Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
Stark Industries making your suit or are you getting a cheap knock off from Hammer?
Stark Industries making your suit or are you getting a cheap knock off from Hammer?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
- Thread starter MissThundercat
- Start date
bottomdweller
Where my dogsies at?
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
If you eat real foods and incorporate enough healthy fats and protein, you're not going to consume 3500 calories a day. Your plate for a meal should be about 60% veggies, and the other 40% should be split between healthy fats (avocados and nuts like almonds) and protein.
If you eat real foods and incorporate enough healthy fats and protein, you're not going to consume 3500 calories a day. Your plate for a meal should be about 60% veggies, and the other 40% should be split between healthy fats (avocados and nuts like almonds) and protein.
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
Correct. Those foods go a long way to satisfy hunger which results in less intake. However, on a pure calorie basis, food becomes biochemically similar at a certain point. During a fasting period, after free glucose stores are depleted the body uses glycogen and FFA as an energy source. 3500 calories, regardless of the source, will become the same amount of glycogen and FFAs energy wise.
The best part about those foods you listed is that they have higher input to the satiety centers of the brain. This is why it is "better" to eat 400 calories of healthy fat instead of 400 calories of simple sugars. The energy intake is the same...it will take the same to burn it off. But the healthy fat has a higher level on negative feedback on hunger than say a candy bar and will likely lead to less excess eating.
If you eat only Twinkies all day every day but only consume 1500 calories while burning 2000 calories, you will lose weight. You would probably feel like ****, but you would lose weight.
Correct. Those foods go a long way to satisfy hunger which results in less intake. However, on a pure calorie basis, food becomes biochemically similar at a certain point. During a fasting period, after free glucose stores are depleted the body uses glycogen and FFA as an energy source. 3500 calories, regardless of the source, will become the same amount of glycogen and FFAs energy wise.
The best part about those foods you listed is that they have higher input to the satiety centers of the brain. This is why it is "better" to eat 400 calories of healthy fat instead of 400 calories of simple sugars. The energy intake is the same...it will take the same to burn it off. But the healthy fat has a higher level on negative feedback on hunger than say a candy bar and will likely lead to less excess eating.
If you eat only Twinkies all day every day but only consume 1500 calories while burning 2000 calories, you will lose weight. You would probably feel like ****, but you would lose weight.
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
I know this is stated over and over and over again.
But calories are not calories.
Just being that simplistic assumes that the way that calories are measured is exactly how your body metabolizes and consumes those calories. I may be mistaken, but when I "burn" calories, it's not in the literal sense, which is how calorie content is measured.
So 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of oil(fat) will burn (literally) exactly the same. On the other hand, how does your body consume that? Since sugar is a whole lot closer to what cells use to run, less of that is wasted to make energy. Whereas oil needs to be transformed into something that can be used. I'm not sure if I buy the idea that forms of fat I consume direclty go into fat storage- it would be interesting to see the form of hydrocarbon that is stored vs. the one that I'm consuming. Next- fiber- I'm pretty sure the fiber that one consumes burns quite well under the right conditions, but it's a process to turn a fiberous material into one that cells can use.
Anyway, I don't think it's as simple as many people post it. One of the reasons why odd diets like low carb diets work pretty well. I aslo don't think we really have a good understanding on how food is actually consumed by our bodies.
But with how modern food is constructed, it does work reasonably effectively in terms of rules.
I know this is stated over and over and over again.
But calories are not calories.
Just being that simplistic assumes that the way that calories are measured is exactly how your body metabolizes and consumes those calories. I may be mistaken, but when I "burn" calories, it's not in the literal sense, which is how calorie content is measured.
So 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of oil(fat) will burn (literally) exactly the same. On the other hand, how does your body consume that? Since sugar is a whole lot closer to what cells use to run, less of that is wasted to make energy. Whereas oil needs to be transformed into something that can be used. I'm not sure if I buy the idea that forms of fat I consume direclty go into fat storage- it would be interesting to see the form of hydrocarbon that is stored vs. the one that I'm consuming. Next- fiber- I'm pretty sure the fiber that one consumes burns quite well under the right conditions, but it's a process to turn a fiberous material into one that cells can use.
Anyway, I don't think it's as simple as many people post it. One of the reasons why odd diets like low carb diets work pretty well. I aslo don't think we really have a good understanding on how food is actually consumed by our bodies.
But with how modern food is constructed, it does work reasonably effectively in terms of rules.
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
This is the perspective I am coming from. I am a bit busy right now so I cannot try and find the recent review articles I have read on pubmed but SBM has a decent roundup.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/calories-in-calories-out/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/calories-thermodynamics-and-weight/#more-251
There is a lot of data, some conflicting, out there about various diets. The only significant trend I have seen is that a diet with reduced calories leads to weight loss. Different diets accomplish this in different ways, but the unifying theme from the research I have read supports calorie in/calorie out as the strongest association with weight loss. Balanced nutrition...on the otherhand...is a completely different animal than the simplistic way to lose weight.
I know this is anecdotal and not published but...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
This is the perspective I am coming from. I am a bit busy right now so I cannot try and find the recent review articles I have read on pubmed but SBM has a decent roundup.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/calories-in-calories-out/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/calories-thermodynamics-and-weight/#more-251
There is a lot of data, some conflicting, out there about various diets. The only significant trend I have seen is that a diet with reduced calories leads to weight loss. Different diets accomplish this in different ways, but the unifying theme from the research I have read supports calorie in/calorie out as the strongest association with weight loss. Balanced nutrition...on the otherhand...is a completely different animal than the simplistic way to lose weight.
I know this is anecdotal and not published but...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
For the name of the base URL, both of the articles are incredibly lacking. As in actual science expiermients. Data. Observations. Not a simplisitic argument that is re-hashed over and over again. Not even a single scientific study was cited in the two articles.
What REALLY happens to the 100 calories of fat I eat? What REALLY happens to the 100 calories of sugar I eat? What happens to the 100 calories of meat I eat? What happens with the 100 calories of broccoli I eat? I'm pretty condident that animal protien isn't actually the same cells as my muscle, and even more sure that vegtable oil isn't the same form of hydrocarbons that humans use for fat. Just like much of the sugar we eat IS very close to the raw energy that flows through our blood.
The two articles should be relabled "opionbasedmedicine.org" since the science was totally limited to "calories in - calories out".
If it works for you, great- go for it. But I have to say- having done atkins, and quite comfortably loosing 40 lb, and keeping it off without chaning activity really opened my eyes. Opening them to the idea that we really don't know what is going on.
(and on that note, I should drink less alcohol, since that does an amazing job of interrupting metabolism, and should eat a whole bunch less bread)
For the name of the base URL, both of the articles are incredibly lacking. As in actual science expiermients. Data. Observations. Not a simplisitic argument that is re-hashed over and over again. Not even a single scientific study was cited in the two articles.
What REALLY happens to the 100 calories of fat I eat? What REALLY happens to the 100 calories of sugar I eat? What happens to the 100 calories of meat I eat? What happens with the 100 calories of broccoli I eat? I'm pretty condident that animal protien isn't actually the same cells as my muscle, and even more sure that vegtable oil isn't the same form of hydrocarbons that humans use for fat. Just like much of the sugar we eat IS very close to the raw energy that flows through our blood.
The two articles should be relabled "opionbasedmedicine.org" since the science was totally limited to "calories in - calories out".
If it works for you, great- go for it. But I have to say- having done atkins, and quite comfortably loosing 40 lb, and keeping it off without chaning activity really opened my eyes. Opening them to the idea that we really don't know what is going on.
(and on that note, I should drink less alcohol, since that does an amazing job of interrupting metabolism, and should eat a whole bunch less bread)
Last edited:
Almington
Blood Boiling with Rage and Hate
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
I suspect that any difference in how the body metabolizes the same energy density of different foods is dwarfed by the fact that they are all drastically different volumetrically and with significant differences in nutrition density. Thus require drastically different amounts to achieve the same level of fullness.
It is entirely possible that when you changed to the atkins diet you consumed fewer calories and your metabolism was far more stable (and regularly in a fat-burning condition) because you were not regularly flooding your system with simple sugars.
I suspect that any difference in how the body metabolizes the same energy density of different foods is dwarfed by the fact that they are all drastically different volumetrically and with significant differences in nutrition density. Thus require drastically different amounts to achieve the same level of fullness.
It is entirely possible that when you changed to the atkins diet you consumed fewer calories and your metabolism was far more stable (and regularly in a fat-burning condition) because you were not regularly flooding your system with simple sugars.
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
I still think there's more to it. Much like using corn for fuel. You can't just take corn, and burn it into your car- you need to first make it convert it's startch to sugar, then ferment- then you end up with a form your car can use (once distilled- but that's not really important). In that process, the potential energy that is available from the raw corn to the alcohol is reduced. My body does not directly use fat, it stores extra energy in fat- so does it really make sense that eating fat puts more hydrocarbons into my fat stores? Or is that fat first converted into sugar, not used, and then stored into my fat cells?
How does it REALLY work?
It's quite possible that I ate less when on atkins, but I didn't ever keep track- I just ate veggies, meat, cheese, fat, bacon, etc- as much as i wanted. And when looking at fat metabolism indicators in my urine, you could see what foods had impact or not. It was interesting, but I could not do a real scientific expiriment on myself.
Even the end of your post is an indicator of different things happening- I didn't flood my body with simple sugars. that tells me that at least you think that simple sugars keep most of their potential calories, probably to the detriment of other calories. I know that alcohol does upset fat burning metabolism- quite a bit.
If the calorie determination method was actually correct, then paper and gasoline would be useful sources of food- they both burn quite well, and the heat release is easily measured. Yet paper won't add a lick of energy, and gasoline- well that's just an example of stuff that burns.
I still think there's more to it. Much like using corn for fuel. You can't just take corn, and burn it into your car- you need to first make it convert it's startch to sugar, then ferment- then you end up with a form your car can use (once distilled- but that's not really important). In that process, the potential energy that is available from the raw corn to the alcohol is reduced. My body does not directly use fat, it stores extra energy in fat- so does it really make sense that eating fat puts more hydrocarbons into my fat stores? Or is that fat first converted into sugar, not used, and then stored into my fat cells?
How does it REALLY work?
It's quite possible that I ate less when on atkins, but I didn't ever keep track- I just ate veggies, meat, cheese, fat, bacon, etc- as much as i wanted. And when looking at fat metabolism indicators in my urine, you could see what foods had impact or not. It was interesting, but I could not do a real scientific expiriment on myself.
Even the end of your post is an indicator of different things happening- I didn't flood my body with simple sugars. that tells me that at least you think that simple sugars keep most of their potential calories, probably to the detriment of other calories. I know that alcohol does upset fat burning metabolism- quite a bit.
If the calorie determination method was actually correct, then paper and gasoline would be useful sources of food- they both burn quite well, and the heat release is easily measured. Yet paper won't add a lick of energy, and gasoline- well that's just an example of stuff that burns.
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
There are at least two scientific studies cited in the first article. I prefaced my post saying I understand these are not primary literature but from what I have studied, they are relatively spot on. When making broad claims about health, simplistic is sometimes necessary. Individual biology is quite complex so overarching patterns are necessarily if you do not identify subsets of people or do not have the research to make more informed recommendations.
These are important questions. We have done a lot of research on these topics but there is still much more to do. Epigenitics has opened to a whole new way of thinking about how lifestyle may affect biology. You say Atkins helped you lose 40 lbs. Congrats! Seriously, that is awesome. I would be willing to bet, however, that the Atkins diet caused you to consume less calories overall than you did before. I would argue (and do) that the majority of weight loss by diets/lifestyle changes are at the core due to decreased caloric intake and/or increased caloric use. Our bodies evolved to hang on to every calorie that they can and it is a difficult process to overcome.
I am not really sure what you mean by that. The subunits of the protein (amino acids) are the same as your muscle. Your body is very good at turning whatever you consume into the maximal amount of energy. Just because something is biochemically "close" to what individual cells use as raw energy does not necessarily mean it equates to more absolute energy than another substance. Eventually all of these substances are used to produce NADH and NADPH (to name a few), which are then used to run the electron transport chain in the majority of cells. Through pyruvate metabolism, TCA cycle, Glycolysis and the HMP shunt, every calorie you eat eventually gets integrated into the same biochemical dance.
Someone with a stronger biochemistry background could certainly go into more detail. The idea that certain caloric sources may lead to different metabolic capabilities is an interesting one. However, I have not seen strong enough evidence to overturn the foundational biochemistry that we all share.
As far as sciencebasedmedicine.org goes, of course it is opinion. However, it is written by some of the better scientific communicators on the internet. They try to synthesize a readable article from the data, expert consensus, and personal medical knowledge. Some article may have more sources than others, but that does not entirely negate the fact they are a good starting resource. The name comes from the implementation of evidence based medicine (in recent decades). Although a vast improvement, the hierarchy of EBM places double-blinded, placebo controls above all else (which in a way is good) but it often ignores basic science research. Clinical data is subject to statistical variability and positive publication bias so those physicians, pharmacists etc at SBM advocate using basic science to help inform the plausibility of EBM claims.
There are at least two scientific studies cited in the first article. I prefaced my post saying I understand these are not primary literature but from what I have studied, they are relatively spot on. When making broad claims about health, simplistic is sometimes necessary. Individual biology is quite complex so overarching patterns are necessarily if you do not identify subsets of people or do not have the research to make more informed recommendations.
These are important questions. We have done a lot of research on these topics but there is still much more to do. Epigenitics has opened to a whole new way of thinking about how lifestyle may affect biology. You say Atkins helped you lose 40 lbs. Congrats! Seriously, that is awesome. I would be willing to bet, however, that the Atkins diet caused you to consume less calories overall than you did before. I would argue (and do) that the majority of weight loss by diets/lifestyle changes are at the core due to decreased caloric intake and/or increased caloric use. Our bodies evolved to hang on to every calorie that they can and it is a difficult process to overcome.
I am not really sure what you mean by that. The subunits of the protein (amino acids) are the same as your muscle. Your body is very good at turning whatever you consume into the maximal amount of energy. Just because something is biochemically "close" to what individual cells use as raw energy does not necessarily mean it equates to more absolute energy than another substance. Eventually all of these substances are used to produce NADH and NADPH (to name a few), which are then used to run the electron transport chain in the majority of cells. Through pyruvate metabolism, TCA cycle, Glycolysis and the HMP shunt, every calorie you eat eventually gets integrated into the same biochemical dance.
Someone with a stronger biochemistry background could certainly go into more detail. The idea that certain caloric sources may lead to different metabolic capabilities is an interesting one. However, I have not seen strong enough evidence to overturn the foundational biochemistry that we all share.
As far as sciencebasedmedicine.org goes, of course it is opinion. However, it is written by some of the better scientific communicators on the internet. They try to synthesize a readable article from the data, expert consensus, and personal medical knowledge. Some article may have more sources than others, but that does not entirely negate the fact they are a good starting resource. The name comes from the implementation of evidence based medicine (in recent decades). Although a vast improvement, the hierarchy of EBM places double-blinded, placebo controls above all else (which in a way is good) but it often ignores basic science research. Clinical data is subject to statistical variability and positive publication bias so those physicians, pharmacists etc at SBM advocate using basic science to help inform the plausibility of EBM claims.
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
Since I am new to this thread and may not grasp the spirit of it, please let me know if this is off-topic or interpreted as trolling.
I am in no way trying to derail this thread as I find this topic very interesting. But I would be more than willing to let it go if it is out of place.
Since I am new to this thread and may not grasp the spirit of it, please let me know if this is off-topic or interpreted as trolling.
I am in no way trying to derail this thread as I find this topic very interesting. But I would be more than willing to let it go if it is out of place.
Rimbaud
New member
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
Stop saying we burn things to figure out how many calories are in them. That doesn't happen anymore, that's why insoluble fiber isn't counted in calorie counts.
It is true that sugars are used first when you eat them along with other things because they are the easiest thing for your body to convert into compounds that flow into all the metabolic processes for creating energy. You're body is a simple machine and breaks down things it either has to in order for it to not die (which is why alcohol screws with metabolism, if your body doesn't clear it first, you'll die, so it becomes priority number 1). When you switched to a diet with no real simple sugars/breads, your body would burn both its internal fat stores and the stuff you were eating because it wasn't terribly different in terms of input energy vs output energy (but you'd still need to have taken in less calories than you burned normally to lose weight). Almington also hit on a key point, you took out breads and sugars and replaced them with veggies and other things. Vegetable have a crap ton of water in them and insoluble fiber, so it'll help you feel fuller longer. So you were eating fewer calories without realizing it. Bread, sodas, and snacks have a way to add an easy 1000 calories into your daily diet without you realizing it.
And your corn example is silly, you can't take oil from the ground and simply toss it into your car either.
Stop saying we burn things to figure out how many calories are in them. That doesn't happen anymore, that's why insoluble fiber isn't counted in calorie counts.
It is true that sugars are used first when you eat them along with other things because they are the easiest thing for your body to convert into compounds that flow into all the metabolic processes for creating energy. You're body is a simple machine and breaks down things it either has to in order for it to not die (which is why alcohol screws with metabolism, if your body doesn't clear it first, you'll die, so it becomes priority number 1). When you switched to a diet with no real simple sugars/breads, your body would burn both its internal fat stores and the stuff you were eating because it wasn't terribly different in terms of input energy vs output energy (but you'd still need to have taken in less calories than you burned normally to lose weight). Almington also hit on a key point, you took out breads and sugars and replaced them with veggies and other things. Vegetable have a crap ton of water in them and insoluble fiber, so it'll help you feel fuller longer. So you were eating fewer calories without realizing it. Bread, sodas, and snacks have a way to add an easy 1000 calories into your daily diet without you realizing it.
And your corn example is silly, you can't take oil from the ground and simply toss it into your car either.
Last edited:
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
A quick search still shows the original measurement was done off of a bomb calorimitor. And now instead of that, they measure amount of a specific part, and assume a calorie amount of fat, protien, carbs, and alcohol, and those numbers came from a bomb calorimitor. So the numbers are still from how much energy you get when you burn someting. Unless you can find an example of how it's done now.
And the corn example is spot on, since the corn is essentially digested before into a form that can be used by a car. Much like digesting food so that you can use the food energy from that. Just like digestion and metabolism. How that relates to a body? Well, the amount of "digestion" of oil can be reduced to distillation/separation- and you get gasoline from crude- it takes little energy out of the oil to separate it into useful forms. Making a useful version from corn takes more potential energy out. See that as sugar vs. corn for the human body.
Like I said, I'd like to learn more about real digestion, if a simple calorie in- calorie out works for you, awesome. But IMHO, there's a lot more to the story, how it works, and how foods interact with each other as you digest and consume. Especially since the #1 item added to the diet, more than any other by a wide margin in the last century, is sugar.
We had grains, protien, animal fat, vegtable fat, alcohol, but sugar was a pretty rare item on the diet up the the last century. Then it was added in spades.
But we go after fat, since it's energy dense, more than sugar.
A quick search still shows the original measurement was done off of a bomb calorimitor. And now instead of that, they measure amount of a specific part, and assume a calorie amount of fat, protien, carbs, and alcohol, and those numbers came from a bomb calorimitor. So the numbers are still from how much energy you get when you burn someting. Unless you can find an example of how it's done now.
And the corn example is spot on, since the corn is essentially digested before into a form that can be used by a car. Much like digesting food so that you can use the food energy from that. Just like digestion and metabolism. How that relates to a body? Well, the amount of "digestion" of oil can be reduced to distillation/separation- and you get gasoline from crude- it takes little energy out of the oil to separate it into useful forms. Making a useful version from corn takes more potential energy out. See that as sugar vs. corn for the human body.
Like I said, I'd like to learn more about real digestion, if a simple calorie in- calorie out works for you, awesome. But IMHO, there's a lot more to the story, how it works, and how foods interact with each other as you digest and consume. Especially since the #1 item added to the diet, more than any other by a wide margin in the last century, is sugar.
We had grains, protien, animal fat, vegtable fat, alcohol, but sugar was a pretty rare item on the diet up the the last century. Then it was added in spades.
But we go after fat, since it's energy dense, more than sugar.
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
I missed some of the links to studies, but it certainly didn't seem like a very scientific paper, more of an op-ed. Sponsor research, and get it published.
It will be very interesting to see if anyone ever does a hard core digestion/metabolism study... As opposed to "diet X works"- "a guy can eat sweets and looses weight" yadda yadda. We've had a war on fat for going on 4 decades. It does not appear that we are winning. It more appears we are fighting the wrong thing.
And no- it's not trolling. We are here to share information, discuss, disagree, and encourage each other to get in the shape that each of us wants. You posted articles that addressed my points, and I disagree. that's not trolling, it's discussion. keep it up!
I missed some of the links to studies, but it certainly didn't seem like a very scientific paper, more of an op-ed. Sponsor research, and get it published.
It will be very interesting to see if anyone ever does a hard core digestion/metabolism study... As opposed to "diet X works"- "a guy can eat sweets and looses weight" yadda yadda. We've had a war on fat for going on 4 decades. It does not appear that we are winning. It more appears we are fighting the wrong thing.
And no- it's not trolling. We are here to share information, discuss, disagree, and encourage each other to get in the shape that each of us wants. You posted articles that addressed my points, and I disagree. that's not trolling, it's discussion. keep it up!
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
It is nice that you think there is more to the story. There is. But the fact remains that right now, the research is not there to make broad claims that (all calories the same), a higher proportion of sugar in ones diet leads to weight gain. Nutritional state is of course, a much more complex animal.
You seem to ignore the fact that we eat more sugar than the previous century AND we eat more calories than the last century. A lot more. And it is cheaper and more readily available.
The caloric values are calculated by molar values of ATP generated per gram of sugar, protein, fat etc. We have a darn good understanding of the structure and energy generated through each biochemical step on the molecular level. Rimbaud seems more educated in biochemistry so I am sure he could elaborate.
It is nice that you think there is more to the story. There is. But the fact remains that right now, the research is not there to make broad claims that (all calories the same), a higher proportion of sugar in ones diet leads to weight gain. Nutritional state is of course, a much more complex animal.
You seem to ignore the fact that we eat more sugar than the previous century AND we eat more calories than the last century. A lot more. And it is cheaper and more readily available.
The caloric values are calculated by molar values of ATP generated per gram of sugar, protein, fat etc. We have a darn good understanding of the structure and energy generated through each biochemical step on the molecular level. Rimbaud seems more educated in biochemistry so I am sure he could elaborate.
Rimbaud
New member
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
Right, those values are based on that type of experiment, where fats/carbs/proteins were individually tested to get an idea of their energetic output. Using those values and the content breakdown of foods (%of carbs/fat/protein), total calories are given. Each food isn't burned individually as you seemed to be saying.
I believe you're both oversimplifying and overcomplicating things. From a base standpoint, calories in vs calories out is the best way to lose weight. But yes, digestion plays a role in how many of the calories you put in your mouth/stomach actually get into your body. Raw meat will give you less useful calories than cooked meat. Ground beef will yield more than a steak. Why? Your stomach/intestines have to break down the proteins in order to use them and get them into your system. Cooking denatures the proteins, making this process easier, ground meat will have more surface area accessible to stomach enzymes (and gut bacteria). Same goes for vegetables (cooked=easier to digest).
Your point about sugar is very true, but, as WIWildcard says, the amount of total calories we eat has shot up greatly because food is so easy to get. Tossing sugar in everything increases the calorie load in everything we eat. People who drink a 20oz bottle of soda daily put an extra 250-300 calories in their system day in and day out. That's basically an extra pound every two weeks (or 20-25 pounds a year). Eventually your body evens out where you're burning more calories a day just because you're so fat that you won't continually gain 20 pounds by eating the same thing daily for years. But honestly, how many people do you know that slowly gained 20 pounds a year for 3, 4, or 5 years? And how many of them are habitual soda drinkers? And that weight gain, in large part, could have been stopped if they would have just drank water instead of soda. Losing weight isn't as hard as people make it out to be. It doesn't take dramatic lifestyle changes where you have to nitpick over everything you eat. It takes some self control and the realization that you're not going to lose 50 pounds in 50 days. It's a slow process and that discourages most people.
I'm not trying to belittle people who jump on board crazy diets, if that works for them (and it's a healthy crazy diet), good on them. But their losing weight has more to do with the notion that they're simply eating fewer calories than before. Probably by cutting out 1000's of wasted calories a week in sugary drinks and not because they've unlocked the secret benefit of a 100,000 year old ancient human diet.
Right, those values are based on that type of experiment, where fats/carbs/proteins were individually tested to get an idea of their energetic output. Using those values and the content breakdown of foods (%of carbs/fat/protein), total calories are given. Each food isn't burned individually as you seemed to be saying.
I believe you're both oversimplifying and overcomplicating things. From a base standpoint, calories in vs calories out is the best way to lose weight. But yes, digestion plays a role in how many of the calories you put in your mouth/stomach actually get into your body. Raw meat will give you less useful calories than cooked meat. Ground beef will yield more than a steak. Why? Your stomach/intestines have to break down the proteins in order to use them and get them into your system. Cooking denatures the proteins, making this process easier, ground meat will have more surface area accessible to stomach enzymes (and gut bacteria). Same goes for vegetables (cooked=easier to digest).
Your point about sugar is very true, but, as WIWildcard says, the amount of total calories we eat has shot up greatly because food is so easy to get. Tossing sugar in everything increases the calorie load in everything we eat. People who drink a 20oz bottle of soda daily put an extra 250-300 calories in their system day in and day out. That's basically an extra pound every two weeks (or 20-25 pounds a year). Eventually your body evens out where you're burning more calories a day just because you're so fat that you won't continually gain 20 pounds by eating the same thing daily for years. But honestly, how many people do you know that slowly gained 20 pounds a year for 3, 4, or 5 years? And how many of them are habitual soda drinkers? And that weight gain, in large part, could have been stopped if they would have just drank water instead of soda. Losing weight isn't as hard as people make it out to be. It doesn't take dramatic lifestyle changes where you have to nitpick over everything you eat. It takes some self control and the realization that you're not going to lose 50 pounds in 50 days. It's a slow process and that discourages most people.
I'm not trying to belittle people who jump on board crazy diets, if that works for them (and it's a healthy crazy diet), good on them. But their losing weight has more to do with the notion that they're simply eating fewer calories than before. Probably by cutting out 1000's of wasted calories a week in sugary drinks and not because they've unlocked the secret benefit of a 100,000 year old ancient human diet.
Last edited:
bottomdweller
Where my dogsies at?
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
One of the biggest issues with this whole thing is people are concerned about weight loss. How important is the number in reality? People have said that if we go ahead and eat 1500 calories worth of high processed junk food and burn 2000 calories a day you will lose weight. If you're all about calories in vs calories out, then sure, you're going to lose weight, but how healthy are you? I'm a firm believer in the Paleo lifestyle because it revolves around eating whole foods. There are no grains or sugars because they are processed and I would love for someone to find a way to tell me that processed foods, even whole grains are good for you because I would be happy to eat certain foods that I love.
As for the science behind all of it, one book that I have read that isn't super geeky and seems to make the most sense (at least to how my body has reacted to following a Paleo lifestyle) is It Starts With Food by Dallas and Melissa Hartwig. If you're a regular in this thread, you probably noticed that Shirtless Bob is currently doing their Whole30 program which is (and I hate to call it this) basically a cleanse to prep you for a Paleo lifestyle. I have done a Whole30 (no grains, sugars of any kind, dairy, legumes for 30 days). The results you see are real... because dairy, grains, and legumes all have gut inflammation properties in them, you'll notice that your gut isn't as big as it was and that's because the inflammation in your insides is mostly gone and there's no bloating. You'll lose weight simply because you have cut out every kind of sugar and processed food out there and are only eating whole foods. Their book goes into how food affects the hormones in your body and how eating unhealthy foods cause a chain reaction in your body. Your body basically chemically programs itself to store food it shouldn't be, burns muscle instead of fats, or tries to burn those simple carbs instead of fats so as much as you work out and get the weight number down, you're stll not healthy.
I can't explain it anywhere close to the way they can, but if anyone is interested, their website is whole9life.com.
One of the biggest issues with this whole thing is people are concerned about weight loss. How important is the number in reality? People have said that if we go ahead and eat 1500 calories worth of high processed junk food and burn 2000 calories a day you will lose weight. If you're all about calories in vs calories out, then sure, you're going to lose weight, but how healthy are you? I'm a firm believer in the Paleo lifestyle because it revolves around eating whole foods. There are no grains or sugars because they are processed and I would love for someone to find a way to tell me that processed foods, even whole grains are good for you because I would be happy to eat certain foods that I love.
As for the science behind all of it, one book that I have read that isn't super geeky and seems to make the most sense (at least to how my body has reacted to following a Paleo lifestyle) is It Starts With Food by Dallas and Melissa Hartwig. If you're a regular in this thread, you probably noticed that Shirtless Bob is currently doing their Whole30 program which is (and I hate to call it this) basically a cleanse to prep you for a Paleo lifestyle. I have done a Whole30 (no grains, sugars of any kind, dairy, legumes for 30 days). The results you see are real... because dairy, grains, and legumes all have gut inflammation properties in them, you'll notice that your gut isn't as big as it was and that's because the inflammation in your insides is mostly gone and there's no bloating. You'll lose weight simply because you have cut out every kind of sugar and processed food out there and are only eating whole foods. Their book goes into how food affects the hormones in your body and how eating unhealthy foods cause a chain reaction in your body. Your body basically chemically programs itself to store food it shouldn't be, burns muscle instead of fats, or tries to burn those simple carbs instead of fats so as much as you work out and get the weight number down, you're stll not healthy.
I can't explain it anywhere close to the way they can, but if anyone is interested, their website is whole9life.com.
MissThundercat
Are the cis okay?
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
Yes, I am doing the whole30. For the first week or so, it was a challenge going without grains or dairy. My breakfast used to be a bowl of Kashi and a cup of plain, nonfat Greek yogurt. Now I'm eating plenty of organic meat, seafood, vegetables, fruit, eggs, and healthy fats (except seed oils and trans fats). Part of breakfast now is learning different ways to cook eggs.
Before the whole30, I was in a rut. Now I'm eating a diverse array of vegetables and fruit, plenty of different meats, and I find I'm not leaning on bread and sugar so much for energy. I have way more energy now than I did last month, and my caffeine intake has actually dropped.
All of this without calorie counting, weighing, or measuring. I like this method of eating so much that I'm thinking of making it a whole60 or whole90.
Not only that, but they're on Facebook (Whole9) too.
Yes, I am doing the whole30. For the first week or so, it was a challenge going without grains or dairy. My breakfast used to be a bowl of Kashi and a cup of plain, nonfat Greek yogurt. Now I'm eating plenty of organic meat, seafood, vegetables, fruit, eggs, and healthy fats (except seed oils and trans fats). Part of breakfast now is learning different ways to cook eggs.
Before the whole30, I was in a rut. Now I'm eating a diverse array of vegetables and fruit, plenty of different meats, and I find I'm not leaning on bread and sugar so much for energy. I have way more energy now than I did last month, and my caffeine intake has actually dropped.
All of this without calorie counting, weighing, or measuring. I like this method of eating so much that I'm thinking of making it a whole60 or whole90.
Rimbaud
New member
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
It's not the fact you dropped those types of food from your diet that's the reason you're losing weight. You're losing weight because you're taking in fewer calories than your body is burning. True, you're taking in fewer calories because you switched your diet, but you would have lost weight if you just ate smaller meals of stuff you were always eating. Unless you want to try to tell me that I didn't lose weight 5 years ago because I kept grains, sugars, dairy, and legumes in my diet. It's not a slam on the diet if you admit that you're losing weight because the diet is restrictive and cuts your calorie intake without you realizing it. If you replace mashed potatoes made with butter and cream with a similar sized (not calorie count, but volume) portion of broccoli, you could be cutting hundreds of calories for that one meal and still be just as full. Add up those losses in calories over time, and you're losing weight because you're taking in fewer calories than you body is burning.
I never claimed that eating 1500 calories in pure lard and sugar would make you healthier, I've tried to counter your notion that it was cutting breads and sugars that made you lose weight. It's not the specific foods you cut, it's the fact you switched to a restrictive diet that cut your calories without you having to put in much effort (which is a great thing). It's totally semantics and a chicken/egg type situation, and I see that. The only way to lose weight is to make your body burn what it has stored, and it's not going to do that if it gets enough energy from your diet, be it from healthy food or unhealthy food. That's all I'm saying (and that's why people will plateau and weight loss if they don't increase their exercise output). The Paleo Diet (and all diet schemes) are designed to help you cut calories, some schemes have an added benefit of making people healthier while some literally starve you. I'm not doubting the science behind the Paleo diet because a lot of it is true, but obviously there are over-simplifications and generalizations to make it easier for the layperson to understand and abide by. Again, I'm not deriding the diet or people that use it, I'm just saying that you didn't lose weight because of the food switch, you lost weight because the food switch cut your calories (again, semantics and basically the same thing).
As for the processed food thing and whole grains bit, are you saying things like whole barley, oatmeal, bulgur, farrow, and the like don't have health benefits? Or that stuff like breads that say they're made with whole wheat and whole grain aren't as good for you as they claim?
It's not the fact you dropped those types of food from your diet that's the reason you're losing weight. You're losing weight because you're taking in fewer calories than your body is burning. True, you're taking in fewer calories because you switched your diet, but you would have lost weight if you just ate smaller meals of stuff you were always eating. Unless you want to try to tell me that I didn't lose weight 5 years ago because I kept grains, sugars, dairy, and legumes in my diet. It's not a slam on the diet if you admit that you're losing weight because the diet is restrictive and cuts your calorie intake without you realizing it. If you replace mashed potatoes made with butter and cream with a similar sized (not calorie count, but volume) portion of broccoli, you could be cutting hundreds of calories for that one meal and still be just as full. Add up those losses in calories over time, and you're losing weight because you're taking in fewer calories than you body is burning.
I never claimed that eating 1500 calories in pure lard and sugar would make you healthier, I've tried to counter your notion that it was cutting breads and sugars that made you lose weight. It's not the specific foods you cut, it's the fact you switched to a restrictive diet that cut your calories without you having to put in much effort (which is a great thing). It's totally semantics and a chicken/egg type situation, and I see that. The only way to lose weight is to make your body burn what it has stored, and it's not going to do that if it gets enough energy from your diet, be it from healthy food or unhealthy food. That's all I'm saying (and that's why people will plateau and weight loss if they don't increase their exercise output). The Paleo Diet (and all diet schemes) are designed to help you cut calories, some schemes have an added benefit of making people healthier while some literally starve you. I'm not doubting the science behind the Paleo diet because a lot of it is true, but obviously there are over-simplifications and generalizations to make it easier for the layperson to understand and abide by. Again, I'm not deriding the diet or people that use it, I'm just saying that you didn't lose weight because of the food switch, you lost weight because the food switch cut your calories (again, semantics and basically the same thing).
As for the processed food thing and whole grains bit, are you saying things like whole barley, oatmeal, bulgur, farrow, and the like don't have health benefits? Or that stuff like breads that say they're made with whole wheat and whole grain aren't as good for you as they claim?
WisconsinWildcard
The plural of anecdote is not data
Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
Agree. I tried to work in that weight loss is not always the same as health and nutrition. There are overweight people who are a hell of a lot healthier than some slim people. But what I have seen underlying the research I have read is that the common denominator in weight loss plans, diets, lifestyle changes that lead to a decrease in weight is an overall reduction in caloric intake through counting, better food choice, food diaries or better portion control (or combination).
As far as the paleo diet goes, I see no harm in it. However, at this point, I think commenting on it is way above my pay grade. I have a couple of friends who live it who are in the medical field and we get in long discussions about it. They all end with us agreeing there is much more to be learned.
I will say this. Inflammation can sometimes take the role of a four letter word. It is not always a bad thing (very conditional statement). I will not say its good because it is natural (I hate the word natural...so much) but I think the science on gut/bacteria interactions is still very new. For instance, we are finally seeing the medical community embrace fecal transplant in select cases
.
Agree. I tried to work in that weight loss is not always the same as health and nutrition. There are overweight people who are a hell of a lot healthier than some slim people. But what I have seen underlying the research I have read is that the common denominator in weight loss plans, diets, lifestyle changes that lead to a decrease in weight is an overall reduction in caloric intake through counting, better food choice, food diaries or better portion control (or combination).
As far as the paleo diet goes, I see no harm in it. However, at this point, I think commenting on it is way above my pay grade. I have a couple of friends who live it who are in the medical field and we get in long discussions about it. They all end with us agreeing there is much more to be learned.
I will say this. Inflammation can sometimes take the role of a four letter word. It is not always a bad thing (very conditional statement). I will not say its good because it is natural (I hate the word natural...so much) but I think the science on gut/bacteria interactions is still very new. For instance, we are finally seeing the medical community embrace fecal transplant in select cases
.Re: Diet and Exercise 2013: Ready to Suffer and Ready to Hope
I haven't visited the thread for some time, but my issues with Type 2 diabetes as I approach 60 has me taking a serious look at a complete diet change.
I had looked at the Paleo diet in the past and now I'm taking a look at the Whole30 program. From reading the forums there, it looks like going on it could help with my blood sugar levels. It could also help both of us lose the weight we need to shed.
Looks like a visit with my doc is in order.
I haven't visited the thread for some time, but my issues with Type 2 diabetes as I approach 60 has me taking a serious look at a complete diet change.
I had looked at the Paleo diet in the past and now I'm taking a look at the Whole30 program. From reading the forums there, it looks like going on it could help with my blood sugar levels. It could also help both of us lose the weight we need to shed.
Looks like a visit with my doc is in order.