I've gained a bunch of weight the last couple of years and the first thing people say has to do with overeating. Even people that know me well suggest I should stop eating so much. LoL I wish it was that simple.
True.
Caloric intake-Caloric Expenditure = Weight change is simple.
How to increase caloric expenditure is a large portion of the equation people ignore and is much more difficult to affect. We always assume it's calories in...
30% more phytochemicals is not always a good thing - some of those phytochemicals are the pesticides plants produce to defend themselves and can be toxic to humans, which do tend to be in higher concentrations in some organic produce (30% more nutrients, on the other hand, is probably good). I'm also pretty skeptical of any chemical analyses conducted before around 1980 - they tend to show much higher concentrations than what modern analyses show in my experience, due to things like cross-contamination from laboratory equipment and less sophisticated laboratory equipment, so the change in calcium concentrations could be at least partly due to measurement error. That's not to say there hasn't been a change - growing bigger vegetables faster could have some effects on mineral uptake etc. - but if they can't grow plants with 1950's levels of calcium that leads me to believe the 1950's levels weren't real.
I would imagine soil concentration of calcium would also be of high importance in comparing the two...
Caloric intake-Caloric Expenditure = Weight change is simple.
How to increase caloric expenditure is a large portion of the equation people ignore and is much more difficult to affect. We always assume it's calories in...
See, you're completely discounting what eating a very low amount of carbs does to your body.
But, like you said that still has more to do with calories out.
My point all along is that its not as simple as saying you burn 2400 calories per day, therefore eating 1900/day will result in x amount of weight being lost in x amount of time. And the reason I say that is because everyone utilizes those calories different. Hell, you can TRAIN your body to burn through more calories. Why do you think food competition eaters are often skinny?
Its a pretty definite 'fact' that a lot of people aren't getting enough calcium or a lot of other essential vitamins and nutrients.
Now, that is probably due to the other definite fact that a lot of people don't eat healthy.
While that may be true depending on what you consider to be a lot, it certainly isn't a fact that it is due to the change in our plants/animals. Advertising would suggest we should all eat these vitamins and minerals because they are in their products, but almost the vast majority of our health concerns these days are due to obesity, not lack of calcium or phytochemicals. In fact, our calcium consumption has probably increased considerably since 1950 due to cheaper dairy products and increased use of calcium supplements. How many people do you know who have rickets????
Where are these health problems due to low vitamins/minerals that are rising in incidence? I see no "facts" there.
We could all eat healthier, but we are already healthier than in 1950. So you've lost me there too...
We need to eat less and get more exercise. Then we'll worry about calcium levels in our broccoli.
See, you're completely discounting what eating a very low amount of carbs does to your body.
But, like you said that still has more to do with calories out.
My point all along is that its not as simple as saying you burn 2400 calories per day, therefore eating 1900/day will result in x amount of weight being lost in x amount of time. And the reason I say that is because everyone utilizes those calories different. Hell, you can TRAIN your body to burn through more calories. Why do you think food competition eaters are often skinny?
But it is that easy. I don't see where that logic is gone?
Sorry, in an debating mood and just realized all of the posts I'm responding to are yours. No offence intended
Outside of Dr. Atkins, no one is saying BMR goes up when you restrict carbohydrates. In fact, a few studies show the reverse due to fasting stress of the low calorie intake with popular low-carb diets. It has been shown that with similar calories, a low fat diet affects weight loss the same
Last edited by Street Pharmacist; 08-05-2010 at 07:07 PM.
But it is that easy. I don't see where that logic is gone?
Sorry, in an debating mood and just realized all of the posts I'm responding to are yours. No offence intended
Outside of Dr. Atkins, no one is saying BMR goes up when you restrict carbohydrates. In fact, a few studies show the reverse due to fasting stress of the low calorie intake with popular low-carb diets. It has been shown that with similar calories, a low fat diet affects weight loss the same
I don't think you can lose 5-7 lbs a week on a reduced fat diet w/ little to no exercise like you can on low carb ones. If you want, you can give me a diet plan to follow for a week, we can compare the results.
You can design one for me that packs away ~ 100-125 grams of carbs and still easily make it under 1000 calories (similar caloric intake to a low carb one).
Part of the reason low carb diets are so effective is that your body is tricked into thinking it is starving (in Ketosis) and feeds on it's own fat stores. However, your metabolism still is active, which allows for some very good fat burns.
I don't think you can lose 5-7 lbs a week on a reduced fat diet w/ little to no exercise like you can on low carb ones. If you want, you can give me a diet plan to follow for a week, we can compare the results.
You can design one for me that packs away ~ 100-125 grams of carbs and still easily make it under 1000 calories (similar caloric intake to a low carb one).
Part of the reason low carb diets are so effective is that your body is tricked into thinking it is starving (in Ketosis) and feeds on it's own fat stores. However, your metabolism still is active, which allows for some very good fat burns.
Low fat, higher carb diets don't do the same.
Perhaps. I still think the entire idea is wrong though. I realize that the way the economy is, there is a lot of people who's full time jobs involve little to no physical activity at all (mine included). If that's the case, get some exercise in. Some people may say they have so many things there's no time, but what can there be? The only thing important enough I can think of is children, but that should be a somewhat physically active thing in itself (and if not, your children probably will not be active enough either).
I realize that there may be a situation where exercise is not an option, but I believe that to be an extremely low percentage. Maybe reducing the carbs in your diet can help you to lose weight even if exercising, but isn't that where all your energy comes from? I'm not a big guy, but about a year ago, I was in the worst shape of my life. I had a bit of a gut (and still do). I have definitely helped reduce it in size, and it is 100% due to simply playing soccer twice a week. Before I play, I load up on the carbs too. It allows me to burn wayyyy more.
Regardless of if you're willing to put in the work or not, there is a critic for every diet (and I don't mean a dude posting on CP like me, I mean there is no perfect diet. Each one has at least one scientific flaw). I don't think there is a single scientist that can imply that more exercise hurts anyone (unless it's excessive of course)
__________________
"Correction, it's not your leg son. It's Liverpool's leg" - Shankly
I don't think you can lose 5-7 lbs a week on a reduced fat diet w/ little to no exercise like you can on low carb ones. If you want, you can give me a diet plan to follow for a week, we can compare the results.
You can design one for me that packs away ~ 100-125 grams of carbs and still easily make it under 1000 calories (similar caloric intake to a low carb one).
Part of the reason low carb diets are so effective is that your body is tricked into thinking it is starving (in Ketosis) and feeds on it's own fat stores. However, your metabolism still is active, which allows for some very good fat burns.
Low fat, higher carb diets don't do the same.
Being under 1000 calories doesn't "trick" your body into thinking it's starving because it's not a trick. Ketosis has nothing to do with it. The ketones are from burning fat and protein, which is what you are eating too. If you only eat 1000 calories of anything, your body will feed on it's own fat stores.
And for those who know Chochrane Reviews, they couldn't find evidence backing up Atkin's assertion that low carb > calorie restriction
Last edited by Street Pharmacist; 08-05-2010 at 07:58 PM.
Reason: couldn't find right study, but it exists ;)
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Hell, you can TRAIN your body to burn through more calories. Why do you think food competition eaters are often skinny?
As of today I am under the care of a Clinical Dietitian. My doctor mistakenly checked a box on a heart disease assessment chart/form, it doubled my risk from last year and signed me up.
There are others that need the services more than I do so I shouldn't take up too much of her time. A few visits to get me on track to eating healthy would be a good thing.
My problem is that I don't eat. A normal day is one reasonably healthy dinner at night, usually late. She says this is why my metabolism has stalled.
I need to eat (smoothie) first thing in the morning to get my metabolism in gear and my energy level up, exercise to follow and I can't skip lunch.
Being under 1000 calories doesn't "trick" your body into thinking it's starving because it's not a trick. Ketosis has nothing to do with it. The ketones are from burning fat and protein, which is what you are eating too. If you only eat 1000 calories of anything, your body will feed on it's own fat stores.
And for those who know Chochrane Reviews, they couldn't find evidence backing up Atkin's assertion that low carb > calorie restriction
I don't know why CaramonLS said 1000 calories. Perhaps from personal experience?
But you don't need to eat such a small amount of calories to send your body in a state of ketosis. Simply not eating carbs will do the same thing, which is entirely possible to do on a strict diet.
The argument against carbs is entirely based around what refined carbs do to your blood sugar and your bodies response to it.
I know a lot of people in the Paleo and CF community who restrict carbs and get incredible results.
Each to his own, but I would prefer not to create myself stress each day by counting calories.
Oh, so I suppose you're going to say that people all have a different metabolism rate, and their bodies utilize those calories differently, which is why someone can eat like a pig and still remain skinny, although not healthy.
Which basically says its not as simple as calories in, calories out.
Because if my brother ate the exact same food as I did, exact same number of calories and everything, he wouldn't gain weight and I would.
So simply counting calories doesn't always work.
Metabolism counts towards calorie expenditure. So yeah, calories in, calories out.
__________________ FU, Jim Benning
Quote:
GMs around the campfire tell a story that if you say Sbisa 5 times in the mirror, he appears on your team with a 3.6 million cap hit.
I don't know why CaramonLS said 1000 calories. Perhaps from personal experience?
But you don't need to eat such a small amount of calories to send your body in a state of ketosis. Simply not eating carbs will do the same thing, which is entirely possible to do on a strict diet.
The argument against carbs is entirely based around what refined carbs do to your blood sugar and your bodies response to it.
I know a lot of people in the Paleo and CF community who restrict carbs and get incredible results.
Each to his own, but I would prefer not to create myself stress each day by counting calories.
Low carb diets can work. Any diet works if, again, calories out are greater than calories in.
Low carb diets are hard to maintain. It's not easy to eat so little carbohydrates. Low fat diets are easier to maintain, and reach the same result more easily.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that, yet again, you're wrong when it comes to nutrition.
A recent review of the literature of the last 50 years shows that there is no evidence for health benefits from eating an organic diet. The only exception to this was evidence for a lower risk of eczema in children eating organic dairy products. But with so many potential correlations to look for, this can just be noise in the data.
Ex.
A new study published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition is reporting an association with eating meat and weight gain. This is a fairly robust epidemiological study, but at the same time is a good example of how such information is poorly reported in the media, leading to public confusion.
Ex.
The China Study was embraced by vegetarians because it seemed to support their beliefs with strong evidence. Minger has shown that that evidence is largely illusory. The issues raised are important and deserve further study by unbiased scientists. At any rate, one thing is clear: the China Study is not sufficient reason to recommend drastic reductions in protein intake, let alone total avoidance of meat and dairy foods.
One of my favourite things on earth is a peanut buster parfait at 700+ calories while one of my formerly favourite things on Earth, a chocolate milkshake from Dairy Queen, is 30th on the list at 1131 calories.
Cowperson
__________________
Dear Lord, help me to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am. - Anonymous
and signed me up.
