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're sort of right - a calorie of sugar isn't quite the same as a calorie of fat. The fat will be directly stored, while the sugar will boost your metabolic rate a touch and lose some of its caloric content as it gets converted into fat. Sugar's a little more advantageous to weight loss than fat calorie per calorie...but it's so little it's not really worth mentioning.
    .
    The article I posted totally contradicts what you've just said here?

    For all three diets, the rate of calories burned at rest was lower than before weight loss. But over the course of a day, the subjects burned more than 300 additional calories on average when on the verylow-carbohydrate diet compared with the low-fat diet.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
      This is ridiculous, and it's the reason why people plateau or completely give up dieting.

      You're sort of right - a calorie of sugar isn't quite the same as a calorie of fat. The fat will be directly stored, while the sugar will boost your metabolic rate a touch and lose some of its caloric content as it gets converted into fat. Sugar's a little more advantageous to weight loss than fat calorie per calorie...but it's so little it's not really worth mentioning.

      Back to the topic at hand. You don't understand what "total daily energy expenditure" is. You cannot lose weight without a caloric deficit. You cannot gain weight without a caloric surplus. If you want to lose more weight, in 100% of cases you must increase your caloric deficit.

      This is where the context comes in. A person that is nutritionally replete and eats a diet rich in whole foods is going to have a higher TDEE than someone that is subsisting on nutrient poor foods like grains and chicken breast a la the SAD. If you want to maximize your metabolic rate, you have to eat foods that best support thyroid function and cellular respiration - ruminant meat (beef, lamb, goat, deer), coconut, fruit, copper and selenium rich foods (mussels, oysters), dairy, consume plenty of sodium and avoid the metabolism killers - unsaturated oils, legumes, grains, raw green vegetables and very fatty foods rich in PUFA - nuts, seeds...I'm on the fence about fatty fish and high-PUFA meats like chicken thighs, pork, etc.

      Lift heavy weights and move around a lot and the ease that you'll lose weight will increase even further. And never starvation diet. If you have 50+ lbs to lose, you can maintain a pretty large caloric deficit. At that point, your body has so much excess adipose tissue it probably won't fear starvation. But when you get into the 10-15 lb range...now it matters. You need mild caloric deficits with regular refeeds to support the metabolic rate. Again, this doesn't mean calories don't count. This is all about calories. It makes you have to be smart about maximizing your nutrition and being realistic about your rate of fat loss. Most people want things to happen too quickly, so they plateau by not eating enough.

      Again, CICO is perfect 100% of the time. You just have to make sure you eat nutritious, filling foods that maximize your metabolic rate so you can make the caloric deficit as low-stress as possible so you can maintain it both mentally and physically.
      What's ridiculous is that I explained why calories-in-calories-out is not a helpful model for weight loss and you went on to say exactly what I said in a different way.

      CICO doesn't care about food quality. Which was my point. Then you said CICO works when you eat the right types of food for your metabolism. You're arguing for CICO while arguing against CICO. That's ridiculous.
      Rebooted Body -- Ancestral Health + Modern Psychology | The Rebooted Body Podcast

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Rebooted Body View Post
        You're arguing for CICO while arguing against CICO. That's ridiculous.
        Exactly. If "CICO is perfect 100% of the time" it wouldn't matter what you ate. Because if it does matter, then it's not just about calories.

        Comment


        • So, what does matter? How is a person that is eating paleo/primal consistently, but is still overweight going to lose fat?

          Comment


          • What matters is the types of foods you're eating, the amount of calories you burn/consume (as I said in a previous post, I believe calories do matter, but that losing fat is not just a case of simply CICO), the types of exercise you carry out and other lifestyle factors such as sleep and stress etc

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Rebooted Body View Post
              What's ridiculous is that I explained why calories-in-calories-out is not a helpful model for weight loss and you went on to say exactly what I said in a different way.

              CICO doesn't care about food quality. Which was my point. Then you said CICO works when you eat the right types of food for your metabolism. You're arguing for CICO while arguing against CICO. That's ridiculous.
              Doublethink | Define Doublethink at Dictionary.com
              The Champagne of Beards

              Comment


              • Originally posted by AdamW View Post
                Exactly. If "CICO is perfect 100% of the time" it wouldn't matter what you ate. Because if it does matter, then it's not just about calories.
                What? This makes absolutely no sense at all. Foods vary wildly in terms of satiety and caloric density per volume. Primal foods tend to be higher in satiety and lower in calorie density, so that's why people tend to lose weight eating them. Whole foods keep you fuller longer since they require more time to digest, and since they aren't fortified with added oils and sugars, the caloric density is lower. You will lose weight just as fast eating cake and ice cream if you choose to portion everything out using a food scale and verify all your macros and total calorie intakes are exactly the same as on a steak, eggs and potatoes diet. The second will just make it 100 times easier than healthier since you're actually full and well-nourished.
                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Rebooted Body View Post
                  What's ridiculous is that I explained why calories-in-calories-out is not a helpful model for weight loss and you went on to say exactly what I said in a different way.

                  CICO doesn't care about food quality. Which was my point. Then you said CICO works when you eat the right types of food for your metabolism. You're arguing for CICO while arguing against CICO. That's ridiculous.
                  Food quality has little impact on weight loss. It's the calories, which is why I said what I said. All food quality does is make it easier for an individual to maintain a deficit - more nutrients and slower digestion/increase satiety = less cravings for food. That's all it is. As I said earlier, if you care to weigh and measure all your food, you can lose the weight eating cake and cookies. Whatever floats your boat, because it's CICO.
                  Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by AdamW View Post
                    The article I posted totally contradicts what you've just said here?
                    I love epidemiological studies, especially in paleo communities. When the epidemiology supports their agenda, they're all about it, but when it points against them they freak out and run for the hills looking for bloggers to break the studies down from them and tear them apart so they don't have to.

                    What's your point? That same BS "study" has been torn down 100 times. If that study holds up, then I guess red meat must be killing us as well because this study is just as well-controlled (i.e. no control).

                    JAMA Network | JAMA Internal Medicine | Red Meat Consumption and MortalityResults From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies

                    *gulp*

                    Ketogenic Low-Carbohydrate Diets have no Metabolic Advantage over Nonketogenic Low-carbohydrate diets | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald
                    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
                      What? This makes absolutely no sense at all. Foods vary wildly in terms of satiety and caloric density per volume. Primal foods tend to be higher in satiety and lower in calorie density, so that's why people tend to lose weight eating them. Whole foods keep you fuller longer since they require more time to digest, and since they aren't fortified with added oils and sugars, the caloric density is lower. You will lose weight just as fast eating cake and ice cream if you choose to portion everything out using a food scale and verify all your macros and total calorie intakes are exactly the same as on a steak, eggs and potatoes diet. The second will just make it 100 times easier than healthier since you're actually full and well-nourished.
                      Body composition is mostly about the types and quality of the foods you eat, not just the number of calories.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by AdamW View Post
                        Body composition is mostly about the types and quality of the foods you eat, not just the number of calories.
                        Not quite, the number of calories and the type of training you do affect your body compostion; not the type and/or quality of foods. In terms of health, that would be correct but not in terms of body comp.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by AdamW View Post
                          Body composition is mostly about the types and quality of the foods you eat, not just the number of calories.
                          Come on, dude, you're wrong on everything you've posted. Most extreme bodybuilders I've seen eat nothing but junk food due to the caloric density to bulk and gain mass.
                          Make America Great Again

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Darz View Post
                            Not quite, the number of calories and the type of training you do affect your body compostion; not the type and/or quality of foods. In terms of health, that would be correct but not in terms of body comp.
                            If the type of food(s) is not important, then that implies the role of protein isn't important in body comp. either?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by AdamW View Post
                              Body composition is mostly about the types and quality of the foods you eat, not just the number of calories.
                              Who said anything about body composition? You were talking about weight loss. Now you're changing the context of the argument. So instead of cake, sub ice cream. Ice cream's a great source of fat, sugar and protein. You can get ripped on the ice cream and cheesecake diet just as well as the steak, egg and potatoes diet. Just track your calories and macros accordingly.
                              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by AdamW View Post
                                If the type of food(s) is not important, then that implies the role of protein isn't important in body comp. either?
                                Two things are highly anabolic: saturated fat and sugar. If you look at how bodybuilders eat, they tend to do two things:

                                1.) Center large meals around workouts (calorie cycling: high when active, lower when not active).
                                2.) Eat lower fat, higher carb.

                                The big reason why paleo/primal circles get slammed in the bodybuilding community is the foundation of the movement is low-carb zealots that think insulin is evil and CICO is ignored. Since body composition is all about CICO and macros, you can see why we're not taken seriously.
                                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X