Official: myth/fact and scince/bro-science thread

Sep 29, 2004
18,656
68
91
Let's start a myth/fact thread. That is also a scince vs bro-science thread.

I hope that SociallyChallenged is a big part of this thread as he is very knowledgable.

If this is a good thread, I'll try to maintain the OP as a FAQ. I'll maintian information in sections with a statement/myth/reality type setup.

This is slightly disorganized now but I'll fix this.

============================
Does the time that you eat matter in terms of matabolism and weight gain/loss? Should meals be similar in size and spaced out evenly? Or is it just the same to have a small lunch and huge dinner?

Of course, this all assumes that the same amount of calorieis is taken in over the day using either methodology. And that things are nutritionally equivilent.

Eating throughout the day is better than single large meals because eating throughout the day is better for your metabolism.

My recollection of various readings:
It only matters how many calories you take in on a given day. And for that matter, it really is calories over 2 days, not one. That is, 2000 calories a day is no different than 1000 on day A and 3000 on day B assuming that day A/B days repeat.

The metabolism thing is BS. If you gay many days with very low calories, sure your metabolism will go hay wire for a few days.

============================
Starvation Mode, facts:

Anyone want to write this one up.
 

RagingBITCH

Lifer
Sep 27, 2003
17,618
2
76
My advice is to put it in a format it should go in, something like:

MYTH: (Stated myth goes here)
REALITY: (Reasoning)
LINKS: include a few scientific links to back-up claims, vs just something recalled and read a year ago

Should help with: readability & consistency.

I'll add one on:

MYTH: Running is bad for your knees and joints, and causes arthritis.
REALITY: False. Long term studies have shown no evidence of such if the knees are healthy to begin with. If anything, it improves joint function and maintains healthy cartilage.
LINKS: http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134861448/put-those-shoes-on-running-wont-kill-your-knees
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/why-runners-dont-get-knee-arthritis/?_r=0
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1948208,00.html
 

z1ggy

Lifer
May 17, 2008
10,010
66
91
I second the above. Having links will be very important here as everybody will have opinions and personal experience, but only scientific journals should be actual credited evidence.

Also it seems like even those scientific studies flip flop, or different studies on the same thing may have different outcomes.

One I'd like to see if real food vs supplement intake/meal replacement. Ie a study where a large group of people all work out and eat the same diet. 1/2 the group eats only whole real foods, while the other half replaces a certain % of their diet with protein shakes/supplements.

I think this is important because even though a lot of science has shown supplements of certain kinds to be helpful, I never could gauge how much. I want to be convinced the supplement industry isn't trying to rob people.
 

z1ggy

Lifer
May 17, 2008
10,010
66
91
Also want to see any myth/study on HIIT vs low intensity high duration cardio in respect to fat burning.

As far as I've read HIIT seems to work better for overall fat burn. But some body builders swear by the low intensity high duration cardio. Ronnie Coleman is ripped, and only does treadmill walking. Granted I think he does/did take roids...That doesn't burn fat. I always wondered how people got down to <10% body fat. I am about 16-17% right now and it's a strugglefest to lose more fat.
 

Koing

Elite Member <br> Super Moderator<br> Health and F
Oct 11, 2000
16,843
2
0
Also want to see any myth/study on HIIT vs low intensity high duration cardio in respect to fat burning.

As far as I've read HIIT seems to work better for overall fat burn. But some body builders swear by the low intensity high duration cardio. Ronnie Coleman is ripped, and only does treadmill walking. Granted I think he does/did take roids...That doesn't burn fat. I always wondered how people got down to <10% body fat. I am about 16-17% right now and it's a strugglefest to lose more fat.

Coleman would have been on A LOT of pharmaceutical grade steroids and cutting agents. You can get steroids/ cutting agents which literally increase your metabolism so you burn more calories doing NOTHING. Obviously it won't turn a really fat person shredded. But it will give the person who is dieting down the extra edge. BUT they more often then not have quite serve side effects and can lead to death.

If there really was a *safe* fat loss pill, the maker would be one of the richest companies in the world.

From 16-17 it should only take you 4-6months to get down to 11-12% imo. My mate got from 16.8 to 13.5 in 3months. He has visible abs now. Sorted his diet and kept training as is. It just takes time.

Koing
 

Zivic

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2002
3,505
38
91
My recollection of various readings:
It only matters how many calories you take in on a given day. And for that matter, it really is calories over 2 days, not one. That is, 2000 calories a day is no different than 1000 on day A and 3000 on day B assuming that day A/B days repeat.

The metabolism thing is BS. If you gay many days with very low calories, sure your metabolism will go hay wire for a few days.

In a very general sense yes, calories are all the really matters... but that doesn't tell the whole story. If you are talking the general couch potato it doesn't 'really' matter... if you are talking conditioned athletes it matters.
 

disappoint

Lifer
Dec 7, 2009
10,132
382
126
The metabolism thing is BS. If you gay many days with very low calories, sure your metabolism will go hay wire for a few days.

============================
Starvation Mode, facts:

Anyone want to write this one up.

Fact: Sexual orientation should be taken into account in determining caloric requirements for proper metaboli......wait WHAT?
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
I can tell you one thing, masturbation does NOT burn enough calories for real fat loss.

Also, you need to add a LOT of muscle before it starts burning extra calories. Increasing cardio along with lifting helps a lot more than just one or the other.
 

Pantlegz

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2007
4,627
4
81
In a very general sense yes, calories are all the really matters... but that doesn't tell the whole story. If you are talking the general couch potato it doesn't 'really' matter... if you are talking conditioned athletes it matters.

I don't know that I agree with that, I've had lots of luck in the past with IF and keto type diets where my calorie count didn't matter at all for weight loss. There were weeks of IF that I was eating close to 6000 calories daily in a small window and still lost weight. Neither work well for my schedule/work load. Carb timing also plays a huge role in weight loss/gain in my experience. But I wouldn't argue that calories don't matter at all.
 

Kaido

Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
Feb 14, 2004
51,549
7,234
136
Things I have learned:

1. Losing weight is a whole-body thing. I never had an issue with this idea, but a lot of people want to spot-tone. I just tell them it's like wearing a fat suit. All or nothing. Although some people do have areas where it goes off faster. But this is a misconception I hear a lot; people just don't understand.

2. Looking shredded is ALL about the kitchen. It cracks me up when you see people endlessly working out, especially doing cardio like on a treadmill (for YEARS sometimes!), but getting no results because they refuse to change their diet. And you try talking to them and they don't want to hear it. Oh well. The reason I got in shape was because I sought out the people who had the results I wanted and talked to them about how they did it. The people who get results have the procedure to obtain them; learn & follow the procedures consistently and you'll get results too!

3. Diets don't work. In America, we have a culture of dieting. The one-line explanation is: diets are temporary projects; when you are finished, you go back to where you were. Nature of the beast, that's why they don't work. You need a permanent lifestyle change to make it stick. I use the terminology "meal plan" instead of "diet" to differentiate it when I talk to people about eating for results.

4. Going to bed early & getting enough sleep are the master keys to the universe. You have more energy and you have more motivation from getting more rest at earlier hours. I fought this for a long time because I hate going to bed early (and here it is 11pm! lol) but the fact is, my body is on a Circadian rhythm and getting the same 7 hours of sleep from midnight to 7am is NOT the same as from 9pm to 4am. Plus beauty sleep (my acne disappears when I hit the hay early). Plus muscle repair (you need sleep to grow your muscles). Sleep is key. Sleep is the foundation of my health universe.

5. Vegan works when you do it right. Specifically, the Thrive Diet by Brendan Brazier. There are many misconceptions about eating a meatless diet and most people do it wrong (Boca Burgers & soy ice cream do not a healthy diet make). I'm glad the Internet exists to be able to research this because I've never felt better than when I keep up with my veggie-based diet. I didn't know it was possible to feel this good for long periods of time. Sleep, food, exercise. It's magic!

6. You can get ripped by doing a calisthenics workout, and you can do that workout anywhere!. I got hooked on this after seeing the Men's gymnastics in the Olympics. I laughed when I saw it, but then realized those dudes were wicked shredded and looked into it and discovered stuff like the Calisthenics Kingz. No gym required! Do it all from the comfort of your home. Being "strong" never really captured my interest (ex. Stronglifts 5x5), but having a great physique did because I'm very interested in visible results. Not so much in a vain way (I'm happily married), but in a self-confidence boosting way. Eat, exercise, get results you can see. Awesome!

7. Adopting a routine is key. Change is hard. Very few people stick to their decision to get in shape, and even if they do, it's easy to fall away. We're all childish inside, so you have to create a culture in your life to keep up the habits. I keep junk food out of my house and I have a TV with Netflix in front of my elliptical machine; it really helps when my only options are healthy food and I have something interesting to take my mind off cardio. You can make exercise fun and you can make healthy food taste good; it's totally up to you!

8. Convenience is king. Is your exercise machine readily available, or is there crap on it & it's tucked in a corner? Do you have a music player or TV handy? Do you cook all of your meals before you start the day, and do you carry them around with you so they're always handy to eat? Do you have a water bottle within arm's reach? Do you have an interesting audiobook to help you fall asleep & make bedtime more inviting? Some people have inherent motivation, but most people do not, so you need to setup your environment to make doing what you really want to do convenient. This has been one of the biggest keys to my success in going from being a loaf to living a healthy lifestyle. It's just human nature. Sometimes I get weak and tired and want to cave to junk food, staying up late, not exercising, etc., but it really helps when I have my environment setup with an easy path to success.

9. Be willing to invest in yourself. You'll spend $6 on a drink at Starbucks but then complain about how expensive protein powder is? Or $11 on a McDonalds meal, but then complain that vegetables are expensive? Or $500 on a new Xbox, but gee, that elliptical machine sure is pricey? When you're motivated, you'll find a way to get what you want. If you're not willing to invest in yourself with time, money, and effort, then you aren't really committed and don't fully care about getting the results you want. On the flip side, buying that fancy treadmill isn't going to keep you motivated. It'll work for a few days, but then you'll go back to your old habits.

10. Making a specific plan is a huge key to success. What are your goals? How are you going to achieve them - is there someone else who followed a procedure that you can follow too in order to get their results? Have you tried out the recipes, the exercises, and the bedtime? Have you purchased the food, a gym pass or workout equipment, exercising clothing, etc.? The more specific you get about your plans and the more preparation you do, the better your results will be. People always tell me "Oh, I want to get in shape so bad". Does that mean you just want to be skinny? Ripped? Strong? Participate in endurance events or sports? Pick something, make a plan that you know will work based off research, and do it. Make it convenient for yourself to do.

11. I only partially agree with the different food theories. My theory is, eat 5 to 6 small meals every 3 hours or less, stop eating 3 hours before bed, and stop drinking 1 hour before bed. My buddy did the "eat one meal a day" thing for a long time and got the same results as he did before on the small meals diet, but what a crummy way to go - starving yourself all day, taking a big blood sugar hit, etc. I like eating all day because it keeps my blood sugar (and blood pressure, haha) stable all day, and also because it curbs cravings because it's easier not to eat a cookie when you're already full and know you will be eating again in 3 hours. So I get to eat tasty food all day long and avoid being hungry...ever. Personally, I like this system the best, but that's just me. But I think this caters to human nature more than anything - we like to eat, we like to snack, we are governed my mood, so it's easy for your willpower to dissolve quickly and for your plans to fall apart regarding food. If you never let yourself get hungry, it's a lot easier to stick with your meal plan.

12. Healthy food can taste good. This was something I REALLY didn't understand before I got into Health & Fitness. I always thought getting in shape meant eating garbage-tasting nastyness from health food stores or the veggie aisle. Turns out I couldn't be more wrong. I eat like a king now, waaaay better than I did before - steamed salmon & carrots, chicken salad wraps, etc. (well, when I'm not eating my plant-based diet, haha). I think there's a huge misconception out there that a lot of people where they feel like they'll have to dump tasty food for the rest of their lives if they want to eat healthy. Totally not true; really what I've seen as the biggest obstacle is that people hate shopping and hate having to cook every meal. It is a pain, but the results are worth it!

Gosh there's just so much stuff, you know? I wish I could teach everyone who is interested in getting healthy & getting in shape all of this stuff in 5 minutes and really pound it into their head to adopt the ideas, but there's always so much resistance. Bottom line, the people who want to do it find a way to do it. The people who only kind of care quit after a short period of time (I'm sure I've done this a thousand times, haha). It all depends on how serious you want to be about it.
 

The Sauce

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 1999
4,741
34
91
Myth: Supplements (legal) work for strength training

Fact: Nothing other than whey protein and creatine has any convincing, randomized data or meta-data to prove any effectiveness in improving strength training at this time. Most studies which claim to are funded and directed by the multi-billion dollar neutraceutical industry in the process of developing and promoting their products, and have faulty methodology or insufficient "n" to adequately demonstrate their claimed effect. Most of the lay press which "reviews" these supplements (i.e. muscles mags) are not independent and are also owned subsidiaries of supplement companies, and exist largely to help promote their products and disseminate faulty scientific data.

Link: Examine.com (really, though, all of published exercise physiology literature which I review regularly)
 
Last edited:

Whisper

Diamond Member
Feb 25, 2000
5,394
2
81
Myth: Supplements (legal) work for strength training

Fact: Nothing other than whey protein and creatine has any convincing, randomized data or meta-data to prove any effectiveness in improving strength training at this time. Most studies which claim to are funded and directed by the multi-billion dollar neutraceutical industry in the process of developing and promoting their products, and have faulty methodology or insufficient "n" to adequately demonstrate their claimed effect. Most of the lay press which "reviews" these supplements (i.e. muscles mags) are not independent and are also owned subsidiaries of supplement companies, and exist largely to help promote their products and disseminate faulty scientific data.

Link: Examine.com (really, though, all of published exercise physiology literature which I review regularly)

Just to add on to this slightly--many of the pre-workout supplements available have boatloads of caffeine, and I'd make the argument that this (along with placebo) is what makes people feel "pumped" and full of energy at the gym. You could probably get the same effect by just drinking a cup of coffee beforehand.

Oh, and yes, when significant amounts of research published in peer-reviewed journals uses shoddy research design and/or inappropriate statistical analyses to support their conclusions (nutrition isn't alone in this, mind you; you should seem some of the crap that somehow gets published in medicine and psychology), there's no way I'd trust what comes out in a fitness magazine or, worse yet, is published in an ad by the supplement company itself.
 

BeeBoop

Golden Member
Feb 5, 2013
1,677
0
0
Sorry for not being on this thread since starting it.

I'll defintely update the OP. I like the suggested format. I think the linking to studies is imporant. Or to a very trusted source since sometimes you can't proove a negative (aspartame's comments by the FDA on snopes).

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

Both my brother and cousin are pharmacists that I have regular conversations with. On the topic of food and cancer they both say the same thing, that is everything we eat has the potential to cause cancer and that everyone will get cancer as long as they live long enough. So it is more important to have an over all balanced diet and to eat in moderation than it is to worry about one particular food study that shows a link to cancer.



Myth: Eating breakfast jumpstarts your metabolism.
Myth: Eating multiple times or more often raises your metabolism.

Fact: In biology, your metabolism is described as Aerobic Respiration, Anerobic respiration, and Beta Oxidation. If your metabolism ever stopped, you'd be dead. There is also no mechanism that shows eating more often in a day will increase the amount of fat you burn.
 

Zivic

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2002
3,505
38
91
There is also no mechanism that shows eating more often in a day will increase the amount of fat you burn.

More studies are coming out with conditioned individuals that increasing the frequency of meals is beneficial.

One thing about this thread is that you can throw facts around all day long. for example. a 210 lb person with moderate activity level should be eating 3100 calories to maintain that bodyweight. Not every 210 lb moderately active person will maintain at 3100 calories... some will gain weight, some will lose weight.
 
Mar 22, 2002
10,483
32
81
More studies are coming out with conditioned individuals that increasing the frequency of meals is beneficial.

One thing about this thread is that you can throw facts around all day long. for example. a 210 lb person with moderate activity level should be eating 3100 calories to maintain that bodyweight. Not every 210 lb moderately active person will maintain at 3100 calories... some will gain weight, some will lose weight.

Any links to the studies showing that?
 

BeeBoop

Golden Member
Feb 5, 2013
1,677
0
0
Interesting, didn't have time to read the whole thing so I skipped to the conclusion. First part of the conclusion says meal frequency does not matter but than it says it matters if energy intake is limited. Not sure what they mean by limited energy intake so when I have some free time, I'll dig deeper.


Taking all of this into account, it appears from the existing (albeit limited) body of research that increased meal frequency may not play a significant role in weight loss/gain when under-reporting, restrained eating, and exercise are accounted for in the statistical analyses. Furthermore, most, but not all of the existing research, fails to support the effectiveness of increased meal frequency on the thermic effect of food, resting metabolic rate, and total energy expenditure.



However, when energy intake is limited, increased meal frequency may likely decrease hunger, decrease nitrogen loss, improve lipid oxidation, and improve blood markers such as total and LDL cholesterol, and insulin. Nonetheless, more well-designed research studies involving various meal frequencies, particularly in physically active/athletic populations are warranted.
 

blackdogdeek

Lifer
Mar 14, 2003
14,453
10
81
^^

I did what you did but then I scrolled up to the last two paragraphs:

In conclusion, the small body of studies that utilized athletes as study participants demonstrated that increased meal frequency had the following benefits:

&#8226; suppression of lean body mass losses during a hypocaloric diet [51]

&#8226; significant increases in lean body mass and anaerobic power [49] (abstract)

&#8226; significant increases in fat loss [49] (abstract)

These trends indicate that if meal frequency improves body composition, it is likely to occur in an athletic population as opposed to a sedentary population. While no experimental studies have investigated why athletes may benefit more from increased meal frequency as compared to sedentary individuals, it may be due to the anabolic stimulus of exercise training and how ingested nutrients are partitioned throughout the body. It is also possible that a greater energy flux (intake and expenditure) leads to increased futile cycling, and over time, this has beneficial effects on body composition.
 

BeeBoop

Golden Member
Feb 5, 2013
1,677
0
0
I don't have access to the studies that the paper is referring too but you shouldn't read too much into the conclusion that eating more frequent is in any way more healthy than eating a few meals a day. It seems to me that they took people that were already fit, good BMI, low body fat, and subjected them to 1200 calories. These athletes were boxers, most likely had a rigorous training routine. Both groups lost the same weight and both groups lost muscle mass. The group that loss more muscle mass was the one that ate less frequent.


This however, is not the case for obese individuals as stated in the paper or those with some extra pounds to lose. I don't have access to the study that they were referring too so I can't tell you how much body fat they had to lose, I'm just under the assumption that those Athletes were already fit. If you are trying to cut for a weight in as this is most likely the case for the boxers, it would be helpful but I don't see this applying to people who are overweight and trying to lose fat as the paper said earlier, it doesn't matter for obese individuals.
 

Zivic

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2002
3,505
38
91
I don't have access to the studies that the paper is referring too but you shouldn't read too much into the conclusion that eating more frequent is in any way more healthy than eating a few meals a day. It seems to me that they took people that were already fit, good BMI, low body fat, and subjected them to 1200 calories. These athletes were boxers, most likely had a rigorous training routine. Both groups lost the same weight and both groups lost muscle mass. The group that loss more muscle mass was the one that ate less frequent.


This however, is not the case for obese individuals as stated in the paper or those with some extra pounds to lose. I don't have access to the study that they were referring too so I can't tell you how much body fat they had to lose, I'm just under the assumption that those Athletes were already fit. If you are trying to cut for a weight in as this is most likely the case for the boxers, it would be helpful but I don't see this applying to people who are overweight and trying to lose fat as the paper said earlier, it doesn't matter for obese individuals.
as a fit person I don't give two sh!ts what the fat@sses of the world do with their meal timing. I care that the frequency of meals can impact my body composition as well as my workouts:
• suppression of lean body mass losses during a hypocaloric diet

• significant increases in lean body mass and anaerobic power

• significant increases in fat loss
 

Zivic

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2002
3,505
38
91
I don't have access to the studies that the paper is referring too but you shouldn't read too much into the conclusion that eating more frequent is in any way more healthy than eating a few meals a day. It seems to me that they took people that were already fit, good BMI, low body fat, and subjected them to 1200 calories. These athletes were boxers, most likely had a rigorous training routine. Both groups lost the same weight and both groups lost muscle mass. The group that loss more muscle mass was the one that ate less frequent.


This however, is not the case for obese individuals as stated in the paper or those with some extra pounds to lose. I don't have access to the study that they were referring too so I can't tell you how much body fat they had to lose, I'm just under the assumption that those Athletes were already fit. If you are trying to cut for a weight in as this is most likely the case for the boxers, it would be helpful but I don't see this applying to people who are overweight and trying to lose fat as the paper said earlier, it doesn't matter for obese individuals.

More links:
LINK 1
LINK 2


watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=085qPdZy9kw



then this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkceAmSRyMM
 
Last edited: