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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Weight: Energy Balance Model Vs Hormonal Model

1356

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,869 ✭✭✭thegreatiam


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    I never said they didn't matter. If most of your calories come from real food you don't get fat.

    explain fat people before the advent of processed food


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 21,981 ✭✭✭✭Hanley


    If most of your calories come from real food, you don't get fat?

    Slamming my head in frustration at this stage. I really hope people aren't falling for this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    explain fat people before the advent of processed food

    Grains, beer, sugar. Simple as that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Hanley wrote: »
    If most of your calories come from real food, you don't get fat?

    Slamming my head in frustration at this stage. I really hope people aren't falling for this.

    You may have a different interpretation of real food but if you feel you are being challenged then don't bother replying as per usual.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 941 ✭✭✭Typer Monkey


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    I never said they didn't matter. If most of your calories come from real food you don't get fat.

    You consistently said up to recently that a person would not gain weight if they ate 6000 calories a day as long as those calories were not from evil grains or sugar/processed foods. Many posters tried to point out to you the error in this and asked repeatedly if you meant that you are more satiated by protein and fats and therefore ate less but you stood by your point. Have you changed this stance now?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 700 ✭✭✭fungie


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    I never said they didn't matter. If most of your calories come from real food you don't get fat.

    Simply not true!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,869 ✭✭✭thegreatiam


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Grains, beer, sugar. Simple as that.

    nonsense


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    You consistently said up to recently that a person would not gain weight if they ate 6000 calories a day as long as those calories were not from evil grains or sugar/processed foods. Many posters tried to point out to you the error in this and asked repeatedly if you meant that you are more satiated by protein and fats and therefore ate less but you stood by your point. Have you changed this stance now?

    That was body fat. Ye some people could but as far as I can remember I said around 4,500. Said that long time ago but not constantly.


  • Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    Bruno you are backtracking like crazy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Read it again more slowly this time! I've provided my reasoning on this numerous times.

    We're looking for evidence. Either provide some or explain how the link you provided explains your point.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Hanley wrote: »
    If most of your calories come from real food, you don't get fat?

    Slamming my head in frustration at this stage. I really hope people aren't falling for this.

    If some one advised some one to drink arsenic on a health and fitness page would they be banned?

    Or consistently advised people claiming to be unhealthy to smoke? smoking wont kill you straight away but it's very likely to take years of your life.

    Eating as many calories as you want? that's ok though.

    It's beyond frustrating. It's infuriating. Any other debate can be for education or a bit of mental exercise. It's unethical to let his posts go unquestioned.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    If some one advised some one to drink arsenic on a health and fitness page would they be banned?

    Or consistently advised people claiming to be unhealthy to smoke? smoking wont kill you straight away but it's very likely to take years of your life.

    Eating as many calories as you want? that's ok though.

    It's beyond frustrating. It's infuriating. Any other debate can be for education or a bit of mental exercise. It's unethical to let his posts go unquestioned.

    Complete misrepresentation of what I say. Have you a financial interest in calorie counting?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Complete misrepresentation of what I say. Have you a financial interest in calorie counting?

    Yes. It keeps me healthy so I don't have to pay the doctor.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭metamorphosis


    Well, there is one thing I learned this week... I am extremely carb tolerant. I lost 6.5 stone several several years ago (on a\ pretty carby diet, I will add). My weight has been really stable over the last 5 years. My weight has either + / - perhaps 2-3kg at most in the last 5 years. I have gone through phases of eating loadsa carbs, very little carbs, lots of fat, less fat. I have gone through periods of eating ****e food, then really good food. Regardless of how I ate or what I ate, I have always had an awareness of my appetite. If I eat **** food, I still know when I have had enough am am on my way to feeling full and so ya know, I stop eating as I have eaten enough ... but apparently carbs are not satiating? I wasn't aware that was a rule for everyone


    Yip, carb tolerant I am, any peer reviewed study be dammed. I am confused as to how I lost 6.5 stone on a pretty carby diet until it was all cleared up for me ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,588 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    @ mellor. I accept quite a lot of what you say to be true. There have been fat people for thousands of years. Henry drank serious amounts of alcohol and consumed lots of sugar along with lots of meat
    You didn't answer my questions. I engaged politely and went through your points, so could you answer my questions directly please.

    Just to pre-empt the bullet dodge. Here they are again
    Mellor wrote: »
    Regardless of the theory of how different macros act, or whether it always happens. It's a fact that to gain fat there must be an energy surplus. Do you agree with this fact?
    Another question, say somebody eats a paleo-ish, reduced carb type diet made up entirely of real food. But they also wish to add mass for sport. They don'r precisely count their cals, they just increase portions, eat a bit more often, eat a bit more.
    What do you think will happen? Gain weight, lose weight or stay the same.
    Bruno26 wrote: »
    I'm sure they eat more and move less. That is eat more processed carbs and probably less fish as a consequence.
    I'm sure they move less and eat more too.
    This backs up the calorie model btw.
    ford2600 wrote: »
    Is the metabolism of fat/protein/carbs equally efficient? If the various macronutrients require different and more steps for metabolism, and given any closed system tendency towards disorder, doesn't the more steps mean less efficiency and therefore need to be considered in any meaningful energy balance equation?
    The metabolism of various macros isn't equally efficient, nor is it consistent. Also the body isn't guaranteed to process everything fully.

    This doesn't mean the first law doesn't apply, it does apply, but it open up gaps that people can cling too. Thus getting nowhere.
    That's why I focused on storage of fat instead, inefficiencies don't matter in that case, increased body fat means increased energy in the system. There is no other way for it to get into the system other than over eating.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,802 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    If there is one thing I've learned it's that the ignore function is cancelled out by the quote function.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    In this forum people come and seek advice. One piece of advice is eat real food to help with your weight issues.

    I said if your calories come from real food you won't get fat / and you will lose fat.

    I'm told this is nonsense. Can you see the contradiction?


  • Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    You said you don't need to count calories. Oh and that you need to limit carbs too. That eliminates the need to count calories?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Oryx wrote: »
    You said you don't need to count calories. Oh and that you need to limit carbs too. That eliminates the need to count calories?

    Yes


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,588 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    In this forum people come and seek advice. One piece of advice is eat real food to help with your weight issues.

    I said if your calories come from real food you won't get fat / and you will lose fat.

    I'm told this is nonsense. Can you see the contradiction?

    There's no contradiction.
    The general advice states eating real food will help weight loss. As part of a controlled diet.

    Your mantra states eat real food and you cannot get fat, not matter how much you eat.

    Do you see the difference?
    Also, the questions above please and thank you.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭metamorphosis


    No offense Bruno ... you have had a central statement that you have gone to ... but everything around and linked to it ...well basically, you have talked in circles and squares several times.

    You mention people contradicting themselves ... you are pretty guilty of this yourself. I feel you truly lack massive in depth critical analysis of much of what you argue (well, how you post does you no favors in presenting your argument)

    Surely you are privy to this?

    Whilst i smile at some of the replies (many) in this forum at what constitutes advice, your posts as of late have certainly fallen all into the same stockpile - mostly because of lazy half hearted responses that give the impression that what you post should almost be held in higher regard. Thing is, there are posters here who were singing from the same hymsheet as you a long time ago ( your posts and ideas are hardly new or in any way ground breaking to those in the field looking at whats out there for the last several years), it's just that they have 'broadened their horizons' and gained a little context, not to mention understand and become more competent in understanding science.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,386 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Obesity is due simply to ingesting too many calories regardless of whether they originate from fat, carb or protein.
    The problem here is they bring the word calorie into it. It it just said ingesting too much food energy I would have no problem with the statement, though I would say it is not that useful as its so difficult to determine how much energy a substance will give you.
    Bruno26 wrote: »
    I am an engineer and disagree with the thermodyamics argument in relation to calories in humans. There is a very simple experiment which should make this blindingly obvious, get 2 cans of sweetcorn and wash them down (without chewing) with a litre of prune juice and see what comes out the other end. If you think you extracted as much energy from that as you would if it was liquidised you need your head checked.

    This is the problem, calculating the energy balance and determining how much energy a given food will give you at at a given time, weight etc.

    There was a study done years back feeding prisoners ridiculous amounts of food and they did get overweight but stabilised their weight at a max, even if eating 10,000kcal per day they could put on no more weight.
    I heard petrol is 11 calories per gram
    There was a poster before here who did think drinking 500kcal of petrol per day would make you put on the same amount of fat as if you drank 500kcal of coke extra per day. As a heavy drinker I know the estimate that 3500kcal surplus calories will put on 1lb of fat is total bull**** when it comes to the calorie dense substance ethanol, also used to fuel cars.


    I remember a program on obesity and a guy was eating 35 or so (unprocessed) oranges a day and wondering why he was not losing as much weight as expected, he was under the impression he could just eat all he wanted, similar to the ludicrous "no need to count" statements which are in effect saying that there is no need to monitor the quantity of food you eat.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,588 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    rubadub wrote: »
    I am an engineer and disagree with the thermodyamics argument in relation to calories in humans. There is a very simple experiment which should make this blindingly obvious, get 2 cans of sweetcorn and wash them down (without chewing) with a litre of prune juice and see what comes out the other end. If you think you extracted as much energy from that as you would if it was liquidised you need your head checked.
    That doesn't disprove the thermodynamic argument though. Which has nothing to do with the inefficiency of digestion. It's energy leaving the system, so the first law can't be applied.

    As I said previously, looking at it from opposite point of view, energy within stored fat, removes a lot of the external forces.
    There was a poster before here who did think drinking 500kcal of petrol per day would make you put on the same amount of fat as if you drank 500kcal of coke extra per day.
    I've mentioned the calorie content of petrol a few times. Usually to point of how are bodys function to the machine used to calculate calories. Some people still don't get it it though.
    As a heavy drinker I know the estimate that 3500kcal surplus calories will put on 1lb of fat is total bull**** when it comes to the calorie dense substance ethanol, also used to fuel cars.
    Agreed. I've said that alcohol is a special case. Not only because it raises body temp and screws with BMR so the surplus is less than you imagine. But because, its simply isn't all converted to energy.
    I remember a program on obesity and a guy was eating 35 or so (unprocessed) oranges a day and wondering why he was not losing as much weight as expected, he was under the impression he could just eat all he wanted, similar to the ludicrous "no need to count" statements which are in effect saying that there is no need to monitor the quantity of food you eat.
    I think there was a poster on here doing something similar.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Mellor wrote: »
    There's no contradiction.
    The general advice states eating real food will help weight loss. As part of a controlled diet.

    Your mantra states eat real food and you cannot get fat, not matter how much you eat.

    Do you see the difference?
    Also, the questions above please and thank you.

    1. Yes. But results will vary greatly dependent on various factors.

    2. Impossible to answer-as all facts not provided.

    3. No
    4. Yes


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    rubadub wrote: »
    similar to the ludicrous "no need to count" statements which are in effect saying that there is no need to monitor the quantity of food you eat.

    It is ludicrous if you do not count carb intake. If you count carbs and learn to control intake to under 150 grams daily it is not ludicrous as there is no need to count.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    It is ludicrous if you do not count carb intake. If you count carbs and learn to control intake to under 150 grams daily it is not ludicrous as there is no need to count.

    Much like counting calories for weeks/months or whatever and then roughly knowing what you consume without the need to count them again? (Looking forward to you tossing your own straw man.)

    You still haven't provided one shred of evidence to support your claim that once you eat under X amount of carbs the amount of calories you consume from fat (& protein?) will result in weight loss.

    You started this thread. It is entirely predicated on that argument. You have to provide evidence for that argument.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,802 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    How To Count Carbs Without Counting.

    Because counting isn't sustainable


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Much like counting calories for weeks/months or whatever and then roughly knowing what you consume without the need to count them again? (Looking forward to you tossing your own straw man.)

    You still haven't provided one shred of evidence to support your claim that once you eat under X amount of carbs the amount of calories you consume from fat (& protein?) will result in weight loss.

    You started this thread. It is entirely predicated on that argument. You have to provide evidence for that argument.

    Yes. Whatever people prefer- everyone to their own.

    Fat loss.


  • Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Yes. Whatever people prefer- everyone to their own.

    Fat loss.
    Does this mean you have no actual evidence for anything you say here?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Oryx wrote: »
    Does this mean you have no actual evidence for anything you say here?

    No

    http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/


Advertisement