Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post


    You need to get fat. Because it's the only way you'll get thin. You need to seriously get rid of your scale, because it's your biggest downfall. You will never succeed if you check your weight daily because you will not hold to a plan. You need to take the next YEAR and just eat normally. And you shouldn't weigh yourself once. Go an entire 365 days without knowing what your weight or inches are. Just fucking do it. And don't go hungry once. Don't IF, don't count calories/carbs/grams of fat, etc. Don't rinse your ground beef. Don't use the little lines on the butter sleeve to measure out how much you should be using to sear meat in. You'll probably gain 10-20 lbs. And you need to. The ONLY way you'll ever lose your body fat is if you spend a really, really long time not being hungry. It's the only way your body will figure out that it doesn't NEED to carry body fat. You've done nothing but tell it to hold onto fat and burn up your muscles for years.

    Stop dieting. Stop weighing. Stop measuring. Just eat a lot of food and get fat. And stay fat for a really long time. If you don't, you will never exceed.
    I'm not saying that this COULDN'T be good advice for some people, but i am an example of how this absolutely does not work (for me). I've had YEARS of eating just about whatever I wanted, and while I never got over 125, I also never been able to lose the extra fat no matter what kind of restriction I tried, caloric or macro.

    The only way I've ever been able to lose fat is by eating VERY low fat (as in 5-10 grams per day, usually) and low carb (which was also very low calorie). This results in the top half of me looking emaciated, while the bottom half is still chubby. My body would probably rather die than give up that stubborn fat, and no amount of overeating is going to change that.

    I think we just have to face that some people are meant to be thin and lean (like SBhike's sister) and some of us are not, no matter what we do or eat. This doesn't mean we still shouldn't strive to eat healthy, but no amount of food/diet manipulation will ever result in looking good for the lucky winners in this group.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BestBetter View Post
      I'm not saying that this COULDN'T be good advice for some people, but i am an example of how this absolutely does not work (for me). I've had YEARS of eating just about whatever I wanted, and while I never got over 125, I also never been able to lose the extra fat no matter what kind of restriction I tried, caloric or macro.

      The only way I've ever been able to lose fat is by eating VERY low fat (as in 5-10 grams per day, usually) and low carb (which was also very low calorie). This results in the top half of me looking emaciated, while the bottom half is still chubby. My body would probably rather die than give up that stubborn fat, and no amount of overeating is going to change that.

      I think we just have to face that some people are meant to be thin and lean (like SBhike's sister) and some of us are not, no matter what we do or eat. This doesn't mean we still shouldn't strive to eat healthy, but no amount of food/diet manipulation will ever result in looking good for the lucky winners in this group.
      I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I know Leida's been on starvation diets chronically since at least the George W. Bush administration, and those are just the diets I know about. God only knows what I'm unaware of. Her goal is to get defined, and she's not going to be able to do that without fixing her metabolic dysfunction so she can get anabolic. The fact that she can't gain any strength from her lifts means she either cannot attain a caloric surplus or she cannot generate any positive growth hormones, and they're both indicators of a severely downregulated and broken metabolism. The only way to fix the hormones is to assure your body that it isn't starving, and that's with a constant barrage of healthy foods and minimizing stress. Yes, it's going to result in some significant fat gain for the first couple months, but eventually when the body stats healing the fat gain will level off. In her specific, rare case, she'll have to get fat before she can get lean. At least that's what I believe. I'm doing a little of that myself.
      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

      Comment


      • The "calories don't matter it's all food choices and hormones" people are just diet woo'sters.
        Now of course there's a few small things you can do to make sure everything's going ok on the CO side of the equation, like getting your health markers checked, doing the right exercises, eating whole foods, getting adequate sleep, etc. But if you're still either gaining weight or not losing the fat you want because you're eating more calories than you're expending you have a few options
        a) Hack the T cell receptors and cytokine signalling by doing one handed pushups in a Dr kruse designed cold thermogenesis suit while drinking wild red columbian ginseng tea that rearranges your chemical clock, hormone panel and leptin signalling to activate the hypothalamus and CNS
        Or
        b) Take the 400 calorie stick of butter out of your morning coffee so you have an easier time creating an energy deficit.
        Whatever sounds more practical to you.
        Last edited by Forgotmylastusername; 08-01-2012, 10:14 PM.

        Comment


        • Here's the thing that i still don't understand:

          We can all accept CICO.
          For some people, the CI is not so accurate, but many of us are pretty good at tracking honestly.
          However, there are some really gigantic scary monsters behind the scenes hijacking the CO part.

          So why are we wasting all this time debating the CICO, when really we should be focused on understanding, fixing, and boosting the CO part? I would like to see a thread titled something like, "The best strategies for boosting a depressed metabolism" because I think that's really what most people on here are struggling with.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
            you have a few options
            a) Hack the T cell receptors and cytokine signalling by doing one handed pushups in a Dr kruse designed cold thermogenesis suit while drinking wild red columbian ginseng tea that rearranges your chemical clock, hormone panel and leptin signalling to activate the hypothalamus and CNS
            Or
            b) Take the 400 calorie stick of butter out of your morning coffee so you have an easier time creating an energy deficit.
            Whatever sounds practical to you.
            I love this guy <3
            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by BestBetter View Post
              Here's the thing that i still don't understand:

              We can all accept CICO.
              For some people, the CI is not so accurate, but many of us are pretty good at tracking honestly.
              However, there are some really gigantic scary monsters behind the scenes hijacking the CO part.

              So why are we wasting all this time debating the CICO, when really we should be focused on understanding, fixing, and boosting the CO part? I would like to see a thread titled something like, "The best strategies for boosting a depressed metabolism" because I think that's really what most people on here are struggling with.
              Because I'm trying to drive home that simply eating foods that don't create insulin spikes isn't going to make you lose weight. There is no metabolic advantage to a low carbohydrate diet, and calories from butter aren't going to make you lose weight faster than calories from flour. Putting 1/2 of stick of butter in your coffee isn't much different than putting 1/2 cup of sugar in your coffee. Your weight loss stalls til you burn off those calories, and people need to understand this.

              There are people with metabolic issues on this forum. However, they are the exception, not the norm. Look how far this thread has shifted away from the initial point - it has shifted because people are obsessed with bringing up rare genetic and metabolic conditions in hopes that they have some genetic reason why they have trouble losing weight that's beyond their control and "not their fault." The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people walking the street and typing on this forum are overweight because of one reason - they eat too much food. Dropping grains, sugars and vegetable oils are great for your health, but if you're consuming 3,000 calories of steak, butter and avocado a day, you're not going to lose weight any faster than if you're consuming 3,000 calories of chicken breast, whole wheat pasta and soybean oil.

              The methods of calculating CICO available to use are not perfect, but they'll work for almost all of us. Stop focusing on the 2% of people that the equations don't apply to and focus on portion control and consistency to find out what works for you. For most, this is going to mean leaner meats, less oils for frying and overall smaller dinner plates.
              Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 08-01-2012, 09:39 PM.
              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people walking the street and typing on this forum are overweight because of one reason - they eat too much food. Dropping grains, sugars and vegetable oils are great for your health, but if you're consuming 3,000 calories of steak, butter and avocado a day, you're not going to lose weight any faster than if you're consuming 3,000 calories of chicken breast, whole wheat pasta and soybean oil.
                Couldn't have said it better.
                http://kitoikitchen.blogspot.com/

                Comment


                • Nah, even the grain pushers admit that low carb is a faster weight loss action given equal number of calories, than is high carb/low fat.

                  I'd truly like to see how what some of the young men in this thread would look like if they had to eat only 1200 cal/day to maintain a healthy weight.

                  I'm also wondering if the 2% is a real number or is it being used for hyperbole.
                  "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                  B*tch-lite

                  Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JoanieL View Post
                    Nah, even the grain pushers admit that low carb is a faster weight loss action given equal number of calories, than is high carb/low fat.

                    I'd truly like to see how what some of the young men in this thread would look like if they had to eat only 1200 cal/day to maintain a healthy weight.

                    I'm also wondering if the 2% is a real number or is it being used for hyperbole.
                    This...
                    Hyperbole.

                    Calorie restriction matters... but the macros matter as well.
                    “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
                    ~Friedrich Nietzsche
                    And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

                    Comment


                    • I didn't read all 47 pages but it sounds like Matt Stone is being channeled.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post

                        There are people with metabolic issues on this forum. However, they are the exception, not the norm. Look how far this thread has shifted away from the initial point - it has shifted because people are obsessed with bringing up rare genetic and metabolic conditions in hopes that they have some genetic reason why they have trouble losing weight that's beyond their control and "not their fault." The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people walking the street and typing on this forum are overweight because of one reason - they eat too much food.

                        The methods of calculating CICO available to use are not perfect, but they'll work for almost all of us. Stop focusing on the 2% of people that the equations don't apply to and focus on portion control and consistency to find out what works for you. For most, this is going to mean leaner meats, less oils for frying and overall smaller dinner plates.
                        I don't disagree that for SOME people, weight loss is really just about calorie restriction. Especially for the men.

                        However, I STRONLY disagree that people with depressed metabolisms are an exception, and i don't know where the 2% came from, but if CICO was as clear-cut for 98% of the population, this thread wouldn't exist.

                        If calorie restriction didn't lead to depressed metabolisms, then Lyle McDonald would not need to be pushing calorie-cycling diets. The fact that our bodies automatically reduce the CO part when we reduce the CI part means that fat loss is not something we are designed to do happily, our bodies will fight it, and we have to resort to trickery to prevent this from happening.

                        In fact, if CICO was so simple for 98% of people, millions of diet books on the market wouldn't exist, low-carb probably would never have become such a huge deal, because all people would have to do is cut back on calories and viola! Fat loss.

                        We all know it doesn't happen this way for MANY people, and that's why some people have decided that CICO is bunk. Instead of saying 'Get with the program, all 98% of you, just cut your damn calories!' i think we should focus on why calorie restriction DOESN'T work for so many people, and what we can do to fix the CO part, since that's what's gumming up the works.

                        BTW, isn't it past your bedtime?

                        Comment


                        • I actually am a calorie counter, and I'm losing weight at a nice rate. But straight up calorie counting is easy to crash from because if you continue to eat garbage, you will continue to want food. All the low carb really does is to sate you.

                          Think of it this way: The only way most people can quit an addiction is cold turkey. Unfortunately, you can't quit food forever or you'll die. You have to control it. If you continue to eat just a "little bit" of foods that make you hungry, you'll give in to temptation eventually. Just like if you let yourself have one cigarette occasionally, it can easily turn to two, then "just when I go out with the guys/girls," etc.

                          Yes, all overweight people are eating more fuel than they need based on their genetics, metabolism, and lifestyle. But that's not sloth or lack of character. Nor is it easily fixed. One of the richest, most successful women in this country has battled with weight and diet her whole life and she's certainly neither sloth nor slacker.
                          "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                          B*tch-lite

                          Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                            Because I'm trying to drive home that simply eating foods that don't create insulin spikes isn't going to make you lose weight. There is no metabolic advantage to a low carbohydrate diet, and calories from butter aren't going to make you lose weight faster than calories from flour. Putting 1/2 of stick of butter in your coffee isn't much different than putting 1/2 cup of sugar in your coffee. Your weight loss stalls til you burn off those calories, and people need to understand this.

                            There are people with metabolic issues on this forum. However, they are the exception, not the norm. Look how far this thread has shifted away from the initial point - it has shifted because people are obsessed with bringing up rare genetic and metabolic conditions in hopes that they have some genetic reason why they have trouble losing weight that's beyond their control and "not their fault." The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people walking the street and typing on this forum are overweight because of one reason - they eat too much food. Dropping grains, sugars and vegetable oils are great for your health, but if you're consuming 3,000 calories of steak, butter and avocado a day, you're not going to lose weight any faster than if you're consuming 3,000 calories of chicken breast, whole wheat pasta and soybean oil.

                            The methods of calculating CICO available to use are not perfect, but they'll work for almost all of us. Stop focusing on the 2% of people that the equations don't apply to and focus on portion control and consistency to find out what works for you. For most, this is going to mean leaner meats, less oils for frying and overall smaller dinner plates.
                            Post of the year. Bravo.

                            .
                            There is a huge difference between talking about how to do something and getting it fucking done.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by cori93437 View Post
                              This...
                              Hyperbole.

                              Calorie restriction matters... but the macros matter as well.
                              While I agree with Choco and the like on everything, the reason why CW people do believe this is that the initial weight that drops is the water weight, which IIRC is associated with the carbs. After that initial loss, then CICO with the already applied Primal setting needs to be implemented.
                              "Carbs are the victim, not the crime" - ChocoTaco

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                                but if you're consuming 3,000 calories of steak, butter and avocado a day, you're not going to lose weight any faster than if you're consuming 3,000 calories of chicken breast, whole wheat pasta and soybean oil.
                                1) Why is chicken breast in the perceived "bad calorie" section of that example?

                                2) More good news: Study after study confirm that we can achieve what Mark calls “effortless weight loss” by eating more of these SANE Primal foods. For example, in all of the studies that follow, everyone ate the exact same quantity of calories, but one group’s calories were of much higher quality (aka more Primal, more SANE):

                                University of Florida researcher J.W. Krieger analyzed 87 studies and found that those people who ate SANE calories lost an average of 12 more pounds of body fat compared to those who ate an equal quantity of lower quality calories.
                                C.M. Young at Cornell University split people into three groups, each eating 1,800 calories per day, but at different levels of quality. The highest-quality group lost 86.5% more body fat than the lowest-quality group.
                                In the Annals of Internal Medicine, F.L. Benoît compared a reduced-calorie low-quality diet to a reduced-calorie high-quality diet. After ten days the high-quality diet burned twice as much body fat.
                                Additional studies by researchers U. Rabast (1978,1981), P. Greene (2003), N.H. Baba (1999), A. Golay (1996), M.E. Lean (1997), C.M. Young (1971), and D.K. Layman (2003) all show that people who ate higher-quality calories lost an average of 22% more weight than those who ate the exact same quantity of lower-quality calories.


                                Read more: Ancient Wisdom Confirmed by Modern Science | Mark's Daily Apple


                                Point 2 seems to say that it does matter what kind of calories you're eating.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X