Most FB coaches, especially former players usually have BMI's in the overweight to obese range, . Granted he's still young, but visibly he's mostly lean muscle. Plus IF is such a bay area thing.

https://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/A-Facebook-executive-says-fasting-for-15-hours-a-10780431.php#photo-15311615

Odd that you would assume Wilcox is IF due to being lean.

IF studies are being cited a lot, which flies in the face of traditional ideas of metabolism stimulation which asserts you must eat small meals/snacks every 2-3 hours.

I've IF the past 3 years (16 hours off, 8 hour feeding window) and while I don't know that IF itself has helped me keep a lower BF %, I will say that skipping breakfast has certainly helped me meet my daily caloric deficit goals and tame my food cravings, which I think is the most important aspect of weight loss: calories in, calories out.

Wife Strong no think Wilcox looks like a Cal coach. She thinks he looks like a weaker Cal Strong. Or like the actor cast to play a Cal coach in a future Disney adaptation of our 2021 Rose Bowl season.

Doesn't really matter how you do it, if you don't consume more calories than you burn, you'll maintain your weight.

People are just really bad at calculating those things, if they are trying to do it without some tool.

I realized that Tony G is also not post football obesegenic and just did a quick IF and Tony G google cross search.

http://www.michaelstrahan.com/the-sit-down-tony-gonzalez/

I'm not too surprised:

Quote:

---

His regimen: "After I got done playing, I stopped hitting the weights because I didn't have to do that anymore. Now, I do infrared saunas, cold showers every morning, and intermittent fasting. I do a lot more walking and some pool exercises. I used to do visualization before games, but now I'm meditating every day. And the nutrition is always what it's been, very paleo: a lot of vegetables, organic grass-fed meat, and just really clean sources of food. I'm looking for ways to feel good and have a clear mind."

---

I adopted cold showers 5 months ago.

sycasey said:

---

Doesn't really matter how you do it, if you don't consume more calories than you burn, you'll maintain your weight.

People are just really bad at calculating those things, if they are trying to do it without some tool.

---

im sure we'll intended, but a gross oversimplification, and perpetuates the idea that weakness is the source of obesity.

Cal Strong! said:

---

Wife Strong no think Wilcox looks like a Cal coach. She thinks he looks like a weaker Cal Strong. Or like the actor cast to play a Cal coach in a future Disney adaptation of our 2021 Rose Bowl season.

---

When your wife saw this guy she screamed, "HEY COACH!"

drizzlybears brother said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Doesn't really matter how you do it, if you don't consume more calories than you burn, you'll maintain your weight.

People are just really bad at calculating those things, if they are trying to do it without some tool.

---

im sure we'll intended, but a gross oversimplification, and perpetuates the idea that weakness is the source of obesity.

---

I don't think it's weakness, more lack of knowledge/education.

And FWIW, I dropped 50 pounds a few years ago just by tracking calories and running a slight deficit over the course of a year and a half.

sycasey said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Doesn't really matter how you do it, if you don't consume more calories than you burn, you'll maintain your weight.

People are just really bad at calculating those things, if they are trying to do it without some tool.

---

im sure we'll intended, but a gross oversimplification, and perpetuates the idea that weakness is the source of obesity.

---

I don't think it's weakness, more lack of knowledge/education.

And FWIW, I dropped 50 pounds a few years ago just by tracking calories and running a slight deficit over the course of a year and a half.

---

I think he might be saying that there is a lot more going on from an endocrinological standpoint than meets the eye. That to some, a calorie of say simple sugar is not the same as a calorie of say fat in terms of weight gain. That the "law" of calories in vs. calories out is not really a law after all, and does not hold strictly true in a biological system like the human body.

Congrats on your weight loss, but one data point does not make your theory a scientifically valid statement.

This is the most random question ever

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

sycasey said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Doesn't really matter how you do it, if you don't consume more calories than you burn, you'll maintain your weight.

People are just really bad at calculating those things, if they are trying to do it without some tool.

---

im sure we'll intended, but a gross oversimplification, and perpetuates the idea that weakness is the source of obesity.

---

I don't think it's weakness, more lack of knowledge/education.

And FWIW, I dropped 50 pounds a few years ago just by tracking calories and running a slight deficit over the course of a year and a half.

---

I think he might be saying that there is a lot more going on from an endocrinological standpoint than meets the eye. That to some, a calorie of say simple sugar is not the same as a calorie of say fat in terms of weight gain. That the "law" of calories in vs. calories out is not really a law after all, and does not hold strictly true in a biological system like the human body.

Congrats on your weight loss, but one data point does not make your theory a scientifically valid statement.

---

Not being an expert on such things, I can't speak to where exceptions may lie, but I'd still bet that "calories in/calories out" is still broadly true.

Calories in and out is important for weight loss. But not all calories are created equal - not even close. The blood work of someone that eats a Twinkies only diet at a caloric deficit vs someone that eats mostly plants and animals at a caloric deficit is massively different. Blood markers, mood, do you wake up with morning wood and hormonal levels are much better indicators of health than pure body fat measures. Plenty of "skinny fat people" out there that are pre-diabetic and have T levels that are 10-20 years older than their biological age. Getting great sleep is actually one of the biggest performance and life enhancing things that people can work on. The best podcast on health by far is by Peter Attia - it's called "The Drive" - highly recommend becoming a paid member - the show notes are incredible and actionable

There can be a weakness component. Also a culture component. But a lot of it is a knowledge-of-the-right-thing-to-do component. And a heckuva lot of it is a genetic component. Both my parents were on the thin side and I've followed my dad's life's weight pattern almost to a "t". Thanks for the genes, dad!

Calories in, calories out by definition, all things being equal, going to equal weight loss over time.

The problem is it's extremely hard to hit a caloric deficit eating junk food (refined sugars, starchy carbs). One you're not getting your macronutrients, they are high in calories, plus it doesn't curb your hunger. And what it will do to your metabolism over time. So the type of calories matter, but more broadly its about calories in, calories out.

The other problem is most people don't know how to find their base metabolic rate, so they don't know what goal to set when shooting for caloric deficit or maintenance. It requires some experimenting.

The most effective way to hit a caloric deficit is by eating proteins and fats, and IF helps a lot of people accomplish this.

sycasey said:

---

Doesn't really matter how you do it, if you don't consume more calories than you burn, you'll maintain your weight.

People are just really bad at calculating those things, if they are trying to do it without some tool.

---

Actually, it does matter. Some recent research shows that 2 people eating exactly the same food and exactly the same calories will experience different results if one eats all that food in a 6 or 8 hour window versus the other eating throughout the day. The 6 or 8 hour window person loses more weight.

BearRaidNation said:

---

Calories in and out is important for weight loss. But not all calories are created equal - not even close. The blood work of someone that eats a Twinkies only diet at a caloric deficit vs someone that eats mostly plants and animals at a caloric deficit is massively different. Blood markers, mood, do you wake up with morning wood and hormonal levels are much better indicators of health than pure body fat measures. Plenty of "skinny fat people" out there that are pre-diabetic and have T levels that are 10-20 years older than their biological age. Getting great sleep is actually one of the biggest performance and life enhancing things that people can work on. The best podcast on health by far is by Peter Attia - it's called "The Drive" - highly recommend becoming a paid member - the show notes are incredible and actionable

---

I would agree that "weight" is not necessarily an indicator of "overall health." But I was not talking about health, just about weight; calories in/calories out (CICO) is indeed the determinant of weight gain or loss. Theoretically you could lose weight just by eating Twinkies. It would be way harder than doing it by eating veggies and protein, and it probably wouldn't be great for your overall long-term health, but you could do it.

I know this because a guy actually did it.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

2.5 years ago had a 'mild' heart attack. Was 265 lbs, pre-diabetic, with too many ailments to list. Had a medicine chest full of pills. So after a little research, changed my lifestyle.
Used IF (18-6 mostly) and a plant based diet to lose 70 lbs the first year and went off all medications except one. Zero calorie counting and zero exercise. Year two, started exercising: walking then cycling. Now down to 172 lbs. Riding my first century ride (100 miles) in two weeks.
IF + plant-based worked for me (and JW

MathTeacherMike said:

---

2.5 years ago had a 'mild' heart attack. Was 265 lbs, pre-diabetic, with too many ailments to list. Had a medicine chest full of pills. So after a little research, changed my lifestyle.
Used IF (18-6 mostly) and a plant based diet to lose 70 lbs the first year and went off all medications except one. Zero calorie counting and zero exercise. Year two, started exercising: walking then cycling. Now down to 172 lbs. Riding my first century ride (100 miles) in two weeks.
IF + plant-based worked for me (and JW

---

Plant based so vegan? Did you lose strength (lean muscle)?

Not eating when you're hungry is hard.

Developing a habit to eat til you're satisfied, not til you're full, is hard. Body needs to get used to it.

Not eating bad foods when you're hungry is hard.

As Math guy said, if you just eat clean, even without exercise, that's 80% of the battle.

This thread being on top of Growls is why we are a crap fan base. We beat UW last night when few of only the diehard Cal fans thought we had a chance and this is the rubbish you want to talk about? Y'all suck.

burritos said:

---

I realized that Tony G is also not post football obesegenic and just did a quick IF and Tony G google cross search.

http://www.michaelstrahan.com/the-sit-down-tony-gonzalez/

I'm not too surprised:

Quote:

---

His regimen: "After I got done playing, I stopped hitting the weights because I didn't have to do that anymore. Now, I do infrared saunas, cold showers every morning, and intermittent fasting. I do a lot more walking and some pool exercises. I used to do visualization before games, but now I'm meditating every day. And the nutrition is always what it's been, very paleo: a lot of vegetables, organic grass-fed meat, and just really clean sources of food. I'm looking for ways to feel good and have a clear mind."

---

I adopted cold showers 5 months ago.

---

What are the cold showers for? Anything to do with the UW cheerleaders? I thought they were pretty hot!

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

This thread being on top of Growls is why we are a crap fan base. We beat UW last night when few of only the diehard Cal fans thought we had a chance and this is the rubbish you want to talk about? Y'all suck.

---

This bears quoting.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

This thread being on top of Growls is why we are a crap fan base. We beat UW last night when few of only the diehard Cal fans thought we had a chance and this is the rubbish you want to talk about? Y'all suck.

---

Did any other BI poster predict the win other than you? You are NYC F@UCKING GOBEARS!

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

This thread being on top of Growls is why we are a crap fan base. We beat UW last night when few of only the diehard Cal fans thought we had a chance and this is the rubbish you want to talk about? Y'all suck.

---

Your time on HardcoreHusky has changed you

In loosing so much weight the first year I'm pretty sure some of it must have been muscle. But the second year when I started exercising, and keeping track of my numbers, I increased strength and endurance. Went from 16% body fat to 9%. My FTP ( a cycling metric) went from 170 to 255. Squat, deadlift and bench also increased - even though I only lift twice a week for 40 min.
Morning stationary trainer workouts (Zwift) are done fasted.
My fitness is as good as it has ever been.

I've lost significant amounts of weight on multiple occasions. One of those dramatic reductions occurred during my off-the-charts highest caloric intake periods of my life.
Anecdotes are particularly unhelpful as what works for one can be the exact wrong approach for another.
Losing weight is hard, for some, immensely hard, but it's nothing compared to the ability to keep it off. The "recidivism" rate for weight gain is unlike any other.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

This thread being on top of Growls is why we are a crap fan base. We beat UW last night when few of only the diehard Cal fans thought we had a chance and this is the rubbish you want to talk about? Y'all suck.

---

You are a long time poster of this site - honestly did you not expect this?

BearsWiin said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

This thread being on top of Growls is why we are a crap fan base. We beat UW last night when few of only the diehard Cal fans thought we had a chance and this is the rubbish you want to talk about? Y'all suck.

---

Your time on HardcoreHusky has changed you

---

Nah, I've always been an azzhole.

hanky1 said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

This thread being on top of Growls is why we are a crap fan base. We beat UW last night when few of only the diehard Cal fans thought we had a chance and this is the rubbish you want to talk about? Y'all suck.

---

You are a long time poster of this site - honestly did you not expect this?

---

I guess. But the fact that I'm gonna have to be reduced to fat shaming fellow Bears after such a fantastic Cal victory is hella annoying.

bearister said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

This thread being on top of Growls is why we are a crap fan base. We beat UW last night when few of only the diehard Cal fans thought we had a chance and this is the rubbish you want to talk about? Y'all suck.

---

Did any other BI poster predict the win other than you? You are NYC F@UCKING GOBEARS!

---

You know it... you tell the story....

Cut down the carbs, no Cheesecake Factory portions, and avoid sugar like it's cancer itself. This is considered rocket science dieting in the U.S.

Shame. Mods, please move this to OT. ASAP

Cal D great. Garbers still can't throw a spiral. Bears should run the ball more. There - you happy now?

I think we should all do the best we can to keep this thread at the top of the forum after every win just to remind ourselves of how crappy a fan base we are. I've been saying this for over 20 years.

MathTeacherMike said:

---

Cal D great. Garbers still can't throw a spiral. Bears should run the ball more. There - you happy now?

---

No, because I could tell you didn't mean it. Try paleo and take this shhit to the OT boards, your BFF or your nutritionist.