Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Dr Jason Fung - The Useless Concept of Calories

1121315171828

Replies

  • HellYeahItsKriss
    HellYeahItsKriss Posts: 906 Member
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    @jofjltncb6 Don't hate on the thread.. there is donairs and kababs and gyros inside.. and @stevencloser also posted some beef sausage like thing that looks tasty.

    Just because this thread got some things right (like delicious foods) doesn't mean I can't hate on the thread for all of the stuff it didn't get right.

    true.. but all the yummyness wouldnt exist without all the dumb. lol
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    I dunno... maybe i am just a weirdo.. but.. i can make my own donairs..

    fzx67i4t3d2j.jpg
    (Cause i know people are gonna be like.. what the *kitten* is a donair?!"

    But despite that.. eventually i will get a craving for one from a take out place.. even with substitutes available.
    i know there are people out there who can just not substitute and just go without.. but i feel like the amount who can compared to the amount of keto enthusiasts claiming as such just don't add up..

    you know eventually i am going to look like one of those crazy conspiracy theorists who instead of ranting about a flat earth or the moon landing not happening, I will be jibber jabbering about keto and cravings lol

    See, now you've set me with a major craving for these, and I only JUST had one this weekend lol. The place that made the best ones in St. John's shut down, and I've been trying to find a substitute ever since. Maybe I'll get one when I'm in Dartmouth in January. *insert drooling smiley*

    Dartmouth.. my recommendation is Roberts pizza they are beyond massive lol two meals probably

    Aw man, Dartmouth. I was there years ago. It was lovely. The beaver tails at the harbour were great.

    You didn't eat actual Beavers tails, right? :worried:
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    @Christine_72

    ymgq9igj12ib.jpg

    its basically a big dessert pastry and you can get different toppings

    Oh thank Gawd. I had pictures of cute little beavers sans tails all lined up :confounded:

  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,641 Member
    edited November 2017
    @Christine_72

    ymgq9igj12ib.jpg

    its basically a big dessert pastry and you can get different toppings

    Oh thank Gawd. I had pictures of cute little beavers sans tails all lined up :confounded:

    And here I'm thinking "*kitten*, meat is meat."
  • HellYeahItsKriss
    HellYeahItsKriss Posts: 906 Member
    @Christine_72

    ymgq9igj12ib.jpg

    its basically a big dessert pastry and you can get different toppings

    Oh thank Gawd. I had pictures of cute little beavers sans tails all lined up :confounded:

    Nova Scotians are a weird lot.. but i dont think real tails are on the menu...yet.. lol
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    @stevencloser i live in nova scotia but the poverty yucky but beautiful nature part
  • HellYeahItsKriss
    HellYeahItsKriss Posts: 906 Member
    @stevencloser i live in nova scotia but the poverty yucky but beautiful nature part

    lol... dartmouth does remind me of like.. way below poverty lines..
  • Nony_Mouse
    Nony_Mouse Posts: 5,646 Member
    jofjltncb6 wrote: »
    This thread...

    :|

    Jof!! Haven't seen you in forever!
  • blambo61
    blambo61 Posts: 4,372 Member
    edited November 2017
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    Everyone is partially right. A deficit is all that matters in losing weight but what and when you eat effect the deficit. Hormones can cause a person to absorb more or excrete more and can have impacts on hunger which all effect deficits.

    How would it? despite hormones influencing hunger cues, that person still makes the choice to eat. Also, if someone does have a medical condition that impacts the food they need not consume, such as PCOS then after being diagnosed by a doctor, they would then know this and choose an appropriate lifestyle choice. However, no matter if they choose to ignore that lifestyle choice or if someone is choosing to eat from hunger cues, the food they pick or the time of day in which they eat that food does not matter, if my hormones were screaming at me to eat chocolate at 3am it is not set in stone that i have to, cravings actually can be ignored for one, a lot of people find that hard to do but it is something people can do, they also have a choice on how much of it they want to consume if they can't ignore it, if they choose to sit there and eat 5 chocolate bars and use their entire days worth of calories, thats on them then, hormones may cause the strong desire but again they can be ignored.

    deficit is deficit. You choose to keep your deficit or eat it. Paying attention to your own body helps plan ahead and use your calories more wisely so you can make sure of that. @blambo61 -- People who claim that they can't lose weight because their hormones cause them to eat and feel hungry are simply using that as an excuse, otherwise everyone with a hormone imbalance would just forever be fat, but plenty of people have successfully lost weight even with hormone issues, it takes patience to find the math that will get you there and it takes awareness of how you need to plan, and it takes strategy to find the lifestyle that will best help you but if you are just going to throw in the white towel, don't blame the food picked, hormones or the sun or the moon being in the sky for it, you still make conscious choices in the end and if you plan right, the time of day and choice of food makes no difference.

    People can choose but it is much easier if you don't feel like your starving all them time. How many of the "only CICO matters" crowd has yo-yo dieted and gained weight back? I bet a significant percentage. Why, because it is difficult. Hunger influences on eating should not be completely ignored.

    The failure rate for almost diets is like 80-90%. And there is no CICO diet.

    This. I'm a contributor to those statistics. I'm perfectly capable of losing weight with enough incentive, but was never able to sustain the loss. The reason was the same every time - I would reach my goal weight, then continue losing because that's all I knew how to do. At some point I would break, and pile all the weight back on.

    I'm at goal weight again, (thanks in great part to these forums). I lost by eating the same foods I ate when I was gaining, but controlling portions (calories). By not having restricted myself to a food plan that didn't incorporate foods I love and didn't take into account what kinds of food keep me from being hungry all the time, one of the challenges I won't face while maintaining is trying to continue eating in a way that I don't find satisfying while losing the incentive of seeing the downward trend on the scale. I think this is possibly the single biggest contributor to regaining after weight loss.

    I've only dieted twice. I've tried losing weight by running numerous times (didn't work cause would get sick or injured and eat back calories). First time I dieted, I ate a big breakfast, only ate fruit tell dinner, then ate a small dinner. I did exercise also. That diet was very hard for me because I would get very hungry during the day. Once I eat, my body wants more. I lost about 40-lbs on that but then got injured, couldn't run for a few months and it was just too hard. 6-months later I gained it all back.

    The second time, I did 20:4 IF and ate ad libitum in the evenings and allowed deserts after eating good food. I lost 45-lbs in 4-months, then I went to a 16:8 and maintained for the next 1-year (I did gain back 10-lbs twice and went back to 20:4 each time to lose it again). Then I found if I ate just a salad at lunch and then ate ad libitum in the evenings, and exercise, I would maintain. I maintained for 7 or so more months without gaining doing that. Then recently I got back into the 20:4 routine for 3-months and have dropped another 15-lbs. My SW was 252 and I'm at about 195 right now. I think that is good that I'm at my lowest after starting 2yr and 2-months ago. IF works for me. I'm sure it doesn't for a lot of people but eating tell full is crucial for me for sustainability therefore I need to wait to eat or I will eat too much. Fasting is fairly easy for me but eating small meals and never getting full is hell for me.

    Great! You found something that works for you personally, based on your preferences and lifestyle. IF is a good fit for you, as it helps you sustain the calorie deficit needed to lose weight. It may not be a good fit for others, nor does it offer an advantage over other options used to create a calorie deficit. I'm not sure why you keep trying to extrapolate something that you've found success with into something that offers an advantage over other methods of creating a calorie deficit to achieve the CI<CO result of the equation.


    Did you notice I said, "I'm sure it doesn't for a lot of people..." referring to IF working for people (for various reasons, the biggest probably being hunger for some). I'm not sure why I get attacked with the opposite of what I write. I disagree that there are no advantages both from a hunger perspective and also for just generating a deficit on the same calories eaten (spread out or not). If you don't believe that, fine. I've NEVER said counting calories won't work and I've never said that IF or KETO is necessary. Of course any benefit from IF or KETO can be overcome by eating too much. It is an energy balance equation and the main factors are what you put in your mouth and how much activity you do, but hunger, due to hormones can cause you to eat more and any metabolic advantage with IF and KETO would be a small advantage. That should get people so riled I would think.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,373 MFP Moderator
    blambo61 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    mph323 wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    blambo61 wrote: »
    Everyone is partially right. A deficit is all that matters in losing weight but what and when you eat effect the deficit. Hormones can cause a person to absorb more or excrete more and can have impacts on hunger which all effect deficits.

    How would it? despite hormones influencing hunger cues, that person still makes the choice to eat. Also, if someone does have a medical condition that impacts the food they need not consume, such as PCOS then after being diagnosed by a doctor, they would then know this and choose an appropriate lifestyle choice. However, no matter if they choose to ignore that lifestyle choice or if someone is choosing to eat from hunger cues, the food they pick or the time of day in which they eat that food does not matter, if my hormones were screaming at me to eat chocolate at 3am it is not set in stone that i have to, cravings actually can be ignored for one, a lot of people find that hard to do but it is something people can do, they also have a choice on how much of it they want to consume if they can't ignore it, if they choose to sit there and eat 5 chocolate bars and use their entire days worth of calories, thats on them then, hormones may cause the strong desire but again they can be ignored.

    deficit is deficit. You choose to keep your deficit or eat it. Paying attention to your own body helps plan ahead and use your calories more wisely so you can make sure of that. @blambo61 -- People who claim that they can't lose weight because their hormones cause them to eat and feel hungry are simply using that as an excuse, otherwise everyone with a hormone imbalance would just forever be fat, but plenty of people have successfully lost weight even with hormone issues, it takes patience to find the math that will get you there and it takes awareness of how you need to plan, and it takes strategy to find the lifestyle that will best help you but if you are just going to throw in the white towel, don't blame the food picked, hormones or the sun or the moon being in the sky for it, you still make conscious choices in the end and if you plan right, the time of day and choice of food makes no difference.

    People can choose but it is much easier if you don't feel like your starving all them time. How many of the "only CICO matters" crowd has yo-yo dieted and gained weight back? I bet a significant percentage. Why, because it is difficult. Hunger influences on eating should not be completely ignored.

    The failure rate for almost diets is like 80-90%. And there is no CICO diet.

    This. I'm a contributor to those statistics. I'm perfectly capable of losing weight with enough incentive, but was never able to sustain the loss. The reason was the same every time - I would reach my goal weight, then continue losing because that's all I knew how to do. At some point I would break, and pile all the weight back on.

    I'm at goal weight again, (thanks in great part to these forums). I lost by eating the same foods I ate when I was gaining, but controlling portions (calories). By not having restricted myself to a food plan that didn't incorporate foods I love and didn't take into account what kinds of food keep me from being hungry all the time, one of the challenges I won't face while maintaining is trying to continue eating in a way that I don't find satisfying while losing the incentive of seeing the downward trend on the scale. I think this is possibly the single biggest contributor to regaining after weight loss.

    I've only dieted twice. I've tried losing weight by running numerous times (didn't work cause would get sick or injured and eat back calories). First time I dieted, I ate a big breakfast, only ate fruit tell dinner, then ate a small dinner. I did exercise also. That diet was very hard for me because I would get very hungry during the day. Once I eat, my body wants more. I lost about 40-lbs on that but then got injured, couldn't run for a few months and it was just too hard. 6-months later I gained it all back.

    The second time, I did 20:4 IF and ate ad libitum in the evenings and allowed deserts after eating good food. I lost 45-lbs in 4-months, then I went to a 16:8 and maintained for the next 1-year (I did gain back 10-lbs twice and went back to 20:4 each time to lose it again). Then I found if I ate just a salad at lunch and then ate ad libitum in the evenings, and exercise, I would maintain. I maintained for 7 or so more months without gaining doing that. Then recently I got back into the 20:4 routine for 3-months and have dropped another 15-lbs. My SW was 252 and I'm at about 195 right now. I think that is good that I'm at my lowest after starting 2yr and 2-months ago. IF works for me. I'm sure it doesn't for a lot of people but eating tell full is crucial for me for sustainability therefore I need to wait to eat or I will eat too much. Fasting is fairly easy for me but eating small meals and never getting full is hell for me.

    Great! You found something that works for you personally, based on your preferences and lifestyle. IF is a good fit for you, as it helps you sustain the calorie deficit needed to lose weight. It may not be a good fit for others, nor does it offer an advantage over other options used to create a calorie deficit. I'm not sure why you keep trying to extrapolate something that you've found success with into something that offers an advantage over other methods of creating a calorie deficit to achieve the CI<CO result of the equation.


    Did you notice I said, "I'm sure it doesn't for a lot of people..." referring to IF working for people (for various reasons, the biggest probably being hunger for some). I'm not sure why I get attacked with the opposite of what I write. I disagree that there are no advantages both from a hunger perspective and also for just generating a deficit on the same calories eaten (spread out or not). If you don't believe that, fine. I've NEVER said counting calories won't work and I've never said that IF or KETO is necessary. Of course any benefit from IF or KETO can be overcome by eating too much. It is an energy balance equation and the main factors are what you put in your mouth and how much activity you do, but hunger, due to hormones can cause you to eat more and any metabolic advantage with IF and KETO would be a small advantage. That should get people so riled I would think.

    So ill ask you what no one has been able to answer, what hormonal changes are negated by doing keto or IF that dont naturally occur while in a deficit (i.e., letpin levels decrease)?

    If anything from a muscle development or sustainment side those diets would be counter productive. More frequent protein consumption (~25 to 30g) drives MPS. And its easier to consume adequate protein (1.5g to 2.2g/kg) when its not in one or two meals (it can still be done by many can struggle). Being glycogen depleted on top of that requires higher protein levels (some studies ahow up to 2.8g/kg) in leaner individuals. Anearobic capacity is inhibited in most people; there are definitely exceptions with some fat adapted individuals.

    And coming from 16:8, i just didnt see any added benefits outside of my normal 3 or 4 meals a day. I only saw downsides (starving). So if there was a theoritical benefits, i didnt experience it.
This discussion has been closed.