[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
A big problem though is that despite a lot of information being available most people don’t look at it. Until people become educated you won’t have market pressure to alter current practices.[/quote]
That is true of every newly emerging idea.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
A big problem though is that despite a lot of information being available most people don’t look at it. Until people become educated you won’t have market pressure to alter current practices.[/quote]
There is a trend for healthier food.
I don’t have studies to cite, but the “no trans fat” type labeling tricks + high fructose corn syrup commercials indicate that people are learning.[/quote]
We just have to hope that people don’t unlearn the good and relearn the bad.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
We just have to hope that people don’t unlearn the good and relearn the bad.[/quote]
You can thank Ansel Keyes for where we are now.
He was the scientist that started the low fat revolution.
Before him people knew eating carbohydrate rich foods was responsible for weight gain.
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
A big problem though is that despite a lot of information being available most people don’t look at it. Until people become educated you won’t have market pressure to alter current practices.[/quote]
There is a trend for healthier food.
I don’t have studies to cite, but the “no trans fat” type labeling tricks + high fructose corn syrup commercials indicate that people are learning.[/quote]
Speaking of that, it is funny now how products will be advertised as “containing real sugar,” as if it is now a health food.
I was out-of-town this week on business and the hotel was next to a Whole Foods store. So I decide to go there to pick up a late dindin. While they had an impressive array of fruits, vegetables and fresh prepared ‘whole good food’ dishes to choose from, they also had a huge bakery area filled with total crap.
There were signs throughout the store that said “NEVER any hydrogenated oils”. “NEVER high fructose corn syrup”. That’s commendable. But yet they have a huge bakery area filled with flour, sugar, butter creations. Weird. And why?
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
I was out-of-town this week on business and the hotel was next to a Whole Foods store. So I decide to go there to pick up a late dindin. While they had an impressive array of fruits, vegetables and fresh prepared ‘whole good food’ dishes to choose from, they also had a huge bakery area filled with total crap.
There were signs throughout the store that said “NEVER any hydrogenated oils”. “NEVER high fructose corn syrup”. That’s commendable. But yet they have a huge bakery area filled with flour, sugar, butter creations. Weird. And why?[/quote]
Because whole grains are part of a balanced diet, duh. /sarcasm
Really though, Whole Foods is just like any other grocery store. You can find your healthy options, but the majority is just sugar-laden crap. But its real(!) sugar! One thing I’ve discovered there recently (in Dallas, not sure if they do this elsewhere) is low-temperature pasteurized, non-homogenized milk from locally pastured cows. I’ve always thought I was lactose intolerant, but strangely enough this stuff gives me no GI distress at all, even drinking around a gallon per day.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
meanwhile, childhood and adult obesity is at an all time high while consumption of fat is down[/quote]
Please provide a source for this. Gary Taubes has, in the past, made the mistake of thinking a lower PERCENTAGE of caloric intake coming from fat is the equivalent of a lower TOTAL intake.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
His beef is with the “calories in, calories out” bullshit science.[/quote]
What is “bullshit” about calories in, calories out?
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
I was out-of-town this week on business and the hotel was next to a Whole Foods store. So I decide to go there to pick up a late dindin. While they had an impressive array of fruits, vegetables and fresh prepared ‘whole good food’ dishes to choose from, they also had a huge bakery area filled with total crap.
There were signs throughout the store that said “NEVER any hydrogenated oils”. “NEVER high fructose corn syrup”. That’s commendable. But yet they have a huge bakery area filled with flour, sugar, butter creations. Weird. And why?[/quote]
I live a few blocks from a Whole Foods. I shop there exclusively but I treat it just like a regular grocery store. I stay in the outside departments and away from the bakery.
They sell this stuff because they still need to satisfy part of the market that desires these products and it would be bad business to make them go to their competitors to get it.
[quote]anonym wrote:
What is “bullshit” about calories in, calories out?[/quote]
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a universal physical law but how can every piece of food we eat necessarily be used for energy?
It does not take into account our need to rebuild our bodies. It is overly simplistic, bullshit science.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
What is “bullshit” about calories in, calories out?[/quote]
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a universal physical law but how can every piece of food we eat necessarily be used for energy?
It does not take into account our need to rebuild our bodies. It is overly simplistic, bullshit science.[/quote]
“Rebuilding” our bodies is an anabolic process. Anabolism is one part of metabolism (not just catabolism, as many seemingly assume). Metabolism influences energy expenditure, or, “calories out”. So, there’s no conflict.
Can you post a link to a study – carried out in a metabolic ward (no “free living” stuff) – that shows caloric balance is NOT the ultimate determinant of weight fluctuations?
I can post maybe a dozen that show NO difference.
Yes, I know all that. Just because I eat 1000 calories does not mean it will all be used as or stored for energy.
It’s logically certain that protein used to build tissue cannot be simultaneously used as energy - in fact this process requires energy.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
meanwhile, childhood and adult obesity is at an all time high while consumption of fat is down[/quote]
Please provide a source for this. Gary Taubes has, in the past, made the mistake of thinking a lower PERCENTAGE of caloric intake coming from fat is the equivalent of a lower TOTAL intake.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
His beef is with the “calories in, calories out” bullshit science.[/quote]
What is “bullshit” about calories in, calories out?[/quote]
Easy, conservation of energy applies to closed systems. The human body doesn’t strictly follow this premise. One example is that dietary fiber contributes to “caloric intake” because colono-cecal bacteria ferment it into short chain fatty acids. Further this means the disruption(or correction) of this or any part of the GI tracts turnover/efficiency greatly impacts the amount of nutrients(calories) absorbed and utilized.
The second distinction from this rule is that targeted high energy demand activity with targeted feeding can displace the body’s weight regulating preference despite “hyper/hypo-caloric” states.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Easy, conservation of energy applies to closed systems. The human body doesn’t strictly follow this premise. One example is that dietary fiber contributes to “caloric intake” because colono-cecal bacteria ferment it into short chain fatty acids. Further this means the disruption(or correction) of this or any part of the GI tracts turnover/efficiency greatly impacts the amount of nutrients(calories) absorbed and utilized.[/quote]
Please quantify what you would consider to be a “greatly impacted” caloric intake from intestinal flora and then show some references from peer-reviewed research articles that indicate this is more than just a “theoretical” problem.
Then explain why this variability hasn’t lead to statistically significant differences in weight loss between low carb/low fat diets in numerous metabolic ward studies spanning 50+ years.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
The second distinction from this rule is that targeted high energy demand activity with targeted feeding can displace the body’s weight regulating preference despite “hyper/hypo-caloric” states.[/quote]
Are you saying that chronic consumption of calories that are established to be below maintenance levels can, in fact, result in weight gain if they are timed right with “high energy” exercises?
This sounds like a supplement ad. Source?
It seems I’m mixing my responses. Apologies.
There are two arguments that I see being put forth:
Attached is a picture (courtesy of Anthony Colpo) that addresses issue #2 – a list of various studies conducted that take place either entirely (or, at least, mostly) in metabolic wards.
The YES/NO indicate whether or not a statistically significant difference in weight loss was observed.
Now, I can provide more studies showing no difference, going as far back as ~70 years. If review the above and do not find them satisfactory, I can post some more.
YOUR (general ‘your’) job, should you choose to accept it, is to find ME some studies that support YOUR assertion. I want metabolic ward studies because they are the most rigorously controlled ones available. I want to be certain that the researchers know exactly what the participants were eating – this cannot be definitively determined when subjects are not confined for obvious reasons.
I will not go digging for studies supporting #1 just yet, because it is Friday and I am not arguing against the consensus of the scientific community. I shouldn’t have to go digging for evidence to support this any more than I should be responsible for finding research that proves the Earth isn’t flat.
Also, note that Taubes states that CICO is entirely relevant within the first 45 seconds of the linked video.
Hmm see if it attaches this time
[quote]anonym wrote:
Also, note that Taubes states that CICO is entirely relevant within the first 45 seconds of the linked video.[/quote]
Sure, but how much of that is just wasted heat energy versus what gets stored as fat?
Nobody knows this.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sure, but how much of that is just wasted heat energy versus what gets stored as fat?
Nobody knows this.[/quote]
And what does our ignorance of the minutiae of metabolism have to do with CICO being bullshit science? Determining the specific percentage of excess calories that gets “wasted” as heat rather than stored as fat might be academically illustrative, but it is entirely unnecessary for just about anyone aiming to manipulate their body weight.
It’s simply not necessary to know what percentage is going where when all you need to do to make the scale move is put a little less in your mouth and move a little more until you start seeing progress.
As someone who routinely frequents a fitness website, I honestly can’t see how you would think that your argument makes any sense. Every fat loss program on this site involves manipulating CICO on at least one side of the equation in order to elicit a response.
Again, though, I would love to see the metabolic ward studies that you are basing your opinion on.
[quote]anonym wrote:
And what does our ignorance of the minutiae of metabolism have to do with CICO being bullshit science? [/quote]
It does not tell us anything about how and why people gain weight. As I said earlier it is too simplistic. It treats all macronutrients the same which we already know have different physiological effects on the body depending on the proportion they are consumed in.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It treats all macronutrients the same which we already know have different physiological effects on the body depending on the proportion they are consumed in.[/quote]
If all macronutrients are NOT the same wrt moving the scale (i.e., a calorie isn’t a calorie), then where is the statistically significant differences in weight loss between subjects eating different proportions of these macros in numerous metabolic ward studies dating back 70 years?
You are saying caloric balance is OVERrated – the most rigorously controlled studies to date all disagree.
You are saying macronutrient proportions are UNDERrated – the most rigorously controlled studies to date all disagree.
These studies, when people are held accountable 24/7 for what they put in their mouths, ALL show that people WILL lose weight once a caloric deficit is achieved. And that this weight loss will be the same regardless of the particular macronutrient ratios.
It is not “bullshit” science if ALL of the strongest evidence available shows that it WORKS.