Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
Just wondering what myths people have learned are not true since becoming students of diet and nutrition? For me the top 5 would be (in no particular order)
1) Exercise speeds up your metabolism.
2) If you want to lose weight you just need to start exercising. Another way to put it .. you can out exercise a bad diet.
3) A pound of muscle burns 50 calories so if you gain muscle your body will burn a lot more calories than before.
4) Eating in the eveing causes fat gain.
5) Eating breakfast is really important to your health.
6) Complex carbs are much better for you than simple carbs in regards to losing weight. In otherwords you're much better off eating 2 slices or wheat bread than white bread which will make you fat.
7) Cholesterol is bad for you. (Eggs)
8) Fat is bad for you.
Looks like I went over 5. Those are the main ones I can think of off the top of my head. What about you?
I think the debunking is a little too extreme on this one. There are plenty of undebunked studies showing a higher metabolic rate related to chronic exercise. And I've written a few times about energy flux -- the synergistic metabolic boost that comes from increasing exercise and calorie intake.
So it's a nuanced area, not as simple as "one pound of muscle burns 50 calories a day," but not a figment of fantasy physiology.
Quote:
6) Complex carbs are much better for you than simple carbs in regards to losing weight. In otherwords you're much better off eating 2 slices or wheat bread than white bread which will make you fat.
Those are both complex carbs. Fruits are an example of simple carbs. Another case where the terminology is part of the problem.
Quote:
5) Eating breakfast is really important to your health.
It just happens to be correlated to lower body weight and lower all-cause mortality. So is there any reason not to tell people to start the day with a healthy breakfast?
* Carbohydrates make you fat.
On a side note, I went to a conference where a presenter stated that "CHO should be a micronutrient(vitamins/mineral s) instead of a macronutrient(Fat/Protein)." *
* Protein supplements are better then just regular food.
* Stop eating by 8pm, or else you will gain fat/weight. (It just depends on calories in vs. calories expended.)
* Organic products are more nutritious vs. regular products. (ex organic apple vs regular apple). (The only thing that differs is organic products are better for the environment.)
__________________
"Pain is temporary. It may last a minute, or an hour, or a day, or a year, but eventually it will subside and something else will take its place. If I quit, however, it lasts forever."
-Lance Armstrong-
"Hard work beats talent everytime."
-Tony Dungy-
"If you can see yourself doing something you can achieve it." Dave Goggins
"I would rather leave it all out there then not go out there at all." Dave Goggins(Ultramarathon runner)
Those are both complex carbs. Fruits are an example of simple carbs. Another case where the terminology is part of the problem.
You had a study on your blog a few years back as well Lou. It showed that how we accumulated new weight was different based on how simple the carb was I believe. ie Group A had a surplus of 600 calories and had simple carbs and gained it as fat in the gut and Group B also had a surplus of 600 and gained it across their body.
At least I THINK that was the jist of it. I couldn't find the post with a quick look over of your site.
I think the debunking is a little too extreme on this one. There are plenty of undebunked studies showing a higher metabolic rate related to chronic exercise. And I've written a few times about energy flux -- the synergistic metabolic boost that comes from increasing exercise and calorie intake.
So it's a nuanced area, not as simple as "one pound of muscle burns 50 calories a day," but not a figment of fantasy physiology.
Those are both complex carbs. Fruits are an example of simple carbs. Another case where the terminology is part of the problem.
It just happens to be correlated to lower body weight and lower all-cause mortality. So is there any reason not to tell people to start the day with a healthy breakfast?
These are exactly the three I didn't like. You definitely have a higher metabolism from exercise. And while eating breakfast is by no means "necessary," it does often help.
Two biggest ones I think are:
- Fat makes you fat
- Low carb diets increase fat loss
I think the debunking is a little too extreme on this one. There are plenty of undebunked studies showing a higher metabolic rate related to chronic exercise. And I've written a few times about energy flux -- the synergistic metabolic boost that comes from increasing exercise and calorie intake.
So it's a nuanced area, not as simple as "one pound of muscle burns 50 calories a day," but not a figment of fantasy physiology.
Those are both complex carbs. Fruits are an example of simple carbs. Another case where the terminology is part of the problem.
It just happens to be correlated to lower body weight and lower all-cause mortality. So is there any reason not to tell people to start the day with a healthy breakfast?
You're much more of an expert than I am. I am only a relative expert. (I know more than my relatives)
I don't doubt that eating more and exercising more increases metabolism ... that day. What difference does it really make though. It's like EPOC no? It does exist but it is not signifigant not to mention the whole point for most people wanting to speed up their metabolism is typicaly because they want to lose weight. So what sense does it make to eat more just to speed up your metabolism by a minor degree?
This is a big problem with your book in my non expert opinion. It makes it seem like you can out exercise your diet by 'engaging your flux capacitor' but in reality you can't. Don't get me wrong, I liked your book a lot. Read it twice and would reccomend it. I think it needs revision in the diet section specifically in this area.
You're right about the carbs of course, I need to work on those definitions. I think you understand my point of wheat vs white bread though.
As for breakfast, I agree there is a huge amount of correlation but there is no science to support causation that I have seen. I'm not suggesting eating breakfast is unhealthy but instead that the notion that you have to eat breakfast to have a healthy diet is in fact a myth.
As for chronic exercise, I'm fairly positive that most of my cycling holidays encompassed burning well over 4000 kcal a day. It's very hard to keep up with that expenditure at first.
Trouble only start when you're accustomed to the higher expenditure & the necessary intake .. then go home and see weight piling on in a frightening rate.
I've never gained weight so fast as after the most grueling cycling holiday ever.
G-Flux really is true, but the problem lies in keeping up the exercise level.
__________________
Proudly contrarian & anti-KISS Ergo-log: news & KB on legal & illegal ergogenic aids
Poliquin: "There's no overtraining, only undereating" --> to undereat, don't overtrain!"
Burgener: "There's no overtraining, only underrecovery" --> sleep, rest & recover
journal: Go with the flow
I haven't read the entire Melanson study that's referenced in the MSNBC article. (Here's the abstract, FWIW.) In another study from his lab, aerobic exercise was done at 55% of max. But the article says they studied high- and low-intensity training, with trained and untrained subjects, so I don't doubt that their conclusion is valid.
But when you look at strength training, the results tend to be different. This one, for example, found that lifting for 11 minutes a day increased metabolic rate.
My approach to all this through the years has been pretty consistent:
1. Lift weights to build muscle.
2. Eat to support your goals.
3. Add other types of exercise for general conditioning, for fun, and/or to burn some extra calories.
Of all those, #3 is the least important, in my view, which is why in all my books I've described that type of exercise as optional.
Quick story:
A couple months ago we spent the weekend at a lakeside cabin with another family. The couple are sensitive about their weight, and try to minimize fat in their food. They were shocked to see me eat four eggs for breakfast. I think they had one each. These aren't sedentary people -- they own a small woodworking business, and they're on their feet all day. Over the weekend, we all did the same hiking and canoeing.
So what's the difference? Genetics surely explains some of it, or even a lot of it. But I have to think the main reason I could eat twice as much food and still be the leanest person there is because of the time I've spent with the weights.
There's nothing magical about any type of exercise, and there's nothing simple about the interactions between diet, exercise, and lifestyle. It all relates, and for most of us it'll take a lifetime to figure out all the ways those three factors affect our bodies.
But some things just make too much sense to worry about debunking. Progressive strength training, performed with effort and consistency, improves body composition and makes weight control easier.
Different people achieve different results with different methods, of course, but I haven't seen anything that makes me seriously question the basic rationale for the recommendations in my books.
Some older studies ... exercise didn't help these people rev up their metabolism
3 month study -
The addition of 45 minutes of aerobic exercise at 78% of max heart rate 5 days a week for 12 weeks had no effect over dieting alone.
Int J Sport Nutrition 1998 Sept 8
Influence of diet and/or exercise on body composition and cadfirorespiratory fitness in obese women.
Utter AC Nieman DC Shannonhouse EM Butterworth DE Nieman CN
Six month study
Two groups - diet only and diet plus aerobic exercise (50 mins, 5 days per week)
No additional effect of aerobic exercise on body compostion
J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007 Jan 2
Effect of calorie restriction with or without exercise on body composition and fat distribution.
Redman et al
Here is one where diet was not part of the study, just exercise. It was a 12 month study!
Six hours of aerobic training per week for one year
(60 mines per day, six days a week)
Average weight loss after one year was 3.5lbs or about .3 lbs per month
3.08 lbs for women and 3.96lbs for men
Obesity 2007 Jun 15:1496-1512
Excercise Effect on Weight and Body Fat in MEn and Women
McTiernan et al
The ones other than the link say nothing about their diets so they are essentially useless to this discussion. And the link basically says that metabolism doesn't burn as many calories post-exercise as was originally thought, which I agree with. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. And over the long haul, I think someone who regularly exercises will have a higher metabolism. None of what you posted refutes that. You'd probably agree the lack of exercise over an extended period of time would lower metabolism, would you not?
The ones other than the link say nothing about their diets so they are essentially useless to this discussion. And the link basically says that metabolism doesn't burn as many calories post-exercise as was originally thought, which I agree with. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. And over the long haul, I think someone who regularly exercises will have a higher metabolism. None of what you posted refutes that. You'd probably agree the lack of exercise over an extended period of time would lower metabolism, would you not?
The points of the shorter term studies was that cardiovascular exercise and diet compared to diet alone made no difference in weight loss. Diet is a a BIG part of those studies. If exercise sped up the metabolism then the people exercising and dieting would have lost more weight. They didn't. The year long study did not have to do with diet, only exercise. Essentially no weight loss over a year with six hours a week exercise.
I wouldn't argue metabolism goes up or down due to exercise regardless of the time involved. (Cardio)
As you get older your metabolism slows down of course.
I would argue weight lifting and building muscle can speed up your metabolism but 10 lbs of additional muscle means how many additional calories a day burned? Not many.
If you have evidence to refute me please let me know I am trying to learn as much as I can about this topic.
"After all,that is what my training is for; to prepare me for what challenges I have to do in real life, not just to get me good at training, although that's fun too." - Mark Reifkind
for thematic elements, some sensuality, brief language and incidental smoking
Must not have been a very good diet if they only lost 3lbs in a year.
There was no dieting, just exercise. However, most people if you asked them would assume that someone who started exercising six hours a week would lose weight because the myth is that exercise speeds up your metabolism and therefore causes weight loss.
You'd probably agree the lack of exercise over an extended period of time would lower metabolism, would you not?
A few more rambling thoughts on this topic ...
I think you can find correlation but causation has hardly been demonstrated and even if there were some causation how much difference would it really be? 5%? 10%? When you think about how the body adapts to various stresses it makes logical sense that exercise over a long period of time would not increase metabolic activity. When someone gets into really good shape for endurance what happens to their heart and cardivascular system? It gets more efficient, a lot more. Why? So it can use less energy. Realistically even if huge amounts of exercise did signifigantly increase resting metabolism how would it really matter most people don't have hours a day they can spend on cardio. Again, I'm learning so maybe I'm wrong about this but I haven't seen anything to refute what I'm saying.
After I read the book "Why Zebra's don't get Ulcers" I started thinking about everything in regards to how we evolved over hundreds of thousands of years as humans and everything started to make a lot more sense. Our bodies are really amazing but unfortuantely due to a scarcity of food while we were evolving we only developed mechanisms for weight gain, not weight loss. For most other animals having too much fat was something extremely dangerous to their existance so they evolved mechanisms for body weight regulation, like speeding up metabolism and lowing hunger. We only regulate one way, unfortunately.
Please bear in mind when I say exercise I mean cardio type of exercise. I am a firm believer that weight training causes completely different types of adaptations and is a better mechanism for weight loss than cardio but I still don't think it has a signifigant effect on increasing metabolism other than the muscle you gain burns a few extra calories and if you are overall gaining weight you will have to burn more calories to move that extra weight around.
There was no dieting, just exercise. However, most people if you asked them would assume that someone who started exercising six hours a week would lose weight because the myth is that exercise speeds up your metabolism and therefore causes weight loss.
What if it sped up the metabolism and the people ate more? What if calories were controlled?
Personally I've never thought cardio would increase metabolism, so I'm not arguing that. Also, I talk to a lot of "regular" people, and they don't think exercise speeds up metabolism, they just think they are going to burn a crap load of calories walking or jogging, plus they have zero clue how many calories are in anything they eat, nor do they know how many cals they need to eat in a day to begin with.
...and for a study, we'd need to have calories be controlled. Eating more after serious exercise is often a problem, so you need to be counting or controlling your intake to be sure.
"After all,that is what my training is for; to prepare me for what challenges I have to do in real life, not just to get me good at training, although that's fun too." - Mark Reifkind
for thematic elements, some sensuality, brief language and incidental smoking
...and for a study, we'd need to have calories be controlled. Eating more after serious exercise is often a problem, so you need to be counting or controlling your intake to be sure.
The points of the shorter term studies was that cardiovascular exercise and diet compared to diet alone made no difference in weight loss. Diet is a a BIG part of those studies. If exercise sped up the metabolism then the people exercising and dieting would have lost more weight. They didn't. The year long study did not have to do with diet, only exercise. Essentially no weight loss over a year with six hours a week exercise.
See, this is just a flawed study. Number one, assuming the exact same diet, I don't see how it is possible at all that exercise + diet doesn't induce more weight loss than just diet. You're burning more calories, and that means more weight loss. That's simple math.
A year long study neglecting diet is pointless IMO. Every study ever done should be with controlled caloric intake, otherwise, there are way too many variables.
Quote:
I wouldn't argue metabolism goes up or down due to exercise regardless of the time involved. (Cardio)
As you get older your metabolism slows down of course.
I would argue weight lifting and building muscle can speed up your metabolism but 10 lbs of additional muscle means how many additional calories a day burned? Not many.
Agreed.
So when people are able to eat more as a result of increased exercise, is that just because they're burning more calories from exercise and has nothing (or minimal amount) to do with them actually increasing their metabolism?
I think it's bad. The question is how bad, and how bad for whom? If eliminating bread (and some other high calorie, starchy carbs, and sugars) only nets a small increase in health, but makes living/eating unpleasant, then it might not be worth it. For me, it's worth lowering the intake, but not eliminating it.
Quote:
8) You need casein based protein powder to feel fuller longer..
It really works for some people. People who eat (or want to eat) when their stomach feels empty, no. People who accurately gauge actual hunger from lack of nutrients still at the ready, yes (or maybe).
Quote:
9) There's a metabolic advantage to eating little to no carbs..
There's a metabolic advantage to more protein, so if carbs are replaced with protein, this one is true.
Quote:
Plus all the ones Nacho mentioned..
EXCEPT the one about breakfast..
I believe it IS important to have a good breakfast to start the day..
I think developing good eating habits is important for people new to dieting. For people getting back into the swing of healthy eating, fat loss, etc. Starting the day with a good breakfast could set the tone.
Breakfast, eating every 3 hours, starchy carbs only after a workout, 8 glasses of water, protein with every meal, "zone" dieting, P+F and P+C, no white at night, no food after 8pm, etc. are all rules or guidelines that either establish a dietary baseline or by virtue of a rule, exclude foods or behaviors that allow overeating of higher calorie "run amok" foods.
Once you're "experienced" you have the knowledge base to change the rules, but it only works if you compensate for the rules you've changed.
You can eat starches all day, and if you're counting calories and making sure to stay on target, you will be okay. Most people cannot do that.
You can not have breakfast, but you have to know not to overcompensate with a double chili cheeseburger, fries, and a coke. Most people don't know that it would be more calories than the good breakfast and good lunch combined.
"After all,that is what my training is for; to prepare me for what challenges I have to do in real life, not just to get me good at training, although that's fun too." - Mark Reifkind
for thematic elements, some sensuality, brief language and incidental smoking
I think it's bad. The question is how bad, and how bad for whom? If eliminating bread (and some other high calorie, starchy carbs, and sugars) only nets a small increase in health, but makes living/eating unpleasant, then it might not be worth it. For me, it's worth lowering the intake, but not eliminating it.
