Supplements for Weight Loss

[thehog]

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?

You're not actually arguing. You're theorising. Not very well, mind you.

You're trying to present a very simplistic way to measure weigh loss and weight gain, that is all. Calories were invented for the very purpose and by no means was a scientific means to do so. You know this. Everyone in fact knows this.

 

[thehog]

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 ...

Do you consume watts?

You're funny.

I can post a picture of a protein or fat or carbohydrate if you like?

 

[sciguy]

My understanding the original concept for calorie was based on food rationing after the war. .

Then you'd be completely wrong. Please do some research.

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

Once again you're spouting rubbish.

Calories were invented for the very purpose and by no means was a scientific means to do so. You know this. Everyone in fact knows this.

Please do some research and come back when you actually know a bit more about the topic. You're just embarrassing yourself at this time.

Hugh

 

[TheSpud]

Do you consume watts?

You're funny.

I can post a picture of a protein or fat or carbohydrate if you like?

I consume energy just like everyone else does. It can be measured in watts, joules, calories, or whatever energy measurement you like.

Posting a picture of a carbohydrate proves nothing - its not a measure of energy or anything like it. Now, can you answer the questions I asked earlier?

 

[TheSpud]

You're not actually arguing. You're theorising. Not very well, mind you.

You're trying to present a very simplistic way to measure weigh loss and weight gain, that is all. Calories were invented for the very purpose and by no means was a scientific means to do so. You know this. Everyone in fact knows this.

I'm presenting it in a simplistic way because it is, and its based on Physics that you as a lone poster on here see to want to ignore ...

 

[thehog]

Then you'd be completely wrong. Please do some research.




Once again you're spouting rubbish.



Please do some research and come back when you actually know a bit more about the topic. You're just embarrassing yourself at this time.

Hugh

Tough guy, eh?

Feel free to provide an alternate to the lone posters, LOL!

 

[thehog]

I'm presenting it in a simplistic way because it is, and its based on Physics that you as a lone poster on here see to want to ignore ...

Based on physics and nothing else? Wow!

 

[TheSpud]

Tough guy, eh?

Feel free to provide an alternate to the lone posters, LOL!

Why make it about him, its not personal you know ...

 

[TheSpud]

Based on physics and nothing else? Wow!

I'll take that over your opinion anytime.

 

[thehog]

Why make it about him, its not personal you know ...

Yes, I do know that, hence why I invited him to provide an alternate. Nothing personal in that.

Perhaps take a deep breath. You sound kinda angry. Not sure why.

 

[thehog]

I'll take that over your opinion anytime.

I'm sure you will. You sound not only angry but entrenched.

 

[TheSpud]

I'm sure you will. You sound not only angry but entrenched.

Not angry at all, and not entrenched but I see no valid argument from you (both fact or opinion) to change my mind ...

 

[thehog]

Not angry at all, and not entrenched but I see no valid argument from you (both fact or opinion) to change my mind ...

That's fine. I've not asked you change your opinion.

You do appear angry and entrenched though. You caught a little hook on the calories thing and ran with it. You did venture into glucose for a little once you Google'd it but snapped straight back into calories again. Kinda just went around in circles, which is entrenched.

No harm. You're free to believe whatever theories you shall choose.

 

[TheSpud]

That's fine. I've not asked you change your opinion.

You do appear angry and entrenched though. You caught a little hook on the calories thing and ran with it. You did venture into glucose for a little once you Google'd it but snapped straight back into calories again. Kinda just went around in circles, which is entrenched.

No harm. You're free to believe whatever theories you shall choose.

No googling, no round in circles. I know it because i know it - you're the one with blood on his hands when it comes to slaughtering logic ...

 

[thehog]

No googling, no round in circles. I know it because i know it - you're the one with blood on his hands when it comes to slaughtering logic ...

Like I said; entrenched and angry.

 

[TheSpud]

Like I said; entrenched and angry.

No more than you are ... at least I have scientific facts on my side.

 

[thehog]

No more than you are ... at least I have scientific facts on my side.

Sure you do, all the ones you failed to provide links for, LOL!

You're a little bit of a finger pointer as well, yes? And angry.

 

[TheSpud]

Sure you do, all the ones you failed to provide links for, LOL!

You're a little bit of a finger pointer as well, yes? And angry.

I can provide links - how many hundreds of thousands do you want to the laws if physics? Where are your links?

And I'm a finger pointer? What do you mean by that? Angry as well? Are those personal attacks? I hope not ... against the rules don't you know.

 

[thehog]

I can provide links - how many hundreds of thousands do you want to the laws if physics? Where are your links?

And I'm a finger pointer? What do you mean by that? Angry as well? Are those personal attacks? I hope not ... against the rules don't you know.

Not personal attacks, no. Think you're just trying to stir trouble.

Feel free to posts some links. It's really not credible to stand there and say "it's based on science! Everyone, it's based on science!" and back it up with nothing.

That's a little crazy. The burden of proof has a much higher standard than shouting whilst jumping up and down.

 

[Tapeworm]

Do you consume watts?

You're funny.

I can post a picture of a protein or fat or carbohydrate if you like?

No, because you are confusing well defined terms. I can produce watts from energy produced by the body through a system of bio-chemical processes which allow a bio-mechanical force to be exerted over a period of time... watts.

Seems like your arguments are philosophical, not one of human biology. The reasons for weight gain are well known. The PRECISE nature of all the metabolic reasons as to how this varies is continually being researched.

Whilst exact energy requirements of an individual cannot be nailed down to the single kilojoule it can be reasonably estimated. And the amount of calories likely to be absorbed by ingested food can also be well estimated. And when the estimated output is higher than estimated input, time and time again it leads to weight loss. And when reversed, weight gain.

The nuances of adherence to diet, individual metabolic rates, health, nutrients etc are all still being researched and debated. But the above is yet to be disproven.

And, to reply to an earlier poster the concept of metabolic processes are a simple concept. The actual processes that take place are hideous complex (about 3million known metabolic pathways I think). But it does not discount the *ballpark* energy in vs *ballpark* energy out is still undeniable.

If anyone has a reference to debunk it I sure as hell would like to see it!


Oh and to perhaps help your point, or disprove it, overfeeding by 1000 cals on a pure CHO diet would lead to about 10 grams of fat being put on. Something to think about eh?

 

[Tapeworm]

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.

Did you make up this non-sensical dribble? Or is it just your interpretation of well known science that is being put forth?

 

[Tapeworm]

It seems a nit-picking point, but it isn't. Two foods with the same calorific value can be metabolised in a vastly different way and have a very different impact on the body.

Indeed. A recent study of rat feed for example. Two groups of rats fed exactly the same weight of the same rat feed EXCEPT one had the "puffed wheat" version. Result the puffed wheat rats gained more weight.

There is a calorific value of food, and then there is the calories we absorb and can utilise. Ballpark estimations work very well indeed, however.

Chemical energy ingested and utilised, why can't calories be used to measure that? Do kilojoules sit better with people or what?

As for metabolism being a simple concept. Errr... No.

The concept is simple, the processes are very, hideously, complex.

 

[thehog]

Indeed. A recent study of rat feed for example. Two groups of rats fed exactly the same weight of the same rat feed EXCEPT one had the "puffed wheat" version. Result the puffed wheat rats gained more weight.

There is a calorific value of food, and then there is the calories we absorb and can utilise. Ballpark estimations work very well indeed, however.

Chemical energy ingested and utilised, why can't calories be used to measure that? Do kilojoules sit better with people or what?

The concept is simple, the processes are very, hideously, complex.

Perhaps we could just eat red meat all the time because you can burn more calories eating and digesting it

I don't too much disagree with what you wrote. I just find it funny that people place so much emphasis on a number value which is effectively estimated.

 

[King Boonen]

Indeed. A recent study of rat feed for example. Two groups of rats fed exactly the same weight of the same rat feed EXCEPT one had the "puffed wheat" version. Result the puffed wheat rats gained more weight.

There is a calorific value of food, and then there is the calories we absorb and can utilise. Ballpark estimations work very well indeed, however.

Chemical energy ingested and utilised, why can't calories be used to measure that? Do kilojoules sit better with people or what?

The issue I had was calories was not being used as a measurement, it was being referred to as what we consume. That is a massive over-simplification as the purported rat study shows.

For example, consume the same amount of calories in glucose and protein. Glucose is directly converted to glycogen via glycogenesis or via glycolysis to pyruvate which is itself converted to acetyl-CoA, a precursor of fatty acid synthesis. Acetyl-CoA is also a precursor to cholesterol synthesis. Glycolysis produces NADH and ATP, which is why glucose is a great energy source when you're active.


Protein is of course a misnomer, it refers to a vast array of complex macromolecules that must be broken down into their constituent amino acids which requires energy and then feed into amino acid metabolism and on to purine metabolism, nucleotide metabolism and production of glucose using glucogenic amino acids if required.

Both of these foods may have the same calorific content, the effect on metabolism and the body is vastly different, hence the problem with using the calorie as the identifier of the food stuff.

I don't have any real problem with the idea that consuming less energy from food than the body is using will result in weight loss, I pretty much said the same thing in my first post. Of course, it requires a sensible diet and is most applicable to poorly trained, sedentary people when combined with an exercise programme. Trained, active people need to pay more attention to food to get the greatest benefit (Yes, that will benefit the poorly trained, sedentary people too but I've found it is easier for people to start with this rather than making wholesale dietary changes, Elapid has the opposite experience).


So yes, I have the same problem with kilojoules, it does not give any indication as to how the food stuff will be metabolised and that is essential to understand what it will do in the body.

The concept is simple, the processes are very, hideously, complex.

This is a bit like saying the concept of Relativity, or Black Holes is simple. Yes, the massively oversimplified version of the concept might be simple, but in reality that does not relate at all to the understanding of the actual question.

 

[thehog]

Correct. I think the confusion from Spud etc. is that calories is a measurement not an actual compound of food.

That is what I was having contention with. I completely understand that some use calories as a represention of the energy within food but it cannot possibly be equal between food types.

And of course humans do s**t, fart and p**s out some of those foods more than others