| Author | Post |
|---|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 10 Feb 2012 12:22 pm |
|
The 3500 calorie myth!
3500 calories is what we are told is the calorie composition of a pond of fat,now im not going to argue with that but the premise that all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight is just plain wrong.
Ok so the idea is that you drop 500 calories a day and hey presto 3500 calories a week are gone and with them 1lb of fat right? Wrong! For starters how do we know that the weight we have lost is fat?
Calorie deficits are really misleading since most of the public will assume that they are losing fat even though they are probably losing water then muscle which is not what you want at all.
Then there is that lovely safety mechanism in your body that controls your metabolism,Lets assume you need 2000 calories you drop 500 so you now eat 1500 calories and have a deficit of 500 right? Wrong! You may have for a while but then you decide to exercise as well and you burn an extra 4-500 calories,your body now has a deficit of 1000 calories and is starting to struggle,so here is where your body slows down your metabolism and you now only need say 1300 (i cant be exact because this is not an exact science) your 1000 deficit is down to 300 but guess what you are eating plenty of complex carbs which will be broken down and used for energy but the thing is most of the time your body finds it easier to break down muscle and store the carbs as fat(unless you are getting plenty of protein to help protect your muscles) so we are not burning fat we are burning muscle and water.
The thing you need to understand is that eat less do more is total bullcrap! Eat right and do some would be far more accurate though i admit less catchy.
The calories in calories out brigade believe in this eat less do more bull but fail to explain if it were that simple then why doesn?óÔé¼Ôäót it work for everyone all the time? anyone seen the biggest loser? Well why does the weight loss not come off consistently? 12lbs one week 6 the next 20 the next but surely if we are dropping 1000 calories a week (which is what im told they do) they would lose 2lbs a week every week until the fat was all gone.
I will leave you with this one last bit of info 20 calories!!!!!!! Thats it 20 calories miscalculated either way and in years you will either be twenty ponds of fat heavier or twenty pounds of fat lighter based on what the calories in calories out brigade believe!
Like i said rubbish!
|
grangers710 New Member

| Joined: | 22 Dec 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 288 |
|
Posted: 10 Feb 2012 10:05 pm |
|
wow, this could be the worst, most uneducated, misinformed post I've ever read. Find a study disproving that caloric deficits do not create fat loss. Do that before you go posting this BS. Do me a favor....for 1 month eat in a caloric deficit and tell me you didnt lose weight. Go do it and then come back and talk. Wow, I cant believe I'm reading this and this is why sites like this just flat out fail...
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 11 Feb 2012 03:49 am |
|
grangers710 wrote: wow, this could be the worst, most uneducated, misinformed post I've ever read. Find a study disproving that caloric deficits do not create fat loss. Do that before you go posting this BS. Do me a favor....for 1 month eat in a caloric deficit and tell me you didnt lose weight. Go do it and then come back and talk. Wow, I cant believe I'm reading this and this is why sites like this just flat out fail...
i dont know what is worse your inability to read a thread properly your close mindedness or your just downright stupidity!
i have read more books and more medical journals than you have had calorie deficit dinners son,you should try it instead of just mens health.
heres a study for you 40 year old man who went on every diet known to man and just keeps getting fatter learns that acctually the reason why we get fat is down to what we eat and not how many calories and he loses 5 and a half stone when he struggled on all those other diets to lose a few pounds.
i am the study son! while calories are a guide only the real problem with calorie deficit diets is they are not sustainable and will lead to problems with weight gain when normal service resumes(dont believe me well look around son how many people on this site on your beloved calorie deficit still struggling or have put weight on?),not only that but reduced calories can not be proven to just burn fat if they do at all they can lose weight temporarily but can just as much be water and muscle.
try reading something other than the company newsletter son!
Last edited on 11 Feb 2012 03:51 am by aethlefirth
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 11 Feb 2012 03:58 am |
|
ok so you have come out all guns blazing instead of like a grown up so let me ask you a simple question.
how does a calorie deficit make your body only burn fat?
let us see who is educated and who is not.
|
grangers710 New Member

| Joined: | 22 Dec 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 288 |
|
Posted: 11 Feb 2012 09:09 am |
|
| Go and read your posts anathema try to figure out what u r even arguing. Until u can Mmake 1 point and not dust as like 6 other concepts about that point I'm not wasting m time with u. Enjoy being fat if you think there is another way besides a deficit. U and JASDB must be related....U will get no more responses fom me so feel free to PM me if I want to discuss. Those site is full enough of people confusing the he'll outta people with their fitness BS so I'm not going to add to that by letting you go off on 14 tangents about different things.
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 11 Feb 2012 09:41 am |
|
grangers710 wrote: Go and read your posts anathema try to figure out what u r even arguing. Until u can Mmake 1 point and not dust as like 6 other concepts about that point I'm not wasting m time with u. Enjoy being fat if you think there is another way besides a deficit. U and JASDB must be related....U will get no more responses fom me so feel free to PM me if I want to discuss. Those site is full enough of people confusing the he'll outta people with their fitness BS so I'm not going to add to that by letting you go off on 14 tangents about different things.
lmfao yeah i thought so you dont have an answer!
the idea is simple but then it might be outside your understanding so i understand you getting all upset about things you dont or cant understand.
my point had you read the thread or my post is that i was fat while i was under the same delusions as you i am now slim and a qualified personal trainer because i have learnt that this calorie in calorie out rubbish is just just that,its what you are eating is far more important than how much.
im sorry again to have blown your mind so much but hey try learning it can be fun!
|
grangers710 New Member

| Joined: | 22 Dec 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 288 |
|
Posted: 11 Feb 2012 09:47 am |
|
| Wow hopefully ur clients know how big a dumbass you are before signing up. Yea I lost 60 pounds by just eating "healthy". Had nothing to do with a deficit that just makes u gain weight. Wow u really are a dumb #%@&!
|
grangers710 New Member

| Joined: | 22 Dec 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 288 |
|
Posted: 11 Feb 2012 09:53 am |
|
| And yes I'm a PT as well. Makes us qualified on all topics right. Wow. I can be reached by PM to continue. So feel free to respond I'm done with ur stupidity. Go to the tough love section you will fit right in
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 11 Feb 2012 10:00 am |
|
grangers710 wrote: And yes I'm a PT as well. Makes us qualified on all topics right. Wow. I can be reached by PM to continue. So feel free to respond I'm done with ur stupidity. Go to the tough love section you will fit right in
lmao thought you were done last time fool!
my learning on the subject was despite what they teach on PT courses though i can understand why you believe it since you seem to be a sheep!
i have learnt my stuff by reading people that really know their stuff and have done the work you go on believing all that ansell keys rubbish mate and i will continue to evolve while you stick rigid to your old school ways.
you cant answer a simple question above so i doubt anything you have to say is of much use!
but im sure if you have a bit more time to look it up you might have a stab.......in the dark lol.
ps i dont intend to hide on PM but understand why you would want to.Last edited on 11 Feb 2012 10:01 am by aethlefirth
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 11 Feb 2012 10:04 am |
|
grangers710 wrote: Wow hopefully ur clients know how big a dumbass you are before signing up. Yea I lost 60 pounds by just eating "healthy". Had nothing to do with a deficit that just makes u gain weight. Wow u really are a dumb #%@&!
nearly 70 now son it had nothing to do with a deficit it had to do with what i was eating im sure keeping your clients fat is working well for you but i acctually want to help people dumbass!
wow you are a moron!!!
|
grangers710 New Member

| Joined: | 22 Dec 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 288 |
|
Posted: 11 Feb 2012 10:08 am |
|
| Yp eating vegetables makes u lose weight. Great science. Idiot
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 11 Feb 2012 10:16 am |
|
grangers710 wrote: Yp eating vegetables makes u lose weight. Great science. Idiot
wow hes back even though he said he was done!
still no answer to the question though what a shock guess they didnt teach you the answer and you cant find it on wiki lol!
at what point did i say the above? or are you just randomly saying #%@&! now.
son you could not cope with the knowledge so you just stick to your calories in calories out 60% carbs nonsense and leave well enough alone.
|
grangers710 New Member

| Joined: | 22 Dec 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 288 |
|
Posted: 11 Feb 2012 10:20 am |
|
| Learn ur #%@&!ing argument. Fat and weight are not the same thing exclusively. Do biggest loser contestants lose weight? R anorexics skinny? Ur argument was a caloric deficit will not make you lose WEIGHT. Know what the #%@&! u r arguing before u open ur mouth dumbass
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 11 Feb 2012 10:55 am |
|
Ah bless u getting all angry.
No what I said was that it doesn't mean you will burn/lose fat!
But I can understand you not getting that dim as you are.
I made it very clear that you may lose weight but there is no gaurantee it will be fat you lose please try and keep up son.
Oh and still no answer for me?
Maybe one day pfft!
|
grangers710 New Member

| Joined: | 22 Dec 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 288 |
|
Posted: 11 Feb 2012 11:22 am |
|
| "the premise that allyou need is a caloric deficit to lose weight is all wrong". Yep clear as can be
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 11 Feb 2012 11:31 am |
|
| Glad you are getting it there is hope for you yet!
|
Nir Senior Administrator

|
Posted: 11 Feb 2012 02:19 pm |
|
Slightly related is what Dr Tarek (actually an academic) is posting elsewhere on the forum, about "systems" etc.
forum19/13750.html
http://www.thinkingincirclesaboutobesity.com/EXCERPTS.htm
Even if weight loss is not LINEAR, a deficit is still required, of course.
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 11 Feb 2012 02:51 pm |
|
Now see that's an intelligent reply,my point is that people should think more about what they eat and less about the calories since all calories are not treated equal.while I can concede that eating too much of anything will cause weight gain over reliance on the numbers is just insane and is why most people fail when dieting.
You need to educate yourself on what you are eating and how much and how it effects your body.
People all over and very many on here are relying on this 3500 calorie calories in calories out theory and it is failing them.
|
mary233 New Member

| Joined: | 10 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10 |
|
Posted: 16 Feb 2012 11:28 pm |
|
Yes, Drink tea and eating vegetables makes u lose weight. 
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 17 Feb 2012 12:35 pm |
|
mary233 wrote: Yes, Drink tea and eating vegetables makes u lose weight. 
erm yeah thanks!
|
jwestjr8414 New Member

| Joined: | 17 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
|
Posted: 17 Feb 2012 01:26 pm |
|
Hi yall.... I'm Joe, and I'm a new kid on the block. Not "them" new kids tho.
I have been reading all these posts, and some of the back and forth is insulting, argumentative, and hurtful. Ouch!
People are ALL different, and no one method works for all. That is just fact. There is no need to be hurtful to anyone, because we all have heard many different things from different sources. Everyone has heard something, and everyone has an opinion.
The truth is that each of us would do well to think of health, and not necessarily weight loss per se. I am older than many of you, and battled weight for much of my adult life. Not serious mind you, but heavier than I wanted to be, or should have been. I tried DIETS but finally realized after thousands of dollars that they don't work. Never have, and never will, because of our diversity. Yes, there are certain truths. I've heard them all too. Like Muscle weighs more than fat. There are lots of them, and you have all heard them also. No need to rehash them here.
What is the secret? What works? Which are trash? You must ultimately be the judge of that, after all, it is your money to spend, right? I have no right to give my opinion, and it may not work for you.
Eat in moderation! Will that work? Cut back on helpings! Will that work? Maybe yes, for some. To just cut back, and desire to see the numbers on the scale change... that is misleading. My advice, if I may be bold enough to give it: Throw your scale away. The numbers lie! I suggest a mirror, full length is best. Get some form of exercise apparatus that will keep you toned, so your muscles don't turn to fat. Stayed toned. Don't worry about muscles...
- These are lifestyle changes. Not UNTIL you lose weight. What you're interested in is not losing weight, but your overall health. Freedom from diabetes, freedom from addictions, freedom from weighing in, freedom to be who you are. These are not things you do UNTIL anything. They are just things you will do. PERIOD.
Yes, they will take time. But yes, they will be permanent. Let me give you an example. 2 years ago, I was 202 pounds, which is about 50 pounds more than I wanted to be. DIETS DID NOT WORK, at least for me. They worked to make someone else rich, but I was still who I was, and 50 pounds over my weight goal.
On the advice of a wise person, I finally began to listen to common sense. I got rid of the scale. (Actually I pushed it under the bed). I began by leaving food on my plate, on purpose. I made a habit of this, and eventually I just ate less. I realized that a smaller plate full made me full better, with out the discomfort of being too full. That felt better. I started toning with something called exercise bands, like huge rubber bands. I started looking in the mirror, and liked what I started to see. I didn't care what the scale might have said. My pants went down from a 44 to a now 38. I am still getting better every day. I have no idea how MUCH I weight, and I don't really care. I like the way I feel, and the way I look.
I made changes in the way I live. I know my body will get where it needs to be, based on the way I live. NOT on the way someone else thinks I should be.
Sorry for the length of this. I feel fantastic, and I like it. Does not matter what anyone else thinks. I recommend this highly. I have found the only other thing I needed and use rather consistently is my hypnosis sessions, which I do myself, and they help a lot.
You can do whatever you like, and probably will. I like me now, and thought I would throw my 2.5 cents in, case anyone wanted to hear it. Good Health to ALL.
To A More Positive You, Joe West
|
grangers710 New Member

| Joined: | 22 Dec 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 288 |
|
Posted: 17 Feb 2012 01:34 pm |
|
| Let me be as blunt as possible regarding WEIGHT LOSS. To lose weight you MUST create a caloric deficit. I dont care what touchy feely way one goes about doing it, you WILL NOT LOSE WEIGHT WITHOUT CREATING A CALORIC DEFICIT. That is the bottom line. That is the science behind the body. I dont care what diet you do, what foods you do or do not eat, what exercise you do or do not do, if you do cardio, if you eat junk food, it DOES NOT MATTER. Without a NET caloric deficit or NET energy deficit, whatever you want to call it, you will not lose weight. That is the bottom line. Yes there are a billion ways to create the deficit and every person needs to find the way that works for them, but as aethlefirth states in his second sentence to the start of this ridiculous post "the premise that all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight is just plain wrong", well sorry aethlefirth, that is not even remotely accurate. That is PRECISELY what is needed to lose weight. How you do it, that's up to you. DONE.
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 17 Feb 2012 01:57 pm |
|
jwestjr8414 wrote:
Hi yall....?é?á I'm Joe, and I'm a new kid on the block.?é?á Not "them" new kids tho.
I have been reading all these posts, and some of the back and forth is insulting, argumentative, and hurtful. Ouch!
People are ALL different, and no one method works for all.?é?á That is just fact.?é?á There is no need to be hurtful to anyone, because we all have heard many different things from different sources.?é?á Everyone has heard something, and everyone has an opinion.
The truth is that each of us would do well to think of health, and not necessarily weight loss per se.?é?á I am older than many of you, and battled weight for much of my adult life.?é?á Not serious mind you, but heavier than I wanted to be, or should have been.?é?á I tried DIETS but finally realized after thousands of dollars that they don't work.?é?á Never have, and never will, because of our diversity.?é?á Yes, there are certain truths.?é?á I've heard them all too.?é?á Like Muscle weighs more than fat.?é?á There are lots of them, and you have all heard them also.?é?á No need to rehash them here.
What is the secret??é?á What works??é?á Which are trash??é?á You must ultimately be the judge of that, after all, it is your money to spend, right??é?á I have no right to give my opinion, and it may not work for you.
Eat in moderation!?é?á Will that work??é?á Cut back on helpings!?é?á Will that work??é?á Maybe yes, for some.?é?á To just cut back, and desire to see the numbers on the scale change... that is misleading.?é?á My advice, if I may be bold enough to give it: Throw your scale away.?é?á The numbers lie!?é?á I suggest a mirror, full length is best.?é?á Get some form of exercise apparatus that will keep you toned, so your muscles don't turn to fat.?é?á Stayed toned.?é?á Don't worry about muscles...
- These are lifestyle changes.?é?á Not UNTIL you lose weight.?é?á What you're interested in is not losing weight, but your overall health.?é?á Freedom from diabetes, freedom from addictions, freedom from weighing in, freedom to be who you are.?é?á These are not things you do UNTIL anything.?é?á They are just things you will do. PERIOD.
Yes, they will take time. But yes, they will be permanent.?é?á Let me give you an example.?é?á 2 years ago, I was 202 pounds, which is about 50 pounds more than I wanted to be.?é?á DIETS DID NOT WORK, at least for me.?é?á They worked to make someone else rich, but I was still who I was, and 50 pounds over my weight goal.
On the advice of a wise person, I finally began to listen to common sense.?é?á I got rid of the scale.?é?á (Actually I pushed it under the bed).?é?á I began by leaving food on my plate, on purpose.?é?á I made a habit of this, and eventually I just ate less. I realized that a smaller plate full made me full better, with out the discomfort of being too full. That felt better.?é?á?é?á I started toning with something called exercise bands, like huge rubber bands.?é?á I started looking in the mirror, and liked what I started to see.?é?á I didn't care what the scale might have said.?é?á My pants went down from a 44 to a now 38.?é?á I am still getting better every day.?é?á I have no idea how MUCH I weight, and I don't really care.?é?á I like the way I feel, and the way I look.
I made changes in the way I live.?é?á I know my body will get where it needs to be, based on the way I live.?é?á NOT on the way someone else thinks I should be.
Sorry for the length of this.?é?á I feel fantastic, and I like it.?é?á Does not matter what anyone else thinks.?é?á I recommend this highly.?é?á I have found the only other thing I needed and use rather consistently is my hypnosis sessions, which I do myself, and they help a lot.?é?á
You can do whatever you like, and probably will.?é?á I like me now, and thought I would throw my 2.5 cents in, case anyone wanted to hear it.?é?á Good Health to ALL.?é?á
To A More Positive You,?é?á Joe West
What a great response and exactly what I'm getting at,listen to your body and what works for you.
This blind devotion to the calories in calories ourt mantra is just sad,I am a low carb eater because that is what has worked for me and the only thing,but I don't live my life by atkins or sissons or taubes or any other author rater I read all the books and medical data experiment and find what works! for me its round about 30g a day of carbs my wife gets the same results from 75-90g but then she is in her 20s I'm in my 40s.
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 17 Feb 2012 02:06 pm |
|
grangers710 wrote:
Let me be as blunt as possible regarding WEIGHT LOSS.?é?á To lose weight you MUST create a caloric deficit.?é?á I dont care what touchy feely way one goes about doing it, you WILL NOT LOSE WEIGHT WITHOUT CREATING A CALORIC DEFICIT.?é?á?é?á That is the bottom line.?é?á That is the science behind the body.?é?á I dont care what diet you do, what foods you do or do not eat, what exercise you do or do not do, if you do cardio, if you eat junk food, it DOES NOT MATTER. Without a NET caloric deficit or NET energy deficit, whatever you want to call it, you will not lose weight.?é?á That is the bottom line.?é?á Yes there are a billion ways to create the deficit and every person needs to find the way that works for them, but as aethlefirth states in his second sentence to the start of this ridiculous post "the premise that all you need is a calorie deficit to lose weight is just plain wrong", well sorry aethlefirth, that is not even remotely accurate.?é?á That is PRECISELY what is needed to lose weight.?é?á How you do it, that's up to you.?é?á DONE.
And in pops the calories in calories out gestapo!
I'm talking about losing fat and my point was and is there is no gaurantee that dropping calories will burn fat instead of muscle or water,and just for the record I did lose weight withought a calorie deficit.
See surely the whole idea of losing weight is because you are carrying too much fat and your religion (and it is one feel free to look up the defenition)is that drop 500 caloreies a day and you will lose 1lb of fat a week which is a lie plain and simple,my point as ever is we should focus on what we are eating and how it affects the body and less on the blind devotion to the numbers.
|
jwestjr8414 New Member

| Joined: | 17 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
|
Posted: 17 Feb 2012 02:17 pm |
|
OK. aethlefirth, this is not a contest.?é?á We don't need to find out who is the smartest.?é?á It is not about that.
YOU are the most important person in this equation. Especially to YOU.?é?á
The bottom line is simple:?é?á It does not matter what anyone else thinks.?é?á What matters is that for you, it may not be so simple.?é?á If you stop eating, or cut back, you may lose some numbers on the scale.?é?á That is why I recommend throwing it away, (or if expensive, under the bed, like I did).
No matter what the numbers say, every single person is different, and it will depend on the amount of daily exercise one does in the workplace, how long they have been doing it, and many other factors.?é?á If you lose muscle for lack of activity, you will lose weight (numbers on the scale) faster, which is natures way of lieing to you since you need that muscle to burn fat.?é?á (Seems like a big ole merry go round, huh)
You will have to determine if you want to exercise more.?é?á What is know is that if you do little exercise, then what little muscle you have will go away, and the battle will be even more difficult, and your fat takes over.
When we speak about life style changes, we must include the use of drugs.?é?á I am referring to prescription drugs, from your doctor.?é?á They also play a part in our obesity quotient.?é?á?é?á There are so many things to consider that it is overwhelming.;?é?á Just like eating an elephant, which seems like an impossible task, unless you take it one bite at a time.?é?á Same is true here.?é?á So it is best to identify all the components, and work on one at a time.
In my battles, I have found one thing to be invaluable, and that is recommendations I have received from others.?é?á I know the ones that work, and those that are best avoided.?é?á As an example, (NO AFFILIATE LINKS PLEASE) has helped me a lot.?é?á These are hypnotic programs that work for you, and they certainly did for me.?é?á You will have to check it out yourself if you want to. But please respect yourself more, and don't make it a contest to see who knows more, because in the end, it won't help you one bit.?é?á I hope this helps a little.
To a More Perfect You,
Joe West
Last edited on 18 Feb 2012 09:52 am by Nir
|
jwestjr8414 New Member

| Joined: | 17 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
|
Posted: 17 Feb 2012 02:34 pm |
|
Nir,
You are so correct. There will be always a deficit. The question is how much and in what areas. Because we are all so different, and because each situation is different, the plan of attack will likewise be different.
I think this venue for sharing is critical in that it can serve many people, who can take what they learn, and apply it to their own lives, and goals.
Thank you for monitoring this site, and being an advocate for something so important. Weight Loss affects so many in so many different ways, Self Esteem, Control, Image and the list is endless. I applaud you and thank you. My only hope that is that I will be able to contribute in some small way to helping anyone that wants to try.
Thanks again for all your contributions, and for doing what you can to keep this a viable resource for those that need it.
To A More Perfect You,
Joe West
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 17 Feb 2012 02:57 pm |
|
Lol I get what you are saying but my only competition comes from myself,my life has been changed from a fat couch potatoe to a slim personal trainer by me!
I decided to ignore what every diet book said I decided to throw away the advise of conventional wisdom on diet and nutrition and instead looked elsewhere since all these things had failed me.
My worry as ever is everyone of the calories in calories out brigade are so sure of their wisdom but as you say it does not work for everyone which kinda dissproves its own point! The calories in calories out THEORY (that's all it is by the way) is based on the premise that it is one size fits all remember drop 500 calories a day and you will be slim but apparantly most humana are lazy and weak willed since 95% of calorie control diets fail.
The thing is I don't believe people are all lazy and weak willed I think the current thinking and conventional wisdom fails these people and causes many eating dissorders but hey this is just my opinion,but it is the opinion of a guy who got fat and ill untill he turned away from conventional wisdom you know the conventional wisdom that is still seeing people getting fatter despite eating less fat but still blaming fat for it.
I stand firm its what you eat not numbers!
|
grangers710 New Member

| Joined: | 22 Dec 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 288 |
|
Posted: 17 Feb 2012 03:08 pm |
|
| Yet again, the moron goes onto this 500 cal thing. I dont remember saying if you eat 500 cals less you will lost weight. THAT is a stupid statement that is meaningless. A net caloric deficit is needed to lose weight thus the body has to find energy elsewhere (fat, LBM, etc). THAT IS SCIENCE. Yes I'm sure you lost your weight cause you ate carrots. Do me a favor, eat 4000 calories a day for a month of vegetables or whatever other "foods" you ate to lose weight and tell me you don't gain weight. Then go and eat the same "foods" but only eat 1000 cals a day and tell me you don't lose weight. For 99.9% of the world that is overweight, all that is needed to lose weight is create a net caloric deficit. As the 99.9% of the world gets leaner and leaner, the approach shifts a bit. But yes, the fact that you lost weight without creating a deficit and it was all about the foods you ate is just ridiculous. That is absolute science right there. You are the anomally to the rest of the world. You lost weight cause you ate green beans! awesome work. Too much of a good thing is still too much. If you didn't eat in a deficit, then you ate in a surplus and thus you would have GAINED weight or maintained your weight. Everything you are saying is reducing your credibility mr Personal Trainer. Go have your clients do 100 situps so they can get abs....wow why do I continue to respond to this BS
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 17 Feb 2012 04:24 pm |
|
grangers710 wrote: Yet again, the moron goes onto this 500 cal thing. I dont remember saying if you eat 500 cals less you will lost weight. THAT is a stupid statement that is meaningless. A net caloric deficit is needed to lose weight thus the body has to find energy elsewhere (fat, LBM, etc). THAT IS SCIENCE. Yes I'm sure you lost your weight cause you ate carrots. Do me a favor, eat 4000 calories a day for a month of vegetables or whatever other "foods" you ate to lose weight and tell me you don't gain weight. Then go and eat the same "foods" but only eat 1000 cals a day and tell me you don't lose weight. For 99.9% of the world that is overweight, all that is needed to lose weight is create a net caloric deficit. As the 99.9% of the world gets leaner and leaner, the approach shifts a bit. But yes, the fact that you lost weight without creating a deficit and it was all about the foods you ate is just ridiculous. That is absolute science right there. You are the anomally to the rest of the world. You lost weight cause you ate green beans! awesome work. Too much of a good thing is still too much. If you didn't eat in a deficit, then you ate in a surplus and thus you would have GAINED weight or maintained your weight. Everything you are saying is reducing your credibility mr Personal Trainer. Go have your clients do 100 situps so they can get abs....wow why do I continue to respond to this BS
i dont know why you respond its not like i encourage it !
so if you drop 500 cals you dont lose weight is what you just said but you need a deficit? i dont think you really know what you are talking about son (big fecking suprise right).
i dont use sit ups son they are as archaic as your calories in calories out theory.
i dont eat carrots bit high on the GI for me so i try to avoid them,not sure where you are getting your idea about what i eat but just keep guessing wrong son you have no idea and never will again big fecking suprise!
again i dont know what is sadder the fact that you people believe in spite of the evidence that this calorie deficit works in the way you think it does or that or that you just dont get its not about weight its about fat! i dont know anyone who worries at having far too much lean muscle they want to lose fat not weight so yes starving your self with calorie deficit might make you weigh less but will it decrease your fat? that is after all what i said in the first place and i also asked you a question whaich you failed to answer another big suprise!
i am interested in making people healthy and reducing ow much body fat they have you want them to weigh less.
im sure your low fat calorie control cross your heart diets do wonders (im being sarcastic) but im far more interested in helping people to achieve a healthy life and weight with as little suffering (outside the gym inside its non negotiable) as possible.
but like most religous zealots you will curse me out again and again while spouting doctrine and conflicting your statements.
good luck with that son!
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 17 Feb 2012 04:31 pm |
|
Create a Calorie Deficit to Lose Fat, You Say? What About These Rats Who Starved to Death OBESE?
Posted on November 16, 2011 by Adam K
All diets boil down to calorie control, or so you?óÔé¼Ôäóve been told. You need to EAT LESS food, BURN OFF energy through exercise, or, ideally, BOTH. The prize for success? All that nasty excess flab will finally ?óÔé¼?ômelt off.?óÔé¼?Ø
But perhaps you?óÔé¼Ôäóve already played this game. Perhaps you?óÔé¼Ôäóve tried and failed to create that holy grail of fat loss ?óÔé¼ÔÇØ the Calorie Deficit. If so, chances are, you blamed yourself. You lacked the willpower. You lacked the energy. You lacked the discpline. You lacked the self-control. It all came back to you. YOU have been the problem, all along.
Or so they would have you believe.
But does creating a Calorie Deficit always work (if you work it hard enough)? Get ready for a story that will (should) blow your mind and rock your world?óÔé¼?ª
The story comes from my favorite book on diet and nutrition, Gary Taubes?óÔé¼Ôäó Good Calories, Bad Calories (p 366):
?óÔé¼?ô[Certain genetically obese mice] will fatten excessively regardless of how much they eat. The obesity is not dependent on the number of calories they consume?óÔé¼?ª ?óÔé¼?ôThese mice will make fat out of their food under the most unlikely circumstances, even when half starved,?óÔé¼?Ø [researcher Jean] Mayer had reported. And if starved sufficiently, these animals can be reduced to the same weight as lean mice, but they?óÔé¼Ôäóll still be fatter. They will consume the protein in their muscles and organs rather than surrender the fat in their [fat] tissue. Indeed, when these fat mice are starved, they do not become lean mice?óÔé¼?ª they become emaciated versions of fat mice.
Francis Benedict reported this in 1936, when he fasted a strain of obese mice. They lost 60 percent of their body fat before they died of starvation, but still had five times as much body fat as lean mice (!!!!!!)* that were allowed to eat as much as they desired.?óÔé¼?Ø
*[bolded font and exclamation points are mine!!!!!]
?óÔé¼?ôIn 1981, M.R.C. Greenwood reported that if she restricted the diet of an obese strain of rats known as Zucker rats?óÔé¼?ª and did it from birth onward, these rats would actually grow fatter by adulthood than their littermates who were allowed to eat to their hearts?óÔé¼Ôäó content. Clearly, the number of calories these rats consumed over the course of their life was not the critical factor in their obesity (unless we are prepared to argue that eating fewer calories induces greater obesity)?óÔé¼?ª these semi-starved Zucker rats had 50% less muscle mass than genetically lean rats, and 30% less muscle mass than the Zucker rats that ate as much as they wanted. They, too, were sacrificing their muscles and organs to make fat.?óÔé¼?Ø
The moral here, folks? It?óÔé¼Ôäós twofold:
1. Don?óÔé¼Ôäót be born a Zucker rat in one of these psycho?óÔé¼Ôäós labs.
2. Don?óÔé¼Ôäót try to ?óÔé¼?ômelt off?óÔé¼?Ø your Sick, Sad Fat Tissue (SSFT) by starving yourself, unless
you?óÔé¼Ôäóre also prepared to ?óÔé¼?ômelt off?óÔé¼?Ø your organs and muscle tissue.
Calorie Deficit, Schmalorie Deficit, I say.
|
grangers710 New Member

| Joined: | 22 Dec 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 288 |
|
Posted: 17 Feb 2012 04:32 pm |
|
Yes if you drop 500 cals you won't necessarily lose weight if your still eating in a surplus. Wow, is it really that complex to understand? Your daily expenditure is 2000, you eat 5000, reducing your caloires by 500 will drop your daily intake to 4500. Still 2500 OVER expenditure and thus yes, you WILL NOT LOSE WEIGHT. That's the myth. That's the argument you need to run with, NOT the concept of a deficit. And you obviously didn't get the joke on the situps.
And yes, I'm sure the individual that weights 400 pounds is VERY concerned about the potential of possibly having their body burn a little bit of their muscle mass in the process on getting healthy. I'm sure staying overweight is MUCH HEALTHIER then losing the "weight". If the body can mobilize the fat, it will mobilize the fat. Someone that has a ton of fat can mobilize it much easier than say someone leaner trying to lose the last few pounds.
Yes, keep preaching to your clients that they can lose weight by eating in a net energy surplus. Watch them get fatter and fatter. Very nice.
|
grangers710 New Member

| Joined: | 22 Dec 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 288 |
|
Posted: 17 Feb 2012 04:41 pm |
|
| and if you really are concerned about losing "muscle mass" which will happen with an extended enough caloric deficit, how about lift weights? Simple enough to fix the problem. But yes, I'm sure the massively obese individual would rather just stay obese then possible have some muscle get used for energy. BUT, if you really want to get into the "name that study" game, there are WAY too many studies to support the scientific approach I am arguing vs finding a study to DISPROVE the fact that you will lose weight in a caloric deficit. Yea, if you eat low enough long enough, your body will use some of your muscle for fuel, if it does, what is the big deal? You think bodybuilders preparing for their shows that eat at a crazy deficit for weeks up to their show and workout like machines do it in order to LOSE THEIR MUSCLE? I'm done. People reading this, go do your research before listening to this aethlefirth character....
|
grangers710 New Member

| Joined: | 22 Dec 2010 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 288 |
|
Posted: 17 Feb 2012 04:45 pm |
|
| If anyone has any further questions regarding this topic, feel free to email me. This whole discussion might be the most valuable thread in this whole site. I will no longer waste my time arguing science with this guy, but would be happy to answer anyone's questions thru private message. If you think you can eat certain foods and lose your weight and eat more calories than your body burns on its own and thru exercise, then go give it a shot and see what happens to the scale. If you'd like to understand the way it truly works, shoot me a PM. Regardless to what this tool writes back, I will not respond, no matter how much I will most likely want to. Not sure what's more lame, this guy's argument or a 40 year old man using the term "son"....
|
mary233 New Member

| Joined: | 10 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10 |
|
Posted: 18 Feb 2012 05:00 am |
|
It is in point of fact a nice and helpful piece of information. Hope to see more good posts in the future. 
|
Nir Senior Administrator

|
Posted: 18 Feb 2012 10:17 am |
|
aethlefirth wrote:I'm talking about losing fat [..] and just for the record I did lose weight without a calorie deficit.
You were not counting calories then (and you are not counting calories now) so you cannot say "without a calorie deficit" because you do not know.
So, you are guessing (because you did not count) that you lost fat in a surplus - how big a surplus? how much was it over the maintenance figure predicted by standard formulas?
I would imagine this is a very hard question to answer for someone who has never counted calories.
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 19 Feb 2012 11:00 am |
|
Nir wrote: aethlefirth wrote:I'm talking about losing fat [..] and just for the record I did lose weight without a calorie deficit.
You were not counting calories then (and you are not counting calories now) so you cannot say "without a calorie deficit" because you do not know.
So, you are guessing (because you did not count) that you lost fat in a surplus - how big a surplus? how much was it over the maintenance figure predicted by standard formulas?
I would imagine this is a very hard question to answer for someone who has never counted calories.
i know what i ate
60g of cereal with skimmed milk was replaced by a fry up.
but i will concede that point my point however which you just made for me is i only changed what i ate and was never hungry (unlike most calorie deficit diets) but most of all how oh how did i possibly lose weight when i didnt count the oh so fabled calories?
surely this is not possible i mean i didnt count every calorie you know even the ones i cant count like when your body decides to do some maintenance that you have not planned for in your methodical calorie planning,i lost 2lb to 4lb every week for the first few weeks and its been a steady loss ever since and thats 5.5 stone all without counting a single calorie!
are you guys really that stuck on this that you rule out genetics and somatotypes i will honestly say i stunned! yes overeating causes people to get fat but the foods we eat cause us to overeat this is all im saying its this over relience on the numbers and blind dissregard for concerns of what we are eating that im arguing about.
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 19 Feb 2012 11:01 am |
|
Did an interesting experiment last week.
Away at my mum?óÔé¼Ôäós with the kids for the half term and ate a fried breakfast every day (she does love to feed me up bless her) now my appetite isn?óÔé¼Ôäót what it once was but who can resist a fry up.
2 eggs 2 sausage 2 bacon and tomatoes reckon this is about 6-700 calories (not something I care about but it?óÔé¼Ôäós all certain people on here understand) now my normal breakfast is a protein shake about 120 cals.
Now apart from this change there was no difference in the way I ate I also had a touch of man flu and could do no exercise which I hated but it did my body good to rest.
So I didn?óÔé¼Ôäót burn any of these fabled calories through exercise (I reckon I must burn 6-700) and I increased my intake by the same amount wow suicide right!
Result 1 lb of water gained (probably as a result of the salt in the bacon) not the 2.5 lbs of fat that I?óÔé¼Ôäóm told I should gain by the calories in calories out Gestapo.
So why didn?óÔé¼Ôäót I gain the fat? Simple because of what I eat not how much I eat it?óÔé¼Ôäós a simple case of me not eating sugars/carbs/grains which would cause insulin to be released and fat stored.
See this is what I?óÔé¼Ôäóm trying so hard to explain to these people if you have weight problems the calorie theory will let you down since a 1000 calorie diet high in carbs/grains is essentially a 1000 calorie diet high in sugar and so high in insulin response!
While diets like Atkins work I find them a bit harsh and its why they get so much criticism you should read the books on low carb but not just them you should experiment to find your own tolerance to these foods.
Unlike my calorie deficit friends I understand that all people are different the basics of somatotypes seem to be lost on the one size fits all calories in calories out brigade according to them you are fat because you are unable to do such a simple thing as reduce your calories and go for a walk I find this whole attitude archaic and disgusting and its normally spewed forth by those that have never had a weight problem in their lives
These would be mesomorphs or ectomorphs.
Calorie deficit will reduce your weight but at the risk of Muscle tissue (your heart is a muscle so that?óÔé¼Ôäós good then right!) where as if we look at the food that causes us to be fat not just the amount (and believe me they go hand in hand I mean the food that makes you fat is normally the food that makes you want to eat more and more) then success can be yours.
Calories as a guide yes!
Calories as a life no!
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 19 Feb 2012 11:13 am |
|
grangers710 wrote: Yes if you drop 500 cals you won't necessarily lose weight if your still eating in a surplus. Wow, is it really that complex to understand? Your daily expenditure is 2000, you eat 5000, reducing your caloires by 500 will drop your daily intake to 4500. Still 2500 OVER expenditure and thus yes, you WILL NOT LOSE WEIGHT. That's the myth. That's the argument you need to run with, NOT the concept of a deficit. And you obviously didn't get the joke on the situps.
And yes, I'm sure the individual that weights 400 pounds is VERY concerned about the potential of possibly having their body burn a little bit of their muscle mass in the process on getting healthy. I'm sure staying overweight is MUCH HEALTHIER then losing the "weight". If the body can mobilize the fat, it will mobilize the fat. Someone that has a ton of fat can mobilize it much easier than say someone leaner trying to lose the last few pounds.
Yes, keep preaching to your clients that they can lose weight by eating in a net energy surplus. Watch them get fatter and fatter. Very nice.
wow you really are too angry to see how thick you are!
lets look at your 400lb man so you think if he drops his intake by 3500 calories a week he wont lose weight even though he has reduced his intake from its previous point BLASPHEMY!!
lmao you boys are like a religion you cant even agree what you believe.
see unlike you i have some knowledge of how the body works and lean people with lean muscle burn fat faster than people with none!
The more muscle you have on your body the more fat you burn and the more calories you burn. If you have a certain amount of muscle on your body you can eat a reasonable diet without gaining weight . This is called a good metabolism. A good metabolism doesn?óÔé¼Ôäót happen by accident. I do admit genetics play a part in metabolism
see the problem is you are so angry that you never acctually read or understood the thread! im not advocating eating more just that eating less doesnt mean you will lose fat a fact you cant argue with since you still have not answered the question i set you!
the way i and my clients do things is to look at what we are eating not just numbers that that are not even accurate.
my clients get healthier! thanks for asking though lmao
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 19 Feb 2012 11:28 am |
|
grangers710 wrote: and if you really are concerned about losing "muscle mass" which will happen with an extended enough caloric deficit, how about lift weights? Simple enough to fix the problem. But yes, I'm sure the massively obese individual would rather just stay obese then possible have some muscle get used for energy. BUT, if you really want to get into the "name that study" game, there are WAY too many studies to support the scientific approach I am arguing vs finding a study to DISPROVE the fact that you will lose weight in a caloric deficit. Yea, if you eat low enough long enough, your body will use some of your muscle for fuel, if it does, what is the big deal? You think bodybuilders preparing for their shows that eat at a crazy deficit for weeks up to their show and workout like machines do it in order to LOSE THEIR MUSCLE? I'm done. People reading this, go do your research before listening to this aethlefirth character....
so in your strange world you can maintain muscle while reducing calories without any concern of what you are eating as long as the numbers are right!
wow where did you do your PT course online? must have been a cheap one.
again you keep coming back to a point i have never debated how stupid are you? i understand though its called deflection see i asked you how you make sure you only burn fat when in a calorie deficit you didnt answer!
the thread is about the fact that you calorie boys maintain without proper evidence that you will burn 1lb of fat if you just simply drop 500 calories a day(yes yes within all the guidelines yes i get that was also deflection on your part) i am saying that is rubbish i have never said you wont lose weight just that there is no gaurantee that it will be fat unless you are also looking at what you are eating.
oh so good when you feed me great lines in like that one,glad you mentioned bodybuilders i know a few and yes they reduce calories but the calories are a guide (funny im sure ive heard that somewhere ...oh thats right it was me) more imprtant to them is what they are eating low sodium to avoid water retention plenty of protien to make sure their muscle are not lost while they cut down body fat having said that a lot of them are obese according to BMI another thing that is a guide only and should not be treated as gospel!
people reading this you should absolutely do research and learn a few things about anatomy and physiology as should the numptie im replying to
Last edited on 19 Feb 2012 11:30 am by aethlefirth
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 19 Feb 2012 11:55 am |
|
grangers710 wrote: If anyone has any further questions regarding this topic, feel free to email me. This whole discussion might be the most valuable thread in this whole site. I will no longer waste my time arguing science with this guy, but would be happy to answer anyone's questions thru private message. If you think you can eat certain foods and lose your weight and eat more calories than your body burns on its own and thru exercise, then go give it a shot and see what happens to the scale. If you'd like to understand the way it truly works, shoot me a PM. Regardless to what this tool writes back, I will not respond, no matter how much I will most likely want to. Not sure what's more lame, this guy's argument or a 40 year old man using the term "son"....
feel free to e-mail a guy who seems to live in the past while stomping and screaming like a child, if you want to take advice from someone who's opinion of people with weight problems is that they are fat and immoral and lack the common sense to just reduce the amount that they eat and go for a walk it doesn?óÔé¼Ôäót matter what you eat remember it?óÔé¼Ôäós just the numbers all this from a guy who has said he won?óÔé¼Ôäót respond and responded and yeah we don?óÔé¼Ôäót have the moral fortitude pfft.
If you would rather find out how this magical thing weight loss without counting calories can happen pm me and I will explain this simple thing that seems to escape the calories in calories out brigade.
The number of people who are obese has tripled over the last 20 years and is still rising. Is this because we are a nation of lazy immoral gluttons who can?óÔé¼Ôäót stop eating cos we want to be fat or is it more likely to do with the foods we are eating?
This is my point people I?óÔé¼Ôäóm not saying as this moron keeps implying that you won?óÔé¼Ôäót lose weight by dropping calories and neither am I saying you can eat loads more and lose weigh I am simply saying calories won?óÔé¼Ôäót do it alone if you are looking to lose fat.
This stubborn almost religious belief is not helpful as any idiot can see by looking at this website and seeing how many people struggle with diets based on the calorie deficit rather than using calories as a guide and looking into what we are eating and how different foods affect the body and more importantly your body!
I used to have a manager and he used to say?óÔé¼?Øyou would have to be insane to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result?óÔé¼?Ø how many calorie control diets will you go on and fail before you try something different?
|
Nir Senior Administrator

|
Posted: 19 Feb 2012 02:53 pm |
|
Thank you for raising the concern regarding the Heart Muscle with low carb diets.
"There are Atkins diet side effects. It has been found that ketogenic diets can cause dilatation of the heart muscle and cardiomyopathy that is reversible if the diet is stopped in time.13 Many readers may remember Dr. Atkins himself had a heart attack about a year ago caused by a cardiomyopathy. Of course, it was announced that this had nothing to do with his diet and that it was due to a virus." (source http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/94/Joel_Fuhrman,_M.D..htm )
The other poster indicated they are frustrated with you. I am also frustrated with you.
I am going to assist your understanding with regards to the 400lb man. This man is eating at a 750 calorie surplus. He is gaining approximately 1.5lb a week at the point when you meet him. He is now reducing his calorie intake by 500. He is not losing 1lb per week at this point. The reason is that, having reduced his calorie intake, he is now only eating at a 250 calorie surplus - he is now gaining approximately 0.5lb a week. Summary: the 500 calorie reduction has to be relative to the calorie intake appropriate for MAINTENANCE. It is not a hard point to grasp and it was made to you more than once.
The other point is that "calories matter" is not the same as "you must count calories". I have not counted calories since October, but (funnily enough) they still matter. New laws of the universe have not been created just because I decided to simplify my life.
I had to restrain myself in this reply.
|
aethlefirth New Member

| Joined: | 6 Feb 2012 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 49 |
|
Posted: 20 Feb 2012 05:00 am |
|
Nir wrote: Thank you for raising the concern regarding the Heart Muscle with low carb diets.
"There are Atkins diet side effects. It has been found that ketogenic diets can cause dilatation of the heart muscle and cardiomyopathy that is reversible if the diet is stopped in time.13 Many readers may remember Dr. Atkins himself had a heart attack about a year ago caused by a cardiomyopathy. Of course, it was announced that this had nothing to do with his diet and that it was due to a virus." (source http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/94/Joel_Fuhrman,_M.D..htm )
The other poster indicated they are frustrated with you. I am also frustrated with you.
I am going to assist your understanding with regards to the 400lb man. This man is eating at a 750 calorie surplus. He is gaining approximately 1.5lb a week at the point when you meet him. He is now reducing his calorie intake by 500. He is not losing 1lb per week at this point. The reason is that, having reduced his calorie intake, he is now only eating at a 250 calorie surplus - he is now gaining approximately 0.5lb a week. Summary: the 500 calorie reduction has to be relative to the calorie intake appropriate for MAINTENANCE. It is not a hard point to grasp and it was made to you more than once.
The other point is that "calories matter" is not the same as "you must count calories". I have not counted calories since October, but (funnily enough) they still matter. New laws of the universe have not been created just because I decided to simplify my life.
I had to restrain myself in this reply.
you are frustrated because i wont buy in to your disstorted religion.
with regards to dr atkins yeah i mean his heart problems could not have been caused by the previous years of abuse of carbohydrates could it!
dont worry about restraining mate i do however find it interesting that a mod is so bias first time ive seen this in any forum on any subject so dont worry i wont be around long when there is bias in this form it normally means the forum isnt very good and lets face it minds are like parachutes they only work when they are open.
"calories matter" i have never disputed the fact but to rely too heavily on the numbers as you guys are advocating is just plain wrong are all calories created equal NO! do you know how they test calories to get these oh so revered numbers? they burn them in test tubes........yeah thats how the body works>
as for the 400lb man its funny how your theory works one way there are people who eat excessive calories but have reached a weight where they no longer gain but you stick to your 3500 calorie rule i have real life proof its rubbish and i wont even waste my time on any more of a reply since you believe that the human body is a closed system and clearly are as insane as your boy granger!
like i said you and your kind are the ones calling people weak and imoral for being unable to do such a simple thing as cut down on a few calories and go for a walk pathetic from a moderator who cannot even be unbias! wanna talk morals pfft!
well i will leave your pathetic little forum who cannot stand free speach and is so closed minded that you cant even entertain thoughts of a different kind!
|
JSABD Distinguished Member

|
Posted: 22 Feb 2012 12:13 am |
|
aethlefirth wrote: Create a Calorie Deficit to Lose Fat, You Say? What About These Rats Who Starved to Death OBESE?
Posted on November 16, 2011 by Adam K
All diets boil down to calorie control, or so you?óÔé¼Ôäóve been told. You need to EAT LESS food, BURN OFF energy through exercise, or, ideally, BOTH. The prize for success? All that nasty excess flab will finally ?óÔé¼?ômelt off.?óÔé¼?Ø
But perhaps you?óÔé¼Ôäóve already played this game. Perhaps you?óÔé¼Ôäóve tried and failed to create that holy grail of fat loss ?óÔé¼ÔÇØ the Calorie Deficit. If so, chances are, you blamed yourself. You lacked the willpower. You lacked the energy. You lacked the discpline. You lacked the self-control. It all came back to you. YOU have been the problem, all along.
Or so they would have you believe.
But does creating a Calorie Deficit always work (if you work it hard enough)? Get ready for a story that will (should) blow your mind and rock your world?óÔé¼?ª
The story comes from my favorite book on diet and nutrition, Gary Taubes?óÔé¼Ôäó Good Calories, Bad Calories (p 366):
?óÔé¼?ô[Certain genetically obese mice] will fatten excessively regardless of how much they eat. The obesity is not dependent on the number of calories they consume?óÔé¼?ª ?óÔé¼?ôThese mice will make fat out of their food under the most unlikely circumstances, even when half starved,?óÔé¼?Ø [researcher Jean] Mayer had reported. And if starved sufficiently, these animals can be reduced to the same weight as lean mice, but they?óÔé¼Ôäóll still be fatter. They will consume the protein in their muscles and organs rather than surrender the fat in their [fat] tissue. Indeed, when these fat mice are starved, they do not become lean mice?óÔé¼?ª they become emaciated versions of fat mice.
Francis Benedict reported this in 1936, when he fasted a strain of obese mice. They lost 60 percent of their body fat before they died of starvation, but still had five times as much body fat as lean mice (!!!!!!)* that were allowed to eat as much as they desired.?óÔé¼?Ø
*[bolded font and exclamation points are mine!!!!!]
?óÔé¼?ôIn 1981, M.R.C. Greenwood reported that if she restricted the diet of an obese strain of rats known as Zucker rats?óÔé¼?ª and did it from birth onward, these rats would actually grow fatter by adulthood than their littermates who were allowed to eat to their hearts?óÔé¼Ôäó content. Clearly, the number of calories these rats consumed over the course of their life was not the critical factor in their obesity (unless we are prepared to argue that eating fewer calories induces greater obesity)?óÔé¼?ª these semi-starved Zucker rats had 50% less muscle mass than genetically lean rats, and 30% less muscle mass than the Zucker rats that ate as much as they wanted. They, too, were sacrificing their muscles and organs to make fat.?óÔé¼?Ø
The moral here, folks? It?óÔé¼Ôäós twofold:
1. Don?óÔé¼Ôäót be born a Zucker rat in one of these psycho?óÔé¼Ôäós labs.
2. Don?óÔé¼Ôäót try to ?óÔé¼?ômelt off?óÔé¼?Ø your Sick, Sad Fat Tissue (SSFT) by starving yourself, unless
you?óÔé¼Ôäóre also prepared to ?óÔé¼?ômelt off?óÔé¼?Ø your organs and muscle tissue.
Calorie Deficit, Schmalorie Deficit, I say.

I guess rats are different than humans.
There were 0 fat people found in the concentrations camps.
Rats, humans, dog and cats cannot defy the laws of physics. Anyone who even implies they can is either a retard or a liar.
Genes cannot circumvent the the laws of physics and any who says they can needs to get an enema for being such a liar.
The 2nd law is immutable. Go back you your fat acceptance group and eat yourself to death in your blissful denial but do it quickly.
Last edited on 22 Feb 2012 12:20 am by JSABD
|
YoyoQueen New Member

| Joined: | 4 Aug 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 55 |
|
Posted: 7 Mar 2012 12:28 am |
|
Low carb diets have been shown to reduce appetite, therefore leading to a calorie deficit.
|
JSABD Distinguished Member

|
Posted: 7 Mar 2012 01:51 am |
|
YoyoQueen wrote:
Low carb diets have been shown to reduce appetite, therefore leading to a calorie deficit.
Show even one scientific study that proves your BS other than Atkins sponsored fake science.
Low carb diet sucked 35 years ago and they suck now.
|
Nir Senior Administrator

|
Posted: 7 Mar 2012 06:33 pm |
|
YoYoQueen, at least you are proposing some mechanism by which a low-carber has created a deficit. The original poster (aethlefirth) was initially suggesting that he was defying the laws of physics, eating more calories than before (not less) and yet losing more than 70lb.
Certainly when compared with an iso-caloric plate of cookies and ice cream (or insert your refined carbohydrate of choice), a plate of meat and green vegetables is going to blunt one's hunger more (my money is on the veggies are doing their bit!)
Meat is not a poison in absolute terms. I eat meat. It is about the dose and I do not eat a mostly-meat diet. The harm to your body depends on how much you take in.
aethlefirth would not be drawn on how much of his diet was animal products, just as he would not get drawn to analysis of his calories.
|
JSABD Distinguished Member

|
Posted: 8 Mar 2012 01:38 am |
|
Nir wrote:
YoYoQueen, at least you are proposing some mechanism by which a low-carber has created a deficit. The original poster (aethlefirth) was initially suggesting that he was defying the laws of physics, eating more calories than before (not less) and yet losing more than 70lb.
Certainly when compared with an iso-caloric plate of cookies and ice cream (or insert your refined carbohydrate of choice), a plate of meat and green vegetables is going to blunt one's hunger more (my money is on the veggies are doing their bit!)
Meat is not a poison in absolute terms. I eat meat. It is about the dose and I do not eat a mostly-meat diet. The harm to your body depends on how much you take in.
aethlefirth would not be drawn on how much of his diet was animal products, just as he would not get drawn to analysis of his calories.
Weightloss is initially fast with the Fatkins induction phase but the dieter is not losing fat. He is losing water. The reason he is losing eater is because he is losing glycogen form the liver. Water is heavier than fat. Also, protein is tough to digest and so is fat if you are not used to eating it. I used to read the Atkins forums and people would complain about bloating and diarrhea. They lost a lot was water weight that way.
After the dieter depletes his liver of glycogen he get intense carb craving and being stupid he come to the conclusion that he's a carb addict.
He repeats the process but now his BMR has slowed because he has lost muscle.
I wish that I could beat the #%@&! out of low carbers. They are so annoying.
Remember the Krebs cycle. Fat burns in the flame of carbohydrate.
|
artistjohn Distinguished Member

|
Posted: 8 Mar 2012 12:32 pm |
|
-unt
-unt
--uuuuuuunnnnnnttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!
guess the word game.
Could be punt as in long wooden boat
|
artistjohn Distinguished Member

|
Posted: 8 Mar 2012 12:33 pm |
|
| Or runt as weak one in litter.
|
 Current time is 06:53 pm | |
|