Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Hot topics! Sugar in fruit
Replies
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
That isn't true if in fact the extra calories from fructose end being stored as visceral fat that increases insulin resistance. The problem with CICO is our system isn't a gas tank, the human body has multiple types of storage and those storage have different effects associated with them. (blood sugar, glycogen, visceral fat, other fat) It isn't a simple energy balance when the underlying metabolism is being changed.
What actually causes visceral fat and the impacts on visceral fat on metabolic processes is currently a on-going area of study. These effects don't mean that CICO doesn't work, it just means the CO part is far more complex than BMR + exercise. Keep in mind true BMR is something rarely measured in people and mostly we are working from estimates. If one really knows exactly what the calories out are, and what exactly the calories in are, then CICO is an energy balance.
If you are in energy balance the extra calories are not being stored long term...
I don't think that is really true, humans aren't that simple.
1) There really isn't any way to be sure you are in energy balance short term. One can make a good guess but the reaction in the body can be pretty fast. Over the long term better a determination of balance can be made.
2) We have no direct control over our fat storage. It is possible to gain visceral fat but use the ugly but less harmful subterraneous fat. There are other possibilities too.
3) Many tools are too simple, for example 3500 kc / pound of fat doesn't consider energy being consumed by the creation of fat or the burning of fat. Those values could vary by diet and probably many other factors.
4) Metabolism isn't constant and the body makes use of glycogen and adipose tissue to balance out short term needs.
5) Different types of molecules have different metabolic pathways. Sometimes there multiple pathways that could be used and different pathways have different energy requirements.
So while in general energy balance is what we have to work with, understanding the impacts of fructose from various sources will be a big benefit for better nutritional choices. Things like it okay to have 25% of calories from refined sugar or pizza being treated as a vegetable in school lunches are not based on valid nutritional science. It isn't just energy it is also nutrition and health that are important.
It isn't that CICO is invalid, it is just a simple model of something that is much more complex. Models are important and useful, but in the end model rarely completely match the real world.
1) Law of large numbers
2) It's subcutaneous. And Visceral fat is higher priority than subcutaneous fat for lipolysis. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853899709002451
3) Majoring in the minors
4) Law of large numbers
5) majoring in the minors5 -
stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
That isn't true if in fact the extra calories from fructose end being stored as visceral fat that increases insulin resistance. The problem with CICO is our system isn't a gas tank, the human body has multiple types of storage and those storage have different effects associated with them. (blood sugar, glycogen, visceral fat, other fat) It isn't a simple energy balance when the underlying metabolism is being changed.
What actually causes visceral fat and the impacts on visceral fat on metabolic processes is currently a on-going area of study. These effects don't mean that CICO doesn't work, it just means the CO part is far more complex than BMR + exercise. Keep in mind true BMR is something rarely measured in people and mostly we are working from estimates. If one really knows exactly what the calories out are, and what exactly the calories in are, then CICO is an energy balance.
If you are in energy balance the extra calories are not being stored long term...
I don't think that is really true, humans aren't that simple.
1) There really isn't any way to be sure you are in energy balance short term. One can make a good guess but the reaction in the body can be pretty fast. Over the long term better a determination of balance can be made.
2) We have no direct control over our fat storage. It is possible to gain visceral fat but use the ugly but less harmful subterraneous fat. There are other possibilities too.
3) Many tools are too simple, for example 3500 kc / pound of fat doesn't consider energy being consumed by the creation of fat or the burning of fat. Those values could vary by diet and probably many other factors.
4) Metabolism isn't constant and the body makes use of glycogen and adipose tissue to balance out short term needs.
5) Different types of molecules have different metabolic pathways. Sometimes there multiple pathways that could be used and different pathways have different energy requirements.
So while in general energy balance is what we have to work with, understanding the impacts of fructose from various sources will be a big benefit for better nutritional choices. Things like it okay to have 25% of calories from refined sugar or pizza being treated as a vegetable in school lunches are not based on valid nutritional science. It isn't just energy it is also nutrition and health that are important.
It isn't that CICO is invalid, it is just a simple model of something that is much more complex. Models are important and useful, but in the end model rarely completely match the real world.
1) Law of large numbers
2) It's subcutaneous. And Visceral fat is higher priority than subcutaneous fat for lipolysis. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853899709002451
3) Majoring in the minors
4) Law of large numbers
5) majoring in the minors
Not sure you even read the post or maybe you don't understand what the law of large numbers is.
Anyway there are many TOFI types that clearly don't have a priority of consuming visceral fat.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
That isn't true if in fact the extra calories from fructose end being stored as visceral fat that increases insulin resistance. The problem with CICO is our system isn't a gas tank, the human body has multiple types of storage and those storage have different effects associated with them. (blood sugar, glycogen, visceral fat, other fat) It isn't a simple energy balance when the underlying metabolism is being changed.
What actually causes visceral fat and the impacts on visceral fat on metabolic processes is currently a on-going area of study. These effects don't mean that CICO doesn't work, it just means the CO part is far more complex than BMR + exercise. Keep in mind true BMR is something rarely measured in people and mostly we are working from estimates. If one really knows exactly what the calories out are, and what exactly the calories in are, then CICO is an energy balance.
If you are in energy balance the extra calories are not being stored long term...
I don't think that is really true, humans aren't that simple.
1) There really isn't any way to be sure you are in energy balance short term. One can make a good guess but the reaction in the body can be pretty fast. Over the long term better a determination of balance can be made.
2) We have no direct control over our fat storage. It is possible to gain visceral fat but use the ugly but less harmful subterraneous fat. There are other possibilities too.
3) Many tools are too simple, for example 3500 kc / pound of fat doesn't consider energy being consumed by the creation of fat or the burning of fat. Those values could vary by diet and probably many other factors.
4) Metabolism isn't constant and the body makes use of glycogen and adipose tissue to balance out short term needs.
