Thermodynamics? Not really...

52 PAGES
first ... 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 next ... last
previous topic · next topic
mmoodd69

Joined: Jul 13
Posts: 126

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 14:22
Diablo,

I posted something that happened over the course of the last week. You don't believe me. Fine.

The only thing I want to know is, do you think I'm lying or do you think that I imagined it? It's one or the other. Seriously, which is it? Be honest please.
Roblaw2b

Joined: Jan 12
Posts: 48

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 14:32
Personally, I don't ascribe to "low carb", "no carb", Atkins, or another "scientific" diet. Because, for one, they are typically going to engage the user in a course of action which is unrealistic to maintain long-term - ie) Atkins. Secondly, based upon the broad spectrum of things I've read, long term weight loss and weight maintenance requires a balanced diet approach, where there is a sensible balance between carbs, proteins, and fats.

Too many fads, that don't work (hence the obesity epidemic mentioned), and too many people who think there is a new "magic pill" just around the corner to overcome what, essentially, is a defect in their ability to show the discipline to "eat less, move more".

Is every fat person "fat" because they are too stupid or lazy or both?

Yup.

Pretty much.

So - I say, keep in simple. Balance the diet, eat more veg, less refined carbs, and pay attention to the simple issue of "how many calories consumed vs. burned."

And because it's "simple" doesn't mean it's easy.

It's simple to stop smoking. It's not complicated - you just stop.

But it isn't easy.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 15:50
Sixtimes49 wrote:
Diablo360x wrote:
Looks like Red and Katherine are the experts of the internet. I will disregard Aragon, the god of nutrition, and peer reviewed scientific studies because of a couple of randoms on a small site think differently. *snicker*


Thanks, I missed part of what Diablo was saying in this post.

"the god of nutrition"

I know you were attempting to be factious but this is more of a Freudian slip than a lame attempt at sarcasm. *I* do not have a 'god' of nutrition. I don't engage in blind obedience to humans even if their title is scientist or doctor or Colpo. I understand that lots of people have agendas, lots of people think they are right and lots of people think they know what is best for me when they don't even know my name.

Another god you have is called Peer Reviewed.

Frankly, I wonder if you know what that term means. Some how the peer review process has transmogrified to mean 'absolutely above reproach' and 'set in stone forever and ever amen'.

But peer review does not mean anything of the sort. It does not mean 'never wrong' or 'without error' or 'stop thinking for yourself'. Certainly, we all hope that the peer review process provides a reliable check on bad science but it is foolish to be obsequiously devoted to the words 'peer reviewed'. And bad science makes it through the peer review process. Do you believe that once a document on any subject is pronounced 'peer reviewed' that all scientist everywhere agree with what is said in the document because it is stamped 'peer reviewed'?

More than that, most of the mainstream dogma is *not* based on peer reviewed studies. It is based on BS that is based on misinterpreting peer reviewed studies. A whole lot of the mainstream's anchors are based on nothing more than epidemiological studies that confuse correlation with causation and propagate correlation as 'fact'. A lot of it is based on crappy studies that are never peer reviewed and never will go through that process.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 16:57
Roblaw2b wrote:
Personally, I don't ascribe to "low carb", "no carb", Atkins, or another "scientific" diet.


On the contrary Rob, you personally ascribe to the mainstream approach based on what you've read. Or do you believe that the well balanced thing is voodoo? No. You do not. You believe in the science behind what you've read. I don't fault you for that if what you are doing is working for you.

Roblaw2b wrote:
Because, for one, they are typically going to engage the user in a course of action which is unrealistic to maintain long-term - ie) Atkins.


That 98% failure rate of *all* diets is a thorny problem for this statement. Atkins is no more unrealistic than the mainstream approach apparently.

Roblaw2b wrote:
Secondly, based upon the broad spectrum of things I've read, long term weight loss and weight maintenance requires a balanced diet approach, where there is a sensible balance between carbs, proteins, and fats.


Mainstream sources confirm what the mainstream says. I agree with you whole heartedly. Most of what you read will support what you are saying here. That doesn't make it correct, though, just ubiquitous.

Roblaw2b wrote:
Too many fads, that don't work (hence the obesity epidemic mentioned), and too many people who think there is a new "magic pill" just around the corner to overcome what, essentially, is a defect in their ability to show the discipline to "eat less, move more".


Hmmmm. Why are there so many fad diets? Why such a fervent search for a magic pill? I grant you that people want to take the easy way out but how is it possible that truly fad diets keep being created? It isn't like society as a whole is unaware that fad diets do not work long term if they even work short term. Why is there such a huge demand for exercise DVDs? That isn't the 'easy' way out for anyone. You see that as confirmation that people are stupid and lazy. I see that as confirmation that the mainstream way sucks and people want something that works without putting themselves through pure heck to lose weight.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 16:57
Roblaw2b wrote:
Is every fat person "fat" because they are too stupid or lazy or both?

Yup.

Pretty much.


I salute you for being brave enough to say it. Although. Bah. You are saying it about yourself, right? You self-identified as a fat person and believe that as a fat person you have the moral authority to say something like that about all fat people because you include yourself in the maligned group.

/bonk Darin

I should have realized that before I asked the question of you since you'd clearly stated your situation and your position in your first post. My bad. Still, at least you were honest about how you feel about other fat people.

Roblaw2b wrote:
So - I say, keep in simple. Balance the diet, eat more veg, less refined carbs, and pay attention to the simple issue of "how many calories consumed vs. burned."


I say, when that fails try LC.

Roblaw2b wrote:
And because it's "simple" doesn't mean it's easy.


Indeed. The question is not one of ease or difficulty. It is possible or impossible as a practicality. I personally endorse jumping straight to LC if you are not currently LC because it is healthy and a very low inflammation way of living. But if you try it the mainstream way then give it your best shot. If you succeed I am very, very happy for you. If you fail try LC. You may be amazed at how easy it can be to not be hungry all the time *even* maintaining a fairly big (most of the time too big in my opinion) calorie deficit.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 17:19
lol

Hey, you guys on the "OMG! Don't read that thread!" challenge thread, don't you find it strange that the guy cheer leading you on not reading this thread is reading this thread and keeping you posted on what is going on???

Dang that is funny.

Next up! Another response to the Wheat Belly rebuttal!
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 17:23
Wups! Next post will be about WB.

This post!

"Only the really #!= ? Ones "

lol

Crappy threads die out because they are crappy.

Threads that are interesting get 18,000+ views in 15ish days.

Smile
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 817

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 17:57
eKatherine wrote:
reddarin wrote:
...there might be more to it than your simply being a lawn mower engine with a character defect.


LOL. I am not a bomb calorimeter. Perhaps I should make t-shirts that say that.

Coincidentally this week I have started on a personal n=1 CICO experiment. Over a period of time I will determine my true RDI, vary my intake of carbs vs fat from high carb, equal carbs:fat, to low carb, while keeping my protein constant; and repeat this while restricting calories. Not necessarily in that order. Each phase to last for 2 weeks.

I may then, if still I have weight to lose, try out a few dietary changes that might have an effect.

Anyone can do this who can record data.

Record everything. Protein must stay constant throughout the experiment (though you can make that a variable in a later phase of your own design). Plan every day's menu in advance to make sure your macros stay on target.

If you find that a 3500 calorie deficit causes you to lose weight, and you are unaffected by varying macros, then you are a person for whom this has no effect. If you do find a difference, then you are a person for whom this makes a difference.

Don't forget to measure your waist and body fat throughout! We want to see those body composition changes.

And keep your exercise consistent.

It should take about 3 months of your life to run the experiment. You may post your data as you collect it on a blog somewhere, or you may come back after it is done so we can compare.


2 weeks? At your bodyfat level how much can you realistically lose at a modest deficit in two weeks? 2-3 lbs.? That can easily be replaced with increased glycogen. This is just one reason why people think carbs make you fat, they are impatient. Anything less than a couple months is not a real test.
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: 24 Jul 2013, 18:01
Davis’ Point – The relationships between blood glucose

Jones - back to the GI/GL comparisons. It is funny because what she is saying is, apparently, that 2 slices of wheat bread are equivalent to half a snicker's bar and that is supposed to vindicate wheat. But she is also comparing GL while Dr. Davis is talking about GI. I think the reason that Dr. Davis sticks with GI is because GL is far more dependent on the person eating the food. Diabetics are intimately familiar with this problem because some diabetics can eat x and other's cannot without having their blood sugar going wacky. That is why the GL is not a dependable barometer of blood glucose response to food.

Jones - Agrees 100% about the pasta but likes the fact that sugar is dumped into the blood stream in a more controlled manner. I think Dr. Davis' point is that you are still getting all that glucose into your blood. And if you are eating the typical carby diet having a slow release form of glucose isn't much of a victory because you are never short of glucose all things being equal. Heck, one of your liver's prime functions is to elevate BG levels if they fall too low. /shrug

Jones - An egg omelet does cause a rise in blood sugar even if the rise is not measurable. heh

Jones - Yep, Dr. Davis is right, whole wheat bread is worse than beans and potato chips. She gives the reason for it but really that doesn't change the fact of it.
Diablo360x

Joined: Jul 11
Posts: 817

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 18:04
mmoodd69 wrote:
Diablo,

I posted something that happened over the course of the last week. You don't believe me. Fine.

The only thing I want to know is, do you think I'm lying or do you think that I imagined it? It's one or the other. Seriously, which is it? Be honest please.


I never said I did not believe. I am saying 1 week is meaningless in weight loss. A humans weight can fluctuate 5-20 lbs. in a couple of days. One week where you raised carbs and your not supposed to gain weight? I can guarantee it was not fat if you were in a deficit. If you're going to continue to perform one week studies, you will continue to remain in the dark on how it all works. CICO is your answer. There, I provided you with the priceless truth. It's right in our faces hence the countless calorie counting websites that work every time given the users accuracy and consistency.
Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.
Nag1ka

Joined: Jan 12
Posts: 101

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 18:10
Out of curiosity, just because this forum has been getting far to confusing to follow in rigorous detail.

Which of the people on the low carb side of this argument, believe that calories are, well, for lack of a better term.. fictitious?

reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 18:11
20 pounds of weight fluctuation over 2 days?
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 18:14
Nag1ka wrote:
Out of curiosity, just because this forum has been getting far to confusing to follow in rigorous detail.

Which of the people on the low carb side of this argument, believe that calories are, well, for lack of a better term.. fictitious?



Hmmmm.

An interesting way to phrase the question.

How about, which LC'rs do not believe that humans are lawn mower engines?

Or, which LC'rs do not believe that bomb calorimeters are accurate representations of how humans metabolize the energy contained in food?

Or, which LC'rs do not believe that a calorie is a calorie?

Me on those last three. Dunno what to make of your strange question though.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 18:16
Diablo360x wrote:
At your bodyfat level


Interesting that you mention someone else body fat level being a salient factor in what they are doing. Care to enlighten us on what your BF% is? I know you don't want to say it because if everyone knew for sure that you are already in the athletic range of BF% it might just tint their view of the free wheeling nature of ELMM WB.
Nag1ka

Joined: Jan 12
Posts: 101

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 18:21
reddarin wrote:
Nag1ka wrote:
Out of curiosity, just because this forum has been getting far to confusing to follow in rigorous detail.

Which of the people on the low carb side of this argument, believe that calories are, well, for lack of a better term.. fictitious?



Hmmmm.

An interesting way to phrase the question.

How about, which LC'rs do not believe that humans are lawn mower engines?

Or, which LC'rs do not believe that bomb calorimeters are accurate representations of how humans metabolize the energy contained in food?

Or, which LC'rs do not believe that a calorie is a calorie?

Me on those last three. Dunno what to make of your strange question though.


I wasn't trying to be insulting or anything when asking the question.

I understand that you believe their are unknowns when metabolising calories, in that certain things may not be taken into full consideration. I can appreciate that, even if I would disagree to the extent you believe it affects a person. (If that wasn't exactly your position, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth I'm just trying to simplify it)

However I was really trying to decipher through your witty remarks and comments and understand what your position actually is, and just get a straight answer.
eKatherine

Joined: Aug 12
Posts: 1,286

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 18:51
Diablo360x wrote:
2 weeks? At your bodyfat level how much can you realistically lose at a modest deficit in two weeks? 2-3 lbs.? That can easily be replaced with increased glycogen. This is just one reason why people think carbs make you fat, they are impatient. Anything less than a couple months is not a real test.


Yes, two weeks of daily weighings will indicate any change in trend. Weighing every week or two, as many people do, will not provide useful data.

Now is the time for you to tell us how many weeks, er...months each you tested low carb, high carb, and moderate carb diets, keeping calories and protein constant, and the results you got from each one.

The idea that I should stay on a weight loss diet for many months after I have reached my goal because some stranger on the internet who has never tested anything thinks I should is absurd.

The fact is, however, that if and when I reach my goal and start a maintenance level of calories, I can still vary that to look for the effects of changes I make.
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 19:15
Nag1ka wrote:
I wasn't trying to be insulting or anything when asking the question.


Yeah, because asking someone if they think calories are a fiction is in no way insulting. I see that now.

Razz

Nag1ka wrote:
I understand that you believe their are unknowns when metabolising calories, in that certain things may not be taken into full consideration. I can appreciate that, even if I would disagree to the extent you believe it affects a person. (If that wasn't exactly your position, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth I'm just trying to simplify it)

However I was really trying to decipher through your witty remarks and comments and understand what your position actually is, and just get a straight answer.


If my previous response did not answer your question you will have to clarify your question. My position on what? Wasn't my last post clear about my position on calories?

Or, maybe better stated, what was unclear about my position on calories?

Were you trying to decipher my witty remarks? You addressed everyone Smile
reddarin

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 959

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 19:25
Diablo360x wrote:
"Low-Carb Diets Make People Lose More Water Weight


Hmmmm.

LC diets are diuretic if the carbs stay low enough.

But you don't keep gaining and losing water. You lose the water and remain at your new normal for water weight.

You didn't bother to link to the article you posted so I guess the link wasn't included in the PM or email, right Razz

See if you can get the link from whoever is pulling the strings. I am curious about the study Colpo(?) footnoted.

eKatherine

Joined: Aug 12
Posts: 1,286

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 19:31
Roblaw2b wrote:
Personally, I don't ascribe to "low carb", "no carb", Atkins, or another "scientific" diet.


Do you even understand what you are saying here is that you have no use for science? What are you going on, faith? So why post on this topic at all?
cjennmom

Joined: Jul 13
Posts: 8

      quote  
Posted: 24 Jul 2013, 19:32
reddarin wrote:
20 pounds of weight fluctuation over 2 days?


The closest I came to anything like that was in 7th grade. We went off to an environmental camp en masse and stayed for almost a week. A week of plain food + hiking around dropped me 10 pounds.



Forum Search
Advanced forum search



Latest Posts

Contrary to popular belief the way to lose weight is not by Starving yourself or eliminating
Hi Robbackatys, what you are talking about basically is 'Calories in, calories out' and not letting your body go into starvation mode. This may work if you have a healthy, young fit body, but ...
by nb girl on 17 Sep 14 01:03 AM
Fed Up (2014) Documentary
marissastewart wrote: I already have shown the evidence - I've also proven it to myself with more than enough evidence. What evidence… You have shown me no evidence I don’t even think you know what ...
by corifeo on 16 Sep 14 08:27 PM
Blood pressure continues to drop
One of the main reasons I started Low Carbing was because of High Blood Pressure & I too had the whooshy pulse sound in my left ear because of it. But since low carbing it has greatly reduced.
by ebivr on 16 Sep 14 07:33 PM
low carb potatoes
Of the calories you take in by eating regular potatoes, about 85-90% come from carbohydrates. Sunlite potatoes are about 82% carbohydrate. Decide for yourself if that is truly a low carb food. If i ...
by jbheath on 16 Sep 14 07:14 PM
Has anyone tried Weight Watchers online program?
Just wondering if Weight Watchers is worth the cost... especially since fatsecret's calorie counter is so awesome. Opinions?
by Sharebearz on 16 Sep 14 05:11 PM