CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Nutrition
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Nutrition Diet, supplements, weightloss, health & longevity

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-17-2011, 10:39 AM   #61
Seth Leaman
Member Seth Leaman is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Portland  OR
Posts: 120
Re: Lower Fat vs Lower Carb study

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewis Dunn View Post
Do you mean the chart labeled "This is just a rough chart that I made...."?
yep. sorry if its not good enough for you. Its an oversimplification for people who can't understand what the rest of the text means, hence why I put the emphasis there.

Last edited by Seth Leaman : 07-17-2011 at 10:44 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 10:41 AM   #62
Seth Leaman
Member Seth Leaman is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Portland  OR
Posts: 120
Re: Lower Fat vs Lower Carb study

i was being sarcastic. I agree with thermodynamics regarding weight loss,and I agree with Lyle's quote
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 11:50 AM   #63
Lewis Dunn
Member Lewis Dunn is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Vancouver  WA
Posts: 258
Re: Lower Fat vs Lower Carb study

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth Leaman View Post
I agree with thermodynamics regarding weight loss...
The first law of thermodynamics is an equation (and one with which Taubes completely agrees, but you know that). It doesn't imply causality. Saying that one gets fat because they take in more calories than they expend is like saying that your basement is flooding because more water is coming into it than is leaving it. Not because there is a broken pipe. Not because some prankster stuck a running hose through the window. Not because the drain is clogged. The reason your basement is flooding is completely explained by the laws of thermodynamics.

Taubes doesn't dispute that fat people take in more calories than they expend. He wants to know why they do that.

(wfs)http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/in...of-overeating/

"As for the great majority of experts who say (and apparently believe) that we get fat because we overeat or we get fat as a result of overeating, they’re the ones making the junior-high-school-science-class mistake: they’re taking a law of nature that says absolutely nothing about why we get fat and assuming it says all that needs to be said. This was a common error in the first half of the 20th century. It’s become ubiquitous since."
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 12:14 PM   #64
Seth Leaman
Member Seth Leaman is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Portland  OR
Posts: 120
Re: Lower Fat vs Lower Carb study

I agree there's a psychological advantage to low-carb diets, but not metabolically. I don't see a problem with low-carb dieting if that's what floats your boat. However, for many, it is not a sustainable or enjoyable lifestyle. I like to point out that there is no need for such extreme diets, despite what many here preach. I'm just trying to bring some sanity to the concept of dieting. If you absolutely can't control yourself while eating carbs and have to resort to drastic measures to lose weight, well then so be it. Just don't pretend the diet has magic fat-burning abilities.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 04:54 PM   #65
Rob Samuels
 
Profile:  
Posts: n/a
Re: Lower Fat vs Lower Carb study

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Z Sachs View Post
If your body burns more calories than you consume you will lose weight. I'm not talking about going on a treadmill for 1.5 hours and looking at how much you "burned", I'm talking about your BMR + exercise - calories consumed. I lost weight eating mostly crap food by simply counting my calories - I started at 260ish and lost over 65lbs eating white rice, hamburger meat, bread, and diet soda. It has nothing to do with exercise. If you simply eat less than your BMR I believe you'll lose weight. Again, it may not be the healthy way, and it's likely you're messing up your metabolism and losing more muscle than fat, but you will lose weight.
I'm just saying that is not a complete equation of how you gain or lose weight. You could consume the same amount of food and do no exercise yet lose more weight than you did with exercise by spending time in cold water. Meaning, calories in calories out as it relates to exerice is just a piece of the puzzle, not the rule. What you eat and what enviroment you are in along with the exercise you do and a host of other things all go towards gaining or losing wieght/fat.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 05:03 PM   #66
Katherine Derbyshire
Member Katherine Derbyshire is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 7,596
Re: Lower Fat vs Lower Carb study

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Samuels View Post
I'm just saying that is not a complete equation of how you gain or lose weight. You could consume the same amount of food and do no exercise yet lose more weight than you did with exercise by spending time in cold water. Meaning, calories in calories out as it relates to exerice is just a piece of the puzzle, not the rule. What you eat and what enviroment you are in along with the exercise you do and a host of other things all go towards gaining or losing wieght/fat.
In this context, "spending time in cold water" counts as exercise. It forces your body to burn additional calories.

The problem is that many people seem to go too far in the opposite direction. Rather than simply noting that calories in vs. calories burned through exercise is overly simplistic, they act as if that equation doesn't matter at all, and go on to make utterly ridiculous claims and give terrible advice.

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 05:22 PM   #67
Brett Dartt
Member Brett Dartt is offline
 
Brett Dartt's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Tacoma  WA
Posts: 983
Re: Lower Fat vs Lower Carb study

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katherine Derbyshire View Post
You wouldn't eat the same for weight loss as you would to support athletic performance. I can't speak for Darryl, but most of my own suggestions that people eat more carbs are aimed at people who are complaining about lack of energy during workouts, etc.

Katherine
what about people who are lack energy during workouts and would like to lose weight?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 07:43 PM   #68
Katherine Derbyshire
Member Katherine Derbyshire is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 7,596
Re: Lower Fat vs Lower Carb study

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett Dartt View Post
what about people who are lack energy during workouts and would like to lose weight?
Yep, them too. If you have no energy, your diet isn't sustainable and you need to eat more or do less.

Katherine
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 07:51 PM   #69
Rob Samuels
 
Profile:  
Posts: n/a
Re: Lower Fat vs Lower Carb study

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katherine Derbyshire View Post
In this context, "spending time in cold water" counts as exercise. It forces your body to burn additional calories.

The problem is that many people seem to go too far in the opposite direction. Rather than simply noting that calories in vs. calories burned through exercise is overly simplistic, they act as if that equation doesn't matter at all, and go on to make utterly ridiculous claims and give terrible advice.

Katherine
Spending time in cold water is certainly not exercise. It burns calories yes but in no context is it exercise. By that definition sleep would be considered exercise as well.

If anything it could be compared to rest for its recuperative abilities. But I suppose this is a long way from the original concept of this thread anyway.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2011, 08:08 PM   #70
David Z Sachs
Member David Z Sachs is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: San Antonio  TX
Posts: 106
Re: Lower Fat vs Lower Carb study

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Samuels View Post
Spending time in cold water is certainly not exercise. It burns calories yes but in no context is it exercise. By that definition sleep would be considered exercise as well.

If anything it could be compared to rest for its recuperative abilities. But I suppose this is a long way from the original concept of this thread anyway.
If it burns calories then the example still applies to calories in/out. You're making your body burn calories to warm it by subjecting it to colder temperatures. Regardless of the way you want to look at it, you are costing your body more calories. It can be looked as an alternative means to burning calories as to not classify it as exercise, but you're still burning calories.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lower Spinal Sensitivity and Lower Back Pain Colin McLafferty Injuries 2 12-07-2009 08:34 PM
lower carb than zone jonathan stewart Nutrition 14 02-14-2009 07:51 AM
Lower carb zone Kevin McKay Nutrition 9 06-30-2006 11:17 PM
General Zone Question: Why start with lower fat and add fat later? Ross Hunt Nutrition 4 04-25-2006 03:37 PM
Body fat 17.4%. How much lower can I safely go? Matthew Townsend Nutrition 14 06-23-2005 10:16 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.