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 gopintos View Post
    I am not sure what "key labs" are, but if I just say I want to test the key ones, is that standard enough and I will get all the right ones done that I need to know?
    That's where a good doctor comes in handy. For normal maintenance of a pretty healthy body, cholesterol, bp, trigs, and the 'standard panel' stuff is good. If you are having trouble losing weight, you'll need to dig further. Sex hormones, glucose tolerance, hs-crp, liver panels, platelettes, thyroid, and others. You definitely need a doctor to order these and hopefully a doctor that is interested in getting you healthy and not just wanting to give you statins or some other nonsense.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by otzi View Post
      Estrogen dominance.
      DING DING DING DING!!!

      So if you put a man and woman side by side who eat the same about of calories, have the same activity levels, are the same height and have the same muscle mass the woman will have more fat tissue than the man.

      Call it estrogen dominance or testosterone dominance how ever you prefer but wait... Aren't those hormones? Could hormones have significant control over the levels of body fat? NAW!!!! That's just plain old witch craft!

      Comment


      • So then does progesterone help in getting more calories to not stick? I just bought some progesterone cream to counteract estrogen dominance. *Sigh*

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Iron Will View Post
          Ooh ooh!!! I have another question!!!! I know the answer already but I want to see who in the "A calorie is just a calorie" group knows...

          Why is it easier for men to loose weight than for women to loose weight?
          I already asked this...I don't think it's as simple as estrogen dominance. There are likely LOTS of hormonal factors in play.




          Originally posted by BestBetter View Post
          While I firmly believe that CICO matters, even though it is a complex, mysterious process that we will never be able to understand (at least the CO part, since we can't see or track how our bodies are using energy), there is a huge, glaring issue that is being ignored, though Magnolia hit on it:

          Women and men lose/gain/store fat very differently. Women are genetically programmed to gain and store fat, men are designed to put on muscle.

          Of course there are exceptions, to a degree. And of course this doesn't mean that women can't put on ANY muscle, or men can't gain ANY fat. But the fact is, we are designed for different biological purposes, which is a fact that is generally ignored in the diet/fat loss world.

          If CICO was as neat and easy as some people claim, why would this be? And why would women be ROUTINELY excluded from fat loss scientific research experiments, with the explanantion being that the researchers don't want female hormonal issues bogging down the studies and preventing them from getting some clear-cut results?

          Why is it that a common story is a husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend go primal/paleo or whatever way of eating, and the dude drops weight without really trying while the female counterpart is treading water while meticulously tracking and reducing? (Of course the female is accused of underreporting, because what else could explain the difference?)

          Again, I'm in no way trying to dismiss CICO, but these glaring omissions of differences between male and female fat loss are infuriating.
          Last edited by BestBetter; 07-26-2012, 10:47 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BestBetter View Post
            I already asked this...I don't think it's as simple as estrogen dominance. There are likely LOTS of hormonal factors in play.
            Yes I definitely agree that it's more than just estrogen and testosterone but I'm just trying to show that hormones do control every part of our biological make up. And since these two hormones are the most well known I decided to use them in my question.

            Comment


            • I guess the bottom line though is that it is what it is.

              I mean, I am an otherwise healthy person. At 38, I have no medical issues, great energy, healthy skin and hair, I am fit enough to be fairly active- I can do push ups, squats, run a 5K at an easy pace. I almost never get sick- in the past 10 years I have had 2 bad colds and a stomach bug.

              I mean, my body functions really well except for hanging on to excess fat.... which is mostly in my butt, thighs, arms and boobs. Eating Primal- when I lost the weight- it came all off from my midsection. I went from an over 39" waist to under 30" with hardly any off anywhere else.

              It seems like men get fat in their midsections, and you seldom see men fat elsewhere unless they are just so obese.

              I can see why hormones would shape where we store fat.... but is it that wise to mess with them?

              http://maggiesfeast.wordpress.com/
              Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Comma View Post
                So then does progesterone help in getting more calories to not stick? I just bought some progesterone cream to counteract estrogen dominance. *Sigh*
                Well yes and no. I can't tell if you are a guy or a girl from your name so I'll answer this way. You don't want to continue to push your hormone levels up and up and up that's never healthy. If you're a guy that's estrogen dominant, then it's best to eat foods that don't raise your estrogen levels anymore than they already are and take supplements to lower your estrogen levels to healthy levels before you look at trying to raise your testosterone levels. The same thing goes for women but in reverse. The key is to lower the excessive hormone to where it should be first. Then raise the others to where they should be. All this can be done through diet and proper natural supplementation. And exercise of course.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Iron Will View Post
                  Ooh ooh!!! I have another question!!!! I know the answer already but I want to see who in the "A calorie is just a calorie" group knows...

                  Why is it easier for men to loose weight than for women to loose weight?
                  Well, there are already at least 5 answers, but aside from estrogen is a male's percentage of muscle. Muscle is the most metabolically (sp?) active tissue we have. Then organs and bones. Fat is almost inert.

                  To simplify, put two people who weigh 150 lbs on the same caloric intake. One has 20% body fat, one has 30% body fat. Since body fat is inert, the person with the 20% body fat will lose faster. Since men in general have lower body fat, they are more efficient calorie burners even in a resting state. Now, if one of those people is female, the estrogen will help some of that body fat go to her breasts and ass.

                  Here's a question for those who think calories don't matter: why are all concentration camp victims skinny? Not a single one was starved and malnourished for years and came out saying, "I just couldn't lose!"
                  "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 magnolia1973 View Post
                    I guess the bottom line though is that it is what it is.

                    I mean, I am an otherwise healthy person. At 38, I have no medical issues, great energy, healthy skin and hair, I am fit enough to be fairly active- I can do push ups, squats, run a 5K at an easy pace. I almost never get sick- in the past 10 years I have had 2 bad colds and a stomach bug.

                    I mean, my body functions really well except for hanging on to excess fat.... which is mostly in my butt, thighs, arms and boobs. Eating Primal- when I lost the weight- it came all off from my midsection. I went from an over 39" waist to under 30" with hardly any off anywhere else.

                    It seems like men get fat in their midsections, and you seldom see men fat elsewhere unless they are just so obese.

                    I can see why hormones would shape where we store fat.... but is it that wise to mess with them?
                    I'd like to answer your last question. We mess with our hormones everytime we put something in our mouths. Did you know that Wild yams and sweet potatoes raise estrogen levels? Did you know that bitter gourd has been used for centruries in India as a natural insulin regulator? I'm NOT (oops) suggesting that you go to your doctor and ask for a testosterone patch, but understanding foods better will definitely help you get to your goal weight.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Leida View Post
                      Uhm, I need 150-200 g of protein to support muscular growth with heavy lifting at caloric def. Yeah, I do it on egg whites, whey isolate, tuna and meats. It can be done. It's not fun day in, day out.

                      There are weird tricks of satiation. I find a smoothie with 2 scoops whey (130 cal), a cup of cranberries (40 cal) and half a banana (50 cal) and 1/4 cup egg whites (60 cal) = ~ 300 cal) more satiating than 1 egg (80 cal) and 1 cup of egg whites (240 cal) = ~320 cal , despite similar caloric count.



                      Higher muscular mass on men, hormonal make-up and genetic propensity to store fat for women for childbirth-readiness reasons
                      Hi Leada,

                      That's kind of why I put average woman. If I were doing heavy lifting, no way would I restrict myself to 1200 cal/day, or eat only 100+ gms protein.

                      "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 BestBetter View Post
                        You have some good insight, and I generally enjoy reading your posts, but you have a tendency to throw out some wild accusations that aren't grounded in reality which unfortunately discredit a lot of the good stuff you have to contribute.

                        Hypothyroidism is not rare, first of all. You even said in one of your epic threads a few months back that the reason many people are likely suffering from worse health after switching to primal is that the massive amount of sugar and salt they were eating on their SAD was keeping their thyroid afloat, and with those gone their thyroid is tanking.
                        I'm speaking in a different context than you are. Hypothyroidism likely isn't all that uncommon, but the cases are mild. Think of it like allergies - lots of people are allergic to dust, dogs and mold. They're annoyances. However, every now and again you'll see someone born that is allergic to water, or to a brother or sister. It's happened. Severe cases of hypothyroidism that are going to make a woman who's maintenance calories should be 1800 plummet to the 900-1000 level is very rare. That's what I'm speaking to. If you should at 1800 kcal maintenance and hypothyroidism has you sitting at 1600 - a much more likely number - that's still doable. You'll probably be taking in a 20% caloric deficit as recommended by most, so that person would still lose weight, just more slowly.
                        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
                          Choco, here again is an excerpt from one of your posts from a few months ago. If eating 500 fewer calories while putting on fat made you say, WFT?! then I'm sure you can understand why millions of others have the same reaction. Maybe you've forgotten?

                          "Most of my calories were around 2,500. I was regularly consuming fat in the 150g/day range. My protein was about the same, and my carbs were about the same as what I eat now because while I didn't do large refeeds like I do now, I ate fruit every single day. Now, I stopped putting oil on my salad and use just vinegar, I started cooking things in stock instead of oil, I don't eat fruit on days I don't lift meaning off days are much lower carb now, and I'm averaging 500 calories/day LESS now even though I'm the same weight but have CONSIDERABLY more muscle. Basically, I should have a HIGHER maintenance calorie level NOW and I'm eating LESS, yet I'm getting fatter eating less calories. WTF?"

                          http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread56376.html
                          Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                          Simply put, you were probably doing it wrong.
                          As he said himself... Simply put, he was probably doing it wrong...
                          “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


                          • Originally posted by magnolia1973 View Post
                            That is what makes me want to crack you upside the head.


                            I weigh and measure foods. I get out the fucking tablespoon for my creamer. I measure the butter. I weigh the chicken. I track everything in Live Strong, even the 1/4 cup of measured blueberries and the 10 stalks of asparagus that go under my two LARGE eggs (tracked as large). I'm not alone.... as evidenced here.

