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.

What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?

18889919394239

Replies

  • canadianlbs
    canadianlbs Posts: 5,199 Member
    It's like people are unaware you can eat vegetables without a blender...

    O_O people put vegetables in a blender? i think the category of your rage can be expanded in my world into 'the food-related aspects of your lifestyle just aren't that interesting. please would you shut up about them.'

  • moumallick6
    moumallick6 Posts: 11 Member
    I think everyone has own funda... Some one like to run, some one body building, some one yoga, some one gymnastic/Athletics.. but for me parkour is also a sport and I love that.. this awesome.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Bullying is such a strange topic for me. I was bullied mercilessly in school. I was the fat, short, effeminate kid all the way through school, with glasses, braces, and a bad haircut my mom gave me at home once a month. Every day was torture but I still went to school. I maintained a 4.0 and went off to college as soon as I could.

    I could have easily shut down but I didn't. I learned to draw a very detailed map of Hell, hand it to my hecklers, and tell them to begin their journey forthwith. And no, I'm not just talking about name calling. I was locked in rooms, thrown in trash cans, physically assaulted, even spit on. I didn't post about it on MySpace. Did I cry about it? Sure, every goddamn night. Did I write *kitten* emo poetry about it? Sure did. But I got through it.

    I never thought of offing myself. I never thought about blowing up the school. I just thought about surviving...and I did. So it kind of puzzles me when others can't. Maybe it's because social media makes everything so much more immediate. Maybe it's some other factor. I just tend to agree that there is something making people unable to shrug things off as easily and get on with their lives. We only have one after all.

    I didn't kill myself or commit violence either (obviously) -- and it goes without saying, I'd hope, that I consider killing other people inappropriate, period, especially but not only complete innocents.

    But to say -- as the other poster was -- that back in the day we just shrugged it off or weren't bothered by it, or it didn't hurt us, so everything was good then and is bad now (that people take it more seriously) seems to me totally inconsistent with what I saw and experienced back in the day and to how I saw people react.

    That I ended up a pretty successful person and got past it doesn't mean that people who don't are just weak and we are coddling them. It means that maybe I don't know all they were experiencing and that people are different.

    And people did kill themselves back when I was a kid too, so this idea that it's because kids are coddled now is nuts.

    I'm not saying I had it worse than anyone else, who could say (and I do think lots of people had it a lot worse than me). But I was not unbothered by it, which is why I brought it up; I don't think it was unimportant or good for me, and that the culture of the time (or my school or my family -- obv the latter had a lot to do with it) was such that I said nothing about it and felt like it must be because there was something wrong with me (and still have a suspicion of that in the back of my head such that I usually would never admit to anyone that it happened) is screwed up and not a sign of a better way, IMO. That was the point I was trying to make.

    For context, I'm 38. As a teenager, I had several friends who tried to kill themselves. Only one of them seemed to be related to social issues (that I know of), but the idea that children/teenagers are weaker today or point to some kind of "snowflaking" trend doesn't really resonate with me. And my peers and I didn't even have to worry about social media until we were older. It seems like young people today deal with a peer environment that is, in some ways, much more immersive and 24/7 than the ones I had to deal with when I was younger.

    I'm 55.

    I did try to kill myself.

    It had more to do with a horrible home situation than anything I experienced socially. I'd reached a breaking point that had been simmering for years.

    Sorry to hear about that, I hope things are better now.

    Aw, thank you. That was almost 40 years ago. Things are much better now, though I am aware that depression is something I'm liable to deal with every now and then. Regular exercise is a big help in keeping it at bay.

    Exercise almost always lifts my mood. It's gotten me through some really rough times in my life.

    Taking this back to the topic of the thread, this is one of the reasons I'd encourage just about everyone to exercise in some way. It's somewhat popular to tell people that it's okay to not exercise, but I don't know how on board I am with that.

    It doesn't need to be back-breaking or super vigorous, but the benefits for helping things like depression and stress are well worth any efforts that need to be made. Even just a 15 minute walk a day can be beneficial for helping these issues.

    I had my last spell of major depression when my autoimmune arthritis manifested itself, and I spent ten years being not myself because of it. If I had only picked up the habit then, my life would have been so much different.

    Yeah, if the question is "Do I have to exercise to lose weight?" the answer is no.

    But if the question is "Should I exercise (or do some type of regular activity)?" my answer is virtually always going to be yes. I think it's such an important component of overall health.

    It's like vegetables. You can lose weight without ever eating a vegetable. But it would be very challenging to meet your nutritional needs this way and I'd never recommend it to someone.

    I was readying up on how our mitochondria function, and bought a book called

    LIFE - THE EPIC STORY OF OUR MITOCHONDRIA: HOW THE ORIGINAL PROBIOTIC DICTATES YOUR HEALTH, ILLNESS, AGING, AND EVEN LIFE ITSELF

    Fascinating book. Essentially a big reason why activity such as exercise is so important has to do with ATP generation and utilization. If we don't use ATP up fast enough, this leads to ATP "spilling over" which increases free radical production which then damages our mitochondria, which leads to a host of problems. I'm in a hurry so can't explain much now, but I highly recommend this book.

    Absolute garbage pedaled as science. Yet another book written by an unqualified individual extolling the virtues of supplements, which by very definition cannot prove effectiveness.

    You are a medical professional and should know better.

    :open_mouth: I missed this part.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Bullying is such a strange topic for me. I was bullied mercilessly in school. I was the fat, short, effeminate kid all the way through school, with glasses, braces, and a bad haircut my mom gave me at home once a month. Every day was torture but I still went to school. I maintained a 4.0 and went off to college as soon as I could.

    I could have easily shut down but I didn't. I learned to draw a very detailed map of Hell, hand it to my hecklers, and tell them to begin their journey forthwith. And no, I'm not just talking about name calling. I was locked in rooms, thrown in trash cans, physically assaulted, even spit on. I didn't post about it on MySpace. Did I cry about it? Sure, every goddamn night. Did I write *kitten* emo poetry about it? Sure did. But I got through it.

    I never thought of offing myself. I never thought about blowing up the school. I just thought about surviving...and I did. So it kind of puzzles me when others can't. Maybe it's because social media makes everything so much more immediate. Maybe it's some other factor. I just tend to agree that there is something making people unable to shrug things off as easily and get on with their lives. We only have one after all.

    I didn't kill myself or commit violence either (obviously) -- and it goes without saying, I'd hope, that I consider killing other people inappropriate, period, especially but not only complete innocents.

    But to say -- as the other poster was -- that back in the day we just shrugged it off or weren't bothered by it, or it didn't hurt us, so everything was good then and is bad now (that people take it more seriously) seems to me totally inconsistent with what I saw and experienced back in the day and to how I saw people react.

    That I ended up a pretty successful person and got past it doesn't mean that people who don't are just weak and we are coddling them. It means that maybe I don't know all they were experiencing and that people are different.

    And people did kill themselves back when I was a kid too, so this idea that it's because kids are coddled now is nuts.

    I'm not saying I had it worse than anyone else, who could say (and I do think lots of people had it a lot worse than me). But I was not unbothered by it, which is why I brought it up; I don't think it was unimportant or good for me, and that the culture of the time (or my school or my family -- obv the latter had a lot to do with it) was such that I said nothing about it and felt like it must be because there was something wrong with me (and still have a suspicion of that in the back of my head such that I usually would never admit to anyone that it happened) is screwed up and not a sign of a better way, IMO. That was the point I was trying to make.

    For context, I'm 38. As a teenager, I had several friends who tried to kill themselves. Only one of them seemed to be related to social issues (that I know of), but the idea that children/teenagers are weaker today or point to some kind of "snowflaking" trend doesn't really resonate with me. And my peers and I didn't even have to worry about social media until we were older. It seems like young people today deal with a peer environment that is, in some ways, much more immersive and 24/7 than the ones I had to deal with when I was younger.

    I'm 55.

    I did try to kill myself.

    It had more to do with a horrible home situation than anything I experienced socially. I'd reached a breaking point that had been simmering for years.

    Sorry to hear about that, I hope things are better now.

    Aw, thank you. That was almost 40 years ago. Things are much better now, though I am aware that depression is something I'm liable to deal with every now and then. Regular exercise is a big help in keeping it at bay.

    Exercise almost always lifts my mood. It's gotten me through some really rough times in my life.

    Taking this back to the topic of the thread, this is one of the reasons I'd encourage just about everyone to exercise in some way. It's somewhat popular to tell people that it's okay to not exercise, but I don't know how on board I am with that.

    It doesn't need to be back-breaking or super vigorous, but the benefits for helping things like depression and stress are well worth any efforts that need to be made. Even just a 15 minute walk a day can be beneficial for helping these issues.

    I had my last spell of major depression when my autoimmune arthritis manifested itself, and I spent ten years being not myself because of it. If I had only picked up the habit then, my life would have been so much different.

    Yeah, if the question is "Do I have to exercise to lose weight?" the answer is no.

    But if the question is "Should I exercise (or do some type of regular activity)?" my answer is virtually always going to be yes. I think it's such an important component of overall health.

    It's like vegetables. You can lose weight without ever eating a vegetable. But it would be very challenging to meet your nutritional needs this way and I'd never recommend it to someone.

    I was readying up on how our mitochondria function, and bought a book called

    LIFE - THE EPIC STORY OF OUR MITOCHONDRIA: HOW THE ORIGINAL PROBIOTIC DICTATES YOUR HEALTH, ILLNESS, AGING, AND EVEN LIFE ITSELF

    Fascinating book. Essentially a big reason why activity such as exercise is so important has to do with ATP generation and utilization. If we don't use ATP up fast enough, this leads to ATP "spilling over" which increases free radical production which then damages our mitochondria, which leads to a host of problems. I'm in a hurry so can't explain much now, but I highly recommend this book.

    Absolute garbage pedaled as science. Yet another book written by an unqualified individual extolling the virtues of supplements, which by very definition cannot prove effectiveness.

    You are a medical professional and should know better.

    Wait, they're a medical professional?
  • theresejesu
    theresejesu Posts: 120 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Yet it doesn't work for everyone. And more importantly, a simple CICO without regards to the effect certain foods may have on one's health in general or specific ways makes no sense. Maybe you might lose weight, but set yourself up for senility, Alzheimer's, heart disease, stroke, etc as you age.

    CICO is an energy balance equation that literally does work for everyone. that there may be adjustments in either side of the equation which may effect some people disproportionately doesn't invalidate the equation.

    the next sentence conflates CICO with nutrition. and is not relevant to weight loss or gain.
    The fact is, take the microbiome from a thin person and put it into a fat oerson, the fat person WILL lose weight to MATCH the weight of the thin person, with no special attention paid to CICO. And the reverse is true.

    source?????
    If we get to the basics of calories, a calorie is simply the amount of energy required to heat 1 kg of water by 1 degree Celsius.

    Excess calories do cause weight gain. Calorie deficits cause weight loss.

    yes!!!

    But isn't that a tremendous oversimplification of the entire process? That treats all calories as essentially equal. But they aren't. Different macronutrients go through different metabolic pathways.

    Compare 100 calories of fructose to 100 calories if protein.

    Fructose enters the liver, can be stored as glycogen until the liver is full, then it's stored as fat. Fructose consumed in abundance can cause insulin resistance, rising insulin levels which then increases the amount of stored fat. The body doesn't respond to fructose even the same way it does glucose; like I said before, it doesn't lower the hormone ghrelin which turns on hunger and keeps it turned on until lowered, so doesn't help at all with satiety.

    Do you have any idea what it feels like to have eaten a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger?

    Protein, on the otherhand, causes the body to burn approximently the equivalent of 30% of its calories in the process of digesting it, so you lose about 30 calories right off the bat. The metabolic pathway protein goes through requires energy expenditure itself. Now that 100 calories of protein is just 70 calories you body has to burn. 30% is not insignificant.

    Protein also helps to increase the sense of fullness, and it can boost the metabolic rate.

    TEF is pretty minor, 25-30% for protein, 10-15% for carbs, 3-5% for fats. i would say this is a negligible difference since many / most foods are made up of some combination of macros. as for satiety, that's very individual. sure, protein may do it for you, but i had a bagel with cream cheese for breakfast today and barely noticed that it was 3 pm and i hadn't eaten lunch. normally i have greek yogurt and count down the minutes until 2 when i eat lunch.
    So compare the calories from a can of soda and the same calories from eggs over a period of years. I guarantee you they do not have the same effect on the body, and the difference is not insignificant.

    again, conflating nutrition and weight loss.

    Understanding how micronutrients affect our appetites, hunger and satiety and properly balancing them to get the results we want makes the difference between success and failure unless one is truly a gluten for punishment and wants to struggle against their own body's messages.

    agreed.
    In this study comparing a low carb diet to a calorie restricted low fat diet, the ones on the low carb diet would become satiated without worrying about counting calories and lost more fat that the low fat dieters did with calorie restriction. Table here:

    https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/jcem/88/4/10.1210_jc.2002-021480/2/eg0439372003.jpeg?Expires=1501275274&Signature=WdbBj-armQXajWCmuPpmM5S4qVRLk6zx9XZlKsJLNl5MdNatZuwOegtNdLabyPUc-zOAVA62~etUl2iGGLYR-~patV3k-KEi~uvgIDeI0R7N6rBcp3kD8WFKKPdlN-OyPt833cyy2S5HpxRAjDS9tvElmBcmtcSR9MnWErpO63qiMIhImWtNYxv3XETFrFOD-u5TK1G9cKVkDCxGEBRci2-u2vc5-SIdYp3oBcDOtdhYY3MFPfYb73x7NeS7nxEbpImerlN8mngkX~cs6Fq2hQR~nVydFJjdItx7JEV1UW6W5lMCQ4cORrADlSMoGGBlHvcuq60Fc2zhb1h4zjRoOA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q

    Study here:

    https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021480

    The researchers found:

    "The results of this study demonstrate that a very low carbohydrate diet, taken without a specified restriction of caloric intake is effective for weight loss over a 6 month period in healthy obese women. Compared with the low fat group, who followed a diet conforming to currently recommended distribution of macronutrient calories, the very low carbohydrate group lost significantly more weight....... In addition, despite eating a high percentage of calories as fat and having relatively high intakes is saturated fat and cholesterol, the women in the very low carbohydrate group maintained normal levels of blood pressure, plasma lipids, glucose, and insulin."

    low fat diets aren't great for me. low carb diets aren't great for me either. many people struggle with low fat because fat is very satiating for a lot of people. that being said, the study here asked one group to count calories and the other to count carbs, and asked both groups to self report. meh.
    A calorie is not simply a calorie in the human body.

    for CICO, it is. for adherence to a calorie restricted diet, it's not and for nutrition, it's not. but i was pretty sure that this whole section of the debate was about weight loss, because nobody here will argue that types of food are irrelevant for nutrition - even in the least popular opinion thread.

    Quoting this because I 100% agree with @jessiferrrb and because she did a masterful job with the quotes and I'm terrible at breaking them up to address particular points.

    Just adding one thing... does someone really have gnawing hunger (or any hunger) and think, "a can of soda should do the trick"?
    So compare the calories from a can of soda and the same calories from eggs over a period of years. I guarantee you they do not have the same effect on the body, and the difference is not insignificant.

    @theresejesu do you think that people are considering what they should consume and their choice is between soda and eggs? Because again, if I'm hungry, if it is breakfast time, or even a quick dinner - eggs all the way. Eggs don't quench my thirst though, and soda doesn't quell my hunger. Do you think that there are people in the world for whom they do not have that logic in their brain? Because I really can't fathom a world where someone thinks that eggs and soda are interchangeable in any aspect.

    Was the example that confusing?
  • theresejesu
    theresejesu Posts: 120 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Yet it doesn't work for everyone. And more importantly, a simple CICO without regards to the effect certain foods may have on one's health in general or specific ways makes no sense. Maybe you might lose weight, but set yourself up for senility, Alzheimer's, heart disease, stroke, etc as you age.

    CICO is an energy balance equation that literally does work for everyone. that there may be adjustments in either side of the equation which may effect some people disproportionately doesn't invalidate the equation.

    the next sentence conflates CICO with nutrition. and is not relevant to weight loss or gain.
    The fact is, take the microbiome from a thin person and put it into a fat oerson, the fat person WILL lose weight to MATCH the weight of the thin person, with no special attention paid to CICO. And the reverse is true.

    source?????
    If we get to the basics of calories, a calorie is simply the amount of energy required to heat 1 kg of water by 1 degree Celsius.

    Excess calories do cause weight gain. Calorie deficits cause weight loss.

    yes!!!

    But isn't that a tremendous oversimplification of the entire process? That treats all calories as essentially equal. But they aren't. Different macronutrients go through different metabolic pathways.

    Compare 100 calories of fructose to 100 calories if protein.

    Fructose enters the liver, can be stored as glycogen until the liver is full, then it's stored as fat. Fructose consumed in abundance can cause insulin resistance, rising insulin levels which then increases the amount of stored fat. The body doesn't respond to fructose even the same way it does glucose; like I said before, it doesn't lower the hormone ghrelin which turns on hunger and keeps it turned on until lowered, so doesn't help at all with satiety.

    Do you have any idea what it feels like to have eaten a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger?

    Protein, on the otherhand, causes the body to burn approximently the equivalent of 30% of its calories in the process of digesting it, so you lose about 30 calories right off the bat. The metabolic pathway protein goes through requires energy expenditure itself. Now that 100 calories of protein is just 70 calories you body has to burn. 30% is not insignificant.

    Protein also helps to increase the sense of fullness, and it can boost the metabolic rate.

    TEF is pretty minor, 25-30% for protein, 10-15% for carbs, 3-5% for fats. i would say this is a negligible difference since many / most foods are made up of some combination of macros. as for satiety, that's very individual. sure, protein may do it for you, but i had a bagel with cream cheese for breakfast today and barely noticed that it was 3 pm and i hadn't eaten lunch. normally i have greek yogurt and count down the minutes until 2 when i eat lunch.
    So compare the calories from a can of soda and the same calories from eggs over a period of years. I guarantee you they do not have the same effect on the body, and the difference is not insignificant.

    again, conflating nutrition and weight loss.

    Understanding how micronutrients affect our appetites, hunger and satiety and properly balancing them to get the results we want makes the difference between success and failure unless one is truly a gluten for punishment and wants to struggle against their own body's messages.

    agreed.
    In this study comparing a low carb diet to a calorie restricted low fat diet, the ones on the low carb diet would become satiated without worrying about counting calories and lost more fat that the low fat dieters did with calorie restriction. Table here:

    https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/jcem/88/4/10.1210_jc.2002-021480/2/eg0439372003.jpeg?Expires=1501275274&Signature=WdbBj-armQXajWCmuPpmM5S4qVRLk6zx9XZlKsJLNl5MdNatZuwOegtNdLabyPUc-zOAVA62~etUl2iGGLYR-~patV3k-KEi~uvgIDeI0R7N6rBcp3kD8WFKKPdlN-OyPt833cyy2S5HpxRAjDS9tvElmBcmtcSR9MnWErpO63qiMIhImWtNYxv3XETFrFOD-u5TK1G9cKVkDCxGEBRci2-u2vc5-SIdYp3oBcDOtdhYY3MFPfYb73x7NeS7nxEbpImerlN8mngkX~cs6Fq2hQR~nVydFJjdItx7JEV1UW6W5lMCQ4cORrADlSMoGGBlHvcuq60Fc2zhb1h4zjRoOA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q

    Study here:

    https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021480

    The researchers found:

    "The results of this study demonstrate that a very low carbohydrate diet, taken without a specified restriction of caloric intake is effective for weight loss over a 6 month period in healthy obese women. Compared with the low fat group, who followed a diet conforming to currently recommended distribution of macronutrient calories, the very low carbohydrate group lost significantly more weight....... In addition, despite eating a high percentage of calories as fat and having relatively high intakes is saturated fat and cholesterol, the women in the very low carbohydrate group maintained normal levels of blood pressure, plasma lipids, glucose, and insulin."

    low fat diets aren't great for me. low carb diets aren't great for me either. many people struggle with low fat because fat is very satiating for a lot of people. that being said, the study here asked one group to count calories and the other to count carbs, and asked both groups to self report. meh.
    A calorie is not simply a calorie in the human body.

    for CICO, it is. for adherence to a calorie restricted diet, it's not and for nutrition, it's not. but i was pretty sure that this whole section of the debate was about weight loss, because nobody here will argue that types of food are irrelevant for nutrition - even in the least popular opinion thread.

    Quoting this because I 100% agree with @jessiferrrb and because she did a masterful job with the quotes and I'm terrible at breaking them up to address particular points.

    Just adding one thing... does someone really have gnawing hunger (or any hunger) and think, "a can of soda should do the trick"?
    So compare the calories from a can of soda and the same calories from eggs over a period of years. I guarantee you they do not have the same effect on the body, and the difference is not insignificant.

    @theresejesu do you think that people are considering what they should consume and their choice is between soda and eggs? Because again, if I'm hungry, if it is breakfast time, or even a quick dinner - eggs all the way. Eggs don't quench my thirst though, and soda doesn't quell my hunger. Do you think that there are people in the world for whom they do not have that logic in their brain? Because I really can't fathom a world where someone thinks that eggs and soda are interchangeable in any aspect.

    Was the example that confusing?

    The comparison between eggs and soda? Yes. Do you believe this is a decision that people are regularly facing, whether to eat eggs or drink a Coke?

    Of course not, or at least I would hope not lol.

    However, that really has nothing to with my original comment.
  • theresejesu
    theresejesu Posts: 120 Member
    edited July 2017
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Yet it doesn't work for everyone. And more importantly, a simple CICO without regards to the effect certain foods may have on one's health in general or specific ways makes no sense. Maybe you might lose weight, but set yourself up for senility, Alzheimer's, heart disease, stroke, etc as you age.

    CICO is an energy balance equation that literally does work for everyone. that there may be adjustments in either side of the equation which may effect some people disproportionately doesn't invalidate the equation.

    the next sentence conflates CICO with nutrition. and is not relevant to weight loss or gain.
    The fact is, take the microbiome from a thin person and put it into a fat oerson, the fat person WILL lose weight to MATCH the weight of the thin person, with no special attention paid to CICO. And the reverse is true.

    source?????
    If we get to the basics of calories, a calorie is simply the amount of energy required to heat 1 kg of water by 1 degree Celsius.

    Excess calories do cause weight gain. Calorie deficits cause weight loss.

    yes!!!

    But isn't that a tremendous oversimplification of the entire process? That treats all calories as essentially equal. But they aren't. Different macronutrients go through different metabolic pathways.

    Compare 100 calories of fructose to 100 calories if protein.

    Fructose enters the liver, can be stored as glycogen until the liver is full, then it's stored as fat. Fructose consumed in abundance can cause insulin resistance, rising insulin levels which then increases the amount of stored fat. The body doesn't respond to fructose even the same way it does glucose; like I said before, it doesn't lower the hormone ghrelin which turns on hunger and keeps it turned on until lowered, so doesn't help at all with satiety.

    Do you have any idea what it feels like to have eaten a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger?

    Protein, on the otherhand, causes the body to burn approximently the equivalent of 30% of its calories in the process of digesting it, so you lose about 30 calories right off the bat. The metabolic pathway protein goes through requires energy expenditure itself. Now that 100 calories of protein is just 70 calories you body has to burn. 30% is not insignificant.

    Protein also helps to increase the sense of fullness, and it can boost the metabolic rate.

    TEF is pretty minor, 25-30% for protein, 10-15% for carbs, 3-5% for fats. i would say this is a negligible difference since many / most foods are made up of some combination of macros. as for satiety, that's very individual. sure, protein may do it for you, but i had a bagel with cream cheese for breakfast today and barely noticed that it was 3 pm and i hadn't eaten lunch. normally i have greek yogurt and count down the minutes until 2 when i eat lunch.
    So compare the calories from a can of soda and the same calories from eggs over a period of years. I guarantee you they do not have the same effect on the body, and the difference is not insignificant.

    again, conflating nutrition and weight loss.

    Understanding how micronutrients affect our appetites, hunger and satiety and properly balancing them to get the results we want makes the difference between success and failure unless one is truly a gluten for punishment and wants to struggle against their own body's messages.

    agreed.
    In this study comparing a low carb diet to a calorie restricted low fat diet, the ones on the low carb diet would become satiated without worrying about counting calories and lost more fat that the low fat dieters did with calorie restriction. Table here:

    https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/jcem/88/4/10.1210_jc.2002-021480/2/eg0439372003.jpeg?Expires=1501275274&Signature=WdbBj-armQXajWCmuPpmM5S4qVRLk6zx9XZlKsJLNl5MdNatZuwOegtNdLabyPUc-zOAVA62~etUl2iGGLYR-~patV3k-KEi~uvgIDeI0R7N6rBcp3kD8WFKKPdlN-OyPt833cyy2S5HpxRAjDS9tvElmBcmtcSR9MnWErpO63qiMIhImWtNYxv3XETFrFOD-u5TK1G9cKVkDCxGEBRci2-u2vc5-SIdYp3oBcDOtdhYY3MFPfYb73x7NeS7nxEbpImerlN8mngkX~cs6Fq2hQR~nVydFJjdItx7JEV1UW6W5lMCQ4cORrADlSMoGGBlHvcuq60Fc2zhb1h4zjRoOA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q

    Study here:

    https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021480

    The researchers found:

    "The results of this study demonstrate that a very low carbohydrate diet, taken without a specified restriction of caloric intake is effective for weight loss over a 6 month period in healthy obese women. Compared with the low fat group, who followed a diet conforming to currently recommended distribution of macronutrient calories, the very low carbohydrate group lost significantly more weight....... In addition, despite eating a high percentage of calories as fat and having relatively high intakes is saturated fat and cholesterol, the women in the very low carbohydrate group maintained normal levels of blood pressure, plasma lipids, glucose, and insulin."

    low fat diets aren't great for me. low carb diets aren't great for me either. many people struggle with low fat because fat is very satiating for a lot of people. that being said, the study here asked one group to count calories and the other to count carbs, and asked both groups to self report. meh.
    A calorie is not simply a calorie in the human body.

    for CICO, it is. for adherence to a calorie restricted diet, it's not and for nutrition, it's not. but i was pretty sure that this whole section of the debate was about weight loss, because nobody here will argue that types of food are irrelevant for nutrition - even in the least popular opinion thread.

    Quoting this because I 100% agree with @jessiferrrb and because she did a masterful job with the quotes and I'm terrible at breaking them up to address particular points.

    Just adding one thing... does someone really have gnawing hunger (or any hunger) and think, "a can of soda should do the trick"?
    So compare the calories from a can of soda and the same calories from eggs over a period of years. I guarantee you they do not have the same effect on the body, and the difference is not insignificant.

    @theresejesu do you think that people are considering what they should consume and their choice is between soda and eggs? Because again, if I'm hungry, if it is breakfast time, or even a quick dinner - eggs all the way. Eggs don't quench my thirst though, and soda doesn't quell my hunger. Do you think that there are people in the world for whom they do not have that logic in their brain? Because I really can't fathom a world where someone thinks that eggs and soda are interchangeable in any aspect.

    Was the example that confusing?

    The comparison between eggs and soda? Yes. Do you believe this is a decision that people are regularly facing, whether to eat eggs or drink a Coke?

    She's just going from thread to thread instigating. None of what she says is sensible, but I'm done discussing things rationally with her - it is futile.

    If people sharing ideas and thoughts, that run so counter to your own that they bother you, is "instigating," then the problem doesn't lie with them.
This discussion has been closed.