Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 86

Thread: Storing fat WITHOUT insulin - ASP page 3

  1. #21
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,576
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    In order to lose weight, you have to consume less energy than you expend. It isn't an oversimplification. People make things too complicated to try and come up with excuses for their actions. Are you not losing weight? You're probably just eating too much and not moving around enough. It really is that easy.
    What? - Are you insinuating that we are eating too much??? All those millions of fat people can’t all be wrong, can they? It’s the insulin – the metabolic syndrome! Obesity is contagious like cholera or typhoid fever...

  2. #22
    Black Timber's Avatar
    Black Timber is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    In order to lose weight, you have to consume less energy than you expend. It isn't an oversimplification. People make things too complicated to try and come up with excuses for their actions. Are you not losing weight? You're probably just eating too much and not moving around enough. It really is that easy.
    Does a dieters metabolism tend to slow down when they don't eat enough?
    Some of you may die, but that is a risk I'm willing to take.

  3. #23
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,942
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    In order to lose weight, you have to consume less energy than you expend. It isn't an oversimplification. People make things too complicated to try and come up with excuses for their actions. Are you not losing weight? You're probably just eating too much and not moving around enough. It really is that easy.
    Revisit the causality of obesity « The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D. The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Attia
    Look at the picture, below, of the crowded room. Let’s explain what’s going on this room in terms of thermodynamics. The First Law would say something like this: The change in the number of people in the room must be equal to the difference between the number of people entering the room and the number of people leaving the room. For example, if the room “gains” 10 people, we can safely conclude that 10 more people entered the room than left it (e.g,. 15 versus 5, or 197 versus 187).

    [Photo of a crowded room]

    So here’s the million dollar question: Why is the room packed? Let me be more specific, why are there 78 people in the room? The “calories-in-minus-calories-out-model” says, “because 78 more people entered the room than left the room.” I say, sure, that’s true, but it doesn’t tell me WHY? I want to know WHY there are 78 people in the room (or, more specifically, WHY did 78 more people enter the room than leave the room)? Was it because there was a very compelling speaker in the room? Was it because they were giving away free food in room? Was it because it was raining outside and folks wanted to stay dry?"

  4. #24
    itchy166's Avatar
    itchy166 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    291
    I love how all the arm-chair experts pretend that they know EXACTLY the reason for fat-loss and fat-gain, and KNOW without a doubt that they are correct for every person - all the time. CI/CO is a horribly simple oversimplification. If you really had all the answers, why aren't you tapping into the billion dollar weight-loss industry instead of hanging out in a chat-room?

    I keep upping my food intake, stay in ketosis as much as I can (because I FEEL better when I do), IF when I have to, and continue to lose weight. Yesterday I ate 3328 calories. This is typical for me since going Paleo, and I am down 16lbs in 65 days. Actually, I've increased calories from the 3000-3100 range to the 3200-3300 range over the last week. A week that I've dropped another 2lbs.

    I understand that my results are not typical, but no, CI/CO doesn't explain my experience at all. (Actually, if CI/CO worked for me, i should be UP weight over the last 9 weeks, as I've actually upped food intake drastically over this period).

    CI/CO is a good starting point for many people I agree wholeheartedly, but it is not the whole story by any means.
    "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

  5. #25
    Pam916's Avatar
    Pam916 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    36
    Very interesting thread. I do think we tend to make things overcomplicated and mostly because people want an easy answer.
    It took a while to gain the weight, it is going to take time to lose the weight. We get bored with non-results.
    I am fighing to lose weight but have chosen PB for the health benefits overall. I tend to eat too little and then binge. However, since starting this way of eating, I am full more often then not and I eat more now then I have in years! I have lost a little, but feel better overall.
    It IS calories in vs/ calories out. You are either losing fat or gaining muscle - I believe it is near impossible to do both because it takes a surplus of calories to gain muscle and a defecit to lose fat.

    There is no way around science. No quick fix. No gimmicks.

  6. #26
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Timber View Post
    Does a dieters metabolism tend to slow down when they don't eat enough?
    Yes, when a dieter comes close to starvation i.e. when he does not have enough bodyfat to supply the bodys need for energy fast enough! People with enough bodyfat can forget about the "starvation mode" - or metabolic slow down...

  7. #27
    itchy166's Avatar
    itchy166 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by Pam916 View Post
    Very interesting thread. I do think we tend to make things overcomplicated and mostly because people want an easy answer.
    It took a while to gain the weight, it is going to take time to lose the weight. We get bored with non-results.
    I am fighing to lose weight but have chosen PB for the health benefits overall. I tend to eat too little and then binge. However, since starting this way of eating, I am full more often then not and I eat more now then I have in years! I have lost a little, but feel better overall.
    It IS calories in vs/ calories out. You are either losing fat or gaining muscle - I believe it is near impossible to do both because it takes a surplus of calories to gain muscle and a defecit to lose fat.

    There is no way around science. No quick fix. No gimmicks.

    My ketone stix measure ketones in my urine. Ketones can be used by the body as fuel, but some of the ketones that my body manufactures are pee'd out of my body. I'm not going AROUND science, I am using it to my advantage. CI=CO might be correct for me sure, but I don't need to burn the calories, I expel them instead.
    "It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan

  8. #28
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,942
    Quote Originally Posted by itchy166 View Post
    I keep upping my food intake, stay in ketosis as much as I can (because I FEEL better when I do), IF when I have to, and continue to lose weight. Yesterday I ate 3328 calories. This is typical for me since going Paleo, and I am down 16lbs in 65 days. Actually, I've increased calories from the 3000-3100 range to the 3200-3300 range over the last week. A week that I've dropped another 2lbs.
    OMG DEPENDENT VARIABLES!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS

    Quote Originally Posted by itchy166 View Post
    I understand that my results are not typical, but no, CI/CO doesn't explain my experience at all. (Actually, if CI/CO worked for me, i should be UP weight over the last 9 weeks, as I've actually upped food intake drastically over this period).

    CI/CO is a good starting point for many people I agree wholeheartedly, but it is not the whole story by any means.
    It's not whether you're expending more than your taking in that's interesting. If you're losing weight (other than water weight), you are. It's the question of why that's actually interesting/worth discussing.

    More gold from P. Attia:
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Attia
    Let me be as crystal clear as possible, lest anyone feel the need to accuse me of suggesting the Earth is flat. The First Law of Thermodynamics is not being violated by anything I am about to explain, including the Alternative Hypothesis
    Do calories matter? « The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D. The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D.

  9. #29
    j3nn's Avatar
    j3nn is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY
    Posts
    3,306
    Quote Originally Posted by itchy166 View Post
    I understand that my results are not typical, but no, CI/CO doesn't explain my experience at all. (Actually, if CI/CO worked for me, i should be UP weight over the last 9 weeks, as I've actually upped food intake drastically over this period).
    You're discounting the thermal effects of certain foods. As an example: steak may contain 500 calories if burned to char, but you are unlikely absorbing 500 calories. Protein takes more energy to digest than fat or heavily processed foods, like white flour. If you consume 500 calories of white flour, you'll absorb most of it. Its more predictable. Now, to further complicate things, the closer the steak mentioned above is to raw when consumed, the less you will absorb. A hard-boiled egg will be absorbed more than a runny-yolk egg even though a large egg is capable of producing 70 calories of energy. There are hundreds, if not thousands of daily processes that all affect your actual burn rate. So while you are consuming x amount of calories on the surface, are you really metabolizing them? No. Unlikely. This is why so many people on Atkins can eat a pound of bacon and 12 servings of roast beef for lunch ( in the beginning); they're not metabolizing nearly as many calories as they're actually swallowing. Calorie counts are literal. They reflect every potential calorie a food contains but they do not have the millions of caveats alongside the numbers because theres so, so many. How many ways you prepare an egg? That's how many times the actual absorption changes, plus, the state of your individual digestion. People with comprised digestion aren't getting as many nutrients or calories from the same egg. It is still CICO. The variables are customizable and conditional. If you choose to use the higher thermal effects of certain foods as a hack to eat more, you have to understand why it works like this and not attribute it to some mystical force that allows for more food with the same energy expenditure.
    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

  10. #30
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,576
    Quote Originally Posted by itchy166 View Post
    I love how all the arm-chair experts pretend that they know EXACTLY the reason for fat-loss and fat-gain, and KNOW without a doubt that they are correct for every person - all the time. CI/CO is a horribly simple oversimplification. If you really had all the answers, why aren't you tapping into the billion dollar weight-loss industry instead of hanging out in a chat-room?
    CICO is of course a simplification compared to reality, as all science, and calories is anyway only a measurement of energy in food, but it helps in making a plan for weight loss! Try this for your next weight loss; First you make a diet setup for everything that you will be eating for a week to maintain your weight - not losing and not gaining! Then you take out 20% of the food from your diet measured in calories and see what happens for the next four weeks or so, and very probably you will lose weight. When stalling you subtract another 10 % of your food measured in calories etc. And so you continue until reaching your ideal weight! Yes, it’s really that simple, but then comes other things into the lives of the dieters; distractions, temptations, travelling, fear of losing lean mass etc. that mess up the original plan...

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •