You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Those who know me probably know that I have a reputation to eat unhealthy meals.
However, home cooked, home grown veggies while you use spices and less salt is actually rather quite healthy.
Have fun with your "healthy" sandwiches and "vegan" diets.
Although this "study" (a VERY loose term) raises valid points in regards to this law, I'd like to see the calorie content vs. nutritional content. The dude would have had a leg to stand on (though, small) if he avoided the end comparison to eating doughnuts and big macs.
Example: 200 calorie doughnut vs. 200 calories of apple slices.
Obviously if you eat 1500 calories a day of shit food or 1500 calories of nutrient dense food...your overall body weight will react the same. However, the fundamental structures that make your body work will react completely differently.
Although this "study" (a VERY loose term) raises valid points in regards to this law, I'd like to see the calorie content vs. nutritional content. The dude would have had a leg to stand on (though, small) if he avoided the end comparison to eating doughnuts and big macs.
Example: 200 calorie doughnut vs. 200 calories of apple slices.
Obviously if you eat 1500 calories a day of shit food or 1500 calories of nutrient dense food...your overall body weight will react the same. However, the fundamental structures that make your body work will react completely differently.
Although this "study" (a VERY loose term) raises valid points in regards to this law, I'd like to see the calorie content vs. nutritional content. The dude would have had a leg to stand on (though, small) if he avoided the end comparison to eating doughnuts and big macs.
Example: 200 calorie doughnut vs. 200 calories of apple slices.
Obviously if you eat 1500 calories a day of shit food or 1500 calories of nutrient dense food...your overall body weight will react the same. However, the fundamental structures that make your body work will react completely differently.
Yes and no. I think this is where you are running into trouble.
A calorie is a unit of measure. Pure and simple. How many units of energy does this food create.
Quote:
These quantities are often used for the total amount of food energy (e.g., in a meal) and for the specific energy, namely amount of energy per unit of mass (e.g. "calories per gram", "calories per serving"). Nutritional requirements or intakes are often expressed in calories per day.
So, as a pure measurement of energy basis, then a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
The difference between the 1500 calories of donuts and apple slices is where the calories come from in terms of fat content of the food. So, beyond JUST the calorie, your body will absorb the fat content differently, thus contributing to weight gain.
Of course, during all this, we're ignoring any other nutritional components like fiber and salt content.
Ultimately, your body has a requirement for a certain amount of calories per day based on the amount of energy you use in said day. Eat more, gain weight. Eat less, lose weight. Use more energy, lose weight. Use less energy, gain weight. All that is a very high level overview of a large amount of science that has a lot of factors that contribute to each other.
You are correct in saying our body handles calories from different nutrients differently. IE carbs, fat, protein, and various combinations of them
You are wrong in saying that the fat simply gets "absorbed by the body" and the inference that it is the 'preferred' method of how the body handles fat. Fat intake doesn't cause us to store fat, carb intake does (insulin is a storage hormone, carbs spike insulin).
And so on...
It would be a lot easier to lose weight by exercising and eating 2500 calories a day of 80-90% fat and protein than it would doing the same exercise while eating 1900 calories daily of 80-90% carbs. Try it and see
You are correct in saying our body handles calories from different nutrients differently. IE carbs, fat, protein, and various combinations of them
You are wrong in saying that the fat simply gets "absorbed by the body" and the inference that it is the 'preferred' method of how the body handles fat. Fat intake doesn't cause us to store fat, carb intake does (insulin is a storage hormone, carbs spike insulin).
And so on...
It would be a lot easier to lose weight by exercising and eating 2500 calories a day of 80-90% fat and protein than it would doing the same exercise while eating 1900 calories daily of 80-90% carbs. Try it and see
Not to mention solid foods/fats/proteins all leave the stomach much slower than liquid foods + carbs -- making you feel full longer and controlling the main cause behind the physiological urge to eat.
You can't completely cut out carbs though (as you've pointed out), you need enough to replenish your oxaloacetate (metabolic intermediate) which is important in metabolism/fat breakdown. If you don't have enough carbs breakdown of stored fat will be coupled with muscle/body protein breakdown to make the oxaloacetate needed.