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?
Replies
-
VintageFeline wrote: »At the end of the day, what's the best thing we can do for our long term health? Maintain a healthy weight and move around a bit.
Is it ideal to maintain that healthy weight eating chocolate and McDonalds exclusively? Not really. But who really is doing that. There's very few people in this world who never get any nutrition from their diet so to even make an argument on the premise of that being the flaw with prioritising calorie intake is ridiculous.
I have used him often and probably in this thread too. Boyfriend back in the day, had a really limited diet of basically meat, potatoes, ketchup and pizza. They would take different forms, steak, chicken breast, burgers, chips, crisps, roast potatoes etc. And there would be soda and chocolate too. Absolutely no deficiencies and maintained a healthy weight and was super fit due to being a BMXer.
So the "which diet is better, anyone counting calories is just killing themselves with crappy nutrition" strawman argument because they're pushing the work of some guru with some made up condition is unhelpful. It just further muddies something people struggle with in the first place; what to believe from an industry determined to get your money for their fad.
Agree maintaining a healthy weight and moving is important
I would really question the bolded part. With no or limited fruits and vegetables he most likely did have some nutrition deficiencies.
12 -
theresejesu wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »jessiferrrb 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.
So it was a straw man argument then?
Or a false dilemma?
Otherwise I'm not sure why you would make the comparison: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.
No, you're just not understanding the use or context, trying to fit it into a box of your own making.
Classic tactic, if other people are calling you out just tell them they all don't understand.
Classic tactic is to create strawman arguments to attack.
You mean like you did, in suggesting we were discussing choosing soda over eggs over a period of years.Proper response is not to engage the strawman, but point out the error.
An excellent response is to point out the strawman-ness of the strawman and that it has nothing to do with the other argument that you are pretending to rebut.
That is what WinoGelato did.15 -
I have a couple!
- The idea that fat = unhealthy is pretty inaccurate. Keep reading. Definitely there are important limitations to this, and I'd never try to say it doesn't affect the heart (even the fat-but-exercise-heavy crowd has to worry about it that's just facts), but I think a lot of people forget that most of the time they're assuming someone is unhealthy, they're simply judging with their eyes. You can lead a very healthy lifestyle, healthier than average and thin folks, yet still be assumed to be the less healthy one just because of how you look.
- Discipline! I don't think this is a very unpopular opinion anymore but there's an idea that the only admirable or effective discipline means counting every calorie, exercising a few hours 6 days a week, or some variation of these things. In reality, discipline comes in a lot of forms, and makes the difference between health kicks and lifestyle changes. Discipline can be only doing exercise you enjoy in order to be more consistent instead of giving in to the pressure of feeling inadequate for not meeting the every calorie + 6 days a week standard. It can mean keeping a food journal when you absolutely hate doing that. It can mean not keeping a scale so that you can focus on other forms of progress measurement instead of obsessing over a number that doesn't actually tell you much. In short, discipline is whatever you push yourself to do in order to get results, and that doesn't have to mean the Hollywood ideal.
Also a lot of people seem to have some seriously bad misinformation about WLS heheheh. It's definitely not "cheating", I can say from experience (also people rail on fat people to lose weight but if it's a successful method somehow it invalidates it? I don't get that)- it requires lifestyle change and discipline. You can lose very little with WLS. You can regain everything with WLS. It is a lifestyle change, it does require hard work, and I think the fact that it's successful tends to make people feel like it has to be evil in some way, because I guess fat people don't deserve credit for anything they got help with? I could talk about it at length but that's not necessary. I did want to say something helpful though-
For the post mentioning the "perfectly healthy stomach" idea, I can see where that feels wrong, but it's not actually the situation you're thinking- the stomach being reduced is expanded well beyond the regular size, which means that there is more ghrelin lining the walls. Ghrelin releases the hunger hormone, and when there's so much of it in your stomach your hunger- not appetite but actual hunger mind you- is out of fricking control, which is why obese people say that they struggle so much with eating less. People who aren't obese don't understand that because their hormones are normal, and they assume it's a willpower thing (back to the idea that fat people are inherently weak and lazy slobs/victimhood etc) instead of an actual physical and mental malfunction. Your stomach is not healthy or normal when it's that large. If that isn't enough to undo your feeling that a healthy stomach is being damaged, keep in mind that the stomach easily regrows cells, and after surgery if you don't stay strict with your portions your stomach will expand back to any size you allow it to. If you really need something to hold onto about WLS that is actually kinda messed up, check out the malabsorption part. It's not my favorite situation, but you just have to take a lot of vitamins every day/get above 80 grams of protein etc BUT the trade off of removing my pre-diabetes, high blood pressure going to excellent levels, and regaining my energy and ability to live actively and well- it's worth it.
More or less I think the biggest unpopular opinion I have is that everybody is different, everyone's body works differently, everyone has completely different things that work and don't work, and almost nobody ever takes that into account.17 -
-
That there can be a mental component to weight loss. Depression and anxiety can wreak havoc on a person's thoughts and motivation. I struggle with this every time I have to go grocery shopping. The fear I have about what people think while I put fruits and veggies in my basket. While I *know* that it doesn't matter what they think, that voice in my head still shouts.9
-
lunaticfish7 wrote: »I have a couple!
-
More or less I think the biggest unpopular opinion I have is that everybody is different, everyone's body works differently, everyone has completely different things that work and don't work, and almost nobody ever takes that into account.
Nope,we all lose weight the same way...eat less calories..
Medical conditions and food allergies may change the equation but it all boils down to CICO13 -
theresejesu wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »jessiferrrb 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.
So it was a straw man argument then?
Or a false dilemma?
Otherwise I'm not sure why you would make the comparison: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.
No, you're just not understanding the use or context, trying to fit it into a box of your own making.
Classic tactic, if other people are calling you out just tell them they all don't understand.
Classic tactic is to create strawman arguments to attack. Proper response is not to engage the strawman, but point out the error. If The person really is interested in understanding, then they'll seek further clarification. If not, they won't.
Um... ok so I shouldn't have pointed out the straw man you created comparing the effects of calories In soda to the same calories from eggs. I did however point out the false dilemma that this creates, so I'm interested in you trying to clarify what you meant rather than suggest that I'm not smart enough to understand your point.15 -
VintageFeline wrote: »At the end of the day, what's the best thing we can do for our long term health? Maintain a healthy weight and move around a bit.
Is it ideal to maintain that healthy weight eating chocolate and McDonalds exclusively? Not really. But who really is doing that.
I probably shouldn't bring this up, but that's exactly what the guy from FatHead did for a month, and was healthier at the end according to the general tests than he was at the beginning.There's very few people in this world who never get any nutrition from their diet so to even make an argument on the premise of that being the flaw with prioritising calorie intake is ridiculous.
I have used him often and probably in this thread too. Boyfriend back in the day, had a really limited diet of basically meat, potatoes, ketchup and pizza. They would take different forms, steak, chicken breast, burgers, chips, crisps, roast potatoes etc. And there would be soda and chocolate too. Absolutely no deficiencies and maintained a healthy weight and was super fit due to being a BMXer.
So the "which diet is better, anyone counting calories is just killing themselves with crappy nutrition" strawman argument because they're pushing the work of some guru with some made up condition is unhelpful. It just further muddies something people struggle with in the first place; what to believe from an industry determined to get your money for their fad.
I have to disagree with that, for the final chapter in these lives have not been written yet.
I don't want to be healthy just in the present, I want to lay the foundation and building blocks to be healthy in old age as well, and the ignoring of what we are eating now for the sake of short term health and saying the concerns over the long term effects of what we choose to eat now doesn't really matter seems incredibly short sighted; and I wonder why anyone who is concerned about their health and weight in the present would so blithely dismiss the concerns being expressed over the long term effects of food choices. Makes no sense to me whatsoever.
7 -
lunaticfish7 wrote: »I have a couple!
-
More or less I think the biggest unpopular opinion I have is that everybody is different, everyone's body works differently, everyone has completely different things that work and don't work, and almost nobody ever takes that into account.
Nope,we all lose weight the same way...eat less calories..
Medical conditions and food allergies may change the equation but it all boils down to CICO
Yet, lunaticfish7 is absolutely right.
Eat less calories is only part of the equation, an important part, but only a part.
And is not just about losing weight. The reason to lose weight is to be healthier. It's a fallacy to present health in such a narrow manner.15 -
I made no such suggestion, hence you are simply perpetuating the straw man.lemurcat12 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »jessiferrrb 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.
So it was a straw man argument then?
Or a false dilemma?
Otherwise I'm not sure why you would make the comparison: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.
No, you're just not understanding the use or context, trying to fit it into a box of your own making.
Classic tactic, if other people are calling you out just tell them they all don't understand.
Classic tactic is to create strawman arguments to attack.
You mean like you did, in suggesting we were discussing choosing soda over eggs over a period of years.
Which is exactly what I just did with you.Proper response is not to engage the strawman, but point out the error.
An excellent response is to point out the strawman-ness of the strawman and that it has nothing to do with the other argument that you are pretending to rebut.That is what WinoGelato did.
Not in the slightest.
7 -
WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »jessiferrrb 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.
So it was a straw man argument then?
Or a false dilemma?
Otherwise I'm not sure why you would make the comparison: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.
No, you're just not understanding the use or context, trying to fit it into a box of your own making.
Classic tactic, if other people are calling you out just tell them they all don't understand.
Classic tactic is to create strawman arguments to attack. Proper response is not to engage the strawman, but point out the error. If The person really is interested in understanding, then they'll seek further clarification. If not, they won't.
Um... ok so I shouldn't have pointed out the straw man you created comparing the effects of calories In soda to the same calories from eggs. I did however point out the false dilemma that this creates, so I'm interested in you trying to clarify what you meant rather than suggest that I'm not smart enough to understand your point.
Probablyvwhat would have been best was to not assume you understood what I meant and then come out with both guns blazing.
There was no straw man and their was no false dilemma.
And actually I thought I had already explained what I was saying. I dont have time to look through the thread right now, so will have to do it later.10 -
I exercise for fitness...but also for IPAs on the patio. No way I could maintain my weight and enjoy my IPAs if I didn't ride as much as I do. I even have a jersey that says "I will ride for beer"...
Mine says, "Two things I like to lift (a) Dem weights (b) Dat fork"9 -
theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »jessiferrrb 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.
So it was a straw man argument then?
Or a false dilemma?
Otherwise I'm not sure why you would make the comparison: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.
No, you're just not understanding the use or context, trying to fit it into a box of your own making.
Classic tactic, if other people are calling you out just tell them they all don't understand.
Classic tactic is to create strawman arguments to attack. Proper response is not to engage the strawman, but point out the error. If The person really is interested in understanding, then they'll seek further clarification. If not, they won't.
Um... ok so I shouldn't have pointed out the straw man you created comparing the effects of calories In soda to the same calories from eggs. I did however point out the false dilemma that this creates, so I'm interested in you trying to clarify what you meant rather than suggest that I'm not smart enough to understand your point.
Probablyvwhat would have been best was to not assume you understood what I meant and then come out with both guns blazing.
There was no straw man and their was no false dilemma.
And actually I thought I had already explained what I was saying. I dont have time to look through the thread right now, so will have to do it later.
When I'm speaking with a large group and one or two misunderstand, it's usually on their side. If a large number are not getting the message, it's a good indication that I need to re-evaluate what I've said. Perhaps, considering the number of people who you have been suggesting are not smart enough or are just too lazy to be bothered, it might be time to look at where the communication is breaking down. Just something you might want to consider.
33 -
theresejesu wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »At the end of the day, what's the best thing we can do for our long term health? Maintain a healthy weight and move around a bit.
Is it ideal to maintain that healthy weight eating chocolate and McDonalds exclusively? Not really. But who really is doing that.
I probably shouldn't bring this up, but that's exactly what the guy from FatHead did for a month, and was healthier at the end according to the general tests than he was at the beginning.There's very few people in this world who never get any nutrition from their diet so to even make an argument on the premise of that being the flaw with prioritising calorie intake is ridiculous.
I have used him often and probably in this thread too. Boyfriend back in the day, had a really limited diet of basically meat, potatoes, ketchup and pizza. They would take different forms, steak, chicken breast, burgers, chips, crisps, roast potatoes etc. And there would be soda and chocolate too. Absolutely no deficiencies and maintained a healthy weight and was super fit due to being a BMXer.
So the "which diet is better, anyone counting calories is just killing themselves with crappy nutrition" strawman argument because they're pushing the work of some guru with some made up condition is unhelpful. It just further muddies something people struggle with in the first place; what to believe from an industry determined to get your money for their fad.
I have to disagree with that, for the final chapter in these lives have not been written yet.
I don't want to be healthy just in the present, I want to lay the foundation and building blocks to be healthy in old age as well, and the ignoring of what we are eating now for the sake of short term health and saying the concerns over the long term effects of what we choose to eat now doesn't really matter seems incredibly short sighted; and I wonder why anyone who is concerned about their health and weight in the present would so blithely dismiss the concerns being expressed over the long term effects of food choices. Makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Where on earth did I say we shouldn't be concerned about long term outcomes? Surely the very mention of being a healthy weight and fitness level indicates that? Because those are the primary indicators of maintaining health and independence into old age.
Of course good nutrition matters. My point is that there are actually very few truly malnourished people. They are eating too much. Obesity is caused by over-eating any food. I did it. I love my vegetables and good quality meats etc and I was obese because I ate too much of those delicious things.
The guy in FatHead did it for just a month though, deliberately, for an experiment. Again, there aren't too many people doing it all the live long day never mind maintaining a healthy weight with that way of eating. Which again is the main driving force in long term health outcomes. Not the consumption of lectins. Which occur in such small doses in our foods that you'd have to be eating unachievable amounts of those foods for it to be an issue.
I really don't understand the purpose of your agenda. We're living longer than ever and it's not because of a reduction in lecting consumption. Oh, actually, age of death has reversed a little. Why? Obesity.10 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »jessiferrrb 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.
So it was a straw man argument then?
Or a false dilemma?
Otherwise I'm not sure why you would make the comparison: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.
No, you're just not understanding the use or context, trying to fit it into a box of your own making.
Classic tactic, if other people are calling you out just tell them they all don't understand.
Classic tactic is to create strawman arguments to attack. Proper response is not to engage the strawman, but point out the error. If The person really is interested in understanding, then they'll seek further clarification. If not, they won't.
Um... ok so I shouldn't have pointed out the straw man you created comparing the effects of calories In soda to the same calories from eggs. I did however point out the false dilemma that this creates, so I'm interested in you trying to clarify what you meant rather than suggest that I'm not smart enough to understand your point.
Probablyvwhat would have been best was to not assume you understood what I meant and then come out with both guns blazing.
There was no straw man and their was no false dilemma.
And actually I thought I had already explained what I was saying. I dont have time to look through the thread right now, so will have to do it later.
When I'm speaking with a large group and one or two misunderstand, it's usually on their side. If a large number are not getting the message, it's a good indication that I need to re-evaluate what I've said. Perhaps, considering the number of people who you have been suggesting are not smart enough or are just too lazy to be bothered, it might be time to look at where the communication is breaking down. Just something you might want to consider.
So. Much. The. Bolded.
I've really grown weary these last couple weeks of this poster condescendgly suggesting that so many of us lack reading comprehension, are too dense to understand scientific studies, too flippant with our own health to care about nutrition, or too short sighted to care about the future... all the while using straw man arguments and appeals to authority to talk down to us time and again across many threads on these boards.
29 -
creativedarkness wrote: »That there can be a mental component to weight loss. Depression and anxiety can wreak havoc on a person's thoughts and motivation. I struggle with this every time I have to go grocery shopping. The fear I have about what people think while I put fruits and veggies in my basket. While I *know* that it doesn't matter what they think, that voice in my head still shouts.
Agree with the first part, but this surprises me. To the extent I think anyone is looking at my purchases, I think they'd be thinking positive (or unobjectionable) things about getting fruits and veg. Do I imagine they might think something wrong/weird about other purchases? Not so much anymore, but if I were feeling sensitive or self conscious, maybe, in some cases, and I get that.0 -
theresejesu wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »jessiferrrb 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.
So it was a straw man argument then?
Or a false dilemma?
Otherwise I'm not sure why you would make the comparison: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.
No, you're just not understanding the use or context, trying to fit it into a box of your own making.
Classic tactic, if other people are calling you out just tell them they all don't understand.
Classic tactic is to create strawman arguments to attack.
You mean like you did, in suggesting we were discussing choosing soda over eggs over a period of years.
I made no such suggestion, hence you are simply perpetuating the straw man.
Oh, do you think it's been long enough since the original comment that no one will be able to call you on this? Cute.
You were talking about the alleged problem of eating a balanced meal and yet still feeling hunger (which IMO has nothing to do with CICO, it has to do with the fact that any rational person in feeling hungry would experiment with different ways of eating and not bizarrely assert that means CICO does not work for them). But in any case, you went on to talk about the TEF of protein (eggs are not a high protein food, particularly -- they are an okay source of protein I eat most mornings, but more of a source of fat, which has a low TEF, and normally I'd eat some other source of protein with my two morning eggs).
In any case, you followed the discussion of protein and satiety by saying:
"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."
But as I said before there is NO SUCH THING as egg calories or soda calories. Your body cannot tell where the energy (calories) are from. Your body OF COURSE differentiates between the overall components in the egg vs. the soda -- absolutely no one has said a food is just a food, or all foods are the same, so suggesting that we did is a STRAWMAN on your part.
WinoGelato made the excellent additional point that comparing eggs and soda is weird anyway, since no one decides between soda and eggs in making a meal. (Soda isn't even really considered food, which is one reason it can be so easily overconsumed by those who enjoy sugary sodas.)
If you thought she was misunderstanding your point in mentioning a soda vs. eggs in connection with your discussion on satiety, you never actually explained how or clarified your initial comment (does anyone drink a soda to avoid hunger and then continue to do so for years upon finding that they still remain hungry? that seems pretty foolish). So claiming that she (or I) were misunderstanding your argument is deflection, really,
Which is exactly what I just did with you.[/quote]Proper response is not to engage the strawman, but point out the error.
An excellent response is to point out the strawman-ness of the strawman and that it has nothing to do with the other argument that you are pretending to rebut.
No, you didn't point at all how it supposedly is a strawman. Instead, you did the equivalent of "oh yeah, but you are too, more!"
If you genuinely think you are being misunderstood, feel free to clarify.
Let me help: no one is saying all foods are the same or nutrition does not matter for health.27 -
Here, I've pulled the context from the original postDo 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.
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.6 -
not exactly an 'opinion', but it seems so common i'm using this thread to get it off my chest. i really get irritated by the all-purpose word 'bloat'. just say constipation or gas, because in order for anybody to tell you anything meaningful you're going to end up having to say it anyway. euphemisms that are ambiguous just defeat their own purpose.
and actually, i was taught bloat meant water retention.7 -
canadianlbs wrote: »not exactly an 'opinion', but it seems so common i'm using this thread to get it off my chest. i really get irritated by the all-purpose word 'bloat'. just say constipation or gas, because in order for anybody to tell you anything meaningful you're going to end up having to say it anyway. euphemisms that are ambiguous just defeat their own purpose.
and actually, i was taught bloat meant water retention.
ha! When people say "bloat" I think of CSI Miami and floating corpses.
It's one of those words that is ugly. Like "moist."11 -
canadianlbs wrote: »not exactly an 'opinion', but it seems so common i'm using this thread to get it off my chest. i really get irritated by the all-purpose word 'bloat'. just say constipation or gas, because in order for anybody to tell you anything meaningful you're going to end up having to say it anyway. euphemisms that are ambiguous just defeat their own purpose.
and actually, i was taught bloat meant water retention.
And just to muddy the waters (pun intended), bloat to me is after I have drank three beers (or any gas producing food), and my stomach expands with the gas for a few hours. Once it has moved below my belly button, it is good old wind and will be expelled in the usual manner.
Totally agree, specificity is needed in the initial post.
Cheers, h.5 -
@theresejesu are you turing complete?6
-
stanmann571 wrote: »@theresejesu are you turing complete?
ManOman . . . @stanmann571: You and I aren't always on the same wavelength, to say the least . . . but that's hilarious as baby feline, right there. Thanks for the belly laugh!.6 -
stanmann571 wrote: »@theresejesu are you turing complete?
Turing?1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »@theresejesu are you turing complete?
ManOman . . . @stanmann571: You and I aren't always on the same wavelength, to say the least . . . but that's hilarious as baby feline, right there. Thanks for the belly laugh!.
Code breaker?1 -
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »@theresejesu are you turing complete?
ManOman . . . @stanmann571: You and I aren't always on the same wavelength, to say the least . . . but that's hilarious as baby feline, right there. Thanks for the belly laugh!.
Code breaker?
T.D.i.P.: Alan Turing. Turing test. Google it. There's a hoot in there.4 -
I'll add another unpopular opinion.
While I know that eating fewer calories is absolutely necessary for weight loss, I think that there are some overweight/obese people out there who would do well with focusing on what they're eating as opposed to the amount. Recently, a coworker asked me if I ate a lot of food as we were going out to a restaurant for lunch. My response was "no", as I didn't think of myself as being a big eater. My family members have often thought I eat large portions of food, but I thought it was just them. After the meal, my coworker mentioned that he thought I stated that I didn't eat a lot of food. I didn't have any issues finishing my plate, but he could not finish his. Our meals were similar, and I don't think he had eaten a particularly large breakfast.
Now, I would estimate that he's a good 50 lbs heavier than I am. I'm on the far low end of the BMI range and I'm pretty sure he would be considered well into the overweight category. I know from previous conversations that he does do some exercise. So while I may be more active than he is, I don't think it's a huge difference. In other words, his TDEE is most likely higher than mine, but apparently I can eat more food at one sitting than he can. This suggests to me that he must be eating a lot of calorie bomb foods, considering that I eat a mix of low calorie and high calorie foods.
Also, maybe I really am more of a volume eater than I thought.
7 -
SeriousCat wrote: »I'm against any position that encourages victim status - HAES, slow metabolism, FA...certainly not a popular opinion as the world has rejected any notion of personal responsibility and accountability and solely devoted to casting blame on something or someone else.
Really unpopular opinion, but also alcohol. No, you do not have a disease. No, you are not powerless over your problem. You are personally responsible for the CHOICES you make, so choosing to stop making bad ones.
That's the 12-step crap I hate. The powerless aspect, the disease theory. How it's about "character defects." There ARE neurological reasons reasons that make it hard to stop, that other people will never understand because they can drink casually, but once you know those reasons and that you just can't tolerate alcohol, there's no excuse.3 -
Here's another one:
I believe that there truly exist people who, for some reason, maintain their weight (or even gain) on an accurately-tracked calorie consumption level that seems absurdly low for their size, to most of us. And these people are more likely to post in the forums than people who lose at average calorie levels, or at higher than average calorie levels.
I think many/most who claim such a thing are mistaken - instead, they're eating more than they think, or over-estimating exercise burn. But I think some are truthful, and not mistaken. Maybe 1 in 50? Not sure.
Why? The statistics suggest that there would be outliers at both extremes. Good-sized TDEE discrepancies among extreme weight-losers suggest that surprising adaptations are in the realm of the possible. Also, I've observed this a very small number of times in my MFP friend feed - people who appear to track accurately, but lose very slowly, and require low calorie levels to do it. Finally, I seem to be an outlier on the other end of the scale - I maintain at a calorie level 30%+ higher than calculators predict from my characteristics.
I don't talk about this belief much, because I think people who incorrectly believe they have a "slow metabolism" are much (much) more common. But I wish the forums would be a little less bullying about this possibility, just in case: It's possible to say that an OP's beliefs are unlikely, without calling them names.
Thanks - my husband is just such a person. I've watched him forever scrupulously log his calories (he uses Lose It!) and work out almost every day and Just. Not. Lose. I think part of it is that whatever the fitness trackers/watches/whatever are telling him he expends in calories, just isn't true. It, in fact, couldn't be, for him. It just isn't.
Also that exercise is X amount better than "dieting" for his pre-diabetes glucose levels. Well, after a month of trekking in the Himalayas and losing 30 pounds, his blood sugar skyrocketed because they were mostly eating high-carb foods. I mentioned that to his nutritionist and she just ignored it. (I realize that was an extreme situation, of course.) It's like there is this "but that CAN'T be true" reaction, when it IS true. I'm a scientist so I know the extreme importance given to scientific evidence and controlled studies but.
At some point there are outliers. At some point, evidence is reality.7 -
drbeanie2000 wrote: »Here's another one:
I believe that there truly exist people who, for some reason, maintain their weight (or even gain) on an accurately-tracked calorie consumption level that seems absurdly low for their size, to most of us. And these people are more likely to post in the forums than people who lose at average calorie levels, or at higher than average calorie levels.
I think many/most who claim such a thing are mistaken - instead, they're eating more than they think, or over-estimating exercise burn. But I think some are truthful, and not mistaken. Maybe 1 in 50? Not sure.
Why? The statistics suggest that there would be outliers at both extremes. Good-sized TDEE discrepancies among extreme weight-losers suggest that surprising adaptations are in the realm of the possible. Also, I've observed this a very small number of times in my MFP friend feed - people who appear to track accurately, but lose very slowly, and require low calorie levels to do it. Finally, I seem to be an outlier on the other end of the scale - I maintain at a calorie level 30%+ higher than calculators predict from my characteristics.
I don't talk about this belief much, because I think people who incorrectly believe they have a "slow metabolism" are much (much) more common. But I wish the forums would be a little less bullying about this possibility, just in case: It's possible to say that an OP's beliefs are unlikely, without calling them names.
Thanks - my husband is just such a person. I've watched him forever scrupulously log his calories (he uses Lose It!) and work out almost every day and Just. Not. Lose. I think part of it is that whatever the fitness trackers/watches/whatever are telling him he expends in calories, just isn't true. It, in fact, couldn't be, for him. It just isn't.
Also that exercise is X amount better than "dieting" for his pre-diabetes glucose levels. Well, after a month of trekking in the Himalayas and losing 30 pounds, his blood sugar skyrocketed because they were mostly eating high-carb foods. I mentioned that to his nutritionist and she just ignored it. (I realize that was an extreme situation, of course.) It's like there is this "but that CAN'T be true" reaction, when it IS true. I'm a scientist so I know the extreme importance given to scientific evidence and controlled studies but.
At some point there are outliers. At some point, evidence is reality.
I'm one of them. It takes a ridiculously high level of activity for me to eat what most people my size/age would eat. I just had to lower my calorie intake another 250 calories because I've been experiencing weight creep for 2 months now.
At 5'9" and 158 lbs, I'm gaining weight on a net 1,550 / day calorie intake. This is in-line with my experience my whole life. I weigh everything, I don't nibble or snitch foods, and I'm extremely conservative on my exercise calories (only counting pedometer steps, not getting "extra" for higher-intensity activities like hiking or using the elliptical etc.) I had to maintain a deficit larger than predicted in order to lose the weight as well. This played into my weight creep in early adulthood as I found it difficult to keep up the discipline necessary to get 2+ hours of physical activity every day and impossible to maintain eating as little as I was allowed if I didn't. At this point I'm over the sense of injustice and just resigned to the fact that I can't change reality, no matter how unfair it is.
8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions