Once Again, Scientific Evidence Supports Bulletproof/paleo/high-Fat

«134567

Comments

  • Jason MillerJason Miller Mother nature isn't stupid mod
    edited June 2016
    No citations provided on calories, only cholesterol studies.
    My Crossfit auto template programming here, body composition coaching through Eat to Perform here,
  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    No citations provided on calories, only cholesterol studies.




    Hmm, then why did Mercola say it was one of the key findings of the study?

  • SkeletorSkeletor The Conqueror Worm ✭✭✭


    Hmm, then why did Mercola say it was one of the key findings of the study?




    Relevant.

    "I know how to despise mere cool intelligence. What I want is intelligence matched by pure, physical existence, like a statue." --Yukio Mishima

     

    Let's be friends on MyFitnessPal!

  • Relevant.


    Hahahaha! I've never seen that. That's hilarious!
  • DManDMan Master of Arts ✭✭✭

    Hilarious indeed.


    May you be well, may you be happy, may you be healthy, may you be loved.

    How much to eat:
    advanced | How to train: bulletproof training | HRV: HRV FOR TRAINING HRV BASICS What Affects HRV | Brain  & Memory dual n back training advanced training

     

     

  • Jason MillerJason Miller Mother nature isn't stupid mod


    Hmm, then why did Mercola say it was one of the key findings of the study?




     


    Because the majority of the population is wilfully ignorant and are dazzled by bullshit and double talk.  This can be broken down very simply, they are saying to eat less, period.  I'll let you in on a little tidbit as someone who measures their macros ie "counts calories" and sees thousands of client food records.  A massive, overwhelming majority of the foods or "junk foods" that are causing people to be overweight are very high in fat, like really high.  There are carbs in these foods as well, but most of the calories in these items are coming from fat, and when you tell someone to stop eating carbs they stop eating these very high fat high calorie foods by default.  This is a very easy way to get people to reduce their calories sharply (which count even if you don't count them)while being cool and trendy at the same time, not getting these people to count calories guarantees that they wont catch on to the ruse, and also guarantees that they wont equate calories to counter the effect as nobody on their own would naturally put effort into equating calories.

    My Crossfit auto template programming here, body composition coaching through Eat to Perform here,
  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited June 2016


    Because the majority of the population is wilfully ignorant and are dazzled by bullshit and double talk.  This can be broken down very simply, they are saying to eat less, period.  I'll let you in on a little tidbit as someone who measures their macros ie "counts calories" and sees thousands of client food records.  A massive, overwhelming majority of the foods or "junk foods" that are causing people to be overweight are very high in fat, like really high.  There are carbs in these foods as well, but most of the calories in these items are coming from fat, and when you tell someone to stop eating carbs they stop eating these very high fat high calorie foods by default.  This is a very easy way to get people to reduce their calories sharply (which count even if you don't count them)while being cool and trendy at the same time, not getting these people to count calories guarantees that they wont catch on to the ruse, and also guarantees that they wont equate calories to counter the effect as nobody on their own would naturally put effort into equating calories.




    Jason,


     


    I asked why Mercola interpreted it that way. He wasn't being trendy, or willfully ignorant. That's how he read the study, but for some reason you read it differently. That was my specific question. Please answer it appropriately.


    I really don't think they lost weight because of calories. Carbs make you fat. Lowering carbs drastically generally helps you lose weight. This is what the study concluded, hence the advice to eat fat, and lower carbs/sugar. That's what we all agree on here, and what we've all seen proven over and over again in our lives and in the cutting edge science. Am I on some other planet? Can someone with any sense come and defend reason here?


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited June 2016



    Mercola is a very good source. He doesn't tell blatant lies.


    That's total propaganda, by the way. Scary stuff.


  • Jason MillerJason Miller Mother nature isn't stupid mod


    Jason,


    1.I asked why Mercola interpreted it that way. He wasn't being trendy, or willfully ignorant.


    2.That's how he read the study, but for some reason you read it differently.


    3. That was my specific question. Please answer it appropriately.


    4. I really don't think they lost weight because of calories.


    5.Carbs make you fat.


    6. Lowering carbs drastically generally helps you lose weight.


    7. This is what the study concluded, hence the advice to eat fat, and lower carbs/sugar.


    8. That's what we all agree on here, and what we've all seen proven over and over again in our lives and in the cutting edge science.


    9. Am I on some other planet?


    10. Can someone with any sense come and defend reason here?




    1. He has a specific narrative to perpetuate, it is a trendy one, the readers that don't look beyond the surface and find comfort in that are willfully ignorant.


    2. I read the words with neutrality and looked for the citations and evidence, there were none, perhaps that is reading it differently than him, too bad.


    3. See above


    4. Science doesn't care what you think, but you are free to think anything you want.


    5. fat makes you fat too in a caloric surplus, carbs store in the form of liver glycogen, muscle glycogen, is a primary fuel at levels above rest and aerobics, and stores as fat in caloric surplus. Fat can only store as bodyfat and organ fat in caloric surplus, and is a secondary fuel source occurring in: the absence of carbs, during starvation, during rest, and low intensity activity. You yourself showed me a weight loss study were both groups lost weight and one group was high carb so obviously carbs in and of themselves don't make you fat.


    6. Yes, carbs are 4 calories per gram, but fat is 9 calories per gram so will also have the same effect when reduced, dropping both works too, dropping carbs also causes water and muscle loss as the contributers to "weight" loss (see the overwhelming majority of high quality low carb weight loss studies for references)


    7. No citations provided


    8. Far from all agree, so your appeal to majority fallacy doesn't quite hold up, still waiting for the quality citations, the top people in this field are still waiting for someone to provide a isocaloric protein equated study showing low carb to be adventagious over high carb with regard to body composition and performance.


    9. No, you are on Earth


    10. You misspelled science.



    Too be clear, you can eat low carb all you want and it goes without saying that it is perfectly fine if you enjoy it, all I said was there were no citations about calories provided, and most enjoyable foods out there are very high in fat and calories but also have carbs, so when you cut the carbs you cut the high fat foods with them, no cookies, ice cream, potato chips, pizza, kfc, milk chocolate, basically all restaurant food etc.
    My Crossfit auto template programming here, body composition coaching through Eat to Perform here,
  • SkeletorSkeletor The Conqueror Worm ✭✭✭


    That's total propaganda, by the way. Scary stuff.



    Please elaborate.

    "I know how to despise mere cool intelligence. What I want is intelligence matched by pure, physical existence, like a statue." --Yukio Mishima

     

    Let's be friends on MyFitnessPal!

  • ACH85ACH85 ✭✭
    edited June 2016


    Fat can only store as bodyfat and organ fat in caloric surplus




     


    I am interested in this statement. Under this model... 


     


    A. Is "caloric surplus" daily, or could it apply to a shorter window of time? True/False: one massive, crappy meal can store fat even if it is eaten on a day with a slight caloric deficit. 


     


    B. What happens to fat that has been transported into the blood stream in an environment which is both a caloric deficit and high insulin? (Perhaps this is affected by question A, since high insulin is unlikely all day.) 


     


    C. What explains the differences between people who seem to lose fat easily and those who don't, or those who seem to store fat very easily? Differences in BMR, whether naturally or due to dieting induced damage? Hormonal environments that make it harder to liberate fat once it's stored? Are they just doing it wrong? 


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭




    7. No citations provided

     




    #7: The name of the report is quite clearly: 


     


    "Eat Fat, Cut The Carbs


    and Avoid Snacking

    To Reverse Obesity

    and Type 2 Diabetes."


     


    Do you deny that their conclusions were to cut carbs and raise fat in order to lose weight?

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Please elaborate.




     


    That Arthur clip. They are embedding in kids' minds that there are people out there on the Internet who just spread lies for the sake of it. This would be applied to people like Mercola and Asprey who report things that are outside of scientific consensus. On the other hand, you would never ever see them suggest on a kids' show that all of mainstream media (mostly represented by the News on TV) is owned and operated by 6 major corporations. Hence, this is utter propaganda, being on TV, and I believe public television no less.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited June 2016


    1. He has a specific narrative to perpetuate, it is a trendy one, the readers that don't look beyond the surface and find comfort in that are willfully ignorant.


     




     


    Please read the report, and scroll down to point #7: https://phcuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Eat-Fat-Cut-The-Carbs-and-Avoid-Snacking-To-Reverse-Obesity-and-Type-2-Diabetes-National-Obesity-Forum-Public-Health-Collaboration.pdf


    This section of the report is clearly entitled "7. Stop Counting Calories (Calorie focused thinking has damaged public health.)"


    Do you deny that this section of the report discusses why counting calories is discouraged by the document? Why did you disregard that the report concluded this?


     


    The exact section reads:


     


    "A calorie is only a calorie if it is incinerated, and the heat given off measured; indeed


    that is the definition. However, calories from different foods have entirely different

    metabolic effects on the human body rendering that definition useless. Therefore,

    the effect on our health differs substantially depending upon where that calorie is

    derived from. For example, equal calorie portions of sugar, alcohol, meat or olive oil

    have widely differing effects on hormonal systems such as insulin, and satiety

    signals such as cholecystokinin or peptide YY. It is highly irrelevant how many

    calories a portion of food on a plate contains. What matters is how our body

    responds to the ingestion and absorption of those calories, and how they are

    metabolised, depending upon the specific food in question.

    Current caloric reduction strategies for weight loss are highly ineffective. Data from

    the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 2004-2014 estimates the probability

    of attaining a normal weight at 1 in 167 [34]. This equals a failure rate greater than

    99%. This is easily confirmed by the experiences of virtually all people attempting a

    diet, the majority of which are calorie-based methods.

    It is often assumed that excessive caloric intake is the root cause of obesity, but this

    is untrue. A calorie of food energy can have different metabolic fates depending

    upon the hormonal stimulation. For example, that same calorie of food may be used

    to generate body heat or stored as body fat. Obesity is a disease of energy

    partitioning, not one of total energy intake. The primary driver of this partitioning is

    the hormone insulin.

    Calorie-focused thinking is inherently biased against high-fat foods, many of which

    may be protective against obesity and related diseases, and supportive of starchy

    and sugary replacements, which are particularly detrimental for those with insulin

    resistance.

    Shifting focus away from calories and emphasising a dietary pattern that focuses on

    food quality rather than quantity will help to rapidly reduce obesity, related diseases

    and cardiovascular risk. [35] Rapid weight loss and regain from fad dieting is

    detrimental to health. Such ‘weight cycling’ contributes to hypertension, insulin

    resistance and dyslipidaemia resulting in increased mortality risk and worse

    cardiovascular outcomes. [36] The look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) trial

    found no cardiovascular benefits with a low calorie diet combined with increased

    physical activity in type 2 diabetic patients. Despite significant weight loss even up

    to the maximum follow-up of 13.5 years, no health benefits could be found. [37]

    - 10 -

    www.NationalObesityForum.org.uk www.PHCuk.org

    Public health should work primarily to support the consumption of whole foods that

    help protect against obesity-promoting energy imbalance and metabolic

    dysfunction rather than continue to promote calorie-directed messages that may

    create and blame victims and possibly exacerbate epidemics of obesity and related

    diseases


  • SkeletorSkeletor The Conqueror Worm ✭✭✭


    They are embedding in kids' minds that there are people out there on the Internet who just spread lies for the sake of it.




     


    You seem to be implying that there aren't people on the internet who do this. Have you ever been on the internet, MLS?

    "I know how to despise mere cool intelligence. What I want is intelligence matched by pure, physical existence, like a statue." --Yukio Mishima

     

    Let's be friends on MyFitnessPal!

  • Jason MillerJason Miller Mother nature isn't stupid mod


    #7: The name of the report is quite clearly:


    "Eat Fat, Cut The Carbs

    and Avoid Snacking

    To Reverse Obesity

    and Type 2 Diabetes."


    Do you deny that their conclusions were to cut carbs and raise fat in order to lose weight?




    Yes I do deny the conclusion you state, "eat fat" is a non directional statement (doesn't say how much, more or less), "Cut the carbs" means eat less, and most foods with carbs and high calories have fat as well, so large caloric dietary changes take place. "Avoid snacking" also means eat less. "To reverse obesity and type 2 diabetes" makes it sound like its the only way, also not true at all, there are many ways to reduce obesity and diabetes.
    My Crossfit auto template programming here, body composition coaching through Eat to Perform here,
  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    You seem to be implying that there aren't people on the internet who do this. Have you ever been on the internet, MLS?




     


    I refuse to answer your question (for obvious reasons), however, I'll reply to your statement. On a program approved for airing on a government network (PBS), I feel that the individuals they may be implying (most likely people who have nothing better to do, "extremists," or they could be suggesting those who discuss conspiracies) aren't the real liars. There are many more significant and harmful lies being perpetuated however, on the Internet by corporate conglomerates, government entities, and their subsidiaries/paid employees. That's the real problem, not the people questioning the official narrative, providing primary accounts that disagree with it, or even speculating possible deception on the establishment's part. Feel free to give me some examples of independent entities caught "lying" on the Internet for personal gain. I doubt any of it can rival the deception, spin, and censorship that occurs at the hands of the governments of North Korea, China, European Union, and the U.S. (among many who operate in the same corrupt manner).


    Sorry, I know this is getting into gangster banter territory.

  • Jason MillerJason Miller Mother nature isn't stupid mod


    Please read the report, and scroll down to point #7: https://phcuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Eat-Fat-Cut-The-Carbs-and-Avoid-Snacking-To-Reverse-Obesity-and-Type-2-Diabetes-National-Obesity-Forum-Public-Health-Collaboration.pdf


    This section of the report is clearly entitled "7. Stop Counting Calories (Calorie focused thinking has damaged public health.)"


    Do you deny that this section of the report discusses why counting calories is discouraged by the document? Why did you disregard that the report concluded this?




    Yes they say a great deal of standard rhetoric that looks like it was just photocopied from a low carb book, and don't back it up with evidence. If you (not you personally) don't have the knowledge to use the tools of calories and macro partitioning properly, that does not mean the tools are wrong. Do not think for a moment that counting calories means by definition painful, damaging very low or too low, or emotionally damaging, that would be silly, it means finding the CORRECT amount, across the CORRECT macronutient percentages, based on your activity levels. People always think counting calories means 1000 calories of carrot sticks and tofu, completely wrong.


    One reason (as I have stated before) that their statements are misguided and demonstrate their lack of knowledge on the subject, is that I have access to thousands of peoples data that include detailed daily food intake logs, total calories, total macronutrients, activity, body weight, sleep, and more. We (a team of 50 with a board of scientists, researchers, and exercise physiologists) make adjustments to create and see results whether the desire to is to gain muscle or lose bodyfat, correct fasting glucose, etc. You see, recording detailed information and viewing it with knowledge and experience allows you to see and graph exact changes in an organism and make informed decisions, by refusing to collect or intentionally avoid your own data ie "count calories", you are just building Lego with a blindfold.
    My Crossfit auto template programming here, body composition coaching through Eat to Perform here,
  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Yes I do deny the conclusion you state, "eat fat" is a non directional statement (doesn't say how much, more or less), "Cut the carbs" means eat less, and most foods with carbs and high calories have fat as well, so large caloric dietary changes take place. "Avoid snacking" also means eat less. "To reverse obesity and type 2 diabetes" makes it sound like its the only way, also not true at all, there are many ways to reduce obesity and diabetes.




     


    There you have it, folks. Mr. Miller is denying the obvious. Clearly these two specific points were made in the report to encourage consuming a higher fat to carbohydrate ratio. You can deny this all you like, but then you're just ignoring the obvious intent of the authors, as well as their specific conclusions stated within the report. For those of you who wish to confirm the specifics, here is a section from point 1 of the report, which negates Miller's claims about the implied meaning (eat less calories) and clearly states that eating specifically less carbs and more fat is indeed better for you and very effective for weight loss:


     


    Evidence from multiple randomised controlled trials have revealed that a higher fat,

    lower carbohydrate diet is superior to a low-fat diet for weight loss and

    cardiovascular disease risk reduction
    [8, 9] An exhaustive analysis of 53 randomised

    controlled trials involving 68,128 participants conducted by the Harvard School of

    Public Health concluded“ when compared with dietary interventions of similar

    intensity, evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support low fat diets

    over other dietary interventions for long term weight loss. In weight loss trials,
    higher fat weight loss interventions led to significantly greater weight loss than lowfat

    interventions
    .”


    Furthermore the Women's Health Initiative was the largest randomised controlled

    diet trial ever performed. 48,835 post-menopausal women were randomised to

    either their usual diet or a low-fat, calorie reduced diet with increased exercise with

    the hypothesis that this would reduce cardiovascular disease. The mean follow-up

    period was 8.1 years. The intervention achieved an 8.2% energy decrease in total fat

    intake and a 2.9% energy decrease in saturated fat intake, but did not reduce risk of

    CHD or stroke.[10] While not specifically a weight loss trial, nevertheless, the

    reduction in dietary fat and total daily calories (361 calories/day reduction) also

    failed to produce any significant weight loss over the duration of the study. This
    rejected the notion that the low-fat diet is either beneficial for cardiovascular

    disease or weight loss
    .


    This can be explained in part that at a physiological level that consumption of fat

    induce fullness or satiation and that compared to the other macronutrients protein

    and carbohydrates, fat has the LEAST impact on blood glucose and insulin

    responses. Furthermore, insulin resistance is a precursor to type 2 diabetes and in

    men is the number one risk factor for heart attack. (see point 3)

    We recommend that guidelines for weight loss for the UK should include an ad

    libitum low refined carbohydrate and a high healthy high fat diet (i.e non-processed

    foods or “real” foods) as an acceptable, effective and safe approach for

    preventing weight gain and aiding weight loss.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited June 2016


    Yes they say a great deal of standard rhetoric that looks like it was just photocopied from a low carb book, and don't back it up with evidence. If you (not you personally) don't have the knowledge to use the tools of calories and macro partitioning properly, that does not mean the tools are wrong. Do not think for a moment that counting calories means by definition painful, damaging very low or too low, or emotionally damaging, that would be silly, it means finding the CORRECT amount, across the CORRECT macronutient percentages, based on your activity levels. People always think counting calories means 1000 calories of carrot sticks and tofu, completely wrong.


    One reason (as I have stated before) that their statements are misguided and demonstrate their lack of knowledge on the subject, is that I have access to thousands of peoples data that include detailed daily food intake logs, total calories, total macronutrients, activity, body weight, sleep, and more. We (a team of 50 with a board of scientists, researchers, and exercise physiologists) make adjustments to create and see results whether the desire to is to gain muscle or lose bodyfat, correct fasting glucose, etc. You see, recording detailed information and viewing it with knowledge and experience allows you to see and graph exact changes in an organism and make informed decisions, by refusing to collect or intentionally avoid your own data ie "count calories", you are just building Lego with a blindfold.




     


    Cool, I was just trying to get you to admit what the document was saying, and if you will, I think you should also admit that you were wrong about Mercola's inclusions about the report. I do believe you're not giving enough credit to the credentials of those who put together the report, and the studies they have cited which prove their points. Harvard School of Public Health isn't exactly something you should so easily poo poo (brush aside).


     


    I think I understand your approach in your training program, and I think you mean well and might have some insights that we don't. Sometimes your good intentions and your understanding of all the science is more obvious than other times. I do respect your vantage point being a trainer and having a "practice" where you get to tweak variables and see direct results/effects. In fact, I respect this vantage point, more than peer-reviewed science, so I won't deny your unique perspective. I do admit I have only my numbers and the few people who I've imparted advice to to go on. In my experience, though, calorie-counting isn't helpful at all, but giving the simple advice of increasing fat from "real food" and lowering carbs, always works (and then you follow it up by reintroducing healthy carbs at reasonable levels, mostly for lunch and dinner, until weight gain rears its ugly head again—then take away the carbs—super simple).


  • Jason MillerJason Miller Mother nature isn't stupid mod
    You just said it, you added carbs without lowering fat, more calories, weight goes up, you really should keep track of this stuff haha. How would you explain someone eating 300-350g of carbs every day and losing 2lbs every week?
    My Crossfit auto template programming here, body composition coaching through Eat to Perform here,
  • SkeletorSkeletor The Conqueror Worm ✭✭✭
    edited June 2016


    How would you explain someone eating 300-350g of carbs every day and losing 2lbs every week?




    sterons, obviously


     


    But more seriously: This dude doesn't even enjoy Arthur. He's a lost cause.


    "I know how to despise mere cool intelligence. What I want is intelligence matched by pure, physical existence, like a statue." --Yukio Mishima

     

    Let's be friends on MyFitnessPal!

  • Jason MillerJason Miller Mother nature isn't stupid mod


    I am interested in this statement. Under this model...


    A. Is "caloric surplus" daily, or could it apply to a shorter window of time? True/False: one massive, crappy meal can store fat even if it is eaten on a day with a slight caloric deficit.


    B. What happens to fat that has been transported into the blood stream in an environment which is both a caloric deficit and high insulin? (Perhaps this is affected by question A, since high insulin is unlikely all day.)


    C. What explains the differences between people who seem to lose fat easily and those who don't, or those who seem to store fat very easily? Differences in BMR, whether naturally or due to dieting induced damage? Hormonal environments that make it harder to liberate fat once it's stored? Are they just doing it wrong?




    A. We are always going between deficits and surpluses throughout the day, somewhat mitigated my digestion rates, very large meals shutdown digestion to allow the extraction of nutrients for example. Which is why moving all calories to a small window has a very minimal effect in the literature compared to regularly spaced smaller meals.


    B. Fat stores as fat on its own without insulin but of course would be assisted by insulin transportation, but would not stay there unless a surplus or maintenance started, high fasting glucose is a medical condition of poor fat metabolism.


    C. All of the above, and don't forget cortisol, in many cases people think they are a certain way until you start recording them precisely to expose what's really going on, a small percentage of people are tricky, sometimes you can't undo decades of damage overnight, would be nice though. It's like the life guard and swim coach analogy, if you don't have a swim coach you may need a life guard, learn to swim as soon as you can.
    My Crossfit auto template programming here, body composition coaching through Eat to Perform here,
  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited June 2016


    You just said it, you added carbs without lowering fat, more calories, weight goes up, you really should keep track of this stuff haha. How would you explain someone eating 300-350g of carbs every day and losing 2lbs every week?




     


    They are no longer insulin resistant, hence adding the carbs back in doesn't cause the problem. I didn't say they kept fat the same necessarily, either. My "clients" (friends I give advice to) do not count or measure food except by eyeballing it and using maybe crude measurements like visualized "fistfuls." Also, I just tell people to generally eat until they're full, and get full on fat once they've had their "fistful" or two of carbs for that particular meal.


     


    And whenever I add carbs or amount of food in general, I generally don't gain weight. The only time I gain weight is actually when I'm stressed, not getting enough sleep, or being exposed to mold or some chemical (these last two have made me lose weight, too, paradoxically). But to my point, you can bet if I needed to lose weight, I'd try to get into ketosis, naw'm sayin'?


     


    I definitely don't gain weight when I add fat. If you want, I will film myself eating an extra bar of butter (that's 1600 calories) every day for a week (might get expensive) and track my weight gain (not changing anything else).


     


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    sterons, obviously


     


    But more seriously: This dude doesn't even enjoy Arthur. He's a lost cause.




    No I like Arthur. I just noticed that this was propaganda, and I had to reconsider.

  • HegReg33HegReg33 ✭✭
    edited June 2016

    You're all right. Calories DO matter. So does macronutrient ratio. Why? Because the different macros have different effects on your hunger/metabolism systems.


    Fructose causes leptin resistance. Evolutionary reason? You're SUPPOSED to get fat in the summer. And all that sugar didn't come from a Siberian nuclear winter. That shit came from the sun.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18703413


    The other side of the coin is more complicated, and I don't have any citations. But presumably, a fat/protein mixture strongly signals for plentiful and dense calorie sources. That means burn, burn baby. But there is a truckload of evidence suggesting that carbs are the least satiating per calorie.


    But the point still stands, calories in vs calories out. Diet just modulates both ends of the equation one way or another. Questions?


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    You're all right. Calories DO matter. So does macronutrient ratio. Why? Because the different macros have different effects on your hunger/metabolism systems.


    Fructose causes leptin resistance. Evolutionary reason? You're SUPPOSED to get fat in the summer. And all that sugar didn't come from a Siberian nuclear winter. That shit came from the sun.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18703413


    The other side of the coin is more complicated, and I don't have any citations. But presumably, a fat/protein mixture strongly signals for plentiful and dense calorie sources. That means burn, burn baby. But there is a truckload of evidence suggesting that carbs are the least satiating per calorie.


    But the point still stands, calories in vs calories out. Diet just modulates both ends of the equation one way or another. Questions?




     


    If calories matter, why is there case after case of people eating 4500 calories or more and not gaining the expected amount of weight? Why has the model not been adjusted if metabolism comes into play? You admit that it's more complicated than calories in/out, yet you continue to say "both are right." You can't have both. CICO is outdated and wrong.

  • Jason MillerJason Miller Mother nature isn't stupid mod


    If calories matter, why is there case after case of people eating 4500 calories or more and not gaining the expected amount of weight? Why has the model not been adjusted if metabolism comes into play? You admit that it's more complicated than calories in/out, yet you continue to say "both are right." You can't have both. CICO is outdated and wrong.




    It's unfortunate that your extreme distaste for the subject has caused you to refuse to understand it, you've demonstrated that level of knowledge clearly by all of these statements, those who have a clear understanding of it would not have these questions or statements. The anti calorie dogma (I say dogma because it is a belief not a fact) is rife with ignorant statements that users of CICO don't even use in their application or understanding of it.
    My Crossfit auto template programming here, body composition coaching through Eat to Perform here,
  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    It's unfortunate that your extreme distaste for the subject has caused you to refuse to understand it, you've demonstrated that level of knowledge clearly by all of these statements, those who have a clear understanding of it would not have these questions or statements. The anti calorie dogma (I say dogma because it is a belief not a fact) is rife with ignorant statements that users of CICO don't even use in their application or understanding of it.




    I didn't ask you.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    It's unfortunate that your extreme distaste for the subject has caused you to refuse to understand it, you've demonstrated that level of knowledge clearly by all of these statements, those who have a clear understanding of it would not have these questions or statements. The anti calorie dogma (I say dogma because it is a belief not a fact) is rife with ignorant statements that users of CICO don't even use in their application or understanding of it.




    And I'm not trying to "understand" it. I'm trying to understand why those who claim that CICO is always true will not step back and say they were wrong, that so many other issues come into play. Then they can go forward and redefine the significance of a calorie. Instead, you (barely) admit it's more complicated when you can't refute the evidence to the contrary, and then you pretend that that was part of the definition all along. I can only say it's pride, and in fact, your refusal to understand the subject.

«134567
Sign In or Register to comment.