Weight Matters (train hard and eat whatever you want is BS)

lol@tards.. wrote:

As do I wrote:

And you are still retarded. He knows what works for him. Googled aphorisms don't change hard reality.

V-E-R-Y C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y, read the sentence i quoted one more time... if you think this statement holds any truth whatsoever, then you suffer from a really bad case of epistemological relativism...

Sorry to butt in on this little exchange but that last sentence of yours is absolutely hilarious. Probably not for the reason you'd like it to be, I should add.

OP, what the f, why you trolling?

First, in the subject line of this thread you say "train hard and eat whatever you want is BS" but then in one of your responses you say that you weren't training hard and why are we putting words in your mouth? It's right there in the subject line!

Second, if you weren't training hard, just running easy mileage to get your legs back under you, how can you make the claim that "train hard and eat whatever you want is BS"?

Had you actually trained hard, and I don't even mean mileage, I mean with two workouts a week and some higher end aerobic efforts, maybe the weight would have melted off. That has always been my experience. So honestly, my anecdote of one completely goes against your anecdote of one. I can train hard and eat whatever I want. Maybe your problem was that you were dawdling around town every day instead of running.

A couple observations..

1. Some people are naturally thin. These people are genetically predisposed to be thin. These people tend to make the best distance runners.

2. Others are not so lucky and despite diet will always be somewhat big for a distance runner. I am an example. As a runner I was barely 5'6" and 140-45. I beat many skinny runners. You would think I would have been more successful in the middle distances to 5k but my 10 mile to marathon times were better than my peers who had faster 5k and under times.

Body Composition matters more than just weight. Eat right, train right and the rest will take care of itself. Forcing a lower bodyweight on yourself by starving or other crazy dietary means will do more harm than good.

Alan

OK, I read the article you linked to and it says "moderate intensity" is the best way to burn fat.

Now, before you all pile in, yes, I AM A FATTIE - 210lbs and 5'11 - and I'm running predominantly to drop weight.

For context, I was pretty fit 6 months ago, ran a marathon and could run 4 miles in 28.56 at my fastest (I'm 43 btw, and only took up running a couple of years ago, before all you yahoos tell me I'm slow as well as fat).

So, the question is - what's the most effective way to run with the primary aim of shedding weight ? Having read the linked article, I'm wondering if 60 mins at marathon goal pace (9mm for me) 5 days a week would be a good simple method.

Thoughts ?

PS - OP - you have the forbearance of a saint. Some people who post on here have the maturity levels of a 2 year old.

Getting Lean And Fast wrote:

Okay fine, I'll hedge, FOR ME, diet is the most important factor toward determining my running performance (pretty sure I already stated this).

lol@tards.. wrote:

you're still wrong...

"correlation does not imply causation"...

google it. know it. live it.

As do I wrote:

And you are still retarded. He knows what works for him. Googled aphorisms don't change hard reality.

lol@tards.. wrote:

V-E-R-Y C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y, read the sentence i quoted one more time... if you think this statement holds any truth whatsoever, then you suffer from a really bad case of epistemological relativism...

V-E-R-Y C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y, look at his quote that you responded too and try real hard to understand what it means. He knows what works for him. Most people tend to learn what works for them after a while. I'm sorry you consider this a subject pushing the limitations of human knowledge but that is merely because you are, no offense, retarded.

I'm 5'10 and weigh 176lb. My 5k is 15:56. Lowest weight I reached for 165. If you've got the talent baby, you've got the talent...

Are you trying to say that you are talented, or aren't talented??

still whip yo' ass wrote:

I'm 5'10 and weigh 176lb. My 5k is 15:56. Lowest weight I reached for 165. If you've got the talent baby, you've got the talent...

I don't have very much talent, but I would easily beat you by a minute in a 5k. On the track, I'd probably hand you "yo ass" even faster. You, sirrah, are not talented.

Also, you'd probably be faster if you dropped around 30lbs, given your height.

I'm 5'10 and was 200lbs in April. Stopped lifting for a bit to focus on running, dropped to about 160. I'm admittedly a better runner over longer distances (10 miles plus) at 160, but I look a hell of a lot better at 200, and I'm definitely a better overall athlete at that weight. I'm currently hitting the weights and building back that lost muscle.

You guys who call anyone over 180 "fat" have serious body image issues. Or at least you're just justifying the way you look to yourselves by name calling. The fact of the matter is that being 5'10" and 150lbs (as is usually advocated on this site) leaves males looking feminine and weak.

Given the choice of being built like Galen Rupp or like any given soldier in '300,' I'd go with the latter.

Joseph Ebuya is pretty fast and pretty jacked.

http://www.google.co.tz/imgres?imgurl=http://www.iaaf.org/mm/photo/competitions/other/42583_w400xh600.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.iaaf.org/news/athletes/newsid%3D46163.html&usg=__IPHcgXQb-VmgNfml9uHXdFtlfQ8=&h=600&w=400&sz=69&hl=sw&start=2&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=0nz1-YyLsyYZKM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=90&prev=/search%3Fq%3Djoseph%2Bebuya%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dsw%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1366%26bih%3D645%26tbm%3Disch&ei=F2hWTquuOY3MrQfmxI2eCw

The "fat loss zone" is a myth.

It simply means you run longer because you are running slower, so you end up doing more miles. If you can only run 6 miles at 7min pace but you can run 10 miles at 8min pace you will burn more calories on the 10 mile run not because of some "zone" but because you're working out for 120 mins in stead of 40.

I am just trying to help people here who are drinking the government "whole grain" Kool-Aid and also Gatorade brand Kool-Aid. First, I'll respond to the negative comments.

-To the person who gains ten pounds when they don't run, it could be because you're sitting around eating more ice cream because you're not running... I don't know. I know when I was in college and got injured during a season it led to eating a lot more carbohydrate. I however, did NOT gain weight. This is because my body partitions food for fuel and not storage. Fat is hormonally controlled. It's not calories-in-calories-out. Ask yourself, why are there people that can eat whatever they want and NEVER gain weight? Also, are you SURE that you have no change in diet? If there is a race coming up on Saturday and Friday night in the cafeteria, would you grab an ice cream cone because you knew you didn't have a race in the morning? Or if you knew your season was over because of an injury, would you go out and have a few more beers?

-To the person whose name was "ur.faggit," I'm not sure if that was what you were trying to call me, but I don't think Gary Taubes is a buffoon and I think you might be for leaving an article out of your handle and spelling it wrong. I think when they introduced him as a speaker at Harvard Medical School and said, "This man is going to change the world" it helps to bolster that argument. You may have started running when you were 230 and you may have tried to operate at a calorie deficit, but what KIND of calories did you cut out? The first thing most people cut is the simple carbohydrate ie-sweets. It sounds like you were meticulously watching your intake; and that deserves to be applauded. If you stopped eating fast food at this same time (like many people do), you cut out a lot more sugar right there. What else happened when started running? Were there any plane crashes? Did your running cause them too? Basically, what I'm trying to say is people equate exercise to weight loss because it often correlates with weight loss. I wouldn't feel so admittedly about all of this if I hadn't spend hundreds of hours researching it and it doesn't seem like you have.

-To the other person who said Gary Taubes was dumb, I hope you watched that whole interview... and now I want you to watch the entirety of these interviews:

-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sASWJDxni68

(In this second interview, it's interesting to see Oz before Oprah deemed him the savior he thinks he is.)

-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdBDQdOKbJQ

I know it's tough to swallow... especially if your career is based on exercise (like mine was) and you think that you're helping people loose weight (like I did), but exercise does not lead to weight loss. I'm not saying that it's not beneficial, but it does not lead to weight loss. There is not ONE study that has singled out exercise as the cause of weight loss. Good runners who are runners because they are skinny, are always quick to point out how fat people are lazy and eat too much. Well, those fat people were not born with the same fuel partitioning built in. Think about this: All of the problems associated with metabolic syndrome, have to do with blood sugar, insulin and and often leptin.

It's actually worse than I had previously thought, too... Carbohydrates are inflammatory and because the digestive tract is lined with lymphatic tissue, carbs are making people sick and they don't even know it.

Well, I'll stop myself. Please put in some effort. Please don't use anecdotal evidence (ie-Chris Solinsky, this guy, that guy...). Please understand the difference between correlation and causation.

I guess I should correct myself... there are a few typos/grammatical mistakes in there. But I also wanted to say that the first person I was responding to, wasn't a negative comment and simply an inquiry. I used "always" when talking about runners, but I should have said "often."

Nice trollin!

Taubes correctly takes down an oversimplified idea that obesity is caused by a simple decision to eat more and/or exercise less as the proximate, but not ultimate cause of obesity. He then replaces it with an almost equally oversimplified idea that all obesity is caused by insulin reactions.

Read the following blog post to see how much more complicated the physiology of obesity is and why Taubes is wrong:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html

Nearly everything you wrote is wrong. As others duly noted Gary Taubes ABSOLUTELY is a buffoon. He has spoken and written so many inaccurate statements it is mind boggling. He has ZERO training/education in health /nutrition, and is now so fully committed to and invested in (literally) his thesis (which you regurgitate perfectly and uncritically) that carbs are the root of all evil, that lots of sat fat is fine, and exercise doesn't help with weight loss that he will of course purposely ignore any study that contradicts it.

I can link you to 100 studies that show benefits of higher carb intake and many studies that show the OBVIOUS result that increasing activity aids with weight loss. But I am not going to waste two hours trying to reverse the brainwashing of a true believer like yourself (and I am typing on an iPad which I still find a pain in the neck).

I know you feel good that you are one the cutting edge of fad diets and best seller BS, but....that ain't where reality is, not even close.

Taubes is a clown, seriously.

Agree with Sir L. And I'll add:

The brain functions only on glucose. So you people who do the low-carb-high-protein diets are only making yourselves more stupid ....

Now I am off to eat more carbs, break some of them down to glucose to use immediately, and allow my liver to store the rest of them as glycogen to use later :-)

well.............. wrote:

You guys who call anyone over 180 "fat" have serious body image issues. Or at least you're just justifying the way you look to yourselves by name calling. The fact of the matter is that being 5'10" and 150lbs (as is usually advocated on this site) leaves males looking feminine and weak.

Given the choice of being built like Galen Rupp or like any given soldier in '300,' I'd go with the latter.

One more vain, slow American male. We constantly hear how women's notions of physical beauty have been warped by the images presented in the media. The same applies to the American male, it seems.

Go ahead, big boy. Pump yourself up so you can wow the babes. Me? I'd rather be able to run fast and fluid any day.

Not trolling...just sharing my weight-loss experience so far and how it has affected my running.