Supplements for Weight Loss

[King Boonen]

but i eat heaps of potatoes................not fat............never will be

Mark L

And some smokers don't die of lung cancer...

 

[thehog]

but i eat heaps of potatoes................not fat............never will be

Mark L

edit everyone does not know that potatoes make one fat..............i must find out more as there definitely is not

consensus

Good for you. And yes, right you are. It's not a constant. Hormonal changes within your body may not release insulin similar to others. Everyone is different. Not possible to apply one diet to the entire world and have the same result.

What you've done is used yourself as a case study of "1" to refute the claim. You'd need a much wider testing pool to show that potatoes, which are high in carbohydrates do not lead to weight gain.

Then again, studies in diets are neigh impossible to test. Can hardly lock people in a room for 6 months!

 

[TheSpud]

A lot of differing opinions on here. Certainly different diets work differently (better / worse) for different people. However if you use more energy up than you take in then you will lose weight - you may not be toned, or whatever, but you will lose weight.

If anyone can disprove that then they have fundamentally turned the laws of Physics on their head. I look forward to them unveiling their perpetual motion machine that will provide limitless energy to the planet and their resulting Nobel prize.

 

[thehog]

A lot of differing opinions on here. Certainly different diets work differently (better / worse) for different people. However if you use more energy up than you take in then you will lose weight - you may not be toned, or whatever, but you will lose weight.

If anyone can disprove that then they have fundamentally turned the laws of Physics on their head. I look forward to them unveiling their perpetual motion machine that will provide limitless energy to the planet and their resulting Nobel prize.

What laws of physics are they? Thermodynamics? LOL!

You've still missed the point. "Weight loss" is what? The loss of fat? The loss of muscle? Both?

Weight gain is what? Adding of fat, ingesting food/water, lying down, standing up, going to the toilet, sweating? Adding muscle? Taking drugs?

It's not as simple as you describe. Not possible.

 

[TheSpud]

What laws of physics are they? Thermodynamics? LOL!

Yep those are the ones. The ones that respected scientists theorised and proved. I certainly don't think they are going to be debunked by 'diet doctors' or some random posters on a cycling forum. If the laws could be disproved then there would be limitless energy produced using machines that debunked these laws and we wouldn't have to rely on oil and gas ...

 

[thehog]

Yep those are the ones. The ones that respected scientists theorised and proved. I certainly don't think they are going to be debunked by 'diet doctors' or some random posters on a cycling forum. If the laws could be disproved then there would be limitless energy produced using machines that debunked these laws and we wouldn't have to rely on oil and gas ...

So humans are like cars? Which scientists are these? Which studies?

 

[TheSpud]

What laws of physics are they? Thermodynamics? LOL!

You've still missed the point. "Weight loss" is what? The loss of fat? The loss of muscle? Both?

Weight gain is what? Adding of fat, ingesting food/water, lying down, standing up, going to the toilet, sweating? Adding muscle? Taking drugs?

It's not as simple as you describe. Not possible.

Weight loss is what it says - loss of weight. It could be fat, it could be muscle - it is still weight lost.

Is weight loss adding water? Well yes it can be - in the short term. Drink 5 litres of water and you will weigh 5kg more - initially. Once you have pee'd it all out you will be back to where you were before. Water has no (or virtually no) calories - therefore no weight change.

So let me ask you a question. Say your body needs 2000 calories a day just to exist (it could be any number to be honest). If you then take in 2500 calories, and you have the same exertions during the day as normal where do those extra 500 calories go?

And if they just disappear and don't result in weight gain, what happens in the reverse? ie you take in 1500 when your body needs 2000? Are you saying there is no weight loss? If you are, where have the extra 500 calories come from?

 

[TheSpud]

So humans are like cars? Which scientists are these? Which studies?

Seriously you have to ask who theorised the laws of thermodynamics? Didn't you do Physics at school?

 

[thehog]

Weight loss is what it says - loss of weight. It could be fat, it could be muscle - it is still weight lost.

Is weight loss adding water? Well yes it can be - in the short term. Drink 5 litres of water and you will weigh 5kg more - initially. Once you have pee'd it all out you will be back to where you were before. Water has no (or virtually no) calories - therefore no weight change.

So let me ask you a question. Say your body needs 2000 calories a day just to exist (it could be any number to be honest). If you then take in 2500 calories, and you have the same exertions during the day as normal where do those extra 500 calories go?

And if they just disappear and don't result in weight gain, what happens in the reverse? ie you take in 1500 when your body needs 2000? Are you saying there is no weight loss? If you are, where have the extra 500 calories come from?

If you're using calories as your only measurement data point then your results will vary. Look around you. It happens everyday.

To the previous posts; humans don't ingest or consume calories, its not possible. They ingest the nutrients contained in food.

Like was stated, you don't absorb temperature, you absorb heat.

 

[thehog]

Seriously you have to ask who theorised the laws of thermodynamics? Didn't you do Physics at school?

The laws exist, yes. But in terms that thermodynamics applies to humans being the reason for fat accumulation? No, that hasn't be proven.

 

[TheSpud]

If you're using calories as your only measurement data point then your results will vary. Look around you. It happens everyday.

To the previous posts; humans don't ingest or consume calories, its not possible. They ingest the nutrients contained in food.

Like was stated, you don't absorb temperature, you absorb heat.

I've never said they ingest calories, you're the one who said that. I've said they use them up - or not as the case may be - by converting them in to other forms of energy.

Now, can you explain to me in my previous question where the excess calories (ie energy) have disappeared to? And conversely in the second example where the calories (ie energy) that don't exist have come from?

 

[TheSpud]

The laws exist, yes. But in terms that thermodynamics applies to humans being the reason for fat accumulation? No, that hasn't be proven.

So humans for some reason are not subject to those laws that the rest of the known universe are subject too?

 

[thehog]

I've never said they ingest calories, you're the one who said that. I've said they use them up - or not as the case may be - by converting them in to other forms of energy.

Now, can you explain to me in my previous question where the excess calories (ie energy) have disappeared to? And conversely in the second example where the calories (ie energy) that don't exist have come from?

How can a human "use" a calorie? A calorie is not a physical compound or element of food. They don't exist in physical form and as such the "calories" don't go anywhere.

Not sure why you can't grasp something so simple. Calories are simply a data table of numbers which measures the heat in food when setting it alight. Noting more, nothing less. Just like temperature.

Prior to 1900 calories didn't even exist. What were people eating then? The same as today, food.

 

[thehog]

So humans for some reason are not subject to those laws that the rest of the known universe are subject too?

But you still can't draw the correlation between fat accumulation and calories. There is none and there's no scientific study in the world that can prove that an inanimate object causes fat accumulation in humans. It doesn't. The nutrients or the lack thereof in food causes fat to accumulate.

The contents of food has far more impact of weight gain or loss than calories. Designer food which modifies caloric values like Diet Pepsi to 0 will cause you to gain weight if you drink enough of it or constantly. It would be stupidity to say that it didn't. Why? Because of its contents not its caloric value.

 

[TheSpud]

How can a human "use" a calorie? A calorie is not a physical compound or element of food. They don't exist in physical form and as such the "calories" don't go anywhere.

Not sure why you can't grasp something so simple. Calories are simply a datable of numbers which measures the heat in food when setting it alight. Noting more, nothing less. Just like temperature.

Prior to 1900 calories didn't even exist. What were people eating then? The same as today, food.

There is nothing for me to 'grasp' as you put it. A calorie is a measure of energy, it could a watt, a therm, a joule. They are all measures of energy (that are measured slightly differently). Energy CANNOT be created or destroyed only converted in to other forms (heat, etc.). These are the thermodynamic laws which you seem to want to ignore.

For instance, if, as you say calories (and therefore energy) aren't important why don't we have other forms of energy (eg kilowatts) that behave in the same way? If we followed your logic we would have domestic boilers that would exhibit higher than 100% efficiency. >100% efficiency would imply energy creation - which is NOT possible.

 

[thehog]

There is nothing for me to 'grasp' as you put it. A calorie is a measure of energy, it could a watt, a therm, a joule. They are all measures of energy (that are measured slightly differently). Energy CANNOT be created or destroyed only converted in to other forms (heat, etc.). These are the thermodynamic laws which you seem to want to ignore.

For instance, if, as you say calories (and therefore energy) aren't important why don't we have other forms of energy (eg kilowatts) that behave in the same way? If we followed your logic we would have domestic boilers that would exhibit higher than 100% efficiency. >100% efficiency would imply energy creation - which is NOT possible.

Now you're getting somewhere.

The "energy" as you describe doesn't come from a "calories" it comes from the food and the nutrients contained. Whether than be protein, carbohydrate or sugars. Those three elements have different impact on the body and are used for varying different reasons inside of us. Some of which is energy, some of which is the storing of fat to be used as "energy" for a later day/time etc.

That's why carbs tend to cause weight gain. Why? Because its used as stored energy to be used later and the body calls upon first up when its placed under stress. Excess of carbs tends to see those fat stores not used up and they remain.

In your example you're simply trying to use an a very basic equation that is settled in a short time frame. Not possible. The human body is always operational. Its doesn't follow the time clock of a an equation written on a whiteboard.

Then throw in other hormonal elements to the body. Drugs, stress, etc etc etc. Not a simple equation. Women especially, birth control pills, etc.

You cannot simply take one equation and apply it as a "constant" which starts and begins at the time of eating food to the end of eating food.

 

[TheSpud]

But you still can't draw the correlation between fat accumulation and calories. There is none and there's no scientific study in the world that can prove that an inanimate object causes fat accumulation in humans. It doesn't. The nutrients or the lack thereof in food causes fat to accumulate.

The contents of food has far more impact of weight gain or loss than calories. Designer food which modifies caloric values like Diet Pepsi to 0 will cause you to gain weight if you drink enough of it or constantly. It would be stupidity to say that it didn't. Why? Because of its contents not its caloric value.

Fat accumulation happens in the human body when there are excess calories that the body cant use. The body cant store these as glucose so they are converted in to fatty acids for storage around the body. The key organs involved in this are the liver and pancreas - its basic human physiology.

Now, are you going to answer my questions or are you going to ignore them?

 

[TheSpud]

Now you're getting somewhere.

The "energy" as you describe doesn't come from a "calories" it comes from the food and the nutrients contained. Whether than be protein, carbohydrate or sugars. Those three elements have different impact on the body and are used for varying different reasons inside of us. Some of which is energy, some of which is the storing of fat to be used as "energy" for a later day/time etc.

That's why carbs tend to cause weight gain. Why? Because its used as stored energy to be used later and the body calls upon first up when its placed under stress. Excess of carbs tends to see those fat stores not used up and they remain.

In your example you're simply trying to use an a very basic equation that is settled in a short time frame. Not possible. The human body is always operational. Its doesn't follow the time clock of a an equation written on a whiteboard.

Then throw in other hormonal elements to the body. Drugs, stress, etc etc etc. Not a simple equation. Women especially, birth control pills, etc.

You cannot simply take one equation and apply it as a "constant" which starts and begins at the time of eating food to the end of eating food.

I'm sorry Hog but that is utter nonsense.

The 'time clock of an equation'??? Calorie deficit (and the reverse) applies over all timescales. 3500 deficit in one day = 1 lb loss of weight in one day. 3500 deficit in one week = 1 lb lose in one week.

Pills, hormones, etc are relevant but only to the extent that they change the calorie deficit / excess formula. This could be through appetite suppression or metabolism changes. Both of those are still more or less energy than the body needs.

I never took my equation as beginning or ending at the time of eating - you are the one that said that, above.

Now - will you please explain to me how energy can be created / destroyed during the human intake process as asked many times above?

 

[thehog]

Fat accumulation happens in the human body when there are excess calories that the body cant use. The body cant store these as glucose so they are converted in to fatty acids for storage around the body. The key organs involved in this are the liver and pancreas - its basic human physiology.

Now, are you going to answer my questions or are you going to ignore them?

So what you're saying is that all foods, no mater what they are, have the same effect on the body and fat accumulation?

 

[thehog]

I'm sorry Hog but that is utter nonsense.

The 'time clock of an equation'??? Calorie deficit (and the reverse) applies over all timescales. 3500 deficit in one day = 1 lb loss of weight in one day. 3500 deficit in one week = 1 lb lose in one week.

Pills, hormones, etc are relevant but only to the extent that they change the calorie deficit / excess formula. This could be through appetite suppression or metabolism changes. Both of those are still more or less energy than the body needs.

I never took my equation as beginning or ending at the time of eating - you are the one that said that, above.

Now - will you please explain to me how energy can be created / destroyed during the human intake process as asked many times above?

I think what you're saying is that the body treats carbs, proteins, fats and sugars in all the same manner? Yes or no?

 

[TheSpud]

So what you're saying is that all foods, no mater what they are, have the same effect on the body and fat accumulation?

If you consume more calories than you need then yes. It doesnt matter where those calories come from.

However, try and consume 3000 calories a day from boiled veg and you would need to eat so much it would likely be unmanageable. 3000 calories from fat / oil - probably a glassful.

But if you eat sugars then they will be broken down first before the other energy stores in your body because they are glucose straight in to the system. However, if you don't get enough from those sugars that your body needs then you will start to burn stored energy (typically fat).

 

[TheSpud]

I think what you're saying is that the body treats carbs, proteins, fats and sugars in all the same manner? Yes or no?

Your body will treat excess energy from all forms of food the same way - it will store it as fat.

However, when your body needs energy it will look for the most easily convertible form first. This is glucose. Which should be no surprise to anyone who follows cycling - what happens when a cyclist bonks and needs an immedite boost of energy? They take a sugar laden gel, they don't take a glassful of olive oil ....

 

[thehog]

If you consume more calories than you need then yes. It doesnt matter where those calories come from.

However, try and consume 3000 calories a day from boiled veg and you would need to eat so much it would likely be unmanageable. 3000 calories from fat / oil - probably a glassful.

But if you eat sugars then they will be broken down first before the other energy stores in your body because they are glucose straight in to the system. However, if you don't get enough from those sugars that your body needs then you will start to burn stored energy (typically fat).

You're going in circles.

So again we're back where we started. What is a calorie? Its simply not possible to consume a calorie.

Perhaps post a picture of a calorie so we can all see it?

This discussion reminds me off this exact same conversation had many times over....

The experts: Obesity is caused by over-eating, by consuming more calories than are expended. There’s no getting around the first law of thermodynamics.

Us: But all that law says is that if somebody gets fat, they have to consume more calories then they expend. So why do they do that?

The experts: Because they do.

Us: That’s not a good enough answer.

The experts: Well, maybe they can’t help themselves.

Us: Why can’t they help themselves?

The experts: Because they can’t.

Us: That’s not a good enough answer either.

The experts: Because the food industry makes them do it. There’s so much good food around and it’s so tasty, they can’t help but eat it.

Us: But obviously some of us can, because we don’t all get fat. Why is it only some people can’t help themselves?

The experts: Because they can’t.

Us: Try again.

The experts: Well, it’s complicated.

Us: What do you mean complicated? We thought it was easy. Just this eating-too-much, exercising-too-little, calories-in-calories-out, thermodynamics thing.

The experts: Okay, how about this? [Now quoting from an NIH report published in 2000.] “Obesity is a complex, multifactorial chronic disease that develops from an interaction of genotype and the environment. Our understanding of how and why obesity develops is incomplete, but involves the integration of social, behavioral, cultural, physiological, metabolic and genetic factors.”

Us: So what do all those have to do with eating too much and the laws of thermodynamics?

Experts: They contribute to making fat people overeat.

Us: How do they do that?

The experts: We don’t know. It’s complicated.

Us: Then maybe there’s another way to look at it. Maybe when we get fat it’s because those physiological, metabolic and genetic factors you mentioned are dysregulating our fat tissue, driving it to accumulate too much fat, and that’s why we eat so much and appear — to you anyway — to be kind of lazy. We’re compensating for the loss of calories into our fat.

The experts: Yeah, well, maybe. Your guess is as good as ours.

 

[TheSpud]

You're going in circles.

So again we're back where we started. What is a calorie? Its simply not possible to consume a calorie.

Perhaps post a picture of a calorie so we can all see it?

This discussion reminds me off this exact same conversation had many times over....

No I'm not - I have argued from the start that calorie deficit will cause weight loss, and calorie excess will cause weight gain. You're the one who has now quoted a conversation that I have never been a part of and argued the opposite.

When are you going to answer the questions I asked?

 

[TheSpud]

You're going in circles.

So again we're back where we started. What is a calorie? Its simply not possible to consume a calorie.

Perhaps post a picture of a calorie so we can all see it?

This discussion reminds me off this exact same conversation had many times over....

Perhaps post a picture of a watt, a kilowatt, a joule, a therm, or any other measure of energy so we can see it - they all exist, why not look at your energy bills ...