Page 33 of 44 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 440

Thread: "Calories in / Calories Out" -- Please Stop the Madness page 33

  1. #321
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,425
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by Zach View Post

    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.
    "Optimal how" is actually a really good question. As someone who never worries about losing weight, I do tend to get overly caught up in the "diet as weight loss protocol" mindset. But I mean optimal with regards to energy levels, adiposity, satiety signaling, and overall well-being. Which I think are all inextricably linked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zach View Post
    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.
    And this is a big fat summary of things upon which we agree...

  2. #322
    dilberryhoundog's Avatar
    dilberryhoundog is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    538
    OK If we line up 1000 humans and ask them what they can physically do, you will get a massive difference. some will have the capacity for 100 pushups, some will be able do none, some will be able to do sub 4 minute kilometers, some won't be able to run for more than a kilometer. Some will look like Mr Burns, others will look like Adonis.

    So if we line up 1000 humans and ask them what they can metabolically do. Nearly everybody assumes that they will be all the same. My belief is that their metabolic differences will be alot like peoples physical differences. Some will be able to mobilise stored fat with ease, others won't. Some will be able to convert all the glucose their body needs, others won't. Some will be able to regulate their blood levels of various energy sources with ease, some won't.

    I could go on, basically our metabolism is made up of "tools" that help our bodies deal with what ever we might find convenient to put in our mouths at a particular time, as grok did for over a million years. Just like our bicep muscle is a "tool" our bodies use to pull its head/body above a bar or branch.

    Ok so lets look at CICO with that in mind. The CICO equation stands unmovable especially in regards to the first law of thermodynamics. So lets ask someone who's "tool" of mobilizing fat is fairly poor (this would typically appear in an obese person) to eat with a calorie deficit for a week. In that week the persons body will automatically adjust and burn less energy, as it can't mobilize its energy stores, it must do this to balance the irrefutable thermodynamic equation of CICO. The result of this will typically be minimal to none fat lost and a noticeable level of lethargy and laziness, at this stage the dieter gives up and comes on the MDA forums to whine.

    If we gave this task to chocotaco, we would probably find his body kick in with its well used, functioning, fat mobilizing metabolic tool and he would lose the fat easily. hence we also find him on the forums pushing the CICO barrow.

    So there it is my belief that our bodies will use what ever metabolic "tool" or strategy it finds easiest to balance the CICO equation. Our bodies mightn't necessarily use the tool we want it to use, or balance the side of the equation we wish. This is where CICO fails as a dieting strategy.

    What is a good strategy then? I hear you ask. Well one that trains our metabolic tools, like we train our physical tools, see the thread in my signature if your interested.
    Last edited by dilberryhoundog; 04-05-2013 at 08:07 PM.
    A little primal gem - My Success Story
    Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

  3. #323
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    "Optimal how" is actually a really good question. As someone who never worries about losing weight, I do tend to get overly caught up in the "diet as weight loss protocol" mindset. But I mean optimal with regards to energy levels, adiposity, satiety signaling, and overall well-being. Which I think are all inextricably linked.
    Probably because 99% of people who even think about their diet are looking to lose fat and look good naked. The other 1% are trying to optimize their health and or performance. At least at first. After so many years i think its too individual to say if a optimal paleo diet would beat out an optimal high carb diet or vice versa. Im definitely not going to argue with you or Neckhammer or whoever that seems to have zeroed in on their diet and have it working for them. Personally i feel like more people would do better on higher carbs coming from the right sources and i certainly feel that all people need some form of carbs somewhere in their diet for optimal health. Besides that, there are many ways to health and fat loss. I said it before in a different thread but i bet knowing what i know now, i could retry a low carb diet and succeed where i failed before. Would it be optimal, i have my doubts.

    As for CICO, i believe it is only specified for weight loss or gain. When people add on health markers or body composition then it becomes something different. Thats why its pointless to argue about it.

  4. #324
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,179
    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.
    Not much difference between tablesugar and HFCS, tablesugar contains 50 % fructose and HFCS contain 55 % fructose, if I remember correctly. And I do not understand you point here, if the liver convert let's say 1,250 kcal from the fructose into fat and the daily energy expenditure is 2,750 kcal, then the body will burn the 1,000 kcal from glucose and 1,750 kcal from fat,(1,250 kcal from the Coke and 500 kcal from the body) and will stay in a 500 kcal deficit. The caffeine in the Coca-Cola may give a little metabolic boost in favour of the output, yes, but no reason to exaggerate that! So, obese people doing a Coca-Cola diet will lose plenty of weight and fat if in a calorie deficit...

  5. #325
    quikky's Avatar
    quikky is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,832
    Quote Originally Posted by KimchiNinja View Post
    I thought this was a paleo forum and we all knew it was white-carbs driving fat accumulation; lower your carbs to 50g and you lose weight no matter your calorie intake or calorie expenditure.
    Strange, I've intentionally gained 32lb last year eating 50-60g carbs a day, and then lost weight while eating more carbs including sources like white rice and potatoes. I must be a special specimen - a genetic mutant! Shhh, keep this a secret though, I don't want the guv'mint to know cuz they'll kidnap me into a secret lab and run dem crazy experiments on me.

  6. #326
    max219's Avatar
    max219 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    443
    Great post dilberry

  7. #327
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    805
    Holy Christ, if you alternative hypothesis people spent half the effort researching basic physiology as you do constructing useless thought experiments, you would have abandoned all this nonsense a long time ago.

  8. #328
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorbag View Post
    Not much difference between tablesugar and HFCS, tablesugar contains 50 % fructose and HFCS contain 55 % fructose, if I remember correctly. And I do not understand you point here, if the liver convert let's say 1,250 kcal from the fructose into fat and the daily energy expenditure is 2,750 kcal, then the body will burn the 1,000 kcal from glucose and 1,750 kcal from fat,(1,250 kcal from the Coke and 500 kcal from the body) and will stay in a 500 kcal deficit. The caffeine in the Coca-Cola may give a little metabolic boost in favour of the output, yes, but no reason to exaggerate that! So, obese people doing a Coca-Cola diet will lose plenty of weight and fat if in a calorie deficit...
    I believe there is a world of difference between the two besides just the ratio of fructose/glucose at least how they effect the metabolism. The caffeine from 8-10 colas i believe would have a pretty substantial boost but i just would like to take that out because its a stimulant, not a food. I agree that obese people would lose weight on a deficit drinking that much cola, i was referring to maintenance calories in that quote.

    Also fructose is not automatically turned into fat.

  9. #329
    AdamK's Avatar
    AdamK is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    california
    Posts
    59
    CICO Team, I ask yet again: HOW do calories "turn into" fat, if not for the work of hormones, enzymes, etc? Is it Magic?

    Do our fat cells have calorie receptors? You guys seems to be so up on the biochemistry. So how, pray tell, does it all work? Clearly you think insulin has ZERO bearing on the situation, so how does it happen? What hormones and enzymes ARE involved?

    How do fatty acids enter adipocytes and get stored as triglyerides? What's the biochemistry?


    And "a lot of stuff is involved, but it's all subordinate to calories" isn't an answer. It's a dodge. I want BIOCHEMISTRY from you people.

    I want a full and complete list -- not a link to some yahoo online CICO guru you worship or some random study you've found on pubmed that "proves" CICO. I want an explanation of HOW CALORIES BECOME FAT.

    HOW?

    Gonna ask it again: HOW? HOW HOW HOW HOW?

    "The Earth is Flat and ain't nobody gonna tell me otherwise, even when you show me a picture of the Earth from space. NASA must have faked it to further the conspiracy."

  10. #330
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    805
    PrimalCon New York
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamK View Post
    CICO Team, I ask yet again: HOW do calories "turn into" fat, if not for the work of hormones, enzymes, etc? Is it Magic?

    oDo our fat cells have calorie receptors? You guys seems to be so up on the biochemistry. So how, pray tell, does it all work? Clearly you think insulin has ZERO bearing on the situation, so how does it happen? What hormones and enzymes ARE involved?

    How do fatty acids enter adipocytes and get stored as triglyerides? What's the biochemistry?


    I want a full and complete list -- not a link to some yahoo online CICO guru you worship or some random study you've found on pubmed that "proves" CICO. I want an explanation of HOW CALORIES BECOME FAT.

    HOW?

    Gonna ask it again: HOW? HOW HOW HOW HOW?
    You think you're asking rhetorical questions, but the answers can be found at your local community college if you really care. I'm not well versed in biochemistry, but it's not hard to spend a few minutes researching basic concepts to see you're full of shit.

Page 33 of 44 FirstFirst ... 23313233343543 ... 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
  •