Weight lifting, or any other exercise has nothing to do with diet (other than needing to eatienough to support it).- weight lifting is 25% of any diet
Diet is "what you choose to eat". (Unless you're German where it can be an important historical debate).
Well you have to get the protein from somwhere...especially when eating Worms...
Well you have to get the protein from somwhere
Actually slightly longer - see Google for John Rollo who in the 1790s used a ketogenic diet to treat diabetes - meat only though I believe this was actually rancid pork!He's an idiot. I read somewhere low carb has been around since the 1800's. To be honest, I wouldn't waste my energy on him. Find another gym and get on with your life.
Will you two pack it in! I’m trying to be an angry goldfish and this is having the opposite effect.
Wasn't the post on topic for a goldfish's staple food?Will you two pack it in! I’m trying to be an angry goldfish and this is having the opposite effect.
Well just don't waste your goldfishy time going round and round in circles trying to reason with idiots, especially those who think they know it all... It just gets you frustrated and never works!Will you two pack it in! I’m trying to be an angry goldfish and this is having the opposite effect.
Well, it's just an 'arrnless 'obby, isnt it?How does a goldfish lift weights?
He uses some mussels....How does a goldfish lift weights?
Hello - help required if anyone is up for joining in an argument.
I seem to have stumbled into a squabble with a personal fitness trainer at my local sports club. He is using the club's social media account to promote his weight lifting classes, but also his views on diets which make some fairly bold public claims. These claims include:
- low carb and low sugar are "fad" diets
- those "fad" diets won't last
- strength testing is more important to weight loss than reducing carbs
- weight lifting is 25% of any diet
- there is no such thing as "bad for you" foods
- sugar is not inherently fattening
- weight loss is only achieved through calorie control, sugar reduction is only an indirect cause.
- there is no upper limit on protein intake resulting in detrimental impact
He's got a bit upset with me because I've told him his advice is factually incorrect, and in parts dangerous (getting an overweight or obese person to take up weight lifting before getting some dietary control increases the risk of heart problems). It is also pretty unpleasant to say to people who are trying low carb and may be low on confidence or insecure that their diet is a fad and won't last. He's demanded evidence that he wrong - I've pointed at some, and he just scoffs. It winds me up that he's using a public platform and a health banner to say things that are self serving but flawed.
Anyway the more evidence I can throw in his direction, the better. Any thoughts? (or should I just ignore it and get on with my life?)
If we take our diabetic hats off and exclude the minority with various metabolic disorders then his statements aren't as bad as they look. I read this as though he is preaching to the general population of which the majority are not diabetics nor unfortunate enough to be bestowed with other disorders.
- low carb and low sugar are "fad" diets:
- those "fad" diets won't last: For the majority, the statement is not that outlandish. For carb tolerant majorities it may well be a fad.
- strength testing is more important to weight loss than reducing carbs: Not certain what he means by 'strength testing'. If he means exercise then he is not really being honest. If he means reducing carbs and then replacing the lost energy input from another source that is a different thing.
- weight lifting is 25% of any diet: Trying hard to sell his service I suppose. In reality, exercise is not a massive contributor to weight loss.
- there is no such thing as "bad for you" foods: Probably not much to say about that. I think we all know otherwise.
- sugar is not inherently fattening: True. It does depend on quantity and what else is being consumed though.
- weight loss is only achieved through calorie control, sugar reduction is only an indirect cause: True again. Reduction of stored energy is achieved by consuming less than what is required. The rate of loss may vary but the statement is correct.
- there is no upper limit on protein intake resulting in detrimental impact: A broad statement. There is no implicit meaning in what he says. Clarification is required. Deny all fats and see how far he gets.
i have been on the low carb healthy clean eating plan for 2years now and have lost 3 and a half stone and still losing. Never felt better and my levels have dropped from extremely high to 4.7 /5.4. This is a plan for life not a fad.Hello - help required if anyone is up for joining in an argument.
I seem to have stumbled into a squabble with a personal fitness trainer at my local sports club. He is using the club's social media account to promote his weight lifting classes, but also his views on diets which make some fairly bold public claims. These claims include:
- low carb and low sugar are "fad" diets
- those "fad" diets won't last
- strength testing is more important to weight loss than reducing carbs
- weight lifting is 25% of any diet
- there is no such thing as "bad for you" foods
- sugar is not inherently fattening
- weight loss is only achieved through calorie control, sugar reduction is only an indirect cause.
- there is no upper limit on protein intake resulting in detrimental impact
He's got a bit upset with me because I've told him his advice is factually incorrect, and in parts dangerous (getting an overweight or obese person to take up weight lifting before getting some dietary control increases the risk of heart problems). It is also pretty unpleasant to say to people who are trying low carb and may be low on confidence or insecure that their diet is a fad and won't last. He's demanded evidence that he wrong - I've pointed at some, and he just scoffs. It winds me up that he's using a public platform and a health banner to say things that are self serving but flawed.
Anyway the more evidence I can throw in his direction, the better. Any thoughts? (or should I just ignore it and get on with my life?)
Well I've now spent 57 years on a fad diet that won't last.......not bad going, eh?Firstly point out the meaning of FAD - an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived; a craze.
Secondly remind him of William Bantings booklet called Letter on Corpulence, Addressed to the Public and written in 1863. Maybe refer him to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting, just to fill in some gaps like why he followed the dietary regime he did.
Even as a teenager, now over 50 years ago for me, I remember mum dieting and the first thing she did was cut out bread and potatoes. So this low carb lark isn't so much of a fad really and certainly not short lived. Maybe he can explain why in his ignorance he can say that something that has been a round for over 150 years is in his mind a fad.
BTW, I recommend reading about Banting, and the physician (Dr William Harvey) who recommended a low carb diet after attending lectures in Paris about Diabetes. The Frenchman (Claud Bernard) who gave the lectures is interesting as well.
I think he needs to have some empirical evidence to backup his BS. He's entitled to his opinions, but he can't just grab ideas out of thin air. He needs the evidence, maybe he can suggest some further reading?
What is CICO?When my brother was diagnosed T2 a few months ago he obviously asked for my advice. His son, who is a very well paid personal trainer in London said that it was the wrong thing to do and to go down the route of CICO. He is now dumbfounded that my brother, his father, has lost three stone very easily and got his A1c below the threshold, it wasn't very high when diagnosed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?