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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Deli Sausage Rolls
-
27-11-2011 9:14pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I hope we do not "all know" this, as its incorrect.georgiecasey wrote: »As we all know, or should know, the quality and content of food doesn't matter for fat loss, just the total calories consumed throughout the day.At an engineering level they ("good" & "bad" calories) are both the same, when literally burnt as fuel (i.e. combusted) they are equal. When eaten by different humans they are not equally used. It is similar faulty logic as people trying to use basic physics forumla to calculate "work" done in weightlifting. With calories they are a fairly good estimate, far better than WW points IMO.
Then you should not be agreeing that a "calorie is a calorie" for humans! You have empirically/anecdotally found this is not the case yourself. I have mentioned the study many times (and cannot find it) about 2 groups of people, one fed 500kcal extra as alcohol, the other 500kcal as sugar drinks -the sugar drinkers put on more fat. In one thread somebody dismissed it actually saying "ah sure thats the insulin response" -but that is EXACTLY the point, there will be differences.altho I agree with a 'calorie is a calorie' I find that if I substitute good nuts for carbs and keep the calories the same I stay leaner, It must be the insulin regulation.
In another study they were feeding rats at night the same calories and they put on more fat. This could be useful for people trying to put on weight, some people simply do not like eating a lot and could value being able to eat less to put on the same weight, both money wise and not having to eat as much.
Another article was comparing how food was cooked, if e.g. rice was overcooked it was more fully digested and you obtained more energy from it. So 500kcal of half cooked rice would make you less fat than 500kcal of overcooked rice.
Most beer bellies are made in the chipper after the pub. The 4.3% irish heineken is 3.1% sugar. A 5L keg, (~9 pints) is ~155g sugar, which is the weight of about 3 chocolate bars and 155g of sugar is about 600kcal. Most vodkas would have no sugar at all, any sugars in distilled alcohol is added after distillation.Even a half decent night out in the local you'll take in over a thousand calories of sugar's from beer.
Personally I do not count alcohol calories like I do others, I know from past experience from myself and others that the numbers do not add up to the theoretical "3500kcal excess/less=1lb fat gain/loss"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_and_weight
Alcohol is high in calories and makes an excellent fuel to run a car engine on, I find it not so great for adding fat to the human body, I expect petrol is not great either
Both would be classed as poisons to the human body...Calories have nothing to do with humans, 1 calorie increases 1 gram of water by 1degree Celsius, that is an exact repeatable science and how it is defined. You will hear that people will lose/gain 1lb of fat with 3500kcal, but this is only an estimate, yet some treat it like exact science. If you ate 3500kcal of uncooked rice you would get less usable energy from it than 3500kcal of overcooked rice. Also 3500kcal of alcohol will probably have less of an effect on your fat levels than 3500kcal of sugar. In one study prisoners were overfed and came to a plateau of fat gain, some were eating over 10,000kcal per day and unable to gain more fat.
Using calories as a guide to energy for humans is just one method, and it is fairly OK. You could similarly use weight or volume as a guide, like say "the average man needs 1kilo/1litre of food per day" -this will usually be open to more variation than calories if you just eat 1kg of food which gives lots of energy usable by humans. -but just like calories you could empirically work out what weight/volume of food in your usual diet will result in your required 1lb per week weight loss.
Another important point is that most humans in free society are "free eaters", we are not in cages given fixed calorie amounts. Therefore we more easily succumb to hunger. Certain foods can help overcome this, high protein foods are known to curb/satisfy hunger.
I saw a program about soup before, people staying fuller longer and found it easier to restrict calories. Apparently it sort of tricks your stomach into thinking it is full of food, i.e. you would not get the same effect eating the same veg whole and drinking a half pint of water. Found some studies on google scholar
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T0P-4DS8F68-3&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F17%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1565231970&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7db289e46d24d4e77aa6d413a814e6e6&searchtype=aEnergy-yielding fluids generally have lower satiety value than solid foods. However, despite high water content, soups reportedly are satiating. The mechanisms contributing to this property have not been identified and were the focus of this study. A within-subject design, preload study was administered to 13 male and 18 female adults (23.7±0.9 years old) with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 23.0±0.7 kg/m2. At approximately weekly intervals, participants reported to the lab after an overnight fast and completed questionnaires on mood, appetite, psychological state, strength, and fine motor skills. After administration of motor tasks, participants consumed a 300-kcal preload in its entirety within 10 min. The test foods included isocaloric, solid, and liquefied versions of identical foods high in protein, fat, or carbohydrate. Single beverage and no-load responses were also tested. The same questionnaires and motor skills tests were completed at 15-min intervals for 1 h and at 30-min intervals for an additional 3 h after loading. Diet records were kept for the balance of the day. The soups led to reductions of hunger and increases of fullness that were comparable to the solid foods. The beverage had the weakest satiety effect. Daily energy intake tended to be lower on days of soup ingestion compared to the solid foods or no-load days and was highest with beverage consumption. Thus, these data support the high satiety value of soups. It is proposed that cognitive factors are likely responsible.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WB2-45K187F-1D&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1998&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1565236243&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1909d8f63890c4db37ec32a444034179&searchtype=aWe compared the influence of three solid/liquid preloads to a no-preload condition given at lunchtime on hunger ratings and energy intake of the lunch and subsequent dinner in 12 lean and 10 overweight young men. The preloads (vegetables and water, strained vegetable soup, chunky soup) were of the same composition and volume but differed in distribution of nutrients between the liquid and the solid phases, and in the size of solid particles. Hunger ratings were reduced by the preloads; there was a significantly greater suppression of hunger after the chunky soup than after the vegetables and water. In both groups, the soups reduced energy intake at lunch, although the chunky soup had the most effect. In the overweight subjects, a reduced lunch intake was also followed by a reduced dinner intake. The benefit to weight control of large particles in soup should be evaluated.
When I was dieting a year or so ago I was eating tins of soup at lunch and was surprisingly full considering the minimal amount of calories they have compared to what I might usually eat in one sitting.
In the TV program I think they said the soup spent more time in the stomach, while liquids pass though you, so the veg & water combo might lead to the water just passing though and a small amount of veg remains to be digested, so you feel less full and tend to eat more.0
Advertisement