Personality Cafe banner

561 - 580 of 905 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
Nutrition and weight loss is the most scientific...what? I'm sorry but that is nonsense. If it were so easy, there would not be so much research going into obesity. It is plain ignorant to boil weight down to calories. I could go into this in depth, and I have, as I have researched this topic incredibly thoroughly. However I don't feel like typing it all now when the information is quite easy to google by searching for phrases including "obesity", "inflammation", "insulin resistance", "toxicity", "sex hormones", etc. all of which are substantial factors in the weight loss "equation."

Once again, and for the last time, yes, exercise can cause inflammation which can cause weight gain if the body is already very inflamed. I honestly don't care to hear any more about BMR because right now it is simply not a factor. Exercising does not. Lead. To weight loss, for me. The opposite happens. I could pull up several articles describing everything I have said so far, but I really see no point as it would benefit no one. So let this be the end of this sidebar. Thank you to the people who listened and tried to help, I appreciate it. As I said, I probably made a mistake posting in this thread in the first place and I apologize.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,597 Posts
LOL, sorry but I just had to comment on that bolded part. Medicine is the ultimate science mate, it combines everything. Nutrition is much more guesstimations, than other healthcare professions, even the clinical part.
The ultimate science? According to who and by what standard? I was going by the standards of being empirical and predictable. Two qualities which are the least strongest values in medicine compared to the hard sciences.

I think you're just full of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
891 Posts
Now, now children. We already have the cure of obesity, anyways. It's called ADDERALL! WHOOO!

But seriously, there are a lot of factors that play into obesity, but yet it all boils down to calorie surplus and macronutrients balance. Sure, there are some medical conditions such as insulin resistance which is pre-diabetes that can cause obesity, but yet, it can still be managed with a healthy diet and proper excercise.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
8,835 Posts
The ultimate science? According to who and by what standard? I was going by the standards of being empirical and predictable. Two qualities which are the least strongest values in medicine compared to the hard sciences.

I think you're just full of it.
I explained in the following comments.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,597 Posts
I explained in the following comments.
You didn't explain anything other than expressing disagreement. If you were to say medicine were a skilled profession then I would agree with you.

Going by empiricism and predictability, what I said is still true.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
8,835 Posts
You didn't explain anything other than expressing disagreement. If you were to say medicine were a skilled profession then I would agree with you. Being a physician requires extensive knowledge, accurate judgment and good perception.
I did, read back.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,597 Posts
I did, read back.
You're referring to these two posts, right?

 
Because it combines all other sciences to understand and work. A good nutritionist knows their biochemistry too, but most nutritionists around the world know next to nothing about biochemistry.
By side effects you mean the pharmaceutical part of it right? I'm not referring to that necessarily, and that part of it is what's similar to nutrition since it's heavily relied on epidemiology and clinical testings which can be very hit or miss on individual cases.
All the rest that a doctor and a surgeon does. Understanding physiology and what changes in disease. How to treat it using drugs is just a part of it, and doctors don't create drugs, they just need to know how to use them, which is what I said in the previous sentence.
Of course that doesn't mean doctors can do everything as one person can't know everything. Which is why nutrition is a separate field now. So, I would definitely not consider nutrition to be more scientific than other healthcare fields, that is just absurd. Especially the weight loss part. Just the equations we're using are a huge guesstimate. There are dozens of them, some with big differences with each other in their results. It's no wonder, it's doubly indirect calorimetry and can be very inaccurate if the person has a condition that changes their metabolism; hypo/hyperthyroidism can reduce/increase BRM by even up to 50%, so if you had 1500kcal BMR you now have a BMR as low as 750kcal in hypo and an equation won't tell you that. Which is why I asked @Yearight if she's had an RMR breath test as it's much more accurate and in her case, the best way to calculate her energy needs.
None of which proves your assertion that medicine is the science of all sciences. Because it isn't. It's just another branch of science. Anyway, that's really beside the point. I was saying nutrition is the most scientific because the cause and effect relationship are empirical and predictable to a very large degree. Medicine otherwise can be argued that it's almost as much of an art as it is a science. Perhaps I should've stated that from the beginning to avoid confusion though.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
8,835 Posts
You're referring to these two posts, right?

