Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 136

Thread: What are the real weight loss benefits of going primal? page 12

  1. #111
    eKatherine's Avatar
    eKatherine is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    4,868
    Shop Now
    The human body is not a closed system.

  2. #112
    dilberryhoundog's Avatar
    dilberryhoundog is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by eKatherine View Post
    The human body is not a closed system.
    For sure, heat and kinetic energy are the end of the line, if your body produces these forms of energy they are not retrievable by us, they are lost to the environment, to get more heat or kinetic energy we have to convert more higher forms of energy like chemical energy unless we physically expose our selfs to a higher heat gradient like sitting in the sun.
    But yeah in general we are constantly losing heat energy all the time to the environment


    Sent from my iPhone
    A little primal gem - My Success Story
    Weight lost in 4 months - 29kg (64 lbs)

  3. #113
    noodletoy's Avatar
    noodletoy is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    land of the glass pinecones
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
    @exotec

    I like to say that any food requires 3 things be taken into account, in this order.

    1) Hormonal impact
    2) Macro and micronutrient composition....everything from protein to zinc.
    3) Calorie count

    Now, I realize that studies all show that you can get equal outcomes with equal calories, but that is not the point at all....the point is satiety, nutritional value, and what behavioral changes the food will cause down the line. (I.E. 500cal of pure sugar will make you feel much differently than 500cal of steak)

    Most nutritional studies are done where foods are FORCED onto people and mathematically tabulated...that is not real life.
    in fact, most nutritional "studies" are done through self-reporting because it's too expensive to coop people up and feed them an actual measured diet.

    as for your 3 points? that can't be right, because clearly so many women are simply too stoopid to use a food scale correctly and just lie on the internetz about their personal experiences.
    As I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine, I lost the empty feeling and began to be happy and to make plans.

    Ernest Hemingway

  4. #114
    TheyCallMeLazarus's Avatar
    TheyCallMeLazarus is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Northeast Kingdom, Vermont
    Posts
    912
    "in fact, most nutritional "studies" are done through self-reporting because it's too expensive to coop people up and feed them an actual measured diet."

    You are 100% right. I stand corrected.

    My point was that most of them rely on either self-reporting or were done by the military (forced) a long time ago. In doing this, it's all reduced to "calories only" because this method lends itself to graphical analysis....how would one make a study on eating carrots or liver pate in place of x or y, over many months, completely throwing math out the window?

    It would just end up being called "subjective" in the scientific community, or in other words, irrelevant. We think in calories because those are the only terms that are quantifiable statistically. That does not make it the correct way to conceptualize nutrition; it just makes it the most scientifically convenient.

  5. #115
    jakejoh10's Avatar
    jakejoh10 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
    Most nutritional studies are done where foods are FORCED onto people and mathematically tabulated...that is not real life.
    Agreed, but what study is "real life".

    Metabolic ward studies are done for the purposes of what determines weight loss in healthy individuals, and the case overwhelmingly seems to side with energy intake vs. energy expenditure.
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

  6. #116
    jakejoh10's Avatar
    jakejoh10 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by noodletoy View Post
    as for your 3 points? that can't be right, because clearly so many women are simply too stoopid to use a food scale correctly and just lie on the internetz about their personal experiences.
    Who said this was the case?
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

  7. #117
    sbhikes's Avatar
    sbhikes is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Barbara
    Posts
    8,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    Hahah Awesomeness:

    "There was absolutely no relationship between CI & CO at any time point during the entire study. Shotgun > broad side of a barn? The subjects were free to eat as much of whatever they wanted the entire time. CICO expects you to walk on the orange line. Good luck!"

    Like I said Neo.... there is no spoon.
    I know, crazy huh? There was another one with people eating ad libitum and the calories they ate followed a graph of the calories they expended but by two days later. Crazy stuff. We don't know everything.
    Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
    Starting squat: 45lbs. Highest squat: 167.5 x 2. Current Deadlift: 190 x 3

  8. #118
    eKatherine's Avatar
    eKatherine is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    4,868
    Quote Originally Posted by jakejoh10 View Post
    Metabolic ward studies are done for the purposes of what determines weight loss in healthy individuals, and the case overwhelmingly seems to side with energy intake vs. energy expenditure.
    Most of the studies I have read use not healthy but obese individuals. The money is in treating people with health issues, not keeping people healthy.

  9. #119
    jakejoh10's Avatar
    jakejoh10 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by eKatherine View Post
    Most of the studies I have read use not healthy but obese individuals. The money is in treating people with health issues, not keeping people healthy.
    You're right, the majority of studies are done in obese individuals. However, you're moving past the realm of this thread by talking directly about health instead of the efficacy of the energy balance equation and weight loss.
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

  10. #120
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,534
    Quote Originally Posted by eKatherine View Post
    2012
    Pro-CICO argument: "A calorie is a calorie is a calorie, and all calories are used identically by the body for purpose of weight loss or gain."
    Anti-CICO argument: "It's really complicated metabolically."

    2013 Pro-CICO argument: "It's really complicated metabolically. Hey, stop stealing our argument!"
    CICO never said that. CICO says "you need an energy deficit to lose weight and you need an energy surplus to gain weight."

    You are confusing CICO with IIFYM - If It Fits Your Macros.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •