Real Reasons for Obesity
Options
Replies
-
...cuz the skinny man says so!0
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »msharrington315 wrote: »msharrington315 wrote: »"The people who told us about sun block were the same people who told us, when I was a kid, that eggs were good. So I ate a lot of eggs. Ten years later they said they were bad. I went, "Well, I just ate the eggs!" So I stopped eating eggs, and ten years later they said they were good again! Well, then I ate twice as many, and then they said they were bad. Well, now I'm really *kitten*! Then they said they're good, they're bad, they're good, the whites are good, th-the yellows - make up your mind! It's breakfast I've gotta eat!" - Louis Black
Not seen this particular quote before but I absolutely love it!
I actually heard him say it in one of his stand up routines... It rang so true in my world!
This conflicting information is one of the big reasons I do not always follow what people, including so-called experts, tell me to do. I listen, but I have to find the answers myself. People are fallible. What we once thought to be true at one time, may not be the reality later.
We use to think the world is flat... what makes us think we have all the answers now with weight loss?
Lewis Black is a master of the rant and this was a great skit. The biggest problem is that science tends to progress well in one general direction as more data is received and analyized but the gurus tend to scatter in all directions based on what can be sold to the lay public.
Well put.
At the end of the day, I can tell you that my MIND was the biggest roadblock in my inability to lose weight. Until I accepted that I had to make a lifestyle change, not go on a diet, I would not be able to have sustainable weight loss.
This was my personal journey and it may not be the same for everyone.0 -
I just think it's interesting how weight loss for me became so simple and straightforward, so damned easy, when I discovered (and applied) the concept of CICO to my situation (e.g., used MFP, Fitbit). I am an Atkins veteran and while I did lose weight with Atkins, it was far more labor-intensive than calorie counting.
Added benefit is I now eat a lot more processed carbs and I'm a lot happier, I feel far less deprived.0 -
msharrington315 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »msharrington315 wrote: »msharrington315 wrote: »"The people who told us about sun block were the same people who told us, when I was a kid, that eggs were good. So I ate a lot of eggs. Ten years later they said they were bad. I went, "Well, I just ate the eggs!" So I stopped eating eggs, and ten years later they said they were good again! Well, then I ate twice as many, and then they said they were bad. Well, now I'm really *kitten*! Then they said they're good, they're bad, they're good, the whites are good, th-the yellows - make up your mind! It's breakfast I've gotta eat!" - Louis Black
Not seen this particular quote before but I absolutely love it!
I actually heard him say it in one of his stand up routines... It rang so true in my world!
This conflicting information is one of the big reasons I do not always follow what people, including so-called experts, tell me to do. I listen, but I have to find the answers myself. People are fallible. What we once thought to be true at one time, may not be the reality later.
We use to think the world is flat... what makes us think we have all the answers now with weight loss?
Lewis Black is a master of the rant and this was a great skit. The biggest problem is that science tends to progress well in one general direction as more data is received and analyized but the gurus tend to scatter in all directions based on what can be sold to the lay public.
Well put.
At the end of the day, I can tell you that my MIND was the biggest roadblock in my inability to lose weight. Until I accepted that I had to make a lifestyle change, not go on a diet, I would not be able to have sustainable weight loss.
This was my personal journey and it may not be the same for everyone.
It rarely is the same for any two people. We all need to find what works for us and that can be sustained for the long run. It's really not that complicated in theory by the difficulty in practice is being able to maintain what we know we must.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
In addition, food that is high in fructose tends to make most mammals sluggish because of the effect it has on ATP production and that would mean fewer calories burned. Watching slim children and chubby children and the way that they eat and move shows how we vary in terms of energy production. It has been observed, in several studies, that slim children move a lot more than chubby children. It has also been observed that, in chubby children, eating sugary foods seemed to make them more sluggish and in slim children, eating sugary foods (especially chocolate--likely because of the caffeine boost) often seemed to make them even more active. Eventually, even the slim children can become plump if they continuously eat too many sweets without burning them off. A number of studies have focused on the observation that many children do not become fat until they enter school and are forced to become more sedentary.
There are many who are genetically pre-disposed to "diabesity". There is an obvious survival-advantage for those with this genetic makeup since, historically, food security has plagued most populations in the past. Disease though, is often the result when those individuals are constantly exposed to plentiful supplies of calorie dense-nutrient poor food. Researchers have coined the word "diabesity" to refer to what they believe is essentially the same disease--the only difference being that those who are simply obese have adequate insulin supplies--at least for a time. They just get fatter as the body converts excess blood glucose into triglycerides and stuffs them into fat cells. But having to battle constant high blood glucose takes a toll as the body's cells become more and more insensitive to the effects of insulin. Type II diabetes starts and worsens, if the diet is not addressed. Finally, the beta cells in the pancreas are decimated due to having to constantly battle high blood glucose, and the Type II diabetic, becomes insulin-dependent.
Not only how much you eat but WHAT you eat is important to the complex bio-chemistry of "calories-in-calories-out". If it was so simple as eating less, everyone would lose weight and keep it off. Those who are successful in keeping excess fat off their bodies address what they eat as well as increasing the output of calories. The output part of the equation becomes more and more difficult in the aging body.
Yes, biochemistry is very complex and most of what you have put here really isn't true.
Prove it.
It's ironic you don't know which way this goes.
You are the one making the assertion that the information I presented was "false". Prove your assertion, by presenting contradictory information, please. Otherwise, you might want to keep your "counsel" to yourself as it will be ignored by most intelligent people.0 -
KittyInBoots wrote: »...cuz the skinny man says so!
Lol I'm always struck by the fact the most diet gurus aren't exactly svelte but those that are tend to be skeletal. Or maybe that's a personal bias but I can name a lot of examples. ☺0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
In addition, food that is high in fructose tends to make most mammals sluggish because of the effect it has on ATP production and that would mean fewer calories burned. Watching slim children and chubby children and the way that they eat and move shows how we vary in terms of energy production. It has been observed, in several studies, that slim children move a lot more than chubby children. It has also been observed that, in chubby children, eating sugary foods seemed to make them more sluggish and in slim children, eating sugary foods (especially chocolate--likely because of the caffeine boost) often seemed to make them even more active. Eventually, even the slim children can become plump if they continuously eat too many sweets without burning them off. A number of studies have focused on the observation that many children do not become fat until they enter school and are forced to become more sedentary.
There are many who are genetically pre-disposed to "diabesity". There is an obvious survival-advantage for those with this genetic makeup since, historically, food security has plagued most populations in the past. Disease though, is often the result when those individuals are constantly exposed to plentiful supplies of calorie dense-nutrient poor food. Researchers have coined the word "diabesity" to refer to what they believe is essentially the same disease--the only difference being that those who are simply obese have adequate insulin supplies--at least for a time. They just get fatter as the body converts excess blood glucose into triglycerides and stuffs them into fat cells. But having to battle constant high blood glucose takes a toll as the body's cells become more and more insensitive to the effects of insulin. Type II diabetes starts and worsens, if the diet is not addressed. Finally, the beta cells in the pancreas are decimated due to having to constantly battle high blood glucose, and the Type II diabetic, becomes insulin-dependent.
Not only how much you eat but WHAT you eat is important to the complex bio-chemistry of "calories-in-calories-out". If it was so simple as eating less, everyone would lose weight and keep it off. Those who are successful in keeping excess fat off their bodies address what they eat as well as increasing the output of calories. The output part of the equation becomes more and more difficult in the aging body.
Yes, biochemistry is very complex and most of what you have put here really isn't true.
Prove it.
It's ironic you don't know which way this goes.
You are the one making the assertion that the information I presented was "false". Prove your assertion, by presenting contradictory information, please. Otherwise, you might want to keep your "counsel" to yourself as it will be ignored by most intelligent people.
No, claims require proof and claims introduced without proof can be dismissed without proof. That's a basic tenant of debate. I have merely indicated that your claims are incorrect.
The school boy fallacy you add is also misplaced.
0 -
spoonyspork wrote: »The 'reasoning' for it is completely bass-akwards, but it's not... wholly wrong? I mean, some processed carbs leave one feeling like they'll never be satisfied, but that still turns into overeating/CICO...
I mean, I could eat a whole loaf of cuban bread (960 cal) and still want more... but a nice big bowl of beef n noodle soup (140 cal) or hot cereal with vanilla almond milk (130-200 cal) leaves me satisfied for hours and hours and the hunger is slow to come back (unlike a bread crash where I could still say I'm hungry for an hour or so, then suddenly get the shakes). Yes, both 'whole grain' and 'white bread' do this, though I get the added benefit of feeling shaky and hungry with a rock hanging out in my stomach if I eat a whole loaf of whole grain bread. XD
Where do you find a 'big' bowl of beef and noodle soup for 140 cals that isn't all water/broth? I mean, there can't be hardly any noodles ... or beef ...
The problem is that which foods leave people satisfied is largely individual (like so many diet-related issues). So saying it's processed carbs as a one-size-fits-all isn't so helpful.
For example, a 'small' (about 2.5oz) roll of Eatzi's bone bread will satisfy me. Equal calories of mozzarella (or pot roast, or sashimi) will not. I'm not sure I could eat that many cals of blue cheese (or canned tuna) even though I like those. It's too much of the same strong flavor. For that matter, equal calories of brioche will make me want to WAY overeat even though I'm not at all hungry just because I never seem to tire of the taste.
Nono -- my point was just what you said - people are satisfied on different things, and certain carbs could be leaving them feeling unsatisfied, leading to overeating.
My campbells' beef noodle soup (which yes, is mostly broth and noodles) is 140 calories for 2 servings. I also ate it at 11 and am just now getting hungry (though I actually ate 2.5 servings).
140 calories of soup satisfies me more than 1000 calories of bread. 200 calories of bread satisfies me just as much as 1000 calories of bread. But 200 calories of bread would certainly satisfy me more than 200 calories of cheese, cause that's not a whole lot of cheese...
I'd rather have both the soup and the cheese WITH bread though. I don't avoid bread or anything. I just know that I could keep eating bread all day and never actually feel full unless there was something else with it.0 -
Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.
Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:
1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.0 -
msharrington315 wrote: »"The people who told us about sun block were the same people who told us, when I was a kid, that eggs were good. So I ate a lot of eggs. Ten years later they said they were bad. I went, "Well, I just ate the eggs!" So I stopped eating eggs, and ten years later they said they were good again! Well, then I ate twice as many, and then they said they were bad. Well, now I'm really *kitten*! Then they said they're good, they're bad, they're good, the whites are good, th-the yellows - make up your mind! It's breakfast I've gotta eat!" - Louis Black
Which reminds me of this scene from Woody Allen's 1973 movie, "Sleeper":
https://youtube.com/watch?v=1yCeFmn_e2c
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
In addition, food that is high in fructose tends to make most mammals sluggish because of the effect it has on ATP production and that would mean fewer calories burned. Watching slim children and chubby children and the way that they eat and move shows how we vary in terms of energy production. It has been observed, in several studies, that slim children move a lot more than chubby children. It has also been observed that, in chubby children, eating sugary foods seemed to make them more sluggish and in slim children, eating sugary foods (especially chocolate--likely because of the caffeine boost) often seemed to make them even more active. Eventually, even the slim children can become plump if they continuously eat too many sweets without burning them off. A number of studies have focused on the observation that many children do not become fat until they enter school and are forced to become more sedentary.
There are many who are genetically pre-disposed to "diabesity". There is an obvious survival-advantage for those with this genetic makeup since, historically, food security has plagued most populations in the past. Disease though, is often the result when those individuals are constantly exposed to plentiful supplies of calorie dense-nutrient poor food. Researchers have coined the word "diabesity" to refer to what they believe is essentially the same disease--the only difference being that those who are simply obese have adequate insulin supplies--at least for a time. They just get fatter as the body converts excess blood glucose into triglycerides and stuffs them into fat cells. But having to battle constant high blood glucose takes a toll as the body's cells become more and more insensitive to the effects of insulin. Type II diabetes starts and worsens, if the diet is not addressed. Finally, the beta cells in the pancreas are decimated due to having to constantly battle high blood glucose, and the Type II diabetic, becomes insulin-dependent.
Not only how much you eat but WHAT you eat is important to the complex bio-chemistry of "calories-in-calories-out". If it was so simple as eating less, everyone would lose weight and keep it off. Those who are successful in keeping excess fat off their bodies address what they eat as well as increasing the output of calories. The output part of the equation becomes more and more difficult in the aging body.
Yes, biochemistry is very complex and most of what you have put here really isn't true.
Prove it.
It's ironic you don't know which way this goes.
You are the one making the assertion that the information I presented was "false". Prove your assertion, by presenting contradictory information, please. Otherwise, you might want to keep your "counsel" to yourself as it will be ignored by most intelligent people.
No, claims require proof and claims introduced without proof can be dismissed without proof. That's a basic tenant of debate. I have merely indicated that your claims are incorrect.
The school boy fallacy you add is also misplaced.
Well, perhaps if this was a formal debate forum (which it is not) your claim would stand, but since it is an informal discussion forum, it does not. It is just a bit of triumphalism.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »This is definitely not true for me! I find potatoes very filling!
Besides, a roughly 6 oz bakes russet potato with the skin has 3.8g fiber, 926mg potassium, 4.3g protein, 27% of recommended Vitamin C, and very little fat. What's so empty about that?
Generally, a potato for example is filling because there's a lot of volume but it digests very quickly and leaves you hungry. Unless you put some butter, sour cream, etc., or eat it with some meat or something with a lower GI.
But at the end of the day if it works for you, keep it up.
Potatoes have fiber and "resistant starch" which makes them slower to digest. Add a bit of butter and/or sour cream and you slow the digestion further (as you have noted). Potatoes are actually a pretty good bang for your calorie buck as long as you don't fry them. The high temperatures of frying denature many frying oils (many of them are unhealthy to start with because of production methods) and make those potatoes somewhat unhealthy.
Potatoes don't have a great deal of resistant starch unless they are boiled and then cooled. They are fairly quick digesting if not.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.
Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:
1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.
Pretty technical information from someone who is just a casual participant in these forums. There are internet people who are "internet persuaders" who work for various corporations (food processors, for example) and collect money for each post. While, it seems that food processors would be likely to follow what you have cited, do you know that fruit and vegetables are evaluated in the same way? In addition, if what you say is true (and I am NOT saying that I have reason to believe it false) then why do so many think that subtracting fiber grams from carbohydrate grams does anything worthwhile?0 -
rankinsect wrote: »Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.
Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:
1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.
Many have been asking for a net calories due to the fact that we know that foods have different rates of absorption even when the caloric makeup is the same but that would make caloric values a veritable nightmare for prepared meals.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.
Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:
1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.
Pretty technical information from someone who is just a casual participant in these forums. There are internet people who are "internet persuaders" who work for various corporations (food processors, for example) and collect money for each post. While, it seems that food processors would be likely to follow what you have cited, do you know that fruit and vegetables are evaluated in the same way? In addition, if what you say is true (and I am NOT saying that I have reason to believe it false) then why do so many think that subtracting fiber grams from carbohydrate grams does anything worthwhile?
Are you trying to stealthily accuse him of being a paid insert by Big Food? lol.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
In addition, food that is high in fructose tends to make most mammals sluggish because of the effect it has on ATP production and that would mean fewer calories burned. Watching slim children and chubby children and the way that they eat and move shows how we vary in terms of energy production. It has been observed, in several studies, that slim children move a lot more than chubby children. It has also been observed that, in chubby children, eating sugary foods seemed to make them more sluggish and in slim children, eating sugary foods (especially chocolate--likely because of the caffeine boost) often seemed to make them even more active. Eventually, even the slim children can become plump if they continuously eat too many sweets without burning them off. A number of studies have focused on the observation that many children do not become fat until they enter school and are forced to become more sedentary.
There are many who are genetically pre-disposed to "diabesity". There is an obvious survival-advantage for those with this genetic makeup since, historically, food security has plagued most populations in the past. Disease though, is often the result when those individuals are constantly exposed to plentiful supplies of calorie dense-nutrient poor food. Researchers have coined the word "diabesity" to refer to what they believe is essentially the same disease--the only difference being that those who are simply obese have adequate insulin supplies--at least for a time. They just get fatter as the body converts excess blood glucose into triglycerides and stuffs them into fat cells. But having to battle constant high blood glucose takes a toll as the body's cells become more and more insensitive to the effects of insulin. Type II diabetes starts and worsens, if the diet is not addressed. Finally, the beta cells in the pancreas are decimated due to having to constantly battle high blood glucose, and the Type II diabetic, becomes insulin-dependent.
Not only how much you eat but WHAT you eat is important to the complex bio-chemistry of "calories-in-calories-out". If it was so simple as eating less, everyone would lose weight and keep it off. Those who are successful in keeping excess fat off their bodies address what they eat as well as increasing the output of calories. The output part of the equation becomes more and more difficult in the aging body.
Yes, biochemistry is very complex and most of what you have put here really isn't true.
Prove it.
It's ironic you don't know which way this goes.
You are the one making the assertion that the information I presented was "false". Prove your assertion, by presenting contradictory information, please. Otherwise, you might want to keep your "counsel" to yourself as it will be ignored by most intelligent people.
No, claims require proof and claims introduced without proof can be dismissed without proof. That's a basic tenant of debate. I have merely indicated that your claims are incorrect.
The school boy fallacy you add is also misplaced.
Well, perhaps if this was a formal debate forum (which it is not) your claim would stand, but since it is an informal discussion forum, it does not. It is just a bit of triumphalism.
Fine, I'll just list a major issue and that is that it's not carbohydrate, nor the type of carbohydrate, intake that's the issue in the development of insulin resistance and Type II Diabetes. Just do a quick research on the medical literature and you will find that obesity (in particular visceral fat levels), drugs, genetics, and activity levels are your main risk factors with PCOS, smoking, stress and pregnancy as other large contributors. I imagine if you talk to the frutarians you will find that they all have extremely high levels of fructose intake and they do not tend to have issues with IR or type II diabetes unless they are also obese, which seems to be rare from my understanding.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.
Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:
1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.
Pretty technical information from someone who is just a casual participant in these forums. There are internet people who are "internet persuaders" who work for various corporations (food processors, for example) and collect money for each post. While, it seems that food processors would be likely to follow what you have cited, do you know that fruit and vegetables are evaluated in the same way? In addition, if what you say is true (and I am NOT saying that I have reason to believe it false) then why do so many think that subtracting fiber grams from carbohydrate grams does anything worthwhile?
Are you trying to stealthily accuse him of being a paid insert by Big Food? lol.
Hahahaha. I was wondering the same thing. So @rankinsect, how much are you making per post? You gonna be rich! :laugh:0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »This is definitely not true for me! I find potatoes very filling!
Besides, a roughly 6 oz bakes russet potato with the skin has 3.8g fiber, 926mg potassium, 4.3g protein, 27% of recommended Vitamin C, and very little fat. What's so empty about that?
Generally, a potato for example is filling because there's a lot of volume but it digests very quickly and leaves you hungry. Unless you put some butter, sour cream, etc., or eat it with some meat or something with a lower GI.
But at the end of the day if it works for you, keep it up.
Potatoes have fiber and "resistant starch" which makes them slower to digest. Add a bit of butter and/or sour cream and you slow the digestion further (as you have noted). Potatoes are actually a pretty good bang for your calorie buck as long as you don't fry them. The high temperatures of frying denature many frying oils (many of them are unhealthy to start with because of production methods) and make those potatoes somewhat unhealthy.
Potatoes don't have a great deal of resistant starch unless they are boiled and then cooled. They are fairly quick digesting if not.
And yet they score very high on the satiety index, which indicates that GI or even GL isn't the whole story.
Apparently (although I haven't done much to look into this) the conclusion of those doing the satiety work was that adding fat tended to make people less satisfied/wanting to eat more, because it added to palatability, even though it would tend to make GI lower, I think. This is consistent with my own experience, although definitely not some of the common wisdom you run into on MFP.0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.
Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:
1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.
Pretty technical information from someone who is just a casual participant in these forums. There are internet people who are "internet persuaders" who work for various corporations (food processors, for example) and collect money for each post. While, it seems that food processors would be likely to follow what you have cited, do you know that fruit and vegetables are evaluated in the same way? In addition, if what you say is true (and I am NOT saying that I have reason to believe it false) then why do so many think that subtracting fiber grams from carbohydrate grams does anything worthwhile?
Are you trying to stealthily accuse him of being a paid insert by Big Food? lol.
Hahahaha. I was wondering the same thing. So @rankinsect, how much are you making per post? You gonna be rich! :laugh:
Lol I wish I was getting paid per post, I could quit my day job!0 -
rankinsect wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.
Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:
1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.
Pretty technical information from someone who is just a casual participant in these forums. There are internet people who are "internet persuaders" who work for various corporations (food processors, for example) and collect money for each post. While, it seems that food processors would be likely to follow what you have cited, do you know that fruit and vegetables are evaluated in the same way? In addition, if what you say is true (and I am NOT saying that I have reason to believe it false) then why do so many think that subtracting fiber grams from carbohydrate grams does anything worthwhile?
Are you trying to stealthily accuse him of being a paid insert by Big Food? lol.
Hahahaha. I was wondering the same thing. So @rankinsect, how much are you making per post? You gonna be rich! :laugh:
Lol I wish I was getting paid per post, I could quit my day job!
And I'll take a PR job like that too!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions