Page 48 of 69 FirstFirst ... 38464748495058 ... LastLast
Results 471 to 480 of 686

Thread: The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS" page 48

  1. #471
    Lawyerchick12's Avatar
    Lawyerchick12 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    360
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by BestBetter View Post
    I don't disagree that for SOME people, weight loss is really just about calorie restriction. Especially for the men.

    However, I STRONLY disagree that people with depressed metabolisms are an exception, and i don't know where the 2% came from, but if CICO was as clear-cut for 98% of the population, this thread wouldn't exist.

    If calorie restriction didn't lead to depressed metabolisms, then Lyle McDonald would not need to be pushing calorie-cycling diets. The fact that our bodies automatically reduce the CO part when we reduce the CI part means that fat loss is not something we are designed to do happily, our bodies will fight it, and we have to resort to trickery to prevent this from happening.

    In fact, if CICO was so simple for 98% of people, millions of diet books on the market wouldn't exist, low-carb probably would never have become such a huge deal, because all people would have to do is cut back on calories and viola! Fat loss. We all know it doesn't happen this way for MANY people, and that's why some people have decided that CICO is bunk. Instead of saying 'Get with the program, all 98% of you, just cut your damn calories!' i think we should focus on why calorie restriction DOESN'T work for so many people, and what we can do to fix the CO part, since that's what's gumming up the works.

    BTW, isn't it past your bedtime?
    Your logic and subsequent deduction is cruxed on so many faulty and flawed assumptions that I do not have the time to even enumerate.

    But no...just no.
    But

  2. #472
    NDF's Avatar
    NDF
    NDF is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawyerchick12 View Post
    I kind of agree and disagree with some points you made. Unless there IS sound data to suggest the whole reverse dieting, I call hog wash on it as well because like you, I tried the whole increase your calories to level off your metabolism and like you, I continuously gained weight.
    There is sound data on it. Reverse dieting is something used in clinical recovery for anorexics. There are plenty of people (men and women) who haven successfully restored metabolic function this way. The problem is that if you don't do it slowly and stick with it for longer than a few weeks, it won't work. You will see the scale go up initially but it does go back down. There have been cases of people who start reverse dieting and gain 10lbs in a few weeks by increasing their calories by a few hundred calories but a few months later are eating almost 1000 calories more (this of course depends on what the intake was they started at) and are losing or maintaining.

    I am a 5'4" woman. I was "maintaining" on 1700 calories at 130lbs while exercising over 7hrs a week. I stopped exercising and started reverse dieting. At one point my weight was nearing 140lbs, but I kept at it. My weight has returned to 130lbs and I know maintain on 2300 calories and don't exercise at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by paleo-bunny View Post
    I have to agree with this. You've clearly forced your metabolism into a downwards spiral through conventional calorie counting, Leida.

    That is not primal.
    Agreed. Lieda, your posts are painful to read. You need to stop dieting and worry about your weigh and calories and all that crap and just live your life for a while(preferably longer that a week or two).

  3. #473
    BestBetter's Avatar
    BestBetter is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NY / Italy
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Glockin Grok View Post
    I think a big reason that low carb and primal work so well is the fix damaged metabolisms. They fix insulin and leptin resistance thus increasing the CO side of the equation.
    I disagree with this. I never had insulin resistance, and my metabolism has not improved at all after a year of paleo low fat/higher fat eating. My body temperature is still way too low, and after switching to paleo, my already lowish blood pressure is actually now officially too low and causes me problems.

    I think that the main reason people have success with paleo/primal (aside from the general health benefits of eliminating processed junk) is that eating high protein supports muscle growth, and good quality saturated fat keeps blood sugar relatively stable; therefore people usually aren't super hungry a couple hours after eating and don't need to snack all day long in response to low blood sugar hunger.

  4. #474
    BestBetter's Avatar
    BestBetter is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NY / Italy
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawyerchick12 View Post
    and just how tall are you? 125 is hardly something that would be considered grossly overweight. If you can eat whatever you want and maintain at 125 that seems like a good thing. You also sound pear shaped, which would explain why you look emaciated up top and still look "fat'. I am an hourglass and the twins and "assets" are the last places for weight to come out of.

    At 125 I would had tiny waist, flat abs but was still boobabious and bootylicious..lol, I am now 10-15 lbs away from that but still have a flat stomach. So body shape also determines where you store fat but at 125 lbs, I would hardly complain.
    I'm 5'4. See, the thing is that on paper, 125 sounds pretty awesome, and for someone with your type of body, it probably is. However, I am pear-shaped, and the excess fat isn't where it should be; it's ALL in my stomach and thighs. So if you saw me in a bathing suit, even though I'm now around 116, I actually seem to be something more like 135-140 because of the disproportiate way the fat is arranged. If i had something that was close to a flat stomach, the scale could say 150 and I'd be fine with it, those numbers don't mean anything.

  5. #475
    Leida's Avatar
    Leida is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,800
    Word for word, BestBetter! Wow, are you my mysteriously lost twin sister????
    My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
    When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

  6. #476
    BestBetter's Avatar
    BestBetter is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NY / Italy
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawyerchick12 View Post
    Your logic and subsequent deduction is cruxed on so many faulty and flawed assumptions that I do not have the time to even enumerate.

    But no...just no.
    But
    You can disagree with whatever you like, and if you have a reasonable argument or at least some proof, i'm all ears. This style of refuting someone's statement though is useless and pretty lame. It doesn't further any discussion, so why bother?

  7. #477
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by JoanieL View Post
    Nah, even the grain pushers admit that low carb is a faster weight loss action given equal number of calories, than is high carb/low fat.

    I'd truly like to see how what some of the young men in this thread would look like if they had to eat only 1200 cal/day to maintain a healthy weight.

    I'm also wondering if the 2% is a real number or is it being used for hyperbole.
    That is not true. There is absolutely, positively no metabolic advantage to a low-carb diet. The only reason why low-carbers think this is because fat and protein keeps you fuller longer, so they aren't snacking and naturally eating a whole lot less calories. In every single controlled study ever done where meals were prepared for the people, low-carbers lost the exact same weight as the other groups. Example:

    Ketogenic Low-Carbohydrate Diets have no Metabolic Advantage over Nonketogenic Low-carbohydrate diets | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

    If you are having better success eating low-carb, it's solely because it better controls your hunger and keeps your hand out of the snack drawer. The "grain pushers" do not admit this because it's not true. You made that up.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  8. #478
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingofturtles View Post
    1) Why is chicken breast in the perceived "bad calorie" section of that example?
    It's not. I just used it as an example because it's very low fat. Chicken breast is the CW-wonder meat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kingofturtles View Post
    2) More good news: Study after study confirm that we can achieve what Mark calls “effortless weight loss” by eating more of these SANE Primal foods. For example, in all of the studies that follow, everyone ate the exact same quantity of calories, but one group’s calories were of much higher quality (aka more Primal, more SANE):
    That's all well and good, but there are no details of the "study."

    1.) Were the meals prepared for the candidates? Or were they just trusted to adhere to an 1,800 calorie diet where they had to track their own calories? Studies show that most people don't accurately measure their food intake.

    2.) Of course high quality whole foods are going to have a satiety advantage over processed foods that instantize in our bodies and leave us hungry an hour later. But that doesn't mean those calories make you fatter. Were the people fed poor quality calories snacking between meals while the people that were fed high quality calories were not?

    3.) What is the macronutrient breakdown of the meals? If one group is fed a low protein diet and the other a high protein diet, the differences in body composition are going to be astounding. A high protein diet on a caloric deficit is going to yield much greater weight loss from adipose tissue versus a low protein diet. There is no reference to macros at all. Macros must be held exactly same same or this study is completely discredited.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  9. #479
    magnolia1973's Avatar
    magnolia1973 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,893
    I'm 5'4. See, the thing is that on paper, 125 sounds pretty awesome, and for someone with your type of body, it probably is. However, I am pear-shaped, and the excess fat isn't where it should be; it's ALL in my stomach and thighs. So if you saw me in a bathing suit, even though I'm now around 116, I actually seem to be something more like 135-140 because of the disproportiate way the fat is arranged. If i had something that was close to a flat stomach, the scale could say 150 and I'd be fine with it, those numbers don't mean anything.
    Don't attack me for this.... but have you considered Lipo? I feel like - you weigh 116.... you can't spot lose fat on your thighs and tummy.

    I mean, I have a lot to lose, but if I was at a healthy weight and struggling to get the last fat off, I'd consider just getting it sucked out, lol. I hate to say it, but your body is probably just going to hang onto that fat until it has no choice. Women weren't meant to be lean, and mother nature can be a bitch about fat distribution (I have freakishly flabby arms- seriously- nice hourglass, I'll take the powerful legs that mean big thighs but I have seen slimmer arms on 300lb women and it ain't muscle.

  10. #480
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by NDF View Post
    I am a 5'4" woman. I was "maintaining" on 1700 calories at 130lbs while exercising over 7hrs a week. I stopped exercising and started reverse dieting. At one point my weight was nearing 140lbs, but I kept at it. My weight has returned to 130lbs and I know maintain on 2300 calories and don't exercise at all.
    This is what I'm trying to do as well. I'm eating a lot more food than I used to and I have gained about 7 lbs. Some of it is clearly fat as my solid 4 pack as faded into a poor 2 pack (I'm guessing I've added 1-2% bodyfat), but my lifts have gone up through the roof and my clothes mostly fit the same. I'm just going to keep eating and not tracking and see where it takes me for the foreseeable future. The summer's almost over anyway, so I really don't care.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

Page 48 of 69 FirstFirst ... 38464748495058 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •