Page 66 of 69 FirstFirst ... 16566465666768 ... LastLast
Results 651 to 660 of 686

Thread: The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS" page 66

  1. #651
    The Rebooted Body's Avatar
    The Rebooted Body is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    182
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote 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.

  2. #652
    The Rebooted Body's Avatar
    The Rebooted Body is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    182
    Quote 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.

  3. #653
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote 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.

  4. #654
    StephenHLi's Avatar
    StephenHLi is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Framingham, MA
    Posts
    179
    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.

  5. #655
    murf73's Avatar
    murf73 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    122
    Quote 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!

  6. #656
    UTfootball747's Avatar
    UTfootball747 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    77
    Quote 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?

  7. #657
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  8. #658
    UTfootball747's Avatar
    UTfootball747 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    77
    Quote 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 at 12:32 PM.

  9. #659
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote 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.


    Quote 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.

  10. #660
    eKatherine's Avatar
    eKatherine is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    5,413
    "‘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

Page 66 of 69 FirstFirst ... 16566465666768 ... 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
  •