[QUOTE=Drumroll;1148860]And why does the cake make you feel hungrier than the steak?
Oh, it's that tricky bastard insulin coming in to confound the pure calories in, calories out theory![/QUOTE]
Yeah, and that would require thinking. Oh shit. :(
Hell I can eat a whole 2000 calorie pizza and be hungry 3hrs later. One explanation is that the body shaves off 20% FIRST and sends that right to fat (triggered by insulin in the white dough). You don't get a say in the matter. So you have 80% of the calories left to use, but almost no nutrients in any of them. Anyhow after the sugar crash you feel like dog poop and want to eat more for more cheap energy...also you want to eat more because you never got your nutrients and your body is confused how it got full yet is still starving, and so on and so forth.
Thus "calories in / calories out" isn't very useful in explaining the "pizza/cake endless chow-down" scenario.
It isn't very useful in explaining a lot of scenarios.
[QUOTE=RichMahogany;1148892]Gain or loss of mass is [I]defined [/I]as the calorie surplus or deficit consumed. But they're dependent variables. The type of calories you eat affects the amount of calories you expend. And the type of expenditure affects the amount you eat. And the type of calories you eat affects the amount you eat (as Choco noted above). They're complex, interrelated figures that are regulated by mechanisms beyond our control and precise understanding.
So the prescription for weight loss isn't so simple as "eat less, move more." It's eat smarter, move smarter.[/QUOTE]
^ Smart person award April 2013.
This thread is embarrassing.
[QUOTE=RichMahogany;1148979]Here's Peter Attia's statement of the Alternative Hypothesis: "Obesity is a growth disorder just like any other growth disorder. Specifically, obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation. Fat accumulation is determined not by the balance of calories consumed and expended but by the effect of specific nutrients on the hormonal regulation of fat metabolism. Obesity is a condition where the body prioritizes the storage of fat rather than the utilization of fat."[/QUOTE]
Peter is smart. His new organization to TEST some of the same theories I posted above is about the most exciting thing happening in nutrition. What else is happening? Everyone else seems to be barking up the wrong tree.
Plus he has some cool slides, in this one if you invert the change in the American diet since the 1960s, it becomes primal. Again proving my theory "do exactly opposite of what the Americans are doing". :)
[QUOTE=Gorbag;1149059]Oh, the minute details again, LOL! Well, it also [I][U]dictates[/U] it [/I][/QUOTE]
It's not a minute detail though, calories in calories out doesn't dictate anything.
This cool CICO acronym you guys are using only shows outcome, not WHY. The lazy brains are assuming "move more eat less" [B]forces[/B] CICO to decrease fat. But it doesn't. As we've seen with all the crazed Americans running themselves senseless, half-starving, and not getting anywhere. There are other causes at work here.
Hence why I said in post #1 it would be nice if people stopped saying CICO trying to act smart.
Because it isn't smart.
[QUOTE=AdamK;1149077]Hey CICO fans. There are reason why I and so many others are so passionate about the "Alternative Hypothesis." [/QUOTE]
^ A second "smart-person award" has been earned. :)
The fact that your n=1 has failed to help hundreds of millions of Americans gain control over their weight problems is hardly any sort of "proof" that it works for any more than a handful.
All diets have a pitiful success rate long term. Long term low carb success stories are just as rare as long term low fat dieters. Just look at the overweight low carb gurus on the internet.
Sorry for my catch-up posts, I'm in a different time zone than most of you. But I'm proud to say I made it thru all 25pgs. It was painful but there were actually a few moments of intelligent discussion.
I'd like to point out to the CICO fanatics who keep saying "if you starve yourself you will lose weight", that you are kinda wrong. There was that one study with some obese rats (poor guys always get screwed) who they starved, and the rats died FAT! Link anyone? There are 6mo old babies now who are obese! Are you going to say the starving rat is still eating too much? Are you going to say the obese baby needs to work out more?
Friday night, peace out.
I'd like to point out to the CICO fanatics who keep saying "if you starve yourself you will lose weight", that you are kinda wrong. There was that one study with some obese rats (poor guys always get screwed) who they starved, and the rats died FAT![/QUOTE]
People die of nutrient deficiencies all the time. Half of modern diseases are caused by deficiencies in various vitamins and minerals. What's your point?
[QUOTE=ChocoTaco369;1149704]People die of nutrient deficiencies all the time. Half of modern diseases are caused by deficiencies in various vitamins and minerals. What's your point?[/QUOTE]
You really don't see how obese rats dying of starvation is a refutation of the CICO strategy of weight loss?