Reply
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Results 121 to 142 of 142
  1. #121
    Gaintaining Mrpb's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: Netherlands
    Posts: 29,270
    Rep Power: 149113
    Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Mrpb is online now
    Originally Posted by jaxqen View Post
    In terms of society, they are very healthy. But in terms of being micronutrients dense, they are just healthy, I guess. Not very healthy, since they don't have that many micronutrients, but being whole foods + fiber + some micronutrients + a lot of vitamin K = healthy
    They actually contain many micronutrients AND phytonutrients.

    The dosage isn't that high per gram but it's high per 100 calories.

    Alan Aragon:

    Iceberg Lettuce

    Conventional wisdom suggests this salad staple is nutritionally bankrupt. But as it turns out, half a head of iceberg lettuce has significantly more alpha-carotene, a powerful disease-fighting antioxidant, than either romaine lettuce or spinach.
    Reply With Quote

  2. #122
    Registered User hardyboysare's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2018
    Age: 50
    Posts: 3,437
    Rep Power: 28008
    hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    hardyboysare is online now
    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post
    It’s a nuance, plain and simple. I’m not saying that #14 is always a truth, I’m saying that sometimes it is not a myth.

    And you have it backwards. Lean people virtually always have access to mitochondrial fat oxidation. That’s why they are lean. They are capable of oxidizing surplus calories instead of storing. Obese people, on the other hand, have a dysregulation of fat metabolism whereby their ability to oxidize is greatly diminished. That’s why they’re fat. They are less capable of oxidizing surplus, so they store more. To be clear, I’m not saying that this dysregulation overrides energy balance; just that it’s a contributor (along with calorie surplus) to fat gain.

    You put an obese person on a semi-starvation diet and it takes some time for their body to increase fat metabolism. Their mitochondria simply have gotten too accustomed to burning glucose and don’t want to be bothered with fatty acids. Their dysregulated metabolism is going to pull out every trick in the book in an attempt to provide the tissues with glucose. They’d be better off just fasting straightaway, because it would get their tissues to ramp up fat oxidation quicker.
    What one earth are you going on about lol You and your bloody fasting, its a eating schedule therefore it achieves its weight loss through putting the body in a caloric deficit. You are trying to classify your own deranged thoughts and not even making even any sense so this your advice:-

    Obese people suffer from starvation mode because they want glucose as they are eating too little therefore you advice they eat nothing through fasting? Wouldn't that be even worse then eating a little amount of food lol

    Use a study as your example which was tested on individuals who were in actual starvation conditions and then say see they were losing lean mass instead of their last stores of fat this will happen to obese people as well. So someone who is 25%+ bf is going to react the same as someone who is 5% bf come one man are you actually reading what you type.

    So lets look at studies into VLCD on obese individuals and see what happens shall we:-

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28329121

    At 12 weeks, weight was reduced by 3.7, 5.1, and 11.1% (p < .01), respectively. Ex/VLCD had significant reduction in fat (16.8%), lean mass (4.8%), and bone mineral density (1.2%), but increased relative lean mass (3.8%).
    The VLCD lost 16.8% bf in 12 weeks and these individuals didn't even weight train.

    https://heart.bmj.com/content/104/Suppl_3/A2.2

    7 days of VLCD led to significant reductions in total body fat, visceral and hepatic fat, and insulin resistance.
    https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/14/9/802

    Weight loss is initially very rapid, followed by steady reduction at a rate of 1–3 kg/wk. Metabolic benefits occur quickly with only modest weight reduction, suggesting that caloric restriction plays a more critical role.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26435354

    This review demonstrated that VLCD in people with T2D was associated with significant weight loss, reduction in blood glucose profile and improvement in cardiovascular risk profile, high tolerability and good safety outcomes. Studies were heterogeneous and longer term outcomes data post VLCD is still required.
    I could go on forever. Its clear to see that obese people do not go into starvation mode and utilise lean mass and hold onto body fat. Will they lose some lean mass possibly as everyone will lose some unless they weight train and eat enough protein but still some studies have shown this is less likely in obese individuals:-

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2559044

    By the use of a VLCD which provides approximately 60 g of protein for women and approximately 70 g for men, the dietary regimen is safe and no excessive loss of lean body mass seems to occur during VLCD in obese patients.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00243513

    Strength expressed relative to body mass (Nm·kg−1) increased (P<0.01) at the lower contraction velocity, but there was no change at the faster velocity. Muscular endurance also decreased (P<0.01) by 62 and 82% for the hamstrings and quadriceps, respectively: We concluded that the strength decrease was a natural adaptation to the reduction in body mass as the ratio of strength to FFM was maintained.
    You are making potential damaging and clearly flawed statements, the worse part is your are still getting rep points from somewhere so someone is believing your drivel.

    Scientific views on starvation mode just for you or are you more intelligent then the whole science community now:-

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/starvation-mode

    https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-lo...c-damage.html/

    https://examine.com/nutrition/how-do...arvation-mode/
    Last edited by hardyboysare; 02-12-2020 at 01:49 AM.
    Reply With Quote

  3. #123
    Registered User CommitmentRulz's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2017
    Location: United States
    Age: 60
    Posts: 6,457
    Rep Power: 56485
    CommitmentRulz has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) CommitmentRulz has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) CommitmentRulz has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) CommitmentRulz has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) CommitmentRulz has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) CommitmentRulz has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) CommitmentRulz has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) CommitmentRulz has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) CommitmentRulz has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) CommitmentRulz has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) CommitmentRulz has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    CommitmentRulz is offline
    Originally Posted by hardyboysare View Post
    You are making potential damaging and clearly flawed statements, the worse part is your are still getting rep points from somewhere so someone is believing your drivel.
    He's a regular poster on the MISC.

    Pretty typical. They post on the MISC and then decide they need to share their brilliance with us... ;-)
    Reply With Quote

  4. #124
    Registered User rtpmarine's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2019
    Posts: 411
    Rep Power: 2122
    rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000)
    rtpmarine is offline
    Hardyboysare, I am indeed impressed. I want you to know that while I disagree with your understanding of your own references, I am definitely impressed and satisfied with your engagement, even if it's a nuisance to you.

    Originally Posted by hardyboysare View Post
    Obese people suffer from starvation mode because they want glucose as they are eating too little therefore you advice they eat nothing through fasting? Wouldn't that be even worse then eating a little amount of food lol
    No, it's not worse. Consider the spectrum of calorie reduction:
    • Mild (a few hundred calorie deficit)
    • Moderate (~1,000 calorie deficit)
    • Severe (semi-starvation, VLCD, etc)
    • Complete fasting (0 calories)
    I prefer the mild and fasting varieties, for different reasons. A mild approach enforces lifestyle changes that are more reflective of how that person needs to behave long-term to sustain weight loss. The fasting approach gets fat mobilization and oxidation machinery working the fastest (literally less than a day). I see the middle of the spectrum as a “no-man’s land” where you are not representing realistic long-term lifestyle changes nor are you accessing fat stores in the most efficient manner. It’s a waste of time and a recipe for yo-yo dieting.

    Originally Posted by hardyboysare View Post
    Use a study as your example which was tested on individuals who were in actual starvation conditions and then say see they were losing lean mass instead of their last stores of fat this will happen to obese people as well. So someone who is 25%+ bf is going to react the same as someone who is 5% bf come one man are you actually reading what you type.
    You have to be intentionally disingenuous to suggest that VLCD is not well-known to associate with increased loss of lean mass.

    Changes in fat-free mass during significant weight loss: a systematic review (Chaston 2006)
    • See Table 2 – it’s clear that VLCD causes higher loss of lean mass for the same total weight loss, and that exercise mitigates (but does not fully stop) this effect.
    • "Median (IQR) %FFML for LCDs, VLCDs and VLCDs with exercise was 14.0 (10), 23.4 (8) and 22.5 (11)% of weight loss, respectively."
    • "All cohorts using VLCDs with no specified exercise experienced above average %FFML, whereas only 8% of LCD cohorts had above average %FFML (Table 5)."
    • "Comparison of LCDs and VLCDs gives clear evidence that the degree of caloric restriction affects %FFML."

    The Physiological Effects of VLCD in Overweight Nondiabetics
    • ”Conclusion: VLCD predictably induced marked weight loss and improved insulin sensitivity during just 6-weeks of VLCD, and this was associated with body fat loss and muscle wasting. Nonetheless, the poor correlation between total weight or body fat loss and improved indices of insulin action points to metabolic reprogramming of insulin sensitive tissues in response to energy restriction, rather than fat loss per se, in driving some of the health benefits of VLCD. Developing means to mitigate muscle atrophy with VLCD is crucial to maximizing therapeutic benefits, especially in aging.

    Slow and Steady May Not Win the Race for Weight Loss Maintenance

    This study is particularly interesting because rather than compare VLCD to LCD over the same amount of time, they instead compare VLCD to LCD over the same amount of weight loss.
    • "One area where there was a significant between-group difference, both after initial weight loss and persisting after the weight stable period, was in the amount of FFM lost (a rough approximation of lost lean mass, eg, muscle mass). VLCD participants had more FFM loss (1.6 [0.2] kg) than LCD participants (0.6 [0.2] kg) ( P < 0.01) after active weight loss, and continued to have significantly more FFM loss (0.8 [0.2] kg vs. 0.2 [0.2] kg) after the 4-week weight stable period."

    Body Composition Changes in Weight Loss: Strategies and Supplementation for Maintaining Lean Body Mass, a Brief Review
    • "2.1. Very Low-Calorie Diet - ... Although the weight loss observed with VLCD treatment is clinically significant, the accompanying decline in LBM may be equally significant and therefore detrimental. ... Historically, fast and overall weight loss was focused on and valued, but more current thought is that the focus should be on body composition changes as opposed to solely judging success by total weight loss. Based on this data it is evident that a VLCD leads to a large initial drop in total weight loss, but also a great loss in LBM, and therefore might not be the best option for sustainable weight loss and body composition improvements."


    Originally Posted by hardyboysare View Post
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28329121

    "At 12 weeks, weight was reduced by 3.7, 5.1, and 11.1% (p < .01), respectively. Ex/VLCD had significant reduction in fat (16.8%), lean mass (4.8%), and bone mineral density (1.2%), but increased relative lean mass (3.8%)."

    The VLCD lost 16.8% bf in 12 weeks and these individuals didn't even weight train.
    I’ll grant you that this study is compelling, primarily because VLCD is typically not advised for geriatrics due to age-related loss of lean mass. Despite the results being favorable to VLCD, it’s worth noting that only the VLCD group tore so far into their lean mass that bone density decreased. I guess I’d call this study an outlier, but not a refutation of the observation that VLCD chews up more lean mass than LCD.

    Also, while they didn’t weight train, they did aerobic exercise (what the study was actually studying) and all forms of exercise improve insulin sensitivity. Some data even suggests that aerobic exercise is MORE protective of lean mass than resistance training during semi-starvation. Bottom line is that if this is the best study you can point to to support VLCD not being worse for lean mass than LCD, then I think we're done here.

    Originally Posted by hardyboysare View Post
    https://heart.bmj.com/content/104/Suppl_3/A2.2

    "7 days of VLCD led to significant reductions in total body fat, visceral and hepatic fat, and insulin resistance."

    https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/14/9/802

    "Weight loss is initially very rapid, followed by steady reduction at a rate of 1–3 kg/wk. Metabolic benefits occur quickly with only modest weight reduction, suggesting that caloric restriction plays a more critical role."

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26435354

    "This review demonstrated that VLCD in people with T2D was associated with significant weight loss, reduction in blood glucose profile and improvement in cardiovascular risk profile, high tolerability and good safety outcomes. Studies were heterogeneous and longer term outcomes data post VLCD is still required."

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2559044

    "By the use of a VLCD which provides approximately 60 g of protein for women and approximately 70 g for men, the dietary regimen is safe and no excessive loss of lean body mass seems to occur during VLCD in obese patients."
    None of these add anything to the discussion about VLCD and lean mass. The last one, the abstract, is about satisfying hunger during VLCD by adding fiber. The phrase “no excessive loss of lean body mass” refers to the VLCD+fiber diet losing no less lean mass than the normal VLCD diet. It’s not saying that VLCD doesn’t lose excessive lean mass compared to anything else.

    Obviously I do not refute that ANY level of caloric restriction will improve insulin sensitivity, decrease all forms of fat, reduce cardiovascular risk factors, etc. Those are all good things. The prominent question is what degrees of caloric restriction are sustainable? I go back to my idea of semi-starvation being "no-man's land".

    One thing that stood out to me was your specific chosen quote: "Metabolic benefits occur quickly with only modest weight reduction, suggesting that caloric restriction plays a more critical role." You’re inadvertently highlighting that metabolic benefits accrue rapidly BEFORE significant weight reduction. Since weight loss follows metabolic benefits, and not the other way around, are you so sure that obesity is not a disorder of metabolism?

    Originally Posted by hardyboysare View Post
    I could go on forever. Its clear to see that obese people do not go into starvation mode and utilise lean mass and hold onto body fat. Will they lose some lean mass possibly as everyone will lose some unless they weight train and eat enough protein but still some studies have shown this is less likely in obese individuals:-
    As for "eating enough protein", there is a paradox in VLCD studies that strongly supports my point: giving obese people more protein actually causes them to lose more lean mass. See Figure 3 here:

    Effect of a Whey Protein Supplement on Preservation of Fat Free Mass in Overweight and Obese Individuals on an Energy Restricted Very Low Caloric Diet

    "Calories-are-the-only-thing-that-matters” nonsense cannot explain this paradox. With proper understanding of the physiology, it’s actually really simple:
    • Start an obese person out on a starvation diet with higher protein and you’ll enhance postprandial gluconeogenesis, which is what they are relying on to avoid full-blown fat mobilization. The higher protein allows them to continue cheating themselves for longer. Give them less protein and you diminish the gluconeogenic effect, so they come quicker to the realization that they just have to reluctantly increase fat metabolism.
    Again, the prominent feature that distinguishes starvation in the obese from starvation in the lean is the degree to which obese people start out with dysregulated fat metabolism. It’s their defining feature; it’s what makes them fat. We all know that excess calories cause weight gain, but why does sustained weight gain not preeminently lead to bigger muscles, or organs, or bones, or brains, or hands, or feet? Why is the primary concentration of growth in obesity always the adipose tissue? I’ll tell you why: because obesity is a disorder of fat metabolism. That disorder starts starvation off on the wrong foot.

    Originally Posted by hardyboysare View Post
    You are making potential damaging and clearly flawed statements, the worse part is your are still getting rep points from somewhere so someone is believing your drivel.

    Scientific views on starvation mode just for you or are you more intelligent then the whole science community now:-

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/starvation-mode

    https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-lo...c-damage.html/

    https://examine.com/nutrition/how-do...arvation-mode/
    All three links discuss “starvation mode” in the context of TDEE reduction being the cause of dietary noncompliance. That's not what we're talking about here, and that's not what I'm claiming as a nuance to Myth #14.

    I love how you guys keep going back to fake internet points and the scientific consensus as if either of those things mean anything. As a matter of historical fact, science only moves forward when individuals are willing to search for truth beyond the conventional wisdom.
    Reply With Quote

  5. #125
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 18,918
    Rep Power: 91525
    AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    AdamWW is offline
    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post
    scientific consensus as if either of those things mean anything. As a matter of historical fact, science only moves forward when individuals are willing to search for truth beyond the conventional wisdom.
    You heard it here folks: scientific consensus is wrong... and this dude is going to prove us ALL wrong with his brilliant insights.

    rptmarine, you've truly outdone your own idiocy at this point.

    I'm almost impressed.
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

  6. #126
    Registered User rtpmarine's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2019
    Posts: 411
    Rep Power: 2122
    rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000)
    rtpmarine is offline
    Originally Posted by AdamWW View Post
    You heard it here folks: scientific consensus is wrong... and this dude is going to prove us ALL wrong with his brilliant insights.

    rptmarine, you've truly outdone your own idiocy at this point.

