Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Calorie is a calorie?

Options
245678

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    No tests done . I see there is a fat exhibition in Dublin science gallery with free tests.

    All I can say is I feel better / more energy than ever before .


  • Options
    #33
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    jive wrote: »
    LDL increases hugely in some people, though. OPs diet is fairly extreme so I'd be interested to see what effects it has had, if any.

    OP diet isn't extreme at all imho, it's not remotely high fat!

    While ldl may increase the particle size increases; so for same ldl volume there may be significantly less particles; try getting that tested in an Irish lab- what an ApoB test etc

    My own hdl is above optimum, very low triglycerides results I couldn't get near with masdive exercise and following mainstream guidance.

    Not sure now if diet has anything to do with CVD. Reducing ldl an increasing hdl while they "may"be correlated to CVD there us not much evidence to show that it causes a reduction in risk.

    Malcolm Kendrick may be talking bo11ox on the stress thing, but it's a fascinating read


  • Options
    #34
    jive
    Registered Users Posts: 5,762 ✭✭✭jive


    ford2600 wrote: »
    OP diet isn't extreme at all imho, it's not remotely high fat!

    While ldl may increase the particle size increases; so for same ldl volume there may be significantly less particles; try getting that tested in an Irish lab- what an ApoB test etc

    My own hdl is above optimum, very low triglycerides results I couldn't get near with masdive exercise and following mainstream guidance.

    Not sure now if diet has anything to do with CVD. Reducing ldl an increasing hdl while they "may"be correlated to CVD there us not much evidence to show that it causes a reduction in risk.

    Malcolm Kendrick may be talking bo11ox on the stress thing, but it's a fascinating read

    my bad i meant Bruno not OP! thought bruno was the op


  • Options
    #35
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    jive wrote: »
    my bad i meant Bruno not OP! thought bruno was the op

    Snap! I meant Bruno too; he's under 50% fat. 45 I think.


  • Options
    #36
    jive
    Registered Users Posts: 5,762 ✭✭✭jive


    ford2600 wrote: »
    Snap! I meant Bruno too; he's under 50% fat. 45 I think.

    haha we've gone full circle. i'd say his diet is extreme relative to normal people (in b4 normal people eat like ****). either way he has done no tests to :(


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    jive wrote: »
    haha we've gone full circle. i'd say his diet is extreme relative to normal people (in b4 normal people eat like ****). either way he has done no tests to :(

    Define normal people. - those brainwashed by industry - why did Philip Morris but Kraft? The flora pro activ bull to lower cholesterol that is damaging humans?


  • Options
    #38
    WhiteWalls
    Registered Users Posts: 945 ✭✭✭WhiteWalls


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Define normal people. - those brainwashed by industry - why did Philip Morris but Kraft? The flora pro activ bull to lower cholesterol that is damaging humans?

    ya it is pretty amazing how a butter could reduce your cholesterol, 'as part of a balanced diet' means a lot i suppose


  • Options
    #39
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    WhiteWalls wrote: »
    ya it is pretty amazing how a butter could reduce your cholesterol, 'as part of a balanced diet' means a lot i suppose

    Its connected to the ratio of omega 3 and 6.


  • Options
    #40
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Nice thanks.
    I listen to some podcasts like ben greenfield and watched cereal killers and from my reading - this backs up those articles.

    I believe metabolism slows as we eat less and speeds up as we eat more . Therefore it's entirely possible to eat 5,000-6000 cals a day, train very little and not get fat . Of course this is based on eating the right foods- no sugar no grain.

    Adding "I believe " in front of bullsh1t statements doesn't make them any less bullsh1t.


  • Options
    #41
    Theresalwaysone
    Registered Users Posts: 4,039 ✭✭✭Theresalwaysone


    Has anyone heard Phil Learney speak on this?

    If you haven't, I recommend it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Egass13
    Registered Users Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭Egass13


    Theresalwaysone wrote: »
    Has anyone heard Phil Learney speak on this?

    If you haven't, I recommend it.

    Phil is a very interesting and intelligent man. Well worth checking out his podcasts


  • Options
    #43
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Adding "I believe " in front of bullsh1t statements doesn't make them any less bullsh1t.

    I've been trying to think of a tattoo I could get on my forehead....I think I've found it.


  • Options
    #44
    dor843088
    Registered Users Posts: 1,171 ✭✭✭dor843088


    generic2012 wrote: »
    A calorie is a calorie. An inch is an inch etc.

    A calorie is unit of energy that doesn't change. However, a 2,500 kcal diet of exclusively fat will not yield the same results a 2,500 kcal diet comprised of only protein. What seems to confuse people about calories is how the body deals with them in terms of the macronutrients they are derived from. Protein is harder to digest than fats or carbs ie. the body uses the most energy too break down (to its constituent amino acids) and store protein. You will only recieve about 80-70% of the energy in protein, so a gram of protein may be 4kcal but your body will only recieve a net increase of c. 3.2kcal from that gram. Fats are stored directly as fat and then energy has to be used to make it available as an energy source ie. it is the easiest macronutrient to digest and store as body fat. You will receive almost 100% (varies from 85-97%) of energy from fat. Carbs around 85%.

    So although a calorie is universally a calorie, regardless of where it comes from, what your body does with them and the energy it utilises from them, isn't.

    There are different types of proteins (eg. different combinations and ratios of amino acids), different fats (eg. MCT, LCT), and different carbohydrates (eg. complex and simple), which will all be broken down differently and at different metabolic costs. Combine with this the different physical properties of food from different levels of cooking or moisture content (eg. protein from powdered whey vs from raw steak) it can get rather complicated, this is without mentioning fibre or alcohol. It kinda shows how ridiculous measuring your brown rice out to the nearest gram is?

    But rather than meaning calorie counting is pointless it means that the energy you gain from food is unique to you and the types of food you eat. So use a calorie counter as a guideline, and if you gain weight when it says you should be losing reduce your calories.

    PS high fat diets, calorie per calorie, are the easiest way too put on weight and wouldn't bring the same performance benefits as high carb or protein. If someone tells you calories don't matter, agree with them and walk away slowly. If you can't get away from them just talk to them about the (any) government trying to slowly kill their people by giving out questionable dietary information, you can walk away when they pass out from successive multiple orgasms.

    Probably the best post iv seen on boards in a long time. ( vigorous internet handshake )


  • Options
    #45
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Adding "I believe " in front of bullsh1t statements doesn't make them any less bullsh1t.

    It's not bs- it happens. Read Gary Taubes & watch cereal killers documentary.


  • Options
    #46
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    It's not bs- it happens. Read Gary Taubes & watch cereal killers documentary.

    No, it doesn't happen. Proof or gtfo.


  • Options
    #47
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    No, it doesn't happen. Proof or gtfo.

    Are you allowed to tell someone "gtfo" on boards?

    Did you fully read my post? I said where to find the proof. Your choice!


  • Options
    #48
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Are you allowed to tell someone "gtfo" on boards?

    Did you fully read my post? I said where to find the proof. Your choice!

    You can find the proof at www.google.com. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


    Post direct evidence in link form.


  • Options
    #49
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Theresalwaysone wrote: »
    Has anyone heard Phil Learney speak on this?

    If you haven't, I recommend it.

    Dave Learney said this:

    In 18 years of consulting I am yet to meet anyone who over eats. People eat the wrong quantities at the wrong times and disrupt systems such as metabolism so effectively that much like anything else the body adapts to this disruption permanently. People DO exist that overeat but in over 13,000 sessions (estimated) I havn’t dealt with one.

    - “Why diets can’t work”… a look at why the “calories in vs calories out” model really misses the point, and discussing what happens to key hormones when we restrict calories. “A report in the April 2007 issue of the American Psychologist showed up to 66% of individuals following the caloric model of weight loss end up fatter two years later than they were when they started the diet. Any other model, in any other discipline, with a failure rate this high would have been discarded long ago and labelled as useless.”


  • Options
    #50
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    You can find the proof at www.google.com. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


    Post direct evidence in link form.

    http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/


  • Options
    #51
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Dave Learney said this:People DO exist that overeat

    So your theory that you can over eat and not get fat is proven how?

    Your second link is a blog with 0 scientific research or credence.

    Lets get back to your original quote because i know you like to change the goalposts as your bullsh1t is discredited
    Bruno26 wrote:
    I believe metabolism slows as we eat less and speeds up as we eat more . Therefore it's entirely possible to eat 5,000-6000 cals a day, train very little and not get fat . Of course this is based on eating the right foods- no sugar no grain.

    Your theory is that people can eat whatever they want and not get fat as long as they dont eat grain or sugar. In fact you are quiet specific and state that they can eat up to 6000 calories a day and not get fat.


    Where is your proof?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    So your theory that you can over eat and not get fat is proven how?

    Your second link is a blog with 0 scientific research or credence.

    Lets get back to your original quote because i know you like to change the goalposts as your bullsh1t is discredited



    Your theory is that people can eat whatever they want and not get fat as long as they dont eat grain or sugar. In fact you are quiet specific and state that they can eat up to 6000 calories a day and not get fat.


    Where is your proof?

    I've told you where to find the proof- for some reason you refuse to seek it- no problem- why on earth would I bother spouting bs? you're obviously very interested in this area so again I suggest you read gary taubes and watch cereal killers.

    You will find the evidence there. I'm sure you will disagree with the science.

    Anyway is science always right - do you still believe in the whole saturated fat theory that's it's bad for you because science said so?

    You're changing what I'm saying - if you eat hflc (macros in proper proportion) you can eat 5-6000 cals and not get fat.


  • Options
    #53
    WhiteWalls
    Registered Users Posts: 945 ✭✭✭WhiteWalls


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    I've told you where to find the proof- for some reason you refuse to seek it- no problem- why on earth would I bother spouting bs? you're obviously very interested in this area so again I suggest you read gary taubes and watch cereal killers.

    You will find the evidence there. I'm sure you will disagree with the science.

    Anyway is science always right - do you still believe in the whole saturated fat theory that's it's bad for you because science said so?

    You're changing what I'm saying - if you eat hflc (macros in proper proportion) you can eat 5-6000 cals and not get fat.

    do u argue that saturated fat is not bad?


  • Options
    #54
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    I've told you where to find the proof- for some reason you refuse to seek it- no problem- why on earth would I bother spouting bs? you're obviously very interested in this area so again I suggest you read gary taubes and watch cereal killers.

    You will find the evidence there. I'm sure you will disagree with the science.

    Anyway is science always right - do you still believe in the whole saturated fat theory that's it's bad for you because science said so?

    You're changing what I'm saying - if you eat hflc (macros in proper proportion) you can eat 5-6000 cals and not get fat.

    Thats not how it works - you dont just say here is a library, read all the info in it and your answer is there. You need to cite specific evidence.

    If your calorie requirments are 4k a day and you eat 6k you will put on fat, HFLC or not. I have bulked on a ketogenic diet.

    edit: i havent once mentioned saturated fat. Do not change your argument, thanks.


  • Options
    #55
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    WhiteWalls wrote: »
    do u argue that saturated fat is not bad?

    It's absolutely not bad- it's in fact good for us- we need it- it's a myth so industry can profit from .eg low fat products , flora etc.


  • Options
    #56
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Thats not how it works - you dont just say here is a library, read all the info in it and your answer is there. You need to cite specific evidence.

    If your calorie requirments are 4k a day and you eat 6k you will put on fat, HFLC or not. I have bulked on a ketogenic diet.

    edit: i havent once mentioned saturated fat. Do not change your argument, thanks.

    Part of argument- you're looking for science- it's not always right


  • Options
    #57
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Part of argument- you're looking for science- it's not always right

    Anecdotal evidence has its place alright, in the bin. So you have zero proof?


  • Options
    #58
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Anecdotal evidence has its place alright, in the bin. So you have zero proof?

    Ye that's right - zero proof-only anecdotes! Did I say I've done it- anyway should have got a scientist to examine it!


  • Options
    #59
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,504 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Ye that's right - zero proof-only anecdotes! Did I say I've done it- anyway should have got a scientist to examine it!

    I have anecdotal proof of the opposite of what you claim, but I also have scientific proof too.


  • Options
    #60
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,578 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    So...this is new.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Part of argument- you're looking for science- it's not always right

    Science is a method so it can't be wrong. Your statements violate the laws of thermodynamics. If any one could prove what you've said through out this thread was true, they would win a Nobel Prize.


Advertisement