What’s the best diet for weight loss ?

Physiologybrah

She's either incredibly dim or a damn fine troll.

Mellor

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Calories are no indication of whether what you eat will put weight on you, or help you diet down to a weight you want to reach.

Well that’s completely incorrect.

When we have more carbs than we need , they store as fat in the body ...

That’s also incorrect, although more complicated.

A calorie is a measurement of how food boils water when placed between a Bunsen burner and some water. Your body is not a Bunsen burner and will not burn food in the way science burns food to get a calorific value.

No, that’s not what a calorie is. That’s how we measure calories.

It’s a unit of energy. That’s all.

Calorie counting must be the most useless /ignorant idea we have ever been sold.

The science that sells it is denied by basic scientific enquiry.

The irony.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Still, a calorie, and how we measure calorie content of food, bears no relation to how our bodies process energy.

Is it an exact measurement, no. But that doesn’t mean it’s completely unrelated. It actually bears a very close relationship with the energy we get from food.

iguana

Right so, I've skim read a lot of the last few pages as some of the posts are, frankly, cracked. I'm actually not sure why calories in/out versus particular diets like keto, becomes such an argument. The facts are that the amount of calories you compared to what you use impacts your weight. And that the type of diet you follow will make it easier or harder to eat the right amount. You could theoretically lose weight on a diet of Mars bars and Taytos. But you'd feel like ****, you'd be hungry a lot and most certainly have blood sugar crashes. Eating a diet rich in protein, healthy fat, fibre, fruit and vegetables and with less refined carbs and processed sugars, will make it far easier to avoid overeating as you will feel more sated and less cravings. Whether you do that formally through a certain diet, strictly monitoring your calorie intake and expenditure or just learn to wing it by eating well and trusting your appetite will vary by person to person.

bb1234567 wrote: »

But a person with low body fat and large muscle mass will live longer than somebody with similarly low body fat but low muscle mass.

I'm wondering how this adjusts for middle aged and older women. I lot of what I'm reading about body fat percentages show that the older a woman gets, the more body fat she needs. That what is a healthy body fat percentage for a woman in her early 40s becomes underfat as she goes into her 50s. What I don't quite understand about these calculations though, is that body fat percentage changes based on the make up of the rest of the body. So if someone increases their muscle mass, and takes up exercise that helps increase bone density but maintains the same amount of fat, their body fat percentage will decrease, but they still have the same amount of fat. So how is that less healthy?

Lucy8080

Basil3 wrote: »

No, I don't agree....and I don't see what has been said to make you think I might.









No, you said that a food with lower fat and less calories will store as fat, when compared to a food with more calories and fat. Just because you say this doesn't mean you've proven anything. "QUOTE"







The identical two foods (let's say a yoghurt) one with more fat(and calories ) and one with less fat and less calories, only need to be compared on their sugar/carb content. The low -fat(low calorie) equivalent will have more sugar. Excess sugar gets stored in the body as fat .

Anyone can check this out on their next trip to the market.


Science will tell you how fat/sugar/carb converts in the body.

I've had two people use the word "troll" here.

I don't mind.

Science will tell me that the word "calorie" is just a measure of how food boils the temp. of water. If anyone disbelieves that fact...I refer you to Science!

Science has never made the claim that our bodies burn food in the same manner, because it cannot. If anyone disbelieves me, again, I can only refer the reader to Science!


EDIT: said low carb ,when meant "low fat" . BTW, the above information can be put to use to gain weight or lose weight. It is neutral.

Mellor

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The identical two foods (let's say a yoghurt) one with more fat(and calories ) and one with less fat and less calories, only need to be compared on their sugar/carb content. The low -fat(low calorie) equivalent will have more sugar. Excess sugar gets stored in the body as fat.

That is incorrect.

It’s common for low fat versions to have more sugar, but to say they all are guaranteed to have more sugar is incorrect. Takes two seconds to prove that on Tesco.ie.

And it makes sense that they tend to have more sugar. Whole Milk is about 4% fat, and 5% carbs. If you remove all the fat from a litre of milk, you’re left with the same carbs in a smaller volume, so the -% goes up. Basic math.

Second, it’s completely incorrect to say that only the sugar gets stored as fat. Couldn’t be more wrong.
Dietary fat gets stored as body fat.

Science will tell you how fat/sugar/carb converts in the body.

Yes it does.
But you don’t seem to understand that science.

Science will tell me that the word "calorie" is just a measure of how food boils the temp. of water. If anyone disbelieves that fact...I refer you to Science!

No science doesn’t say that.
Science says a calorie is a unit of energy. That’s it.
It is defined relative to the energy required to heat water as that is a constant.
It’s nothing to do with food specifically.

There are many units of energy. You seem preoccupied with the word calorie.
But if we refer to the kilojoules content of food. It’s exactly the same situation.

Science has never made the claim that our bodies burn food in the same manner, because it cannot.

Nobody in the thread has claimed our bodies burn it in the exact same manner. You arguing against a point nobody made.

However you claimed that the measured energy value of food has no relationship at all to the manner in which we burn it. That is completely wrong.
Just because we don’t always extract all of the energy from everything we eat. Doesn’t mean it’s unrelated. Most of the time the difference is negligible.

Lucy8080

Mellor wrote: »

That is incorrect.




No science doesn’t say that.
Science says a calorie is a unit of energy. That’s it.
It is defined relative to the energy required to heat water as that is a constant.
It’s nothing to do with food specifically." Quote"


I know you have made a few points above, but I would like to start on this one. I have been saying this all through the thread!

Can we all at least agree on this point? As you say "it has nothing to do with food specifically".

Lucy8080

Mellor wrote: »

That is incorrect.

It’s common for low fat versions to have more sugar, but to say they all are guaranteed to have more sugar is incorrect. Takes two seconds to prove that on Tesco.ie."quote"

I said equivalent products ,like v like from the same manufacturer.

Mellor

Yes. we can agree what you said was incorrect.

A calorie is simply a unit of energy. It is 4.18joules
It’s definition is based the specific energy of water, a constant.

It has nothing to do with food under a bunsen burner like you claimed. It’s not specific to food. It’s just a unit. You confuse how we measured calories in food. With what a calorie is.

p.s it’s very hard to read the format of you posts. You need to keep the closing [/quote] tag

Lucy8080

Mellor wrote: »

That is incorrect.



However you claimed that the measured energy value of food has no relationship at all to the manner in which we burn it. That is completely wrong.
Just because we don’t always extract all of the energy from everything we eat. Doesn’t mean it’s unrelated. Most of the time the difference is negligible.

Just a couple of posts above you dismissed the idea that heating water has anything to do "with food specifically".

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here.

What are we left with? Dietary Fat ?

I'll hold off on that one until the above points are understood.

Off to work, so hope to get back as soon as I can!

Lucy8080

Mellor wrote: »

p.s it’s very hard to read the format of you posts. You need to keep the closing

tag[/QUOTE]

Sorry, that is on my end. I've noticed a few other posters claim the same problem when posting!

I really have to go now, but even I don't like the way my "quotes" are returning.

I make Cheesecake using lightest Philadelphia, which works out to a total of 350 calories and 20g of carbs. Should I switch to regular Philadelphia at almost 1000 calories and only 8g of carbs?

Since calories aren't a real thing, each slice with lightest Philly will have an extra 2g of carbs, and that's what I should be worried about (not the extra 100+ calories per slice)?

Mellor

Lucy8080 wrote: »

I said equivalent products ,like v like from the same manufacturer.

And that’s not always true. As many manufacturers have multiple ranges.
Plus as I explained, if you remove the fat from a quantity of food. The % of everything left behind goes up. That’s basic math and common sense.

And even if the sugar is always higher. You can claimed about sugar causing fat gain is still wrong.
It’s simply all wrong.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Just a couple of posts above you dismissed the idea that heating water has anything to do "with food specifically".

Which part of that do you not understand. You said a calorie is defined by burning food in a Bunsen burner. It’s not.

A calorie is a unit of energy. So is a joule.
Neither is specifically about food.

Just like a gram is a unit of weight. Originally defined as the mass of a 1ml of water.
It’s not specifically about food either.
But we still measure the weight of food in grams.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here.

Good because I’m saying everything you said is wrong. I can see where you are getting your ideas, but you are getting very mixed up between ideas abd drawing incorrect conclusions.

What are we left with? Dietary Fat ?

Not sure what you are asking here. Seems out of context to the rest.

Lucy8080

[QUOTE=Mellor;117416187



Which part of that do you not understand. You said a calorie is defined by burning food in a Bunsen burner. It’s not.

.[/QUOTE]

I said a calorie is defined by the temperature water is raised when heated! A Bunsen burner might be the source of heat!

Keep reading your own claims about how raising the temprature of water is irrelevant to the body!

You will get there.

Might be back on wednesday!

Mellor

Lucy8080 wrote: »

I said a calorie is defined by the temperature water is raised when heated! A Bunsen burner might be the source of heat!

No. You said it’s defined by burning food with a Bunsen burner. I’m pointing out that the definition doesn’t mention food or burning.
If you want to play semantics, bat least get the terms right.

It’s simply a unit of energy that uses water as a reference point. Just like the way a kilogram does.
The reference point used makes no difference to the energy involved. As I said, use kilojoules rather than calories and the principle is the same.

Keep reading your own claims about how raising the temprature of water is irrelevant to the body!

I never said it’s irrelevant. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

I said it’s not always exactly the same as energy we extract from food. But that doesn’t mean it’s unrelated or irrelevant (as you claimed).

Sometime it is the exact same. Sometimes it’s only very close to the same. The fact is, it’s so directly related, that it’s a very useful approximation.
Saying it’s unrelated, is frankly delusional.

dashoonage

Basil3 wrote: »

I make Cheesecake using lightest Philadelphia, which works out to a total of 350 calories and 20g of carbs. Should I switch to regular Philadelphia at almost 1000 calories and only 8g of carbs?

Since calories aren't a real thing, each slice with lightest Philly will have an extra 2g of carbs, and that's what I should be worried about (not the extra 100+ calories per slice)?

less talk. more cheesecake.

dashoonage

dashoonage wrote: »

less talk. more cheesecake.

I've been eating it practically every day for months now. My Mrs reckons I'll get sick of it, but I'm determined to prove her wrong :P

Macy0161

Basil3 wrote: »

I've been eating it practically every day for months now. My Mrs reckons I'll get sick of it, but I'm determined to prove her wrong :P

Recipe, or you're just joining in the trolling! :pac:

ReturnOfThe

Basil3 wrote: »

I've been eating it practically every day for months now. My Mrs reckons I'll get sick of it, but I'm determined to prove her wrong :P

It's a highly processed food so explains your slavish addiction to it !

Minime2.5

Lol. Was waiting to see how it would the pseudo science hormone garbage to show. What you just said is absolute garbage

Minime2.5

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Keto isn't as simple as eating less calories, although that is absolutely part of it.

Keto works so well because you have almost no glucose in your blood, so your body has to use its own fat for energy.

If you can add intermittent fasting and exercise before breakfast into the mix, it becomes extremely easy to lose weight.

So what if there is no glucose in your blood . Consider this, whether you eat a 500 calorie high carb meal or 500 calorie keto meal your body will use the energy from that meal before it taps into stored bodyfat . The body will always tap into the food you eat first. True your body produces insulin as a fat storage mechanism for eating carbs BUT fat does not require the presence of insulin to be stored as fat


The bottom line is this. If calories are equated it doesnt matter whether you eat high carb or keto . It also doesnt matter if you intermittent fast and eat 1 big meal or 6 small meals . Now for the purposes of muscle building there are studies which suggest 3-5 protein feedings a day is best for optimal results but that's a topic for a different discussion

Minime2.5

I've read this thread and alot of people think their doing keto but their not . Keto ISNT just low carb its also quite low in protein too. Most people that have posted up their diets have a lot of protein in it. A true keto diet is 75% fat . Its become very popular in recent years due to fitness social media but it was actually developed in the 1920s by a dr as a therapeutic treatment for epilepsy by keeping insulin very low. A lot of people think only carbs spike insulin but protein too is quite insuligenic but this doesnt matter for fatloss.

Minime2.5

LeakyLime wrote: »

Actually the science is changing rapidly and more and more studies are leaning towards weight gain being hormonal, not calories in, calories out.



e.g. women when they hit menopause and undergo huge hormonal changes put on weight while eating the same amount of calories.



Not all calories are equal. Carbs do crazy things to insulin levels which in turn converts energy to fat more readily.



Look up Gary Taubes.


I'm also reading Grain Brain at the moment - the effects of carbs on the brain is quite scary over time.

Youve made alot of assumptions there without any evidence

Minime2.5

LeakyLime wrote: »

Yes porridge oats are carbs and are broken down into sugar in the digestive system. The pancreas then produces more insulin which is a hormone that allows blood sugar be absorbed into cells.


All calories are not equal.

FAT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE PRESENCE OF INSULIN TO BE STORED AS FAT

Minime2.5

LeakyLime wrote: »

I don't think it is the only way either.



But there are certain people who, for hormonal reasons, fatten easily. The insulin (which is a hormone) wreaks havoc with their metabolism.



The calories in, calories out is not for everyone either.

Let me get this straight. Are you in the belief that if your doing keto . Its ok to go over in calories because hormones is what matters

Minime2.5

LeakyLime wrote: »

Exercise is very important for overall health, but when it comes to weight loss, what you eat is what counts.

Portion control is difficult in a world filled with delicious carbs and sugars, that as the rush of glucose is addictive.

Most of those yummy addictive foods like cakes biscuits crisps and take aways are highly palatable and highly calorific because they have just as much if not more fat within them yet they get demonized as carb foods . Carbs in their purest natural form are not bingable foods. For example have you met anyone thats addicted to plain oatmeal. plain baked potatoes. brown rice. Apples etc?

ReturnOfThe

Minime2.5 wrote: »

Most of those yummy addictive foods like cakes biscuits crisps and take aways are highly palatable and highly calorific because they have just as much if not more fat within them yet they get demonized as carb foods . Carbs in their purest natural form are not bingable foods. For example have you met anyone thats addicted to plain oatmeal. plain baked potatoes. brown rice. Apples etc?

I think there is meant to be some sort of magic ratio in these foods which makes them so addictive and it's twice the amount of carbs to fat.

Minime2.5

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Are you saying fat makes you fat?

YES. If you over eat in calories for the day by overeating fat then that fat WILL be stored as bodyfat.

Minime2.5

Lucy8080 wrote: »

How does one do that? Fat will make you satiated.I think we are back to sugar again.

Try eat as much fat as you can manage ( no sugar/carbs). See how you get on!

Yes but no one is going to eat fat completly by itsself . Its always going to be combined with something.

Mellor

Minime2.5 wrote: »

Consider this, whether you eat a 500 calorie high carb meal or 500 calorie keto meal your body will use the energy from that meal before it taps into stored bodyfat . The body will always tap into the food you eat first.

Exactly.

And besides, even if you could force the body into taking 500cals from bodyfat first. Then the 500 cals from the meal is not used, and would have to be stored. Thee net effect is the same. It still comes back to an energy deficit/balance.

Minime2.5

Lucy8080

Heres an educational video for you

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-eq8VObUFsk

By the way just in case you think otherwise

1. The earth is not flat

2. The theory of evolution is correct