Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 193

Thread: Help Shut my CICO Friend Up - THE GHEE CHALLENGE page 5

  1. #41
    jakejoh10's Avatar
    jakejoh10 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott F View Post
    Yeah, and tobacco companies have done their own research showing that (secondhand) smoking isn't linked to cancer.
    Elsevier: Article Locator
    Abstract
    Okay, show me where the bias shines through in John White's paper, or show me a study that refutes it.
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

  2. #42
    eKatherine's Avatar
    eKatherine is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    5,425
    I would like to see an experiment where they took maybe 50 people, male and female, various ages and fitness levels. The first week they would normalize their diets so they were on a maintenance feeding plan. Then they would change the composition of their diets in various ways, spending a week with each modification. Then they would do something like the OP's plan for a week, adding a measured amount of calories of fat, carbs, or protein to see how it affected their weight and body composition.

    Of course, if everybody put on exactly one pound per 3500 calories of anything consumed, that would prove the CICO howlers right. But I think the results would be much more nuanced, to say the least. Some people have efficient metabolisms. Some much less so. It would be great to see some known outliers in the experiment, too. A few people with thyroid issues, absolutely. And post-menopausal women, who are generally ignored in diet or exercise research.

  3. #43
    jakejoh10's Avatar
    jakejoh10 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by eKatherine View Post
    I would like to see an experiment where they took maybe 50 people, male and female, various ages and fitness levels. The first week they would normalize their diets so they were on a maintenance feeding plan. Then they would change the composition of their diets in various ways, spending a week with each modification. Then they would do something like the OP's plan for a week, adding a measured amount of calories of fat, carbs, or protein to see how it affected their weight and body composition.

    Of course, if everybody put on exactly one pound per 3500 calories of anything consumed, that would prove the CICO howlers right. But I think the results would be much more nuanced, to say the least. Some people have efficient metabolisms. Some much less so. It would be great to see some known outliers in the experiment, too. A few people with thyroid issues, absolutely. And post-menopausal women, who are generally ignored in diet or exercise research.
    Of course, you're never going to be able to get this exact study done.

    However, I would like to share one of the better studies I have seen arguing that it is energy intake, not macronutrient composition, that causes weight loss: Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets.
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

  4. #44
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by jakejoh10 View Post
    Okay, show me where the bias shines through in John White's paper, or show me a study that refutes it.
    fructose obesity - Google Scholar

    fructose metabolic syndrome - Google Scholar
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

  5. #45
    jakejoh10's Avatar
    jakejoh10 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Give me a study that shows fructose (in normal amounts), does damage/causes obesity. Not speculations. I can speculate several causes of obesity, but that doesn't mean anything. If you're unwilling to give me a specific paper showing that fructose=obesity (or metabolic syndrome, or whatever else), I guess we're done here. Anyone can do a Google scholar search and read a bunch of abstracts on any issue. The problem is that the first few results in your searches are hypotheses, not evidence.
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    4,522
    before this thread gets out of hand, i'm gong to interject some common sense. if you think that weight loss/weight gain is 100% cico, you're an idiot. likewise, if you think that cico doesn't matter at all, you're an idiot.

  7. #47
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by jakejoh10 View Post
    Give me a study that shows fructose (in normal amounts), does damage/causes obesity. Not speculations. I can speculate several causes of obesity, but that doesn't mean anything. If you're unwilling to give me a specific paper showing that fructose=obesity (or metabolic syndrome, or whatever else), I guess we're done here. Anyone can do a Google scholar search and read a bunch of abstracts on any issue. The problem is that the first few results in your searches are hypotheses, not evidence.
    and your sugar, soft drink, industry produced paper isn't? "Normal" amounts relative to what, evolutionary, historic, modern America, traditional Eskimo?
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

  8. #48
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by not on the rug View Post
    before this thread gets out of hand, i'm gong to interject some common sense. if you think that weight loss/weight gain is 100% cico, you're an idiot. likewise, if you think that cico doesn't matter at all, you're an idiot.
    Exactly. Eat more than you burn and you'll gain fat. Some foods, however, are more satiating than others so most people will eat less if their % of calories come mostly from those satiating foods and Fructose Effects in Brain May Contribute to Overeating http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/776988
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

  9. #49
    jakejoh10's Avatar
    jakejoh10 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott F View Post
    and your sugar, soft drink, industry produced paper isn't? "Normal" amounts relative to what, evolutionary, historic, modern America, traditional Eskimo?
    Fructose consumption and consequences for gly... [Am J Clin Nutr. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI
    Fructose Ingestion: Dose-Dependent Responses in Health Research
    An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie (only have the abstract, but it's interesting nonetheless)
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

  10. #50
    Zach's Avatar
    Zach is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,869
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    The leanest group of dieters on the planet also consume upwards of 500g of fructose a day.

    Every study done on fructose will be from a concentrated form in high doses, most likely from corn. There are no similarities between that and a diet high in natural fructose from fruit and sugars.

Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •