I had a lot of problems with the previous video, some of which seemed to have been addressed. It still seems like there are some weird things going on with this one. Their point about muscles not...
I had a lot of problems with the previous video, some of which seemed to have been addressed. It still seems like there are some weird things going on with this one. Their point about muscles not really helping in weight loss seems to imply that the number of pounds you weigh is the most important factor for health and aesthetics. Shouldn't the standard be your body fat levels and not your overall weight? I weigh more now than I ever have at any point in my life, but the majority of my weight gain was from muscle growth. I'm "overweight" by population standards, but no one would look at me and think that.
The perspective of "weight" being the key indicator of health is really what kept me from engaging with exercise. It felt like a DOA goal. To be a healthy BMI I'd have to weight similar to what I...
The perspective of "weight" being the key indicator of health is really what kept me from engaging with exercise. It felt like a DOA goal. To be a healthy BMI I'd have to weight similar to what I did at 16 years old. At my absolute lowest as an adult, cycling daily and too poor to afford much food beyond can vegetables, eggs, and the occasional sausage, I was still at the high end of "overweight."
Now at my weight, height, and body fat, my FFMA is on the very high end where most metrics suspect steroid use (which I've never touched). I'm 5'8" and 230lb. I definitely can lose some fat, that might get me to 220. But I can cycle at an aggressive pace 30-40 miles pretty easily, play tennis, swim laps. And in lifting competitions I'm generally in the top 3. My blood panels are healthy, and my medical history spotless.
Abandoning some idea of what my weight "should be" was freeing and removed the idea that exercise would "fail" if I didn't get myself down to 160. Which essentially what I weighed at 15 and was a spending all my time doing martial arts.
It sounds like you are very healthy. I get the impression that people confuse beauty and health standards (and IMO large doesn’t mean unattractive anyway). For me it would be hard to be overweight...
It sounds like you are very healthy. I get the impression that people confuse beauty and health standards (and IMO large doesn’t mean unattractive anyway). For me it would be hard to be overweight while staying active. Cardio and weight lifting pressure me to eat a somewhat measured diet. I’m curious what an average day looks like for you in terms of food intake (including fractional alcohol intake, fractional sweets if you might drink twice per week and eat pastries occasionally). Don’t feel any obligation to respond. I understand no one wants to be put under a microscope. It’s just for my curiosity.
Yeah no worries. I haven't been tracking since May but my diet and weight has changed very little. Standard day: Breakfast: Smoothie with water or 8oz 2% milk, berries, ice, and 2 scoops of...
Yeah no worries. I haven't been tracking since May but my diet and weight has changed very little.
Standard day:
Breakfast: Smoothie with water or 8oz 2% milk, berries, ice, and 2 scoops of protein powder (~50g).
Lunch: chicken breast on a tortilla, lettuce, tomatoes, cheese, jalapenos, mayo. A 30g protein shake.
Dinner: A serving of Hello Fresh meal. Maybe another 30g protein shake.
Calories usually around 1900, with 200g of protein.
Alcohol intake varies but I don't drink during the work week. About 50% of weekends I'll buy a 6 pack and spread it through Friday-Sunday.
Sweets: I have a sweet tooth so generally we don't keep them around the house. If there is an F1 race I'll usually grab a half dozen donuts for the weekend. We have high protein granola bars, cliff bar, etc. in the cabinet, I'll have several of these a week to satiate my sweet tooth.
My uneducated understanding is health is mostly about making sure you have the nutrients you need. Extra carbs on top will show on your belly but your body at least has everything it needs to keep...
My uneducated understanding is health is mostly about making sure you have the nutrients you need. Extra carbs on top will show on your belly but your body at least has everything it needs to keep stuff working. I guess you could try eliminating all empty carbs and alcohol if you wanted to step things down. But I wouldn’t worry about your lifespan or healthspan with that diet.
Not that I think you don’t understand that. I just want to agree with you here so anyone reading can confidently decide to exercise and eat healthier regardless of the impact on their body fat percentage.
The major takeaway seems to be that losing weight is about eating less and not about exercising more. Which is actually pretty standard advice these days. Obviously exercising is critical...
The major takeaway seems to be that losing weight is about eating less and not about exercising more. Which is actually pretty standard advice these days. Obviously exercising is critical regardless. The human body evolved with the expectation that it would be used to fight for calories. Not simulating that environment leaves all sorts of internal systems to fall apart.
I'm still suspect about their claims and would love to actually see a study diving into it - portioned out meals, strict exercise/no exercise plans, multi-year and multi-exercise cycle study. But...
I'm still suspect about their claims and would love to actually see a study diving into it - portioned out meals, strict exercise/no exercise plans, multi-year and multi-exercise cycle study. But I'd be open to humans effectively burning the same or similar amount of calories to being true. It flys in the face of everything I've ever learned about fitness so I'd need to see some very real, repeatable data on it.
I think we're all going to find any video on weight loss, exercise, and food frustrating. We all have specific and different goals, experiences, and genetics. Any video that is broad enough to cover everything will be too broad to actually be helpful.
My last point is that small differences in calorie burn - be it through differences in metabolism or negligible amounts from exercise as the video calls out - can be really impactful. Just an additional 200 calorie difference per day over your newly contested "burn rate" leads to gaining a pound every 17 days or 20 pounds a year. So don't let someone be dismissive if the difference between metabolisms is "just 200 calories, that's like one apple!" True it is an apple, but those add up more quickly than many of us recognize. And calories can be harder to burn for those just getting started - because someone who is fitter can put more energy into a much shorter amount of time. This means for every hour that an average fit person would take to burn X number of calories, it would take a newbie 2-4 hours to burn the same calories. That is crazy!
I didn't care much for the original video, and your point is a niggling dissatisfaction I have with this one. However, they make it hard to address by separating diet from exercise. Both exercise...
I didn't care much for the original video, and your point is a niggling dissatisfaction I have with this one. However, they make it hard to address by separating diet from exercise.
Both exercise expenditure and caloric restriction will result in metabolic adaption, or adaptive thermogenesis. Meaning your body does tend to plateau its energy expenditure whether you exercise more, eat less, or both. The studies I linked above go into details, but the mechanisms aren't well understood and the papers jargon heavy.
However, studies do show that small sustained deficits are possible through diet or exercise. Your body just tries to adjust and conserve through various means, like reducing your body temperature.
The reality is that your diet and exercise are closely linked and both drive your metabolic rate. Additionally, most of the discussion is on moderate exercise. If you exercise like athletes do, and eat enough to keep yourself out of a starvation state, you will burn a large amount of calories commensurate with your activity level. But the amount of exercise in this case vastly exceeds what most people consider reasonable.
Yeah, like if their research is correct - which again is just a straight up departure from the vast majority of what I've learned - then it's a cool video. Kind of misleading but I'd love to know...
However, they make it hard to address by separating diet from exercise.
Yeah, like if their research is correct - which again is just a straight up departure from the vast majority of what I've learned - then it's a cool video. Kind of misleading but I'd love to know specifically more about those studies. It immediately makes me think of the Oatmeal comic specifically about running so he could eat more.
However, studies do show that small sustained deficits are possible through diet or exercise. Your body just tries to adjust and conserve through various means, like reducing your body temperature.
That is so interesting! I do open water swimming every day in around ~11C water (as low as 8 and as high as 14) and the variability of how cold I feel rarely feels related to the ambient water temperature or time in water. Like I'll have a 12C day and come out shivering and then a 10C day and come out fine having swum the same distance. I wonder if it has to do with deficits based on my other exercise activities. Or maybe I'm reading that completely wrong!
For the temperature regulation, that was for sustained caloric restrictions, so it's possible if you run a regular deficit. I think the metabolic adaption papers I linked are somewhat explaining...
For the temperature regulation, that was for sustained caloric restrictions, so it's possible if you run a regular deficit.
I think the metabolic adaption papers I linked are somewhat explaining what the video tried to communicate. It's just that for the video, it's hard to communicate well without using language that would lose most folks, like your body modulates its autonomic functions based on levels of exertion and caloric intake.
But the video also hobbles itself by separating diet out, when that is really the other side of the same energy expenditure coin.
Anecdotally, I used to swim competitively, and I usually got cold when I was hungry, and nauseous when my electrolytes were off.
It's linked in the pinned comment on the video, but in case anyone missed it, here's the video transcript with the changes from the old video highlighted:...
It's linked in the pinned comment on the video, but in case anyone missed it, here's the video transcript with the changes from the old video highlighted:
I’m not at a point where I can watch the whole video but this was a lot better than the original, even if only from adding the disclaimer about the complexities of nutrition science, the state of...
I’m not at a point where I can watch the whole video but this was a lot better than the original, even if only from adding the disclaimer about the complexities of nutrition science, the state of internet discourse, and the fact that the things they are stating are generalizations.
Some things just shouldn’t be 10 minute overviews. Which is probably why this revised video is 13 minutes. It’s great that they went back to clarify things, but it’s a bit of a shame because I was really looking forward to their follow-up they had planned.
You might be talking about a different planned video, but if you meant their upcoming video on diets as a follow-up to this video on exercise, then I'm pretty sure that video is still planned (and...
I was really looking forward to their follow-up they had planned
You might be talking about a different planned video, but if you meant their upcoming video on diets as a follow-up to this video on exercise, then I'm pretty sure that video is still planned (and I am also looking forward to it).
Nope, that’s the one I was referring to. It was the big missing piece to their exercise video. Though if I’m being completely honest it was at least partially because I wanted to see the...
Nope, that’s the one I was referring to. It was the big missing piece to their exercise video.
Though if I’m being completely honest it was at least partially because I wanted to see the inevitable drama around it. Diet is more complex than exercise by orders of magnitude, so squeezing it into 10 minutes is basically an impossible task.
This version removed the statements I objected to in the first one. On the balance I think it does a good job communicating a complicated topic in a format people will understand, and it disclaims...
This version removed the statements I objected to in the first one. On the balance I think it does a good job communicating a complicated topic in a format people will understand, and it disclaims edge cases such as athletes. Good on them for improving it.
Do keep in mind it is still very topical and targeting people who know little about calories and exercise. However, it states fewer absolutes, and disclaims edge cases like athletes. So on the...
Do keep in mind it is still very topical and targeting people who know little about calories and exercise. However, it states fewer absolutes, and disclaims edge cases like athletes. So on the whole it's ok mass market communication.
Yeah, I am slowly getting through it now. It's still hard to watch because it has an overall vibe of "why even exercise?" which I don't like, and you can see where they covered their asses on...
Yeah, I am slowly getting through it now. It's still hard to watch because it has an overall vibe of "why even exercise?" which I don't like, and you can see where they covered their asses on statements that pissed people off on the previous video.
I had a lot of problems with the previous video, some of which seemed to have been addressed. It still seems like there are some weird things going on with this one. Their point about muscles not really helping in weight loss seems to imply that the number of pounds you weigh is the most important factor for health and aesthetics. Shouldn't the standard be your body fat levels and not your overall weight? I weigh more now than I ever have at any point in my life, but the majority of my weight gain was from muscle growth. I'm "overweight" by population standards, but no one would look at me and think that.
The perspective of "weight" being the key indicator of health is really what kept me from engaging with exercise. It felt like a DOA goal. To be a healthy BMI I'd have to weight similar to what I did at 16 years old. At my absolute lowest as an adult, cycling daily and too poor to afford much food beyond can vegetables, eggs, and the occasional sausage, I was still at the high end of "overweight."
Now at my weight, height, and body fat, my FFMA is on the very high end where most metrics suspect steroid use (which I've never touched). I'm 5'8" and 230lb. I definitely can lose some fat, that might get me to 220. But I can cycle at an aggressive pace 30-40 miles pretty easily, play tennis, swim laps. And in lifting competitions I'm generally in the top 3. My blood panels are healthy, and my medical history spotless.
Abandoning some idea of what my weight "should be" was freeing and removed the idea that exercise would "fail" if I didn't get myself down to 160. Which essentially what I weighed at 15 and was a spending all my time doing martial arts.
It sounds like you are very healthy. I get the impression that people confuse beauty and health standards (and IMO large doesn’t mean unattractive anyway). For me it would be hard to be overweight while staying active. Cardio and weight lifting pressure me to eat a somewhat measured diet. I’m curious what an average day looks like for you in terms of food intake (including fractional alcohol intake, fractional sweets if you might drink twice per week and eat pastries occasionally). Don’t feel any obligation to respond. I understand no one wants to be put under a microscope. It’s just for my curiosity.
Yeah no worries. I haven't been tracking since May but my diet and weight has changed very little.
Standard day:
Calories usually around 1900, with 200g of protein.
Alcohol intake varies but I don't drink during the work week. About 50% of weekends I'll buy a 6 pack and spread it through Friday-Sunday.
Sweets: I have a sweet tooth so generally we don't keep them around the house. If there is an F1 race I'll usually grab a half dozen donuts for the weekend. We have high protein granola bars, cliff bar, etc. in the cabinet, I'll have several of these a week to satiate my sweet tooth.
My uneducated understanding is health is mostly about making sure you have the nutrients you need. Extra carbs on top will show on your belly but your body at least has everything it needs to keep stuff working. I guess you could try eliminating all empty carbs and alcohol if you wanted to step things down. But I wouldn’t worry about your lifespan or healthspan with that diet.
Not that I think you don’t understand that. I just want to agree with you here so anyone reading can confidently decide to exercise and eat healthier regardless of the impact on their body fat percentage.
The major takeaway seems to be that losing weight is about eating less and not about exercising more. Which is actually pretty standard advice these days. Obviously exercising is critical regardless. The human body evolved with the expectation that it would be used to fight for calories. Not simulating that environment leaves all sorts of internal systems to fall apart.
I'm still suspect about their claims and would love to actually see a study diving into it - portioned out meals, strict exercise/no exercise plans, multi-year and multi-exercise cycle study. But I'd be open to humans effectively burning the same or similar amount of calories to being true. It flys in the face of everything I've ever learned about fitness so I'd need to see some very real, repeatable data on it.
I think we're all going to find any video on weight loss, exercise, and food frustrating. We all have specific and different goals, experiences, and genetics. Any video that is broad enough to cover everything will be too broad to actually be helpful.
My last point is that small differences in calorie burn - be it through differences in metabolism or negligible amounts from exercise as the video calls out - can be really impactful. Just an additional 200 calorie difference per day over your newly contested "burn rate" leads to gaining a pound every 17 days or 20 pounds a year. So don't let someone be dismissive if the difference between metabolisms is "just 200 calories, that's like one apple!" True it is an apple, but those add up more quickly than many of us recognize. And calories can be harder to burn for those just getting started - because someone who is fitter can put more energy into a much shorter amount of time. This means for every hour that an average fit person would take to burn X number of calories, it would take a newbie 2-4 hours to burn the same calories. That is crazy!
I didn't care much for the original video, and your point is a niggling dissatisfaction I have with this one. However, they make it hard to address by separating diet from exercise.
Both exercise expenditure and caloric restriction will result in metabolic adaption, or adaptive thermogenesis. Meaning your body does tend to plateau its energy expenditure whether you exercise more, eat less, or both. The studies I linked above go into details, but the mechanisms aren't well understood and the papers jargon heavy.
However, studies do show that small sustained deficits are possible through diet or exercise. Your body just tries to adjust and conserve through various means, like reducing your body temperature.
The reality is that your diet and exercise are closely linked and both drive your metabolic rate. Additionally, most of the discussion is on moderate exercise. If you exercise like athletes do, and eat enough to keep yourself out of a starvation state, you will burn a large amount of calories commensurate with your activity level. But the amount of exercise in this case vastly exceeds what most people consider reasonable.
Yeah, like if their research is correct - which again is just a straight up departure from the vast majority of what I've learned - then it's a cool video. Kind of misleading but I'd love to know specifically more about those studies. It immediately makes me think of the Oatmeal comic specifically about running so he could eat more.
That is so interesting! I do open water swimming every day in around ~11C water (as low as 8 and as high as 14) and the variability of how cold I feel rarely feels related to the ambient water temperature or time in water. Like I'll have a 12C day and come out shivering and then a 10C day and come out fine having swum the same distance. I wonder if it has to do with deficits based on my other exercise activities. Or maybe I'm reading that completely wrong!
For the temperature regulation, that was for sustained caloric restrictions, so it's possible if you run a regular deficit.
I think the metabolic adaption papers I linked are somewhat explaining what the video tried to communicate. It's just that for the video, it's hard to communicate well without using language that would lose most folks, like your body modulates its autonomic functions based on levels of exertion and caloric intake.
But the video also hobbles itself by separating diet out, when that is really the other side of the same energy expenditure coin.
Anecdotally, I used to swim competitively, and I usually got cold when I was hungry, and nauseous when my electrolytes were off.
Cheers!
Did you check out their sources? Maybe that has a link to a study
https://sites.google.com/view/sources-workoutparadox
It's linked in the pinned comment on the video, but in case anyone missed it, here's the video transcript with the changes from the old video highlighted:
https://sites.google.com/view/sources-workoutparadox
Discussion on the original video:
https://tildes.net/~health/1hn9/we_need_to_rethink_exercise_the_workout_paradox
I’m not at a point where I can watch the whole video but this was a lot better than the original, even if only from adding the disclaimer about the complexities of nutrition science, the state of internet discourse, and the fact that the things they are stating are generalizations.
Some things just shouldn’t be 10 minute overviews. Which is probably why this revised video is 13 minutes. It’s great that they went back to clarify things, but it’s a bit of a shame because I was really looking forward to their follow-up they had planned.
It’s 10 minutes plus 3 minutes of ads.
That should have been expected but it's still disappointing.
You might be talking about a different planned video, but if you meant their upcoming video on diets as a follow-up to this video on exercise, then I'm pretty sure that video is still planned (and I am also looking forward to it).
Nope, that’s the one I was referring to. It was the big missing piece to their exercise video.
Though if I’m being completely honest it was at least partially because I wanted to see the inevitable drama around it. Diet is more complex than exercise by orders of magnitude, so squeezing it into 10 minutes is basically an impossible task.
This version removed the statements I objected to in the first one. On the balance I think it does a good job communicating a complicated topic in a format people will understand, and it disclaims edge cases such as athletes. Good on them for improving it.
Can't wait to watch this since the previous one actually pissed me off with how bad it was.
Do keep in mind it is still very topical and targeting people who know little about calories and exercise. However, it states fewer absolutes, and disclaims edge cases like athletes. So on the whole it's ok mass market communication.
Yeah, I am slowly getting through it now. It's still hard to watch because it has an overall vibe of "why even exercise?" which I don't like, and you can see where they covered their asses on statements that pissed people off on the previous video.
Still need to finish it though 😅