outlier
Posts: 1111
Joined: 10/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant
I robbed this from another thread cuz it's fuckin brilliant.
quote:
ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
Except that that equation is flawed, and about 20 years outdates scientifically.
Weightloss isn't as simple as calories in versus out. For starters not all calories create the same amount of energy in the body. Calories from carbohydrates and sugar are pretty much 1 for 1 as far as the muscle energy they give you. They store well in both liver and fat cells, causing you to readily put on weight when having an excess of these.
Calories from protein and fat on the other hand (especially fat) do not easily become available to our body as energy. The chemical reactions we do to transfer them into available energy causes about a 30% loss in the process, making it so that 100 calories from bread are equivalent to only about 70 calories from butter.
Furthermore carbohydrates are very low in nutrient value for the amount of calories. To eat the equivalent amount of nutrient from most carb forms (breads, pasta, etc) as you would from steak and vegetables you need to eat about 6 times as much bread, and you will still end up deficient in certain minerals and vitamins.
Mineral and vitamin deficiencies cause you to become more hungry and less satiation, in an attempt to prompt you to eat more in order to make up the deficiency, causing you to acquire vastly more calories when eating carbs than you would eating protein and vegetables.
Then there is the fact that food which creates a blood sugar spike (like carbohydrates) causes our body to be more receptive to fat storage. When you have an excessive intake of calories combined with a blood sugar spike your body will readily store the excess as fat. When you have an excess of calories and no blood sugar spike, your body will store the excess in your liver, and when your liver is full store a limited amount of the excess as fat and dump the rest via your bowls. (I.E. eating excessive protein and fat will give you the runs... not make you fat...)
Lastly there is the issue of cutting down calorie intake below usage levels on a consistent basis. Doing this will cause your body to perceive starvation, and make it hunker down and expend less calories in an effort to conserve energy. Your metabolism will go down, and fat storage -when possible- will go up. Not only that, but your body will remain in this mode for weeks after you come out of 'starvation mode' and so, as soon as you resume eating 'normal' amount of calories, you will store excessive amounts of them for weeks after your diet. Much healthier than consistently eating less calories than you expend is to eat less calories than you expend on some days, and more calories than you expend other days.
The myth of 'calories in versus calories out' has done more damage to the Westen word than can be measured. Calories in versus out means NOTHING without talking about what type of calories you're putting in your body, the effects they have on your blood sugar, their objective value in terms of calorie/nutritional value, and the schedule with which you are consuming them.
It's really problematic when somebody who claims to care so much about people's overall fitness level would spread such dangerous misinformation as "the SAD (standard American diet) will make you healthy, if you only eat less of it" as it will not. At the most it will make you skinny while having dangerous levels of malnutrition that will cause an increase in all sorts of health issues and diseases at the same time.
People aren't designed to have 70% of their caloric intake come from low nutritional density foods such as carbs and refined sugars... ESPECIALLY not when they eat few enough calories of that low nutritionally dense food to have a weight/fat level in an 'acceptable BMI' range.
YMMV
I don't think it is brilliant. I think it is misguided repetition of misinformation.
There is so much wrong with it that it would take pages to break it all down and show all the
bad information built into it. So lets just start with carbs. It is true that all calories come from
one of 3 categories: carbohydrates, fats and proteins. to continue to equate all the items in
any one category is simplistic thinking to the point of being simple minded.
To say that vegetables such as: kale, spinach, chard(s), collard greens etc. are nutritionally the
same as a loaf of white bread is moronic. But that is what you do when you say "all carbs, blah, blah, blah."
As I said that is just a small sample of what is wrong with that post and the misinformed thinking behind it.
There is a LOT MORE!
This is something I care about and have done research on. The SAD (Standard American Diet) is toxic
in the long run. It is 60-65% processed food, 25% animal products, 10-15% veggies, fruits and starches.
65% of Americans are overweight and 30% are obese. Most people when asked say they try to eat healthy.
There are places on the web to get good scientifically peer reviewed research about diet and nutrition.
That post is not one of those places.
Outlier
< Message edited by outlier -- 12/2/2014 10:25:04 AM >
_____________________________
Avatar from xkcd.com
"A happy sex life may take years to achieve, but it’s worth it in the long run.
Worth the time, the thought - or rather, the thoughtfulness - and, often,
the waiting." Pete Seeger
|
RE: how do you break a fastfood/takeout addiction? - 
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