 




None of which proves your assertion that medicine is the science of all sciences. Because it isn't. It's just another branch of science. Anyway, that's really beside the point. I was saying nutrition is the most scientific because the cause and effect relationship are empirical and predictable to a very large degree. Medicine otherwise can be argued that it's almost as much of an art as it is a science. Perhaps I should've stated that from the beginning to avoid confusion though.
Have you studied the human body?
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
8,835 Posts
Yes, actually I have. Not in school but on my own as a kid. Anatomy is a biological science.
That's nothing, like reading places on a map. Cell biology, genetics, biochemistry, systems biology, physiology, all of it together, and to realise it all. Might change your mind.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,597 Posts
That's nothing, like reading places on a map. Cell biology, genetics, biochemistry, systems biology, physiology, all of it together, and to realise it all. Might change your mind.
Do you have a point to all of this back and forth? Those are all subjects you could easily learn by going back to school or picking up a textbook and studying. How does the human body make medicine the ultimate science?

It's complex sure. Complexity doesn't make anything more scientific or sophisticated. It may help you find God if you're so inclined to think along those lines though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,438 Posts
Background: I'm a 40 year old female. Normal to thin weight (BMI 19-19.5). I'd say I've been moderately active since my mid twenties, mostly vigorous hiking an average of probably 15 miles a week. A few years ago for stress relief I started doing more like 30 miles a week/average, trying to push the pace faster. About 10 months ago I started jogging. I've been following one of the 'couch potato' training apps to build slowly because I've never ever run before. I've taken it even slower than the apps suggested because of problems with pain/injuries, especially shin splints. Now I'm up to 5 mile runs (i typically do 3 a week), and my goal is to get into the 7 mile range, averaging around 10 min/mi or less.

So here is my question: I always use a garmin forerunner type watch when i run, with hrm. I spend most of my time is heart rate zone 4. E.g., today's run, I spent ~47 minutes in zone 4, 4 minutes in zone 5, and 6 minutes in zone 3.

When I do any crude research on jogging, it says you should jog mostly in heart rate zone 2. If i did that my pace would be glacial. And it wouldn't even feel like I was exercising. So I've just been ignoring the zone advice.

What's the thinking behind staying in zone 2? Is it OK that I'm mostly in zone 4? Whats the downside of exercising mostly in zone 4? I've never really seen an explanation of this.


Other background info: I'm running for cardiovascular fitness and stress relief. I only run on trails (because I prefer being in nature). There are no brutal inclines, but it's not completely flat. Maybe a couple hundred feet up over the duration? I average probably about 10:30/minute, with a fairly large range between 9 and 12 depending on grade, temperature, etc.

This is not some really specialized heart rate zone calculator. I let garmin calculate it from my age and real resting heart rate. But when I get into the 170s bpm (zone 5) I really feel a difference. I cannot sustain that long and get very tired. In zone 4 I feel quite tired, am breathing heavy, sweating heavily, quite flushed, but I can still maintain it for ~1 hour. At the end of which I feel pretty exhausted :wink:
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
8,835 Posts
Do you have a point to all of this back and forth? Those are all subjects you could easily learn by going back to school or picking up a textbook and studying. How does the human body make medicine the ultimate science?

It's complex sure. Complexity doesn't make anything more scientific or sophisticated. It may help you find God if you're so inclined to think along those lines though.
I explained what I meant by ultimate science in the first post you quoted. It combines everything, because the human (or animal in general) body is the highest form of organized life and extremely complex. It's a misconception to think that nutrition is more scientific than other health sciences when it's basically a branch of it.
 

·
Spotlight March 2016
Joined
·
8,193 Posts
Discussion Starter #574
Background: I'm a 40 year old female. Normal to thin weight (BMI 19-19.5). I'd say I've been moderately active since my mid twenties, mostly vigorous hiking an average of probably 15 miles a week. A few years ago for stress relief I started doing more like 30 miles a week/average, trying to push the pace faster. About 10 months ago I started jogging. I've been following one of the 'couch potato' training apps to build slowly because I've never ever run before. I've taken it even slower than the apps suggested because of problems with pain/injuries, especially shin splints. Now I'm up to 5 mile runs (i typically do 3 a week), and my goal is to get into the 7 mile range, averaging around 10 min/mi or less.

