All calories may not be equal

gonetothedogs19 wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

...in otherwords, if you find a "calorie" that is not equivalent to another "calorie" its because you measured wrong, not because somehow calories don't equal calories.

Its literally like someone saying hey this 7 inch thing is longer than this other 7 inch thing. First thing that should come into your mind is "I guess one of them was measured incorrectly" not "sounds scientific to me"

Once again, stating that if you eat 2,000 calories of donuts everyday for several years, you would weigh exactly the same if you ate a healthy well-balanced diet (which includes donuts now and then) of 2,000 calories for several years. Please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHHcdEWL0Nc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33jXWpeACAc

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

Isabelle_1929 wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

Isabelle_1929 wrote: »

I think that the obesity epidemic can be explained in part by this type of thread.

The problem is that everybody is so sure to know all there is to know about weight and nutrition. Yet everyone and their dog is on a perpetual diet: gains, and loses, and gain and loses again.

Our weight is out of control but man, do we HAVE the KNOWLEDGE or what?

AND THE SCIENCE! AND FACTS !

Crazy times.

Ok, off to sleep.

Qui dort, dîne ...

There are basics. Math works here. Eat more than you burn, you gain. Eat less than you burn, you lose. Eat what you burn, you maintain. That's not disputed in any Journal of science.

The PROBLEM is people are fallible with how THEY CONTROL the diet they choose.

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 disagree with you. But you are talking about the tree, while I was talking about the whole forest.

A diet is as a whole system. Like any computer or information system: it must include the "user". Ex. You are responsible for designing and maintaining the information system, say, of an insurance company. A problem occurs with the program: it does't work as it should and you find that the proximate cause, is the user's actions. They don't use the right command or forget to use capital letters, for example. As a IT specialist you should not say: "My system's great and perfect as it is - but the users can't use it right and that's the problem. So I'll leave it to the managers to deal with their staff issues." That would be ridiculous, of course, because the users - the insurance company's staff in my example -, with their knowledge, or lack thereof, and the way they actually work on their computers on a daily basis, ARE part of the system that you designed.

Of course managers will do their job, and training should be provided to users; but a system will always have to take the users as they are NOW.

It's the exact same things with "diets". They should be seen as a system.

And last time I checked, my brain was a body part. For some reason most diets - including CICO, are designed as if the brain was not a body part. Like it's detached, floating in a Formol jar or something, and you can bring it to a therapist at the end of the week to have it fixed, while the rest of the body is eating clean, doing diligent interval workout and posting the whole on Instagram.

"The diet's great, but your brain is flawed."

This sentence just does not make sense to me. Not when you look at the forest, i.e. thousands of people, over decades.

Sorry, but go anywhere in the world and people who are starving because they can't afford food, or it's unobtainable, are thin. Go to a country where food is abundant, obtainable and affordable to that person and the increase of getting overweight/obese greatly increases.

If a diet isn't working (barring any health issue), it will usually come down to: one isn't consuming what they need to, to reach whatever goal they are trying to achieve or one isn't accurately measuring their TDEE. That's where the "users" fail in the system.
If you took someone in a coma who was overweight, then reduced their intake from what they are used to, they will lose weight. The brain had nothing to do with it since it's dormant at that stage.
People fail because of many reasons. Lack of discipline, lack of commitment, lack of true desire, etc., but the body works systematically when it comes to consuming of energy. You can't dictate all protein to just go to your muscles. Especially on a low carb diet. The body will systematically use what's consumed, how it sees fit based on that person's activity whether it be low or high.

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

So just go open up a Cheesecake Factory in the poor countries is your solution?

Hornsby wrote: »

Calling CICO a diet really shows you don't even know what CICO is.

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

ninerbuff wrote: »

BreezeDoveal wrote: »

auddii wrote: »

An efficient metabolism is able to do more work with less input.

ETA: Just like an efficient car gets better gas mileage, so you need to fill it up less often.

Some people convert their cars to run on grease trap leavings. They then collect the leavings for free so their car essentially is the best mileage of all when you think about the costs.
Maybe some people's metabolisms are like that.

Lol, when you say "convert" you're talking about someone changing their genetics?

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

So explain how epigenetics changes DNA sequence. I'd like to hear it.

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'm not sure you understand what DNA is when you ask that question.
If your DNA doesn't change, then explain why people can even lose weight by exercising more or eating better, instead of their weight just being what their DNA says it should be.

Lol, DNA DOESN'T say what your weight should be. Environment, lifestyle and habitual behavior contribute to that, but YOU'RE responsible for your own weight.
Yes I understand DNA just fine.
So again instead of avoiding questions like you have in the past, explain how epigentics changes DNA sequence? You brought it up.

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

Fine, I'll explain it to you since you can't follow.
DNA is like a recipe
5 free range omega-3 eggs
3 cups of gluten free non-GMO flour
1 cup of pure fair trade can sugar
1 pan
1 oven
Heat @400 for 2 hours
Yields 1 cake, 40 oz

Now, if I can never change that sequence as you put it, I can never make more than 1 cake. By your logic, people can't get fat because no matter how many ingredients (food) you have, you can't make more than one 40 oz cake (weight). Now, clearly, if you give someone more food or different food, you get different outputs, so clearly, the recipe can change, it isn't that rigid set of things above. It is your silly version where a person can't gain weight with more food because the recipe (DNA) is fixed exactly, and can't use more ingredients.

And this proves you don't understand how DNA works. Thanks for letting everyone know.

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

For someone that is claiming I'm ignoring his "are you still beating your wife" style question, you're sure not presenting anything as to why it is wrong.

It would be fruitless because you don't understand how DNA works in the first place. Not gonna waste my time on it.

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

Says the guy who insists it can't change but yet thinks it can make the same person two different weights depending on what goes in.

Mentali wrote: »

It actually kind of sucks when people get so nitpicky and scientific that the conversation becomes unsustainable because it's moved so far from the real world. I agree with the argument that a calorie is a calorie, but using the scientific definition of a calorie to claim the question doesn't make sense willfully ignores the actual content of the question and focuses on semantics so much that it becomes a meaningless argument. Sure, you might win that particular point, but you're not doing anything to move the conversation forward and have narrowed the scope to a point that the original conversation can't even be discussed.

It's kind of like if someone came in here saying "I want to weigh less, will eating less carbs do that?" and someone started arguing with them that they're misusing the word "less" by not specifying what they want to weigh less than and continuing to argue it until the conversation is about the definition of the word "less". Yeah, you may be right from a technical standpoint, but now the conversation is about the definition of "less" and not the actual question.

pianoplaya94 wrote: »

Why is this thread 19 pages of trying to disprove the facts of chemistry?

Calorie definition: "the energy it takes to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water through 1 °C". Simple as that. The scientific definition does not change base on what we eat. So 200 calories of meat or almonds or cookies or sugar or cake or chocolate chips all provide the exact same amount of energy to our bodies (although technically our food is measure in kilocalories which = 1000 calories). There is no debate on this and there shouldn't be... 200kcals of energy is 200kcals of energy, and it takes the same amount of energy to burn no matter what you eat. Sort of like the "muscle weighs more than fat argument". No, 1 pound of muscle and 1 found of fat and 1 found of feathers equals 1 pound (it's just muscle is more dense so makes you look leaner). If those who eat "clean" for one year lose more weight than those who eat the same amount of calories in junk food, then something else is going on that is not accounted for. And since this is not a peer-reviewed scientific study, there could be so many confounding factors! Like maybe those who ate junk food underestimated what they were eating (which is easy to do because it takes less food to reach 1000 calories of "junk" food than it will take for "clean" food). Or maybe those who ate "cleaner" were also more likely to exercise more often. This thread is hilarious because we are trying to prove a fact of chemistry that has been accepted by science since 1842.

Mentali wrote: »

It actually kind of sucks when people get so nitpicky and scientific that the conversation becomes unsustainable because it's moved so far from the real world. I agree with the argument that a calorie is a calorie, but using the scientific definition of a calorie to claim the question doesn't make sense willfully ignores the actual content of the question and focuses on semantics so much that it becomes a meaningless argument. Sure, you might win that particular point, but you're not doing anything to move the conversation forward and have narrowed the scope to a point that the original conversation can't even be discussed.

It's kind of like if someone came in here saying "I want to weigh less, will eating less carbs do that?" and someone started arguing with them that they're misusing the word "less" by not specifying what they want to weigh less than and continuing to argue it until the conversation is about the definition of the word "less". Yeah, you may be right from a technical standpoint, but now the conversation is about the definition of "less" and not the actual question.