It's NOT Just Calories In VS Calories Out!!!

Options
1234579

Replies

  • maverick48
    maverick48 Posts: 69 Member
    Options
    I am beginning to suspect that you are a representative of the junk food industry, here to spread disinformation.

    This is what the hippies who rely on their feelings before science always say. Because it's always a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy of facts.
  • jeffpettis
    jeffpettis Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    I'm sorry "Rocbloa" but for weight loss or weight gain even, it is as simple as calories in, calories out, period.
  • Rocbola
    Rocbola Posts: 1,998 Member
    Options
    I'm sorry "Rocbloa" but for weight loss or weight gain even, it is as simple as calories in, calories out, period.
    That was helpful. I'm glad you could share your insights and show everybody exactly what kind of person you are. Are your parents proud of you? This is a forum for helping people lose weight. Some people bring intelligent, productive things to the conversation. For those not smart enough to come up with honest, insightful, and intelligent things to say, please go bounce a ball somewhere.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    I'm sorry "Rocbloa" but for weight loss or weight gain even, it is as simple as calories in, calories out, period.
    How do we rationalise the experiences of people failing to lose weight while eating 1200 or 1500 calories with expenditure over 2000 ? Granted they never show up in clinical studies, because they are deemed to be cheating or under-reporting and thrown out.
  • Rocbola
    Rocbola Posts: 1,998 Member
    Options
    I am beginning to suspect that you are a representative of the junk food industry, here to spread disinformation.

    This is what the hippies who rely on their feelings before science always say. Because it's always a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy of facts.
    One of the people i called my friends in my 20's worked for the tobacco industry. His job was to go to bars, and smoke cigarettes with people, and get them to continue thinking it was cool. He got paid for this.

    These people exist. I met one. If you don't think there is disinformation being spread about obesity, weight loss, and health, just tune your TV to any show/news report about weight loss. If there wasn't so much disinformation being spread, why would there be so many fat people in the US today? Why such high rates of diabetes? Heart disease? Cancer? So many are dying of these diseases, while others, who eat different foods, are not dying of these diseases, but there is no connection?

    You don't think the people who make money off selling you crap have an interest in making you think that it's OK? Pull your head out of the sand, my friend. Or don't. I don't care.
  • WhatAgirl_
    WhatAgirl_ Posts: 151 Member
    Options
    I agree 10000% thanks for this!
  • mynameiscarrie
    mynameiscarrie Posts: 963 Member
    Options
    Factor 1: STRESS

    Effects calories out.
    Factor 2: HYDRATION

    Effects calories out

    Factor 3: UN-NATURALLY CONCENTRATED FOODS

    Calories in
    Factor 3: UNDERNOURISHMENT

    Irrelevant to fat loss
    FACTOR 4: TOXICITY/FOOD CHEMICALS

    No effect at all on fat loss
    Factor 5: MSG

    No effect at all on fat loss.
    Factor 6: ADDICTION

    Calories in


    themoreyouknow.jpg



    word. lol
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    I am beginning to suspect that you are a representative of the junk food industry, here to spread disinformation.

    This is what the hippies who rely on their feelings before science always say. Because it's always a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy of facts.
    If you don't think there is disinformation being spread about obesity, weight loss, and health, just tune your TV to any show/news report about weight loss. If there wasn't so much disinformation being spread, why would there be so many fat people in the US today? Why such high rates of diabetes? Heart disease? Cancer? So many are dying of these diseases, while others, who eat different foods, are not dying of these diseases, but there is no connection?

    whitebreadloaf.jpg
  • littlelol
    littlelol Posts: 539
    Options
    sounds interesting x
  • chamilton911
    chamilton911 Posts: 34
    Options
    Factor 1: STRESS

    Effects calories out.
    Factor 2: HYDRATION

    Effects calories out

    Factor 3: UN-NATURALLY CONCENTRATED FOODS

    Calories in
    Factor 3: UNDERNOURISHMENT

    Irrelevant to fat loss
    FACTOR 4: TOXICITY/FOOD CHEMICALS

    No effect at all on fat loss
    Factor 5: MSG

    No effect at all on fat loss.
    Factor 6: ADDICTION

    Calories in


    themoreyouknow.jpg

    BAHAHA! YES!
  • chamilton911
    chamilton911 Posts: 34
    Options
    I agree with everything here as long as we are talking about overall health and well-being. When it comes to JUST weight loss, which is SIMPLE MATH, then its all irrelevent. I want to be healthy, but I can't go from eating all the stuff I am used to.. to eating grass... so I learned portion control. When you work off more calories than you take in, you lose weight. SIMPLE!
  • mfpcopine
    mfpcopine Posts: 3,093 Member
    Options
    I am beginning to suspect that you are a representative of the junk food industry, here to spread disinformation.

    This is what the hippies who rely on their feelings before science always say. Because it's always a conspiracy. It's a conspiracy of facts.
    One of the people i called my friends in my 20's worked for the tobacco industry. His job was to go to bars, and smoke cigarettes with people, and get them to continue thinking it was cool. He got paid for this.

    These people exist. I met one. If you don't think there is disinformation being spread about obesity, weight loss, and health, just tune your TV to any show/news report about weight loss. If there wasn't so much disinformation being spread, why would there be so many fat people in the US today? Why such high rates of diabetes? Heart disease? Cancer? So many are dying of these diseases, while others, who eat different foods, are not dying of these diseases, but there is no connection?

    You don't think the people who make money off selling you crap have an interest in making you think that it's OK? Pull your head out of the sand, my friend. Or don't. I don't care.

    This site keeps flashing a banner ad by the Beverage Association (or something similar). It's trying to convince people that sugary sodas aren't associated with obesity. Uh huh.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    I agree 10000% thanks for this!
    It's the shirtless men who seem to disagree. :wink:
  • cheesy_blasters
    cheesy_blasters Posts: 283 Member
    Options
    getting the popcorn...this is going to be a long topic.
  • jeffpettis
    jeffpettis Posts: 865 Member
    Options
    I'm sorry "Rocbloa" but for weight loss or weight gain even, it is as simple as calories in, calories out, period.
    That was helpful. I'm glad you could share your insights and show everybody exactly what kind of person you are. Are your parents proud of you? This is a forum for helping people lose weight. Some people bring intelligent, productive things to the conversation. For those not smart enough to come up with honest, insightful, and intelligent things to say, please go bounce a ball somewhere.

    WOW! Someone's a little pissy aren't they. I'm sorry that you don't like it but that's the way it is. Eat over your BMR, gain weight. Eat under it, lose weight. I don't see how you can argue with that. Now body composition is something different entirely, but the very first sentence of your original post said "it's not jsut calories in vs. calories out for weight loss" and for strictly weight loss yes it is!

    Oh and by the way, yes, my parent's are very proud of me, thanks for asking! :drinker:
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options


    I appologize, I thought it said she lost weight. Reading too fast. What Acg was asking was do blood health markers improve in people who have lost weight, regardless of what they eat.
    Read about Caldwell Esselstyn's 20 year study on nutrition's effect on heart disease.

    Please provide primary sources. So far as I can tell, Esselstyn is basing his conclusions on the steaming pile of crap known as the China Study.
    Read about Caldwell Esselstyn's OWN 20 year study on nutrition's effect on heart disease

    Link?

    Colpo wrote on this
    Caldwell Esselstyn

    Unlike many of his media-hungry vegan peers, cardiologist Caldwell Esselstyn tends to keep a relatively low profile. I don’t know much about the guy, but I get the impression he’s a sincere bloke who’s primary concern is helping his patients. But of course, that’s no guarantee his dietary claims are based on sound science.

    In 1995, Esselstyn published a paper in which he reported his intervention program helped a number of his patients arrest or even reverse coronary artery disease progression. This study, discussed in Forks Over Knives, is repeatedly used by the vegan/vegetarian crowd to sing the praises of a plant-based diet and remind us all for the umpteenth time that animal foods will choke our arteries with sticky sludge and cause our disgusted cardiac muscles to call a permanent stop-work meeting.

    The trouble is, using a study involving multiple interventions as ‘proof’ of the effectiveness of a single intervention is a sterling example of inappropriate extrapolation. Esselstyn’s intervention was multifactorial: each patient was assigned to a very low-fat lacto-vegetarian diet and cholesterol-lowering drugs, the most common protocol being cholestyramine, 4 g twice daily, and lovastatin, 40 mg to 60 mg daily (Esselstyn has since gone on to eschew the use of low-fat dairy). Esselstyn’s strict dietary instructions meant forsaking all the refined processed garbage the patients were previously eating. So in in addition to eschewing meat, the patients also had to forgo all the nutrient-depleted, sugar/vegetable fat/additive-drenched junk they were previously scoffing down.

    So let’s take a look at the long list of potential confounders. As a result of the intervention, the patients lost weight. Weight loss itself, irrespective of the diet employed, can causes improvements in arterial function, regression of arterial thickness, and anti-platelet activity[2-5]. The one consistent theme is that the degree of IMT reduction is linked to the amount of weight lost, not the mode of diet followed.

    Also, a regimen that involves a calorie reduction large enough to induce significant weight loss and that eliminates all the processed sugar-rich and vegetable fat-laden junk that typifies modern Western diets can be expected to have numerous cardiovascular benefits. As I explain at length in The Great Cholesterol Con, reducing the glycemic load of your diet and eliminating omega-6-rich vegetable oils can reduce the highly damaging process of glycation, reduce atherosclerotic plaque formation (and possibly rupture), reduce clotting tendencies, and improve arterial function.

    But there is no law saying one must sentence themselves to a life of tofu and bean sprouts in order to achieve these effects, despite what Esselstyn and his fellow vegans in Forks Over Knives would have you believe.

    And let’s not forget Esselstyn’s use of statin drugs. While I personally think statins are a garbage drug for reasons I have already elucidated several million times before (long time readers will know that was not an exaggeration), the fact remains they too have been shown to favorably affect the kind of IMT measurements employed in Esselstyn’s study[6-8].

    Let’s also not forget that, similar to Ornish’s Lifestyle trial, Esselstyn’s study was a very small project with no randomized comparison group, and no mortality data. So we have no way of knowing how a comparison group receiving a similarly calorie- and crap-restricted omnivorous diet and the same medication regimen would have fared, and to what degree (if any) reductions in IMT and other risk factors would have eventually translated into actual mortality reductions. I’m not having a go at Ornish or Esselstyn here, as they at least made some effort to systematically tackle CVD in their patients and publish the findings. While the low-carb crowd loves to dump on these guys, the fact remains that folks like Dr. Robert Atkins and Dr. Michael Eades – both former practicing physicians who have publicly boasted about having had “thousands of patients” – never published so much as a single case study, despite having several decades to do so. What I do strongly oppose about the Ornish and Esselstyn studies is the way the results from these multifaceted interventions are disingenuously used to hype the alleged value of a single intervention. Which, of course, invariably happens to be a very low-fat, plant-based diet.

    http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=2258
  • firedad
    firedad Posts: 59
    Options
    I whole heartily agree with the fact that eating the right foods is much better than eating crap foods. If this were a perfect world we'd all eat 100% organic fruits, vegetables, and meats, but the fact is if all your concerned about is losing weight one of the easiest ways is calorie counting. I could eat 1500 calories a day of cookies until I reach my target weight and then eat 2100 calories of cookies a day to maintain. Obviously it's not healthy or safe for that matter, but it would work. I've lost 28 pounds in 60 days by doing nothing but counting calories. I don't exercise and I still eat a small amount of junk food almost everyday. I currently live a sedative lifestyle. I log what I eat and do my best to not go over.
  • akmett
    akmett Posts: 75 Member
    Options
    I completely agree! I know that we CAN lose weight eating processed food, but SHOULD we? Ideally, no. Our risks of cancer, diabeties, heart issues, etc. go down, just by losing weight so do what works for you to lose. But consider studies such as:
    http://www.biospiritual-energy-healing.com/raw-food-diet.html
    Now I don't eat raw foods and I know cats, pigs, etc. are different then humans, but it should make you think...
  • tnqnt
    tnqnt Posts: 397 Member
    Options
    So if you don't retrain yourself to eat healthy foods until you are satisfied and only diet with junk food (using calories in/calories out theory), what do you do once you reach your goal weight? Also, as you lose weight, your BMR decreases, which means less twinkies and cookies in order to lose/maintain. Junk food is traditionally loaded with added sugar, sodium and calories.

    The question then becomes: How can you possibly maintain and live a healthy life unless you learn to eat good foods, with some junk in moderation?

    Is it not the best idea to learn how to eat better foods in an effort for a healthy lifestyle, instead of just a calorie-restricted temporary diet?
  • Rocbola
    Rocbola Posts: 1,998 Member
    Options
    I agree with everything here as long as we are talking about overall health and well-being. When it comes to JUST weight loss, which is SIMPLE MATH, then its all irrelevent. I want to be healthy, but I can't go from eating all the stuff I am used to.. to eating grass... so I learned portion control. When you work off more calories than you take in, you lose weight. SIMPLE!
    At very least, please research the toxicity issue. Not all calories are the same. It is harder to burn off calories when you are consuming food chemicals. Don't trust me, research it for yourself. Try it for yourself. Look back at all the responses in this thread and find the ones where people said "I tried eating higher quality calories, and my weight loss accelerated" or something to that effect. Listen to the people who have had success. I'm not saying to completely forget the "calories in/calories out" equation, because that IS the weight loss/maintenance/gain formula, but as you continue your journey, please continue your research, and learn of the MANY OTHER FACTORS that influence your weight loss/overall health/energy level/fitness.

    And i don't eat grass, and i don't know anyone who does. Eat more fruit.

Categories