Is fat loss a science ?
Replies
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Protein does require somewhat more calories to digest, but you can't really use that, since there are reasons a mostly protein diet is not healthy. That means that if you lower carbs you typically increase fat, and fat requires fewer calories than carbs on average to digest, especially whole foods like fruits and veggies and whole grains. That's why there's not a greater burn from digestion when you compare a typical low carb diet vs even the SAD.
Re insulin spikes, it differs from person to person, but unless you are insulin resistant I seriously doubt there is any significant effect so long as you avoid eating lots of processed carbs on their own (which you won't be if you eat food in the context of a balanced meal). More significantly, the theory here, even for those with insulin resistance is that spikes make you hungry so you consume more calories. Not that CICO is wrong. And the same with the digestive differences, as the burn from digestion is part of CO. Thus, I don't think either of these examples support at all the conclusion that calories aren't what matters.
Obviously, there will be ways of eating that are more healthy overall and help individuals sustain a calorie deficit better.
A mostly carb diet is not healthy either!!!! I never advocated eating primarily protein...I advocated replacing some of the carbs with protein. Personally, I aim to get 30% of my calories from protein and there is absolutely no evidence that this level, or even moderately higher levels, have any health risk.
Low carb diets do not require high fat. You can replace the carbs with fat, but you can just as easily replace with protein. And many fats are actually beneficial to health...unlike processed carbs.
Regarding insulin spikes, I believe there is a significant effect and it goes well beyond causing more hunger. And you may think it can be avoided by avoiding eating processed carbs on their own, but that advice does not agree with the "calories are the only thing that matters" belief. You can't have it both ways...either there are factors other than calories that matter, or there aren't. I have seen more than enough evidence to convince me that these other things matter.
Who said anything about mostly carb diets? (Appropriate macro mix depends on the person, but certainly some vegan and diets for athletes are high carb by percentage and extremely healthy. Not my thing personally, but you are missing the point.). IMO the bigger problem with high processed carb diets are that they aren't nutrient dense often or satiating to many, but that's not inconsistent with CICO at all, but merely that there are other things that matter too.
And if you read low carb literature, yes, those diets are usually high fat, because it's the only way to stay in ketosis. And because the are bigger drawbacks to high protein.
I tend to think a balance like 30-30-40 works for many--it's what I like--and that other ranges from high carb to low carb can work for individuals. My point was that a reasonable mix is unlikely to differ much in cost of digestion than any other, because mostly carbs and fats are what vary and the differences are slight.
You can believe what you like about insulin spikes, but so far it seems based on nothing but your own belief.
A mostly anything diet is not healthy. When I pointed out that it has been proven that increasing protein results in the body burning more calories, I was told a "mostly protein" diet was not healthy. My response was that I never advocated "mostly" protein, and "mostly carbohydrate" was not healthy either. Please don't try to twist what was actually written. If your opinion differs, please stick to the facts.
Low carb diets are not usually high fat. Please get your facts straight. First of all, it depends how you are defining low. I am not talking about ketosis...I never even brought that up. I am talking about low carb in relation to the typical American diet. If 60% carbs is typical, then 30 or 40% carbs is low in comparison. That is NOT low enough to put you in ketosis and absolutely does NOT require high fat consumption. I think you need to do some research.
The research has proven replacing high amounts of carbs with some additional protein burns more calories. Read up on it if you don't accept what I say.
Now now, are you completely sure about that?
Yes. I am. And exactly how are you defining high and low? You need to be clear what you are talking about.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Protein does require somewhat more calories to digest, but you can't really use that, since there are reasons a mostly protein diet is not healthy. That means that if you lower carbs you typically increase fat, and fat requires fewer calories than carbs on average to digest, especially whole foods like fruits and veggies and whole grains. That's why there's not a greater burn from digestion when you compare a typical low carb diet vs even the SAD.
Re insulin spikes, it differs from person to person, but unless you are insulin resistant I seriously doubt there is any significant effect so long as you avoid eating lots of processed carbs on their own (which you won't be if you eat food in the context of a balanced meal). More significantly, the theory here, even for those with insulin resistance is that spikes make you hungry so you consume more calories. Not that CICO is wrong. And the same with the digestive differences, as the burn from digestion is part of CO. Thus, I don't think either of these examples support at all the conclusion that calories aren't what matters.
Obviously, there will be ways of eating that are more healthy overall and help individuals sustain a calorie deficit better.
A mostly carb diet is not healthy either!!!! I never advocated eating primarily protein...I advocated replacing some of the carbs with protein. Personally, I aim to get 30% of my calories from protein and there is absolutely no evidence that this level, or even moderately higher levels, have any health risk.
Low carb diets do not require high fat. You can replace the carbs with fat, but you can just as easily replace with protein. And many fats are actually beneficial to health...unlike processed carbs.
Regarding insulin spikes, I believe there is a significant effect and it goes well beyond causing more hunger. And you may think it can be avoided by avoiding eating processed carbs on their own, but that advice does not agree with the "calories are the only thing that matters" belief. You can't have it both ways...either there are factors other than calories that matter, or there aren't. I have seen more than enough evidence to convince me that these other things matter.
Who said anything about mostly carb diets? (Appropriate macro mix depends on the person, but certainly some vegan and diets for athletes are high carb by percentage and extremely healthy. Not my thing personally, but you are missing the point.). IMO the bigger problem with high processed carb diets are that they aren't nutrient dense often or satiating to many, but that's not inconsistent with CICO at all, but merely that there are other things that matter too.
And if you read low carb literature, yes, those diets are usually high fat, because it's the only way to stay in ketosis. And because the are bigger drawbacks to high protein.
I tend to think a balance like 30-30-40 works for many--it's what I like--and that other ranges from high carb to low carb can work for individuals. My point was that a reasonable mix is unlikely to differ much in cost of digestion than any other, because mostly carbs and fats are what vary and the differences are slight.
You can believe what you like about insulin spikes, but so far it seems based on nothing but your own belief.
A mostly anything diet is not healthy. When I pointed out that it has been proven that increasing protein results in the body burning more calories, I was told a "mostly protein" diet was not healthy. My response was that I never advocated "mostly" protein, and "mostly carbohydrate" was not healthy either. Please don't try to twist what was actually written. If your opinion differs, please stick to the facts.
Low carb diets are not usually high fat. Please get your facts straight. First of all, it depends how you are defining low. I am not talking about ketosis...I never even brought that up. I am talking about low carb in relation to the typical American diet. If 60% carbs is typical, then 30 or 40% carbs is low in comparison. That is NOT low enough to put you in ketosis and absolutely does NOT require high fat consumption. I think you need to do some research.
The research has proven replacing high amounts of carbs with some additional protein burns more calories. Read up on it if you don't accept what I say.
The prior posts speak for themselves. You are backtracking and changing what you said to avoid the point which is that cost of digestion makes no real difference if you look at realistic macro mixes. No one but you suggested not getting a minimum amt of protein (athletes with high calorie limits or people who do lots a manual labor can do that while eating a lower overall percentage of protein, although that's beside the point).
I would not consider 30-40 percent carb low carb. It's what I do, and I'm definitely not low carb. It's also unlikely my calories burned due to digestion make a significant difference vs, how various others eat. It's basically a rounding error.
(More significantly, burn from digestion is part of CICO, not inconsistent with it.)0 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Their diet is 85% carbs and they live over 100. Doesn't sound too unhealthy0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Very interesting; bumping to keep reading more thoughts!0
-
Their diet is 85% carbs and they live over 100. Doesn't sound too unhealthy
And the Innuits eat pretty much no carbs at all and VERY high levels of fat and protein and also live long healthy lives. But to advocate extreme diets that have developed around very specific populations over many generations for specific reasons to the general public seems irresponsible.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Eating mostly carbs is not healthy...your body needs a certain minimum amount of protein just to function properly. It is essential for muscle maintenance among other things. If you have a very labor intensive occupation, muscle mass becomes even more important.herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »A mostly carb diet is not healthy either!!!!
In some circumstances, particularly where there is a lot of manual effort involved in the person's day to day occupation, it absolutely is.
The body also needs fat. You need all three to some degree. But while there are benefits to lowering carbs and increasing protein there are no benefits, and there are disadvantages, to the reverse.
The Dietitians Asssociation of Australia and the NHMRC recommend as a general rule 15-25% protein, 45-65% carbs and 20-35% fat
http://daa.asn.au/for-the-public/smart-eating-for-you/nutrition-a-z/nutrient-reference-values-nrvs/
Some people do perfectly well on higher carb diets, some do well on extremely low carb diets, but for some people with certain health issues, there are definitely disadvantages to upping protein belong 1g per kg body weight.
It is very much an individual thing and difficult to generalise.
0 -
Uh, when you are reading this on a phone and can't read any of the text in a tiny graph, yes, it is.Sid_Sullen wrote: »Is it really that difficult to read the presented information and draw your own conclusions?
0 -
Fat loss is science related unless it is cut out in my personal view. Dieting however is not science related but is a religion based on the way people argue about dieting. Well to be correct there are many different dieting religions it would seem from reading MFP posts.
0 -
What paleo blog did you read that from?MoiAussi93 wrote: »Their diet is 85% carbs and they live over 100. Doesn't sound too unhealthy
And the Innuits eat pretty much no carbs at all and VERY high levels of fat and protein and also live long healthy lives. But to advocate extreme diets that have developed around very specific populations over many generations for specific reasons to the general public seems irresponsible.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Eating mostly carbs is not healthy...your body needs a certain minimum amount of protein just to function properly. It is essential for muscle maintenance among other things. If you have a very labor intensive occupation, muscle mass becomes even more important.herrspoons wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »A mostly carb diet is not healthy either!!!!
In some circumstances, particularly where there is a lot of manual effort involved in the person's day to day occupation, it absolutely is.
The body also needs fat. You need all three to some degree. But while there are benefits to lowering carbs and increasing protein there are no benefits, and there are disadvantages, to the reverse.
Wow, that's really interesting....
0 -
What paleo blog did you read that from?
[/quote]
Who said anything about paleo? Not me. Google is your friend. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=innuit+diet+high+fat+and+protein+low+carb0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Who peed in your cheerios?Sid_Sullen wrote: »True, If only each and every technical device on the planet had a way to zoom in on something!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Nah, my guess would be somebody jonesing for their sugar fix. Those addicts can be dangerous, man.Sid_Sullen wrote: »*shrugs* Probably a staunch anti-carber. I mean, if I had to guess...
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
So, a lot of people say fat loss is only about calories, and it doesn't matter if you eat 2000 calories of sugar or salad, or if you eat 3 times a day or 6, if you are trying to lose a pound you just need to burn 3500 calories. Is this the truth or does this 3 meals/6 meals thing with the blood sugar and insulin levels spike and all of that matter or it's just a myth ? Or like if you don't eat frequently (and you do intermittent fasting for example) your body goes into starvation mode and you burn muscle instead of fat ?Any help would be appreciated. I wish everyone a great day !:)
It's an oversimplification to say that a calorie is a calorie. Different foods are metabolized differently by the body and these processes are not fully understood. Still, looking at calories is a good shorthand method for the ordinary person. If you generally eat healthy foods and create a calorie deficit, you will lose weight. If you are close to your goal weight and have special needs, such as reducing fat as much as possible, that will be the time to look into a more specialized diet.
The current science holds that it doesn't matter when you eat or how many times you eat. I do IF frequently and it works for me. You have to consider your psychology: If after giving the various forms of IF a good try, do you prefer eating several meals? Fine. Just don't overeat. BTW, even with IF you have to count calories if you're unaware of the calorie content of the food you're eating.0 -
So, a lot of people say fat loss is only about calories, and it doesn't matter if you eat 2000 calories of sugar or salad, or if you eat 3 times a day or 6, if you are trying to lose a pound you just need to burn 3500 calories. Is this the truth or does this 3 meals/6 meals thing with the blood sugar and insulin levels spike and all of that matter or it's just a myth ? Or like if you don't eat frequently (and you do intermittent fasting for example) your body goes into starvation mode and you burn muscle instead of fat ?Any help would be appreciated. I wish everyone a great day !:)
It's an oversimplification to say that a calorie is a calorie. Different foods are metabolized differently by the body and these processes are not fully understood. Still, looking at calories is a good shorthand method for the ordinary person. If you generally eat healthy foods and create a calorie deficit, you will lose weight. If you are close to your goal weight and have special needs, such as reducing fat as much as possible, that will be the time to look into a more specialized diet.
The current science holds that it doesn't matter when you eat or how many times you eat. I do IF frequently and it works for me. You have to consider your psychology: If after giving the various forms of IF a good try, do you prefer eating several meals? Fine. Just don't overeat. BTW, even with IF you have to count calories if you're unaware of the calorie content of the food you're eating.
I am finding IF dieting does work for me as well since I prefer to eat at maintenance most of the time.
0 -
I think a different mix can work for different people. But there are even marathoners who don't eat high carb diets, so I don't think it is necessary for anybody. If they want to and that's what works best for them, that's fine though.herrspoons wrote: »Macronutrient and calorie intake should be strongly geared to occupation. Some occupations will need a lot of carbs.
0 -
I agree with this....especially the psychology part. I don't do IF, but I do a bit of calorie cycling...mainly for the psychological effect. Some days I just don't feel like eating as much, and on other days I want to eat a little more. Compared to forcing myself to eat when not hungry and feeling deprived when I want a little extra, cycling is much better for me. Whether it has any metabolism benefits? I don't know. The research seems mixed. But it certainly does no harm and makes it easy to maintain a healthy lifestyle.The current science holds that it doesn't matter when you eat or how many times you eat. I do IF frequently and it works for me. You have to consider your psychology: If after giving the various forms of IF a good try, do you prefer eating several meals? Fine. Just don't overeat. BTW, even with IF you have to count calories if you're unaware of the calorie content of the food you're eating.
0 -
My 2 cents is it is a combination of art and science, thou I did really enjoy that TEDtalk. We can likely all agree a caloric deficit is required. For example, the famous twinkie diet that showed weight can be lost at a caloric deficit even if the only source of calories is twinkes - not saying it is healthy, just that it is possible to lose weight even with the extremes of refined sugar and fluctuating hormone levels.
So, if that isn't question, then the 2nd part of the puzzle is the effect of timing of food ingestion and source of caloric intake. I've read interesting views on the idea of having many small meals a day and I've read about intermittent fasting (IF). My body has a very hard time dealing with the tail end of the fasted state periods; however, I do believe it can lead to enhanced results for a person that is already in a caloric deficit. IMHO, do whatever works for you.0 -
for me it was calories in vs calories out, BUT the calories in need to be low in refined sugars.
I've no science to this, I've just found that if my 'calories in' are high in refined sugars like those in cakes, chocolate and certain yogurts I will lose weight but look truly awful. i lose lots of muscle and people ask me if im ill.
so yeah it's calories in vs out, but I eat real strawberries not a strawberry yogurt. Once I kicked the unnatural, added sugars, weightloss was easy.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
I'm guessing competition prep and he meant body fat0
This discussion has been closed.
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