eulero83
Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lynnxz
quote:
ORIGINAL: OriginalRebel
I have no idea who she is. I also put a link in from Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health. Is he delusional too?
I'm not going to continue this conversation with you because this is clearly a case of, you stick with what you know and Ill stick with what I know.
Check your sources then man. Don't just google until you find someone who agrees with you.
I read the study, (note: the actual study, NOT the sensationalized news article) which Dr. M was referring to, and it doesn't really back you up. The volunteers did not count calorie intake, as that would be a pain in the butt for a longitudinal study. Instead, they received a detailed survey every two years. The study found that increased intake of shitty, high calorie food lead to weight gain, while intake of better foods and an exercise program lead to less weight gain. This pretty much boils down roughly to the calories in/calories out theory.
Also, Greta, are you even serious right now? Holy crap, no.
As an agonist in long distance running I vabe been dealing a lot with energy integration, I read specific litterature and had sevelopped quite a personal experience, to me it's not a problem of weight loss but to keep a performance at my best level for as long as I can, this mens I have a direct feedback from my body.
I don't want to put in OriginalRebel's mouth words she didn't say, but for sake of conversation I'll point out what I understoob being her point and she will correct me if I'm wrong.
I think OriginalRebel's point is explained in this paragraph I quote from the source you reported:
Some foods — vegetables, nuts, fruits, and whole grains — were associated with less weight gain when consumption was actually increased. Obviously, such foods provide calories and cannot violate thermodynamic laws. Their inverse associations with weight gain suggest that the increase in their consumption reduced the intake of other foods to a greater (caloric) extent, decreasing the overall amount of energy consumed. Higher fiber content and slower digestion of these foods would augment satiety, and their increased consumption would also displace other, more highly processed foods in the diet, providing plausible biologic mechanisms whereby persons who eat more fruits, nuts, vegetables, and whole grains would gain less weight over time.
"calories in" - "calories out" = "calories stored" is correct, as the article says thermodynamic laws can't be violated, but as you can read next some foods due their slower digestion decrease the overall amount of calories a persn introduce, because not every kind of energy source works the same way. Very sweet food, like an icecream, tend to be processed by the body quickly, giving a high amount of energy in a short time, calories not consumed in that period get immediatly stored, of course you can burn them later, but what is my persnal experience is you feel hungry and weak immediatly after, so you'll need more food and more calories in, and this is backs up with the study you posted. Eating instead the same amount of calories in pasta will keep you strong for a longer time, giving you the possibility to use those calories by normal life's activities between one meal and another.
< Message edited by eulero83 -- 5/15/2014 1:57:47 PM >
|
RE: Why is being into "big girls" still consi... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread