Forum Search
Keywords
Which Diet?
In Forum
By Member
Exact Match
1 to 20 of 100
What do vegetarian zombies say?
I have no grain intolerance or celiac disease, so I eat them in moderation when I feel like having them. It's never been a problem. Haven't noticed any differences without them in my diet either.
by Nimm (submitted 6 months ago)
My crazy weight
Remember that weight on the scale includes a lot more than just body fat - and the goal for probably everyone here is to lose body fat, not "weight." The scale can be higher than it was the day before, even though you have less body fat - water weight and solid mass (semi-digested food working its way through your system) can and often will cause daily fluctuations in your weight, even as much as 10 lbs worth. It is this "noise" in weight measurement that can make tracking changes in actual mass difficult. By way of example, if you don't eat much carbohydrate for a while or are particularly active, you may lose a few pounds of glycogen and the affiliated water. Eat a big meal with a decent amount of carbohydrate, and you can add several pounds of weight literally overnight through glycogen replenishment (and the affiliated water), even though you may have less body fat than you did 24 hours ago. It's important not to read too much into daily weigh-ins; changes in actual fat mass usually happen much slower than the changes in transient mass. The trend over the course of 2-3 weeks is a better indicator.
by Nimm (submitted 7 months ago)
Toxic Sugar: Fantastic Video on the Obesity Epidemic from ABC Australia
[quote=mummydee]So, I say, we are all different. but to say that you're setting people up for failure by saying quit it 100% is not always a given. Some need it 100%, like myself, sugar free for 20 years and don't miss it one bit, it is possible. [/quote] That's a fair summary. While I don't want to put words in Erika's mouth, I think she was referring to some of the research evidence showing that more restrictive or rigid diet strategies have lower long-term adherence (they are also [i]correlated with[/i] eating disorder symptoms and a higher BMI, but that's another matter): [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g... vs. flexible dieting: association with eating disorder symptoms in nonobese women.[/url] [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g... vs. Rigid dieting strategies: relationship with adverse behavioral outcomes.[/url] Low-fat diets are not immune either: [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g... dietary adherence and weight maintenance achieved by a long-term moderate-fat diet.[/url] [quote]In conclusion, a moderate-fat energy-restricted diet in the long term might have more beneficial effects on weight maintenance and cardiovascular risk factors compared with a low-fat diet. Better dietary adherence with the moderate-fat diet may be the reason for its successful effects.[/quote] But as you say, this is just a correlation and not an immutable, universal law. Some people will do better in the long term with more restrictive diets - and it's for that reason that blanket generalizations about diet strategies aren't usually helpful. My opinion is that regardless of which approach someone prefers, it's better to focus on what should be eaten rather what should be avoided - simply because forbidden fruit (no pun intended) is usually harder to resist - but again, there are few absolutes when it comes to finding a successful long-term strategy.
by Nimm (submitted 8 months ago)
Carbohydrates
[quote=onedaat]I do think 100 grams [b]a day[/b] of fructose is [b]way too much[/b]. It is especially too much if someone is overweight or obese, something Aragon doesn't even consider when he claims that amount is safe. [/quote] I'm not sure where you're finding this claim (and perhaps he did make it in a video), but it is at odds with [url=http://www.alanaragonblog... he has written[/url]: [quote]So, what’s the upper safe limit of fructose per day (all sources considered)? Again, [b]this depends on a number of variables, not the least of which are an individual’s physical activity level and lean body mass[/b]. Currently in the literature is a liberal camp reporting that fructose intakes up to 90 grams per day have a beneficial effect on HbA(1c), and no significant effects are seen for fasting triacylglycerol or body weight with intakes up to 100 grams per day in adults [15]. The conservative camp suggests that the safe range is much less than this; roughly 25-40 grams per day [19]. Figuring that both sides are biased, the middle figure between the two camps is [b]roughly 50 grams for active adults[/b]. Although the tendency is to get hung up on the trivial minutia of an exact gram amount, [b]it’s not possible to issue a universal number because individual circumstances vary widely[/b] (this is a concept that baffles anti-fructose absolutists). [b]The big picture solution is in managing total caloric balance with a predominance of minimally refined foods and sufficient physical activity[/b]. Pointing the finger at fructose while dismissing dosage and context is like saying that exercise should be avoided because it makes you fat and injured by spiking your appetite and hurting your joints.[/quote] Lustig himself had an exchange with Aragon over the issue, with links and summary [url=http://www.alanaragonblog... if you're interested. It also discusses the study you just cited, which Lustig also cited and to which Aragon replied. 100g/day of fructose is roughly 5 12-ounce cans of Coke (39g HFCS/can * 0.55 fructose). I'm an advocate for flexible dieting and fewer restrictions whenever possible, but even if the data weren't there, 5 cans of Coke per day for an obese person is not something I (or hopefully anyone else) would recommend. That's excess, not moderation, and almost certainly displacing essential nutrients in a eucaloric or hypocaloric diet.
by Nimm (submitted 8 months ago)
Carbohydrates
Argument from authority and ad hominems have no place in the debate. It doesn't matter whether one party is a high school dropout and the other is a Nobel Prize winner - their claims should be evaluated on their merits. If you can rebut the claims, do so. As it stands, many extremely well-credentialed people disagree with Lustig and agree with Aragon. That doesn't matter either, because the point is not who has the most letters after their name. The point is the claims each person is making, and the evidence they offer in support.
by Nimm (submitted 8 months ago)
Carbohydrates
[quote=onedaat][b]In animals, or at least in laboratory rats and mice, it’s clear that if the fructose hits the liver in sufficient quantity and with sufficient speed, the liver will convert much of it to fat. This apparently induces a condition known as insulin resistance, which is now considered the fundamental problem in obesity, and the underlying defect in heart disease and in the type of diabetes, type 2, that is common to obese and overweight individuals. It might also be the underlying defect in many cancers.[/b][/quote] The author's reliance on rat and mice data to imply much of anything about human metabolism of carbohydrate - and fructose in particular - is a serious flaw in this argument. This quote is discussing hepatic de novo lipogenesis ("DNL" ) - the conversion of dietary sugar into fatty acids by the liver. The author says, "In animals, or at least in laboratory rats and mice, it’s clear that if the fructose hits the liver in sufficient quantity and with sufficient speed, the liver will convert much of it to fat." The problem is, the evidence isn't there to start this sentence off with "In animals." There are big differences in the degree to which species will convert dietary carbohydrate into fat - and rodents do this much, much more efficiently than humans. See, e.g., this study that found no effect on triglyceride levels in Type 2 Diabetics until they were consuming over 60g/day of fructose: [url=http://care.diabetesjourn... Effects of Fructose on Blood Lipids in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes[/url] [quote]The inability of low doses to stimulate a quantitatively meaningful DNL response may explain this threshold.[b] Whereas DNL contributes 60–70% TG in rodents (36), it only contributes <5% TG in humans, under longer term, isocaloric, high-carbohydrate feeding conditions (37).[/b] Alternatively, the threshold may relate to the benefit of catalytic fructose doses (<10 g/meal) in decreasing acute postprandial glycemic and insulinemic responses in type 2 diabetes (38 ), mediated by increased hepatic glucose clearance via increased glycogen synthase-flux (39). The suggestion is that the benefit of fructose on carbohydrate metabolism seen at lower doses may mitigate adverse lipid effects, which require high doses to become manifest. [/quote] See also: [url=http://www.journalofanima... isotope methods for the in vivo measurement of lipogenesis and triglyceride metabolism[/url]: [quote][b]In contrast with humans, DNL appears to be very active and quantitatively significant in other animals. In rodents, DNL in adipose and liver can account for over 50% of fatty acids[/b] (Lee et al., 1994a; Brunengraber et al., 2003). In the pig, as much as 80% of adipose fatty acids arise from DNL (O’Hea and Leveille, 1969b). Again in contrast with humans, virtually all DNL in both pigs and cows takes place in the adipose tissue (Ballard et al., 1969; O’Hea and Leveille, 1969b). In other animals, such as chickens, the liver is the primary site of DNL (O’Hea and Leveille, 1969a). There is also species variation with respect to the preferred substrate for DNL. In ruminants, the substrate for synthesis of fatty acids in both the liver and adipose is clearly acetate as opposed to glucose (Ballard et al., 1969). This is in contrast to rodents and pigs where glucose is readily and extensively used for fatty acid synthesis in adipose (e.g., Dunshea et al., 1998 ). [/quote] [i]Human[/i] studies of DNL show a very different result than in rodents: [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g... novo lipogenesis in humans: metabolic and regulatory aspects.[/url] [quote]Similarly, [b]addition of CHO to a mixed diet does not increase hepatic DNL to quantitatively important levels, as long as CHO energy intake remains less than total energy expenditure (TEE[/b]). Instead, dietary CHO replaces fat in the whole-body fuel mixture, even in the post-absorptive state. Body fat is thereby accrued, but the pathway of DNL is not traversed; instead, a coordinated set of metabolic adaptations, including resistance of hepatic glucose production to suppression by insulin, occurs that allows CHO oxidation to increase and match CHO intake. [b]Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy.[/b][/quote] Consider the bold portions of this quote - there is controlled research evidence in humans suggesting that the the conversion of dietary CHO into fat doesn't ramp up until we are eating more carbohydrate than our total daily energy expenditure - e.g., 600g+ of carbohydrate per day.** This includes fructose. DNL in rodents does not tell us much of anything about the metabolism of fructose in humans - experimental data show that a fairly high dietary intake is required to produce measurable adverse effects, even among type II diabetics. And the article's suggestion that in humans "much" fructose is converted by the liver into body fat (especially without meaningful quantifiers like dose, and dietary context) is simply not supported by any human data. It's contradicted by it. ---- ** DNL in humans also [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g... up during low-fat diet conditions[/url]. The low-fat fad of the 90s was driven in part by the theory that since DNL isn't a very active pathway in humans under most conditions, little fat in the diet would mean little accumulation of body fat, even in a calorie surplus....until we found that DNL increases when dietary fat is lacking. Another reason that fad was off the mark.
by Nimm (submitted 8 months ago)
Calories In-Calories Out approach...will it work for me?
[quote=qapl] Therefore when i have CI should not make a difference right?[/quote] Meal timing will not affect fat loss unless it affects your hunger to the point that you consume more or less total energy. As such, you can (and probably should) time your meals so that it makes the process easiest for you. Some people find intermittent-fasting approaches helpful, and only eat in an 8-hour window of time each day. Other people manage their hunger better with the standard 3 meals. Some do better with even more frequent and smaller meals. Meal timing will matter, but the effect is indirect. Go with personal preference.
by Nimm (submitted 8 months ago)
Calories In-Calories Out approach...will it work for me?
[quote=eKatherine]CICO does not even imply calorie counting, tracking, or exercise. Restriction by portion control rather than counting calories is still governed by CICO. Restriction by eliminating foods that a person may consider empty calories is governed by CICO. Weight loss by exercise alone or by restriction alone is governed by CICO.[/quote] eKatherine beat me to it. Defining the terms here is important, as the flamewars happening in the related threads demonstrate - strawmen are everywhere. People use "calories in, calories out" as a shorthand for many different ideas, some of which make sense and others of which do not. I do not consider CICO to be a diet strategy. It's a simple physical truism, no longer really debatable, and supported by decades of well-controlled research. We will expend a certain amount of energy over a given time. If you consume [i]and digest and absorb[/i] less food energy than you expend, then the difference must be made up from somewhere, namely the energy stored in our bodies. If we consume, digest, and absorb more energy than we expend, our mass will increase. When we test this in the lab and [i]control[/i] the amount of food consumed - instead of relying on [url=http://www.nejm.org/doi/f... inaccurate self-reporting[/url], or free-living conditions - and accurately measure energy expended, as in metabolic ward studies, this rule is always confirmed. Not a single study under controlled conditions has ever found an increase in body mass during an energy deficit, regardless of the percentage of carbohydrate, fat, or protein in the diet, and not a single study under controlled conditions has ever found a decrease in body mass during an energy surplus. (For a little more detail in plain English, see [url=http://impruvism.com/why-... Calories Count[/url]) The idea that reduction in body mass can be explained solely by a reduction in carbohydrate, without a calorie deficit, is not supported by the existing research. See, for example, [url=http://www.sciencedirect.... high-protein or ‘low-carb’ energy-restricted diets for body weight loss and body weight maintenance? [/url] In that study, the researchers gave subjects four different diets with the same amount of calories: 1) a normal protein, normal carb diet, 2) a normal protein, low-carb diet, 3) a high protein, low carb diet, and 4) a high protein, normal carb diet. Remember, each diet had the same amount of calories. If lowering the carbohydrate content of a diet is responsible for weight loss but total energy is not, then you would expect that more weight would be lost in the low-carb conditions, than when more carbs - but the same total calories - were consumed. This did not happen. It was instead the [i]high protein[/i] conditions that caused the most weight loss. When protein and calories were held constant, changing the fat/carb composition of the rest of the diet did not affect weight loss. Having said all that, the fact that we need an energy deficit to reduce our body mass doesn't mean much else. As eKatherine said, it doesn't even imply calorie counting, let alone a particular diet composition or exercise routine. It doesn't imply crash dieting or starvation. It certainly doesn't imply a high-carb diet. Even though an energy deficit is a simple idea, it can be very difficult in practice. It takes patience or a lot of sophisticated equipment to get more than a rough estimate of how much energy we expend. And then tracking calories and measuring food to ensure we are below that number is fraught with difficulties - calorie labels are estimates with an allowable margin of error. More importantly, we each absorb and digest food imperfectly. For example, eat peanuts without chewing them much and you might notice they pass through without much digestion. Unabsorbed calories don't get added to the equation, but it's hard to know exactly how much of what we're eating is simply passing right through us. So there's a [i]lot[/i] of room for error when trying to count calories, and those errors can frustrate progress. This is where individual diet strategies such as low-carbing come into play. There are many, many ways to create and sustain an energy deficit, and low-carb is one of them. For that reason, I think of it as merely a subset of "CICO," and the two ideas do not have to be in tension. Because while the [i]quantity[/i] of food energy consumed will determine the amount of your body mass, the [i]quality[/i] of the diet will affect your health, body composition, mood, energy levels, and general ability to adhere to your diet. And at the end of the day, the only diet that will "work" for you is the one you can adhere to. For some people, that means low-carb. Some people report that it reduces their hunger and improves their mood, making a convenient lifestyle change that allows them to reduce mass without struggling, without undue hunger, and without calorie counting. Other people, however, find low-carbing intolerable. They can't tolerate it physically and/or as a lifestyle. That's up to you, though. Nearly everyone, however, finds that hunger is more easily managed with a diet that is heavier in protein and whole or less-processed foods. You may be able to lose fat on the infamous Twinkie Diet, but it wouldn't be the healthiest for you, or very pleasant to be battling the hunger all the time. CICO is an inescapable truth, whether we want to believe it or not. It's not a matter of "everyone is different, who's to say?" or on which the evidence is conflicting. Decades of [i]controlled[/i] lab results are unanimous. But of course, the free-living studies are not - because there are many different paths to a sustainable and healthy energy deficit, and what is sustainable for one person might not be for someone else. So, when you ask if CICO will "work" for you - the answer depends on what you mean. Will you reduce your body mass by consuming less food energy than you expend? Yes. Absolutely. The more pertinent question, though, is how you achieve and sustain that energy deficit. And on that point, there is no single "CICO approach." You don't need to starve or measure and track calories to take in less energy than you expend. Calorie counting is one way. Eyeballing everything and just eating 2/3 of what's on your plate might be another way. Atkins and low-carbing are another way. And so on. What "works" the best is whatever strategy you can live with indefinitely.
by Nimm (submitted 8 months ago)
Does exercise really matter, as long as I eat well?
Good advice, and supported by the research on the subject. Exercise has a lot of benefits, but it's not an efficient way to lose body fat - an hour of strenuous cardio might burn 600 calories or less. And then if you are less active the rest of the day, the lower energy expenditure during the resting hours can offset some or even all of the exercise. Exercise can help with health, performance, mood, energy levels, and body composition especially, but when it comes to weight, exercise tends to be more helpful for maintaining a lower weight rather than getting you there in the first place.
by Nimm (submitted 8 months ago)
Confession: I don't like exercise?
Exercise can yield a lot benefits to health, mood, and body composition, but it isn't [i]necessary[/i] for fat loss, and it can be extremely uncomfortable starting out. I eased into a more active routine before exercising regularly. I started simply by walking more, taking strolls around the neighborhood after dinner. Going out anywhere, I'd park further away from the door, to get another 20 yards of walking in. Given the choice between an escalator and stairs, I'd take the stairs...sometimes. If I was at a computer desk and wanted something in the other room, I wouldn't wait until I needed 5 things before making 1 trip, I'd get up and take 5 separate trips. And so on. It adds up, and the walks became longer and frequent, before turning into jogs. Swimming was another good choice - much less stressful on the knees and other joints. Ease into it - there's no need to go all-out from day 1. That would likely be counterproductive anyway. Finding activity that you enjoy and can not just tolerate but sustain is the better approach for long-term success.
by Nimm (submitted 8 months ago)
How Carbs can Trigger Food Cravings
Physical activity requires energy expenditure. Greater total energy expenditure can and will lead to a reduction in body mass if it causes an energy deficit. And yet, the research review discussed above recognizes this fact, but also says that exercise is not conducive to fat loss. These are both correct. See, e.g.,: [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g... loss depends on energy deficit only, independently of the method for weight loss.[/url] In this controlled experiment, subjects had comparable energy deficits from diet alone, or from a combination diet and exercise (group 2 eating more than group 1, but also exercising more). The groups lost comparable amounts of weight. If exercise increases an energy deficit, more mass will be lost. But in the real world where people are not obsessive about weight loss, exercise does not have a huge effect (ignoring health, mood, and body composition for now). This is easily explained - most people greatly overestimate the amount of energy expended through exercise, and will often overcompensate for the energy spent either by overconsuming elsewhere ('I spent an hour at the gym, so I will have an extra serving' ) or being less active during the non-exercise hours. Coincidentally, small changes in non-exercise activity throughout the day can add up to significant energy expenditure over 24 hours. The energy spent during an hour in the gym can, without much trouble, be offset by a few extra hours of less active behavior afterwards. Controlled studies show that exercise can cause fat loss, and free living studies show us that out in the real world, it doesn't end up contributing much. Both claims are correct. Of course, there are still health and body composition benefits to be had from exercise, regardless of the effect upon mass.
by Nimm (submitted 9 months ago)
A New Challange
I hope nobody posting in that thread smokes, because the incredible number of strawmen are a real fire hazard.
by Nimm (submitted 9 months ago)
How Carbs can Trigger Food Cravings
If you are claiming that fitness gurus are selling their supplements and services by downplaying or ignoring the quality or composition of diet while focusing exclusively on the quantity of energy consumed, then no, I could not disagree more strongly. The entire industry is founded on the opposite premise - i.e., the more complicated nutrition and health regimens are, the better. Simplicity is anathema to them, because complexity creates a need for their (in fact unnecessary) advice. If that's not what you're saying, then I misunderstood. Also, "ramblings" is unduly pejorative.
by Nimm (submitted 9 months ago)
How Carbs can Trigger Food Cravings
[quote=mrspackrat]Onedaat, to piggy back on your post, I think many fitness guru's who make a boat load of money won't tell anyone the real secret to losing weight either. They are probably are the biggest voices behind bashing anyone saying that it's also about what you eat, not how much. Cause let's face it, that doesn't sell all their exercise videos and supplements/magic pills.[/quote] You must not know many fitness gurus, because peddling misinformation and promoting the most unnecessarily restrictive dietary regimens is the industry's stock in trade. There is a small minority of trainers and actual fitness nutrition experts pushing back against this exploitative cottage industry, using published research, but for the most part, "fitness gurus" are ground zero for restrictive nutritional regimens. Supplements go hand in hand with the orthorexic/restrictive nutrition dogma - the idea that a balanced, diverse diet without restrictions or special exogenous supplements to support claims of metabolic magic, is anathema to this industry. Fitness and bodybuilding are breeding grounds for eating disorders. Tell a fitness enthusiast that Food X or Macronutrient Y is hazardous to their health or body composition, and many of them will never touch it again...regardless of how little evidentiary support there is for the claim. The "flexible eating" movement is in part a pushback to this unhealthy mindset, by discouraging obsessive concern with individual foods and macro/micronutrients. When the "fitness enthusiasts" here argue against diets that restrict entire macronutrients (or, more accurately, argue that such diets are not [i]physically mandatory[/i] or categorically more effective than the alternatives), they are usually doing so because they are familiar with an environment where those sorts of claims have contributed to a population rife with body image and eating disorders. Many amateur bodybuilders used to wake themselves up in the middle of the night every few hours to ingest protein, because the conventional wisdom said they were risking muscle catabolism if they didn't. It has taken years of evidence-supported argument to push back against this myth, which was quite literally ruining some people's lives. The flexible approach to WHAT is eaten as well as WHEN it is eaten is all part of the same pushback. Unfortunately, it is a decidedly small minority of the fitness community...because there is no profit in telling people they can meet their nutritional needs and body composition goals [i]without[/i] expensive supplements, [i]without[/i] militarily-regimented meal timing, [i]without[/i] Byzantine rules about which foods are "good" or "clean" and which "dirty" or "bad," and [i]without[/i] avoiding entire macronutrients, whether it's fat (in the 80s and 90s) or carbohydrate (00s).
by Nimm (submitted 9 months ago)
A New Challange
And here I thought I was the only lurker. Dipped my toe in that thread a while ago, realized it was going to be a slow-motion train wreck, and got back out in a hurry. [b]willpower[/b] ...but not enough to resist looking.
by Nimm (submitted 9 months ago)
Sticking to diet...How come I fluxuate so much?
While I generally think that the mirror and pants are the best way to gauge progress, rather than the number on a scale, remember that a tape measure (and pants) will still be susceptible to water retention. Temporary bloating can and will affect both your appearance and a tape measure. If the "bloating" doesn't clear up after a week or two, though...it may not be water.
by Nimm (submitted 9 months ago)
Sticking to diet...How come I fluxuate so much?
Presumably your goal is to lose body fat, not just weight. These are two different things, as your body is made up of much more than just fat. It also includes a lot of water and solid mass passing through your body in the form of food that is in various stages of digestion. Actual changes in body fat stores are fairly slow. Even with an extremely aggressive calorie deficit, you are unlikely to lose even a half pound of fat per day. The transitory mass in your body, however, can shift by several pounds per day. It's not that uncommon for me to weigh 3 or 4 pounds more at the end of the day than at the beginning - and then be 3 or 4 pounds lighter again by morning. These daily fluctuations in weight can be much larger than actual changes in body fat - and can make it difficult or frustrating to measure how much actual mass you are gaining or losing (after all, you can drink a glass of water before getting on the scale and voila, you're a pound heavier, but without any new body fat). Unfortunately, the best "solution" I've found is simply to be patient and look at the trends over the course of several weeks, rather than individual days. It's frustrating, but once you understand that the number on the scale is only loosely related to the goal of losing fat, it takes a lot of power away from the scale. You can be two pounds heavier one morning, but still have less body fat than you did the day before.
by Nimm (submitted 9 months ago)
can i eat anything in low calories diet ?
You can lose mass by eating less food energy (calories) than you expend. Even if it's pure sugar. However, you'll quickly learn that's not a great idea. Your size depends on the amount of food energy you eat, but your health, body composition, mood, energy levels, and ability to adhere to your diet will depend on the quality of the food you eat. A protein-deficient diet, for example, may cause you to feel much more hungry all the time than you would otherwise. And you will lose more lean mass than necessary. Seeing as how most people looking to get smaller wish to lose body fat, and not just "weight," your body composition matters. So, technically, yes - eat less energy than you burn and you will get smaller. But the type of food you eat will make a big difference as to how easy the whole process is for you, and how you look and feel when you reach your goal.
by Nimm (submitted 9 months ago)
Thermodynamics? Not really...
[quote=reddarin]Do you see what is being said here? There is parity between calories in and calories out in the obese. That is a powerful indictment of CICO.[/quote] No, it's nothing of the sort. Weight stability will eventually be reached if diet is constant - that's how it works. You consume more energy than you expend, and you add mass. The additional mass requires more energy to maintain and to move, so eventually, the surplus will no longer be a surplus and weight stability will be achieved. A 150 lb person may, at their usual activity level, burn 2500 calories per day. Now let's say the person's usual diet is 3000 calories per day. (we'll assume that's the net energy absorbed - what's consumed will likely be a little more). That person will become larger, and eventually, at the same activity level, the person's additional mass will cause them to expend 3000 calories per day (see, e.g., what I posted above - larger bodies at weight stability being maintained by greater consumption). It could be they weigh 190 lbs before this happens. But the body will have caught up to the diet, and no new mass will be added. Of course, consumption and expenditure are -dependent- variables, so the additional mass may result in lower activity level. In which case, weight stability will still eventually be reached, it will just take longer and more mass will be added. But unless a person continually increases their consumption, they [i]will[/i] eventually stop adding mass. Mass cannot be generated from thin air.
by Nimm (submitted 9 months ago)
Thermodynamics? Not really...
[quote=reddarin]Also, fat people haven’t been shown to, in general, eat any differently than thinner people. [/quote] Not sure what your source on this claim is, but if you're basing it on the same "science" that Gary Taubes used to make the same argument in his book, the source was quite old [i]self-reported[/i] data. And self-reported consumption is notoriously inaccurate. See, e.g.,: [url=http://www.nejm.org/doi/f... between Self-Reported and Actual Caloric Intake and Exercise in Obese Subjects[/url] [quote]In contrast, the subjects in group 1 underreported their actual food intake by an average (±SD) of 47±16 percent and overreported their physical activity by 51±75 percent.[/quote] More objective, reliable, and recent data disagree that consumption patterns are identical. See: [url=http://www.nature.com/ijo... energy expenditure masks low physical activity in obesity[/url] This study found, among others: * Consistent with earlier studies, the moderately obese subjects consumed (and burned) 19% more calories than the lean subjects, as a group. * Severely obese subjects consumed (and burned) 35% more calories than the lean subjects, as a group. * "There was no indication of metabolic efficiency in even the severely obese" - i.e., for the subjects in this study, as a group there was no "slow metabolism" in the obese. To the contrary, the obese subjects expended [b]more[/b] energy per kg of lean mass [i]at rest[/i]. A pound of muscle in the obese subjects, at rest, would expend more energy than a pound of muscle in the lean subjects, at rest. The best available data do not support the idea that there is no difference in energy consumption.
by Nimm (submitted 9 months ago)
1   2   3   4   5   Next

Latest Posts

Coffee increases Blood Sugar?
I would drink two cups of coffee before 4 pm, but I also added ice, so they were not boldly strong. Watered down coffee.
by Deb_N on 16 Apr 14 02:00 AM
Before and After, anyone?
I wanted to share this, as a new "in-between" picture. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/JjOE7w... I have started my own weight loss coaching company! How about that?! Seeing this picture of me - ...
by kingkeld on 15 Apr 14 11:51 PM
Morbid Obesity Buddies Group (JOIN US)
I am in that morbid obese state and need moral support. Just joined FatSecret yesterday 04-14-14 so not sure how all this works. Just need to know someone out there who cares even though they do not r ...
by MomjjjaLou on 15 Apr 14 11:19 PM
Wieghtloss and Drinking Hot/Cold Water ?
Hydration is essential for good health and digestion. Water is your best choice.. The warm vs cold has been going on for a long time. Consuming water will make you feel fuller, it has no calories..hot, ...
by Karen.sherck on 15 Apr 14 11:04 PM
How do you use the barcode scanner?
I was hoping the scanner would load foods in the data base. Does not seem to.
by wholefoodnut on 15 Apr 14 10:21 PM
Can you set your top limit for food intake numbers
Hi I am new to this site, is there a way to set my daily goal for calories, carbs, proteins etc? Tina
by TinaR16 on 15 Apr 14 10:13 PM

Member Tip

average member ranking
by member Lucky765
This is tough......I,m spending 90% of my time trying to stay on meal plan and the other 10% going off it.....Resulting in an increase in weight..
05 Jan 14 for diet Atkins