Page 29 of 44 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 440

Thread: "Calories in / Calories Out" -- Please Stop the Madness page 29

  1. #281
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    798
    Shop Now
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamK View Post
    Also, I have a quick N=1 experiment that could solve this whole situation. Someone from Team CICO who is passionate that "a calorie is a calorie" should go on a calorie restricted, mostly liquid sucrose diet for 3 months. Exercise as much as you want. Keep calories "low." Do whatever magic you want. But make sure to consume mostly liquid sucrose - like 70% of calories.

    I'd bet you'd gain serious fat, even if you forced yourself to go to the gym AND starved yourself, because cals would be shunted into the fat tissue no matter what. So your BMR would plunge (you'd have no energy) and you'd start to catabolize muscle and organ tissue to meet the energy deficit instead of fat. but that's just my guess.
    Even with that kind of liquid sucrose load, if this experiment is both calorie restricted and allows exercise at will, so little of that energy would end up in adipose tissue. It doesn't take more than two minutes on Pubmed to learn that. Ever heard of glycogenesis?
    Endotoxins (under construction)


  2. #282
    Lumifer's Avatar
    Lumifer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamK View Post
    Also, I have a quick N=1 experiment that could solve this whole situation. Someone from Team CICO who is passionate that "a calorie is a calorie" should go on a calorie restricted, mostly liquid sucrose diet for 3 months. Exercise as much as you want. Keep calories "low." Do whatever magic you want. But make sure to consume mostly liquid sucrose - like 70% of calories.
    I did this a couple of years ago when I was in a ... less-educated stage :-)

    The way it worked, I spent, I think, between a month and half and two months on a *very* restricted diet. All I could eat, erm, drink, was freshly squeezed juices. Also some plain water, a bit of salt, and some vitamin supplements. That's it. Nothing else. And the amount of juices was minimal, basically just enough glucose to keep the brain functional. As a practical matter, the juices were mostly carrot and apple, but with some variety thrown in, too.

    That's pretty much what Adam talks about -- predominantly liquid sugar and not much of anything else, calorie-restricted.

    The result of this n=1 was that I lost around 8-10 lbs (mostly fat, by visual examination)

    Clearly, this is very much a crash diet, not a "way of eating" and not sustainable for long term. However insofar Adam wants a real-life test, here it was.
    Last edited by Lumifer; 04-05-2013 at 01:41 PM.

  3. #283
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,169
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    68 ounces of Coca-Cola? How about a more reasonable 2,250 kCal/day isocaloric diet made up of 70% Coca~Cola, which would be in line with the thought experiment (tm) he's actually proposing? Put another group on a Primal diet of the same calorie intake and watch for any differences between the two groups. What do you think would happen? Identical changes in body composition? That's the "CICO" that we're arguing against (again, NOT the law of thermodynamics, which nobody but looneys dispute).
    You are discussing body composition? Well, that's another question that implicates exercise and macros among other things! Stupid me, I thought this discussion was about CICO, somebody must have moved the goal post here...

  4. #284
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorbag View Post
    You are discussing body composition? Well, that's another question that implicates exercise and macros among other things! Stupid me, I thought this discussion was about CICO, somebody must have moved the goal post here...
    Fine. Who do you think would weigh more? Do we not really mean "lose fat" when we talk about strategies to lose weight? Am I the only one who jumps to that fargone conclusion?
    Last edited by RichMahogany; 04-05-2013 at 01:04 PM.

  5. #285
    AdamK's Avatar
    AdamK is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    california
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumifer View Post
    I did this a couple of years ago when I was in a ... less-educated stage :-)

    The way it worked, I spent, I think, between a month and half and two month on a *very* restricted diet. All I could eat, erm, drink, was freshly squeezed juices. Also some plain water, a bit of salt, and some vitamin supplements. That's it. Nothing else. And the amount of juices was minimal, basically just enough glucose to keep the brain functional. As a practical matter, the juices were mostly carrot and apple, but with some variety thrown in, too.

    That's pretty much what Adam talks about -- predominantly liquid sugar and not much of anything else, calorie-restricted.

    The result of this n=1 was that I lost around 8-10 lbs (mostly fat, by visual examination)

    Clearly, this is very much a crash diet, not a "way of eating" and not sustainable for long term. However insofar Adam wants a real-life test, here it was.
    Interesting stuff, Lum.

    Nevertheless, I'd like to see it done with liquid sucrose, not some glucose here (carrot) and fructose there (apple), but really hammer it with both the fructose and glucose shizzle at once. Go for the most insulinogenic stuff possible. And maybe even take a few doses of insulin on top of everything (since insulin doesn't matter, why not, right?)

    Thing about your n=1... if you were burning fat during that period, you were effectively "eating" fat from your body. So setting this crap up is harder than it looks. like a 900 kcal/day diet of pure sugar wouldn't actually be a 100% all sugar diet, since you'd make up some of the deficit with other parts of you (fat/muscle/organs/etc).

    in any event, techincalities aside... Gor, if you've got a slush fund, we need to get someone to set this up!

    Do the Dew!

  6. #286
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,169
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Fine. Who do you think would weigh more?
    The person that gain more muscle, except this will not happen in a steady state calorie deficit, without zigzagging between a calorie surplus above maintenance and a calorie deficit, so you can forget about that!

  7. #287
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorbag View Post
    The person that gain more muscle, except this will not happen in a steady state calorie deficit, without zigzagging between a calorie surplus above maintenance and a calorie deficit, so you can forget about that!
    You haven't answered the question, sir. Who loses more weight, the isocaloric 70% of calories from coca-cola group or the isocaloric Primal diet group?

  8. #288
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    798
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamK View Post
    Nevertheless, I'd like to see it done with liquid sucrose, not some glucose here (carrot) and fructose there (apple), but really hammer it with both the fructose and glucose shizzle at once. Go for the most insulinogenic stuff possible.
    Pure glucose would be more insulinogenic than sucrose.
    Endotoxins (under construction)


  9. #289
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamK View Post
    Interesting stuff, Lum.

    Nevertheless, I'd like to see it done with liquid sucrose, not some glucose here (carrot) and fructose there (apple), but really hammer it with both the fructose and glucose shizzle at once. Go for the most insulinogenic stuff possible. And maybe even take a few doses of insulin on top of everything (since insulin doesn't matter, why not, right?)

    Thing about your n=1... if you were burning fat during that period, you were effectively "eating" fat from your body. So setting this crap up is harder than it looks. like a 900 kcal/day diet of pure sugar wouldn't actually be a 100% all sugar diet, since you'd make up some of the deficit with other parts of you (fat/muscle/organs/etc).

    in any event, techincalities aside... Gor, if you've got a slush fund, we need to get someone to set this up!

    Do the Dew!
    Fruitarians eat this way every day. Upwards of 1000g of sucrose a day. They are the leanest group of people around.

    Rich, i would guess on a diet of mostly sugar and caffeine that they would weigh less. There would be muh more fat AND muscle loss.

  10. #290
    Lumifer's Avatar
    Lumifer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamK View Post
    ...but really hammer it with both the fructose and glucose shizzle at once. Go for the most insulinogenic stuff possible.
    Um. You do know that fructose is not insulinogenic, right? Glucose (and protein) are insulinogenic, fructose (and fat) are not.

    Why don't you get your basic biochemistry straight before asking for million-dollar studies? :-/

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamK View Post
    Thing about your n=1... if you were burning fat during that period, you were effectively "eating" fat from your body.
    Yep -- and didn't you say it was impossible and not going to happen? Ah, yes, you did:

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamK View Post
    I'd bet you'd gain serious fat, even if you forced yourself to go to the gym AND starved yourself, because cals would be shunted into the fat tissue no matter what.
    You lost your bet.

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamK View Post
    So setting this crap up is harder than it looks. like a 900 kcal/day diet of pure sugar wouldn't actually be a 100% all sugar diet, since you'd make up some of the deficit with other parts of you (fat/muscle/organs/etc).
    Ahem. When you lose weight, you necessarily "make up some of the deficit with other parts of you" -- that's what losing weight is.

    May I suggest again some basic biochemistry awareness?

Page 29 of 44 FirstFirst ... 19272829303139 ... 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
  •