AFF Weight Gain/Loss Program

[lucas2]

Originally Posted by b0son

But they have established a link between processed and red meat consumption and cancer.

You have to be careful with studies that look at this. These are typically all retrospective cohort studies (which I'm sure you know already) as you can't directly observe the hypothesis due to time and ethics.

People are generally inaccurate when it comes to self-reporting their food intakes. For these studies there are so many variables that could correlate to the onset of cancer.

There is a correlation between people who consume above average levels of red or processed meat and being overweight or obese. We know that the link between obesity and cancer (and nearly all other serious medical condition) is very high.

No diet is better than another when it comes to "weight loss". The best diet is the one you can stick to. At the end of the day, calories in versus calories out wins 99/100 (there is always an exception to the rule).

My advice to my clients is always simple:
1. Don't try to reinvent the wheel
2. Start with small and simple changes (e.g. switch out full sugar soft drink for the zero versions AND instead of two biscuits have one)
3. Try a brisk 10-15 minute walk every day
4. Tough diets are not sustainable - consistency and sustainability is key.

Anyway, I didn't know this thread existed - just thought I'd add my thoughts into the thread.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by lucas2

People are generally inaccurate when it comes to self-reporting their food intakes. For these studies there are so many variables that could correlate to the onset of cancer.

Absolutely. When considered in the context of overall likelihood of developing a type of cancer, the additional risk of meat consumption is not significant. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of avoiding food additives, while frying the bejesus out of everything. Apparently I am now a heretic for not kneeling at the altar of keto...

[lucas2]

Originally Posted by b0son

Absolutely. When considered in the context of overall likelihood of developing a type of cancer, the additional risk of meat consumption is not significant. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of avoiding food additives, while frying the bejesus out of everything. Apparently I am now a heretic for not kneeling at the altar of keto...

Ah I see your point. Looks like we agree - especially when it comes to keto

I have people that pay for my advice (Accredited Exercise Scientist) yet prefer to listen to some idiot on Instagram with no qualifications dishing out cookie cutter keto plans. It's hard to educate people on the fact that no matter the diet, if you are consuming 1000 calories you will lose weight.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by lucas2

I have people that pay for my advice (Accredited Exercise Scientist) yet prefer to listen to some idiot on Instagram with no qualifications dishing out cookie cutter keto plans. It's hard to educate people on the fact that no matter the diet, if you are consuming 1000 calories you will lose weight.

No offence, but just because people pay you for your advice does not automatically make it right. So getting paid for something does not automatically make you an authority.

Calling other people who get paid to give out advice that does not agree with yours idiots does not make you any more correct either, it just show insecurity.

Yes, I agree that if you eat 1000 calories most people will lose weight, but they are also not eating enough food, they are losing muscle, slowing their metabolism, are at risk of gallstones, headaches, nausea, lack of electrolytes, menstrual issues (in females), fatigue, in the longer term damaging their metabolism etc (but you would already know this with your qualifications)

So what diet/eating plan/etc would you recommend??

[lucas2]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

No offence, but just because people pay you for your advice does not automatically make it right. So getting paid for something does not automatically make you an authority.

Calling other people who get paid to give out advice that does not agree with yours idiots does not make you any more correct either, it just show insecurity.

Yes, I agree that if you eat 1000 calories most people will lose weight, but they are also not eating enough food, they are losing muscle, slowing their metabolism, are at risk of gallstones, headaches, nausea, lack of electrolytes, menstrual issues (in females), fatigue, in the longer term damaging their metabolism etc (but you would already know this with your qualifications)

So what diet/eating plan/etc would you recommend??

Of course it doesn't make it "right" and I don't claim to be an authority or an expert. But my advice is evidence based and I am actually registered and insured with a national accreditation body where I must abide by ethics, regulations and actually complete regular professional development.

If you are familiar with online training and nutrition, there are thousands of people out there selling diet plans who are unqualified, uninsured and don't have the best interests of their clients at hand. Imagine if the best doctors in the world were judged on the amount of their Instagram followers and not their knowledge and qualifications. That is what happens in this industry.

My point about people paying for my services yet listening to idiots on the internet doesn't make me insecure. It's akin to paying for a qualified and trained tuner to source the correct products that will best suit your car in terms of reliability or performance and then going to some DIY unqualified backyard mechanic instead because they offer off the shelf tunes for cheaper.

You are correct that I do already know these things. I've had people come to me who have lost their menstrual cycle in the past due to bad diet plans.

I actually don't recommend a specific diet plan. Everyone is different and responds differently. My principles are simple - increase protein to ~2g/kg (if resistance training) of body weight (different for very obese people), moderate carbs and moderate fats (ensure fibre and micronutrient targets are met). I work out how much fat/weight the client wants to lose, work out the caloric value of the fat and then program a specific deficit that is sustainable for the client. Most people do not eat enough protein and when losing weight I typically manipulate carbohydrate intake before touching fats.

I always say the best diet is the one you can stick to.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by lucas2

You have to be careful with studies that look at this. These are typically all retrospective cohort studies (which I'm sure you know already) as you can't directly observe the hypothesis due to time and ethics.

People are generally inaccurate when it comes to self-reporting their food intakes. For these studies there are so many variables that could correlate to the onset of cancer.

This is the most important part, people will lie, I have witnessed this myself, my father in law will tell his doctor that he has 2-3 beers over the weekend, when in reality he drinks himself onto oblivion most nights of the week. Why does he lie, because he knows what his doctor wants him to say and he does not want a lecture, so he just says what the doctor want to hear.

Another example is my own mother who will tell her doctor that she eats health, and she can't understand why her diabetes is out of control, when she stays with me she will have cakes for breakfast and a tub if ice cream every day, biscuits etc. Last time she got admitted to hospital with sky high blood sugar she told the nurse that she had not eaten anything when she literally had 4 doughnuts less that two hours prior to being admitted.

Self reporting studies are useless.

Also they do not account for drinking/smoking/work environment/family history/environmental factors/etc etc.

I honestly don't even know why they bother doing them.