                            I think one thing that maybe not all people have had to deal with is that some of us have been dieting since really young ages. Choco, I've been counting calories since I was 12. Journaling and measuring my food intake in hopes of losing weight. I guess you can call it yoyo dieting. I'd be interested to know the number of people who have had good success eating primal that have tried and failed more than 10 times on other diets. I'm willing to bet that about a third of women have tried to diet 10 or more times with very low caloric intakes.

                            I know I have read articles about how repetitive dieting- gaining and losing fat can make weightloss that much harder.

                            I guess for me, I don't know if it is worth it to lose more weight. For sure, I'll stay primal for life. But really at what point do you just say fuck it and eat like a normal (healthy, whole food eating) primal person and walk away from trying to eliminate one more otherwise healthy item that *might* be the silver bullet? And are we (meaning people who really restrict calories even on primal) just setting ourselves up to struggle more down the road?

                            That attitude- "Oh, you are just eating 2000 calories and added wrong" is what is frustrating. No, there is something else at play, but I have no clue what- because I feel great and am otherwise healthy. Just carry around excess fat.
                            It is a well-researched fact that people with substantial weight to lose underreport calories, and usually quite substantially. Let's say you're in the small minority and you are tracking absolutely perfectly. Then you have to deal with:

                            1.) The inaccuracies surrounding the caloric content of food. As mentioned previously, calories are not measured properly because how they are broken down in a bomb calorimeter does not reflect how they're broken down in the human body. Even if you're tracking absolutely perfectly, Fitday is not.

                            2.) The inaccuracies surrounding TDEE calculation. Most people overestimate their activity level. Going for a 2-3 mile walk three times a week is NOT 3 days of exercise. Going for a 2-3 mile walk three times a week, then going to the gym to lift heavy 3 days a week is 3 days of exercise. Also, some calorie calculations take bf% into effect, which very few of us know accurately. Not to mention the equations used - depending on method, approximations can vary by up to 10%. That right there could be your "deficit" that has just disappeared.

                            3.) The inaccuracies surrounding your own metabolism. Thyroid issues, insulin/leptin resistance, genetic conditions - you may be an outlier that does not fit into the "calorie calculators."

                            The fact is, if you're not losing "weight," then you are taking in more energy than your body needs. The only way to truly find what works is to be consistent. The most successful people eat the exact same handful of meals over and over again. Go buy 1 dozen eggs and a pint of 1% cottage cheese. Eat that each day for a week. See what happens to your weight. The next week, it your weight doesn't change, do 10 eggs and a pint of cheese. If that doesn't work, do 8 eggs and a pint of cottage cheese. It's the only real way to find your maintenance - eat the same damn thing every day and increase or decrease portions until you get the results you want. And then you have to hope it's sustainable.
                            Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
                              Choco's been drinking the Peat koolaid a bit. Don't worry after he investigates a bit further he should come to the conclusion that its bunk.
                              Have I? Are you tracking my food intake? Do you know what I'm eating today? I'm not tracking my food intake, so I'm curious how you got your insight into my diet.
                              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
                                Choco, here again is an excerpt from one of your posts from a few months ago. If eating 500 fewer calories while putting on fat made you say, WFT?! then I'm sure you can understand why millions of others have the same reaction. Maybe you've forgotten?

                                "Most of my calories were around 2,500. I was regularly consuming fat in the 150g/day range. My protein was about the same, and my carbs were about the same as what I eat now because while I didn't do large refeeds like I do now, I ate fruit every single day. Now, I stopped putting oil on my salad and use just vinegar, I started cooking things in stock instead of oil, I don't eat fruit on days I don't lift meaning off days are much lower carb now, and I'm averaging 500 calories/day LESS now even though I'm the same weight but have CONSIDERABLY more muscle. Basically, I should have a HIGHER maintenance calorie level NOW and I'm eating LESS, yet I'm getting fatter eating less calories. WTF?"

                                http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread56376.html
                                You're taking my own words out of context.

                                I did too much of a severe caloric deficit. That's true. I didn't lose "weight" despite dropping calories. And it made me put on fat, but in different ways.

                                Point #1: It was water retention. As soon as I ate more food for a couple days, I dropped about 5 lbs. The severe caloric deficit (around 3,000/week) made me hold water and upping the intake made me pee it all out. However, I've since gained about 8 lbs, so I have actually negated all the weight loss and then some since upping my calories significantly. Some of my gain was fat, but most was muscle as my benchpress went up 15 lbs in about 6 weeks and my pants still fit the same.

                                Point #2: You're mincing my cutting calories/gaining fat experience. This did not happen simultaneously. When I cut calories hard and then stopped, in moments of surplus, my body was greedy and put on more fat than it should. Doing slow cuts and mild refeeds didn't result in large amounts of fat storage when at a surplus as my body never felt starving. The large caloric deficit clearly made my body scared, so in brief periods of caloric surplus, it would partition a lot more excess calories to fat than what was desirable, leading to rapid fat gain. My weight has completely stabilized as I'm eating to satiety, and although you can't see my abdominals as well as I used to be able to, the increased energy, mood and better lifts have been worth it.

                                Footnotes: CI/CO still worked, and it proved that slow cuts are much healthier than fast cuts. Just as I've always assumed.
                                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X