Go Back   Olympic Weightlifting Forums - Catalyst Athletics > Olympic Weightlifting > Other

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-26-2009, 02:57 PM   #11
Brian Stone
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 491

Originally Posted by Gittit Shwartz View Post
A 5'1 woman with less than 100 lbs of LBM will need to count calories, no matter how philosophically intact her diet is. Even if she is doing WODs.

It kinda bugs me to see this claim posted so often because I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that it mostly applies to people who are very overweight, had a crappy diet before, or have an excellent metabolism - yet that's not even the majority of the people reading it. Then they wonder why they're not getting results. Maybe you could append a disclaimer
I'm not sure I buy into the good vs. bad inherent metabolism thing. I saw a program where BBC did a study on the metabolism claim, though it was far from comprehensive and scientifically valid since they only tested a single pair of people. Still, I found the results pretty interesting.

I began to very poorly summarize the program but found this summary here:

In short, they found no validity to the genetic "high and low metabolism" claims made.

I have not done much research otherwise on this point and intend to, but wanted to add that.
"Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best." —Henry Van Dyke

Brian Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2009, 03:12 PM   #12
Duke McCall
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 61

Arien, you are correct that the study did examine weight circumference and other risk factors for heart disease (which not suprisingly show a correlation between weight loss and a decrease in heart disease risk). And, I agree the study is interesting reading.

My frustration is with the limitations of the study, which no doubt were by design, but which will be overlooked by the general public (and the media) in assessing the study results. The goal of the study was to assess, and what it principally measures, is the effect of the macronutrient composition of different diets on weight loss. It does not, in my opinion, provide a true (or full) assessment the health effects of the macronutrient composition of different diets, which is of at least equal significance in my opinion (but then again what do I know ).

You are right, though, the information it does provide is interesting and provides a good starting point for another study!
Duke McCall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2009, 07:40 PM   #13
Patrick Yeung
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 132


Looks like they spun it already! The best part is, in the begining, it says...

Two decades after the debate began on which diet is best for weight loss, a conclusion is starting to come into focus. And the winner is . . . not low-carb, not low-fat, not high protein but . . . any diet.
But, then at the end....

Few of the people in the current study strictly adhered to the calorie limits and the composition of their diets, suggesting it is just too difficult to do so, Gardner said. For example, those assigned to consume 35% of their calories as carbohydrates actually consumed an average of 43%, and groups that were supposed to eat a 20%-fat diet averaged 26%. In the end, many of the participants were eating diets that were more similar than dissimilar.
And.... Where was the High fat - High Protein diet? Or IFing and zoneing eating schedules to name a few....
Patrick Yeung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2009, 07:55 PM   #14
Matthew Bacorn
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 56

I really think there is something to the food quality mattering more than calories

I am about a week in to SS, and have been eating way more than usual while lifting intentionally light weights to nail down technique. I've also been walking around a lot less.

Today I weigh the same as i did a week ago, look leaner, and have more energy.

I have a few theories as to why, but i'll save them until i'm a little further into this
Matthew Bacorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2009, 02:57 AM   #15
Mark Bennett
New Member
Mark Bennett's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 38

Most all studies have limitations, faults or bias etc. That’s why I carry out an experiment of one
"To know things as they are is better than to believe things as they seem."
Mark Bennett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2009, 04:22 AM   #16
Garrett Smith
Senior Member
Garrett Smith's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 4,326

My mother-in-law (who works at Canyon Ranch) heard about this study on the news and told me she thought BS...she has been learning something!
Garrett Smith NMD CSCS BS, aka "Dr. G"
RepairRecoverRestore.com - Blood, Saliva, and Stool Testing
My radio show - The Path to Strength and Health
Garrett Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2009, 08:19 AM   #17
Scott Kustes
Senior Member
Scott Kustes's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 1,043

Even if it does come down solely to calories in/out, certain calories, namely protein and fat, are more satiating than others. That makes it much easier to keep calories low.

Fitness Spotlight
Scott Kustes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2009, 09:46 AM   #18
Kevin Perry
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,669

pfft these studies are always biased. Calories in/out may be what it comes down to but there is a big difference between the health and body comp of that person who uses quality calories vs. that person who eats the SAD.
Kevin Perry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2009, 09:46 AM   #19
Mike ODonnell
Senior Member
Mike ODonnell's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,560

People are so worried about calories and counting.....when they have no clue how much they can actually burn or use in a day....plus that doesn't even put into perspective how low calorie days and high calorie days can even out over time....the body is more complex than one set of daily parameters. I've seen overweight women trying to eat 2500 calories for a "strong metabolism" (I don't even want to go there...) because their trainer used some magic formula and told them to eat that much....yeah ok, and they wonder why they are still overweight in 2 months.
Fitness Spotlight
The IF Life
Mike ODonnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2009, 05:21 PM   #20
Scott Clark
Scott Clark's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 54

This study was the topic of today's Science Friday on NPR. The scariest part of it was when they started taking calls and everyone was talking about how they still include brownies and cake in their daily diet, just less of it now. Well, that IS what is being promoted by the blanket cals in/cals out thing, so it's not surprising.

Not that such foods don't have their place as a treat, but you know.
Scott Clark is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 3
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.