5) Different types of molecules have different metabolic pathways. Sometimes there multiple pathways that could be used and different pathways have different energy requirements.
So while in general energy balance is what we have to work with, understanding the impacts of fructose from various sources will be a big benefit for better nutritional choices. Things like it okay to have 25% of calories from refined sugar or pizza being treated as a vegetable in school lunches are not based on valid nutritional science. It isn't just energy it is also nutrition and health that are important.
It isn't that CICO is invalid, it is just a simple model of something that is much more complex. Models are important and useful, but in the end model rarely completely match the real world.
1) Law of large numbers
2) It's subcutaneous. And Visceral fat is higher priority than subcutaneous fat for lipolysis. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853899709002451
3) Majoring in the minors
4) Law of large numbers
5) majoring in the minors
Not sure you even read the post or maybe you don't understand what the law of large numbers is.
Anyway there are many TOFI types that clearly don't have a priority of consuming visceral fat.
"In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed."
Meaning it doesn't *slothing* matter if you don't know your exact maintenance calories from one day to another, as the long term is the only thing that matters.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
That isn't true if in fact the extra calories from fructose end being stored as visceral fat that increases insulin resistance. The problem with CICO is our system isn't a gas tank, the human body has multiple types of storage and those storage have different effects associated with them. (blood sugar, glycogen, visceral fat, other fat) It isn't a simple energy balance when the underlying metabolism is being changed.
What actually causes visceral fat and the impacts on visceral fat on metabolic processes is currently a on-going area of study. These effects don't mean that CICO doesn't work, it just means the CO part is far more complex than BMR + exercise. Keep in mind true BMR is something rarely measured in people and mostly we are working from estimates. If one really knows exactly what the calories out are, and what exactly the calories in are, then CICO is an energy balance.
If you are in energy balance the extra calories are not being stored long term...
I don't think that is really true, humans aren't that simple.
1) There really isn't any way to be sure you are in energy balance short term. One can make a good guess but the reaction in the body can be pretty fast. Over the long term better a determination of balance can be made.
2) We have no direct control over our fat storage. It is possible to gain visceral fat but use the ugly but less harmful subterraneous fat. There are other possibilities too.
3) Many tools are too simple, for example 3500 kc / pound of fat doesn't consider energy being consumed by the creation of fat or the burning of fat. Those values could vary by diet and probably many other factors.
4) Metabolism isn't constant and the body makes use of glycogen and adipose tissue to balance out short term needs.
5) Different types of molecules have different metabolic pathways. Sometimes there multiple pathways that could be used and different pathways have different energy requirements.
So while in general energy balance is what we have to work with, understanding the impacts of fructose from various sources will be a big benefit for better nutritional choices. Things like it okay to have 25% of calories from refined sugar or pizza being treated as a vegetable in school lunches are not based on valid nutritional science. It isn't just energy it is also nutrition and health that are important.
It isn't that CICO is invalid, it is just a simple model of something that is much more complex. Models are important and useful, but in the end model rarely completely match the real world.
1) Law of large numbers
2) It's subcutaneous. And Visceral fat is higher priority than subcutaneous fat for lipolysis. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853899709002451
3) Majoring in the minors
4) Law of large numbers
5) majoring in the minors
Not sure you even read the post or maybe you don't understand what the law of large numbers is.
Anyway there are many TOFI types that clearly don't have a priority of consuming visceral fat.
"In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed."
Meaning it doesn't *slothing* matter if you don't know your exact maintenance calories from one day to another, as the long term is the only thing that matters.
You have it completely backwards. It is only over the long term that a true maintenance level can be determined. The short term errors in diet will accumulate and set the mean. A persons diet is an input, it isn't something being measured.
If you are talking about sampling weight, then probability theory applies for finding the true weight.
The basic point is we don't have any direct control over what fat our bodies uses or where our bodies store fat. CICO is too simple of concept to tell one what is really going on. There are many variables and probably a lot that aren't even understood or even known. The concept of energy balance is fine with diets, but it is far from simple. If it was simple, most diets wouldn't fail.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
That isn't true if in fact the extra calories from fructose end being stored as visceral fat that increases insulin resistance. The problem with CICO is our system isn't a gas tank, the human body has multiple types of storage and those storage have different effects associated with them. (blood sugar, glycogen, visceral fat, other fat) It isn't a simple energy balance when the underlying metabolism is being changed.
What actually causes visceral fat and the impacts on visceral fat on metabolic processes is currently a on-going area of study. These effects don't mean that CICO doesn't work, it just means the CO part is far more complex than BMR + exercise. Keep in mind true BMR is something rarely measured in people and mostly we are working from estimates. If one really knows exactly what the calories out are, and what exactly the calories in are, then CICO is an energy balance.
If you are in energy balance the extra calories are not being stored long term...
I don't think that is really true, humans aren't that simple.
1) There really isn't any way to be sure you are in energy balance short term. One can make a good guess but the reaction in the body can be pretty fast. Over the long term better a determination of balance can be made.
2) We have no direct control over our fat storage. It is possible to gain visceral fat but use the ugly but less harmful subterraneous fat. There are other possibilities too.
3) Many tools are too simple, for example 3500 kc / pound of fat doesn't consider energy being consumed by the creation of fat or the burning of fat. Those values could vary by diet and probably many other factors.
4) Metabolism isn't constant and the body makes use of glycogen and adipose tissue to balance out short term needs.
5) Different types of molecules have different metabolic pathways. Sometimes there multiple pathways that could be used and different pathways have different energy requirements.
So while in general energy balance is what we have to work with, understanding the impacts of fructose from various sources will be a big benefit for better nutritional choices. Things like it okay to have 25% of calories from refined sugar or pizza being treated as a vegetable in school lunches are not based on valid nutritional science. It isn't just energy it is also nutrition and health that are important.
It isn't that CICO is invalid, it is just a simple model of something that is much more complex. Models are important and useful, but in the end model rarely completely match the real world.
1) Law of large numbers
2) It's subcutaneous. And Visceral fat is higher priority than subcutaneous fat for lipolysis. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853899709002451
3) Majoring in the minors
4) Law of large numbers
5) majoring in the minors
Not sure you even read the post or maybe you don't understand what the law of large numbers is.
Anyway there are many TOFI types that clearly don't have a priority of consuming visceral fat.
"In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed."
Meaning it doesn't *slothing* matter if you don't know your exact maintenance calories from one day to another, as the long term is the only thing that matters.
You have it completely backwards. It is only over the long term that a true maintenance level can be determined. The short term errors in diet will accumulate and set the mean. A persons diet is an input, it isn't something being measured.
If you are talking about sampling weight, then probability theory applies for finding the true weight.
The basic point is we don't have any direct control over what fat our bodies uses or where our bodies store fat. CICO is too simple of concept to tell one what is really going on. There are many variables and probably a lot that aren't even understood or even known. The concept of energy balance is fine with diets, but it is far from simple. If it was simple, most diets wouldn't fail.
Diets fail due to lack of adherence. Period.
4 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
That isn't true if in fact the extra calories from fructose end being stored as visceral fat that increases insulin resistance. The problem with CICO is our system isn't a gas tank, the human body has multiple types of storage and those storage have different effects associated with them. (blood sugar, glycogen, visceral fat, other fat) It isn't a simple energy balance when the underlying metabolism is being changed.
What actually causes visceral fat and the impacts on visceral fat on metabolic processes is currently a on-going area of study. These effects don't mean that CICO doesn't work, it just means the CO part is far more complex than BMR + exercise. Keep in mind true BMR is something rarely measured in people and mostly we are working from estimates. If one really knows exactly what the calories out are, and what exactly the calories in are, then CICO is an energy balance.
If you are in energy balance the extra calories are not being stored long term...
I don't think that is really true, humans aren't that simple.
1) There really isn't any way to be sure you are in energy balance short term. One can make a good guess but the reaction in the body can be pretty fast. Over the long term better a determination of balance can be made.
2) We have no direct control over our fat storage. It is possible to gain visceral fat but use the ugly but less harmful subterraneous fat. There are other possibilities too.
3) Many tools are too simple, for example 3500 kc / pound of fat doesn't consider energy being consumed by the creation of fat or the burning of fat. Those values could vary by diet and probably many other factors.
4) Metabolism isn't constant and the body makes use of glycogen and adipose tissue to balance out short term needs.
5) Different types of molecules have different metabolic pathways. Sometimes there multiple pathways that could be used and different pathways have different energy requirements.
So while in general energy balance is what we have to work with, understanding the impacts of fructose from various sources will be a big benefit for better nutritional choices. Things like it okay to have 25% of calories from refined sugar or pizza being treated as a vegetable in school lunches are not based on valid nutritional science. It isn't just energy it is also nutrition and health that are important.
It isn't that CICO is invalid, it is just a simple model of something that is much more complex. Models are important and useful, but in the end model rarely completely match the real world.
1) Law of large numbers
2) It's subcutaneous. And Visceral fat is higher priority than subcutaneous fat for lipolysis. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853899709002451
3) Majoring in the minors
4) Law of large numbers
5) majoring in the minors
Not sure you even read the post or maybe you don't understand what the law of large numbers is.
Anyway there are many TOFI types that clearly don't have a priority of consuming visceral fat.
"In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed."
Meaning it doesn't *slothing* matter if you don't know your exact maintenance calories from one day to another, as the long term is the only thing that matters.
You have it completely backwards. It is only over the long term that a true maintenance level can be determined. The short term errors in diet will accumulate and set the mean. A persons diet is an input, it isn't something being measured.
If you are talking about sampling weight, then probability theory applies for finding the true weight.
The basic point is we don't have any direct control over what fat our bodies uses or where our bodies store fat. CICO is too simple of concept to tell one what is really going on. There are many variables and probably a lot that aren't even understood or even known. The concept of energy balance is fine with diets, but it is far from simple. If it was simple, most diets wouldn't fail.
Diets fail due to lack of adherence. Period.
Really? If it is just all about the kc and CICO then explain this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijujkvOqsZE 0 -
A youtube "documentary"? Really?
1 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »A youtube "documentary"? Really?
It shows that just changing the content of the diet, not the calories can cause large changes in health and even weight.
The point is that type of food impacts metabolism.
The real reason why diets fail because people end up changing their metabolism and don't adjust for it. Many diets are designed to only be short term because they have no chance in working long term. Even a very well designed healthy diet can greatly change a person's metabolism. If someone for example loses 20% of their weight that is going to be a pretty big impact on their metabolism. This is why exercise is so important.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »A youtube "documentary"? Really?
It shows that just changing the content of the diet, not the calories can cause large changes in health and even weight.
The point is that type of food impacts metabolism.
The real reason why diets fail because people end up changing their metabolism and don't adjust for it. Many diets are designed to only be short term because they have no chance in working long term. Even a very well designed healthy diet can greatly change a person's metabolism. If someone for example loses 20% of their weight that is going to be a pretty big impact on their metabolism. This is why exercise is so important.
It doesn't show anything. Documentaries based on self-reported intake are not a reliable source.
4 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »A youtube "documentary"? Really?
Explains much...3 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »A youtube "documentary"? Really?
It shows that just changing the content of the diet, not the calories can cause large changes in health and even weight.
The point is that type of food impacts metabolism.
The real reason why diets fail because people end up changing their metabolism and don't adjust for it. Many diets are designed to only be short term because they have no chance in working long term. Even a very well designed healthy diet can greatly change a person's metabolism. If someone for example loses 20% of their weight that is going to be a pretty big impact on their metabolism. This is why exercise is so important.
It doesn't show anything. Documentaries based on self-reported intake are not a reliable source.
They also tend to look at people on the worst end of the spectrum. Aside from, they over-dramatize to get you to watch. Nothing t do with reality, just ratings...3 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
That isn't true if in fact the extra calories from fructose end being stored as visceral fat that increases insulin resistance. The problem with CICO is our system isn't a gas tank, the human body has multiple types of storage and those storage have different effects associated with them. (blood sugar, glycogen, visceral fat, other fat) It isn't a simple energy balance when the underlying metabolism is being changed.
What actually causes visceral fat and the impacts on visceral fat on metabolic processes is currently a on-going area of study. These effects don't mean that CICO doesn't work, it just means the CO part is far more complex than BMR + exercise. Keep in mind true BMR is something rarely measured in people and mostly we are working from estimates. If one really knows exactly what the calories out are, and what exactly the calories in are, then CICO is an energy balance.
If you are in energy balance the extra calories are not being stored long term...
I don't think that is really true, humans aren't that simple.
1) There really isn't any way to be sure you are in energy balance short term. One can make a good guess but the reaction in the body can be pretty fast. Over the long term better a determination of balance can be made.
2) We have no direct control over our fat storage. It is possible to gain visceral fat but use the ugly but less harmful subterraneous fat. There are other possibilities too.
3) Many tools are too simple, for example 3500 kc / pound of fat doesn't consider energy being consumed by the creation of fat or the burning of fat. Those values could vary by diet and probably many other factors.
4) Metabolism isn't constant and the body makes use of glycogen and adipose tissue to balance out short term needs.
5) Different types of molecules have different metabolic pathways. Sometimes there multiple pathways that could be used and different pathways have different energy requirements.
So while in general energy balance is what we have to work with, understanding the impacts of fructose from various sources will be a big benefit for better nutritional choices. Things like it okay to have 25% of calories from refined sugar or pizza being treated as a vegetable in school lunches are not based on valid nutritional science. It isn't just energy it is also nutrition and health that are important.
It isn't that CICO is invalid, it is just a simple model of something that is much more complex. Models are important and useful, but in the end model rarely completely match the real world.
1) Law of large numbers
2) It's subcutaneous. And Visceral fat is higher priority than subcutaneous fat for lipolysis. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853899709002451
3) Majoring in the minors
4) Law of large numbers
5) majoring in the minors
Not sure you even read the post or maybe you don't understand what the law of large numbers is.
Anyway there are many TOFI types that clearly don't have a priority of consuming visceral fat.
"In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed."
Meaning it doesn't *slothing* matter if you don't know your exact maintenance calories from one day to another, as the long term is the only thing that matters.
You have it completely backwards. It is only over the long term that a true maintenance level can be determined. The short term errors in diet will accumulate and set the mean. A persons diet is an input, it isn't something being measured.
If you are talking about sampling weight, then probability theory applies for finding the true weight.
The basic point is we don't have any direct control over what fat our bodies uses or where our bodies store fat. CICO is too simple of concept to tell one what is really going on. There are many variables and probably a lot that aren't even understood or even known. The concept of energy balance is fine with diets, but it is far from simple. If it was simple, most diets wouldn't fail.
Diets fail due to lack of adherence. Period.
Really? If it is just all about the kc and CICO then explain this.
Really? If the earth is round as you claim then explain this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wznf3k57fA 2 -
stevencloser wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
That isn't true if in fact the extra calories from fructose end being stored as visceral fat that increases insulin resistance. The problem with CICO is our system isn't a gas tank, the human body has multiple types of storage and those storage have different effects associated with them. (blood sugar, glycogen, visceral fat, other fat) It isn't a simple energy balance when the underlying metabolism is being changed.
What actually causes visceral fat and the impacts on visceral fat on metabolic processes is currently a on-going area of study. These effects don't mean that CICO doesn't work, it just means the CO part is far more complex than BMR + exercise. Keep in mind true BMR is something rarely measured in people and mostly we are working from estimates. If one really knows exactly what the calories out are, and what exactly the calories in are, then CICO is an energy balance.
If you are in energy balance the extra calories are not being stored long term...
I don't think that is really true, humans aren't that simple.
1) There really isn't any way to be sure you are in energy balance short term. One can make a good guess but the reaction in the body can be pretty fast. Over the long term better a determination of balance can be made.
2) We have no direct control over our fat storage. It is possible to gain visceral fat but use the ugly but less harmful subterraneous fat. There are other possibilities too.
3) Many tools are too simple, for example 3500 kc / pound of fat doesn't consider energy being consumed by the creation of fat or the burning of fat. Those values could vary by diet and probably many other factors.
4) Metabolism isn't constant and the body makes use of glycogen and adipose tissue to balance out short term needs.
5) Different types of molecules have different metabolic pathways. Sometimes there multiple pathways that could be used and different pathways have different energy requirements.
So while in general energy balance is what we have to work with, understanding the impacts of fructose from various sources will be a big benefit for better nutritional choices. Things like it okay to have 25% of calories from refined sugar or pizza being treated as a vegetable in school lunches are not based on valid nutritional science. It isn't just energy it is also nutrition and health that are important.
It isn't that CICO is invalid, it is just a simple model of something that is much more complex. Models are important and useful, but in the end model rarely completely match the real world.
1) Law of large numbers
2) It's subcutaneous. And Visceral fat is higher priority than subcutaneous fat for lipolysis. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853899709002451
3) Majoring in the minors
4) Law of large numbers
5) majoring in the minors
Not sure you even read the post or maybe you don't understand what the law of large numbers is.
Anyway there are many TOFI types that clearly don't have a priority of consuming visceral fat.
"In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed."
Meaning it doesn't *slothing* matter if you don't know your exact maintenance calories from one day to another, as the long term is the only thing that matters.
You have it completely backwards. It is only over the long term that a true maintenance level can be determined. The short term errors in diet will accumulate and set the mean. A persons diet is an input, it isn't something being measured.
If you are talking about sampling weight, then probability theory applies for finding the true weight.
The basic point is we don't have any direct control over what fat our bodies uses or where our bodies store fat. CICO is too simple of concept to tell one what is really going on. There are many variables and probably a lot that aren't even understood or even known. The concept of energy balance is fine with diets, but it is far from simple. If it was simple, most diets wouldn't fail.
Diets fail due to lack of adherence. Period.
Really? If it is just all about the kc and CICO then explain this.
Really? If the earth is round as you claim then explain this.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wznf3k57fA
Typical nonsense from the type of person that even hides behind a fake picture.
CICO is pushed hard by large food companies because they are more interested in profits than health. The human body isn't that so simple. There are a lot more factors other than just calories that are important.
Getting back on topic ... in the Great Britian diet there is very little fruit. They would do a lot better filling up more on fruit than drinking juice.-4 -
stevencloser wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
That isn't true if in fact the extra calories from fructose end being stored as visceral fat that increases insulin resistance. The problem with CICO is our system isn't a gas tank, the human body has multiple types of storage and those storage have different effects associated with them. (blood sugar, glycogen, visceral fat, other fat) It isn't a simple energy balance when the underlying metabolism is being changed.
What actually causes visceral fat and the impacts on visceral fat on metabolic processes is currently a on-going area of study. These effects don't mean that CICO doesn't work, it just means the CO part is far more complex than BMR + exercise. Keep in mind true BMR is something rarely measured in people and mostly we are working from estimates. If one really knows exactly what the calories out are, and what exactly the calories in are, then CICO is an energy balance.
If you are in energy balance the extra calories are not being stored long term...
I don't think that is really true, humans aren't that simple.
1) There really isn't any way to be sure you are in energy balance short term. One can make a good guess but the reaction in the body can be pretty fast. Over the long term better a determination of balance can be made.
2) We have no direct control over our fat storage. It is possible to gain visceral fat but use the ugly but less harmful subterraneous fat. There are other possibilities too.
3) Many tools are too simple, for example 3500 kc / pound of fat doesn't consider energy being consumed by the creation of fat or the burning of fat. Those values could vary by diet and probably many other factors.
4) Metabolism isn't constant and the body makes use of glycogen and adipose tissue to balance out short term needs.
5) Different types of molecules have different metabolic pathways. Sometimes there multiple pathways that could be used and different pathways have different energy requirements.
So while in general energy balance is what we have to work with, understanding the impacts of fructose from various sources will be a big benefit for better nutritional choices. Things like it okay to have 25% of calories from refined sugar or pizza being treated as a vegetable in school lunches are not based on valid nutritional science. It isn't just energy it is also nutrition and health that are important.
It isn't that CICO is invalid, it is just a simple model of something that is much more complex. Models are important and useful, but in the end model rarely completely match the real world.
1) Law of large numbers
2) It's subcutaneous. And Visceral fat is higher priority than subcutaneous fat for lipolysis. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853899709002451
3) Majoring in the minors
4) Law of large numbers
5) majoring in the minors
Not sure you even read the post or maybe you don't understand what the law of large numbers is.
Anyway there are many TOFI types that clearly don't have a priority of consuming visceral fat.
"In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed."
Meaning it doesn't *slothing* matter if you don't know your exact maintenance calories from one day to another, as the long term is the only thing that matters.
You have it completely backwards. It is only over the long term that a true maintenance level can be determined. The short term errors in diet will accumulate and set the mean. A persons diet is an input, it isn't something being measured.
If you are talking about sampling weight, then probability theory applies for finding the true weight.
The basic point is we don't have any direct control over what fat our bodies uses or where our bodies store fat. CICO is too simple of concept to tell one what is really going on. There are many variables and probably a lot that aren't even understood or even known. The concept of energy balance is fine with diets, but it is far from simple. If it was simple, most diets wouldn't fail.
Diets fail due to lack of adherence. Period.
Really? If it is just all about the kc and CICO then explain this.
Really? If the earth is round as you claim then explain this.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wznf3k57fA
Typical nonsense from the type of person that even hides behind a fake picture.
CICO is pushed hard by large food companies because they are more interested in profits than health. The human body isn't that so simple. There are a lot more factors other than just calories that are important.
Getting back on topic ... in the Great Britian diet there is very little fruit. They would do a lot better filling up more on fruit than drinking juice.
CICO is merely an energy equation, nothing more. CI<CO = weight loss, CI>CO = weight gain, always...3 -
stevencloser wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
But you stated that you did eat "a lot" of sugar, so according to what you're saying there means you were eating an unhealthy diet. Which is what my claim on sugar, the immune system, allergies, autoimmune diseases, etc. has been about.ForecasterJason wrote: »
My claim is that eating a lot of sugar in the context of a diet that is not healthy overall can lead to a multitude of problems. If one is eating a healthful diet then the effect is most likely going to be minimized.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is not support for Jason's argument, which is that even if one does not gain weight and eats a healthful balanced diet that consuming sugar beyond a certain unidentified level (lots!) is going to be harmful.
(I happen to think the WHO et al. have sensible advise on this, but someone who counts calories and watches overall nutrients and is quite active is going to be able to make an individual decision about the amount of added sugar that is appropriate that might be different, just as many ignore for what they consider good reason the recommendations re sat fat or sodium.)
If one eats an overall healthful diet, they are by default not eating "a lot" of sugar. That said, eating "a lot" of any singular macro nutrient will more then likely lead to an unhealthy diet that is out of balance. So we come back to square 1. Why single out sugar? I bet if we were having this discussion in the 70's and 80's we'd be talking about fat. Same nonsense...
I also stated if there is an energy balance, and nutritional needs are met, extra calories from any source are a non issue. So, what would be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for one may not be "a lot" of sugar (calories) for another...
That isn't true if in fact the extra calories from fructose end being stored as visceral fat that increases insulin resistance. The problem with CICO is our system isn't a gas tank, the human body has multiple types of storage and those storage have different effects associated with them. (blood sugar, glycogen, visceral fat, other fat) It isn't a simple energy balance when the underlying metabolism is being changed.
What actually causes visceral fat and the impacts on visceral fat on metabolic processes is currently a on-going area of study. These effects don't mean that CICO doesn't work, it just means the CO part is far more complex than BMR + exercise. Keep in mind true BMR is something rarely measured in people and mostly we are working from estimates. If one really knows exactly what the calories out are, and what exactly the calories in are, then CICO is an energy balance.
If you are in energy balance the extra calories are not being stored long term...
I don't think that is really true, humans aren't that simple.
1) There really isn't any way to be sure you are in energy balance short term. One can make a good guess but the reaction in the body can be pretty fast. Over the long term better a determination of balance can be made.
2) We have no direct control over our fat storage. It is possible to gain visceral fat but use the ugly but less harmful subterraneous fat. There are other possibilities too.
3) Many tools are too simple, for example 3500 kc / pound of fat doesn't consider energy being consumed by the creation of fat or the burning of fat. Those values could vary by diet and probably many other factors.
4) Metabolism isn't constant and the body makes use of glycogen and adipose tissue to balance out short term needs.
5) Different types of molecules have different metabolic pathways. Sometimes there multiple pathways that could be used and different pathways have different energy requirements.
So while in general energy balance is what we have to work with, understanding the impacts of fructose from various sources will be a big benefit for better nutritional choices. Things like it okay to have 25% of calories from refined sugar or pizza being treated as a vegetable in school lunches are not based on valid nutritional science. It isn't just energy it is also nutrition and health that are important.
It isn't that CICO is invalid, it is just a simple model of something that is much more complex. Models are important and useful, but in the end model rarely completely match the real world.
1) Law of large numbers
2) It's subcutaneous. And Visceral fat is higher priority than subcutaneous fat for lipolysis. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07853899709002451
3) Majoring in the minors
4) Law of large numbers
5) majoring in the minors
Not sure you even read the post or maybe you don't understand what the law of large numbers is.
Anyway there are many TOFI types that clearly don't have a priority of consuming visceral fat.
"In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed."
Meaning it doesn't *slothing* matter if you don't know your exact maintenance calories from one day to another, as the long term is the only thing that matters.
You have it completely backwards. It is only over the long term that a true maintenance level can be determined. The short term errors in diet will accumulate and set the mean. A persons diet is an input, it isn't something being measured.
If you are talking about sampling weight, then probability theory applies for finding the true weight.
The basic point is we don't have any direct control over what fat our bodies uses or where our bodies store fat. CICO is too simple of concept to tell one what is really going on. There are many variables and probably a lot that aren't even understood or even known. The concept of energy balance is fine with diets, but it is far from simple. If it was simple, most diets wouldn't fail.
Diets fail due to lack of adherence. Period.
Really? If it is just all about the kc and CICO then explain this.
Really? If the earth is round as you claim then explain this.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wznf3k57fA
Typical nonsense from the type of person that even hides behind a fake picture.
CICO is pushed hard by large food companies because they are more interested in profits than health. The human body isn't that so simple. There are a lot more factors other than just calories that are important.
Getting back on topic ... in the Great Britian diet there is very little fruit. They would do a lot better filling up more on fruit than drinking juice.
Which large food companies are pushing CICO? If anything, CICO is not a prevalent enough message, it is drowned out by fad diets, quick fixes, things like Wheat Belly, Venus Diet, and 21 Day Fix and "eating clean is the secret to weight loss". I've never seen a food manufacturer with a marketing campaign around CICO, either implicit or explicit. I'm not really sure how an energy balance equation would help them maximize their profitability either. Care to explain and provide some examples?6 -
The only way the food industry has profited from CICO is by marketing the same food in smaller packages, such as 100 calorie snacks, sliders, and coke shots.2
-
Those evil food companies and their calorie and nutrition labels. They're clearly in cahoots with the government to give us information on which to base our eating decisions. It's horrible!!!!4
-
While the smaller packaging probably is more profitable, the main ways companies profit is by using very cheap ingredients, which is why HFCS became so popular. Even sugar as rule is a lot cheaper to work with than fat. That is why we end up with abusrd guidelines like 25% of calories a day from added sugars is part of a balanced diet. Processed food companies can afford to a spend a lot to get the the guideline twisted to their liking and there is a long history of that happening.
Example ad with Coke pushing CISO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZbl35MGTys
CICO is just about energy balance but it doesn't tell anything about how humans actually work. When calaries are dropped a common and even likely senerio is the body responds by lowering its metabolism. Then people feel miserable and they give up on the diet and end up gaining back more weight than they lost. That is the most common outcome of dieting.
Not all calories have the same impacts on our bodies. Processed food companies are always saying things like "all calories count" and trying to make it just about energy. However it isn't just about energy, it is really about metabolism because what you eat changes your metabolism.
There are many examples of eating different foods to change metabolism; ketosis based diets, high protein diets (since protein takes more engery to process), GI/GL based diets and a host of other approaches. There is now a lot of research showing negative impacts of sweeten beverages and other foods. CICO assumes everything is constant, but it isn't.
CICO is valid, but it only give a small part of the whole picture. The human body is very dynamic and highly variable between people. When a diet is sound and modifications aren't too extreme, then CICO is a valuable tool.
0 -
While the smaller packaging probably is more profitable, the main ways companies profit is by using very cheap ingredients, which is why HFCS became so popular. Even sugar as rule is a lot cheaper to work with than fat. That is why we end up with abusrd guidelines like 25% of calories a day from added sugars is part of a balanced diet. Processed food companies can afford to a spend a lot to get the the guideline twisted to their liking and there is a long history of that happening.
Example ad with Coke pushing CISOhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZbl35MGTys
CICO is just about energy balance but it doesn't tell anything about how humans actually work. When calaries are dropped a common and even likely senerio is the body responds by lowering its metabolism. Then people feel miserable and they give up on the diet and end up gaining back more weight than they lost. That is the most common outcome of dieting.
Not all calories have the same impacts on our bodies. Processed food companies are always saying things like "all calories count" and trying to make it just about energy. However it isn't just about energy, it is really about metabolism because what you eat changes your metabolism.
There are many examples of eating different foods to change metabolism; ketosis based diets, high protein diets (since protein takes more engery to process), GI/GL based diets and a host of other approaches. There is now a lot of research showing negative impacts of sweeten beverages and other foods. CICO assumes everything is constant, but it isn't.
CICO is valid, but it only give a small part of the whole picture. The human body is very dynamic and highly variable between people. When a diet is sound and modifications aren't too extreme, then CICO is a valuable tool.
Please stop talking about things you don't understand.
https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/3 -
Ketosis doesn't change your metabolism, extra protein's effect on TEF is laughable, and what Tobias posted.
"On the basis of a meta-analysis, it was concluded that the thermic effect of food increases 7 kcal/1000 kcal of ingested food for each increase of 10 percentage points in the percentage of energy from protein. Thus, if a subject is instructed to consume a 1500-kcal/d energy-restricted diet with 35% of energy from protein, then the thermic effect of food will be 21 kcal/d higher than if protein contributes only 15% of the dietary energy. "
http://saudeemovimento.net.br/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/467_IS_CALORIE_A_CALORIE.PDF3 -
we are frugivores by design, so knock yourself out... check mango island mama for inspo! youtube .... and instgram "hclf"0
-
melissalatzel25 wrote: »we are frugivores by design, so knock yourself out... check mango island mama for inspo! youtube .... and instgram "hclf"
We are not frugivores, nor were we designed. We evolved to be omnivores.5 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »
While the smaller packaging probably is more profitable, the main ways companies profit is by using very cheap ingredients, which is why HFCS became so popular. Even sugar as rule is a lot cheaper to work with than fat. That is why we end up with abusrd guidelines like 25% of calories a day from added sugars is part of a balanced diet. Processed food companies can afford to a spend a lot to get the the guideline twisted to their liking and there is a long history of that happening.
Example ad with Coke pushing CISOhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZbl35MGTys
CICO is just about energy balance but it doesn't tell anything about how humans actually work. When calaries are dropped a common and even likely senerio is the body responds by lowering its metabolism. Then people feel miserable and they give up on the diet and end up gaining back more weight than they lost. That is the most common outcome of dieting.
Not all calories have the same impacts on our bodies. Processed food companies are always saying things like "all calories count" and trying to make it just about energy. However it isn't just about energy, it is really about metabolism because what you eat changes your metabolism.
There are many examples of eating different foods to change metabolism; ketosis based diets, high protein diets (since protein takes more engery to process), GI/GL based diets and a host of other approaches. There is now a lot of research showing negative impacts of sweeten beverages and other foods. CICO assumes everything is constant, but it isn't.
CICO is valid, but it only give a small part of the whole picture. The human body is very dynamic and highly variable between people. When a diet is sound and modifications aren't too extreme, then CICO is a valuable tool.
Please stop talking about things you don't understand.
https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
You like clearly state "Yes, metabolic rate (the amount of calories burnt a day) does vary between people." Which is what I said. It seems you are the one that doesn't know what you are talking about.
You link goes to trying to trivialize a 200 kc to 300 kc typical difference and also admits much larger difference occur. Well 200 kc / day is 21 pounds of fat a year by the CICO model.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Ketosis doesn't change your metabolism, extra protein's effect on TEF is laughable, and what Tobias posted.
"On the basis of a meta-analysis, it was concluded that the thermic effect of food increases 7 kcal/1000 kcal of ingested food for each increase of 10 percentage points in the percentage of energy from protein. Thus, if a subject is instructed to consume a 1500-kcal/d energy-restricted diet with 35% of energy from protein, then the thermic effect of food will be 21 kcal/d higher than if protein contributes only 15% of the dietary energy. "
http://saudeemovimento.net.br/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/467_IS_CALORIE_A_CALORIE.PDF
Your link isn't even valid. The energy costs of using protein depends on what the body does with it. Protein isn't a very good source of glucose although the body can use it.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/519.full
Going into ketosis is a huge metabolic change. Claiming it isn't doesn't change anything. The whole point of ketosis is to force the body to depend on burning fat and to reduce the insulin being produced. It is all about metabolism.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Ketosis doesn't change your metabolism, extra protein's effect on TEF is laughable, and what Tobias posted.
"On the basis of a meta-analysis, it was concluded that the thermic effect of food increases 7 kcal/1000 kcal of ingested food for each increase of 10 percentage points in the percentage of energy from protein. Thus, if a subject is instructed to consume a 1500-kcal/d energy-restricted diet with 35% of energy from protein, then the thermic effect of food will be 21 kcal/d higher than if protein contributes only 15% of the dietary energy. "
http://saudeemovimento.net.br/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/467_IS_CALORIE_A_CALORIE.PDF
As typical your link isn't even valid. The energy costs of using protein depends on what the body does with it. Protein isn't a very good source of glucose although the body can use it.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/519.full
Going into ketosis is a huge metabolic change. Claiming it isn't doesn't change anything. The whole point of ketosis is to force the body to depend on burning fat and to reduce the insulin being produced. It is all about metabolism.
Wrong again
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/5/1055.full&ved=0ahUKEwiC4sTplIzOAhVH2IMKHZPICr8QFggkMAA&usg=AFQjCNGPM2iUvPpy_IQQZdOkGb5pILxCLw&sig2=1qkiKqm9Iw3mD5JdL5X_1Q
3 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Ketosis doesn't change your metabolism, extra protein's effect on TEF is laughable, and what Tobias posted.
"On the basis of a meta-analysis, it was concluded that the thermic effect of food increases 7 kcal/1000 kcal of ingested food for each increase of 10 percentage points in the percentage of energy from protein. Thus, if a subject is instructed to consume a 1500-kcal/d energy-restricted diet with 35% of energy from protein, then the thermic effect of food will be 21 kcal/d higher than if protein contributes only 15% of the dietary energy. "
http://saudeemovimento.net.br/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/467_IS_CALORIE_A_CALORIE.PDF
As typical your link isn't even valid. The energy costs of using protein depends on what the body does with it. Protein isn't a very good source of glucose although the body can use it.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/3/519.full
Going into ketosis is a huge metabolic change. Claiming it isn't doesn't change anything. The whole point of ketosis is to force the body to depend on burning fat and to reduce the insulin being produced. It is all about metabolism.
Wrong again
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/5/1055.full&ved=0ahUKEwiC4sTplIzOAhVH2IMKHZPICr8QFggkMAA&usg=AFQjCNGPM2iUvPpy_IQQZdOkGb5pILxCLw&sig2=1qkiKqm9Iw3mD5JdL5X_1Q
Metabolic advantage is different than metabolism. The action of changing the fuel source mostly used is a metabolic change. In ketosis even the brain is force to get up to 70% of its fuel form ketones. Claiming ketosis isn't a change in metabolism clearly indicates a lack of understanding what metabolism is.
The reason all calories aren't equal is there are many different metabolic pathways in the body with different costs and tradeoffs. Many of these we have no control over. Ketosis is an example of where a diet change which metabolic pathways are being used to what degree.
For a long time people have been claiming that there was additional advantages with ketosis other than primary burning fat. The data is confusing because when the body switches over to ketosis large amounts of glycogen are consumed releasing a lot of water. That gives an initial large weight loss, that is only temporary until the body is no longer in ketosis. Studies like the one you referenced there actually isn't an advantage in energy expenditure. However that doesn't mean there isn't other metabolic changes going on, such as reducing insulin resistance.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »
While the smaller packaging probably is more profitable, the main ways companies profit is by using very cheap ingredients, which is why HFCS became so popular. Even sugar as rule is a lot cheaper to work with than fat. That is why we end up with abusrd guidelines like 25% of calories a day from added sugars is part of a balanced diet. Processed food companies can afford to a spend a lot to get the the guideline twisted to their liking and there is a long history of that happening.
Example ad with Coke pushing CISOhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZbl35MGTys
CICO is just about energy balance but it doesn't tell anything about how humans actually work. When calaries are dropped a common and even likely senerio is the body responds by lowering its metabolism. Then people feel miserable and they give up on the diet and end up gaining back more weight than they lost. That is the most common outcome of dieting.
Not all calories have the same impacts on our bodies. Processed food companies are always saying things like "all calories count" and trying to make it just about energy. However it isn't just about energy, it is really about metabolism because what you eat changes your metabolism.
There are many examples of eating different foods to change metabolism; ketosis based diets, high protein diets (since protein takes more engery to process), GI/GL based diets and a host of other approaches. There is now a lot of research showing negative impacts of sweeten beverages and other foods. CICO assumes everything is constant, but it isn't.
CICO is valid, but it only give a small part of the whole picture. The human body is very dynamic and highly variable between people. When a diet is sound and modifications aren't too extreme, then CICO is a valuable tool.
Please stop talking about things you don't understand.
https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
So far that list seems to include:
How sugar is processed in the body
What ice cream is made of
Parental influence over children's diets
CICO
Basic economics
Metabolism
Ketosis
I can't wait to see what other gems this thread delivers...
7 -
WinoGelato wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »
While the smaller packaging probably is more profitable, the main ways companies profit is by using very cheap ingredients, which is why HFCS became so popular. Even sugar as rule is a lot cheaper to work with than fat. That is why we end up with abusrd guidelines like 25% of calories a day from added sugars is part of a balanced diet. Processed food companies can afford to a spend a lot to get the the guideline twisted to their liking and there is a long history of that happening.
Example ad with Coke pushing CISOhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZbl35MGTys
CICO is just about energy balance but it doesn't tell anything about how humans actually work. When calaries are dropped a common and even likely senerio is the body responds by lowering its metabolism. Then people feel miserable and they give up on the diet and end up gaining back more weight than they lost. That is the most common outcome of dieting.
Not all calories have the same impacts on our bodies. Processed food companies are always saying things like "all calories count" and trying to make it just about energy. However it isn't just about energy, it is really about metabolism because what you eat changes your metabolism.
There are many examples of eating different foods to change metabolism; ketosis based diets, high protein diets (since protein takes more engery to process), GI/GL based diets and a host of other approaches. There is now a lot of research showing negative impacts of sweeten beverages and other foods. CICO assumes everything is constant, but it isn't.
CICO is valid, but it only give a small part of the whole picture. The human body is very dynamic and highly variable between people. When a diet is sound and modifications aren't too extreme, then CICO is a valuable tool.
Please stop talking about things you don't understand.
https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/
So far that list seems to include:
How sugar is processed in the body
What ice cream is made of
Parental influence over children's diets
CICO
Basic economics
Metabolism
Ketosis
I can't wait to see what other gems this thread delivers...
Pure comedy gold. It is entertaining to watch yet another person spend page after page saying what boils down to "it can't be done" while arguing with those doing the very thing he's saying can't be done. Epic hand wringing. Some people love their excuses.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions