Posted: 10/27/2011 7:11:39 AM EDT
|
Discuss...
http://planned-diet.com/the-calorie-myth-explained/ THE ORIGINS OF THE CALORIE THEORY
In 1930 two American doctors, Newburgh and Johnson, of the University of Michigan, suggested in one of their papers that ”obesity results from a diet too high in calories, rather than from any metabolic deficiency”. Their study on energy balance was based on very limited data and, above all, had been conducted over too short a period to deserve serious scientific acceptance. This did not prevent their study from being immediately and widely acclaimed as irrefutable scientific truth, and it has been treated as ” gospel” ever since. A few years later, however, Newburgh and Johnson, concerned at the publicity which had been given to their discovery, somewhat hesitantly published some serious reservations they had concerning their previous findings. These went entirely unnoticed. Their initial theory was already integrated into the syllabus of most Western medical schools, and there it remains to this day. THE CALORIE THEORY A calorie is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water from 14° to 15° centigrade. The human body needs energy, first and foremost to maintain its body temperature at 98.6° Fahrenheit. But as soon as the body is active, it needs extra energy to stand vertical, to move, to speak, and so on. And on top of that yet more energy is needed to eat and digest food and carry out the basic activities of life. The body’s daily energy requirements vary according to the person’s age, sex and individual needs. The calorie theory is as follows : If a particular individual needs 2,500 calories a day and consumes only 2,000, a 500 calorie deficit results. To compensate for the deficit, the body will draw on its fat reserves to find an equivalent amount of energy, and weight loss will result. If, on the other hand, an individual has a daily intake of 3,500 calories when only 2,500 are needed, the excess 1,000 calories will automatically be stored as body fat. The theory is therefore based on the assumption that there is no loss of energy. It is purely mathematical, drawn directly from Lavoisier’s theory on the laws of thermodynamics. At this point we may well be wondering how it was that prisoners in Nazi concentration camps managed to survive for almost five years on only 700 to 800 calories a day. If the calorie theory was correct, the prisoners should have died once their body fat was used up in other words, within a few months. Similarly, we may wonder how people with big appetites who consume 4,000 to 5,000 calories a day are not fatter than they are (some even remain skinny). If the calorie theory was correct, these hearty eaters would come to weigh 60 to 80 stone within a few years. Furthermore, how can you explain why some people continue to put on weight even when they reduce their daily calorie intake by eating less? Thousands of people go on gaining weight like this while starving themselves to death. THE EXPLANATION The first question is: When the consumption of calories is reduced, why does weight loss not follow? Actually, weight loss does occur, but only temporarily. This is, in fact, where Newburgh and Johnson went wrong, in that they collected their data over much too short a period of time. The phenomenon works like this: Suppose that an individual needs 2,500 calories a day and that, over a long period, he consumes accordingly. If, suddenly, the ration of calories drops to 2,000, the body will draw on an equivalent quantity of stored fat to compensate and weight loss will be seen to occur. However, if from now on the daily intake of calories is limited to 2,000, instead of the 2,500 previously consumed, the body’s survival instinct comes into play. It quickly adjusts its energy requirements to match the level of calorie intake: if it is only given 2,000 calories, it will only use up 2,000 calories. Weight loss will quickly cease. But the body does not stop there. Its instinct for survival will lead it to take greater precautions yet, and lay down reserves for possible future need. If from now on it is supplied with 2,000 calories, it will simply reduce its energy needs to, say, 1,700 calories and store the other 300 in the form of body fat. So this is how we end up achieving the very opposite of the result we were aiming for. Paradoxically, although the subject is eating less, he will gradually put weight back on again. In practice, the human body, constantly driven by its survival mechanisms, behaves no differently from the starving dog which buries its bone. Despite what we might think, it is when the dog is not fed regularly that it reverts to its inborn instincts and buries its food, saving it for the day when it may otherwise go hungry. How many of you, I wonder, have fallen victim at one time or other to this unfounded theory of balancing calories? You will certainly have come across obese people who were actually starving themselves to death. This is especially common among women. Psychiatrists’ consulting-rooms are full of women being treated for depression induced by trying to follow such a diet. They have become dependent on this vicious circle, knowing that breaking away from it will only entail putting back on more weight than they have lost. Most members of the ”medical” profession do not want to know. They do realize their patients are not losing weight, but they put it down to cheating and secret binges. Some slimming professionals even run group therapy sessions, at which members are applauded when they are able to show they have lost weight and made to feel ashamed of any gain. The mental cruelty involved in these practices is positively medieval. Moreover, stipulating a 1500 calorie diet without detailing what it is to contain is quite inadequate. It simply serves to focus on the energy value of foods without taking account of their nutritional value. Apart from a few specialists, doctors tend to be disinclined to update their understanding of these matters and are usually not knowledgeable about them in the first place. Where nutrition is concerned, they seem to have little scientific understanding going beyond the commonly held views. What is more, it is not a field in which doctors in general are particularly interested. I have noticed that of the twenty or so I have worked with on this book, all of them, without exception, were originally led to research and experiment in the field because they themselves had a serious weight problem to solve. What is heart-rending, even scandalous, is the fact that the general public has been allowed to believe that the calorie theory was scientifically proven. It is sad that the theory became accepted and now constitutes one of the basic assumptions of western civilization. Not a week goes by without one women’s magazine or another splashing an article on slimming. We are presented with the latest menus developed by some team of dietitians, based on the calorie theory and suggesting something along the lines of ”a tangerine for breakfast, half a rusk for elevenses, a chick-pea for lunch and an olive in the evening…” It is amazing how the low-calorie approach has managed to delude people for so long. There are two explanations, though. One is that a low-calorie diet invariably produces a result of sorts. Lack of food, which is the basis of the method, inevitably leads to some loss of weight. But the result, as we have seen, does not last. Not only is a return to square one inevitable, but in most cases more weight is gained than is lost. The second explanation is that ”low calorie” products today constitute a sizeable market sector. Exploitation of the theory, under the guidance of dietary ”experts”, has created such a market that vested interests now have to be contended with, principally those of the food industry and a few misguided chefs. So the calorie theory is false and now you know why. But that is not the end of it. The theory is so ingrained in your mind that for some time to come you will catch yourself still eating according to its principles. If this happens, just re-read this article until everything is completely clear to you. It can be seen that the more the number of permitted calories is reduced, the less effective the diet becomes and the more liable the body is not only to revert to its original weight but also to lay down additional reserves of fat. |
|
Quoted: So if creating a caloric deficit is not behind weight loss, what is? What does the author propose as a solution to loosing and maintaining weight loss? I'd imagine he recommends you focus on the context of your calories, and not the calories themselves. 1,000 calories worth of carbs is going to have a much different effect on your body than 1,000 calories worth of fats and protein.
|
|
Restrict calories and your resting metabolic rate goes down. That seems to be the author's main point. Either this fact isn't as secretive and hardly known as the author states or I have unknowingly stumbled on a very rare peice of info. Next thing you know he/she will write an article on how exercise defeats a weight loss plan by increasing your appatiete.
As a side note, I beleive the Nazis determined through research a 400 calorie a day diet was the most cost effective diet for slave labor. |
|
Pretty interesting. Every day it becomes more apparent to me that the human body is so incredibly complex that we don't really know nearly as much about it as we think we do. Is this article right? I really don't know, but I think that there is an element of truth in there at least. Here's what I do know- calories in vs calories out is a major player, but it's not as simple as that. Your macronutrient ratio plays a role in fat loss, and continually spiking your blood sugar triggers your body to store fat- even with a slight calorie defecit. Many people also tend to binge during a calorie restricted diet, negating any weight loss they had...not the point of the article I know, but another point against a severly calorie restricted diet. |
|
I am a testament that the caloric scale is what matters. The author wants to talk long term, how does 18 months and 120+ pounds sound? Not once did my weight loss stop while on an energy deficit. Not once did I break the laws of thermodynamics and create energy out of nothing to gain bodyfat on a deficit. The only times that my progress slowed were times I ate more than I should have.
With that said, counting calories isn't perfect. It does take different amounts of energy to digest different foods so there will be a slight difference in usable energy in different foods even if their total caloric content matches. However, it is a small variance and when you are on a 500+ daily deficit that difference is small enough to be considered negligible. You might not lose exactly 1 pound of bodyfat per week on it but you will lose close to that amount. Plus, hydration levels and digestive track contents can differ by enough to mask your progress for several weeks. You simply cannot measure weight loss accurately in the short term with a weight scale. You have to observe long term trends. This is particularly true when you have been on a deficit for some time and you are no longer losing weight due to a drop in excess glycogen and water weight. When that happens you can end seeing no weight change or even a gain on the scale after a week of perfect eating. Given enough time though it will balance out though. So while 2 + 2 = 4 might not be a perfect equation in fat loss 2 + 2 = ~4 is still true. The problem with the authors assumptions is that he ignores changes in energy output. That explains the majority of his so-called contradictions. When you restrict calories your body doesn't "adapt" or go into some magical "survival mode" that can cause you to stop losing or start gaining weight. What happens is energy levels drop and hormone balances change. When you have a surplus of energy it is a lot easier to stay active. You might even fidget just sitting still. On an energy deficit the opposite is true and you might become sluggish and lazy. Hormone levels change as well which further drives changes in mood and behavior. Leptin is one of those important hormones. On extended periods of an energy deficit your leptin levels will drop. Not only does this increase appetite but some studies have shown that this will change the metabolic balance and throw off the expected results of a caloric deficit. Instead of losing close to 1 pound on a 500 calorie deficit you might lose closer to a half pound(don't take these figures to be real world specific they are jsut a made up example to explain the phenomenon). And even that only happens after a prolonged deficit or when a particularly large/extreme deficit has is maintained. This is easy to fix by taking a day or two off and eating at a surplus every few weeks though. To my knowledge there isn't a single study showing a complete stop in weight loss much less weight gain on a caloric deficit though so the authors claims are conjecture at best and outright lies at worst. As you lose weight you must also periodically adjust your energy intake. Moving around and going about your day to day activities when you weigh 20 pounds less than you started requires less energy. This means you have to take in less energy to maintain the same overall deficit. The author ignores that fact. I am sure there were some more specifics I had a problem with but I can't recall them now and I really don't want to read through that again to find them. Just know that the majority of what he wrote is garbage. About the only thing he said that was correct was that ignoring nutrition and focusing completely on calories is a bad approach. Your body has specific nutrition needs. Those needs actually go up when you start exercising and it becomes even harder to meet those needs when you start restricting how much food you consume so it becomes even more important to take into consideration just what you are eating. Your body needs protein, dietary fat, and a variety of vitamins and minerals to remain in peak operating condition. Without protein you will lose a lot of muscle with your fat. Less muscle means a poorer overall appearance for the same weight and less energy consumption which makes it easier to put weight back on. Dietary fat is needed to absorb some vitamins that are not water soluble and it is what your body uses for hormone production. Without it you can end up with all sorts of medical and metabolic problems. It is never acceptable to neglect these essentials in order to see the number on the scale change. |
|
What about the "hacker diet" and "junk food diet" The former uses a mathematical calorie in vs calorie out and the latter was an experiment on eating only junk food like chips and Twinkies , but keeping under your calorie budget. Both have been successful .
Nutrition / Dieting is just so confusing, anything someone says you can find 2 people who contradict them . |
|
Looks like a typical "its not your fault that you fat" article. Calories in<calories out works every time. Different macro ratios play a big part in it but in the end you can lose weight eating 1500 cals of candy and soda a day.
Natural selection(I am a Christian and dont believe we came from apes) would have bred out all the skinny people that "eat all day without gaining weight" if genitics and a slow metabolism was the reason we got fat. If you pay close attention to what the hard gainers eat you will find they mostly fool them selvs and everone else in the amount of food they eat. Same holds true for the 300 # people that "gain" weight on 1500 cals a day. |
|
Quoted:
What about the "hacker diet" and "junk food diet" The former uses a mathematical calorie in vs calorie out and the latter was an experiment on eating only junk food like chips and Twinkies , but keeping under your calorie budget. Both have been successful . Nutrition / Dieting is just so confusing, anything someone says you can find 2 people who contradict them . Nutrition "experts" are wrong a lot. Biologists, not so much. Learn about the biology and it becomes a pretty simple process. |
|
Quoted:
Natural selection(I am a Christian and dont believe we came from apes) would have bred out all the skinny people that "eat all day without gaining weight" if genitics and a slow metabolism was the reason we got fat. If you pay close attention to what the hard gainers eat you will find they mostly fool them selvs and everone else in the amount of food they eat. Same holds true for the 300 # people that "gain" weight on 1500 cals a day. To some degree that has already happened. Human physiology is far greater shaped by undereating than it is overeating. An abundance of food combined with very little reason to move has been a pretty rare occurance throughout human history. |
|
I don’t agree with the article 100%, however it does bring up some interesting points.
I guess the biggest issue is people who "starve" their bodies to lose weight. I spent 10 years as a personal trainer and had a number of clients that I had to increase their caloric intake to achieve fat loss. I also had some that needed a caloric decrease. One thing of note is that I find calories matter much less than what and when a person eats. As another poster noted 2000 calories a day of refined carbohydrates has a very different effect on the body than 2000 calories of protein. This becomes even more important with certain ethnicities... American Indians ad Eskimos for example have a very low tolerance for refined carbohydrates as opposed to people from many Asian counties. I think it is important to note that your body does not "burn calories" it breaks down food into sugar, amino acid and lipids; it then uses those for nutrition (this is a simplification of the process). I have never seen a 500cal/day change or less in intake make a significant change in positive weight loss (loss of fat not muscle) by itself. Now, if you take someone who eats 500cal less per day and starts eating better foods, with a more even spacing (5-6 meals/day) you will see huge change in a relatively short period of time The point to take away for me is Calories matter; however just as important is the quality, frequency, genetic suitability of food. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Natural selection(I am a Christian and dont believe we came from apes) would have bred out all the skinny people that "eat all day without gaining weight" if genitics and a slow metabolism was the reason we got fat. If you pay close attention to what the hard gainers eat you will find they mostly fool them selvs and everone else in the amount of food they eat. Same holds true for the 300 # people that "gain" weight on 1500 cals a day. To some degree that has already happened. Human physiology is far greater shaped by undereating than it is overeating. An abundance of food combined with very little reason to move has been a pretty rare occurance throughout human history. I completely agree with your last line. Part of what I base my views on is that in most countries other than the US there is much less obesity. If it genetics and food type played the role some believe it to there should be overweight people everywhere. I haven't been to many foreign countries but from what I have gathered most of the rest of them are alot thinner. Even Italy where the eat TONS of pasta and pastries  . All of this comes from hopefuly common since but unscientific observations. I am more in tune with physics than biology but I believe the conservation laws apply to both.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Natural selection(I am a Christian and dont believe we came from apes) would have bred out all the skinny people that "eat all day without gaining weight" if genitics and a slow metabolism was the reason we got fat. If you pay close attention to what the hard gainers eat you will find they mostly fool them selvs and everone else in the amount of food they eat. Same holds true for the 300 # people that "gain" weight on 1500 cals a day. To some degree that has already happened. Human physiology is far greater shaped by undereating than it is overeating. An abundance of food combined with very little reason to move has been a pretty rare occurance throughout human history. I completely agree with your last line. Part of what I base my views on is that in most countries other than the US there is much less obesity. If it genetics and food type played the role some believe it to there should be overweight people everywhere. I haven't been to many foreign countries but from what I have gathered most of the rest of them are alot thinner. Even Italy where the eat TONS of pasta and pastries . All of this comes from hopefuly common since but unscientific observations. I am more in tune with physics than biology but I believe the conservation laws apply to both.Obesity is a worldwide problem... http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/03/news/la-heb-worldwide-obesity-20110203 Obesity rates around the world have about doubled between 1980 and 2008
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Natural selection(I am a Christian and dont believe we came from apes) would have bred out all the skinny people that "eat all day without gaining weight" if genitics and a slow metabolism was the reason we got fat. If you pay close attention to what the hard gainers eat you will find they mostly fool them selvs and everone else in the amount of food they eat. Same holds true for the 300 # people that "gain" weight on 1500 cals a day. To some degree that has already happened. Human physiology is far greater shaped by undereating than it is overeating. An abundance of food combined with very little reason to move has been a pretty rare occurance throughout human history. I completely agree with your last line. Part of what I base my views on is that in most countries other than the US there is much less obesity. If it genetics and food type played the role some believe it to there should be overweight people everywhere. I haven't been to many foreign countries but from what I have gathered most of the rest of them are alot thinner. Even Italy where the eat TONS of pasta and pastries . All of this comes from hopefuly common since but unscientific observations. I am more in tune with physics than biology but I believe the conservation laws apply to both.Obesity is a worldwide problem... http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/03/news/la-heb-worldwide-obesity-20110203 Obesity rates around the world have about doubled between 1980 and 2008 I'm sure it is(probably much more in the US) but I refuse to believe people get fat from not eating much. I remember reading a study of coma patients on feeding tube and all of them took something like 1200-1500 calories a day to maintain weight. These people are being fed massively processed crap foods  , they don't move much less exercise and they still stay thin. Your body cant really create energy from nothing. I do think the calorie may not be exactly figure correctly but all in all it seems to work.
I'm not trying to argue, just showing my thought 
|
|
This article is another example of minutiae written about at length just to have something to talk about. I started to read it, but didn't feel like wasting the time. Calories DO matter. Type of calories DO matter. Your body's response to calories/types of calories DOES matter. You CAN have too little calories. You CAN have too many. None of this stuff is particularly difficult.
Where it gets more difficult is lower body fat levels for lifters, those with certain health issues, or particular diets. It is hard to screw up losing 10lbs when you are 250, but losing 10lbs from 190 is much more difficult. Even then, things still tend to work the same, there just seems to be less margin for error. |
|
I spent two weeks in France and Italy last month. Every obese person I saw was an American. There were some overweight Germans and Brits, but the French and Italians were all what we used to consider “normal” weight 50-60 years ago. Sitting in a sidewalk café and watching the people go by, it was easy to pick out the Americans.
People get fat from eating too much and not exercising enough. This isn’t a secret. If obesity could be blamed on metabolism or genetics, why had the obesity rate tripled in the last 40 years? Yeah, I know there are some medical conditions that make people fat, but that’s rare compared to the majority who just plain eat too much and don’t exercise enough. |
|
Quoted:
I spent two weeks in France and Italy last month. Every obese person I saw was an American. There were some overweight Germans and Brits, but the French and Italians were all what we used to consider “normal” weight 50-60 years ago. Sitting in a sidewalk café and watching the people go by, it was easy to pick out the Americans. People get fat from eating too much and not exercising enough. This isn’t a secret. If obesity could be blamed on metabolism or genetics, why had the obesity rate tripled in the last 40 years? Yeah, I know there are some medical conditions that make people fat, but that’s rare compared to the majority who just plain eat too much and don’t exercise enough. I noticed the exact same thing in Italy. I am 6' and weighed about 180 at the time and was one of the fatest ones there. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like a typical "its not your fault that you fat" article. Calories in<calories out works every time. That's true, but we don't have a good understanding of the body's feedback loops and second/third order effects of our actions. There you go losing me again with your ubber smart science talk  .
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I spent two weeks in France and Italy last month. Every obese person I saw was an American. There were some overweight Germans and Brits, but the French and Italians were all what we used to consider “normal” weight 50-60 years ago. Sitting in a sidewalk café and watching the people go by, it was easy to pick out the Americans. People get fat from eating too much and not exercising enough. This isn’t a secret. If obesity could be blamed on metabolism or genetics, why had the obesity rate tripled in the last 40 years? Yeah, I know there are some medical conditions that make people fat, but that’s rare compared to the majority who just plain eat too much and don’t exercise enough. I noticed the exact same thing in Italy. I am 6' and weighed about 180 at the time and was one of the fatest ones there. when was the last time you were in Italy? I lived there from '98-00 and your perceptions matched mine. My god daughter spent the summer there last year and I was amazed at the number of fat teenagers in her pictures. when I lived there, I saw maybe 1 or 2 pudgy kids - many more now. it's not a coincidence that there are many more fast food (American chain) places in Italy now |
|
Quoted:
Pretty interesting. Every day it becomes more apparent to me that the human body is so incredibly complex that we don't really know nearly as much about it as we think we do. Is this article right? I really don't know, but I think that there is an element of truth in there at least. Here's what I do know- calories in vs calories out is a major player, but it's not as simple as that. Your macronutrient ratio plays a role in fat loss, and continually spiking your blood sugar triggers your body to store fat- even with a slight calorie defecit. Many people also tend to binge during a calorie restricted diet, negating any weight loss they had...not the point of the article I know, but another point against a severly calorie restricted diet. I agree. Take two identical twins and feed one 2000 calories of shit (sugar, flour, processed foods), and feed the other one 2500 calories of vegetables, healthy fats, grass-fed meats, nuts, and berries, and the latter one will certainly look better and probably lose more weight than the former. Calories in, calories out works for very crude calculations of how much you need to eat. But it is worthless for general health. The quality, not the quantity, is what counts. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: So if I eat 10,000 calories a day I should be really skinny, because my body will recognize that Im definately not starving Try to eat 10,000 calories a day composed of veggies, nuts, berries, and meat. Good luck with that. Challenge. Accepted. (only sorta kidding, I'm really hungry right now)
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if I eat 10,000 calories a day I should be really skinny, because my body will recognize that Im definately not starving Try to eat 10,000 calories a day composed of veggies, nuts, berries, and meat. Good luck with that. Bacon and avocados - I'd be willing to give it a go
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So if I eat 10,000 calories a day I should be really skinny, because my body will recognize that Im definately not starving Try to eat 10,000 calories a day composed of veggies, nuts, berries, and meat. Good luck with that. Bacon and avocados - I'd be willing to give it a go The Arfcom fitness forum 10,000 calorie challenge....I'm in if you guys are! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if I eat 10,000 calories a day I should be really skinny, because my body will recognize that Im definately not starving Try to eat 10,000 calories a day composed of veggies, nuts, berries, and meat. Good luck with that. Bacon and avocados - I'd be willing to give it a go The Arfcom fitness forum 10,000 calorie challenge....I'm in if you guys are! I could do 10,000 calories a day in fruit / avocado / nuts pretty easily . even toss in a steak and bowl of veggies. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I spent two weeks in France and Italy last month. Every obese person I saw was an American. There were some overweight Germans and Brits, but the French and Italians were all what we used to consider “normal” weight 50-60 years ago. Sitting in a sidewalk café and watching the people go by, it was easy to pick out the Americans. People get fat from eating too much and not exercising enough. This isn’t a secret. If obesity could be blamed on metabolism or genetics, why had the obesity rate tripled in the last 40 years? Yeah, I know there are some medical conditions that make people fat, but that’s rare compared to the majority who just plain eat too much and don’t exercise enough. I noticed the exact same thing in Italy. I am 6' and weighed about 180 at the time and was one of the fatest ones there. when was the last time you were in Italy? I lived there from '98-00 and your perceptions matched mine. My god daughter spent the summer there last year and I was amazed at the number of fat teenagers in her pictures. when I lived there, I saw maybe 1 or 2 pudgy kids - many more now. it's not a coincidence that there are many more fast food (American chain) places in Italy now I was there in 08 but I didn't hit any touristy areas. Mostly stayed in Sicily. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if I eat 10,000 calories a day I should be really skinny, because my body will recognize that Im definately not starving Try to eat 10,000 calories a day composed of veggies, nuts, berries, and meat. Good luck with that. Ever wonder how many calories you shit out? 10Kcal of veggies and I would crap out 8,000
|
|
To take the conversation in a new direction...
What effect does insulin levels have on weight-loss? The science is pretty clear that as insulin levels rise, the body stores more fat and vice versa. How does this effect the idea that a calorie is a calorie regardless of what that calorie is made of? I think even the most ardent supporter of "calories in - calories out" will admit that eating at a calorie deficit with junk is worse for weight loss than eating quality food with the same deficit. My personal hierarchy of factors for weight loss (of fat): 1. Macro nutrient balance 2. Glycemic index of food 3. Frequency of intake 4. Calories 5. Quality of food |
|
Quoted: To take the conversation in a new direction... What effect does insulin levels have on weight-loss? The science is pretty clear that as insulin levels rise, the body stores more fat and vice versa. How does this effect the idea that a calorie is a calorie regardless of what that calorie is made of? I think even the most ardent supporter of "calories in - calories out" will admit that eating at a calorie deficit with junk is worse for weight loss than eating quality food with the same deficit. My personal hierarchy of factors for weight loss (of fat): 1. Macro nutrient balance 2. Glycemic index of food 3. Frequency of intake 4. Calories 5. Quality of food Yeah, there's studies showing this, which is why lower carb diets are good for fat loss. My hierarchy is like this: 1. Quality of food 2. Macronutrient ratio 3. Calories I'm not trying to lose though, I'm trying to maintain my current weight and body comp. Regardless, I think quality should always be the #1 concern. YMMV.
|
| Sorry, I don't buy it. I have been chubby and I have been skinny, I have been a lifter and a long-dstance runner, and I haven't really changed what I eat...just the portions. And every single time I eat smaller portions and work out harder, I lose weight and it stays off until I change how much I eat or how many calories I burn. |
I'm a bit  by this article.It doesn't even begin to show that the calorie theory is a myth. In fact, it explicitly supports the calorie theory and just adds a corollary - which is common knowledge - that reducing calories may lead your body to reduce its caloric requirement. I say often because a light dip in calories (say, to 500 below maintenance requirements) is not going to kick in a starvation defense mechanism. It ignores other aspects of metabolism and metabolic rate, such as meal spacing. And it also ignores the fact that one can RAISE one's caloric requirements through exercise, and that a combination of a reduced calorie diet AND exercise can accelerate fat loss. ETA: I lost 80+ pounds in 6 months without changing my activity level through a strict diet. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
To take the conversation in a new direction... What effect does insulin levels have on weight-loss? The science is pretty clear that as insulin levels rise, the body stores more fat and vice versa. How does this effect the idea that a calorie is a calorie regardless of what that calorie is made of? I think even the most ardent supporter of "calories in - calories out" will admit that eating at a calorie deficit with junk is worse for weight loss than eating quality food with the same deficit. My personal hierarchy of factors for weight loss (of fat): 1. Macro nutrient balance 2. Glycemic index of food 3. Frequency of intake 4. Calories 5. Quality of food Yeah, there's studies showing this, which is why lower carb diets are good for fat loss. My hierarchy is like this: 1. Quality of food 2. Macronutrient ratio 3. Calories I'm not trying to lose though, I'm trying to maintain my current weight and body comp. Regardless, I think quality should always be the #1 concern. YMMV. My thoughts are that the order is exactly opposite of yours. Total calories Macro ratio Food quality I don't think frequency really plays a part in it. I eat lots of meals most days but it's out of preference and ability to with my job. On weekends I typically eat 2 meals a day and seem to do just fine. I think there is alot to the GI. After living with a diabetic for many years I know soda raises bloodsugar in minutes where wheat bread takes quite a bit longer. I honestly don't know how much that directly relates to weight loss or gain. Lower GI obviously keeps you fuller longer and may give longer lasting energy but that's probably about it. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: To take the conversation in a new direction... What effect does insulin levels have on weight-loss? The science is pretty clear that as insulin levels rise, the body stores more fat and vice versa. How does this effect the idea that a calorie is a calorie regardless of what that calorie is made of? I think even the most ardent supporter of "calories in - calories out" will admit that eating at a calorie deficit with junk is worse for weight loss than eating quality food with the same deficit. My personal hierarchy of factors for weight loss (of fat): 1. Macro nutrient balance 2. Glycemic index of food 3. Frequency of intake 4. Calories 5. Quality of food Yeah, there's studies showing this, which is why lower carb diets are good for fat loss. My hierarchy is like this: 1. Quality of food 2. Macronutrient ratio 3. Calories I'm not trying to lose though, I'm trying to maintain my current weight and body comp. Regardless, I think quality should always be the #1 concern. YMMV. My thoughts are that the order is exactly opposite of yours. Total calories Macro ratio Food quality I don't think frequency really plays a part in it. I eat lots of meals most days but it's out of preference and ability to with my job. On weekends I typically eat 2 meals a day and seem to do just fine. I think there is alot to the GI. After living with a diabetic for many years I know soda raises bloodsugar in minutes where wheat bread takes quite a bit longer. I honestly don't know how much that directly relates to weight loss or gain. Lower GI obviously keeps you fuller longer and may give longer lasting energy but that's probably about it. I agree about frequency, I'm not concerned about it at all. My experience/feelings on the so called hierarchy is this- for me personally, if I over eat a little but it's with quality food I'll be ok, it's not going to hurt me. Likewise if I keep my macronutrient ratio about where I want it. If I eat shitty food, even in small portions I feel it. It affects my workouts and it takes some time to get back on top of my game. YMMV, but it works for me. Remember I'm not trying to gain or lose right now, I'm just maintaining.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To take the conversation in a new direction... What effect does insulin levels have on weight-loss? The science is pretty clear that as insulin levels rise, the body stores more fat and vice versa. How does this effect the idea that a calorie is a calorie regardless of what that calorie is made of? I think even the most ardent supporter of "calories in - calories out" will admit that eating at a calorie deficit with junk is worse for weight loss than eating quality food with the same deficit. My personal hierarchy of factors for weight loss (of fat): 1. Macro nutrient balance 2. Glycemic index of food 3. Frequency of intake 4. Calories 5. Quality of food Yeah, there's studies showing this, which is why lower carb diets are good for fat loss. My hierarchy is like this: 1. Quality of food 2. Macronutrient ratio 3. Calories I'm not trying to lose though, I'm trying to maintain my current weight and body comp. Regardless, I think quality should always be the #1 concern. YMMV. My thoughts are that the order is exactly opposite of yours. Total calories Macro ratio Food quality I don't think frequency really plays a part in it. I eat lots of meals most days but it's out of preference and ability to with my job. On weekends I typically eat 2 meals a day and seem to do just fine. I think there is alot to the GI. After living with a diabetic for many years I know soda raises bloodsugar in minutes where wheat bread takes quite a bit longer. I honestly don't know how much that directly relates to weight loss or gain. Lower GI obviously keeps you fuller longer and may give longer lasting energy but that's probably about it. I agree about frequency, I'm not concerned about it at all. My experience/feelings on the so called hierarchy is this- for me personally, if I over eat a little but it's with quality food I'll be ok, it's not going to hurt me. Likewise if I keep my macronutrient ratio about where I want it. If I eat shitty food, even in small portions I feel it. It affects my workouts and it takes some time to get back on top of my game. YMMV, but it works for me. Remember I'm not trying to gain or lose right now, I'm just maintaining. You have mentioned this before. Was it always like that or just sence you have been eating palio? I ate probably 6000 calories of shit food yesterday  and felt like a lard ass but not really any different than if I ate the same volume of my normal clean foods.
|
|
Quoted:
I'm a bit by this article.
It doesn't even begin to show that the calorie theory is a myth. In fact, it explicitly supports the calorie theory and just adds a corollary - which is common knowledge - that reducing calories may lead your body to reduce its caloric requirement. I say often because a light dip in calories (say, to 500 below maintenance requirements) is not going to kick in a starvation defense mechanism. It ignores other aspects of metabolism and metabolic rate, such as meal spacing. And it also ignores the fact that one can RAISE one's caloric requirements through exercise, and that a combination of a reduced calorie diet AND exercise can accelerate fat loss. ETA: I lost 80+ pounds in 6 months without changing my activity level through a strict diet. I think the myth is that eating is an exact mathematical calculation RMR+Activity= Daily Caloric Need. Less than that number and you will lose more and you will gain. Even RMR is a calculation based on what... Your body doesn’t burn calories like a calorimeter so it is difficult to really say how calories are used. Put wood in a calorimeter and you will have a lot of calories... eat wood and you don’t get the same effect. That is an extreme example but to a lesser level look at how much corn you poop out, how many of those calories actually made it to your body? PS I'm just playing devil's advocate to keep a good discussion going. We all need to know why we believe what we believe. Simply going on "common knowledge" is pure folly |
|
It's sorta hard to explain...it also depends on what it is. I always used to have an upset stomach, as in gas pains and a bloated uncomfortable feeling. I discovered that grains is what causes this in me. So that stayed the same before and after. Sugar also made me feel shitty before, I just never really connected that sugar was the cause. Both grains and sugar also make my eyes all puffy...I wish I knew why, but I've isolated this phenomenon quite a few times just for shits and giggles, and there it is... So basically, it's stayed the same it's just much more noticable now. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm a bit by this article.
It doesn't even begin to show that the calorie theory is a myth. In fact, it explicitly supports the calorie theory and just adds a corollary - which is common knowledge - that reducing calories may lead your body to reduce its caloric requirement. I say often because a light dip in calories (say, to 500 below maintenance requirements) is not going to kick in a starvation defense mechanism. It ignores other aspects of metabolism and metabolic rate, such as meal spacing. And it also ignores the fact that one can RAISE one's caloric requirements through exercise, and that a combination of a reduced calorie diet AND exercise can accelerate fat loss. ETA: I lost 80+ pounds in 6 months without changing my activity level through a strict diet. I think the myth is that eating is an exact mathematical calculation RMR+Activity= Daily Caloric Need. Less than that number and you will lose more and you will gain. Even RMR is a calculation based on what... Your body doesn’t burn calories like a calorimeter so it is difficult to really say how calories are used. Put wood in a calorimeter and you will have a lot of calories... eat wood and you don’t get the same effect. That is an extreme example but to a lesser level look at how much corn you poop out, how many of those calories actually made it to your body? PS I'm just playing devil's advocate to keep a good discussion going. We all need to know why we believe what we believe. Simply going on "common knowledge" is pure folly I have told people before that the only way I can see that some of these supposed all day eaters do it is if they have GI problems and don't digest all of there food. Even then I still dont buy it. I know there is alot we dont know but if you really look at what people eat, scrawney people under eat and fat people over eat. There is a stupid ass weight loss "clinic" the next town over from here and the limit the clients to 1000 cals a day for females and 1200 a day for males. Guess what, all of them that stick with it lose 3-5 pounds a week. I think its a retarded idea and most of them bail after a couple months but it kinda goes to show that lower cals = weight loss for everone. |
|
Quoted:
It's sorta hard to explain...it also depends on what it is. I always used to have an upset stomach, as in gas pains and a bloated uncomfortable feeling. I discovered that grains is what causes this in me. So that stayed the same before and after. Sugar also made me feel shitty before, I just never really connected that sugar was the cause. Both grains and sugar also make my eyes all puffy...I wish I knew why, but I've isolated this phenomenon quite a few times just for shits and giggles, and there it is... So basically, it's stayed the same it's just much more noticable now. I get all weird feeling if I eat to much sugar. Similar to much caffeine but way worse . Its like a coffee high with a whisky drunk
SD&F is hopping today! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: It's sorta hard to explain...it also depends on what it is. I always used to have an upset stomach, as in gas pains and a bloated uncomfortable feeling. I discovered that grains is what causes this in me. So that stayed the same before and after. Sugar also made me feel shitty before, I just never really connected that sugar was the cause. Both grains and sugar also make my eyes all puffy...I wish I knew why, but I've isolated this phenomenon quite a few times just for shits and giggles, and there it is... So basically, it's stayed the same it's just much more noticable now. I get all weird feeling if I eat to much sugar. Similar to much caffeine but way worse . Its like a coffee high with a whisky drunkSD&F is hopping today! Yeah I crash pretty hard. Yeah it is, I love it!! Best sub-forum on Arfcom! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's sorta hard to explain...it also depends on what it is. I always used to have an upset stomach, as in gas pains and a bloated uncomfortable feeling. I discovered that grains is what causes this in me. So that stayed the same before and after. Sugar also made me feel shitty before, I just never really connected that sugar was the cause. Both grains and sugar also make my eyes all puffy...I wish I knew why, but I've isolated this phenomenon quite a few times just for shits and giggles, and there it is... So basically, it's stayed the same it's just much more noticable now. I get all weird feeling if I eat to much sugar. Similar to much caffeine but way worse . Its like a coffee high with a whisky drunk
SD&F is hopping today! Yeah I crash pretty hard. Yeah it is, I love it!! Best sub-forum on Arfcom! For sure! Hell I hardly ever make it to the tech side anymore. Guns brought me here but SD&F and the GD shinanagins keeps me here. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: It's sorta hard to explain...it also depends on what it is. I always used to have an upset stomach, as in gas pains and a bloated uncomfortable feeling. I discovered that grains is what causes this in me. So that stayed the same before and after. Sugar also made me feel shitty before, I just never really connected that sugar was the cause. Both grains and sugar also make my eyes all puffy...I wish I knew why, but I've isolated this phenomenon quite a few times just for shits and giggles, and there it is... So basically, it's stayed the same it's just much more noticable now. I get all weird feeling if I eat to much sugar. Similar to much caffeine but way worse . Its like a coffee high with a whisky drunkSD&F is hopping today!   Why you shittin on whisky drunk SON whisky drunk is awesome
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's sorta hard to explain...it also depends on what it is. I always used to have an upset stomach, as in gas pains and a bloated uncomfortable feeling. I discovered that grains is what causes this in me. So that stayed the same before and after. Sugar also made me feel shitty before, I just never really connected that sugar was the cause. Both grains and sugar also make my eyes all puffy...I wish I knew why, but I've isolated this phenomenon quite a few times just for shits and giggles, and there it is... So basically, it's stayed the same it's just much more noticable now. I get all weird feeling if I eat to much sugar. Similar to much caffeine but way worse . Its like a coffee high with a whisky drunk
SD&F is hopping today! Why you shittin on whisky drunk SON
whisky drunk is awesome I drink whisky at the same speed I do beer.....not so good results
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's sorta hard to explain...it also depends on what it is. I always used to have an upset stomach, as in gas pains and a bloated uncomfortable feeling. I discovered that grains is what causes this in me. So that stayed the same before and after. Sugar also made me feel shitty before, I just never really connected that sugar was the cause. Both grains and sugar also make my eyes all puffy...I wish I knew why, but I've isolated this phenomenon quite a few times just for shits and giggles, and there it is... So basically, it's stayed the same it's just much more noticable now. I get all weird feeling if I eat to much sugar. Similar to much caffeine but way worse . Its like a coffee high with a whisky drunkSD&F is hopping today! Why you shittin on whisky drunk SON whisky drunk is awesome I drink whisky at the same speed I do beer.....not so good results whisky while squatting heavy WOULD be disastrous especially when you drop that 350# bar on your buddies back
|