Supplements for Weight Loss

[TheSpud]

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

I never said that calories are compounds of food, i said they are a measurement of energy in food.

I cant be bothered to debate any further as you seem to want to ignore and twist. If i gave you $10 and then told you I had you'd probably argue about that too.

 

[thehog]

I never said that calories are compounds of food, i said they are a measurement of energy in food.

I cant be bothered to debate any further as you seem to want to ignore and twist. If i gave you $10 and then told you I had you'd probably argue about that too.

Well, you were trying to tell everyone the body “absorbs” calories. And then trying to debate where did the “missing” calories go if they were not used as energy.

You managed to turn a human into a car. Petrol in, petrol burnt, apparently. You failed to provide any links to your hypothesis and ended up with you just getting angry with your keyboard.

No harm done. I didn't lose any sleep over it.

 

[TheSpud]

Well, you were trying to tell everyone the body “absorbs” calories. And then trying to debate where did the “missing” calories go if they were not used as energy.

You managed to turn a human into a car. Petrol in, petrol burnt, apparently. You failed to provide any links to your hypothesis and ended up with you just getting angry with your keyboard.

No harm done. I didn't lose any sleep over it.

Untruths, deflections, baseless accusations, and failure to answer the questions asked. Yep - its a Hog post.

 

[thehog]

Just post those links, woudlya?

.

 

[Tapeworm]

Well, you were trying to tell everyone the body “absorbs” calories. And then trying to debate where did the “missing” calories go if they were not used as energy.

You managed to turn a human into a car. Petrol in, petrol burnt, apparently. You failed to provide any links to your hypothesis and ended up with you just getting angry with your keyboard...

Like a car the precise amount of fuel burnt varies for a variety of reasons, some known, some unknown, some being explored. But we can get very good estimations of both the energy we put in, the energy we absorb and the energy we put out.

Some various studies about Basal Metabolic Rate and various energy demands in the humans:-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16277816
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8641250
http://journals.cambridge.org/downl...94a.pdf&code=0e1167ef2954018fb810d4d41529542f
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000689939290573R
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/57/4/1147.short
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/6679873
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mrm.1910010303/abstract
http://jap.physiology.org/content/75/2/712

Again, whilst to-the-decimal-point measurements of the energy balances are not there (yet, may never be) when estimated input (and utilisation) is lower than estimated output, weight loss occurs. Every time.


The issue confounding the more precise measurements are legion as King Boonen has mentioned. Just do some hard *thinking* and you can up the amount of energy burnt. But as mentioned above despite all the complexity the estimations work well and dietary advice to lose weight is incredibly simple - but can be hard to execute. That's the real issue - compliance, adherence, sustainability.

Still my favourite advice come from Pollan: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

 

[thehog]

Somewhat interesting. A bunch of abstracts. Not much else.

My example of the steak is sound. You poo a lot of steak out (energy out). It takes a lot of work to digest the thing so this whole calories in and calories out business you might as well eat steak and not salad!

I jest of course. But caloires tables are standardised, inserted onto food labels, loosely based on their supposed makeup. Hopelessly inaccurate and have you ever seen what you supposedly have to burn to remove a biscuit? Utter insanity and simply not possible to follow or do for the most part.

Some science and a lot of bunk. Diet Pepsi, 0 calories apparently. And that's the system science wants to follow? Not likely.

The calorie is one such measure. Its initial purpose was to inventory the food supplies and appetites of whole populations, but it grew instead into a measure of inspanidual self-control. Along the way it altered the logic of international affairs, placing food at the centre of trade controversies, humanitarian crises, and development schemes.

http://www.historytoday.com/nick-cullather/american-pie-imperialism-calorie#sthash.rWI5FiEO.dpuf

Conserving 20 million bushels for Europe would require the taming of American eating habits. The calorie was indispensable for setting rations, identifying substitutes, and defining patriotic self-control.

One guidebook instructed:

You should know and also use the word calorie as frequently, or more frequently, than you use the words foot, yard, quart, [or] gallon ... Instead of saying one slice of bread, or a piece of pie, you will say 100 calories of bread, 350 calories of pie.

Which when coming back the original argument; calories can never be created equal, that you and I agree with but not others it appears not.

This many times over.

Weight loss = use more calories than you take in.

 

[Tapeworm]

^ I basically just picked a random selection of studies and reviews just to perhaps indicate just how much science has gone in to, and continues to go into quantifying intake and utilisation of food. Follow the associated studies and references of each and you'd be reading the material for days.

But whilst there are issues, perceived or otherwise, with the "calories in vs calorie out" paradigm, the main issue is the same with all board-stroke dietary recommendations: lack of context.

I have the same issue with people promoting a Low Carb High Fat diet, as you rightly pointed out - some could interpret this as Diet Pepsi being a staple drink! Conversely, done right it could help greately with the *estimated* calories in v calories out AND help with satiety, which generally leads to greater compliance.

 

[TheSpud]

Just post those links, woudlya?

.

Well here's one for a start

http://www.weight watchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=20781&sc=801

There is a paragraph at the end

I'm sure i could post many more, and i'm sure you could post many that debunk this.

Now - are you going to answer my questions?

NOTE from sittingbison:
copy the link instead of clicking it. Then remove the space between weight and watchers

cheers
bison

 

[del1962]

Well here's one for a start

http://www.weight watchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=20781&sc=801

There is a paragraph at the end

I'm sure i could post many more, and i'm sure you could post many that debunk this.

Now - are you going to answer my questions?

NOTE from sittingbison:
copy the link instead of clicking it. Then remove the space between weight and watchers

cheers
bison

I had to hit reply to copy the link

Weird that a word which is taboo is embedded in weightwatchers

 

[thehog]

Well here's one for a start

http://www.weight watchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=20781&sc=801

There is a paragraph at the end

I'm sure i could post many more, and i'm sure you could post many that debunk this.

Now - are you going to answer my questions?

NOTE from sittingbison:
copy the link instead of clicking it. Then remove the space between weight and watchers

cheers
bison

If you're going to post a link at least make sure it works. And at least post one from a non-commercial body. Weight Watchers?! You must be kidding me

The recent Harvard Study on diet probably a little better which shows the calorie in / calorie out method is bunk. Appears low carb had much more success.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/

Weight Watchers! LOL! Can't stop laughing

 

[thehog]

^ I basically just picked a random selection of studies and reviews just to perhaps indicate just how much science has gone in to, and continues to go into quantifying intake and utilisation of food. Follow the associated studies and references of each and you'd be reading the material for days.

But whilst there are issues, perceived or otherwise, with the "calories in vs calorie out" paradigm, the main issue is the same with all board-stroke dietary recommendations: lack of context.

I have the same issue with people promoting a Low Carb High Fat diet, as you rightly pointed out - some could interpret this as Diet Pepsi being a staple drink! Conversely, done right it could help greately with the *estimated* calories in v calories out AND help with satiety, which generally leads to greater compliance.

Agreed, 100%.

I think the science is sound, unfortunately it has been hijacked by the diet industry. And like you say it applies across the board for many "diets", sadly.

I don't have a particular problem wth calories in / calories out on a scientific level but do have a huge problem with it's over simplification and application as weight loss.

I feel for a lot of people who tried eating Lean Cusine thinking by cutting 300 calories it would make the required difference. Hence back to the OP who was trying to lose weight, they might feel hopelessly frustrated by the method.

 

[sciguy]

The recent Harvard Study on diet probably a little better which shows the calorie in / calorie out method is bunk. Appears low carb had much more success.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/low-carbohydrate-diets/

While it's a nice informative article, please sight something within the Harvard Nutrition study that debunks calories in vs calories out. You seem to just be making stuff up.

Tapeworm has an excellent handle on the topic.

Hugh

 

[thehog]

While it's a nice informative article, please sight something within the Harvard Nutrition study that debunks calories in vs calories out. You seem to just be making stuff up.

Tapeworm has an excellent handle on the topic.

Hugh

He does have an excellent handle on it from a scientific point of view.

From a application real world point of view, Tapeworm agrees with me. The example of Diet Pepsi at 0 calories proves this point. Modified food to reduce caloric values at the expense of nutrition is the problem.

Then add in the hormonal and emotional aspects of the human body and the equation is well and truly over simplified.

Or are you here to tell us Diet Pepsi is healthy and part of a calorie controlled diet?

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

...Still my favourite advice come from Pollan: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

Plants are not food. Plants are what food eats.

 

[ebandit]

stuck

Plants are not food. Plants are what food eats.

stuck on a desert island with no flesh to consume...............imagine? how tasty those plants would look

stuck? hoping that supplements will help one lose weight rather than eating less.............where there are such supplements what are the dangers?

stuck? like posting BS and thinking others are angry for pointing out that
everything is not always so clear cut

Mark L

 

[thehog]

stuck on a desert island with no flesh to consume...............imagine? how tasty those plants would look

stuck? hoping that supplements will help one lose weight rather than eating less.............where there are such supplements what are the dangers?

stuck? like posting BS and thinking others are angry for pointing out that
everything is not always so clear cut

Mark L

You mean stuck like saying "calories in / calories" is the only metric?

That is stuck. Pointing that out is not BS, that's perspective.

There's still no verifiable proof that eating "less" leads to weight loss. The question you need to ask is "less of what?"

 

[ebandit]

given

There's still no verifiable proof that eating "less" leads to weight loss. The question you need to ask is "less of what?"

while the exact weight loss / gain may vary between individuals underfeeding

creates weight loss / overfeeding creates weight gain .............can that really

be contested?

Mark L

 

[thehog]

while the exact weight loss / gain may vary between individuals underfeeding

creates weight loss / overfeeding creates weight gain .............can that really

be contested?

Mark L

Of course it can be contested.

Define overfeeding? Define underfeeding?

Once you define those two elements you might understand that it's not as simple as first thought.

 

[ebandit]

vortex

Of course it can be contested.

Define overfeeding? Define underfeeding?

Once you define those two elements you might understand that it's not as simple as first thought.

cue a vortex............................goodnight!

Mark L

 

[thehog]

cue a vortex.goodnight!

Mark L

Good idea, you dipped a toe in the water and you're not really capable of a philosophical discussion. Stick to the regular run of the mill threads.

 

[TheSpud]

cue a vortex............................goodnight!

Mark L

I'm out too, but only because I have lost the will to carry on with the thread. I'm all for nice reasoned debate, but nitpicking, twisting, taking things out of context, making things up, and not actually addressing the points isnt my idea of debate. Its just pure simple trolling.

 

[thehog]

I'm out too, but only because I have lost the will to carry on with the thread. I'm all for nice reasoned debate, but nitpicking, twisting, taking things out of context, making things up, and not actually addressing the points isnt my idea of debate. Its just pure simple trolling.

That's dumb. You provided one link from weight watchers. You told the OP its calories in / calories out and it was simple as that.

It's ok to bow out but at least be honest for the reasons why. You have very little to back up your assertions. It got compex and you double tracked.

No big deal. Just be a little more clear on your statements and position.

 

[TheSpud]

That's dumb. You provided one link from weight watchers. You told the OP its calories in / calories out and it was simple as that.

It's ok to bow out but at least be honest for the reasons why. You have very little to back up your assertions. It got compex and you double tracked.

No big deal. Just be a little more clear on your statements and position.

I have been honest why i have backed out. You seem to want to portray it as something else. No surprise really. Thats what you seem to do with all debates you cant win - nitpick and twist bit dont actually respond to the questions or argument.

Now - i have posted a link. You may not agree with it, and thats your prerogative, but when are you going to answer my questions? You seem to have asked many times for me to do this that and the other but I dont seem to see you doing the same with the basic questions asked of you. Why is that?

 

[ebandit]

but spud

but spud there you are thinking that this is a logical discussion

but as hoggy states this is a philosophical discussion.................

you feel that goalposts are being moved when in truth there are

no goalposts

Mark L

 

[thehog]

I have been honest why i have backed out. You seem to want to portray it as something else. No surprise really. Thats what you seem to do with all debates you cant win - nitpick and twist bit dont actually respond to the questions or argument.

Now - i have posted a link. You may not agree with it, and thats your prerogative, but when are you going to answer my questions? You seem to have asked many times for me to do this that and the other but I dont seem to see you doing the same with the basic questions asked of you. Why is that?

Spud. It's a discussion. Not a Spud asks questions and gets his specific responses. That's silly. That's not discussion. That's a closed conversation. You know that. You stated very early on your calories premise. It's been clearly debunked as much more complex and you lost track. Drop out as you stated. Fine. But don't pretend I'm trolling. Low carb or more to the point a non calorie controlled diet is not trolling. It's very normal, you know that. To suggest otherwise would be actual trolling.

So, tell us more about Weight Watchers?