So here is my question: I always use a garmin forerunner type watch when i run, with hrm. I spend most of my time is heart rate zone 4. E.g., today's run, I spent ~47 minutes in zone 4, 4 minutes in zone 5, and 6 minutes in zone 3.

When I do any crude research on jogging, it says you should jog mostly in heart rate zone 2. If i did that my pace would be glacial. And it wouldn't even feel like I was exercising. So I've just been ignoring the zone advice.

What's the thinking behind staying in zone 2? Is it OK that I'm mostly in zone 4? Whats the downside of exercising mostly in zone 4? I've never really seen an explanation of this.


Other background info: I'm running for cardiovascular fitness and stress relief. I only run on trails (because I prefer being in nature). There are no brutal inclines, but it's not completely flat. Maybe a couple hundred feet up over the duration? I average probably about 10:30/minute, with a fairly large range between 9 and 12 depending on grade, temperature, etc.

This is not some really specialized heart rate zone calculator. I let garmin calculate it from my age and real resting heart rate. But when I get into the 170s bpm (zone 5) I really feel a difference. I cannot sustain that long and get very tired. In zone 4 I feel quite tired, am breathing heavy, sweating heavily, quite flushed, but I can still maintain it for ~1 hour. At the end of which I feel pretty exhausted :wink:
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the details behind jogging, these 'zones' you describe... But from what I've read, the distance is most important. I've only read briefly into it, though.

I don't think it matters, and highly doubt there are significant downsides. It may be most beneficial to turn it into a high intensity interval thing, if you want to go hardcore, but the way you're doing it sounds fine to me. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable on this subject can jump in. :proud:
 

·
Plumcot
Joined
·
2,186 Posts
Okay SO
I lost fifty pounds when I was sixteen and yoyoed because of some situational depression, and now I'm 155 which is good for 5'11. So, I have a pocket of fat around my waist and really want to tone up there, and build muscle overall. How can I do this? Also how come there are people who go to the gym at the beginning of the month and come out at the end looking like greek gods?
 

·
Spotlight March 2016
Joined
·
8,193 Posts
Discussion Starter #576
Okay SO
I lost fifty pounds when I was sixteen and yoyoed because of some situational depression, and now I'm 155 which is good for 5'11. So, I have a pocket of fat around my waist and really want to tone up there, and build muscle overall. How can I do this? Also how come there are people who go to the gym at the beginning of the month and come out at the end looking like greek gods?
It depends on your understanding of what it means to be muscular.

A lot of people claim that someone is muscular simply because you can see their muscles, but they're actually quite weak. These people do minimal weight-lifting, and maximum cardiovascular activities.

If you have a good understanding of nutrition and fitness, it's not that difficult to build muscle, and lose fat. It might take a month for someone with an average body to come out looking like a 'Greek God'. But, it really depends on what you mean by 'Greek God'. It usually takes at least a year for someone to actually 'get strong and healthy'. But, some people don't care about 'getting strong and healthy', and just want to 'look strong and healthy."

So, what is your goal? Vanity, or health? :proud:

You can obviously have both, but some people don't want to work that hard. If your goal is vanity, I can't help you. If your goal is health, then I can probably help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
I am 5' 10" at 175#. I am not looking to get big, I could loose 5-10 pounds but I really want to know how I can strengthen my legs, but the problem is that I have a bad knee due to overloading my knees while trekking. What are some good strength training methods besides? The treadmill really likes to give my knees hell.
 

·
Spotlight March 2016
Joined
·
8,193 Posts
Discussion Starter #578
I am 5' 10" at 175#. I am not looking to get big, I could loose 5-10 pounds but I really want to know how I can strengthen my legs, but the problem is that I have a bad knee due to overloading my knees while trekking. What are some good strength training methods besides? The treadmill really likes to give my knees hell.
Definitely exercises like lunges and squats. Squats in particular target the legs, but it affects the entire body, which makes it super healthy.

Start off without any weight the first week, doing around 3 sets with as many reps as you can, maybe 3 - 4 days in the week?

The next week, you can add light weight, and tone down the reps, maybe only do 20 per set. As you get heavier, lessen the repetitions. If it's really heavy, I'd recommend only doing 8 - 12 reps.

I'd recommend squats above all, so find yourself a squat rack, and get some instructions from the kind people at the gym. :proud:
 
561 - 580 of 905 Posts
Top