Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Options
Replies
-
theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »If these factors, which are constantly in flux, affect metabolism (which they do), then how does one know how many calories they are actually burning on any particular day or group of days?
You seem to be exaggerating how much they affect metabolism. (How many calories we burn is going to be most affected by set things and movement.)
More significantly, you know how many calories you burn over a period of time (and on average over shorter periods of time) by results. They should not vary dramatically from week to week if movement is constant.
The idea that you need to know exactly for any practical purpose isn't right.
Thus, CICO works even though we will not know exact numbers or every input.
Yet it doesn't work for everyone. And more importantly, a simple CICO without regards to the effect certain foods may have on one's health in general or specific ways makes no sense. Maybe you might lose weight, but set yourself up for senility, Alzheimer's, heart disease, stroke, etc as you age.
Heck, CICO is so simple in concept that it's really attractive.
The fact is, take the microbiome from a thin person and put it into a fat oerson, the fat person WILL lose weight to MATCH the weight of the thin person, with no special attention paid to CICO. And the reverse is true.
If we get to the basics of calories, a calorie is simply the amount of energy required to heat 1 kg of water by 1 degree Celsius.
Excess calories do cause weight gain. Calorie deficits cause weight loss.
But isn't that a tremendous oversimplification of the entire process? That treats all calories as essentially equal. But they aren't. Different macronutrients go through different metabolic pathways.
Compare 100 calories of fructose to 100 calories if protein.
Fructose enters the liver, can be stored as glycogen until the liver is full, then it's stored as fat. Fructose consumed in abundance can cause insulin resistance, rising insulin levels which then increases the amount of stored fat. The body doesn't respond to fructose even the same way it does glucose; like I said before, it doesn't lower the hormone ghrelin which turns on hunger and keeps it turned on until lowered, so doesn't help at all with satiety.
Do you have any idea what it feels like to have eaten a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger?
Protein, on the otherhand, causes the body to burn approximently the equivalent of 30% of its calories in the process of digesting it, so you lose about 30 calories right off the bat. The metabolic pathway protein goes through requires energy expenditure itself. Now that 100 calories of protein is just 70 calories you body has to burn. 30% is not insignificant.
Protein also helps to increase the sense of fullness, and it can boost the metabolic rate.
So compare the calories from a can of soda and the same calories from eggs over a period of years. I guarantee you they do not have the same effect on the body, and the difference is not insignificant.
Understanding how micronutrients affect our appetites, hunger and satiety and properly balancing them to get the results we want makes the difference between success and failure unless one is truly a gluten for punishment and wants to struggle against their own body's messages.
In this study comparing a low carb diet to a calorie restricted low fat diet, the ones on the low carb diet would become satiated without worrying about counting calories and lost more fat that the low fat dieters did with calorie restriction. Table here:
https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/jcem/88/4/10.1210_jc.2002-021480/2/eg0439372003.jpeg?Expires=1501275274&Signature=WdbBj-armQXajWCmuPpmM5S4qVRLk6zx9XZlKsJLNl5MdNatZuwOegtNdLabyPUc-zOAVA62~etUl2iGGLYR-~patV3k-KEi~uvgIDeI0R7N6rBcp3kD8WFKKPdlN-OyPt833cyy2S5HpxRAjDS9tvElmBcmtcSR9MnWErpO63qiMIhImWtNYxv3XETFrFOD-u5TK1G9cKVkDCxGEBRci2-u2vc5-SIdYp3oBcDOtdhYY3MFPfYb73x7NeS7nxEbpImerlN8mngkX~cs6Fq2hQR~nVydFJjdItx7JEV1UW6W5lMCQ4cORrADlSMoGGBlHvcuq60Fc2zhb1h4zjRoOA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q
Study here:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
The researchers found:
"The results of this study demonstrate that a very low carbohydrate diet, taken without a specified restriction of caloric intake is effective for weight loss over a 6 month period in healthy obese women. Compared with the low fat group, who followed a diet conforming to currently recommended distribution of macronutrient calories, the very low carbohydrate group lost significantly more weight....... In addition, despite eating a high percentage of calories as fat and having relatively high intakes is saturated fat and cholesterol, the women in the very low carbohydrate group maintained normal levels of blood pressure, plasma lipids, glucose, and insulin."
A calorie is not simply a calorie in the human body.
This whole thing sounds to me like:
- Gravity works
- No it doesn't! A feather falls slower than a brick.
The calorie equation works. If you want to lose weight you need to eat fewer calories than you burn. That's all there is to it and there is no other way around it. How you go about it and whether you choose "value added" sources of calories is a whole other field of interest that can intersect with weight loss but not necessarily.
It bothers me when a topic as complicated as health is reduced to one one "fix it all" remedy, especially in the face of real life evidence to the contrary. I don't believe for one second that low carbing is necessary for health. It can be a healthy choice for some if they focus on "value added" foods, but eating healthfully can happen at any point of the macro spectrum and real life evidence confirms it. I also don't think food is all there is to health.
Just a side note: I know what it's like to eat a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger. I had that in full force when I attempted keto. I was absolutely starving all the time, both times. Starches fill me up and without them I go hungry. When will people admit that individuals are not study averages?
One, where did I say low carbing is the only remedy?
Simply because I referenced a study that compared low carb to low fat doesn't mean I'm endorsing solely one approach.
I referenced the study as an example that 1) demonstrates that you don't necessarily have to track the calories, which, and perhaps im not understanding, the CICO approach requires; 2) the study demonstrated how those on a low carb naturally, due to satiation, naturally limited their calories whereas those on a high carb, low fat diet had to track calories to limit their calories. The calorie charts show the low carb group actually taking in less calories without tracking than the high carb liw fat group.
I don't think anyone is saying that you will lose weight if you take in more calories than you burn, but from what I understand, the focus in CICO is primarily and predominately calories and all other factors take a back seat. You may lose weight, but easily in an unbalanced way that in the future could cause injury to your health.
Regardless of whether one uses low fat or low carb, it needs to be balanced because our health now, and in the future matters. What does it matter if you lose weight and end up with dementia later in life?
You are misunderstanding CICO.12 -
WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »If these factors, which are constantly in flux, affect metabolism (which they do), then how does one know how many calories they are actually burning on any particular day or group of days?
You seem to be exaggerating how much they affect metabolism. (How many calories we burn is going to be most affected by set things and movement.)
More significantly, you know how many calories you burn over a period of time (and on average over shorter periods of time) by results. They should not vary dramatically from week to week if movement is constant.
The idea that you need to know exactly for any practical purpose isn't right.
Thus, CICO works even though we will not know exact numbers or every input.
Yet it doesn't work for everyone. And more importantly, a simple CICO without regards to the effect certain foods may have on one's health in general or specific ways makes no sense. Maybe you might lose weight, but set yourself up for senility, Alzheimer's, heart disease, stroke, etc as you age.
Heck, CICO is so simple in concept that it's really attractive.
The fact is, take the microbiome from a thin person and put it into a fat oerson, the fat person WILL lose weight to MATCH the weight of the thin person, with no special attention paid to CICO. And the reverse is true.
If we get to the basics of calories, a calorie is simply the amount of energy required to heat 1 kg of water by 1 degree Celsius.
Excess calories do cause weight gain. Calorie deficits cause weight loss.
But isn't that a tremendous oversimplification of the entire process? That treats all calories as essentially equal. But they aren't. Different macronutrients go through different metabolic pathways.
Compare 100 calories of fructose to 100 calories if protein.
Fructose enters the liver, can be stored as glycogen until the liver is full, then it's stored as fat. Fructose consumed in abundance can cause insulin resistance, rising insulin levels which then increases the amount of stored fat. The body doesn't respond to fructose even the same way it does glucose; like I said before, it doesn't lower the hormone ghrelin which turns on hunger and keeps it turned on until lowered, so doesn't help at all with satiety.
Do you have any idea what it feels like to have eaten a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger?
Protein, on the otherhand, causes the body to burn approximently the equivalent of 30% of its calories in the process of digesting it, so you lose about 30 calories right off the bat. The metabolic pathway protein goes through requires energy expenditure itself. Now that 100 calories of protein is just 70 calories you body has to burn. 30% is not insignificant.
Protein also helps to increase the sense of fullness, and it can boost the metabolic rate.
So compare the calories from a can of soda and the same calories from eggs over a period of years. I guarantee you they do not have the same effect on the body, and the difference is not insignificant.
Understanding how micronutrients affect our appetites, hunger and satiety and properly balancing them to get the results we want makes the difference between success and failure unless one is truly a gluten for punishment and wants to struggle against their own body's messages.
In this study comparing a low carb diet to a calorie restricted low fat diet, the ones on the low carb diet would become satiated without worrying about counting calories and lost more fat that the low fat dieters did with calorie restriction. Table here:
https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/jcem/88/4/10.1210_jc.2002-021480/2/eg0439372003.jpeg?Expires=1501275274&Signature=WdbBj-armQXajWCmuPpmM5S4qVRLk6zx9XZlKsJLNl5MdNatZuwOegtNdLabyPUc-zOAVA62~etUl2iGGLYR-~patV3k-KEi~uvgIDeI0R7N6rBcp3kD8WFKKPdlN-OyPt833cyy2S5HpxRAjDS9tvElmBcmtcSR9MnWErpO63qiMIhImWtNYxv3XETFrFOD-u5TK1G9cKVkDCxGEBRci2-u2vc5-SIdYp3oBcDOtdhYY3MFPfYb73x7NeS7nxEbpImerlN8mngkX~cs6Fq2hQR~nVydFJjdItx7JEV1UW6W5lMCQ4cORrADlSMoGGBlHvcuq60Fc2zhb1h4zjRoOA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q
Study here:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
The researchers found:
"The results of this study demonstrate that a very low carbohydrate diet, taken without a specified restriction of caloric intake is effective for weight loss over a 6 month period in healthy obese women. Compared with the low fat group, who followed a diet conforming to currently recommended distribution of macronutrient calories, the very low carbohydrate group lost significantly more weight....... In addition, despite eating a high percentage of calories as fat and having relatively high intakes is saturated fat and cholesterol, the women in the very low carbohydrate group maintained normal levels of blood pressure, plasma lipids, glucose, and insulin."
A calorie is not simply a calorie in the human body.
This whole thing sounds to me like:
- Gravity works
- No it doesn't! A feather falls slower than a brick.
The calorie equation works. If you want to lose weight you need to eat fewer calories than you burn. That's all there is to it and there is no other way around it. How you go about it and whether you choose "value added" sources of calories is a whole other field of interest that can intersect with weight loss but not necessarily.
It bothers me when a topic as complicated as health is reduced to one one "fix it all" remedy, especially in the face of real life evidence to the contrary. I don't believe for one second that low carbing is necessary for health. It can be a healthy choice for some if they focus on "value added" foods, but eating healthfully can happen at any point of the macro spectrum and real life evidence confirms it. I also don't think food is all there is to health.
Just a side note: I know what it's like to eat a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger. I had that in full force when I attempted keto. I was absolutely starving all the time, both times. Starches fill me up and without them I go hungry. When will people admit that individuals are not study averages?
One, where did I say low carbing is the only remedy?
Simply because I referenced a study that compared low carb to low fat doesn't mean I'm endorsing solely one approach.
I referenced the study as an example that 1) demonstrates that you don't necessarily have to track the calories, which, and perhaps im not understanding, the CICO approach requires; 2) the study demonstrated how those on a low carb naturally, due to satiation, naturally limited their calories whereas those on a high carb, low fat diet had to track calories to limit their calories. The calorie charts show the low carb group actually taking in less calories without tracking than the high carb liw fat group.
I don't think anyone is saying that you will lose weight if you take in more calories than you burn, but from what I understand, the focus in CICO is primarily and predominately calories and all other factors take a back seat. You may lose weight, but easily in an unbalanced way that in the future could cause injury to your health.
Regardless of whether one uses low fat or low carb, it needs to be balanced because our health now, and in the future matters. What does it matter if you lose weight and end up with dementia later in life?
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of CICO and how people are using the terminology here.
It does not mean calorie counting.
It is not a way of eating.
It does not mean ignore nutrition or health.
It is simply a mathematical formula that describes the energy balance which governs weight loss, gain, or maintenance.
EVERYONE is subject to CICO, regardless of how you choose to eat, whether you count calories, eat intuitively, follow a particular protocol like LCHF or Paleo or anything else.
It is a fundamental law of thermodynamics and this is why people are trying to explain to you that talking about CICO does not suggest that all foods are the same from a satiety or nutritional standpoint. Actively using the principles of CICO to achieve weight goals does not suggest that someone is ignoring health and wellness.
Additionally, my mother had Alzheimer's and Dementia and it really bothers me when the concept of "ending up with dementia later in life" is thrown around so flippantly as to suggest that someone who counts calories is doomed to end as my mother did for the last 5 years of her life, in a nursing home unable to recognize her own children and grandchildren.
I was responding and lost the post, so I'll try again.
First, I want to apologize if anything I said came across as flippant. It certainly want intended that way. I would never suggest thst simply calorie counting would doom one to dementia. That would make no sense either. But my concern is that if one simply counts calories without a good eye for balance, especially if one doesn't get enough fats and cholesterol on their diet, maybe because they are afraid to, then even if they do lose weight, it may come with a higher price down the road.
Dementia is a real concern of mine. My grandfather succumbed to it to where he could no longer recognize anyone and deteriorated completelty. The same thing is happening to my uncle, his son, right now. So please understand this is a genuine concern of mine.
Now how you are explaining CICO is simply how I've always understood calorie counting in the context of a balanced diet. The understanding I've come to about CICO from what some have said about it here, seemed to be a more extreme form of calorie counting. I could have sworn I've read people saying that it doesn't matter what you eat, what matters is counting calories and creating a calorie deficit.
Basically the point of calorie counting is to help one develop a calorie surplus or deficit.
When one simply uses calories in vs calories out and treats the source of calories as having such a minor effect on the calculations that they can be discarded, that's where I think the mistake is. And from this discussion, that's what I'm taking away is indeed the belief. Am I wrong?
A study conducted at Harvard by Greene and others (Walter Willet, Chair of the Nutrition Dept, and Fredrick Stare, Professor of Epidemiology and Nutrition), using three groups and studying weight loss between the groups over 12 weeks, (low-fat, low-carb, and low-carb with 300 added calories/day), found something that surprised them.
The first two groups, taking in the same number of calories/day lost an average of 17lbs and 23lbs respectively.
What they were surprised to find was the low-carb + 300 extra calories/day group
lost more weight - an average of 20lbs - than the low-fat group did (17lbs) even though this low-fat group took in 300 less calories/day.
In the the conclusion reached:
"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight."
300 calories a day is quite a bit when you are only consuming 1200 to 1500 calories a day.
So here we have two diets with identical caloric intake resulting in very different outcomes regarding weight lost - The low-carb group lost 6lbs more on an average than the low-fat group.
We also have a third group - the low carb + 300 extra calories a day - losing more than the low-fat group.
Extrapolating this information to using a simple calories in, calories out calculation, all things being equal, those on a low-fat diet are going to find it harder to lose weight than those on a low-carb diet, even is those on a low-carb diet are eating a few hundred more calories a day.
So I am failing to see the real benefit of a strong focus on calories rather than food balance and type of balance, with numbers being of a background, rather than of a foreground importance.
20 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »It's like people are unaware you can eat vegetables without a blender...
O_O people put vegetables in a blender? i think the category of your rage can be expanded in my world into 'the food-related aspects of your lifestyle just aren't that interesting. please would you shut up about them.'
3 -
theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »If these factors, which are constantly in flux, affect metabolism (which they do), then how does one know how many calories they are actually burning on any particular day or group of days?
You seem to be exaggerating how much they affect metabolism. (How many calories we burn is going to be most affected by set things and movement.)
More significantly, you know how many calories you burn over a period of time (and on average over shorter periods of time) by results. They should not vary dramatically from week to week if movement is constant.
The idea that you need to know exactly for any practical purpose isn't right.
Thus, CICO works even though we will not know exact numbers or every input.
Yet it doesn't work for everyone. And more importantly, a simple CICO without regards to the effect certain foods may have on one's health in general or specific ways makes no sense. Maybe you might lose weight, but set yourself up for senility, Alzheimer's, heart disease, stroke, etc as you age.
Heck, CICO is so simple in concept that it's really attractive.
The fact is, take the microbiome from a thin person and put it into a fat oerson, the fat person WILL lose weight to MATCH the weight of the thin person, with no special attention paid to CICO. And the reverse is true.
If we get to the basics of calories, a calorie is simply the amount of energy required to heat 1 kg of water by 1 degree Celsius.
Excess calories do cause weight gain. Calorie deficits cause weight loss.
But isn't that a tremendous oversimplification of the entire process? That treats all calories as essentially equal. But they aren't. Different macronutrients go through different metabolic pathways.
Compare 100 calories of fructose to 100 calories if protein.
Fructose enters the liver, can be stored as glycogen until the liver is full, then it's stored as fat. Fructose consumed in abundance can cause insulin resistance, rising insulin levels which then increases the amount of stored fat. The body doesn't respond to fructose even the same way it does glucose; like I said before, it doesn't lower the hormone ghrelin which turns on hunger and keeps it turned on until lowered, so doesn't help at all with satiety.
Do you have any idea what it feels like to have eaten a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger?
Protein, on the otherhand, causes the body to burn approximently the equivalent of 30% of its calories in the process of digesting it, so you lose about 30 calories right off the bat. The metabolic pathway protein goes through requires energy expenditure itself. Now that 100 calories of protein is just 70 calories you body has to burn. 30% is not insignificant.
Protein also helps to increase the sense of fullness, and it can boost the metabolic rate.
So compare the calories from a can of soda and the same calories from eggs over a period of years. I guarantee you they do not have the same effect on the body, and the difference is not insignificant.
Understanding how micronutrients affect our appetites, hunger and satiety and properly balancing them to get the results we want makes the difference between success and failure unless one is truly a gluten for punishment and wants to struggle against their own body's messages.
In this study comparing a low carb diet to a calorie restricted low fat diet, the ones on the low carb diet would become satiated without worrying about counting calories and lost more fat that the low fat dieters did with calorie restriction. Table here:
https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/jcem/88/4/10.1210_jc.2002-021480/2/eg0439372003.jpeg?Expires=1501275274&Signature=WdbBj-armQXajWCmuPpmM5S4qVRLk6zx9XZlKsJLNl5MdNatZuwOegtNdLabyPUc-zOAVA62~etUl2iGGLYR-~patV3k-KEi~uvgIDeI0R7N6rBcp3kD8WFKKPdlN-OyPt833cyy2S5HpxRAjDS9tvElmBcmtcSR9MnWErpO63qiMIhImWtNYxv3XETFrFOD-u5TK1G9cKVkDCxGEBRci2-u2vc5-SIdYp3oBcDOtdhYY3MFPfYb73x7NeS7nxEbpImerlN8mngkX~cs6Fq2hQR~nVydFJjdItx7JEV1UW6W5lMCQ4cORrADlSMoGGBlHvcuq60Fc2zhb1h4zjRoOA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q
Study here:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
The researchers found:
"The results of this study demonstrate that a very low carbohydrate diet, taken without a specified restriction of caloric intake is effective for weight loss over a 6 month period in healthy obese women. Compared with the low fat group, who followed a diet conforming to currently recommended distribution of macronutrient calories, the very low carbohydrate group lost significantly more weight....... In addition, despite eating a high percentage of calories as fat and having relatively high intakes is saturated fat and cholesterol, the women in the very low carbohydrate group maintained normal levels of blood pressure, plasma lipids, glucose, and insulin."
A calorie is not simply a calorie in the human body.
This whole thing sounds to me like:
- Gravity works
- No it doesn't! A feather falls slower than a brick.
The calorie equation works. If you want to lose weight you need to eat fewer calories than you burn. That's all there is to it and there is no other way around it. How you go about it and whether you choose "value added" sources of calories is a whole other field of interest that can intersect with weight loss but not necessarily.
It bothers me when a topic as complicated as health is reduced to one one "fix it all" remedy, especially in the face of real life evidence to the contrary. I don't believe for one second that low carbing is necessary for health. It can be a healthy choice for some if they focus on "value added" foods, but eating healthfully can happen at any point of the macro spectrum and real life evidence confirms it. I also don't think food is all there is to health.
Just a side note: I know what it's like to eat a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger. I had that in full force when I attempted keto. I was absolutely starving all the time, both times. Starches fill me up and without them I go hungry. When will people admit that individuals are not study averages?
One, where did I say low carbing is the only remedy?
Simply because I referenced a study that compared low carb to low fat doesn't mean I'm endorsing solely one approach.
I referenced the study as an example that 1) demonstrates that you don't necessarily have to track the calories, which, and perhaps im not understanding, the CICO approach requires; 2) the study demonstrated how those on a low carb naturally, due to satiation, naturally limited their calories whereas those on a high carb, low fat diet had to track calories to limit their calories. The calorie charts show the low carb group actually taking in less calories without tracking than the high carb liw fat group.
I don't think anyone is saying that you will lose weight if you take in more calories than you burn, but from what I understand, the focus in CICO is primarily and predominately calories and all other factors take a back seat. You may lose weight, but easily in an unbalanced way that in the future could cause injury to your health.
Regardless of whether one uses low fat or low carb, it needs to be balanced because our health now, and in the future matters. What does it matter if you lose weight and end up with dementia later in life?
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of CICO and how people are using the terminology here.
It does not mean calorie counting.
It is not a way of eating.
It does not mean ignore nutrition or health.
It is simply a mathematical formula that describes the energy balance which governs weight loss, gain, or maintenance.
EVERYONE is subject to CICO, regardless of how you choose to eat, whether you count calories, eat intuitively, follow a particular protocol like LCHF or Paleo or anything else.
It is a fundamental law of thermodynamics and this is why people are trying to explain to you that talking about CICO does not suggest that all foods are the same from a satiety or nutritional standpoint. Actively using the principles of CICO to achieve weight goals does not suggest that someone is ignoring health and wellness.
Additionally, my mother had Alzheimer's and Dementia and it really bothers me when the concept of "ending up with dementia later in life" is thrown around so flippantly as to suggest that someone who counts calories is doomed to end as my mother did for the last 5 years of her life, in a nursing home unable to recognize her own children and grandchildren.
Now how you are explaining CICO is simply how I've always understood calorie counting in the context of a balanced diet. The understanding I've come to about CICO from what some have said about it here, seemed to be a more extreme form of calorie counting. I could have sworn I've read people saying that it doesn't matter what you eat, what matters is counting calories and creating a calorie deficit.
Basically the point of calorie counting is to help one develop a calorie surplus or deficit.
When one simply uses calories in vs calories out and treats the source of calories as having such a minor effect on the calculations that they can be discarded, that's where I think the mistake is. And from this discussion, that's what I'm taking away is indeed the belief. Am I wrong?
You are missing the context. When people say it doesn't matter it's usually in very specific contexts, the context is often concerns or claims about losing weight in particular that over-complicate things. For example, someone is trying to follow a certain dieting protocol and finding it very hard, they are told weight loss is all about calories and they don't have to eat a specific way to lose weight, they can just eat normally. Another example, someone ate a cookie and is very distressed and think their diet is ruined, they are told it's really about calories and that cookie won't suddenly make them fat. Someone is dreading a holiday or a special occasion with loved ones, they are told to stop stressing and just enjoy it, it's really about calories.
Life has many sides to it, and so does health. Balancing it all out is goal. If eating healthfully causes deteriorating mental, emotional, or social health it's really not that healthy. If you're interested in dementia in particular, having a healthy social network reduces the risk. Social engagement means being exposed to foods that may not have the best nutritional profile on their own, and that can still be alright because single foods do not define a diet. It's really not the idea that eating healthy shouldn't matter because it's all about calories, it's that weight loss doesn't need to be as stressful as people make it sometimes, doesn't need to rob them of simple joys, and if they look at their diet as a whole without singling out ingredients a healthy balance can easily be achieved."There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight."
300 calories a day is quite a bit when you are only consuming 1200 to 1500 calories a day.
So here we have two diets with identical caloric intake resulting in very different outcomes regarding weight lost - The low-carb group lost 6lbs more on an average than the low-fat group.
We also have a third group - the low carb + 300 extra calories a day - losing more than the low-fat group.
Extrapolating this information to using a simple calories in, calories out calculation, all things being equal, those on a low-fat diet are going to find it harder to lose weight than those on a low-carb diet, even is those on a low-carb diet are eating a few hundred more calories a day.
Low carb dieters don't have 300 calories extra over the low fat group. How people report their food intake is flawed. Even if meals were provided, who is to say those on low carb ate all the food in their meal or that those on low fat didn't snack on the side? How did the individuals fare? Since it was a small study, any anomaly could skew results (for example, a person eating too little and losing too much, or eating outside of the plan and not losing much because they did not enjoy the food provided). Besides, did the study design include a control phase at the end of the experiment to even out water weight loss?
When you remove that food autonomy in a metabolic ward all these differences even out, and in fact, people on low carb have a slightly slower metabolic rate in the beginning.So I am failing to see the real benefit of a strong focus on calories rather than food balance and type of balance, with numbers being of a background, rather than of a foreground importance.
There is strong focus on calories rather than food balance because of the sheer amount of misinformation out there which is reflected in the near daily posts like "I'm eating healthy and exercising, why am I not losing weight?". Most people generally know what a balanced diet looks like, but not many people know that it's not enough, there also needs to be a calorie deficit.
In some cases, if eating a nutritionally poor diet helps someone who is obese lose weight who wouldn't lose it otherwise, that's the lesser of two evils. Being obese carries way more risks that are way more common than not eating perfectly.14 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »If these factors, which are constantly in flux, affect metabolism (which they do), then how does one know how many calories they are actually burning on any particular day or group of days?
You seem to be exaggerating how much they affect metabolism. (How many calories we burn is going to be most affected by set things and movement.)
More significantly, you know how many calories you burn over a period of time (and on average over shorter periods of time) by results. They should not vary dramatically from week to week if movement is constant.
The idea that you need to know exactly for any practical purpose isn't right.
Thus, CICO works even though we will not know exact numbers or every input.
Yet it doesn't work for everyone. And more importantly, a simple CICO without regards to the effect certain foods may have on one's health in general or specific ways makes no sense. Maybe you might lose weight, but set yourself up for senility, Alzheimer's, heart disease, stroke, etc as you age.
Heck, CICO is so simple in concept that it's really attractive.
The fact is, take the microbiome from a thin person and put it into a fat oerson, the fat person WILL lose weight to MATCH the weight of the thin person, with no special attention paid to CICO. And the reverse is true.
If we get to the basics of calories, a calorie is simply the amount of energy required to heat 1 kg of water by 1 degree Celsius.
Excess calories do cause weight gain. Calorie deficits cause weight loss.
But isn't that a tremendous oversimplification of the entire process? That treats all calories as essentially equal. But they aren't. Different macronutrients go through different metabolic pathways.
Compare 100 calories of fructose to 100 calories if protein.
Fructose enters the liver, can be stored as glycogen until the liver is full, then it's stored as fat. Fructose consumed in abundance can cause insulin resistance, rising insulin levels which then increases the amount of stored fat. The body doesn't respond to fructose even the same way it does glucose; like I said before, it doesn't lower the hormone ghrelin which turns on hunger and keeps it turned on until lowered, so doesn't help at all with satiety.
Do you have any idea what it feels like to have eaten a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger?
Protein, on the otherhand, causes the body to burn approximently the equivalent of 30% of its calories in the process of digesting it, so you lose about 30 calories right off the bat. The metabolic pathway protein goes through requires energy expenditure itself. Now that 100 calories of protein is just 70 calories you body has to burn. 30% is not insignificant.
Protein also helps to increase the sense of fullness, and it can boost the metabolic rate.
So compare the calories from a can of soda and the same calories from eggs over a period of years. I guarantee you they do not have the same effect on the body, and the difference is not insignificant.
Understanding how micronutrients affect our appetites, hunger and satiety and properly balancing them to get the results we want makes the difference between success and failure unless one is truly a gluten for punishment and wants to struggle against their own body's messages.
In this study comparing a low carb diet to a calorie restricted low fat diet, the ones on the low carb diet would become satiated without worrying about counting calories and lost more fat that the low fat dieters did with calorie restriction. Table here:
https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/jcem/88/4/10.1210_jc.2002-021480/2/eg0439372003.jpeg?Expires=1501275274&Signature=WdbBj-armQXajWCmuPpmM5S4qVRLk6zx9XZlKsJLNl5MdNatZuwOegtNdLabyPUc-zOAVA62~etUl2iGGLYR-~patV3k-KEi~uvgIDeI0R7N6rBcp3kD8WFKKPdlN-OyPt833cyy2S5HpxRAjDS9tvElmBcmtcSR9MnWErpO63qiMIhImWtNYxv3XETFrFOD-u5TK1G9cKVkDCxGEBRci2-u2vc5-SIdYp3oBcDOtdhYY3MFPfYb73x7NeS7nxEbpImerlN8mngkX~cs6Fq2hQR~nVydFJjdItx7JEV1UW6W5lMCQ4cORrADlSMoGGBlHvcuq60Fc2zhb1h4zjRoOA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q
Study here:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
The researchers found:
"The results of this study demonstrate that a very low carbohydrate diet, taken without a specified restriction of caloric intake is effective for weight loss over a 6 month period in healthy obese women. Compared with the low fat group, who followed a diet conforming to currently recommended distribution of macronutrient calories, the very low carbohydrate group lost significantly more weight....... In addition, despite eating a high percentage of calories as fat and having relatively high intakes is saturated fat and cholesterol, the women in the very low carbohydrate group maintained normal levels of blood pressure, plasma lipids, glucose, and insulin."
A calorie is not simply a calorie in the human body.
This whole thing sounds to me like:
- Gravity works
- No it doesn't! A feather falls slower than a brick.
The calorie equation works. If you want to lose weight you need to eat fewer calories than you burn. That's all there is to it and there is no other way around it. How you go about it and whether you choose "value added" sources of calories is a whole other field of interest that can intersect with weight loss but not necessarily.
It bothers me when a topic as complicated as health is reduced to one one "fix it all" remedy, especially in the face of real life evidence to the contrary. I don't believe for one second that low carbing is necessary for health. It can be a healthy choice for some if they focus on "value added" foods, but eating healthfully can happen at any point of the macro spectrum and real life evidence confirms it. I also don't think food is all there is to health.
Just a side note: I know what it's like to eat a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger. I had that in full force when I attempted keto. I was absolutely starving all the time, both times. Starches fill me up and without them I go hungry. When will people admit that individuals are not study averages?
One, where did I say low carbing is the only remedy?
Simply because I referenced a study that compared low carb to low fat doesn't mean I'm endorsing solely one approach.
I referenced the study as an example that 1) demonstrates that you don't necessarily have to track the calories, which, and perhaps im not understanding, the CICO approach requires; 2) the study demonstrated how those on a low carb naturally, due to satiation, naturally limited their calories whereas those on a high carb, low fat diet had to track calories to limit their calories. The calorie charts show the low carb group actually taking in less calories without tracking than the high carb liw fat group.
I don't think anyone is saying that you will lose weight if you take in more calories than you burn, but from what I understand, the focus in CICO is primarily and predominately calories and all other factors take a back seat. You may lose weight, but easily in an unbalanced way that in the future could cause injury to your health.
Regardless of whether one uses low fat or low carb, it needs to be balanced because our health now, and in the future matters. What does it matter if you lose weight and end up with dementia later in life?
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of CICO and how people are using the terminology here.
It does not mean calorie counting.
It is not a way of eating.
It does not mean ignore nutrition or health.
It is simply a mathematical formula that describes the energy balance which governs weight loss, gain, or maintenance.
EVERYONE is subject to CICO, regardless of how you choose to eat, whether you count calories, eat intuitively, follow a particular protocol like LCHF or Paleo or anything else.
It is a fundamental law of thermodynamics and this is why people are trying to explain to you that talking about CICO does not suggest that all foods are the same from a satiety or nutritional standpoint. Actively using the principles of CICO to achieve weight goals does not suggest that someone is ignoring health and wellness.
Additionally, my mother had Alzheimer's and Dementia and it really bothers me when the concept of "ending up with dementia later in life" is thrown around so flippantly as to suggest that someone who counts calories is doomed to end as my mother did for the last 5 years of her life, in a nursing home unable to recognize her own children and grandchildren.
Now how you are explaining CICO is simply how I've always understood calorie counting in the context of a balanced diet. The understanding I've come to about CICO from what some have said about it here, seemed to be a more extreme form of calorie counting. I could have sworn I've read people saying that it doesn't matter what you eat, what matters is counting calories and creating a calorie deficit.
Basically the point of calorie counting is to help one develop a calorie surplus or deficit.
When one simply uses calories in vs calories out and treats the source of calories as having such a minor effect on the calculations that they can be discarded, that's where I think the mistake is. And from this discussion, that's what I'm taking away is indeed the belief. Am I wrong?
You are missing the context. When people say it doesn't matter it's usually in very specific contexts, the context is often concerns or claims about losing weight in particular that over-complicate things. For example, someone is trying to follow a certain dieting protocol and finding it very hard, they are told weight loss is all about calories and they don't have to eat a specific way to lose weight, they can just eat normally. Another example, someone ate a cookie and is very distressed and think their diet is ruined, they are told it's really about calories and that cookie won't suddenly make them fat. Someone is dreading a holiday or a special occasion with loved ones, they are told to stop stressing and just enjoy it, it's really about calories.
Life has many sides to it, and so does health. Balancing it all out is goal. If eating healthfully causes deteriorating mental, emotional, or social health it's really not that healthy. If you're interested in dementia in particular, having a healthy social network reduces the risk. Social engagement means being exposed to foods that may not have the best nutritional profile on their own, and that can still be alright because single foods do not define a diet. It's really not the idea that eating healthy shouldn't matter because it's all about calories, it's that weight loss doesn't need to be as stressful as people make it sometimes, doesn't need to rob them of simple joys, and if they look at their diet as a whole without singling out ingredients a healthy balance can easily be achieved."There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight."
300 calories a day is quite a bit when you are only consuming 1200 to 1500 calories a day.
So here we have two diets with identical caloric intake resulting in very different outcomes regarding weight lost - The low-carb group lost 6lbs more on an average than the low-fat group.
We also have a third group - the low carb + 300 extra calories a day - losing more than the low-fat group.
Extrapolating this information to using a simple calories in, calories out calculation, all things being equal, those on a low-fat diet are going to find it harder to lose weight than those on a low-carb diet, even is those on a low-carb diet are eating a few hundred more calories a day.
Low carb dieters don't have 300 calories extra over the low fat group. How people report their food intake is flawed. Even if meals were provided, who is to say those on low carb ate all the food in their meal or that those on low fat didn't snack on the side? How did the individuals fare? Since it was a small study, any anomaly could skew results (for example, a person eating too little and losing too much, or eating outside of the plan and not losing much because they did not enjoy the food provided). Besides, did the study design include a control phase at the end of the experiment to even out water weight loss?
When you remove that food autonomy in a metabolic ward all these differences even out, and in fact, people on low carb have a slightly slower metabolic rate in the beginning.So I am failing to see the real benefit of a strong focus on calories rather than food balance and type of balance, with numbers being of a background, rather than of a foreground importance.
There is strong focus on calories rather than food balance because of the sheer amount of misinformation out there which is reflected in the near daily posts like "I'm eating healthy and exercising, why am I not losing weight?". Most people generally know what a balanced diet looks like, but not many people know that it's not enough, there also needs to be a calorie deficit.
In some cases, if eating a nutritionally poor diet helps someone who is obese lose weight who wouldn't lose it otherwise, that's the lesser of two evils. Being obese carries way more risks that are way more common than not eating perfectly.
Well now you're simply arguing with the researchers and basically saying they don't know what the heck they are talking about, simply because their findings don't agree with your paradigm?
You probably aren't going to like this one then:
"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics
Nutr J 2004 Jul 28
"A review of simple thermodynamic principles shows that weight change on isocaloric diets is not expected to be independent of path (metabolism of macronutrients) and indeed such a general principle would be a violation of the second law. Homeostatic mechanisms are able to insure that, a good deal of the time, weight does not fluctuate much with changes in diet – this might be said to be the true "miraculous metabolic effect" – but it is subject to many exceptions. The idea that this is theoretically required in all cases is mistakenly based on equilibrium, reversible conditions that do not hold for living organisms and an insufficient appreciation of the second law. The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a "calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle."
...."Metabolic advantage with low carbohydrate diets is well established in the literature. It does not always occur but the important point is that it can occur. To ignore its possibilities and to not investigate the precise conditions under which it appears would be cutting ourselves off from potential benefit. The extent to which metabolic advantage will have significant impact in treating obesity is unknown and it is widely said in studies of low carbohydrate diets that "more work needs to be done." However, if the misconception is perpetuated that there is a violation of physical laws, that work will not be done, and if done, will go unpublished due to editorial resistance. Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
15 -
theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »If these factors, which are constantly in flux, affect metabolism (which they do), then how does one know how many calories they are actually burning on any particular day or group of days?
You seem to be exaggerating how much they affect metabolism. (How many calories we burn is going to be most affected by set things and movement.)
More significantly, you know how many calories you burn over a period of time (and on average over shorter periods of time) by results. They should not vary dramatically from week to week if movement is constant.
The idea that you need to know exactly for any practical purpose isn't right.
Thus, CICO works even though we will not know exact numbers or every input.
Yet it doesn't work for everyone. And more importantly, a simple CICO without regards to the effect certain foods may have on one's health in general or specific ways makes no sense. Maybe you might lose weight, but set yourself up for senility, Alzheimer's, heart disease, stroke, etc as you age.
Heck, CICO is so simple in concept that it's really attractive.
The fact is, take the microbiome from a thin person and put it into a fat oerson, the fat person WILL lose weight to MATCH the weight of the thin person, with no special attention paid to CICO. And the reverse is true.
If we get to the basics of calories, a calorie is simply the amount of energy required to heat 1 kg of water by 1 degree Celsius.
Excess calories do cause weight gain. Calorie deficits cause weight loss.
But isn't that a tremendous oversimplification of the entire process? That treats all calories as essentially equal. But they aren't. Different macronutrients go through different metabolic pathways.
Compare 100 calories of fructose to 100 calories if protein.
Fructose enters the liver, can be stored as glycogen until the liver is full, then it's stored as fat. Fructose consumed in abundance can cause insulin resistance, rising insulin levels which then increases the amount of stored fat. The body doesn't respond to fructose even the same way it does glucose; like I said before, it doesn't lower the hormone ghrelin which turns on hunger and keeps it turned on until lowered, so doesn't help at all with satiety.
Do you have any idea what it feels like to have eaten a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger?
Protein, on the otherhand, causes the body to burn approximently the equivalent of 30% of its calories in the process of digesting it, so you lose about 30 calories right off the bat. The metabolic pathway protein goes through requires energy expenditure itself. Now that 100 calories of protein is just 70 calories you body has to burn. 30% is not insignificant.
Protein also helps to increase the sense of fullness, and it can boost the metabolic rate.
So compare the calories from a can of soda and the same calories from eggs over a period of years. I guarantee you they do not have the same effect on the body, and the difference is not insignificant.
Understanding how micronutrients affect our appetites, hunger and satiety and properly balancing them to get the results we want makes the difference between success and failure unless one is truly a gluten for punishment and wants to struggle against their own body's messages.
In this study comparing a low carb diet to a calorie restricted low fat diet, the ones on the low carb diet would become satiated without worrying about counting calories and lost more fat that the low fat dieters did with calorie restriction. Table here:
https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/jcem/88/4/10.1210_jc.2002-021480/2/eg0439372003.jpeg?Expires=1501275274&Signature=WdbBj-armQXajWCmuPpmM5S4qVRLk6zx9XZlKsJLNl5MdNatZuwOegtNdLabyPUc-zOAVA62~etUl2iGGLYR-~patV3k-KEi~uvgIDeI0R7N6rBcp3kD8WFKKPdlN-OyPt833cyy2S5HpxRAjDS9tvElmBcmtcSR9MnWErpO63qiMIhImWtNYxv3XETFrFOD-u5TK1G9cKVkDCxGEBRci2-u2vc5-SIdYp3oBcDOtdhYY3MFPfYb73x7NeS7nxEbpImerlN8mngkX~cs6Fq2hQR~nVydFJjdItx7JEV1UW6W5lMCQ4cORrADlSMoGGBlHvcuq60Fc2zhb1h4zjRoOA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q
Study here:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
The researchers found:
"The results of this study demonstrate that a very low carbohydrate diet, taken without a specified restriction of caloric intake is effective for weight loss over a 6 month period in healthy obese women. Compared with the low fat group, who followed a diet conforming to currently recommended distribution of macronutrient calories, the very low carbohydrate group lost significantly more weight....... In addition, despite eating a high percentage of calories as fat and having relatively high intakes is saturated fat and cholesterol, the women in the very low carbohydrate group maintained normal levels of blood pressure, plasma lipids, glucose, and insulin."
A calorie is not simply a calorie in the human body.
This whole thing sounds to me like:
- Gravity works
- No it doesn't! A feather falls slower than a brick.
The calorie equation works. If you want to lose weight you need to eat fewer calories than you burn. That's all there is to it and there is no other way around it. How you go about it and whether you choose "value added" sources of calories is a whole other field of interest that can intersect with weight loss but not necessarily.
It bothers me when a topic as complicated as health is reduced to one one "fix it all" remedy, especially in the face of real life evidence to the contrary. I don't believe for one second that low carbing is necessary for health. It can be a healthy choice for some if they focus on "value added" foods, but eating healthfully can happen at any point of the macro spectrum and real life evidence confirms it. I also don't think food is all there is to health.
Just a side note: I know what it's like to eat a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger. I had that in full force when I attempted keto. I was absolutely starving all the time, both times. Starches fill me up and without them I go hungry. When will people admit that individuals are not study averages?
One, where did I say low carbing is the only remedy?
Simply because I referenced a study that compared low carb to low fat doesn't mean I'm endorsing solely one approach.
I referenced the study as an example that 1) demonstrates that you don't necessarily have to track the calories, which, and perhaps im not understanding, the CICO approach requires; 2) the study demonstrated how those on a low carb naturally, due to satiation, naturally limited their calories whereas those on a high carb, low fat diet had to track calories to limit their calories. The calorie charts show the low carb group actually taking in less calories without tracking than the high carb liw fat group.
I don't think anyone is saying that you will lose weight if you take in more calories than you burn, but from what I understand, the focus in CICO is primarily and predominately calories and all other factors take a back seat. You may lose weight, but easily in an unbalanced way that in the future could cause injury to your health.
Regardless of whether one uses low fat or low carb, it needs to be balanced because our health now, and in the future matters. What does it matter if you lose weight and end up with dementia later in life?
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of CICO and how people are using the terminology here.
It does not mean calorie counting.
It is not a way of eating.
It does not mean ignore nutrition or health.
It is simply a mathematical formula that describes the energy balance which governs weight loss, gain, or maintenance.
EVERYONE is subject to CICO, regardless of how you choose to eat, whether you count calories, eat intuitively, follow a particular protocol like LCHF or Paleo or anything else.
It is a fundamental law of thermodynamics and this is why people are trying to explain to you that talking about CICO does not suggest that all foods are the same from a satiety or nutritional standpoint. Actively using the principles of CICO to achieve weight goals does not suggest that someone is ignoring health and wellness.
Additionally, my mother had Alzheimer's and Dementia and it really bothers me when the concept of "ending up with dementia later in life" is thrown around so flippantly as to suggest that someone who counts calories is doomed to end as my mother did for the last 5 years of her life, in a nursing home unable to recognize her own children and grandchildren.
Now how you are explaining CICO is simply how I've always understood calorie counting in the context of a balanced diet. The understanding I've come to about CICO from what some have said about it here, seemed to be a more extreme form of calorie counting. I could have sworn I've read people saying that it doesn't matter what you eat, what matters is counting calories and creating a calorie deficit.
Basically the point of calorie counting is to help one develop a calorie surplus or deficit.
When one simply uses calories in vs calories out and treats the source of calories as having such a minor effect on the calculations that they can be discarded, that's where I think the mistake is. And from this discussion, that's what I'm taking away is indeed the belief. Am I wrong?
You are missing the context. When people say it doesn't matter it's usually in very specific contexts, the context is often concerns or claims about losing weight in particular that over-complicate things. For example, someone is trying to follow a certain dieting protocol and finding it very hard, they are told weight loss is all about calories and they don't have to eat a specific way to lose weight, they can just eat normally. Another example, someone ate a cookie and is very distressed and think their diet is ruined, they are told it's really about calories and that cookie won't suddenly make them fat. Someone is dreading a holiday or a special occasion with loved ones, they are told to stop stressing and just enjoy it, it's really about calories.
Life has many sides to it, and so does health. Balancing it all out is goal. If eating healthfully causes deteriorating mental, emotional, or social health it's really not that healthy. If you're interested in dementia in particular, having a healthy social network reduces the risk. Social engagement means being exposed to foods that may not have the best nutritional profile on their own, and that can still be alright because single foods do not define a diet. It's really not the idea that eating healthy shouldn't matter because it's all about calories, it's that weight loss doesn't need to be as stressful as people make it sometimes, doesn't need to rob them of simple joys, and if they look at their diet as a whole without singling out ingredients a healthy balance can easily be achieved."There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight."
300 calories a day is quite a bit when you are only consuming 1200 to 1500 calories a day.
So here we have two diets with identical caloric intake resulting in very different outcomes regarding weight lost - The low-carb group lost 6lbs more on an average than the low-fat group.
We also have a third group - the low carb + 300 extra calories a day - losing more than the low-fat group.
Extrapolating this information to using a simple calories in, calories out calculation, all things being equal, those on a low-fat diet are going to find it harder to lose weight than those on a low-carb diet, even is those on a low-carb diet are eating a few hundred more calories a day.
Low carb dieters don't have 300 calories extra over the low fat group. How people report their food intake is flawed. Even if meals were provided, who is to say those on low carb ate all the food in their meal or that those on low fat didn't snack on the side? How did the individuals fare? Since it was a small study, any anomaly could skew results (for example, a person eating too little and losing too much, or eating outside of the plan and not losing much because they did not enjoy the food provided). Besides, did the study design include a control phase at the end of the experiment to even out water weight loss?
When you remove that food autonomy in a metabolic ward all these differences even out, and in fact, people on low carb have a slightly slower metabolic rate in the beginning.So I am failing to see the real benefit of a strong focus on calories rather than food balance and type of balance, with numbers being of a background, rather than of a foreground importance.
There is strong focus on calories rather than food balance because of the sheer amount of misinformation out there which is reflected in the near daily posts like "I'm eating healthy and exercising, why am I not losing weight?". Most people generally know what a balanced diet looks like, but not many people know that it's not enough, there also needs to be a calorie deficit.
In some cases, if eating a nutritionally poor diet helps someone who is obese lose weight who wouldn't lose it otherwise, that's the lesser of two evils. Being obese carries way more risks that are way more common than not eating perfectly.
Well now you're simply arguing with the researchers and basically saying they don't know what the heck they are talking about, simply because their findings don't agree with your paradigm?
You probably aren't going to like this one then:
"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics
Nutr J 2004 Jul 28
"A review of simple thermodynamic principles shows that weight change on isocaloric diets is not expected to be independent of path (metabolism of macronutrients) and indeed such a general principle would be a violation of the second law. Homeostatic mechanisms are able to insure that, a good deal of the time, weight does not fluctuate much with changes in diet – this might be said to be the true "miraculous metabolic effect" – but it is subject to many exceptions. The idea that this is theoretically required in all cases is mistakenly based on equilibrium, reversible conditions that do not hold for living organisms and an insufficient appreciation of the second law. The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a "calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle."
...."Metabolic advantage with low carbohydrate diets is well established in the literature. It does not always occur but the important point is that it can occur. To ignore its possibilities and to not investigate the precise conditions under which it appears would be cutting ourselves off from potential benefit. The extent to which metabolic advantage will have significant impact in treating obesity is unknown and it is widely said in studies of low carbohydrate diets that "more work needs to be done." However, if the misconception is perpetuated that there is a violation of physical laws, that work will not be done, and if done, will go unpublished due to editorial resistance. Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
Dare I say it? But it appears to me that Feinman is (probably for click bait or as a talking point) setting up a straw man with the statement "A calorie is not a calorie".
I'm pretty sure that he is aware that there are people who use that statement in the true scientific way as a "unit of energy is just a unit of energy" and not only those that miss-interpret it when considering the different effects of foods (the second group being the ones that he seems to be calling to when saying "Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start.")
In fact, the it seems that Feinman is actually targeting the media and popular press "This work received a good deal of attention in the popular press. Media reports, however, included comments of experts that "It doesn't make sense, does it?" "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."
Feinman's article (it wasn't a study or a review) does not, or even attempt to, discredit CICO but instead is a discussion of the complexity of tracing the energy use from calorific input. And to that point, I don't think there are many on MFP who would argue that there are no differences between 200 cals of chicken breast and 200 cals of olive oil in their effect on the body - In fact, the thermic effects of foods (often cited on these forums and mentioned in the article) is a well known part of the CICO statement.
Where we perhaps have a grey area in weight management is the statement "A calorie is just a calorie" when applied to nutrition and diet, is an oversimplification (although in practical terms pretty valid since many people who are struggling to understand what they can or can't eat for weight loss would be in a much better situation if they just considered the calories and not get caught up in the details of macro and micro nutrients until they have mastered the basics) and could lead to people incorrectly believing that:- 200 calories of oil has the same physiological effect on their body as 200 cals of chicken
- 200 calories of oil has the same net calorific input as 200 calories of chicken
The first is nothing to do with the CICO argument - it's an argument of nutrition and not energy. The second falshood is accounted for in the CICO argument.
It's also worth pointing out that, in practical terms, we are not dealing with an simple system when considering energy inputs for humans (and animals and plants for that matter) in that the internal regulation systems work to mitigate the effects of reduced calorie input and to capitalise on increased calorie input. Anyone who has spent some time on these forums will be familiar with the concept of NEAT and therefore, hopefully, understand how this fits in with the CICO argument.
CICO, holds true and does not violate the 1st law of Thermodynamics. Introduction of the 2nd law is in my opinion a red herring for human nutrition since the 2nd law is only applicable in its stated (pure) form for closed systems (i.e. the universe) and since all other systems (including humans and the sub-parts of humans such as body fat) are sub-systems we have a whole bunch of rules and theroems which hang off the 2nd law to account for the energy transference between open systems.
16 -
StealthHealth wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »If these factors, which are constantly in flux, affect metabolism (which they do), then how does one know how many calories they are actually burning on any particular day or group of days?
You seem to be exaggerating how much they affect metabolism. (How many calories we burn is going to be most affected by set things and movement.)
More significantly, you know how many calories you burn over a period of time (and on average over shorter periods of time) by results. They should not vary dramatically from week to week if movement is constant.
The idea that you need to know exactly for any practical purpose isn't right.
Thus, CICO works even though we will not know exact numbers or every input.
Yet it doesn't work for everyone. And more importantly, a simple CICO without regards to the effect certain foods may have on one's health in general or specific ways makes no sense. Maybe you might lose weight, but set yourself up for senility, Alzheimer's, heart disease, stroke, etc as you age.
Heck, CICO is so simple in concept that it's really attractive.
The fact is, take the microbiome from a thin person and put it into a fat oerson, the fat person WILL lose weight to MATCH the weight of the thin person, with no special attention paid to CICO. And the reverse is true.
If we get to the basics of calories, a calorie is simply the amount of energy required to heat 1 kg of water by 1 degree Celsius.
Excess calories do cause weight gain. Calorie deficits cause weight loss.
But isn't that a tremendous oversimplification of the entire process? That treats all calories as essentially equal. But they aren't. Different macronutrients go through different metabolic pathways.
Compare 100 calories of fructose to 100 calories if protein.
Fructose enters the liver, can be stored as glycogen until the liver is full, then it's stored as fat. Fructose consumed in abundance can cause insulin resistance, rising insulin levels which then increases the amount of stored fat. The body doesn't respond to fructose even the same way it does glucose; like I said before, it doesn't lower the hormone ghrelin which turns on hunger and keeps it turned on until lowered, so doesn't help at all with satiety.
Do you have any idea what it feels like to have eaten a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger?
Protein, on the otherhand, causes the body to burn approximently the equivalent of 30% of its calories in the process of digesting it, so you lose about 30 calories right off the bat. The metabolic pathway protein goes through requires energy expenditure itself. Now that 100 calories of protein is just 70 calories you body has to burn. 30% is not insignificant.
Protein also helps to increase the sense of fullness, and it can boost the metabolic rate.
So compare the calories from a can of soda and the same calories from eggs over a period of years. I guarantee you they do not have the same effect on the body, and the difference is not insignificant.
Understanding how micronutrients affect our appetites, hunger and satiety and properly balancing them to get the results we want makes the difference between success and failure unless one is truly a gluten for punishment and wants to struggle against their own body's messages.
In this study comparing a low carb diet to a calorie restricted low fat diet, the ones on the low carb diet would become satiated without worrying about counting calories and lost more fat that the low fat dieters did with calorie restriction. Table here:
https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/jcem/88/4/10.1210_jc.2002-021480/2/eg0439372003.jpeg?Expires=1501275274&Signature=WdbBj-armQXajWCmuPpmM5S4qVRLk6zx9XZlKsJLNl5MdNatZuwOegtNdLabyPUc-zOAVA62~etUl2iGGLYR-~patV3k-KEi~uvgIDeI0R7N6rBcp3kD8WFKKPdlN-OyPt833cyy2S5HpxRAjDS9tvElmBcmtcSR9MnWErpO63qiMIhImWtNYxv3XETFrFOD-u5TK1G9cKVkDCxGEBRci2-u2vc5-SIdYp3oBcDOtdhYY3MFPfYb73x7NeS7nxEbpImerlN8mngkX~cs6Fq2hQR~nVydFJjdItx7JEV1UW6W5lMCQ4cORrADlSMoGGBlHvcuq60Fc2zhb1h4zjRoOA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q
Study here:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
The researchers found:
"The results of this study demonstrate that a very low carbohydrate diet, taken without a specified restriction of caloric intake is effective for weight loss over a 6 month period in healthy obese women. Compared with the low fat group, who followed a diet conforming to currently recommended distribution of macronutrient calories, the very low carbohydrate group lost significantly more weight....... In addition, despite eating a high percentage of calories as fat and having relatively high intakes is saturated fat and cholesterol, the women in the very low carbohydrate group maintained normal levels of blood pressure, plasma lipids, glucose, and insulin."
A calorie is not simply a calorie in the human body.
This whole thing sounds to me like:
- Gravity works
- No it doesn't! A feather falls slower than a brick.
The calorie equation works. If you want to lose weight you need to eat fewer calories than you burn. That's all there is to it and there is no other way around it. How you go about it and whether you choose "value added" sources of calories is a whole other field of interest that can intersect with weight loss but not necessarily.
It bothers me when a topic as complicated as health is reduced to one one "fix it all" remedy, especially in the face of real life evidence to the contrary. I don't believe for one second that low carbing is necessary for health. It can be a healthy choice for some if they focus on "value added" foods, but eating healthfully can happen at any point of the macro spectrum and real life evidence confirms it. I also don't think food is all there is to health.
Just a side note: I know what it's like to eat a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger. I had that in full force when I attempted keto. I was absolutely starving all the time, both times. Starches fill me up and without them I go hungry. When will people admit that individuals are not study averages?
One, where did I say low carbing is the only remedy?
Simply because I referenced a study that compared low carb to low fat doesn't mean I'm endorsing solely one approach.
I referenced the study as an example that 1) demonstrates that you don't necessarily have to track the calories, which, and perhaps im not understanding, the CICO approach requires; 2) the study demonstrated how those on a low carb naturally, due to satiation, naturally limited their calories whereas those on a high carb, low fat diet had to track calories to limit their calories. The calorie charts show the low carb group actually taking in less calories without tracking than the high carb liw fat group.
I don't think anyone is saying that you will lose weight if you take in more calories than you burn, but from what I understand, the focus in CICO is primarily and predominately calories and all other factors take a back seat. You may lose weight, but easily in an unbalanced way that in the future could cause injury to your health.
Regardless of whether one uses low fat or low carb, it needs to be balanced because our health now, and in the future matters. What does it matter if you lose weight and end up with dementia later in life?
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of CICO and how people are using the terminology here.
It does not mean calorie counting.
It is not a way of eating.
It does not mean ignore nutrition or health.
It is simply a mathematical formula that describes the energy balance which governs weight loss, gain, or maintenance.
EVERYONE is subject to CICO, regardless of how you choose to eat, whether you count calories, eat intuitively, follow a particular protocol like LCHF or Paleo or anything else.
It is a fundamental law of thermodynamics and this is why people are trying to explain to you that talking about CICO does not suggest that all foods are the same from a satiety or nutritional standpoint. Actively using the principles of CICO to achieve weight goals does not suggest that someone is ignoring health and wellness.
Additionally, my mother had Alzheimer's and Dementia and it really bothers me when the concept of "ending up with dementia later in life" is thrown around so flippantly as to suggest that someone who counts calories is doomed to end as my mother did for the last 5 years of her life, in a nursing home unable to recognize her own children and grandchildren.
Now how you are explaining CICO is simply how I've always understood calorie counting in the context of a balanced diet. The understanding I've come to about CICO from what some have said about it here, seemed to be a more extreme form of calorie counting. I could have sworn I've read people saying that it doesn't matter what you eat, what matters is counting calories and creating a calorie deficit.
Basically the point of calorie counting is to help one develop a calorie surplus or deficit.
When one simply uses calories in vs calories out and treats the source of calories as having such a minor effect on the calculations that they can be discarded, that's where I think the mistake is. And from this discussion, that's what I'm taking away is indeed the belief. Am I wrong?
You are missing the context. When people say it doesn't matter it's usually in very specific contexts, the context is often concerns or claims about losing weight in particular that over-complicate things. For example, someone is trying to follow a certain dieting protocol and finding it very hard, they are told weight loss is all about calories and they don't have to eat a specific way to lose weight, they can just eat normally. Another example, someone ate a cookie and is very distressed and think their diet is ruined, they are told it's really about calories and that cookie won't suddenly make them fat. Someone is dreading a holiday or a special occasion with loved ones, they are told to stop stressing and just enjoy it, it's really about calories.
Life has many sides to it, and so does health. Balancing it all out is goal. If eating healthfully causes deteriorating mental, emotional, or social health it's really not that healthy. If you're interested in dementia in particular, having a healthy social network reduces the risk. Social engagement means being exposed to foods that may not have the best nutritional profile on their own, and that can still be alright because single foods do not define a diet. It's really not the idea that eating healthy shouldn't matter because it's all about calories, it's that weight loss doesn't need to be as stressful as people make it sometimes, doesn't need to rob them of simple joys, and if they look at their diet as a whole without singling out ingredients a healthy balance can easily be achieved."There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight."
300 calories a day is quite a bit when you are only consuming 1200 to 1500 calories a day.
So here we have two diets with identical caloric intake resulting in very different outcomes regarding weight lost - The low-carb group lost 6lbs more on an average than the low-fat group.
We also have a third group - the low carb + 300 extra calories a day - losing more than the low-fat group.
Extrapolating this information to using a simple calories in, calories out calculation, all things being equal, those on a low-fat diet are going to find it harder to lose weight than those on a low-carb diet, even is those on a low-carb diet are eating a few hundred more calories a day.
Low carb dieters don't have 300 calories extra over the low fat group. How people report their food intake is flawed. Even if meals were provided, who is to say those on low carb ate all the food in their meal or that those on low fat didn't snack on the side? How did the individuals fare? Since it was a small study, any anomaly could skew results (for example, a person eating too little and losing too much, or eating outside of the plan and not losing much because they did not enjoy the food provided). Besides, did the study design include a control phase at the end of the experiment to even out water weight loss?
When you remove that food autonomy in a metabolic ward all these differences even out, and in fact, people on low carb have a slightly slower metabolic rate in the beginning.So I am failing to see the real benefit of a strong focus on calories rather than food balance and type of balance, with numbers being of a background, rather than of a foreground importance.
There is strong focus on calories rather than food balance because of the sheer amount of misinformation out there which is reflected in the near daily posts like "I'm eating healthy and exercising, why am I not losing weight?". Most people generally know what a balanced diet looks like, but not many people know that it's not enough, there also needs to be a calorie deficit.
In some cases, if eating a nutritionally poor diet helps someone who is obese lose weight who wouldn't lose it otherwise, that's the lesser of two evils. Being obese carries way more risks that are way more common than not eating perfectly.
Well now you're simply arguing with the researchers and basically saying they don't know what the heck they are talking about, simply because their findings don't agree with your paradigm?
You probably aren't going to like this one then:
"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics
Nutr J 2004 Jul 28
"A review of simple thermodynamic principles shows that weight change on isocaloric diets is not expected to be independent of path (metabolism of macronutrients) and indeed such a general principle would be a violation of the second law. Homeostatic mechanisms are able to insure that, a good deal of the time, weight does not fluctuate much with changes in diet – this might be said to be the true "miraculous metabolic effect" – but it is subject to many exceptions. The idea that this is theoretically required in all cases is mistakenly based on equilibrium, reversible conditions that do not hold for living organisms and an insufficient appreciation of the second law. The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a "calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle."
...."Metabolic advantage with low carbohydrate diets is well established in the literature. It does not always occur but the important point is that it can occur. To ignore its possibilities and to not investigate the precise conditions under which it appears would be cutting ourselves off from potential benefit. The extent to which metabolic advantage will have significant impact in treating obesity is unknown and it is widely said in studies of low carbohydrate diets that "more work needs to be done." However, if the misconception is perpetuated that there is a violation of physical laws, that work will not be done, and if done, will go unpublished due to editorial resistance. Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
Dare I say it? But it appears to me that Feinman is (probably for click bait or as a talking point) setting up a straw man with the statement "A calorie is not a calorie".
I'm pretty sure that he is aware that there are people who use that statement in the true scientific way as a "unit of energy is just a unit of energy" and not only those that miss-interpret it when considering the different effects of foods (the second group being the ones that he seems to be calling to when saying "Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start.")
In fact, the it seems that Feinman is actually targeting the media and popular press "This work received a good deal of attention in the popular press. Media reports, however, included comments of experts that "It doesn't make sense, does it?" "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."
Feinman's article (it wasn't a study or a review) does not, or even attempt to, discredit CICO but instead is a discussion of the complexity of tracing the energy use from calorific input. And to that point, I don't think there are many on MFP who would argue that there are no differences between 200 cals of chicken breast and 200 cals of olive oil in their effect on the body - In fact, the thermic effects of foods (often cited on these forums and mentioned in the article) is a well known part of the CICO statement.
Where we perhaps have a grey area in weight management is the statement "A calorie is just a calorie" when applied to nutrition and diet, is an oversimplification (although in practical terms pretty valid since many people who are struggling to understand what they can or can't eat for weight loss would be in a much better situation if they just considered the calories and not get caught up in the details of macro and micro nutrients until they have mastered the basics) and could lead to people incorrectly believing that:- 200 calories of oil has the same physiological effect on their body as 200 cals of chicken
- 200 calories of oil has the same net calorific input as 200 calories of chicken
The first is nothing to do with the CICO argument - it's an argument of nutrition and not energy. The second falshood is accounted for in the CICO argument.
It's also worth pointing out that, in practical terms, we are not dealing with an simple system when considering energy inputs for humans (and animals and plants for that matter) in that the internal regulation systems work to mitigate the effects of reduced calorie input and to capitalise on increased calorie input. Anyone who has spent some time on these forums will be familiar with the concept of NEAT and therefore, hopefully, understand how this fits in with the CICO argument.
CICO, holds true and does not violate the 1st law of Thermodynamics. Introduction of the 2nd law is in my opinion a red herring for human nutrition since the 2nd law is only applicable in its stated (pure) form for closed systems (i.e. the universe) and since all other systems (including humans and the sub-parts of humans such as body fat) are sub-systems we have a whole bunch of rules and theroems which hang off the 2nd law to account for the energy transference between open systems.
No, I'm pretty sure he is attributing too much importance to macro distribution. He is also plainly lying when he said there's a well established metabolic advantage to low carb.15 -
I think everyone has own funda... Some one like to run, some one body building, some one yoga, some one gymnastic/Athletics.. but for me parkour is also a sport and I love that.. this awesome.3
-
A variety of studies show that in the short term low carb does better with IR people (or the more IR half of an already overweight/obese group -- who are much more likely to be IR than the general public), whereas low fat does better for those not IR (or even the less IR half of the overweight/obese group).
Other studies -- NOT adjusted for water loss or differences in protein content or other differences in diet, typically -- show some advantage in the short term for low carb, that goes away in the longer term. These often are also for IR/overweight participants who are more likely to be IR. Also the water issue is a huge one given that the difference is usually seen in the short term, as everyone who has done LCHF knows that there's a fast water drop at first.
The ONLY studies I've seen that adjust for diet quality and especially protein content entirely and which make sure the calories are counted properly are the Kevin Hall ones, and those show NO advantage for low carb (and even a slight advantage for low fat that IMO is too small to worry about).
Long term, outside of a study, what matters is adherence and for many people who aren't committed to counting, being able to maintain the diet without counting. There I suspect the specific diet matters, as well as people being able to count.
Worth noting: the low carb vs. low fat studies that relied on ad lib that I've seen mostly resulted in VERY SMALL losses for both groups, much smaller over the same periods of time than I lost doing MFP (which I did with a healthy diet that included about 40% carbs). My losses, like those of many, were about consistent (slightly higher, actually) with what MFP predicted based on calories (the higher is, I think, due to me underestimating activity calories). So why on earth would I decided based on some study where ad lib reductions based on non comparable diets resulted in lower losses for a low carb group than I got in the real world, but the low carb group slightly outperformed the low fat group?
That's weak.
As is the effort to claim that low carb is a superior diet or that CICO doesn't accurately describe what happens.
Telling people they need to do a special diet (vs. just eating in a healthful way that satisfies them, ideally) or must learn all kinds of details about things that might have a tiny effect on metabolism and just generally making it as complicated as possible is nothing but a way to make people think they need to have a special program (often then that they have to pay for) or to give them an excuse to fail.18 -
canadianlbs wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »It's like people are unaware you can eat vegetables without a blender...
O_O people put vegetables in a blender? i think the category of your rage can be expanded in my world into 'the food-related aspects of your lifestyle just aren't that interesting. please would you shut up about them.'
Some vegetables are great in a blender. Gazpacho is a summer staple of mine.9 -
theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »If these factors, which are constantly in flux, affect metabolism (which they do), then how does one know how many calories they are actually burning on any particular day or group of days?
You seem to be exaggerating how much they affect metabolism. (How many calories we burn is going to be most affected by set things and movement.)
More significantly, you know how many calories you burn over a period of time (and on average over shorter periods of time) by results. They should not vary dramatically from week to week if movement is constant.
The idea that you need to know exactly for any practical purpose isn't right.
Thus, CICO works even though we will not know exact numbers or every input.
Yet it doesn't work for everyone. And more importantly, a simple CICO without regards to the effect certain foods may have on one's health in general or specific ways makes no sense. Maybe you might lose weight, but set yourself up for senility, Alzheimer's, heart disease, stroke, etc as you age.
Heck, CICO is so simple in concept that it's really attractive.
The fact is, take the microbiome from a thin person and put it into a fat oerson, the fat person WILL lose weight to MATCH the weight of the thin person, with no special attention paid to CICO. And the reverse is true.
If we get to the basics of calories, a calorie is simply the amount of energy required to heat 1 kg of water by 1 degree Celsius.
Excess calories do cause weight gain. Calorie deficits cause weight loss.
But isn't that a tremendous oversimplification of the entire process? That treats all calories as essentially equal. But they aren't. Different macronutrients go through different metabolic pathways.
Compare 100 calories of fructose to 100 calories if protein.
Fructose enters the liver, can be stored as glycogen until the liver is full, then it's stored as fat. Fructose consumed in abundance can cause insulin resistance, rising insulin levels which then increases the amount of stored fat. The body doesn't respond to fructose even the same way it does glucose; like I said before, it doesn't lower the hormone ghrelin which turns on hunger and keeps it turned on until lowered, so doesn't help at all with satiety.
Do you have any idea what it feels like to have eaten a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger?
Protein, on the otherhand, causes the body to burn approximently the equivalent of 30% of its calories in the process of digesting it, so you lose about 30 calories right off the bat. The metabolic pathway protein goes through requires energy expenditure itself. Now that 100 calories of protein is just 70 calories you body has to burn. 30% is not insignificant.
Protein also helps to increase the sense of fullness, and it can boost the metabolic rate.
So compare the calories from a can of soda and the same calories from eggs over a period of years. I guarantee you they do not have the same effect on the body, and the difference is not insignificant.
Understanding how micronutrients affect our appetites, hunger and satiety and properly balancing them to get the results we want makes the difference between success and failure unless one is truly a gluten for punishment and wants to struggle against their own body's messages.
In this study comparing a low carb diet to a calorie restricted low fat diet, the ones on the low carb diet would become satiated without worrying about counting calories and lost more fat that the low fat dieters did with calorie restriction. Table here:
https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/jcem/88/4/10.1210_jc.2002-021480/2/eg0439372003.jpeg?Expires=1501275274&Signature=WdbBj-armQXajWCmuPpmM5S4qVRLk6zx9XZlKsJLNl5MdNatZuwOegtNdLabyPUc-zOAVA62~etUl2iGGLYR-~patV3k-KEi~uvgIDeI0R7N6rBcp3kD8WFKKPdlN-OyPt833cyy2S5HpxRAjDS9tvElmBcmtcSR9MnWErpO63qiMIhImWtNYxv3XETFrFOD-u5TK1G9cKVkDCxGEBRci2-u2vc5-SIdYp3oBcDOtdhYY3MFPfYb73x7NeS7nxEbpImerlN8mngkX~cs6Fq2hQR~nVydFJjdItx7JEV1UW6W5lMCQ4cORrADlSMoGGBlHvcuq60Fc2zhb1h4zjRoOA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q
Study here:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
The researchers found:
"The results of this study demonstrate that a very low carbohydrate diet, taken without a specified restriction of caloric intake is effective for weight loss over a 6 month period in healthy obese women. Compared with the low fat group, who followed a diet conforming to currently recommended distribution of macronutrient calories, the very low carbohydrate group lost significantly more weight....... In addition, despite eating a high percentage of calories as fat and having relatively high intakes is saturated fat and cholesterol, the women in the very low carbohydrate group maintained normal levels of blood pressure, plasma lipids, glucose, and insulin."
A calorie is not simply a calorie in the human body.
This whole thing sounds to me like:
- Gravity works
- No it doesn't! A feather falls slower than a brick.
The calorie equation works. If you want to lose weight you need to eat fewer calories than you burn. That's all there is to it and there is no other way around it. How you go about it and whether you choose "value added" sources of calories is a whole other field of interest that can intersect with weight loss but not necessarily.
It bothers me when a topic as complicated as health is reduced to one one "fix it all" remedy, especially in the face of real life evidence to the contrary. I don't believe for one second that low carbing is necessary for health. It can be a healthy choice for some if they focus on "value added" foods, but eating healthfully can happen at any point of the macro spectrum and real life evidence confirms it. I also don't think food is all there is to health.
Just a side note: I know what it's like to eat a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger. I had that in full force when I attempted keto. I was absolutely starving all the time, both times. Starches fill me up and without them I go hungry. When will people admit that individuals are not study averages?
One, where did I say low carbing is the only remedy?
Simply because I referenced a study that compared low carb to low fat doesn't mean I'm endorsing solely one approach.
I referenced the study as an example that 1) demonstrates that you don't necessarily have to track the calories, which, and perhaps im not understanding, the CICO approach requires; 2) the study demonstrated how those on a low carb naturally, due to satiation, naturally limited their calories whereas those on a high carb, low fat diet had to track calories to limit their calories. The calorie charts show the low carb group actually taking in less calories without tracking than the high carb liw fat group.
I don't think anyone is saying that you will lose weight if you take in more calories than you burn, but from what I understand, the focus in CICO is primarily and predominately calories and all other factors take a back seat. You may lose weight, but easily in an unbalanced way that in the future could cause injury to your health.
Regardless of whether one uses low fat or low carb, it needs to be balanced because our health now, and in the future matters. What does it matter if you lose weight and end up with dementia later in life?
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of CICO and how people are using the terminology here.
It does not mean calorie counting.
It is not a way of eating.
It does not mean ignore nutrition or health.
It is simply a mathematical formula that describes the energy balance which governs weight loss, gain, or maintenance.
EVERYONE is subject to CICO, regardless of how you choose to eat, whether you count calories, eat intuitively, follow a particular protocol like LCHF or Paleo or anything else.
It is a fundamental law of thermodynamics and this is why people are trying to explain to you that talking about CICO does not suggest that all foods are the same from a satiety or nutritional standpoint. Actively using the principles of CICO to achieve weight goals does not suggest that someone is ignoring health and wellness.
Additionally, my mother had Alzheimer's and Dementia and it really bothers me when the concept of "ending up with dementia later in life" is thrown around so flippantly as to suggest that someone who counts calories is doomed to end as my mother did for the last 5 years of her life, in a nursing home unable to recognize her own children and grandchildren.
Now how you are explaining CICO is simply how I've always understood calorie counting in the context of a balanced diet. The understanding I've come to about CICO from what some have said about it here, seemed to be a more extreme form of calorie counting. I could have sworn I've read people saying that it doesn't matter what you eat, what matters is counting calories and creating a calorie deficit.
Basically the point of calorie counting is to help one develop a calorie surplus or deficit.
When one simply uses calories in vs calories out and treats the source of calories as having such a minor effect on the calculations that they can be discarded, that's where I think the mistake is. And from this discussion, that's what I'm taking away is indeed the belief. Am I wrong?
You are missing the context. When people say it doesn't matter it's usually in very specific contexts, the context is often concerns or claims about losing weight in particular that over-complicate things. For example, someone is trying to follow a certain dieting protocol and finding it very hard, they are told weight loss is all about calories and they don't have to eat a specific way to lose weight, they can just eat normally. Another example, someone ate a cookie and is very distressed and think their diet is ruined, they are told it's really about calories and that cookie won't suddenly make them fat. Someone is dreading a holiday or a special occasion with loved ones, they are told to stop stressing and just enjoy it, it's really about calories.
Life has many sides to it, and so does health. Balancing it all out is goal. If eating healthfully causes deteriorating mental, emotional, or social health it's really not that healthy. If you're interested in dementia in particular, having a healthy social network reduces the risk. Social engagement means being exposed to foods that may not have the best nutritional profile on their own, and that can still be alright because single foods do not define a diet. It's really not the idea that eating healthy shouldn't matter because it's all about calories, it's that weight loss doesn't need to be as stressful as people make it sometimes, doesn't need to rob them of simple joys, and if they look at their diet as a whole without singling out ingredients a healthy balance can easily be achieved."There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight."
300 calories a day is quite a bit when you are only consuming 1200 to 1500 calories a day.
So here we have two diets with identical caloric intake resulting in very different outcomes regarding weight lost - The low-carb group lost 6lbs more on an average than the low-fat group.
We also have a third group - the low carb + 300 extra calories a day - losing more than the low-fat group.
Extrapolating this information to using a simple calories in, calories out calculation, all things being equal, those on a low-fat diet are going to find it harder to lose weight than those on a low-carb diet, even is those on a low-carb diet are eating a few hundred more calories a day.
Low carb dieters don't have 300 calories extra over the low fat group. How people report their food intake is flawed. Even if meals were provided, who is to say those on low carb ate all the food in their meal or that those on low fat didn't snack on the side? How did the individuals fare? Since it was a small study, any anomaly could skew results (for example, a person eating too little and losing too much, or eating outside of the plan and not losing much because they did not enjoy the food provided). Besides, did the study design include a control phase at the end of the experiment to even out water weight loss?
When you remove that food autonomy in a metabolic ward all these differences even out, and in fact, people on low carb have a slightly slower metabolic rate in the beginning.So I am failing to see the real benefit of a strong focus on calories rather than food balance and type of balance, with numbers being of a background, rather than of a foreground importance.
There is strong focus on calories rather than food balance because of the sheer amount of misinformation out there which is reflected in the near daily posts like "I'm eating healthy and exercising, why am I not losing weight?". Most people generally know what a balanced diet looks like, but not many people know that it's not enough, there also needs to be a calorie deficit.
In some cases, if eating a nutritionally poor diet helps someone who is obese lose weight who wouldn't lose it otherwise, that's the lesser of two evils. Being obese carries way more risks that are way more common than not eating perfectly.
Well now you're simply arguing with the researchers and basically saying they don't know what the heck they are talking about, simply because their findings don't agree with your paradigm?
You probably aren't going to like this one then:
"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics
Nutr J 2004 Jul 28
...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
[/i]
I've destroyed this piece a few times now. I'll condense it this time. The authors got ultra-basic physics wrong - as in, they misdefined the laws of thermodynamics. 1st law? Good enough. 0th law? Completely wrong. 3rd Law? Wrong again. 2nd Law? They incorrectly defined it using the 3rd Law's real definition in one spot, correctly with various versions of the 2nd Law in others. They, quite simply, don't know what they're talking about.23 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »A variety of studies show that in the short term low carb does better with IR people (or the more IR half of an already overweight/obese group -- who are much more likely to be IR than the general public), whereas low fat does better for those not IR (or even the less IR half of the overweight/obese group).
Other studies -- NOT adjusted for water loss or differences in protein content or other differences in diet, typically -- show some advantage in the short term for low carb, that goes away in the longer term. These often are also for IR/overweight participants who are more likely to be IR. Also the water issue is a huge one given that the difference is usually seen in the short term, as everyone who has done LCHF knows that there's a fast water drop at first.
The ONLY studies I've seen that adjust for diet quality and especially protein content entirely and which make sure the calories are counted properly are the Kevin Hall ones, and those show NO advantage for low carb (and even a slight advantage for low fat that IMO is too small to worry about).
Long term, outside of a study, what matters is adherence and for many people who aren't committed to counting, being able to maintain the diet without counting. There I suspect the specific diet matters, as well as people being able to count.
Worth noting: the low carb vs. low fat studies that relied on ad lib that I've seen mostly resulted in VERY SMALL losses for both groups, much smaller over the same periods of time than I lost doing MFP (which I did with a healthy diet that included about 40% carbs). My losses, like those of many, were about consistent (slightly higher, actually) with what MFP predicted based on calories (the higher is, I think, due to me underestimating activity calories). So why on earth would I decided based on some study where ad lib reductions based on non comparable diets resulted in lower losses for a low carb group than I got in the real world, but the low carb group slightly outperformed the low fat group?
That's weak.
As is the effort to claim that low carb is a superior diet or that CICO doesn't accurately describe what happens.
Telling people they need to do a special diet (vs. just eating in a healthful way that satisfies them, ideally) or must learn all kinds of details about things that might have a tiny effect on metabolism and just generally making it as complicated as possible is nothing but a way to make people think they need to have a special program (often then that they have to pay for) or to give them an excuse to fail.
Quoting for truth and because it worth reading the bolded parts again because they cut to the heart of the matter.
There has been an awful lot of cherry picking of studies/papers here without critical thinking applied to their design.
I am losing on a high carb low fat diet because that is what I find easiest to comply with.
Anyone worth their salt is going to tell you that the first priority when choosing a way of eating for any dieter is compliance. All of this back and forth over supposed advantage doesn't matter and is silly. If it's best for you, it's best for you. End of. It's not best for everyone.
There's no one answer other than you need to control your calories to lose weight. You can control your calories with different macro balances and achieve results.17 -
theresejesu wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »My unpopular opinion is that being fat has nothing to do with sugar.
Not even proximately? Doesn't sugar tend to make food more delicious, increasing the tendency to consume greater quantities of it, and potentially resulting in consuming more calories than one burns?
Sure, if you interpret it that way then being fat is also related to dietary fat, salt, spices, herbs, aromatics, maillard reaction, yeast, flavorings, packaging, coloring agents, texture agents, strategic shelf placement, peer pressure, and more. All of these make food more appealing, so singling out sugar makes no sense.
So you're saying sugar DOES contribute to making one fat?
There is only one thing that definitively causes someone to be overweight/obese/morbidly obese. Eating too many calories for their individual energy balance (CI > CO). These excess calories can come from foods which contain sugar (rarely do people eat straight table sugar but some insist it happens), but more often than not, the foods contain myriad other ingredients so the point is, why single out sugar? Still others have pointed out that they gained weight eating a lot of non-sugary foods, I myself am one of those. I got fat from eating a little too much, of a lot of different foods, and becoming much more sedentary, but don't have a particularly strong sweet tooth.
Because sugar, and foods that easily convert to glucose are the main culprit in a western diet, not only in regards to caloric intake, but also how the body handles glucose, and that's part if why this can never be a simple calories in, calories out equation.
The CICO method mechanizes our bodies. But our bodies aren't machines, not in such a simplistic sense. Thoughts, emotions, activities, hormonal profile, circadian rhythm, food choices (which can even switch on and off genes - epigenetics), the bacteria in our guts which affect our immune system and brain influencing how we feel and perceive and react to our world: all these affect our energy requirements, and thus our caloric needs.
We are much more complicated than a simple CICO can account for. For some, it works great. For others, though, it doesn't, because it simply can't account for all those variables.
What you choose to eat can affect how hard it is to keep to such a diet. Fructose, for instance, doesn't do a great job lowering the hormone ghrelin, which triggers feelings if hunger. So if you're eating a lot of fruit, you're probably going to still feel hungry, and so the cost in will power for you would be greater than someone who's ghrelin production turns off more easily.
People look at what happens to them and then try to use their personal experience as a plumbline for everyone else without considering their individual experience is governed by a variety of factors they aren't even aware of, factors which vary from individual to individual. We are all subject to falling into this trap, and we probably all do from time to time. The danger is first to ourselves when we allow ourselves to become judgemental of others instead of understanding, and second, this can become damaging to the other.
This is true, but people get mired in the irrelevant details as I suspect you are doing now.
Pareto these variables: CI, CO, thoughts, emotions, activities, hormones, cricadian rhythm, macros, micros, epigenetics, microbiome, etc.
CI and CO combined amount to >80% of impact.
Hormones 5-10%
The rest ~1%
What variables are you going to prioritize?
I have to disagree, I don't believe I'm getting mired in irrelevant details at all. How are these factors irrelevant?
If these factors, which are constantly in flux, affect metabolism (which they do), then how does one know how many calories they are actually burning on any particular day or group of days? You would need to do lab tests and calculations. The best we can do is to approximate.
For instance,
"..a greater intake of sugar calories stimulates more insulin resistance and more fat storage than other types of calories do, even when the total calorie intake remains the same."
The Salt Fix
Author referencing study of which he was a co-author:
Added Fructose: a principle driver of type 2 diabetes mellitus and it's consequences
Mayo Clin. Proc 90 (3): 372-381.
There is much more going on in our bodies than simple CICO can account for.
...and your disagreement is based upon what body of objective data?
These factors are irrelevant as they play a minimal part in impacting Basal Metabolic Rate. A review of any metabolic pathway proves this. Why are you focusing on a variable that has minimal impact?
Cite your evidence please. Cite the variable, degree of impact, and degree of error.
6 -
theresejesu wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Bullying is such a strange topic for me. I was bullied mercilessly in school. I was the fat, short, effeminate kid all the way through school, with glasses, braces, and a bad haircut my mom gave me at home once a month. Every day was torture but I still went to school. I maintained a 4.0 and went off to college as soon as I could.
I could have easily shut down but I didn't. I learned to draw a very detailed map of Hell, hand it to my hecklers, and tell them to begin their journey forthwith. And no, I'm not just talking about name calling. I was locked in rooms, thrown in trash cans, physically assaulted, even spit on. I didn't post about it on MySpace. Did I cry about it? Sure, every goddamn night. Did I write *kitten* emo poetry about it? Sure did. But I got through it.
I never thought of offing myself. I never thought about blowing up the school. I just thought about surviving...and I did. So it kind of puzzles me when others can't. Maybe it's because social media makes everything so much more immediate. Maybe it's some other factor. I just tend to agree that there is something making people unable to shrug things off as easily and get on with their lives. We only have one after all.
I didn't kill myself or commit violence either (obviously) -- and it goes without saying, I'd hope, that I consider killing other people inappropriate, period, especially but not only complete innocents.
But to say -- as the other poster was -- that back in the day we just shrugged it off or weren't bothered by it, or it didn't hurt us, so everything was good then and is bad now (that people take it more seriously) seems to me totally inconsistent with what I saw and experienced back in the day and to how I saw people react.
That I ended up a pretty successful person and got past it doesn't mean that people who don't are just weak and we are coddling them. It means that maybe I don't know all they were experiencing and that people are different.
And people did kill themselves back when I was a kid too, so this idea that it's because kids are coddled now is nuts.
I'm not saying I had it worse than anyone else, who could say (and I do think lots of people had it a lot worse than me). But I was not unbothered by it, which is why I brought it up; I don't think it was unimportant or good for me, and that the culture of the time (or my school or my family -- obv the latter had a lot to do with it) was such that I said nothing about it and felt like it must be because there was something wrong with me (and still have a suspicion of that in the back of my head such that I usually would never admit to anyone that it happened) is screwed up and not a sign of a better way, IMO. That was the point I was trying to make.
For context, I'm 38. As a teenager, I had several friends who tried to kill themselves. Only one of them seemed to be related to social issues (that I know of), but the idea that children/teenagers are weaker today or point to some kind of "snowflaking" trend doesn't really resonate with me. And my peers and I didn't even have to worry about social media until we were older. It seems like young people today deal with a peer environment that is, in some ways, much more immersive and 24/7 than the ones I had to deal with when I was younger.
I'm 55.
I did try to kill myself.
It had more to do with a horrible home situation than anything I experienced socially. I'd reached a breaking point that had been simmering for years.
Sorry to hear about that, I hope things are better now.
Aw, thank you. That was almost 40 years ago. Things are much better now, though I am aware that depression is something I'm liable to deal with every now and then. Regular exercise is a big help in keeping it at bay.
Exercise almost always lifts my mood. It's gotten me through some really rough times in my life.
Taking this back to the topic of the thread, this is one of the reasons I'd encourage just about everyone to exercise in some way. It's somewhat popular to tell people that it's okay to not exercise, but I don't know how on board I am with that.
It doesn't need to be back-breaking or super vigorous, but the benefits for helping things like depression and stress are well worth any efforts that need to be made. Even just a 15 minute walk a day can be beneficial for helping these issues.
I had my last spell of major depression when my autoimmune arthritis manifested itself, and I spent ten years being not myself because of it. If I had only picked up the habit then, my life would have been so much different.
Yeah, if the question is "Do I have to exercise to lose weight?" the answer is no.
But if the question is "Should I exercise (or do some type of regular activity)?" my answer is virtually always going to be yes. I think it's such an important component of overall health.
It's like vegetables. You can lose weight without ever eating a vegetable. But it would be very challenging to meet your nutritional needs this way and I'd never recommend it to someone.
I was readying up on how our mitochondria function, and bought a book called
LIFE - THE EPIC STORY OF OUR MITOCHONDRIA: HOW THE ORIGINAL PROBIOTIC DICTATES YOUR HEALTH, ILLNESS, AGING, AND EVEN LIFE ITSELF
Fascinating book. Essentially a big reason why activity such as exercise is so important has to do with ATP generation and utilization. If we don't use ATP up fast enough, this leads to ATP "spilling over" which increases free radical production which then damages our mitochondria, which leads to a host of problems. I'm in a hurry so can't explain much now, but I highly recommend this book.
Absolute garbage pedaled as science. Yet another book written by an unqualified individual extolling the virtues of supplements, which by very definition cannot prove effectiveness.
You are a medical professional and should know better.6 -
theresejesu wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Bullying is such a strange topic for me. I was bullied mercilessly in school. I was the fat, short, effeminate kid all the way through school, with glasses, braces, and a bad haircut my mom gave me at home once a month. Every day was torture but I still went to school. I maintained a 4.0 and went off to college as soon as I could.
I could have easily shut down but I didn't. I learned to draw a very detailed map of Hell, hand it to my hecklers, and tell them to begin their journey forthwith. And no, I'm not just talking about name calling. I was locked in rooms, thrown in trash cans, physically assaulted, even spit on. I didn't post about it on MySpace. Did I cry about it? Sure, every goddamn night. Did I write *kitten* emo poetry about it? Sure did. But I got through it.
I never thought of offing myself. I never thought about blowing up the school. I just thought about surviving...and I did. So it kind of puzzles me when others can't. Maybe it's because social media makes everything so much more immediate. Maybe it's some other factor. I just tend to agree that there is something making people unable to shrug things off as easily and get on with their lives. We only have one after all.
I didn't kill myself or commit violence either (obviously) -- and it goes without saying, I'd hope, that I consider killing other people inappropriate, period, especially but not only complete innocents.
But to say -- as the other poster was -- that back in the day we just shrugged it off or weren't bothered by it, or it didn't hurt us, so everything was good then and is bad now (that people take it more seriously) seems to me totally inconsistent with what I saw and experienced back in the day and to how I saw people react.
That I ended up a pretty successful person and got past it doesn't mean that people who don't are just weak and we are coddling them. It means that maybe I don't know all they were experiencing and that people are different.
And people did kill themselves back when I was a kid too, so this idea that it's because kids are coddled now is nuts.
I'm not saying I had it worse than anyone else, who could say (and I do think lots of people had it a lot worse than me). But I was not unbothered by it, which is why I brought it up; I don't think it was unimportant or good for me, and that the culture of the time (or my school or my family -- obv the latter had a lot to do with it) was such that I said nothing about it and felt like it must be because there was something wrong with me (and still have a suspicion of that in the back of my head such that I usually would never admit to anyone that it happened) is screwed up and not a sign of a better way, IMO. That was the point I was trying to make.
For context, I'm 38. As a teenager, I had several friends who tried to kill themselves. Only one of them seemed to be related to social issues (that I know of), but the idea that children/teenagers are weaker today or point to some kind of "snowflaking" trend doesn't really resonate with me. And my peers and I didn't even have to worry about social media until we were older. It seems like young people today deal with a peer environment that is, in some ways, much more immersive and 24/7 than the ones I had to deal with when I was younger.
I'm 55.
I did try to kill myself.
It had more to do with a horrible home situation than anything I experienced socially. I'd reached a breaking point that had been simmering for years.
Sorry to hear about that, I hope things are better now.
Aw, thank you. That was almost 40 years ago. Things are much better now, though I am aware that depression is something I'm liable to deal with every now and then. Regular exercise is a big help in keeping it at bay.
Exercise almost always lifts my mood. It's gotten me through some really rough times in my life.
Taking this back to the topic of the thread, this is one of the reasons I'd encourage just about everyone to exercise in some way. It's somewhat popular to tell people that it's okay to not exercise, but I don't know how on board I am with that.
It doesn't need to be back-breaking or super vigorous, but the benefits for helping things like depression and stress are well worth any efforts that need to be made. Even just a 15 minute walk a day can be beneficial for helping these issues.
I had my last spell of major depression when my autoimmune arthritis manifested itself, and I spent ten years being not myself because of it. If I had only picked up the habit then, my life would have been so much different.
Yeah, if the question is "Do I have to exercise to lose weight?" the answer is no.
But if the question is "Should I exercise (or do some type of regular activity)?" my answer is virtually always going to be yes. I think it's such an important component of overall health.
It's like vegetables. You can lose weight without ever eating a vegetable. But it would be very challenging to meet your nutritional needs this way and I'd never recommend it to someone.
I was readying up on how our mitochondria function, and bought a book called
LIFE - THE EPIC STORY OF OUR MITOCHONDRIA: HOW THE ORIGINAL PROBIOTIC DICTATES YOUR HEALTH, ILLNESS, AGING, AND EVEN LIFE ITSELF
Fascinating book. Essentially a big reason why activity such as exercise is so important has to do with ATP generation and utilization. If we don't use ATP up fast enough, this leads to ATP "spilling over" which increases free radical production which then damages our mitochondria, which leads to a host of problems. I'm in a hurry so can't explain much now, but I highly recommend this book.
Absolute garbage pedaled as science. Yet another book written by an unqualified individual extolling the virtues of supplements, which by very definition cannot prove effectiveness.
You are a medical professional and should know better.
I missed this part. 4 -
Unpopular opinions:
1. You are overweight due to genetics.... And I'm not talking about genetics diseases here, but when a person tells me "I'm fat because my parents are fat".... that's a lack of effort and responsibility. You're overweight because of your caloric intake, not because of the two people that gave you life.
2. Crossfit is a fad and overhyped. I do not see how it wouldn't lead to joint issues as the person continues it over an extended period of time. I could be wrong, I probably am, I've just always viewed it as the "show off" sport.10 -
theresejesu wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Bullying is such a strange topic for me. I was bullied mercilessly in school. I was the fat, short, effeminate kid all the way through school, with glasses, braces, and a bad haircut my mom gave me at home once a month. Every day was torture but I still went to school. I maintained a 4.0 and went off to college as soon as I could.
I could have easily shut down but I didn't. I learned to draw a very detailed map of Hell, hand it to my hecklers, and tell them to begin their journey forthwith. And no, I'm not just talking about name calling. I was locked in rooms, thrown in trash cans, physically assaulted, even spit on. I didn't post about it on MySpace. Did I cry about it? Sure, every goddamn night. Did I write *kitten* emo poetry about it? Sure did. But I got through it.
I never thought of offing myself. I never thought about blowing up the school. I just thought about surviving...and I did. So it kind of puzzles me when others can't. Maybe it's because social media makes everything so much more immediate. Maybe it's some other factor. I just tend to agree that there is something making people unable to shrug things off as easily and get on with their lives. We only have one after all.
I didn't kill myself or commit violence either (obviously) -- and it goes without saying, I'd hope, that I consider killing other people inappropriate, period, especially but not only complete innocents.
But to say -- as the other poster was -- that back in the day we just shrugged it off or weren't bothered by it, or it didn't hurt us, so everything was good then and is bad now (that people take it more seriously) seems to me totally inconsistent with what I saw and experienced back in the day and to how I saw people react.
That I ended up a pretty successful person and got past it doesn't mean that people who don't are just weak and we are coddling them. It means that maybe I don't know all they were experiencing and that people are different.
And people did kill themselves back when I was a kid too, so this idea that it's because kids are coddled now is nuts.
I'm not saying I had it worse than anyone else, who could say (and I do think lots of people had it a lot worse than me). But I was not unbothered by it, which is why I brought it up; I don't think it was unimportant or good for me, and that the culture of the time (or my school or my family -- obv the latter had a lot to do with it) was such that I said nothing about it and felt like it must be because there was something wrong with me (and still have a suspicion of that in the back of my head such that I usually would never admit to anyone that it happened) is screwed up and not a sign of a better way, IMO. That was the point I was trying to make.
For context, I'm 38. As a teenager, I had several friends who tried to kill themselves. Only one of them seemed to be related to social issues (that I know of), but the idea that children/teenagers are weaker today or point to some kind of "snowflaking" trend doesn't really resonate with me. And my peers and I didn't even have to worry about social media until we were older. It seems like young people today deal with a peer environment that is, in some ways, much more immersive and 24/7 than the ones I had to deal with when I was younger.
I'm 55.
I did try to kill myself.
It had more to do with a horrible home situation than anything I experienced socially. I'd reached a breaking point that had been simmering for years.
Sorry to hear about that, I hope things are better now.
Aw, thank you. That was almost 40 years ago. Things are much better now, though I am aware that depression is something I'm liable to deal with every now and then. Regular exercise is a big help in keeping it at bay.
Exercise almost always lifts my mood. It's gotten me through some really rough times in my life.
Taking this back to the topic of the thread, this is one of the reasons I'd encourage just about everyone to exercise in some way. It's somewhat popular to tell people that it's okay to not exercise, but I don't know how on board I am with that.
It doesn't need to be back-breaking or super vigorous, but the benefits for helping things like depression and stress are well worth any efforts that need to be made. Even just a 15 minute walk a day can be beneficial for helping these issues.
I had my last spell of major depression when my autoimmune arthritis manifested itself, and I spent ten years being not myself because of it. If I had only picked up the habit then, my life would have been so much different.
Yeah, if the question is "Do I have to exercise to lose weight?" the answer is no.
But if the question is "Should I exercise (or do some type of regular activity)?" my answer is virtually always going to be yes. I think it's such an important component of overall health.
It's like vegetables. You can lose weight without ever eating a vegetable. But it would be very challenging to meet your nutritional needs this way and I'd never recommend it to someone.
I was readying up on how our mitochondria function, and bought a book called
LIFE - THE EPIC STORY OF OUR MITOCHONDRIA: HOW THE ORIGINAL PROBIOTIC DICTATES YOUR HEALTH, ILLNESS, AGING, AND EVEN LIFE ITSELF
Fascinating book. Essentially a big reason why activity such as exercise is so important has to do with ATP generation and utilization. If we don't use ATP up fast enough, this leads to ATP "spilling over" which increases free radical production which then damages our mitochondria, which leads to a host of problems. I'm in a hurry so can't explain much now, but I highly recommend this book.
Absolute garbage pedaled as science. Yet another book written by an unqualified individual extolling the virtues of supplements, which by very definition cannot prove effectiveness.
You are a medical professional and should know better.
Wait, they're a medical professional?1 -
theresejesu wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SiegfriedXXL wrote: »Bullying is such a strange topic for me. I was bullied mercilessly in school. I was the fat, short, effeminate kid all the way through school, with glasses, braces, and a bad haircut my mom gave me at home once a month. Every day was torture but I still went to school. I maintained a 4.0 and went off to college as soon as I could.
I could have easily shut down but I didn't. I learned to draw a very detailed map of Hell, hand it to my hecklers, and tell them to begin their journey forthwith. And no, I'm not just talking about name calling. I was locked in rooms, thrown in trash cans, physically assaulted, even spit on. I didn't post about it on MySpace. Did I cry about it? Sure, every goddamn night. Did I write *kitten* emo poetry about it? Sure did. But I got through it.
I never thought of offing myself. I never thought about blowing up the school. I just thought about surviving...and I did. So it kind of puzzles me when others can't. Maybe it's because social media makes everything so much more immediate. Maybe it's some other factor. I just tend to agree that there is something making people unable to shrug things off as easily and get on with their lives. We only have one after all.
I didn't kill myself or commit violence either (obviously) -- and it goes without saying, I'd hope, that I consider killing other people inappropriate, period, especially but not only complete innocents.
But to say -- as the other poster was -- that back in the day we just shrugged it off or weren't bothered by it, or it didn't hurt us, so everything was good then and is bad now (that people take it more seriously) seems to me totally inconsistent with what I saw and experienced back in the day and to how I saw people react.
That I ended up a pretty successful person and got past it doesn't mean that people who don't are just weak and we are coddling them. It means that maybe I don't know all they were experiencing and that people are different.
And people did kill themselves back when I was a kid too, so this idea that it's because kids are coddled now is nuts.
I'm not saying I had it worse than anyone else, who could say (and I do think lots of people had it a lot worse than me). But I was not unbothered by it, which is why I brought it up; I don't think it was unimportant or good for me, and that the culture of the time (or my school or my family -- obv the latter had a lot to do with it) was such that I said nothing about it and felt like it must be because there was something wrong with me (and still have a suspicion of that in the back of my head such that I usually would never admit to anyone that it happened) is screwed up and not a sign of a better way, IMO. That was the point I was trying to make.
For context, I'm 38. As a teenager, I had several friends who tried to kill themselves. Only one of them seemed to be related to social issues (that I know of), but the idea that children/teenagers are weaker today or point to some kind of "snowflaking" trend doesn't really resonate with me. And my peers and I didn't even have to worry about social media until we were older. It seems like young people today deal with a peer environment that is, in some ways, much more immersive and 24/7 than the ones I had to deal with when I was younger.
I'm 55.
I did try to kill myself.
It had more to do with a horrible home situation than anything I experienced socially. I'd reached a breaking point that had been simmering for years.
Sorry to hear about that, I hope things are better now.
Aw, thank you. That was almost 40 years ago. Things are much better now, though I am aware that depression is something I'm liable to deal with every now and then. Regular exercise is a big help in keeping it at bay.
Exercise almost always lifts my mood. It's gotten me through some really rough times in my life.
Taking this back to the topic of the thread, this is one of the reasons I'd encourage just about everyone to exercise in some way. It's somewhat popular to tell people that it's okay to not exercise, but I don't know how on board I am with that.
It doesn't need to be back-breaking or super vigorous, but the benefits for helping things like depression and stress are well worth any efforts that need to be made. Even just a 15 minute walk a day can be beneficial for helping these issues.
I had my last spell of major depression when my autoimmune arthritis manifested itself, and I spent ten years being not myself because of it. If I had only picked up the habit then, my life would have been so much different.
Yeah, if the question is "Do I have to exercise to lose weight?" the answer is no.
But if the question is "Should I exercise (or do some type of regular activity)?" my answer is virtually always going to be yes. I think it's such an important component of overall health.
It's like vegetables. You can lose weight without ever eating a vegetable. But it would be very challenging to meet your nutritional needs this way and I'd never recommend it to someone.
I was readying up on how our mitochondria function, and bought a book called
LIFE - THE EPIC STORY OF OUR MITOCHONDRIA: HOW THE ORIGINAL PROBIOTIC DICTATES YOUR HEALTH, ILLNESS, AGING, AND EVEN LIFE ITSELF
Fascinating book. Essentially a big reason why activity such as exercise is so important has to do with ATP generation and utilization. If we don't use ATP up fast enough, this leads to ATP "spilling over" which increases free radical production which then damages our mitochondria, which leads to a host of problems. I'm in a hurry so can't explain much now, but I highly recommend this book.
Absolute garbage pedaled as science. Yet another book written by an unqualified individual extolling the virtues of supplements, which by very definition cannot prove effectiveness.
You are a medical professional and should know better.
LOLWUT???
eta: Hmmmmm... I wonder... I seem to remember a couple of years ago someone who claimed to be a medical professional that believed all this type of nonsense. Turns out, she was essentially a receptionist or office clerk or something - no actual medical education. Not the same person, is it?
6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »jessiferrrb wrote: »Yet it doesn't work for everyone. And more importantly, a simple CICO without regards to the effect certain foods may have on one's health in general or specific ways makes no sense. Maybe you might lose weight, but set yourself up for senility, Alzheimer's, heart disease, stroke, etc as you age.
CICO is an energy balance equation that literally does work for everyone. that there may be adjustments in either side of the equation which may effect some people disproportionately doesn't invalidate the equation.
the next sentence conflates CICO with nutrition. and is not relevant to weight loss or gain.The fact is, take the microbiome from a thin person and put it into a fat oerson, the fat person WILL lose weight to MATCH the weight of the thin person, with no special attention paid to CICO. And the reverse is true.
source?????If we get to the basics of calories, a calorie is simply the amount of energy required to heat 1 kg of water by 1 degree Celsius.
Excess calories do cause weight gain. Calorie deficits cause weight loss.
yes!!!But isn't that a tremendous oversimplification of the entire process? That treats all calories as essentially equal. But they aren't. Different macronutrients go through different metabolic pathways.
Compare 100 calories of fructose to 100 calories if protein.
Fructose enters the liver, can be stored as glycogen until the liver is full, then it's stored as fat. Fructose consumed in abundance can cause insulin resistance, rising insulin levels which then increases the amount of stored fat. The body doesn't respond to fructose even the same way it does glucose; like I said before, it doesn't lower the hormone ghrelin which turns on hunger and keeps it turned on until lowered, so doesn't help at all with satiety.
Do you have any idea what it feels like to have eaten a full meal and still experience gnawing hunger?
Protein, on the otherhand, causes the body to burn approximently the equivalent of 30% of its calories in the process of digesting it, so you lose about 30 calories right off the bat. The metabolic pathway protein goes through requires energy expenditure itself. Now that 100 calories of protein is just 70 calories you body has to burn. 30% is not insignificant.
Protein also helps to increase the sense of fullness, and it can boost the metabolic rate.
TEF is pretty minor, 25-30% for protein, 10-15% for carbs, 3-5% for fats. i would say this is a negligible difference since many / most foods are made up of some combination of macros. as for satiety, that's very individual. sure, protein may do it for you, but i had a bagel with cream cheese for breakfast today and barely noticed that it was 3 pm and i hadn't eaten lunch. normally i have greek yogurt and count down the minutes until 2 when i eat lunch.So compare the calories from a can of soda and the same calories from eggs over a period of years. I guarantee you they do not have the same effect on the body, and the difference is not insignificant.
again, conflating nutrition and weight loss.Understanding how micronutrients affect our appetites, hunger and satiety and properly balancing them to get the results we want makes the difference between success and failure unless one is truly a gluten for punishment and wants to struggle against their own body's messages.
agreed.In this study comparing a low carb diet to a calorie restricted low fat diet, the ones on the low carb diet would become satiated without worrying about counting calories and lost more fat that the low fat dieters did with calorie restriction. Table here:
https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/jcem/88/4/10.1210_jc.2002-021480/2/eg0439372003.jpeg?Expires=1501275274&Signature=WdbBj-armQXajWCmuPpmM5S4qVRLk6zx9XZlKsJLNl5MdNatZuwOegtNdLabyPUc-zOAVA62~etUl2iGGLYR-~patV3k-KEi~uvgIDeI0R7N6rBcp3kD8WFKKPdlN-OyPt833cyy2S5HpxRAjDS9tvElmBcmtcSR9MnWErpO63qiMIhImWtNYxv3XETFrFOD-u5TK1G9cKVkDCxGEBRci2-u2vc5-SIdYp3oBcDOtdhYY3MFPfYb73x7NeS7nxEbpImerlN8mngkX~cs6Fq2hQR~nVydFJjdItx7JEV1UW6W5lMCQ4cORrADlSMoGGBlHvcuq60Fc2zhb1h4zjRoOA__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q
Study here:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jc.2002-021480
The researchers found:
"The results of this study demonstrate that a very low carbohydrate diet, taken without a specified restriction of caloric intake is effective for weight loss over a 6 month period in healthy obese women. Compared with the low fat group, who followed a diet conforming to currently recommended distribution of macronutrient calories, the very low carbohydrate group lost significantly more weight....... In addition, despite eating a high percentage of calories as fat and having relatively high intakes is saturated fat and cholesterol, the women in the very low carbohydrate group maintained normal levels of blood pressure, plasma lipids, glucose, and insulin."
low fat diets aren't great for me. low carb diets aren't great for me either. many people struggle with low fat because fat is very satiating for a lot of people. that being said, the study here asked one group to count calories and the other to count carbs, and asked both groups to self report. meh.A calorie is not simply a calorie in the human body.
for CICO, it is. for adherence to a calorie restricted diet, it's not and for nutrition, it's not. but i was pretty sure that this whole section of the debate was about weight loss, because nobody here will argue that types of food are irrelevant for nutrition - even in the least popular opinion thread.
Quoting this because I 100% agree with @jessiferrrb and because she did a masterful job with the quotes and I'm terrible at breaking them up to address particular points.
Just adding one thing... does someone really have gnawing hunger (or any hunger) and think, "a can of soda should do the trick"?So compare the calories from a can of soda and the same calories from eggs over a period of years. I guarantee you they do not have the same effect on the body, and the difference is not insignificant.
@theresejesu do you think that people are considering what they should consume and their choice is between soda and eggs? Because again, if I'm hungry, if it is breakfast time, or even a quick dinner - eggs all the way. Eggs don't quench my thirst though, and soda doesn't quell my hunger. Do you think that there are people in the world for whom they do not have that logic in their brain? Because I really can't fathom a world where someone thinks that eggs and soda are interchangeable in any aspect.
Was the example that confusing?4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 920 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions