Page 67 of 69 FirstFirst ... 17576566676869 LastLast
Results 661 to 670 of 686

Thread: The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS" page 67

  1. #661
    Graycat's Avatar
    Graycat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,933
    Primal Fuel
    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.

    17 Reasons You’re Not Losing Weight | Mark's Daily Apple



    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.
    Choco, if what you are saying about cardio and CICO was true for everyone, I should have melted away and disappeared by now.
    I have been doing moderate to heavy cardio with low calories (1300 - 1500 - seriously!) for a year and my weight has not budged at all.
    It's a little early to tell, but since Monday I've cut back on cardio significantly, been lifting weights while still walking and moving around a lot and eating a little more. What do you know, my jeans that were pretty tight on me only a week ago are getting loose on me.
    I agree with you that calories matter but a substantial calorie deficit could be just as counter-productive as a big surplus.
    And basically, it's not the same for everyone as you seem to insist in almost every post you write.

  2. #662
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Account closed
    Posts
    1,502

  3. #663
    UTfootball747's Avatar
    UTfootball747 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    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.



    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.
    ...right. So when I say "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"--why challenge that observation?

  4. #664
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,926
    People that claim that they cannot lose weight in a calorie deficit and have enough body fat to spare, could try a 100 % calorie deficit (=fasting!) for a month or so, and I can guarantee that they will lose plenty of weight! Scientific studies have shown that most people are messing up their measuring by underestimating their calorie intake, on an average of 35 %, and overestimating their activities by around the same…

  5. #665
    john_e_turner_ii's Avatar
    john_e_turner_ii is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Flower Mound, Texas
    Posts
    2,092
    There have been so many other threads with this same argument over my three years in the forums. There's no point to it, because it can't be "proven". Confirmation bias at it's best. I can tell you all day long that you are eating too much, and that's why you haven't lost fat, but you won't believe me because you want to hear that you can eat unlimited amounts of food as long as it's "healthy".

    Find out what works for yourself. Some of us restrict calories and have great success. I have also seen a lot of success stories on those that are eating 4-5k calories, but keep it low carb and extreme high fat. It didn't work for me, so I tried something else.

    I will say however, that many people that say they are only eating 1500 calories a day are greatly underestimating based on my experience. When I really sit down with someone and add up what they eat, it's most often 500-800 calories over what they think they are eating. Sometimes it's double the calories when you factor in all the snacks, sauces, dressings, oils, etc.

    The main mistake is to keep doing the same thing over the longterm and expecting a different result. Graycat is a good example of that. Kept doing cardio like crazy over an entire year? If it didn't work after 6-8 weeks at most, then re-evaluate. Sticking to a failed plan makes no sense. Graycat is now finding that out. Live and learn.

  6. #666
    Graycat's Avatar
    Graycat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,933
    Quote Originally Posted by john_e_turner_ii View Post
    I will say however, that many people that say they are only eating 1500 calories a day are greatly underestimating based on my experience. When I really sit down with someone and add up what they eat, it's most often 500-800 calories over what they think they are eating. Sometimes it's double the calories when you factor in all the snacks, sauces, dressings, oils, etc.

    The main mistake is to keep doing the same thing over the longterm and expecting a different result. Graycat is a good example of that. Kept doing cardio like crazy over an entire year? If it didn't work after 6-8 weeks at most, then re-evaluate. Sticking to a failed plan makes no sense. Graycat is now finding that out. Live and learn.
    Yes, I know that many people tend to under report their calorie intake. But when my meals for the entire day have been a 1/3 cup of coconut milk hot chocolate and only a large (from a petite woman's point of view) dinner later on, chances are I haven't eaten 2500 - 3000 calories. Yes, there are no absolutes when logging food and calories. It's a rough estimate at best, but I assure you I was in quite a bit caloric deficit for a while.
    As far as cardio goes, I didn't continue doing it for weight loss benefits. Yeah, I know the definition of insanity, lol. It was simply (and still is) a fun activity.
    So many discussions and arguments about calories and carbs, and not just here over something that could be summed up in one sentence. Do what works for you.

  7. #667
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Finnegans Wake View Post
    Has been. He hangs out with Gary Taubes, so they won't read what he says no matter how logical.

  8. #668
    YogaBare's Avatar
    YogaBare is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    . . .
    Posts
    4,540
    Has anyone here read the "Women who eat a tonne without gaining" thread? Could be interesting for you.
    "I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.

    In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."

    - Ray Peat

  9. #669
    john_e_turner_ii's Avatar
    john_e_turner_ii is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Flower Mound, Texas
    Posts
    2,092
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Has been. He hangs out with Gary Taubes, so they won't read what he says no matter how logical.
    Right. That's everyone. Most of us won't read or consider anything that goes against our beliefs regardless of how "logical" it is. This not only applies to diet, but science, politics, etc. I could show you a 5-year study that concludes distinctly that caloric reduction is the means for consistent fat loss. If you are against the idea of CICO, then you would find every way to discount and discredit that study. If you believe CICO is generally true, then you would use that study as proof to support your belief.

  10. #670
    BestBetter's Avatar
    BestBetter is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    NY / Italy
    Posts
    1,210
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by Graycat View Post
    Choco, if what you are saying about cardio and CICO was true for everyone, I should have melted away and disappeared by now.
    I have been doing moderate to heavy cardio with low calories (1300 - 1500 - seriously!) for a year and my weight has not budged at all.
    It's not that CICO isn't true, it's that you are able to control the calories in part, but not the calories out part.

    Sure, you're doing cardio, but if you are eating at a deficit chronically, your body will decrease its metabolism. At first, in ways that you likely won't even be able to detect...hair and nails may not grow as fast or strong, body temperature may reduce by tenths of a degree, heart rate might slow down a little, autophagy might be reduced, etc...the longer you restrict, the more processes get downregulated until you end up like I did, with a body temp in the 96s, low BP and heart rate, hair falling out by the handful.

    Calories out is not a static thing. It is constantly changing depending on input, a big piece of which is how many calories you consume. That's why a popular method of dieting calls for eating at a defecit for a few days, then at a slight surplus; to keep the body from registering the deficit and downregulating metabolism in reaction.

    I think the whole confusion about whether CICO is real has to do with people cutting calories and not seeing results...without realizing that they've controled CI but they can't really control CO.

Posting Permissions

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