whatever it is, you have you can find a study to support your pet belief and use it to prove yourself correct or to defend whichever actions you take, regardless of opposing studies. I'll use caffeine as an easy example: if you like to use it there are plenty of studies showing the benefits in endurance sports/ heart health/ cognition and so on. But the opposite is also true. If you were so inclined you could very well point out that abuse of caffeine (which is undefined, because we are all individual little snowflakes) can harm adenosine receptor sites thus raising cortisol levels. Then I might counter by citing this study in which they showed cortisol reduced to control levels - even in excess of 600mg - and such and such until we have a panic on the 10 o'clock news and I get a call from my grandmother because coffee is killing everyone.

 

This doesn't mean research isn't useful, or that we can't apply it in an appropriate manner. But the trend is to sit before a computer screen and hyperlink until the cows come home, extracting paragraphs from particular studies to draw conclusions that support what ever you're selling and to influence normal people to eat a certain way or to NOT train that way, all the while boasting your opinion of this athlete and that nutrition strategy. These keyboard experts are no better than the fat ass on the couch yelling at the TV for his team to pick it up, or the guy at the bar slugging down beer screaming for more elbows in a fight he is not fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gadd, probably.

 

now back to the microscope:

 

what's your source about starving fatties and fat burning at the altar of protein! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with exercise science and much of the nutrition science literature out there is that it's not truly peer reviewed because funding is so scarce. Most of what I have read would not have been published in any reputable journal in a different field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any problems in the Exercise science literature that you don't see in other fields. There are questionable journals, like the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Which still has some very good articles) but also very reputable journals, such as the Journal of Physiology or the Journal of Biomechanics. The problem is that 90% of the literature is poorly done. The hard part is learning how to distinguish between the good and the bad, but you have to do that in all fields, not just Exercise science. Nutrition on the other hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jon's point which I agree with is that any publishment with reputation has reputable authors with reviewers. There is no "90% of the literature is poorly done"; there are good authors with reputation, knowledge, and followed by review followed by editing. If not then don't read it or at least don't believe it. Whatever the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree, I was mostly being facetious w/the 90% thing. My point (which was poorly made) is in agreement with Jon's except for one thing, There is a lot of bad literature out there coming from bad research, but that applies to all fields, not just exercise science.

 

It's true that many "exercise science" journals will except papers without much of a review process. On the other hand, many researchers in the exercise science field (Biomechanics, Neuromechanics, Motor control, ect) get their papers published in more of the "hard science" journals such as the ones I mentioned earlier, which have high standards and stringent review processes.

 

I think the issue is that the term "exercise science" has come to encompass many disciplines, some of which are "softer" than others.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the OP is still even reading this meditation...

 

a calorie does not necessarily equal a calorie, as eloquently laid out by one Dr. Robert Lustig, below. the reason for that is how different macromolecules are metabolized, their byproducts, and pathways they employ. if you consume 2000 calories of fiber-loaded plants (*unprocessed), they are going to be treated by your body very differently from 2000 calories' worth of twinkies.

 

to distill and answer the original post - avoid, or at least, limit fructose.

 

pubmed lustig for primary lit, youtube-cliffs notes are here:

[video:youtube]feature=player_detailpage&v=dBnniua6-oM

 

skip to ~45:00 if you just want the biochemistry.

 

1:11:30 addresses exercise. this guy isn't an exercise scientist, but i think it's worth a listen.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this is a great lecture. The argument of weight gain caused by proliferation of fructose in our diet in infants is hard to argue with. I would add, that equally damaging effect will have proliferation of Growth Hormone and use of antibiotics. I think there should be a strong push to curb damaging effect of food industry in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would add, that equally damaging effect will have proliferation of Growth Hormone and use of antibiotics.

 

also, vaccines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Lustig video not only decontextualizes the hfcs "problem", but also makes various incorrect assertions.

 

Without going into all of these, i think it's important to note that the average humanoid's caloric intake in the US has gone from what, 2,100 a day, to around 2,700 a day.

 

At the same time, the average US humanoid has become much more sedentary.

 

So a perfect storm, really: people stuffing their faces more (yes, with shitty foods), and exercising less.

 

So what's gonna happen? You feed a humanoid excess calories in whatever form, and it's gonna store the stuff.

 

now it does happen that fructose consumption has increased dramatically, and overconsumption is a problem, but i think it's a gross oversimplification to simply say "americans are fat fucks, and fructose is the reason."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if the OP is still even reading this meditation...

 

a calorie does not necessarily equal a calorie, as eloquently laid out by one Dr. Robert Lustig, below. the reason for that is how different macromolecules are metabolized, their byproducts, and pathways they employ. if you consume 2000 calories of fiber-loaded plants (*unprocessed), they are going to be treated by your body very differently from 2000 calories' worth of twinkies.

 

to distill and answer the original post - avoid, or at least, limit fructose.

 

pubmed lustig for primary lit, youtube-cliffs notes are here:

[video:youtube]feature=player_detailpage&v=dBnniua6-oM

 

skip to ~45:00 if you just want the biochemistry.

 

1:11:30 addresses exercise. this guy isn't an exercise scientist, but i think it's worth a listen.

 

 

Still here. I made it to about 1:09 last night and will finish tonight. Interesting, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pointing the finger at fructose while dismissing dosage and context is like saying that exercise should be avoided because it makes you fat and injured by spiking your appetite and hurting your joints.

 

hah, pretty funny, and relevant.

 

i think a decent take on the whole fructose alarmism: linky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kimmo, don't be so angry. i'm not an exercise specialist, so i'll leave it to others to write about. i just like to eat.

 

it's hard to argue for continued over-consumption of sugar, and i thought that the video was good. and you are right: sugar isn't the only bad guy!

 

it's just harder to tell people to eat less of other things, like meat. people get angry when you try to take away their steak...

 

US total meat consumption, in billion pounds:

gr-totalmeatconsumption-462.gif

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-a-nation-of-meat-eaters

 

 

it's interesting, in the link you provide (which supposedly quotes the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) data), they claim that meat consumption has gone down. that doesn't jive with a lot of other information out there.

 

cheers. eat more plants, i tells ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per capita consumption of calories from meat would be more relevant. US red meat consumption has gone down - any increase is due to the substitution of fish and fowl.

 

The US population has grown 4x since 1909 - so the per capita graph would be far less steep (and misleading) than shown here.

 

In addition, people throw away over 30% of what food they do buy. This has gone way up as refrigeration, convenient shopping, dropping normalized food prices, and rising incomes have become the norm. If the data is based on food purchased, this factor alone could easily outweigh any increase in meat consumption, caloric or otherwise, indicated in the graph provided.

 

In the end...who cares? If an individual wants to lean out, its not rocket science:

 

Eat whole foods.

Minimize processed foods. This includes fruit juices.

Eat at home.

Learn your portion sizes. You can enjoy all the steak you want - all 3 oz of it.

Buy good food. If you're going to limit your quantity, you might as well enjoy what you do eat.

Add your own sugar to things to control intake. Commercial stuff is way too sweet anyway.

Eat your veggies.

Cheese is a condiment, not a course.

Dietary supplements, with the exception of Omega 3, Vit D, and perhaps joint support, are a scam.

Get your sleep.

Avoid cars as much as possible.

Exercise.

Edited by tvashtarkatena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stick to the topic and drop the personal antagonism, it is not appropriate in any forum except Spray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In the end...who cares? If an individual wants to lean out, its not rocket science:

 

Eat whole foods.

Minimize processed foods. This includes fruit juices.

Eat at home.

Learn your portion sizes. You can enjoy all the steak you want - all 3 oz of it.

Buy good food. If you're going to limit your quantity, you might as well enjoy what you do eat.

Add your own sugar to things to control intake. Commercial stuff is way too sweet anyway.

Eat your veggies.

Cheese is a condiment, not a course.