It's a question of insulin response, and yes, with some people it's a problem.. But for most.. It's all about what your macros for the day were, and what your requirements are, activity wise (marathon runners are going to need more bread for energy, if not muscle sparing)..
Quote:
There's a metabolic advantage to more protein, so if carbs are replaced with protein, this one is true.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.. Alan A's read ALOT more studies than me, and if he says there's no advantage to eating more protein at the expense of carbs, I believe him..
Quote:
You can not have breakfast, but you have to know not to overcompensate with a double chili cheeseburger, fries, and a coke. Most people don't know that it would be more calories than the good breakfast and good lunch combined.
This is also subjective.. I know that if I don't have breakfast, I feel like crap until I DO eat something.. Some people don't..
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.. Alan A's read ALOT more studies than me, and if he says there's no advantage to eating more protein at the expense of carbs, I believe him..
There's nothing to really disagree about with this one. It takes more energy to break down protein than carbs, so if you switch carbs for protein, there is technically a "metabolic advantage." It's very small, and that is probably why Alan suggests that it doesn't matter - because people would unnecessarily obsess about it. But you do actually burn more calories that way, albeit a very small amount.
See, this is just a flawed study. Number one, assuming the exact same diet, I don't see how it is possible at all that exercise + diet doesn't induce more weight loss than just diet. You're burning more calories, and that means more weight loss. That's simple math.
A year long study neglecting diet is pointless IMO. Every study ever done should be with controlled caloric intake, otherwise, there are way too many variables.
You're arguing a point no one is trying to make. Could the study have been better? Yes. Does it still demonstrate a point? Yes.
If you were to ask a group of random people who are not knowledgable about this topic and asked - "How much weight do you think you will lose if you start exercising for six hours a week and keep it up for a year" what do you think they would say? Probably they wouldn't say none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Full
So when people are able to eat more as a result of increased exercise, is that just because they're burning more calories from exercise and has nothing (or minimal amount) to do with them actually increasing their metabolism?
As far as I know, yes. Then again, I am far from an expert.
It's a question of insulin response, and yes, with some people it's a problem.. But for most.. It's all about what your macros for the day were, and what your requirements are, activity wise (marathon runners are going to need more bread for energy, if not muscle sparing)..
I'm talking about health, in general, and our body's ability to digest, absorb, and react to some of the compounds in grains, legumes, etc. Insulin does play a role, but that's not necessarily the biggest issue. Again, it's probably not significant enough to give them up for a small improvement in health, but it's there.
Your macros for the day (overall) have no real relevance. A day is arbitrary. Might as well say macros for the week are what's important. Your macros could be "perfect" on average, but still have had a 44oz Coke for breakfast (just the Coke) and compensated the rest of the day until you were at 30/30/40.
I don't want to get too off track. A big myth should still be that macros are important for fat loss. They do play a role, but pale in comparison to the number of calories that one eats. Basically, you get your macro minimums in and the rest is calories. Worrying about 20% vs 35% P isn't worth the effort and does virtually nothing in the grand scheme of things vs calories.
Quote:
This is also subjective.. I know that if I don't have breakfast, I feel like crap until I DO eat something.. Some people don't..
You'd get used to it and no longer feel like crap. There's no reason to not eat breakfast unless you want to IF or not have to deal with breakfast.
Quote:
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.. Alan A's read ALOT more studies than me, and if he says there's no advantage to eating more protein at the expense of carbs, I believe him..
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougz
That's exactly what I'm disagreeing with (I KNOW what metabolic advantage means, thanks)..
As would A.A., and I'll add Lyle McDonald as well..
The only advantage to eating low to no carbs is when eating at a deficit it maximizes the body's potential to shed fat rather than muscle..
But again, you either agree, or you don't..
or satiety
Quote:
Now, protein has the biggest impact in terms of the thermic effect of food, switching out carbs or fat with protein tends to increase the energy out side of the equation but you have to make pretty large scale changes for it to be particularly significant. I’d note that protein also tends to be the most filling of all the nutrients and studies show that increasing dietary protein intake tends to cause people to eat less calories. Which is another huge confound; if increasing protein makes folks spontaneously eat less, it looks like it was adding the protein per se that did the magic. But it wasn’t, it was the effect of increasing protein on total energy intake that caused the fat loss. Like I said, a subtle confound that people tend to miss a lot.
"After all,that is what my training is for; to prepare me for what challenges I have to do in real life, not just to get me good at training, although that's fun too." - Mark Reifkind
for thematic elements, some sensuality, brief language and incidental smoking
Just wondering what myths people have learned are not true since becoming students of diet and nutrition?
It's all fun and games 'til somebody loses an eye.
Many diet and fitness plans are laid out for the beginner. They are not necessarily true/false, but "it depends." Like I posted earlier (I think), as you learn and master the rules, you can break them with success, provided your own rules provide the compensation.
You can't write a book or program for everyone and every level, and if I told some of my trainee's that they could skip breakfast (for instance) before they've mastered good dietary habits, they would probably start changing too much and end up failing.
The ups and downs of these discussions are that, in addition to the fun debate, that we can show what's behind the curtain before we're ready to reveal it. It's not a secret, just simpler sometimes to work with the myths you have, because they work despite the lack of evidence.
"After all,that is what my training is for; to prepare me for what challenges I have to do in real life, not just to get me good at training, although that's fun too." - Mark Reifkind
for thematic elements, some sensuality, brief language and incidental smoking
That's exactly what I'm disagreeing with (I KNOW what metabolic advantage means, thanks)..
As would A.A., and I'll add Lyle McDonald as well..
It's just a simple fact - takes more energy to burn protein than carbs. I don't see where there is room for disagreement?
Quote:
The only advantage to eating low to no carbs is when eating at a deficit it maximizes the body's potential to shed fat rather than muscle..
But again, you either agree, or you don't..
Now, that, I would disagree with. Eating low/no carb doesn't mean you're "shedding" more fat rather than muscle. You might be burning more calories from fat, but you're also taking in more. It evens out.
You'd get used to it and no longer feel like crap.
LOL
You can get used to just about anything.. Doesn't mean it's good for you..
Quote:
Worrying about 20% vs 35% P isn't worth the effort and does virtually nothing in the grand scheme of things vs calories.
Unless you're eating at a surplus, and are trying to build muscle..
Quote:
or satiety
Satiety is a different animal, and again, only really relevant when eating at a deficit..
But I agree that if weigh loss is the goal, you want to eat more protein at the expense of carbs (and keep the strenuous activity to a minimum).
Oh, and in that quote Lyle does mention that the metabolic advantage is of eating protein at the expense of carbs is minuscule, if not totally insignificant..
Quote:
I don't see where there is room for disagreement?
Ok, then..
Quote:
Eating low/no carb doesn't mean you're "shedding" more fat rather than muscle. You might be burning more calories from fat, but you're also taking in more. It evens out
4) You burn alot of calories lifting weights (you don't!)
What burning lots of calories means depends on what you are comparing weight training to. Within weight training alone there can be a lot of variation in terms metabolic activity and calories burned. 45 minutes of jogging, 45 minutes of circuit weight training, 45 minutes of high rep weight training, 45 minutes of low rep/long rest period weight training, etc, etc (dozens of variables can be manipulated), all burn different amounts of calories and depending on the individual and their current condition, that can be different as well.
Quote:
6) You should only eat starchy carbs after workouts.
The myth that is actually perpetuated around a lot of weight training circles (especially bodybuilding ones) is that simple carbs are best consumed post-workout, so I don't know where you got this from.
Quote:
I believe it IS important to have a good breakfast to start the day..
I believe it is dependent on the individual but for most people, it's usually a good idea to begin your day with structure and proper nutrition (so I guess I mostly agree, however it is not a 100% necessity).
Top 5 diet and nutrition myths?
for thematic elements, some sensuality, brief language and incidental smoking
Linear Mode
