Weight: Energy Balance Model Vs Hormonal Model

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

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.

My argument is the hormonal model is superior for controlling weight / body fat. .

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

My argument is the hormonal model is superior for controlling weight / body fat. .

You're stupidity infuriates me. The following is a line from the article you linked;

A main strength of our study was use of a controlled feeding protocol to establish weight stability following weight loss.

To re-word that for you, one of the strongest components of their study was the fact that they controlled calorie consumption in the High Fat and High Carb groups.

They follow with;

Main study limitations are the relatively short duration of the test diets and the difficulty extrapolating findings from a feeding study to a more natural setting, in which individuals consume self-selected diets. In particular, the very low-carbohydrate diet involved more severe carbohydrate restriction than would be feasible for many individuals over the long term. Therefore, the study may overestimate the magnitude of effects that could be obtained by carbohydrate restriction in the context of a behavioral intervention.

Which is nice way of saying it's only of benefit if you have control over what someone is eating and has little relevance in the real world.

You linked this to show that counting calories don't matter, the authors say the best part of the study was how they implemented the counting of calories.

WTF is wrong with you? You're going to read what I've written and it's going to go straight over your head. It's like water of a duck's back, you just ignore it. I honestly think you need to see a doctor, I'm not even exaggerating.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

You're stupidity infuriates me. The following is a line from the article you linked;



To re-word that for you, one of the strongest components of their study was the fact that they controlled calorie consumption in the High Fat and High Carb groups.

They follow with;



Which is nice way of saying it's only of benefit if you have control over what someone is eating and has little relevance in the real world.

You linked this to show that counting calories don't matter, the authors say the best part of the study was how they implemented the counting of calories.

WTF is wrong with you? You're going to read what I've written and it's going to go straight over your head. It's like water of a duck's back, you just ignore it. I honestly think you need to see a doctor, I'm not even exaggerating.

I'm a stranger on the Internet. A bit of advice - don't let such people infuriate you. Don't get personal- you come across as a horrible person. Predictably you start the insults when you're losing or your entrenched views are being challenged. You didn't read all of them. In many there was no calorie restriction in low carb group yet those subjects lost more weight. Yet you refuse to accept this but throw out insults- nice.

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

I'm a stranger on the Internet. A bit of advice - don't let such people infuriate you. Don't get personal- you come across as a horrible person. Predictably you start the insults when you're losing or your entrenched views are being challenged. You didn't read all of them. In many there was no calorie restriction in low carb group yet those subjects lost more weight. Yet you refuse to accept this but throw out insults- nice.

Please if you do not mind, link to the exact report you mean then.

The reason others (including myself) get frustrated with you, is that you make quite extraordinary claims, but refuse to come up with actual, non anecdotal proof for those claims. You expect others to do the digging and find out if what you say is true. But the burden of proof is yours.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

I'm a stranger on the Internet. A bit of advice - don't let such people infuriate you. Don't get personal- you come across as a horrible person. Predictably you start the insults when you're losing or your entrenched views are being challenged. You didn't read all of them. In many there was no calorie restriction in low carb group yet those subjects lost more weight. Yet you refuse to accept this but throw out insults- nice.

They are not my views, they are fact. There is a difference, just like a child thinks Santa exists, he can think it all he wants, he can talk to all his little friends about Santa, they can debate how Santa manages to defy the laws of physics and get down that chimney, but that will never change the fact that Santa doesn't exist.

Of course I didn't read all of them, you haven't even read them. Name any of the 'many' you talk about. If you're not making it up it's only a matter of copying and pasting the link.

Why did you include the first link as evidence, Bruno?

kevpants

Bruno26 wrote: »

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

Bruno26 wrote: »

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

Is there a broom convention in town? Do they need anyone to drop some sweeping statements?

Does anyone care about performance anymore? All you nutrition fascists who demonize processed foods and grains and talk about how sugar is destroying society, what exactly can you do or have you done?

You preach using such knowledgeable tone and drop statements like the above whilst you live in your bubble of healthy fats and kale. Show me the gainz! Or at least demonstrate that you aren't an anaemic bag of bones encased in an under armour exoskeleton. I saw a video from the practitioner of this Bulletproof Diet yesterday, the guy looks like he’s halfway through his chemo!

I can’t profess to be a nutritional expert but I’ll run a 6 minute mile this year whilst squatting and deadlifting 600lb+. Consequently I’ll be able to see my abs and every day I’ll eat at least one rocky road muffin. I’ll devour and turn that sh1t into athletic performance. It’s so processed, not only does it have a label, the label itself is made from sugar and stuck into the top of the muffin. Don’t talk to me about what chemicals are in it, you know what has chemicals in it? THINGS! I don’t care about your study indicating protein synthesis is optimised in the flknsfklsfnink, I have no faith that any of you can keep up with anyone I would consider an athletic specimen worthy of even the slightest nod of appreciation, nor would anyone I respect be able to even survive on your stupid nutritional protocol.

I know one of you is a specialist in riding a bike for a very long time at the same speed but can’t go any faster or will die. I dunno about the other one.

I firmly believe sedentary lifestyles are the big killer and your pointless rants about unprocessed foods and HFLC achieves nothing with reagrd to those those people and I believe it doesn't apply to those of us who want to achieve athletic excellence.

Excuse me, I have a 10k run tonight and I’ve 205kg beltless sumo deadlift 5x5s tomorrow, I need to eat as much heavily packaged carbohydrate as I can. Enjoy your fish oil soup or whatever it is you’re having tonight, I’ll be gorging at the trough of excellence, and it’s full of jaffa cakes.

*drops mic

Oryx

^^^^you had me at rocky road muffin.

generic2012

kevpants wrote: »

I’ll devour and turn that sh1t into athletic performance.

I've been looking for a forehead tattoo...

Alf Veedersane

Fortunately some coffee flushed the little piece of birthday chocolate biscuit cake out my nose.

Bruno26

@generic: enjoy!

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633336/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02290.x/full

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/Mobile/article.aspx?articleid=205916

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17228046/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X

http://annals.org/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=717451

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021480

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347602402065

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

@generic: enjoy!

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633336/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02290.x/full

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/Mobile/article.aspx?articleid=205916

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17228046/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X

http://annals.org/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=717451

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021480

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347602402065

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637

Are you seriously telling me you don't understand what one means? Give the most relevant ONE an summarise it. I'm trawling through all that muck when it's obvious you haven't read any of it.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

Are you seriously telling me you don't understand what one means? Give the most relevant ONE an summarise it. I'm trawling through all that muck when it's obvious you haven't read any of it.

I provided more than one as no doubt you'd reject it. You're argument is redundant if you don't read them- you wanted science - there it is!

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

I provided more than one as no doubt you'd reject it. You're argument is redundant if you don't read them- you wanted science - there it is!

Which ones have you read?

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

I provided more than one as no doubt you'd reject it. You're argument is redundant if you don't read them- you wanted science - there it is!

I also wanted only one.

I've looked at the first link. And again you've provided a study that used calorie restriction. You are claiming that calories don't need to be counted, and to support your claim you provide linkS to studies that implement the counting of calories. I don't of course, but many many many people could think that is a sign of lunacy.

Here is a line from the study;

The similar caloric deficit achieved in all diet groups...

You understand why I hesitate to read your links? You either don't or cant read them. What do you have to say about my observation on the links you've provided and how am I wrong about them?

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

I also wanted only one.

I've looked at the first link. And again you've provided a study that used calorie restriction. You are claiming that calories don't need to be counted, and to support your claim you provide linkS to studies that implement the counting of calories. I don't of course, but many many many people could think that is a sign of lunacy.

Here is a line from the study;



You understand why I hesitate to read your links? You either don't or cant read them. What do you have to say about my observation on the links you've provided and how am I wrong about them?

In this 2-year trial, we randomly assigned 322 moderately obese subjects (mean age, 52 years; mean body-mass index [the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters], 31; male sex, 86%) to one of three diets: low-fat, restricted-calorie; Mediterranean, restricted-calorie; or low-carbohydrate, non–restricted-calorie.

Now read the above again! Two calorie restricted, low carb non restricted calorie. Result low carb lost most weight.

Bruno26

Hanley wrote: »

The only time you should be low carb is breakfast. OM.

Why?

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

In this 2-year trial, we randomly assigned 322 moderately obese subjects (mean age, 52 years; mean body-mass index [the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters], 31; male sex, 86%) to one of three diets: low-fat, restricted-calorie; Mediterranean, restricted-calorie; or low-carbohydrate, non–restricted-calorie.

Now read the above again! Two calorie restricted, low carb non restricted calorie. Result low carb lost most weight.

Non calorie restricted means they were allowed eat as as much as they wanted. Later in the article it says they were in a calorie deficit. They ate as much as they wanted, which ended up below maintenance (a calorie deficit) and they lost weight. That backs up what we're saying - eat anything and as long as you are consume less calories than your daily caloric expenditure you will lose weight.

You are claiming that someone can consume calories above maintenance and lose weight (as long as they eat less 150g of carbs). I'll give you some advice, stay away from studies that involve calorie deficits, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Now read the above again!

Bruno26

Oryx wrote: »

Why? I really am interested in that theory.

This may or may not interest you!

http://vinnietortorich.com/discussions/topic/books-for-endurance-fat-adapted-athletes/

http://www.fatchancerow.org/expedition/

http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/lifestyle/marathon-runners-can-benefit-from-high-fat-diet-noakes-1.1524364#.VFpmdn6QGrV

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

You are claiming that someone can consume calories above maintenance and lose weight (as long as they eat less 150g of carbs). I'll give you some advice, stay away from studies that involve calorie deficits, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

How do you get away with such misrepresentation?

For the second time my argument is about which weight loss / control model is best ?

Those studies clearly show its the hormonal model.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

How do you get away with such misrepresentation?

My caloric intake for weight maintenance is 3,000 calories. If I ate 20g of carbs, 100g of protein and 3,000 calories from fat would I;

A. gain weight
B. lose weight
C maintain weight?

One letter answer will suffice

laoch na mona

Bruno26 wrote: »

Why?

breakfast is fry time frys are low carb

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

My caloric intake for weight maintenance is 3,000 calories. If I ate 20g of carbs, 100g of protein and 3,000 calories from fat would I;

A. gain weight
B. lose weight
C maintain weight?

One letter answer will suffice

D. Fat loss

Have you finished your reading yet?

Bruno26

laoch na mona wrote: »

breakfast is fry time frys are low carb

I know but that's not what I asked.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

D. Fat loss

Have you finished your reading yet?

Yes.

None of the articles you've linked show or even purport to show that anyone can lose fat in a caloric surplus. Have you started reading yet?

cc87

What in the name of jebus is the point in this thread??

What possible use is it to the average obese joe on to the street that he needs to keep his hormones in check to lose weight?? "that insulin be wreckin you brah"

So what if it plays a role? So does the mountain of sh!te he eats and the hours he spends sitting on his arse trolling on boards

Which is gonna be easier for him do?? Learn how to sort out his hormones??

Or just move a bit more, get up and walk around, interact with people, develop social skills that will allow him to form meaningful arguments in order to get his point across and not just blindly follow the most recent rant on marksdailyapple without really understanding it or the research behind it

Bruno26

cc87 wrote: »

What in the name of jebus is the point in this thread??

What possible use is it to the average obese joe on to the street that he needs to keep his hormones in check to lose weight?? "that insulin be wreckin you brah"

So what if it plays a role? So does the mountain of sh!te he eats and the hours he spends sitting on his arse trolling on boards

Which is gonna be easier for him do?? Learn how to sort out his hormones??

Or just move a bit more, get up and walk around, interact with people, develop social skills that will allow him to form meaningful arguments in order to get his point across and not just blindly follow the most recent rant on marksdailyapple without really understanding it or the research behind it

You're very confused.

It plays a role in making him fat because of the mountain of **** he eats.

You don't sort out your hormones. You sort out the food you eat.

You cannot out exercise a bad diet.

You then essentially say why learn about the role of insulin but then you go and follow some rant but don't do the research into why you do it. Very contradictory.

generic2012

cc87 wrote: »

Or just move a bit more, get up and walk around, interact with people, develop social skills that will allow him to form meaningful arguments in order to get his point across and not just blindly follow the most recent rant on marksdailyapple without really understanding it or the research behind it

Mellor

Bruno26 wrote:

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.

They are neither under of over weight, lets say a BMI of 23, 75kg, 14% Bodyfat. ie, smack bang in them middle of normal all around. They put on and lose weight at a normal rate.

Lets say daily energy needs are 2,500cals
The eat 3,000 cals daily. All real food, meats veg, eggs, dairy etc.
225g Protein (30%)
167g Fat (50%)
150g Carbs (20%)

They lift heavy stuff, run short distances fast, and jump onto and over stuff.
Killing animal's with spears is kept to a minimum. Animals should be hunted and killed for food when ever possible
Animal edit for generic

Bruno26 wrote: »

Those studies clearly show its the hormonal model.

If the third group was in calorie deficit, even though they were unrestricted, then its reinforces the energy model.

generic2012

[QUOTE=Me

Mellor wrote: »

They are neither under of over weight, lets say a BMI of 23, 75kg, 14% Bodyfat. ie, smack bang in them middle of normal all around. They put on and lose weight at a normal rate.

Lets say daily energy needs are 2,500cals
The eat 3,000 cals daily. All real food, meats veg, eggs, dairy etc.
225g Protein (30%)
167g Fat (50%)
150g Carbs (20%)

They lift heavy stuff, run short distances fast, and jump onto and over stuff.
Killing animal's with spears is kept to a minimum. Animals should be hunted and killed for food when ever possible
Animal edit for generic

A piece of literary genius, in decades people will be going on to forums and using your books where the should be using scientific articles!

28/5

Mellor

generic2012 wrote: »

It was believable until I saw the amount of protein and inadequate numbers of animals speared.

3/5

Ok, i've edited that for you. Please update your score and quote.

generic2012

Mellor wrote: »

Ok, i've edited that for you. Please update your score and quote.

Done!

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

[QUOTE=Me

Mellor wrote: »

They are neither under of over weight, lets say a BMI of 23, 75kg, 14% Bodyfat. ie, smack bang in them middle of normal all around. They put on and lose weight at a normal rate.

Lets say daily energy needs are 2,500cals
The eat 3,000 cals daily. All real food, meats veg, eggs, dairy etc.
225g Protein (30%)
167g Fat (50%)
150g Carbs (20%)

They lift heavy stuff, run short distances fast, and jump onto and over stuff.
Killing animal's with spears is kept to a minimum. Animals should be hunted and killed for food when ever possible
Animal edit for generic

A piece of literary genius, in decades people will be going on to forums and using your books where the should be using scientific articles!

28/5

Regardless of lifting or running with a diet like that they ain't getting fat.

Mellor

Bruno26 wrote: »

Regardless of lifting or running with a diet like that they ain't getting fat.

I never mentioned fat.

I said would their weight increase, decrease or stay the same?

Bruno26

Mellor wrote: »

I never mentioned fat.

I said would their weight increase, decrease or stay the same?

Same or slight increase if they are of normal weight.

MaceFace

Bruno26 has sidetracked so many threads on this forum with the same mantra - 150g of carbs per day or less is all you need to worry about. Eat less, lose fat. Overall calorie intake is irrelevant.

In every single thread he has never explained why 150g is the magic number.

Every single thread ends the same way - dragging the argument into edge cases that no one really cares about.

Bruno26

MaceFace wrote: »

Bruno26 has sidetracked so many threads on this forum with the same mantra - 150g of carbs per day or less is all you need to worry about. Eat less, lose fat. Overall calorie intake is irrelevant.

In every single thread he has never explained why 150g is the magic number.

.

I've explained it numerous times. It limits insulin production- this is why low carb works.

It's called offering an alternative viewpoint.

fungie

Bruno26 wrote: »

I've explained it numerous times. It limits insulin production- this is why low carb works.

It's called offering an alternative viewpoint.

Alternative viewpoints are to be encouraged I believe but you need a decent amount of evidence to back them up. That you don't have.

Bruno26

fungie wrote: »

Alternative viewpoints are to be encouraged I believe but you need a decent amount of evidence to back them up. That you don't have.

6 links provided yesterday concluding low carb approach is best.

ford2600

Bruno26 wrote: »

6 links provided yesterday concluding low carb approach is best.

If a group of people consumed 60-70% of their calories as carbohydrate for life would they be lean/overweight/obese?

If a such a group of people existed and weren't fat but lean and in rude health, where does that leave your 150g a day mantra?

Brian?

Bruno26 wrote: »

6 links provided yesterday concluding low carb approach is best.

Articles are not evidence. Studies are evidence.

Otherwise my Masters would be a lot easier.

Bruno26

Brian? wrote: »

Articles are not evidence. Studies are evidence.

Otherwise my Masters would be a lot easier.

They were all studies.

Bruno26

ford2600 wrote: »

If a group of people consumed 60-70% of their calories as carbohydrate for life would they be lean/overweight/obese?

If a such a group of people existed and weren't fat but lean and in rude health, where does that leave your 150g a day mantra?

It means they don't have IR.

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

It means they don't have IR.

I still dont get this insulin resistance thing. Can you explain it better, please?

Brian?

Bruno26 wrote: »

They were all studies.

Then don't call them articles. I'll look back and find them.

MaceFace

Bruno26,

Nothing I have ever seen from you talks about 150g.
Low Carb is not a vague description. 150g is exact.

What happens the body below 150g that causes fat loss?

Is there a formula that can be applied assuming that 150g is for an average person and as we know, no one is truly average?
What should my limit be?

Bruno26

Brian? wrote: »

Then don't call them articles. I'll look back and find them.

I said links (should have said links to studies). You called them articles- go back and check.

fungie

Bruno26 wrote: »

I said links (should have said links to studies). You called them articles- go back and check.

This thread is going nowhere fast.

Bruno26

MaceFace wrote: »

Bruno26,

Nothing I have ever seen from you talks about 150g.
Low Carb is not a vague description. 150g is exact.

What happens the body below 150g that causes fat loss?

Is there a formula that can be applied assuming that 150g is for an average person and as we know, no one is truly average?
What should my limit be?

This expains it.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/press/the-primal-blueprint-diagrams/#axzz3IHue1EtF

Many critics of this guy on here but whatever works for people.

thegreatiam

so we've gone from eat what you like and you can't get fat. to maximum 150g of carbs to whatever works for you.

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

This expains it.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/press/the-primal-blueprint-diagrams/#axzz3IHue1EtF

Many critics of this guy on here but whatever works for people.

It explains the theory, but doesnt prove it works!