    I'm almost impressed.
    So all scientific consensus from the beginning of time to AD 2019 and from AD 2021 to the end of time is wrong, but scientific consensus in 2020 is the perfect representation of how the universe works. Is that it?

    You're not refuting the logic or the data, you're just doing what 16th-century geocentrists did when they castigated Galileo. So, in his words, "eppur si muove".
    Reply With Quote

  7. #127
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 18,918
    Rep Power: 91525
    AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    AdamWW is offline
    Originally Posted by rtpmarine View Post
    So all scientific consensus from the beginning of time to AD 2019 and from AD 2021 to the end of time is wrong, but scientific consensus in 2020 is the perfect representation of how the universe works. Is that it?

    You're not refuting the logic or the data, you're just doing what 16th-century geocentrists did when they castigated Galileo. So, in his words, "eppur si muove".
    Strawman after strawman after strawman....

    You just love it, don't you
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

  8. #128
    Registered User hardyboysare's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2018
    Age: 50
    Posts: 3,437
    Rep Power: 28008
    hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    hardyboysare is online now
    Originally Posted by AdamWW View Post
    You heard it here folks: scientific consensus is wrong... and this dude is going to prove us ALL wrong with his brilliant insights.

    rptmarine, you've truly outdone your own idiocy at this point.

    I'm almost impressed.
    The point is he is missing the entirety of my claim from the supporting evidence is not that you won't lose lean mass on a VLCD as of course you will that is why we don't advise extreme diets on this forum due to extreme rapid weight loss being linked to LBM lose.

    My point is to refute this claim:-

    You put an obese person on a semi-starvation diet and it takes some time for their body to increase fat metabolism. Their mitochondria simply have gotten too accustomed to burning glucose and don’t want to be bothered with fatty acids. Their dysregulated metabolism is going to pull out every trick in the book in an attempt to provide the tissues with glucose.
    I think this one is true for obese people. They have metabolically become "fat trappers" in the sense that they have reduced fat oxidation capabilities. When energy deprivation becomes severe, their metabolism thinks "oh **** this is bad I REALLY need to burn sugar right now, screw trying to mess around with this fatty acid stuff." They will preferentially break down lean tissue for gluconeogenesis rather than break down fat tissue for lipolysis. Their metabolism considers lipolysis to be a waste of time because downstream beta oxidation never materializes anyways. Eventually it says "forget it--just leave the fat alone".
    All the studies he highlighted the individuals in the study lost a significant mass of fat and didn't hold on to the fat as he is claiming. Again he is trying to provide evidence that doesn't refute the claim that obese people do not store fat when in so called starvation mode and use muscle for glycogen instead of utilising lipolysis, yes using a VCLD will cause lean mass loss but the examples were extreme examples of caloric levels in starvation range and not one study showed they retain fat and lost muscle they lost both as is expected.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6315656/ - Lost between 8.1-8.7kg of weight in total with 2.4-2.7kg respectively being LBM so 5.7-6.1kg being fat how is that possible if they store fat?

    https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/10/12/1876/htm - I think the chart enclosed explains the difference between LBM and FM loss.



    https://diabetes.diabetesjournals.or...ement_1/2048-P - VLCD reduced body weight (∆ -10.5±3 kg), fat mass (∆ -6.8±2 kg) and lean body mass (∆ -4.1±2 kg);

    My point rptmarine is not that LBM will drop when in caloric deficit and I agree more so VLCD my argument is that they will lose body fat and not go into starvation mode as you have claimed and retain body fat as every study I have highlighted is based on the fact they lost FM your claiming they will hoard this which they don't.
    Reply With Quote

  9. #129
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 18,918
    Rep Power: 91525
    AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    AdamWW is offline
    Originally Posted by hardyboysare View Post
    The point is he is missing the entirety of my claim from the supporting evidence is not that you won't lose lean mass on a VLCD as of course you will that is why we don't advise extreme diets on this forum due to extreme rapid weight loss being linked to LBM lose.
    I get you. He's very, very annoying. I'm sure he'll have some silly method of continuing to argue tho.
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

  10. #130
    Registered User Strawng's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2016
    Age: 25
    Posts: 2,006
    Rep Power: 34863
    Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) Strawng has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    Strawng is offline
    Originally Posted by AdamWW View Post
    I get you. He's very, very annoying. I'm sure he'll have some silly method of continuing to argue tho.
    It's possible he's a very, very brilliant troll. He's consistently staying green. Maybe he's Alan Aragon's alt
    Reply With Quote

  11. #131
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 18,918
    Rep Power: 91525
    AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    AdamWW is offline
    Originally Posted by Strawng View Post
    It's possible he's a very, very brilliant troll. He's consistently staying green. Maybe he's Alan Aragon's alt
    He really should just start his own 'nutrition log' where he can endlessly talk to himself about his opinions and everyone can just ignore it entirely.
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

  12. #132
    Registered User hardyboysare's Avatar
    Join Date: Oct 2018
    Age: 50
    Posts: 3,437
    Rep Power: 28008
    hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) hardyboysare has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    hardyboysare is online now
    Originally Posted by AdamWW View Post
    I get you. He's very, very annoying. I'm sure he'll have some silly method of continuing to argue tho.
    I wouldn't bother replying if he was someone who was in red for reps but some obese people will read his info one day with all the linked information and assume they must be in starvation mode, which clear as day is not the case.

    Never mind getting very bored of it now I am sure I will clash with him again over some magic voodoo he will claim. I only start because he made patronising remarks to me lol and I was hangry.
    Reply With Quote

  13. #133
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 18,918
    Rep Power: 91525
    AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    AdamWW is offline
    Originally Posted by hardyboysare View Post
    I wouldn't bother replying if he was someone who was in red for reps but some obese people will read his info one day with all the linked information and assume they must be in starvation mode, which clear as day is not the case.

    Never mind getting very bored of it now I am sure I will clash with him again over some magic voodoo he will claim. I only start because he made patronising remarks to me lol and I was hangry.
    Im guilty of taking the bait as well... I need to get better ;o)
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

  14. #134
    Registered User rtpmarine's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2019
    Posts: 411
    Rep Power: 2122
    rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000)
    rtpmarine is offline
    Originally Posted by hardyboysare View Post
    My point rptmarine is not that LBM will drop when in caloric deficit and I agree more so VLCD my argument is that they will lose body fat and not go into starvation mode as you have claimed and retain body fat as every study I have highlighted is based on the fact they lost FM your claiming they will hoard this which they don't.
    Good, so we are mostly in agreement. I agree that weight loss is always going to be some mixture of fat mass and lean mass; you'll never have only one or the other.

    It seems we are only disagreeing on the verbiage of Myth #14: "...clings on to fat and only burns muscle". You are reading it literally (which is fine), and I am asserting that the claim is nuanced and can harm a potential reader's ability to learn the truth (which should also be fine).

    Again, the disclaimer air2fakie suggested would have been a better way for me to address that nuance. I admit that. If you all want to delete the whole thread and start over, be my guest.
    Reply With Quote

  15. #135
    Registered User WolfRose7's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2016
    Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
    Age: 27
    Posts: 9,173
    Rep Power: 44469
    WolfRose7 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) WolfRose7 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) WolfRose7 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) WolfRose7 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) WolfRose7 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) WolfRose7 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) WolfRose7 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) WolfRose7 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) WolfRose7 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) WolfRose7 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000) WolfRose7 has much to be proud of. One of the best! (+20000)
    WolfRose7 is offline
    Originally Posted by Strawng View Post
    It's possible he's a very, very brilliant troll. He's consistently staying green. Maybe he's Alan Aragon's alt
    Probably just mods repping him when they are bored.
    2018 Log
    https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=175232661

    FMH Crew, Sandbagging Mike Tuscherer Wannabee
    Reply With Quote

  16. #136
    Gaintaining Mrpb's Avatar
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: Netherlands
    Posts: 29,270
    Rep Power: 149113
    Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000) Mrpb has a reputation beyond repute. Second best rank possible! (+100000)
    Mrpb is online now
    Unfortunately this seems to be rptmarines' way of discussing: make some inaccurate claims, wait for other people to correct him and feed him the relevant references. Then instead of saying 'thanks for those references, I learned something from that' he'll twist and turn, makes several straw men and frame the discussion as if he's been right all along.

    Maybe we could make a thread with all of his erroneous/unsupported claims. Or maybe just keep it in this thread so the forum doesn't become too polluted.

    Originally Posted by WolfRose7 View Post
    Probably just mods repping him when they are bored.
    I think his rep score would increase a lot more if that happened.
    Last edited by Mrpb; 02-12-2020 at 10:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote

  17. #137
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 18,918
    Rep Power: 91525
    AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    AdamWW is offline
    Originally Posted by Mrpb View Post
    Unfortunately this seems to be rptmarines' way of discussing: make some inaccurate claims, wait for other people to correct him and feed him the relevant references. Then instead of saying 'thanks for those references, I learned something from that' he'll twist and turn, makes several straw men and frame the discussion as if he's been right all along.

    Maybe we could make a thread with all of his erroneous/unsupported claims. Or maybe just keep it in this thread so the forum doesn't become too polluted.
    I bet if you told rptmarine that the primary driver of thirst is lack of hydration, he’d launch into a page-long write-up about the hormonal effects of various fringe scenarios which effect .00001% of the population and rule it irresponsible for us to conclude that drinking liquids is good advice for someone who is thirsty because we’re not addressing that .00001% of people.
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

  18. #138
    Registered User rtpmarine's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2019
    Posts: 411
    Rep Power: 2122
    rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000)
    rtpmarine is offline
    Originally Posted by Mrpb View Post
    Unfortunately this seems to be rptmarines' way of discussing: make some inaccurate claims, wait for other people to correct him and feed him the relevant references. Then instead of saying 'thanks for those references, I learned something from that' he'll twist and turn, makes several straw men and frame the discussion as if he's been right all along.
    I always appreciate the posts with coherent arguments and references. Of course I'm thankful for them, as implied by my opening statements in #49 and #124.

    That being said, appreciation of an intellectual perspective does not require strict submission to it. I'm allowed to be thankful and still defend my position, yes?
    Reply With Quote

  19. #139
    Registered User XinXom's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2019
    Age: 50
    Posts: 179
    Rep Power: 3074
    XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    XinXom is offline
    Dear RTP why should we be more interested in how you personally think people might misinterpret the myths rather than directly address the validity of what they are actually saying?


    "I am asserting that the claim is nuanced and can harm a potential reader's ability to learn the truth" - This is garbage your argument is essentially "people are stupid and incapable of basic reading comprehension thus you cannot present them with facts that I think they will misinterpret"

    I'm pretty sure this is a load of crap anyway. You are worried people might be harmed by misinterpretations then say things like...

    "As for "eating enough protein", there is a paradox in VLCD studies that strongly supports my point: giving obese people more protein actually causes them to lose more lean mass. See Figure 3 here:"

    I guess your not afraid your scaring obese people off of protein saying that glad as arbiter of truth you have cleared that one up unfortunately your study says nothing about protein causing more LBM loss in figure 3....

    "Similar to the results for absolute FFM loss, the relative reduction in FFM compared to total weight loss did not differ between groups (interaction, p = 0.29, Figure 3)." - From your study right under the graph.

    "You have to be intentionally disingenuous to suggest that VLCD is not well-known to associate with increased loss of lean mass."

    This quote from you sums up why I have an issue taking you seriously. He never said that, its obvious he never said that and in fact you are the one misrepresenting what he said. If it wasn't for the effort you put into your posts I would think you are just trolling. I think its more likely that you just are looking for any way to prove what you think your anecdotal experiences have shown you.
    Reply With Quote

  20. #140
    Registered User rtpmarine's Avatar
    Join Date: Jun 2019
    Posts: 411
    Rep Power: 2122
    rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000) rtpmarine is just really nice. (+1000)
    rtpmarine is offline
    Sigh. I want this to stop just as much as the rest of you. Hey, if nothing else, at least I got XimXom to use decent line breaks.

    Originally Posted by XinXom View Post
    Dear RTP why should we be more interested in how you personally think people might misinterpret the myths rather than directly address the validity of what they are actually saying?

    "I am asserting that the claim is nuanced and can harm a potential reader's ability to learn the truth" - This is garbage your argument is essentially "people are stupid and incapable of basic reading comprehension thus you cannot present them with facts that I think they will misinterpret"
    TBH, my hope was that you all would ignore my original comment #10. I did not want to kick up all this drama as I don't particularly care about what you are or aren't interested in. I just wanted to insert a disclaimer that things aren't so cut-and-dry.

    Originally Posted by XinXom View Post
    I'm pretty sure this is a load of crap anyway. You are worried people might be harmed by misinterpretations then say things like...

    "As for "eating enough protein", there is a paradox in VLCD studies that strongly supports my point: giving obese people more protein actually causes them to lose more lean mass. See Figure 3 here:"

    I guess your not afraid your scaring obese people off of protein saying that glad as arbiter of truth you have cleared that one up unfortunately your study says nothing about protein causing more LBM loss in figure 3....

    "Similar to the results for absolute FFM loss, the relative reduction in FFM compared to total weight loss did not differ between groups (interaction, p = 0.29, Figure 3)." - From your study right under the graph.
    You're reading the data wrong. The PRO group lost less weight because they were eating more calories. But because they were also eating more protein, they lost a higher percentage of weight from lean mass.

    "The relative FFM loss corresponded to 26.4% in CON and 31.2% in PRO."

    ~27% is considered to be the breakeven range, so the regular VLCD group did alright but the PRO group did pretty poorly.

    And yes, if an obese person wants to start out on any type of semi-starvation diet I would advise them to do high-carb for the first 2-3 weeks before moving to high-protein.

    Originally Posted by XinXom View Post
    "You have to be intentionally disingenuous to suggest that VLCD is not well-known to associate with increased loss of lean mass."

    This quote from you sums up why I have an issue taking you seriously. He never said that, its obvious he never said that and in fact you are the one misrepresenting what he said. If it wasn't for the effort you put into your posts I would think you are just trolling. I think its more likely that you just are looking for any way to prove what you think your anecdotal experiences have shown you.
    If you have an issue with taking me seriously, then don't.

    Hardyboysare--I apologize for misinterpreting your comment #122. Since you led off with the geriatric VLCD study, I thought you were claiming VLCD to be no worse than LCD for %FFML, as that was the surprising finding in that study. My bad. Your overall point that fat and muscle will both always be consumed during energy deficit is something I agree with.
    Reply With Quote

  21. #141
    Registered User XinXom's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2019
    Age: 50
    Posts: 179
    Rep Power: 3074
    XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500) XinXom is a glorious beacon of knowledge. (+2500)
    XinXom is offline
    "You're reading the data wrong." No I'm not its not statistically significant thus "the relative reduction in FFM compared to total weight loss did not differ between groups (interaction, p = 0.29, Figure 3)."


    "VLCD group did alright but the PRO group did pretty poorly." This is wrong according to the data there is no significant difference. There is zero reference in the study to protein causing FFM loss.
    Reply With Quote

  22. #142
    team ketchup AdamWW's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2006
    Location: Seattle, Washington, United States
    Posts: 18,918
    Rep Power: 91525
    AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000) AdamWW has a brilliant future. Third best rank! (+40000)
    AdamWW is offline
    Originally Posted by XinXom View Post
    "You're reading the data wrong." No I'm not its not statistically significant thus "the relative reduction in FFM compared to total weight loss did not differ between groups (interaction, p = 0.29, Figure 3)."


    "VLCD group did alright but the PRO group did pretty poorly." This is wrong according to the data there is no significant difference. There is zero reference in the study to protein causing FFM loss.
    I highly suggest stopping the engagement with him...
    The power of carbs compels me!
    Reply With Quote

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts