Real Reasons for Obesity
Replies
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
In addition, food that is high in fructose tends to make most mammals sluggish because of the effect it has on ATP production and that would mean fewer calories burned. Watching slim children and chubby children and the way that they eat and move shows how we vary in terms of energy production. It has been observed, in several studies, that slim children move a lot more than chubby children. It has also been observed that, in chubby children, eating sugary foods seemed to make them more sluggish and in slim children, eating sugary foods (especially chocolate--likely because of the caffeine boost) often seemed to make them even more active. Eventually, even the slim children can become plump if they continuously eat too many sweets without burning them off. A number of studies have focused on the observation that many children do not become fat until they enter school and are forced to become more sedentary.
There are many who are genetically pre-disposed to "diabesity". There is an obvious survival-advantage for those with this genetic makeup since, historically, food security has plagued most populations in the past. Disease though, is often the result when those individuals are constantly exposed to plentiful supplies of calorie dense-nutrient poor food. Researchers have coined the word "diabesity" to refer to what they believe is essentially the same disease--the only difference being that those who are simply obese have adequate insulin supplies--at least for a time. They just get fatter as the body converts excess blood glucose into triglycerides and stuffs them into fat cells. But having to battle constant high blood glucose takes a toll as the body's cells become more and more insensitive to the effects of insulin. Type II diabetes starts and worsens, if the diet is not addressed. Finally, the beta cells in the pancreas are decimated due to having to constantly battle high blood glucose, and the Type II diabetic, becomes insulin-dependent.
Not only how much you eat but WHAT you eat is important to the complex bio-chemistry of "calories-in-calories-out". If it was so simple as eating less, everyone would lose weight and keep it off. Those who are successful in keeping excess fat off their bodies address what they eat as well as increasing the output of calories. The output part of the equation becomes more and more difficult in the aging body.
Yes, biochemistry is very complex and most of what you have put here really isn't true.
Prove it.
It's ironic you don't know which way this goes.
You are the one making the assertion that the information I presented was "false". Prove your assertion, by presenting contradictory information, please. Otherwise, you might want to keep your "counsel" to yourself as it will be ignored by most intelligent people.
No, claims require proof and claims introduced without proof can be dismissed without proof. That's a basic tenant of debate. I have merely indicated that your claims are incorrect.
The school boy fallacy you add is also misplaced.
Well, perhaps if this was a formal debate forum (which it is not) your claim would stand, but since it is an informal discussion forum, it does not. It is just a bit of triumphalism.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »This is definitely not true for me! I find potatoes very filling!
Besides, a roughly 6 oz bakes russet potato with the skin has 3.8g fiber, 926mg potassium, 4.3g protein, 27% of recommended Vitamin C, and very little fat. What's so empty about that?
Generally, a potato for example is filling because there's a lot of volume but it digests very quickly and leaves you hungry. Unless you put some butter, sour cream, etc., or eat it with some meat or something with a lower GI.
But at the end of the day if it works for you, keep it up.
Potatoes have fiber and "resistant starch" which makes them slower to digest. Add a bit of butter and/or sour cream and you slow the digestion further (as you have noted). Potatoes are actually a pretty good bang for your calorie buck as long as you don't fry them. The high temperatures of frying denature many frying oils (many of them are unhealthy to start with because of production methods) and make those potatoes somewhat unhealthy.
Potatoes don't have a great deal of resistant starch unless they are boiled and then cooled. They are fairly quick digesting if not.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.
Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:
1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.
Pretty technical information from someone who is just a casual participant in these forums. There are internet people who are "internet persuaders" who work for various corporations (food processors, for example) and collect money for each post. While, it seems that food processors would be likely to follow what you have cited, do you know that fruit and vegetables are evaluated in the same way? In addition, if what you say is true (and I am NOT saying that I have reason to believe it false) then why do so many think that subtracting fiber grams from carbohydrate grams does anything worthwhile?0 -
rankinsect wrote: »Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.
Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:
1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.
Many have been asking for a net calories due to the fact that we know that foods have different rates of absorption even when the caloric makeup is the same but that would make caloric values a veritable nightmare for prepared meals.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.
Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:
1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.
Pretty technical information from someone who is just a casual participant in these forums. There are internet people who are "internet persuaders" who work for various corporations (food processors, for example) and collect money for each post. While, it seems that food processors would be likely to follow what you have cited, do you know that fruit and vegetables are evaluated in the same way? In addition, if what you say is true (and I am NOT saying that I have reason to believe it false) then why do so many think that subtracting fiber grams from carbohydrate grams does anything worthwhile?
Are you trying to stealthily accuse him of being a paid insert by Big Food? lol.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
In addition, food that is high in fructose tends to make most mammals sluggish because of the effect it has on ATP production and that would mean fewer calories burned. Watching slim children and chubby children and the way that they eat and move shows how we vary in terms of energy production. It has been observed, in several studies, that slim children move a lot more than chubby children. It has also been observed that, in chubby children, eating sugary foods seemed to make them more sluggish and in slim children, eating sugary foods (especially chocolate--likely because of the caffeine boost) often seemed to make them even more active. Eventually, even the slim children can become plump if they continuously eat too many sweets without burning them off. A number of studies have focused on the observation that many children do not become fat until they enter school and are forced to become more sedentary.
There are many who are genetically pre-disposed to "diabesity". There is an obvious survival-advantage for those with this genetic makeup since, historically, food security has plagued most populations in the past. Disease though, is often the result when those individuals are constantly exposed to plentiful supplies of calorie dense-nutrient poor food. Researchers have coined the word "diabesity" to refer to what they believe is essentially the same disease--the only difference being that those who are simply obese have adequate insulin supplies--at least for a time. They just get fatter as the body converts excess blood glucose into triglycerides and stuffs them into fat cells. But having to battle constant high blood glucose takes a toll as the body's cells become more and more insensitive to the effects of insulin. Type II diabetes starts and worsens, if the diet is not addressed. Finally, the beta cells in the pancreas are decimated due to having to constantly battle high blood glucose, and the Type II diabetic, becomes insulin-dependent.
Not only how much you eat but WHAT you eat is important to the complex bio-chemistry of "calories-in-calories-out". If it was so simple as eating less, everyone would lose weight and keep it off. Those who are successful in keeping excess fat off their bodies address what they eat as well as increasing the output of calories. The output part of the equation becomes more and more difficult in the aging body.
Yes, biochemistry is very complex and most of what you have put here really isn't true.
Prove it.
It's ironic you don't know which way this goes.
You are the one making the assertion that the information I presented was "false". Prove your assertion, by presenting contradictory information, please. Otherwise, you might want to keep your "counsel" to yourself as it will be ignored by most intelligent people.
No, claims require proof and claims introduced without proof can be dismissed without proof. That's a basic tenant of debate. I have merely indicated that your claims are incorrect.
The school boy fallacy you add is also misplaced.
Well, perhaps if this was a formal debate forum (which it is not) your claim would stand, but since it is an informal discussion forum, it does not. It is just a bit of triumphalism.
Fine, I'll just list a major issue and that is that it's not carbohydrate, nor the type of carbohydrate, intake that's the issue in the development of insulin resistance and Type II Diabetes. Just do a quick research on the medical literature and you will find that obesity (in particular visceral fat levels), drugs, genetics, and activity levels are your main risk factors with PCOS, smoking, stress and pregnancy as other large contributors. I imagine if you talk to the frutarians you will find that they all have extremely high levels of fructose intake and they do not tend to have issues with IR or type II diabetes unless they are also obese, which seems to be rare from my understanding.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.
Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:
1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.
Pretty technical information from someone who is just a casual participant in these forums. There are internet people who are "internet persuaders" who work for various corporations (food processors, for example) and collect money for each post. While, it seems that food processors would be likely to follow what you have cited, do you know that fruit and vegetables are evaluated in the same way? In addition, if what you say is true (and I am NOT saying that I have reason to believe it false) then why do so many think that subtracting fiber grams from carbohydrate grams does anything worthwhile?
Are you trying to stealthily accuse him of being a paid insert by Big Food? lol.
Hahahaha. I was wondering the same thing. So @rankinsect, how much are you making per post? You gonna be rich! :laugh:0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »This is definitely not true for me! I find potatoes very filling!
Besides, a roughly 6 oz bakes russet potato with the skin has 3.8g fiber, 926mg potassium, 4.3g protein, 27% of recommended Vitamin C, and very little fat. What's so empty about that?
Generally, a potato for example is filling because there's a lot of volume but it digests very quickly and leaves you hungry. Unless you put some butter, sour cream, etc., or eat it with some meat or something with a lower GI.
But at the end of the day if it works for you, keep it up.
Potatoes have fiber and "resistant starch" which makes them slower to digest. Add a bit of butter and/or sour cream and you slow the digestion further (as you have noted). Potatoes are actually a pretty good bang for your calorie buck as long as you don't fry them. The high temperatures of frying denature many frying oils (many of them are unhealthy to start with because of production methods) and make those potatoes somewhat unhealthy.
Potatoes don't have a great deal of resistant starch unless they are boiled and then cooled. They are fairly quick digesting if not.
And yet they score very high on the satiety index, which indicates that GI or even GL isn't the whole story.
Apparently (although I haven't done much to look into this) the conclusion of those doing the satiety work was that adding fat tended to make people less satisfied/wanting to eat more, because it added to palatability, even though it would tend to make GI lower, I think. This is consistent with my own experience, although definitely not some of the common wisdom you run into on MFP.0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.
Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:
1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.
Pretty technical information from someone who is just a casual participant in these forums. There are internet people who are "internet persuaders" who work for various corporations (food processors, for example) and collect money for each post. While, it seems that food processors would be likely to follow what you have cited, do you know that fruit and vegetables are evaluated in the same way? In addition, if what you say is true (and I am NOT saying that I have reason to believe it false) then why do so many think that subtracting fiber grams from carbohydrate grams does anything worthwhile?
Are you trying to stealthily accuse him of being a paid insert by Big Food? lol.
Hahahaha. I was wondering the same thing. So @rankinsect, how much are you making per post? You gonna be rich! :laugh:
Lol I wish I was getting paid per post, I could quit my day job!0 -
rankinsect wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.
Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:
1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.
Pretty technical information from someone who is just a casual participant in these forums. There are internet people who are "internet persuaders" who work for various corporations (food processors, for example) and collect money for each post. While, it seems that food processors would be likely to follow what you have cited, do you know that fruit and vegetables are evaluated in the same way? In addition, if what you say is true (and I am NOT saying that I have reason to believe it false) then why do so many think that subtracting fiber grams from carbohydrate grams does anything worthwhile?
Are you trying to stealthily accuse him of being a paid insert by Big Food? lol.
Hahahaha. I was wondering the same thing. So @rankinsect, how much are you making per post? You gonna be rich! :laugh:
Lol I wish I was getting paid per post, I could quit my day job!
And I'll take a PR job like that too!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »This is definitely not true for me! I find potatoes very filling!
Besides, a roughly 6 oz bakes russet potato with the skin has 3.8g fiber, 926mg potassium, 4.3g protein, 27% of recommended Vitamin C, and very little fat. What's so empty about that?
Generally, a potato for example is filling because there's a lot of volume but it digests very quickly and leaves you hungry. Unless you put some butter, sour cream, etc., or eat it with some meat or something with a lower GI.
But at the end of the day if it works for you, keep it up.
Potatoes have fiber and "resistant starch" which makes them slower to digest. Add a bit of butter and/or sour cream and you slow the digestion further (as you have noted). Potatoes are actually a pretty good bang for your calorie buck as long as you don't fry them. The high temperatures of frying denature many frying oils (many of them are unhealthy to start with because of production methods) and make those potatoes somewhat unhealthy.
Potatoes don't have a great deal of resistant starch unless they are boiled and then cooled. They are fairly quick digesting if not.
And yet they score very high on the satiety index, which indicates that GI or even GL isn't the whole story.
There was no story. Just false information, which I corrected.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.
Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:
1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.
Pretty technical information from someone who is just a casual participant in these forums. There are internet people who are "internet persuaders" who work for various corporations (food processors, for example) and collect money for each post. While, it seems that food processors would be likely to follow what you have cited, do you know that fruit and vegetables are evaluated in the same way? In addition, if what you say is true (and I am NOT saying that I have reason to believe it false) then why do so many think that subtracting fiber grams from carbohydrate grams does anything worthwhile?
Are you trying to stealthily accuse him of being a paid insert by Big Food? lol.
Hahahaha. I was wondering the same thing. So @rankinsect, how much are you making per post? You gonna be rich! :laugh:
Lol I wish I was getting paid per post, I could quit my day job!
Hmmm... I wonder how one goes about getting such a position. I'm sure I would be willing to lie for the coin (maybe not). Ethical dilemma! Glad to see you using your sciency mind here
0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.
Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:
1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.
Pretty technical information from someone who is just a casual participant in these forums. There are internet people who are "internet persuaders" who work for various corporations (food processors, for example) and collect money for each post. While, it seems that food processors would be likely to follow what you have cited, do you know that fruit and vegetables are evaluated in the same way? In addition, if what you say is true (and I am NOT saying that I have reason to believe it false) then why do so many think that subtracting fiber grams from carbohydrate grams does anything worthwhile?
Are you trying to stealthily accuse him of being a paid insert by Big Food? lol.
Hahahaha. I was wondering the same thing. So @rankinsect, how much are you making per post? You gonna be rich! :laugh:
Lol I wish I was getting paid per post, I could quit my day job!
Hmmm... I wonder how one goes about getting such a position. I'm sure I would be willing to lie for the coin (maybe not). Ethical dilemma! Glad to see you using your sciency mind here
Or, given that the information on Atwater factors and modifiers (and arguments with the EU) are pretty non-technical - it suggests that people really don't follow the basic discussions about how calories are identified in foods.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »This is definitely not true for me! I find potatoes very filling!
Besides, a roughly 6 oz bakes russet potato with the skin has 3.8g fiber, 926mg potassium, 4.3g protein, 27% of recommended Vitamin C, and very little fat. What's so empty about that?
Generally, a potato for example is filling because there's a lot of volume but it digests very quickly and leaves you hungry. Unless you put some butter, sour cream, etc., or eat it with some meat or something with a lower GI.
But at the end of the day if it works for you, keep it up.
Potatoes have fiber and "resistant starch" which makes them slower to digest. Add a bit of butter and/or sour cream and you slow the digestion further (as you have noted). Potatoes are actually a pretty good bang for your calorie buck as long as you don't fry them. The high temperatures of frying denature many frying oils (many of them are unhealthy to start with because of production methods) and make those potatoes somewhat unhealthy.
Potatoes don't have a great deal of resistant starch unless they are boiled and then cooled. They are fairly quick digesting if not.
And yet they score very high on the satiety index, which indicates that GI or even GL isn't the whole story.
There was no story. Just false information, which I corrected.
By story, I was referring to the assertion upthread (not yours) that high GI means low satiety.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.
Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:
1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.
Pretty technical information from someone who is just a casual participant in these forums. There are internet people who are "internet persuaders" who work for various corporations (food processors, for example) and collect money for each post. While, it seems that food processors would be likely to follow what you have cited, do you know that fruit and vegetables are evaluated in the same way? In addition, if what you say is true (and I am NOT saying that I have reason to believe it false) then why do so many think that subtracting fiber grams from carbohydrate grams does anything worthwhile?
Are you trying to stealthily accuse him of being a paid insert by Big Food? lol.
Hahahaha. I was wondering the same thing. So @rankinsect, how much are you making per post? You gonna be rich! :laugh:
Lol I wish I was getting paid per post, I could quit my day job!
Hmmm... I wonder how one goes about getting such a position. I'm sure I would be willing to lie for the coin (maybe not). Ethical dilemma! Glad to see you using your sciency mind here
Or, given that the information on Atwater factors and modifiers (and arguments with the EU) are pretty non-technical - it suggests that people really don't follow the basic discussions about how calories are identified in foods.
This is true. I certainly haven't.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Fine, you want proof one of them is wrong?SanteMulberry wrote: »Ultimately, it is "calories in-calories out" but there are a great many things that influence both sides of the equation. Fiber in a carbohydrate food lowers its effective "calories-in" because, while they measure calories in a lab, by burning it in a bomb-calorimeter, it doesn't take into account that fiber burns but it doesn't provide calories (wood burns quite well and provides lots of heat, but would not provide calories if we would eat it).
Bomb calorimetry is only one of the five FDA allowed methods to calculate calories, and the least used, because it tends to overestimate calories, both in fiber and in protein, which are not fully oxidized. Companies don't like putting bigger numbers onto packaging and typically will do more accurate testing to get better numbers.
Most calorie counts use Atwater factors - multipliers for macros - and the FDA permits several types of methods:
1. The 4-4-9 system where total carb, protein, and fat are included. This takes into account incomplete protein oxidation (Atwater's factors come from bomb calorimetry of food but subtracting bomb calorimetry of urine and feces to account for undigested calories)
2. A modified 4-4-9 system where insoluble dietary fiber is subtracted from carbohydrates
3. Specific Atwater factors that take into account the source of the macronutrient - for example, glucose has less than 4 calories per gram.
Pretty technical information from someone who is just a casual participant in these forums. There are internet people who are "internet persuaders" who work for various corporations (food processors, for example) and collect money for each post. While, it seems that food processors would be likely to follow what you have cited, do you know that fruit and vegetables are evaluated in the same way? In addition, if what you say is true (and I am NOT saying that I have reason to believe it false) then why do so many think that subtracting fiber grams from carbohydrate grams does anything worthwhile?
Low carb diet gurus at a guess.
Atkins for certain told his diet's followers to subtract fiber from total carbs before checking against the limit he imposed. Pretty sure it's in other diets as well.
0 -
I think a lot of people miss the point -- of course it is about CICO -- but what kind of diet can you eat that helps you stay within your calorie macro for weight loss? For me, I feel fuller, more satiated, low cravings, less hunger, and more like vigorously exercising/lifting weights when I eat a higher protein, lower carb, no high sugar (added or natural) diet. So you can eat a low calorie crap diet and feel like crap (and may be more prone to overeating when you get hungry or feel lousy) or you can figure out what macros work for you long term and help you maintain lower calorie count for weight loss. The whole thing is that when people started eating lower fat diets, they didn't feel satisfied and made up the difference with high carb/sugary foods -- a clear recipe for disaster if you are trying to keep calories low enough to lose weight.0
-
missblondi2u wrote: »Because this is an interview (as opposed to an academic paper that's couched in more scientific language), I think there is an element of oversimplification at the beginning, but it's important to read through to the end. What he is saying is that due to our overconsumption of processed carbs and sugars, we have become fat, but our brains and even our bodies don't recognize that the calories stored in our fat cells are accessible for energy. Therefore, even though we are fat, we are constantly hungry. He also discusses this theory in conjunction with insulin and Type II diabetes. In a way, I understand it. While I've never experienced this constant hunger and was never more than moderately overweight (around a 26 BMI after an injury), my husband who is overweight and diabetic and makes jokes ("fat cells never go away, they just shrink"), says he is constantly hungry and that when I can just stop eating something because I'm full, he tells me "You don't understand how a fat person thinks/feels." For example, I wear a FItbit HR, and it kind of predicts when I'll be hungry -- if the calories burned are more than I've consumed, say after exercise, I do feel quite hungry. But if I sit around all day and I've eaten what I've burned, I'm not that hungry. However, my husband can be sedentary all day and yet feel much hungrier than I do even if I'm active, and even if he's eaten much more than I have. I think this article captures the reason for that insatiability of the overweight-obese person. Ludwig's solution is to stop eating some of those foods that fuel that craving/hunger -- processed carbs, sugars, etc.
This sounds absurd. Our brains and bodies (not sure those are two separate things, but whatever) know those calories are there and will use them for energy when needed. If not then people on a deficit would starve to death while remaining fat, which is clearly not reality. The problem is if we keep eating more calories than we burn our bodies don't need to use the stored fat because they have enough fuel, plus extra to store for later.
To be fair, as described by the poster you're quoting, this Dr. Ludwig appears to be arguing that people feel hungry despite all the stored fat because they're eating too many carbs, not that their bodies won't use the stored energy and starve to death while remaining fat (I didn't read it myself, because the quoted bits on here clearly indicate it would be a total waste of time). I still think it's silly. Sure, meals with different macro makeups and the same calories may keep people from feeling hungry different lengths of time, but no matter what you eat, if you go long enough without eating, you're going to feel hungry, even if you are fat and thus have stored energy. Obese people in ketosis don't start saying, "no thanks, not hungry" and eat nothing whatsoever for weeks or months until they drop down to minimum healthy BF% for their gender.0 -
I think a lot of people miss the point -- of course it is about CICO -- but what kind of diet can you eat that helps you stay within your calorie macro for weight loss? For me, I feel fuller, more satiated, low cravings, less hunger, and more like vigorously exercising/lifting weights when I eat a higher protein, lower carb, no high sugar (added or natural) diet. So you can eat a low calorie crap diet and feel like crap (and may be more prone to overeating when you get hungry or feel lousy) or you can figure out what macros work for you long term and help you maintain lower calorie count for weight loss. The whole thing is that when people started eating lower fat diets, they didn't feel satisfied and made up the difference with high carb/sugary foods -- a clear recipe for disaster if you are trying to keep calories low enough to lose weight.
That's pretty much my feeling and what I discovered in the beginning when I started losing weight/learning more about food. Sure, a handful of Oreos taste nice, but do you KNOW how much broccoli I can eat for the same amount of calories?!?!!
0 -
I think a lot of people miss the point -- of course it is about CICO -- but what kind of diet can you eat that helps you stay within your calorie macro for weight loss? For me, I feel fuller, more satiated, low cravings, less hunger, and more like vigorously exercising/lifting weights when I eat a higher protein, lower carb, no high sugar (added or natural) diet. So you can eat a low calorie crap diet and feel like crap (and may be more prone to overeating when you get hungry or feel lousy) or you can figure out what macros work for you long term and help you maintain lower calorie count for weight loss. The whole thing is that when people started eating lower fat diets, they didn't feel satisfied and made up the difference with high carb/sugary foods -- a clear recipe for disaster if you are trying to keep calories low enough to lose weight.
Well partially true about low fat diets. Im fact, what happened was the Snackwell phenomenon where corporate interests decided to spin a great concept on its head. The research was pretty clear the low fat diets worked before that because people ate a lot of filling whole foods, which were high on fibre and lower in calories yet highly satisfying. The whole point was they ate fewer calories but weren't hungry so it works.
What the food industry did was take the low fat mantra without the fewer calories and gave us foods with pretty much the same amount of calories but without the same level of satiety. A lot of people do well in low fat, whole foods without issues.
I certainly agree with your main point that we need to find what works for us based on our tatses and the food available to us.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »This is definitely not true for me! I find potatoes very filling!
Besides, a roughly 6 oz bakes russet potato with the skin has 3.8g fiber, 926mg potassium, 4.3g protein, 27% of recommended Vitamin C, and very little fat. What's so empty about that?
Generally, a potato for example is filling because there's a lot of volume but it digests very quickly and leaves you hungry. Unless you put some butter, sour cream, etc., or eat it with some meat or something with a lower GI.
But at the end of the day if it works for you, keep it up.
Potatoes have fiber and "resistant starch" which makes them slower to digest. Add a bit of butter and/or sour cream and you slow the digestion further (as you have noted). Potatoes are actually a pretty good bang for your calorie buck as long as you don't fry them. The high temperatures of frying denature many frying oils (many of them are unhealthy to start with because of production methods) and make those potatoes somewhat unhealthy.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods
Here's a link to a Harvard Medical site listing out the GI for 100+ foods. Baked potato has the highest GI of any vegetable BY FAR and one of the highest of any of the foods on the list.
Lucozade®, original (sparkling glucose drink) is a sports drink (I've never heard of) and it's even lower than the potato. GI translates into how close the food is to being broken down sugar and relates to the insulin repose your body produces. In general, you only want high GI when you're working out and need the energy immediately.
It's great you all are getting full from baked potato but my point is they produce a high insulin response and digest very quickly.0 -
If one ate 100 grams of "processed" sugar a day (400 calories) then made sure they had the rest of their protein and fats met along with micronutrients, BUT didn't exceed their TDEE, you're going to tell me they are going to get obese?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
I don't actually believe people these days overeat because we are so much hungrier than we used to be. I think humans (or many humans) will easily and mindlessly consume food that is around and available, especially if tasty, if they don't have habits in place that restrict them from doing so.
When I was growing up food was less likely to be around all the time everywhere, and culturally there were more restrictions on eating -- you really didn't eat between mealtimes except for perhaps one planned snack (after school, perhaps).
I probably ate as poorly as at any time in my life when I was in college (lived in the dorm, ate dorm food), but I never overate because there was rarely any call to eat between meals. When food isn't available I tend not to think about it, and on the other hand when I'm in the habit of eating lots of stuff between meals (like after I did a bike trip where I was biking and snacking all day) I find myself wanting to snack against until I wean myself off of it.
I'm totally in favor of eating healthfully (which for me doesn't mean low carb, but may still have some similarities with what Ludwig is recommending), but I do not think we overeat as a society because people are so extra hungry.0 -
If one ate 100 grams of "processed" sugar a day (400 calories) then made sure they had the rest of their protein and fats met along with micronutrients, BUT didn't exceed their TDEE, you're going to tell me they are going to get obese?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I don't think that's what the article said, is it? It seemed to skip over how we get overweight/obese and moves right on to what keeps us that way.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »This is definitely not true for me! I find potatoes very filling!
Besides, a roughly 6 oz bakes russet potato with the skin has 3.8g fiber, 926mg potassium, 4.3g protein, 27% of recommended Vitamin C, and very little fat. What's so empty about that?
Generally, a potato for example is filling because there's a lot of volume but it digests very quickly and leaves you hungry. Unless you put some butter, sour cream, etc., or eat it with some meat or something with a lower GI.
But at the end of the day if it works for you, keep it up.
Potatoes have fiber and "resistant starch" which makes them slower to digest. Add a bit of butter and/or sour cream and you slow the digestion further (as you have noted). Potatoes are actually a pretty good bang for your calorie buck as long as you don't fry them. The high temperatures of frying denature many frying oils (many of them are unhealthy to start with because of production methods) and make those potatoes somewhat unhealthy.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods
Here's a link to a Harvard Medical site listing out the GI for 100+ foods. Baked potato has the highest GI of any vegetable BY FAR and one of the highest of any of the foods on the list.
Lucozade®, original (sparkling glucose drink) is a sports drink (I've never heard of) and it's even lower than the potato. GI translates into how close the food is to being broken down sugar and relates to the insulin repose your body produces. In general, you only want high GI when you're working out and need the energy immediately.
It's great you all are getting full from baked potato but my point is they produce a high insulin response and digest very quickly.
The glycemic index, while it might be interesting for diabetics, is actually not a very good predictor of how sating a food is. Susanna Holt's studies on the satiety index of several common foods actually put boiled or baked potatoes as the number one most sating food. Insulin is one part of appetite suppression, but only a part - there are plenty of other inputs that are all integrated into our hunger and satiety signals.0 -
I think what you eat does influence how much you eat. If you want to lose weight you need to eat less or expend more energy, this is true, but there are powerful psychological factors behind eating.
Saying "eat less, exercise more and you'll lose weight" is like saying "don't buy cigarettes and don't accept them from other people and you'll give up smoking". Certain foods reduce cravings for food, and others increase them. Of course if you have sufficient willpower you can just stop, eating or smoking, but not everyone can do that. Changing what you eat can influence how much you eat. You still need to eat less and/or exercise more.
Also I notice the good doctor has a book to sell.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »This is definitely not true for me! I find potatoes very filling!
Besides, a roughly 6 oz bakes russet potato with the skin has 3.8g fiber, 926mg potassium, 4.3g protein, 27% of recommended Vitamin C, and very little fat. What's so empty about that?
Generally, a potato for example is filling because there's a lot of volume but it digests very quickly and leaves you hungry. Unless you put some butter, sour cream, etc., or eat it with some meat or something with a lower GI.
But at the end of the day if it works for you, keep it up.
Potatoes have fiber and "resistant starch" which makes them slower to digest. Add a bit of butter and/or sour cream and you slow the digestion further (as you have noted). Potatoes are actually a pretty good bang for your calorie buck as long as you don't fry them. The high temperatures of frying denature many frying oils (many of them are unhealthy to start with because of production methods) and make those potatoes somewhat unhealthy.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods
Here's a link to a Harvard Medical site listing out the GI for 100+ foods. Baked potato has the highest GI of any vegetable BY FAR and one of the highest of any of the foods on the list.
Lucozade®, original (sparkling glucose drink) is a sports drink (I've never heard of) and it's even lower than the potato. GI translates into how close the food is to being broken down sugar and relates to the insulin repose your body produces. In general, you only want high GI when you're working out and need the energy immediately.
It's great you all are getting full from baked potato but my point is they produce a high insulin response and digest very quickly.
Not really. Unless it is all you are eating and unless you are eating them piping hot. Simple GI scores can basically be ignored by a healthy eater counting calories if no issues with regards to satiety exist.
Potatoes (actual, real world, real person) GI and GLs depend on total meal, with or without skin, cooling period, intestinal motility, prior meals, etc... It's basically been found that, other than in the lab, GI can be ignored in he healthy dieter - in fact, post meal glycemic overshoot isn't that likely with potatoes or if you exercise regularly.0 -
Q.
If it’s not overeating, then what is the underlying cause of obesity?
A.
It’s the low fat, very high carbohydrate diet that we’ve been eating for the last 40 years, which raises levels of the hormone insulin and programs fat cells to go into calorie storage overdrive. I like to think of insulin as the ultimate fat cell fertilizer.
And this guy has a Ph. D........... wow.........
Honestly, I'm not sure this is all that bad. He has a wierd way of saying it but primarily seems to be arguing not that CICO is inherently wrong, but more that eating in the high sugar manner makes it difficult, if not impossible to begin to follow CICO because of the resultant hormonal changes.0 -
Didn't read it. Assumed since it's Ludwig, it had to be another claim against how bad sugar is for us.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If one ate 100 grams of "processed" sugar a day (400 calories) then made sure they had the rest of their protein and fats met along with micronutrients, BUT didn't exceed their TDEE, you're going to tell me they are going to get obese?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I don't think that's what the article said, is it? It seemed to skip over how we get overweight/obese and moves right on to what keeps us that way.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions