Freelee the Banana Girl

Wade406

I challenge you to post one piece of research indicating that fat makes you fat independent of state of energy balance.

I never made that assertion as you've qualified it.

But look up "Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study".

Results: Total meat consumption was positively associated with weight gain in men and women, in normal-weight and overweight subjects, and in smokers and nonsmokers.

"We adjusted for initial BMI, physical activity, educational level, smoking status, total energy intake, and plausible misreporting."


Did you get that? Weight gain associated with meat consumption was determined by the study EVEN AFTER CONTROLLING FOR CALORIES. That's what "total energy intake" means.

What is in meat? Protein and fat. No carbs.

I used all caps not to yell, but I don't want to take the time to mess around with bold and italics because different systems have different html code. Waste of time for me.

Wade406

But the thing is, you haven't tried it. You are going by what you've read what you've heard. That's fine, I don't care that much really. Do as you will, it's your body your health.

How do you know what other people have tried?

No one has asserted that they tried it and reported their results. I'm assuming that this would be a line of argument to debate.

Jestinia

I challenge you to post one piece of research indicating that fat makes you fat independent of state of energy balance.

I never made that assertion as you've qualified it.

But look up "Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study".

Results: Total meat consumption was positively associated with weight gain in men and women, in normal-weight and overweight subjects, and in smokers and nonsmokers.

"We adjusted for initial BMI, physical activity, educational level, smoking status, total energy intake, and plausible misreporting."


Did you get that? Weight gain associated with meat consumption was determined by the study EVEN AFTER CONTROLLING FOR CALORIES. That's what "total energy intake" means.

What is in meat? Protein and fat. No carbs.

I used all caps not to yell, but I don't want to take the time to mess around with bold and italics because different systems have different html code. Waste of time for me.

Are you saying meat has magical properties that make you gain weight on the same amount of calories you maintain or lose on when you don't eat meat?

Cause this argument does not end well for low carbers who argue the reverse.

snazzyjazzy21

Man now I understand why I was so skinny when all I ate was bread and bananas! Carbs FTW!

Oh wait. :indifferent:

SideSteel

I challenge you to post one piece of research indicating that fat makes you fat independent of state of energy balance.

I never made that assertion as you've qualified it.

But look up "Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study".

Results: Total meat consumption was positively associated with weight gain in men and women, in normal-weight and overweight subjects, and in smokers and nonsmokers.

"We adjusted for initial BMI, physical activity, educational level, smoking status, total energy intake, and plausible misreporting."


Did you get that? Weight gain associated with meat consumption was determined by the study EVEN AFTER CONTROLLING FOR CALORIES. That's what "total energy intake" means.

What is in meat? Protein and fat. No carbs.

I used all caps not to yell, but I don't want to take the time to mess around with bold and italics because different systems have different html code. Waste of time for me.

This is an observational study in which they used a questionaire to establish food intake information, they use a mathematical model to draw this out over several while attempting to control for confounding factors, along with self reported weigh in data and this is your justification for your stance on this?

Jestinia

I challenge you to post one piece of research indicating that fat makes you fat independent of state of energy balance.

I never made that assertion as you've qualified it.

But look up "Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study".

Results: Total meat consumption was positively associated with weight gain in men and women, in normal-weight and overweight subjects, and in smokers and nonsmokers.

"We adjusted for initial BMI, physical activity, educational level, smoking status, total energy intake, and plausible misreporting."


Did you get that? Weight gain associated with meat consumption was determined by the study EVEN AFTER CONTROLLING FOR CALORIES. That's what "total energy intake" means.

What is in meat? Protein and fat. No carbs.

I used all caps not to yell, but I don't want to take the time to mess around with bold and italics because different systems have different html code. Waste of time for me.

Are you saying meat has magical properties that make you gain weight on the same amount of calories you maintain or lose on when you don't eat meat?

Cause this argument does not end well for low carbers who argue the reverse.

Or for for the people who take a balanced approach. Many of them have managed to achieve their goals while eating meat. Are they all outliners?

Indeed. Whatever tickles your satiety.

establishingaplace

Patiently awaiting a sensible response from 5iii.

I'm not sure what the question is.

Here's what I know: There's plenty of chatter on here about how my diet can't work, and that it won't work for them. And that the low carb high fat high protein style is what works.

But the thing is, you haven't tried it. You are going by what you've read what you've heard. That's fine, I don't care that much really. Do as you will, it's your body your health.

But I've eaten successfully both ways. I thought I was doing great on the low carb high everything else diet, at the time. I get it. But I know which is better for me, I know I can ride my bike really hard for a half day in a mountain bike race and not be sore the next day. I know that I'm lifting more in the health club and not suffering from nagging shoulder injuries that I could not shake on other diets.

So we can go round and round all day long, all night, days on end... whatever. But until you've done it for a reasonable amount of time, you are basing your opinion on preconceived notions formulated from the information you've chosen to consider. That is the very definition of BIAS.

You: Fat makes you fat.
Everyone else: Nope.
You: Yes! It does! It made me fat!
Everyone else: Then how have people on high fat diets lost weight?
You: "ketosis"
Someone else: Please elaborate
You: I feel great on this diet!

Me: :indifferent:

Wade406

I challenge you to post one piece of research indicating that fat makes you fat independent of state of energy balance.

I never made that assertion as you've qualified it.

But look up "Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study".

Results: Total meat consumption was positively associated with weight gain in men and women, in normal-weight and overweight subjects, and in smokers and nonsmokers.

"We adjusted for initial BMI, physical activity, educational level, smoking status, total energy intake, and plausible misreporting."


Did you get that? Weight gain associated with meat consumption was determined by the study EVEN AFTER CONTROLLING FOR CALORIES. That's what "total energy intake" means.

What is in meat? Protein and fat. No carbs.

I used all caps not to yell, but I don't want to take the time to mess around with bold and italics because different systems have different html code. Waste of time for me.

This is an observational study in which they used a questionaire to establish food intake information, they use a mathematical model to draw this out over several while attempting to control for confounding factors, along with self reported weigh in data and this is your justification for your stance on this?

How did I guess that this study doesn't meet your guidelines for "a good study". Let's just throw out all the results of the cohort studies.

You know what - I got my own results. I can eat more food, satisfying my appetite, without gaining weight eating this way. I'm getting adequate protein, I have way more energy, and I don't have the inflammation I had before. My recovery time is much better. My weight is within a 20 pound variation that its been for 13 years, yet my LDL is down 40 points. I value that. My research on the subject says that's important. My dad has heart disease, I don't want it.

SideSteel

I challenge you to post one piece of research indicating that fat makes you fat independent of state of energy balance.

I never made that assertion as you've qualified it.

But look up "Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study".

Results: Total meat consumption was positively associated with weight gain in men and women, in normal-weight and overweight subjects, and in smokers and nonsmokers.

"We adjusted for initial BMI, physical activity, educational level, smoking status, total energy intake, and plausible misreporting."


Did you get that? Weight gain associated with meat consumption was determined by the study EVEN AFTER CONTROLLING FOR CALORIES. That's what "total energy intake" means.

What is in meat? Protein and fat. No carbs.

I used all caps not to yell, but I don't want to take the time to mess around with bold and italics because different systems have different html code. Waste of time for me.

This is an observational study in which they used a questionaire to establish food intake information, they use a mathematical model to draw this out over several while attempting to control for confounding factors, along with self reported weigh in data and this is your justification for your stance on this?

How did I guess that this study doesn't meet your guidelines for "a good study". Let's just throw out all the results of the cohort studies.

It's not about what studies meet my standards, it's about looking at the study for what it says and considering additional data and seeing what you can take from research collectively. I'm calling this weak evidence and I've already presented controlled research showing fat loss on diets that are high in fat.

And why do they work? Because calorie deficit, just like ALL methods of weight loss.

Additionally we have plenty of anecdote through the paleo and primal communities of people losing fat on diets that are high in animal products.

These things don't fit your agenda so you selectively ignore them.

You know what - I got my own results. I can eat more food, satisfying my appetite, without gaining weight eating this way. I'm getting adequate protein, I have way more energy, and I don't have the inflammation I had before. My recovery time is much better. My weight is within a 20 pound variation that its been for 13 years, yet my LDL is down 40 points. I value that. My research on the subject says that's important. My dad has heart disease, I don't want it.

I'm not questioning your diet. I'm questioning the information you've previously posted in this thread.

Eat what you want.

Wade406

Patiently awaiting a sensible response from 5iii.

I'm not sure what the question is.

Here's what I know: There's plenty of chatter on here about how my diet can't work, and that it won't work for them. And that the low carb high fat high protein style is what works.

But the thing is, you haven't tried it. You are going by what you've read what you've heard. That's fine, I don't care that much really. Do as you will, it's your body your health.

But I've eaten successfully both ways. I thought I was doing great on the low carb high everything else diet, at the time. I get it. But I know which is better for me, I know I can ride my bike really hard for a half day in a mountain bike race and not be sore the next day. I know that I'm lifting more in the health club and not suffering from nagging shoulder injuries that I could not shake on other diets.

So we can go round and round all day long, all night, days on end... whatever. But until you've done it for a reasonable amount of time, you are basing your opinion on preconceived notions formulated from the information you've chosen to consider. That is the very definition of BIAS.

You: Fat makes you fat.
Everyone else: Nope.
You: Yes! It does! It made me fat!
Everyone else: Then how have people on high fat diets lost weight?
You: "ketosis"
Someone else: Please elaborate
You: I feel great on this diet!

Me: :indifferent:

Me: Watch Forks Over Knives. That's a professional presentation of my point of view. But oh, that's discounted at PETA propaganda so it doesn't count. Only if you agree with the people who pedal good news about their bad habits are you considered to have a valid point of view. Go to heartattackproof.com.

I really don't think anyone here much cares about my point of view. They just want to hate on my point of view. So now you are jumping on my response style. Really? Belittling me is your strategy?

Have I done this to you?

establishingaplace

I challenge you to post one piece of research indicating that fat makes you fat independent of state of energy balance.

I never made that assertion as you've qualified it.

But look up "Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study".

Results: Total meat consumption was positively associated with weight gain in men and women, in normal-weight and overweight subjects, and in smokers and nonsmokers.

"We adjusted for initial BMI, physical activity, educational level, smoking status, total energy intake, and plausible misreporting."


Did you get that? Weight gain associated with meat consumption was determined by the study EVEN AFTER CONTROLLING FOR CALORIES. That's what "total energy intake" means.

What is in meat? Protein and fat. No carbs.

I used all caps not to yell, but I don't want to take the time to mess around with bold and italics because different systems have different html code. Waste of time for me.

This is an observational study in which they used a questionaire to establish food intake information, they use a mathematical model to draw this out over several while attempting to control for confounding factors, along with self reported weigh in data and this is your justification for your stance on this?

How did I guess that this study doesn't meet your guidelines for "a good study". Let's just throw out all the results of the cohort studies.

You know what - I got my own results. I can eat more food, satisfying my appetite, without gaining weight eating this way. I'm getting adequate protein, I have way more energy, and I don't have the inflammation I had before. My recovery time is much better. My weight is within a 20 pound variation that its been for 13 years, yet my LDL is down 40 points. I value that. My research on the subject says that's important. My dad has heart disease, I don't want it.

And that's great that you've found something that so far is working for you. Different bodies respond to different diets, and personally, I think individual experience trumps food science.

The problem arises when you assert that YOUR way is THE way, rather than ONE way.

Being hypothyroid, I gave up soy a few years ago and started eating more saturated fats. My health improved greatly, and I found it was easier to lose weight. That doesn't mean that it would improve the health of all people or that all people should eat the way I eat.

establishingaplace

Patiently awaiting a sensible response from 5iii.

I'm not sure what the question is.

Here's what I know: There's plenty of chatter on here about how my diet can't work, and that it won't work for them. And that the low carb high fat high protein style is what works.

But the thing is, you haven't tried it. You are going by what you've read what you've heard. That's fine, I don't care that much really. Do as you will, it's your body your health.

But I've eaten successfully both ways. I thought I was doing great on the low carb high everything else diet, at the time. I get it. But I know which is better for me, I know I can ride my bike really hard for a half day in a mountain bike race and not be sore the next day. I know that I'm lifting more in the health club and not suffering from nagging shoulder injuries that I could not shake on other diets.

So we can go round and round all day long, all night, days on end... whatever. But until you've done it for a reasonable amount of time, you are basing your opinion on preconceived notions formulated from the information you've chosen to consider. That is the very definition of BIAS.

You: Fat makes you fat.
Everyone else: Nope.
You: Yes! It does! It made me fat!
Everyone else: Then how have people on high fat diets lost weight?
You: "ketosis"
Someone else: Please elaborate
You: I feel great on this diet!

Me: :indifferent:

Me: Watch Forks Over Knives. That's a professional presentation of my point of view. But oh, that's discounted at PETA propaganda so it doesn't count. Only if you agree with the people who pedal good news about their bad habits are you considered to have a valid point of view. Go to heartattackproof.com.

I really don't think anyone here much cares about my point of view. They just want to hate on my point of view. So now you are jumping on my response style. Really? Belittling me is your strategy?

Have I done this to you?

Your response style, in this case, was complete avoidance. Yes, I'm going to belittle that.

Wade406

I challenge you to post one piece of research indicating that fat makes you fat independent of state of energy balance.

I never made that assertion as you've qualified it.

But look up "Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study".

Results: Total meat consumption was positively associated with weight gain in men and women, in normal-weight and overweight subjects, and in smokers and nonsmokers.

"We adjusted for initial BMI, physical activity, educational level, smoking status, total energy intake, and plausible misreporting."


Did you get that? Weight gain associated with meat consumption was determined by the study EVEN AFTER CONTROLLING FOR CALORIES. That's what "total energy intake" means.

What is in meat? Protein and fat. No carbs.

I used all caps not to yell, but I don't want to take the time to mess around with bold and italics because different systems have different html code. Waste of time for me.

This is an observational study in which they used a questionaire to establish food intake information, they use a mathematical model to draw this out over several while attempting to control for confounding factors, along with self reported weigh in data and this is your justification for your stance on this?

How did I guess that this study doesn't meet your guidelines for "a good study". Let's just throw out all the results of the cohort studies.

It's not about what studies meet my standards, it's about looking at the study for what it says and considering additional data and seeing what you can take from research collectively. I'm calling this weak evidence and I've already presented controlled research showing fat loss on diets that are high in fat.

And why do they work? Because calorie deficit, just like ALL methods of weight loss.

Additionally we have plenty of anecdote through the paleo and primal communities of people losing fat on diets that are high in animal products.

These things don't fit your agenda so you selectively ignore them.

You know what - I got my own results. I can eat more food, satisfying my appetite, without gaining weight eating this way. I'm getting adequate protein, I have way more energy, and I don't have the inflammation I had before. My recovery time is much better. My weight is within a 20 pound variation that its been for 13 years, yet my LDL is down 40 points. I value that. My research on the subject says that's important. My dad has heart disease, I don't want it.

I'm not questioning your diet. I'm questioning the information you've previously posted in this thread.

Eat what you want.

I guess it does matter what the goal is. I never said you couldn't lose weight on a high fat diet. I can make a study whereby bacon is the new diet food. Take people on the SAD diet and switch them to 8 ounces of bacon per day and a multivitamin. Monitor them for 6 weeks. They will lose weight.

Result: Bacon promotes weight loss in our study.

My goal is not fat loss. My goal is health. Low LDL. Fast times on my mountain bike. Low inflammation. Fast recovery. Reducing or eliminating atherosclerosis. I'm on the best diet for that.

Wade406

The problem arises when you assert that YOUR way is THE way, rather than ONE way.

Being hypothyroid, I gave up soy a few years ago and started eating more saturated fats. My health improved greatly, and I found it was easier to lose weight. That doesn't mean that it would improve the health of all people or that all people should eat the way I eat.

I'm hypothyroid also.

I believe my way is best, just like you believe your way is best. Both of them are opinions. There are plenty of other threads that promote low carb, I'm not over there debating them. I'm on a topic considering a high carb vegan lifestyle.

establishingaplace

The problem arises when you assert that YOUR way is THE way, rather than ONE way.

Being hypothyroid, I gave up soy a few years ago and started eating more saturated fats. My health improved greatly, and I found it was easier to lose weight. That doesn't mean that it would improve the health of all people or that all people should eat the way I eat.

I'm hypothyroid also.

I believe my way is best, just like you believe your way is best. Both of them are opinions. There are plenty of other threads that promote low carb, I'm not over there debating them. I'm on a topic considering a high carb vegan lifestyle.

Opinions are fine. Personal experience is fine. But you have been framing things as fact in this whole thread. Such as:

As Freelee says carbs don't make you fat. It's a big fallacy. Fat makes you fat. Animal products make you fat.

Which is not a fact no matter how much you want to believe it.

emmanap91

Come on people!

Carbs don't make you fat
Fat doesn´t make you fat
and animal products don´t make you fat either.

What makes you fat is eating either one or all of them in an uncontrolled way. You can get fat from everything you eat out of control! If she eats like 1kg strawberries for breakfast, 4 bananas for lunch and a entire water melon for dinner she will be filled up and won't get fit because she is not overeating calorie wise....

I´m not too sure if cutting out so many things of your diet is healthy for most of us people. there are people only eating meat anymore, and people like banana girl... Maybe it´s good for their body. That doesn´t nessessarily mean that a diet like this is good for your body as well. I know it would make me feel really sick and poopy!

I personally need a lot of carbs. Otherwise my low blood pressure is going to kill me. I´d feel dizzy all day on a low carb diet. What is good for me might make you sick though. So I think you should try a diet that consists everything in regulation. Make sure that the meat you get is organic from animals that didn´t get fed that soy crap and you will be fine. Than make small changes and see how it makes you feel, Try and error....:flowerforyou:

It's good to restrict (or eliminate) cholesterol and saturated fat. That's proven science.

I was just going to lurk, but good lord I can't take any more of this broscience.

I'm in the public health field, so this stuff is what I study.
This study came out relatively recently and basically all health professionals agree is demonstrates that the 'sat fat causes heart disease' myth was based on ... well... nothing conclusive.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.full.pdf+html

Wade406

Come on people!

Carbs don't make you fat
Fat doesn´t make you fat
and animal products don´t make you fat either.

What makes you fat is eating either one or all of them in an uncontrolled way. You can get fat from everything you eat out of control! If she eats like 1kg strawberries for breakfast, 4 bananas for lunch and a entire water melon for dinner she will be filled up and won't get fit because she is not overeating calorie wise....

I´m not too sure if cutting out so many things of your diet is healthy for most of us people. there are people only eating meat anymore, and people like banana girl... Maybe it´s good for their body. That doesn´t nessessarily mean that a diet like this is good for your body as well. I know it would make me feel really sick and poopy!

I personally need a lot of carbs. Otherwise my low blood pressure is going to kill me. I´d feel dizzy all day on a low carb diet. What is good for me might make you sick though. So I think you should try a diet that consists everything in regulation. Make sure that the meat you get is organic from animals that didn´t get fed that soy crap and you will be fine. Than make small changes and see how it makes you feel, Try and error....:flowerforyou:

It's good to restrict (or eliminate) cholesterol and saturated fat. That's proven science.

I was just going to lurk, but good lord I can't take any more of this broscience.

I'm in the public health field, so this stuff is what I study.
This study came out relatively recently and basically all health professionals agree is demonstrates that the 'sat fat causes heart disease' myth was based on ... well... nothing conclusive.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.full.pdf+html

Not everyone in the public health field agrees with you, but I appreciate you are basing your point of view on that study.
Take a look at this guy: http://youtu.be/FX58PyQwrcI?t=6m1s
Another bro scientist I suppose.

mathjulz

Me: Watch Forks Over Knives. That's a professional presentation of my point of view. But oh, that's discounted at PETA propaganda so it doesn't count. Only if you agree with the people who pedal good news about their bad habits are you considered to have a valid point of view. Go to heartattackproof.com.

I really don't think anyone here much cares about my point of view. They just want to hate on my point of view. So now you are jumping on my response style. Really? Belittling me is your strategy?

Have I done this to you?

:huh: :laugh:

Not only is that a poor excuse for science, it's a poor excuse for a documentary.