All Forums | Food & Fitness

Calories

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 3598
Posts: 58
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2007
Posts: 10502
Posted: #26
Quote Originally Posted by Asomugha:

Tell me, what would a normal person gain in weight by eating 2000 calories from vegetables or 2000 calories from ice cream? I know for a fact that there is no difference (because i have studied this for years now) when it comes to WEIGHT LOSS.

But you probably cant tell because you are just a randon-i-dont-know-shit about diet like everyone else, maybe you heard something from your father, or a stupid cherry picking study, but you havent STUDIED diet like i do every day. I read about diet like 2 hours a day, every day. You probably havent spent more than 5 minutes reading a random article and then based your oppinion.

You will be surprised on how the body works some day, trust me. Eventually you wont because u dont give a fuck.



No one can tell this guy anything because he knows for a fact that the earth is flat. 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2011
Posts: 6622
Posted: #27
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 71023
Posted: #28
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 71023
Posted: #29

I think lilly might be saying that ya might lack the aptitude to guage your metabolism, water levels, strength and blood circulation - etc.

Takes time and ya won't find a whole lot in a book or magazine. 

The food you eat should gather a noted response pre an post workout.  But I'm new to all of this workout stuff.

 
Covers Rehab
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2006
Posts: 6511
Posted: #30

Asomugha. You claim to study diet every day. You still come off as a dumb ass.

Healthy foods make you feel full. Unhealthy foods do not. Your little example with ice cream and veggies is meaningless.

You could eat the veggies and feel full. You couldn't with the ice cream, you'd undoubtedly crave something else. It is not realistic.

You are neglecting the fact that healthy foods can appease the appetite, while the unhealthy choices will fail to do so, making one go over and above the minimum calorie intake put forth.

Oh but you study diet every day............

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2011
Posts: 6622
Posted: #31
slikstiks99 - Did you even read all my posts? I already said that, which is why vegetables are MUCH better to eat over ice cream still! My point was just that, there is no difference between 1000 calories from icecream or 1000 calories from vegetables WHEN IT COMES TO LOSING WEIGHT, its the same output, this means that if a little boy ONLY gets 1000 calories of icecream a day, and another boy gets 1000 calories of vegetables/meat/oats a day they will still gain / lose the same amount of weight (considering they have the same metabolism). But of course, after u have eaten 1000 calories of ice cream u will probably still be hungry, and this boy may then eat 3000 calories of them instead which is why it is bad, and there are also many health benefits for eating meat/oats/veggies over ice cream so i DID NOT say that its better to ice cream, because its not, its actually very stupid. My whole point was just that; No difference on the weight output on 1000 calories of Icecream vs. 1000 calories of vegetables.
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 15433
Posted: #32
good morning, liar

why are you still lying?



My point was just that, there is no difference between 1000 calories from icecream or 1000 calories from vegetables WHEN IT COMES TO LOSING WEIGHT, its the same output, this means that if a little boy ONLY gets 1000 calories of icecream a day, and another boy gets 1000 calories of vegetables/meat/oats a day they will still gain / lose the same amount of weight
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2011
Posts: 6622
Posted: #33
Yeah, thats right.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2011
Posts: 13782
Posted: #34
Quote Originally Posted by slikstiks99:

Asomugha. You claim to study diet every day. You still come off as a dumb ass.

Healthy foods make you feel full. Unhealthy foods do not. Your little example with ice cream and veggies is meaningless.

You could eat the veggies and feel full. You couldn't with the ice cream, you'd undoubtedly crave something else. It is not realistic.

You are neglecting the fact that healthy foods can appease the appetite, while the unhealthy choices will fail to do so, making one go over and above the minimum calorie intake put forth.

Oh but you study diet every day............





Low GI foods, which cause your blood sugar levels to rise and fall slowly over time,  help you feel fuller for longer.

not all foods with a low GI are healthy




GI for those that do not know

= Glycemic Index

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2011
Posts: 6622
Posted: #35
Thats right BMA, most Low GI foods are however more likely to be healthy, but you can also find high GI foods that are healthy like Oats. Oats are still complex carbs and slow absorbing carbs with lots of nutritional benefits. So yeah, its good to use the GI to see if a certain food is good to eat or not, so it can be used as a guideline, it is however not an exact answer. You cant see by looking at the GI what will happen to your blood sugar if u mix too things up, like sauce and rice, this way some foods may raise your blood sugar even tho they are low on the GI.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2011
Posts: 13782
Posted: #36
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

asomugha, i think the issue is your taking an extreme position.  your body is much more complicated than that.

 we aren't saying that calories don't matter.  yes, if you eat something, it's going to get used or stored.  yes, you can gain weight eating the best calories if you consume more than you need, which is not easy to do with good calories.  but yes, 1000 bad calories does not equal 1000 good calories whether we are talking about health, hormonal response, metabolism, biology, or weight gain.  your body does not react the same to different nutrients just because we've assigned the same unit of measurement to them, i.e. the calorie.

this guy is saying what we are saying, although he does it better than i am:

Gary Taubes never said calories do not matter. The point is using calories in/out to "explain" weight gain is a tautology. Acknowledging this does not invalidate the First Law of Thermodynamics. It is an attempt to shift ones focus on the hormonal impacts of macronutrient consumption. The focus on gluttony/sloth - eat less/move more - has not yielded any consistent long term results since you are fighting your natural set point. By adjusting the macronutrient composition and more importantly, avoid Neolithic Agents of Diseases - you can shift the hormonal response in your favor

We did not evolve with bomb calorimeters and so counting calories is futile and doesn't work. It's not that calories don't matter, but what is actionable by using a tautology to improve oneself...nothing.

This was the point of Taubes as I have understood it.


i would add that artificial calorie counting and calorie deprivation screws up yopur metabolism which will ultimately result in a negative weight gain reaction. 








Gary Taubes

Born in Rochester, New York, Taubes

 studied
applied physics at Harvard University and aerospace engineering at Stanford University (MS, 1978).


After receiving a master's degree in journalism at Columbia University in 1981,

 Taubes joined Discover magazine as a staff reporter in 1982.


 Since then he has written numerous articles for Discover, Science and other magazines. Originally focusing on physics issues,


 his interests have more recently turned to medicine and nutrition.

Taubes's books have all dealt with scientific controversies.


Nobel Dreams takes a critical look at the politics and experimental techniques behind the Nobel Prize-winning work of physicist Carlo Rubbia.

 Bad Science is a chronicle of the short-lived media frenzy surrounding the Pons-Fleischmann cold fusion experiments of 1989.





 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2011
Posts: 13782
Posted: #37
Quote Originally Posted by Asomugha:

Thats right BMA, most Low GI foods are however more likely to be healthy, but you can also find high GI foods that are healthy like Oats. Oats are still complex carbs and slow absorbing carbs with lots of nutritional benefits. So yeah, its good to use the GI to see if a certain food is good to eat or not, so it can be used as a guideline, it is however not an exact answer. You cant see by looking at the GI what will happen to your blood sugar if u mix too things up, like sauce and rice, this way some foods may raise your blood sugar even tho they are low on the GI.



I agree with all what you have said in your posts

You exhibit the subject knowledge and understanding as would be shown by a health professional.

Some read books that are out there by controversial authors and unproven statements that have no clinical evidence base.

Yet lack the basic understanding of calories.

If people can't even grasp the significance of the daily calorie intake, then how can they understand anything about nutritional quality or about, Fats,Proteins, Carbohydrates, Vitamins, Fiber.

To achieve weight loss you have to eat less calories and use more  calories.

Evidence shows that the best way to lose weight is to make long-term changes to diet and physical activity


.

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #38
i think the problem is that you two don't understand what we are saying.  we are not saying calories are meaningless.  and we are not saying that calories consumed vs. calories burned don;'t have some effect on weight.  if you ate two doughnnuts a day for a month and burned 1500 calories each day, you're going to lose weight. 

what we are saying is the calroies in vs. calories burned equation is oversimplistic, ignores many of your bodily functions and is not a healthy or effective way to go about a long term eating strategy whether you are trying to be healthy, lose weight or maintain weight. 

i'm not going to repeat why we think you guys are not so much wrong, although you are, but more just way outside of where you need to be to understand the issue.  you guys are doing simple subtraction when the issue requires calculus. 

but i think you two ultimjately answer be easy's initial question.  calories and cholksterol numbers are considered important because they oversimplify the issue making it easy for anyone to think they understand, and making success easy to allegedly prove, which at the end of the day, makes bullshit and bullshit products easier to sell, i.e. your cholesterol is x, take these pills and it will be y. 
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 15433
Posted: #39
well look what we have here, a convention of liars

welcome to the discussion, BMA the liar

I guess i need to be more specific, in that when i'm talking about weight loss, it is in reference to FAT loss. I guess you can pat eachother on the back after advising someone who'd like to lose weight, to have a limb amputated, a lobotomy, or a breast reduction

Your body does not store fat based on a surplus of calories, so it is silly to assume that causing a deficiency in caloric intake will result in FAT loss. Fat storage is regulated by hormones (insulin), via the pancreas secreting insulin as a feedback response to the liver flooding the body with glucagon.

I understand that you were instructed to think otherwise, but (wether or not this was intentional misinformation) it is misinformation. Obese people (in general) suffer from insulin sensitivity, where the feedback system breaks down from consuming complex carbs/sugars over time, and the body turns to storing more and more fat. To reverse this breakdown of our human bodys system, the solution is to disregard how many calories one takes in, and rather focus on something tangible that actually effects fat storage, and that is carbohydrates/sugar
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 15433
Posted: #40
I'm not sure what post #36 was supposed to infer, but if the two liars are as well studied on all angles of this subject matter, what do you have to say of the early 20th century works of the dentist Weston Price and his famed work Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, where he scientifically linked the Western Diet and more specifically increased carbohydrate/sugar intake to most all of our collective modern health issues?

Weston Andrew Valleau Price[1] (September 6, 1870 – January 23, 1948) was a dentist known primarily for his theories on the relationship between nutrition, dental health, and physical health. He founded the research institute of the National Dental Association, which later became the research section of the American Dental Association, and served as its chair from 1914–1928.[2][3][4]

Price initially did dental research on the relationship between endodontic therapy and pulpless teeth and broader systemic disease, known as focal infection theory, a theory which resulted in many extractions of tonsils and teeth.[5] Focal infection theory fell out of favor in the 1930s and was pushed to the margins of dentistry by the 1950s.[6]

By 1930, Price had shifted his interest to nutrition. In 1939, he published Nutrition and Physical Degeneration,[7] detailing his global travels studying the diets and nutrition of various cultures. The book concludes that aspects of a modern Western diet (particularly flour, sugar, and modern processed vegetable fats) cause nutritional deficiencies that are a cause of many dental issues and health problems. The dental issues he observed include the proper development of the facial structure (to avoid overcrowding of the teeth) in addition to dental caries. This work received mixed reviews, and continues to be cited today by proponents of many different theories, including controversial dentistry and nutritional theories.


 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 15433
Posted: #41
The problem with the for profit 'professionals' in these fields is, that they can only offer up so much good information to their own detriment, until the curtain is all the way pulled back and they've rendered themselves less useful

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his paycheck is dependent on his not understanding it"
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2011
Posts: 13782
Posted: #42
Quote Originally Posted by be easy:

well look what we have here, a convention of liars

welcome to the discussion, BMA the liar

I guess i need to be more specific, in that when i'm talking about weight loss, it is in reference to FAT loss. I guess you can pat eachother on the back after advising someone who'd like to lose weight, to have a limb amputated, a lobotomy, or a breast reduction

Your body does not store fat based on a surplus of calories, so it is silly to assume that causing a deficiency in caloric intake will result in FAT loss. Fat storage is regulated by hormones (insulin), via the pancreas secreting insulin as a feedback response to the liver flooding the body with glucagon.

I understand that you were instructed to think otherwise, but (wether or not this was intentional misinformation) it is misinformation. Obese people (in general) suffer from insulin sensitivity, where the feedback system breaks down from consuming complex carbs/sugars over time, and the body turns to storing more and more fat. To reverse this breakdown of our human bodys system, the solution is to disregard how many calories one takes in, and rather focus on something tangible that actually effects fat storage, and that is carbohydrates/sugar


Obesity is when a person is carrying too much body fat for their height and sex.

A person is considered obese if they have a body mass index (BMI) of 30.

Today’s way of life is less physically active than it used to be.

So  calories  eaten are not getting burnt off as energy. Instead, the extra calories are stored as fat.


Without lifestyle changes to increase the amount of physical activity done on a daily basis, or reduce the amount of calories consumed, people can become obese.


 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2011
Posts: 13782
Posted: #43
Quote Originally Posted by be easy:

well look what we have here, a convention of liars

welcome to the discussion, BMA the liar

I guess i need to be more specific, in that when i'm talking about weight loss, it is in reference to FAT loss. I guess you can pat eachother on the back after advising someone who'd like to lose weight, to have a limb amputated, a lobotomy, or a breast reduction

Your body does not store fat based on a surplus of calories, so it is silly to assume that causing a deficiency in caloric intake will result in FAT loss. Fat storage is regulated by hormones (insulin), via the pancreas secreting insulin as a feedback response to the liver flooding the body with glucagon.

I understand that you were instructed to think otherwise, but (wether or not this was intentional misinformation) it is misinformation. Obese people (in general) suffer from insulin sensitivity, where the feedback system breaks down from consuming complex carbs/sugars over time, and the body turns to storing more and more fat. To reverse this breakdown of our human bodys system, the solution is to disregard how many calories one takes in, and rather focus on something tangible that actually effects fat storage, and that is carbohydrates/sugar


Obesity is treated by losing weight,

 which can be achieved through a healthy, calorie-controlled diet and increased exercise.

 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2011
Posts: 13782
Posted: #44
Quote Originally Posted by be easy:

well look what we have here, a convention of liars

welcome to the discussion, BMA the liar

I guess i need to be more specific, in that when i'm talking about weight loss, it is in reference to FAT loss. I guess you can pat eachother on the back after advising someone who'd like to lose weight, to have a limb amputated, a lobotomy, or a breast reduction

Your body does not store fat based on a surplus of calories, so it is silly to assume that causing a deficiency in caloric intake will result in FAT loss. Fat storage is regulated by hormones (insulin), via the pancreas secreting insulin as a feedback response to the liver flooding the body with glucagon.

I understand that you were instructed to think otherwise, but (wether or not this was intentional misinformation) it is misinformation. Obese people (in general) suffer from insulin sensitivity, where the feedback system breaks down from consuming complex carbs/sugars over time, and the body turns to storing more and more fat. To reverse this breakdown of our human bodys system, the solution is to disregard how many calories one takes in, and rather focus on something tangible that actually effects fat storage, and that is carbohydrates/sugar



Weight gain occurs when we regularly put more energy into our bodies than we use. Over time, that excess energy is stored by the body as fat.

Knowing the calorie content of foods can be a useful tool when it comes to achieving or maintaining a healthy weight.


 It can help us to keep track of the amount of energy we are eating and drinking, and ensure we're not consuming too much.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #45
that's a good analogy.  there are ways of understanding weight loss that are completely off the mark and show a complete misunderstanding of how your body works- amputate an arm, have one of those colonics that flush out all the buildup in your colon, put on a rubber suit and go run in the 95 degree weather and take those pills that make you lose your water weight and finally, burn more calories than you take in without distinguishing between good calories and what bad calories do to your system.  all of those are ways to lose weight in the short term (none of them healthy or sustainable) and all of them are misguided ways of approaching the issue.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2011
Posts: 13782
Posted: #46
post #40

the link between nutritional  and disease is well known. Period.

Just a few here

Scurvy
Rickets
Iron Deficiency Anemia
Vitamin B12 deficiency anemia
Coeliac Disease (Gluten Enteropathy)

Obesity as a risk for Cardiovascular Disease, Type2 diabetes Hypertension

Did Mr Price document the relationship between dental health and smoking, or the relationship between dental health and dental hygiene, or the role of genetics in dental health.
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2011
Posts: 13782
Posted: #47
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

that's a good analogy.  there are ways of understanding weight loss that are completely off the mark and show a complete misunderstanding of how your body works- amputate an arm, have one of those colonics that flush out all the buildup in your colon, put on a rubber suit and go run in the 95 degree weather and take those pills that make you lose your water weight and finally, burn more calories than you take in without distinguishing between good calories and what bad calories do to your system.  all of those are ways to lose weight in the short term (none of them healthy or sustainable) and all of them are misguided ways of approaching the issue.



repeat post #43

Obesity is treated by losing weight,

 which can be achieved through a healthy, calorie-controlled diet and increased exercise.




 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #48

 It can help us to keep track of the amount of energy we are eating and drinking

yes, calories are helpful for that as calories are merely a unit of measurement of energy producing potential from food.  and if you stopped there, i think we'd all agree.  but you take that definition and apply to everything involving weight loss to try to oversimplify a compelx issue. 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2011
Posts: 13782
Posted: #49
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:

that's a good analogy.  there are ways of understanding weight loss that are completely off the mark and show a complete misunderstanding of how your body works- amputate an arm, have one of those colonics that flush out all the buildup in your colon, put on a rubber suit and go run in the 95 degree weather and take those pills that make you lose your water weight and finally, burn more calories than you take in without distinguishing between good calories and what bad calories do to your system.  all of those are ways to lose weight in the short term (none of them healthy or sustainable) and all of them are misguided ways of approaching the issue.



Lets make it crystal clear.

Its not Astro Physics


A healthy, balanced diet is an ESSENTIAL part of maintaining good health.

simple


    Eat the right number of calories for how active you are, so that you balance the energy you consume with the energy you use. If you eat or drink too much, you’ll put on weight. If you eat too little you’ll lose weight.


    Eat a wide range of foods to ensure that you’re getting a balanced diet and that your body is receiving all the nutrients it needs.


Hard to put it any simpler.



 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2011
Posts: 13782
Posted: #50
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:


 It can help us to keep track of the amount of energy we are eating and drinking

yes, calories are helpful for that as calories are merely a unit of measurement of energy producing potential from food.  and if you stopped there, i think we'd all agree.  but you take that definition and apply to everything involving weight loss to try to oversimplify a compelx issue. 



Calories are a significant unit ..

That's why they are included on food packaging.


Tips

Base your meals on starchy foods
   
Eat lots of fruit and veg
   
Eat more fish
   
Cut down on saturated fat and sugar
   
Eat less salt
   
Get active and be a healthy weight
   
Don't get thirsty
   
Don’t skip breakfast


All Forums | Food & Fitness
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2024 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.