tjogin

Which competition's tablets is the iPad playing catch-up to?

A moderate caloric deficit is not starvation, however. So the experiment in question is completely unrelated to your claims. Science does not say that a caloric deficit automatically is starvation, you alone are making that claim.

That experiment does not support any of your claims.

Not being able to understand the difference between excess muscle and fat is not semantics.

BMI is a tool applied to populations, used on individuals it can be very inaccurate, which is why nobody does it outside of blogs and magazines.

I understand that from the zoomed out perspective, when you learn about advancements in the field from newspapers, magazines or blogs, it looks that way. But this is mostly the fault of various media sensationalizing findings, drawing their own conclusions and prioritizing shocking headlines over levelheaded critique of scientific study results as well as framing it in the proper context.

The total body of scientific evidence is not really in such disarray as the reporting would have you believe.

However, your conclusion still hits the mark; eat well and exercise.

None of the claims you just made are correct.

You did not link to scientific evidence, you linked to articles on the Internet.

You are making the claim that a caloric deficit is detrimental to health (although you choose to call it "starving yourself" for unknown reasons, even though starvation is something completely different), the onus is on you to show evidence for that.

That has only been demonstrated in mice, however, and only with semi-unrealistically large dosages of sucralose, if memory serves me right.

In humans, we have a lot of evidence that shows that the source of calories does not matter, for fat loss. Long term health is another issue, of course.

IMHO, putting focus anywhere but on calories is doing oneself a very big disservice, except for some athletes and bodybuilders for whom other factors are important as well.

There is nothing detrimental about being on a caloric deficit diet if are overweight. It's not starving yourself, it's not bad for you, it's the ONLY way you can lose fat. Reducing intake is much more efficient than increasing output, as the article we are discussing elaborates on.

No, having muscle doesn't make you overweight, no matter how much of it you have. The word overweight means to have excess fat, specifically.

Im not sure what you mean by under eating, but eating fewer calories than you spend is the only way to lose fat, other than surgery.

No, I'm talking about actual scientific evidence published in peer reviewed scientific journals. There are mountains of it available.

Being in a caloric deficit is not starving yourself, it just means that over a period of time, usually a full day, you spent more energy than you consumed, and the difference is taken out of your energy storage, which is mostly adipose tissue. This is how fat loss happens.

Being overweight is unhealthy, it can't be done in a healthy way; not in the long term.

While it is possible for an overweight person to not have any of the common health problems associated with being overweight, that is temporary. If you are overweight, you will develop those health problems, it's just a matter of time.

It's basically like smoking and cancer; not all smokers have cancer or get cancer, but there is no such thing as smoking in a healthy way, and if you do it, then the best way to get healthier and to prevent developing health problems in the future is to stop doing it.

Some people can be overweight without developing health problems for a long time, even for a decade or two, but it's just a matter of time. Reducing your bodyweight is easily the best way to improve your health, and to make sure you don't develop health problems in the future.

And, vice versa, many of the things we associate with bad health don't become health problems at all for people who stay lean. Food that we know to have strong correlations with bad health, like eating red meat, sodium, cholesterol, etc, are only really problematic if you also over eat.

Exercise is great, it's terrific, but not over eating is much more important. The saying is true, "you can't outrun a bad diet".

I never said anything to the contrary?

I just said nutrient timing is not important; i.e. the exact moment when you eat things, or don't eat things, is not important, for most normal people.

And they are not "my sources"; I'm refering to the available scientific evidence, they are everyone's sources.

And, lastly, the idea that you need to "break down" muscle in order to build it up is not really correct, either. Muscle breakdown happens yes, but it happens whether you workout or not, working out just elevates muscle protein synthesis, thus both the breakdown and build up of muscle protein. But it's not like the breakdown causes the build up, and it's not like there can't be buildup without breakdown, it's not a very good analogy and it's not a really good illustration of the mechanics at work.

None of what you just said is correct, not a syllable of it, really. You should read up on the available scientific evidence.

Research has shown that, among dietary and health guidelines, switching soda for diet soda is the most effective guideline that exists.

Eating better is obviously preferable, but the reason most people fail their diet is because it is too hard for them to comply with it. This is where the "switch to diet soda" is so effective; people can actually do it.