Whatever the conclusions here, CIOC is still the benchmark for overweight people who over-consume food and under exercise. Notwithstanding junk vs healthy kcals obvs. 500 kcals of Broccoli will clearly be better than two Snickers.
When you get into the weeds like this discussion, it’s more about the esoteric view of nutrition for elite athletes or post graduates.
Oooo you’re opening up a can of worms here. One thing that is clear is that for healthy eating and healthy weight - one size does not fit all!!!
Noakes’s theories have saved the lives of my stepdad and his brother. But they are the classic fat around the middle, pre-diabetic/diabetic middle aged men. More and more studies are showing that the eating plans do not work for “healthy” woman. And men should probably approach with caution if there is no history of diabetes in the family.
That said, I’m glad he’s busted the myth around full fat diary and all related products. 99% of the people I see buying “fat free” products are overweight and should be concentrating on sugar reduction rather than fat reduction
That’s the Noakes that has just finished apologising for his ahem lies about running…
So you’re not going to listen to it, but attack the message it might be communicating?
Hoping to close one. I’m tired of the ignorance!
Ad hominem. Play the ball, not the man
I haven’t attacked it; read my post again.
The podcast is worth your time, it’s not a weeds thing imo. It’s broad, comprehensive and highlights the critical truth than undermines CICO lies.
Definitely ad hominem…that’s what happens when you knowingly deceive for financial gain…
Something that Noakes and his acolytes are never guilty of.
What ignorance is that?
The fallacy is the body is a simple input/output machine.
The premise that the energy in vs out is correct but it’s a complex mechanism where simply reducing the calories in doesn’t work to reduce weight on a linear basis. He argues that the food you eat and the time you eat is controls a number of factors including the food that you will eat and the energy your body uses. He also argues that measuring calories accurately enough isn’t possible because very small errors compounds over time and therefore doesn’t recommend it. He suggests that there are other ways to achieve the same result with more consistency.
I don’t think it’s as controversial as @joex is making out.
I refer you to my nutrition thread
His first comment mentions law of thermodynamics but that you cannot know accurately what you put in/take out. yep. This isnt really that controversial at all . He does pump LCHF a bit but with caveats and what he actually is saying dont eat refined carbs.
Most people need to worry about the 95% of habits that need changing. The rest isnt worth looking at. much like tri training, everyone is too concerned about hitting intervals to the second when as most of us know, as long as you get some hard, some easy and some at goal pace you will be in the right ball park.
So. Eat the appropriate amount of calories, and avoid/minimise processed foods. Has anything really changed at the basic level?
- I have listened to the whole FastCat podcast
- I have listened to some of the FastCat podcast
- I have not listened to the FastCat podcast
- I contest the options presented for some reason
I am listening to the FatCat Podcast
Doesn’t sound like you’ve listened to the podcast
He explains why relying on this to support CICO is worthless
…irrelevant, as it is impractical to the point of absurdity
It’s not just me anymore as the podcast explains, check out Hammerer thread for everyone who still thinks that saying CICO is a valid position on nutrition.
not worthless, just not the only thing to think about. I’m not sure what the discussion it, its basically confirming everything I’ve said in the past and I learned. bottom line is the science isnt worth worrying about if you have a poor relationship and consequently behaviours around food.