BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > Miscellaneous > Miscellaneous Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Unread 01-01-2014, 10:45 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Layne seems to play a typical game that I've seen before (and am sure I've done myself, despite efforts not to).

It's all about science...until it isn't. He loves him some references and will throw them out until they don't support his claims.

Then it's all about personal attacks, anecdotal evidence and 'thousands of emails'.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Unread 01-01-2014, 12:19 PM
waxer waxer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 30
Default

I think the main problem in this case is talking about a topic that it's not very well studied in scientific research (or at least would be more desirable to have more).

I guess sometimes reality expectations aren't satisfied with scientific research, and experts in that areas start trying to give some answers even without having references just because they are quite pressured by fans/clients with questions.

I remember seeing Layne logs some time ago about Metabolic Damage and stating that all that information was based in his experience... I didn't get when he involved references, but it's quite hard to an expert to say 'I really don't know' to a client question.

So.. giving an 'my-experience-answer' could make some confrontations with other experts arguing that those claims are not backed-up. Additionally, Internet is not the optimal way of communicating (writing, chatting, etc).

I met (they webs, articles, videos, stories, etc) Layne, Martin, Alan, Blade, James, etc by this site (which was the first one I met). All of them were initially recommended by Lyle so I give them some advantage-credit based on Lyle's credit. Recommendation is a risk sometimes. Still few of them seem to be on the good track.

I think there's a correlation between which profile of people their websites are pointed to... more bro-ripped-profile-target seems to show some pitfalls in information in the long-run.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Unread 01-01-2014, 12:26 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waxer View Post
I think the main problem in this case is talking about a topic that it's not very well studied in scientific research (or at least would be more desirable to have more).
Utter nonsense. It's plenty well studied. And absolutely nothing like the claimed phenomenon has ever been documented in the history of ever. Quite in fact there is a rather hilarious study from back in the day, 70's. They took a bunch of subjects who made exactly the claim Layne is reporting: they swore up and down and sideways that they ate nothing and couldn't lose weight. So the researchers locked them in a hospital and controlled every morsel of food they ate and created a deficit. They all lost weight. No exceptions.

Other studies have looked at metabolic rate rather endlessly in response to various dietary protocols. The Minnesota study is the classic example. Fine, it was men only. But there's plenty of other work on women.

Bottom line: No one's metabolic rate ever gets that low. EVER. And trust me it's been studied. Endlessly, repeatedly, under all sorts of different conditions including extremely low-calorie diets (and some of the military work couples low calorie diets with incredible workloads). Does it go down? Sure. Old news. Does it ever drop to the point where the claimed caloric intake is no longer causing a deficit? Nope. Never. Even in the Minnesota study, 6 months of 50% deficit (and forced daily activity) only resulted in a total drop in metabolic rate of 40% or so. The deficit was small but still existed. They were also at 5% body fat. No other study in men or women has ever measured a drop even that big. That's in 50 years of research on this.

I've even talked about it on the main site. Between caloric misreporting and water balance issues, none of this is unexplainable by mechanisms other than what's being thrown around. In a small woman who is psychologiclaly a stress case, water retention alone explains this. Some women swing 10 pounds of water across their menstrual cycle add massive cortisol elevations due to diet, over-exercise and mental stress and that value goes up masking fat loss. And the truly crazy respond to the 'stall' by cutting calories and doing more training, making it worse.

Solution: stress less, get laid, smoke pot, stop being crazy.

But that doesn't get Layne seminar bookings to prattle on about metabolic damage and how to prevent it by raising calories from an uncontrolled/self-reported 1200 to a carefully controlled 1220 per day. Because clearly it's the 20 calorie increase that is fixing the problem. And not what I bolded.

And as I told him on Facebook, he's welcome to prove me wrong. Get some of these people into metabolic chambers, get their total daily energy expenditure measured. I mean not that it hasn't been done over and over in endless study after endless study.

But it's simple: prove me wrong. I'll be happy to say I am if I am. But I'm not.

And it was easier for him to complain about his wife crying than to address that. And to link people to a joke video I did on youtube to try to discredit me. And every other lame pathetic feeble defense he could come up with EXCEPT for addressing the actual issue.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Unread 01-01-2014, 12:32 PM
barbells barbells is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
And it was easier for him to complain about his wife crying than to address that.
Wait, why did he have to bring his sexlife into it?
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Unread 01-01-2014, 12:38 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Ha ha, but no.

one of his more pathetic tweets/FB posts basically amounted to

"Lyle is wrong because he's a big meaniehead and made my pregnant wife cry with his big meaniehead words."

I commented that she was probably crying because she realized what an utter waste of a man she had married and let impregnate her because I'm classy like that.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Unread 01-01-2014, 01:06 PM
barbells barbells is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
one of his more pathetic tweets/FB posts basically amounted to

"Lyle is wrong because he's a big meaniehead and made my pregnant wife cry with his big meaniehead words."
Well, it's an emotional stage in a woman's life, fourteen.

I wonder why metabolic anything draws people so much. People seem to treat Metabolism as a fickle internal deity that can be angered, grow stronger through sacrifice and magic, and mollified with arbitrary behavioral rules decoded by fitness priests.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Unread 01-01-2014, 01:21 PM
waxer waxer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 30
Default

So Lyle, haven't you ever met a client that you could be sure he/she was having a caloric deficit not well corresponded to fat loss (not weight loss) under seemingly normal circumstances?.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Unread 01-01-2014, 01:36 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Start here

Read related articles.

I write it all on the main site so I don't have to retype it here.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Unread 01-01-2014, 01:52 PM
waxer waxer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 30
Default

When I said 'under seemingly normal circumstances' I was trying to say 'someone who is not doing something wrong and following every good advice'.

I guess anyways your 'cortisol theory' could explain everything, because no-one could ever be sure that that variable isn't been affected by other things (work, family, other diseases, etc)... there it gets messy.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Unread 01-05-2014, 02:59 PM
Dezso's Avatar
Dezso Dezso is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 107
Default

Lyle, I hope you can address these points, because this was a cumbersome post for me to prepare for-- due to when I watched his video with the intention of assimilating & documenting his specific points, the video became seemingly tangential. But, I did so with the goal of making it easier & less time-consuming for YOU to address Layne's points that concerned me. (I don't expect you to want to sit through a half-hour of this)

So, I'm hoping you can address the following points he made, which don't revolve around the issue of straight "metabolic rate", rather, he makes points about adipose tissue adaptations specifically.

I numbered the points & listed+sorted by @time-In-Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5C3uqA1yRI


1.) @5:18: He quotes a research review (listed on a youtube video bubble)
-the amount of fat people gain in their life is directly proportional to the amount of times they attempt to diet
-he clarified this doesn't indicate causation, and that in short-term, reduction of calories doesn't cause one to gain fat
-further states that long-term it makes it harder to lose fat

2.) @8:09: "bodyfat overshooting" (hyperphagia) - after cessation of diet, not only does the individual return to original bodyfat, but also shoots PAST it.
2a.) @16:15: he states that adaptations of the adipose tissue occur. The gist of what he states is that you get "decreased cell size", and @17:25, he says "McKleen has shown that" when you gain the weight back rapidly, your body starts to produce new fat cells & thus increase the fat cell count.
2b.) Layne then explains that at that higher count (containing smaller cells), when you get back to your original bodyfat percentage (but with smaller fat cells now), you produce less leptin & are more insulin sensitive & more ready to regain bodyfat - thus increasing your bodyfat setpoint.
-he says that this contributes to the observations of the study he listed @ 5:18 (why #ofDiets = ^totalFatGainedInLifetime)

He really spooked me with 2b, with all the fat cell increase talk, but, I want to hear what other experts have to say before putting weight in Layne's assertions!
__________________
huss huss huss

Last edited by Dezso : 01-05-2014 at 03:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.