Canada's New Food Guide

[msommers]

Lots of big changes and I really like it. Dairy industry can't be happy but fuck those guys, I want real French cheese anyways.

https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/?utm_source=canada-ca-foodguide-en&utm_medium=vurl&utm_campaign=foodguide&fbclid=IwAR3VGduFnD1MKUUyOmrjPpKrGoWa7SlbpmY67FeX60wZZE7I0ZHo48m8y-U

[max_boost]

Eating stuff like that is gonna give you abs for 2019.

[Misterman]

All I remember the Food Guide being was a pyramid chart showing percentages of what it recommended you should eat for macros. Haven't looked at it since grade school since it was already an outdated waste of paper back then.

But as Miss Ommers knows, I just rely on Amway snacks to fill my dietary needs :thumbsup:

[Kg810]

Miss Ommers

:hitit:

[ThePenIsMightier]

So this should make a huge difference since everyone was obviously following the previous Food Guide. Now everyone will follow the new guide.
Wait - how come there's so many obese mutants everywhere? Oh I guess the old food guide (which obviously everyone was following) led those fat fucks astray and this new one will fix it.
Because everyone follows the Food Guide...

[scboss]

Dairy Farmers must be pissed they got pulled
Its sorta sad that part of it says "cook at home"

[ZenOps]

Dayum son, there be no cheese. The juice people can't be all that happy either, but its probably their own fault for leaving them in vats for years before serving.

Kidney beans are extraordinarily toxic if not cooked through. Best to avoid entirely, especially for millennials. The chance of a millennial spending a full 30 minutes to boil kidney beans to ensure safety and not 80 Celsius which acutally increases the toxin levels? I'd say odds.

One piece of advice for all millennials. Hard boil all beans for at least 30 minutes, and don't eat kidney beans unless they are the pre-cooked canned type.

[ExtraSlow]

So this should make a huge difference since everyone was obviously following the previous Food Guide. Now everyone will follow the new guide. . . . Because everyone follows the Food Guide...
Well the document is used to teach kids about nutrition in schools, and yes, it absolutely does influence behavior. It's not magic, but over the long term, it does nudge behavior in a significant way.

[Misterman]

So this should make a huge difference since everyone was obviously following the previous Food Guide. Now everyone will follow the new guide.
Wait - how come there's so many obese mutants everywhere? Oh I guess the old food guide (which obviously everyone was following) led those fat fucks astray and this new one will fix it.
Because everyone follows the Food Guide...

Not sure how much is sarcasm? But yes the old food guide was horrible, and most certainly would lead to obesity for a lot of people. This new one is better in a sense, but it's pretty intensive to actually find any information in it, the average person is not going to spend 3 hours reading this document to find what they need from it. So it's hard to say how much good this updated food guide will do.

[ThePenIsMightier]

Not sure how much is sarcasm? But yes the old food guide was horrible, and most certainly would lead to obesity for a lot of people. This new one is better in a sense, but it's pretty intensive to actually find any information in it, the average person is not going to spend 3 hours reading this document to find what they need from it. So it's hard to say how much good this updated food guide will do.

No one literally following the old food guide was obese. You can argue that the carb balance was off and that's fine. The fat people have zero idea and zero care about the food guide. The extent of their dietary knowledge is "Diet Coke better than regular Coke" and no one on earth drinks more Diet Coke than people 50 pounds overweight. Well that's not true because people 100 pounds overweight drink even more.
And for them nothing is washed down by 32oz of Diet Coke better than: Burger King, McDonald's, Wendy's, Red Robin, Popeye's, Tim's, Dairy Queen, Starbucks, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Arby's, Carl's Jr, and KFC.
That's what they're eating 15x a week and no food guide has ever supported that.
I saw a grandma at the dollar store buying about a kg of m&M's telling the others in line she "needed to get the healthy ones with peanuts for her grandson" and I'm seeing about 5 out of 24 kindergarten kids with a full sized can of Coke to go with the trash lunch their moron parents "made" them.
It's Idiocracy out there and the Canada Food Guide doesn't have the marketing power of Coke or Brawndo.

[msommers]

Not sure how much is sarcasm? But yes the old food guide was horrible, and most certainly would lead to obesity for a lot of people. This new one is better in a sense, but it's pretty intensive to actually find any information in it, the average person is not going to spend 3 hours reading this document to find what they need from it. So it's hard to say how much good this updated food guide will do.

This has been a criticism that has come up from dietitians: accessibility and application. I forget that in our house, most of the things mentioned in the new food guide are fairly intuitive and nothing shocking. But for a family seeking guidance on how to improve nutrition, it could have been implemented better -- more graphics of what a good meal vs. a bad meal consists of, what should constitute a normal serving size for a meal, etc.

One specific thing I really like is talking about how to eat, ie: not eating in front of the tv, phone etc, eating with family/friends, stopping when you feel full. This idea of "finish everything on your plate" probably comes from our Grandparents who grew up in the Great Depression where food scarcity was a real thing. However that mentality has carried forward and I believe contributes to a lot of overeating.

In any event, it was an update that was sorely needed and despite missing the mark, is still an improvement.

[Masked Bandit]

I don't know that there is a ton of new info in the revised food guide. Yes it's different than what I saw in grade school some 35+ years ago but the idea of half your plate being vegetables with the other quarters being protein and carbs isn't exactly new.

[ZenOps]

I'm still strong on eat what is on your plate. Just make a smaller next meal to even it out.

[Misterman]

No one literally following the old food guide was obese. You can argue that the carb balance was off and that's fine. The fat people have zero idea and zero care about the food guide. The extent of their dietary knowledge is "Diet Coke better than regular Coke" and no one on earth drinks more Diet Coke than people 50 pounds overweight. Well that's not true because people 100 pounds overweight drink even more.
And for them nothing is washed down by 32oz of Diet Coke better than: Burger King, McDonald's, Wendy's, Red Robin, Popeye's, Tim's, Dairy Queen, Starbucks, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Arby's, Carl's Jr, and KFC.
That's what they're eating 15x a week and no food guide has ever supported that.
I saw a grandma at the dollar store buying about a kg of m&M's telling the others in line she "needed to get the healthy ones with peanuts for her grandson" and I'm seeing about 5 out of 24 kindergarten kids with a full sized can of Coke to go with the trash lunch their moron parents "made" them.
It's Idiocracy out there and the Canada Food Guide doesn't have the marketing power of Coke or Brawndo.

That's the thing though, you could eat Mcdonalds everyday and still be abiding by the old guide. It was just a straight break down of percentages for protein, fat, and carbs. With the fat and carbs being swung wildly out of proper macro balance. And no consideration that sugar is a carb. So if you don't eat any rice or potatoes, you could be drinking a gallon of Coke with your meal and be A-ok in the eyes of the Food Guide.

Just notice that I said "A lot" of people, not "All" people.

In any sense, it isn't the governments business to tell people what to eat, that falls to personal responsibility. But it's good to see they are making some improvements to the guide so that people who have no clue can at least not be led down such a terrible path.

[Mitsu3000gt]

I don't know how it compares to the old food guide (from this thread it sounds like it was horrible), but hasn't this been widely accepted as an objectively healthy/ideal diet for many, many years now? It's basically fruits and veggies, good proteins, minimal dairy, whole grains, and good carbs. Isn't that what a 10 second google search would have shown for almost forever? I've never heard of anyone actually following a country's food guide haha, but maybe some people do so it's good to have an update.

[Swank]

Will following this guide still enable our youth to achieve the only fitness goals that matter; getting excellence in all 6 tests of the Canada Fitness Test?

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/87/5f/12/875f121e006cbcde3789acedde931965--fitness-motivation-bronze.jpg

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8Gtih0aGYQI/WL1voaeNSII/AAAAAAABkx0/tBQ-lV5TGTAmDH3NFXOKzu2Yr5d4HMIBwCLcB/s1600/CanadaFitness.png

[Misterman]

Will following this guide still enable our youth to achieve the only fitness goals that matter; getting excellence in all 6 tests of the Canada Fitness Test?

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/87/5f/12/875f121e006cbcde3789acedde931965--fitness-motivation-bronze.jpg

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8Gtih0aGYQI/WL1voaeNSII/AAAAAAABkx0/tBQ-lV5TGTAmDH3NFXOKzu2Yr5d4HMIBwCLcB/s1600/CanadaFitness.png

LOL. These were awesome. Having the PhysEd teacher stop you on pushups cause you are way over the maximum and he is tired of waiting to see how long you can go. Feeling like a total Bawz!!

[J-hop]

I don't know that there is a ton of new info in the revised food guide. Yes it's different than what I saw in grade school some 35+ years ago but the idea of half your plate being vegetables with the other quarters being protein and carbs isn't exactly new.

Old food guide had way less fruits and veggies didn’t it? I remember something silly like the 82 and 92 food guides being taught which seemed to suggest most of your diet should be bread, grains and milk products https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canada-food-guide/about/history-food-guide.html

Clearly there was some marketing involved from grain and dairy farmers of Canada back then, which is comical considering with the new food guide they have a warning to “watch out for food marketing”

[gogreen]

Dairy is listed under the protein category. Not front and centre anymore and no longer a distinct group, but it is there.

[Xtrema]

Old food guide had way less fruits and veggies didn’t it? I remember something silly like the 82 and 92 food guides being taught which seemed to suggest most of your diet should be bread, grains and milk products https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canada-food-guide/about/history-food-guide.html

Clearly there was some marketing involved from grain and dairy farmers of Canada back then, which is comical considering with the new food guide they have a warning to “watch out for food marketing”

I grew up on this food guide:
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/migration/hc-sc/fn-an/images/food-guide-aliment/context/cfg_history_1982_two_small.gif


I was told by doctor 50% vegetables. 25% meat (fish doesn't count) and 25% grain by doctor.

Lost 20lbs on that but plateaued.

[ExtraSlow]

I grew up on this food guide:
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/migration/hc-sc/fn-an/images/food-guide-aliment/context/cfg_history_1982_two_small.gif
Compare to this Pic in the new one:
84726

You can see Milk isn't specifically pictured, and there's only one tiny thing that is even dairy.

[KPHMPH]

Fuck this.

Keto for the win.

Meats, healthy fats and veggies.

[max_boost]

Can't keto, makes me irregular.

I really like this new guide. Makes sense from my own personal experience.

[Xtrema]

Compare to this Pic in the new one:
84726

You can see Milk isn't specifically pictured, and there's only one tiny thing that is even dairy.

So I have been following the new guide for 2 years. :D

[Misterman]

Can't keto, makes me irregular.

I really like this new guide. Makes sense from my own personal experience.

A good fiber supplement helps, but agreed that's the worst thing about Keto. Never have a great shit anymore.

[ThePenIsMightier]

That's the thing though, you could eat Mcdonalds everyday and still be abiding by the old guide. It was just a straight break down of percentages for protein, fat, and carbs. With the fat and carbs being swung wildly out of proper macro balance. And no consideration that sugar is a carb. So if you don't eat any rice or potatoes, you could be drinking a gallon of Coke with your meal and be A-ok in the eyes of the Food Guide.

Just notice that I said "A lot" of people, not "All" people.

In any sense, it isn't the governments business to tell people what to eat, that falls to personal responsibility. But it's good to see they are making some improvements to the guide so that people who have no clue can at least not be led down such a terrible path.

But you can't have a gallon of Coke and stay under 2,000 Calories/day nor can you skew you ratios too far and stay under that. So if you were actually following the guidelines you're not going to become obese.
Obesity is not a function of a poor guide. If it was we should notice huge swaths of Canadian society about 50 pounds lighter by as early as June. Does anyone really expect that?

[Misterman]

But you can't have a gallon of Coke and stay under 2,000 Calories/day nor can you skew you ratios too far and stay under that. So if you were actually following the guidelines you're not going to become obese.
Obesity is not a function of a poor guide. If it was we should notice huge swaths of Canadian society about 50 pounds lighter by as early as June. Does anyone really expect that?

Not sure where 2000 calories is coming from. But ok. The old guide was a rough outline telling you to eat a fuckload of carbs. If you're going to eat a diet that's excessive in carbs, that's going to lead to weight gain. I don't care to argue the nuances of what constitutes obesity, but the old food guide created unhealthy eating habits that were likely to lead to weight gain.

[mazdavirgin]

Not sure where 2000 calories is coming from. But ok. The old guide was a rough outline telling you to eat a fuckload of carbs. If you're going to eat a diet that's excessive in carbs, that's going to lead to weight gain. I don't care to argue the nuances of what constitutes obesity, but the old food guide created unhealthy eating habits that were likely to lead to weight gain.

That's such a load of horseshit. Obesity is the result of over consumption full stop. You can lose weight eating twinkies.

[suntan]

Not sure where 2000 calories is coming from. But ok. The old guide was a rough outline telling you to eat a fuckload of carbs. If you're going to eat a diet that's excessive in carbs, that's going to lead to weight gain. I don't care to argue the nuances of what constitutes obesity, but the old food guide created unhealthy eating habits that were likely to lead to weight gain.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/

[max_boost]

A good fiber supplement helps, but agreed that's the worst thing about Keto. Never have a great shit anymore.

Too satisfying to give up a good crap or carb lol haha

But I'm lucky enough to have okay genes, and gym just enough to stay lean

[Misterman]

That's such a load of horseshit. Obesity is the result of over consumption full stop. You can lose weight eating twinkies.

Obesity can be the result of a number of issues. I only diet people to lose fat, but what would I know?

The only full stop was my original general comment that the old food guide was garbage. It was built more from food industry lobbyist dollars, than it was from scientific research and knowledge.

Anyway, I'm out of this convo. I can see people are already starting to take things out of context and get offended.

[jwslam]

I can people are already starting to take things out of context and get offended.
There's places on the interwebz this doesn't exist?

[ThePenIsMightier]

Not sure where 2000 calories is coming from. But ok. The old guide was a rough outline telling you to eat a fuckload of carbs. If you're going to eat a diet that's excessive in carbs, that's going to lead to weight gain. I don't care to argue the nuances of what constitutes obesity, but the old food guide created unhealthy eating habits that were likely to lead to weight gain.

Ok bye^.
The old guide told you to read labels and most/all labels indicate that their serving sizes are based on the recommended 2000Cal/day. So while the guide contained lots of foods that would easily pull you over 2,000 they were still indirectly telling you to stay under that. It's tough to be obese at under 2000 Cal/day.
Your big point as you mentioned was the old food guide sucked.
My big point is that the obesity epidemic cannot be blamed on the food guide. Obese people have not been and will not start following it. If it helps out some folks that's great but this is not the silver bullet to eliminate obesity.

[suntan]

Ok bye^.
The old guide told you to read labels and most/all labels indicate that their serving sizes are based on the recommended 2000Cal/day. So while the guide contained lots of foods that would easily pull you over 2,000 they were still indirectly telling you to stay under that. It's tough to be obese at under 2000 Cal/day.
Your big point as you mentioned was the old food guide sucked.
My big point is that the obesity epidemic cannot be blamed on the food guide. Obese people have not been and will not start following it. If it helps out some folks that's great but this is not the silver bullet to eliminate obesity.

Nobody believes in the laws of thermodynamics anymore, that requires doing things like eating less, who wants that?

[HiTempguy1]

Once I started counting calories, it was really amazing to see how what might seem like a big meal or some bad food was just so full of calories as to be ridiculous. A big problem for guys is that we do a lot of physical activity when younger, and then you get a desk job but don't change your eating. I have a buddy who is thin as a rail, but he does some sort of physical work for his whole day. Doing the math, just to maintain his weight is something like 2500-3000 calories. That's a LOT of healthy food, and it's even a lot of shit food. So he's skinny, but not healthy.

I still don't eat the best, but watching calories has me slowly losing weight and being more conscious of the decisions I make. Also helps cut down on needless snacking, which I think is one of the best things. Going to bed full sucks!

[ThePenIsMightier]

Nobody believes in the laws of thermodynamics anymore, that requires doing things like eating less, who wants that?

I don't think he's as crazy as you're suggesting. There are physicians promoting weight loss and nutritional plans that aren't based on counting calories.
A human is not a bomb calorimeter. How does the thermodynamic argument hold up if you eat a perfect low calorie diet and then have a couple tablespoons of gasoline?

[suntan]

I don't think he's as crazy as you're suggesting. There are physicians promoting weight loss and nutritional plans that aren't based on counting calories.
A human is not a bomb calorimeter. How does the thermodynamic argument hold up if you eat a perfect low calorie diet and then have a couple tablespoons of gasoline?

Durr... Can the human body absorb calories from gasoline?

[ThePenIsMightier]

Nobody believes in the laws of thermodynamics anymore, that requires doing things like eating less, who wants that?


Durr... Can the human body absorb calories from gasoline?

It's either "as simple as thermodynamics" or it's not.
The test is a bomb calorimeter. The product (often food, and often something like N-L-α-Aspartyl-L-phenylalanine, 1-methyl ester) is simply burned and the temp. increase in the water from the heat is measured to calculate the energy that came out of the "food".
If you put gasoline in it, it will tell you there's a shit load of Calories in gasoline. That's what the test will tell you and based on the "it's nothing but Thermo" argument, tiny amounts of gasoline (not enough to poison you) should provide you with Calories.
This is obviously false because my GI tract isn't a bomb calorimeter and neither is yours.
So counting calories can certainly form an important part of diet and weight loss and it can be a big part of the story. It's just not necessarily the whole story.
Alcohol is also flammable but I'm not burning it so I doubt alcohol Calories add to your count as effectively as beef yet we're all told "alcohol is high-Cal". Aspartame is not flammable but again I'm not trying to burn it. Does it literally add zero Calories to your diet just because it won't burn?

[max_boost]

Wth are you guys talking about :nut: :dunno:

[suntan]

It's either "as simple as thermodynamics" or it's not.
The test is a bomb calorimeter. The product (often food, and often something like N-L-α-Aspartyl-L-phenylalanine, 1-methyl ester) is simply burned and the temp. increase in the water from the heat is measured to calculate the energy that came out of the "food".
If you put gasoline in it, it will tell you there's a shit load of Calories in gasoline. That's what the test will tell you and based on the "it's nothing but Thermo" argument, tiny amounts of gasoline (not enough to poison you) should provide you with Calories.
This is obviously false because my GI tract isn't a bomb calorimeter and neither is yours.
So counting calories can certainly form an important part of diet and weight loss and it can be a big part of the story. It's just not necessarily the whole story.
Alcohol is also flammable but I'm not burning it so I doubt alcohol Calories add to your count as effectively as beef yet we're all told "alcohol is high-Cal". Aspartame is not flammable but again I'm not trying to burn it. Does it literally add zero Calories to your diet just because it won't burn?

God you're fucking stupid. How fat are you?

[scboss]

Obesity can be the result of a number of issues. I only diet people to lose fat, but what would I know?

The only full stop was my original general comment that the old food guide was garbage. It was built more from food industry lobbyist dollars, than it was from scientific research and knowledge.

Anyway, I'm out of this convo. I can see people are already starting to take things out of context and get offended.


The only way to become obese is to over eat. Trying to justify any other reason like thyroid or an injury is nonsense and I've seen it destroy so many lives. With the amount of good information out there it still blows my mind that people are so niave to believe that it's not there fault.

[ThePenIsMightier]

God you're fucking stupid. How fat are you?

I am not fat but you're analysis here convinced me. Everything in nutrition is Calories in, Calories out. We are internal combustion engines, not humans. Zero other factors apply.

[mazdavirgin]

I am not fat but you're analysis here convinced me. Everything in nutrition is Calories in, Calories out. We are internal combustion engines, not humans. Zero other factors apply.

You're literally arguing against one of the fundamental rules in physics. Calories in and calories out is precise, testable and verifiable. We know that's how *everything* works. I don't care if you are talking about combustion engines or humans or cows. Calories works in all those cases. For reference there's 7600 calories per liter of gasoline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent

[01RedDX]

.

[suntan]

I am not fat but you're analysis here convinced me. Everything in nutrition is Calories in, Calories out. We are internal combustion engines, not humans. Zero other factors apply.

Dive deeper into your fucking stupidity.

Humans cannot process gasoline. Its caloric content is irrelevant to us.

Human also cannot process cellulose. It's why fibre rich foods make us poop so easily, because it just goes through your system and slides out your asshole.

"You're"... good jorb dipshit.

- - - Updated - - -


Let me see if I understand this correctly, since you guys are saying that it's all just CICO and a calorie deficit is the key to losing weight.

Whether the calories I consume all come from pure sugar or tofu or cooking oil or ethanol (I'd rather not gasoline) they will have the same effect on my body?

So if I consume 500 calories less than I burn each day, from one of these sources, then after a week I will have lost a pound of fat (a pound of fat is 3500 calories) with no effect on insulin, fat storage, toxicity, etc.

Different foods/substances have different effects on the body, do they not? Otherwise, why even bother with the glycemic index?

That's why I actually thought gasoline was an apt comparison in this case, as it would function differently in a human body vs in an engine, although it too has a caloric value.

If you want to lose weight, then calories are all that matter. Of course you shouldn't eat nothing but pure sugar. The point is that you need to eat nutritious food within the confines of your caloric need.

[Misterman]

If you want to lose weight, then calories are all that matter.

And if you want to lose FAT, then you need to think outside that box. Calories is not the only manipulable factor.

[Disoblige]

People don't want to know how to lose fat. They know how.

They want to know how to lose fat QUICK and EASY.

[Misterman]

People don't want to know how to lose fat. They know how.

They want to know how to lose fat QUICK and EASY.

Just drink Apple Cider Vinegar!! Have you seen the ads? It MELTS fat!!

[01RedDX]

.

[ThePenIsMightier]

Dive deeper into your fucking stupidity.

Humans cannot process gasoline. Its caloric content is irrelevant to us.

https://img.memecdn.com/internet-tough-guy_o_1120814.jpg

How about alcohol? It's also poison, but it's consumed like food.
Add 400 Calories of alcohol daily and compare with adding 400 Calories of butter. Who gets fatter?

- - - Updated - - -


The importance of the need to restrict calories cannot be understated.

But say I eat nothing but pure sugar, except below the confines of my daily expenditures. Isn't it scientifically proven that I will not lose as much weight as I could eating more healthy things?

Meaning, it's an important metric but only part of the whole story of how the body produces/stores/loses fat.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/620/799/57a.jpg

[Inzane]

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/87/5f/12/875f121e006cbcde3789acedde931965--fitness-motivation-bronze.jpg

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8Gtih0aGYQI/WL1voaeNSII/AAAAAAABkx0/tBQ-lV5TGTAmDH3NFXOKzu2Yr5d4HMIBwCLcB/s1600/CanadaFitness.png

Fond memories. They should bring that back. Wasn't the main reason that program was cancelled was because of hurt feelings?

[HiTempguy1]

Isn't it scientifically proven that I will not lose as much weight as I could eating more healthy things?

Please provide this science, I'd be interested in reading it. I'm actually really interested, because searching anything on google just turns up bullshit (which isn't surprising), including a lot of stuff saying "eat more to lose weight" :rofl:

[Misterman]

including a lot of stuff saying "eat more to lose weight" :rofl:

This obviously needs some caveats with it. But your metabolism will be the biggest effect for fat loss. Most people seem to think metabolism is a fixed factor, and it isn't. Consuming more calories is a very good way to increase metabolism. Ensuring the macro breakdown of the calories you consume is correct, you will lose fat. For example, there is no metabolic pathway in your body that can convert protein to fat. Also, the biggest misconception is that fat loss involves weight loss. There is a big difference between weight and fat. Contrary to popular belief, you can lose fat and gain weight at the same time.

[HiTempguy1]

This obviously needs some caveats with it. But your metabolism will be the biggest effect for fat loss. Most people seem to think metabolism is a fixed factor, and it isn't. Consuming more calories is a very good way to increase metabolism. Ensuring the macro breakdown of the calories you consume is correct, you will lose fat. For example, there is no metabolic pathway in your body that can convert protein to fat. Also, the biggest misconception is that fat loss involves weight loss. There is a big difference between weight and fat. Contrary to popular belief, you can lose fat and gain weight at the same time.

I have you on ignore but I clicked to see. Regretted it. Lots of psuedoscience you are talking about :rofl:

Post an actual white paper from researchers, not an online article or body building website. Otherwise, I'll stick with calorie in/calorie out. I've never seen it not work unless people lie (which they do, all the time, about their little snacks here and there).

[Misterman]

I have you on ignore but I clicked to see. Regretted it. Lots of psuedoscience you are talking about :rofl:

Post an actual white paper from researchers, not an online article or body building website. Otherwise, I'll stick with calorie in/calorie out. I've never seen it not work unless people lie (which they do, all the time, about their little snacks here and there).

There is nothing pseudo about it. And it still fits your basic bitch oversimplified 2nd law of Thermodynamics theory.

Definitely wouldn't want to link anything from Bodybuilders. What value could possibly be had by reading a piece by someone who applied the science and proved it works? :facepalm:

But here you go, even though you won't read it or have the capability to understand much of it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3943438/ It's a good starter piece to understand the negative effects of calorie restriction.

I gotta say, I do find it hilarious that mister big bad ass republican conservative, turns out to be the biggest snowflake of them all. Ego so fragile you couldn't even bear the thought of miscommunicating your point, had to block someone for asking a question. You'd make a good youtube interview fodder for InfoWars. I hope you don't keep rope or razor blades around. Remember you can call for help the internet feels a little too overwhelming http://www.suicide.org/hotlines/international/canada-suicide-hotlines.html

[mazdavirgin]

There is nothing pseudo about it. And it still fits your basic bitch oversimplified 2nd law of Thermodynamics theory.

Definitely wouldn't want to link anything from Bodybuilders. What value could possibly be had by reading a piece by someone who applied the science and proved it works? :facepalm:

But here you go, even though you won't read it or have the capability to understand much of it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3943438/
It's a good starter piece to understand the negative effects of calorie restriction.


:facepalm: Can you actually read? Your own linked paper counters your bat shit crazy violation of the second law of thermodynamics lunacy.

I quote:


Athletes must aim to minimize the magnitude of these adaptations, preserve LBM, and adequately fuel performance and recovery during weight reduction. To accomplish these goals, it is recommended to approach weight loss in a stepwise, incremental fashion, utilizing small energy deficits to ensure a slow rate of weight loss. Participation in a structured resistance training program and adequate protein intake are also imperative.


Holy bananas your own papers is stating calories in must be less than calories out. Someone needs to go back to the School for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want to Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too.

[Misterman]

:facepalm: Can you actually read? Your own linked paper counters your bat shit crazy violation of the second law of thermodynamics lunacy.

I quote:


Holy bananas your own papers is stating calories in must be less than calories out. Someone needs to go back to the School for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Want to Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too.

And I never stated that calories in should equal more than calories out. Do you guys even understand what metabolism is? It's the rate at which your body burns calories essentially. If you manipulate the metabolism to be higher, you can increase calories.

And as stated, I shared the first easy to find article linked with studies, to show the effects of calorie restriction being denied by a few of you. Not to demonstrate a disagreement with the 2nd law of thermodynamics that I never stated in the first place. But great job trying to cherry pick one line in an attempt to prove a narrative that never existed.