Calorie is a Calorie?

Diet and Nutrition
21

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
The whole point of his experiment was the prove that portion control is the key to relieving this country of the obesity epidemic instead of a focus on low fat or low carb or X fad diet.

Most people dont give a shit how they look, they just dont want to be fat. Macronutrient ratios are irrelevant to the general population and was not even close to being a part of the point of the doctors experiment.

People are fat because they eat way too much. Not because they eat bread. [/quote]

Exactly! And as I explained above.

22

A calorie may be a calorie but the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients is the ultimate point.

Also, eating mostly carbs and unhealthy fats would change your hormonal profile to a degree wouldn’t it? High gi carbs change your insulin sensitivity right?

23

People are fat because they eat way too much. Not because they eat bread. [/quote]

No, no, no. Grains are evil food sources created by the Disney Corp designed to make us fat, subordinate drones.

No, but grains do suck :stuck_out_tongue:

24

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
The whole point of his experiment was the prove that portion control is the key to relieving this country of the obesity epidemic instead of a focus on low fat or low carb or X fad diet.

Most people dont give a shit how they look, they just dont want to be fat. Macronutrient ratios are irrelevant to the general population and was not even close to being a part of the point of the doctors experiment.

People are fat because they eat way too much. Not because they eat bread. [/quote]

NO NO NO. This is entirely incorrect. You obviously don’t know how to interpret research. You’ve got to get emotional about it first.

I haven’t been around much lately, good to see there are at least two sane people still posting here.

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
A calorie may be a calorie but the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients is the ultimate point.
[/quote]

No, calories are the ultimate point. Eat 2,000+ calories over you maintenance of grass fed beef, coconut milk, and whole eggs for 5 years and you will still be overweight and very likely to experience the same negative health consequences associated with being severely overweight. The point isn’t to help people be as healthy as possible while still being severely overweight. The point is to eliminate the surplus weight, which is the NUMBER ONE risk factor for those negative health consequences.

25

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
The whole point of his experiment was the prove that portion control is the key to relieving this country of the obesity epidemic instead of a focus on low fat or low carb or X fad diet.

Most people dont give a shit how they look, they just dont want to be fat. Macronutrient ratios are irrelevant to the general population and was not even close to being a part of the point of the doctors experiment.

People are fat because they eat way too much. Not because they eat bread. [/quote]

NO NO NO. This is entirely incorrect. You obviously don’t know how to interpret research. You’ve got to get emotional about it first.

I haven’t been around much lately, good to see there are at least two sane people still posting here.

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
A calorie may be a calorie but the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients is the ultimate point.
[/quote]

No, calories are the ultimate point. Eat 2,000+ calories over you maintenance of grass fed beef, coconut milk, and whole eggs for 5 years and you will still be overweight and very likely to experience the same negative health consequences associated with being severely overweight. The point isn’t to help people be as healthy as possible while still being severely overweight. The point is to eliminate the surplus weight, which is the NUMBER ONE risk factor for those negative health consequences.

[/quote]

Correct! When fat is lost, even while on a diet rich in Little Debbie’s and Oreos, TG’s and LDL usually come down too, regardless if the person is eating omega-3 rich hens or whatever.

26

[quote]Fat Bastard. wrote:
So, this man followed a “twinkie” diet, ate “Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.” and lost 27lb over two months.
Haub’s bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his “good” cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.
And NO< he does NOT recommend that anyone follow it. It is an experiment. And before you say all sorts of things, he is no idiot - he is Dr. Haub, a Professor of nutrition at Kansas State.

What do you guys think? Reminds me of the whole Jimmy Smith saying almonds & almond snickers bare are the same for a diet as long as the macros are maintained…[/quote]

So what if he lost 30lbs? People in the US are too focused on numbers on the scale and simply dropping weight. Yeah, he might have lost 20lbs, but I’d be interested in seeing the difference in skinfold measurements. I know the guy wasn’t doing a strength protocol, but does anyone believe he retained any LBM while doing this “diet?”

As for his cholesteol numbers, it’s hard to make a conclusion on way or another because it’s a study with a single data point.

This study is just fodder for the army of fat lazy slobs who now have justification for shoveling twinkies down their gullet.

27

[quote]Aaron_01 wrote:

As for his cholesteol numbers, it’s hard to make a conclusion on way or another because it’s a study with a single data point.

[/quote]

No it’s not hard, because any nurse, MD, or dietitian who has worked in a REAL HEALTHCARE SETTING (myself included) will tell you that TG’s and LDL go down when people just lose the damn weight!

28

[quote]Aaron_01 wrote:
I know the guy wasn’t doing a strength protocol, but does anyone believe he retained any LBM while doing this “diet?”

[/quote]

Yes! Considering this guy simply CONTINUED with his MODERATE physical activity.

29

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
The whole point of his experiment was the prove that portion control is the key to relieving this country of the obesity epidemic instead of a focus on low fat or low carb or X fad diet.

Most people dont give a shit how they look, they just dont want to be fat. Macronutrient ratios are irrelevant to the general population and was not even close to being a part of the point of the doctors experiment.

People are fat because they eat way too much. Not because they eat bread. [/quote]

NO NO NO. This is entirely incorrect. You obviously don’t know how to interpret research. You’ve got to get emotional about it first.

I haven’t been around much lately, good to see there are at least two sane people still posting here.

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
A calorie may be a calorie but the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients is the ultimate point.
[/quote]

No, calories are the ultimate point. Eat 2,000+ calories over you maintenance of grass fed beef, coconut milk, and whole eggs for 5 years and you will still be overweight and very likely to experience the same negative health consequences associated with being severely overweight. The point isn’t to help people be as healthy as possible while still being severely overweight. The point is to eliminate the surplus weight, which is the NUMBER ONE risk factor for those negative health consequences.

[/quote]

Yes, for weight loss in the short term. Who would live a healthy life on such diet though? Who cares about something you can’t sustain long term?

You can be at your ideal weight and be unhealthy. I know you know this, just making my point.

30

This was an awesome article. I agree with Bonez, Brick, etc. I don’t give a crap about the tards out there that take away from this article that they can eat twinkies on their next diet. I think there are TONS of health concious people out there who eat way too much of all the “right” foods but wonder why they don’t get the progress they want. There is a huge lesson here for those people.

31

I’d also like to add why this guy probably didn’t lose much LBM.

He didn’t and doesn’t have much LBM in the first place. It’s not like he was some big muscular dude with an awesome program and pristine BBer’s diet. His old diet had 2,600 calories. That’s not big eating, and MODERATE physical activity is not big lifting.

Thanks DJS.

32

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
I’d also like to add why this guy probably didn’t lose much LBM.

He didn’t and doesn’t have much LBM in the first place. It’s not like he was some big muscular dude with an awesome program and pristine BBer’s diet. His old diet had 2,600 calories. That’s not big eating, and MODERATE physical activity is not big lifting.

Thanks DJS. [/quote]

Right. He had a normal amount of muscle and a bit too much fat.

Id actualyl ask the opposite question. Does anyone really think that somoene who loses 20lbs DIDNT lose mostly fat. Where are these people that are capable of retaining excess fat stores but can manage to lose significant amount of muscle on their average bodies (at the same time, obviously)??

SHOW ME THE BODIES

33

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
The whole point of his experiment was the prove that portion control is the key to relieving this country of the obesity epidemic instead of a focus on low fat or low carb or X fad diet.

Most people dont give a shit how they look, they just dont want to be fat. Macronutrient ratios are irrelevant to the general population and was not even close to being a part of the point of the doctors experiment.

People are fat because they eat way too much. Not because they eat bread. [/quote]

NO NO NO. This is entirely incorrect. You obviously don’t know how to interpret research. You’ve got to get emotional about it first.

I haven’t been around much lately, good to see there are at least two sane people still posting here.

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
A calorie may be a calorie but the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients is the ultimate point.
[/quote]

No, calories are the ultimate point. Eat 2,000+ calories over you maintenance of grass fed beef, coconut milk, and whole eggs for 5 years and you will still be overweight and very likely to experience the same negative health consequences associated with being severely overweight. The point isn’t to help people be as healthy as possible while still being severely overweight. The point is to eliminate the surplus weight, which is the NUMBER ONE risk factor for those negative health consequences.

[/quote]

Yes, for weight loss in the short term. Who would live a healthy life on such diet though? Who cares about something you can’t sustain long term?

You can be at your ideal weight and be unhealthy. I know you know this, just making my point. [/quote]

You EET KLEEN folks keep adding new requirements. First it’s “not all calories are created equally from a weight loss standpoint”. Then after it is proven that they are, it’s “not all calories are created equally from a general health marker standpoint”. Then, after THAT assertion is disproven, it’s “not all calories are created equally from a satiety standpoint”.

What a bunch of unnecessary mental gymnastics for the sake of preserving your own confirmation bias.

34

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
I’d also like to add why this guy probably didn’t lose much LBM.

He didn’t and doesn’t have much LBM in the first place. It’s not like he was some big muscular dude with an awesome program and pristine BBer’s diet. His old diet had 2,600 calories. That’s not big eating, and MODERATE physical activity is not big lifting.

Thanks DJS. [/quote]

Right. He had a normal amount of muscle and a bit too much fat.

Id actualyl ask the opposite question. Does anyone really think that somoene who loses 20lbs DIDNT lose mostly fat. Where are these people that are capable of retaining excess fat stores but can manage to lose significant amount of muscle on their average bodies (at the same time, obviously)??

SHOW ME THE BODIES[/quote]

Cortisol!
Estrogen!
ADRENAL FATIGUE! OH MY!

35

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
I’d also like to add why this guy probably didn’t lose much LBM.

He didn’t and doesn’t have much LBM in the first place. It’s not like he was some big muscular dude with an awesome program and pristine BBer’s diet. His old diet had 2,600 calories. That’s not big eating, and MODERATE physical activity is not big lifting.

Thanks DJS. [/quote]

Right. He had a normal amount of muscle and a bit too much fat.

Id actualyl ask the opposite question. Does anyone really think that somoene who loses 20lbs DIDNT lose mostly fat. Where are these people that are capable of retaining excess fat stores but can manage to lose significant amount of muscle on their average bodies (at the same time, obviously)??

SHOW ME THE BODIES[/quote]

x3

I had to laugh when I read this article, I saw it while I was at work today. He went from 30+% body fat to 25% body fat? Anyone who’s 30+% body fat is going to lose fat if they cut calories. I’d like to see him get sub-10% eating twinkies. Or better yet, pack on LBM while eating twinkies all day long.

Don’t get me wrong, I eat candy every day, but that’s not what helps me pack on LBM.

36

He will need to set up an appt with PX at this rate :wink:

37

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
I’d also like to add why this guy probably didn’t lose much LBM.

He didn’t and doesn’t have much LBM in the first place. It’s not like he was some big muscular dude with an awesome program and pristine BBer’s diet. His old diet had 2,600 calories. That’s not big eating, and MODERATE physical activity is not big lifting.

Thanks DJS. [/quote]

Right. He had a normal amount of muscle and a bit too much fat.

Id actualyl ask the opposite question. Does anyone really think that somoene who loses 20lbs DIDNT lose mostly fat. Where are these people that are capable of retaining excess fat stores but can manage to lose significant amount of muscle on their average bodies (at the same time, obviously)??

SHOW ME THE BODIES[/quote]

Very good post.

And this whole “I’m afraid I’m gonna lose all dis mass” worry really should only pertain to guys that have A LOT of friggin’ muscle. I’ve ran the RFL diet a few times for dietary tune-ups (got a bit chubby and had no patience to get it off) and shared one of my experiences in the RFL threads in detail (the first thread-the one I made) and people asked (intelligently asked though), “What about loss of LBM?”

I’ve never lost much LBM on that diet, even though I consumed nothing but protein, veggies, and small amount of EFAs. I kept up maintenance training (twice per week) and cardio. Muscle just doesn’t disappear so freaking easily.

38

I think diet can possibly make difference in long term health. Being obese is much worse I’d say, than any dietary choices, because obeseity is a disease. Vitamin deficiencies are rare in western countries. But, omega-3s seem good for long term cardiovasuclar health because they have the direct chemical effect of lowering bp like asprin. So, if you’re concerned about heart health, you should eat high fat foods like fish.

39

[quote]Lover95 wrote:
I think diet can possibly make difference in long term health. Being obese is much worse I’d say, than any dietary choices, because obeseity is a disease. Vitamin deficiencies are rare in western countries. But, omega-3s seem good for long term cardiovasuclar health because they have the direct chemical effect of lowering bp like asprin. So, if you’re concerned about heart health, you should eat high fat foods like fish.[/quote]

really?

40

People act like this “study” means that clean eating is only advantageous for its effect on general health. This is definitely not the case.

Of course a calorie is a calorie. A car is also a car. That being said, there is a big difference between my 1989 Volkswagen GTI and my neighbor’s brand new Corvette.

The human body tends to lose weight when in a caloric deficit and gain weight when in a caloric surplus. If a person reduces their daily caloric intake over an extended period of time, it would only be logical for them to lose a considerable amount of weight, regardless of where the remaining calories are coming from. That is just simple math.

The mistake is to conclude that, because a man lost weight while eating Twinkies, a calorie is a calorie–not in the literal sense (which is a meaningless tautology), but in the broader sense that the types and quality of food you eat do not matter when it comes to weight gain/loss.

If anyone believes this, then follow it out to its logical conclusion: two identical twins with the same starting body weight and composition begin the exact same training program. They both eat 2,500 calories a day, but one of them gets his calories exclusively from Sour Patch Kids and Reeses peanut Butter Cups while the other eats a balanced diet: oats, chicken, eggs, lean beef, EVOO, tuna, plenty of green veggies.

Who would look better after 3 months?