Calories - A myth?

Its just a good way to get an idea of how your body responds to amounts of food.

Eating less to lose weight works. If it doesn't, then eat even less.
Same for gaining weight by eating more.

The ACTUAL scientifically accurate amount of calories in foods is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the units are consistent enough to base your decisions on your results versus the number of calories you have counted.

Basically, calorie counting works regardless of if the calorie content and utilization in the body is actually accurate to what the package says.

>>41072856
>calorie counting works regardless of if the calorie content and utilization in the body is actually accurate to what the package says.

It never worked for me. Then I started a keto diet and now I definitely know when "enough is enough". Before I'd try to follow some rule and end up eating a box of triscuits. Now I can eat 1x a day with 6 eggs, 6 pieces of bacon, and 1/2 - 3/4ths gallon of milk without being anxious about wanting to eat some stupid thing.

>>41072830
>The argument, I've read, is that calorie measurement is far removed from the actual metabolic systems our body uses to breakdown stuff.
That argument is wrong. The calorie measurement is based exactly and exclusively on human physiology, with some simplifications (for example, fiber is counted as 2 calories/gram, even though some fibers are 0, others more)

>So there's a world of difference between 2000-3000 "calories" of meat and protein and 2000-3000 "calories" of starch and sugar.
Yes, the meat will probably give you heart disease, cancer or diabetes in the long term. The energy content is identical, however protein has a higher thermic effect than carbohydrates.

>>41072881
>It never worked for me.
>Before I'd try to follow some rule and end up eating a box of triscuits.
What a mystery

>Now I can eat 1x a day with 6 eggs, 6 pieces of bacon, and 1/2 - 3/4ths gallon of milk
Enjoy your heart attack

>>41072924

What about mixing (intermittent) fasting and a keto diet?

And everything I read about calories involves measuring against an abstraction (joules) as opposed to being derived from biological systems. I don't think you're right in suggesting that the calorie represents anything more than measurements from a burner.

>>41073079
You're responding to a vegan so gl getting any nonbiased info

>>41073079

Not to mention I've lowered my cholesterol, LDL, and blood pressure after adopting a meat/fat diet. I don't see myself dying anytime soon.

Please stop and leave forever. Go to tumblr for some fat acceptance if you need it.

>>41072924
Why does meat give you heart disease

>>41073119

But I've lost weight and packed on muscle. I don't see why you have to resort to insults.

I eat and I'm satiated in a way that I never experienced binging on carbs.

>>41072830
>The argument, I've read, is that calorie measurement is far removed from the actual metabolic systems our body uses to breakdown stuff.

And that would be outright wrong. This is science, not intuition.

>I'm starting to think calorie counting is worthless beyond reckoning because it fails to take into account the different ways the body reacts to different nutrients.

Feel free to think whatever absurd witchcraft you want, just keep it away from here.

>>41073079
keto is bad for you I think. on the long term.

>>41072924
Wait, how does meat give diabetes. Not trying to be an asshole im just curious

>>41073144

Can you explain to me? Everything I've read on calories makes an assumption that chemistry equipment can model various metabolic reactions by merely using a caloriemeter.

>>41073149
just abandon thread

>>41073163
>Can you explain to me?

Sure, I started by enrolling in a program called "Exercise Science" and then I took four years of college involving hard courses like organic chemistry.

tl;dr we didn't arrive at the numbers by guessing and I can't explain so much to you.

>>41073134
You are not satiated from and binge on lentils and blueberries?

>>41073168
My knowledge about nutrition is as scarce as food in Africa. I just want to know.

I really hate these threads. They always feel like perpetual motion conspiracy threads. http://www.strongerbyscience.com/training-diet-simple-body-complex/

>>41073181
I'm just working from previous experience. Like noticing that keto diets make starches "bland" until you stop keto.

>... Lentils

That's one of my favorite soups. Thank you for reminding me. Haven't had a bowl in years

>>41072881
>Before I'd try to follow some rule and end up eating a box of triscuits.

So it has nothing to do with the current understanding of calories in vs calories out, you just lack willpower?

>>41073079
>What about mixing (intermittent) fasting and a keto diet?
What about it? It's meme overload, memes squared

>And everything I read about calories involves measuring against an abstraction (joules) as opposed to being derived from biological systems.
Then you haven't read enough. It's called Atwater factors.

But you are right that there are some necessary simplifications. For example when glucose is converted to fat (which almost never happens by the way), it requires 25% of the energy. So in that scenario, carbs only provide 3 calories per gram.

>>41073113
You've probably lost weight and upped your vegetable intake. That's nice. But you haven't looked at your arteries, and most Westerners have damaged and clogged arteries before they're 20 due to all the saturated fat and other trash they're eating, regardless of body weight.

>>41073134
>I eat and I'm satiated in a way that I never experienced binging on carbs.
You probably binged on high-fat junk food that you failed to identify as being high in fat. Examples include chocolate, cake, pizza, ice cream, cookies, fries. These things are high in fat, not carbohydrates.

>>41073199

Except the dogma about nutrition has suffered problems from study replication and the fact that big snack makers lobbied for increases in bread/wheat servings.

>>41073211
> These things are high in fat, not carbohydrates

What the fuck? They have massive amounts of carbs that get converted to glucose.

>>41073211
>You've probably lost weight and upped your vegetable intake

I eat a vegetable a week. A vegetable. The rest is eggs, bacon, and milk

>>41072881
>Before I'd try to follow some rule and end up eating a box of triscuits
That's not CICO failing, that's you failing to implement it.
Granted, the reason CICO might be challenging for some is likely due to quality of nutrients, but at the end of the day, you simply can't gain weight when you're spending more energy than you're absorbing, whether you're miserable doing it or not. CICO is just one prong, you still need decent nutrition if you want the energy to exercise or generally go about your day without being miserable.

>Now I can eat 1x a day with 6 eggs, 6 pieces of bacon, and 1/2 - 3/4ths gallon of milk
Is that all you're eating? Don't quote me, but that doesn't sound like enough variety to possibly be healthy.

>>41072830
Write whatever the fuck you want about it, fatass, the bottom line is that you fucking eat too much. Don't use this as an excuse.

>"boohooooo the calorie is misunderstoooood!!! you can't predict how much energy you get based on metabolic processes!!!!!!! that's why I'm fat!!!"

Ok well you're still fucking fat so obviously whatever amount of food you are eating is too much, so you should eat less so these "metabolic processes" don't happen as much you goddamn retard.

>>41073266
>Ok well you're still fucking fat so obviously whatever amount of food you are eating is too much, so you should eat less so these "metabolic processes" don't happen as much you goddamn retard.

Well yeah, I have a shit load of fat from my teenage years eating the worst things. But I've cut down to 220 from 270 and BF, ‰ is down to 16 from 28

>>41072830
>So there's a world of difference between 2000-3000 "calories" of meat and protein and 2000-3000 "calories" of starch and sugar.

There is, but one won't magically make you store fat out of thin air. One may lower your energy, to where you're expending significantly less than you normally would, and thus maintain or gain weight rather than losing it, but that's still a matter of calories in/out.

>I'm starting to think calorie counting is worthless beyond reckoning because it fails to take into account the different ways the body reacts to different nutrients.
That doesn't mean calories are worthless. That just means you need to take those other factors into account yourself.
You might as well say TV screens are worthless because they don't take into account how you're supposed to change the channel. That's what the remote is for, and one is useless without the other.

>>41073211
>chocolate, cake, pizza, ice cream, cookies, fries. These things are high in fat, not carbohydrates

Lol. It's been a while since I last saw a post by this retard.

>>41073241
>>41073323
If you're so smart, I'm sure you can calculate the % energy from carbohydrates and fat in these foods and post it here for us, then explain how these foods are high in carbohydrates but not high in fat.

>>41073344

But that's unfair because insulin response to massive amounts of carbs/sugars changes how fat is stored and allocated.

>>41073323
>That doesn't mean calories are worthless.

The point I should've made in the beginning of the thread is that satiation is a far better (and obviously intuitive) solution to eating a lot as opposed to counting calories but still having those bestial like cravings that sabotage you in the end.

>>41072830

No. It would be more accurate to say that your "calories out" is affected by many factors, one of which, ironically, is what kinds of food you eat. In layman's terms, certain foods can slightly increase or decrease your metabolism. But it's important to note that this effect will never be anywhere nearly enough to overcome the caloric value of the food itself. In other words, anything that says "Eat this food to lose weight" is complete bullshit. What you need to eat in order to lose weight must, first and foremost, be "LESS".

>>41072830
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t1JN0RgvO4&index=8&list=WL

>>41073430
>What you need to eat in order to lose weight must, first and foremost, be "LESS".

I understand that. I fucked up by not directing to my real point:

Fats and protein contribute such a high saitation value that it's almost impossible to binge EXCEPT when it's mixed with massive amounts of carbs and sugars.

I eat less because I don't feel the urge to 'eat more" like I do in more carb heavy diets.

>>41073263
>>Before I'd try to follow some rule and end up eating a box of triscuits
>That's not CICO failing, that's you failing to implement it.

Nah. It's just that calorie counting is completely unintuitive to how mankind "traditionally" treated food and their diets.

I eat fine now, not because of some increased moral strength, that the food I eat actually satiates me. I'm done when I finish the meal of the day.

>>41073502
>didn't read a word I said

Fuck you too.

>>41073453
Fat, especially saturated, has consistently lower satiation than carbohydrates. It's the least satiating macronutrient, and the satiation is very delayed (small intestine) which can promote momentary overeating in some people. In combination with fiber, real plant foods always come out on top, which is why lentils and beans provider greater satiation than meat in studies.

You weren't on a "carb heavy diet", you were on a junk food diet (that was most likely low in carbohydrates). There's really no such thing as somebody who got fat on a high carb diet.
Excluding sugar or carbs from your diet removes 99% of junk food.
The same is true for the removal of fat and salt. You know why? Surprise, because the vast majority of junk food is a combination of fat, sugar and salt.

The day will never come when a fat person tells me they got fat eating steamed potatoes, lentils and blueberries. Never ever. It's always "carbs" which are then suddenly pizza, cake, cookies, chips and small portions of pasta in cheese sauce with bacon. That's not what a carbohydrate is.

>>41073524

I read it. It just doesn't gel with my experience. I eat like a king, workout, and get more in shape. Without calorie counting.

Trust me, the feeling of fullness you get after eating a big keto meal is nothing like the fullness of eating some shitty carb/sugar snack.

And regarding nutrition, I supplement with a shitload of different shit anyways. I'm probably still beating at least half of americans when it comes to not eating complete shit.

>>41073163
Hess's Law

>>41073536
>That's not what a carbohydrate is.

Yeah but eggs, milk, and bacon (with some cheese 2x a week) is far more convenient. I've lost weight and had a lot of blood indicators going downward over the past year.

>>41073554

But what reactions are calculated to make up a "calorie"?

I'm suspicious that it represents the sum of all known reactions with enzymes and protein and bile. Hell, what about the reaction with gut microbiota?

>>41073551
>I read it.
Then you didn't comprehend it.

>>41073536
>you were on a junk food diet (that was most likely low in carbohydrates)

Most junk food has a shitload of sugars and carbs. In America.

What country are you from?

>>41073653

That's his point, retard.

>>41073650
>you simply can't gain weight when you're spending more energy than you're absorbing, whether you're miserable doing it or not.

But what's being "absorbed" depends on the type of food and whether you're in a fed state or a fasting state.

Since I've started intermittent fasting, I've been able to lose fat while gaining muscle. From my personal N=1 sample at least. While eating fats and proteins almost exclusively.

I think you fail to realize that "absorbing energy" opens up a whole can of worms about what that actually means in regard to the composition of your body.

>>41073666
>you were on a junk food diet (that was most likely low in carbohydrates).

? ? ?

He's saying I was eating junk food low in carbs. Which is a fucking rarity in America.

How am I retarded for highlighting that?

>>41073699
>But what's being "absorbed" depends on the type of food and whether you're in a fed state or a fasting state.
What's being "absorbed" is completely irrelevant when you're scarfing down a whole box of triscuits, you fucking idiot.

>>41073653
>Most junk food has a shitload of sugars and carbs. In America.
No it is not. Calorie by calorie, most junk food is high in fat, moderately low in carbohydrates, with most carbohydrates present as sugar or refined grains. Junk food is also low in water content and fiber, therefore having a high caloric density.

Junk food such as pastries, donuts, cake, ice cream, chocolate etc. is based on 50/50 mixture of fat and sugar. When you mix fat and sugar 50/50 you end up with a high-fat low-carbohydrate product, with 70% of calories coming from fat. The WHO and most other expert bodies recommend no more than 30% of calories coming from fat.

A subset of junk food exists which is in fact high in carbohydrates, specifically candy made out of pure sugar, and soft drinks of course (if you want to consider drinks as food)

>>41073732

It's relevant because satiation depends on the composition of your food. If you feel no satiation, you're obviously still craving food and probably of the same type.

>>41073607
The point is you do not need to do those because the law is invariant over all systems. With black box modeling all you need is what's going in (via the mouth, nostrils, ...) and what's going out (feces, sweat, ejaculate, ...)

More complex stuff can be done with nutrient partitioning and variable energy expenditure but in humans this stuff is very modest and clinically insignificant aside from protein calories. Somewhat more relevant in others animals like rodents that do torpor, hindgut fermentation, etc.

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-nutr-071811-150705

>>41073746
>with most carbohydrates present as sugar or refined grains

Which messes with insulin levels which messes with the conversion and storage of other nutrients, including fats & protein.

>>41073708

kek mah bad, glancing through and thought he said low quality.

But the point still stands, even if junk food has a lot of carbs that doesn't necessarily make it high carb relative to the amount of fat it has (though I question that claim, since the low fat craze has seen heaps of shitty food replacing their fat with buckets of sugar). And in any case, the possibility that it's high in carbs isn't the problem, the problem is that it's shit. And if you switch from shitty junk carbs to decent carbs you'll likely be golden, thus it's not a 'high carb' problem.

>>41073760
I have no idea what you're trying to say, but you should probably stop talking about insulin before bad things happen.

>>41073747
>It's relevant because satiation depends on the composition of your food.
No. it's. not.
You monumental fucking idiot. I won't repeat myself again.

>>41073775
>And if you switch from shitty junk carbs to decent carbs you'll likely be golden, thus it's not a 'high carb' problem

Yeah but eating fats/meats is far easier (you can't overeat because saitation) to moderate than even "healthy" carbs.

>>41073786

Carbs get converted into glucose which raises insulin levels. Elevated insulin levels signal the body to store fat in fat cells.

>>41073789

Go on a keto diet for two weeks and try eating bread. IT TASTES BLAND.

It has no saitation value. On a normal diet, you just want to eat more instead of getting the same "full signal" from keto.

>>41073790
Here's a news flash for ya: For the great majority of the humans it is very difficult to overeat calories from whole, minimally processed foods, including most animal foods.

The problems begin when you add a shit ton of oil, butter, sugar, salt and even herbs and spices, and when you remove water and fiber from foods by drying, frying, milling etc.

There was never any fat or carb problem. The problem was always junk food and restaurant food which is loaded with concentrated calories and salt which overrides normal satiety mechanisms because it's high-reward high-pleasure food. People aren't sitting at home eating giant bowls of pasta, or meat, or nuts, they're binging on potato chips, cake, restaurant food, ice cream, all of which combined fat, sugar and salt in some way or another to make the food taste too good to stop. Simple. And that combines with the fact that people don't adjust their behavior when they start getting fat because it's socially acceptable and half the population is fat anyway.

>>41073817
>Go on a keto diet for two weeks and try eating bread. IT TASTES BLAND.
>It has no saitation value. On a normal diet, you just want to eat more instead of getting the same "full signal" from keto.

More things that have nothing to do with fucking anything. It's amazing, how are you so fucking lost? None of this is remotely relevant. You're responding to something your imaginary friend said. I have said literally nothing about fucking keto. Scroll up and put on your thinking cap you fucking lunatic.

>>41073830

That's why I recommend keto and IF. Because it's simple and it works.

No moralism about willpower either. You eat 1x a day and you're full for the rest of the day.

>all of which combined fat, sugar and salt in some way or another to make the food taste too good to stop.

It's not even about being "good". It's a stupid reaction where you find yourself fog headed and full from shit that seems almost compulsive.

>>41073790

Try over eating on boiled cabbage. I'll wait.

>>41073844
>Scroll up and put on your thinking cap you fucking lunatic.

Okay, I'm a lunatic for taking actions which reduced my body weight, lowered BP, cholesterol, and LDL. While eating less but being far more satisfied from a meal.

I'm a lunatic. This fucking world.

>>41073854

That's a reason diets fail. Because the food isn't satisfying.

Yeah I could eat boiled cabbage and fucking hang myself. Or I can eat high fat and high protein and never think about food for the rest of the day.

>>41073867
>Okay, I'm a lunatic for taking actions which reduced my body weigh

HOLY SHIT.
No. You fucking moron. You're a lunatic because you're unbelievable incapable of following an extraordinarily simple line of conversation.
What the actual fuck is WRONG with you?

File: cicocicocico.jpg (25KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x500px

There are 3 levels of dietary awareness:

>1. You don't care, you just eat what tastes good and ignore science.

>2. You quote all the popular studies and consider these studies concrete law.

>3. You realize that most of these studies are funded by special interests and you do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

Losing weight is not as simple as counting calories. The body is not that simple, and you are foolish for perpetuating it like its the law.

>muh thermodynamics
>muh twinkie study
>implying this fitness board values intellectual integrity and can think for themselves at all

>>41073889

I pointed out rising insulin levels signaling excess sugar to be converted and stored as fat.

That's one way the composition of your meal matters. I pointed out triscuits because they're high in carbs and it's impossible to be satisfied (for me) until I eat the box.

If I eat eggs, the composition of them doesn't trigger the rise in insulin levels which in turn...

>>41073887
>That's a reason diets fail. Because the food isn't satisfying.

Yeah, so? That doesn't mean fats and proteins hit some magic off switch in your brain that carbs can't reach. That doesn't mean you can eat 10,000 calories in ham and eggs and be fine because there's no carbs.
We're not discussing what's fun, we're discussing how this shit actually works. If keto is a more appealing means for you to eat below maintenence, fucking go for it. That doesn't mean calories are irrelevant or that carbs are the problem.

>>41073867
Yes but you fail to see that any restrictive diet that somebody sticks to will work. Penn Jillette did a potato diet for a couple weeks, then added other carbs and vegetables. It was a very high carb diet and it worked for him, he said he never felt hungry or had any desire for junk food.

There's also a study where they force-fed overweight people a pound of plain bread a day or more and they all lost weight too (without even telling them to). Because literally anything is satiating compared to junk food which is mostly just oil and sugar chucked into a blender, which provides exactly 0 satiety

>>41073536
You're literally retarded aren't you little fella?

>>41073921
>Yeah, so?

A successful diet should be a life diet.

I can't imagine life eating boiled cabbage. I can imagine sticking to milk, bacon, and eggs for the rest of my life.

>That doesn't mean fats and proteins hit some magic off switch in your brain that carbs can't reach.

Actually they do. I don't think you really understand what it means to be full on a high-carb diet and what it means to be full on a low-carb diet.

It's a world of difference.

> that carbs are the problem.

Elevated insulin levels are a BIG fucking problem.

>>41073916

Just stop.

>>41073945

Okay. Explain to me why elevating your insulin is irrelevant to trying to cut down fat and eating less.

>>41073944
>A successful diet should be a life diet.
>I can't imagine life eating boiled cabbage. I can imagine sticking to milk, bacon, and eggs for the rest of my life.
That's nice. It's not the point being argued though. Quite obviously I'm not suggesting anyone fucking live off nothing but boiled cabbage the rest of their goddamn life. It was an example to illustrate a very specific point.

>>41073956

No, because that has nothing to do with fucking anything. And that's the reason I just keep telling you to fuck off instead of explaining what my original point WAS, because you're so fucking obtuse that you'd just replace it with whatever the voice in your head has already decided I'm talking about, since you somehow manage to concoct a completely different conversation out of nowhere in response to a post as simple as 'just stop'.

>>41073979

Okay I'll play nice.

What was your point exactly? I am a bit obtuse after all.

>>41073444
Thanks for this video, found it a very interesting watch, especially since I've been doing Keto and seeing great success after switching from a carb heavy diet of the same calories.

Calories in Calories out isn't a meme, but there's certainly more going on in the body than that.

>>41072881
Lack of willpower doesn't mean it doesn't work

>>41073944
>Elevated insulin levels are a BIG fucking problem.
It's funny that you say that because a high-fat diet will put your fasting insulin through the roof due to the insulin resistance you're creating (and the fact that meat and fish release more insulin than pure glucose)

>>41073956
>Explain to me why elevating your insulin is irrelevant to trying to cut down fat and eating less.
Because the only thing that matters for weight loss is being in a calorie deficit long term. Insulin is not relevant, it's a hormone that regulates blood sugar levels and mediates the fuel economy in the body in response to changes in energy balance (food input and calorie output).

>>41073985

As I just said, which you also failed to comprehend: No.

>>41073993

Lack of willpower doesn't sever the human need to be satisfied after a meal.

You can make up for "lack of willpower" by a diet that actually satisfies. That's the fucking point.

If you're not satisfied, you're going to eat more. If you're satisfied, you're going to eat less.

File: Screenshot_20170414-140045.png (246KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1440x2560px

Guys, guys, look at all the calories from fat in this junk food.

Fuckin none, and it's not remotely satiating, could eat a kg of these easily

>>41073995
>because a high-fat diet will put your fasting insulin through the roof due to the insulin resistance you're creating

Temporarily but ketogenic diets have been show to increase insulin SENSITIVITY by 75% or more over a two week period.

That's amazing.

>>41073995
>Because the only thing that matters for weight loss is being in a calorie deficit long term

It's not the only thing that matters. If you have insulin resistance from american high-carb/junk diet, then you're going to have a much easier time packing the pounds.

>>41073817
Insulin signals to do other things completely antagonistic to fat storage like activate brown adipose and futile cycling in skeletal muscle and liver. And it's substrate-limited regardless. Gotta love fat people logic, always cherry picking certain pathways for concocting some diet religion that shifts the blame away from their armchair.

>>41073817
>It has no saitation value.

How do you explain all the fat retards like Jimmy Moore and Adam Nally who manage to overeat on it then?

>>41074069

Okay but the problem with insulin resistance is that it fails at a lot of functions because the beta cells can't keep up with the demand. And if they can't keep up with demand, glucose levels are fucked.

What type of diet promotes insulin resistance?

>>41074018
>Twizzlers

Maybe this is subjective, but would people really consider this junk food? It's just fucking candy, that's not any kinda food. No one eats a big bag of Twizzlers and calls it a meal.
Big macs, fruit loops, pizza, that's the kinda shit I think when I say junk FOOD. Who eats Twizzlers and expects to be satisfied?

>>41074090

They're cheating. Literally. I can't eat another fucking thing after six eggs, six bacon, and almost a gallon of milk.

>>41074051
>It's not the only thing that matters.
It's the bottom line. Other factors will definitely determine how EASY it is to maintain a deficit, and how nourished you are while doing it. But at the end of the day, if you're losing fat then you're on a calorie deficit. All the diet tricks in the world won't make you lose fat on a calorie surplus.

>this article I read says that thermodynamics isn't real actually real

Kys bud

>>41074051
Americans have among the lowest carb intakes of the entire world population. Stop saying "high carb" when referring to junk food and the American diet. It isn't even possible to eat a high carb diet unless you're nearly vegan. Is the average American vegan? Or a fruitarian? No

>>41074036
That's the inverse of reality though. Ketogenic diets cause insulin resistance. That is such a hard scientific fact that it's accepted even in keto circles, they just find some excuse for why it's not a problem.

And insulin resistance has no effect on weight loss. CICO works just as well for diabetics as everyone else.

>>41074099
The first problem in diabetes is that glucagon suppression fails and the liver doesn't stop releasing glucose even after a carb meal, not that glucose isn't taken up as glycogen. But the released insulin only accounts for the meal glucose

>>41074137
>>this article I read says that thermodynamics isn't real actually real
>Kys bud

It's a book actually. And nutrition is a bit more than thermodynamics. Like construction is a bit more than thermodynamics. You have to get the right pieces in the right parts and yadda yadda. You can't just theoretically master it by pure knowledge of thermodynamics.

>CICO

I know but the body makes bizarre structures and behaviors which complicate body composition beyond modeling it as a black box system. Yes x energy is used...but for what and how?

>>41074167
>Is the average American vegan? Or a fruitarian? No

Most high-carb foods in America are junk food. Welcome to the year 2017. Enjoy your stay.

>insulin resistance

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/does-eating-low-carb-cause-insulin-resistance/


"
In overweight women, a diet with less than 10% of calories as carbs improved insulin sensitivity, while a 30% fat, low-fat diet reduced it.
In obese, insulin-resistant women, both high-fat and high-protein low-carb diets reduced insulin resistance, while the high-carb diet was not as effective.
In obese kids, a very low carb diet was able to reduce indices of insulin resistance along with bodyweight and body fatness."

>>41074234
>Most high-carb foods in America are junk food.

Well that's just false. And even if you flip it and say most junk foods in America are high carb, which I think is what you meant to say, that's also dubious at best. And the 'truth tea'-esque emphasis is just weird.

>>41073893
>Losing weight is not as simple as counting calories.

it unironically is, though.
if the food you eat provides your body with more energy than your body expends, then that surplus energy is stored in the form of fat cells.

if the food you eat provides your body with less energy than your body expends, then that energy deficit is filled by using up body fat reserves.

it is a simplified model and omits a lot of details, but the bottom line of it is the foundation that the human metabolism operates on.

tl;dr
if you eat less than you need, you WILL lose weight
if you eat more than you need, you WILL gain weight
it is that simple

>>41074101
>No one eats a big bag of Twizzlers and calls it a meal.

uhmm...

>>41074261

How is it false? Cake? carbs (and HFCS)
Ice cream? carbs (and HFCS)
Soda? carbs
Pancakes? carbs
Waffles? carbs
Syrup? No shit, carbs
Starbucks brand drinks? Carbs out the fucking wazoo
Granola bars? Carbs
Hamburgers? The bread has as much carbs as a couple of fucking sodas.

Most americans eat a junk diet.

>>41074308
>How is it false?

"Most high carb foods are junk food". What about fruit? What about grains? What about lentils? What about pretty much all plant matter in general?
Think before you speak.

>>41074279
>if you eat less than you need, you WILL lose weight
>if you eat more than you need, you WILL gain weight
>it is that simple

But that's also dependent on satiation. If you feel "full", you're not going to eat more. If you still feel "anxiously hungry/compulsive", you're going to eat more.

Referencing to "willpower" is silly when the body changes its appetites to the timing and composition of food.

>>41074234
>30% fat, low-fat diet
Is this a joke?
How do you even write that?
Maybe it's a typo.

>>41074308
I'm more convinced that ever that this is a troll

>>41074289

...R-right?

File: 266a3c_3367070.jpg (913KB, 1278x4993px) Image search: [Google]

913KB, 1278x4993px

I'm just gonna leave this here.

>>41074328

Most bread gets converted into the same glucose sugar does. Grains aren't necessarily healthy at all. If you look at skeletons of neolithic people transitioning to farming, you see indicators of awful health. Because they adopted a life style organized around the production of a single grain.

>What about fruit?

Raw fruit. Fruit juice is just sugar and money pissing out.

>What about lentils?

Delicious.

But with the exception of legumes and nuts, nothing satisfies me like a high-fat high-protein diet. Actually legumes and nuts may fall a bit into that category but with extra fiber along the way.

>>41074335
>I'm more convinced that ever that this is a troll
you serious?

>>41074329
>If you feel "full", you're not going to eat more.
And if you eat more, you're no longer in a fucking deficit, you retard.

>>41074335

How am I troll? The things I listed are FULL of fucking carbs.

Point out a single item and tell me why I'm a stupid motherfucker.

>>41074362
>And if you eat more, you're no longer in a fucking deficit, you retard.

But we could refer to a complex component of neurology which governs "willpower".

or we could refer to being satisfied. Without having to micromanage a fucking number that doesn't neatly apply to metabolic systems.

>>41074110
No they're not. How low is your IQ that you think your single short-term experience will generalize to everyone and over longer time periods?

>>41074356
>Grains aren't necessarily healthy at all.
That doesn't make them junk food.

>Raw fruit. Fruit juice is just sugar and money pissing out.
Well considering I just said 'fruit', fucking obviously I wasn't talking about juice. Why must you find a way to inject what little tidbits of knowledge you have into fucking anything you can squeeze it into?
Yeah. Fruit juice sucks. We know. Thanks for the hot tip (no homo).

>nothing satisfies me
It's not all about you, you fucking mong.

>>41074388

1 year and a half is short-term? Maybe. But also realize I combine it with intermittent fasting which is a big difference from "eat multiple meals throughout the day" shit.

>>41074380

Neither of them are relevant to the barebones basic fact that CICO still applies. Just like the laws of thermodynamics apply to construction, as you said earlier. Is it the be all end all? No. But can any complexity ever supersede this basic foundation? NO. End of fucking conversation.

>>41074395

Satiation is what everyone seeks without knowing. So many stupid moralisms are heaped upon people who need the experience of being satisfied before embarking on a program of weight loss.

>>41074432

...Who are you responding to?

>>41074353
Yeah, that's pretty much how this thread is going.

>>41073536

hesgottapointyaknow.png

This HAS to be a troll. It's too thematic to keep randomly talking about satiation while trapping people in a loop of dissatisfaction.

>>41074423

If you raise insulin levels to the point of resistance, it messes with CICO.

But to study insulin, you can't just go "CICO CICO CICO...". It wouldn't make sense unless you juxtapose it with what humans actually eat.

They don't eat calories, they eat numerous materials that are allocated in different ways, and in different times, throughout the digestive process. The body is a machine that functions using bizarre proteins and lipids and carbs and a bunch of other shit.

It's like looking at a car as a system without peering at what the human inside is doing.

>>41073079
I do this. 24 hour fast every day and one keto meal. It's an easy way to lose weight, but any diet wil work, you just have to find what fits your everyday life. Nothing is magic when it comes to losing weight.

>>41074468
>If you raise insulin levels to the point of resistance, it messes with CICO.

No it doesn't, it messes with your ability to stick to CICO. It doesn't make you gain weight on a deficit, it just makes maintaining a deficit more difficult.

>>41072881
>Before I'd try to follow some rule
>Now I just follow this rule about eating this one same meal every day

>>41074329
nigger are you retarded?
>b-but appetite
if you don't even have the strength to stop eating in spite of feeling like eating more, then you are a pathetic weakling and can go die of diabetes at age 40 like the miserable blob of lard you are for all i care.

>>41074443
>It's not all about you, you fucking mong

>>41074467

I emphasize satiation because growing up, being in bad shape was moralized. I always felt guilty and wondered "why" when I munched another stupid thing.

Then I switched to keto some years after high school and well...

Fuck people. I lost weight on my own because I was actually eating food that satisfied me but never to the point of gluttony. Not because I gained super willpower.

>>41074512

One rule leads to profoundly unsatisfactory meals that you stick with because everyone else is doing it.

The other rule simplifies things to a "high-fat high-protein low-carb" rule that actually fucking works.

>>41074520
>then you are a pathetic weakling and can go die of diabetes at age 40 like the miserable blob of lard you are for all i care.

You sound like this

>BAH YOU USED A DIFFERENT STRATEGY THAN ME BAAAHHH

I don't even get it. You try to troll people over a nebulous concept called "willpower" that has to struggle against other bodily systems for goal formation and execution.

>>41074529
>I emphasize satiation because
Not the point.

I'm genuinely starting to think you must be a little off.

>>41074529
>Not because I gained super willpower.
No one suggested that.

File: 38783565-bane-batman.jpg (123KB, 494x411px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 494x411px

>>41074545
>The other rule simplifies things to a "high-fat high-protein low-carb" rule that actually fucking works.

For you.

>>41074562

Low-carb high-fat high-protein = satiation. It's impossible to gluttony because you feel full faster than on traditional diets.

If you're satiated, you don't go through the dramatics of being on some fad diet. The food tastes good and you feel good.

Therefore you eat less and "CICO" occurs.

Is that enough of a TL;DR?

>>41074557
>>BAH YOU USED A DIFFERENT STRATEGY THAN ME BAAAHHH

That's what YOU'VE sounded like this entire fucking thread.

>>41074364
They contain carbs, that doesn't means they are high in carbs. If I put a pinch of sugar on a stick of butter that doesn't make it a "carb"

>>41074545
>profoundly unsatisfactory meals
Maybe you just can't cook.
And normal people like fruits too.
Plus our sense of taste is largely habituated. Incidentally, fat people have a dietary preference for fat. If you go on a high-carb diet, fat tastes worse. If you go on a high-fat no-sugar diet, sugar tastes worse. On a vegan diet, some people become disgusted by meat. This is a known phenomenon and has no implication that one or the other is "really" not tasty. It's a matter of what you're used to.


Oh and adding a bit of refined sugar to starches on a high-carb diet never hurt anyone. It's better for health compared to adding oil, butter or salt, and in my opinion it tastes better.
Ketofags will never know the glory of Brussel sprouts with sugar, lentils with sugar, sugar pizza.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2RBWsPA_E4

>>41074585

Might work for you too. The only hiccup is that the first 3 days of keto adaption are shitty.

>>41074587

I'm serious, anon. If you're not trolling, there is something wrong with you to keep replying with shit like this when it has nothing to do with the flow of conversation.

>>41074587
So... CICO *isn't* worthless?

>>41074593
I think it's the lack of carbs that's making your brain malfunction, honestly. What a sad state for a human to be in. I recommend to go and buy a bushel of bananas quickly before your IQ drop further

>>41074587

That's all anyone's been saying this entire thread.

>>41074604

Literally everyone on /fit/ knows everything you've been preaching as some sort of miracle, you fucking retard. I don't need your help.
>hurr you can do it too if you just belieeeeeve

>>41074606

Only used it because why not. It's already been mentioned a million times.

But as a dietary formula, it does nothing other than tell people "eat less" while said people are probably in diets where they feel a constant compulsion to gorge.

>>41074605

I'm bored for the moment waiting for shit.

>>41074557
nigger there is no "different strategy" than CICO

literally every single diet that results in weight loss does it by getting you to eat less kcal than you expend. every single one of them.

doesnt matter if you did raw vegan shit or some weird fasting cycle. doesnt matter if you went full retard and ate only raw meat and berries like paleo fags, or if you did regular keto with a shitton of bacon and eggs. ALL OF THEM induce weight loss if (and only if) you eat at a deficit.

>>41074634
>I'm bored for the moment waiting for shit.

That doesn't explain this ridiculousness.

>>41074635
>literally every single diet that results in weight loss does it by getting you to eat less kcal than you expend. every single one of them.

Some diets have a structural flaw in that they're not satisfying, therefore people cheat.

Some diets are inherently "satisfying". Staying with said diets doesn't feel like dieting. People don't cheat if they feel satisfied.

How does saying "CICO" differentiate between diets and the behaviors of the dieters?

>>41074644

Because I don't even know how. People are really defensive about calorie counting. Despite it being a shitty psychological strategy and a shitty physiological strategy because it doesn't differentiate between how the body treats different materials.

>>41074659
>therefore people cheat.
Which means they are no longer following the diet.

>How does saying "CICO" differentiate between diets and the behaviors of the dieters?
It doesn't. The entire point literally everyone has been making this entire thread is that the behaviour of dieters doesn't change the fact that CICO works.
If someone stops eating at a calorie deficit, they will stop losing weight. If they keep at a deficit, they will keep losing weight. No matter how satisfying or unsatisfying their diet is.
Added complexities to encourage one to stay on their diet does not change the fact that CICO still applies. Always.

>>41074677
>Despite it being a shitty psychological strategy
That has not even come in to play. No one has denied that staying on a deficit in an unsatisfying diet will be more challenging. No one has argued that it's not preferable to maintain a deficit while on a more satisfying diet. You have made up all this shit in your head by being an obtuse weirdo who compulsively regurgitates the same few lines in response to everyone without actually reading what they're saying.

>>41074677
Lost 80 pounds on cico and moderate exercise. I haven't changed what my diet consists of except for cutting out calories from beverages. Only eating less and smaller portions.

If it's worked this far, and is still continuing to work, does it matter how my body treats the different calories? I'm not eating some fucking meme diet that might be influenced by the supposed difference between fat calories and protein calories.

Unless I'm missing something, CICO should just work unless you try to pair it with a meme diet like paleo or keto, but even then, the effects should be nearly negligible.

>>41074744
>>therefore people cheat.
>Which means they are no longer following the diet.

Because people aren't complete automatons. If they're not following the diet, the primary reason is that the diet feels like a diet and unsatisfying. It's rarely ever pure laziness. People aren't lazy about diets which incorporate satiation.

>ehaviour of dieters doesn't change the fact that CICO works.

Okay it works but only because the dieters were able to follow a behavior that rewarded not being a glutton. If dieters cheat, CICO will never work because we eat more than raw thermodynamic energy.

>No one has denied that staying on a deficit in an unsatisfying diet will be more challenging.

It's not merely "more challenging", it's unsustainable. My goal is not to merely lose weight but to keep it in shape so that I'll never have to use a fucking walker or a fucking cane when I'm 70.

Do you think people are going to stick with their diets until old age? Nah, because most "diets" suck shit and are unsatisfying.

>>41074811
You most certainly won't make it till 70 on a ketogenic diet, that much is certain

>>41074659
thats not what CICO is about though
of fucking course different diets vary in how easy or hard they are to follow. this also varies a lot from person to person - if you absolutely hate eating fatty food, you will have a hard time sticking to keto. if you hate vegetables, going vegan might be hard for you.

i get the feeling that we're not actually getting each others point - the people parroting "CICO CICO CICO" are doing so in response to a somewhat common sentiment (as expressed by OP) that some people have - spewing shit like
>there's a world of difference between 2000-3000 "calories" of meat and protein and 2000-3000 "calories" of starch and sugar.
which is just nonsense.

none of us deny that different people find different diets appealing and easy to follow due to personal food preferences.

>>41074783

Honestly, I hit a fucking wall when trying CICO. 350 down to 270. Which is nice but it seemed like it only worked UNTIL 270.

The point about the keto diet is that you feel full all day, even from a 1x large meal. The feeling of fullness makes a world of difference when trying to manage temptations and cravings. Because they stop existing.

Not only that but being able to shed fat while gaining some muscle was (still is) amazing. I still have 20-30 pounds of fat to shed (at least) but 220 is a far different experience from 350.

>>41074847
>which is just nonsense.

But it's not. Insulin resistance happens in high-carb diets. (Yes I'm counting junk food because most americans are overweight. You can't handwave carbs from junk food).

>>41074857
I already practice eating one fuck all huge meal a day. The most I'll have before dinner is maybe a can of tuna.

One can eat a fuckload more food when you take carbs out of the equation, but honestly having a single >1200 kcal meal to look forward to and enjoy each day, carbs and all is enough for me. I'm 331.5 --> 249.5

>>41074829

Maybe not purely keto but with IF included? Hell yes.

Most seniors let their muscle tissue be replaced with fat.

>>41074871
>But it's not

nigger if you are eating fucking 3000kcal a day, you will fucking blow up in weight, no mater whether you gulp down a pound of bacon or a kilogram of chocolate.

shit like insulin response will differ. the overall weight gain will not.

>>41074892

One meal a day? Hey you're also doing IF.That's a lifetime strategy right there.

>Thermodynamics - A myth?
lmao

>>41074900

Maybe but I eat until I feel full. No more, no less. It works, at least with a keto diet. Not with junk food.

I don't track calories. Because ultimately, the best signal is satiation. I hammer it again and again because a lot of people don't actually know what it feels like. There's no anxiety about snacks in the closet or any of that bullshit,

>>41074909
Yessir. It's what works for me. Once in a while I will have the odd egg or can of tuna in the morning. Otherwise, I just save my days allowance for one large meal at the end of the day. I go to bed feeling full, and it makes this -1000 deficit that much more bearable.

>>41074921

see

>>41074468

A human body isn't merely a flat thermodynamic system. It's also a biological system. There are a lot of processes which need building materials from food.

How would you describe a construction site in thermodynamic terms WHILE maintaining the ability to be coherent about the different types of equipment and roles and blueprints and processes?

>>41074896
My point is, you will probably die of a stroke or heart attack or some other such incident before you would reach such an age

>>41074962

Why?

I'm never stopping this diet (unless a truly unforseen long-term consequence bears its head) or IF or weight-lifting. Until I die.

Why would I be more likely to die than the average american schmuck?

>>41074975
Because saturated fat and cholesterol cause atherosclerosis and heart disease. Various animal products also promote inflammation, and increase the risk of various diseases via other pathways (kidney damage, advanced glycation end-products, HCAs and PHAs, uric acide, trans-fats (which occur naturally in meat), oxidative stress etc.)

You also report that you have a low vegetables intake. Given that you also consume no other carbs, you have an abysmally low intake of fiber and beneficial phytonutrients, and most likely a low intake of potassium etc. All of these factors promote heart disease and also cancer, diabetes, stroke etc.

Bottom line, you will die

>>41075004
>cholesterol cause atherosclerosis and heart disease

So my cholesterol levels DROPPING after incorporating the eggs is a fluke?

Why do I have low cholesterol after high cholesterol consumption for the past year and a half? It really makes you think...

>>41075033
>>41075004

Not to mention that high cholesterol levels might be good for health...

http://roguehealthandfitness.com/higher-cholesterol-associated-with-longer-life/

>>41075033
I doubt that you have low cholesterol levels of below 150 total and below 70 LDL

And that's besides the point because you can and do develop atherosclerosis and heart disease with "normal" blood tests. Actually the majority of the population have fatty streaks in their blood vessels before they hit 20. Saturated fat harms your blood vessels without fail. You would have to go to a specialist to find any evidence of that.

>>41075004
>Various animal products also promote inflammation, and increase the risk of various diseases via other pathways (kidney damage, advanced glycation end-products, HCAs and PHAs, uric acide, trans-fats (which occur naturally in meat), oxidative stress etc.)

Meanwhile "hi carb" junk food and obesity also promote inflammation and the risk of various ailments.

Hell, giving rats grains turns their intestinal biota into an apocalypse. Botulism thrives on sugars and kills off the neighbors around it. The head researcher changed to a low-carb diet, not incorporating grains, after the conclusion of the study.

Doesn't necessarily mean the same for humans but...well I wouldn't doubt it.

>>41075105
Wheat is actually the primary source of fructans in the Western diet. Fructans are an important class of prebiotic fiber that promotes the growth of Bifidobacteria, a beneficial class of gut bacteria

>>41074896

>nigga gonna try and egg/bacon/milk/butter till 70

Can't wait for the TLC special.

Of all the nonsensical turbo-tism you've been posting - by far the most offensive is that you went with the shittiest-memiest of all keto protocols.

Not leafy greens and well prepared fish/chicken/non starchy veggies - but absolute garbage tier MUH EGGS N BACON.

For your sake I hope this is a troll. If not, congrats on the fat loss and good luck.

>>41075087

Cholesterol 176, HDL 63, LDL 97

Units are mg/dl. from checkup about 4 months ago.

>>41075161

desu, I got used to it when I was homeless. Because an induction cooker is one of the best investments for cooking something anywhere with an electrical plug.

Eggs and bacon. Surprisingly easy to make and satisfying to eat.

>>41072830
when i use myfitnesspal and count calories, and am strict and disciplined, it works

that is all

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/is-fat-killing-you-or-is-sugar