CICO, It's a math formula
Replies
-
Quest4More wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
Yep, and he even got that wrong. People don't "lose nearly twice the weight" on the same calories when they modify their macros, and they sure as hell don't store fat in a deficit, but I'm too tired to get into the same old chewed up insulin hypothesis.
You are twisting my words...I didnt say you would store fat/gain weight in a deficit....I stated that insulin tells the body to store fat.....this is not a hypothesis, its been proven....look at the vast majority of Type 2 diabetes that go on Insulin and eat the same diet....they almost all gain weight. Is that a coincidence? No, its the insulin. Anyone that says hormones like Insulin and Cortisol have nothing to do with how our bodies store fat is just wrong...its been shown time and time again to be true. Get some sleep and when you are less tired look up some studies having to do with hormones and their effects on weight gain/loss. Its pretty interesting stuff. ;-)
Insulin isn't telling anyone to do anything. Insulin is a UPS delivery guy. There's stuff insulin can deliver, Insulin comes and delivers it. Nothing to deliver, insulin doesn't come out. You're mixing up cause and effect.
Fair enough....but would you not be better off if you kept insulin levels at a minimum or even keeled through a low carb diet? As with Type 2 diabetes, an excess of insulin leads to insulin resistance which leads to higher levels of fat?
But "carbs" don't lead to "an excess of insulin".
My understanding is that, at least generally, weight gain leads to insulin resistance, not the other way around. I don't believe it's any kind of proven science that insulin resistance causes weight gain. Do you have any sources for that I could read?
From a paper put out by the National Institute of Health...
"Insulin resistance is a requisite precursor for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and is associated with hypertension and dyslipidemia [1]. Epidemiological data link T2DM with obesity, and a causal relationship between insulin resistance and weight gain has been gleaned from classical studies in which lean individuals with no previous history of obesity or diabetes became insulin resistant upon experimental overnutrition [2]. These facts reinforce the great importance of understanding the physiological basis for insulin resistance in obesity."
Heres the link...seems to be a well documented hypothesis:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038351/4 -
Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
Yep, and he even got that wrong. People don't "lose nearly twice the weight" on the same calories when they modify their macros, and they sure as hell don't store fat in a deficit, but I'm too tired to get into the same old chewed up insulin hypothesis.
You are twisting my words...I didnt say you would store fat/gain weight in a deficit....I stated that insulin tells the body to store fat.....this is not a hypothesis, its been proven....look at the vast majority of Type 2 diabetes that go on Insulin and eat the same diet....they almost all gain weight. Is that a coincidence? No, its the insulin. Anyone that says hormones like Insulin and Cortisol have nothing to do with how our bodies store fat is just wrong...its been shown time and time again to be true. Get some sleep and when you are less tired look up some studies having to do with hormones and their effects on weight gain/loss. Its pretty interesting stuff. ;-)
Insulin isn't telling anyone to do anything. Insulin is a UPS delivery guy. There's stuff insulin can deliver, Insulin comes and delivers it. Nothing to deliver, insulin doesn't come out. You're mixing up cause and effect.
Fair enough....but would you not be better off if you kept insulin levels at a minimum or even keeled through a low carb diet? As with Type 2 diabetes, an excess of insulin leads to insulin resistance which leads to higher levels of fat?
But "carbs" don't lead to "an excess of insulin".
My understanding is that, at least generally, weight gain leads to insulin resistance, not the other way around. I don't believe it's any kind of proven science that insulin resistance causes weight gain. Do you have any sources for that I could read?
From a paper put out by the National Institute of Health...
"Insulin resistance is a requisite precursor for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and is associated with hypertension and dyslipidemia [1]. Epidemiological data link T2DM with obesity, and a causal relationship between insulin resistance and weight gain has been gleaned from classical studies in which lean individuals with no previous history of obesity or diabetes became insulin resistant upon experimental overnutrition [2]. These facts reinforce the great importance of understanding the physiological basis for insulin resistance in obesity."
Heres the link...seems to be a well documented hypothesis:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038351/
In other words, they got fat, which led to insulin resistance. Not the other way around.11 -
Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
Yep, and he even got that wrong. People don't "lose nearly twice the weight" on the same calories when they modify their macros, and they sure as hell don't store fat in a deficit, but I'm too tired to get into the same old chewed up insulin hypothesis.
You are twisting my words...I didnt say you would store fat/gain weight in a deficit....I stated that insulin tells the body to store fat.....this is not a hypothesis, its been proven....look at the vast majority of Type 2 diabetes that go on Insulin and eat the same diet....they almost all gain weight. Is that a coincidence? No, its the insulin. Anyone that says hormones like Insulin and Cortisol have nothing to do with how our bodies store fat is just wrong...its been shown time and time again to be true. Get some sleep and when you are less tired look up some studies having to do with hormones and their effects on weight gain/loss. Its pretty interesting stuff. ;-)
Insulin isn't telling anyone to do anything. Insulin is a UPS delivery guy. There's stuff insulin can deliver, Insulin comes and delivers it. Nothing to deliver, insulin doesn't come out. You're mixing up cause and effect.
Fair enough....but would you not be better off if you kept insulin levels at a minimum or even keeled through a low carb diet? As with Type 2 diabetes, an excess of insulin leads to insulin resistance which leads to higher levels of fat?
But "carbs" don't lead to "an excess of insulin".
My understanding is that, at least generally, weight gain leads to insulin resistance, not the other way around. I don't believe it's any kind of proven science that insulin resistance causes weight gain. Do you have any sources for that I could read?
From a paper put out by the National Institute of Health...
"Insulin resistance is a requisite precursor for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and is associated with hypertension and dyslipidemia [1]. Epidemiological data link T2DM with obesity, and a causal relationship between insulin resistance and weight gain has been gleaned from classical studies in which lean individuals with no previous history of obesity or diabetes became insulin resistant upon experimental overnutrition [2]. These facts reinforce the great importance of understanding the physiological basis for insulin resistance in obesity."
Heres the link...seems to be a well documented hypothesis:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038351/
To me, that says people who weren't fat or diabetic ate too much, and became insulin resistant. So IR and weight gain resulted from "overnutrition". Considering how many people here have been diagnosed diabetic, lost weight without going low carb, and reversed their numbers, that makes sense to me.
I will admit it usually takes me a few tries to read and really understand scientific papers, and I'm at work right now
but I'll try to read the whole paper later. 10 -
Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't actually read most of the thread. Am I right?
28 pages and he thinks we need another mansplanation.
LMAO....sorry I am but a stupid male and unable to read through 28 WHOLE pages without giving my two cents....forgive me? ;-)
Everyone - male, female, nonbinary - should read a whole thread before giving their two cents.
Sheeeeeit!!! Aint nobody got time for that! Why not just give my two cents and wait for the trolls and cat ladies to pounce and set me straight?
Cuz ya might learn something first??????10 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't actually read most of the thread. Am I right?
28 pages and he thinks we need another mansplanation.
LMAO....sorry I am but a stupid male and unable to read through 28 WHOLE pages without giving my two cents....forgive me? ;-)
Everyone - male, female, nonbinary - should read a whole thread before giving their two cents.
Sheeeeeit!!! Aint nobody got time for that! Why not just give my two cents and wait for the trolls and cat ladies to pounce and set me straight?
Cuz ya might learn something first??????
Get out of here with your logic. It has no place here.9 -
Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
Yep, and he even got that wrong. People don't "lose nearly twice the weight" on the same calories when they modify their macros, and they sure as hell don't store fat in a deficit, but I'm too tired to get into the same old chewed up insulin hypothesis.
You are twisting my words...I didnt say you would store fat/gain weight in a deficit....I stated that insulin tells the body to store fat.....this is not a hypothesis, its been proven....look at the vast majority of Type 2 diabetes that go on Insulin and eat the same diet....they almost all gain weight. Is that a coincidence? No, its the insulin. Anyone that says hormones like Insulin and Cortisol have nothing to do with how our bodies store fat is just wrong...its been shown time and time again to be true. Get some sleep and when you are less tired look up some studies having to do with hormones and their effects on weight gain/loss. Its pretty interesting stuff. ;-)
Insulin isn't telling anyone to do anything. Insulin is a UPS delivery guy. There's stuff insulin can deliver, Insulin comes and delivers it. Nothing to deliver, insulin doesn't come out. You're mixing up cause and effect.
Fair enough....but would you not be better off if you kept insulin levels at a minimum or even keeled through a low carb diet? As with Type 2 diabetes, an excess of insulin leads to insulin resistance which leads to higher levels of fat?
But "carbs" don't lead to "an excess of insulin".
My understanding is that, at least generally, weight gain leads to insulin resistance, not the other way around. I don't believe it's any kind of proven science that insulin resistance causes weight gain. Do you have any sources for that I could read?
From a paper put out by the National Institute of Health...
"Insulin resistance is a requisite precursor for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and is associated with hypertension and dyslipidemia [1]. Epidemiological data link T2DM with obesity, and a causal relationship between insulin resistance and weight gain has been gleaned from classical studies in which lean individuals with no previous history of obesity or diabetes became insulin resistant upon experimental overnutrition [2]. These facts reinforce the great importance of understanding the physiological basis for insulin resistance in obesity."
Heres the link...seems to be a well documented hypothesis:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038351/
To me, that says people who weren't fat or diabetic ate too much, and became insulin resistant. So IR and weight gain resulted from "overnutrition". Considering how many people here have been diagnosed diabetic, lost weight without going low carb, and reversed their numbers, that makes sense to me.
I will admit it usually takes me a few tries to read and really understand scientific papers, and I'm at work right now but I'll try to read the whole paper later.
I hear ya! At the end of the day, everyone has to decide for themselves whats best for their individual circumstances and bodies and I get that....one person (myself) may have incredible results with low carb or even Keto, while another may not. Genetic differences between individuals are going to have the last say in what diet is right for any one individual. I do enjoy the science behind it all....and that being said science is no different than the Bible, it can be interpreted/manipulated in many different ways to say whatever the reader (or company paying for the study) wants it to say. A sincere thanks for your thoughtful reply. :-)12 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't actually read most of the thread. Am I right?
28 pages and he thinks we need another mansplanation.
LMAO....sorry I am but a stupid male and unable to read through 28 WHOLE pages without giving my two cents....forgive me? ;-)
Everyone - male, female, nonbinary - should read a whole thread before giving their two cents.
Sheeeeeit!!! Aint nobody got time for that! Why not just give my two cents and wait for the trolls and cat ladies to pounce and set me straight?
Cuz ya might learn something first??????
Yeah cuz the MFP forums are so awash in meaningful, educated and insightful comments that I should scour every 20 to 30 pages of comments before I plan on giving my own opinion on an ONGOING debate topic. ***eyeroll***17 -
Quest4More wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't actually read most of the thread. Am I right?
28 pages and he thinks we need another mansplanation.
LMAO....sorry I am but a stupid male and unable to read through 28 WHOLE pages without giving my two cents....forgive me? ;-)
Everyone - male, female, nonbinary - should read a whole thread before giving their two cents.
Sheeeeeit!!! Aint nobody got time for that! Why not just give my two cents and wait for the trolls and cat ladies to pounce and set me straight?
Cuz ya might learn something first??????
Yeah cuz the MFP forums are so awash in meaningful, educated and insightful comments that I should scour every 20 to 30 pages of comments before I plan on giving my own opinion on an ONGOING debate topic. ***eyeroll***
An ongoing debate topic that was started... quite some time ago. There's plenty of time between the first post and now that you certainly could have read through and contributed meaningfully to the discussion.
Congratulations on contributing instead in a "meaningful, educated, and insightful" fashion. Everyone here thanks you for your effort. Here's a prize.
16 -
I have to say that I had never heard of this before, so I googled it to find out more. If you are young and healthy and active, it sounds great and it makes sense, particularly for the short term.. However, as you get older, you need to worry about fats - saturated fats - and your blood sugar, and your cholesterol. I can say from experience, the things you do to your body today, you will reap as you get older. There is a reason people say "if I knew I was be this old, I would have taken better care of myself" So if you follow this diet, make sure you are not creating bad food habits for yourself by filling up on fast food, desserts, and junk food. You don't want to end up on a lot of medication when you are older (and you WILL find yourself old one day)14
-
Quest4More wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't actually read most of the thread. Am I right?
28 pages and he thinks we need another mansplanation.
LMAO....sorry I am but a stupid male and unable to read through 28 WHOLE pages without giving my two cents....forgive me? ;-)
Everyone - male, female, nonbinary - should read a whole thread before giving their two cents.
Sheeeeeit!!! Aint nobody got time for that! Why not just give my two cents and wait for the trolls and cat ladies to pounce and set me straight?
Cuz ya might learn something first??????
Yeah cuz the MFP forums are so awash in meaningful, educated and insightful comments that I should scour every 20 to 30 pages of comments before I plan on giving my own opinion on an ONGOING debate topic. ***eyeroll***
Just don't expect to not be ridiculed when you don't.
Issue is that you brought up nothing new and nothing that hasn't already been debunked in this, and many other threads. You have, in fact, insulted those who have already responded in a meaningful manner on the topic and dismissed their input as unimportant. Then called those who did respond trolls and cat ladies.
You will get the respect you show.24 -
Subjective. I am far from being a "clean" eater based on my culture and because I do like fast food and junk food. If it's done in moderation and you're still fulfilling your macro/micro nutrient daily value without exceeding a fixed calorie limit, you should be just fine. Granted I am very active still and that's where the "older" crowd usually fail. You CAN'T be super active and eat 3500 calories, then age and eat the same amount, REDUCE activity and NOT gain weight. At 54, I'm still within 15lbs of what I weighed in my late 20's due to still staying very active while eating the same. A little more pudge around the waist, but if I totally decided to reduce to a harder calorie deficit, I'm sure I could be down there again. It STILL comes down to math.elsie6hickman wrote: »I have to say that I had never heard of this before, so I googled it to find out more. If you are young and healthy and active, it sounds great and it makes sense, particularly for the short term.. However, as you get older, you need to worry about fats - saturated fats - and your blood sugar, and your cholesterol. I can say from experience, the things you do to your body today, you will reap as you get older. There is a reason people say "if I knew I was be this old, I would have taken better care of myself" So if you follow this diet, make sure you are not creating bad food habits for yourself by filling up on fast food, desserts, and junk food. You don't want to end up on a lot of medication when you are older (and you WILL find yourself old one day)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
12 -
Quest4More wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't actually read most of the thread. Am I right?
28 pages and he thinks we need another mansplanation.
LMAO....sorry I am but a stupid male and unable to read through 28 WHOLE pages without giving my two cents....forgive me? ;-)
Everyone - male, female, nonbinary - should read a whole thread before giving their two cents.
Sheeeeeit!!! Aint nobody got time for that! Why not just give my two cents and wait for the trolls and cat ladies to pounce and set me straight?
Cuz ya might learn something first??????
Yeah cuz the MFP forums are so awash in meaningful, educated and insightful comments that I should scour every 20 to 30 pages of comments before I plan on giving my own opinion on an ONGOING debate topic. ***eyeroll***
An ongoing debate topic that was started... quite some time ago. There's plenty of time between the first post and now that you certainly could have read through and contributed meaningfully to the discussion.
Congratulations on contributing instead in a "meaningful, educated, and insightful" fashion. Everyone here thanks you for your effort. Here's a prize.
Regardless of peoples previous comments, new opinions and points of view should be welcomed not ridiculed just because they have already been debated. Just because somebody said such and such awhile back and presented their (biased) documentation for their viewpoint does not thereby make the question settled nullifying further debate. Thanks for my prize!!! ;-)21 -
Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't actually read most of the thread. Am I right?
28 pages and he thinks we need another mansplanation.
LMAO....sorry I am but a stupid male and unable to read through 28 WHOLE pages without giving my two cents....forgive me? ;-)
Everyone - male, female, nonbinary - should read a whole thread before giving their two cents.
Sheeeeeit!!! Aint nobody got time for that! Why not just give my two cents and wait for the trolls and cat ladies to pounce and set me straight?
Cuz ya might learn something first??????
Yeah cuz the MFP forums are so awash in meaningful, educated and insightful comments that I should scour every 20 to 30 pages of comments before I plan on giving my own opinion on an ONGOING debate topic. ***eyeroll***
An ongoing debate topic that was started... quite some time ago. There's plenty of time between the first post and now that you certainly could have read through and contributed meaningfully to the discussion.
Congratulations on contributing instead in a "meaningful, educated, and insightful" fashion. Everyone here thanks you for your effort. Here's a prize.
Regardless of peoples previous comments, new opinions and points of view should be welcomed not ridiculed just because they have already been debated. Just because somebody said such and such awhile back and presented their (biased) documentation for their viewpoint does not thereby make the question settled nullifying further debate. Thanks for my prize!!! ;-)
Reading and thinking is haaaard. Gotcha.14 -
elsie6hickman wrote: »I have to say that I had never heard of this before, so I googled it to find out more. If you are young and healthy and active, it sounds great and it makes sense, particularly for the short term.. However, as you get older, you need to worry about fats - saturated fats - and your blood sugar, and your cholesterol. I can say from experience, the things you do to your body today, you will reap as you get older. There is a reason people say "if I knew I was be this old, I would have taken better care of myself" So if you follow this diet, make sure you are not creating bad food habits for yourself by filling up on fast food, desserts, and junk food. You don't want to end up on a lot of medication when you are older (and you WILL find yourself old one day)
How are we defining "old" here? I turn 56 this year, eat fast food, desserts and junk food in moderation, and I have exactly zero medical conditions and take exactly zero medications of any kind. I'm at the healthiest weight and lowest bodyfat percentage I've been since I was 21 years old. I guess I'll have to keep waiting for this "old" thing to happen.
[ETA:] Google is not always a good "research" source. I can Google and find "evidence" that the Earth is flat, Bigfoot exists and the moon landing was a hoax. Oh yeah, and that carbs make you fat and CICO doesn't matter, too. None of which are true.13 -
Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't actually read most of the thread. Am I right?
28 pages and he thinks we need another mansplanation.
LMAO....sorry I am but a stupid male and unable to read through 28 WHOLE pages without giving my two cents....forgive me? ;-)
Everyone - male, female, nonbinary - should read a whole thread before giving their two cents.
Sheeeeeit!!! Aint nobody got time for that! Why not just give my two cents and wait for the trolls and cat ladies to pounce and set me straight?
Cuz ya might learn something first??????
Yeah cuz the MFP forums are so awash in meaningful, educated and insightful comments that I should scour every 20 to 30 pages of comments before I plan on giving my own opinion on an ONGOING debate topic. ***eyeroll***
An ongoing debate topic that was started... quite some time ago. There's plenty of time between the first post and now that you certainly could have read through and contributed meaningfully to the discussion.
Congratulations on contributing instead in a "meaningful, educated, and insightful" fashion. Everyone here thanks you for your effort. Here's a prize.
Regardless of peoples previous comments, new opinions and points of view should be welcomed not ridiculed just because they have already been debated. Just because somebody said such and such awhile back and presented their (biased) documentation for their viewpoint does not thereby make the question settled nullifying further debate. Thanks for my prize!!! ;-)
New, yes. A rehash of what has already been dealt with, not so much.
14 -
Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't actually read most of the thread. Am I right?
28 pages and he thinks we need another mansplanation.
LMAO....sorry I am but a stupid male and unable to read through 28 WHOLE pages without giving my two cents....forgive me? ;-)
Everyone - male, female, nonbinary - should read a whole thread before giving their two cents.
Sheeeeeit!!! Aint nobody got time for that! Why not just give my two cents and wait for the trolls and cat ladies to pounce and set me straight?
Cuz ya might learn something first??????
Yeah cuz the MFP forums are so awash in meaningful, educated and insightful comments that I should scour every 20 to 30 pages of comments before I plan on giving my own opinion on an ONGOING debate topic. ***eyeroll***
An ongoing debate topic that was started... quite some time ago. There's plenty of time between the first post and now that you certainly could have read through and contributed meaningfully to the discussion.
Congratulations on contributing instead in a "meaningful, educated, and insightful" fashion. Everyone here thanks you for your effort. Here's a prize.
Regardless of peoples previous comments, new opinions and points of view should be welcomed not ridiculed just because they have already been debated. Just because somebody said such and such awhile back and presented their (biased) documentation for their viewpoint does not thereby make the question settled nullifying further debate. Thanks for my prize!!! ;-)
So... You're just admitting you don't understand how forums work? It's already been pointed out that you've not said anything "new," and that others with your same point of view have been debated to the point of tedium.
But we should all drop everything and debate you on the merits of your "viewpoint," even though it's been beaten to death in the 20+ pages that came before you.
Why is your time suddenly more valuable than the time of the other people who have bothered to actually read the thread? How disrespectful and dismissive of you, in fact.19 -
elsie6hickman wrote: »I have to say that I had never heard of this before, so I googled it to find out more. If you are young and healthy and active, it sounds great and it makes sense, particularly for the short term.. However, as you get older, you need to worry about fats - saturated fats - and your blood sugar, and your cholesterol. I can say from experience, the things you do to your body today, you will reap as you get older. There is a reason people say "if I knew I was be this old, I would have taken better care of myself" So if you follow this diet, make sure you are not creating bad food habits for yourself by filling up on fast food, desserts, and junk food. You don't want to end up on a lot of medication when you are older (and you WILL find yourself old one day)
I'm 62, hella healthy. I think I'm good.
The sat fat demon is pretty well debunked. My high cholesterol got all nice and low when I hit a healthy weight. (May not be enough for people with familial hypercholesterolemia, but it works for lots of us.)8 -
Quest4More wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't actually read most of the thread. Am I right?
28 pages and he thinks we need another mansplanation.
LMAO....sorry I am but a stupid male and unable to read through 28 WHOLE pages without giving my two cents....forgive me? ;-)
Everyone - male, female, nonbinary - should read a whole thread before giving their two cents.
Sheeeeeit!!! Aint nobody got time for that! Why not just give my two cents and wait for the trolls and cat ladies to pounce and set me straight?
Cuz ya might learn something first??????
Yeah cuz the MFP forums are so awash in meaningful, educated and insightful comments that I should scour every 20 to 30 pages of comments before I plan on giving my own opinion on an ONGOING debate topic. ***eyeroll***
How would you know what they're awash in if you don't actually read them? You may well be missing the meaningful, educated and insightful comments because you're not actually looking for them, choosing instead to assume by default that you're the font of fresh, new facts.
Also,Regardless of peoples previous comments, new opinions and points of view should be welcomed not ridiculed just because they have already been debated. Just because somebody said such and such awhile back and presented their (biased) documentation for their viewpoint does not thereby make the question settled nullifying further debate. Thanks for my prize!!! ;-)
16 -
Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
OK OK....so yes all Calories defined as a unit of measure having nothing to do with the human body are all equal...my point being that looking at it through that narrow lens is not terribly helpful when trying to understand the macro/micro nutrional value of the calories and the effects they have on the human body and more importantly weight loss. The net effect being that all things being equal, an equal amount of calories with a certain macro content WILL NOT yield the same results/weight loss as the exact same amount of calories with a totally different macro content because of the effects these macros have on the human body and how the body reacts to them. I think most people understand the nuance of what I was getting at but thanks for your correction...it was very helpful and brought much insight to the debate. ;-)
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn't actually read most of the thread. Am I right?
28 pages and he thinks we need another mansplanation.
LMAO....sorry I am but a stupid male and unable to read through 28 WHOLE pages without giving my two cents....forgive me? ;-)
Everyone - male, female, nonbinary - should read a whole thread before giving their two cents.
Sheeeeeit!!! Aint nobody got time for that! Why not just give my two cents and wait for the trolls and cat ladies to pounce and set me straight?
Cuz ya might learn something first??????
Yeah cuz the MFP forums are so awash in meaningful, educated and insightful comments that I should scour every 20 to 30 pages of comments before I plan on giving my own opinion on an ONGOING debate topic. ***eyeroll***
An ongoing debate topic that was started... quite some time ago. There's plenty of time between the first post and now that you certainly could have read through and contributed meaningfully to the discussion.
Congratulations on contributing instead in a "meaningful, educated, and insightful" fashion. Everyone here thanks you for your effort. Here's a prize.
Regardless of peoples previous comments, new opinions and points of view should be welcomed not ridiculed just because they have already been debated. Just because somebody said such and such awhile back and presented their (biased) documentation for their viewpoint does not thereby make the question settled nullifying further debate. Thanks for my prize!!! ;-)
If it's already been debated to death it's by definition not a new opinion or point.16 -
elsie6hickman wrote: »I have to say that I had never heard of this before, so I googled it to find out more. If you are young and healthy and active, it sounds great and it makes sense, particularly for the short term.. However, as you get older, you need to worry about fats - saturated fats - and your blood sugar, and your cholesterol. I can say from experience, the things you do to your body today, you will reap as you get older. There is a reason people say "if I knew I was be this old, I would have taken better care of myself" So if you follow this diet, make sure you are not creating bad food habits for yourself by filling up on fast food, desserts, and junk food. You don't want to end up on a lot of medication when you are older (and you WILL find yourself old one day)
How are we defining "old" here? I turn 56 this year, eat fast food, desserts and junk food in moderation, and I have exactly zero medical conditions and take exactly zero medications of any kind. I'm at the healthiest weight and lowest bodyfat percentage I've been since I was 21 years old. I guess I'll have to keep waiting for this "old" thing to happen.
[ETA:] Google is not always a good "research" source. I can Google and find "evidence" that the Earth is flat, Bigfoot exists and the moon landing was a hoax. Oh yeah, and that carbs make you fat and CICO doesn't matter, too. None of which are true.
Big Foot does exist. I saw a Netflix documentary on it. We all know how rigid the burden of proof in Netflix documentaries are, so it MUST be true.13 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »elsie6hickman wrote: »I have to say that I had never heard of this before, so I googled it to find out more. If you are young and healthy and active, it sounds great and it makes sense, particularly for the short term.. However, as you get older, you need to worry about fats - saturated fats - and your blood sugar, and your cholesterol. I can say from experience, the things you do to your body today, you will reap as you get older. There is a reason people say "if I knew I was be this old, I would have taken better care of myself" So if you follow this diet, make sure you are not creating bad food habits for yourself by filling up on fast food, desserts, and junk food. You don't want to end up on a lot of medication when you are older (and you WILL find yourself old one day)
How are we defining "old" here? I turn 56 this year, eat fast food, desserts and junk food in moderation, and I have exactly zero medical conditions and take exactly zero medications of any kind. I'm at the healthiest weight and lowest bodyfat percentage I've been since I was 21 years old. I guess I'll have to keep waiting for this "old" thing to happen.
[ETA:] Google is not always a good "research" source. I can Google and find "evidence" that the Earth is flat, Bigfoot exists and the moon landing was a hoax. Oh yeah, and that carbs make you fat and CICO doesn't matter, too. None of which are true.
Big Foot does exist. I saw a Netflix documentary on it. We all know how rigid the burden of proof in Netflix documentaries are, so it MUST be true.
Absolutely. There's just as much evidence-based science and truth in a Bigfoot "documentary" as there is in other pillars of Netflix wisdom such as The Magic Pill, What The Health, Forks Over Knives, Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead, and all the others.10 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »elsie6hickman wrote: »I have to say that I had never heard of this before, so I googled it to find out more. If you are young and healthy and active, it sounds great and it makes sense, particularly for the short term.. However, as you get older, you need to worry about fats - saturated fats - and your blood sugar, and your cholesterol. I can say from experience, the things you do to your body today, you will reap as you get older. There is a reason people say "if I knew I was be this old, I would have taken better care of myself" So if you follow this diet, make sure you are not creating bad food habits for yourself by filling up on fast food, desserts, and junk food. You don't want to end up on a lot of medication when you are older (and you WILL find yourself old one day)
How are we defining "old" here? I turn 56 this year, eat fast food, desserts and junk food in moderation, and I have exactly zero medical conditions and take exactly zero medications of any kind. I'm at the healthiest weight and lowest bodyfat percentage I've been since I was 21 years old. I guess I'll have to keep waiting for this "old" thing to happen.
[ETA:] Google is not always a good "research" source. I can Google and find "evidence" that the Earth is flat, Bigfoot exists and the moon landing was a hoax. Oh yeah, and that carbs make you fat and CICO doesn't matter, too. None of which are true.
Big Foot does exist. I saw a Netflix documentary on it. We all know how rigid the burden of proof in Netflix documentaries are, so it MUST be true.
Absolutely. There's just as much evidence-based science and truth in a Bigfoot "documentary" as there is in other pillars of Netflix wisdom such as The Magic Pill, What The Health, Forks Over Knives, Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead, and all the others.
In fact, binge watch all these, then give a detailed analysis of why one is more "factual" than any of the others.4 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »elsie6hickman wrote: »I have to say that I had never heard of this before, so I googled it to find out more. If you are young and healthy and active, it sounds great and it makes sense, particularly for the short term.. However, as you get older, you need to worry about fats - saturated fats - and your blood sugar, and your cholesterol. I can say from experience, the things you do to your body today, you will reap as you get older. There is a reason people say "if I knew I was be this old, I would have taken better care of myself" So if you follow this diet, make sure you are not creating bad food habits for yourself by filling up on fast food, desserts, and junk food. You don't want to end up on a lot of medication when you are older (and you WILL find yourself old one day)
How are we defining "old" here? I turn 56 this year, eat fast food, desserts and junk food in moderation, and I have exactly zero medical conditions and take exactly zero medications of any kind. I'm at the healthiest weight and lowest bodyfat percentage I've been since I was 21 years old. I guess I'll have to keep waiting for this "old" thing to happen.
[ETA:] Google is not always a good "research" source. I can Google and find "evidence" that the Earth is flat, Bigfoot exists and the moon landing was a hoax. Oh yeah, and that carbs make you fat and CICO doesn't matter, too. None of which are true.
Big Foot does exist. I saw a Netflix documentary on it. We all know how rigid the burden of proof in Netflix documentaries are, so it MUST be true.
Absolutely. There's just as much evidence-based science and truth in a Bigfoot "documentary" as there is in other pillars of Netflix wisdom such as The Magic Pill, What The Health, Forks Over Knives, Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead, and all the others.
In fact, binge watch all these, then give a detailed analysis of why one is more "factual" than any of the others.
It would be really confusing and hard to try to be a ketopaleovegancarnivoreintermittentfaster.7 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »elsie6hickman wrote: »I have to say that I had never heard of this before, so I googled it to find out more. If you are young and healthy and active, it sounds great and it makes sense, particularly for the short term.. However, as you get older, you need to worry about fats - saturated fats - and your blood sugar, and your cholesterol. I can say from experience, the things you do to your body today, you will reap as you get older. There is a reason people say "if I knew I was be this old, I would have taken better care of myself" So if you follow this diet, make sure you are not creating bad food habits for yourself by filling up on fast food, desserts, and junk food. You don't want to end up on a lot of medication when you are older (and you WILL find yourself old one day)
How are we defining "old" here? I turn 56 this year, eat fast food, desserts and junk food in moderation, and I have exactly zero medical conditions and take exactly zero medications of any kind. I'm at the healthiest weight and lowest bodyfat percentage I've been since I was 21 years old. I guess I'll have to keep waiting for this "old" thing to happen.
[ETA:] Google is not always a good "research" source. I can Google and find "evidence" that the Earth is flat, Bigfoot exists and the moon landing was a hoax. Oh yeah, and that carbs make you fat and CICO doesn't matter, too. None of which are true.
Big Foot does exist. I saw a Netflix documentary on it. We all know how rigid the burden of proof in Netflix documentaries are, so it MUST be true.
Absolutely. There's just as much evidence-based science and truth in a Bigfoot "documentary" as there is in other pillars of Netflix wisdom such as The Magic Pill, What The Health, Forks Over Knives, Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead, and all the others.
In fact, binge watch all these, then give a detailed analysis of why one is more "factual" than any of the others.
It would be really confusing to try to be a ketopaleovegancarnivoreintermittentfaster.
8 glasses of water every other day? And breathe! A lot!1 -
A keto/paleo/carnivore who does IF I can see, but I'm having a hard squeezing in the vegan part of that...nutmegoreo wrote: »elsie6hickman wrote: »I have to say that I had never heard of this before, so I googled it to find out more. If you are young and healthy and active, it sounds great and it makes sense, particularly for the short term.. However, as you get older, you need to worry about fats - saturated fats - and your blood sugar, and your cholesterol. I can say from experience, the things you do to your body today, you will reap as you get older. There is a reason people say "if I knew I was be this old, I would have taken better care of myself" So if you follow this diet, make sure you are not creating bad food habits for yourself by filling up on fast food, desserts, and junk food. You don't want to end up on a lot of medication when you are older (and you WILL find yourself old one day)
How are we defining "old" here? I turn 56 this year, eat fast food, desserts and junk food in moderation, and I have exactly zero medical conditions and take exactly zero medications of any kind. I'm at the healthiest weight and lowest bodyfat percentage I've been since I was 21 years old. I guess I'll have to keep waiting for this "old" thing to happen.
[ETA:] Google is not always a good "research" source. I can Google and find "evidence" that the Earth is flat, Bigfoot exists and the moon landing was a hoax. Oh yeah, and that carbs make you fat and CICO doesn't matter, too. None of which are true.
Big Foot does exist. I saw a Netflix documentary on it. We all know how rigid the burden of proof in Netflix documentaries are, so it MUST be true.
Absolutely. There's just as much evidence-based science and truth in a Bigfoot "documentary" as there is in other pillars of Netflix wisdom such as The Magic Pill, What The Health, Forks Over Knives, Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead, and all the others.
In fact, binge watch all these, then give a detailed analysis of why one is more "factual" than any of the others.
It would be really confusing and hard to try to be a ketopaleovegancarnivoreintermittentfaster.
2 -
A keto/paleo/carnivore who does IF I can see, but I'm having a hard squeezing in the vegan part of that...nutmegoreo wrote: »elsie6hickman wrote: »I have to say that I had never heard of this before, so I googled it to find out more. If you are young and healthy and active, it sounds great and it makes sense, particularly for the short term.. However, as you get older, you need to worry about fats - saturated fats - and your blood sugar, and your cholesterol. I can say from experience, the things you do to your body today, you will reap as you get older. There is a reason people say "if I knew I was be this old, I would have taken better care of myself" So if you follow this diet, make sure you are not creating bad food habits for yourself by filling up on fast food, desserts, and junk food. You don't want to end up on a lot of medication when you are older (and you WILL find yourself old one day)
How are we defining "old" here? I turn 56 this year, eat fast food, desserts and junk food in moderation, and I have exactly zero medical conditions and take exactly zero medications of any kind. I'm at the healthiest weight and lowest bodyfat percentage I've been since I was 21 years old. I guess I'll have to keep waiting for this "old" thing to happen.
[ETA:] Google is not always a good "research" source. I can Google and find "evidence" that the Earth is flat, Bigfoot exists and the moon landing was a hoax. Oh yeah, and that carbs make you fat and CICO doesn't matter, too. None of which are true.
Big Foot does exist. I saw a Netflix documentary on it. We all know how rigid the burden of proof in Netflix documentaries are, so it MUST be true.
Absolutely. There's just as much evidence-based science and truth in a Bigfoot "documentary" as there is in other pillars of Netflix wisdom such as The Magic Pill, What The Health, Forks Over Knives, Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead, and all the others.
In fact, binge watch all these, then give a detailed analysis of why one is more "factual" than any of the others.
It would be really confusing and hard to try to be a ketopaleovegancarnivoreintermittentfaster.
I forgot the juicing part too (since FS&ND was included). I love steak and I love bacon, but the thought of drinking steak & bacon juice makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little.5 -
Busy day at work just checking in on why a thread blew up my notifications... wow. Unlike some, I went through and read the three new pages of posts, and can see that everything I would have said was well covered by others so I guess I don’t have to chime in and risk being labeled a troll or cat lady... carry on CICO crew.13
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »elsie6hickman wrote: »I have to say that I had never heard of this before, so I googled it to find out more. If you are young and healthy and active, it sounds great and it makes sense, particularly for the short term.. However, as you get older, you need to worry about fats - saturated fats - and your blood sugar, and your cholesterol. I can say from experience, the things you do to your body today, you will reap as you get older. There is a reason people say "if I knew I was be this old, I would have taken better care of myself" So if you follow this diet, make sure you are not creating bad food habits for yourself by filling up on fast food, desserts, and junk food. You don't want to end up on a lot of medication when you are older (and you WILL find yourself old one day)
How are we defining "old" here? I turn 56 this year, eat fast food, desserts and junk food in moderation, and I have exactly zero medical conditions and take exactly zero medications of any kind. I'm at the healthiest weight and lowest bodyfat percentage I've been since I was 21 years old. I guess I'll have to keep waiting for this "old" thing to happen.
[ETA:] Google is not always a good "research" source. I can Google and find "evidence" that the Earth is flat, Bigfoot exists and the moon landing was a hoax. Oh yeah, and that carbs make you fat and CICO doesn't matter, too. None of which are true.
Big Foot does exist. I saw a Netflix documentary on it. We all know how rigid the burden of proof in Netflix documentaries are, so it MUST be true.
Absolutely. There's just as much evidence-based science and truth in a Bigfoot "documentary" as there is in other pillars of Netflix wisdom such as The Magic Pill, What The Health, Forks Over Knives, Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead, and all the others.
In fact, binge watch all these, then give a detailed analysis of why one is more "factual" than any of the others.
Is that harder or easier than reading the whole 30 page thread? Inquiring minds want to know!6 -
Quest4More wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »Quest4More wrote: »Calories are NOT all equal....first of all a calorie is defined as "the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius at a pressure of one atmosphere"....this has absolutely nothing to do with the human body and does not take into consideration the way our body processes different things....you could eat a block of wood and that wood would have calories according to the standard definition but it would pass through the body without ever being processed because our body cannot digest it....same goes for all different kinds of foods that have fiber content. Furthermore and much more importantly, Carbohydrates have a different effect than protein and fat on the body....namely the production of insulin which tells the body to store fat....there are studies that put one group of people on a Low Carb High Fat diet and another group on a High Carb Low fat Diet and fed them both the EXACT same Calories. By your definition, they should have both lost the same exact amount of weight.... and in fact at the end of the study, they both lost weight because of CICO....BUT the High Fat Low Carb group lost considerably more weight than the other....almost double. This is easily explained by the effect of Carbs on Insulin (insulin spike) which tells the body to store fat. This is a concept foreign to most and the reason why your formula while technically true does not tell the whole truth.
A calorie is just a calorie. You are talking about macro- and micro-nutrients, which are indeed different in each food...or wood.
Yep, and he even got that wrong. People don't "lose nearly twice the weight" on the same calories when they modify their macros, and they sure as hell don't store fat in a deficit, but I'm too tired to get into the same old chewed up insulin hypothesis.
You are twisting my words...I didnt say you would store fat/gain weight in a deficit....I stated that insulin tells the body to store fat.....this is not a hypothesis, its been proven....look at the vast majority of Type 2 diabetes that go on Insulin and eat the same diet....they almost all gain weight. Is that a coincidence? No, its the insulin. Anyone that says hormones like Insulin and Cortisol have nothing to do with how our bodies store fat is just wrong...its been shown time and time again to be true. Get some sleep and when you are less tired look up some studies having to do with hormones and their effects on weight gain/loss. Its pretty interesting stuff. ;-)
Insulin isn't telling anyone to do anything. Insulin is a UPS delivery guy. There's stuff insulin can deliver, Insulin comes and delivers it. Nothing to deliver, insulin doesn't come out. You're mixing up cause and effect.
Fair enough....but would you not be better off if you kept insulin levels at a minimum or even keeled through a low carb diet? As with Type 2 diabetes, an excess of insulin leads to insulin resistance which leads to higher levels of fat?
But "carbs" don't lead to "an excess of insulin".
My understanding is that, at least generally, weight gain leads to insulin resistance, not the other way around. I don't believe it's any kind of proven science that insulin resistance causes weight gain. Do you have any sources for that I could read?
From a paper put out by the National Institute of Health...
"Insulin resistance is a requisite precursor for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and is associated with hypertension and dyslipidemia [1]. Epidemiological data link T2DM with obesity, and a causal relationship between insulin resistance and weight gain has been gleaned from classical studies in which lean individuals with no previous history of obesity or diabetes became insulin resistant upon experimental overnutrition [2]. These facts reinforce the great importance of understanding the physiological basis for insulin resistance in obesity."
Heres the link...seems to be a well documented hypothesis:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038351/
Insulin resistance is a malfunction of your beta cells becoming resistant to insulin, causing your body to release higher amounts of insulin. This can be caused by a variety of factors including genetics, smoking, drinking, lack of exercise (which increases insulin sensitivity), obesity and more. Its not caused by eating carbs. All of the longest living and healthiest nations are largely high carb (~70-80%) of their intake.
The difference tends to be activity level, low body weight and low calorie intake (much of which is plant based).5 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »elsie6hickman wrote: »I have to say that I had never heard of this before, so I googled it to find out more. If you are young and healthy and active, it sounds great and it makes sense, particularly for the short term.. However, as you get older, you need to worry about fats - saturated fats - and your blood sugar, and your cholesterol. I can say from experience, the things you do to your body today, you will reap as you get older. There is a reason people say "if I knew I was be this old, I would have taken better care of myself" So if you follow this diet, make sure you are not creating bad food habits for yourself by filling up on fast food, desserts, and junk food. You don't want to end up on a lot of medication when you are older (and you WILL find yourself old one day)
How are we defining "old" here? I turn 56 this year, eat fast food, desserts and junk food in moderation, and I have exactly zero medical conditions and take exactly zero medications of any kind. I'm at the healthiest weight and lowest bodyfat percentage I've been since I was 21 years old. I guess I'll have to keep waiting for this "old" thing to happen.
[ETA:] Google is not always a good "research" source. I can Google and find "evidence" that the Earth is flat, Bigfoot exists and the moon landing was a hoax. Oh yeah, and that carbs make you fat and CICO doesn't matter, too. None of which are true.
Big Foot does exist. I saw a Netflix documentary on it. We all know how rigid the burden of proof in Netflix documentaries are, so it MUST be true.
Absolutely. There's just as much evidence-based science and truth in a Bigfoot "documentary" as there is in other pillars of Netflix wisdom such as The Magic Pill, What The Health, Forks Over Knives, Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead, and all the others.
In fact, binge watch all these, then give a detailed analysis of why one is more "factual" than any of the others.
Is that harder or easier than reading the whole 30 page thread? Inquiring minds want to know!
Oh, good question! I suppose it would be dependent on whether one prefers facts or fiction.6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions