5 ms·

Seems like you misread the thread. The comment is against the training schedules that have been provided that are only about gym and calorie tracking. And that

Seems like you misread the thread. The comment is against the training schedules that have been provided that are only about gym and calorie tracking. And that we "could" also do other things. Like in the video from the bioneer. But it seems you read "should". My comment is not against training of any kind. And if the gym is your place where you get it done great, but if you have busy life and your unable to find the time or are unable to commit regularily. Then there are other options that will fit anyone schedule.

zamfi 4y ago
> Instead we should focus on > And for food we should try to focus on This post contains some very odd gaslighting: your earlier post says "should"—twice—but you are claiming here that the person responding to you incorrectly read "should"? Perhaps you meant to write could but wrote should instead?
- Attummm 4y ago
  If someone likes to go to gym, then that would fall under movements that they like. We are currently in obesity epidemic. That's only getting worse[0]. Lets try some new ideas instead of calories which is based of steam engines in 1800. The human body is much more complex. What research is showing is that daily excersice is great for the overall health and strength like as the article posted. And that excersice can help the brain[1][2] with aging [3] and much more. [0]https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/05/1117402 https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/05/1117402 [1]https://neurosciencenews.com/walking-cognition-20876/ https://neurosciencenews.com/walking-cognition-20876/ [2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4915811/#:~:text=Exercise%20induces%20beneficial%20responses%20in,alleviation%20of%20depression%20and%20anxiety https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4915811/#:~:tex... [3]https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-discover-how-nearly-everybody-can-increase-their-lifespan/ https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-discover-how-nearly-eve...
  - cma 4y ago
    This does seem like even more gaslighting, you said: " I would like to argue that being healthy and fit is not about the gym, or investing time in tracking calories." Instead we should focus on on daily fun movements that we like to do." Now those daily fun movements include the gym if you like the gym? But you still are saying they should do something daily instead of periodic gym, not that they could.
    - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
      I think the post is arguing for a superset of the definition of exercise which includes the gym as opposed to a set definition of exercise defined by the gym exclusive of other activities. A superset definition would also include lifting my child for piggyback rides, a brisk walk with a friend, or practicing a flash mob.
    - Attummm 4y ago
      We should focus, that doens't mean we should not. There is allot research about daily exercise and the enormous health benefits. If we focus on trying to incoperate more movements throughout the the day. It will be easier to maintain, and if we miss a day we will have the next day. But if we would do both it will even be better:) The bioneer in the youtube video explains it way better then this post.
    - mister_mister 4y ago
      "But you still are saying they should do something daily instead of periodic gym, not that they could. " The article of the thread is saying that...
    - itsoktocry 4y ago
      >This does seem like even more gaslighting For the love of god, saying something self-contradictory is not "gas lighting".
      - solveit 4y ago
        Thank you for fighting the good fight. Words (should) mean things!
  - awillen 4y ago
    Why did you totally ignore the point that you criticized the responder for reading "should" when that is the exact word you used in your post?
    - Attummm 4y ago
      Maybe the comment isnt written well enough to get the point across. We should focus on, doesnt exclude anything. If anything my point is that both is even better. Then the second should is about the latest science. I didn't elaborate on that. The latest science is pointing towards daily exercise. Therfor we should ideally have some form of movement each day. It's beneficial not only to overall health, and longevity. But also your brain health:) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220815085707.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220815085707.h... https://www.health.harvard.edu/topics/exercise-and-fitness https://www.health.harvard.edu/topics/exercise-and-fitness
      - zamfi 4y ago
        In general, saying "I would like to argue that being X is not about doing Y. Instead we should do Z" is going to make people, quite reasonably think that you are arguing against Y, and that people should do Z instead of Y. "We should focus on Z" does indeed suggest to most readers that you are excluding things that are not Z, whether you meant that or not. Highly recommend going with "I'm sorry, I meant ..." rather than "You read it wrong, I didn't say ABC ..." to avoid confusion, especially when you do indeed use the phrase ABC.
        Attummm 4y ago
        Although that's great point about the confusion. But you could observe it as being only a logical statement, such as. " You should focus on your tie the next time instead of your shoes. " Doenst mean you should only have tie on the next time. That would be rather awkward. Atleast that is what I meant, thanks for the explanation.
        zamfi 4y ago
  - halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
    Is the body "much more complex" than calories in/calories out though? If you are overweight, shouldn't calories in/calories out come first, followed quickly by eating healthy to achieve that deficit? A lot of people, economically, cannot afford the latter while still being able to perform the former. Seems like we should be encouraging people how to lose weight and then educate them on healthier ways to do it...but at the end of the day it's all thermodynamics.
    - oezi 4y ago
      I can recommend the book Burn by Herman Pontzer on this: The human body can adjust the Basal Metabolic Resting Rate quite a lot in the face of exercise. Spending an extra 500 kcals on exercise can easily only lead to 200 kcals higher total energy expenditure. The body apparently will for instance reduce sex drive and immune functions when under regular exercise. So to achieve weight loss exercise alone is a very hard path unless diet is also modified. On the other hand it has been shown that dieting alone without exercise also makes it very hard to maintain a lower weight because for instance exercise seems to curb feelings of hunger. So yes: human bodies definitely are complex adaptable machines. CICO alone doesn't cut it.
      - mister_mister 4y ago
        Correct, and has to because the evolutionary time that we had at least 3 meals a day has been really short. The body is made for extreme conditions, conditions that it's no longer exposed to. So it had to be smart with when to store energy and when to spend it.
    - Attummm 4y ago
      Great question, because the latest science is pointing to that hormones determine the states of body. Example Insulin triggers storage in cells, and t3 from the thyroid has influence over the metabolism. Testerone has many influences and there many more For feeling full and feeling tired there are different hormones. And they are finding out how little we actually know. Turns out for example the out understanding of cholesterol was incorrect[0] and like calories the wrong focus. So research into the marvel that is human body is very basic at the moment. thermodynamics is made for steam engines. Just like calories. Its science from 1800, a moment time where everything was powered by steam engines. So understanding how much we need of something to increase the heat of water by 1 Celsius is very important. But cells are not like steam engines, they don't burn energy. They use atp, mitchondria create atp with the kreb cycle. Our gut biome plays very important role in digesting food. Turns out that its different for every person even twins. The gut biome is one the readons everone reacts a bit different to food. Calories are still used as a proxy. Eat less Calories within a given dieet also means eat less food. Then the question what should we do to lose weight. Many people have been helped by low carb dieet or intermittent fasting and even prolonged fasting. So in the end you could say that's still Calories. And to that I would have to agree. But it's how we get to same point. There was actually a study that forced the participants to adhere to low calorie dieet. Hint it turned out really bad for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experimen... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082688/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Carbohydrate%2DInsulin,hunger%20and%20lower%20energy%20expenditure https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082688/#:~:tex....
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    > Lets try some new ideas instead of calories which is based of steam engines in 1800. The human body is much more complex. Sorry but in terms of obesity and weight loss, it's really not more complex. The most surefire way to lose weight is to make sure calories in < calories out, and vice versa for gaining weight.
    - mondocat 4y ago
      That sounds simple, but only one of the variables in that equation is readily knowable, and the other is a function of the first. Meaning, only by counting calories- and all the calories, including cooking oil, salad “toppings”, etc do you know what the calories in is but then how do you determine what they should be, knowing that if you eat too little, your body slows down to preserve homeostasis? It turns out to be a far more complex situation that involves exercise to preserve the calories out part despite the drop in calories in. There is an ideal deficit below which it is counterproductive to go, certainly if you’re interested in body composition and not just losing “weight”. That ideal depends on activity and a variety of other minutia.
      - cercatrova 4y ago
        You would calculate your total daily energy expenditure, TDEE, and use that to figure out how much in excess or deficit you'd need to eat. That the body slows down homeostasis is not such a huge reason as to abandon the calories in calories out approach wholesale.
        jononomo 4y ago
        How do you account for the fact that people can lose weight by increasing the number of calories that they consume while reducing their exercise if they eat only ground beef and sardines?
        cercatrova 4y ago
        > for the fact What fact? Where is this shown?

zamfi 4y ago

> Instead we should focus on > And for food we should try to focus on This post contains some very odd gaslighting: your earlier post says "should"—twice—but you are claiming here that the person responding to you incorrectly read "should"? Perhaps you meant to write could but wrote should instead?

Attummm 4y ago
If someone likes to go to gym, then that would fall under movements that they like. We are currently in obesity epidemic. That's only getting worse[0]. Lets try some new ideas instead of calories which is based of steam engines in 1800. The human body is much more complex. What research is showing is that daily excersice is great for the overall health and strength like as the article posted. And that excersice can help the brain[1][2] with aging [3] and much more. [0]https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/05/1117402 https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/05/1117402 [1]https://neurosciencenews.com/walking-cognition-20876/ https://neurosciencenews.com/walking-cognition-20876/ [2]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4915811/#:~:text=Exercise%20induces%20beneficial%20responses%20in,alleviation%20of%20depression%20and%20anxiety https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4915811/#:~:tex... [3]https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-discover-how-nearly-everybody-can-increase-their-lifespan/ https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-discover-how-nearly-eve...
- cma 4y ago
  This does seem like even more gaslighting, you said: " I would like to argue that being healthy and fit is not about the gym, or investing time in tracking calories." Instead we should focus on on daily fun movements that we like to do." Now those daily fun movements include the gym if you like the gym? But you still are saying they should do something daily instead of periodic gym, not that they could.
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    I think the post is arguing for a superset of the definition of exercise which includes the gym as opposed to a set definition of exercise defined by the gym exclusive of other activities. A superset definition would also include lifting my child for piggyback rides, a brisk walk with a friend, or practicing a flash mob.
  - Attummm 4y ago
    We should focus, that doens't mean we should not. There is allot research about daily exercise and the enormous health benefits. If we focus on trying to incoperate more movements throughout the the day. It will be easier to maintain, and if we miss a day we will have the next day. But if we would do both it will even be better:) The bioneer in the youtube video explains it way better then this post.
  - mister_mister 4y ago
    "But you still are saying they should do something daily instead of periodic gym, not that they could. " The article of the thread is saying that...
  - itsoktocry 4y ago
    >This does seem like even more gaslighting For the love of god, saying something self-contradictory is not "gas lighting".
    - solveit 4y ago
      Thank you for fighting the good fight. Words (should) mean things!
- awillen 4y ago
  Why did you totally ignore the point that you criticized the responder for reading "should" when that is the exact word you used in your post?
  - Attummm 4y ago
    Maybe the comment isnt written well enough to get the point across. We should focus on, doesnt exclude anything. If anything my point is that both is even better. Then the second should is about the latest science. I didn't elaborate on that. The latest science is pointing towards daily exercise. Therfor we should ideally have some form of movement each day. It's beneficial not only to overall health, and longevity. But also your brain health:) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220815085707.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/08/220815085707.h... https://www.health.harvard.edu/topics/exercise-and-fitness https://www.health.harvard.edu/topics/exercise-and-fitness
    - zamfi 4y ago
      In general, saying "I would like to argue that being X is not about doing Y. Instead we should do Z" is going to make people, quite reasonably think that you are arguing against Y, and that people should do Z instead of Y. "We should focus on Z" does indeed suggest to most readers that you are excluding things that are not Z, whether you meant that or not. Highly recommend going with "I'm sorry, I meant ..." rather than "You read it wrong, I didn't say ABC ..." to avoid confusion, especially when you do indeed use the phrase ABC.
      - Attummm 4y ago
        Although that's great point about the confusion. But you could observe it as being only a logical statement, such as. " You should focus on your tie the next time instead of your shoes. " Doenst mean you should only have tie on the next time. That would be rather awkward. Atleast that is what I meant, thanks for the explanation.
        zamfi 4y ago
- halfmatthalfcat 4y ago
  Is the body "much more complex" than calories in/calories out though? If you are overweight, shouldn't calories in/calories out come first, followed quickly by eating healthy to achieve that deficit? A lot of people, economically, cannot afford the latter while still being able to perform the former. Seems like we should be encouraging people how to lose weight and then educate them on healthier ways to do it...but at the end of the day it's all thermodynamics.
  - oezi 4y ago
    I can recommend the book Burn by Herman Pontzer on this: The human body can adjust the Basal Metabolic Resting Rate quite a lot in the face of exercise. Spending an extra 500 kcals on exercise can easily only lead to 200 kcals higher total energy expenditure. The body apparently will for instance reduce sex drive and immune functions when under regular exercise. So to achieve weight loss exercise alone is a very hard path unless diet is also modified. On the other hand it has been shown that dieting alone without exercise also makes it very hard to maintain a lower weight because for instance exercise seems to curb feelings of hunger. So yes: human bodies definitely are complex adaptable machines. CICO alone doesn't cut it.
    - mister_mister 4y ago
      Correct, and has to because the evolutionary time that we had at least 3 meals a day has been really short. The body is made for extreme conditions, conditions that it's no longer exposed to. So it had to be smart with when to store energy and when to spend it.
  - Attummm 4y ago
    Great question, because the latest science is pointing to that hormones determine the states of body. Example Insulin triggers storage in cells, and t3 from the thyroid has influence over the metabolism. Testerone has many influences and there many more For feeling full and feeling tired there are different hormones. And they are finding out how little we actually know. Turns out for example the out understanding of cholesterol was incorrect[0] and like calories the wrong focus. So research into the marvel that is human body is very basic at the moment. thermodynamics is made for steam engines. Just like calories. Its science from 1800, a moment time where everything was powered by steam engines. So understanding how much we need of something to increase the heat of water by 1 Celsius is very important. But cells are not like steam engines, they don't burn energy. They use atp, mitchondria create atp with the kreb cycle. Our gut biome plays very important role in digesting food. Turns out that its different for every person even twins. The gut biome is one the readons everone reacts a bit different to food. Calories are still used as a proxy. Eat less Calories within a given dieet also means eat less food. Then the question what should we do to lose weight. Many people have been helped by low carb dieet or intermittent fasting and even prolonged fasting. So in the end you could say that's still Calories. And to that I would have to agree. But it's how we get to same point. There was actually a study that forced the participants to adhere to low calorie dieet. Hint it turned out really bad for them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experimen... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082688/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Carbohydrate%2DInsulin,hunger%20and%20lower%20energy%20expenditure https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082688/#:~:tex....
- cercatrova 4y ago
  > Lets try some new ideas instead of calories which is based of steam engines in 1800. The human body is much more complex. Sorry but in terms of obesity and weight loss, it's really not more complex. The most surefire way to lose weight is to make sure calories in < calories out, and vice versa for gaining weight.
  - mondocat 4y ago
    That sounds simple, but only one of the variables in that equation is readily knowable, and the other is a function of the first. Meaning, only by counting calories- and all the calories, including cooking oil, salad “toppings”, etc do you know what the calories in is but then how do you determine what they should be, knowing that if you eat too little, your body slows down to preserve homeostasis? It turns out to be a far more complex situation that involves exercise to preserve the calories out part despite the drop in calories in. There is an ideal deficit below which it is counterproductive to go, certainly if you’re interested in body composition and not just losing “weight”. That ideal depends on activity and a variety of other minutia.
    - cercatrova 4y ago
      You would calculate your total daily energy expenditure, TDEE, and use that to figure out how much in excess or deficit you'd need to eat. That the body slows down homeostasis is not such a huge reason as to abandon the calories in calories out approach wholesale.
      - jononomo 4y ago
        How do you account for the fact that people can lose weight by increasing the number of calories that they consume while reducing their exercise if they eat only ground beef and sardines?
        cercatrova 4y ago
        > for the fact What fact? Where is this shown?