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
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    generic2012 wrote: »
    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.

    Please tell me why science has told us that saturated fat was bad for us- now it's good for us?


  • Options
    #63
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Please tell me why science has told us that saturated fat was bad for us- now it's good for us?

    "Science" never told you that. Science shows that there's a correlation between high saturated fat intake and increased CVD. However, people can often confuse correlation with causation which may lead to ridiculous statements/beliefs. You mightn't have to look too far to find examples...

    Just to clarify, I think saturated fat is demonised without legitimate reason, but that doesn't mean I advocate the type of nonsense you're spouting.


  • Options
    #64
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    @Bruno26 whatever your eating is working for you.

    It's not a high fat diet but it appears to be a good diet for you.

    A HFLC isn't the answer for everyone, probably just more suitable for people with a carbohydrate intolerance.

    Gary Taubes or Attia or Volek/Pinney etc don't have all the answers for everyone and are probably wrong about some stuff.

    Giving yourself angst arguing(the same identical arguemnet) with strangers on the internet is probably not great for you anyhow.

    Would your time not be better spent informing yourself/reading counter arguments that also work for people etc?


  • Options
    #65
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    generic2012 wrote: »
    "Science" never told you that. Science shows that there's a correlation between high saturated fat intake and increased CVD.

    Science was wrong on the correlation bit also no?

    Ukraine very low sf intake very high CVD

    France/Switzerland the opposite high sf and low CVD


  • Options
    #66
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    ford2600 wrote: »
    Science was wrong on the correlation bit also no?

    Ukraine very low sf intake very high CVD

    France/Switzerland the opposite high sf and low CVD

    These are outliers, also depends on the studies you look at. But the fact that there are these examples shows that any link probably isn't causal. I think the biggest sayer in CVD (in terms of diet), is calories. Fat, gram for gram, has the highest calories. So a diet high in calories has a good chance of being high in fat and a high fat will generally be high in calories (unless you take the awkward step of trying to exclude carbs), this could be part of the reason fat is associated with heart disease.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    generic2012 wrote: »
    These are outliers, also depends on the studies you look at. But the fact that there are these examples shows that any link probably isn't causal. I think the biggest sayer in CVD (in terms of diet), is calories. Fat, gram for gram, has the highest calories. So a diet high in calories has a good chance of being high in fat and a high fat will generally be high in calories (unless you take the awkward step of trying to exclude carbs), this could be part of the reason fat is associated with heart disease.

    Saturated fat linked to CVD is a theory; when you find populations that strongly go against it do you just call them all outliers to make a theory fit because they don't fit? There are many many more, lots of eastern Europe has similar low sf high CVD and ditto for the opposite.

    There are so many exceptions to the diet heart disease hypothesis that it's a bad joke at this stage


  • Options
    #68
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    generic2012 wrote: »
    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.

    How do you apply Thermodynamic Laws to a human nutrition?

    The laws apply to closed systems no? Without measuring every input AND output very accurately how can we use them with any certainty? This is a genuine query.

    I'm a mechanical engineer and the Thermodynamic laws are critical in my world but without having very accurate measures of inputs/outputs and accurate information on the "burn/chemical reaction(s)" itself not sure how useful they are.

    Without a pretty thorough discussion on entropy/disorder along with the complicated and varied different macro nutrients have on the hormonal system (and how that might vary from person to person) I'm not sure how useful they are.


  • Options
    #69
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    ford2600 wrote: »
    Saturated fat linked to CVD is a theory; when you find populations that strongly go against it do you just call them all outliers to may a theory fit because they don't fit? There are many many more, lots of eastern Europe has similar low sf high CVD and ditto for the opposite.

    There are some many exceptions to the diet heart disease hypothesis that it's a bad joke at this stage

    I think you mean hypothesis. Gravity is a theory, as is evolution, you might be beating your own argument there. I agree with you, I think epidemiology is a horrible, crude method that should only be used to inform controlled experiments, not used to back up statements with any type of gravitas. I think the SF/CVD link is mostly bull, as is HFLC. You can't just say SF isn't linked to CVD therefore SF is class. argumentum ad ignorantiam.


  • Options
    #70
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    generic2012 wrote: »
    I think you mean hypothesis. Gravity is a theory, as is evolution, you might be beating your own argument there. I agree with you, I think epidemiology is a horrible, crude method that should only be used to inform controlled experiments, not used to back up statements with any type of gravitas. I think the SF/CVD link is mostly bull, as is HFLC. You can't just say SF isn't linked to CVD therefore SF is class. argumentum ad ignorantiam.

    Your right I did mean hypothesis!

    I'm not looking for an argument!

    I don't really have an stand on CVD, as I don't know why people get it.
    I've read a lot of bright people examine the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions!


  • Options
    #71
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    ford2600 wrote: »
    How do you apply Thermodynamic Laws to a human nutrition?

    The laws apply to closed systems no? Without measuring every input AND output very accurately how can we use them with any certainty? This is a genuine query.

    I'm a mechanical engineer and the Thermodynamic laws are critical in my world but without having very accurate measures of inputs/outputs and accurate information on the "burn/chemical" itself not sure how useful they are.

    Without a pretty thorough discussion on entropy/disorder along with the complicated and varied different macro nutrients have on the hormonal system (and how that might vary from person to person) I'm not sure how useful they are.

    There are no true closed systems. We can't use them to absolute CERTAINTY, like anything else. Not going on the offensive here but how could you justify otherwise? How could you eat 5-6000 calories and not put on weight?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    ford2600 wrote: »
    Your right I did mean hypothesis!

    I'm not looking for an argument!

    I don't really have an stand on CVD, as I don't know why people get it.
    I've read a lot of bright people examine the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions!

    Opposite conclusions about CVD or HFLC? Sorry I'm lost!


  • Options
    #73
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    generic2012 wrote: »
    There are no true closed systems. We can't use them to absolute CERTAINTY, like anything else. Not going on the offensive here but how could you justify otherwise? How could you eat 5-6000 calories and not put on weight?

    I'm not even thinking of trying to justify it.

    The first and second laws are trotted out pretty regularly but you have to make a lot of assumptions to use them such that I'm not sure how useful they are.

    On a personal note I don't know what I'd have to eat to get fat, at 39 I've never been irrespective of excercise regime/ diet. I'm genuinely curious what is working in my body that is broken is every heavy/obese person; are they all just gluttons?

    The obesity problem is too full of people who is sure what works and not enough people with open minds and that's before you add in all the people making money out of it!


  • Options
    #74
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    generic2012 wrote: »
    Opposite conclusions about CVD or HFLC? Sorry I'm lost!


    Sorry CVD.

    On HFLC it gives me certain advantages but I don't think I would have too much bother adapting back almost overnight to a higher carb diet.

    My bloods are way better on paper (HDL up from 1.6 to 2.1 and Triglycerides halfed on HFLC) just not sure if it makes any difference to my CVD risk; depends who I listen too


  • Options
    #75
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    ford2600 wrote: »
    I'm not even thinking of trying to justify it.

    The first and second laws are trotted out pretty regularly but you have to make a lot of assumptions to use them such that I'm not sure how useful they are.

    On a personal note I don't know what I'd have to eat to get fat, at 39 I've never been irrespective of excercise regime/ diet. I'm genuinely curious what is working in my body that is broken is every heavy/obese person; are they all just gluttons?

    The obesity problem is too full of people who is sure what works and not enough people with open minds and that's before you add in all the people making money out of it!

    Hunger would be the biggest one, self control can overcome this or a lack of self control can exacerbate it. The location of fat storage is unique between people too, so even although some people may have large amounts of stomach fat they may not have any more fat than people with fat legs/arms etc. Subcutaneous fat is also more obvious than visceral fat. You may not have much "external" fat but lots of fat around you organs or vice versa (TOFI as it's sometimes known, Thin Outside Fat Inside).

    I think if people just accepted that facts are facts and the only way to lose weight is to consume less calories. It is easy to prey on people that can't accept they have to eat less, for example sell them 'the primal blueprint' or whatever the latest craze is.

    The funny thing about the high fat advocates who say that the low fat thing was just a phase that gullible people fell victim to, is that they can't see the irony of their own position!


  • Options
    #76
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    ford2600 wrote: »
    Sorry CVD.

    On HFLC it gives me certain advantages but I don't think I would have too much bother adapting back almost overnight to a higher carb diet.

    My bloods are way better on paper (HDL up from 1.6 to 2.1 and Triglycerides halfed on HFLC) just not sure if it makes any difference to my CVD risk; depends who I listen too

    It seems to me that; age; lifestyle choices such as smoking, drinking etc; genetics; and stress, are the biggest factors.

    High fat obviously keeps you fuller which is a good thing, if I was you I would stick at it. It's not the high fat that's making you "healthier" though, I myself use IF to control my appetite, it keeps my appetite in check and doesn't hinder my performance in the slightest. I don't push it on people and I don't think its magic like some people would, and like lots of people do with HFLC (I don't mean you!)


  • Options
    #77
    ford2600
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,457 ✭✭✭ford2600


    generic2012 wrote: »
    It seems to me that; age; lifestyle choices such as smoking, drinking etc; genetics; and stress, are the biggest factors.

    High fat obviously keeps you fuller which is a good thing, if I was you I would stick at it. It's not the high fat that's making you "healthier" though, I myself use IF to control my appetite, it keeps my appetite in check and doesn't hinder my performance in the slightest. I don't push it on people and I don't think its magic like some people would, and like lots of people do with HFLC (I don't mean you!)


    I've found on upping fat that my interest in rubbish(chocolate bars/biscuits etc) vanished overnight. I mean like you click a switch.

    I just switched for an experiment really and was surprised with results. I don eat really good food sources though; by whole lamb of local farmer every winter, ditto beef, shoot venison, home reared chicken for eggs etc, lot and lot of fresh veg. I use over a litre of olive oil a month and I don't
    use it at all for cooking!

    Anyway thanks for input 4 egg omellete awaits!


  • Options
    #78
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    generic2012 wrote: »
    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.

    If someone wants to follow weight watchers all their life then yes believe in thermodynamics.

    I imagine any decent trainer proves this every day.

    A calorie is a calorie violates thermodynamics. The body does not treat the calories from each macronutrients the same way.

    The focus needs to be on fat and not weight loss.


  • Options
    #79
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    ford2600 wrote: »
    @Bruno26 whatever your eating is working for you.

    It's not a high fat diet but it appears to be a good diet for you.

    A HFLC isn't the answer for everyone, probably just more suitable for people with a carbohydrate intolerance.

    Gary Taubes or Attia or Volek/Pinney etc don't have all the answers for everyone and are probably wrong about some stuff.

    Giving yourself angst arguing(the same identical arguemnet) with strangers on the internet is probably not great for you anyhow.

    Would your time not be better spent informing yourself/reading counter arguments that also work for people etc?

    I think you're right! Hard to convince some people. What I said is possible. I never set out to argue- just started to be attacked by some. From what I've read I believe a combination of hflc/ paleo is optimal for human health. I don't see how this cannot work for everyone as people avoid the foods that cause problems.


  • Options
    #80
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    generic2012 wrote: »
    Hunger would be the biggest one, self control can overcome this or a lack of self control can exacerbate it. The location of fat storage is unique between people too, so even although some people may have large amounts of stomach fat they may not have any more fat than people with fat legs/arms etc. Subcutaneous fat is also more obvious than visceral fat. You may not have much "external" fat but lots of fat around you organs or vice versa (TOFI as it's sometimes known, Thin Outside Fat Inside).

    I think if people just accepted that facts are facts and the only way to lose weight is to consume less calories. It is easy to prey on people that can't accept they have to eat less, for example sell them 'the primal blueprint' or whatever the latest craze is.

    The funny thing about the high fat advocates who say that the low fat thing was just a phase that gullible people fell victim to, is that they can't see the irony of their own position!




    Low fat didn't exist until 1970s. It's a business. Low fat to me means all the edible food like products on supermarket shelves with fat removed and sugar added. High fat- or just normal fat content has always existed - it's real food. I don't see any products sold as high fat to increase profits. High fat isn't a phase- it's the way people have eaten for 1000s of years.


  • Options
    #81
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,557 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    I think you're right! Hard to convince some people. What I said is possible. I never set out to argue- just started to be attacked by some. From what I've read I believe a combination of hflc/ paleo is optimal for human health. I don't see how this cannot work for everyone as people avoid the foods that cause problems.

    If you stuck to saying it worked for you and were content with that then you wouldn't be arguing.

    It's trying to shove it down everyone's throat as a panacea that causes a problem.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    I think you're right! Hard to convince some people. What I said is possible. I never set out to argue- just started to be attacked by some. From what I've read I believe a combination of hflc/ paleo is optimal for human health. I don't see how this cannot work for everyone as people avoid the foods that cause problems.

    What you said is not possible. Being asked for proof is not being attacked, though at this stage you have earned it.


  • Options
    #83
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    What you said is not possible. Being asked for proof is not being attacked, though at this stage you have earned it.

    Go watch cereal killers- google Sam Feltham - both eat around 5000 calories a day- it is possible. What have I to gain by telling lies? What sort of gob****e would come on here telling lies. I've become very interested in nutrition over last year or so- read, watched and listened to lots- they're all wrong and you're right?


  • Options
    #84
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Low fat didn't exist until 1970s. It's a business. Low fat to me means all the edible food like products on supermarket shelves with fat removed and sugar added. High fat- or just normal fat content has always existed - it's real food. I don't see any products sold as high fat to increase profits. High fat isn't a phase- it's the way people have eaten for 1000s of years.

    So fruit and vegetables have only been around since 1970s?


  • Options
    #85
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    generic2012 wrote: »
    So fruit and vegetables have only been around since 1970s?

    What? Fruit and veg are real food.

    I said edible food like products (processed) like low fat milk, yogurts, but in particular low fat sauces, processed meals etc. the idea that low fat would keep us slim began in in the 70s. As far as I'm aware nobody purposely shopped for low fat before this time as you couldn't buy these products.


  • Options
    #86
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Alf Veedersane wrote: »
    If you stuck to saying it worked for you and were content with that then you wouldn't be arguing.

    It's trying to shove it down everyone's throat as a panacea that causes a problem.

    You take offence easily. I'm a stranger on the internet- don't get offended- never did I say anywhere it's the be all end all. If you read my posts all I'm saying is eat real food- don't eat sugar and grain. Where's the harm in that!


  • Options
    #87
    Alf Veedersane
    Registered Users Posts: 24,557 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    You take offence easily. I'm a stranger on the internet- don't get offended- never did I say anywhere it's the be all end all. If you read my posts all I'm saying is eat real food- don't eat sugar and grain. Where's the harm in that!

    I didn't take offence. I make my own decisions so it doesn't matter to me.

    But you're not just saying to eat real food and to avoid grains and sugar, which is a shame because that particularly good message has been lost in the rest of what you've been saying.

    If that was all you were saying, you wouldn't have to be referencing the books you've read in the last year.

    But I'm with you on the real food.


  • Options
    #88
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Alf Veedersane wrote: »
    I didn't take offence. I make my own decisions so it doesn't matter to me.

    But you're not just saying to eat real food and to avoid grains and sugar, which is a shame because that particularly good message has been lost in the rest of what you've been saying.

    If that was all you were saying, you wouldn't have to be referencing the books you've read in the last year.

    But I'm with you on the real food.

    I agree- ultimately that's the key - real food. I probably differ from many in that I dont see grains (rice maybe an exception) as real food. It took me all those books to finally see the light! I used to buy nature valley bars thinking they were healthy!


  • Options
    #89
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Go watch cereal killers- google Sam Feltham - both eat around 5000 calories a day- it is possible. What have I to gain by telling lies? What sort of gob****e would come on here telling lies. I've become very interested in nutrition over last year or so- read, watched and listened to lots- they're all wrong and you're right?

    Provide specific links to where they say you can eat over maintenance and not put on fat and I'll be happy to take a look.

    I'm not accusing you of lying btw, i am saying you are incorrect. If you can back up what you say then you should do so.


  • Options
    #90
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    I agree- ultimately that's the key - real food. I probably differ from many in that I dont see grains (rice maybe an exception) as real food. It took me all those books to finally see the light! I used to buy nature valley bars thinking they were healthy!

    Whats wrong with grains? Don't ask me to read some random book, just lay out why you think they are bad.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Bruno26
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Whats wrong with grains? Don't ask me to read some random book, just lay out why you think they are bad.

    This is just my view- don't start looking for science!

    I'm mainly focusing on modern wheat-

    Wheat can cause a myriad of problems.
    Bad for the brain- wheat can contribute to depression, dementia, ADHD, chronic headaches, concentration issues,etc.

    Many people are gluten sensitive.
    Wheat makes people fat- it spikes blood sugar rapidly.

    It contributes to diabetes , skin diseases, acne.

    It may be a problem for inflammatory disease asthma, arthritis , eczema.

    Wheat contains phytic avid which robs nutrients from the body
    Wheat may be addictive

    Wheat is by far the worst- I'd say not all grains are near as bad as wheat- eg rice.

    My view is that we should eat foods that make us feel better, that contribute to reching optimal health, therefore there are better foods available.


Advertisement