All calories may not be equal

1151618202124

Replies

  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    I think that the obesity epidemic can be explained in part by this type of thread.

    The problem is that everybody is so sure to know all there is to know about weight and nutrition. Yet everyone and their dog is on a perpetual diet: gains, and loses, and gain and loses again.

    Our weight is out of control but man, do we HAVE the KNOWLEDGE or what?

    AND THE SCIENCE! AND FACTS !

    Crazy times.

    Ok, off to sleep.

    Qui dort, dîne ...

    LOL If there really was but one true answer that worked for every single person on this planet, then this thread wouldn't have gotten to 18 pages..

    True, CICO is the basis of weight loss, but how people choose to get there varies on an individual basis.
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Big Pharma is a life saver!

    Yes it is a life saver many times. But don't kid yourself, its main goal is profit.

    Tens of millions of Americans taking statins who don't need them. Tens of millions of Americans taking insulin and pills for Type 2 diabetes, when a simple diet switch along with exercise can often stop it or reverse it. A new psychiatric disorder invented every other year. Millions taking meds for depression when they're not clinically depressed.

    There's a CVS and Walgreen on every other corner not because of their junk food and cosmetic business. It's all because of Big Pharma.

    I'm 57 and I take nothing. Some luck, obviously, but I work at it. If most 55 to 60-year-olds took nothing, Big Pharma would be in Big Trouble.
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    edited August 2016
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Maxematics wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    @ndj1979

    I was looking for studies that show how much people err in estimating caloric intake and the numbers are all over the place. Could you direct me to the source of your information that people's estimates are off by 30-50%? Thanks in advance.

    I am curious to know just how accurate MFP loggers are...I use a food scale, and after reading on these forums how inaccurate the weight of packaged foods can be, I weigh & measure those, too. It's illuminating to weigh pre-packaged foods.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
    The Behavioural Insights Team points to scientific and economic data showing people eat 3,000 calories, compared to the 2,000 cited in official surveys.

    http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf

    3,000 calories? Do you know how much that it is? Sorry, but unless your have a big meal with drinks at a restaurant, drinking a six-pack of Coke, or eating entire giant bags of chips, you are not eating 3,000 calories. And if we were, just about every woman and most men would be obese.

    How funny to read this now, as others have said. I'm an 108 pound woman who eats 2000 to 2500 just to maintain her weight, so I think it's interesting that despite your "eat like a horse" past you think 3000 calories is a lot. I guess you didn't eat as much as you thought.

    Deny, deny, deny. No such thing as fast metabolisms.
    No one's denied that metabolism's are different from person to person. The argument that's always been made to you is that if someone isn't gaining weight, then they aren't EATING ENOUGH to cause weight gain. There AREN'T naturally skinny people. What don't you understand about that?



    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    You're right. I don't understand that.
  • Sloth2016
    Sloth2016 Posts: 838 Member
    edited August 2016
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Mentali wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    @ndj1979

    I was looking for studies that show how much people err in estimating caloric intake and the numbers are all over the place. Could you direct me to the source of your information that people's estimates are off by 30-50%? Thanks in advance.

    I am curious to know just how accurate MFP loggers are...I use a food scale, and after reading on these forums how inaccurate the weight of packaged foods can be, I weigh & measure those, too. It's illuminating to weigh pre-packaged foods.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
    The Behavioural Insights Team points to scientific and economic data showing people eat 3,000 calories, compared to the 2,000 cited in official surveys.

    http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf

    3,000 calories? Do you know how much that it is? Sorry, but unless your have a big meal with drinks at a restaurant, drinking a six-pack of Coke, or eating entire giant bags of chips, you are not eating 3,000 calories. And if we were, just about every woman and most men would be obese.

    Sorry, but not as hard as you may think for people that eat out.

    Cheesecake Factory The Bistro Shrimp Pasta - 3,120 calories
    Cheesecake Factory Bruleed French Toast - 2780 calories
    Cheesecake Factory - Farfalle With Chicken and Roasted Garlic - 2410 calories
    Sonic: Large Peanut Butter Caramel Pie Malt (just one milkshake) - 2170 calories
    Maggiano's Little Italy Veal Porterhouse - 2,710 calories
    Johnny Rockets Bacon & Cheddar Double Cheeseburger (just the burger) - 1,770 calories.

    I could go on.

    Of course all that factory made food is going to be dreadful for you.

    I've personally never eaten at The Cheesecake Factory, I just know they have some very high calories menu items. Granted, I really don't think it would matter if I did or not. Not really if that was a serious comment or not.

    Breeze excels in making comments exaggerated just plausible enough to get responses - in this case, I think the hope was the response of "it's not a real factory!!" :D

    Well of course not. It is a factory in the factory farm sense. I can't believe they make it that easy for you to know to avoid the place but people still go there.
    You discriminate against any food that's not to your liking. Just because you don't like or approve of it, doesn't mean it's dangerous. All you're doing here is showing newbies that your information isn't legit enough to believe regardless of how smart you try to make yourself seem. There's GROUPS you can hang with that believe like you do and will give you praise if that's what you're looking for.

    Is there really a group of people of like mind with Breeze?
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,961 Member
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Big Pharma is a life saver!

    Yes it is a life saver many times. But don't kid yourself, its main goal is profit.

    Tens of millions of Americans taking statins who don't need them. Tens of millions of Americans taking insulin and pills for Type 2 diabetes, when a simple diet switch along with exercise can often stop it or reverse it. A new psychiatric disorder invented every other year. Millions taking meds for depression when they're not clinically depressed.

    There's a CVS and Walgreen on every other corner not because of their junk food and cosmetic business. It's all because of Big Pharma.

    I'm 57 and I take nothing. Some luck, obviously, but I work at it. If most 55 to 60-year-olds took nothing, Big Pharma would be in Big Trouble.
    This is something I'll agree with. Unfortunately society looks to pop a pill to solve whatever health issue they think they have. Same with weight loss. That's why even the supplement business is a billion dollar industry.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Big Pharma is a life saver!

    Yes it is a life saver many times. But don't kid yourself, its main goal is profit.

    Tens of millions of Americans taking statins who don't need them. Tens of millions of Americans taking insulin and pills for Type 2 diabetes, when a simple diet switch along with exercise can often stop it or reverse it. A new psychiatric disorder invented every other year. Millions taking meds for depression when they're not clinically depressed.

    There's a CVS and Walgreen on every other corner not because of their junk food and cosmetic business. It's all because of Big Pharma.

    I'm 57 and I take nothing. Some luck, obviously, but I work at it. If most 55 to 60-year-olds took nothing, Big Pharma would be in Big Trouble.

    If people didn't regularly demand quick fixes, doctors would prescribe fewer medications. There is a lot of demand driving consumerism.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,961 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Maxematics wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    @ndj1979

    I was looking for studies that show how much people err in estimating caloric intake and the numbers are all over the place. Could you direct me to the source of your information that people's estimates are off by 30-50%? Thanks in advance.

    I am curious to know just how accurate MFP loggers are...I use a food scale, and after reading on these forums how inaccurate the weight of packaged foods can be, I weigh & measure those, too. It's illuminating to weigh pre-packaged foods.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
    The Behavioural Insights Team points to scientific and economic data showing people eat 3,000 calories, compared to the 2,000 cited in official surveys.

    http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf

    3,000 calories? Do you know how much that it is? Sorry, but unless your have a big meal with drinks at a restaurant, drinking a six-pack of Coke, or eating entire giant bags of chips, you are not eating 3,000 calories. And if we were, just about every woman and most men would be obese.

    How funny to read this now, as others have said. I'm an 108 pound woman who eats 2000 to 2500 just to maintain her weight, so I think it's interesting that despite your "eat like a horse" past you think 3000 calories is a lot. I guess you didn't eat as much as you thought.

    Deny, deny, deny. No such thing as fast metabolisms.
    No one's denied that metabolism's are different from person to person. The argument that's always been made to you is that if someone isn't gaining weight, then they aren't EATING ENOUGH to cause weight gain. There AREN'T naturally skinny people. What don't you understand about that?



    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    You're right. I don't understand that.
    I know you don't because you keep ranting about "fast metabolisms". People can out eat a "fast metabolism". Ask Michael Phelps. Do you think he eats a pound of pasta when he's off season? Why not? Because he'd over consume over his TDEE and gain unwanted weight. And this is a guy with a "fast metabolism". His metabolism is based on his muscle mass, weight and physical activity. It slows when these are all reduced. Yes or no?

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,961 Member
    Sloth2016 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Mentali wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    @ndj1979

    I was looking for studies that show how much people err in estimating caloric intake and the numbers are all over the place. Could you direct me to the source of your information that people's estimates are off by 30-50%? Thanks in advance.

    I am curious to know just how accurate MFP loggers are...I use a food scale, and after reading on these forums how inaccurate the weight of packaged foods can be, I weigh & measure those, too. It's illuminating to weigh pre-packaged foods.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
    The Behavioural Insights Team points to scientific and economic data showing people eat 3,000 calories, compared to the 2,000 cited in official surveys.

    http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf

    3,000 calories? Do you know how much that it is? Sorry, but unless your have a big meal with drinks at a restaurant, drinking a six-pack of Coke, or eating entire giant bags of chips, you are not eating 3,000 calories. And if we were, just about every woman and most men would be obese.

    Sorry, but not as hard as you may think for people that eat out.

    Cheesecake Factory The Bistro Shrimp Pasta - 3,120 calories
    Cheesecake Factory Bruleed French Toast - 2780 calories
    Cheesecake Factory - Farfalle With Chicken and Roasted Garlic - 2410 calories
    Sonic: Large Peanut Butter Caramel Pie Malt (just one milkshake) - 2170 calories
    Maggiano's Little Italy Veal Porterhouse - 2,710 calories
    Johnny Rockets Bacon & Cheddar Double Cheeseburger (just the burger) - 1,770 calories.

    I could go on.

    Of course all that factory made food is going to be dreadful for you.

    I've personally never eaten at The Cheesecake Factory, I just know they have some very high calories menu items. Granted, I really don't think it would matter if I did or not. Not really if that was a serious comment or not.

    Breeze excels in making comments exaggerated just plausible enough to get responses - in this case, I think the hope was the response of "it's not a real factory!!" :D

    Well of course not. It is a factory in the factory farm sense. I can't believe they make it that easy for you to know to avoid the place but people still go there.
    You discriminate against any food that's not to your liking. Just because you don't like or approve of it, doesn't mean it's dangerous. All you're doing here is showing newbies that your information isn't legit enough to believe regardless of how smart you try to make yourself seem. There's GROUPS you can hang with that believe like you do and will give you praise if that's what you're looking for.

    Is there really a group of people of like mind with Breeze?
    Any "clean eating" group would welcome him with open arms.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    "Why isn't it science? "

    Saying a calorie isn't always a calorie is like saying a meter isn't always a meter or a pound isn't always a pound. They are units of measurement, by definition they are equivalent in all cases. It is a silly nonsensical statement.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    "Why isn't it science? "

    Saying a calorie isn't always a calorie is like saying a meter isn't always a meter or a pound isn't always a pound. They are units of measurement, by definition they are equivalent in all cases. It is a silly nonsensical statement.
    Kinda like this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkqg6HE888A

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    Yeah basically. I guess not all calories are the same after all.
  • edwardetr
    edwardetr Posts: 140 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    ...in otherwords, if you find a "calorie" that is not equivalent to another "calorie" its because you measured wrong, not because somehow calories don't equal calories.

    Its literally like someone saying hey this 7 inch thing is longer than this other 7 inch thing. First thing that should come into your mind is "I guess one of them was measured incorrectly" not "sounds scientific to me"

    But in your body they can be different and in your body is where they matter. For instance, your body will not store a calorie of alcohol as fat. It will for carbs, protein, and fat. It also takes more energy to convert a protein to fuel than a carbohydrate. They are all the same as units of measure but can look different to your body. By your argument, a gallon of gasoline is the same as a gallon of water because they are the same unit of measure, so my body should process them the same.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,961 Member
    edwardetr wrote: »
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    ...in otherwords, if you find a "calorie" that is not equivalent to another "calorie" its because you measured wrong, not because somehow calories don't equal calories.

    Its literally like someone saying hey this 7 inch thing is longer than this other 7 inch thing. First thing that should come into your mind is "I guess one of them was measured incorrectly" not "sounds scientific to me"

    But in your body they can be different and in your body is where they matter. For instance, your body will not store a calorie of alcohol as fat. It will for carbs, protein, and fat. It also takes more energy to convert a protein to fuel than a carbohydrate. They are all the same as units of measure but can look different to your body. By your argument, a gallon of gasoline is the same as a gallon of water because they are the same unit of measure, so my body should process them the same.
    For MEASUREMENT reasons they are the same. A liter is a liter whether it's a liter of gas or a liter of water. That DOESN'T change the measurement value.
    A calorie is a calorie. If I burned 10 calories of sugar or 10 calories of fat, it's STILL 10 calories. Same with ingestion.
    Now of course the body reacts to different macro to macro on chemical basis. But if I were to set a goal to run a mile and had to do it through sand, uphill, in the rain, with shoes off, etc. all of those would have different intensity levels, but if I did a mile for all of them, it's still a mile.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • Etsar73
    Etsar73 Posts: 260 Member
    edited August 2016
    Psychgrrl wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    I could easily hit 3000 calories eating at places like cheesecake factory. But getting that much at home day in day out, i reckon I'd struggle. My blowout cheat days rarely hit 2500 calories. I'm a total lightweight failure :tongue:

    Adding one pint of Haagen-Dazs chocolate peanut butter ice cream (1360 calories) to my current deficit intake would put me at 3660. I don't think many people would consider a pint of ice cream per day as an undue hardship.

    Alternately, I could cook my morning eggs in a couple tablespoons of olive oil (+240 calories), have 2 ounces of almonds for a mid-morning snack (+320 calories), slice up half an avocado and add it to my salad for dinner (+130 calories). Add those to my normal daily intake and boom, I'm at 3000 calories and would barely notice any difference in terms of satiety.

    True, true :smile: I'd have no problem eating a pint of ice cream, and yes it would be easy adding lashings of oil to things without noticing it much.

    @Christine_72 Do you have Halo Top ice cream down under? It's protein ice cream--an entire pint is 280 calories max. And it's GOOD. Not like the other stuff I've tried which tastes like frozen ice with a brown crayon mixed in and called "chocolate."

    Also ... Sonics are just plain fun. It's a drive up restaurant and the wait staff is on roller skates. Worth it just for the experience. (And the tater tots.) :wink:

    No we dont :( I don't think we have anything even remotely similar.

    Fropro is sold at my Woolworths but a tub costs almost $14! I am tempted by the product but the price puts me right off!

    http://fropro.com.au/
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    MrSimmers wrote: »
    A calorie is a unit of energy, not a food, so by definition the type of calorie makes no difference in terms of weight gain/loss. However as echoed by many others, the type of calories you consume perform vastly different biological roles. Proteins and carbohybrates have completely different functions and purposes. Maintaining good health can and does indirectly lead to the amount of weight you lose through many factors. Excess toxins in the diet may cause lethargy and fatigue, leading to lack of motivation and subsequent weight gain. So whilst "all calories are equal" is technically true, indirectly its not so simple, and the quality does matter.

    Actually, proteins can fulfill the role of carbs since your body can convert them to carbs...
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    He's using calories as a synonym for food and arguing that foods are different. That's true, but a strawman--no one says otherwise, and calorie does not mean "food." It's a unit of energy. I'm sure if asked, Hyman -- despite his own diet that he likes to promote -- would acknowledge that there's not really any such thing as a "kale calorie" or a "gummy bear calorie."

    Claiming that protein and fat calories promote fat burning sounds like a scammy way to try and promote a particular diet (and you can easily find pedigreed doctors even now who will tell you fat and protein are the problems). The true -- and I am sure Hyman would admit it if forced to address is -- is that if your maintenance is 2000 and you eat 3000 calories of only fat and protein, you will be putting on fat fast.

    People really like to do that. Same in sugar threads. "Natural and refined sugars are different!" *lists a ton of things that have nothing to do with the sugars*
    Or on a later page in here with gallons...

    With calories I can still sorta understand the mental disconnect since calorie is an abstract and not a thing you can touch but people somehow want to make it into a thing in their head to wrap their mind around the concept.
  • Isabelle_1929
    Isabelle_1929 Posts: 233 Member
    edited August 2016
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    I think that the obesity epidemic can be explained in part by this type of thread.

    The problem is that everybody is so sure to know all there is to know about weight and nutrition. Yet everyone and their dog is on a perpetual diet: gains, and loses, and gain and loses again.

    Our weight is out of control but man, do we HAVE the KNOWLEDGE or what?

    AND THE SCIENCE! AND FACTS !

    Crazy times.

    Ok, off to sleep.

    Qui dort, dîne ...
    There are basics. Math works here. Eat more than you burn, you gain. Eat less than you burn, you lose. Eat what you burn, you maintain. That's not disputed in any Journal of science.

    The PROBLEM is people are fallible with how THEY CONTROL the diet they choose.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    I don't disagree with you. But you are talking about the tree, while I was talking about the whole forest.

    A diet is as a whole system. Like any computer or information system: it must include the "user". Ex. You are responsible for designing and maintaining the information system, say, of an insurance company. A problem occurs with the program: it does't work as it should and you find that the proximate cause, is the user's actions. They don't use the right command or forget to use capital letters, for example. As a IT specialist you should not say: "My system's great and perfect as it is - but the users can't use it right and that's the problem. So I'll leave it to the managers to deal with their staff issues." That would be ridiculous, of course, because the users - the insurance company's staff in my example -, with their knowledge, or lack thereof, and the way they actually work on their computers on a daily basis, ARE part of the system that you designed.

    Of course managers will do their job, and training should be provided to users; but a system will always have to take the users as they are NOW.

    It's the exact same things with "diets". They should be seen as a system.

    And last time I checked, my brain was a body part. For some reason most diets - including CICO, are designed as if the brain was not a body part. Like it's detached, floating in a Formol jar or something, and you can bring it to a therapist at the end of the week to have it fixed, while the rest of the body is eating clean, doing diligent interval workout and posting the whole on Instagram.

    "The diet's great, but your brain is flawed."

    This sentence just does not make sense to me. Not when you look at the forest, i.e. thousands of people, over decades.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    Lets put this another way.

    Lets say Bob and Sam have very different "metabolisms" since that seems to be the word people like to use for whatever reason even though all humans have the same core metabolic functions. What they really mean is that Bob obtains less energy from the 100 calories on the box label than Sam does due to his utilization of the food either through variations of digestion, absorption or excretion levels. Perhaps Bob also is specifically not very good at digesting fats and therefore obtains less energy from fats as Sam but carbs and protein Bob and Sam are the same.

    So if Bob eats 100 calories of pure carbs its the same as Sams 100 calories but if he eats 100 calories of pure fat he gets way less energy than Sams 100 calories of pure fat.

    Tell me. What method should Bob employ to figure this out about his body? Would it be, perhaps, tracking the calories he consumes as written on the box versus his weight over time and determining which macro balance works for hitting a comfortable maintenance and then adjusting accordingly.

    Or should he just mope about his inefficient metabolism and laugh at people who suggest he count calories because "a calorie isn't always a calorie"

    What is more important here, the semantic argument people seem to love to make about calories or the actual goal that people are working towards attaining and wanting to learn what methods they can employ to better understand their bodies as it pertains to their diet and health?

    This. x1000.

    Yes, calculators and counts are going to boil down to estimates. You still need to play with the numbers to find what works.

    But counting does work.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    I think that the obesity epidemic can be explained in part by this type of thread.

    The problem is that everybody is so sure to know all there is to know about weight and nutrition. Yet everyone and their dog is on a perpetual diet: gains, and loses, and gain and loses again.

    Our weight is out of control but man, do we HAVE the KNOWLEDGE or what?

    AND THE SCIENCE! AND FACTS !

    Crazy times.

    Ok, off to sleep.

    Qui dort, dîne ...
    There are basics. Math works here. Eat more than you burn, you gain. Eat less than you burn, you lose. Eat what you burn, you maintain. That's not disputed in any Journal of science.

    The PROBLEM is people are fallible with how THEY CONTROL the diet they choose.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    I don't disagree with you. But you are talking about the tree, while I was talking about the whole forest.

    A diet is as a whole system. Like any computer or information system: it must include the "user". Ex. You are responsible for designing and maintaining the information system, say, of an insurance company. A problem occurs with the program: it does't work as it should and you find that the proximate cause, is the user's actions. They don't use the right command or forget to use capital letters, for example. As a IT specialist you should not say: "My system's great and perfect as it is - but the users can't use it right and that's the problem. So I'll leave it to the managers to deal with their staff issues." That would be ridiculous, of course, because the users - the insurance company's staff in my example -, with their knowledge, or lack thereof, and the way they actually work on their computers on a daily basis, ARE part of the system that you designed.

    Of course managers will do their job, and training should be provided to users; but a system will always have to take the users as they are NOW.

    It's the exact same things with "diets". They should be seen as a system.

    And last time I checked, my brain was a body part. For some reason most diets - including CICO, are designed as if the brain was not a body part. Like it's detached, floating in a Formol jar or something, and you can bring it to a therapist at the end of the week to have it fixed, while the rest of the body is eating clean, doing diligent interval workout and posting the whole on Instagram.

    "The diet's great, but your brain is flawed."

    This sentence just does not make sense to me. Not when you look at the forest, i.e. thousands of people, over decades.

    But here I think you've hit on WHY a lot of us focus on what is known and object to efforts (like with the book under discussion) to create a diet that supposedly magically fixes everything for all of us. There are a million of them. All of them work (in that if you follow them you will lose weight), and all don't (in that the obesity problem continues unchecked despite people following the diet -- even self-proclaimed gurus like Jimmie Moore, who says many of the same things as the author of this book, seems to remain or fall back into obesity all the time).

    The truth is that we do know the basics of why we gain or lose weight (calories). We know the basics about nutrition, despite the efforts of some to complicate it or claim that "carbs" are bad or whatever. And we can tell through personal experience and experimentation what makes us hungry or satisfied. We know our own habits and if we are mindful we can recognize when and why we tend to overeat. Therefore, we can, if we choose, work with all this to create a way of eating that will work for us, although I happen to think that in the environment we live in that might well make it harder for some of us. But it is what it is and as humans we are smart and can figure it out.

    That's why I object to overcomplicating it and saying one must follow so special program or the like. Understand the basics and then do what you like (including following the book if that appeals to you, of course, as long as you first understand why so are not misled).
  • This content has been removed.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    As a child, I grew up in food desert. We lived 50 miles from the nearest grocery store(North Africa). We grew our own vegetables, had hens and ate a lot of canned meats. To this day I love spam.
  • DebSozo
    DebSozo Posts: 2,578 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    An efficient metabolism is able to do more work with less input.

    ETA: Just like an efficient car gets better gas mileage, so you need to fill it up less often.

    Some people convert their cars to run on grease trap leavings. They then collect the leavings for free so their car essentially is the best mileage of all when you think about the costs.
    Maybe some people's metabolisms are like that.
    Lol, when you say "convert" you're talking about someone changing their genetics? :D

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
    So explain how epigenetics changes DNA sequence. I'd like to hear it.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    I'm not sure you understand what DNA is when you ask that question.
    If your DNA doesn't change, then explain why people can even lose weight by exercising more or eating better, instead of their weight just being what their DNA says it should be.
    Lol, DNA DOESN'T say what your weight should be. Environment, lifestyle and habitual behavior contribute to that, but YOU'RE responsible for your own weight.
    Yes I understand DNA just fine.
    So again instead of avoiding questions like you have in the past, explain how epigentics changes DNA sequence? You brought it up.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    Fine, I'll explain it to you since you can't follow.
    DNA is like a recipe
    5 free range omega-3 eggs
    3 cups of gluten free non-GMO flour
    1 cup of pure fair trade can sugar
    1 pan
    1 oven
    Heat @400 for 2 hours
    Yields 1 cake, 40 oz

    Now, if I can never change that sequence as you put it, I can never make more than 1 cake. By your logic, people can't get fat because no matter how many ingredients (food) you have, you can't make more than one 40 oz cake (weight). Now, clearly, if you give someone more food or different food, you get different outputs, so clearly, the recipe can change, it isn't that rigid set of things above. It is your silly version where a person can't gain weight with more food because the recipe (DNA) is fixed exactly, and can't use more ingredients.

    What is your educational background? Did you take a genetics class? You can't change up DNA sequencing within your body in the way you can change ingredients in a cake.
  • KetoneKaren
    KetoneKaren Posts: 6,412 Member
    @DebSozo Don't take BreezeDoveal's bait. It's a game.