Calorie is a calorie?

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.

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.

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

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!

So...this is new.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

I agree with most of what you say bruno though you do seem to be a little over zealous with your advice

I find people simply don't want to listen about wheat being a bad food because they don't want to believe it, who wants to give up their beloved bread? People actually get annoyed and become defensive, spouting out the old "but everyone knows wholegrain is good for you" rubbish pedalled by our advisory boards, yet obesity, heart disease, diabetes, all on the rise.

Modern diets have grown to revolve around wheat and along with sugar they are the problem, each as bad as the other but sugar seems to be singled out more. As above, GI of wheat > sugar, I think it's worse when you factor in all the other problems it is associated with, gastrointestinal issues, inflammation, depression, joint problems, AGEs.

I don't bother trying to advise people anymore and I feel like I'm preaching when I do mention it. I've done my research and I've found an optimal way of eating which simply involves whole fresh food, little or no grains and plenty of good fats which fuel me for training and this works really well, for me. It's up to people to do their own research but most seem to stick their fingers in their ears and choose to follow the archaic low-fat/high-grain advice from our experts. We continue gorging on highly processed and refined crap, being manipulated by self proclaimed healthy food manufacturers, actimel, flora, low-fat this, healthy-heart that while getting sicker and fatter and then we wonder why.

There's no need to calorie count if you just eat simple whole foods.

Essien wrote: »

Or the less pretentious and condescending answer might be that plenty of people eat it and are completely fine.

I like this quote from a recent AH thread on the topic...

Apologies if it came across pretentious or condescending, I'm simply relaying my experience that people tend to dismiss the dangers of wheat because it plays a pivotal role in most peoples diet and its easier for some to ignore the advice because they feel "completely fine".

I didn't even mentioned gluten so I'm not sure what to say to your quote but well done on copying and pasting it. I'd be more concerned about the constant spiking of blood sugars from breakfast to dinner causing insulin resistance which leads to obesity and diabetes and whatever else that comes with that. Some people may appear fine short term but the long term effects of wheat consumption are often overlooked, there is strong evidence to support the dangers so I choose not to consume it and have never felt healthier.