Page 32 of 44 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 440

Thread: "Calories in / Calories Out" -- Please Stop the Madness page 32

  1. #311
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,414
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by Zach View Post
    Can we change the Coca-cola to just table sugar? I think the caffeine and HFCS would effect results too much. If it was Coca-cola with HFCS then yes i think they would start gaining fat and continue to lose muscle. A 70% sugar diet with the other 30% comming from some form of lean protein and a small amount of concentrated fat soluble vitamins, i think the sugar group would lose fat rapidly and might be able to hold onto their muscle. Of course there are too many variables, i just know the powerful metabolic enhancer that sucrose is, a diet high in it with adequate protein intake would produce very good results in most healthy individuals.
    It's a hypothetical experiment, so why don't we just add the groups you propose. Let's add a HFCS but no caffeine group and a table sugar no caffeine group. You really think the optimal results will be the 70% sucrose group? Or do you just think they can "keep up" with the "primal" group (Should we call them 50% fat, 30% protein, 20% CHO from fruit/tubers/veg, or do you think that's a poor representation?)

    Or do you think a fifth group would get the best possible results, something like the "Primal" group but with some proportion of the fat calories being replaced with table sugar?

    In any case, the idea that any of the different groups would end up with different results lies in contrast to what I understand to be the CICO prescription/dogma. Even if we don't agree what combination of foods would give the best results, the very idea that different isocaloric combinations would yield different results is in line with the Alternative Hypothesis. Don't you think?

  2. #312
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,414
    double post epidemic victim
    Last edited by RichMahogany; 04-05-2013 at 07:02 PM.

  3. #313
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    don't feel like it.
    You're so cute when you pout.

  4. #314
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    You're so cute when you pout.
    ;_;
    Time is passing so quickly. Right now, I feel like complaining to Einstein. Whether time is slow or fast depends on perception. Relativity theory is so romantic. And so sad.

  5. #315
    AdamK's Avatar
    AdamK is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    california
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    It's a hypothetical experiment, so why don't we just add the groups you propose. Let's add a HFCS but no caffeine group and a table sugar no caffeine group. You really think the optimal results will be the 70% sucrose group? Or do you just think they can "keep up" with the "primal" group (Should we call them 50% fat, 30% protein, 20% CHO from fruit/tubers/veg, or do you think that's a poor representation?)

    Or do you think a fifth group would get the best possible results, something like the "Primal" group but with some proportion of the fat calories being replaced with table sugar?

    In any case, the idea that any of the different groups would end up with different results lies in contrast to what I understand to be the CICO prescription/dogma. Even if we don't agree what combination of foods would give the best results, the very idea that different isocaloric combinations would yield different results is in line with the Alternative Hypothesis. Don't you think?
    Unsurprisingly, Rich, I agree with everything you've been saying here

    Also, like someone else said earlier, we NEED this kind of disambiguation. Most normal diets -- including veg, ornish, atkins, primal -- all have a lot in common. Almost all say ixnay to liquid sugar and refined junk carbs, for instance.

    What if you make all the calories so sh*tty that they just barely keep you alive? Make em transfats, omega 6 veg oils, processed wheat, sucrose vs. your standard "real food" atkins/primal. 2500 kcal of the crappiest food you can think of vs. 2500 kcal of good primal/LC/"real" food. Maintain out for 3 years. You CICO peeps really think that would lead to IDENTICAL body compositions? Not slightly different. IDENTICAL. The CICO "hypothesis" demands this result. You'd have to be out of your gourd to believe that would happen.

    Let me say that again.

    According to CICO, both groups must wind up with IDENTICAL fat tissue results, assuming calories are totally controlled. Not slightly different. IDENTICAL.

    The big problem with CICO as it's typically understood is that it's probably not even a viable hypothesis. It's a logical error, the confusing of cause and effect. It doesn't explain anything. At the end of the day HOW do calories "turn into" fat, if not for hormones like insulin and enzymes like HSL and LPL and ASP and etc?

    HOW HOW HOW HOW? ANSWER ME YOU FOOLS!! Is there a calorie receptor you've discovered? If so, let the world know, because you've won a Noble Prize. If not, then you need to explain things, ultimately, in terms of hormonal regulation of the fat which inevitably leads to insulin and etc.

    To give another extreme example of how not all cals are equal: put someone on a 100% all carb diet. No protein, no fat. In a few weeks, that person would die (and thus lose ALL his fat).

    So maybe I stand corrected. The Ultimate Foolproof No Way It Can Fail Diet is a 100% carb diet, because it will kill you, and you will lose all of your excess fat in the process, 100% of the time.

    QED.

    CICO is right after all. I feel so ashamed.

  6. #316
    AdamK's Avatar
    AdamK is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    california
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    It's a hypothetical experiment, so why don't we just add the groups you propose. Let's add a HFCS but no caffeine group and a table sugar no caffeine group. You really think the optimal results will be the 70% sucrose group? Or do you just think they can "keep up" with the "primal" group (Should we call them 50% fat, 30% protein, 20% CHO from fruit/tubers/veg, or do you think that's a poor representation?)

    Or do you think a fifth group would get the best possible results, something like the "Primal" group but with some proportion of the fat calories being replaced with table sugar?

    In any case, the idea that any of the different groups would end up with different results lies in contrast to what I understand to be the CICO prescription/dogma. Even if we don't agree what combination of foods would give the best results, the very idea that different isocaloric combinations would yield different results is in line with the Alternative Hypothesis. Don't you think?
    Unsurprisingly, Rich, I agree with everything you've been saying here

    Also, like someone else said earlier, we NEED this kind of disambiguation. Most normal diets -- including veg, ornish, atkins, primal -- all have a lot in common. Almost all say ixnay to liquid sugar and refined junk carbs, for instance.

    What if you make all the calories so sh*tty that they just barely keep you alive? Make em transfats, omega 6 veg oils, processed wheat, sucrose vs. your standard "real food" atkins/primal. 2500 kcal of the crappiest food you can think of vs. 2500 kcal of good primal/LC/"real" food. Maintain out for 3 years. You CICO peeps really think that would lead to IDENTICAL body compositions? Not slightly different. IDENTICAL. The CICO "hypothesis" demands this result. You'd have to be out of your gourd to believe that would happen.

    Let me say that again.

    According to CICO, both groups must wind up with IDENTICAL fat tissue results, assuming calories are totally controlled. Not slightly different. IDENTICAL.

    The big problem with CICO as it's typically understood is that it's probably not even a viable hypothesis. It's a logical error, the confusing of cause and effect. It doesn't explain anything. At the end of the day HOW do calories "turn into" fat, if not for hormones like insulin and enzymes like HSL and LPL and ASP and etc?

    HOW HOW HOW HOW? ANSWER ME YOU FOOLS!! Is there a calorie receptor you've discovered? If so, let the world know, because you've won a Noble Prize. If not, then you need to explain things, ultimately, in terms of hormonal regulation of the fat which inevitably leads to insulin and etc.

    To give another extreme example of how not all cals are equal: put someone on a 100% all carb diet. No protein, no fat. In a few weeks, that person would die (and thus lose ALL his fat).

    So maybe I stand corrected. The Ultimate Foolproof No Way It Can Fail Diet is a 100% carb diet, because it will kill you, and you will lose all of your excess fat in the process, 100% of the time.

    QED.

    CICO is right after all. I feel so ashamed.

  7. #317
    eKatherine's Avatar
    eKatherine is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    4,869
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamK View Post
    So maybe I stand corrected. The Ultimate Foolproof No Way It Can Fail Diet is a 100% carb diet, because it will kill you, and you will lose all of your excess fat in the process, 100% of the time.
    Hey, it's GUARANTEED!

  8. #318
    AdamK's Avatar
    AdamK is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    california
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by eKatherine View Post
    Hey, it's GUARANTEED!

  9. #319
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    A 100% protein or fat diet would kill you just as fast or faster. Point? The CICO argument is old and has no meaning in real life. Who gives a shit, not me.


    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    It's a hypothetical experiment, so why don't we just add the groups you propose. Let's add a HFCS but no caffeine group and a table sugar no caffeine group. You really think the optimal results will be the 70% sucrose group? Or do you just think they can "keep up" with the "primal" group (Should we call them 50% fat, 30% protein, 20% CHO from fruit/tubers/veg, or do you think that's a poor representation?)

    Or do you think a fifth group would get the best possible results, something like the "Primal" group but with some proportion of the fat calories being replaced with table sugar?

    In any case, the idea that any of the different groups would end up with different results lies in contrast to what I understand to be the CICO prescription/dogma. Even if we don't agree what combination of foods would give the best results, the very idea that different isocaloric combinations would yield different results is in line with the Alternative Hypothesis. Don't you think?
    Optimal, how? If we are just talking about fat loss, yes i think a 70/30 sugar diet would beat out a low carb paleo diet. If your talking health, body composition, strength gain then i would be on the fence and it would depend on the kinds of foods consumed. If it was truly 70% table sugar then no, 70% orange juice, maybe to yes.

    EDIT: And yes i absolutely beleive macro and nutrient ratios matter when it comes to body composition. Although there are a few bodybuilders that may prove otherwise but you still need the basics of protein/carbs/fat. Eating nothing but Mcdonalds burgers vs grassfed homemade burgers, body comp might be the same. Health, not so much.
    Last edited by Zach; 04-05-2013 at 07:28 PM.

  10. #320
    Terry H's Avatar
    Terry H is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    668
    PrimalCon New York
    Quote Originally Posted by j3nn View Post
    The OP says weight loss depends on lowering carbs, not calories. The OP is wrong. Dead thread.
    Classic.

Page 32 of 44 FirstFirst ... 22303132333442 ... 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
  •