What’s the best diet for weight loss ?

Physiologybrah

Lucy8080 wrote: »

I could have worded the opening lines in that post better. It still remains a fact that our bodies store excess energy as fat and release that fat depending on when it is required.

Calorie counting tends to be a starter for folks to embrace knew dietary /exercise regimes. Which in turn leads to weight loss.

Still, a calorie, and how we measure calorie content of food, bears no relation to how our bodies process energy.

Those who eat less food ,tend to eat less sugar. Even if they are putting it down to calorie counting.

This post is so contradictory. You could replace the word energy with calories in your opening sentence and we'd all be in agreement. How do you explain studies which have found similar rates of weight loss (provided caloric intake was equal) when group a was fed a high fat diet and and group b a high carb diet?

Lucy8080

Physiologybrah wrote: »

Lucy energy balance is without a doubt the number one priority for any individual aiming to lose or gain weight. There are any amount of studies (dating back as far as the 70s) to support this.

You are right in saying that energy balance is not the only important aspect to losing weight as the foods we eat can influence our appetite, drive to eat etc which will then possibly influence our caloric intake. But ultimately it still comes down to calories in Vs calories out. There are several examples in the literature of subjects eating hypocaloric diets consisting solely of twinkies, McDonald's or ice cream and still losing weight.

" Calories in v calories out" as you said above. We are back to that word again.

What use is that word "calorie" in relation to how our body works?

Physiologybrah

Basil3 wrote: »

Answering a question with a question again. It's hilarious.

You can't argue with stupid.

Physiologybrah

Lucy8080 wrote: »

" Calories in v calories out" as you said above. We are back to that word again.

What use is that word "calorie" in relation to how our body works?

You're making a ridiculous argument based on semantics. A calorie is a unit of energy.

Physiologybrah

Physiologybrah wrote: »

You're making a ridiculous argument based on semantics. A calorie is a unit of energy.

But Bunsen burners!

Lucy8080

Basil3 wrote: »

Answering a question with a question again. It's hilarious.

No ,I am trying to understand what you mean by such a question.

Excess fat is released as energy when the body needs it. The body stores excess sugar as fat. The fat converts back to glucose when energy is needed.

bladespin

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Congrats.

Thanks . I done it for years, bulk in winter and cut at the beginning of summer, last time though, going to try to just maintain from now on because while I find dropping the weight is simple (for me anyway) it’s always tough going.

Lucy8080

Physiologybrah wrote: »

You're making a ridiculous argument based on semantics. A calorie is a unit of energy.

What semantics? We can burn anything to find it's calorific value!

You are the one telling me that we accept this rule for some things and dismiss for other things.

Like a cricket bat, i guess. Honestly ,what use is such a measure?

Lucy8080

Lucy8080 wrote: »

No ,I am trying to understand what you mean by such a question.

Excess fat is released as energy when the body needs it. The body stores excess sugar as fat.

I am simply asking what happens if you consume more dietary fat than is required by your energy expenditure. What happens to it?

Lucy8080

Basil3 wrote: »

I am simply asking what happens if you consume more dietary fat than is required by your energy expenditure. What happens to it?

How does one do that? Fat will make you satiated.I think we are back to sugar again.

Try eat as much fat as you can manage ( no sugar/carbs). See how you get on!

Physiologybrah

Lucy8080 wrote: »

What semantics? We can burn anything to find it's calorific value!

You are the one telling me that we accept this rule for some things and dismiss for other things.

Like a cricket bat, i guess. Honestly ,what use is such a measure?

I don't understand your argument Lucy. It's a very useful measure for calculating the energy content in a given food.

Lucy8080

Lucy8080 wrote: »

What semantics? We can burn anything to find it's calorific value!

You are the one telling me that we accept this rule for some things and dismiss for other things.

Like a cricket bat, i guess. Honestly ,what use is such a measure?

How about we just start by using the calorie value of edible foods? Or is that too much of a stretch for you?

You didn't answer my question about how many calories are in a pencil.

Physiologybrah

Lucy8080 wrote: »

How does one do that? Fat will make you satiated.I think we are back to sugar again.

Try eat as much fat as you can manage ( no sugar/carbs). See how you get on!

Are you saying it's impossible to gain weight eating a high fat diet because you will become satiated before you can actually over consume fat?

Lucy8080

Lucy8080 wrote: »

How does one do that? Fat will make you satiated.I think we are back to sugar again.

Try eat as much fat as you can manage ( no sugar/carbs). See how you get on!

Are you saying that I'll only be able to tolerate a certain amount of calories?!

Lucy8080

Physiologybrah wrote: »

I don't understand your argument Lucy. It's a very useful measure for calculating the energy content in a given food.

IT's a measure for calculating the ( "calorific")energy content of anything that can be burned.

It tells us nothing about how our bodies burn/convert that same foodstuff/doorstop/ cricket bat.

We can burn all of the above and, well ...all that we have measured is how many degrees we have increased the heat of some water.


Does the water know what has been burned beneath it?

Cill94

Lucy8080 wrote: »

.

The science that sells it is denied by basic scientific enquiry.

I guess the weight of decades of nutrition research and the laws of thermodynamics don’t count as basic scientific enquiry so.

Aside from that, also plenty of practical evidence for calories being the driver for weight loss. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-dec-06-la-he-fitness-twinkie-diet-20101206-story.html%3f_amp=true

Physiologybrah

Lucy8080 wrote: »

IT's a measure for calculating the ( "calorific")energy content of anything that can be burned.

It tells us nothing about how our bodies burn/convert that same foodstuff/doorstop/ cricket bat.

We can burn all of the above and, well ...all that we have measured is how many degrees we have increased the heat of some water.


Does the water know what has been burned beneath it?

Ah stop now you're talking nonsense.

Lucy8080

Basil3 wrote: »

Are you saying that I'll only be able to tolerate a certain amount of calories?!

It's an hypnotic word is "calorie".

Tell me about that word , and what it means . Not "Fat" "sugar" "carb" ...just "CALORIE"


I think you are making all the other words synonymous with "calorie" .

That won't work...unless you can get all your fat/carb/fibre requirements from anything that has a "calorific" value.

Lucy8080

Physiologybrah wrote: »

Ah stop now you're talking nonsense.

How do we find the calorific content of a substance?

Cill94

Lucy8080 wrote: »

IT's a measure for calculating the ( "calorific")energy content of anything that can be burned.

It tells us nothing about how our bodies burn/convert that same foodstuff/doorstop/ cricket bat.

We can burn all of the above and, well ...all that we have measured is how many degrees we have increased the heat of some water.


Does the water know what has been burned beneath it?

You do realise that the calorie is just the unit that we have chosen, and that it’s completely arbitrary? You seen very hung up on the whole water temperature thing.

The fact is that all food contains energy, however you measure it. When it enters out body it can either remain or leave. More energy than we burn off = weight gain. This is very well-established concept that you’d understand with some basic physics and physiology textbooks.

Lucy8080

Cill94 wrote: »

I guess the weight of decades of nutrition research and the laws of thermodynamics don’t count as basic scientific enquiry so.

Aside from that, also plenty of practical evidence for calories being the driver for weight loss. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-dec-06-la-he-fitness-twinkie-diet-20101206-story.html%3f_amp=true

What is the individual calorific value of a shopping trolley, a shopping basket and a pizza?

I know which of the above you won't eat...and I know they all have calories. People would still diet /lose weight without that word.

The meaning we bring to it is like self hypnosis. The body converts sugars/proteins and even fat ( slowly) into energy that the body needs.

It does not convert "calories". It is a word that requires a lot of discrimination so that we don't eat any old thing that has "Calories".

Why is that?

Lucy8080

Lucy8080 wrote: »

What is the individual calorific value of a shopping trolley, a shopping basket and a pizza?

I know which of the above you won't eat...and I know they all have calories. People would still diet /lose weight without that word.

The meaning we bring to it is like self hypnosis. The body converts sugars/proteins and even fat ( slowly) into energy that the body needs.

It does not convert "calories". It is a word that requires a lot of discrimination so that we don't eat any old thing that has "Calories".

Why is that?

Even if things we don't eat contained 'calories', why does it bother you, when you're not eating them? Your logic is just bizarre.

Lucy8080

Cill94 wrote: »

You do realise that the calorie is just the unit that we have chosen, and that it’s completely arbitrary? You seen very hung up on the whole water temperature thing.

The fact is that all food contains energy, however you measure it. When it enters out body it can either remain or leave. More energy than we burn off = weight gain. This is very well-established concept that you’d understand with some basic physics and physiology textbooks.

Actually, everthing contains energy, if we set fire to it we can get a calorific measure.

Does that unit "we have chosen" stand up to any meaningful examination?

Lucy8080

Basil3 wrote: »

Even if things we don't eat contained 'calories', why does it bother you, when you're not eating them? Your logic is just bizarre.

People tend to calorie count. They may realise that it is a bad measure of food when seeking to lose weight.

For example, folks on diets tend to go for low fat foods. Low fat foods have less calories than their equivalent full fat version.

