All calories may not be equal
Replies
-
Ill start by saying that i have never read the book but agree with the concept your putting forth. While everyone else is right to lose weight you need to be in a defficiency. I do however beleive that what you consume contributes to a overall better body composition. Its pretty obvious to me and i assume most people that say you eat 1500 cals a day all in cheeseburgers you will not be as successful as if your eating natural nourishing foods.
Guy that cut with his main source of protein being pizza:
cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it5 -
Does anyone know how the calorie content of food is actually measured? And does anyone know if the method of measurement is really accurate?0
-
sky_northern wrote: »Ill start by saying that i have never read the book but agree with the concept your putting forth. While everyone else is right to lose weight you need to be in a defficiency. I do however beleive that what you consume contributes to a overall better body composition. Its pretty obvious to me and i assume most people that say you eat 1500 cals a day all in cheeseburgers you will not be as successful as if your eating natural nourishing foods.
Guy that cut with his main source of protein being pizza:
cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it
Yes, this is the perfect thread.1 -
Does anyone know how the calorie content of food is actually measured? And does anyone know if the method of measurement is really accurate?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-food-manufacturers/3 -
My parents aren't vegan and neither are many of my family and friends. Do we have overweight people in the family? Yes. Do we have fit lean people in the family? Yep. The difference between the overweight ones and the fit lean ones...............................is how MUCH we consume up to/over our TDEE. This is the same stuff you can't provide evidence to refute against. It still boils down to calories in/out.gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I've read Ludwig's book and my husband and I have been following his program. I'm a normal weight person and have been maintaining using Mfp to travel calories and exercise. I experienced no weight loss but decrease in hunger between breakfast and lunch due to increased satiety. I basically follow the program pretty loosely now because I need more carbs to support my workouts. However, my husband, who is significantly overweight and type 2 diabetic, has lost 35 lbs since April. He's really the poster child for the kind of individual Ludwig writes about. Part of Ludwig's theory is that the low fat craze led to an industry that produced high carb, nutritionally empty foods that were unsatisfying, creating a population like my husband. For my hub, eating full fat products and increased protein significantly decreased his cravings for carbs. After eating a typical Ludwig breakfast, he's able to pass up donuts and pizza at the office. The answer is yes, my spouse is probably eating fewer calories because he is satisfied and too full to crave foods he ate before. He's also eating more nutrient dense foods.
And that is the problem with those who advocate calorie counting. Your husband has reduced calorie intake simply by changing what he eats. If he were just counting calories, but eating the crappy low-fat diet the USDA recommended for 30 years (they finally apologized this year), he probably would have failed because of the lack of satiety.
And of course if you greatly reduce consumption of grains and sugar, you can reduce complications from T2 diabetes, and sometimes reverse it. You can't if you are eating bagels and low-fat cream cheese for breakfast, pizza for lunch, and pasta for dinner.
Non sense. Low fat does not =/= low satiety. Protein + fiber have the greatest satiety, and then starches. Going from eating junk food to eating whole quality food is what made the difference. The person husband stopped eating highly calorie, high carb, high fat, high sodium foods and something more reasonable. It's the quality of food that change, which drove a reduction in calories. Many of us do the same thing with whole grains, oats, quinoa and bunch of other carb items.
Sounds like your a whole-food vegan. Good for you. But her husband (and 98% of Americans) will never be vegans. So you do the alternative healthy option for many (not all) because of satiety - high fat, low sugar, low grain.
BTW it's family party time for 4 days. Just thought I'd post what we eat during this time.
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
?Indonesian Independence Day by any chance?0 -
sky_northern wrote: »Ill start by saying that i have never read the book but agree with the concept your putting forth. While everyone else is right to lose weight you need to be in a defficiency. I do however beleive that what you consume contributes to a overall better body composition. Its pretty obvious to me and i assume most people that say you eat 1500 cals a day all in cheeseburgers you will not be as successful as if your eating natural nourishing foods.
Guy that cut with his main source of protein being pizza:
cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it
Sorry, but I just have to say, "Most awesome thread!" Hadn't seen it before, but will definitely be reading it.2 -
bethannien wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I've read Ludwig's book and my husband and I have been following his program. I'm a normal weight person and have been maintaining using Mfp to travel calories and exercise. I experienced no weight loss but decrease in hunger between breakfast and lunch due to increased satiety. I basically follow the program pretty loosely now because I need more carbs to support my workouts. However, my husband, who is significantly overweight and type 2 diabetic, has lost 35 lbs since April. He's really the poster child for the kind of individual Ludwig writes about. Part of Ludwig's theory is that the low fat craze led to an industry that produced high carb, nutritionally empty foods that were unsatisfying, creating a population like my husband. For my hub, eating full fat products and increased protein significantly decreased his cravings for carbs. After eating a typical Ludwig breakfast, he's able to pass up donuts and pizza at the office. The answer is yes, my spouse is probably eating fewer calories because he is satisfied and too full to crave foods he ate before. He's also eating more nutrient dense foods.
And that is the problem with those who advocate calorie counting. Your husband has reduced calorie intake simply by changing what he eats. If he were just counting calories, but eating the crappy low-fat diet the USDA recommended for 30 years (they finally apologized this year), he probably would have failed because of the lack of satiety.
And of course if you greatly reduce consumption of grains and sugar, you can reduce complications from T2 diabetes, and sometimes reverse it. You can't if you are eating bagels and low-fat cream cheese for breakfast, pizza for lunch, and pasta for dinner.
Non sense. Low fat does not =/= low satiety. Protein + fiber have the greatest satiety, and then starches. Going from eating junk food to eating whole quality food is what made the difference. The person husband stopped eating highly calorie, high carb, high fat, high sodium foods and something more reasonable. It's the quality of food that change, which drove a reduction in calories. Many of us do the same thing with whole grains, oats, quinoa and bunch of other carb items.
"Protein + fiber "
Sounds like your a whole-food vegan. Good for you. But her husband (and 98% of Americans) will never be vegans. So you do the alternative healthy option for many (not all) because of satiety - high fat, low sugar, low grain.
Yup, sounds right.
Never understood the vegan thing. I do understand not wanting to kill animals for food and have no problem with that philosophy.
But if you won't eat an egg from your neighbor's happy and healthy backyard chickens just a few times a year, it becomes a religion. And please vegans, don't give me a cholesterol lecture.
My decision to avoid eggs from backyard chickens has nothing to do with religion -- it's a consistent position on animal exploitation. Backyard chickens actually form a significant part of the rescue chicken population and many of them are killed when the people who own them are no longer able to care for them. Even if one does make a commitment to care for chickens for their entire life (that is, not killing them when their production rate declines), there are no sources for chicks of which I am aware that don't participate in practices to which I am opposed (chick culling, using chickens for meat, and selling chicks to people who prioritize profit over the welfare of the chickens) so I wouldn't want to be a part of that process by eating eggs from backyard chickens.
Even happy and healthy backyard chickens were treated as product at some point in their life -- although the person who is presently caring for them may have their welfare as a primary concern, I avoid eggs as part of an objection to the overall chick/chicken industry.
If you don't understand why someone does something, sometimes asking will help you to find out. It may be easier to dismiss something as a religion before seeking to understand it, but it doesn't lead to greater clarity. This is my choice of what I feel comfortable supporting with my own actions, I realize other people may feel differently.
My neighbor treats her chickens like I treat my dog. And look at her chickens as chicken rescues, just like my dog was a rescue.
There is no moral reason not to eat eggs from neighbor's chickens who are treated like family pets. None.
Wow you diagnose people with a mental health issue over the internet based on one behavior and now you get to dictate everyone's morality to them too?
You can't make this stuff up, folks.2 -
BreezeDoveal wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »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.
DNA is not a recipe. It's an enormous recipe book including instructions for building the whole kitchen. If you insist on using that type of analogy.
So your saying the book includes instructions for how to write the recipe book that is in that kitchen? As in, DNA could change itself..
The book includes instructions to make tools that repair the book if it gets torn.
You seem to be suggesting that the book intentionally rewrites itself though - which it does not do. Epigenetics is not the book rewriting itself. Epigenetics is whoever is reading the book flipping to different pages to read different recipes depending on the weather or who came to visit or some other external factor. Which is *really* stretching the analogy.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 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
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
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.)
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/
Don't want to derail this lovely thread..
But holy crap @Etsar73 thank you so much for bringing this my attention! I'm in SA, the forgotten state lol I went on the woolies website and it doesn't look like mine has it. But I'll be calling fropro and hopefully there's a stockist around here that has it. For $14 a tub
I wont be eating the whole thing all at once! 0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »I see lumpia!!
Lumpia must be different in different regions. The Lumpia I get from our neighbors isn't in that picture, or I'm blind. Both of which are completely possible.
Maybe... The ones that we get from the neighbor are usually long and skinny.
That is what i usual get from my friend who is Filipino. Looks like a spring roll.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »I see lumpia!!
Lumpia must be different in different regions. The Lumpia I get from our neighbors isn't in that picture, or I'm blind. Both of which are completely possible.
Maybe... The ones that we get from the neighbor are usually long and skinny.
That is what i usual get from my friend who is Filipino. Looks like a spring roll.
Exactly, she's from the Philippines. Looks like a fried spring roll.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Isabelle_1929 wrote: »It actually kind of sucks when people get so nitpicky and scientific that the conversation becomes unsustainable because it's moved so far from the real world. I agree with the argument that a calorie is a calorie, but using the scientific definition of a calorie to claim the question doesn't make sense willfully ignores the actual content of the question and focuses on semantics so much that it becomes a meaningless argument. Sure, you might win that particular point, but you're not doing anything to move the conversation forward and have narrowed the scope to a point that the original conversation can't even be discussed.
It's kind of like if someone came in here saying "I want to weigh less, will eating less carbs do that?" and someone started arguing with them that they're misusing the word "less" by not specifying what they want to weigh less than and continuing to argue it until the conversation is about the definition of the word "less". Yeah, you may be right from a technical standpoint, but now the conversation is about the definition of "less" and not the actual question.
So true.
In this day and age, having a broader vision of things is not popular. We have tons and tons of informations and facts, and very little understanding and actual knowledge.
I'm curious who in this discussion you are claiming lacks a broader vision of things?
What I find frustrating (again) is that those of us saying a calorie is a calorie aren't saying merely that. We are saying that calories are what matter for weight loss, and that needs to be a starting point, but of course things like nutrition, satiety, personal preference, etc. matter too. In saying "no, you are wrong, a calorie is not a calorie because broccoli is not cake," people are willfully ignoring most of what we say and suggesting, falsely, that the acknowledgement that calories are what matter for weight loss means that you don't also care about these other things.
When someone (like low carb extremists) insist that Americans are fat because "carbs" or (for people of other views) "processed foods" or what not, I might disagree, but not because I don't care about nutrition or think what we eat matters. I just don't think that we all do better on the same diet or macro ratios or that simplistic solutions like those often given (eat 6 meal/day, never skip breakfast, shop the perimeter, don't eat added sugar EVER, whatever) fit for everyone. The psychological things are going to differ for everyone. For example, some go on and on about how people overeat because they are allegedly starving and must eat a certain way to lose. But I was never overeating because of hunger (and I ate a pretty healthful diet, just too much), and I wasn't hungry even on 1250. People are different. Ludwig's theories would suggest that we should avoid potatoes, if memory serves, but potatoes are quite satiating for many. Hyman was quoted as saying that we can't put on fat from fat, but let me keep everything the same but sub french fries for roasted potatoes (same calories from the potatoes) and if that added fat kicks me over maintenance I will put on fat. And no, from experience, I won't be so satiated from the fat in the fries that I spontaneously eat less.
No one. I was talking in general.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »The name of this thread is "all calories may not be equal."
This is what Dr. Mark Hyman has to say. He is chairman of The Institute for Functional Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
"The truth is there are good and bad calories. And that’s because this involves more than a simple math equation. If you eat the same amount of calories in kale or gummy bears, do they do the same thing to your body? No!
When we eat, our food interacts with our biology, which is a complex adaptive system that instantly transforms every bite. Every bite affects your hormones, brain chemistry and metabolism. Sugar calories cause fat storage and spikes hunger. Protein and fat calories promote fat burning.
What counts even more than the quantity of calories are the quality of the calories."
Kale has thallium and tastes like grass and gummy bears have sugar and are delicious. Hard to decide which one is better.
http://www.snopes.com/kale-not-safe/
... A "2006 study out of the Czech Republic showing how the 'cruciferous' family of vegetables behave as 'hyperaccumulators' of thallium" is the singular mention of any scientifically indicated link between one idea and the other, but that study involved "cruciferous vegetables" (of which kale is one of many) and their potential to accumulate heavy metals. Even if cruciferous veggies were proved to be heavy metal "hyperaccumulators," that wouldn't serve as an indictment of kale alone as an exceptional risk among them.0 -
Isabelle_1929 wrote: »
Better in the sense that you just proved his point, that you don't know what CICO is?
Yes.
It simply refers to a (set of) math equation(s). It's not a diet in any sense of the word.
Do you like science?
Tell me: did you read everything that I wrote + the comments I was replying to, the whole in the context of the thread's topic, i.e. the question posted by OP ?
Did you?
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »The name of this thread is "all calories may not be equal."
This is what Dr. Mark Hyman has to say. He is chairman of The Institute for Functional Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
"The truth is there are good and bad calories. And that’s because this involves more than a simple math equation. If you eat the same amount of calories in kale or gummy bears, do they do the same thing to your body? No!
When we eat, our food interacts with our biology, which is a complex adaptive system that instantly transforms every bite. Every bite affects your hormones, brain chemistry and metabolism. Sugar calories cause fat storage and spikes hunger. Protein and fat calories promote fat burning.
What counts even more than the quantity of calories are the quality of the calories."
Kale has thallium and tastes like grass and gummy bears have sugar and are delicious. Hard to decide which one is better.
http://www.snopes.com/kale-not-safe/
... A "2006 study out of the Czech Republic showing how the 'cruciferous' family of vegetables behave as 'hyperaccumulators' of thallium" is the singular mention of any scientifically indicated link between one idea and the other, but that study involved "cruciferous vegetables" (of which kale is one of many) and their potential to accumulate heavy metals. Even if cruciferous veggies were proved to be heavy metal "hyperaccumulators," that wouldn't serve as an indictment of kale alone as an exceptional risk among them.
I was looking for an excuse not to eat kale, damn! Not helpful
3 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I've read Ludwig's book and my husband and I have been following his program. I'm a normal weight person and have been maintaining using Mfp to travel calories and exercise. I experienced no weight loss but decrease in hunger between breakfast and lunch due to increased satiety. I basically follow the program pretty loosely now because I need more carbs to support my workouts. However, my husband, who is significantly overweight and type 2 diabetic, has lost 35 lbs since April. He's really the poster child for the kind of individual Ludwig writes about. Part of Ludwig's theory is that the low fat craze led to an industry that produced high carb, nutritionally empty foods that were unsatisfying, creating a population like my husband. For my hub, eating full fat products and increased protein significantly decreased his cravings for carbs. After eating a typical Ludwig breakfast, he's able to pass up donuts and pizza at the office. The answer is yes, my spouse is probably eating fewer calories because he is satisfied and too full to crave foods he ate before. He's also eating more nutrient dense foods.
And that is the problem with those who advocate calorie counting. Your husband has reduced calorie intake simply by changing what he eats. If he were just counting calories, but eating the crappy low-fat diet the USDA recommended for 30 years (they finally apologized this year), he probably would have failed because of the lack of satiety.
And of course if you greatly reduce consumption of grains and sugar, you can reduce complications from T2 diabetes, and sometimes reverse it. You can't if you are eating bagels and low-fat cream cheese for breakfast, pizza for lunch, and pasta for dinner.
Non sense. Low fat does not =/= low satiety. Protein + fiber have the greatest satiety, and then starches. Going from eating junk food to eating whole quality food is what made the difference. The person husband stopped eating highly calorie, high carb, high fat, high sodium foods and something more reasonable. It's the quality of food that change, which drove a reduction in calories. Many of us do the same thing with whole grains, oats, quinoa and bunch of other carb items.
"Protein + fiber "
Sounds like your a whole-food vegan. Good for you. But her husband (and 98% of Americans) will never be vegans. So you do the alternative healthy option for many (not all) because of satiety - high fat, low sugar, low grain.
Yup, sounds right.
Never understood the vegan thing. I do understand not wanting to kill animals for food and have no problem with that philosophy.
But if you won't eat an egg from your neighbor's happy and healthy backyard chickens just a few times a year, it becomes a religion. And please vegans, don't give me a cholesterol lecture.
My decision to avoid eggs from backyard chickens has nothing to do with religion -- it's a consistent position on animal exploitation. Backyard chickens actually form a significant part of the rescue chicken population and many of them are killed when the people who own them are no longer able to care for them. Even if one does make a commitment to care for chickens for their entire life (that is, not killing them when their production rate declines), there are no sources for chicks of which I am aware that don't participate in practices to which I am opposed (chick culling, using chickens for meat, and selling chicks to people who prioritize profit over the welfare of the chickens) so I wouldn't want to be a part of that process by eating eggs from backyard chickens.
Even happy and healthy backyard chickens were treated as product at some point in their life -- although the person who is presently caring for them may have their welfare as a primary concern, I avoid eggs as part of an objection to the overall chick/chicken industry.
If you don't understand why someone does something, sometimes asking will help you to find out. It may be easier to dismiss something as a religion before seeking to understand it, but it doesn't lead to greater clarity. This is my choice of what I feel comfortable supporting with my own actions, I realize other people may feel differently.
My neighbor treats her chickens like I treat my dog. And look at her chickens as chicken rescues, just like my dog was a rescue.
There is no moral reason not to eat eggs from neighbor's chickens who are treated like family pets. None.
Did she adopt them from a chicken rescue?
Doesn't matter, does it? She has very happy chickens that lay very tasty eggs.0 -
The chicken in the backyard is an interesting one. Most vegans choose the lifestyle because they don't want to support cruel animal farming. What if they could source their meat from a farm that was 100% cruelty free and the animals were allowed to roam and eat grass instead of grains etc etc Would some vegans turn back to eating meat? I realise there are more reasons than the cruelty to animals for being vegan, but i have heard this a major issue for a lot of vegans.1
-
Isabelle_1929 wrote: »
All diets are based on CICO. Whether the person on said diet admits it or not. So no, not better. Just shows more confusion on your part.6 -
This content has been removed.
-
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 won't? Sounds like an excuse alcoholics use to drink. If alcohol isn't carbs, protein or fat, what do you think it is?
It's alcohol. 7 calories per gram. And no, our bodies won't store it, however, the body will not burn anything else other than the alcohol until it used up.5 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
queenliz99 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »The name of this thread is "all calories may not be equal."
This is what Dr. Mark Hyman has to say. He is chairman of The Institute for Functional Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
"The truth is there are good and bad calories. And that’s because this involves more than a simple math equation. If you eat the same amount of calories in kale or gummy bears, do they do the same thing to your body? No!
When we eat, our food interacts with our biology, which is a complex adaptive system that instantly transforms every bite. Every bite affects your hormones, brain chemistry and metabolism. Sugar calories cause fat storage and spikes hunger. Protein and fat calories promote fat burning.
What counts even more than the quantity of calories are the quality of the calories."
Kale has thallium and tastes like grass and gummy bears have sugar and are delicious. Hard to decide which one is better.
http://www.snopes.com/kale-not-safe/
... A "2006 study out of the Czech Republic showing how the 'cruciferous' family of vegetables behave as 'hyperaccumulators' of thallium" is the singular mention of any scientifically indicated link between one idea and the other, but that study involved "cruciferous vegetables" (of which kale is one of many) and their potential to accumulate heavy metals. Even if cruciferous veggies were proved to be heavy metal "hyperaccumulators," that wouldn't serve as an indictment of kale alone as an exceptional risk among them.
I was looking for an excuse not to eat kale, damn! Not helpful
I just had a bunch of chopped fresh kale in my chicKen soup today.0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »SophieSmall95 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »SophieSmall95 wrote: »earthakin66 wrote: »So I'm looking for people who have read the book and are interested in discussing that, no point in discussing the book with people who haven't read it. There is plenty of science to back it up (written by a doctor, by the way, not a stick insect- was that a typo?).
I'm familiar with Ludwig's work.You just appear to not be happy with people calling out the BS.
Just because he is a doctor does not make him right. Especially when bias and money are involved. He makes money selling this "information". That ought to make you wary of anything he says. Only peer reviewed scientific articles and meta studies that have as little bias as possible are good sources of scientific information in my book.
In other words, anyone who writes a book and makes money is a crook?
The man is a professor of nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Perhaps he knows something? Perhaps he wants to spread a message that could reduce our obesity and diabetes epidemic.
I see you like to put words into people's mouths.
Having read some of his work he is selling lies and things which do not align with science.
As @daniip_la said he is spouting fake science and selling it "The goal in Phase 1 is to calm down fat cells and take the body out of starvation mode." That is incorrect and not how the body works. You cannot train your cells to do anything it is complete nonsense.
This is not to say the man isn't educated. But that does not mean he is being honest is the work he sells personally away form the university and his job. To blindly trust just because he is a doctor is frankly...not smart.
You sound like the vegans who think you will get heart disease if you eat a few eggs every now and then or have a piece of fish. Like the vegans, you are totally set in your ways (CICO), and anything that challenges your belief is "fake science."
The fact is that many people post here that are not losing weight counting calories. And the retort is they are not counting correctly.
Really, how hard is it to count calories if you simplify your meals and purchase products where there can be no doubt? (like a cup of cereal with the posted portion of skim milk, or anything that comes in a package).
"The vegans"- I'm offended
People usually respond with that, because many who say CICO Isn't working are not logging properly. Yes, counting calories by weighing and measuring food is easy. It's so easy- many people find a way to mess it up. Not to mention, many of them are only upset they've only lost a couple lbs a Month, just haven't given it enough time or they're not aware of the normal causes of weight fluctuation. Perhaps, there is a group of people who can't lose weight by following CICO. I, however, haven't met anyone like that.0 -
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.
Ultimately it is what the body does with those calories in. I do think that people's burn rates are faster or slower from one person to the next depending on current fitness level, height, etc. I have read that certain people are even more efficient at extracting more calories from fibrous vegetables and fruits than others!
Some others might not even be digesting all the calories which pass through the digestive system or are passing food through. There are also age, health/disease , hormones, biochemistry, and genetics, etc at play as variables regarding weight loss rates.0 -
Scientific American article explains how we can get different calorie counts of the same food depending on whether we eat it raw, pounded, cooked, etc.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong/1 -
My parents aren't vegan and neither are many of my family and friends. Do we have overweight people in the family? Yes. Do we have fit lean people in the family? Yep. The difference between the overweight ones and the fit lean ones...............................is how MUCH we consume up to/over our TDEE. This is the same stuff you can't provide evidence to refute against. It still boils down to calories in/out.gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I've read Ludwig's book and my husband and I have been following his program. I'm a normal weight person and have been maintaining using Mfp to travel calories and exercise. I experienced no weight loss but decrease in hunger between breakfast and lunch due to increased satiety. I basically follow the program pretty loosely now because I need more carbs to support my workouts. However, my husband, who is significantly overweight and type 2 diabetic, has lost 35 lbs since April. He's really the poster child for the kind of individual Ludwig writes about. Part of Ludwig's theory is that the low fat craze led to an industry that produced high carb, nutritionally empty foods that were unsatisfying, creating a population like my husband. For my hub, eating full fat products and increased protein significantly decreased his cravings for carbs. After eating a typical Ludwig breakfast, he's able to pass up donuts and pizza at the office. The answer is yes, my spouse is probably eating fewer calories because he is satisfied and too full to crave foods he ate before. He's also eating more nutrient dense foods.
And that is the problem with those who advocate calorie counting. Your husband has reduced calorie intake simply by changing what he eats. If he were just counting calories, but eating the crappy low-fat diet the USDA recommended for 30 years (they finally apologized this year), he probably would have failed because of the lack of satiety.
And of course if you greatly reduce consumption of grains and sugar, you can reduce complications from T2 diabetes, and sometimes reverse it. You can't if you are eating bagels and low-fat cream cheese for breakfast, pizza for lunch, and pasta for dinner.
Non sense. Low fat does not =/= low satiety. Protein + fiber have the greatest satiety, and then starches. Going from eating junk food to eating whole quality food is what made the difference. The person husband stopped eating highly calorie, high carb, high fat, high sodium foods and something more reasonable. It's the quality of food that change, which drove a reduction in calories. Many of us do the same thing with whole grains, oats, quinoa and bunch of other carb items.
Sounds like your a whole-food vegan. Good for you. But her husband (and 98% of Americans) will never be vegans. So you do the alternative healthy option for many (not all) because of satiety - high fat, low sugar, low grain.
BTW it's family party time for 4 days. Just thought I'd post what we eat during this time.
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
Can you ask around to see if anyone in your family will adopt me? I am good at fixing stuff around the house. k thx.4 -
I buy 4 flats of eggs (now cage free) a month from Costco for hubby and me. Love eggs. Used to have two hundred chickens in a huge farm pen 40 years ago. Don't miss taking care of them, nor the slaughtering and cleaning since half of them were boys, but they sure tasted better than the naked mutant cardboard chicken breasts that you see nowadays.0
-
Scientific American article explains how we can get different calorie counts of the same food depending on whether we eat it raw, pounded, cooked, etc.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong/
I don't see any peer reviewed references in the article, which tells me it's one author's opinion.
This is bull:So it would be logical for people who want to eat healthier and cut calories to favor whole and raw foods over highly processed foods.
Food type has nothing to do with weight loss, calories do. A lot of processed food is nutritious and helps meet macros.
Nobody ever said that calorie counting was a perfect process, and everybody knows the calories on packages are not 100% accurate. Besides that, if you weigh pre-packaged food, you end up with more per volume than is in the package, thereby increasing your calorie estimate even more.
If you weigh your food raw whenever possible, you'll get a close enough calorie estimation. Also, when you cook foods, account for all the stuff added in that makes it good, such as oil and breading.
As for digestion, it's not that much different between people. People are people, science applies to us all.
This whole weight management thing is not complicated, really it's not. 3 -
This content has been removed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions