Calorie is a calorie?

Essien

jebuz wrote: »

Apologies if it came across pretentious or condescending, I'm simply relaying my experience that people tend to dismiss the dangers of wheat because it plays a pivotal role in most peoples diet and its easier for some to ignore the advice because they feel "completely fine".

But if people are fine, then there are no dangers to worry about . FWIW, I'm actually more on the HFLC side of the fence, but this notion that carbs are the devil and wheat is poison is nonsense and has been flogged to death on this forum. I choose it because high fat keeps me fuller, so I can get by on fewer calories.

jebuz wrote: »

I didn't even mentioned gluten so I'm not sure what to say to your quote but well done on copying and pasting it.

The quote wasn't aimed at you, this whole thread just reminded me why it's so true.

I've no problem with you or anyone else cutting it out, and it's great that it made you feel better, but that just isn't the case for everyone. Heaps of people eat lots of it and they're grand, heaps of people cut it out and it makes no difference.

jebuz

Fair point, I'm not out to force my views upon anyone, just personal opinion. I have read a lot about it and there is evidence suggesting regular and excessive consumption negatively affects long term health, plus tinkering with my diet has shown to me I operate better without it.

I'm not in any way anti-carbs btw, carbs are essential to me for backloading after training, I simply choose ones that suit me and in sensible amounts.

I actually agree with the lads above, everything in moderation. I don't have a list of foods I can or can't eat, I hate the idea of detoxing and diets. I still have the odd pastry but 95% of my diet is whole simple food. Wheat's bad but I don't think it's the devil, it's more like a little brat that gets rowdier the more you feed it. I think basing the majority of meals around wheat and sugar, which is unfortunately what the majority of Irish people do, is a root cause of our health issues.

dor843088

I used to be terrible with women then I gave up wheat . Now I can leap tall hoes in a single bound.

generic2012

"You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”


- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values

runawaybishop

Bruno26 wrote: »

This is just my view- don't start looking for science!


I'm mainly focusing on modern wheat-

You don't get to cop out by stating something is just your opinion, not when you are making fairly strong claims.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Wheat can cause a myriad of problems.
Bad for the brain- wheat can contribute to depression, dementia, ADHD, chronic headaches, concentration issues,etc.

Lots of things can contribute to those items listed, please show your proof that wheat does.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Many people are gluten sensitive.

True, but no where has it been suggested that people with a legitimate medical concern should eat something that causes them issues.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Wheat makes people fat- it spikes blood sugar rapidly.

False. Excess calories makes people fat.

Bruno26 wrote: »

It contributes to diabetes , skin diseases, acne.

Lots of things can contribute to those items listed, please show your proof that wheat does.

Bruno26 wrote: »

It may be a problem for inflammatory disease asthma, arthritis , eczema.

Lots of things can contribute to those items listed, please show your proof that wheat does.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Wheat contains phytic avid which robs nutrients from the body

False, only occurs with a bad diet.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Wheat may be addictive

Proof? Eating in general is addictive.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Wheat is by far the worst- I'd say not all grains are near as bad as wheat- eg rice.

Something not being optimal does not make it bad.

Bruno26 wrote: »

My view is that we should eat foods that make us feel better, that contribute to reching optimal health, therefore there are better foods available.

Something not being optimal does not make it bad.

Bruno26

runawaybishop wrote: »

You don't get to cop out by stating something is just your opinion, not when you are making fairly strong claims.


Lots of things can contribute to those items listed, please show your proof that wheat does.

True, but no where has it been suggested that people with a legitimate medical concern should eat something that causes them issues.

False. Excess calories makes people fat.

Lots of things can contribute to those items listed, please show your proof that wheat does.

Lots of things can contribute to those items listed, please show your proof that wheat does.

False, only occurs with a bad diet.

Proof? Eating in general is addictive.

Something not being optimal does not make it bad.

Something not being optimal does not make it bad.

Excess carbohydrate calories makes people fat.

Bruno26

"The refined carbs are addictive. The same receptor sites in our brains that respond to heroine and opium are triggered by wheat. This combo is made more powerful when there is sugar present" Robb Wolf.

Bruno26

runawaybishop wrote: »

You don't get to cop out by stating something is just your opinion, not when you are making fairly strong claims.


Lots of things can contribute to those items listed, please show your proof that wheat does.

True, but no where has it been suggested that people with a legitimate medical concern should eat something that causes them issues.

False. Excess calories makes people fat.

Lots of things can contribute to those items listed, please show your proof that wheat does.

Lots of things can contribute to those items listed, please show your proof that wheat does.

False, only occurs with a bad diet.

Proof? Eating in general is addictive.

Something not being optimal does not make it bad.

Something not being optimal does not make it bad.

Do you actually read these posts? I said can cause & contributes. I did not say the only cause.

Phytic acid - http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/living-with-phytic-acid/

the groutch

Bruno26 wrote: »

"The refined carbs are addictive. The same receptor sites in our brains that respond to heroine and opium are triggered by wheat. This combo is made more powerful when there is sugar present" Robb Wolf.

can you actually think for yourself, or do you just believe everything vested interests, who are profiting from peddling BS say.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

Excess carbohydrate calories makes people fat.

I corrected that for you.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

I corrected that for you.

You're wrong but if you want to believe that- that's no problem.

Bruno26

the groutch wrote: »

can you actually think for yourself, or do you just believe everything vested interests, who are profiting from peddling BS say.

You don't provide a source you get attacked. You provide a source you get attacked!
Therefore if anyone writes a book on nutrition and make a claim then they are peddling bs to profit. What about the cereal and bread companies claiming their products are healthy- are they peddling bs?

Whether you like it or not, wheat is addictive.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

You're wrong but if you want to believe that- that's no problem.

You've offered no evidence at all, the burden of proof is all on you. It's worrying that you believe something as flawed as you do with zero evidence, based purely on two men you seem to adore....

A book that someone wrote doesn't count as evidence. By that logic I could point to a post of mine and claim that as evidence.

Essien

I like where this thread is going. Feels like we're really turning a corner on this issue as a whole.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

You've offered no evidence at all, the burden of proof is all on you. It's worrying that you believe something as flawed as you do with zero evidence, based purely on two men you seem to adore....

A book that someone wrote doesn't count as evidence. By that logic I could point to a post of mine and claim that as evidence.

Two men? I've read much more than two men. Indeed, however I'd rather trust a book than a post of yours!

I've provided lots of sources for people to discover for themselves.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

Two men? I've read much more than two men. Indeed, however I'd rather trust a book than a post of yours!

I've provided lots of sources for people to discover for themselves.

If you've no evidence then don't claim what you preach as fact. Say it's opinion and only bump it up to fact when you have evidence. A good analogy for your thinking would be the whole creationism/evolution "debate". Just out of curiosity which side of the debate, in the analogous sense, would you say your high fat argument is at?

runawaybishop

Bruno26 wrote: »

Excess carbohydrate calories makes people fat.

Incorrect. Excess calories make you fat, whether thats carbs or not.

Bruno26 wrote: »

"The refined carbs are addictive. The same receptor sites in our brains that respond to heroine and opium are triggered by wheat. This combo is made more powerful when there is sugar present" Robb Wolf.

Right, so? Many foods have opioids in them - millk, chocolate (obviously), coffee, spinach, wheat, eggs, suar, rice and meat in general.

Robb Wolf is selling a product, don't take everything he says as gospel.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Do you actually read these posts? I said can cause & contributes. I did not say the only cause.

Phytic acid - http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/living-with-phytic-acid/

Sadly I do read your posts. Phystic acid is only an issue if you have a poor diet to begin with as it binds to calcium/iron etc. Phytic acid has antioxident properties and can be beneficial.

FYI, phytic acid is present in far larger quantities in beans and nuts than it is in wheat. Almonds have about twice as much as wheat. How does that fit in to you advocating nuts over wheat?

runawaybishop

Bruno26 wrote: »

I've provided lots of sources for people to discover for themselves.

You have provided 0 sources to your main claim that eating excess calories as long as you don't eat wheat will not make you put on weight.

Bruno26

runawaybishop wrote: »

Incorrect. Excess calories make you fat, whether thats carbs or not.



Right, so? Many foods have opioids in them - millk, chocolate (obviously), coffee, spinach, wheat, eggs, suar, rice and meat in general.

Robb Wolf is selling a product, don't take everything he says as gospel.



Sadly I do read your posts. Phystic acid is only an issue if you have a poor diet to begin with as it binds to calcium/iron etc. Phytic acid has antioxident properties and can be beneficial.

FYI, phytic acid is present in far larger quantities in beans and nuts than it is in wheat. Almonds have about twice as much as wheat. How does that fit in to you advocating nuts over wheat?

Again incorrec: excess carb calories make you fat. The world is fat because of excess carb calories- not because of excess protein and fat calories.

Ye I agree on some of those- I'm addicted to coffeee! Not far off being addicted to eggs! You can be addicted to spinach!

Apoloigies for making you sad at reading my posts! Really you must enjoy them to respond!

Ye almonds eat very little- some almond butter but not often. Eat lots of macadamia though

runawaybishop

Bruno26 wrote: »

Again incorrec: excess carb calories make you fat. The world is fat because of excess carb calories- not because of excess protein and fat calories.

Ye I agree on some of those- I'm addicted to coffeee! Not far off being addicted to eggs! You can be addicted to spinach!

Apoloigies for making you sad at reading my posts! Really you must enjoy them to respond!

Ye almonds eat very little- some almond butter but not often. Eat lots of macadamia though

I don't enjoy responding to them but it is preferable to seeing a vulnerable poster believe that they can eat what they want as long as they avoid wheat and not get fat when the opposite is the truth.

Show your proof that even in a calorie deficient you will put on weight if you eat wheat. You've been asked several times before and I will continue to call you out on it.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

If you've no evidence then don't claim what you preach as fact. Say it's opinion and only bump it up to fact when you have evidence. A good analogy for your thinking would be the whole creationism/evolution "debate". Just out of curiosity which side of the debate, in the analogous sense, would you say your high fat argument is at?

That post reminds me of the guy in Good Will Hunting who read the dictionary!

Think I'll go off and read one of my two books again on how we've evolved to eat real food / hflc / paleo / primal and how we have not evolved to live in counting calorie mode.

Then I will be able to bump the opinion up to fact!!

Bruno26

runawaybishop wrote: »

I don't enjoy responding to them but it is preferable to seeing a vulnerable poster believe that they can eat what they want as long as they avoid wheat and not get fat when the opposite is the truth.

Show your proof that even in a calorie deficient you will put on weight if you eat wheat. You've been asked several times before and I will continue to call you out on it.

How do you know they are vulnerable?
I said avoid grains and sugar not just wheat. What are you talking about now?
You are changing the discussion. Excess carbohydrate calories makes people who are carbohydrate intolerant get fat.

Alf Veedersane

Bruno, I really wish you'd stick to the 'eat real foods' for people who are making a change.

Beat the grains and wheat drum all you like (if you haven't beaten it to death yet) in an appropriate thread but if you're giving advice to someone who's starting out, the real foods one will stick.

runawaybishop

Bruno26 wrote: »

How do you know they are vulnerable?
I said avoid grains and sugar not just wheat. What are you talking about now?
You are changing the discussion. Excess carbohydrate calories makes people who are carbohydrate intolerant get fat.

Many of the posters in the section of boards are vulnerable and are seeking assistance with issues around food.

I am still very much on the same discussion you started last week so i don't know why you think i am changing the discussion. Ironically you've never once mentioned carb intolerance before.

Bruno26 wrote: »

It is indisputable that you can go over your recommended calorie intake as long as you eat the correct foods (nsng) and still lose body fat.

Proof please.

Backstreet Moyes

Could anybody tell me the best place to get Cocunut Oil i have decided to try it.

Blacktie.

Nuts102 wrote: »

Could anybody tell me the best place to get Cocunut Oil i have decided to try it.

Dunnes, Supervalu, Tesco. About 6 euro for 500ml of very good quality stuff.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Blacktie. wrote: »

Dunnes, Supervalu, Tesco. About 6 euro for 500ml of very good quality stuff.

aye, the cocowel stuff is great. the price tesco and the health food stores charge for what is basically the exact same stuff...ye gods.

Backstreet Moyes

Cheers lads and i see this is meant to be good for weight loss and energy.

I am about 7 pounds over my ideal weight and just can't get it down. I get lazy working out and i am hoping the extra energy will help me work out when i get lazy.

Also i presume seems their is a good bit of fat should this be used as a food replacement instead of adding it to your normal diet. Should it be used often or just for cooking on the pan.

Blacktie.

Nuts102 wrote: »

Cheers lads and i see this is meant to be good for weight loss and energy.

I am about 7 pounds over my ideal weight and just can't get it down. I get lazy working out and i am hoping the extra energy will help me work out when i get lazy.

Also i presume seems their is a good bit of fat should this be used as a food replacement instead of adding it to your normal diet. Should it be used often or just for cooking on the pan.

Just use it in place of oil on the pan. It's not gonna give you any miracle weight loss but it is a healthy alternative to something like vegetable oil.

Lemmy Scott

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

aye, the cocowel stuff is great. the price tesco and the health food stores charge for what is basically the exact same stuff...ye gods.

english bro ya clown :P

fat to ripped

Yes, a calorie is a calorie, when it comes to weight loss/gain. Some calories are better than others, in that some are healthier/more nutrient rich, but since most people only care about weight loss, all things considered, yup... calories are calories.You might as well enjoy 'em.

Bruno26

fat to ripped wrote: »

Yes, a calorie is a calorie, when it comes to weight loss/gain. Some calories are better than others, in that some are healthier/more nutrient rich, but since most people only care about weight loss, all things considered, yup... calories are calories.You might as well enjoy 'em.

If this is correct please confirm the following to be true. For example, if I eat 2,700 calories a day of bread, pasta, fizzy drinks, sweets etc. versus 2700 calories a day of quality fats and protein, depending on TDEE a person will gain or lose weight at the exact same pace and exact same amounts?

mulbot

fat to ripped wrote: »

Yes, a calorie is a calorie, when it comes to weight loss/gain. Some calories are better than others, in that some are healthier/more nutrient rich, but since most people only care about weight loss, all things considered, yup... calories are calories.You might as well enjoy 'em.

can't agree with this,if two people, say, have maintenance of 2000 cals per day and decide to drop down to 1500/1600,with one getting calories from mars bars and the other getting calories from a balanced diet,they won't lose weight at the same rate-it's how the body uses the calories from different foods that makes a diff-

fat to ripped

Bruno26 wrote: »

If this is correct please confirm the following to be true. For example, if I eat 2,700 calories a day of bread, pasta, fizzy drinks, sweets etc. versus 2700 calories a day of quality fats and protein, depending on TDEE a person will gain or lose weight at the exact same pace and exact same amounts?

Yes, that's essentially it. People like to disagree, but it's not really a matter of opinion. Calories are metabolised the same - it's the food that's digested differently. When it comes to actually using it the body doesn't really care.

What makes a difference is that it's a whole lot easier to eat 2700 calories of crap than to eat 2700 calories of broccoli and tuna.

Talking about weight loss, it's important to note that some foods can contribute to water retention. Particularly carby foods / high sodium, but that has nothing to do with actual weight loss/gain.

fat to ripped

mulbot wrote: »

can't agree with this,if two people, say, have maintenance of 2000 cals per day and decide to drop down to 1500/1600,with one getting calories from mars bars and the other getting calories from a balanced diet,they won't lose weight at the same rate-it's how the body uses the calories from different foods that makes a diff-

I'm afraid that's not the case. One method would certainly be preferable than the other. Do a little look up on discretionary calorie allowances and (I know it's overused) "if it fits your macros".

You can eat what you want and still lose weight.

mulbot

fat to ripped wrote: »

I'm afraid that's not the case. One method would certainly be preferable than the other. Do a little look up on discretionary calorie allowances and (I know it's overused) "if it fits your macros".

You can eat what you want and still lose weight.

tbh,i've never seen people eating in the sample i gave and lose weight at the same rate(and i dont mean a mars bar diet but a bad diet v's a balanced one)how the body stores and retrieves those calories is dependant on the source

Bruno26

fat to ripped wrote: »

Yes, that's essentially it. People like to disagree, but it's not really a matter of opinion. Calories are metabolised the same - it's the food that's digested differently. When it comes to actually using it the body doesn't really care.

What makes a difference is that it's a whole lot easier to eat 2700 calories of crap than to eat 2700 calories of broccoli and tuna.

Talking about weight loss, it's important to note that some foods can contribute to water retention. Particularly carby foods / high sodium, but that has nothing to do with actual weight loss/gain.

Why are so many people overweight now compared to over 70 years ago? Did most people eat under their daily calorie requirements back then compared to today when we eat too much?

fat to ripped

Bruno26 wrote: »

Why are so many people overweight now compared to over 70 years ago? Did most people eat under their daily calorie requirements back then compared to today when we eat too much?

Obviously so. By and large, Supermarkets didn't exist. Snack foods weren't at arms reach all the time. Plus, the big one, people didn't drink sugary drinks and liquefied coffee beverages at 800-1500 calorie servings. Overall, our diets aren't all that different, beyond the introduction of chemical crap. What's hurting is the little additions we have made along the way.

Bruno26

fat to ripped wrote: »

Obviously so. By and large, Supermarkets didn't exist. Snack foods weren't at arms reach all the time. Plus, the big one, people didn't drink sugary drinks and liquefied coffee beverages at 800-1500 calorie servings. Overall, our diets aren't all that different, beyond the introduction of chemical crap. What's hurting is the little additions we have made along the way.

The population would have eaten lots of meat, veg, butter, cream, milk, cheese, eggs. I'm sure many went over their requirements yet remained slim.

Diets are totally different now.

mulbot

fat to ripped wrote: »

Obviously so. By and large, Supermarkets didn't exist. Snack foods weren't at arms reach all the time. Plus, the big one, people didn't drink sugary drinks and liquefied coffee beverages at 800-1500 calorie servings. Overall, our diets aren't all that different, beyond the introduction of chemical crap. What's hurting is the little additions we have made along the way.

yea all the above plus there was more manual work then with less automation etc,and to add,that our foods now have a bigger ratio of (unneeded) carbs sitting on the plate

fat to ripped

Bruno26 wrote: »

The population would have eaten lots of meat, veg, butter, cream, milk, cheese, eggs. I'm sure many went over their requirements yet remained slim.

Diets are totally different now.

I'm sure they did, but it's not a matter of opinion. I'm not even debating it! When it comes to gaining / losing fat, the body doesn't discriminate. A calorie is a calorie. The metabolism can burn at different rates; you might find reason to argue for certain foods above others in regard to their influence there, but still, that's aside the point. Calories are calories.

mulbot

fat to ripped wrote: »

I'm sure they did, but it's not a matter of opinion. I'm not even debating it! When it comes to gaining / losing fat, the body doesn't discriminate. A calorie is a calorie. The metabolism can burn at different rates; you might find reason to argue for certain foods above others in regard to their influence there, but still, that's aside the point. Calories are calories.

technically yea a calorie is a calorie-but it's like saying,a fuel is a fuel,

Bruno26

mulbot wrote: »

yea all the above plus there was more manual work then with less automation etc,and to add,that our foods now have a bigger ratio of (unneeded) carbs sitting on the plate

Yes . It's all down to the carbs and all the processed crap that nobody should be eating. Supermarkets are handy but we should only visit the butcher, dairy and fruit and veg aisles for our food.

Blacktie.

Bruno26 wrote: »

The population would have eaten lots of meat, veg, butter, cream, milk, cheese, eggs. I'm sure many went over their requirements yet remained slim.

Well you're wrong. If they ate over there requirement they would have gained weight.

Also yes going LCHF would lose more WEIGHT than a regular bad diet but that would be due to water retention. People are looking to lose fat not weight.

mulbot

Blacktie. wrote: »

Well you're wrong. If they ate over there requirement they would have gained weight.

Also yes going LCHF would lose more WEIGHT than a regular bad diet but that would be due to water retention. People are looking to lose fat not weight.

weight maybe,not necessarily fat-and with that diet,plus heavy more manual work,over requirement calories would be used more in the muscle building of the body,in the very same way as someone in the gym will eat calories above their maintenance to grow muscle-

Blacktie.

mulbot wrote: »

weight maybe,not necessarily fat-and with that diet,plus heavy more manual work,over requirement calories would be used more in the muscle building of the body,in the very same way as someone in the gym will eat calories above their maintenance to grow muscle-

Possibly. I'd consider maintenance to be what you need to fuel those activites and so no they wouldn't gain fat because they're eating the energy they require to fuel their active life (calories in=calories out). If they were eating more than what was required to fuel then yes they would gain fat.

generic2012

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/06/health/la-he-fitness-twinkie-diet-20101206

Extracts -

'Twinkie Guy — also known as Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University — is the genius who lost 27 pounds in 10 weeks subsisting almost exclusively on Twinkies, Doritos, Oreos and other treats by ensuring that he consumed fewer calories than he burned.'

'Researchers with the Laboratory of Human Behavior and Metabolism at New York's Rockefeller University conducted a carefully controlled study that kept 16 people on diets with just enough calories to maintain their current weight but that varied the ratios of fat, protein and carbohydrates. After 33 days, those assigned to a no-fat diet were still at their pre-study weight. So were those who got 70% of their calories from fat. Percentages of carbs and protein didn't matter either. The results were published in 1992 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.'

This is for any whackjobs in the tin foil hat brigade that argue about conspiracies -
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/73-conspiracy-theory

Extract -
The psychology behind conspiracy theories is quite complex and involves many different cognitive biases and fallacies....In general, people tend to overlook the incredible improbabilities involved in a large-scale conspiracy, as well as the potential risks for all involved in the alleged cover up....often experience cognitive dissonance, or the mental struggle involved when one’s beliefs contradict factual claims. This cognitive dissidence causes people to create conspiracy theories, like the ones above, to change facts to match their beliefs, rather than changing their beliefs to match facts.

Last line is very important for some posters to read.

Another important type of argument employed by people who are wrong, moving the goalposts, common in nutrition forums lately -
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/06/health/la-he-fitness-twinkie-diet-20101206

Extracts -

'Twinkie Guy — also known as Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University — is the genius who lost 27 pounds in 10 weeks subsisting almost exclusively on Twinkies, Doritos, Oreos and other treats by ensuring that he consumed fewer calories than he burned.'

'Researchers with the Laboratory of Human Behavior and Metabolism at New York's Rockefeller University conducted a carefully controlled study that kept 16 people on diets with just enough calories to maintain their current weight but that varied the ratios of fat, protein and carbohydrates. After 33 days, those assigned to a no-fat diet were still at their pre-study weight. So were those who got 70% of their calories from fat. Percentages of carbs and protein didn't matter either. The results were published in 1992 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.'

This is for any whackjobs in the tin foil hat brigade that argue about conspiracies -
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/73-conspiracy-theory

Extract -
The psychology behind conspiracy theories is quite complex and involves many different cognitive biases and fallacies....In general, people tend to overlook the incredible improbabilities involved in a large-scale conspiracy, as well as the potential risks for all involved in the alleged cover up....often experience cognitive dissonance, or the mental struggle involved when one’s beliefs contradict factual claims. This cognitive dissidence causes people to create conspiracy theories, like the ones above, to change facts to match their beliefs, rather than changing their beliefs to match facts.

Last line is very important for some posters to read.

Another important type of argument employed by people who are wrong, moving the goalposts, common in nutrition forums lately -
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Anyone would lose weight doing what he did. He was consuming 1500-1600 calories and about 175 grams of carbs daily. I'd imagine the study was paid for by whoever makes Twinkies!

33 days is too short a time to reach proper conclusions. I'd like to see similar research but where participants are overrating according to their calorie requirements.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

I'd imagine the study was paid for by whoever makes Twinkies!

Please refer to my pre-emptive link to the tin foil hat brigade conspiracy theorists in my last post.

runawaybishop

Bruno26 wrote: »

Why are so many people overweight now compared to over 70 years ago? Did most people eat under their daily calorie requirements back then compared to today when we eat too much?

Discretionary income, they didn't have any. Rich societies always tend to being overweight.