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
Options
Replies
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »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 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.
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.
I never said anything of the sort. However that doesn't excuse the misinformation being brandied about.
There many people that achieve weight success it is just most people aren't successful and I would warrant that is even true here. In the modern world most people have the deck stacked against them and many aren't even aware of it.
I guess the group you're speaking with are just generic anomalies.
I don't know what people that hide behind fake pictures are. But in general the people here are a very small segment of the world's population.
lol at the fake pics. That's me a few weeks ago at 43. How's that fitness routine coming along?1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »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.
I never said anything of the sort. However that doesn't excuse the misinformation being brandied about.
There many people that achieve weight success it is just most people aren't successful and I would warrant that is even true here. In the modern world most people have the deck stacked against them and many aren't even aware of it.
The only deck stacked against them, is their inability to understand and apply basic math. Everything else would just fall under terrible willpower, which is not the fault of food.
Not true at all. At least in the states labelling can be very deceptive at worst and confusing at best. For example typically only total sugar is reported on a label. One has know the many names used for added sugar and read ingredients to get a sense of how much added sugar there is or do some kind of comparisons.
Another example is products that advertise they are a good source of OMEGA-3 fats, like some sliced breads, but one would have to eat over a 150 slices a week to get enough OMEGA-3 fats. Hardly a good source.
While it is possible for people to learn, the readily available information is highly obfuscated.
The kinds of things we debate here, tend to be above and beyond what is needed to just maintain an acceptable weight. So, if you use that metric, then yeah, it can be difficult to divine all needed information.
However, for just run of the mill weight loss, the information has never been easier to acquire. However, the easier the information becomes to acquire, the fatter the population gets. I am becoming convinced that we've reached some irreversible downward spiral, that only a decade of severe famine can fix. As I've said before, food is cheap, easy to acquire, and there's little incentive for most to curb their consumption, until health problems have already begun to manifest.
Again, this is not the fault of plentiful food. It's the fault of a willfully ignorant populatuon, with little sense of self-control.0 -
Fake pictures...interesting.0
-
Clutching at straws, more like1
-
-
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »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.
I never said anything of the sort. However that doesn't excuse the misinformation being brandied about.
There many people that achieve weight success it is just most people aren't successful and I would warrant that is even true here. In the modern world most people have the deck stacked against them and many aren't even aware of it.
I guess the group you're speaking with are just generic anomalies.
I don't know what people that hide behind fake pictures are. But in general the people here are a very small segment of the world's population.
lol at the fake pics. That's me a few weeks ago at 43. How's that fitness routine coming along?
I wasn't referring to your picture.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
What's strange about it? Could ask for the same reason why dykask isn't using his full name as his username but something made up instead.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
Better way to say it. I wouldn't even notice except when they practice the drive by shooting type of posting. Add nothing to a discussion just take pot shots at other peoples posts.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »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.
I never said anything of the sort. However that doesn't excuse the misinformation being brandied about.
There many people that achieve weight success it is just most people aren't successful and I would warrant that is even true here. In the modern world most people have the deck stacked against them and many aren't even aware of it.
I guess the group you're speaking with are just generic anomalies.
I don't know what people that hide behind fake pictures are. But in general the people here are a very small segment of the world's population.
lol at the fake pics. That's me a few weeks ago at 43. How's that fitness routine coming along?
I wasn't referring to your picture.
I had a feeling you weren't, but if you're going to throw that out then please do elaborate and name names. It's rather impolite to throw vague accusations, particularly when your arguments have so missed the mark and you've demonstrated no experience yourself.
I think you'd be surprised who is on here, and there are quite a few competitive strength athletes as well as bodybuilders.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/
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.
The human body does not gain or lose fat in such a linear fashion...
You can't have it both ways, either it counts or it doesn't.
In fact you are correct the human body isn't linear and metabolism is very complex and is also tied to the calories consumed. That is the fundament problem with CICO, it doesn't account for the fact that the body is always making adjuments to the energy being used. At best CICO is a guide. In someways it is the best thing we have but in others it is greatly abused becase people expect it to be a linear system.
You are making a fundamental error. CICO is just an energy equation. It accounts for everything going on in regards for metabolism. CI<CO = weight loss, CI>CO = weight gain, always. When one calculates their numbers they know (or at least they should) that it's an educated guess. That is why there is some trial and error involved in figuring out ones TDEE.
I will tell you this, regardless of the diet you choose, if you do not eat less then your body needs, you will not lose weight, period, end of story. Argue all you want, but you will never succeed until you accept that simple fact.
