- 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
2
Posted on 12/24/17 at 3:12 pm to lsu777
It is of my understanding that a calorie is just a calorie. It's a unit of heat. However, the process to burn that nutrient is what causes differing reactions to the body and how it is used. Calories in vs calories out is overly simplified. Body composition is important when considering the effects of a diet. Inflammation causes bloating and the storage of water. Making the body efficient at burning food is the goal and eating bad and processed food will slow it down even if the calories are lower.
Maybe a good example would be running gasoline in small engines. We know small engines can run on 10% ethanol but it will eventually ruin performance. 100% gasoline will make it run more efficient and last longer. They both produce heat but one makes the system run better.
Maybe a good example would be running gasoline in small engines. We know small engines can run on 10% ethanol but it will eventually ruin performance. 100% gasoline will make it run more efficient and last longer. They both produce heat but one makes the system run better.
This post was edited on 12/24/17 at 3:16 pm
Posted on 12/26/17 at 11:44 am to lsu777
When does starvation mode get activated?
Posted on 12/26/17 at 2:10 pm to McLemore
Nutrition and weight loss are totally different.
It's better for your body to eat healthy and balanced sources of calories, but when it comes to weight loss it doesn't matter.
I guarantee I can eat five guys every day for lunch and then 3 eggs for dinner and hit 1800 calories per day and get the same results as someone that follows some macro percentage fad diet.
The weight loss industry is entirely based on people's feelings and making up things that sound good, not common sense.
It's better for your body to eat healthy and balanced sources of calories, but when it comes to weight loss it doesn't matter.
I guarantee I can eat five guys every day for lunch and then 3 eggs for dinner and hit 1800 calories per day and get the same results as someone that follows some macro percentage fad diet.
The weight loss industry is entirely based on people's feelings and making up things that sound good, not common sense.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 2:12 pm to Junky
Starvation mode is complete bullshite. You simply need to eat enough per day such that your body minimizes the amount of muscle it breaks down for energy. A 5-600 calorie deficit is recommended.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 4:46 pm to DrSteveBrule
A 5-600 deficit is not going to put you in starvation mode, but the caloric deficits k was talking about 15-1600 caloric deficits will spike cortisol and lower many of hormones and tell your body you are in starvation mode. I.e. leptin
Junky, starvation mode would be extreme caloric deficits. I find it funny though, you keep beating around the bush. Bottom line is there are no studies showing a significant difference in fat loss between different macro levels in the same caloric deficit when in normal caloric ranges (above 1000).
Hfp, your right in that calories don't tell the whole story. It doesn't take into account the hunger suppression effects of a keto diet. Also doesn't show how people tend to binge on keto diets when they break it. Also doesn't show the health benefits of a keto style diet.
I'm not trying to be a hard arse about the whole calories in vs out thing. I recognize there are tons and tons of health benefits. But we have to look at things like the Twinkie diet and take things into context. He showed just losing weight and being in a caloric deficit over a long period will significantly improve your health if over weight. Sure it's not to the amount it could have been if he ate better, but it shows that quality isn't everything.
With that being said I 100% agree that the average person should focus on micro nutrition and quality over quantity as people tend to each much less when they eat whole foods that are nutrient dense. But you also need to realize there are tons of fat people who have hit a wall while on keto/Paleo/whole30 and it's because they are taking in too many calories.
Junky, starvation mode would be extreme caloric deficits. I find it funny though, you keep beating around the bush. Bottom line is there are no studies showing a significant difference in fat loss between different macro levels in the same caloric deficit when in normal caloric ranges (above 1000).
Hfp, your right in that calories don't tell the whole story. It doesn't take into account the hunger suppression effects of a keto diet. Also doesn't show how people tend to binge on keto diets when they break it. Also doesn't show the health benefits of a keto style diet.
I'm not trying to be a hard arse about the whole calories in vs out thing. I recognize there are tons and tons of health benefits. But we have to look at things like the Twinkie diet and take things into context. He showed just losing weight and being in a caloric deficit over a long period will significantly improve your health if over weight. Sure it's not to the amount it could have been if he ate better, but it shows that quality isn't everything.
With that being said I 100% agree that the average person should focus on micro nutrition and quality over quantity as people tend to each much less when they eat whole foods that are nutrient dense. But you also need to realize there are tons of fat people who have hit a wall while on keto/Paleo/whole30 and it's because they are taking in too many calories.
Posted on 12/26/17 at 6:56 pm to lsu777
The whole calorie boondogle was broken in 1967
Gluttony: 1. An Experimental Study of Overeating Low- or High-Protein Diets
Despite overeating massively, 35,000 calories in 4 weeks for the second experiment, they stayed within 1-2kg of body weight. Not anywhere close to the lbs they should have gained. Each experiment they detailed, cico was useless in determining the outcome of weight gain.
BTW, the article I linked earlier did go into 2000 calorie diets
Granted, it isn't a n=300, two year study locked away in a hospital...but the fact is still there. They accounted for water loss as well. 2000 calories in proportion macros - maintained weight. 2600 calories increased fats and protein while reducing carbs, four out of five lost weight. If the problem was so set in CICO this wouldn't be the case and all 5 would have gained weight.
Gluttony: 1. An Experimental Study of Overeating Low- or High-Protein Diets
Despite overeating massively, 35,000 calories in 4 weeks for the second experiment, they stayed within 1-2kg of body weight. Not anywhere close to the lbs they should have gained. Each experiment they detailed, cico was useless in determining the outcome of weight gain.
BTW, the article I linked earlier did go into 2000 calorie diets
quote:
Five obese patients were put on a 2000- calorie diet containing a normal proportion of protein, fat, and carbohydrate. During a period of 7 days it was shown that they either maintained their weight or gained a little. The number of calories was then increased in the same patients to 2600 per day, but the proportions of the diets were altered by increasing the amount of fat and protein and reducing that of carbohydrate. Table VI shows that four of the five patients lost weight although the calories were much increased. Table VII shows the measurements of available body-water during these periods, and the same phenomenon appears as described above: 30-50% of the weight lost was shed as available body water.
Granted, it isn't a n=300, two year study locked away in a hospital...but the fact is still there. They accounted for water loss as well. 2000 calories in proportion macros - maintained weight. 2600 calories increased fats and protein while reducing carbs, four out of five lost weight. If the problem was so set in CICO this wouldn't be the case and all 5 would have gained weight.
Posted on 12/27/17 at 9:44 am to Junky
yet we can not reproduce those studies in a controlled environment with today's technology.
Funny how ketogains acknowledges this and so does a ton of other sources. Alan Argon has tons of shite showing CICO is all that matters, so does Lyle, so does Layne Norton and even your precious Gary T has moved the goal post and acknowledges CICO matters once he was called out on his BS.
Funny how ketogains acknowledges this and so does a ton of other sources. Alan Argon has tons of shite showing CICO is all that matters, so does Lyle, so does Layne Norton and even your precious Gary T has moved the goal post and acknowledges CICO matters once he was called out on his BS.
Posted on 12/27/17 at 2:13 pm to lsu777
quote:This is really the main point, and people who are interested in their health should flip their focus to see it this way: You should have the goal of total health (I define "health" as "disease-free longevity" - including mental health.) If you eat low-carb/keto, then not only will you be much more likely to be healthy, but a happy side benefit is that you will likely lose weight (and not even have to worry about weight or calories to do so.) Now that I consider red meat to essentially be my top health food, I can't tell you the number of times I have a big steak with broccoli for dinner, and then don't even realize until mid-morning the next day that I never even thought about food in the interim.
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 12/27/17 at 2:15 pm to Hulkklogan
quote:You might enjoy reading this gal's blog. She is a low-carber with thyroid issues. She's about the most insightful commentator I've seen on a wide variety of these topics. LINK
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.
Posted on 12/27/17 at 2:55 pm to Big Scrub TX
problem is that plenty of surveys have shown many people fall off the keto bandwagon. and the twinkie diet alone shows that losing weight alone for the obese show tons of health benefits.
BTW i dont want anybody to think I am against keto, anything but. I just want people to realize in the end its about what can you stick to and that CICO matters. If keto is what you can stick to, then do it. If carbs make you feel like shite, do keto. Just do what is easy for you to stick to, making sure you get a minimum of 0.8 grams per lbs of lean tissue and making sure you stay in a deficit.
BTW i dont want anybody to think I am against keto, anything but. I just want people to realize in the end its about what can you stick to and that CICO matters. If keto is what you can stick to, then do it. If carbs make you feel like shite, do keto. Just do what is easy for you to stick to, making sure you get a minimum of 0.8 grams per lbs of lean tissue and making sure you stay in a deficit.
Posted on 12/27/17 at 2:56 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
You might enjoy reading this gal's blog. She is a low-carber with thyroid issues. She's about the most insightful commentator I've seen on a wide variety of these topics. LINK
Thanks
So far, I've only seen my GP about it. My GP has only prescribed levothyroxine to help get my TSH numbers in check, but I haven't noticed much difference in energy levels, and weight loss still seems to be more difficult than it probably should be (i.e. I have to eat at a low caloric level to lose weight - feel like dogshit and bonk in workouts low). I have an appointment with an endocrinologist in January.. I'm hoping a specialist will take a deeper dive into my numbers and diet/health history and can help determine what's truly going on, rather than just seeing a number, prescribing something, and testing every 3 months to see if that one number goes down to the 'normal levels'.
I haven't totally ruled out going keto again, but I do want to see the specialist first.
This post was edited on 12/27/17 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 12/27/17 at 4:44 pm to lsu777
quote:I don't even like saying "keto". I advise people to go low carb. I almost think actual ketosis should never be the goal. All I can say is that of the dozens of people I've seen try low-carb, not a single one has complained of actual negative side effects (other than maybe wanting some bread.)
problem is that plenty of surveys have shown many people fall off the keto bandwagon. and the twinkie diet alone shows that losing weight alone for the obese show tons of health benefits.
BTW i dont want anybody to think I am against keto, anything but. I just want people to realize in the end its about what can you stick to and that CICO matters. If keto is what you can stick to, then do it. If carbs make you feel like shite, do keto. Just do what is easy for you to stick to, making sure you get a minimum of 0.8 grams per lbs of lean tissue and making sure you stay in a deficit.
Posted on 12/27/17 at 4:45 pm to Hulkklogan
quote:Good luck with it. My only advice is to trust your own research and intellect. I've just seen so much disappointing boilerplate out of doctors on the topic of nutrition. Don't go in as a complete supplicant - the doctor should just be viewed as one of the stakeholders in your long-term health. YOU are the driver, though.
So far, I've only seen my GP about it. My GP has only prescribed levothyroxine to help get my TSH numbers in check, but I haven't noticed much difference in energy levels, and weight loss still seems to be more difficult than it probably should be (i.e. I have to eat at a low caloric level to lose weight - feel like dogshit and bonk in workouts low). I have an appointment with an endocrinologist in January.. I'm hoping a specialist will take a deeper dive into my numbers and diet/health history and can help determine what's truly going on, rather than just seeing a number, prescribing something, and testing every 3 months to see if that one number goes down to the 'normal levels'.
I haven't totally ruled out going keto again, but I do want to see the specialist first.
Posted on 12/27/17 at 4:56 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
I advise people to go low carb.
You think that fructokinase thing caused by fructose by Dr. Johnson in his book The Fat Switch is a main driver of fat? Obviously ketosis has that going with it too.
This post was edited on 12/27/17 at 4:57 pm
Posted on 12/27/17 at 8:31 pm to lsu777
Have I linked Gary? Do I talk up Gary?
I’m giving out some source studies on the issue. Too bad they are too old to count though.
I’m giving out some source studies on the issue. Too bad they are too old to count though.
Posted on 12/29/17 at 7:52 pm to BoogaBear
quote:When my wife does whole 30, I do whole 30+beer/bourbon. I lose as much or more weight than she does.
Which one of these allows me to drink? Some days I will gladly pass up breakfast, lunch, and dinner for beer/bourbon.
Posted on 12/30/17 at 12:01 pm to Big Scrub TX
How many G of carbs do you consider low?
Posted on 12/30/17 at 12:03 pm to AlxTgr
I didn't think whole 30 is a weight loss diet. I thought it was more of a testing diet to see what foods work better for your body.
Posted on 12/31/17 at 2:06 pm to GynoSandberg
quote:I like to keep it at 30g net per day or less.
How many G of carbs do you consider low?
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News