Does what you eat matter?

That 99 cent packet of hotdogs is probably about 8-10 oz. of "meat." Don't get me wrong. I like a good weiner now and then. But they're not exactly health food.

If you watch your store circulars (I check them online) you can get boneless skinless chicken breast for around $2 a pound. About the same cost as the hotdogs, and a lot better for you. And a lot more versatile. Sometimes you can find beef or pork at lower costs, too. You'll usually need to buy larger packages to get the best price, but pick up some freezer bags and freeze what you won't use right away. Or go halfsies with a friend and split the food.

Bags of brown rice, lentils and beans are dirt cheap. Look into getting frozen bags of the veggies you can eat. They'll keep longer than fresh and are sometimes a better price.

I agree with everything you said but I am not just concerned about losing weight. I want to be healthy. I want to lower my chances for Diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. If weight loss was all that mattered I would just starve myself, results are guaranteed.

Absolutely understood, that's why I included the bits about micronutrients.


BUT, the general understanding of disease stemming from a "poor" diet is largely misunderstood. Poor health from diet can be mostly attributed to an indefinite and irresponsible caloric surplus leading to things such as a sustained elevation of insulin levels. You cannot blame processed foods, carbs, sucrose, saturated fat, etc. alone for bad overall health.

I agree with everything you said but I am not just concerned about losing weight. I want to be healthy. I want to lower my chances for Diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. If weight loss was all that mattered I would just starve myself, results are guaranteed.

Then what the heck are you arguing about with me in the other thread.

Let's not bring that ugliness over here, one thread is enough.

but whole chickens and roast them. They are cheap amd have a lot of meat. Buy large bags of brown rice- much cheaper than the small boxes and lasts forever. Beans, lentils, barley, quinoa... all very cheap and hypoallergenic. Eat the fruits and veggies that don't bother you. Also know that weakened immunity exasterbates allergies. In order to strengthen your immunity you need your vitamins (esp C) minerals and antioxidants. The healthier you are the less your allergies will bother you basically. Carbs amd processed foods will only clog your colon and make your allergies worse.

Anyway, what you are saying is much different than "if you eat less calories than you burn than you will lose weight no matter what" I guess you were the wrong person to ask since you don't actually believe that. Their are people who will claim that the law of thermodynamics can not be broken and so it must be true.

These constant contradictions have me spinning in circles with no real idea on what I am supposed to do.

I'm intrigued by the notion that starvation mode somehow violates thermodynamic law... I have to assume the unnamed "they" are referring to the first law (that energy can be neither created nor destroyed), as it's the only one that could possibly be referenced in this type of metabolic exchange, but I'm baffled as to how it's being applied.

In fact, one can't claim that starvation mode violates the first law of thermodynamics without conceeding that weight gain violates it as well; they operate on the exact same metabolic principal of caloric storage. Oddly enough, I've yet to see anyone claim that weight gain is impossible.



I'm too much of a nerd to just let this go, so here's a full explanation:


**DISCLAIMER: I'm not a nutritional, metabolic, medical, or any other kind of authority - just a nerd. None of what follows constitutes professional advice.**


In a perfect (and therefore unattainable) metabolic exchange, the number of calories taken in is perfectly equivalent to the number of calories burned/eliminated. 100 units of energy in, 100 units of energy out = 0 energy created/destroyed.

SURPLUS METABOLIC SYSTEM = WEIGHT GAIN:

When the number of calories taken in exceeds the number of calories burned/eliminated, our bodies compensate by storing those extra calories as fat. 120 units of energy in, 100 units of energy out, 20 units of energy stored = 0 energy created/destroyed.

DEFICIENT METABOLIC SYSTEM = WEIGHT LOSS:

When the number of calories taken in is less than the number of calories burned/eliminated, our bodies compensate by burning fat and/or muscle. 80 units of energy in, 100 units of energy out (80 units from direct exchange, 20 units converted from reserves) = 0 energy created/destroyed.

STARVATION MODE:

A SEVERELY deficient metabolic system can trigger the adapted metabolic strategy commonly referred to as "starvation mode". In starvation mode, the body attempts to protect against a dangerous metabolic deficit by decreasing the number of calories burned/eliminated rather than burning caloric reserves. Instead of the 50 units of energy in, 100 units of energy out (50 units from direct exchange and 50 units converted from reserves) one might expect, starvation mode results in 50 units of energy in, 50 units of energy out = 0 energy created/destroyed.

Additionally, while in starvation mode, all calories consumed above the decreased metabolic burn rate may be converted to fat, resulting in weight gain. 60 units of energy in, 50 units of energy out, 10 units of energy stored = 0 energy created/destroyed.

It's important to note that, should the severe metabolic deficit continue beyond the body's tolerance, starvation mode will eventually give way to actual starvation... which eventually gives way to organ failure and death.



So, there you go. Thermodynamic law is apparently safe from the onslaughts of adaptive metabolic strategy.