Calories are NOT equal

1…1314151719

Replies

  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member

    You don't seem to know how science works.

    Oh please qualify that, pleeeaasse lol

    Well you don't get to just assert that anything you want is true and then dare everyone to prove you wrong, and call it science. If you want to establish that something is true, you need evidence.

    Yet that's precisely what you've done all the way through without providing evidence. You question mine and you've still provided nothing and you think I don't get how science works

    I did. Now, where is yours? :smile:
  • Agate69
    Agate69 Posts: 349 Member
    Bogus...... both sides
  • wibblefps
    wibblefps Posts: 78
    Says the dude who didn't provide ANY :wink:

    Ironic post is...well, I think you know the rest.

    I think you're struggling with irony or just not actually reading the posts... or the links... or much of anything apparently

    Nope, not struggling at all, but thanks for your concern. :flowerforyou:

    :smile: BTW did you have a look at the five links I sent you on glutamine metabolism. Didn't hear a peep but was curious as to what you thought. Or did I just miss your post, in which case my apols.
  • manda1978
    manda1978 Posts: 525 Member
    It frustrates and annoys me how hung up people get on calories. Yes understand you have to burn more than you eat to lose weight but there's the health and nutrutional aspects too. I was having my fav protein shake (150cal and 35gr of protein) after a training session when a person at the gym was saying that her sugary crap filled cereal bar was better for you as it had half the calories of my shake. Serioulsy???
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Says the dude who didn't provide ANY :wink:

    Ironic post is...well, I think you know the rest.

    I think you're struggling with irony or just not actually reading the posts... or the links... or much of anything apparently

    Nope, not struggling at all, but thanks for your concern. :flowerforyou:

    :smile: BTW did you have a look at the five links I sent you on glutamine metabolism. Didn't hear a peep but was curious as to what you thought. Or did I just miss your post, in which case my apols.

    Yes I did and I responded already. Could have been on another thread.

    I even posted a link for you.

    ETA: oh wait...you say you 'sent me'. If you mean via PM, I never got anything.
  • wibblefps
    wibblefps Posts: 78
    Debating with references rather than slagging - now that's science!

    Did you not see the links I just put up - The one's which jonny rebuffed? (although I don't think he even read them - seems that way anyway)
  • wibblefps
    wibblefps Posts: 78

    ETA: oh wait...you say you 'sent me'. If you mean via PM, I never got anything.

    Ahh I tried to PM a pdf from a subscription site. Guess it didn't work
  • suprzonic
    suprzonic Posts: 68 Member
    If those of us who have the wherewithall to provide evidence unlike you who yet again, have provided nothing!

    Some people really do just like to make pronouncements without any qualifying information which usually makes me skeptical

    Don't challenge if you can't prove it.. like I 'have'... again!

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21527892
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120517132057.htm

    Now go do some homework... for once and stop shooting at the people who do theirs already. Note these are links to the actual references as opposed to the first ten journal names I could think of

    Both those studies don't address the OP's statements. The first is inconclusive and self admits further study is required. The 2nd ?? Where do i start! First off - mice aren't people. And the mice weren't fed synthetic crap - they had a shorter feeding window and were fed high fat without carbs (ketogenic mice intermittent fasting mice = fat burning mice). And the article admits it didn't monitor anything about what "people" ate ...

    Inconclusive studies and badly drafted articles... *sigh* its getting harder to find quality data online! Back to the library ....
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Debating with references rather than slagging - now that's science!

    Did you not see the links I just put up - The one's which jonny rebuffed? (although I don't think he even read them - seems that way anyway)

    Yes, and I am not seeing how they prove anything about carbs later in the day.

    Did you look at the link I posted?
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Just to remind everyone of wibble's original claim about carb timing:

    Carbs are less of a problem in the morning than in the evening.

    Recently I started paying attention to the Jason Statham diet approach because I was looking for an 'eating' role model even older than me but who was still lean and ripped. He has two, JUST two basic principles:

    1) Eat carbs before 12pm otherwise when are you going to burn them off

    2) No food after 7pm.

    Yes, that's right. The Jason Statham diet (no food after 7 PM and eat carbs in the morning only).

    Zero evidence. Wibble posted something about sleep timing and an article about feeding mice. That was the token "sciencey" link amid a sea of "NO YOU PROVE IT" bs.

    Just so everyone's up to speed.
  • TinGirl314
    TinGirl314 Posts: 430 Member
    How about we do what works for us and let other people do what works for them. ;)
  • seventhfloordown
    seventhfloordown Posts: 6
    Calories aren't equal in the sense that some can be more useful to you when exercising or in promoting fullness. However, when it comes to burning calories, they are pretty equal. The only exception might be sugar. However, most people using this and other sites like it are likely carrying enough body fat that worrying about the sorts of calories they eat is futile. Below 15% body fat? Then we can talk about the effect of carbs, etc. Of course, whole, natural foods tend to fill you up more effectively, so there's that, but 2000 calories is 2000 calories.
  • wibblefps
    wibblefps Posts: 78
    Both those studies don't address the OP's statements. The first is inconclusive and self admits further study is required. The 2nd ?? Where do i start! First off - mice aren't people. And the mice weren't fed synthetic crap - they had a shorter feeding window and were fed high fat without carbs (ketogenic mice intermittent fasting mice = fat burning mice). And the article admits it didn't monitor anything about what "people" ate ...

    Inconclusive studies and badly drafted articles... *sigh* its getting harder to find quality data online! Back to the library ....

    Observations noted. What's the incontrovertible contrary research you have?
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    If those of us who have the wherewithall to provide evidence unlike you who yet again, have provided nothing!

    Some people really do just like to make pronouncements without any qualifying information which usually makes me skeptical

    Don't challenge if you can't prove it.. like I 'have'... again!

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21527892
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120517132057.htm

    Now go do some homework... for once and stop shooting at the people who do theirs already. Note these are links to the actual references as opposed to the first ten journal names I could think of

    Both those studies don't address the OP's statements. The first is inconclusive and self admits further study is required. The 2nd ?? Where do i start! First off - mice aren't people. And the mice weren't fed synthetic crap - they had a shorter feeding window and were fed high fat without carbs (ketogenic mice intermittent fasting mice = fat burning mice). And the article admits it didn't monitor anything about what "people" ate ...

    Inconclusive studies and badly drafted articles... *sigh* its getting harder to find quality data online! Back to the library ....

    I posted this already - and while not conclusive, it is certainly compelling to at least lean towards 'carbs at night are not bad for weight loss'.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475137
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Oh and of course, this gem, which establishes how much wibble cares for scientific evidence:
    Plus if pictures of Statham and Craig aren't sufficient then I doubt another thesis will be compelling
  • stumblinthrulife
    stumblinthrulife Posts: 2,558 Member
    Calories aren't equal in the sense that some can be more useful to you when exercising or in promoting fullness. However, when it comes to burning calories, they are pretty equal. The only exception might be sugar. However, most people using this and other sites like it are likely carrying enough body fat that worrying about the sorts of calories they eat is futile. Below 15% body fat? Then we can talk about the effect of carbs, etc. Of course, whole, natural foods tend to fill you up more effectively, so there's that, but 2000 calories is 2000 calories.

    13% here, still doing what I did to get here from 40%.
  • Cranquistador
    Cranquistador Posts: 39,744 Member
    Can I ask you guys WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY you keeping acknowledging that the wibble guy is even posting?


    it is obvious what he is doing.
  • wibblefps
    wibblefps Posts: 78

    Like this one?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475137

    :wink:

    Touche, this one looks interesting. Would like to see the rest. It does say further research is needed but I'd disregard that - what abstract doesn't hedge it's bets this way!
  • wibblefps
    wibblefps Posts: 78
    Oh and of course, this gem, which establishes how much wibble cares for scientific evidence:
    Plus if pictures of Statham and Craig aren't sufficient then I doubt another thesis will be compelling

    Like listing 10 random science mags and not actual articles Might as well just say Justus von Liebig and be done with it eh :wink:
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member

    Like this one?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475137

    :wink:

    Touche, this one looks interesting. Would like to see the rest. It does say further research is needed but I'd disregard that - what abstract doesn't hedge it's bets this way!

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2011.48/full
  • whierd
    whierd Posts: 14,025 Member
    This actually rolled? Wow.
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,149 Member
    This actually rolled? Wow.
    Cool, right?
    christianbalehorns.gif
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    I will probably regret this...but as it's rolled already...IN.
  • Cranquistador
    Cranquistador Posts: 39,744 Member
    oh brother.:noway:
  • Cranquistador
    Cranquistador Posts: 39,744 Member
    Can I ask you guys WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY you keeping acknowledging that the wibble guy is even posting?


    it is obvious what he is doing.

    Agreed.

    maybe he is just bored.
  • magerum
    magerum Posts: 12,589 Member
    In for round two of antiquated nutritional information.
  • wibblefps
    wibblefps Posts: 78
    He's torn between reading, sleep and going after people who go "nope, cr@p and BS" without any evidence
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    He's torn between reading, sleep and going after people who go "nope, cr@p and BS" without any evidence

    You should open your diary. I'd love to see the Jason Statham diet that's helped you lose 4 lbs.
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    He's torn between reading, sleep and going after people who go "nope, cr@p and BS" without any evidence

    You should open your diary. I'd love to see the Jason Statham diet that's helped you lose 4 lbs.

    I'm interested too
  • Cranquistador
    Cranquistador Posts: 39,744 Member
    He's torn between reading, sleep and going after people who go "nope, cr@p and BS" without any evidence

    You should open your diary. I'd love to see the Jason Statham diet that's helped you lose 4 lbs.

    Weebles wibble but they dont fall down...

    weeblewobble.jpg

Categories