Interesting points here

erickirb

http://gizmodo.com/why-the-calorie-is-broken-1755389049?utm_campaign=socialflow_lifehacker_facebook&utm_source=lifehacker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

in summation, I took away that CICO determines weight loss/gain, but there is a lot of noise on both sides of the equation making it difficult to calculate either.

I don't like the title though, as the calories isn't broken, it is our ability to measure that is the issue.

juggernaut1974

erickirb wrote: »

http://gizmodo.com/why-the-calorie-is-broken-1755389049?utm_campaign=socialflow_lifehacker_facebook&utm_source=lifehacker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

I don't like the title though, as the calories isn't broken, it is our ability to measure that is the issue.

I only got about 1/2 way through before my eyes glazed over...but from what I did read, I concur with your assessment.

tulips_and_tea

Not sure if it's the same article, but another article with the same title was being debated on the "General Weight Loss" board yesterday or the day before.

I didn't like this part: "Tara Haelle is also obese. She had her second son on St Patrick’s Day in 2014, and hasn’t been able to lose the 70 lbs she gained during pregnancy." Hasn't "been able"??? Well, clearly her method is wrong. Trying to blame the "calorie" and energy expenditure guesstimates on tech devices surely isn't the answer, either.

erickirb

BZAH10 wrote: »

Not sure if it's the same article, but another article with the same title was being debated on the "General Weight Loss" board yesterday or the day before.

I didn't like this part: "Tara Haelle is also obese. She had her second son on St Patrick’s Day in 2014, and hasn’t been able to lose the 70 lbs she gained during pregnancy." Hasn't "been able"??? Well, clearly her method is wrong. Trying to blame the "calorie" and energy expenditure guesstimates on tech devices surely isn't the answer, either.

Same article. I thought bringing the two people with weight problems into it didn't help the discussion as they were not the test subjects in the cals burned experiment, etc.

abatonfan

So, the gist of the article is that everyone is a special snowflake whose CO is highly variable (physical activity, gut bacteria, etc.), and current ways to determine CI from foods is not 100% accurate?

What I found interesting was this part:

Harvard nutritionist David Ludwig, who also proposes evaluating food on the basis of satiety instead of calories, has shown that teens given instant oats for breakfast consumed 650 more calories at lunch than their peers who were given the same number of breakfast calories in the form of a more satisfying omelette and fruit.

Wouldn't this part support ideas that meals should have adequate fat, protein, and fiber? Are some carbs more satisfying than others? Or would this not necessarily be a good gauge of nutritional value, because the volume of the food itself is an independent variable that might affect satiety levels (200kcals of oatmeal might be 100g of food, while 200kcals of omelet and fruit might be 200g of food)? I found an article on the BBC a few days ago that really goes well with this section and gives a better idea of why food x may be less satisfying than food y for some people.

upoffthemat

I like the 650 more calories at lunch part for a teen. I don't buy that one for an instant.

feisty_bucket

abatonfan wrote: »

What I found interesting was this part:

Harvard nutritionist David Ludwig, who also proposes evaluating food on the basis of satiety instead of calories, has shown that teens given instant oats for breakfast consumed 650 more calories at lunch than their peers who were given the same number of breakfast calories in the form of a more satisfying omelette and fruit.

Wouldn't this part support ideas that meals should have adequate fat, protein, and fiber?

Based on the stuff I've read (a lot of macro-oriented and fasting stuff), what's happening in this example is that the oats are spiking blood sugar, making the oat-eaters think they're more hungry when it crashes again.

If you eat more fatty stuff (the eggs), you don't have the same spiking and thus aren't tricked by your leaping blood sugar levels into being "hungry".

tulips_and_tea

erickirb wrote: »

BZAH10 wrote: »

Not sure if it's the same article, but another article with the same title was being debated on the "General Weight Loss" board yesterday or the day before.

I didn't like this part: "Tara Haelle is also obese. She had her second son on St Patrick’s Day in 2014, and hasn’t been able to lose the 70 lbs she gained during pregnancy." Hasn't "been able"??? Well, clearly her method is wrong. Trying to blame the "calorie" and energy expenditure guesstimates on tech devices surely isn't the answer, either.

Same article. I thought bringing the two people with weight problems into it didn't help the discussion as they were not the test subjects in the cals burned experiment, etc.

I agree the 2 people initially mentioned were irrelevant to the attempted point of the story. That part right off the bat just struck me as excuse-making and an indication that the rest of the article would be looking for blame everywhere else other than over eating.