An argument with a person in shape = no way to win
Options
Replies
-
I disagree. 3000 calories of veggies can be up to 20 pounds of food depending on the kind of veggies. That amount of food can seriously hurt your stomach permanently.I recently got into an argument with my co-worker. He is young, 27, and in good shape. He basically eats rabbit food, which is fine. We got into a discussion and he started telling me that when you eat is more important than what you eat and the calories. He told me you should never eat before going to bed.(which has been dis-proven) Then he told me that intermittent fasting is bad because your metabolism slows to a halt throughout the day (which also has been greatly exaggerated)
I then went on my rant and explained to him that a calorie is a calorie and as long as you create a deficit each day, you are fine. I then asked him if I ate 3000 calories all day and stopped eating after 8pm vs 3000 calories but 1000 of it was right before going to bed he told me the latter is a lot worse.
I tried to explain to him that some things work differently for some people, and eating breakfast makes me hungry all day long. I tried to explain that weight loss is about simple math, calories in, calories out. etc. But as I was arguing both him and my other co-worker started looking at me funny. I knew what was going on.
You see, I am fat, and I could not possibly win this argument UNTIL I lose the weight right?
Just as my mind was thinking this, he said "then prove it."
Anyone else run into a no win situation like this? I mean, technically, the proof is right there, I am fat, he is thin. And even though he is thin for other reasons, it just is pointless to argue this.
I personally don't agree that a calorie is calorie- 3000 calories of veggies will be better for you then 3000 calories in candy. So no!, a calorie isn't a calorie. You also made mention that everyone is different... very true everyone is different which more so supports the fact that a calorie is not calorie. 100 calories in carbs has a different effect/reaction on your body than 100 calories of protein same goes with fats... again a calorie isn't a calorie!
I hate IIFYM if you can't tell, you know IIFYM started on bodybuilding.com as a guys common answer to stupid questions ... now it's science??? I don't think so. It works more so because people are in a deficit who've never dieted but it's not really healthy or good IMO.
You should be eating breakfast, your hungry all day because your metabolism is more active.(eat more protein at breakfast could be what you eat that is making you feel hungry, protein takes longer to digest [again a calorie isn't a calorie]) Eating right before bed and depending on what it is will or can be stored as fat, You know carbs cause your body to enter into a storage mode where everything you eat for roughly 4 hours will be stored as fat?
Brad
Aaaaand... the rest you said is wrong too. A calorie is a calorie the same way heat is heat no matter if you built a campfire in your living room, sit in front of an electrical heater or have one of those cute little pocket heaters which cause heat by chemical reaction. IIFYM is science because it's based on the most basic physics on which your body operates. The need for energy of every action your body does and the conservation of energy law. Meaning your body can't just make energy out of nothing.
Breakfast doesn't make your metabolism more active than any meal at any point in the day is going to make it and again conservation of energy debunks "carbs will make you store everything as fat!".0 -
And yet you made this priceless statement in the sugar thread: "Sugar is the worst thing on the planet for you"
Weird.
How is that weird? Please explain. Yes, I think sugar is awful for you. I think sugar makes people more hungry and makes you crave, you know, more calories...
OK, well, just like your little office friend, you should re-phrase to "Yes, I think sugar is awful for ME. I think sugar makes ME more hungry and makes ME crave, you know, more calories..."
Sugar is good for you and vital . But too much sugar causes leptin resistance, which does make you more hungry, which usually causes you to eat more.
Are you taking issue with him saying "sugar" instead of saying "too much sugar"?
Yes, I'll give you that. I'm not sure which he actually meant to say, but "Sugar is the worst thing on the planet for you" seems pretty damning. :laugh:0 -
Or I could have a BS is biochemistry.
You have been watching to many videos by Ludwig.
And yet you made this priceless statement in the sugar thread: "Sugar is the worst thing on the planet for you"
Weird.
How is that weird? Please explain. Yes, I think sugar is awful for you. I think sugar makes people more hungry and makes you crave, you know, more calories...
OK, well, just like your little office friend, you should re-phrase to "Yes, I think sugar is awful for ME. I think sugar makes ME more hungry and makes ME crave, you know, more calories..."
Sugar is good for you and vital . But too much sugar causes leptin resistance, which does make you more hungry, which usually causes you to eat more.
Are you taking issue with him saying "sugar" instead of saying "too much sugar"?0 -
No Moar sugar!!!!!!!
Only Splenda.
And yet you made this priceless statement in the sugar thread: "Sugar is the worst thing on the planet for you"
Weird.
How is that weird? Please explain. Yes, I think sugar is awful for you. I think sugar makes people more hungry and makes you crave, you know, more calories...
OK, well, just like your little office friend, you should re-phrase to "Yes, I think sugar is awful for ME. I think sugar makes ME more hungry and makes ME crave, you know, more calories..."
Sugar is good for you and vital . But too much sugar causes leptin resistance, which does make you more hungry, which usually causes you to eat more.
Are you taking issue with him saying "sugar" instead of saying "too much sugar"?
Yes, I'll give you that. I'm not sure which he actually meant to say, but "Sugar is the worst thing on the planet for you" seems pretty damning. :laugh:0 -
A calorie is a calorie outside of the human body. Once you consume it the metabolic pathways are different depending on the calorie source. Eating 3500 calories of fructose will result in more weight gain than 3500 calories from protein. The energy expended just to break down the amino acids in protein is greater than the energy needed to metabolize fructose.
Your body does not treat all calories equally, so let me amend that.... A calorie is not a calorie once it's consumed.What is rabbit food? Fresh fruits and veggies?
If you wanted to argue with me that a calorie is a calorie, then I would take issue as well. Since I don't think it is. And yes, I have studied this and know a little ( a lot) about biochemistry. In general, yes, you should consume less calories than you expend. But not all calories are created equal. If you consume 100 calories from protein, only 80-70 calories actually hit your liver. If you eat 100 calories from fat or carbs, 85-95 calories will enter the liver to be metabolized. The more calories that enter the liver equals more fat cells.
Nearly 100% of calories from fructose enters the liver! while only 20% of calories from glucose enters the liver.
A calorie is not a calorie.
Calories in vs calories out... Yes. But depending on where you get your calories it may or may not work out very well for you.
Actually according to Webster's dictionary a calorie...
CALORIE
2
b : an amount of food having an energy-producing value of one large calorie
really is just that...a calorie.
CALORIE
2
b : an amount of food having an energy-producing value of one large calorie
Some months back we had a thread where someone posted a study that, well, studied that. the difference in metabolic energy expenditure of eating plain protein and plain sugar (which is a stupid and unrealistic comparison to begin with as people like to point out rightfully so) is basically insignificant and came out to less than 100 calories difference.
Same with the amount of calories your body can use from another study. Same person, different diets with different macro ratios, no difference in the weight loss.
Those metabolic differences are either so small they're insignificant, or I guess the people writing the food labels already calculate that in when they write the calories on the package.
Either way, fact is your body cannot take more energy out of a food than is inside, only less under circumstances.0 -
I'm just wondering where he got the 4 hour fat storing mode idea from. I'm sure the u.s. Military would be interested in that.
Hey Brad. Nice try. You are just another person trying to use extreme examples to prove a point that isn't true. Who said 3000 calories of candy? Please show me one person. Your argument is weak. Your example is weak. Then you want to try to touch on the subject of TEF when you probably don't know enough about it.I recently got into an argument with my co-worker. He is young, 27, and in good shape. He basically eats rabbit food, which is fine. We got into a discussion and he started telling me that when you eat is more important than what you eat and the calories. He told me you should never eat before going to bed.(which has been dis-proven) Then he told me that intermittent fasting is bad because your metabolism slows to a halt throughout the day (which also has been greatly exaggerated)
I then went on my rant and explained to him that a calorie is a calorie and as long as you create a deficit each day, you are fine. I then asked him if I ate 3000 calories all day and stopped eating after 8pm vs 3000 calories but 1000 of it was right before going to bed he told me the latter is a lot worse.
I tried to explain to him that some things work differently for some people, and eating breakfast makes me hungry all day long. I tried to explain that weight loss is about simple math, calories in, calories out. etc. But as I was arguing both him and my other co-worker started looking at me funny. I knew what was going on.
You see, I am fat, and I could not possibly win this argument UNTIL I lose the weight right?
Just as my mind was thinking this, he said "then prove it."
Anyone else run into a no win situation like this? I mean, technically, the proof is right there, I am fat, he is thin. And even though he is thin for other reasons, it just is pointless to argue this.
I personally don't agree that a calorie is calorie- 3000 calories of veggies will be better for you then 3000 calories in candy. So no!, a calorie isn't a calorie. You also made mention that everyone is different... very true everyone is different which more so supports the fact that a calorie is not calorie. 100 calories in carbs has a different effect/reaction on your body than 100 calories of protein same goes with fats... again a calorie isn't a calorie!
I hate IIFYM if you can't tell, you know IIFYM started on bodybuilding.com as a guys common answer to stupid questions ... now it's science??? I don't think so. It works more so because people are in a deficit who've never dieted but it's not really healthy or good IMO.
You should be eating breakfast, your hungry all day because your metabolism is more active.(eat more protein at breakfast could be what you eat that is making you feel hungry, protein takes longer to digest [again a calorie isn't a calorie]) Eating right before bed and depending on what it is will or can be stored as fat, You know carbs cause your body to enter into a storage mode where everything you eat for roughly 4 hours will be stored as fat?
Brad
You Brad, are just another member making a weak argument with extreme examples that aren't the slightest realistic.
Weak.0 -
I just don't bother arguing.
Being right isn't important to me. Being healthy is. So as long as what I'm doing is working, I'll just keep doing it and people can say about it whatever they will.
I let my 60lb weight loss, 47bpm resting heart rate, ~100 cholesterol figure, completed triathlon, 2x bodyweight deadlift and general all round new found badassery do my talking for me.0 -
I'm just wondering where he got the 4 hour fat storing mode idea from. I'm sure the u.s. Military would be interested in that.
Hey Brad. Nice try. You are just another person trying to use extreme examples to prove a point that isn't true. Who said 3000 calories of candy? Please show me one person. Your argument is weak. Your example is weak. Then you want to try to touch on the subject of TEF when you probably don't know enough about it.I recently got into an argument with my co-worker. He is young, 27, and in good shape. He basically eats rabbit food, which is fine. We got into a discussion and he started telling me that when you eat is more important than what you eat and the calories. He told me you should never eat before going to bed.(which has been dis-proven) Then he told me that intermittent fasting is bad because your metabolism slows to a halt throughout the day (which also has been greatly exaggerated)
I then went on my rant and explained to him that a calorie is a calorie and as long as you create a deficit each day, you are fine. I then asked him if I ate 3000 calories all day and stopped eating after 8pm vs 3000 calories but 1000 of it was right before going to bed he told me the latter is a lot worse.
I tried to explain to him that some things work differently for some people, and eating breakfast makes me hungry all day long. I tried to explain that weight loss is about simple math, calories in, calories out. etc. But as I was arguing both him and my other co-worker started looking at me funny. I knew what was going on.
You see, I am fat, and I could not possibly win this argument UNTIL I lose the weight right?
Just as my mind was thinking this, he said "then prove it."
Anyone else run into a no win situation like this? I mean, technically, the proof is right there, I am fat, he is thin. And even though he is thin for other reasons, it just is pointless to argue this.
I personally don't agree that a calorie is calorie- 3000 calories of veggies will be better for you then 3000 calories in candy. So no!, a calorie isn't a calorie. You also made mention that everyone is different... very true everyone is different which more so supports the fact that a calorie is not calorie. 100 calories in carbs has a different effect/reaction on your body than 100 calories of protein same goes with fats... again a calorie isn't a calorie!
I hate IIFYM if you can't tell, you know IIFYM started on bodybuilding.com as a guys common answer to stupid questions ... now it's science??? I don't think so. It works more so because people are in a deficit who've never dieted but it's not really healthy or good IMO.
You should be eating breakfast, your hungry all day because your metabolism is more active.(eat more protein at breakfast could be what you eat that is making you feel hungry, protein takes longer to digest [again a calorie isn't a calorie]) Eating right before bed and depending on what it is will or can be stored as fat, You know carbs cause your body to enter into a storage mode where everything you eat for roughly 4 hours will be stored as fat?
Brad
You Brad, are just another member making a weak argument with extreme examples that aren't the slightest realistic.
Weak.
0 -
And yet you made this priceless statement in the sugar thread: "Sugar is the worst thing on the planet for you"
Weird.
How is that weird? Please explain. Yes, I think sugar is awful for you. I think sugar makes people more hungry and makes you crave, you know, more calories...
Please refer to my ticker for a response to your statement.0 -
I would love to see this post, since I studied this extensively in college.
I never said that your body creates more calories from fructose. I said certain foods transport less calories to the liver than others. Overall the rule is true, calories in vs calories out. If you consume a true calorie deficit, then it doesn't matter if 20% hits the liver or 100%. But no, a calorie is not a calorie and calorie source does matter when it comes to how much weight you lose (or gain).
And 100 calories IS significant. Is it 100 calories a day? A year? A meal?A calorie is a calorie outside of the human body. Once you consume it the metabolic pathways are different depending on the calorie source. Eating 3500 calories of fructose will result in more weight gain than 3500 calories from protein. The energy expended just to break down the amino acids in protein is greater than the energy needed to metabolize fructose.
Your body does not treat all calories equally, so let me amend that.... A calorie is not a calorie once it's consumed.What is rabbit food? Fresh fruits and veggies?
If you wanted to argue with me that a calorie is a calorie, then I would take issue as well. Since I don't think it is. And yes, I have studied this and know a little ( a lot) about biochemistry. In general, yes, you should consume less calories than you expend. But not all calories are created equal. If you consume 100 calories from protein, only 80-70 calories actually hit your liver. If you eat 100 calories from fat or carbs, 85-95 calories will enter the liver to be metabolized. The more calories that enter the liver equals more fat cells.
Nearly 100% of calories from fructose enters the liver! while only 20% of calories from glucose enters the liver.
A calorie is not a calorie.
Calories in vs calories out... Yes. But depending on where you get your calories it may or may not work out very well for you.
Actually according to Webster's dictionary a calorie...
CALORIE
2
b : an amount of food having an energy-producing value of one large calorie
really is just that...a calorie.
CALORIE
2
b : an amount of food having an energy-producing value of one large calorie
Some months back we had a thread where someone posted a study that, well, studied that. the difference in metabolic energy expenditure of eating plain protein and plain sugar (which is a stupid and unrealistic comparison to begin with as people like to point out rightfully so) is basically insignificant and came out to less than 100 calories difference.
Same with the amount of calories your body can use from another study. Same person, different diets with different macro ratios, no difference in the weight loss.
Those metabolic differences are either so small they're insignificant, or I guess the people writing the food labels already calculate that in when they write the calories on the package.
Either way, fact is your body cannot take more energy out of a food than is inside, only less under circumstances.0 -
I can see why your coworker get so frustrated debating with you. So frustrated that he started a thread about you on MFP.
None of my co workers use MFP. What in God's name are you talking about?0 -
In to learn about how a unit of measurement is not a unit of measurement.0
-
Please refer to my ticker for a response to your statement.
Isn't that a given, you know, on the internet, opinions, etc?
It is of my opinion that sugar makes ME hungry.
Everyone happy now?0 -
In to learn about how a unit of measurement is not a unit of measurement.
yeah...me too...must be part of that "new math"...0 -
In to learn about how a unit of measurement is not a unit of measurement.
Nobody is arguing that. What's being argued is the mode of transportation of calories, and where those calories end up and the net amount.0 -
Gonna be hard to find since it's months old and we get about a dozen threads about the same topics weekly.I would love to see this post, since I studied this extensively in college.
I never said that your body creates more calories from fructose. I said certain foods transport less calories to the liver than others. Overall the rule is true, calories in vs calories out. If you consume a true calorie deficit, then it doesn't matter if 20% hits the liver or 100%. But no, a calorie is not a calorie and calorie source does matter when it comes to how much weight you lose (or gain).
And 100 calories IS significant. Is it 100 calories a day? A year? A meal?A calorie is a calorie outside of the human body. Once you consume it the metabolic pathways are different depending on the calorie source. Eating 3500 calories of fructose will result in more weight gain than 3500 calories from protein. The energy expended just to break down the amino acids in protein is greater than the energy needed to metabolize fructose.
Your body does not treat all calories equally, so let me amend that.... A calorie is not a calorie once it's consumed.What is rabbit food? Fresh fruits and veggies?
If you wanted to argue with me that a calorie is a calorie, then I would take issue as well. Since I don't think it is. And yes, I have studied this and know a little ( a lot) about biochemistry. In general, yes, you should consume less calories than you expend. But not all calories are created equal. If you consume 100 calories from protein, only 80-70 calories actually hit your liver. If you eat 100 calories from fat or carbs, 85-95 calories will enter the liver to be metabolized. The more calories that enter the liver equals more fat cells.
Nearly 100% of calories from fructose enters the liver! while only 20% of calories from glucose enters the liver.
A calorie is not a calorie.
Calories in vs calories out... Yes. But depending on where you get your calories it may or may not work out very well for you.
Actually according to Webster's dictionary a calorie...
CALORIE
2
b : an amount of food having an energy-producing value of one large calorie
really is just that...a calorie.
CALORIE
2
b : an amount of food having an energy-producing value of one large calorie
Some months back we had a thread where someone posted a study that, well, studied that. the difference in metabolic energy expenditure of eating plain protein and plain sugar (which is a stupid and unrealistic comparison to begin with as people like to point out rightfully so) is basically insignificant and came out to less than 100 calories difference.
Same with the amount of calories your body can use from another study. Same person, different diets with different macro ratios, no difference in the weight loss.
Those metabolic differences are either so small they're insignificant, or I guess the people writing the food labels already calculate that in when they write the calories on the package.
Either way, fact is your body cannot take more energy out of a food than is inside, only less under circumstances.
But in the end, since you will always get a little less calories than are in the food, then for weight loss it really doesn't matter. Take the numbers that are on the package and you're guaranteed to get less than that, no matter what they're made up of. Although I have to say I would be surprised if the numbers from the FDA weren't normalized to account for that if it can actually be as low as 20% in fructose.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 957 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions