EPTObesity now a global issue - Page 14
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
ref4
2933 Posts
On June 23 2014 22:58 Zandar wrote: Also as a guy who likes girls with some meat on their bones I guess this is my kind of epidemic Well, I, too, like women with hour-glass curves, but unfortunately, women with curve (1 curve, as in a spherical shape) are steadily on the rise due to this obesity epidemic | ||
|
DrCooper
Germany261 Posts
On June 24 2014 00:08 Nyxisto wrote: yeah. If you get 2000 kcals from food source X or you eat 2000 kcals from food source Y you are going to weigh exactly the same. Is there any evidence that would suggest the opposite? Depends. If you eat 2000kcal only carbs it will have a different effect on your body composition than if you have a healthy balance of fat carbs and protein. However if you eat lets say 200g Carbs 200g Protein and 80g of Fat it does not matter where you get that from. Whether you get that from mcdonalds or from oats and broccoli. In that case yes, your going to lose the same amount of fat/muscle. Now I'd imagine if you do that for long enough, eventually the one eating only mcdonalds will suffer from vitamin and mineral deficiency which will impact your overall health and ability of your body to correctly metabolize anything. But that is pure speculation on my part. That is the whole point of "If it fits your macros". If you maintain the same macronutrients you can eat pizza and still lose weight. | ||
|
chadissilent
Canada1187 Posts
On May 29 2014 22:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote: obesity is on the rise because people are abandoning simple common sense health principles. stop eating food from boxes and make your food from scratch. 6 feedings a day. humans are mostly herbivore and herbivores are constantly nibbling at food. humans should do the same. notice i said "mostly herbivore". i am not a vegetarian or vegan. humans are not primarily a carnivore. carnivores eat infrequently. herbivore constantly nibble. a minimum of 2 hours a week of strenuous cardio and 5 hours of mild cardio every week. 3 hours per week of strength based exercise and an organized stretching program such as yoga deep relaxed breathing will also cut cortisol levels and thereby allow your body the lattitude to not store every single extra calorie as stored up energy in a fat call all health care practitioners know the above things form a solid foundation for a healthy body. everyone knows it. less and less people do it every year. the fast food industry is BOOMING. Don't listen to this guy at all. I was speaking with one of my doctor friends about this just yesterday and he basically refuted all of this. Hesaid it's a simple mass balance equation: Calories in - Calories out = net gains or losses. It doesn't matter how often you eat, or what quantities, as long as you're burning as much as you're taking in. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On June 23 2014 23:51 biology]major wrote: all calories are created equal. Its just that when the body metabolizes carbs/proteins it generates 4 kcal per 1 gram, for fat it generates 9kcal per 1 gram and just for giggle ethanol is 7 kcal per 1 gram. In the end the body needs all 3, and it does not matter what type of food you eat to get them. If you eat a lot of fatty foods you will have to eat less, simply because it generates more energy. Doesn't sugar, leptin, and insulin throw a monkey wrench into this though? Just seems like it doesn't tell the whole story to me. Then we have the powerful School Nutrition Association lobby backed by Coke, Domino's, and Pepsi fighting to undo progress made in nutrition standards at schools, so I get the feeling things have to get much worse before improving. :/ | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 23 2014 22:56 Zandar wrote: Weird thing is the average age is still rising worldwide. With this obesitas spreading everywhere, you'd think that people would start dieing younger again. If our food was really that bad compared to 50 years ago wouldn't the average age of death go down? Or is it just because better medicine, safety at work and stuff like that. Gains in China and India are offsetting losses in the West. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 24 2014 00:08 Nyxisto wrote: yeah. If you get 2000 kcals from food source X or you eat 2000 kcals from food source Y you are going to weigh exactly the same. Is there any evidence that would suggest the opposite? Yes. On June 24 2014 08:29 chadissilent wrote: Don't listen to this guy at all. I was speaking with one of my doctor friends about this just yesterday and he basically refuted all of this. Hesaid it's a simple mass balance equation: Calories in - Calories out = net gains or losses. It doesn't matter how often you eat, or what quantities, as long as you're burning as much as you're taking in. Ah yes, your doctor friend. Nevermind that doctors don't really get taught nutrition in school and usually don't give two shits about it, believing simply whatever the USDA puts out as guidelines for eating and well-being. It's not a simple mass balance equation at all because the source of your calories affects nutrient partitioning, affects how much you are burning, affects hormonal balances, etc. You can write that equation if you want, and it's true in a simple way, but the real equation that includes the functions that comprise "Calories out" would take up several pages and the variables in those pages depend on the kinds of food you are eating. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 24 2014 08:54 IgnE wrote: It's not a simple mass balance equation at all because the source of your calories affects nutrient partitioning, affects how much you are burning, affects hormonal balances, etc. You can write that equation if you want, and it's true in a simple way, but the real equation that includes the functions that comprise "Calories out" would take up several pages and the variables in those pages depend on the kinds of food you are eating. Yeah, if you're only eating chocolate and drinking soda then you're more prone to getting fat than if you're eating fresh and healthy. But everybody knows that. The relevant question is "how do we tackle the problem of overeating, cheap unhealthy food, and the lack of exercise?" I don't see why the "is a calorie a calorie?" discussion is relevant. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On June 24 2014 09:20 Nyxisto wrote: The relevant question is "how do we tackle the problem of overeating, cheap unhealthy food, and the lack of exercise?" Are those the relevant questions though? Cheap, unhealthy food perhaps, but the second video I posted from the other thread directly questions whether overeating and lack of exercise are the true culprits as conventional wisdom would suggest, and provides evidence to the contrary. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
dudeman001
United States2412 Posts
On June 24 2014 10:10 IgnE wrote: There have been a bunch of posts over the last several pages, Nyxisto, asserting that it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you count the calories. Along with that, either explicitly or implicitly, there have been a number of posts saying, since that is the case, this simply a problem of willpower: no one wants to count their calories. So I have been addressing those arguments. Clearly everybody does not know that not all food calories are created equal. What IgnE said. Yes, a calorie is a standard unit of energy. However, the food the calorie came from can have a dramatically different process for how it's processed by the body. For a simplified example: Human A eats 2000 calories of meat, veggies and fruit. This food is low in sugar and is slowly metabolized throughout the day, gradually feeding the body the (assumed) 2000 it needs. All is well in this situation. Human B eats 2000 calories of bread, soda, and other carbohydrate-rich foods. This food is quickly metabolized into blood sugar. Now, blood sugar has to be very highly regulated because high blood sugar is toxic and WILL kill you. So the body produces insulin, which is a chemical hormone that forces that blood sugar into fat cells. Insulin literally creates an environment where it forces your blood's fuel into fat cells to keep the body from dying. This creates a problem, because suddenly those 2000 calories human B ate aren't feeding the body, and the body gets hungry. The body will become so hungry that it produces more and more hormones to drive the brain to find food. People overeat, metabolism slows down (changing the daily required calories from 2000 to less) and this is what drives obesity. Furthermore, cells become damaged - essentially - as they become resistant to hormones such as insulin and leptin. This breaks the system down even further in an environment overloaded with carbohydrates. (I'm going to plug my own post because the youtube series in the spoilers I posted explains this much more eloquently: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/451503-obesity-now-a-global-issue?page=13#258 ) A calorie is a unit of energy. But the calorie isn't the problem. The calorie has never been the problem. It's what the actually food does to your body on the CHEMICAL level, not on the physical level. | ||
|
Taf the Ghost
United States11751 Posts
On June 24 2014 00:08 Nyxisto wrote: yeah. If you get 2000 kcals from food source X or you eat 2000 kcals from food source Y you are going to weigh exactly the same. Is there any evidence that would suggest the opposite? Incorrect. Humans are biochemical "machines", so metabolism is highly dependent upon form, function & hormonal response to the nature of the food eaten. Further, a large percentage of your daily metabolism is shifted to body heat production and futile cycling, allowing the body to regulate a fairly large shift in energy expenditure via hormone regulation. This is why, for most people, removing just a few calories from their diet will rarely cause any change, unless perfectly held over a significant time frame. (Though if you know how to manipulate the start of a Diet, you can do okay with just knocking out 500 kCal from a diet) Even further than that, meal timing, frequencies and absorption of food can be manipulated to effect total body fat levels. The "Mass In / Mass Out" and "1 lb of fat = 3500 kCal" are accurate in the grand scheme of science but are utterly unimportant to managing total body health. The body's build, rebuild, breakdown and excretion functions are far & away more complex than simple analysis allows for. That's always been the "rub" with gaining/losing fat. Now, all that being said, the actual difference between food types is pretty minimal within the "normal" kCal amount range. You have to really start pushing the outside your normal diet % amounts to shift things when you're eating your regular amount of calories. This part of the reason small changes don't "change" much about a person's total health, but they can limit increases in weight. In sum, this is why most properly structure "weight loss" plans have to be focused on hormone manipulation via food intake. That's what drives much of what you desire to eat and your current food-state. Changing that will result in the dramatic changes to the body, but it normally requires a large shift in the person's normal diet composition. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On June 24 2014 11:24 dudeman001 wrote: What IgnE said. Yes, a calorie is a standard unit of energy. However, the food the calorie came from can have a dramatically different process for how it's processed by the body. For a simplified example: Human A eats 2000 calories of meat, veggies and fruit. This food is low in sugar and is slowly metabolized throughout the day, gradually feeding the body the (assumed) 2000 it needs. All is well in this situation. Human B eats 2000 calories of bread, soda, and other carbohydrate-rich foods. This food is quickly metabolized into blood sugar. Now, blood sugar has to be very highly regulated because high blood sugar is toxic and WILL kill you. So the body produces insulin, which is a chemical hormone that forces that blood sugar into fat cells. Insulin literally creates an environment where it forces your blood's fuel into fat cells to keep the body from dying. This creates a problem, because suddenly those 2000 calories human B ate aren't feeding the body, and the body gets hungry. The body will become so hungry that it produces more and more hormones to drive the brain to find food. People overeat, metabolism slows down (changing the daily required calories from 2000 to less) and this is what drives obesity. Furthermore, cells become damaged - essentially - as they become resistant to hormones such as insulin and leptin. This breaks the system down even further in an environment overloaded with carbohydrates. (I'm going to plug my own post because the youtube series in the spoilers I posted explains this much more eloquently: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/451503-obesity-now-a-global-issue?page=13#258 ) A calorie is a unit of energy. But the calorie isn't the problem. The calorie has never been the problem. It's what the actually food does to your body on the CHEMICAL level, not on the physical level. Oh my, I'm learning shit. This has been extremely helpful. In my experience, this has been largely true. When I eat donuts, my stomach doesn't get "full", it kicks my hunger into overdrive but if I eat something of oats, cumbers, eggs and such of equivalent calories, it really "fill" it up and I have been wondering about this phenomenon for months. So yes this all end up being one's personal choices that he or she end up being fat. | ||
|
chadissilent
Canada1187 Posts
On June 24 2014 08:54 IgnE wrote: Yes. Ah yes, your doctor friend. Nevermind that doctors don't really get taught nutrition in school and usually don't give two shits about it, believing simply whatever the USDA puts out as guidelines for eating and well-being. It's not a simple mass balance equation at all because the source of your calories affects nutrient partitioning, affects how much you are burning, affects hormonal balances, etc. You can write that equation if you want, and it's true in a simple way, but the real equation that includes the functions that comprise "Calories out" would take up several pages and the variables in those pages depend on the kinds of food you are eating. He also explained it in "several pages and variables" as he was listing the different hormones and products that your body naturally releases in response to your diet, and although I can fluently converse in biological discussions (I have a degree in it), I can't possibly repeat everything he said. I'll get a more elaborate writeup from him later.. American doctors may not learn proper nutrition but it's definitely covered in Canadian med schools. Also note that I didn't say it doesn't matter WHAT you eat, I said how often and what quantities (to combat the you must eat [x] meals per day line of thinking). Of course starch and carbohydrate-rich foods will be harder to break down and will leave one with a full stomach and less energy. That's a given. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On June 24 2014 13:38 chadissilent wrote: He also explained it in "several pages and variables" as he was listing the different hormones and products that your body naturally releases in response to your diet, and although I can fluently converse in biological discussions (I have a degree in it), I can't possibly repeat everything he said. I'll get a more elaborate writeup from him later.. American doctors may not learn proper nutrition but it's definitely covered in Canadian med schools. Also note that I didn't say it doesn't matter WHAT you eat, I said how often and what quantities (to combat the you must eat [x] meals per day line of thinking). Of course starch and carbohydrate-rich foods will be harder to break down and will leave one with a full stomach and less energy. That's a given. I don't think it matters how many degrees and studies you have, you can't go against empirical data. For single digit bodyfat at high levels of muscle mass (bodybuilding) you need to eat not only your proper macros, but at the proper time in very specific windows. I'm a power lifter and I can assure you to mantain my current muscle mass, strength and weight (all 3) I need to eat most of my carbs post workout, fat pre workout, most calories after training etc; also, I can't down all the food I eat in less than 3 meals, I would just throw up. Anyone who has ever done any strength or physique related sport will tell you that nutrient timing has a huge impact on performance and body composition. Nutrient timing comes after you start eating healthier and stop being sedentary obviously. | ||
|
dRaW
Canada5744 Posts
| ||
|
GhostKorean
United States2330 Posts
On June 22 2014 15:00 IgnE wrote: Oh it's a unit of energy????? That clears everything up then. I'm glad you brought up the various metabolic pathways by which differet calories are digested and made available to the body. The discussion of the role of AMP-K and mtor, insulin, ghrelin, IGF1, GH, somatostatin, and other extracellular signals has been elucidating. But at least we all know that if you only eat a couple twinkies every day you will lose fat and muscle mass so calories must be calories right? What's your point? I said there are other factors to health than calories, which seems to be what you are implying. | ||
|
GhostKorean
United States2330 Posts
On June 24 2014 14:00 GoTuNk! wrote: I don't think it matters how many degrees and studies you have, you can't go against empirical data. For single digit bodyfat at high levels of muscle mass (bodybuilding) you need to eat not only your proper macros, but at the proper time in very specific windows. I'm a power lifter and I can assure you to mantain my current muscle mass, strength and weight (all 3) I need to eat most of my carbs post workout, fat pre workout, most calories after training etc; also, I can't down all the food I eat in less than 3 meals, I would just throw up. Anyone who has ever done any strength or physique related sport will tell you that nutrient timing has a huge impact on performance and body composition. Nutrient timing comes after you start eating healthier and stop being sedentary obviously. Sure, at your level you need to fine-tune and optimize as much as you can. But when you're 300 lbs overweight, if you eat at a calorie deficit you'll start losing weight. I agree with you; the answer isn't black or white. Nutrition is more than a mere energy balance, but obese and overweight people needn't overly complicate the process when counting calories is far more impactful than anything else. Different needs for different bodies... | ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
| ||
| ||
