Canada's New Food Guide

[scboss]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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/Gasoli...lon_equivalent

[01RedDX]

.

[suntan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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 - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Dive deeper into your fucking stupidity.

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

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 - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[Inzane]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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"

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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 quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

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?

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/inte...-hotlines.html

[mazdavirgin]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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?

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.

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]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.