Dietary supplements, with the exception of Omega 3, Vit D, and perhaps joint support, are a scam.

Get your sleep.

Avoid cars as much as possible.

Exercise.

 

"Dear Tvashtarkatena, some of your above prescriptions for "leaning out" might have merit, some, not so much. Perhaps it was not your intention to present your above opinions as "facts", and if this was the case, my apologies for misinterpreting your tone.

 

With Love,

 

Kimmo"

 

Is this better, offwhite? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kimmo, which of Tvash's prescriptions do you disagree with? Look pretty much spot-on to me.

 

Going running now ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kimmo, which of Tvash's prescriptions do you disagree with? Look pretty much spot-on to me.

 

Going running now ...

 

 

Astrov, oh my, i'm getting a little done with this thread, but i'll try to answer your question.

 

 

 

so...

 

-3 oz meat rule: silly, not necessary, and probably impossible for most to adhere to. lean meat is, well, lean, with a pretty low calorie count (especially grass fed), so i'm damn well gonna enjoy my steak when i decide to have one. am i gonna eat this every day? no, but there are paleo folks out there who are very lean, seemingly healthy, and eat a lot of meat, every day.

 

-no cheese as main course: another one of those vague generalizations without any context. should people be gorging on cheese? it'd be pretty damn tough to stay within one's energy in/energy out equation if this was a regular habit. but damn, some decent fondue sounds pretty good right about now.

 

-eat at home: huh? not sure what this is about. i'm pretty sure some friends of mine who eat almost every meal out are healthier and thinner than homeslice here.

 

-portion sizes. i'd go crazy if i tried to limit my portion sizes all the time. hey, it's one way to go, and if it's working for him, great, but certainly NOT necessary for weight loss.

 

-buy good food. what's that? kale's pretty good, and so is a pint of ben and jerry's dulce de leche. made with non-rbgh milk too. hey, how about a pint?

 

-dietary supplements. not sure what these might have to do with losing weight, per se. maybe for general health and athletic performance? depending on what one's goals are, i think creatine and beta-alanine have some compelling research showing performance improvements. so, my problem is with his wording, "dietary supplements are a scam" (except for the ones he lists), since it seems other supplements have research supporting their value.

 

 

and the most glaring omission is the old energy in/energy out part of the "losing weight" formula. i think his prescriptions allude to the fact that one needs to limit what they eat, but do so in a vague way without spelling it out. because, really, in the end, that is THE aspect of diet that HAS to be addressed, much much more so than what supplements one is taking, or how much cheese is one eating at a particular meal, or whether or not one exceeded 3 oz's of meat in a sitting :rolleyes:.

 

 

it's not entirely germane to the discussion at hand, but it would also be interesting to know how well his diet prescriptions are working for him. i mean, is he lean??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's part of an answer to the portion size question.

 

A study investigating aging in mice has found that hormonal changes that occur when mice eat significantly less may help explain an already established phenomenon: a low calorie diet can extend the lifespan of rodents, a benefit that even regular exercise does not achieve.

 

“We know that being lean rather than obese is protective from many diseases, but key rodent studies tell us that being lean from eating less, as opposed to exercising more, has greater benefit for living longer. This study was designed to understand better why that is,” said Derek M. Huffman, the study’s lead author.

 

The study applies only to rodents, which are different in some key ways from humans, cautions Huffman. However, at least two studies which examined people who engage in high-volume exercise versus people who restricted their calorie intake, had a similar outcome: caloric restriction has physiological benefits that exercise alone does not. Researchers expect that clues to the physiology of longevity in mice will eventually be applied to people, Huffman said.

 

Source

 

If you want to live longer constantly feeling like a starving rat is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually feck, that doesn't address portion size, only the total caloric intake.

 

what's interesting to me in these studies is that the non-exercising calorically restricted mice lived longer than the exercising mice. which means to me that exercise is a stressor, not inherently good for the body?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure whether or not caloric restriction is a "stressor", but it certainly seems to promote health and longevity.

 

but I've read starvation can be a peaceful way to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×