What makes you fat, carbs or calories?

[Pathogenic]

I wouldn't go as far as saying Lustig is a con artist... just mistaken. He dived into the pool before it had water. What I mean is, he used data from mice, yeast, and cultured "petri dish" human tissue and developed his theories since it allows for more inference. Data from living breathing humans is much harder to acquire, has technical restrictions that other research doesn't, and takes way longer. He jumped the gun. I don't doubt that he authentically believes in his own message (as with Taubes), I just believe he made the common mistake of asserting things he can't quite support yet. Pretty common in academia, imo... publish, publish, publish.

I agree with this. Perhaps I'm just tired of hearing his name regarding anything carb-related, and overreacted.

The road to the top 1% of cited authors in academia occasionally requires selling your soul, unfortunately.

 

[VoodooPlata]

Calories in, calories out holds in every single clinical situation in which it has been tried.

Well, it can't. That's like saying that the number of joules in the gas you put in your car is the same as the number of joules of work you get out - it is very much not true. Physics says so.

But I shall read all of those links. As there are many reports of success with no-carb diets, I will not disregard Lustig - what he says seems to hold merit in my book. Ketosis is a thing, hormone regulation is also a thing.

 

[mtruitt76]

There seems to be a conception that however many calories you eat, that is how many calories your body will absorb. If you eat 3000 calories of fat, 3000 calories will provide fuel for bodily processes etc. This notion is wrong.

Physics states that is I use 2000 calories of energy in a day, those 2000 calories must come from somewhere. This is true. Physics however also states that no machine is 100% efficient (thermodynamics). This is very true of the human body, which is a machine in a physical sense. So even if the human body wasn't self-regulating, which it is, it wouldn't be true that you ate 4000 calories and then used 2000 and the rest became fat. If that were the case, shit wouldn't be sticky - most of the sticky stuff in shit is fat. Fat that is not on your belly, but which you ate. Horseshit is not sticky - it is wet, but not fatty. They also do not eat a lot of fat, but metabolize it from other sources instead. So they don't have fat in their bellies, and thus do not shit fat.

Add to this that the human body will regulate hormonally what happens to the stuff you eat, and then suddenly your "calories in - calories out = weight lost/gained" isn't so crystal clear anymore.

I highly recommend "the skinny on obesity" by Robert Lustig, and his talks on the subject. All can be found on youtube. He is an endocrinologist, who talks about how eating carbohydrates, especially fructose, does bad shit to you. There are also several books on ketogenic diets.

EDIT: what I'm contributing to the discussion is meant to be the notion that even disregarding hormones and self-regulatory processes, calories in - calories out would not be true.

I think less people would have a problem with calories in vs calories out, if they would let go of the most simplistic understanding of it. I don't recall anyone ever arguing that 1000 calories consumed turns into 1000 calories used or that if you eat exactly 3500 calories over your calculated maintenance, then you will gain exactly 1 lb of fat or lose 1 lb of fat by eating exactly 3500 calories below maintenance. (Okay at least anyone with half a brain arguing this)

However, oddly enough you and some other posters seem to believe this is what calories in vs calories out is stating. Here is a quote from Lyle McDonald which gives a better representation of cals in vs cals out, than the misguided one you are presenting.

The Energy Balance Equation Isn

 

[VoodooPlata]

I think less people would have a problem with calories in vs calories out, if they would let go of the most simplistic understanding of it. I don't recall anyone ever arguing that 1000 calories consumed turns into 1000 calories used or that if you eat exactly 3500 calories over your calculated maintenance, then you will gain exactly 1 lb of fat or lose 1 lb of fat by eating exactly 3500 calories below maintenance. (Okay at least anyone with half a brain arguing this)

However, oddly enough you and some other posters seem to believe this is what calories in vs calories out is stating. Here is a quote from Lyle McDonald which gives a better representation of cals in vs cals out, than the misguided one you are presenting.

The Energy Balance Equation | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

I have bolded the part which I feel applies to you and most people who argue against cals in vs cals out. Read the article it will be enlightening.

That was indeed an enlightening article - although it basically just stated what I put down above, that thermodynamics is a thing and that it applies to humans.

However, I don't see why people are so quick to disregard hormonal activity, and Lustig is an endocrinologist and should know these things. The details of what he's saying is also corroborated by studies, though his general message about food is not.

Anyways, a lot of people advocate low/no-carb diets for weight loss, and since carbs give me mood swings I'll just keep on avoiding them for that reason.

 

[mtruitt76]

That was indeed an enlightening article - although it basically just stated what I put down above, that thermodynamics is a thing and that it applies to humans.

However, I don't see why people are so quick to disregard hormonal activity, and Lustig is an endocrinologist and should know these things. The details of what he's saying is also corroborated by studies, though his general message about food is not.

Anyways, a lot of people advocate low/no-carb diets for weight loss, and since carbs give me mood swings I'll just keep on avoiding them for that reason.

Actually it did not just state what you said earlier. Read this part again.

Recently on the Internet, a common meme is that the application of thermodynamics to the human body is incorrect. This usually comes out of people talking about something that they clearly do not understand in any way shape or form which is the energy balance equation.

This is usually used as a lead in to the idea that the

 

[VoodooPlata]

Actually it did not just state what you said earlier. Read this part again.

Alright, let me clarify - what I meant with my first posts was that the "na

 

[Cygnus-X]

Alright, let me clarify - what I meant with my first posts was that the "na

 

[mtruitt76]

Alright, let me clarify - what I meant with my first posts was that the "na

 

[RafailNadull]

The real trick when it comes to nutrition is to consume a lot of protein when trying to build muscle, to realize that weight-loss and weight-gain is all about net calories*, and to find stuff to eat that makes long-term compliance with one's caloric goals feasible. It may well be that avoiding carbs makes it easier not to exceed one's caloric target. Depends how filling and tasty you find the stuff.


*Unless someone can produce legit studies where the possible effect of macronutrient-distribution is tested, CONTROLLING FOR NET CALORIES.

 

[emcee]

Carbs, fats and proteins are your "macronutrients." Your macronutrients are all what makes up calories. Calories are composed of macronutrients. Calories are all that matter if you want to gain weight or lose weight. Restricting carbohydrates will only have implications for your insulin production and sensitivity.

 

[Pathogenic]

I am reading all of the links you are posting, and finding them enlightening, by the way - I'm always glad to see criticism of concepts. Even those I happen to believe in.

Especially those.

I wish more people would follow your example.

 

[Canecorsos]

wrong food timing and not training hard is what makes most people fat.

 

[hardheart]

I wish more people would follow your example.

The only way I learn is by challenging my beliefs and what I understand to be true. If you think dealing with people is frustrating, try dealing with an IT system when an error that can not happen, happens. Fuck a duck trying to track that shit down.

Fuck, posted before I was done with the thought. I know I appear stubborn, but I do read, absorb, and discard what I find to be useless.

 

[Pathogenic]

The only way I learn is by challenging my beliefs and what I understand to be true. If you think dealing with people is frustrating, try dealing with an IT system when an error that can not happen, happens. Fuck a duck trying to track that shit down.

Fuck, posted before I was done with the thought. I know I appear stubborn, but I do read, absorb, and discard what I find to be useless.

I feel your pain, brother. While I'm not in IT, I have experienced the overbearing urge to smash my head into the wall when my code doesn't work. I've been trying to self-learn C++ and R for research purposes, and I have never been so frustrated by the types of errors I've been getting. I can't imagine a life where my job rides on fixing those problems at a systems level. Must be miserable. I guess that's what Klonopin is for, amirite?

 

[hardheart]

I feel your pain, brother. While I'm not in IT, I have experienced the overbearing urge to smash my head into the wall when my code doesn't work. I've been trying to self-learn C++ and R for research purposes, and I have never been so frustrated by the types of errors I've been getting. I can't imagine a life where my job rides on fixing those problems at a systems level. Must be miserable. I guess that's what Klonopin is for, amirite?

If you need to learn code to write to make programs and algorithms for your research, dump C++ and pick up Java. I'm serious, you'll never look back. You can write flawless code in C++ that won't compile. That doesn't happen in Java.

Also, if you want to self teach, depending on your level (no idea where you are) the Head-First books are a great place to get your feet wet (I assume you're past their level but, never know).

And yes, production support is a bitch.