Calories in Calories OUT!!!!!!

2

Replies

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    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
    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
    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: 2,843 Member
    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
    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
    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: 6,002 Member
    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
    CICO has worked very well for me..
  • Wildeats
    Wildeats Posts: 7
    Ok. I understand now. Thanks. I learned a lot here today.
  • jimmmer
    jimmmer Posts: 3,515 Member
    Ok. I understand now. Thanks. I learned a lot here today.

    That seems unlikely.
  • CyberEd312
    CyberEd312 Posts: 3,536 Member
    Calories in calories out has always seemed like a huge oversimplification to me.... like we're trying to apply Occam's razor to the human body. I'm glad science is finally throwing that BS out the window.

    Anyone else with me on this??

    Nope..... It has worked pretty good for me so far...... Think I will stick with it....
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    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

    How on earth does this contradict CICO? There are a few threads around here discussing it if you really have something to say.

    Neither of the diets tested focused on calories and I personally have lost much more by focusing on calories as well as finding a macro mix that fits my personal needs.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,002 Member
    Ok. I understand now. Thanks. I learned a lot here today.

    Strong conviction...
  • BombshellPhoenix
    BombshellPhoenix Posts: 1,693 Member
    CICO has worked very well for me..

    Me too!
  • ChrisM8971
    ChrisM8971 Posts: 1,067 Member
    http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/2014/09/is-low-carb-really-king-of-weight-loss/

    I believe that this is related to the article and points out some of the flaws in it
  • jennifer_417
    jennifer_417 Posts: 12,344 Member
    Yeah...'cause nobody ever lost weight eating sugar and following CICO...*eyes ticker*
  • aimforhealthy
    aimforhealthy Posts: 449 Member
    Yeah...'cause nobody ever lost weight eating sugar and following CICO...*eyes ticker*

    Yes, that's just crazy talk. *also eyes ticker.*
  • MinimalistShoeAddict
    MinimalistShoeAddict Posts: 1,946 Member
    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/

    +1 That YouTube video is a propaganda film that does a good job fooling the uneducated. Nothing more.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Anyone else with me on this??

    Absolutely.

    Luddite Nation and the Flat Earth Society totally have your back on this.
  • 21million
    21million Posts: 113 Member
    In.

    I had cellulite but it couldn't have been my high bf% or lack of exercise or a balanced diet or how pale I was or that I am female or that I wore shorts a size too small...

    that f**king sugar, man.
  • sbarella
    sbarella Posts: 713 Member
    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

    I'll save others the copy+paste time: Sugar: The Bitter Truth.
    poison.jpg
    Tasty, tasty poison :love: :flowerforyou: :heart:
  • Navtendon
    Navtendon Posts: 168
    Wow, heated discussion here. No offense Wildeats, but you have some crazy ideas about sugar. It's just sugar for gods sake!!!! I just had some 7-up, and guess what? I'm still here and still alive! It's calories in calories out that's the bottom line. Hate to break it to you bud.

    Just think of your body as a black box. You put stuff in the black box, it gets heavier. You take stuff out, it gets lighter. Did you not go to junior kindergarten along with the rest of us??? It's seriously not rocket science.

    When people make these "studies" or presentations, they are just ambitious in their own careers and want to spread their ideas. That should be the first red flag. They honestly probably don't see or treat real patients at all like they claim. And these so-called "doctors" clearly forgot that the rest of us actually did go to kindergarten!!!!!

    Wildeats, you do need to get your head out of the clouds.

    Since we are on the topic, I do have an actual question that might be relevant and has always been on my mind. On food labels, why is sugar the only item that doesn't have a reference to % recommended daily intake???? Especially since Aragon says that it's effects are dose-dependent? Wouldn't that in fact obligate this information to be on the label??
  • snowflake930
    snowflake930 Posts: 2,188 Member
    It really is that simple. Calories in vs calories out.

    The complex part is the psychology of it. Our mindsets. How we react to food and our relationships with it. Why we overeat, or undereat, when we know may happen.

    If it was easily controlled, we wouldn't need places like MFP.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    I love when the trolls post links to studies that compared two variations of less intake than burn lifestyles then try saying it has nothing to do with CICO.
  • Ninkyou
    Ninkyou Posts: 6,666 Member
    tumblr_mmd3z9y9ql1qic5z1o1_400.gif

    In for sugary poison.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    OP has deactivated. A short term troll account ... why isn't that surprising?
  • Kevalicious99
    Kevalicious99 Posts: 1,131 Member
    Funny how they post **** like this then deactivate their accounts. I seem to see that a lot .. *shakes head here*.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Navtendon
    Navtendon Posts: 168
    LOLstig is the worlds biggest joke. He's literally a punchline.

    I hate when these trolls post things that we just don't want to know about.

Categories