Thermodynamics? Not really...

52 PAGES
first ... 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 next ... last
previous topic · next topic
Clueless101

Joined: May 13
Posts: 254

      quote  
Posted: 16 Jul 2013, 19:49
Diablo360x wrote:
I'm posting evidence that I am not lying. You have no proof that you're not lying. You post that you were active while eating low calories and did not lose weight. THAT is an outright lie.

You yourself say that people misrepresent what they actually eat. Smile "boyfriend"
Clueless101

Joined: May 13
Posts: 254

      quote  
Posted: 16 Jul 2013, 19:54
Diablo360x wrote:
I'm posting evidence that I am not lying. You have no proof that you're not lying. You post that you were active while eating low calories and did not lose weight. THAT is an outright lie.


LOL, HAHAHA oh Look, he did it again.
Since your evidence is self reported I cannot accept it. Smile
so...
Diablo360x wrote:
THAT is an outright lie.
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 817

      quote  
Posted: 16 Jul 2013, 20:38
I'm OCD about entering what I eat. I weigh everything to the gram. You don't have to believe me, I'll just continue t eat pizza, donuts etc., while you live in your LC bubble. Nomnomnom
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 16 Jul 2013, 20:44
Diablo360x wrote:
I DID get real, I posted a real scenario where all health parameters improved on junk food. He and I do not recommend it long term but I still proved it can be done.


You didn't get real about reading what you are responding to I see.

An n of 1 proves nothing. I thought I was clear about that but I guess not. If I find an LC (self-reported as in your example of course) n of 1 that will prove LC. Right? According to what you are saying that is correct.

Diablo360x wrote:
I did it myself.


*You* ate 60% of your calories with twinkies, ding dongs and doritos?

Let's just check that.... Nope.

Why misrepresent what can easily be verified? You didn't do what he did. And I've never doubted that you are able to eat x% of carbs and lose weight. Have I ever in any manner at all said that you were unable to do what you did with your macros? Nope.

The whole point of that guys N of 1 was that the nutritional content was not as important as the calorie gap. So he actively ate as close to zero nutrition as is imaginable - twinkies and the like.

But I invite you to take a closer look at what he did and reproduce it yourself. Be sure you get your bio-markers established before and have them measured afterwards. Let us know the results.

Diablo360x wrote:
He and I do not recommend it long term


He and I??? lol. *He* didn't recommend it at all for anyone. Not long term. Not short term. Zippo.

*You*, on the other hand, pointed to that n of 1 as proof that *anyone* could follow that specific plan and see the same health benefits.

Diablo360x wrote:
This made me a true believer.


I see. You get to be a true believer based on your personal results. An LC'r is automatically wrong for being a true believer based on their own personal results. It doesn't matter if they tried it your way, failed, and met with huge success with LC. Nope. That is out the window. They were tricked. They don't get to be true believers. In fact, I believe you just made a disparaging comment about LC true believers, no?

Diablo360x wrote:
You're knocking this diet when you haven't tried it.


What are you talking about. I've said several times, emphatically, that I tried the mainstream bull of eat less and move more many times ending in failure every time which is how I got to be 265 pounds.

I'd like to meet the LC person that didn't try the ELMM WB approach first. That'd be a rare bird right there.

And isn't 'sustainable' another canard that you and the other mainstreamers use as a knock on LC? Somehow a person that falls off LC proves it is unsustainable. But a mainstreamer that falls off the ELMM WB wagon proves only that that person had a character flaw. Heck the vast obesity epidemic is not proof that ELMM WB is a failure, it only proves that all those fat people are failures.

Diablo360x wrote:
I have done both,


Considering the way you have described LC in this thread and at all times I find that statement completely unbelievable. It'd be laughable if it weren't for your reprehensible representation of LC.

Diablo360x wrote:
LC works of course,


Of course! Why, you haven't said anything but glowing things about LC. I can't count the number of times you've said, "Hey! If it works for you that is great! Keep it up! Woohoo for your weight loss!!!". Wait. I wax facetious.


Diablo360x wrote:
but it isn't special unless it is the only thing that can make you adhere to a calorie deficit.


You mean after all this time you are now saying there's nothing to LC? Oh. You've been saying that all along.

Diablo360x wrote:
Continue to believe you're a special butterfly and somehow different from the rest of us. Keep making excuses for yourself and everyone else. You find your individual calorie maintenance and eat below it. Case closed.


Your Honor, I object!! I must have the opportunity to present my closing argument! My argument: Diablo is wrong. Case closed.

Razz
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 16 Jul 2013, 20:52
Diablo360x wrote:
Wow, still in denial. You have to eat withing a calorie restriction AND you cannot have 50% carbs like I can. Not on the same level of restriction AT ALL, but keep reaching....


Right.

Say. You didn't answer my question. Per you, you can have anything at any time. So, you've eaten your calories for the day - can you have a big bowl of ice cream? I believe that qualifies as within the time frame of 'anytime' and it certainly falls withing the food group of 'any thing'.

As I said as clearly as humanly possible, ELMM WB has its own restrictions but you keep pretending like it is a free for all and LC is a draconian dungeon of carb restriction.

Any thing. Any time. Bull. Crap.
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 817

      quote  
Posted: 16 Jul 2013, 20:56
I already have stated ANY diet will reduce your weight with a calorie deficit. I never said reducing your carbs didn't work, I am only stating it offers no metabolic advantage. People will see success if that is what they prefer and if it helps them reduce overall calories. If anything the only macro that may make a difference is a high protein diet as there is this thing called the thermic effect of food. Protein takes more energy to break down.

Just because I hate LC diets does not mean I have not tried them. I've been lifting and dieting seriously for going on 14 years. The thought that I have not tried LC diets is laughable. I had success but I could never maintain them for long because it was dreadful for me. Almost everything that I love foodwise contains carbs. The new science that shows it does not matter what you eat was like music to my ears.
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 16 Jul 2013, 20:57
mummydee wrote:
Reddarin, I'm going to post a theses here for you regarding the Wheatbelly book that you have found usefull. I know you'll read it with an open mind.
http://www.aaccnet.org/publications/plexus/cfw/pastissues/2012/OpenDocuments/CFW-57-4-0177.pdf
and this is a little about the lady that wrote it.
http://www.gowiththegrain.org/about/bios/bio-jones.php


I read a little bit of the first part MD. I'll try to read more of it tomorrow and make a post.

Smile
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 817

      quote  
Posted: 16 Jul 2013, 21:00
reddarin wrote:
Diablo360x wrote:
Wow, still in denial. You have to eat withing a calorie restriction AND you cannot have 50% carbs like I can. Not on the same level of restriction AT ALL, but keep reaching....


Right.

Say. You didn't answer my question. Per you, you can have anything at any time. So, you've eaten your calories for the day - can you have a big bowl of ice cream? I believe that qualifies as within the time frame of 'anytime' and it certainly falls withing the food group of 'any thing'.

As I said as clearly as humanly possible, ELMM WB has its own restrictions but you keep pretending like it is a free for all and LC is a draconian dungeon of carb restriction.

Any thing. Any time. Bull. Crap.


If it fits into my calorie goal, yes. I never said there were ZERO restrictions. If that were true, I would not be on this site using the calorie counting features. I am simply stating that LC diets have MORE restrictions. Especially if you're one of those people who believe you cannot eat after a certain hour. Or that carbs and fats should never mix, or that you should eat often to "stoke the metabolic fire".

Before you get all red in the face, I am not saying you believe these things.
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 16 Jul 2013, 21:01
Diablo360x wrote:
Just because I hate LC diets


That right there says it all.

Just because *you* hate LC it is wrong for *everyone*. And before you try to rewrite history yet again, *you* are the one that said it was your birthright to stop the spreading of misinformation, which would be anyone that says 'try LC!' as you have shown anytime that pesky LC peeks up from foxhole.

*I* don't hate ELMM WB. That is one reason I am perfectly fine with someone following that if they like it and it works for them.
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 817

      quote  
Posted: 16 Jul 2013, 21:06
I hate LC personally because I LOVE carbs. Again, by misinformation I mean people stating that the GI of foods matters at ALL. Unless you're diabetic it is irrelevant.
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 16 Jul 2013, 21:11
Diablo360x wrote:
[quote=reddarin] If it fits into my calorie goal, yes. I never said there were ZERO restrictions. If that were true, I would not be on this site using the calorie counting features. I am simply stating that LC diets have MORE restrictions. Especially if you're one of those people who believe you cannot eat after a certain hour. Or that carbs and fats should never mix, or that you should eat often to "stoke the metabolic fire".

Before you get all red in the face, I am not saying you believe these things.


Oh? Now it is not 'any thing any time'? Your whole entire argument has been about the freedom of ELMM WB.

It is an illusion. Every time you have brought it up you have failed to mention the fact that your wonderful carby thing has to be within your calorie goal *and* it has to play nice with whatever your macro goals are. You have repeatedly remarked about your macros so I know you are keeping track of them. You lift so I know you are watching what you eat. Or do you want to tell me now that you eat whatever comes across your plate and then check how you did a few days later?

Red in the face? I cannot imagine why I might get red in the face. After all, you have been the paragon of even handedness in every post I've seen you make.

Why, a person would be tempted to try LC if ELMM WB was hard for them just based on your fair representation of the situation.

Not.

You realize that just because *you* feel restricted on LC that not everyone will feel similarly? No. You do not realize that. You think that because whatever you did that you called LC was a huge cross to bear for you, someone that could not do without carbs because of personal preference - *everyone* must feel similarly.

That would be incorrect. *I* do not feel overly restricted on LC and I eat under 50g of total carbs a day and have for months.

I enjoy the appetite suppression. The wonderful LC food that I eat every day. I love black coffee but I love heavy whipping cream in my coffee and with LC that is the preferred cream. Danged tasty.
mummydee

Joined: Feb 10
Posts: 2,265

      quote  
Posted: 16 Jul 2013, 21:28
So Diablo, you have tried it and it didn't work for you, thank you for admitting that, at least it's tried and tested by you. And that is what many before me have said, you have to find what works for you!
At no time have i ever heard that LC meant no eating after a certain time. that seems to be another dieting 'rule' that goes along with many different eating plans.
I believe Suzanne Sommers was the only one that said carbs and fats should never mix! lol. I eat a protein and a carb at every 'sitting' .. and you should eat regularly to 'stoke the fire" This is not an LC plan, but another eating plan put out by grazers.. one which works for me. I get shakey and find that if i eat something, not a meal as everyone is used to . every 3 hours, i don't get shakey or light headed and i feel great. It's similar to a diabetic having to maintain a balance.
Very similar to people who get up and can go without breakfast, workout and then eat. I would keel over. no way could i do that. Again, proving that we are all different , metabolisms etc play a big part in our eating plans.
So good on you and everyone who has found what works for them!
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 817

      quote  
Posted: 16 Jul 2013, 21:29
Just going by what 100% of IIFYM members who find the group on facebook or on bb.com say. They feel a great sense of freedom and wish they would have been enlightened years ago. I don't personally track macros as strictly as the majority of bodybuilders or physique competitors. You obviously did not click on my log that I posted from bb.com titled "low protein and eating whatever". I do make an attempt to get around 80g of protein at least as I do believe it makes a difference but that usually happens without trying.

People like you who do not feel restricted with 50g of carbs a day are few and far between. I don't know many people who do not love pizza, cookies, cake, pie, and fruit in abundance. Good for you!
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 817

      quote  
Posted: 16 Jul 2013, 21:32
mummydee wrote:
So Diablo, you have tried it and it didn't work for you, thank you for admitting that, at least it's tried and tested by you. And that is what many before me have said, you have to find what works for you!
At no time have i ever heard that LC meant no eating after a certain time. that seems to be another dieting 'rule' that goes along with many different eating plans.
I believe Suzanne Sommers was the only one that said carbs and fats should never mix! lol. I eat a protein and a carb at every 'sitting' .. and you should eat regularly to 'stoke the fire" This is not an LC plan, but another eating plan put out by grazers.. one which works for me. I get shakey and find that if i eat something, not a meal as everyone is used to . every 3 hours, i don't get shakey or light headed and i feel great. It's similar to a diabetic having to maintain a balance.
Very similar to people who get up and can go without breakfast, workout and then eat. I would keel over. no way could i do that. Again, proving that we are all different , metabolisms etc play a big part in our eating plans.
So good on you and everyone who has found what works for them!


Amen to your last statement but the frequent eating thing is just another myth as far as boosting the metabolism is concerned.

"1. Myth: Eat frequently to "stoke the metabolic fire".


Truth

Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal.

Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency.

A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal.

B) Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.

C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.

What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between.

However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.

Further reading: I have covered the topic of meal frequency at great length on this site before.

The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies and TEF was published in 1997. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals and concluded:

"Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging".

Since then, no studies have refuted this. For a summary of the above cited study, read this research review by Lyle McDonald."

http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
mummydee

Joined: Feb 10
Posts: 2,265

      quote  
Posted: 16 Jul 2013, 21:39
I guess what i've done is take 'dieting' to the next level... not just concerned about losing weight but more concerned about exactly what is going into my body and letting my organs process. I have done so much damage and abuse in my life that I hopefully can now, if not reverse, at least not continue it.
There is an abundance of information out there regarding sugars flours starches, gmo'd products grass fed vs feedlots etc... that i will not consume what i consider to be harmful foods.
So if you want to , go ahead, it's your choice, but you only have one body and it really deserves to have the best nutrition available, not just what tastes good to your senses.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 16 Jul 2013, 22:27
Diablo360x wrote:
I hate LC personally because I LOVE carbs. Again, by misinformation I mean people stating that the GI of foods matters at ALL. Unless you're diabetic it is irrelevant.


Here. I am stating that carbs matter to some people. It mattered to me. I've lost ~80 pounds with LC. I gained to 265 with carbs. Lots of wonderful carbs. I LOVED carbs. I loved them so much I couldn't get enough of them. Even when I wanted desperately to not be fat I couldn't 'eat less move more'. With carbs.

That is a fact.

Some how when I went LC I became fully in control of what I ate.

Carbs. They affect different people differently. Period.

*You* spread 'misinformation' when *you* say that your one size fits all plan is the *only* way. You spread misinformation when you say that what you eat doesn't matter. You spread misinformation every time you characterize LC as diet prison because of your personal inability to reduce carbs and enjoy it.

You like how you eat? Fine by me. I like how I eat. Not fine by you. In fact, it is so not fine you must stop me from suggesting LC to another living soul because you hated LC so much everyone should hear the 'truth'.

You are as arrogant as your departed (but is that him that posted the Colpo link earlier? Inquiring minds want to know) buddy.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 16 Jul 2013, 22:40
Diablo360x wrote:
Just going by what 100% of IIFYM members who find the group on facebook or on bb.com say. They feel a great sense of freedom and wish they would have been enlightened years ago. I don't personally track macros as strictly as the majority of bodybuilders or physique competitors. You obviously did not click on my log that I posted from bb.com titled "low protein and eating whatever". I do make an attempt to get around 80g of protein at least as I do believe it makes a difference but that usually happens without trying.


Uh heh, 100% of IIFYM agree with themselves? I 100% agree with myself.

Razz

No, I just looked at your first few posts of what you said was the same as that other fella. It only took a few posts to see that you were not doing what he'd done.

So, 80g of protein means that whatever you eat has to accommodate that and your calorie restriction. In other words, you watch your macros.

Quote:
People like you who do not feel restricted with 50g of carbs a day are few and far between. I don't know many people who do not love pizza, cookies, cake, pie, and fruit in abundance. Good for you!


I don't think so. Do you hang out with a lot of fans of LC? No? How do you know then? You don't. But you hated it and so you when someone else hated it you listened. When someone else didn't hate it you figured they were lying about it because you hated it so much and missed carbs so much.

I'll tell you what. I *love* the freedom that LC gives me. Free to not be shackled to carby food. Free to not be fat any more. Free to enjoy what I eat. Free to feel good. Free to not suffer from headaches and heartburn. Free to spread the word about what a blessing LC has been to me in my life.

LC isn't for everyone. I have steered people away from it before. People like you that cannot imagine doing without carbs. That is a person that is not going to make it on LC if they really do not want to try life with less carbs. People that love the heck out of fruit and want to eat lots of it every day. Whatever the carb hook is, if it is real I encouraged them to try a different approach that would accommodate their desires. JUDDD (although I don't personal think that is a good lifestyle), WW, SB, ELMM WB, whatever.

I'm pragmatical about it. Whatever safe way you lose weight that works for you works for me. I wouldn't deny anyone the chance to be skinny based on my personal preferences.
Nag1ka

Joined: Jan 12
Posts: 101

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 01:17
reddarin,

I think one thing diablo is trying to say that keeps being misinterpreted when he speaks of restrition is the following:

What foods can you not eat on a low carb diet? (essentially anything carbs, ie sugar, donuts, pizza, pasta ect.)

What foods can you not eat on a low calorie diet? (there is no restriction in variety, just quantity)

Obviously you have a different opinion on what restriction means than diablo.
Feelingsad

Joined: Jul 13
Posts: 12

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 02:27
Nag1ka wrote:


Obviously you have a different opinion on what restriction means than diablo.


This is where we descend into the land of 'Magic Calories' and the perceived but wholly unscientifically verified 'belief' that a calorie is not a calorie dependant on the macronutrient it is.

Therein lies the nub of the argument destined to never be resolved due to cognitive dissonance vs Scientifically verified fact

If you actually read the Colpo pdf I linked to you will see that With forensic detail he dismantles the whole LC argument. None of these authors have ever got the better of him in intellectual debate and many of them resort to all sorts of nonsense to support what is clear to any rational person is simply not the case.
I believe his challenge that he will donate 20k to charity if scientifically proven wrong goes uncollected to this day.

A belief system is very different from fact based understanding


Of course you can lose weight on a LC eating plan as you could on any other as long as it keeps you in a calorie deficit


The "best" LC proponents have challenge Mr Colpo and failed miserably
Would the OP be so bold as to send him an open letter to challange his assertions and make good his case openly and as himself?


Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 817

      quote  
Posted: 17 Jul 2013, 07:56
Again this girl or guy 'reddarin' puts words in my mouth. I have already stated people can choose whichever foods they want but he/she keeps saying that I think everyone should eat like me. Stop with the nonsense. Do whatever helps you adhere to the calorie deficit. Personal preference.
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.



Forum Search
Advanced forum search



Latest Posts

Site question
If you look on the righthand side of the page, you should see the Technical Help icon. You might try sending them an email with your question? Good luck.
by LittleRedFlatBack on 22 Oct 14 05:06 PM
Staying on Track
That's when I started going down hill, my birthday (june). I had a piece of cake and that was it. We'll get there, we didn't come this far to give up. Thanks for your support.
by Sassy shelby on 22 Oct 14 03:35 PM
The Anti inflammatory diet
Yeah to all! I have almost cured any of my problems through healthy eating. All disease comes from inflammation and all inflammation comes from toxins we put in our bodies. Dr Weiss has some wonderful ...
by mummydee on 22 Oct 14 01:57 PM
Work Potluck
sorry bout the size, don't know how to make it smaller! lol
by mummydee on 22 Oct 14 01:54 PM
National Chain Restaurants
Have never seen a sweet tomatoes.
by wholefoodnut on 21 Oct 14 07:55 PM