|
|
Post by lolly on May 19, 2020 20:28:24 GMT -5
Well, let's see if Dr. Lolly agrees.  I went into this more fully, see post above. Welcome lolly's reply. not a bad post. i'd go along with it generally speaking. better a dietitian deals with disease related nutrition information. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 19, 2020 20:40:17 GMT -5
Very true. I'd say what you eat is 10 times more important than exercise. Weight is strictly determined by the difference calories-in less calories-out, as it was mentioned 3,500 calories being equivalent with 1 lb of fat. When the difference is positive you gain weight, when negative you lose weight. I used this formula to lose and maintain weight for almost 20 years (unintentionally, I used it to gain weight too ...). The number of calories per day to maintain weight depends on your metabolism. Besides some individual variability, men's metabolism is higher, younger people's too, in a range of a few hundreds calories. Exercise is essential for health and stamina, but is generally inefficient for weight loss. Aerobic exercise is the least efficient for that, but necessary for your cardiovascular system. You don't need to go to the gym, nor spend lots of time and sweat exercising, but you have to do enough to hit each group of muscles with resistance exercises, do some stretching, and cardiovascular exercise. High intensity interval training is very efficient time wise, but, in my opinion, it can't completely replace the other forms of working out. Now, if we actually act upon a physical body, in a space-time framework, or it is a projection of our beliefs, it is irrelevant for this discussion ...  aerobic exercise is best for burning calories, and therefore weight loss, but tends to turn to muscle for energy as much as fat since you don't need much muscle for aerobic work. so where weight loss is specific to losing fat, resistance training coupled with sufficient protein is essential to that goal even though resistance training burns fewer calories compared to aerobic exercise. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 19, 2020 20:53:01 GMT -5
The saying 'all calories are not created equal' is a misnomer. Calories are a quantitative measure of energy available to the body in food and the energy expended by body functions. A kcal is the energy needed to heat one litre of water by one degree C, and in this respect, all calories are equal. The gain or loss of body weight is determined by calorie balance (calorie in - calorie out), quite simply, because energy is conserved. However, the partitioning of nutrients as fat stores or muscle tissue, and indeed, the efficient functioning of the body, is dependent on the types and quantities of nutrients and the types and amounts of activity performed by the body.
Then we get into the nuances of the metabolic processes of different nutrients, and the relationship between nutrients and activity, which we can discuss to no end, but for now I'll read that article and probably come back with a critique.
The Healthline article is very good and properly referenced.
The Harvard article neglects to point out that calorie balance is the determining factor in body weight change, which is quite misleading, but makes some good points about fats, carbs and GI. Both articles neglect protein as a calorie source and the functions of amino acids in metabolism, including muscle protein synthesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 19, 2020 21:41:31 GMT -5
I don't intend to convince you, or anybody else. It is just, sometimes, I make the mistake of trying to share with others things I believe will help them. I know that in most cases this doesn't work. To me all the arguments against the formula in discussion, made by you and by the authors you referenced, miss the point: the weight is strictly determined only by the difference calories-in vs. calories-out. All the other arguments relate to health, to metabolism rate change (this is part of the calorie-out), but don't invalidate that simple formula. I truly can't understand how can't you and others see it. Complicating things make people not follow the simple truth, and end up nowhere. When I discovered that this formula works on myself, I enthusiastically shared with whoever asked what I did to lose weight. To my disappointment, mostly everybody continued trying gimmicks, kept complaining, and got nowhere. This is truly disappointing, again. Calories-in vs. calories-out is really the whole story for your weight! It works for absolutely everybody, including those with hormonal problems. Gone into further, post above. Yes, technically correct, but one's metabolism can slow down to such an extent that this formula does not work as it did previously. The body does not always function in the same manner it has previously. Yes. The body uses less calories as it becomes lighter and adapts to a calorie deficit by slowing its metabolic rate and reducing their non-exercise activity in general. But calorie balance determines body weight change and there is simply no debate in this regard. There can be metabolic mal-adaption problems when going into extreme calorie deficits or a significant deficit for an extended time.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 19, 2020 21:43:44 GMT -5
Got it Peter thank you. But I have a different idea as to how to eat. I strongly believe after having the food, we should not eat anything else other than drinking water whenever we are thirsty before next food. And next food should be taken after we perfectly sense the hunger and I observed that my body perfectly goes to the hunger mode after 5 hours. I believe if one follows this, he will never fell ill. He doesn't need to do any yoga. Very good. I did this for a while years ago. I ate only when hungry and ate only enough to stop hunger. It worked very well. It is an excellent point, because ultimately we need to manage body weight by responding appropriately to our own senstations of hunger and satiety. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 20, 2020 12:09:00 GMT -5
The saying 'all calories are not created equal' is a misnomer. Calories are a quantitative measure of energy available to the body in food and the energy expended by body functions. A kcal is the energy needed to heat one litre of water by one degree C, and in this respect, all calories are equal. The gain or loss of body weight is determined by calorie balance (calorie in - calorie out), quite simply, because energy is conserved. However, the partitioning of nutrients as fat stores or muscle tissue, and indeed, the efficient functioning of the body, is dependent on the types and quantities of nutrients and the types and amounts of activity performed by the body.
Then we get into the nuances of the metabolic processes of different nutrients, and the relationship between nutrients and activity, which we can discuss to no end, but for now I'll read that article and probably come back with a critique. The Healthline article is very good and properly referenced.
The Harvard article neglects to point out that calorie balance is the determining factor in body weight change, which is quite misleading, but makes some good points about fats, carbs and GI. Both articles neglect protein as a calorie source and the functions of amino acids in metabolism, including muscle protein synthesis.
I'm going to have to beg to differ. The body is not purely a mechanical device, so doesn't exactly process energy as energy. Say I eat a glazed donut for desert with a 800 calorie lunch. (The manufacturer has processed the sugar and wheat, so the body doesn't have to), cut the bread to equal the calories of the donut. The following day I eat a piece of 100% all grain bread along with the same lunch, same 800 calories, instead of donut. The body is going to turn the donut virtually immediately to glucose, as it is additional calories which cannot be used in the short term for energy the body needs to function. And so it will be turned to fat, either stored in the liver or if the liver has its store of fat, it is stored as fat in the body. However, with the 100% grain bread equaling the same calories as the donut, the body has to work to digest the piece of bread, that is, it does not immediately turn to glucose. The body has to separate the part of the grain it can use from the fiber it cannot digest (and so which passes completely through the digestive system and out of the body). And so by this time the piece of bread is more likely to be used as energy, and not stored as fat (where it has to be burned later). This of course is called the glycemic index (which one has to use along with the glycemic load). So yes, all calories are equal, except in the body where they are not equal. www.webmd.com/diabetes/guide/glycemic-index-good-versus-bad-carbs |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 20, 2020 12:21:27 GMT -5
Gone into further, post above. Yes, technically correct, but one's metabolism can slow down to such an extent that this formula does not work as it did previously. The body does not always function in the same manner it has previously. Yes. The body uses less calories as it becomes lighter and adapts to a calorie deficit by slowing its metabolic rate and reducing their non-exercise activity in general. But calorie balance determines body weight change and there is simply no debate in this regard. There can be metabolic mal-adaption problems when going into extreme calorie deficits or a significant deficit for an extended time.
I don't disagree with this. I'm only saying a person can eat a certain diet of say 2,200 calories (1/2 processed carbs) and gain weight and eat a different diet, different food (replace the same amount of processed carbs with vegetables, that is, eat no processed carbs), same 2,200 calories, and lose weight. And it matters at what times you eat. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 20, 2020 12:49:24 GMT -5
Very good. I did this for a while years ago. I ate only when hungry and ate only enough to stop hunger. It worked very well. It is an excellent point, because ultimately we need to manage body weight by responding appropriately to our own senstations of hunger and satiety. Yes, most of my extra calories eating is merely for pleasure, has nothing to do with hunger. That's basically a psychological issue. I balance it with health concerns, the long view versus the short view. Works most of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 20, 2020 13:28:55 GMT -5
The mathematics of weight loss. This is the original video of Meerman, the one I had seen previously. I just posted his latest video on the same subject on the TED Talk thread. The other one is more succinct with greater actual knowledge. Both are exceptionally interesting. They are about what actually happens in the body when one loses weight. You basically...well, I'll let you find out. I recommend both for a more full picture. He basically asks, since the first law of thermodynamics says energy cannot be created or destroyed, what happens to the fat when you lose weight? I would be willing to say, be prepared to be surprised.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on May 20, 2020 16:02:01 GMT -5
Yes. The body uses less calories as it becomes lighter and adapts to a calorie deficit by slowing its metabolic rate and reducing their non-exercise activity in general. But calorie balance determines body weight change and there is simply no debate in this regard. There can be metabolic mal-adaption problems when going into extreme calorie deficits or a significant deficit for an extended time.
I don't disagree with this. I'm only saying a person can eat a certain diet of say 2,200 calories (1/2 processed carbs) and gain weight and eat a different diet, different food (replace the same amount of processed carbs with vegetables, that is, eat no processed carbs), same 2,200 calories, and lose weight. And it matters at what times you eat. . The problem is that you mislead those who need to lose weight, by confusing them with incorrect information. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 20, 2020 18:30:50 GMT -5
The saying 'all calories are not created equal' is a misnomer. Calories are a quantitative measure of energy available to the body in food and the energy expended by body functions. A kcal is the energy needed to heat one litre of water by one degree C, and in this respect, all calories are equal. The gain or loss of body weight is determined by calorie balance (calorie in - calorie out), quite simply, because energy is conserved. However, the partitioning of nutrients as fat stores or muscle tissue, and indeed, the efficient functioning of the body, is dependent on the types and quantities of nutrients and the types and amounts of activity performed by the body.
Then we get into the nuances of the metabolic processes of different nutrients, and the relationship between nutrients and activity, which we can discuss to no end, but for now I'll read that article and probably come back with a critique. The Healthline article is very good and properly referenced.
The Harvard article neglects to point out that calorie balance is the determining factor in body weight change, which is quite misleading, but makes some good points about fats, carbs and GI. Both articles neglect protein as a calorie source and the functions of amino acids in metabolism, including muscle protein synthesis.
I'm going to have to beg to differ. The body is not purely a mechanical device, so doesn't exactly process energy as energy. Say I eat a glazed donut for desert with a 800 calorie lunch. (The manufacturer has processed the sugar and wheat, so the body doesn't have to), cut the bread to equal the calories of the donut. The following day I eat a piece of 100% all grain bread along with the same lunch, same 800 calories, instead of donut. The body is going to turn the donut virtually immediately to glucose, as it is additional calories which cannot be used in the short term for energy the body needs to function. And so it will be turned to fat, either stored in the liver or if the liver has its store of fat, it is stored as fat in the body. However, with the 100% grain bread equaling the same calories as the donut, the body has to work to digest the piece of bread, that is, it does not immediately turn to glucose. The body has to separate the part of the grain it can use from the fiber it cannot digest (and so which passes completely through the digestive system and out of the body). And so by this time the piece of bread is more likely to be used as energy, and not stored as fat (where it has to be burned later). This of course is called the glycemic index (which one has to use along with the glycemic load). So yes, all calories are equal, except in the body where they are not equal. www.webmd.com/diabetes/guide/glycemic-index-good-versus-bad-carbs A calories is a quantity of energy like a metre is unit of length, so there is no way that some calories are not the same as others. it is also true that calorie balance is the only consistent proxy for weight change, but when we talk about body-weight we don't actually look at scale weight alone. We typically are concerned with the amount of fat we have when losing weight and the amount of muscle when gaining. This is why we concern ourselves with macronutrient distribution along with calorie balance. Different nutrients affect type of tissue loss or gain, as well as hormone balance with respect to fatty acids.
In addition to this, vitamins and minerals, which have no caloric value, are also important for efficient body functions, and the way nutrients are distributed in meals throughout the day also makes a difference.
This leaves us with a system of desending priorities:
1) Appropriate caloric intake 2) Macronutrient ratio 3) Mictronutrients (include water) 4) Meal time nurtrient distribution
One could add nutritional supplements as the lowest priority as the need for these is minimised by addressing the first 4
It will make no difference to body weight if you eat 800 cals of donut or 800 cal of whloe grain bread. Sure the former will spike blood sugar other stuff, and that might even affect drowsiness and make you less active, so you'll burn less calories. However if all other variables are equated 800 cals of refined or unrefined carbs will have the same affect on body weight change. I'm afraid the research is conclusive and the few who still try to refute it are wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on May 20, 2020 18:42:10 GMT -5
I don't disagree with this. I'm only saying a person can eat a certain diet of say 2,200 calories (1/2 processed carbs) and gain weight and eat a different diet, different food (replace the same amount of processed carbs with vegetables, that is, eat no processed carbs), same 2,200 calories, and lose weight. And it matters at what times you eat. . The problem is that you mislead those who need to lose weight, by confusing them with incorrect information. Yes, Weight gain and loss depends on calorie balance so the confusion comes from equating calories with nutrients. For example, if you eat 2000 cals of donuts your metabolism will function differently compared to eating 2000 cals of lean meat and veges. The latter will enable more body activity than the former, and hence increase calorie expenditure resulting in less weight gain. However, this does not defy the rule of calorie balance. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 20, 2020 19:17:32 GMT -5
I don't disagree with this. I'm only saying a person can eat a certain diet of say 2,200 calories (1/2 processed carbs) and gain weight and eat a different diet, different food (replace the same amount of processed carbs with vegetables, that is, eat no processed carbs), same 2,200 calories, and lose weight. And it matters at what times you eat. . The problem is that you mislead those who need to lose weight, by confusing them with incorrect information. OK, that was a bad example, I contradicted myself in my reply. I never meant to say you are wrong, in fact here I said I agree with this (your calories in versus calories burned). All I'm saying is there are more efficient ways to burn calories, to burn more calories than you take in. One efficient way to do this is to eat food with a low glycemic index (you have to balance this with glycemic load, as some foods might have a high glycemic index but you will never eat enough of them to make it matter). I have verified unequivocably that I will lose weight by cutting out bread, period, and crackers, chips, cereal and granola (along with cutting out all sugar). That's all I'm trying to say. I don't disagree that you have to burn more calories than you take in to lose weight. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 20, 2020 19:25:29 GMT -5
I'm going to have to beg to differ. The body is not purely a mechanical device, so doesn't exactly process energy as energy. Say I eat a glazed donut for desert with a 800 calorie lunch. (The manufacturer has processed the sugar and wheat, so the body doesn't have to), cut the bread to equal the calories of the donut. The following day I eat a piece of 100% all grain bread along with the same lunch, same 800 calories, instead of donut. The body is going to turn the donut virtually immediately to glucose, as it is additional calories which cannot be used in the short term for energy the body needs to function. And so it will be turned to fat, either stored in the liver or if the liver has its store of fat, it is stored as fat in the body. However, with the 100% grain bread equaling the same calories as the donut, the body has to work to digest the piece of bread, that is, it does not immediately turn to glucose. The body has to separate the part of the grain it can use from the fiber it cannot digest (and so which passes completely through the digestive system and out of the body). And so by this time the piece of bread is more likely to be used as energy, and not stored as fat (where it has to be burned later). This of course is called the glycemic index (which one has to use along with the glycemic load). So yes, all calories are equal, except in the body where they are not equal. www.webmd.com/diabetes/guide/glycemic-index-good-versus-bad-carbs A calories is a quantity of energy like a metre is unit of length, so there is no way that some calories are not the same as others. it is also true that calorie balance is the only consistent proxy for weight change, but when we talk about body-weight we don't actually look at scale weight alone. We typically are concerned with the amount of fat we have when losing weight and the amount of muscle when gaining. This is why we concern ourselves with macronutrient distribution along with calorie balance. Different nutrients affect type of tissue loss or gain, as well as hormone balance with respect to fatty acids.
In addition to this, vitamins and minerals, which have no caloric value, are also important for efficient body functions, and the way nutrients are distributed in meals throughout the day also makes a difference. This leaves us with a system of desending priorities:
1) Appropriate caloric intake 2) Macronutrient ratio 3) Mictronutrients (include water) 4) Meal time nurtrient distribution One could add nutritional supplements as the lowest priority as the need for these is minimised by addressing the first 4 It will make no difference to body weight if you eat 800 cals of donut or 800 cal of whloe grain bread. Sure the former will spike blood sugar other stuff, and that might even affect drowsiness and make you less active, so you'll burn less calories. However if all other variables are equated 800 cals of refined or unrefined carbs will have the same affect on body weight change. I'm afraid the research is conclusive and the few who still try to refute it are wrong.
I don't think you will find anybody who will refute that to lose weight you have to burn more calories than you take in. I was only trying to say there are more efficient ways to do this (see post above). My (previous) example was a bad example, in that it was wrong (I was trying to say something it didn't say). But you pulled out of it something worthwhile. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 21, 2020 22:28:37 GMT -5
Easy. Shift attention away from any thought of chocolate to what you can see, hear, feel, smell, or taste whenever a thought of chocolate appears. The imaginary chocolate thought structure or chocolate neural pathway will eventually collapse. If this isn't believed, try it and find out what happens. There's a money back guarantee if it doesn't work as described. Extremely logical. If I come up with any ifs and buts with that advice, I am in effect, just giving excuses. It may take even longer than 10 years but I will give this a shot. TBH I have been on similar diets off and on, albeit never wholeheartedly. I even began losing weight but the cravings got the better of me last time. I will try my best to give it 100% this time, promise. Diet is a very complex topic. I've been experimenting with diet a lot. You can do it with willpower or with little baby steps. Both methods work. But if you try to change it with willpower, my experience is that you have to keep it up long enough until it becomes a habit. Then you don't need willpower anymore. But it can take several months until it becomes a habit. So this is extremely difficult, especially since eating is also a social event. Which means you are usually not just changing your diet, you are changing a lot more aspects of your life. It usually takes a strong character to actually pull that off. A much easier and almost effortless way though is doing little baby steps, i.e. a slow and almost natural transitioning. I give you an example. This year I started transitioning to a mostly raw diet. I started in January with one day per week 100% raw. The plan was to add one day per week every month as long as it feels comfortable. Now, theoretically, I would be at 5 days raw per week now. In actuality, it's 3-4 days. The covid event messed with my plans a bit. However, here's something interesting I've noticed. In the beginning, I seemed to compensate a bit for what I missed out in terms of processed/cooked food the day after a 100% raw day. But as time went on, after 2-3 months, it changed to the reverse. I found myself actually eating more and more raw on days that were scheduled as processed/cooked food days. So this new habit of eating raw was sorta slowly bleeding over into the other schedule. Nowadays, I'm basically at 100% raw at least half a day every day and on those scheduled days also for the rest of the day. So if you add it all up, I'm actually ahead of schedule. Although it took five months so far, it actually feels good, natural and stable and doesn't involve any effort at all. I can eat whatever I want whenever I want and however much I want. Even on days that are scheduled as processed/cooked food days. Weight is no issue whatsoever. The thing though is, over time, you reach a new normal which keeps improving. So the goal post keeps always moving a bit. Which essentially means at some point, you can't go back, the contrast would just be too unconformable. Sure, theoretically, I could still eat a bigmac or a pizza or cake or a steak, but that doesn't work for me anymore. For one, when do eat these kind of foods, I usually don't eat more than a few bites because I feel satisfied already. Secondly, if I do eat more, I'd regret it shortly after I'm done. Last weekend, I went to a Chinese restaurant with my wife, the food was really good, we ate a lot but on our way home, I already started regretting it. It took me almost two days to get back to feeling normal again (the new normal, that is). I rarely drink water these days, but on that day, I probably drank 3-4 liters. And I had to take a long nap, too. When you start eating healthier, you get a lot more sensitive to what processed/cooked food does to your body. And not just your body, also your mood and state of awareness. So that trip to the restaurant last week was a good reminder of what I've left behind and why I left it behind. |
|
