A Question About Sugar
Replies
-
Oh Tappy, Tappy....Are the soda producers not paying you off anymore? Your literature reviews holding fructose innocent of metabolic damage are losing steam...A more recent review by the writer of your literature review:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22795319
"In humans, there is strong evidence, based on several intervention trials, that fructose overfeeding increases fasting and postprandial plasma triglyceride concentrations, which are related to stimulation of hepatic de novo lipogenesis and VLDL-TG secretion, together with decreased VLDL-TG clearance."
" In humans, a short-term fructose overfeeding stimulates de novo lipogenesis and significantly increases intrahepatic fat concentration"
The only defence Tappy can find for fructose is that we have not yet had intense clinical trials long enough (i.e. more than a few weeks) to show that the liver fat caused by fructose will eventually cause non-alcoholic liver disease (but studies to date indicate that is a logical conclusion).
I'm not saying that sugar is the devil. It can be a part of a healthy diet. However, if you are looking for a place to cut calories, losing added sugars can help people get into a deficit without sacrificing nutrition. Also, when not exercising, losing all-over fat while adding on to visceral fat (which fructose over-consumption leads to) will lead to a proportionally larger waistline, with the associated aesthetic and health implications
Side note - exercise targets visceral fat, which is why I don`t understand why everyone insists on saying you don`t need to exercise to lose fat. I mean, yes, you will lose weight, but the aesthetic, morale, and health benefits of exercise are such that I prefer to lose weight by exercise than by calorie tracking - both is just faster. But that`s just what works for me, so I don`t recommend it to anyone else.
Personally, what I find funny about your link is the below. And considering the majority of the recommendations is to find a balanced diet. What's even more ironic even your own link will back what I am saying. I have highlighted the important part.
"However, in contrast to animal models, fructose intakes as high as 200 g/day in humans only modestly decreases hepatic insulin sensitivity, and has no effect on no whole body (muscle) insulin sensitivity. A possible explanation may be that insulin resistance and dysglycemia develop mostly in presence of sustained fructose exposures associated with changes in body composition. Such effects are observed with high daily fructose intakes, and there is no solid evidence that fructose, when consumed in moderate amounts, has deleterious effects."
I would also like to point out that 200g of straight fructose is more than the average person would eat. And that is exactly the issue with all of these studies.. they go so outside the realm of what a typical human would have.
I think Alan Alagon has a good discussion regarding fructose:
"In the single human study I’m aware of that linked fructose to a greater next-day appetite in a subset of the subjects, 30% of total daily energy intake was in the form of free fructose [12]. This amounts to 135 grams, which is the equivalent of 6-7 non-diet soft drinks. Is it really that groundbreaking to think that polishing off a half-dozen soft drinks per day is not a good idea? Demonizing fructose without mentioning the dose-dependent nature of its effects is intellectually dishonest. Like anything else, fructose consumed in gross chronic excess can lead to problems, while moderate amounts are neutral, and in some cases beneficial [13-15]."
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/
I think I would explode if I ate 200g of fructose. I don't think she realizes the ridiculous amount of fruit that would be.
I wasn't talking about fructose and insulin, I was talking about the body turning excess sugar into fat at intakes less than 1000g/day (an argument against tigerswords claim.)
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/6/1253S.full
" Fifty-gram preloads of fructose and glucose had a differential effect on buffet test meal intake when administered 2 h before lunch. In these experiments, fructose reduced intake by 500 kcal (2092 kJ) more than did glucose and by 200 kcal (837 kJ) relative to a water preload, suggesting an overall appetite suppressive effect of fructose."
"The gastric emptying of fructose is more rapid and less linear. Emptying does slow with increasing fructose concentration, but the overall rate of delivery of fructose from the stomach to the intestine is almost twice as rapid as with glucose"
Fructose (by itself) does not lead to over eating. Fructose is more satisfying than glucose. The effect of eating glucose and fructose together is that the glucose lowers satisfaction, making over-consumption of fructose easier. Fructose is then digested faster than glucose, and deposited as fat in the liver. In fruit, the low amount of fructose (but higher percentage vrs glucose) plus the fiber (and other helpful micronutrients) help the dieter to be satisfied with less calories. Also, the fiber and low initial amout of sugar (10g total in the apple I looked up, 6 from fructose - I don't know where the author of your opinion piece got his totals but they are off) mean that the energy is more likely to be digested at the same rate it is needed, so less is stored, as compared to a 41g sugar (23 g fructose) can of pop.
200 g of fructose is a ridiculous amount of fruit. The 135 g that would be almost 6 cans of pop a day referenced in your article actually happens out there. I know at least two people who drank that much. One stopped drinking pop and lost 30 pounds, without exercise or logging calories.
What I find interesting about your article, is it recommends a maximum of 50 grams of sugar a day (except for athletes), about the MFP recommendation that everyone is telling OP to ignore. Happy New Year
If excess fructose gets converted into fat on a 1000 calorie diet and the person burns 2000 calories per day, what reserves will the body pull the energy it needs from?
The people you know that cut the 6 cans of soda a day and lost weight lost it because the elimination of soda reduced the caloric intake overall not because it was fructose. That would be almost 800 calories. An 800 calorie reduction of any combination of macronutrients would result in weight loss.
The fructose gets turned into fat that is stored in the liver. If the person burns the 2000 calories from BMR - no exercise calories, then the fat that is burned (1000 calories/day) is taken from all over the body. The dieter could end up with extra fat in the liver, while losing all-over fat (not all the newly-stored fat gets burned). Increased organ fat can lead to a variety of health issues.
My point is, that if someone needs to cut calories in thier diet, reducing added sugars is a way to do it without sacrificing essential nutrients (as they would if they stopped eating whole fruits.), and may eventually lead to fewer cravings, resulting in better dietary adherence.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
In this context, I was referring to all foods that are very nutrient-dense, with no low-nutrient dense foods. My appetite would be very different if I only ate foods such as apples, broccoli, chicken, spinach, fish vs adding foods such as cookies, chips, etc. to that.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
what the hell does eating clean have to do with appetite?
what is clean eating anyway?
once again, your forecast is wrong.
I think you misinterpreted what I posted.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
In this context, I was referring to all foods that are very nutrient-dense, with no low-nutrient dense foods. My appetite would be very different if I only ate foods such as apples, broccoli, chicken, spinach, fish vs adding foods such as cookies, chips, etc. to that.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
what the hell does eating clean have to do with appetite?
what is clean eating anyway?
once again, your forecast is wrong.
I think you misinterpreted what I posted.
no, what you posted is hogwash.
typical.
-1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Explain. Because I thought this is the whole reason why you don't recommend people eat nothing but chicken breast, broccoli, brown rice, and the like when bulking.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In this context, I was referring to all foods that are very nutrient-dense, with no low-nutrient dense foods. My appetite would be very different if I only ate foods such as apples, broccoli, chicken, spinach, fish vs adding foods such as cookies, chips, etc. to that.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
what the hell does eating clean have to do with appetite?
what is clean eating anyway?
once again, your forecast is wrong.
I think you misinterpreted what I posted.
no, what you posted is hogwash.
typical.
0 -
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?
If the tdee and deficit are the same, regardless of the composition of the diet, the loss will be the same. Its ridiculous to try to use extreme examples because no one eats that ways.
Now if you want to show me a metabolic ward study that can prove me wrong please do. But i do know that different foods have different impacts on composition and TEF.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
the study itself says "the sample size is too small to generalize to a larger population" so throw that one out.
0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »But what would the studies be implying exactly? That some calories contain more calories than others?
That the different foods had a different effect on the hormones, biochemistry etc and consequently resulted in different outcomes. To take one random example a 40% carbohydrate meal results in a large post-prandial increase in glucagon whereas a 64% carbohydrate meal with the same energy value results in a decrease in glucagon for some hours. These two situations may not have the same outcome in energy terms.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10578211 showed different REE values on two diets, so the same calories in would not give the same calorie deficit, and so on.
Higher protein requires more energy to digest it, so a higher proportion of that in the food means a higher energy expenditure and hence potentially more weight loss for a given energy input.
An energy balance always applies, but a human isn't a heat exchanger so the variable "energy in" is but part of the story.
But it's still CICO. I'm not seeing how this principle is being challenged just because the "calories out" part of the equation, assuming for sake of argument, increased to some degree for subjects on a HP diet.
If the folks doing the high carb diet compensated for the bonus burn of the HP group by jumping rope or decreasing their Calorie intake to attain the same deficit, wouldn't the outcome be the same then? Or if the HP group compensated for their bonus burn by consuming more calories (which seems to be the BIG SELL of HP diets anyway) to maintain the deficit at the outset then would not the outcome be the same?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Explain. Because I thought this is the whole reason why you don't recommend people eat nothing but chicken breast, broccoli, brown rice, and the like when bulking.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In this context, I was referring to all foods that are very nutrient-dense, with no low-nutrient dense foods. My appetite would be very different if I only ate foods such as apples, broccoli, chicken, spinach, fish vs adding foods such as cookies, chips, etc. to that.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
what the hell does eating clean have to do with appetite?
what is clean eating anyway?
once again, your forecast is wrong.
I think you misinterpreted what I posted.
no, what you posted is hogwash.
typical.
because one will find it almost impossible to reach 3000 calories on broccoli, chicken, and rice because they are not calorie dense…
that has nothing to do with an individuals appetite.0 -
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?
If the tdee and deficit are the same, regardless of the composition of the diet, the loss will be the same. Its ridiculous to try to use extreme examples because no one eats that ways.
Now if you want to show me a metabolic ward study that can prove me wrong please do. But i do know that different foods have different impacts on composition and TEF.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
the study itself says "the sample size is too small to generalize to a larger population" so throw that one out.
Also, it wasn't a metabolic ward study. The calories were adjusted so the participants would maintain their weight throughout the study. The study was about insulin sensitivity and gaining/losing weight affects insulin sensitivity. Therefore, the study authors had to adjust their diets to take weight change out as being a factor in insulin sensitivity improvements.
ETA: the caloric needs were calculated using Mifflin-St. Jeor Equation. Basically, a rough estimate of caloric needs that anyone would need to adjust over time to get the right number. Some online TDEE calculators use this equation.0 -
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?
If the tdee and deficit are the same, regardless of the composition of the diet, the loss will be the same. Its ridiculous to try to use extreme examples because no one eats that ways.
Now if you want to show me a metabolic ward study that can prove me wrong please do. But i do know that different foods have different impacts on composition and TEF.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
the study itself says "the sample size is too small to generalize to a larger population" so throw that one out.
Also, it wasn't a metabolic ward study. The calories were adjusted so the participants would maintain their weight throughout the study. The study was about insulin sensitivity and gaining/losing weight affects insulin sensitivity. Therefore, the study authors had to adjust their diets to take weight change out as being a factor in insulin sensitivity improvements.
I missed that part…but I just skimmed the conclusions as I did not feel like digging into another garbage study from Kyta…:)-2 -
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?
No. The 'calories' from insoluble fibre mostly won't be absorbed (apart from a little by colonic salvage), so it's not an example of yarwell's alternatives. In fact there are technically no calories in insoluble fibre and I doubt it would be possible to consume such a diet.
I don't think that you understand what insoluble fibre is.
0 -
JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
I thought CEO's of software companies would know that….
Exactly. A car might run better on higher-grade gas, but it will still get you from point A to point b with the regular, cheapest kind most people buy. It's doing exactly what it should, as is a body in a calorie deficit.
I agree for a human being to be obese (30 or > BMI) there is one or more known or unknown medical condition before a body with want to be that heavy. There are many more hormones at play than just Vitamin D3 sends signals to the brain that correctly controls our body weight in people with no medical conditions.
People are not obese because they are lazy and eat too much. When we develop medical conditions that sap our energy or at least in my case when my energy went down I moved less and ate more to "get my energy up" but I just got fatter and had less energy.
A six month old baby is not obese because they are lazy and eat too much. They have a medical condition. No six year old obese kid wants to be obese. They have a medical condition.
I grew up on a farm and our herd of adult cows weighed about 1000 pounds each. Some were more thin and some were more thick. In all those years we never had that first cow get to 2000, 3000 or 4000 pounds.
For a 150 pound 15 year old boy to get to 300 later in life happens all of the time in humans now unlike 100 years ago.
A scientist will ask WHY will a human become morbid obese and for it to be happening around the globe at the same time?
Being obese is not 'normal' or the desire of the obese person. I think obese people did not start out as fat and lazy kids but something changed/went wrong with their health.
0 -
Why would it be hard for someone to just eat large quantities of all those foods to reach 3000 calories? I know for me personally, I would be too stuffed to try to reach 3000 calories eating only those type foods. Not entirely sure, but I would guess after 1800 calories I'd feel pretty full from eating only those foods. But eating how I normally eat, I wouldn't feel pretty full until about 2300 calories. How is my appetite not involved in any of this?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Explain. Because I thought this is the whole reason why you don't recommend people eat nothing but chicken breast, broccoli, brown rice, and the like when bulking.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In this context, I was referring to all foods that are very nutrient-dense, with no low-nutrient dense foods. My appetite would be very different if I only ate foods such as apples, broccoli, chicken, spinach, fish vs adding foods such as cookies, chips, etc. to that.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
what the hell does eating clean have to do with appetite?
what is clean eating anyway?
once again, your forecast is wrong.
I think you misinterpreted what I posted.
no, what you posted is hogwash.
typical.
because one will find it almost impossible to reach 3000 calories on broccoli, chicken, and rice because they are not calorie dense…
that has nothing to do with an individuals appetite.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
I thought CEO's of software companies would know that….
Exactly. A car might run better on higher-grade gas, but it will still get you from point A to point b with the regular, cheapest kind most people buy. It's doing exactly what it should, as is a body in a calorie deficit.
I agree for a human being to be obese (30 or > BMI) there is one or more known or unknown medical condition before a body with want to be that heavy. There are many more hormones at play than just Vitamin D3 sends signals to the brain that correctly controls our body weight in people with no medical conditions.
People are not obese because they are lazy and eat too much. When we develop medical conditions that sap our energy or at least in my case when my energy went down I moved less and ate more to "get my energy up" but I just got fatter and had less energy.
A six month old baby is not obese because they are lazy and eat too much. They have a medical condition. No six year old obese kid wants to be obese. They have a medical condition.
I grew up on a farm and our herd of adult cows weighed about 1000 pounds each. Some were more thin and some were more thick. In all those years we never had that first cow get to 2000, 3000 or 4000 pounds.
For a 150 pound 15 year old boy to get to 300 later in life happens all of the time in humans now unlike 100 years ago.
A scientist will ask WHY will a human become morbid obese and for it to be happening around the globe at the same time?
Being obese is not 'normal' or the desire of the obese person. I think obese people did not start out as fat and lazy kids but something changed/went wrong with their health.
so every single obese person has a medical condition, really?
sorry but some people are just lazy and over eat…
I put on 50 pounds because I liked to eat too much food and sit on the couch, I did not have a medical condition ...0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Why would it be hard for someone to just eat large quantities of all those foods to reach 3000 calories? I know for me personally, I would be too stuffed to try to reach 3000 calories eating only those type foods. Not entirely sure, but I would guess after 1800 calories I'd feel pretty full from eating only those foods. But eating how I normally eat, I wouldn't feel pretty full until about 2300 calories. How is my appetite not involved in any of this?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Explain. Because I thought this is the whole reason why you don't recommend people eat nothing but chicken breast, broccoli, brown rice, and the like when bulking.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In this context, I was referring to all foods that are very nutrient-dense, with no low-nutrient dense foods. My appetite would be very different if I only ate foods such as apples, broccoli, chicken, spinach, fish vs adding foods such as cookies, chips, etc. to that.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
what the hell does eating clean have to do with appetite?
what is clean eating anyway?
once again, your forecast is wrong.
I think you misinterpreted what I posted.
no, what you posted is hogwash.
typical.
because one will find it almost impossible to reach 3000 calories on broccoli, chicken, and rice because they are not calorie dense…
that has nothing to do with an individuals appetite.
because CICO and appetite is like comparing apples and oranges
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
I thought CEO's of software companies would know that….
Exactly. A car might run better on higher-grade gas, but it will still get you from point A to point b with the regular, cheapest kind most people buy. It's doing exactly what it should, as is a body in a calorie deficit.
I agree for a human being to be obese (30 or > BMI) there is one or more known or unknown medical condition before a body with want to be that heavy. There are many more hormones at play than just Vitamin D3 sends signals to the brain that correctly controls our body weight in people with no medical conditions.
People are not obese because they are lazy and eat too much. When we develop medical conditions that sap our energy or at least in my case when my energy went down I moved less and ate more to "get my energy up" but I just got fatter and had less energy.
A six month old baby is not obese because they are lazy and eat too much. They have a medical condition. No six year old obese kid wants to be obese. They have a medical condition.
I grew up on a farm and our herd of adult cows weighed about 1000 pounds each. Some were more thin and some were more thick. In all those years we never had that first cow get to 2000, 3000 or 4000 pounds.
For a 150 pound 15 year old boy to get to 300 later in life happens all of the time in humans now unlike 100 years ago.
A scientist will ask WHY will a human become morbid obese and for it to be happening around the globe at the same time?
Being obese is not 'normal' or the desire of the obese person. I think obese people did not start out as fat and lazy kids but something changed/went wrong with their health.
As someone who actually has medical conditions, I am so beyond aggravated by you saying every obese person is obese because they have a medical condition. That's utter *kitten*.
It's because of people like you who try to blame every obese persons obesity on a medical condition, that those who actually do have a medical condition that caused them to gain weight, are overlooked and people look at them like they have 5 heads when they say "I gained weight because of _______."
Most people are obese because they are inactive and eat too much. Don't try to blame everyone's obesity on a medical condition when that is not the case.-1 -
This content has been removed.
-
As I said several posts back, I did not mean CICO but simply CI. I know perfectly well that appetite has no direct bearing on CO, but I didn't think when I initially said "CICO".ForecasterJason wrote: »
Why would it be hard for someone to just eat large quantities of all those foods to reach 3000 calories? I know for me personally, I would be too stuffed to try to reach 3000 calories eating only those type foods. Not entirely sure, but I would guess after 1800 calories I'd feel pretty full from eating only those foods. But eating how I normally eat, I wouldn't feel pretty full until about 2300 calories. How is my appetite not involved in any of this?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Explain. Because I thought this is the whole reason why you don't recommend people eat nothing but chicken breast, broccoli, brown rice, and the like when bulking.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In this context, I was referring to all foods that are very nutrient-dense, with no low-nutrient dense foods. My appetite would be very different if I only ate foods such as apples, broccoli, chicken, spinach, fish vs adding foods such as cookies, chips, etc. to that.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
what the hell does eating clean have to do with appetite?
what is clean eating anyway?
once again, your forecast is wrong.
I think you misinterpreted what I posted.
no, what you posted is hogwash.
typical.
because one will find it almost impossible to reach 3000 calories on broccoli, chicken, and rice because they are not calorie dense…
that has nothing to do with an individuals appetite.
That has nothing to do with CICO. It's hunger levels. Is that really that complicated that you can't understand it? Appetite has nothing to do with CICO. If I wanted to I could eat 4000 calories every day. But I choose not to because I would no longer be in a deficit. There have been many concepts that you can't grasp but this one really is ridiculous. Are you being intentionally obtuse? Just because you are not hungry doesn't mean CICO is not valid. It is valid. You aren't hungry. You refused to get you calories high enough. That is precisely why you don't gain weight. It's not because your body works different. It's because you don't push CI above CO. I mean seriously, it's not complicated.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
I thought CEO's of software companies would know that….
Exactly. A car might run better on higher-grade gas, but it will still get you from point A to point b with the regular, cheapest kind most people buy. It's doing exactly what it should, as is a body in a calorie deficit.
I agree for a human being to be obese (30 or > BMI) there is one or more known or unknown medical condition before a body with want to be that heavy. There are many more hormones at play than just Vitamin D3 sends signals to the brain that correctly controls our body weight in people with no medical conditions.
People are not obese because they are lazy and eat too much. When we develop medical conditions that sap our energy or at least in my case when my energy went down I moved less and ate more to "get my energy up" but I just got fatter and had less energy.
A six month old baby is not obese because they are lazy and eat too much. They have a medical condition. No six year old obese kid wants to be obese. They have a medical condition.
I grew up on a farm and our herd of adult cows weighed about 1000 pounds each. Some were more thin and some were more thick. In all those years we never had that first cow get to 2000, 3000 or 4000 pounds.
For a 150 pound 15 year old boy to get to 300 later in life happens all of the time in humans now unlike 100 years ago.
A scientist will ask WHY will a human become morbid obese and for it to be happening around the globe at the same time?
Being obese is not 'normal' or the desire of the obese person. I think obese people did not start out as fat and lazy kids but something changed/went wrong with their health.
Oh, this is just hogwash. I have medical conditions. I simply ate too much and never moved.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
As I said several posts back, I did not mean CICO but simply CI. I know perfectly well that appetite has no direct bearing on CO, but I didn't think when I initially said "CICO".ForecasterJason wrote: »
Why would it be hard for someone to just eat large quantities of all those foods to reach 3000 calories? I know for me personally, I would be too stuffed to try to reach 3000 calories eating only those type foods. Not entirely sure, but I would guess after 1800 calories I'd feel pretty full from eating only those foods. But eating how I normally eat, I wouldn't feel pretty full until about 2300 calories. How is my appetite not involved in any of this?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Explain. Because I thought this is the whole reason why you don't recommend people eat nothing but chicken breast, broccoli, brown rice, and the like when bulking.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In this context, I was referring to all foods that are very nutrient-dense, with no low-nutrient dense foods. My appetite would be very different if I only ate foods such as apples, broccoli, chicken, spinach, fish vs adding foods such as cookies, chips, etc. to that.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
what the hell does eating clean have to do with appetite?
what is clean eating anyway?
once again, your forecast is wrong.
I think you misinterpreted what I posted.
no, what you posted is hogwash.
typical.
because one will find it almost impossible to reach 3000 calories on broccoli, chicken, and rice because they are not calorie dense…
that has nothing to do with an individuals appetite.
That has nothing to do with CICO. It's hunger levels. Is that really that complicated that you can't understand it? Appetite has nothing to do with CICO. If I wanted to I could eat 4000 calories every day. But I choose not to because I would no longer be in a deficit. There have been many concepts that you can't grasp but this one really is ridiculous. Are you being intentionally obtuse? Just because you are not hungry doesn't mean CICO is not valid. It is valid. You aren't hungry. You refused to get you calories high enough. That is precisely why you don't gain weight. It's not because your body works different. It's because you don't push CI above CO. I mean seriously, it's not complicated.
why would it affect CI…the calculation is still the same regardless of appetite. If you need to eat 3000 to gain it is 3000 whether you are hungry all the time or not..
again - apples and oranges…
0 -
Right, but if you're not that hungry, you may only eat 2800, which in this example is either deficit or maintenance. Is that not CI (calories in)?ForecasterJason wrote: »
As I said several posts back, I did not mean CICO but simply CI. I know perfectly well that appetite has no direct bearing on CO, but I didn't think when I initially said "CICO".ForecasterJason wrote: »
Why would it be hard for someone to just eat large quantities of all those foods to reach 3000 calories? I know for me personally, I would be too stuffed to try to reach 3000 calories eating only those type foods. Not entirely sure, but I would guess after 1800 calories I'd feel pretty full from eating only those foods. But eating how I normally eat, I wouldn't feel pretty full until about 2300 calories. How is my appetite not involved in any of this?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Explain. Because I thought this is the whole reason why you don't recommend people eat nothing but chicken breast, broccoli, brown rice, and the like when bulking.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In this context, I was referring to all foods that are very nutrient-dense, with no low-nutrient dense foods. My appetite would be very different if I only ate foods such as apples, broccoli, chicken, spinach, fish vs adding foods such as cookies, chips, etc. to that.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
what the hell does eating clean have to do with appetite?
what is clean eating anyway?
once again, your forecast is wrong.
I think you misinterpreted what I posted.
no, what you posted is hogwash.
typical.
because one will find it almost impossible to reach 3000 calories on broccoli, chicken, and rice because they are not calorie dense…
that has nothing to do with an individuals appetite.
That has nothing to do with CICO. It's hunger levels. Is that really that complicated that you can't understand it? Appetite has nothing to do with CICO. If I wanted to I could eat 4000 calories every day. But I choose not to because I would no longer be in a deficit. There have been many concepts that you can't grasp but this one really is ridiculous. Are you being intentionally obtuse? Just because you are not hungry doesn't mean CICO is not valid. It is valid. You aren't hungry. You refused to get you calories high enough. That is precisely why you don't gain weight. It's not because your body works different. It's because you don't push CI above CO. I mean seriously, it's not complicated.
why would it affect CI…the calculation is still the same regardless of appetite. If you need to eat 3000 to gain it is 3000 whether you are hungry all the time or not..
again - apples and oranges…
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Right, but if you're not that hungry, you may only eat 2800, which in this example is either deficit or maintenance. Is that not CI (calories in)?ForecasterJason wrote: »
As I said several posts back, I did not mean CICO but simply CI. I know perfectly well that appetite has no direct bearing on CO, but I didn't think when I initially said "CICO".ForecasterJason wrote: »
Why would it be hard for someone to just eat large quantities of all those foods to reach 3000 calories? I know for me personally, I would be too stuffed to try to reach 3000 calories eating only those type foods. Not entirely sure, but I would guess after 1800 calories I'd feel pretty full from eating only those foods. But eating how I normally eat, I wouldn't feel pretty full until about 2300 calories. How is my appetite not involved in any of this?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Explain. Because I thought this is the whole reason why you don't recommend people eat nothing but chicken breast, broccoli, brown rice, and the like when bulking.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In this context, I was referring to all foods that are very nutrient-dense, with no low-nutrient dense foods. My appetite would be very different if I only ate foods such as apples, broccoli, chicken, spinach, fish vs adding foods such as cookies, chips, etc. to that.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
what the hell does eating clean have to do with appetite?
what is clean eating anyway?
once again, your forecast is wrong.
I think you misinterpreted what I posted.
no, what you posted is hogwash.
typical.
because one will find it almost impossible to reach 3000 calories on broccoli, chicken, and rice because they are not calorie dense…
that has nothing to do with an individuals appetite.
That has nothing to do with CICO. It's hunger levels. Is that really that complicated that you can't understand it? Appetite has nothing to do with CICO. If I wanted to I could eat 4000 calories every day. But I choose not to because I would no longer be in a deficit. There have been many concepts that you can't grasp but this one really is ridiculous. Are you being intentionally obtuse? Just because you are not hungry doesn't mean CICO is not valid. It is valid. You aren't hungry. You refused to get you calories high enough. That is precisely why you don't gain weight. It's not because your body works different. It's because you don't push CI above CO. I mean seriously, it's not complicated.
why would it affect CI…the calculation is still the same regardless of appetite. If you need to eat 3000 to gain it is 3000 whether you are hungry all the time or not..
again - apples and oranges…
No, the FORMULA is still the same. Just because you can't find an extra 200 calories to eat does not change the fact that you need to eat 3000 to gain.
Did your appetite magically make the 3000 number to gain go down?0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Sugar does matter - I am shocked at some of comments here.
Please read this: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/
Fact is - if you eat complex carbohydrates then you will not cause blood sugar spikes to the same degree as eating simple carbohydrates. Eating "sugar" can be a simple as eating something that rates as "high" on the glycemic index (baked potato as an example). If you eat simple carbohydrates, your body will store it as fat very quickly. The storage of fat and excess fat is what is called "inflammation". So eating a simple carb is like eating a packet of sugar - and that will cause your body to store more fat than necessary (or the alternative, eating a complex carb will not store as readily as fat).
I know I can go round and round and whatnot, but I hope this helps. Sugar does matter - it's the type of "sugar" you are eating. Eat complex carbs and avoid refined sugars and any foods that are rated "high" in the glycemic index and you will never have to worry about tracking sugar on this site (or in your life for that matter).
Tell that to my blood glucose meter. My glucose goes up when I eat carbs. It does not matter if they are sugar or starches. What does matter is the mix. If I eat carbs with other nutrients (especially fiber), my glucose goes up, stays up for about 2 hours, then goes down. When I eat carbs without other nutrients, my glucose goes up (generally to a higher number) and starts coming back down within 30 minutes. Both scenarios give me the same average. It is all about the averages which is why diabetics rely on the a1c test, not glucose meter readings, to determine how effective the treatment is. It measures the average blood sugar level over the previous 3 months.
BTW: some of my higher readings have been after a long workout so even exercise can raise blood sugar levels. Should I stop exercising because it raises my blood sugar?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »Sugar does matter - I am shocked at some of comments here.
Please read this: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/
Fact is - if you eat complex carbohydrates then you will not cause blood sugar spikes to the same degree as eating simple carbohydrates. Eating "sugar" can be a simple as eating something that rates as "high" on the glycemic index (baked potato as an example). If you eat simple carbohydrates, your body will store it as fat very quickly. The storage of fat and excess fat is what is called "inflammation". So eating a simple carb is like eating a packet of sugar - and that will cause your body to store more fat than necessary (or the alternative, eating a complex carb will not store as readily as fat).
I know I can go round and round and whatnot, but I hope this helps. Sugar does matter - it's the type of "sugar" you are eating. Eat complex carbs and avoid refined sugars and any foods that are rated "high" in the glycemic index and you will never have to worry about tracking sugar on this site (or in your life for that matter).
Tell that to my blood glucose meter. My glucose goes up when I eat carbs. It does not matter if they are sugar or starches. What does matter is the mix. If I eat carbs with other nutrients (especially fiber), my glucose goes up, stays up for about 2 hours, then goes down. When I eat carbs without other nutrients, my glucose goes up (generally to a higher number) and starts coming back down within 30 minutes. Both scenarios give me the same average. It is all about the averages which is why diabetics rely on the a1c test, not glucose meter readings, to determine how effective the treatment is. It measures the average blood sugar level over the previous 3 months.
BTW: some of my higher readings have been after a long workout so even exercise can raise blood sugar levels. Should I stop exercising because it raises my blood sugar?
Wish I had that "problem"! I'm lucky if my blood glucose is in the 70s after a workout. Usually it's in the 40s or 50s after my workouts
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Right, but if you're not that hungry, you may only eat 2800, which in this example is either deficit or maintenance. Is that not CI (calories in)?ForecasterJason wrote: »
As I said several posts back, I did not mean CICO but simply CI. I know perfectly well that appetite has no direct bearing on CO, but I didn't think when I initially said "CICO".ForecasterJason wrote: »
Why would it be hard for someone to just eat large quantities of all those foods to reach 3000 calories? I know for me personally, I would be too stuffed to try to reach 3000 calories eating only those type foods. Not entirely sure, but I would guess after 1800 calories I'd feel pretty full from eating only those foods. But eating how I normally eat, I wouldn't feel pretty full until about 2300 calories. How is my appetite not involved in any of this?ForecasterJason wrote: »
Explain. Because I thought this is the whole reason why you don't recommend people eat nothing but chicken breast, broccoli, brown rice, and the like when bulking.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In this context, I was referring to all foods that are very nutrient-dense, with no low-nutrient dense foods. My appetite would be very different if I only ate foods such as apples, broccoli, chicken, spinach, fish vs adding foods such as cookies, chips, etc. to that.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Huh? How is appetite not a factor in CICO? As one example, if I were to eat 100% "clean" foods I'd probably be in a caloric deficit, because I would be very full all the time. But I don't eat that way, and as a result I can be in maintenance without feeling stuffed.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Maybe he's referring to the factors that can affect CICO, such as appetite.GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
No sorry. That's not a factor. It's still CICO. That doesn't even make sense.
what the hell does eating clean have to do with appetite?
what is clean eating anyway?
once again, your forecast is wrong.
I think you misinterpreted what I posted.
no, what you posted is hogwash.
typical.
because one will find it almost impossible to reach 3000 calories on broccoli, chicken, and rice because they are not calorie dense…
that has nothing to do with an individuals appetite.
That has nothing to do with CICO. It's hunger levels. Is that really that complicated that you can't understand it? Appetite has nothing to do with CICO. If I wanted to I could eat 4000 calories every day. But I choose not to because I would no longer be in a deficit. There have been many concepts that you can't grasp but this one really is ridiculous. Are you being intentionally obtuse? Just because you are not hungry doesn't mean CICO is not valid. It is valid. You aren't hungry. You refused to get you calories high enough. That is precisely why you don't gain weight. It's not because your body works different. It's because you don't push CI above CO. I mean seriously, it's not complicated.
why would it affect CI…the calculation is still the same regardless of appetite. If you need to eat 3000 to gain it is 3000 whether you are hungry all the time or not..
again - apples and oranges…
No, the FORMULA is still the same. Just because you can't find an extra 200 calories to eat does not change the fact that you need to eat 3000 to gain.
Did your appetite magically make the 3000 number to gain go down?
I don't know man. I'm not sure it's even worth it at this point with him. How hard is it to understand that if 3000 is maintenance and you eat 2800 then 2800 is your CI meaning you are in a deficit. That doesn't mean CICO doesn't work it just means you didn't eat enough to gain weight. Why? Because CI < CO..........you lose weight..........tada CICO works. How many different ways can that be explained. That's the problem with these supposed hard gainers or as they like to call themselves, ectomorphs, they just don't eat enough.
yes, it is time to give up..
I agree …
let just hope the forecaster stays off the gaining thread….-1 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »JoanaMHill wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed."
CICO is a valid concept in a lab setting where an isolated system can be created.
and we have the verdict of the troll account…
so I can only lose weight if I am isolated in a lab??????
I think what he's trying to say is that humans aren't machines so there's no way of knowing exactly how much you burn and eat. That being said, that doesn't invalidate CICO. Just take a look at any of the success threads.
Thanks JoanaMhill. CICO will always be a factor in weight loss.
barring no medical condition, it is the only factor..
I thought CEO's of software companies would know that….
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
Differences in weight achieved through different macro allocations. The "Asian" diet resulted in weight loss while the "Western" diet resulted in weight gain, even though both were delivered at the amount of calories calculated to maintain weight. One of the differences is probably the greater amount of calories from fiber in the Asian diet, according to the study author.
3500 calories = 1 pound only works with fat. Muscle is broken down and built at a different calorie ratio, and requires specific nutrition (how you burn matters, and what you eat matters). 3500 calories = 1 pound does not apply for water or bone mass. CICO works for fat loss/gain, but does not account for all weight changes. It is only one piece of the puzzle
Kyta, there are no calories in fibre as humans lack the enzymes to break down and absorb for conversion to energy. The author did not state that fibre has calories, but may have been suggesting that fibre reduced absorption somewhat, or enhanced satiety or something else. This was a small study with many variables to consider. It doesn't really provide evidence for what you seem to be saying.
0 -
Theortically yes. But the composition of that weight loss will be different.If you read what i wrote on the last page you will understand.
I don't understand and when I suggested two alternative interpretations you didn't help. Let's try again to make it really simple for me :-
Do you believe that the same weight loss will occur from eating the same number of calories irrespective of the composition of those calories ?
a) Yes.
b) No.
So a diet that gets 50% of calories from unsoluble fiber (say, 700 of 1400 calories), would have the same results as one that has no calories coming from fiber?
If the tdee and deficit are the same, regardless of the composition of the diet, the loss will be the same. Its ridiculous to try to use extreme examples because no one eats that ways.
Now if you want to show me a metabolic ward study that can prove me wrong please do. But i do know that different foods have different impacts on composition and TEF.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
the study itself says "the sample size is too small to generalize to a larger population" so throw that one out.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199307013290104
Subjects lost weight eating at libitum on high fiber (up to 3g per 100 calorie) diets over 4 months
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2001.tb07001.x/abstract
Addition of 14 g fiber/day to ad libitum diet (fiber was added to existing calories) resulted in weight loss.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/31/7/1149.full.pdf+html
Men on high fiber diet (12 g/day) excreted twice the amount of ingested energy (an extra 970 calories over a week) than those on a low fiber diet (1 g/day)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/2/346.short
"Plant fibers are the portions of plant foods that are not digested in the human small intestine"
Fiber is a carb that is not used for energy. The calories from fiber (100% for unsoluble fiber and up to 100% of soluble fiber) are not used by the body. A calorie is not a calorie.
Diets with higher percentages of calories from fiber will result in higher losses of fat because fiber calories are not used the way other carbohydrate calories are used. Also, some plant fats are indigestable.
Please post your study proving weight loss is not impacted by macro and fiber content.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions