Calories in Calories OUT!!!!!!

Options
24

Replies

  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,268 Member
    Options
    what is this "WE" business? you got a mouse in your pocket?
  • Cryptonomnomicon
    Cryptonomnomicon Posts: 848 Member
    Options
    xI8ufKb.gif
  • Cryptonomnomicon
    Cryptonomnomicon Posts: 848 Member
    Options
    Yes, Aragon has some knowledge, but his unfortunate article is a perfect example of seeing the trees, not the forest. And how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.....
    cnNUs8I.gif

    06Xa5In.gif
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    Options
    New account set up to try and convince people calories in calories out doesn't and post a link to a sugar is the route of all evil video

    Seems legit to me
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    Yeah, I suppose this isn't real science. Who would ever listen to modern evidence and research.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

    http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

    Yes, Aragon has some knowledge, but his unfortunate article is a perfect example of seeing the trees, not the forest. And how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.....

    You're either trolling or confused.

    Please point out where Alan is incorrect.
  • Cryptonomnomicon
    Cryptonomnomicon Posts: 848 Member
    Options
    Yeah, I suppose this isn't real science. Who would ever listen to modern evidence and research.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

    http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

    Yes, Aragon has some knowledge, but his unfortunate article is a perfect example of seeing the trees, not the forest. And how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.....
    Strong fifth post! this is a perfect example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.....

    So do you have a PhD in internet or just a bachelor degree for YouTube.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Yeah, I suppose this isn't real science. Who would ever listen to modern evidence and research.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

    Not you apparently.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    And they have the nerve to keep going on with this "science". They just published this last week. They just won't stop!! Stop all this "science".

    http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694

    Have you read the full text?
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    And they have the nerve to keep going on with this "science". They just published this last week. They just won't stop!! Stop all this "science".

    http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1900694

    Please expand on your point.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    Yeah, I suppose this isn't real science. Who would ever listen to modern evidence and research.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

    http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

    Yes, Aragon has some knowledge, but his unfortunate article is a perfect example of seeing the trees, not the forest. And how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.....

    Please expand. What exactly are you trying to refute in that link?
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,018 Member
    Options
    Yeah, I suppose this isn't real science. Who would ever listen to modern evidence and research.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

    http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

    Yes, Aragon has some knowledge, but his unfortunate article is a perfect example of seeing the trees, not the forest. And how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.....

    Please expand. What exactly are you trying to refute in that link?
    Generally people that make statements like that don't really understand the nature of science, so I wouldn't be holding my breath for any type of insightful response.......strawman probably. Just a guess though.
  • Wildeats
    Wildeats Posts: 7
    Options
    Sorry, what is Trolling? Apologies if I did that. No I obviously don't have a degree of any kind. Including any that involves internet expertise.
  • SunofaBeach14
    SunofaBeach14 Posts: 4,899 Member
    Options
    Sorry, what is Trolling? Apologies if I did that. No I obviously don't have a degree of any kind. Including any that involves internet expertise.

    Posting obviously flawed information, or pushing obviously ridiculous theories, in an effort to annoy more educated and intelligent people. So far so good, OP.
  • nicsflyingcircus
    nicsflyingcircus Posts: 2,520 Member
    Options
    I'm losing 3.5lbs/wk by consuming fewer calories than I burn. It is that simple. No pills, no crazy exercising, no fad diets or scam products, just modifying what and how much I stuff in my pie hole.

    Anecdote, not double-blind reviewed peer study, but it works. :noway:
  • Cryptonomnomicon
    Cryptonomnomicon Posts: 848 Member
    Options
    A LOT of diet books; too many frankly. Most follow a fairly standard organization (the first chapter always explaining that YOUR FAT IS NOT YOUR FAULT) and, with very very few exceptions, most will tell you that ‘calorie restricted diets don’t work for weight loss’ and that whatever magic they are selling is the key to quick, easy (and of course permanent) weight loss.

    Whether it’s insulin, dietary fat, the protein:carbohydrate or insulin:glucagon ratio, partitioning or whatever other BS, they will make it sound like caloric intake is not the key aspect in whether or not someone gains weight.

    In almost all cases, the idea that food intake must be restricted in any fashion is dismissed; if it is mentioned it is generally as a short aside late in the book that nobody pays any attention to.

    This is purely a psychological ploy; it sucks to have to consciously restrict food intake and this causes mental stress. Simply knowing that you can’t eat what you want when you want it blows; I hate it as much as the next person. Many people will feel hungrier simply because they know that they can’t eat what they want when they want it.

    Yet the fundamental fact is that the body will NOT have any need to tap into stored body fat unless the individual is burning more calories than they are taking in. Of course this means that either energy expenditure has to go up, caloric intake has to go down, or both have to occur.

    So how can these books make this claim? It’s simple: they all hide basic caloric restriction in whatever they happen to be proposing. Basically, this is Lyle’s Rule #1 of Diet books:

    All diet books tell you that you won’t have to restrict calories, and then trick you into doing it anyway.

    Source:http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories.html
  • dedflwrs
    dedflwrs Posts: 251 Member
    Options
    Occam's razor happens to be one of my favorite principles. I try to apply it to as many situations as possible.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    Options
    Sorry, what is Trolling? Apologies if I did that. No I obviously don't have a degree of any kind. Including any that involves internet expertise.

    No pic... no current weight... no info of weight lost... diary is closed.

    Hmmm....

    Trolling.
  • keefmac
    keefmac Posts: 313 Member
    Options
    CICO has worked very well for me..
  • Wildeats
    Wildeats Posts: 7
    Options
    Ok. I understand now. Thanks. I learned a lot here today.
  • jimmmer
    jimmmer Posts: 3,515 Member
    Options
    Ok. I understand now. Thanks. I learned a lot here today.

    That seems unlikely.

Categories