ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:18 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:11 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 625
Location: Kentucky, USA
stuward wrote:
wilburburns wrote:
...I may be just oversimplifying your statement above, but relying on the body to either tell me to stop eating or to be more active is not always (rarely is) a good Weight loss plan. It can work for a while to maintain though.
...Cliff


That's why "what" you eat is so important. The problem is the modern diet. Refined carbs, vegetable oil, MSG, animals raised in unnatural conditions, high calorie drinks, etc all contribute to a situation where a person's body is so confused and abused that it can't interpret the signals properly any more.

By switching to a diet that is in tune with our evelutionary requirements, your body can adapt on its own. Focus on wild meat or meat raised in natural conditions, and other "real" foods. Minimize processed foods. and those food like substances mentioned earlier. If you eat healthy food, you will become healthier and your weight will normalize.

Keep in mind that refined carbs and MSG stimulate the appetite. Including these in your diet will automatically cause you to become fat. From a fat loss point of view, eliminating these, along with minimizing high calorie drinks, is essential. Getting your O6/O3 fat ratio into balance is essential for your heart. The best way to do that is minimze vegetable oils and eat fish and wild meat regularily.


OK, Adding the Context of "Eating the Right Foods" really helps me understand and agree. I was merely thinking about the typical Crappy American Diet.

I'd also like to add that I don't keep close track of my Calories, unless I am trying to Lose. And then I am usually eating "Better" (Healthier), therefore it's likely more of a psychological effect for me....

Cliff


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:05 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3984
The problem is all the research points to extremely complicated concepts that most people can't comprehend. So the whole fat and calorie thing continues because fat making you fat, cholesterol making cholesterol in your arteries and the simple math of calories in and out are things people are smart enough to understand. However when they encounter a debunking of these concepts it is rejected outright mainly because the truth of it is beyond comprehension and probably also a bit of cognitive dissonance as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:45 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Yeah, but you'd blame cognitive dissonance for gum on your shoe.

http://www.unu.edu/Unupress/food2/UID07E/UID07E00.HTM seems to provide some detail on the metabolic processes involved here...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:32 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3984
frogbyte wrote:
Yeah, but you'd blame cognitive dissonance for gum on your shoe.

http://www.unu.edu/Unupress/food2/UID07E/UID07E00.HTM seems to provide some detail on the metabolic processes involved here...


What exactly are you trying say? It's a very common psychological phenomenon. How exactly was I ever off base in stating or hypothesizing it as a of cause something? I talk about rationalism/skepticism a lot and cognitive dissonance is a one major factor in the persistence of baseless beliefs. Or maybe more accurately I speak from that point of view.

I'm not sure what you're on about. We are agreeing here. The perception of any disagreement you may have is because you seem to be mistaking the energy contained in a gram of something and the energy in it that the body can use. Which was the basis of your question. Once that sinks in you will see we agree with each other on this.

Let me use an analogy in case it's still fuzzy. Your car runs on gasoline. It contains energy, which can be measured in calories (ie how much heat it can produce). Coal also contains energy. But your car won't run on coal. You can't say there is no energy in there just because something can't use it that way. See what I mean?

So protein has energy, but we don't use it like that, gluconeogenesis excluded of course.

By the way, that paper is a good example of what I or the scientific community require to believe any extraordinary claims.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:59 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Heh calm down I was kidding because you seem very affectionate for that term. And yea I think we are in agreement here.

Until a few years ago I sort of naively assumed that someone came up with those Calorie values because that was approximately how much heat/work you'd be able to perform using the given food. I also sort of naively assumed that the FDA knew what it was talking about when it recommended 6 servings of wheat per day. It now seems like the FDA just completely half-assed the whole thing, and I'm of the mindset that Calorie counts should be removed from those FDA-standard food labels...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:03 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3984
Yea, I naively believed them also. Then later I found out it had more to do with lobbyist money and corporate profits than health. It could be a while before things change. Big food is kind of where big tobacco was in the 50's or early 60's.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2009 5:24 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Man and I just heard like 2 hours ago "Dean Edell" say on the radio that the most important thing about diet was to limit calorie intake.

<--- grabs a pitchfork


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:21 am 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6401
Location: Halifax, NS
Related to calorie restriction is using cardio for weight loss. Basically it's playing with the same calorie in vs calorie out equation. This was just posted yesterday. http://blog.zeroinginonhealth.com/?p=1003


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:56 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Davis, California
I am a little baffled by this whole thread at this point.

If all you ate was protein for a couple of weeks, you might feel like crap, but you certainly would not have zero energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_energy

It claims the label on food already takes into account inaccessible forms of energy in some fashion.

On another note, at stuward, I took your comment to mean that if you do not eat enough, your body will slow its metabolism or force you to be less active, and if you eat a lot you will raise your metabolism and feel more energetic when exercising.

Anyway, I think it is clear the protein energy value is just fine the way it is and via some process, food labels also reflect something close to aborbed energy.

@ Ironman , I almost forgot, heat is energy.

Also, to the rabbits. We aren't rabbits...Cows can digest grass, we can't, so does that mean that the cow gets zero energy from eating grass?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:18 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3984
This thread is more about how the energy is used. Nobody is arguing the energy in protein is anything other than 4 calories per gram. We are just saying the body isn't going to use it for energy unless it has to. You would end up needing your body fat quite a bit if you had nothing but protein. Your body can only do so much gluconeogenesis.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:35 am 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Humans can digest grass. What makes you think otherwise?

Also "you certainly would not have zero energy" may be true, but only insofar as your body has other energy reserves for glycogenesis. Eventually protein->glycogen conversion becomes unsustainable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:03 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3984
We can't digest grass. We don't have the right enzymes in our digestive system.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:31 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:12 am
Posts: 78
There are three components to energy.
Carbs, Fat, and Protein.

Carbs are an energy source that our body does not prefer. They convert to glucose, and our body cannot hold too much glucose at a time. It releases insulin to get rid of the excess glucose as soon as possible. Possibly by converting it to fat.

Protein is not preferred as it is difficult to convert to glucose. And once converted our body must still find a way to store it. It is still very important, because it is a basic building block. The basic requirement is not really too much. Ideally it shouldn't be counted in energy requirement at all.

Fat is the preferred source of energy. Our body only consumes saturated fat as fuel. All other fats must be first saturated if they are to be used as fuels. All fats have uses in the correct functioning of the system. Any left overs are saturated and stored in the adipose tissues till they are required. MUFA is saturated very easily, and so is not a problem. PUFA requirement is very low, and should be kept below 4%, and must be balanced. Don't count the PUFA in your energy requirement.

Bottom line, get most of your energy as fats. Carbs should not be taken for fuel and should be consumed only with other important nutrients, ie vegetables. Protein should be consumed enough for body purposes.

I would think 70:25:5 of Fat:Protein:Carb would be ideal, but may not be practical. Our body can use some carbs anyway, for glycogen stores.
So raising it to 60:25:15 wouldn't be bad at all.

The above only applies to insulin sensitive people. For insulin resistant people its better to reduce carbs lower, depending on insulin resistance. Diabetic will find 70:25:5 much better.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:26 am 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Depends what grass you're referring to. Wheat is a grass.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:33 am 
Offline
Associate Member
Associate Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 1:47 pm
Posts: 458
Location: Nottinghamshire U.K.
frogbyte wrote:
Depends what grass you're referring to. Wheat is a grass.


Yeah, but you eat the seed, not the stem. We eat apples, but that doesn't mean you eat the tree.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group