Right calories vs less calories

lisawinning4losing wrote: »

It's a myth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5ewexMZ1-o

Abbreviated version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U36XJaETbh8

Starvation used to be a hairsbreadth away for most of the population, so calories don't real?
It relies on mistakes about correlation and causation. The knowledge of how diet and calories is rising concurrent with rises in obesity is because people want to fix the issue. Saying it goes the other way, or doesn't work is like saying solar panels cause global warming, because the more we've developed solar panel technology, the more global warming has advanced, and it is getting worse at a greater rate despite the increase in carbon neutral technology.
Then the hormones and nature. Totally false premise view of what is being overweight. I am tired of having to say this again and again on this board - gaining weight from overeating is expected, gaining weight tends to lead to health problems, it is not a state of being unhealthy that causes weight in and of itself. What would be unhealthy is eating large quantities of food and NOT gaining weight. Take a look at Lizzie Velasquez for what happens if you can burn off food effortlessly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizzie_Velásquez#Condition .
Also, the guy can't even differential equation. Yes, calories have gone up by X/day and yes (X*days since obesity expidemic)/3500calories/pound = +800 pounds, but that isn't how it works. It isn't that the math doesn't make sense, it is that it is an assine way to apply the math because you're afraid of having to use a mathematical series and break out your calculus - the more calories you've consumed, the more calories you've stored, the more calories it takes to continue to move. The math can explain it actually model the problem properly and don't think the integral sign is against the Geneva Convention. Heck, the USDA's weight loss and calorie tracking App uses all that same calories in calories out, and yes, it too figures out weight loss or gain will peter out - that it forms an asymptotic function instead of a linear slope.

Honestly, his own reasoning contradicts the possibility of his program working. As he's said, calories can't be right, or we'd have solved the obesity crisis. Well he has to hold himself to the same standard.
1. If Jonathan Bailor is right, then we've solved the obesity crisis.
2. There is still an obesisty crisis
3. By contrapositive of 1, combined with 2, we have Jonathan Bailor is not right
4. QED

lisawinning4losing wrote: »

It's a myth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5ewexMZ1-o

Abbreviated version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U36XJaETbh8

I'm gonna tell you this with the utmost respect: You seem to hang on to literally every woo diet myth that is around from what I can tell by your posts in the last few days. We're trying to help you understand that people trying to sell you diet programs via youtube videos are not science and how some of the things you've been linking did not say what you thought they were saying whatsoever. We're trying to help you but you don't seem to want to listen to what others have to say to you. Please reconsider that stance.

lisawinning4losing wrote: »

The only thing Jonathan Bailor is selling is a book, which is based on a review of 1,300 different scientific studies. It's been endorsed by doctors from John Hopkins, Harvard, Yale, UCLA, etc. He comes from his own experience as a personal trainer, seeing how the old traditional advice is failing people. And it's not like he doesn't understand science or logic, seeing as he's also a senior program engineer with 25 patents.

I never believed in hokey diet products or things sold on infomercials, nor have I ever tried such products. I'm now beginning to question the increasingly hokey sounding "calories in, calories out" myth that studies have shown has a 95 percent failure rate. For most people who try to use it, it's called yo yo dieting. You might as well just call it the Yo Yo Diet, because that's what it is. As soon as you stop counting calories, you start gaining weight back. And who is honestly going to count calories every day for the rest of their life, and is that even the healthiest way? 50 years ago nobody even knew what a calorie was, and yet obesity was very rare.

The whole "calories in, calories out" philosophy is actually a boon for manufacturers who can now sell you anything based on how many calories are in it.

I stopped listening as soon as I read the word "woo". It's a very closed minded, condescending word that adds nothing to the conversation, and it literally has no definition. There is nothing "woo" about the idea of eating healthy food and avoiding junk food. That should be common sense. The sad part is that someone actually had to write a whole book to explain that.

These videos just keep getting better and better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3XKdU17APY

You know what patents mean as credentials? That you had enough money to file a patent application.
What study has shown a particular diet method has a 95% failure rate? I've seen 90% of dieters in general fail repeated over and over - it is also based on a complete hoodwink. It comes from the first study to check if diets work - done in the 1950s where they used the cutting edge intervention of giving overweight people a pamphlet with some suggestions, and then checked back in a year who weighed less.

GaleHawkins wrote: »

lisawinning4losing wrote: »

The only thing Jonathan Bailor is selling is a book, which is based on a review of 1,300 different scientific studies. It's been endorsed by doctors from John Hopkins, Harvard, Yale, UCLA, etc. He comes from his own experience as a personal trainer, seeing how the old traditional advice is failing people. And it's not like he doesn't understand science or logic, seeing as he's also a senior program engineer with 25 patents.

I never believed in hokey diet products or things sold on infomercials, nor have I ever tried such products. I'm now beginning to question the increasingly hokey sounding "calories in, calories out" myth that studies have shown has a 95 percent failure rate. For most people who try to use it, it's called yo yo dieting. You might as well just call it the Yo Yo Diet, because that's what it is. As soon as you stop counting calories, you start gaining weight back. And who is honestly going to count calories every day for the rest of their life, and is that even the healthiest way? 50 years ago nobody even knew what a calorie was, and yet obesity was very rare.

The whole "calories in, calories out" philosophy is actually a boon for manufacturers who can now sell you anything based on how many calories are in it.

I stopped listening as soon as I read the word "woo". It's a very closed minded, condescending word that adds nothing to the conversation, and it literally has no definition. There is nothing "woo" about the idea of eating healthy food and avoiding junk food. That should be common sense. The sad part is that someone actually had to write a whole book to explain that.

These videos just keep getting better and better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3XKdU17APY

https://grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/thermo1.html

@lisawinning4losing CICO as used to talk about weight has nothing to do with they First Law of Thermodynamics as you can read. CICO is not a myth because calories do count because without them we will die.

CICO is a valid concept in the lab but CICO as discussed typically involving discussions about weight management is not based on science or logic but is more like a discussion about religion or politics. I am sure you have picked up on the similarities between diet and religion discussions already. They are really one and the same when you think about it because both are based on beliefs and not science and logic. The human body is an adapting organism meaning as soon as we cut CI and increase CO we do not know the changes what happens or at least in a way that we can measure.

When a discussion about weight starts to be supported by beliefs and not science it is time to withdrawal from the discussion perhaps. To say CICO is based on the First Law of Thermodynamics just is not based on science and logic.

LOL, CICO, the religion. I'll avoid all the typical new era atheist jokes about when science gets compared to religion.
If you say CICO isn't thermodynamics, you don't understand what a calorie is or what the laws of thermodynamics are, or where they apply.