Weight: Energy Balance Model Vs Hormonal Model

generic2012 · 05-11-2014 11:53AM

Bruno26 wrote: »

No

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

I am not reading 23 studies after the last link you provided, especially as you haven't read any of them. Give the direct link to the article. Either provide a random study out of that 23 and the one that supports your claim most succinctly. And after your last attempt it's probably best you give a line or two summary to show that you have actually read it.

How is this so difficult for you?

Mellor · 05-11-2014 12:02PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

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

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

3. No
4. Yes

Thanks for answering.

1. At least we can establish common ground here. I also agree results will vary.

2. What required facts are missing?

3/4. The no/yes through me as I thought there was only 3 questions

fungie · 05-11-2014 12:06PM

I don't know why you would limit carbs like that anyway. They are super yummy and needed for athletic performance.

Now I'moff to have a sandwich!

Hanley · 05-11-2014 12:51PM

The only time you should be low carb is breakfast.

Sausages + bacon + eggs. NYOM NYOM NYOM.

thegreatiam · 05-11-2014 01:51PM

Hanley wrote: »

The only time you should be low carb is breakfast.

Sausages + bacon + eggs. NYOM NYOM NYOM.

tell that to hotels please. buns croissants and muffins oh my.

Bruno26 · 05-11-2014 03:49PM

fungie wrote: »

I don't know why you would limit carbs like that anyway. They are super yummy and needed for athletic performance.

Now I'moff to have a sandwich!

They are needed for high intensity sports. They aren't needed for endurance sports.

Oryx · 05-11-2014 03:51PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

They are needed for high intensity sports. They aren't needed for endurance sports.

Why? I really am interested in that theory.

Bruno26 · 05-11-2014 03:51PM

generic2012 wrote: »

I am not reading 23 studies after the last link you provided, especially as you haven't read any of them. Give the direct link to the article. Either provide a random study out of that 23 and the one that supports your claim most succinctly. And after your last attempt it's probably best you give a line or two summary to show that you have actually read it.

How is this so difficult for you?

They are all relevant. I've provided evidence but you predictably reject everything you don't want to be true to suit your argument.

Bruno26 · 05-11-2014 03:56PM

Mellor wrote: »

Thanks for answering.

1. At least we can establish common ground here. I also agree results will vary.

2. What required facts are missing?

3/4. The no/yes through me as I thought there was only 3 questions

I'd need to know the weight of the person- under or over. The foods they are eating, the time frame. Someone may put weight on easily while another person may struggle to put weight on. To be honest I'm more interested in losing fat / maintaining weight than someone bulking with this method. Hard to say but they may need to eat lots of starch veg and fruit if they want to put weight on.

generic2012 · 05-11-2014 04:07PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

They are all relevant. I've provided evidence but you predictably reject everything you don't want to be true to suit your argument.

Give me the best one so, Bruno. You haven't given me one shred of evidence. Are you talking about the website you linked that linked the study? Because that totally disagrees with your argument, it backs up everyone else's.

Bruno26 · 05-11-2014 04:10PM

generic2012 wrote: »

Give me the best one so, Bruno. You haven't given me one shred of evidence. Are you talking about the website you linked that linked the study? Because that totally disagrees with your argument, it backs up everyone else's.

My argument is the hormonal model is superior for controlling weight / body fat. .

generic2012 · 05-11-2014 04:33PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

My argument is the hormonal model is superior for controlling weight / body fat. .

You're stupidity infuriates me. The following is a line from the article you linked;

A main strength of our study was use of a controlled feeding protocol to establish weight stability following weight loss.

To re-word that for you, one of the strongest components of their study was the fact that they controlled calorie consumption in the High Fat and High Carb groups.

They follow with;

Main study limitations are the relatively short duration of the test diets and the difficulty extrapolating findings from a feeding study to a more natural setting, in which individuals consume self-selected diets. In particular, the very low-carbohydrate diet involved more severe carbohydrate restriction than would be feasible for many individuals over the long term. Therefore, the study may overestimate the magnitude of effects that could be obtained by carbohydrate restriction in the context of a behavioral intervention.

Which is nice way of saying it's only of benefit if you have control over what someone is eating and has little relevance in the real world.

You linked this to show that counting calories don't matter, the authors say the best part of the study was how they implemented the counting of calories.

WTF is wrong with you? You're going to read what I've written and it's going to go straight over your head. It's like water of a duck's back, you just ignore it. I honestly think you need to see a doctor, I'm not even exaggerating.

Bruno26 · 05-11-2014 04:46PM

generic2012 wrote: »

You're stupidity infuriates me. The following is a line from the article you linked;

To re-word that for you, one of the strongest components of their study was the fact that they controlled calorie consumption in the High Fat and High Carb groups.

They follow with;

Which is nice way of saying it's only of benefit if you have control over what someone is eating and has little relevance in the real world.

You linked this to show that counting calories don't matter, the authors say the best part of the study was how they implemented the counting of calories.

WTF is wrong with you? You're going to read what I've written and it's going to go straight over your head. It's like water of a duck's back, you just ignore it. I honestly think you need to see a doctor, I'm not even exaggerating.

I'm a stranger on the Internet. A bit of advice - don't let such people infuriate you. Don't get personal- you come across as a horrible person. Predictably you start the insults when you're losing or your entrenched views are being challenged. You didn't read all of them. In many there was no calorie restriction in low carb group yet those subjects lost more weight. Yet you refuse to accept this but throw out insults- nice.

Oryx · 05-11-2014 04:51PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

I'm a stranger on the Internet. A bit of advice - don't let such people infuriate you. Don't get personal- you come across as a horrible person. Predictably you start the insults when you're losing or your entrenched views are being challenged. You didn't read all of them. In many there was no calorie restriction in low carb group yet those subjects lost more weight. Yet you refuse to accept this but throw out insults- nice.

Please if you do not mind, link to the exact report you mean then.

The reason others (including myself) get frustrated with you, is that you make quite extraordinary claims, but refuse to come up with actual, non anecdotal proof for those claims. You expect others to do the digging and find out if what you say is true. But the burden of proof is yours.

generic2012 · 05-11-2014 05:00PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

I'm a stranger on the Internet. A bit of advice - don't let such people infuriate you. Don't get personal- you come across as a horrible person. Predictably you start the insults when you're losing or your entrenched views are being challenged. You didn't read all of them. In many there was no calorie restriction in low carb group yet those subjects lost more weight. Yet you refuse to accept this but throw out insults- nice.

They are not my views, they are fact. There is a difference, just like a child thinks Santa exists, he can think it all he wants, he can talk to all his little friends about Santa, they can debate how Santa manages to defy the laws of physics and get down that chimney, but that will never change the fact that Santa doesn't exist.

Of course I didn't read all of them, you haven't even read them. Name any of the 'many' you talk about. If you're not making it up it's only a matter of copying and pasting the link.

Why did you include the first link as evidence, Bruno?

kevpants · 05-11-2014 05:42PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

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

Bruno26 wrote: »

They are needed for high intensity sports. They aren't needed for endurance sports.

Is there a broom convention in town? Do they need anyone to drop some sweeping statements?

Does anyone care about performance anymore? All you nutrition fascists who demonize processed foods and grains and talk about how sugar is destroying society, what exactly can you do or have you done?

You preach using such knowledgeable tone and drop statements like the above whilst you live in your bubble of healthy fats and kale. Show me the gainz! Or at least demonstrate that you aren't an anaemic bag of bones encased in an under armour exoskeleton. I saw a video from the practitioner of this Bulletproof Diet yesterday, the guy looks like he’s halfway through his chemo!

I can’t profess to be a nutritional expert but I’ll run a 6 minute mile this year whilst squatting and deadlifting 600lb+. Consequently I’ll be able to see my abs and every day I’ll eat at least one rocky road muffin. I’ll devour and turn that sh1t into athletic performance. It’s so processed, not only does it have a label, the label itself is made from sugar and stuck into the top of the muffin. Don’t talk to me about what chemicals are in it, you know what has chemicals in it? THINGS! I don’t care about your study indicating protein synthesis is optimised in the flknsfklsfnink, I have no faith that any of you can keep up with anyone I would consider an athletic specimen worthy of even the slightest nod of appreciation, nor would anyone I respect be able to even survive on your stupid nutritional protocol.

I know one of you is a specialist in riding a bike for a very long time at the same speed but can’t go any faster or will die. I dunno about the other one.

I firmly believe sedentary lifestyles are the big killer and your pointless rants about unprocessed foods and HFLC achieves nothing with reagrd to those those people and I believe it doesn't apply to those of us who want to achieve athletic excellence.

Excuse me, I have a 10k run tonight and I’ve 205kg beltless sumo deadlift 5x5s tomorrow, I need to eat as much heavily packaged carbohydrate as I can. Enjoy your fish oil soup or whatever it is you’re having tonight, I’ll be gorging at the trough of excellence, and it’s full of jaffa cakes.

*drops mic

Oryx · 05-11-2014 05:45PM

^^^^you had me at rocky road muffin.

generic2012 · 05-11-2014 05:49PM

kevpants wrote: »

I’ll devour and turn that sh1t into athletic performance.

I've been looking for a forehead tattoo...

Alf Veedersane · 05-11-2014 05:53PM

Fortunately some coffee flushed the little piece of birthday chocolate biscuit cake out my nose.

Bruno26 · 05-11-2014 05:53PM

@generic: enjoy!

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633336/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02290.x/full

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/Mobile/article.aspx?articleid=205916

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17228046/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X

http://annals.org/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=717451

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021480

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347602402065

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637

generic2012 · 05-11-2014 06:02PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

@generic: enjoy!

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633336/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02290.x/full

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/Mobile/article.aspx?articleid=205916

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17228046/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000282230501151X

http://annals.org/mobile/article.aspx?articleid=717451

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2002-021480

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347602402065

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637

Are you seriously telling me you don't understand what one means? Give the most relevant ONE an summarise it. I'm trawling through all that muck when it's obvious you haven't read any of it.

Bruno26 · 05-11-2014 06:06PM

generic2012 wrote: »

Are you seriously telling me you don't understand what one means? Give the most relevant ONE an summarise it. I'm trawling through all that muck when it's obvious you haven't read any of it.

I provided more than one as no doubt you'd reject it. You're argument is redundant if you don't read them- you wanted science - there it is!

Oryx · 05-11-2014 06:15PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

I provided more than one as no doubt you'd reject it. You're argument is redundant if you don't read them- you wanted science - there it is!

Which ones have you read?

generic2012 · 05-11-2014 06:20PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

I provided more than one as no doubt you'd reject it. You're argument is redundant if you don't read them- you wanted science - there it is!

I also wanted only one.

I've looked at the first link. And again you've provided a study that used calorie restriction. You are claiming that calories don't need to be counted, and to support your claim you provide linkS to studies that implement the counting of calories. I don't of course, but many many many people could think that is a sign of lunacy.

Here is a line from the study;

The similar caloric deficit achieved in all diet groups...

You understand why I hesitate to read your links? You either don't or cant read them. What do you have to say about my observation on the links you've provided and how am I wrong about them?

Bruno26 · 05-11-2014 06:37PM

generic2012 wrote: »

I also wanted only one.

I've looked at the first link. And again you've provided a study that used calorie restriction. You are claiming that calories don't need to be counted, and to support your claim you provide linkS to studies that implement the counting of calories. I don't of course, but many many many people could think that is a sign of lunacy.

Here is a line from the study;

You understand why I hesitate to read your links? You either don't or cant read them. What do you have to say about my observation on the links you've provided and how am I wrong about them?

In this 2-year trial, we randomly assigned 322 moderately obese subjects (mean age, 52 years; mean body-mass index [the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters], 31; male sex, 86%) to one of three diets: low-fat, restricted-calorie; Mediterranean, restricted-calorie; or low-carbohydrate, non–restricted-calorie.

Now read the above again! Two calorie restricted, low carb non restricted calorie. Result low carb lost most weight.

Bruno26 · 05-11-2014 06:40PM

Hanley wrote: »

The only time you should be low carb is breakfast. OM.

Why?

generic2012 · 05-11-2014 06:48PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

In this 2-year trial, we randomly assigned 322 moderately obese subjects (mean age, 52 years; mean body-mass index [the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters], 31; male sex, 86%) to one of three diets: low-fat, restricted-calorie; Mediterranean, restricted-calorie; or low-carbohydrate, non–restricted-calorie.

Now read the above again! Two calorie restricted, low carb non restricted calorie. Result low carb lost most weight.

Non calorie restricted means they were allowed eat as as much as they wanted. Later in the article it says they were in a calorie deficit. They ate as much as they wanted, which ended up below maintenance (a calorie deficit) and they lost weight. That backs up what we're saying - eat anything and as long as you are consume less calories than your daily caloric expenditure you will lose weight.

You are claiming that someone can consume calories above maintenance and lose weight (as long as they eat less 150g of carbs). I'll give you some advice, stay away from studies that involve calorie deficits, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Now read the above again!

Bruno26 · 05-11-2014 07:05PM

Oryx wrote: »

Why? I really am interested in that theory.

This may or may not interest you!

http://vinnietortorich.com/discussions/topic/books-for-endurance-fat-adapted-athletes/

http://www.fatchancerow.org/expedition/

http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/lifestyle/marathon-runners-can-benefit-from-high-fat-diet-noakes-1.1524364#.VFpmdn6QGrV

Bruno26 · 05-11-2014 07:09PM

generic2012 wrote: »

You are claiming that someone can consume calories above maintenance and lose weight (as long as they eat less 150g of carbs). I'll give you some advice, stay away from studies that involve calorie deficits, you're just shooting yourself in the foot.

How do you get away with such misrepresentation?

For the second time my argument is about which weight loss / control model is best ?

Those studies clearly show its the hormonal model.

generic2012 · 05-11-2014 07:36PM

Bruno26 wrote: »

How do you get away with such misrepresentation?

My caloric intake for weight maintenance is 3,000 calories. If I ate 20g of carbs, 100g of protein and 3,000 calories from fat would I;

A. gain weight
B. lose weight
C maintain weight?

One letter answer will suffice

Weight: Energy Balance Model Vs Hormonal Model

Comments