Viewing the message boards in:
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.

Calorie in calorie out method is outdated

16781012

Replies

  • Posts: 3,563 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    I always wonder about this too.

    It's kind of like how people keep going in the '70s thread and saying that people weren't fat because no GMOs. There's a strong desire to believe that they aren't really overweight because of overeating, but that food makes them get fat despite them having a dainty appetite and not really enjoying eating. (Indeed, I think for some the idea that they overeat feels like a stigma, so they want to cling to other explanations.)

    I think there's also this idea that one must suffer to lose weight. If you can eat Oreos, it must not be sufficient suffering, so it just can't work -- I think it's a form of magical thinking.

    Perfect! I was trying to formulate a coherent thought around these ideas and I completely agree.
  • Posts: 13,454 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »

    All you're demonstrating there is that if you drink 1500 calories worth of poison (which is what alcohol is in that dosage), you will not lose weight. Because you'll die. Very quickly. Possibly that very day.

    The kale might kill you fairly quickly too (vitamin K?), but the alcohol would kill you quicker. Not a great weight loss experiment.

    How about we compare 1400 calories of a well balanced diet (but no kale) every day plus 100 calories of pure cane sugar, to 1400 calories of a well balanced diet (but no sugar) plus 100 calories of kale? There will not be a material difference in the body weight effect. Or, if you want to stick to pretty-pure macronutrients, 100 calories of olive oil ("healthy", right?) vs. 100 calories of sugar? I'd put money on no material difference in either body weight or health.

    I just wanted to quote this and compliment you on the bolded... I truly hope @BayouMoon comes back and addresses that question.
  • Posts: 8,736 Member

    IBS? I'm the opposite, Oreos would spike my blood glucose and salad would be fine. But good post, pointing out that diet depends on individual needs. For another example, simple, quick digesting sugars such as candies increase my blood sugar quickly, which is why I carry a roll of smarties to eat on my long runs. Almost every food, except maybe trans fats, has a time and place when it's beneficial and when it's harmful. People die from drinking too much water at a time.

    @rheddmobile Crohn's and gastroparesis
  • Posts: 6,037 Member
    deckerjj wrote: »
    Meh, calorie tracking worked for me (down 103lbs since my pic.) More important than anything, IMO, is to take simple sugars out of your diet, and that also helps keep calories down. And yes, simple sugars metabolize super fast, even to the point of storing directly as fat (hence soda and fruit juice will make you fat, even though it's all liquid.)

    Really? Even in calorie deficit?
  • Posts: 449 Member

    As I said. You have not done both keto combined with high ratio window of fasting ie 20 to 23 hrs between every meal. That is where the metabolism/rate of fat burn changes. Not keto alone. If you read my post in full you would have seen that. So you saying "I have done keto. It is all kitten" is irrelevant to my points and my results.

    Put up or shut up.

This discussion has been closed.