- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/21/17 at 4:35 pm to Hulkklogan
quote:
Intermittent fasting works because you're not eating for at least one meal a day, and likely eating overall less calories.
Given the same amount of calories from the same food the person that eats more times a day will likely have more fat, given everything else is the same. Did I exaggerate calories a bit too far with 300? Maybe. Maybe I should have only had a 100 calories difference.
How to do Intermittent Fasting for Serious Weight Loss
What would be the point of intermittent fasting if just eating less calories was all that mattered?
IF works because it triggers growth hormone and inhibits insulin. The purpose of intermittent fasting is to lower insulin, take the stress off insulin and the gland that makes it - pancreas, and thus restore your metabolism.
Fasting vs. Eating Less: What's the Difference? (Science of Fasting)
quote:
You simply shouldn't store fat if you're in a caloric deficit.
I'm not arguing against that, but calories aren't just calories. Hormones matter, big time. As an example, if you are in ketosis, or fasting (you enter ketosis when fasting), losing weight you are almost guaranteed to lose less muscle than other diets because of how you make ketones (and in fasting you spike your growth hormone big time).
Do Calories Matter? Is a Calorie a Calorie? (Science of Weight Gain)
Posted on 12/21/17 at 4:45 pm to zatetic
dude stop digging. A calorie is a calorie. do a little reading. Go read leangains.com
Martin is the king of IF and still understands a calorie is a calorie. Sure there are very small thermogenic effects from IF, keto, carb backloading etc but a calorie is a calorie period. Go read about the Twinkie diet. Only exception to that is protein can have a thermogenic effect of using up to 40% of the calories to process.
Martin is the king of IF and still understands a calorie is a calorie. Sure there are very small thermogenic effects from IF, keto, carb backloading etc but a calorie is a calorie period. Go read about the Twinkie diet. Only exception to that is protein can have a thermogenic effect of using up to 40% of the calories to process.
This post was edited on 12/21/17 at 5:04 pm
Posted on 12/21/17 at 5:00 pm to Hulkklogan
Define energy balance
Also I’m curious if you tracked calories from day 1 on Keto when you lost your weight
Also I’m curious if you tracked calories from day 1 on Keto when you lost your weight
Posted on 12/21/17 at 5:06 pm to Lester Earl
Calories in vs calories out. Great thing about keto is many lose weight without tracking due to eating nutritionally dense food and the hunger blunting effects of keto
Posted on 12/21/17 at 5:09 pm to lsu777
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_calorie_is_a_calorie
Wake Forest University Research
The researchers concluded that the type of calories consumed do affect body weight.
Harvard University Research
The lead author of the study concluded in an interview that trying to count calories, in an effort to lose weight, would be futile unless one is examining the kinds of calories being consumed.
Boston Children's Hospital Clinical Trial
The researchers concluded that the type of calories consumed does affect the number of calories burned by an individual.
BTW. I will read your sources as you normally have some reasoning for your stances. I do appreciate those more than the wrong again opening jab of your normally very cordial (informative) disposition
Wake Forest University Research
The researchers concluded that the type of calories consumed do affect body weight.
Harvard University Research
The lead author of the study concluded in an interview that trying to count calories, in an effort to lose weight, would be futile unless one is examining the kinds of calories being consumed.
Boston Children's Hospital Clinical Trial
The researchers concluded that the type of calories consumed does affect the number of calories burned by an individual.
BTW. I will read your sources as you normally have some reasoning for your stances. I do appreciate those more than the wrong again opening jab of your normally very cordial (informative) disposition
This post was edited on 12/21/17 at 5:32 pm
Posted on 12/21/17 at 6:30 pm to Lester Earl
Energy balance is eating at your weekly TDEE. Maintenance. Deficit is eating below tdee, surplus is above tdee. Days are variable so it's best to track on a weekly basis, imo
No I only tracked net carbs when I did keto the first time and lost a bunch of weight.
I'm not anti keto or anti Paleo or anti IF or whatever. Do whatever works. But the bottom line is calories in/calories out dictates weight loss and weight gain. I've actually considered going back to keto recently since it usually works for me (I find that fat really satisfies my appetite more than protein or carbs), but my doctor advised against it because of my hypothyroidism... Thyroid uses glucose to convert free t4 to t3, so low carb diets can actually slightly lower thyroid function.
No I only tracked net carbs when I did keto the first time and lost a bunch of weight.
I'm not anti keto or anti Paleo or anti IF or whatever. Do whatever works. But the bottom line is calories in/calories out dictates weight loss and weight gain. I've actually considered going back to keto recently since it usually works for me (I find that fat really satisfies my appetite more than protein or carbs), but my doctor advised against it because of my hypothyroidism... Thyroid uses glucose to convert free t4 to t3, so low carb diets can actually slightly lower thyroid function.
This post was edited on 12/21/17 at 6:45 pm
Posted on 12/21/17 at 6:45 pm to lsu777
quote:
Calories in vs calories out.
The energy cost of the metabolism of drugs, including ethanol.
Calories schmalories, alcohol, and chocolate
----------
Calorie intake in relation to Body-Weight changes in the obese
CICO is just not the entire story
Posted on 12/21/17 at 6:55 pm to Junky
quote:
The energy cost of the metabolism of drugs, including ethanol.
Is this why crackheads are usually skinny?
All jokes aside, I haven't read that link yet but it looks interesting.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 7:20 pm to Hulkklogan
quote:
Is this why crackheads are usually skinny?
All jokes aside, I haven't read that link yet but it looks interesting.
The study isn't free - but Bill has a good write up on his website, calories proper. The second study is free for reading.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 8:07 pm to Junky
quote:
The study isn't free
https://gen.lib.rus.ec/
You may be able to find it there. Supposed to be a great place to find paid science articles for free.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:50 pm to zatetic
It is.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:52 pm to zatetic
Go read Martin berkham, Alan argon and Lyle McDonald also. All three of the guys I named are complete and utter dick heads and Martin is the only one not a douche.
Now I am talking strictly weight loss and there are tons of studies that were strict that show calories are the ultimate determining factor in weight loss. Now diets like strict keto and more so strict Paleo and whole30 do a better job for overall health because the remove many of the foods that cause inflammation in the body and foods that trigger autoimmune and hurt gut health.
Now I am talking strictly weight loss and there are tons of studies that were strict that show calories are the ultimate determining factor in weight loss. Now diets like strict keto and more so strict Paleo and whole30 do a better job for overall health because the remove many of the foods that cause inflammation in the body and foods that trigger autoimmune and hurt gut health.
This post was edited on 12/23/17 at 9:46 am
Posted on 12/21/17 at 10:11 pm to zatetic
The Wake Forest study was based on monkeys. Also used trans fat which is not a real naturally occurring fat.
The second so called study by havard is a correlation study based on questionnaires sent out to people. Plenty of evidence people lie on these, under estimate how many calories they eat a d their portions and the over estimate how much protein they eat.
Both of these studies are completely worthless.
The other study, the Boston study did not have the partcipants in a lab setting nor was their food provided for them. They again relied in reporting which has been shown to be extremely biased. Also the testing the did that showed stress for high fat diet didn't say what type of fat because it wasn't monitored and very easily could have been trans fat which would make sense from a health stand point.
The second so called study by havard is a correlation study based on questionnaires sent out to people. Plenty of evidence people lie on these, under estimate how many calories they eat a d their portions and the over estimate how much protein they eat.
Both of these studies are completely worthless.
The other study, the Boston study did not have the partcipants in a lab setting nor was their food provided for them. They again relied in reporting which has been shown to be extremely biased. Also the testing the did that showed stress for high fat diet didn't say what type of fat because it wasn't monitored and very easily could have been trans fat which would make sense from a health stand point.
quote:
A calorie nutritionally isn’t a calorie from a pure energetics standpoint... but it’s pretty damn close and it doesn’t invalidate calorie balance... just complicates it slightly -layne norton
Posted on 12/23/17 at 9:44 am to Junky
Junky, did you really just link a study from 1956? We have a tad bit better technology now.
As far as alcohol goes, we have been knowing for over a decade that calories from alcohol are processed different.
Still waiting for a study to be linked that is from the last 25 years that is controlled and proves calories dontatter? I say this with a cavaete that it must be a study where participants are fed a minimum of 1500 Cal's. I know about the studies of sub 1k calories and understand that some magical things happen with all protein diets and diets made of 90% or greater fat content when in that caloric range due to ability to not use lean tissue as fuel.
Look I think lane Norton is the utmost douche bag on the internet. Complete douche bag who I would like to beat the hell out of, same goes for Lyle McDonald, but they are right when it comes to the research. There is zero evidence showing at a "normal" caloric intake that the make up of calories has an effect on weight loss over the long haul so long as protein levels are sufficient to maintain lean tissue.
As far as alcohol goes, we have been knowing for over a decade that calories from alcohol are processed different.
Still waiting for a study to be linked that is from the last 25 years that is controlled and proves calories dontatter? I say this with a cavaete that it must be a study where participants are fed a minimum of 1500 Cal's. I know about the studies of sub 1k calories and understand that some magical things happen with all protein diets and diets made of 90% or greater fat content when in that caloric range due to ability to not use lean tissue as fuel.
Look I think lane Norton is the utmost douche bag on the internet. Complete douche bag who I would like to beat the hell out of, same goes for Lyle McDonald, but they are right when it comes to the research. There is zero evidence showing at a "normal" caloric intake that the make up of calories has an effect on weight loss over the long haul so long as protein levels are sufficient to maintain lean tissue.
Posted on 12/23/17 at 11:20 am to zatetic
Yeah, basing nutrition on pure CICO is like blaming poor mpg on putting too much gas in your tank. Well not exactly, but it's a similar level of reductionism to the point of ridiculousness.
Posted on 12/23/17 at 11:23 am to Sandtrap
Slow carb, similar to these diets but have a cheat day. More of a lifestyle change than a diet.
Posted on 12/23/17 at 3:15 pm to lsu777
quote:
Junky, did you really just link a study from 1956? We have a tad bit better technology now
So why does that matter? I guess we just throw out old science these days right? I guess the bellevue all-meat trial done in 1930 should be thrown out because it is too old a study proving man can survive on an all-meat diet...
quote:
As far as alcohol goes, we have been knowing for over a decade that calories from alcohol are processed different.
Ok, so not all calories are the same. Thank you for proving my point.
quote:
I say this with a cavaete that it must be a study where participants are fed a minimum of 1500 Cal's.
I really do give a damn about your stipulations. All I said was CICO wasn’t the whole story and showed that to be true. Some people can be cicopaths.
This post was edited on 12/23/17 at 3:23 pm
Posted on 12/23/17 at 10:15 pm to Junky
No I'm saying there is no way for us to know how the 1956 study was setup and controlled.
And all calories are the same except alcohol which is a Poison, so I guess we could say poisons don't count.
And Im not saying there are not other reasons to do keto or whole30 but still need to be in an energy deficit to lose weight.
And all calories are the same except alcohol which is a Poison, so I guess we could say poisons don't count.
And Im not saying there are not other reasons to do keto or whole30 but still need to be in an energy deficit to lose weight.
Posted on 12/24/17 at 12:55 pm to lsu777
Curious, why would it matter if a study performed caloric testing at 1000 calories and not 1500 if all calories are the same?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News