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 sakura_girl View Post
    I don't think so. I just think he unloads a necessarily large load of information and ranting on someone a newbie who is asking for details in a simple question. Sometimes said person also may be metabolically/psychologically damaged, something he often overlooks when he is posting. But otherwise I find his posts very informative and meaningful.
    I think that Choco is more right than wrong in the stuff he posts. But he's not as right in reality as he is in his own head. He mistakes things which are subjectively true for him as being objectively true for all people and all times (like how being thin has always been what people consider attractive throughout history).

    And he likes to 'stir people out of their complacency' (my phrase) by being intentionally provocative with false statements like cream being nutritionless. I would not characterise avoiding a 'debate' with someone who is trying to provoke you as 'lazy'. I think it's the path of wisdom on the internet.
    Last edited by magicmerl; 08-04-2012, 06:13 PM. Reason: Missed the word 'not' in a sentence :)
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

    Comment


    • Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
      I would not characterise avoiding a 'debate' with someone who is trying to provoke you as 'lazy'. I think it's the path of wisdom on the internet.
      absolutely....and why I never strive to get "the last word". Life is too short.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
        Huh?



        If you are consuming calories, you are not fasting. They aren't IF'ing if they are drinking butter in their coffee. There is no such thing as "bulletproof fasting." It is a marketing term. It's no different than me finding a guy named Jack Vegetarian, starting a slaughterhouse called Vegetarian Farms and selling the product as Vegetarian Beef on the shelves. It's just a name.

        If you are consuming calories, you are not fasting. So eat eggs or meat or vegetables or fruit or potatoes or almonds or salmon or any other conceivable kind of real food. If you're going to eat breakfast, eat a real breakfast and stop drinking butter. Butter is not real food, it is a byproduct of food that comes from another species not designed by nature to be ingested by humans. Honey is closer to real food than butter. Would you eat an entire jar of honey for breakfast? I'm guessing no.
        Apparently you missed the very first sentence of my post where I said that I don't even drink coffee, much less put butter in it. I was simply passing along the rationale I've seen people use for doing it. But by all means, carry on with your sanctimonious lecturing.
        LastBottleWines

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Hawkward View Post
          Apparently you missed the very first sentence of my post where I said that I don't even drink coffee, much less put butter in it. I was simply passing along the rationale I've seen people use for doing it. But by all means, carry on with your sanctimonious lecturing.
          I think it depends on your definition of fasting. If fasting means no energy intake for the next 24 hours, that's his definition. I think that one is more particularly useful if you are trying to lose weight, because you're obviously ingesting calories. If you mean fasting in terms of minimizing impact on the endocrine system, then that's your definition right there. But tbh, if you are making ANY impact on your body through ingesting food of any kind, I count that as breaking the fast.
          My chocolatey Primal journey

          Unusual food recipes (plus chocolate) blog

          Comment


          • Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
            I think that Choco is more right than wrong in the stuff he posts. But he's as right in reality as he is in his own head. He mistakes things which are subjectively true for him as being objectively true for all people and all times (like how being thin has always been what people consider attractive throughout history).

            And he likes to 'stir people out of their complacency' (my phrase) by being intentionally provocative with false statements like cream being nutritionless. I would not characterise avoiding a 'debate' with someone who is trying to provoke you as 'lazy'. I think it's the path of wisdom on the internet.
            That is true. But I find that after digging through his stuff, some of it really is useful If it's not applicable to me at the moment, it does become applicable eventually.
            My chocolatey Primal journey

            Unusual food recipes (plus chocolate) blog

            Comment


            • Originally posted by sbhikes View Post
              Other things that affect weight loss tremendously in my opinion:

              - snacking/frequent small meals. This has a negative effect.
              - eating large meals infrequently. This has a positive effect.

              - chronic undereating. Might not cause weight gain but does mess up a lot of women's relationship to food
              - chronic, excessive low-grade cardio. This has a negative effect for some people or after a certain amount of time. It did for me.
              - short, explosive exercises such as sprinting. This seems to have a positive effect of at least stimulating certain beneficial hormones.
              - undersleeping. Negative hormonally and also if you are really tired you tend to eat more or eat more of the things you shouldn't.

              I also wonder if there is a negative effect to eating more food volume than you need, in other words, eating until you are uncomfortably stuffed, even if the calorie count of the food is within your range. I think there might be hormonal effects to this that are not positive, but it's only speculation on my part.
              This is how we are all very different...........regarding the first 2 items in your list, the reverse is true for me. I feel much better and lose more weight when I snack and eat smaller meals more regularly. I have tried over and over to eat less frequently and it does not work for my metabolism. A great book to read is "The Metabolic Effect Diet" by Jade and Keoni Teta. The brothers both have bachelor's degrees in biochemistry, are doctors of naturopathic medicine , NSCA certified strength and conditioning specialists and have masters degrees in acupuncture. These guys are highly qualified in dealing with people that have metabolic conditions and I apply there fundamental rules with Primal guidelines and I am having greater success this time around, especially now i am snacking again (which they highly recommend for people with metabolic conditions).

              Comment


              • I think what people are not even considering is that the body doesn't metabolize all foods the same. Yes, CICO is the "big picture" and is valid, but to the human body a 1000 calories of butter =/= a 1000 calories of watermelon. They are broken down differently. Plus, when you drop a deuce some of those calories are secreted. CICO is valid, but it's almost impossible to track how much you're truly expending. I don't count my calories because I know I'd be far off anyway, so I see no sense in doing it. I just try to eat whole, nutricious meals 'til I'm no longer hungry and go about my day. Plus, do you think Grok thought about how many calories are in a wildabeast and chiseled it onto a rock so he could "track his calories?" He was too worried about trying to survive.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Primal Wayne View Post
                  CICO is valid, but it's almost impossible to track how much you're truly expending
                  Have you been paying attention the last 30 pages? :P Just kidding...these threads are getting kind of tiring for me too >_>
                  My chocolatey Primal journey

                  Unusual food recipes (plus chocolate) blog

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by sakura_girl View Post
                    Have you been paying attention the last 30 pages? :P Just kidding...these threads are getting kind of tiring for me too >_>
                    Meh....the ones that go on this long do so just cause its a common place to congregate and post some shit one way or another. Or to provide some sanctimonious lecturing. I'll contribute with a bit more of nothing important right now see

                    Comment


                    • aaaanyway....OAN....how do you know if you have a high metabolism or if you are messing up your metabolism? Is it based on your frequent "expulsion" of waste? is it the unexplainable (I am sure it is explainable...just don't know what it is) wired feeling you get after you have just eaten? or is it as arbitrary as trying to determine your calorie output?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Lawyerchick12 View Post
                        aaaanyway....OAN....how do you know if you have a high metabolism or if you are messing up your metabolism? Is it based on your frequent "expulsion" of waste? is it the unexplainable (I am sure it is explainable...just don't know what it is) wired feeling you get after you have just eaten? or is it as arbitrary as trying to determine your calorie output?
                        You prove his point. CICO is useless as an actual intervention. Spot on in theory but useless in the real word. The best you can do is follow the evidence....LCHF has great result for improved metabolic health and reducing weight. Can you do it on HCLF....sure! Metabolic stats are not as good though. Are calories relevant? Yes, but with this stipulation....if you eat HFLC and till satiety you can expect far better results than HCLF till satiety. So eating till actually satisfies shows evidence for HFLC. Add that all up and pick your poison folks.
                        Last edited by Neckhammer; 08-04-2012, 07:19 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Wow, how did I miss this giant thread the first time around?

                          Anyway, people always talk about gaining or losing weight, but I never see much about what determines body composition. The number on the scale is one thing, but you also want your pounds in the right places.

                          If you need 2500 calories a day to maintain, and you want to gain 20 lbs of muscle and lose 20 lbs of fat, how much should you eat? CICO doesn't seem to have much to say here.
                          "Don't go in there, General, it's a trap! That's a grain chamber. It makes people like you into people like me."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PrimalHunter View Post
                            Wow, how did I miss this giant thread the first time around?

                            Anyway, people always talk about gaining or losing weight, but I never see much about what determines body composition. The number on the scale is one thing, but you also want your pounds in the right places.

                            If you need 2500 calories a day to maintain, and you want to gain 20 lbs of muscle and lose 20 lbs of fat, how much should you eat? CICO doesn't seem to have much to say here.
                            Sure it does. It's called "calorie cycling." Look at "recomposition diets." They're usually called "recomps" or "recomping." The goal is to maintain the same weight while slowly shifting fat mass to lean mass. Typical recomp protocol is +20/-20, which means:

                            1.) Eat a 20% caloric surplus on days you lift heavy weights, with most of the calories coming post-workout to ensure that the elevated anabolic hormones store the surplus calories as muscle instead of fat.

                            2.) Eat a 20% caloric deficit on days you do not lift heavy. You don't want to go too much further than 20%, or you'll likely lose a disproportional amount of lean mass. If you want to do cardio to enhance the effectiveness, keep it low level. The higher the level, the more lean mass you lose.

                            The reason why recomping isn't very popular is because it's very, very slow. Recomping 20 lbs could take years. Most people cut, then bulk. You can shed 20 lbs in 12 weeks easily and safely, then put yourself on a slow bulk plan for a long time. This is well-established in the fitness community.

                            Calorie deficits and surpluses don't just come into play over the course of a week. It's over the course of mere hours. Your surplus is during points of heavy activity (so you gain mostly muscle), your deficit is at the point where you're sedentary (so you lose mostly fat), and at the end of the week, it's a wash calorically.
                            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                            Comment


                            • My WAG would be to estimate your current basal metabolic rate (BMR) based on body composition e.g. using the "Katch-Mcardle" (a name I found by googling) formula, estimate BMR at target body composition, BMR1 - BMR2 = change in calories.

                              So going from 200lb at 30% BF to 200lb at 20% BF (in other words, converting 20lbs of fat to muscle) means increasing your intake by about 195 kcal per day, on average. How that is spread out over time (a whole bunch all at once, then less for awhile, or just a small increase) is a different subject of course.

                              I have no idea if that's the "Right Way" though.
                              Last edited by Him; 11-26-2012, 12:59 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Well, let's say you're doing a traditional bulk and cut, so you have sustained calorie surpluses and deficits. How does your body know that when you're bulking the extra calories should go to muscle, and when you're cutting the missing calories should come from fat?

                                What would be different for someone seeking the sumo wrestler look? (Not sure if they actually want to be fat, or if it just happens that way.)
                                "Don't go in there, General, it's a trap! That's a grain chamber. It makes people like you into people like me."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X