How would you explain someone who has never once taken a STEM class on weight gain, type of food, and what actually makes a person fat?
When you are eating then youre eating something called calories.
When youre moving youre burning these calories.
When you burn more calories than you eat you lose weight, when you burn less you gain weight.
Unfortunately this topic is "political" and a lot of people don't like to accept that it's as well determined as the rest of physics.
If they want to believe you can zeroth order it as food is energy and extra energy is stored as fat.
>waht promotes fat gain
that list is shit. eating fat-heavy foods is actually better for weightloss than the high-carb memes of the 80's/90's. Fat is much more satiating than carbs, with carbs you eat until you are full, then get hungry again shortly thereafter, causing you to eat more carbs, thinking it's okay because your shit is all 'low fat', and then it spikes your blood sugar and all this shit.
eat high protein (most important thing), hight fat, medium complex carb, low sugar/starch diet.
As a /sci/entist and a /fit/izen, let me just tell you now that this whole field is ridiculous.
Ridiculous in numerous ways. It, simultaneously, has endless amounts of quackery and hard research poured into it. The reason for this dichotomy is because any results mean money for some company that comes up with the newest "lose weight while doing literally nothing vegetating on your bed" process.
So we have this split between people that know nothing of science spouting how you lose weight, and scientists giving other reasons. This happens in all science fields and isn't a big deal -- just listen to the scientists.
Problems arise in this field because not even the fucking scientists can agree on things. The intricacies of a human metabolism are currently beyond us, and that's okay to admit -- it's just that very few people admit that.
So, instead, we have scientists and idiots, all getting differing data and procedures that are supposed to answer why you're fat and what makes you fat. You can find contradictory studies for literally every statistic and "fact" that you want.
All except for one:
>Calories in/calories out
If you want to talk to someone about dieting, just give them that and walk away. Getting into the detail of everything else (are there different "types of calories"/meal timing/ketosis/supplements/starvation mode) is only a headache and not 100% guaranteed.
Calories in/calories out is the only thing you can be certain of.
Also -- I should have said this in my post above -- for evidence that we don't know shit beyond "calories in/calories out", this thread and everyone that posts in it can be used as "exhibit 1".
Certain types of foods, like those deficient in essential nutrients, rich in saturated fats and/or refined sugars, can reduce your TDEE by causing metabolic stress so they're typically considered "fattening".
Carbohydrates will not provide satiety if you're insulin resistant. That comes primarily from eating a diet rich in fat or refined carbs. Too much protein can induce it as well, from the stress of gluconeogenesis. Nobody is getting fat eating sweet potatoes and boiled barley.
>eating energy dense food
lower food volume packed with more calories -> people tend to over eat
Most energy dense food contain high fat.
> eating fat-heavy foods is actually better for weightloss than the high-carb memes
Generally you want to consume a lot of carbs whenever you ingest protein. This will lower sympathetic tone, cortisol, and the glucagon:insulin ratio favoring protein synthesis over breakdown. In the long term this anabolic signaling will downregulate the Cahill cycle, reducing substrate competition between amino acids and glucose in favor of the latter.
Nope its not the amount of calories is what kind. Refined carbs and sugar is what makes gain weight. White beard and white rice, and refined pasta is a killer to your gut. Most Americans are being slowly killed off by their love of refined carbs and sugar.
Dietetics is a regulated field like the MD profession. You're thinking of nutritionists. Food science is the creation of foods and the chemical by products. Also have you read anything from the sugar science at UCSF?
How is 2000kcal from sugar different to 2000kcal from broccoli? (Not considering the micronitrients and obviously how the body handles different macros differently). But energy = energy?
2000 kcal of sugar will make you hungry after a few hours. 2000kcal of broccoils will leave you full for about a day. Like I said before refined sugar is worse than table sugar. 2000 kcal of refined sugar will make you eat more because your body increased insulin production and the excess sugar is converted to fat. This is why counting calories is flawed and not agreed upon by science. The big problems are refined carbs and sugar. Cutting those marcos will lead to a huge weight loss. Whole carbs and table sugar is filled with fibers which soften the blow to your stomach and pancreas. This is why some people say watch oyur marcos not your calories. 420 calories of brown steamed rice is better than 300 calories of white steamed rice.
Generally speaking, fat is the body's way of storing excess energy. We measure the chemical energy of food in Calories.
If you take in more calories than you use that day, the excess becomes fat. However, this simple statement hides a, lot of biological complexity - for instance, the type of food you eat can affect how hungry you are, which in turn has an effect on how many calories you take in. And there are several different kinds of energy-dense chemicals that the body can use - sugars of various kinds, more complex carbohydrates, fats, proteins - and the body doesn't always burn them with the same efficiency or under the same circumstances.
The biochemistry of metabolism - how your body processes food and energy - is extremely complex and rather varied, and right now the science of food and diet is undergoing a bit of a revolution due to new and more detailed studies.
So right now it's a little hard to give precise recommendations. Generally speaking, though, you want to avoid sugary foods and moderate the amount of food you eat, and try to exercise. And you probably shouldn't eat foods with lots of both fat and carbohydrates at the same time, although there's a good bit of controversy over which of those two exactly you should avoid in what circumstances. You can't go wrong with vegetables.
Can anyone spot the contradiction here?
>But such theories have been generally ignored, perhaps because they challenge entrenched cultural attitudes. The popular emphasis on calorie balance reinforces the belief that we have conscious control over our weight, and that obesity represents a personal failure because of ignorance or inadequate willpower.
>UNFORTUNATELY, existing research cannot provide a definitive test of our hypothesis. Several prominent clinical trials reported no difference in weight loss when comparing diets purportedly differing in protein, carbohydrate and fat. However, these trials had major limitations; at the end, subjects reported that they had not met the targets for complying with the prescribed diets. We wouldn’t discard a potentially lifesaving cancer treatment based on negative findings, if the research subjects didn’t take the drug as intended.
So first he says that his model is ignored because people believe that being fat is about the willpower to control the amount eaten. But then he says that research that proves him wrong fails because... people lack the willpower to control the amount eaten.
>White beard and white rice, and refined pasta is a killer to your gut.
Yeah... just look at all those fat Italians and fat Japanese...
Nutritional "science" is an utter wash. The only things that you can be sure of is that no one knows anything, and that someone who says the amount of calories doesn't matter is an idiot.