And when you start considering the insulin response to certain foods, and how your body burns fat, the idea of being in a state of ketosis, not to mention the different effects different foods have on the body, you'd realize that its not as simple as calories in, calories out.
Obesity is as simple as calories in vs calories out.
You can be skinny and unhealthy, but not overweight and healthy.
The Following User Says Thank You to TheSutterDynasty For This Useful Post:
I'm a little late to the party, but I should point out that there is a big, BIG difference between "Organic" meats, and "Grass Fed".
Organic is a certification owned by the government, where meat (or produce) qualifies under set criteria. This can (and does) include beef fed and finished on grain, in a feed lot. Just because it's organic, doesn't mean it's better for you.
Grass fed, or free range, has nothing to do with the term "organic". It is beef that is raised free range, and is not finished on grain or in a feed lot. Azure posted a site that explains it quite well. http://www.eatwild.com/healthbenefits.htm
I grew up on a ranch, and we specialize in grass fed beef. It's steroid free and for the most part antibiotic free, as the cattle are largely show cattle.
Both books by Michael Pollen are an EXCELLENT resource on the human diet nowadays. I suggest people read those too, although they're about as dry and boring as they come.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Tron_fdc For This Useful Post:
There are a ton of taste enhancers out there. Go look them up.
Quote:
And, as been said before, organic food lobbyists has never been to prove that organic food is more nutritious.
Quote:
It's happening to crops in the United States, too. In 2004, Donald Davis, PhD, a former researcher with the Biochemical Institute at the University of Texas, Austin, led a team that analyzed 43 fruits and vegetables from 1950 to 1999 and reported reductions in vitamins, minerals, and protein. Using USDA data, he found that broccoli, for example, had 130 mg of calcium in 1950. Today, that number is only 48 mg. What's going on? Davis believes it's due to the farming industry's desire to grow bigger vegetables faster. The very things that speed growth — selective breeding and synthetic fertilizers — decrease produce's ability to synthesize nutrients or absorb them from the soil.
A different story is playing out with organic produce. "By avoiding synthetic fertilizers, organic farmers put more stress on plants, and when plants experience stress, they protect themselves by producing phytochemicals," explains Alyson Mitchell, PhD, a professor of nutrition science at the University of California, Davis. Her 10-year study in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry showed that organic tomatoes can have as much as 30 percent more phytochemicals than conventional ones.
All excess calories that are not used in metabolism, protein building, or other bodily processes are stored as fat.
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.
There are a ton of taste enhancers out there. Go look them up.
"It's happening to crops in the United States, too. In 2004, Donald Davis, PhD, a former researcher with the Biochemical Institute at the University of Texas, Austin, led a team that analyzed 43 fruits and vegetables from 1950 to 1999 and reported reductions in vitamins, minerals, and protein. Using USDA data, he found that broccoli, for example, had 130 mg of calcium in 1950. Today, that number is only 48 mg. What's going on? Davis believes it's due to the farming industry's desire to grow bigger vegetables faster. The very things that speed growth — selective breeding and synthetic fertilizers — decrease produce's ability to synthesize nutrients or absorb them from the soil."
It's funny they don't mention GM vegetables....
I have read elsewhere that GM veggies show the same lack of nutrients as described in that article.
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.
Yes, counting calories always works. That's what calories are; a measure of energy the food provides to you when you eat it. Fat gain is from excess energy in your body. It's a very simple concept.
You are comparing people. People have different metabolisms, they burn different amounts with physical activity, and they eat different amounts. Everyone has a maintainence amount of calories, which is a range. If you eat less than this range you will lose fat. If you eat more than this range you will gain fat.
This is really quite simple, Azure. What do you think calories are? Some random number that we've assigned to various foods?
I won't disagree with this but keep in mind that some unfortunate people have such a slow metabolic rate that they gain weight eating a starvation diet.
We've all had friends/coworkers that can pound back 6000 cal. a day and are freakishly thin and others that basically don't eat and maintain a chubby body.
I think it's unfair to assume a thin girl has an eating disorder, and a chubby girl eats too much, it's just not that simple.
Agreed. We need to remember that calories out for most people including active people is mostly due to BMR(basal metabolic rate). That part of the equation is highly variable, but the fact still remains that weight change is directly proportional to calories in minus calories out. Again state of health is a different discussion, but you can't lose weight if calories in are not less than calories out.
I eat like a mofo. Seriously. Big breakfasts (two bowls of vector, eggs, toast or eggos), huge lunches (bowl of sate soup or leftovers from dinner the night before, or two papa burgers if they're on special for six bucks), and for dinner I generally eat pasta or fish or chicken or steak or ostrich with sides like brown rice or mashed potatoes and a huge bowl of salad. Been doing this for months and I haven't gained a single pound. I have a 28" waist. So WTF?????
I eat like a mofo. Seriously. Big breakfasts (two bowls of vector, eggs, toast or eggos), huge lunches (bowl of sate soup or leftovers from dinner the night before, or two papa burgers if they're on special for six bucks), and for dinner I generally eat pasta or fish or chicken or steak or ostrich with sides like brown rice or mashed potatoes and a huge bowl of salad. Been doing this for months and I haven't gained a single pound. I have a 28" waist. So WTF?????
Either your basal metabolic rate is high, you are very active or a combination.
The cop out that it is not as simple as calories in calories out is like saying "I'm getting further in debt, but it has nothing to do with my income or how much I'm spending.".
For everyone who is overweight (I'm looking in the mirror here too BMI of 29), there is a calorie intake that is necessary for them to lose weight. Just because it's harder for some due to BMR than others doesn't change fact. A healthy body fat percentage is attainable for EVERYBODY (minus a very small percentage of people who cannot safely excercise)
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.
No it doesn't. It says his calories out is different than your's that is it. The assertion was that changing what you eat but not how much you eat would not effect obesity rates. We are not saying that overweight people are overwieght because they eat too much. In fact overweight people are overweight because the either eat too much, don't burn enough calories, or a combination. That is simple thermodynamics.
What you seem to be searching for here is for us to admit that not everybody burns calories at the same rate. I think everybody can agree with that.
"It's happening to crops in the United States, too. In 2004, Donald Davis, PhD, a former researcher with the Biochemical Institute at the University of Texas, Austin, led a team that analyzed 43 fruits and vegetables from 1950 to 1999 and reported reductions in vitamins, minerals, and protein. Using USDA data, he found that broccoli, for example, had 130 mg of calcium in 1950. Today, that number is only 48 mg. What's going on? Davis believes it's due to the farming industry's desire to grow bigger vegetables faster. The very things that speed growth — selective breeding and synthetic fertilizers — decrease produce's ability to synthesize nutrients or absorb them from the soil."
It's funny they don't mention GM vegetables....
I have read elsewhere that GM veggies show the same lack of nutrients as described in that article.
I don't understand the point of this quote - the author found modern broccoli to be lower in calcium, but hasn't demonstrated a way to grow broccoli that has 1950's levels of calcium, or even if 1950's levels of calcium are normal for the plant species.
What you seem to be searching for here is for us to admit that not everybody burns calories at the same rate. I think everybody can agree with that.
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.
I don't understand the point of this quote - the author found modern broccoli to be lower in calcium, but hasn't demonstrated a way to grow broccoli that has 1950's levels of calcium, or even if 1950's levels of calcium are normal for the plant species.
Or how that affects our daily intake as most dietary calcium come from other sources. Pretty big leap in logic to suggest that calcium levels in one species (I would hope they used the same...?) implies the same happened to the rest and that it is having an impact on our health. Also, which phytochemicals? Since when has chlorophil been healthy...?
There are a ton of taste enhancers out there. Go look them up.
It's happening to crops in the United States, too. In 2004, Donald Davis, PhD, a former researcher with the Biochemical Institute at the University of Texas, Austin, led a team that analyzed 43 fruits and vegetables from 1950 to 1999 and reported reductions in vitamins, minerals, and protein. Using USDA data, he found that broccoli, for example, had 130 mg of calcium in 1950. Today, that number is only 48 mg. What's going on? Davis believes it's due to the farming industry's desire to grow bigger vegetables faster. The very things that speed growth — selective breeding and synthetic fertilizers — decrease produce's ability to synthesize nutrients or absorb them from the soil.
A different story is playing out with organic produce. "By avoiding synthetic fertilizers, organic farmers put more stress on plants, and when plants experience stress, they protect themselves by producing phytochemicals," explains Alyson Mitchell, PhD, a professor of nutrition science at the University of California, Davis. Her 10-year study in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry showed that organic tomatoes can have as much as 30 percent more phytochemicals than conventional ones.
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.
