Here we go again: almost all diet advice is wrong (again)

[Lorizael]

I don't think this is Gribbler being science-resistant. This is just Gribbler doing his thing. You see, long ago he assigned an opinion to each card in a deck of 52 playing cards. Every morning, he draws 3 cards and forms a position based on that combination. And then he believes the hell out of that position, at least until next morning's draw.

[Pedotard]

Here's a great resource for Sava to learn about scientific reality:

In terms of what foods you should and should not eat, remember that calories matter more than specific foods. Adequate macro- and micro-nutrition are indeed part of a healthy diet, but appropriate caloric intake is by far the most important rule regardless of the source and whether or not the food is "natural", "whole", "clean", or "dirty". Repeated studies have shown that having excess body fat, type 2 diabetes and weight gain are resultant from eating and storing more calories than one burns. Eating too many of any form of calories, whether from whole foods or not, will cause these problems. A Newcastle University team has recently discovered (2011) that Type 2 diabetes can actually be reversed by an extreme low calorie diet alone. In terms of the hormonal response to a single meal, a fast-food meal has been shown to elicit a similar response to an equivilent organic one.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/wiki/faq

[Aeson]

Oil behaves the same whether it's in an unheated sealed container, or poured on an open fire!

[Pedotard]

Oil behaves the same whether it's in an unheated sealed container, or poured on an open fire!

Are you saying food behaves differently depending on whether it's kept in a sealed container or opened and consumed?

[Hauldren Collider]

Portion control and a ****-load of cardio. That's all you need.

Thank you.

It's kind of backed up by the laws of physics, which makes it more than "technically" correct.

Indeed. It's called thermodynamics, for those who are unaware.

EDIT: I see gribbler beat me to observing that this is trivial thermodynamics. gribbler

[Hauldren Collider]

So do you have like a handbook of simplistic notions that you just copy from whenever particular keywords appear on Apolyton?

Don't you study physics? Very unimpressed.

[Aeson]

Don't try so hard to live up to your name Pedotard, I'm starting to worry about the children ...

I'm saying there are other factors involved in how consumed calories affect the human body. Absorbtion rates vary, metabolic rates vary, and genetic predispositions for how excess calories are stored (or not) vary. Not only between subjects, but over the course of a specific subject's life even.

[Pedotard]

Don't try so hard to live up to your name Pedotard, I'm starting to worry about the children ...

I'm saying there are other factors involved in how consumed calories affect the human body. Absorbtion rates vary, metabolic rates vary, and genetic predispositions for how excess calories are stored (or not) vary. Not only between subjects, but over the course of a specific subject's life even.

Yes. The rate at which people use calories varies somewhat. If you're getting fat, you have more calories than you personally need given your genes, age, level of physical activity.

[Hauldren Collider]

That doesn't change the basic formula of cutting calorie intake and increasing calorie outtake. Or as bugs said, cardio and portion control.

xpost

[Aeson]

Yes. The rate at which people use calories varies somewhat.

Well then, at least we can agree that HC was not correct.

[Hauldren Collider]

Well then, at least we can agree that HC was not correct.

I never disagreed with that. For instance I have an extremely fast metabolism. This is mostly because I'm 22 years old.

It STILL does not change calories in vs calories out. You've just tweaked the coefficients a bit.

[Sava]

Here's a great resource for Sava to learn about scientific reality:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Fitness/wiki/faq

Unfortunately for you, I never said anything to the contrary. If anything, your position is the one inconsistent with scientific findings.

[Lorizael]

Don't you study physics? Very unimpressed.

Yes, and I've studied enough physics and thermodynamics to know that different materials respond differently to different forms of energy. To put it simply, some materials require more work done in order to remove energy from them than other materials do. Yes, in a simplistic sense, all you need to do is consume less than you burn, but the rates at which consuming and burning occur can differ from person to person, which means that one person may do the same amount of exercise as another but burn fewer calories.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes, and I've studied enough physics and thermodynamics to know that different materials respond differently to different forms of energy. To put it simply, some materials require more work done in order to remove energy from them than other materials do. Yes, in a simplistic sense, all you need to do is consume less than you burn, but the rates at which consuming and burning occur can differ from person to person, which means that one person may do the same amount of exercise as another but burn fewer calories.

How is that relevant at all? It still means that by eating less you can lose weight. So different people might have different needs. But they can still lose weight. Jesus christ. If you absorb calories better or use them slower, you need less food. You won't starve to death. Just grow some willpower and eat less.

[Sava]

I never disagreed with that. For instance I have an extremely fast metabolism. This is mostly because I'm 22 years old.

It STILL does not change calories in vs calories out. You've just tweaked the coefficients a bit.

To be fair to you, I think your beliefs are generally consistent with current knowledge. You just have a tendency to make strong, shallow statements that don't offer the impression that there is more to it.