Weight: Energy Balance Model Vs Hormonal Model

siochain

Bruno26 wrote: »

This statement is incorrect. It does not differentiate between traditional and modern Inuit diet. Yet it gets three thanks! Nobody dares critique. Herd mentality alive and kicking.

The were always heavy but in many cases not all year due to the seasonal availability of their food supplies.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

How can you say that when there is no evidence to support your claim?

What- I said calories matter. Calories count but don't need to be counted. What's more important is where the calories come from- fat, protein or carb. There is lots of evidence to support this.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/28/news/la-heb-calories-robert-lustig-20120628

Link to study in article

Two reasons I know you didn't read the article;

1. You didn't give the direct link.

2. It doesn't back up your claim in the slightest.

I can't believe I even bothered reading it. Please at least read some of the sh1te you link to and don't waste peoples' time. Please provide evidence that eating a high fat diet means you don't have to count calories.

EDIT: Maybe I'm wrong and you did read it, sum it up for us there.

Bruno26 wrote: »

What- I said calories matter. Calories count but don't need to be counted. What's more important is where the calories come from- fat, protein or carb. There is lots of evidence to support this.

If that's the case provide it.

fungie

Bruno26 wrote: »

What- I said calories matter. Calories count but don't need to be counted. What's more important is where the calories come from- fat, protein or carb. There is lots of evidence to support this.

your argument makes little sense, so now calories do matter now?

counting calories is a completely different thing. Protein and fats are more satiating than carbs per calorie but most defining thing is the amount of calories.

The definition of a calorie is:

The amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a kilogram of water by one degree Celsius.

This is regardless of whether it comes from a carb, protein, fat, lightbulb, etc..

thegreatiam

fungie wrote: »

The definition of a calorie is:

The amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a kilogram of water by one degree Celsius.

This is regardless of whether it comes from a carb, protein, fat, lightbulb, etc..

I heard petrol is 11 calories per gram

Alf Veedersane

thegreatiam wrote: »

I heard petrol is 11 calories per gram

About 3 if you buy it up around Dundalk.

fungie

thegreatiam wrote: »

I heard petrol is 11 calories per gram

Hence why I drink loads of it. Its not a carb so I can have as much as I want.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

Two reasons I know you didn't read the article;

1. You didn't give the direct link.

2. It doesn't back up your claim in the slightest.

I can't believe I even bothered reading it. Please at least read some of the sh1te you link to and don't waste peoples' time. Please provide evidence that eating a high fat diet means you don't have to count calories.

EDIT: Maybe I'm wrong and you did read it, sum it up for us there.



If that's the case provide it.

Read it again more slowly this time! I've provided my reasoning on this numerous times.

Bruno26

fungie wrote: »

your argument makes little sense, so now calories do matter now?

counting calories is a completely different thing. Protein and fats are more satiating than carbs per calorie but most defining thing is the amount of calories.

The definition of a calorie is:

The amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a kilogram of water by one degree Celsius.

This is regardless of whether it comes from a carb, protein, fat, lightbulb, etc..

I never said they didn't matter. If most of your calories come from real food you don't get fat.

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

I never said they didn't matter. If most of your calories come from real food you don't get fat.

Im on my phone so I can't check your exact wording but youve pretty consistently implied calories do not matter.

thegreatiam

Bruno26 wrote: »

I never said they didn't matter. If most of your calories come from real food you don't get fat.

explain fat people before the advent of processed food

Hanley

If most of your calories come from real food, you don't get fat?

Slamming my head in frustration at this stage. I really hope people aren't falling for this.

Bruno26

thegreatiam wrote: »

explain fat people before the advent of processed food

Grains, beer, sugar. Simple as that.

Bruno26

Hanley wrote: »

If most of your calories come from real food, you don't get fat?

Slamming my head in frustration at this stage. I really hope people aren't falling for this.

You may have a different interpretation of real food but if you feel you are being challenged then don't bother replying as per usual.

Typer Monkey

Bruno26 wrote: »

I never said they didn't matter. If most of your calories come from real food you don't get fat.

You consistently said up to recently that a person would not gain weight if they ate 6000 calories a day as long as those calories were not from evil grains or sugar/processed foods. Many posters tried to point out to you the error in this and asked repeatedly if you meant that you are more satiated by protein and fats and therefore ate less but you stood by your point. Have you changed this stance now?

fungie

Bruno26 wrote: »

I never said they didn't matter. If most of your calories come from real food you don't get fat.

Simply not true!

thegreatiam

Bruno26 wrote: »

Grains, beer, sugar. Simple as that.

nonsense

Bruno26

Typer Monkey wrote: »

You consistently said up to recently that a person would not gain weight if they ate 6000 calories a day as long as those calories were not from evil grains or sugar/processed foods. Many posters tried to point out to you the error in this and asked repeatedly if you meant that you are more satiated by protein and fats and therefore ate less but you stood by your point. Have you changed this stance now?

That was body fat. Ye some people could but as far as I can remember I said around 4,500. Said that long time ago but not constantly.

Oryx

Bruno you are backtracking like crazy.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

Read it again more slowly this time! I've provided my reasoning on this numerous times.

We're looking for evidence. Either provide some or explain how the link you provided explains your point.

generic2012

Hanley wrote: »

If most of your calories come from real food, you don't get fat?

Slamming my head in frustration at this stage. I really hope people aren't falling for this.

If some one advised some one to drink arsenic on a health and fitness page would they be banned?

Or consistently advised people claiming to be unhealthy to smoke? smoking wont kill you straight away but it's very likely to take years of your life.

Eating as many calories as you want? that's ok though.

It's beyond frustrating. It's infuriating. Any other debate can be for education or a bit of mental exercise. It's unethical to let his posts go unquestioned.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

If some one advised some one to drink arsenic on a health and fitness page would they be banned?

Or consistently advised people claiming to be unhealthy to smoke? smoking wont kill you straight away but it's very likely to take years of your life.

Eating as many calories as you want? that's ok though.

It's beyond frustrating. It's infuriating. Any other debate can be for education or a bit of mental exercise. It's unethical to let his posts go unquestioned.

Complete misrepresentation of what I say. Have you a financial interest in calorie counting?

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

Complete misrepresentation of what I say. Have you a financial interest in calorie counting?

Yes. It keeps me healthy so I don't have to pay the doctor.

metamorphosis

Well, there is one thing I learned this week... I am extremely carb tolerant. I lost 6.5 stone several several years ago (on a\ pretty carby diet, I will add). My weight has been really stable over the last 5 years. My weight has either + / - perhaps 2-3kg at most in the last 5 years. I have gone through phases of eating loadsa carbs, very little carbs, lots of fat, less fat. I have gone through periods of eating ****e food, then really good food. Regardless of how I ate or what I ate, I have always had an awareness of my appetite. If I eat **** food, I still know when I have had enough am am on my way to feeling full and so ya know, I stop eating as I have eaten enough ... but apparently carbs are not satiating? I wasn't aware that was a rule for everyone


Yip, carb tolerant I am, any peer reviewed study be dammed. I am confused as to how I lost 6.5 stone on a pretty carby diet until it was all cleared up for me

Mellor

Bruno26 wrote: »

@ mellor. I accept quite a lot of what you say to be true. There have been fat people for thousands of years. Henry drank serious amounts of alcohol and consumed lots of sugar along with lots of meat

You didn't answer my questions. I engaged politely and went through your points, so could you answer my questions directly please.

Just to pre-empt the bullet dodge. Here they are again

Mellor wrote: »

Regardless of the theory of how different macros act, or whether it always happens. It's a fact that to gain fat there must be an energy surplus. Do you agree with this fact?

Another question, say somebody eats a paleo-ish, reduced carb type diet made up entirely of real food. But they also wish to add mass for sport. They don'r precisely count their cals, they just increase portions, eat a bit more often, eat a bit more.
What do you think will happen? Gain weight, lose weight or stay the same.

Bruno26 wrote: »

I'm sure they eat more and move less. That is eat more processed carbs and probably less fish as a consequence.

I'm sure they move less and eat more too.
This backs up the calorie model btw.

ford2600 wrote: »

Is the metabolism of fat/protein/carbs equally efficient? If the various macronutrients require different and more steps for metabolism, and given any closed system tendency towards disorder, doesn't the more steps mean less efficiency and therefore need to be considered in any meaningful energy balance equation?

The metabolism of various macros isn't equally efficient, nor is it consistent. Also the body isn't guaranteed to process everything fully.

This doesn't mean the first law doesn't apply, it does apply, but it open up gaps that people can cling too. Thus getting nowhere.
That's why I focused on storage of fat instead, inefficiencies don't matter in that case, increased body fat means increased energy in the system. There is no other way for it to get into the system other than over eating.

Alf Veedersane

If there is one thing I've learned it's that the ignore function is cancelled out by the quote function.

Bruno26

In this forum people come and seek advice. One piece of advice is eat real food to help with your weight issues.

I said if your calories come from real food you won't get fat / and you will lose fat.

I'm told this is nonsense. Can you see the contradiction?

Oryx

You said you don't need to count calories. Oh and that you need to limit carbs too. That eliminates the need to count calories?

Bruno26

Oryx wrote: »

You said you don't need to count calories. Oh and that you need to limit carbs too. That eliminates the need to count calories?

Yes

Mellor

Bruno26 wrote: »

In this forum people come and seek advice. One piece of advice is eat real food to help with your weight issues.

I said if your calories come from real food you won't get fat / and you will lose fat.

I'm told this is nonsense. Can you see the contradiction?

There's no contradiction.
The general advice states eating real food will help weight loss. As part of a controlled diet.

Your mantra states eat real food and you cannot get fat, not matter how much you eat.

Do you see the difference?
Also, the questions above please and thank you.

metamorphosis

No offense Bruno ... you have had a central statement that you have gone to ... but everything around and linked to it ...well basically, you have talked in circles and squares several times.

You mention people contradicting themselves ... you are pretty guilty of this yourself. I feel you truly lack massive in depth critical analysis of much of what you argue (well, how you post does you no favors in presenting your argument)

Surely you are privy to this?

Whilst i smile at some of the replies (many) in this forum at what constitutes advice, your posts as of late have certainly fallen all into the same stockpile - mostly because of lazy half hearted responses that give the impression that what you post should almost be held in higher regard. Thing is, there are posters here who were singing from the same hymsheet as you a long time ago ( your posts and ideas are hardly new or in any way ground breaking to those in the field looking at whats out there for the last several years), it's just that they have 'broadened their horizons' and gained a little context, not to mention understand and become more competent in understanding science.

rubadub

Bruno26 wrote: »

Obesity is due simply to ingesting too many calories regardless of whether they originate from fat, carb or protein.

The problem here is they bring the word calorie into it. It it just said ingesting too much food energy I would have no problem with the statement, though I would say it is not that useful as its so difficult to determine how much energy a substance will give you.

Bruno26 wrote: »

For the engineers.

http://time.com/2988142/you-asked-are-all-calories-created-equal/

I am an engineer and disagree with the thermodyamics argument in relation to calories in humans. There is a very simple experiment which should make this blindingly obvious, get 2 cans of sweetcorn and wash them down (without chewing) with a litre of prune juice and see what comes out the other end. If you think you extracted as much energy from that as you would if it was liquidised you need your head checked.

This is the problem, calculating the energy balance and determining how much energy a given food will give you at at a given time, weight etc.

There was a study done years back feeding prisoners ridiculous amounts of food and they did get overweight but stabilised their weight at a max, even if eating 10,000kcal per day they could put on no more weight.

thegreatiam wrote: »

I heard petrol is 11 calories per gram

There was a poster before here who did think drinking 500kcal of petrol per day would make you put on the same amount of fat as if you drank 500kcal of coke extra per day. As a heavy drinker I know the estimate that 3500kcal surplus calories will put on 1lb of fat is total bull**** when it comes to the calorie dense substance ethanol, also used to fuel cars.


I remember a program on obesity and a guy was eating 35 or so (unprocessed) oranges a day and wondering why he was not losing as much weight as expected, he was under the impression he could just eat all he wanted, similar to the ludicrous "no need to count" statements which are in effect saying that there is no need to monitor the quantity of food you eat.

Mellor

rubadub wrote: »

I am an engineer and disagree with the thermodyamics argument in relation to calories in humans. There is a very simple experiment which should make this blindingly obvious, get 2 cans of sweetcorn and wash them down (without chewing) with a litre of prune juice and see what comes out the other end. If you think you extracted as much energy from that as you would if it was liquidised you need your head checked.

That doesn't disprove the thermodynamic argument though. Which has nothing to do with the inefficiency of digestion. It's energy leaving the system, so the first law can't be applied.

As I said previously, looking at it from opposite point of view, energy within stored fat, removes a lot of the external forces.

There was a poster before here who did think drinking 500kcal of petrol per day would make you put on the same amount of fat as if you drank 500kcal of coke extra per day.

I've mentioned the calorie content of petrol a few times. Usually to point of how are bodys function to the machine used to calculate calories. Some people still don't get it it though.

As a heavy drinker I know the estimate that 3500kcal surplus calories will put on 1lb of fat is total bull**** when it comes to the calorie dense substance ethanol, also used to fuel cars.

Agreed. I've said that alcohol is a special case. Not only because it raises body temp and screws with BMR so the surplus is less than you imagine. But because, its simply isn't all converted to energy.

I remember a program on obesity and a guy was eating 35 or so (unprocessed) oranges a day and wondering why he was not losing as much weight as expected, he was under the impression he could just eat all he wanted, similar to the ludicrous "no need to count" statements which are in effect saying that there is no need to monitor the quantity of food you eat.

I think there was a poster on here doing something similar.

Bruno26

Mellor wrote: »

There's no contradiction.
The general advice states eating real food will help weight loss. As part of a controlled diet.

Your mantra states eat real food and you cannot get fat, not matter how much you eat.

Do you see the difference?
Also, the questions above please and thank you.

1. Yes. But results will vary greatly dependent on various factors.

2. Impossible to answer-as all facts not provided.

3. No
4. Yes

Bruno26

rubadub wrote: »

similar to the ludicrous "no need to count" statements which are in effect saying that there is no need to monitor the quantity of food you eat.

It is ludicrous if you do not count carb intake. If you count carbs and learn to control intake to under 150 grams daily it is not ludicrous as there is no need to count.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

It is ludicrous if you do not count carb intake. If you count carbs and learn to control intake to under 150 grams daily it is not ludicrous as there is no need to count.

Much like counting calories for weeks/months or whatever and then roughly knowing what you consume without the need to count them again? (Looking forward to you tossing your own straw man.)

You still haven't provided one shred of evidence to support your claim that once you eat under X amount of carbs the amount of calories you consume from fat (& protein?) will result in weight loss.

You started this thread. It is entirely predicated on that argument. You have to provide evidence for that argument.

Alf Veedersane

How To Count Carbs Without Counting.

Because counting isn't sustainable

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

Much like counting calories for weeks/months or whatever and then roughly knowing what you consume without the need to count them again? (Looking forward to you tossing your own straw man.)

You still haven't provided one shred of evidence to support your claim that once you eat under X amount of carbs the amount of calories you consume from fat (& protein?) will result in weight loss.

You started this thread. It is entirely predicated on that argument. You have to provide evidence for that argument.

Yes. Whatever people prefer- everyone to their own.

Fat loss.

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

Yes. Whatever people prefer- everyone to their own.

Fat loss.

Does this mean you have no actual evidence for anything you say here?

Bruno26

Oryx wrote: »

Does this mean you have no actual evidence for anything you say here?

No

http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

No

http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/

I am not reading 23 studies after the last link you provided, especially as you haven't read any of them. Give the direct link to the article. Either provide a random study out of that 23 and the one that supports your claim most succinctly. And after your last attempt it's probably best you give a line or two summary to show that you have actually read it.

How is this so difficult for you?

Mellor

Bruno26 wrote: »

1. Yes. But results will vary greatly dependent on various factors.

2. Impossible to answer-as all facts not provided.

3. No
4. Yes

Thanks for answering.

1. At least we can establish common ground here. I also agree results will vary.

2. What required facts are missing?

3/4. The no/yes through me as I thought there was only 3 questions

fungie

I don't know why you would limit carbs like that anyway. They are super yummy and needed for athletic performance.

Now I'moff to have a sandwich!

Hanley

The only time you should be low carb is breakfast.

Sausages + bacon + eggs. NYOM NYOM NYOM.

thegreatiam

Hanley wrote: »

The only time you should be low carb is breakfast.

Sausages + bacon + eggs. NYOM NYOM NYOM.

tell that to hotels please. buns croissants and muffins oh my.

Bruno26

fungie wrote: »

I don't know why you would limit carbs like that anyway. They are super yummy and needed for athletic performance.

Now I'moff to have a sandwich!

They are needed for high intensity sports. They aren't needed for endurance sports.

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

They are needed for high intensity sports. They aren't needed for endurance sports.

Why? I really am interested in that theory.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

I am not reading 23 studies after the last link you provided, especially as you haven't read any of them. Give the direct link to the article. Either provide a random study out of that 23 and the one that supports your claim most succinctly. And after your last attempt it's probably best you give a line or two summary to show that you have actually read it.

How is this so difficult for you?

They are all relevant. I've provided evidence but you predictably reject everything you don't want to be true to suit your argument.

Bruno26

Mellor wrote: »

Thanks for answering.

1. At least we can establish common ground here. I also agree results will vary.

2. What required facts are missing?

3/4. The no/yes through me as I thought there was only 3 questions

I'd need to know the weight of the person- under or over. The foods they are eating, the time frame. Someone may put weight on easily while another person may struggle to put weight on. To be honest I'm more interested in losing fat / maintaining weight than someone bulking with this method. Hard to say but they may need to eat lots of starch veg and fruit if they want to put weight on.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

They are all relevant. I've provided evidence but you predictably reject everything you don't want to be true to suit your argument.

Give me the best one so, Bruno. You haven't given me one shred of evidence. Are you talking about the website you linked that linked the study? Because that totally disagrees with your argument, it backs up everyone else's.