The low fat option will have more sugars (to make up for the loss of taste ). Excess sugar will convert to body fat.

The food with the most calories ( in the above example of two versions of the same product) is the one least likely to add on weight.

The full fat version of a product tends to have less sugar but more calories!

The low fat version has more sugar less calories. It's the sugar that will store as fat.

What use is calorie counting in the above scenario?

Lucy8080

Lucy8080 wrote: »

People tend to calorie count. They may realise that it is a bad measure of food when seeking to lose weight.

For example, folks on diets tend to go for low fat foods. Low fat foods have less calories than their equivalent full fat version.

The low fat option will have more sugars (to make up for the loss of taste ). Excess sugar will convert to body fat.

The food with the most calories ( in the above example of two versions of the same product) is the one least likely to add on weight.

The full fat version of a product tends to have less sugar but more calories!

The low fat version has more sugar less calories. It's the sugar that will store as fat.

What use is calorie counting in the above scenario?

You've already said this. What does dietary fat store as?

bb1234567

topdecko wrote: »

most people who lose weight via dieting put it back on within a year. There is emerging evidence that sudden changes in BMI increase your risk of heart attacks etc. Any weight loss program needs to be gradual, sustainable and incorporate
- calorie control (IF very effective)
- resistance training (simple weights, push ups, squats etc - you do not need a gym - chair, floor and wall will do thus can do them anywhere)
- DRINK MORE WATER
- cut out processed foods where possible and include lots veg, nuts and greek yoghurt (if not vegan)

This is template for most diets irregardless of what they are called. The relationship between calorie intake and energy expenditure is more complex than simply calories in vs energy used though. Once you gain weight your hypothalmus resets to this higher weight and will try to get back there. People can lose 2 stone through sheer willpower but more than likely will put that weight back on once they let their guard down in 3-6 months as they are fighting against nature. Being hungry is c*"p.

People who are overweight but not obese live the longest btw - bmi 26-27 is grand despite what modern culture might present as most desirable physique.

Only if the increased BMI is due to musculature, if it is due to fat it impacts health and longevity negatively. I've seen studies that associated higher BMI with longer life and when body fat% was adjusted for, mortality rates decreased the lower the body fat was. But a person with low body fat and large muscle mass will live longer than somebody with similarly low body fat but low muscle mass.

Lucy8080

Basil3 wrote: »

You've already said this. What does dietary fat store as?

Okay , so you agree that calorie counting could be counter productive, as shown above and has no bearing on how we gain/ lose weight? We just think we know what that word is?

What does dietary fat store as? any one here can google that. You end up with that word "calorie" again to measure the conversion of food into energy. The problem is that the body does not convert food into energy the way that a Bunsen burner converts.

The fact that the word "calorie" is used to equate a relationship between these two separate processes , beggars belief and deserves serious questioning.

I have showed an example of how more " calorie intake" could mean less weight gain.

What use the word "calorie"?

I'm off out now, thx for the chat all...and best of luck with your goals!

Lucy8080

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Okay , so you agree that calorie counting could be counter productive, as shown above and has no bearing on how we gain/ lose weight? We just think we know what that word is?

No, I don't agree....and I don't see what has been said to make you think I might.

What does dietary fat store as? any one here can google that. You end up with that word "calorie" again to measure the conversion of food into energy. The problem is that the body does not convert food into energy the way that a Bunsen burner converts.

Improve your Googling skills, and forget about the bunsen burner.

The fact that the word "calorie" is used to equate a relationship between these two separate processes , beggars belief and deserves serious questioning.

I have showed an example of how more " calorie intake" could mean less weight gain.

No, you said that a food with lower fat and less calories will store as fat, when compared to a food with more calories and fat. Just because you say this doesn't mean you've proven anything.

What use the word "calorie"?

What?

I'm off out now, thx for the chat all...and best of luck with your goals!

You too.

Cill94

Lucy8080 wrote: »

What is the individual calorific value of a shopping trolley, a shopping basket and a pizza?

I know which of the above you won't eat...and I know they all have calories. People would still diet /lose weight without that word.

The meaning we bring to it is like self hypnosis. The body converts sugars/proteins and even fat ( slowly) into energy that the body needs.

It does not convert "calories". It is a word that requires a lot of discrimination so that we don't eat any old thing that has "Calories".

Why is that?

The mental gymnastics you've gone through here is something else.

Yes, a shopping trolley does have its own energy. And if a human could hypothetically eat one without dying then it would have an affect as well.

And yet we can't, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

Cill94

OmegaGene wrote: »

i think someone is trolling

It's hard to tell these days