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 Zach View Post
    I hate this thread.
    Why?
    Did you choose the wrong side?
    "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
      See, the first quote pretends that all calories are equal. Interchangeable. With the implication being that if people are overweight it's their own damned fault because they lack willpower and are choosing to shove food in their pie-hole.

      The second one acknowledges that the non-calorie nutrients that come bundled with the calorie are important, and that different calories have different satiety levels. With the implication that it's easier to lose weight when you DON'T behave as if 'a calorie is a calorie'.
      No it doesn't. Not at all. All calories are equal for weight loss, weight gain and maintenance. That is the very definition of CICO. Some foods keep you better sated than others, so you are less likely to overeat eggs and steak than candy and bread. That has absolutely nothing to do with CICO and to even bring that up is a major logical fallacy. Just because most people can't maintain a caloric deficit on a pizza and ice cream diet doesn't mean anything at all. The quality of calories has absolutely nothing - NOTHING - to do with CICO. That has to do with individual metabolic health, which is an entirely different topic.

      Again:

      Weight loss: CI<CO
      Weight gain: CI>CO
      Maintenance: CI=CO

      It doesn't matter if they're bread calories, steak calories, ice cream sandwich calories, Doritos calories or Mountain Dew calories.
      Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Omni View Post
        Why?
        Did you choose the wrong side?
        This whole argument is pointless.

        Comment


        • I'm just confused as to why there are so many people on this forum ("Primal Blueprint Nutrition") aggressively arguing against certain proposals of . . . "Primal Blueprint" nutrition. I know similar exercises are played out all over the internet on every conceivable topic, but the appeal escapes me.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by UTfootball747 View Post
            I'm just confused as to why there are so many people on this forum ("Primal Blueprint Nutrition") aggressively arguing against certain proposals of . . . "Primal Blueprint" nutrition. I know similar exercises are played out all over the internet on every conceivable topic, but the appeal escapes me.
            Exactly which principles are we arguing against? I hope you don't mean CICO. That is the only principle that matters when it comes to weight loss, and it's acknowledged by Mark Sisson.

            17 Reasons Youíre Not Losing Weight | Mark's Daily Apple

            8. Youíre eating too much.

            Low-carb isnít magic. It reins in wild hunger and tames insulin, but calories do still matter Ė especially once you approach your ideal weight. In fact, those last few pounds often donít respond to the same stuff that worked so well to get you to this point. Eating nut butter by the spoonful and hunks of cheese without regard for caloric content may have gotten you this far, but youíve got to tighten things up if things arenít working. And thatís the real test, isnít it?
            This reason should be #1 because it is all that matters in terms of weight loss. But it's lower on the list because, let's face it, Mark Sisson is trying to sell a product to a legion of people that want to believe they can eat whatever they want and lose weight. Chronic Cardio is above it for God's sake. Cardio is a great weight loss tool if you control caloric intake - you can exercise larger deficits - but we are a society that hates counting calories, hates running and loves eating. Cardio doesn't make you fat, it is just notorious for making you hungry, so some people wind up eating all the calories they burned and then some due to hunger because they don't track their food intake. So, unfortunately, CICO gets buried. All the rest on his list are just tips and tricks how to make it easier for you to mentally maintain as low of a calorie diet as possible. The problem is the body wants to store fat - 99% of our existence, fat storage has been advantageous to survival since we didn't have refrigerators and supermarkets. We spent 250,000 years weeding out those that couldn't store fat efficiently for those that could. We are the products of a race of people that survived famines - Mother Nature has bred us to store fat as efficiently as possible while the ectomorphs were killed off when food ran short. Unfortunately, the images brainwashed into our heads by the lamestream media have given us images of what we should look like, and they're below the homeostasis Mother Nature has painstakingly fashioned for us. The people that should be killed of the easiest have become the idols. Go figure.
            Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 03-13-2013, 08:07 AM.
            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 are you talking about? CICO specifically says:
              Weight loss: CI<CO
              Weight gain: CI>CO
              Maintenance: CI=CO

              That is the ONLY definition. Stop trying to pervert things to suit your agenda. Take your logical fallacies, trolling and outright lies somewhere else.
              Yeah, and that's not what you're arguing for because you keep going back to agreeing that calorie quality matters. CICO doesn't make that argument.
              Rebooted Body -- Ancestral Health + Modern Psychology | The Rebooted Body Podcast

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                No it doesn't. Not at all. All calories are equal for weight loss, weight gain and maintenance. That is the very definition of CICO. Some foods keep you better sated than others, so you are less likely to overeat eggs and steak than candy and bread. That has absolutely nothing to do with CICO and to even bring that up is a major logical fallacy. Just because most people can't maintain a caloric deficit on a pizza and ice cream diet doesn't mean anything at all. The quality of calories has absolutely nothing - NOTHING - to do with CICO. That has to do with individual metabolic health, which is an entirely different topic.

                Again:

                Weight loss: CI<CO
                Weight gain: CI>CO
                Maintenance: CI=CO

                It doesn't matter if they're bread calories, steak calories, ice cream sandwich calories, Doritos calories or Mountain Dew calories.
                Dude, this is why we're saying that you don't know what CICO is trying to say.

                The minute you start talking about how all calories AREN'T EQUAL, you're arguing AGAINST CICO.

                As I said before, 67 pages all for a misunderstanding. Let's not make it 68.
                Rebooted Body -- Ancestral Health + Modern Psychology | The Rebooted Body Podcast

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Rebooted Body View Post
                  Dude, this is why we're saying that you don't know what CICO is trying to say.

                  The minute you start talking about how all calories AREN'T EQUAL, you're arguing AGAINST CICO.

                  As I said before, 67 pages all for a misunderstanding. Let's not make it 68.
                  For the final time, you are being purposely misleading.

                  Calorie quantity matters for weight loss.

                  Calorie quality matters for health.

                  They are mutually exclusive - two entirely different things you are trying to lump as one. You are wrong. CICO is about weight loss, not health. This is a discussion about weight loss, not health. Your point is invalid as it has nothing to do with the argument.
                  Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                  Comment


                  • Health is more important than weight loss. If you eat to lose weight, you are doing it wrong.

                    You eat to be healthy and then the weight will reduce if it is meant to.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
                      I actually think in terms of evolution... it would be BETTER to be someone with a slow metabolism since food was limited. Needing 5000 calories a day is not beneficial when you have to catch it, but hey, if you can stay fat and happy on 1200 a day or better yet, 800... you are probably better off back when food required effort.

                      One thing I wonder about Grok- why wouldn't Grok want to more easily put on weight to store as energy for bad times? I'd think someone like me- with fat, but still fit enough to move would be better off than someone who was thin, lean and needed say 4000 calories a day. I also think I'd be more likely to be able to have and raise kids then some poor, thin woman who needed a lot of food.

                      Up until recently, it was not a particular advantage to have a high metabolism, was it?

                      I mean heck, if I'm a man and have to catch food for my wife, I'd kind of want the chick that stays plump on nothing at all vs. the slender one that eats more than I do.
                      I think you nailed the issue, Magnolia!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                        Exactly which principles are we arguing against? I hope you don't mean CICO. That is the only principle that matters when it comes to weight loss, and it's acknowledged by Mark Sisson.
                        Not CICO, but more the notion of limiting carbs = greater propensity for weight loss (and vice versa). Seems to be a lot of pushback on that front.

                        Is this a rejection of the 'no grains & refined sugars' bit, or more a rejection of the implicit suggestion that eating a boatload of carbs through veggies & fruits every day will result in weight gain?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by UTfootball747 View Post
                          Not CICO, but more the notion of limiting carbs = greater propensity for weight loss (and vice versa). Seems to be a lot of pushback on that front.
                          And that notion is false if you are removing the carbs and simply adding fats in their place. A person consuming 2,500 calories a day with 60% calories from fat, 10% calories from carbs and 30% calories from protein is going to have no advantage over someone consuming 2,500 calories a day with 10% calories from fat, 60% calories from carbs and 30% calories from protein. CICO. That's why you get pushback - anyone that disagrees with my statement is either misinformed or lying to sell you something.

                          Originally posted by UTfootball747 View Post
                          Is this a rejection of the 'no grains & refined sugars' bit, or more a rejection of the implicit suggestion that eating a boatload of carbs through veggies & fruits every day will result in weight gain?
                          I don't know where you're going with this. Grains and sugar don't make you fat. They never have and they never will. Overconsuming them makes you fat. A person with a diet where grains and refined sugars are staples may be more likely to overconsume calories than a person whose staples are steak and eggs, but that only further cements CICO - it's the excess calories making us overweight, not individual foods.

                          If you want to look at this from a health standpoint, of course grains and refined sugars are going to be largely unhealthy. But this is about weight loss, not health, and weight loss is entirely CICO. To skew the discussion towards health is simply a straw man.
                          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
                            I don't know where you're going with this.
                            You asked "what principles are we arguing against?" Is it really not clear?

                            f you’ve forgotten everything you ever learned in biology, just remember this and “own” it: Carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat (Cahill 1965, and Taubes 2007). The idea in the PB is to limit your carbs to only those you need to provide glucose for the brain and for some reasonable amount (certainly less than an hour) of occasional anaerobic exercise. And the truth is, you don’t even need glucose to fuel the brain. Ketones from a very-low carb diet work extremely efficiently at that task. Either way, ideally, we would like most of our daily energy to come from dietary or stored fats. Typically, (if you are at an ideal body composition now) I use a rule of thumb that 100-150 grams of carbohydrate per day is plenty to keep you out of ketosis (and ketosis is NOT a bad thing) but away from storing the excess as fat if you are the least bit active. Don’t forget that your body can make up to 200 grams of glycogen from fats and protein every day, too. On the other hand, if you are looking to lose body fat, keeping carbs to under 80 grams per day will help immensely in lowering insulin and taking fat out of storage. On the other other hand, if you are insistent on training hard for long periods of time, you would add more carbs (say, 100 per day extra for every extra hour you train hard). It becomes a matter of doing the math and experimenting with the results.
                            Link.

                            150-300 grams/day – Steady, Insidious Weight Gain

                            Continued higher insulin-stimulating effect prevents efficient fat burning and contributes to widespread chronic disease conditions. This range – irresponsibly recommended by the USDA and other diet authorities – can lead to the statistical US average gain of 1.5 pounds of fat per year for forty years.
                            Link.
                            Last edited by UTfootball747; 03-13-2013, 12:32 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by UTfootball747 View Post
                              f you’ve forgotten everything you ever learned in biology, just remember this and “own” it: Carbohydrate drives insulin drives fat (Cahill 1965, and Taubes 2007).
                              Patently false and disproven by countless controlled studies. Carbohydrate does not promote weight gain, insulin does not drive fat. It is entirely caloric. This is an opinion statement and scientifically false.


                              Originally posted by UTfootball747 View Post
                              150-300 grams/day – Steady, Insidious Weight Gain

                              Continued higher insulin-stimulating effect prevents efficient fat burning and contributes to widespread chronic disease conditions. This range – irresponsibly recommended by the USDA and other diet authorities – can lead to the statistical US average gain of 1.5 pounds of fat per year for forty years.
                              Also incorrect. "The Carbohydrate Curve" is completely non-scientific and falls victim to the same epidemiological hogwash Paleo/Primal people rail against every day regarding "CW studies." Elimination of processed foods rich in grains, refined sugars and refined oils have a high ratio of calories-to-satiety, so people naturally eat more of these foods. Carbohydrate restriction does one thing and one thing only - it causes accidental calorie restriction by eliminating processed foods for more whole foods. It is entirely caloric, and has absolutely nothing to do with carbohydrate restriction. If you count calories properly, you will lose weight just as fast eating processed foods as whole foods. Again, CICO.
                              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                              Comment


                              • "‘When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'

                                ‘The question is,' said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things."

                                ‘The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that's all.'"

                                --Through The Looking Glass and What Alice Found There

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X