You are doing what many do. You oversimplify the science of fat loss (it's the sugar!) and at the same time, overcomplicate the execution.6 -
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.
The human body does not gain or lose fat in such a linear fashion...
You can't have it both ways, either it counts or it doesn't.
In fact you are correct the human body isn't linear and metabolism is very complex and is also tied to the calories consumed. That is the fundament problem with CICO, it doesn't account for the fact that the body is always making adjuments to the energy being used. At best CICO is a guide. In someways it is the best thing we have but in others it is greatly abused becase people expect it to be a linear system.
You are making a fundamental error. CICO is just an energy equation. It accounts for everything going on in regards for metabolism. CI<CO = weight loss, CI>CO = weight gain, always. When one calculates their numbers they know (or at least they should) that it's an educated guess. That is why there is some trial and error involved in figuring out ones TDEE.
I will tell you this, regardless of the diet you choose, if you do not eat less then your body needs, you will not lose weight, period, end of story. Argue all you want, but you will never succeed until you accept that simple fact.
You are doing what many do. You oversimplify the science of fat loss (it's the sugar!) and at the same time, overcomplicate the execution.
I'm not debating anything about the energy equation, it just isn't that helpful because we are not a closed system and there is no way to know for sure what the energy out is. Even counting calories is very error prone. So you don't really know exactly what CI is or what CO is. There are good estimates on both sides, but they can be off by a fair amount. We can only know what the energy was, not exactly what it is. That is way it can't be used as more than a guide.
In MFP I've seen many posters doing absurd things, like claiming they are dieting on 500 kc / day. I'm not saying MFP promotes that type of behavior, but oversimplification may promote that type of behavior.0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »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.
I never said anything of the sort. However that doesn't excuse the misinformation being brandied about.
There many people that achieve weight success it is just most people aren't successful and I would warrant that is even true here. In the modern world most people have the deck stacked against them and many aren't even aware of it.
I guess the group you're speaking with are just generic anomalies.
I don't know what people that hide behind fake pictures are. But in general the people here are a very small segment of the world's population.
lol at the fake pics. That's me a few weeks ago at 43. How's that fitness routine coming along?
I wasn't referring to your picture.
I had a feeling you weren't, but if you're going to throw that out then please do elaborate and name names. It's rather impolite to throw vague accusations, particularly when your arguments have so missed the mark and you've demonstrated no experience yourself.
I think you'd be surprised who is on here, and there are quite a few competitive strength athletes as well as bodybuilders.
Seriously just look at the pictures. It is pretty clear which pictures can't be real. If you post names then that is just opening the door to getting yourself banned. I'm not really into the personal attack business although I've been getting attacked a lot here for just not towing the party line. There is really a sick side to MPF. Somethings are treated like idols, LCHF, ketosis, CISO and now I think it is safe to say sugar is in that list. Some people have very closed minds or they just want to cause trouble.
I'm not really concerned much about diets, it is peoples right to eat the way they want. However the hidden added sugars in foods really bothers me. It is like we are giving money to the food companies so they can use ultra cheap ingredients that are making a lot of people sick. Then we all end up paying for it in health care costs. It is sort of the same thing as Walmart employees getting food stamps because Walmart doesn't pay a living wage or allow enough working hours. The public ends up paying one way or the other. This may be mainly a US problem, but it is big. I'm not even currently living in the US and I still have to pay for it. I have to carry US healthcare or pay the Obamacare tax penalty and I pay Medicare taxes on my income. Additionally wages in the US are lower because of the amount employers have to pay for health care coverage. (I think the US is the only country were most health insurance is tied to employment of someone in the family.)0 -
Sugar isn't the problem, but processed sugar yes.2
-
kbarrett0701 wrote: »Sugar isn't the problem, but processed sugar yes.
They're exactly the same thing.5 -
I agree with this. This is exactly why determining TDEE is a guess, an educated one though. After that, there is some trial and error involved. But that number does not have to be exact, nor will it ever be, nor does it really matter...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.
The human body does not gain or lose fat in such a linear fashion...
You can't have it both ways, either it counts or it doesn't.
In fact you are correct the human body isn't linear and metabolism is very complex and is also tied to the calories consumed. That is the fundament problem with CICO, it doesn't account for the fact that the body is always making adjuments to the energy being used. At best CICO is a guide. In someways it is the best thing we have but in others it is greatly abused becase people expect it to be a linear system.
You are making a fundamental error. CICO is just an energy equation. It accounts for everything going on in regards for metabolism. CI<CO = weight loss, CI>CO = weight gain, always. When one calculates their numbers they know (or at least they should) that it's an educated guess. That is why there is some trial and error involved in figuring out ones TDEE.
I will tell you this, regardless of the diet you choose, if you do not eat less then your body needs, you will not lose weight, period, end of story. Argue all you want, but you will never succeed until you accept that simple fact.
You are doing what many do. You oversimplify the science of fat loss (it's the sugar!) and at the same time, overcomplicate the execution.
I'm not debating anything about the energy equation, it just isn't that helpful because we are not a closed system and there is no way to know for sure what the energy out is.
If they are off within reason it is a non factor. Again, there will always be some trial and error involved...Even counting calories is very error prone. So you don't really know exactly what CI is or what CO is. There are good estimates on both sides, but they can be off by a fair amount.
You are overthinking it...We can only know what the energy was, not exactly what it is. That is way it can't be used as more than a guide.
Overthinking the process and being fearful of certain foods promotes that behavior. Understanding what CICO is and isn't takes the stress out of the equation and helps with adherence, which regardless of the diet you choose, is the number one factor involved with success or failure...In MFP I've seen many posters doing absurd things, like claiming they are dieting on 500 kc / day. I'm not saying MFP promotes that type of behavior, but oversimplification may promote that type of behavior.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »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.
I never said anything of the sort. However that doesn't excuse the misinformation being brandied about.
There many people that achieve weight success it is just most people aren't successful and I would warrant that is even true here. In the modern world most people have the deck stacked against them and many aren't even aware of it.
The only deck stacked against them, is their inability to understand and apply basic math. Everything else would just fall under terrible willpower, which is not the fault of food.
I agree.
And the labels are not confusing. Anyone who blames labels for their weight is using a transparent and sad excuse. (To be fair, I haven't actually run into any overweight people offline who blame labels.)2 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
Are there any such people on this thread?
I use my (not fake) cat because I like the photo, but there are pictures of me both fat and currently on my profile. I am a work in progress, but one at a healthy BMI (22) despite living in the USA.1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »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.
I never said anything of the sort. However that doesn't excuse the misinformation being brandied about.
There many people that achieve weight success it is just most people aren't successful and I would warrant that is even true here. In the modern world most people have the deck stacked against them and many aren't even aware of it.
I guess the group you're speaking with are just generic anomalies.
I don't know what people that hide behind fake pictures are. But in general the people here are a very small segment of the world's population.
lol at the fake pics. That's me a few weeks ago at 43. How's that fitness routine coming along?
I wasn't referring to your picture.
I had a feeling you weren't, but if you're going to throw that out then please do elaborate and name names. It's rather impolite to throw vague accusations, particularly when your arguments have so missed the mark and you've demonstrated no experience yourself.
I think you'd be surprised who is on here, and there are quite a few competitive strength athletes as well as bodybuilders.
Seriously just look at the pictures. It is pretty clear which pictures can't be real. If you post names then that is just opening the door to getting yourself banned. I'm not really into the personal attack business although I've been getting attacked a lot here for just not towing the party line. There is really a sick side to MPF. Somethings are treated like idols, LCHF, ketosis, CISO and now I think it is safe to say sugar is in that list. Some people have very closed minds or they just want to cause trouble.
I'm not really concerned much about diets, it is peoples right to eat the way they want. However the hidden added sugars in foods really bothers me. It is like we are giving money to the food companies so they can use ultra cheap ingredients that are making a lot of people sick. Then we all end up paying for it in health care costs. It is sort of the same thing as Walmart employees getting food stamps because Walmart doesn't pay a living wage or allow enough working hours. The public ends up paying one way or the other. This may be mainly a US problem, but it is big. I'm not even currently living in the US and I still have to pay for it. I have to carry US healthcare or pay the Obamacare tax penalty and I pay Medicare taxes on my income. Additionally wages in the US are lower because of the amount employers have to pay for health care coverage. (I think the US is the only country were most health insurance is tied to employment of someone in the family.)
Do you ever read your own posts?2 -
kbarrett0701 wrote: »Sugar isn't the problem, but processed sugar yes.
that is strange considering they are the same thing...sugar = sugar ..
3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »
Are there any such people on this thread?
I use my (not fake) cat because I like the photo, but there are pictures of me both fat and currently on my profile. I am a work in progress, but one at a healthy BMI (22) despite living in the USA.
Clearly it's aimed at me.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions