Theoretic question

24

Replies

  • _SABOTEUR_
    _SABOTEUR_ Posts: 6,833 Member
    mcbwhitney:
    "Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time."

    Really, how silly of me - I think you just saved my life!!

    Please, why post this?

    ^That was my other response to your thread. Are you a mind-reader or something?
  • bulletfoss
    bulletfoss Posts: 15 Member
    I was looking forward to participating in this thought experiment until it turned insulting.

    My intelligence was insulted before anything else.

    no it wasn't. you took my answer as an insult on yoru intelligence when in reality it answered your question and conveyed my honest opinion of what eating lard would do to you.

    Then you got nasty :)

    I didn't want to know what "lard would do to you" - I'm well aware!

    It was theoretical - It could have been orally ingested lard as much as it could have been pure fat solute being fed via IV. We know it would make you ill etc.... all I wanted was an answer about the calories and weight management.
  • 3laine75
    3laine75 Posts: 3,069 Member
    Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.
    I disagree. Fruit and veg have all three macros within their matrix, lard has only 1, fat.

    which vegetables have fat?

    avacados, brocolli, sweetcorn - of the top of my head.
  • OriginalKatie
    OriginalKatie Posts: 119 Member
    If you were going to eat nothing but highly fatty foods to the value of 2000 calories, you'd be pretty damn hungry for starters, because food of that quality is usually lower in fibre and protein, and denser in calories. So you'd be eating less meals.

    Secondly, if you had that much fat in your diet on a daily basis and wasn't working to burn it off or lose weight, some of it would be converted to glucose for energy, and most of it would be stored as fatty tissue, and also clog up your arteries causing cardiovascular disease in the long term (i.e heart attacks, embolisms, strokes).

    Thirdly, you'd be malnourished (obviously). So you wouldn't feel healthy or energised, you'd feel sluggish from having to digest such fatty meals.

    In summary, you would gain weight or at the least your body would recompose to have more fat deposites. Although you've stuck to the calories, you would have had more than your recommended daily intake of fat. Fat has higher calories per gram than carbs and protein.
  • pucenavel
    pucenavel Posts: 972 Member
    Your original and follow up questions are similar to this?

    If I crash my car into a brick wall at 80 mph, will I get hurt?

    -Yes

    Yes, but what if I have a really thick skull and titanium bones?

    -That makes no sense, but the G-forces on your brain would still cause serious if not fatal injuries.

    But what if I'm Superman or otherwise impervious to injury?

    -Then why did you ask the f----g question in the first place.
  • bulletfoss
    bulletfoss Posts: 15 Member
    mcbwhitney:
    "Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time."

    Really, how silly of me - I think you just saved my life!!

    Please, why post this?

    ^That was my other response to your thread. Are you a mind-reader or something?

    Clearly I know it would land you in hospital. Clearly you don't know what the effect would be on weight management, excusing any health issues.
  • bulletfoss
    bulletfoss Posts: 15 Member
    Your original and follow up questions are similar to this?

    If I crash my car into a brick wall at 80 mph, will I get hurt?

    -Yes

    Yes, but what if I have a really thick skull and titanium bones?

    -That makes no sense, but the G-forces on your brain would still cause serious if not fatal injuries.

    But what if I'm Superman or otherwise impervious to injury?

    -Then why did you ask the f----g question in the first place.

    You are missing the key word - theory.

    Ok - to be pedantic, lets not say LARD - lets just say high-fat foods that won't land you with illness.
  • liesevanlingen
    liesevanlingen Posts: 508 Member
    I think it would work in theory, but in practice, would probably throw your digestive system out of whack before you would have time to document any longer term results. Pure lard, eeww.

    Folks, relax. This was a THEORETICAL question asked out of scientific curiosity, not a "I'm going to try this, what do you guys think?" question.
  • diodelcibo
    diodelcibo Posts: 2,564 Member
    If you can't provide enough protein your blood pressure will drop, blood will fail to clot (you'll start to bleed under your skin, typically seen as small bruises.) Then you die within a certain time. I would recommend intake in the form of carbohydrates, fats and proteins.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.
    I disagree. Fruit and veg have all three macros within their matrix, lard has only 1, fat.

    which vegetables have fat?
    Show me one that doesn't contain fat. Small amounts count.
  • bulletfoss
    bulletfoss Posts: 15 Member
    ORIGINALKATIE.... Thank you very much.

    35 posts and the best answer thus far!!
  • poedunk65
    poedunk65 Posts: 1,336 Member
    dumb question
  • pucenavel
    pucenavel Posts: 972 Member
    ... high-fat foods that won't land you with illness.

    I think you missed my point. Eating nothing but high-fat foods WILL land you with illness.

    Theories must still follow the rules of science.





    Unless you are Superman.
  • quirkytizzy
    quirkytizzy Posts: 4,052 Member
    mcbwhitney:
    "Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time."

    Really, how silly of me - I think you just saved my life!!

    Please, why post this?

    My impression of the OP:

    h656E2217

    Fuzzy. Cute. Glare-y.
  • _SABOTEUR_
    _SABOTEUR_ Posts: 6,833 Member
    OK, OP. I will answer the exact question that you posted.

    In both cases you would have dramatic weight loss after several months because you would be dead and nothing helps you lose weight like decomposition.

    I hope this helps you on your weight loss jounry. :flowerforyou:
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    If you were going to eat nothing but highly fatty foods to the value of 2000 calories, you'd be pretty damn hungry for starters, because food of that quality is usually lower in fibre and protein, and denser in calories. So you'd be eating less meals.

    Secondly, if you had that much fat in your diet on a daily basis and wasn't working to burn it off or lose weight, some of it would be converted to glucose for energy, and most of it would be stored as fatty tissue, and also clog up your arteries causing cardiovascular disease in the long term (i.e heart attacks, embolisms, strokes).

    Thirdly, you'd be malnourished (obviously). So you wouldn't feel healthy or energised, you'd feel sluggish from having to digest such fatty meals.

    In summary, you would gain weight or at the least your body would recompose to have more fat deposites. Although you've stuck to the calories, you would have had more than your recommended daily intake of fat. Fat has higher calories per gram than carbs and protein.
    Fat does not fill your glycogen stores, carbs do.
  • OriginalKatie
    OriginalKatie Posts: 119 Member
    ORIGINALKATIE.... Thank you very much.

    35 posts and the best answer thus far!!

    You're welcome. Just wanted to answer the question and not get involved in BS!
  • OriginalKatie
    OriginalKatie Posts: 119 Member
    If you were going to eat nothing but highly fatty foods to the value of 2000 calories, you'd be pretty damn hungry for starters, because food of that quality is usually lower in fibre and protein, and denser in calories. So you'd be eating less meals.

    Secondly, if you had that much fat in your diet on a daily basis and wasn't working to burn it off or lose weight, some of it would be converted to glucose for energy, and most of it would be stored as fatty tissue, and also clog up your arteries causing cardiovascular disease in the long term (i.e heart attacks, embolisms, strokes).

    Thirdly, you'd be malnourished (obviously). So you wouldn't feel healthy or energised, you'd feel sluggish from having to digest such fatty meals.

    In summary, you would gain weight or at the least your body would recompose to have more fat deposites. Although you've stuck to the calories, you would have had more than your recommended daily intake of fat. Fat has higher calories per gram than carbs and protein.
    Fat does not fill your glycogen stores, carbs do.

    Already edited it, thanks. What I meant was - fat would be converted to glucose, then glucose would be stored as glycogen (not fat directly to glycogen). Came out wrong.
  • BurtHuttz
    BurtHuttz Posts: 3,653 Member
    If we ignore the importance of macronutrients to your health, and think of calories only as a unit of energy, you would not experience any change in weight eating the same number of calories from different macronutrient ratios.

    But, with an extremely low protein intake, your body will catabolize protein-rich tissues. The body stores fat but only stores protein as muscle - there is no bodily repository for excess protein. Thus, very quickly, your body would begin consuming itself.

    With an extremely low (and prolonged) carbohydrate intake, links have been shown to complications such as heart arrhythmia, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of physical activity and lipid abnormalities.

    So ignoring these adverse health effects, a calorie is a calorie. These health complications illustrate that normal and predictable healthy bodily functions break down when one eliminates macronutrients from the diet. So while it's possible your body will utilize fat for sustenance and store the excess, your weight may be static as the body catabolizes other tissues, consumes muscle glycogen stores, etc.
  • Iron_Feline
    Iron_Feline Posts: 10,750 Member
    Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.
    I disagree. Fruit and veg have all three macros within their matrix, lard has only 1, fat.

    which vegetables have fat?

    Seriously? :huh:
  • socioseguro
    socioseguro Posts: 1,679 Member
    If we ignore the importance of macronutrients to your health, and think of calories only as a unit of energy, you would not experience any change in weight eating the same number of calories from different macronutrient ratios.

    But, with an extremely low protein intake, your body will catabolize protein-rich tissues. The body stores fat but only stores protein as muscle - there is no bodily repository for excess protein. Thus, very quickly, your body would begin consuming itself.

    With an extremely low (and prolonged) carbohydrate intake, links have been shown to complications such as heart arrhythmia, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of physical activity and lipid abnormalities.

    So ignoring these adverse health effects, a calorie is a calorie. These health complications illustrate that normal and predictable healthy bodily functions break down when one eliminates macronutrients from the diet. So while it's possible your body will utilize fat for sustenance and store the excess, your weight may be static as the body catabolizes other tissues, consumes muscle glycogen stores, etc.

    This

    Your theoretical questions deserve theoretical answers.
  • JessiBelleW
    JessiBelleW Posts: 831 Member
    Some guys who tried to walk to the pole had to drink liquid butter..... they were burning so many cals from walking (with ski things) as well as hauling enough food, and their bodies keeping warm.

    They weren't JUST eating butter but they needed those extra cals. I personally still have no idea what would happen to the body if you ate only lard.
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.
    I disagree. Fruit and veg have all three macros within their matrix, lard has only 1, fat.

    which vegetables have fat?

    avacados, brocolli, sweetcorn - of the top of my head.

    avocados and corn are not veggies. broccoli? really?
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.
    I disagree. Fruit and veg have all three macros within their matrix, lard has only 1, fat.

    which vegetables have fat?
    Show me one that doesn't contain fat. Small amounts count.

    do they?
  • Iron_Feline
    Iron_Feline Posts: 10,750 Member
    Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.
    I disagree. Fruit and veg have all three macros within their matrix, lard has only 1, fat.

    which vegetables have fat?
    Show me one that doesn't contain fat. Small amounts count.

    do they?

    Yes. They all contain trace fats.

    edit: though so little there is no need to track them.
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    If we ignore the importance of macronutrients to your health, and think of calories only as a unit of energy, you would not experience any change in weight eating the same number of calories from different macronutrient ratios.

    But, with an extremely low protein intake, your body will catabolize protein-rich tissues. The body stores fat but only stores protein as muscle - there is no bodily repository for excess protein. Thus, very quickly, your body would begin consuming itself.

    With an extremely low (and prolonged) carbohydrate intake, links have been shown to complications such as heart arrhythmia, cardiac contractile function impairment, sudden death, osteoporosis, kidney damage, increased cancer risk, impairment of physical activity and lipid abnormalities.

    So ignoring these adverse health effects, a calorie is a calorie. These health complications illustrate that normal and predictable healthy bodily functions break down when one eliminates macronutrients from the diet. So while it's possible your body will utilize fat for sustenance and store the excess, your weight may be static as the body catabolizes other tissues, consumes muscle glycogen stores, etc.
    :drinker:
  • reteed
    reteed Posts: 22 Member
    My turn, but I'm going to try to be helpful.

    2000 calories is 2000 calories. You would maintain.

    HYPOTHETICALLY, if you were to eat 1 cup of lard you would consume 1849 calories, however, if you were to eat 1 cup of green beans, you would only consume 44 calories, thus requiring you to eat 44 cups to reach your 2000 calorie goal. End result would be that you would maintain with either fat or veggies, but would be eating less volume by consuming an item with such a high calorie content.

    Thus the need for variety. Try 1000 calories of lard and 1000 calories of veggies. You would still maintain, however, you would feel a little fuller. :smile:
  • WendySPWarren
    WendySPWarren Posts: 63 Member
    I believe you would probably maintain your fat percentage. However, you would suffer from sever malnutrition by the end of it. I'm not a nutritionist, but I imagine you would also probably lose a lot of muscle as your body attempts to gather some valuable resources from its reserves.
    So in short, I think you may lose muscle weight, but your body fat would be maintained.
  • harribeau2012
    harribeau2012 Posts: 644 Member
    ok - I think that your theoretical scenario is fairly straight forward. ignoring any ACTUAL real life repercussions would the calories burned during the process of digestion be the same, resulting in the same maintenance?

    I had a google and found the following
    The thermic effect of food due to a meal will vary depending on the relative proportions of the macronutrients (i.e. fat, carbohydrates, and protein) that make up the meal. Without a doubt, protein is the macronutrient that induces the largest thermic effect of food response. Roughly 25% of the calories in pure protein will be burned after consumption due to the thermic effect of food. Fat and carbohydrates, on the other hand, each induce a burn of roughly 5% of the calories consumed due to the thermic effect of food. So, for example, if you consume 400 calories of pure protein you will burn 100 (or 25%) of those calories through the thermic effect of food. If you consume 400 calories of pure fat or pure carbohydrates, only 20 calories (or 5%) will be burned through the thermic effect of food.

    Unfortunately this didn't mention just veggies...veggies vary though and so the theory is loose at best as some vegetables have more fibre and would therefore use more energy to burn.

    I thought it an interesting question in the first place. Possibly you would lose with veggies as after digestion the calory yield would I suppose be less.
  • muayqis
    muayqis Posts: 72
    Refering only to the OP.
    Assuming you kept all of each of the things you ate.
    my guess is that your weight should remain the same.
    BUT.
    anyone know anything about:

    thermic effects of different macros? Protien supposedly causes a 'thermic' effect. Not sure about how carbs and fat compare though. I know nada about this beyond reading something somewhere
    http://www.jacn.org/content/23/5/373.long

    That and you'd need to chew more for the fruit and veggies(slurping down 2000kcals of fat wouldn't require much exertion) so guess that would be different too...



    WRT body composition(which i don't think was asked), no idea how the body goes about building/repairing without protein. I know that ants don;t deal well without protein sources.

    SImilar note- 2000kcals of lard vs 2000kcals of sugar vs 2000kcals of pure protien(can't think of anything that's just protien....besides some whey protien or something). would be interested to know this. Suspecting the protein would be least damaging.
    got me curious anyway

Categories