Each day I move farther away from my "incorrect" views on nutrition and the human body.
My daughter met with her personal trainer today for the 1st time with one goal - lose weight and gain strength and muscle definition. She does need a PT for motivational purposes - she needs someone to kick her in the a$$, and I can't do that on the phone. She has tried and tried again on her own to get a routine going, but hasn't been able to.
When they got to nutrition, he told her things that I didn't think were true until I found this forum (remember I came from that lose weight do cardio less fat blah blah blah world). These are a few quotes my daughter said her trainer told her and that I've learned quickly are key:
You're not eating enough. You're messing up your metabolism be eating too few calories.
Cheat meals - do them. Tricks the body, and also teaches you that most foods you thought were bad aren't - you won't die or be effected by them (of course, moderation).
Having muscle will help you burn more fat than all that cardio you were trying to do. Muscle burns fat.
And to think I though I was heading in the right direction for the past 30 years. I mean, I was to a point as I have great cardio endurance and am lean. But I was working too hard at eating less and cardio more. In my case, 9 weeks into body building and I've put on about 4 pounds eating probably around 500-600 calories more per day than I was in those cardio days. Amazing what you can learn if you open you eyes.
|
-
11-04-2013, 12:20 PM #1
My daughters personal trainer verified info from here - stuff I didn't believe in
Last edited by metalmancpa; 11-04-2013 at 12:37 PM.
-
11-04-2013, 12:28 PM #2
-
11-04-2013, 12:29 PM #3
-
11-04-2013, 12:34 PM #4
On a side note: I recently got my PT qualification and it was absolutely shocking how misinformed the teachers were on some areas of nutrition.
At one point I was more or less arguing with my tutor about calories in v calories out being more effective to weight management than insulin control. He literally said that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply in the human body.
-
-
11-04-2013, 12:41 PM #5
-
11-04-2013, 12:41 PM #6
On Day #1 here, I thought you were all clueless muscle heads who stared in the mirror flexing (OK, not really) who ate anything they wanted and I was the "expert" because I was lean and mean.
If I put the lean world on one end of a pendulum and body building on the other, I now believe the pendulum of truth with nutrition as an overall physical and mental approach to ones self is healthier on the body building side.
-
11-04-2013, 12:46 PM #7
-
11-04-2013, 12:51 PM #8
-
-
11-04-2013, 12:53 PM #9
-
11-04-2013, 12:55 PM #10
- Join Date: May 2013
- Location: Michigan, United States
- Posts: 22,935
- Rep Power: 154135
-
11-04-2013, 12:55 PM #11
-
11-04-2013, 12:57 PM #12
-
-
11-04-2013, 12:58 PM #13
-
11-04-2013, 12:59 PM #14
-
11-04-2013, 01:00 PM #15
-
11-04-2013, 01:06 PM #16
Yep. I was sitting in the class saying that you can't gain weight in an energy deficit as you simply cannot create mass from nothing.
He couldn't give a proper answer, but I felt I had to stop as he was the man who decided whether or not I passed the course.
The painful thing is not a single person in the room even considered the idea that the research being cited in the classes was complete BS. They just ha the attitude of "he's the teacher, everything he says is correct". Nobody questions anything they're told these days.
-
-
11-04-2013, 02:01 PM #17
- Join Date: Aug 2004
- Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Age: 39
- Posts: 5,657
- Rep Power: 6911
I had it when I was studying 10 years ago for my certifications. Our teacher was all about that "stoking the metabolic fire" nonsense and the "throw constant pieces of wood into the fire and watch it spread faster!" analogy.
Yes, I even rolled my eyes then when I wasn't even as cluey about things as I am these days.
It's the prime reason why there's a lot of sucky PT's out there. They don't know any different, simply put. They just do the course, do the exam, do what they're told, and don't question things or research deeper in their own time.
GNC for example would be out of business if it wasn't the case.advertising/self-promotion not permitted
-
11-04-2013, 02:10 PM #18
- Join Date: May 2013
- Location: Michigan, United States
- Posts: 22,935
- Rep Power: 154135
-
11-04-2013, 02:28 PM #19
-
11-04-2013, 02:53 PM #20
-
-
11-04-2013, 03:28 PM #21
-
11-04-2013, 04:07 PM #22
I don't know about the metabolic damage part. I agree that she likely doesn't need to be eating 1500 calories but I thought metabolic damage wasn't all that easy to achieve. Isn't that a term that gets thrown around too much? Can anyone explain?
Also the cheat meal trickery? Not quite but I like the sentiment of it not being a big deal to eat foods that one thought they had to totally avoid.
-
11-04-2013, 04:49 PM #23
Metabolic damage was a term I heard from Layne Nortons youtube vid. Maybe someone can explain it. I listened to the vid but didn't pay enough attention to fully understand it as it wasn't useful to me personally other than knowledge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHzie6XRGk
(Link to Layne talking about metabolic damage)
-
11-04-2013, 04:52 PM #24
-
-
11-04-2013, 05:35 PM #25
I have seen people in the forum say Layne knows absolutely nothing and anything he says meaning nothing. regardless that he has a PHD. people discredit him because they dont agree with him when they have no qualifications themselves.
Lose weight too fast through too much cardio and diet deficient like the biggest loser contestants and your BMR does not have time to adjust meaning the weight loss is less likely to be permanent and very hard to keep off. The same with gaining weight / muscle. faster you build it the harder it is to keep.
-
11-04-2013, 06:01 PM #26
-
11-04-2013, 06:16 PM #27
-
11-04-2013, 06:24 PM #28
-
-
11-04-2013, 06:28 PM #29
-
11-04-2013, 06:29 PM #30
Bookmarks