Calorie is a calorie?

WhiteWalls · 23-05-2014 1:01am #1

Is this a myth that its the same thing to eat a burger or an apple if they both have the same amount of calories?

Blacktie. · 23-05-2014 5:46am

O I can hear the gluten brigade coming already!

It depends on context OP. If you're purely trying to lose weight then yes a calorie is a calorie and all that matters is the deficit. However if you want to do it in the most optimum and healthy way then there's more to it. The apple will be a decent source of vitamins and some carbs and sugar. The burger will be a source of protein and fat and some minerals and vitamins also. The burger will be slightly better at preserving muscle mass than the apple. However don't look at it as comparing one item to another. You need to compare the overall diet from day to day to get the most holistic view of it all to ensure you're eating healthy and with the right breakdown of macros and micros for you.

Bruno26 · 23-05-2014 8:01am

Choose the burger without the bun!

Yes I believe it's a myth- the effects of 1 calorie from different sources of food are very different . If you get most calories from high carb sources then this spikes blood sugar far more than the calories from high fat / protein sources . This results in people getting fat.

I believe in the following:

If someone is required to eat 2,700 cals a day. If they eat 2,600 from mostly carbs they will find it hard to lose fat.

If 2,800 calories are eaten from 80% fats and protein it will be easier to lose fat

silverharp · 23-05-2014 8:10am

another factor, the more dense the food the more energy your body needs to convert the calories

Blacktie. · 23-05-2014 8:22am

Bruno26 wrote: »

Choose the burger without the bun!

Yes I believe it's a myth- the effects of 1 calorie from different sources of food are very different . If you get most calories from high carb sources then this spikes blood sugar far more than the calories from high fat / protein sources . This results in people getting fat.

I believe in the following:

If someone is required to eat 2,700 cals a day. If they eat 2,600 from mostly carbs they will find it hard to lose fat.

If 2,800 calories are eaten from 80% fats and protein it will be easier to lose fat

Well yeah with a 100 calorie deficit or surplus anyone is going to find it hard to gain or lose fat. That's 5 weeks per pound.

another factor, the more dense the food the more energy your body needs to convert the calories

I assume you're talking about comparing steak to say chicken here or something!? If so this has no effect on weight gain or loss. Total calories still get absorbed and utilised.

ford2600 · 23-05-2014 8:24am

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/calories-thermodynamics-and-weight/

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/thermodynamics-and-weight-loss/

Two articles for you OP

Bruno26 · 23-05-2014 8:44am

ford2600 wrote: »

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/calories-thermodynamics-and-weight/

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/metabolism/thermodynamics-and-weight-loss/

Two articles for you OP

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.

Blacktie. · 23-05-2014 8:48am

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.

So you're saying by just adjusting your diet you can effectively double your metabolism?

Bruno26 · 23-05-2014 8:53am

Blacktie. wrote: »

So you're saying by just adjusting your diet you can effectively double your metabolism?

I suppose so- something like that - but it must be no sugar no grain, high fat low carb. Sounds mad- I'm basing this on what I've learnt in past year . Before I would thought this is nuts!

rocky · 23-05-2014 9:39am

Bruno26 wrote: »

I suppose so- something like that - but it must be no sugar no grain, high fat low carb. Sounds mad- I'm basing this on what I've learnt in past year . Before I would thought this is nuts!

Well your 4000 cals a day turned out to be 3500 when you measured it, closer to 3200 when you sum up the macros. So it appears you overestimate your intake. 6000 cals now and losing weight? Right...

Edit: 45% is not high fat, only a few % more than the SAD.

Bruno26 · 23-05-2014 9:45am

rocky wrote: »

Well your 4000 cals a day turned out to be 3500 when you measured it, closer to 3200 when you sum up the macros. So it appears you overestimate your intake. 6000 cals now and losing weight? Right...

I was eating 4000 some days , some days more, now around 3,500.

I've never eaten close to 5,000 to 6,000. Check out cereal killers movie. It's possible.

Never regressed- pretty happy where I'm at now. Would find it near impossible to attempt to eat that much as I feel satiated now due to increase in fats and exclusion of sugar and grain.

SteelyDanJalapeno · 23-05-2014 9:50am

Bruno26 wrote: »

I was eating 4000 some days , some days more, now around 3,500.

I've never eaten close to 5,000 to 6,000. Check out cereal killers movie. It's possible.

Never regressed- pretty happy where I'm at now. Would find it near impossible to attempt to eat that much as I feel satiated now due to increase in fats and exclusion of sugar and grain.

Can you post an example of one of your day's food breakdown?

Bruno26 · 23-05-2014 9:50am

rocky wrote: »

Well your 4000 cals a day turned out to be 3500 when you measured it, closer to 3200 when you sum up the macros. So it appears you overestimate your intake. 6000 cals now and losing weight? Right...

Edit: 45% is not high fat, only a few % more than the SAD.

Why do posters repeat other posters- read what I have already said- I know it's not high enough fat- just far more than I used to eat

Bruno26 · 23-05-2014 10:08am

TiltedBrain wrote: »

Can you post an example of one of your day's food breakdown?

Breakfast

4/5 slices streaky bacon
Omelette 4 organic eggs, 2 tablespoon creme fraiche, 50 -80 grams cheddar cheese.
Large bulletproof coffee ( 3 tablespoons unsalted butter, 1 tablespoon coconut oil)

Or
Greek yogurt 350-400 grams
Half cup blueberries
Cinnamon
2/3 hard boiled eggs

Large coffee lots of cream
Might have homemade frappucino (2 tablespoons almond butter, 125 coconut cream, 125 grams milk/cream, raw cacao)

Lunch
Thai green curry chicken or tikka masala- (hard to measure 2 - 3 chicken breasts, coconut milk, cream, tomatoes etc) loads of green veg,sweet potato or carrots covered with 20 grams butter and nutmeg)

Again usually have bulletproof coffee or coffee
with cream.

Dinner
Fillet or ribeye steak (usually eat 1 1/2 good size steaks from butcher) cooked in 20 grams of butter. again loads of veg as lunch, 2 tablespoon almond butter.

Snacks 100 grams macadamia nuts
2 squares Lindt dark chocolate or equivalent green & blacks
150 grams Greek yogurt

sbsquarepants · 23-05-2014 10:14am

Bruno26 wrote: »

Large bulletproof coffee ( 3 tablespoons unsalted butter, 1 tablespoon coconut oil)

Jesus, I wouldn't drink that even if it added 50 years to my life and made me irresistible to women. Sounds nothing short of vomit inducing.

Bruno26 · 23-05-2014 10:16am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Jesus, I wouldn't drink that even if it added 50 years to my life and made me irresistible to women. Sounds nothing short of vomit inducing.

It's lovely - I've given it to people without telling them ingredients- no complaints all enjoyed it !

Blacktie. · 23-05-2014 10:26am

This guy followed paleo religously and got fat. No grains, dairy, sugar etc etc. Isn't this against everything you said?

LINK

Bruno26 · 23-05-2014 11:10am

Blacktie. wrote: »

This guy followed paleo religously and got fat. No grains, dairy, sugar etc etc. Isn't this against everything you said?

LINK

Yes and no. If we are to believe everything he says is true.

It looks like he was eating too much fruit and certain nuts in paleo- must have been above 150 grams of carbs. He also wasn't eating enough fat. This can happen. - too much fruit and nuts can make it difficult to lose fat and in fact can gain fat as he proved.

Calorie counting works for him- fair play to him.

I've said one size doesn't fit all .

Blacktie. · 23-05-2014 11:56am

Bruno26 wrote: »

It looks like he was eating too much fruit and certain nuts in paleo- must have been above 150 grams of carbs. He also wasn't eating enough fat.

Too much nuts and not enough fat? They don't go together at all... And I really don't see how you're getting not enough fat. He's eating a lot of nuts, eggs and full fat meats. Just because he's not downing bulletproof coffee with spoonfuls of butter doesn't mean he's not getting enough fat.

I've said one size doesn't fit all .

True but you've also said continuously that it's impossible to overeat eating this way.

Bruno26 · 23-05-2014 12:25pm

Blacktie. wrote: »

Too much nuts and not enough fat? They don't go together at all... And I really don't see how you're getting not enough fat. He's eating a lot of nuts, eggs and full fat meats. Just because he's not downing bulletproof coffee with spoonfuls of butter doesn't mean he's not getting enough fat.

True but you've also said continuously that it's impossible to overeat eating this way.

All nuts are different - cashew v macadamia.

I didn't say he had to drink bulletproof coffee- where's the butter, olive oil, cream, coconut oil, was he eating avocado for example.

I believe it to be impossible- see tim noakes- real meal revolution- google appestat

Blacktie. · 23-05-2014 12:54pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

All nuts are different - cashew v macadamia.

I didn't say he had to drink bulletproof coffee- where's the butter, olive oil, cream, coconut oil, was he eating avocado for example.

I believe it to be impossible- see tim noakes- real meal revolution- google appestat

I've just provided an example that shows it's not impossible.

Bruno26 · 23-05-2014 12:57pm

Blacktie. wrote: »

I've just provided an example that shows it's not impossible.

In reality I'd imagine for most people it is. Again there's always exceptions. Have you read anything on tim noakes- it opened my eyes to what I thought I knew.

Blacktie. · 23-05-2014 12:59pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

In reality I'd imagine for most people it is. Again there's always exceptions. Have you read anything on tim noakes- it opened my eyes to what I thought I knew.

Most people. Firstly I think you're wrong here and secondly most people shows that it is in fact possible.

I'm done with this thread.

Davei141 · 23-05-2014 3:43pm

"Impossible to eat too much fat" "Eating too much nuts" "Not enough fats" you are all over the place, talk about mental gymnastics to justify such a silly position.

Bruno26 · 23-05-2014 3:57pm

Davei141 wrote: »

"Impossible to eat too much fat" "Eating too much nuts" "Not enough fats" you are all over the place, talk about mental gymnastics to justify such a silly position.

'Silly position' is a really excellent way of debunking my view .

generic2012 · 23-05-2014 5:48pm

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.

Bruno26 · 23-05-2014 6:34pm

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.

High carb diets are the easiest way to put on weight- if you think it's high fat - you need to start doing some reading.

Calories count but don't count calories.

generic2012 · 23-05-2014 6:41pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

High carb diets are the easiest way to put on weight- if you think it's high fat - you need to start doing some reading.

Calories count but don't count calories.

Try reading what I just wrote?

Fats have the lowest thermic effect of any of the macronutrients.
And de novo lipogenesis is rare in healthy people with appreciable amounts physical activity.

I'm sure you read lots....just from very few people.

PS what about the government trying to kill people by telling them carbs are good?

jive · 23-05-2014 7:45pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

High carb diets are the easiest way to put on weight- if you think it's high fat - you need to start doing some reading.

Calories count but don't count calories.

Have you had any blood work done lately? Or do you have before/after results? Interesting to see the effects your diet have had on your health. I'm not critiquing your diet i'm just curious as to the effects it has had on your health (measurable effects)

ford2600 · 23-05-2014 7:57pm

jive wrote: »

Have you had any blood work done lately? Or do you have before/after results? Interesting to see the effects your diet have had on your health. I'm not critiquing your diet i'm just curious as to the effects it has had on your health (measurable effects)

Almost invariably on a well formulated high fat diet, hdl increases and triglycerides drop.
For most ldl doesn't change, for a smaller group including me it went up 10%.

Ldl particle size increases, type A to Type so particle number goes down. According to Thomas Dayspring, lipidologist, low particle count is key.

According to Malcolm Kendrick CVD is unrelated to diet and almost entirely stress related.

According to mainstream I'm going to die soon!

jive · 23-05-2014 9:03pm

ford2600 wrote: »

Almost invariably on a well formulated high fat diet, hdl increases and triglycerides drop.
For most ldl doesn't change, for a smaller group including me it went up 10%.

Ldl particle size increases, type A to Type so particle number goes down. According to Thomas Dayspring, lipidologist, low particle count is key.

According to Malcolm Kendrick CVD is unrelated to diet and almost entirely stress related.

According to mainstream I'm going to die soon!

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.

Bruno26 · 23-05-2014 9:11pm

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 .

ford2600 · 23-05-2014 9:14pm

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

jive · 23-05-2014 10:04pm

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

ford2600 · 23-05-2014 10:08pm

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.

jive · 23-05-2014 10:18pm

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

Bruno26 · 23-05-2014 11:57pm

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?

WhiteWalls · 24-05-2014 1:49am

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

runawaybishop · 27-05-2014 1:23pm

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.

runawaybishop · 27-05-2014 1:25pm

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.

Theresalwaysone · 27-05-2014 1:26pm

Has anyone heard Phil Learney speak on this?

If you haven't, I recommend it.

Egass13 · 27-05-2014 10:21pm

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

generic2012 · 28-05-2014 11:00am

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.

dor843088 · 29-05-2014 9:15am

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 )

Bruno26 · 29-05-2014 1:35pm

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.

runawaybishop · 29-05-2014 1:42pm

Bruno26 wrote: »

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

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

Bruno26 · 29-05-2014 1:51pm

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!

runawaybishop · 29-05-2014 1:52pm

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.

Bruno26 · 29-05-2014 1:57pm

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.”

Bruno26 · 29-05-2014 2:06pm

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/

runawaybishop · 29-05-2014 3:02pm

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?

Calorie is a calorie?

Comments