Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 117

Thread: Baby Fat

  1. #101
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    20
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Quoted
    9 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by M. Montaigne View Post
    It's easier to do something like IIFYM - if it fits your macros.

    Eat whatever you want as long as your macros are good on a weekly basis. Avoids the weekly binge, and easier to make a lifestyle change.
    I generally agree with the IIFYM approach, but I still believe that some proteins/fats/carbs are better than some other proteins/fats/carbs and I try to stick with the better ones more often than not.

  2. #102
    Varsity Member M. Montaigne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    806
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Quoted
    315 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    ...but for me that doesn't apply to things like chemically based artificial sweeteners. They're bad for you in a very different way than sugar is bad for you. No redeeming qualities in my eyes. I'll just take the sugar thanks.
    Clinical research has shown that they are quite acceptable in reasonable quantities. I guess I see it differently -- I just consider it a natural progression of food research, and while I won't go out of my way to include them in my diet, I do not actively avoid them.

    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    I generally agree with the IIFYM approach, but I still believe that some proteins/fats/carbs are better than some other proteins/fats/carbs and I try to stick with the better ones more often than not.
    Don't get me wrong - eating burgers, pizzas, and donuts everyday is not the same as eating salads, fruits, and baked fish. But I think there is obviously a middle ground here - eat a bit of both, so that your macros are consistent, and you can keep your sanity.

  3. #103
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    732
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Quoted
    335 Post(s)
    I haven't read the entirety of the thread, so forgive me if it's already been mentioned, but has anyone suggested ketogenic dieting? I've done it, and found it to be highly effective in reducing body fat. Otherwise, I'm also a fan of the paleo doctrine as well for increasing lean mass and a reducing body fat when coupled with a proper training regimen.

    That said, I currently practice neither. I'm on a see-food diet, as I've focused my training on maximal strength and powerlifting, rather than attempting to split between aesthetics and strength.

  4. #104
    Varsity Member M. Montaigne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    806
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Quoted
    315 Post(s)
    Diets are often fleeting -- a lifestyle change of eating right is more sustainable in the long term.

    http://www.neatorama.com/2010/09/09/...tory-of-diets/

  5. #105
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    732
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Quoted
    335 Post(s)
    Fair enough, though I would argue that the paleo doctine is more the lifestyle change you're speaking of, rather than a typical fad diet, which critics often accuse it of being, among other things. To be honest, the only reason I fell off of the wagon is time constraints concerning food prep.

  6. #106
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    732
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Quoted
    335 Post(s)
    Also, I would stress the importance of a properly intense exercise regimen centered around strength and resistance training, rather than things such as steady state cardio, etc...

  7. #107
    Varsity Member M. Montaigne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    806
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Quoted
    315 Post(s)
    Paleo is indeed a fad, because modern agriculture has existed in its form for thousands of years, and rather than go with a moderate diet, paleo insists on discounting thousands of years of evolutionary changes. Not just in terms of nutritional benefit but also in terms of our own adaptations. After all, modern fruits and vegetables are in themselves hybrids, and quite different from their forms from even a couple of hundred years ago. Ditto for animals.

    We have not been hunter-gatherers for so long, and there are several studies that show that excess meat is also not good for you. Furthermore, paleo is a cultish and anachronistic in the sense that it propounds a diet that is extremely incompatible with a modern lifestyle.

    The other big part about paleo is that the stress on excess meat is not compatible with sustainability for the planet in the long term. Agriculture consumes a fraction of resources as animal husbandry, and if anything, we should be eating less meat, not more. It simply is not good for the planet in the long term.

  8. #108
    Varsity Member M. Montaigne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    806
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Quoted
    315 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Matchbook View Post
    Also, I would stress the importance of a properly intense exercise regimen centered around strength and resistance training, rather than things such as steady state cardio, etc...
    This ultimately depends on your goal. I mean, if you are running marathons, then steady state cardio builds stamina. If you are trying to look jacked, then weights it is. If you are trying to lose weight, then HIIT. And so on.

    Will Gadd had a great piece on functional strength: http://willgadd.com/functional-movem...port-and-life/

    Ultimately, your choice of athletic activity will depend on your lifestyle and ultimate goal. There's no one-size-fits-all when it comes to working out, in my experience.

    If I want to be a better climber, I need to climb more. As simple as that. Other things (e.g. lifting, yoga) may help me tangentially, but they are no substitute for the real thing.

  9. #109
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    380
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quoted
    37 Post(s)
    How about just taking the baby out in the carriage and walking a shipload of miles every day?

    It's worked for me.

  10. #110
    Varsity Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    732
    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Quoted
    335 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by M. Montaigne View Post
    Paleo is indeed a fad, because modern agriculture has existed in its form for thousands of years, and rather than go with a moderate diet, paleo insists on discounting thousands of years of evolutionary changes. Not just in terms of nutritional benefit but also in terms of our own adaptations. After all, modern fruits and vegetables are in themselves hybrids, and quite different from their forms from even a couple of hundred years ago. Ditto for animals.

    We have not been hunter-gatherers for so long, and there are several studies that show that excess meat is also not good for you. Furthermore, paleo is a cultish and anachronistic in the sense that it propounds a diet that is extremely incompatible with a modern lifestyle.

    The other big part about paleo is that the stress on excess meat is not compatible with sustainability for the planet in the long term. Agriculture consumes a fraction of resources as animal husbandry, and if anything, we should be eating less meat, not more. It simply is not good for the planet in the long term.
    Regarding paleo as a fad, I'd concede that "Paleo" is one of those things, with all of the mainstreaming and nutritional blogging about it, is certainly faddish in it's consumption by Americans looking for fixes for their weight and health problems. In reality, no one can really be "Paleo" shopping at Trader Joe's or what have you. Rather, I think that the ideas governing the paleo diet is sound.

    That said, from an anthropological standpoint, the notion that dietary evolution has occurred over the scale of thousands of years, rather than hundreds of thousands of years is inaccurate. It took millions of years from the time that the genus Homo arose for modern humans to emerge. Since then, we've been around for around 200k years. We adopted early agriculture, a mere 10,000 years ago, yet from an physiological standpoint, we certainly aren't different from our modern human ancestors who lived well before we crossed the threshold from H/Gs to agriculturalists. Unless we've somehow accelerated the evolutionary process in the last several thousand years, I highly doubt that we can feasibly argue that we forced significant dietary adaptations in the last 10k years.

    Supporting this, if you look at the occurrence of diseases and pathologies linked to nutrition and lifestyle as provided by the World Health Organization, the cultures who rank as the unhealthiest are the industrialized nations, having the highest rates. Who has the lowest? H/G and horticulturalist cultures living in South America and Africa.

    I don't think that we disagree concerning the importance of proper food selection, etc. I think we are on different pages concerning the validity of the science behind the doctrine.

Posting Permissions

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