I know a lot of fitness proponents (e.g. Tosca Reno) believe bodies are made in the kitchen, and our overall shape follows the 80/10/10 ratio: 80% nutrition, 10% exercise, 10% genetics.
Do you think this is true? Has it been true for you?
Absolutely true. I've been weight lifting for almost 8 years now, and I mean real heavy weights, compound lifts, olympic lifts, etc. nutrition is by far the most important aspect and simply cannot be ignored. Nutrition is king. The rest is the details.
I read that in her book and I think there is a lot of truth to it. I think genetics play in a lot more than 10%, but only after you lose control of your nutrition. Exercise is wonderful for your health, mentally and physically; but as far as weight loss is concerned it isn't as nearly as important as nutrition. I know a lot of people who have lost weight by just changing eating habits and not getting any more physical activity than they normally do. On the other hand, you could exercise yourself half to death and if you're eating crap all day you won't lose a single pound. I find it easier to run on a treadmill for an hour than to say no to a cheeseburger or some ice cream. I exercise all the time and have been completely unsuccessful losing weight because I can't stop eating... even more so when I exercise, I come home ravenous from the gym.
Is it a matter of nutrition, or is it a matter of simple calories? Will eating certain foods reduce belly fat more than others, for instance, or could you follow the famous Twinkie diet and get the same results? "In the kitchen" does suggest a more complex dietary relationship than a mere calorie deficit.
Is it a matter of nutrition, or is it a matter of simple calories? Will eating certain foods reduce belly fat more than others, for instance, or could you follow the famous Twinkie diet and get the same results? "In the kitchen" does suggest a more complex dietary relationship than a mere calorie deficit.
I think it depends on your idea of a good body. You can eat chocolate milk and cheetos at a calorie deficit and become "skinny fat" ~ high body fat, low muscle mass, lots of jiggle yet even register as "underweight" on the BMI. You would not have much strength and you might feel like crap all the time. In that sense, yes, calories in/calories out is the biggest factor of body weight.
If you replaced those cheetos and chocolate milk with tons of fresh vegetables, lean proteins, whole grains, keeping a minimum (if not more) high protein allowance, then over time, you will feel better and look better - maintain muscle mass. And if you add exercise into that, you can do wonders with your body.
Basically yes, calories in, calories out. For me, I've been 109lbs at 5'5 and drinking/eating burgers on the weekends (while undereating during the week), and I'm now 130lbs at 5'5, eating fresh healthy choices. I feel better, I look far better, I look strong and healthy. Add in exercise, and it's the perfect combination.
Is it a matter of nutrition, or is it a matter of simple calories?
NUTRITION. I have all kinds of whacked out endocrine disorders. Mere calorie cutting alone doesn't help me. It matters WHAT the food is to me. I do the best I can and I still struggle - I'd hate to see what mess I'd be if I DIDN'T try.
But I think genetics get more than 10% though. I know I won't get better without top nutrition, but I also know only nutrition isn't going to solve all my problems. YKWIM?
it "technically" is calories in vs calories out. Be in a caloric defict, and you WILL LOSE FAT...plain and simepl. If that ids your only concern, to lose fat, than it really doesnt matter where your cals come from... there are no "good carbs and bad carbs", etc..... you can completely eliminate an entire macronutirnet, and lose all the fat you watn.. but is that OPTIMAL? are you going to feel like s**t because you arent getting enough nutrients? Many of us have goal OTHER than just fat loss (but not all), and if your goal is to increase muscle mass while losing fat, then YES< you need a higher ratio of protein.. if you want to optimize your recovery between workouts, than you need to take in 20 grams of High glycemic carbs and at least 15 grams of protein post workout..... there are lots of details to optimize what you want.... but in the end.. it IS calories in vs calories out. you DONT have to eat low carb, no carb, low fat, only protein, whatever.... (there ARE exeptions to the norm....those wit medical conditions, etc)
This reminds me of something I read about the actresses on Mad Men. To imitate the slim, soft, and delicate figures of women in the 50s and 60s, they were told to stop all exercise.
This reminds me of something I read about the actresses on Mad Men. To imitate the slim, soft, and delicate figures of women in the 50s and 60s, they were told to stop all exercise.
I live where French culture is dominant. It's true what they say - French women don't get fat - but they certainly don't get strong or healthy either, in some ways. Lots of alcohol, many smoke, few exercise. Of course, there are always exceptions, but having traveled a lot and lived in many places, obesity here is not nearly as common.
Yes, they are slim, yes, they look slim when young (although they look very weak), but it's shocking to see how their bodies decline as they age.
I have 2 MIL's, the real one and the step-MIL. Both in their late 50's/early 60's, both the epitome of "skinny fat", living French food culture all their lives, and they both struggle to pick up a steel pot and pan that my (13 month old) son picks up and throws on the floor.
I refuse to let my body become that weak for the sake of aesthetic (especially when strong can look just as sexy).
I think it is true to a certain extent. Its hard to burn off a 3000 calorie pizza binge no matter how fit you are.
I rank it 1-nutrition, 2-fitness, and 3- genetics in order of importance.
You certainly have to consider more then just weight into health though.
I would say that although genetics is a factor, a lot of people use it as an excuse. Those who are overweight say, oh its because of my genetics and those who are naturally thin think it is okay to eat like crap because they dont gain weight. I do bootcamp with a girl who is probably 80lbs lighter then me but is at about the same fitness level. On paper she is leaps and bounds "healthier" then I am but I dont consider her healthy at all!
I should probably mention right now that I have no interest in eating junk, I'm not looking for an excuse there! I'm genuinely interested in how this works, and I'm still not clear on whether nutrition, as opposed to calories, makes a difference to your *shape*, which is what the original question was about. Personally I feel that calories are about basic weight loss and shape, and nutrition is about health, how you feel inside. Not the same thing. But I could be wrong, and I'm interested in learning more. I thought that "belly fat diets" and the such were generally scams? And also that a non-nutritious diet with a calorie deficit will cause weight loss, while an excessive but beautifully nutritionally balanced diet will cause weight gain? There are people here who have done both of these things, and I personally have done the latter.
I'm unable to exercise due to medical reasons, this has been the case for years, and no doubt I have a certain degree of muscle wastage. I'm not aware that I have the power to build muscle while I'm still unable to exercise by changing my diet. However, I do have the option of making sure that I lose at a safe rate so that I don't end up burning muscle as well as fat. Am I right about this, or am I missing something?
Absolutely true. I've been weight lifting for almost 8 years now, and I mean real heavy weights, compound lifts, olympic lifts, etc. nutrition is by far the most important aspect and simply cannot be ignored. Nutrition is king. The rest is the details.
What happens if you have good nutrtion and no exercise? Or if you have good nutrition and you're a cardio queen? Or you're one of those people who completely baffle my mind and lift but with weights that wouldn't be challenging to a 4 year old child?
While I agree that nutrtion is king I think you're taking it too far by saying the rest is details. Of course you can't out exercise a bad diet but without a training stimulus you won't build or maintain muscle.
I think of it around about that way, except that I can't include "genetics" in my equation mentally... because it's something I plain & simple have no control over.
I spent so much time giving away the control or ignoring the control, that for now I like to think of my program as 100% mine.
It would end up like this in my head: 80% Nutrition (with 40% being eating less and 40% being eating "less junk"), 10% a purposeful daily workout, 10% added activity in any form (ie N.E.A.T.).
For me, I do concur that food and what/how much I choose to eat is key.
Do you think "bodies are made in the kitchen"?
