Theoretic question
Replies
-
"A normal person would not have a normal functioning system for very long"
That's common knowledge. You'd have to be one hell of a dumbass to not realise that.
Clearly I'm asking from a purely scientific, methodical and non-health perspective.
This is worse than yahoo answers, nobody cant just post and give me a straight forward calorific answer, clearly realising I'm well aware of health issues, as no-one would eat pure lard. Hence THEORETIC.
All I want to know........
Would you maintain your weight? (assuming it could be consumed without illness)
Would you lose weight?
Would you put on weight?
I am trying to ascertain whether eating something with high-fat content would have the same effect on weight management than something with low fat content. - again assuming both foots had a 2000kal value.
please could I have some answers I am looking for?
and sorry to cause offence to anyone, but it's blatantly obvious that NOBODY is looking to eat lard as a diet.
It seems that people answer to try and look clever, when really they don't help the OP at all.
If you don't have the answer, don't post! I'll go elsewhere, it's not a problem.
How are nonsensical scenarios scientific?0 -
I disagree. Fruit and veg have all three macros within their matrix, lard has only 1, fat.Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.
which vegetables have fat?
avacados, brocolli, sweetcorn - of the top of my head.
Don't forget olives.0 -
My understanding was that there was a professor in America that did an experiment/demonstration for one of his classes where he put himself on a calorie-controlled junk food diet. He ate purely junk (the main thing I remember from the list was twinkies, if you'd like an example) and he still lost weight.
He used this as an example to prove that it is purely calories that count in weight loss, and nothing else. I honestly wouldn't fancy trying it though.
Edited to say: Here is a link to the news story.
http://www.cnn.co.uk/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
I hope this turns out to be a remotely theoretical answer to your theoretical question!0 -
Now please explain what BMR has to do with weight gain/loss.For gods sake the guy said he was just thinking about a theoretical scenario, the answers on this thread are a perfect example of the attitude problems on this forum, everyone just wants to condemn anyone that asks a question.
I personally think that provided that was your BMR you would not gain weight if you ate your calorie allowance in lard but taking it back to reality I think the problem with eating high fat food on a calorie restricted diet is you can't consume enough mass to fill you up and so you get hungry or you get short hits of high blood sugar and apparently that spiking can negatively affect weight loss and also your more likely to get hungry and break....
Perhaps you meant TDEE instead.0 -
Well, your BMR is very individual.0
-
Well, your BMR is very individual.
It's also the calories you need to be given to survive if you were in a coma - if you only ate your BMR you'd lose weight.0 -
Pecans and almonds are actually fruit as well even though they're referred to as nuts. The coconut is also a fruit
I disagree. Fruit and veg have all three macros within their matrix, lard has only 1, fat.Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.
which vegetables have fat?
avacados, brocolli, sweetcorn - of the top of my head.
Don't forget olives.
0 -
Many thanks to everyone who provided good detailed theories & conclusions. I'm really grateful for that.
I'm not a nasty person, but I'm a massive geek and I've been a regular poster on countless forums and ran a few myself!
I know a troll when I see one, and I know post-*kitten* when I see them.
What I questioned were two extremes, and it was the principle I was trying to gain knowledge of.... not actually eating lard ffs!
I should have made it simpler and wrote " 70% healthy food/30% junk food -VS- 70% junk food/30% healthy food" to get around all the cretins that felt the need to grace me with drivel.
So, from what I understand, regardless of whether you want to be "healthy" or not - a calorie is still a calorie, regardless of it's source.
What really matters is when you are in deficit or excess of your daily MAINTAINING intake, that's where the sources play a bigger part on how quickly you lose or gain.0 -
Many thanks to everyone who provided good detailed theories & conclusions. I'm really grateful for that.
I'm not a nasty person, but I'm a massive geek and I've been a regular poster on countless forums and ran a few myself!
I know a troll when I see one, and I know post-*kitten* when I see them.
What I questioned were two extremes, and it was the principle I was trying to gain knowledge of.... not actually eating lard ffs!
I should have made it simpler and wrote " 70% healthy food/30% junk food -VS- 70% junk food/30% healthy food" to get around all the cretins that felt the need to grace me with drivel.
So, from what I understand, regardless of whether you want to be "healthy" or not - a calorie is still a calorie, regardless of it's source.
What really matters is when you are in deficit or excess of your daily MAINTAINING intake, that's where the sources play a bigger part on how quickly you lose or gain.
to simply lose weight, yes, cal in/cal out is all that matters. however if you want to maintain muscle while dropping fat, you have be be conscious of macros. if you want to make sure you're healthy and free of disease, you need to be conscious of micros. so if you've got a ton to lose, starting out with cal in/cal out is the way to go. However, once you get past that point, and you're looking for a specific body type/look or you're concerned about disease and health, you have to start worrying about where your nutrition comes from.0 -
to simply lose weight, yes, cal in/cal out is all that matters. however if you want to maintain muscle while dropping fat, you have be be conscious of macros. if you want to make sure you're healthy and free of disease, you need to be conscious of micros. so if you've got a ton to lose, starting out with cal in/cal out is the way to go. However, once you get past that point, and you're looking for a specific body type/look or you're concerned about disease and health, you have to start worrying about where your nutrition comes from.
Please could you briefly explain macros/micros?0 -
Hey thanks I learned something new. Lard is classified as junk food and that an all lard diet really only means 70% lard That's simple fabulous.0
-
Hey thanks I learned something new. Lard is classified as junk food and that an all lard diet really only means 70% lard That's simple fabulous.
I'm not being funny, but if you don't like my question or thread, discontinue reading and post no more, simple as that.0 -
So, from what I understand, regardless of whether you want to be "healthy" or not - a calorie is still a calorie, regardless of it's source.
What really matters is when you are in deficit or excess of your daily MAINTAINING intake, that's where the sources play a bigger part on how quickly you lose or gain.
So this train wreck of a thread as been about the qualities of calories and if they matter on a deficit? :huh:
You couldn't have worded it better op?0 -
to simply lose weight, yes, cal in/cal out is all that matters. however if you want to maintain muscle while dropping fat, you have be be conscious of macros. if you want to make sure you're healthy and free of disease, you need to be conscious of micros. so if you've got a ton to lose, starting out with cal in/cal out is the way to go. However, once you get past that point, and you're looking for a specific body type/look or you're concerned about disease and health, you have to start worrying about where your nutrition comes from.
Please could you briefly explain macros/micros?
macros are protein, fat and carbs. these are the most important things to keep track of after calories.
micronutrients are your vitamins and minerals, fiber, sugar, cholesterol, sodium, etc. if you're meeting your macro goals, USUALLY these numbers will be fine. However if you're eating a lot of processed foods/fast foods/etc, you may have issues on the micronutrient front0 -
So, from what I understand, regardless of whether you want to be "healthy" or not - a calorie is still a calorie, regardless of it's source.
What really matters is when you are in deficit or excess of your daily MAINTAINING intake, that's where the sources play a bigger part on how quickly you lose or gain.
So this train wreck of a thread as been about the qualities of calories and if they matter on a deficit? :huh:
You couldn't have worded it better op?
That's about my response. *blink blink* What a silly fit to throw a tantrum over when people don't answer your (apparently poorly worded) question.0 -
So, from what I understand, regardless of whether you want to be "healthy" or not - a calorie is still a calorie, regardless of it's source.
What really matters is when you are in deficit or excess of your daily MAINTAINING intake, that's where the sources play a bigger part on how quickly you lose or gain.
So this train wreck of a thread as been about the qualities of calories and if they matter on a deficit? :huh:
You couldn't have worded it better op?
That's about my response. *blink blink* What a silly fit to throw a tantrum over when people don't answer your (apparently poorly worded) question.
I was wondering myself.0 -
So, quite alot of unpleasent things would happen.
Firstly, you can wind up looking like those poor children in Africa they show on commercials that you can "save a life for just the cost of a cup of coffee and a news paper a day", who are priactially skin and bones, but have very large stomaches and almost look like they are 8 months pregnant. They have what is known as kwashiorkor. It is defined as protien energy malnutrition. Meaning, you are getting enough calories but not enough protien, so you body breaks down its muscles. Side effects of this include edema, muscle wasting, dermatoses and depigmentation,diarrhea, fatty liver and organs, anema. changes in hair texture or hair loss, growth failure, and obviously irritability. This disease is more common in children then adults. It typically occurs in developing countries, when a child is weaned off nutritionally balanced breastmik to early (typically when a sibling is born), and put on a very high carb diet. Although, the lard only diet would not have carbs, it is still void of protien which is what is mainly causing the symptoms.
Next, your brain runs on glucose. It is a picky eater, it pretty much only likes glucose. If you eat lard, you are not suppying it with glucose. So what is it to do once it uses up all the glucos that you have stored (which is not alot). But, it can make glucose using fat and protien through gluconeogenisis, but wait, there is not protien in your diet, so it will have you break down your muscle mass. Eventually with not carbs or protien you will begin to rely on fat only for brain food and your body will break down fats to ketones and go into a state of ketoasidosis. Not only will this give you bad breath, but since your brain does not like ketones as its main food source, your body will not function propertly, I would imagine being very disoriented for starters, and since your brain controls pretty much everything in your body, you want to keep it happy with glucose. All those ketones floating around also change the PH of your blood which pisses off the kidneys and other organs as wel which can result in hypotension, deyhdration, and and unhealthy increase in heart rate.
After that, you would be extreamly malnurished. You would be lacking all major vitamins. So I would at least suggest you take a mutlivitamin with your new all lard diet. Some vitamin deficiencies you will get will include, good old scruvy from lack of vitamin C, enemia from lack of iron, blindness from lack of vitamin A, Pellegra and Beri Beri from lack of B vitamins, osteoperosis from lack of calcium, there are just a few that I could name off the top of my head, but believe me, there are much more and they are not pleasent.
I'd imagine all these side effects of a fat only diet (plus it being saturated animal most likely makes it worse), will eventually kill you.
However, fruits and vegetables alone, you can manage to have a healthy balanced diet. It is full of vitamins and minerals for one. You wil get plenty of carbs and glucose for your brain, protien from beans, and fat from avacodos and seeds.
BAM!!0 -
So, quite alot of unpleasent things would happen.
Firstly, you can wind up looking like those poor children in Africa they show on commercials that you can "save a life for just the cost of a cup of coffee and a news paper a day", who are priactially skin and bones, but have very large stomaches and almost look like they are 8 months pregnant. They have what is known as kwashiorkor. It is defined as protien energy malnutrition. Meaning, you are getting enough calories but not enough protien, so you body breaks down its muscles. Side effects of this include edema, muscle wasting, dermatoses and depigmentation,diarrhea, fatty liver and organs, anema. changes in hair texture or hair loss, growth failure, and obviously irritability. This disease is more common in children then adults. It typically occurs in developing countries, when a child is weaned off nutritionally balanced breastmik to early (typically when a sibling is born), and put on a very high carb diet. Although, the lard only diet would not have carbs, it is still void of protien which is what is mainly causing the symptoms.
Next, your brain runs on glucose. It is a picky eater, it pretty much only likes glucose. If you eat lard, you are not suppying it with glucose. So what is it to do once it uses up all the glucos that you have stored (which is not alot). But, it can make glucose using fat and protien through gluconeogenisis, but wait, there is not protien in your diet, so it will have you break down your muscle mass. Eventually with not carbs or protien you will begin to rely on fat only for brain food and your body will break down fats to ketones and go into a state of ketoasidosis. Not only will this give you bad breath, but since your brain does not like ketones as its main food source, your body will not function propertly, I would imagine being very disoriented for starters, and since your brain controls pretty much everything in your body, you want to keep it happy with glucose. All those ketones floating around also change the PH of your blood which pisses off the kidneys and other organs as wel which can result in hypotension, deyhdration, and and unhealthy increase in heart rate.
After that, you would be extreamly malnurished. You would be lacking all major vitamins. So I would at least suggest you take a mutlivitamin with your new all lard diet. Some vitamin deficiencies you will get will include, good old scruvy from lack of vitamin C, enemia from lack of iron, blindness from lack of vitamin A, Pellegra and Beri Beri from lack of B vitamins, osteoperosis from lack of calcium, there are just a few that I could name off the top of my head, but believe me, there are much more and they are not pleasent.
I'd imagine all these side effects of a fat only diet (plus it being saturated animal most likely makes it worse), will eventually kill you.
However, fruits and vegetables alone, you can manage to have a healthy balanced diet. It is full of vitamins and minerals for one. You wil get plenty of carbs and glucose for your brain, protien from beans, and fat from avacodos and seeds.
BAM!!
seeds aren't fruits or vegetables, and no, you can't have a healthy balanced diet on just fruits and veggies. you will be severely lacking in both protein and fat unless you use powders like hemp or other supplements.0 -
...or nuts, legumes, seeds and other "plant matter".
You can get all the nutrients you need from plant matter.
...and for the record, I'm no vegetarian. I eat meat. Lots of it. I just happen to know that you can live quite successfully and healthy without eating animals.0 -
Just saw your question, here are my two cents of common sense:
Assuming my car needs 1 gal of gas to run 10 miles, will the car run the same amount of miles if I put 1 gal of water?0 -
Botanically, many nuts are fruits, so you certainly can get all the fat required. Vegetables for protein, that might be tough, but I haven't done any research yet.So, quite alot of unpleasent things would happen.
Firstly, you can wind up looking like those poor children in Africa they show on commercials that you can "save a life for just the cost of a cup of coffee and a news paper a day", who are priactially skin and bones, but have very large stomaches and almost look like they are 8 months pregnant. They have what is known as kwashiorkor. It is defined as protien energy malnutrition. Meaning, you are getting enough calories but not enough protien, so you body breaks down its muscles. Side effects of this include edema, muscle wasting, dermatoses and depigmentation,diarrhea, fatty liver and organs, anema. changes in hair texture or hair loss, growth failure, and obviously irritability. This disease is more common in children then adults. It typically occurs in developing countries, when a child is weaned off nutritionally balanced breastmik to early (typically when a sibling is born), and put on a very high carb diet. Although, the lard only diet would not have carbs, it is still void of protien which is what is mainly causing the symptoms.
Next, your brain runs on glucose. It is a picky eater, it pretty much only likes glucose. If you eat lard, you are not suppying it with glucose. So what is it to do once it uses up all the glucos that you have stored (which is not alot). But, it can make glucose using fat and protien through gluconeogenisis, but wait, there is not protien in your diet, so it will have you break down your muscle mass. Eventually with not carbs or protien you will begin to rely on fat only for brain food and your body will break down fats to ketones and go into a state of ketoasidosis. Not only will this give you bad breath, but since your brain does not like ketones as its main food source, your body will not function propertly, I would imagine being very disoriented for starters, and since your brain controls pretty much everything in your body, you want to keep it happy with glucose. All those ketones floating around also change the PH of your blood which pisses off the kidneys and other organs as wel which can result in hypotension, deyhdration, and and unhealthy increase in heart rate.
After that, you would be extreamly malnurished. You would be lacking all major vitamins. So I would at least suggest you take a mutlivitamin with your new all lard diet. Some vitamin deficiencies you will get will include, good old scruvy from lack of vitamin C, enemia from lack of iron, blindness from lack of vitamin A, Pellegra and Beri Beri from lack of B vitamins, osteoperosis from lack of calcium, there are just a few that I could name off the top of my head, but believe me, there are much more and they are not pleasent.
I'd imagine all these side effects of a fat only diet (plus it being saturated animal most likely makes it worse), will eventually kill you.
However, fruits and vegetables alone, you can manage to have a healthy balanced diet. It is full of vitamins and minerals for one. You wil get plenty of carbs and glucose for your brain, protien from beans, and fat from avacodos and seeds.
BAM!!
seeds aren't fruits or vegetables, and no, you can't have a healthy balanced diet on just fruits and veggies. you will be severely lacking in both protein and fat unless you use powders like hemp or other supplements.
EDIT: Still looking.0 -
Botanically, many nuts are fruits, so you certainly can get all the fat required. Vegetables for protein, that might be tough, but I haven't done any research yet.
EDIT: Still looking.
Joining in the 'nerding out'.
Taking just one of the EAAs for now, namely leucine as it is the most important one for protein synthesis. Taking the RDA minimum recommendation for arguments sake of 42mg/kg/day and assuming someone who is 160lb = 73kg, the daily leucine target would be 3,055mg = 3g.
Peanuts, which are technically a fruit from a botanical perspective, have a decent amount of leucine - 1.67g per 100g. They also have EFAs and fiber. The problem is, to get the RDA for leucine (which is lower than optimal), you would need to eat 183g = 1,042 calories.
Staying with the 183g of peanuts, and I have not run the exact numbers for all of them, but the only EAA that probably would not get enough of would be lysine. The RDA for lycine, for the same person, would be 2,764mg = 2.8g. Peanute have 0.901g per 100g so you would need 307g of peanuts which = 1,748 calories.
I think lentils are also botanically fruits, and they have even more leucine - 2.03g per 100g and have fewer calories - so you would need 150g = 531 calories...but I have nerded out enough already to actually calculate all the other EAAs for this.
I have no idea why I just calculated that btw!0 -
That is an incredibly flawed analogy. Gas and water are two different things. The original question was about two types of food. A proper analogy would be to ask if a car would get the same mileage using 87 octane gas or 93 octane gas.Just saw your question, here are my two cents of common sense:
Assuming my car needs 1 gal of gas to run 10 miles, will the car run the same amount of miles if I put 1 gal of water?
Might wanna check on your common sense.0 -
Botanically, many nuts are fruits, so you certainly can get all the fat required. Vegetables for protein, that might be tough, but I haven't done any research yet.
EDIT: Still looking.
Joining in the 'nerding out'.
Taking just one of the EAAs for now, namely leucine as it is the most important one for protein synthesis. Taking the RDA minimum recommendation for arguments sake of 42mg/kg/day and assuming someone who is 160lb = 73kg, the daily leucine target would be 3,055mg = 3g.
Peanuts, which are technically a fruit from a botanical perspective, have a decent amount of leucine - 1.67g per 100g. They also have EFAs and fiber. The problem is, to get the RDA for leucine (which is lower than optimal), you would need to eat 183g = 1,042 calories.
Staying with the 183g of peanuts, and I have not run the exact numbers for all of them, but the only EAA that probably would not get enough of would be lysine. The RDA for lycine, for the same person, would be 2,764mg = 2.8g. Peanute have 0.901g per 100g so you would need 307g of peanuts which = 1,748 calories.
I think lentils are also botanically fruits, and they have even more leucine - 2.03g per 100g and have fewer calories - so you would need 150g = 531 calories...but I have nerded out enough already to actually calculate all the other EAAs for this.
I have no idea why I just calculated that btw!
In the time you just spent on this ridiculous thread, I burned 480 calories lifting and walking around the neighborhood. And you sat there doing nerdy math on nerdy things that only nerds would nerd about.
Obligatory flower so nobody thinks I'm really mad at you. :flowerforyou:0 -
It's a really interesting question. Apart from the obvious issues with consuming only lard (micronutrient and amino acid deficiency, fatty deposits in arteries etc.), is a calorie a calorie a calorie? I think pretty much yes.
Fat is broken down in the body to glycerol and fatty acids. Glycerol can enter the glycolysis pathway and the fatty acids are broken down to Acetyl Co A and enter the Krebs cycle. Pyruvate (from glycerol) and/or Acetyl Co A (from the fatty acid) are substrates for some non-essential amino acids (to make protein), ketones and glucose (via gluconeogenesis). To some degree metabolism of the different macronutrients overlap and compensate for too much of one or the other, and can also go in reverse to make something that's missing. One of the big problems with the lard only diet, is that various micronutrients are required as co-enzymes (essential helpers) in many of the pathways.
From a purely biochemical perspective (not a health perspective), and provided that you don't completely cut out essential nutrients to inhibit any of these pathways, I do think that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions