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: »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?
The comparison between eggs and soda? Yes. Do you believe this is a decision that people are regularly facing, whether to eat eggs or drink a Coke?12 -
WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »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?
The comparison between eggs and soda? Yes. Do you believe this is a decision that people are regularly facing, whether to eat eggs or drink a Coke?
She's just going from thread to thread instigating. None of what she says is sensible, but I'm done discussing things rationally with her - it is futile.12 -
WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »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?
The comparison between eggs and soda? Yes. Do you believe this is a decision that people are regularly facing, whether to eat eggs or drink a Coke?
Of course not, or at least I would hope not lol.
However, that really has nothing to with my original comment.1 -
theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »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?
The comparison between eggs and soda? Yes. Do you believe this is a decision that people are regularly facing, whether to eat eggs or drink a Coke?
Of course not, or at least I would hope not lol.
However, that really has nothing to with my original comment.
So it was a straw man argument then?
Or a false dilemma?
Otherwise I'm not sure why you would make the comparison: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.
10 -
cmriverside wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »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?
The comparison between eggs and soda? Yes. Do you believe this is a decision that people are regularly facing, whether to eat eggs or drink a Coke?
She's just going from thread to thread instigating. None of what she says is sensible, but I'm done discussing things rationally with her - it is futile.
If people sharing ideas and thoughts, that run so counter to your own that they bother you, is "instigating," then the problem doesn't lie with them.0 -
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.
As a medical professional (now retired) I find it practically unbelievable that there is still so much ignorance regarding supplements among those with advanced education that even such a claim in regards to supplements, that somehow, by their "very definition, cannot prove effectivenes," as if this has any bearing on the reality of the proven or unproven effectiveness of individual supplements, is even entertainable.
Such painting of supplements, or anything else for that matter, with such a broad brush is not beneficial to anyone.
23 -
WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »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?
The comparison between eggs and soda? Yes. Do you believe this is a decision that people are regularly facing, whether to eat eggs or drink a Coke?
Of course not, or at least I would hope not lol.
However, that really has nothing to with my original comment.
So it was a straw man argument then?
Or a false dilemma?
Otherwise I'm not sure why you would make the comparison: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.
No, you're just not understanding the use or context, trying to fit it into a box of your own making.7 -
theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »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?
The comparison between eggs and soda? Yes. Do you believe this is a decision that people are regularly facing, whether to eat eggs or drink a Coke?
Of course not, or at least I would hope not lol.
However, that really has nothing to with my original comment.
So it was a straw man argument then?
Or a false dilemma?
Otherwise I'm not sure why you would make the comparison: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.
No, you're just not understanding the use or context, trying to fit it into a box of your own making.
Classic tactic, if other people are calling you out just tell them they all don't understand.16 -
stevencloser wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »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?
The comparison between eggs and soda? Yes. Do you believe this is a decision that people are regularly facing, whether to eat eggs or drink a Coke?
Of course not, or at least I would hope not lol.
However, that really has nothing to with my original comment.
So it was a straw man argument then?
Or a false dilemma?
Otherwise I'm not sure why you would make the comparison: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.
No, you're just not understanding the use or context, trying to fit it into a box of your own making.
Classic tactic, if other people are calling you out just tell them they all don't understand.
Classic tactic is to create strawman arguments to attack. Proper response is not to engage the strawman, but point out the error. If The person really is interested in understanding, then they'll seek further clarification. If not, they won't.6 -
At the end of the day, what's the best thing we can do for our long term health? Maintain a healthy weight and move around a bit.
Is it ideal to maintain that healthy weight eating chocolate and McDonalds exclusively? Not really. But who really is doing that. There's very few people in this world who never get any nutrition from their diet so to even make an argument on the premise of that being the flaw with prioritising calorie intake is ridiculous.
I have used him often and probably in this thread too. Boyfriend back in the day, had a really limited diet of basically meat, potatoes, ketchup and pizza. They would take different forms, steak, chicken breast, burgers, chips, crisps, roast potatoes etc. And there would be soda and chocolate too. Absolutely no deficiencies and maintained a healthy weight and was super fit due to being a BMXer.
So the "which diet is better, anyone counting calories is just killing themselves with crappy nutrition" strawman argument because they're pushing the work of some guru with some made up condition is unhelpful. It just further muddies something people struggle with in the first place; what to believe from an industry determined to get your money for their fad.21 -
VintageFeline wrote: »At the end of the day, what's the best thing we can do for our long term health? Maintain a healthy weight and move around a bit.
Is it ideal to maintain that healthy weight eating chocolate and McDonalds exclusively? Not really. But who really is doing that. There's very few people in this world who never get any nutrition from their diet so to even make an argument on the premise of that being the flaw with prioritising calorie intake is ridiculous.
I have used him often and probably in this thread too. Boyfriend back in the day, had a really limited diet of basically meat, potatoes, ketchup and pizza. They would take different forms, steak, chicken breast, burgers, chips, crisps, roast potatoes etc. And there would be soda and chocolate too. Absolutely no deficiencies and maintained a healthy weight and was super fit due to being a BMXer.
So the "which diet is better, anyone counting calories is just killing themselves with crappy nutrition" strawman argument because they're pushing the work of some guru with some made up condition is unhelpful. It just further muddies something people struggle with in the first place; what to believe from an industry determined to get your money for their fad.
Agree maintaining a healthy weight and moving is important
I would really question the bolded part. With no or limited fruits and vegetables he most likely did have some nutrition deficiencies.
12 -
theresejesu wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »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?
The comparison between eggs and soda? Yes. Do you believe this is a decision that people are regularly facing, whether to eat eggs or drink a Coke?
Of course not, or at least I would hope not lol.
However, that really has nothing to with my original comment.
So it was a straw man argument then?
Or a false dilemma?
Otherwise I'm not sure why you would make the comparison: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.
No, you're just not understanding the use or context, trying to fit it into a box of your own making.
Classic tactic, if other people are calling you out just tell them they all don't understand.
Classic tactic is to create strawman arguments to attack.
You mean like you did, in suggesting we were discussing choosing soda over eggs over a period of years.Proper response is not to engage the strawman, but point out the error.
An excellent response is to point out the strawman-ness of the strawman and that it has nothing to do with the other argument that you are pretending to rebut.
That is what WinoGelato did.15 -
I have a couple!
- The idea that fat = unhealthy is pretty inaccurate. Keep reading. Definitely there are important limitations to this, and I'd never try to say it doesn't affect the heart (even the fat-but-exercise-heavy crowd has to worry about it that's just facts), but I think a lot of people forget that most of the time they're assuming someone is unhealthy, they're simply judging with their eyes. You can lead a very healthy lifestyle, healthier than average and thin folks, yet still be assumed to be the less healthy one just because of how you look.
- Discipline! I don't think this is a very unpopular opinion anymore but there's an idea that the only admirable or effective discipline means counting every calorie, exercising a few hours 6 days a week, or some variation of these things. In reality, discipline comes in a lot of forms, and makes the difference between health kicks and lifestyle changes. Discipline can be only doing exercise you enjoy in order to be more consistent instead of giving in to the pressure of feeling inadequate for not meeting the every calorie + 6 days a week standard. It can mean keeping a food journal when you absolutely hate doing that. It can mean not keeping a scale so that you can focus on other forms of progress measurement instead of obsessing over a number that doesn't actually tell you much. In short, discipline is whatever you push yourself to do in order to get results, and that doesn't have to mean the Hollywood ideal.
Also a lot of people seem to have some seriously bad misinformation about WLS heheheh. It's definitely not "cheating", I can say from experience (also people rail on fat people to lose weight but if it's a successful method somehow it invalidates it? I don't get that)- it requires lifestyle change and discipline. You can lose very little with WLS. You can regain everything with WLS. It is a lifestyle change, it does require hard work, and I think the fact that it's successful tends to make people feel like it has to be evil in some way, because I guess fat people don't deserve credit for anything they got help with? I could talk about it at length but that's not necessary. I did want to say something helpful though-
For the post mentioning the "perfectly healthy stomach" idea, I can see where that feels wrong, but it's not actually the situation you're thinking- the stomach being reduced is expanded well beyond the regular size, which means that there is more ghrelin lining the walls. Ghrelin releases the hunger hormone, and when there's so much of it in your stomach your hunger- not appetite but actual hunger mind you- is out of fricking control, which is why obese people say that they struggle so much with eating less. People who aren't obese don't understand that because their hormones are normal, and they assume it's a willpower thing (back to the idea that fat people are inherently weak and lazy slobs/victimhood etc) instead of an actual physical and mental malfunction. Your stomach is not healthy or normal when it's that large. If that isn't enough to undo your feeling that a healthy stomach is being damaged, keep in mind that the stomach easily regrows cells, and after surgery if you don't stay strict with your portions your stomach will expand back to any size you allow it to. If you really need something to hold onto about WLS that is actually kinda messed up, check out the malabsorption part. It's not my favorite situation, but you just have to take a lot of vitamins every day/get above 80 grams of protein etc BUT the trade off of removing my pre-diabetes, high blood pressure going to excellent levels, and regaining my energy and ability to live actively and well- it's worth it.
More or less I think the biggest unpopular opinion I have is that everybody is different, everyone's body works differently, everyone has completely different things that work and don't work, and almost nobody ever takes that into account.17 -
-
That there can be a mental component to weight loss. Depression and anxiety can wreak havoc on a person's thoughts and motivation. I struggle with this every time I have to go grocery shopping. The fear I have about what people think while I put fruits and veggies in my basket. While I *know* that it doesn't matter what they think, that voice in my head still shouts.9
-
lunaticfish7 wrote: »I have a couple!
-
More or less I think the biggest unpopular opinion I have is that everybody is different, everyone's body works differently, everyone has completely different things that work and don't work, and almost nobody ever takes that into account.
Nope,we all lose weight the same way...eat less calories..
Medical conditions and food allergies may change the equation but it all boils down to CICO13 -
theresejesu wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »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?
The comparison between eggs and soda? Yes. Do you believe this is a decision that people are regularly facing, whether to eat eggs or drink a Coke?
Of course not, or at least I would hope not lol.
However, that really has nothing to with my original comment.
So it was a straw man argument then?
Or a false dilemma?
Otherwise I'm not sure why you would make the comparison: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.
No, you're just not understanding the use or context, trying to fit it into a box of your own making.
Classic tactic, if other people are calling you out just tell them they all don't understand.
Classic tactic is to create strawman arguments to attack. Proper response is not to engage the strawman, but point out the error. If The person really is interested in understanding, then they'll seek further clarification. If not, they won't.
Um... ok so I shouldn't have pointed out the straw man you created comparing the effects of calories In soda to the same calories from eggs. I did however point out the false dilemma that this creates, so I'm interested in you trying to clarify what you meant rather than suggest that I'm not smart enough to understand your point.15 -
VintageFeline wrote: »At the end of the day, what's the best thing we can do for our long term health? Maintain a healthy weight and move around a bit.
Is it ideal to maintain that healthy weight eating chocolate and McDonalds exclusively? Not really. But who really is doing that.
I probably shouldn't bring this up, but that's exactly what the guy from FatHead did for a month, and was healthier at the end according to the general tests than he was at the beginning.There's very few people in this world who never get any nutrition from their diet so to even make an argument on the premise of that being the flaw with prioritising calorie intake is ridiculous.
I have used him often and probably in this thread too. Boyfriend back in the day, had a really limited diet of basically meat, potatoes, ketchup and pizza. They would take different forms, steak, chicken breast, burgers, chips, crisps, roast potatoes etc. And there would be soda and chocolate too. Absolutely no deficiencies and maintained a healthy weight and was super fit due to being a BMXer.
So the "which diet is better, anyone counting calories is just killing themselves with crappy nutrition" strawman argument because they're pushing the work of some guru with some made up condition is unhelpful. It just further muddies something people struggle with in the first place; what to believe from an industry determined to get your money for their fad.
I have to disagree with that, for the final chapter in these lives have not been written yet.
I don't want to be healthy just in the present, I want to lay the foundation and building blocks to be healthy in old age as well, and the ignoring of what we are eating now for the sake of short term health and saying the concerns over the long term effects of what we choose to eat now doesn't really matter seems incredibly short sighted; and I wonder why anyone who is concerned about their health and weight in the present would so blithely dismiss the concerns being expressed over the long term effects of food choices. Makes no sense to me whatsoever.
7 -
lunaticfish7 wrote: »I have a couple!
-
More or less I think the biggest unpopular opinion I have is that everybody is different, everyone's body works differently, everyone has completely different things that work and don't work, and almost nobody ever takes that into account.
Nope,we all lose weight the same way...eat less calories..
Medical conditions and food allergies may change the equation but it all boils down to CICO
Yet, lunaticfish7 is absolutely right.
Eat less calories is only part of the equation, an important part, but only a part.
And is not just about losing weight. The reason to lose weight is to be healthier. It's a fallacy to present health in such a narrow manner.15 -
I made no such suggestion, hence you are simply perpetuating the straw man.lemurcat12 wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »theresejesu wrote: »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?
The comparison between eggs and soda? Yes. Do you believe this is a decision that people are regularly facing, whether to eat eggs or drink a Coke?
Of course not, or at least I would hope not lol.
However, that really has nothing to with my original comment.
So it was a straw man argument then?
Or a false dilemma?
Otherwise I'm not sure why you would make the comparison: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.
No, you're just not understanding the use or context, trying to fit it into a box of your own making.
Classic tactic, if other people are calling you out just tell them they all don't understand.
Classic tactic is to create strawman arguments to attack.
You mean like you did, in suggesting we were discussing choosing soda over eggs over a period of years.
Which is exactly what I just did with you.Proper response is not to engage the strawman, but point out the error.
An excellent response is to point out the strawman-ness of the strawman and that it has nothing to do with the other argument that you are pretending to rebut.That is what WinoGelato did.
Not in the slightest.
7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions