Thermodynamics? Not really...

52 PAGES
first ... 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 next ... last
previous topic · next topic
Clueless101

Joined: May 13
Posts: 254

      quote  
Posted: 13 Jul 2013, 18:35
never surrender wrote:
Let's see if you can take the non troll like approach and just leave it at that


Guess that's a big fat NO (no pun intended) Smile
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 13 Jul 2013, 18:42
never surrender wrote:
The whole tone of the post and imho the OP's approach is that simply by eating LC whatever that really means and without having to do 'Nazi' exercising the fat will simply melt of the body in no time at all and you can just lounge around practically inert while it does and you don't even have to reduce your calories below your rdi!



Riiiiight. There is that dang 'tone' again. And, hey, if the person you disagree won't agree with you then you can just make up stuff and pretend like they said it.

You know who says the most outlandish things about LC? People, like you, that don't know anything about LC but are just dead sure it is bad and no one should do it. Like this fantasy blurb of junk you attribute to me.

Bah.

something something something troll something something something.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 13 Jul 2013, 18:45
never surrender wrote:
The whole tone of the post and imho the OP's approach is that simply by eating LC whatever that really means and without having to do 'Nazi' exercising the fat will simply melt of the body in no time at all and you can just lounge around practically inert while it does and you don't even have to reduce your calories below your rdi!



I am feeling another imagined slight on my character.

Razz
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 13 Jul 2013, 20:33
therealdave wrote:
In the past I used a high carb diet to get lean. I've been surprised at some of the carb statements that I've read on different threads on this site.

We know that people can lose weight on high carb diets, and we know that people can lose weight on low carb diets. The Law of Non-Contradiction tells us that both statements can't be true unless the weight loss is due to something other than carbs.


This is just a restatement that caloric deficit is the only reason for weight loss. No one denies that, except the mainstream crowd when they are caricaturing the LC crowd. What it doesn't address is that a person with a normal metabolism will lose weight at x deficit while a person with a screwed up metabolism will not. That is, weight loss occurs in the presence of a deficit but the presence of a deficit does not guarantee weight loss. *Assuming* that the deficit is reasonable and not starvation. I am pretty sure that TOM is proof of my argument.

Quote:
Too many people measure truth by their experiences, we need to measure our experience by truth. Then we will be able to take things to a new level.


I don't know about new levels but I am all for clarity of thought and critical self-examination.

Quote:
Any livestock farmer knows that if he feeds his animals more that they will gain weight, and if he feeds them less they will lose weight. Think about it. Wink


I believe Taubes related a story about cattle being fed a low carb diet not fattening up so the rancher had to switch to a high carb diet to fatten them up.

I found this story but I am not sure if it is what Taubes was relating.

http://www.newsreview.com/reno/cows-return-to-a-low-carb/content?oid=744742

Quote:
After milk, all young cattle start life eating grass. In the years before World War II, that’s also how they ended it. However, post-war, industrial agriculture was interested in producing beef fast, cheap and plentifully. That’s when, after six to 12 months, cattle were led from pasture to the feedlot. There, they’d be fed grain until they reached a certain weight—something that happened quickly on their new, high-carb diet—before being taken to slaughter. Federal subsidies for corn made it easy. Beef became “what’s for dinner” rather than a rare treat. Grass-fed beef fans say this way of production has taken a toll on the health of people, cattle and the environment.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 13 Jul 2013, 20:43
never surrender wrote:
It's my party and I'll cry if I want to..


Hmmmm.

Pithy is not your strong suit my friend. I'm game though so keep trying! You can do it!
therealdave

Joined: Mar 13
Posts: 10

      quote  
Posted: 14 Jul 2013, 12:18
reddarin wrote:

Quote:
After milk, all young cattle start life eating grass. In the years before World War II, that’s also how they ended it. However, post-war, industrial agriculture was interested in producing beef fast, cheap and plentifully. That’s when, after six to 12 months, cattle were led from pasture to the feedlot. There, they’d be fed grain until they reached a certain weight—something that happened quickly on their new, high-carb diet—before being taken to slaughter. Federal subsidies for corn made it easy. Beef became “what’s for dinner” rather than a rare treat. Grass-fed beef fans say this way of production has taken a toll on the health of people, cattle and the environment.


Grass contains virtually zero fats and protein, it doesn't get any more high carb than that. Grain (soy beans, corn, and oats) contains significant amounts of protein and fat. In addition farmers add oils to the grain mixtures. To promote weight gain the farmers are increasing the foods energy levels (calorie levels).

Fat Secret probably doesn't have grass in its' data base, but we can use lettuce for a comparison. You can use their data base to compare the contents of the other grains for yourself. Notice that while lettuce has essentially zero fats and proteins, soy beans have 13g carbs, 13g protein, and 7g fat. Add oils to that and the feed is hardly high carb, especially when compared to grass.

One cup of steel cut oats is 600 calories. You would have to eat 75 cups of lettuce to get the same amount of calories. That is why cattle that are eating only grass graze all day.

What application does this have for someone trying to lose weight? For one, to be full, eat high volume low calorie food.

When we start with false first assumptions we end up with false conclusions regardless of how good our logic is. In this case the false assumption was that the feeds for finishing cattle are higher carb then grass.

Weight loss is not a physical challenge, it is a mental one.
therealdave

Joined: Mar 13
Posts: 10

      quote  
Posted: 14 Jul 2013, 12:21
By the way, it is complete nonsense to say that cattle weren't fed grain prior to WWII.
Weight loss is not a physical challenge, it is a mental one.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 14 Jul 2013, 13:02
therealdave wrote:

Grass contains virtually zero fats and protein, it doesn't get any more high carb than that. Grain (soy beans, corn, and oats) contains significant amounts of protein and fat. In addition farmers add oils to the grain mixtures. To promote weight gain the farmers are increasing the foods energy levels (calorie levels).

Fat Secret probably doesn't have grass in its' data base, but we can use lettuce for a comparison. You can use their data base to compare the contents of the other grains for yourself. Notice that while lettuce has essentially zero fats and proteins, soy beans have 13g carbs, 13g protein, and 7g fat. Add oils to that and the feed is hardly high carb, especially when compared to grass.

One cup of steel cut oats is 600 calories. You would have to eat 75 cups of lettuce to get the same amount of calories. That is why cattle that are eating only grass graze all day.

What application does this have for someone trying to lose weight? For one, to be full, eat high volume low calorie food.

When we start with false first assumptions we end up with false conclusions regardless of how good our logic is. In this case the false assumption was that the feeds for finishing cattle are higher carb then grass.



Double U tee hey.

therealdave wrote:
When we start with false first assumptions we end up with false conclusions regardless of how good our logic is.


Indeed.

therealdave wrote:

Fat Secret probably doesn't have grass in its' data base

therealdave wrote:

Grass contains virtually zero fats and protein, it doesn't get any more high carb than that

therealdave wrote:

but we can use lettuce for a comparison


therealdave wrote:

In this case the false assumption was


...self-evident.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 14 Jul 2013, 13:04
therealdave wrote:
By the way, it is complete nonsense to say that cattle weren't fed grain prior to WWII.


Oh?

I don't think that was actually said in the article I quoted. What they said was cattle were moved from grazing on grass to a primarily grain diet to fatten them up quickly post WWII. That doesn't mean they were never fed grains before.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 14 Jul 2013, 13:18
I was reading back through your posts, never surrender, and I had missed that your account is brand spanking new.

Apparently this thread motivated you to create an account at FS and post your opinions. I'm pleased that I was the reason for your joining FS! Congratulations and welcome aboard. How much weight do you have to lose?

You created your account at exactly the right time. There was some really troubling posts made by a guy with a username of Spacey and apparently he was a frequent abuser of other users. He has been mentioned a few times in this thread in case you were wondering who we were talking about. He got banned but, thankfully, it was several hours before you created an account and jumped right into the fray.

Frankly, I'm glad you missed him. He set a really terrible example for acceptable behavior at online forums like FS. The important thing about the whole situation is that *how* you say it has everything to do with what is being said. I'm not sure if he is banned forever or if he'll get to come back one day or if he already has but I hope that the obvious fact that thinking that you are right doesn't give you license to abuse other people has hit home for him. Personally, I doubt it. I think he'd be someone that would create a new account despite the express intentions of the people running the site to be rid of him. He just struck me as that sort of person. Only time will tell.

Smile
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 14 Jul 2013, 14:54
never surrender wrote:
Trust me and it's had its chance if the LC approach was the "definitive way" to lose weight and remain healthy it would be the "mainstream" way of doing so.


You mean like sodium intake? mmodd mentioned it earlier as a mainstream screwup. According to the mainstream for the last few decades salt is the root of all evil. It is commonsense per the mainstream to reduce sodium for good health.

It is also an excellent example of how the mainstream can get it so wrong. Dire sodium warnings were based on flimsy science at best or pure conjecture (in the form of drawing conclusions from epidemiological studies like almost *all* mainstream dogma) and just plain bad science (like the misapplication and misunderstanding of thermodynamics) at worst.

But if you asked anyone they'd tell you the type of things said in this thread. Of course it is bad for you, everyone knows that. If it weren't bad for you it wouldn't be the mainstream. Salt had hundreds of years to prove itself but the science has shown that it is bad for you. 21 peer reviewed scientific studies have shown that it is bad for you. Saying sodium might not be bad for you is just misinformation and I am going to save everyone by telling them the 'truth'. Of course that person has health problems, have you seen how much salt they use? And so on and so forth.

Not only has the mainstream been wrong about that, it has been dangerously wrong about it. Not only is it not good to eat the RDI of low sodium it is actively bad for a healthy individual. More than that though. When low sodium is bandied about you don't see a lot of posts cautioning people to eat at least the minimum. As with everything else in the mainstream the default is whatever is good then more of that is better. If low sodium is healthy then lower sodium is healthier. If low cal is good then lower calorie is better. If low fat is good then lower fat is better.

What else has the mainstream got wrong that everyone is just dead sure is right because it is the mainstream and everyone repeats it as gospel?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/health/panel-finds-no-benefit-in-sharply-restricting-sodium.html?ref=health&_r=1&

Quote:

No Benefit Seen in Sharp Limits on Salt in Diet
By GINA KOLATA
Published: May 14, 2013

In a report that undercuts years of public health warnings, a prestigious group convened by the government says there is no good reason based on health outcomes for many Americans to drive their sodium consumption down to the very low levels recommended in national dietary guidelines.


Do you think mainstream dogma is easily overcome? No. Even when a 'fact' is clearly shown to be untrue the gatekeepers of 'what is good for you' like the AHA cannot accept it:

Quote:
Some influential organizations, including the American Heart Association, have said that everyone, not just those at risk, should aim for that very low sodium level. The heart association reaffirmed that position in an interview with its spokesman on Monday, even in light of the new report.


Does that line sound familiar? Despite clear contrary evidence the spokesman doesn't say "we will reassess the situation" or "the results are flawed and here is why" or "persons with health conditions should consult with their personal doctor". Nope.

Quote:
There are physiological consequences of consuming little sodium, said Dr. Michael H. Alderman, a dietary sodium expert at Albert Einstein College of Medicine who was not a member of the committee. As sodium levels plunge, triglyceride levels increase, insulin resistance increases, and the activity of the sympathetic nervous system increases. Each of these factors can increase the risk of heart disease.


I thought it was interesting that insulin resistance was mentioned because there have been a few posts that hormones like insulin apparently do not exist and insulin resistance is a made up condition to sell books.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 14 Jul 2013, 14:55
never surrender wrote:
I do believe you are largely just talking to yourself now


I do believe your post undercuts your own post.

Razz
somethingsim...

Joined: Jul 13
Posts: 6

      quote  
Posted: 14 Jul 2013, 15:06
nerds.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 14 Jul 2013, 15:15
somethingsimple wrote:
nerds.


Stan, is that you?!?

Quote:
Coach Harris: You know, when you were a baby in your crib, your father looked down at you, he had but one hope - some day my son will grow to be a man. Well look at you now. You just got your [bleep] whipped by a bunch of [bleep] nerds.
[ shouts ]
Coach Harris: *Nerds*! Well, if I was you, I'd do something about it. I would get up and redeem myself in the eyes of my father, my maker, and my *coach*!
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 14 Jul 2013, 15:35
never surrender wrote:
never surrender wrote:
I do believe you are largely just talking to yourself now


Ad infinitum


Say. Did you just quote yourself and add 'to infinity' as a response to your own quote? Is this like one of those mirror things with a two way mirror facing a one way mirror with cool lights blinking in the picture frame?

Or are you really Buzz Lightyear and you meant to say "ad infinitum and beyond!"?

But I do appreciate you bumping my thread Smile
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 14 Jul 2013, 15:44
never surrender wrote:
It needs all the help it can get though you seem to bump it pretty well by yourself




4,069 views.
started by reddarin.

Smile

I consider you my full partner in bumping the thread. I want you to know that. If you can't trust the person you are talking to not to misrepresent themselves then what is the world coming to?
ClassicRocke...

Joined: Jan 13
Posts: 957

      quote  
Posted: 14 Jul 2013, 15:50
hahahahahahahahahahaha

***It just means being more independent and not allowing your happiness to be dependent on someone else's demanding and contentious attitudes and actions.***

Wisdom from a friend


I am willing to release the need to be unworthy. I am worthy of the very best in life and I now lovingly allow myself to accept it.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 14 Jul 2013, 17:01
I don't mean to point out anything untoward but wasn't that you a few posts ago that was very concerned about possible trolls? Are you currently just grief posting?
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 14 Jul 2013, 17:05
Before you reply, let me just say that although I never reported any of your posts in your previous incarnation I will report grief posts this time around. Fair warning my friend.
somethingsim...

Joined: Jul 13
Posts: 6

      quote  
Posted: 14 Jul 2013, 17:59
Girls, you're both pretty...



Forum Search
Advanced forum search



Latest Posts

Low carbers....is this a good plan for tomorrow?
A typical days Menu for me (I am in UK so forgive me if some things are named differently) Breakfast 2 Fried Eggs, 2 Rashers Bacon, 100g Fried Mushrooms Lunch 1 Can Tuna mixed with 1 tbsp Hellmanns Mayo ...
by Widdy1961 on 21 Dec 14 08:41 AM
Does anyone else get tired after eating breakfast?
BigBear2015, Start your day out with breakfast with protein, it really helps. It doesn't have to be a big breakfast. Smoothies are a great idea. I eat oatmeal with scramble or poached eggs sometimes ...
by Jones Jennifer on 21 Dec 14 08:09 AM
Determined
I started yesterday to drink shakes and water and am determined to stick to it. I've been told to wait for new year but I thought that if I wait till then I'd just look for excuses to start later ...
by anretteb on 20 Dec 14 11:42 PM
Shortage in RDI
OH WOW, I never did the ideal weight calculator on that site, just used the rdi calculator. It says I should be between 107 and 145 and at 59 years old I hope i never get down to 107 !! However FS ...
by mummydee on 20 Dec 14 06:54 PM
I agree
Agree. It must be maintainable.
by KayeGirl on 20 Dec 14 06:00 PM