Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-16-2019, 07:15 AM   #101
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
RAE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: northern Michigan
Posts: 1,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsmeow View Post
I personally tend to eat a low moderate amount of carbs and am not worried about fat at all. But -- carbs and sugars don't cause weight gain any more than fat causes weight gain. Having a calorie surplus causes weight gain. You could 100% carbs and you would gain weight if you had a calorie surplus, same thing for fat.

But high carbs and sugar cause weight gain if and only if they result in a calorie surplus over time.

We've discussed this on the forum before, and I don't want to get into an extended debate about it now, but lots of studies have shown this to be incorrect, when it is applied to the human body. I copied the text below from something Dr. Mark Hyman wrote, as he says it better than I can:


"It’s true that when burned in a laboratory setting, 1,000 calories of broccoli and 1,000 calories of soda would indeed release the same amount of energy. But sorry, your law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply in living, breathing, digesting systems. When you eat food, the “isolated system” part of the equation goes out the window. The food interacts with your biology, a complex adaptive system that instantly transforms every bite.

To illustrate how this works, let’s follow 750 calories of soda and 750 calories of broccoli once they enter your body. First, soda: 750 calories is the amount in a Double Gulp from 7-Eleven, which is 100 percent sugar and contains 186 grams, or 46 teaspoons, of sugar. Many people actually do consume this amount of soda. They are considered the “heavy users.”
Your gut quickly absorbs the fiber-free sugars in the soda, fructose, and glucose. The glucose spikes your blood sugar, starting a domino effect of high insulin and a cascade of hormonal responses that kicks bad biochemistry into gear. The high insulin increases storage of belly fat, increases inflammation, raises triglycerides and lowers HDL, raises blood pressure, lowers testosterone in men, and contributes to infertility in women.

Next, the broccoli. First, you wouldn’t be able to eat twenty-one cups of broccoli, because it wouldn’t fit in your stomach. But assuming you could, what would happen? They contain so much fiber that very few of the calories would actually get absorbed. Those that did would get absorbed very slowly. There’d be no blood sugar or insulin spike, no fatty liver, no hormonal chaos. Your stomach would distend (which it doesn’t with soda; bloat from carbonation doesn’t count!), sending signals to your brain that you were full. There would be no triggering of the addiction reward center in the brain. You’d also get many extra benefits that optimize metabolism, lower cholesterol, reduce inflammation, and boost detoxification. The phytonutrients in broccoli boost your liver’s ability to detoxify environmental chemicals, and the flavonoid kaempferol is a powerful anti-inflammatory. Broccoli also contains high levels of vitamin C and folate, which protect against cancer and heart disease. The glucosinolates and sulphorophanes in broccoli change the expression of your genes to help balance your sex hormones, reducing breast and other cancers.

What I’m trying to illustrate here is that all calories are NOT created equal. The same number of calories from different types of food can have very different biological effects.

If you still think a calorie is just a calorie, maybe this study will convince you otherwise. In a study of 154 countries that looked at the correlation of calories, sugar, and diabetes, scientists found that adding 150 calories a day to the diet barely raised the risk of diabetes in the population, but if those 150 calories came from soda, the risk of diabetes went up by 700 percent.

Some calories are addictive, others healing, some fattening, some metabolism-boosting. That’s because food doesn’t just contain calories, it contains information. Every bite of food you eat broadcasts a set of coded instructions to your body—instructions that can create either health or disease."



https://drhyman.com/blog/2014/04/10/...s-dont-matter/


https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/ask-th...e-a-calorie-2/
__________________

RAE is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 05-16-2019, 09:27 AM   #102
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 8,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsmeow View Post
I personally tend to eat a low moderate amount of carbs and am not worried about fat at all. But -- carbs and sugars don't cause weight gain any more than fat causes weight gain. Having a calorie surplus causes weight gain. You could 100% carbs and you would gain weight if you had a calorie surplus, same thing for fat.
I must disagree. The surplus calories-in/calories-out belief tells us what is happening, but not why it is happening.

Imagine you are walking down a street one evening and most of the restaurants on the street are not very busy, but one restaurant is packed with customers and there is a line on the sidewalk full of people waiting to get in. You ask a friend why that restaurant is so crowded. She tells you it's because more people are entering the restaurant than leaving it. Helpful? Not really. She told you what is happening but not why it is happening. Instead, if your friend tells you "They mailed everybody in town a 50% OFF coupon that can only be used today on their 10th anniversary" you now know the 'why'.

In some people certain foods (usually processed carbs and sugar) tell their bodies to store the calories they eat as fat, thus not making the calories easily available for use by the body. So, the brain triggers the 'eat more' response to get the calories the body needs now. The brain also slows down the body's metabolism since there aren't enough available calories to burn for energy. That is the 'why', in the opinion of many people who have studied this. (Of course, this is subject to revision as we learn more about how the body operates.)

My 2¢, take what you wish and leave the rest.
__________________

__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2019, 09:45 AM   #103
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 21,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeea View Post
If you restricted yourself to doing only what humans "evolved" to do, you would be missing out on most of modern life.
That has nothing to do with whether modern humans require three square meals on a regular schedule each day to be healthy.

I wouldn’t call varying one’s eating schedule to be restrictive.
__________________
Retired since summer 1999.
audreyh1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2019, 10:17 AM   #104
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
RAE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: northern Michigan
Posts: 1,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeea View Post
If you restricted yourself to doing only what humans "evolved" to do, you would be missing out on most of modern life.

Yeah, and we could also say that a lot of things about "modern life" (eating ultra-processed foods, driving everywhere instead of walking, high rates of obesity, etc) are resulting in high rates of chronic diseases that were pretty rare before people started living the way many of us do now. I think it is important to consider how our bodies evolved - doesn't mean we have to all go back and live exactly the way our ancestors did (we can't). But there are often things we can do now (like IF, and generally eating mostly real food instead of ultra-processed food) that will help maintain good health.
RAE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2019, 10:25 AM   #105
Moderator Emeritus
Bestwifeever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 17,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckanut View Post
I must disagree. The surplus calories-in/calories-out belief tells us what is happening, but not why it is happening....
Yes. And I pretty much believe a calorie is a calorie, but protein takes more energy to digest and increases satiety (don't take my word for it, google thermogenesis for articles like this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC524030/ which is science and says "Protein plays a key role in body weight regulation through satiety related to diet-induced thermogenesis."). That's why Weight Watchers' point system gives different points to the same calories depending on the carb/protein/fat macros.
__________________
“Would you like an adventure now, or would you like to have your tea first?” J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan
Bestwifeever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2019, 01:34 PM   #106
Moderator Emeritus
braumeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Flyover country
Posts: 12,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAE View Post
We've discussed this on the forum before, and I don't want to get into an extended debate about it now
Yes, our nutrition/calorie debates are always utterly futile, since nobody is ever convinced they might be wrong.

But to add a bit more to that good information from Dr. Hyman that you quoted, here's more from Peter Wilson, as published by The Economist:

Quote:
The calorie as a scientific measurement is not in dispute. But calculating the exact calorific content of food is far harder than the confidently precise numbers displayed on food packets suggest. Two items of food with identical calorific values may be digested in very different ways. Each body processes calories differently. Even for a single individual, the time of day that you eat matters.... the beguiling simplicity of counting calories in and calories out is dangerously flawed.
Quote:
labels on American packaged foods miss their true calorie counts by an average of 18%. American government regulations allow such labels to understate calories by up to 20% (to ensure that consumers are not short-changed in terms of how much nutrition they receive). Th information on some processed frozen foods misstates their calorific content by as much as 70%.
Quote:
Given the vast evidence that calorie-counting is imprecise at best, and contributes to rising obesity at worst, why has it persisted? The simplicity of calorie-counting explains its appeal. Metrics that tell consumers the extent to which foods have been processed, or whether they will suppress hunger, are harder to understand. Faced with the calorie juggernaut, none has gained wide acceptance.
__________________
I thought growing old would take longer.
braumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
A confession
Old 05-16-2019, 02:46 PM   #107
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
flintnational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlanta Suburb
Posts: 1,230
A confession

I am secretly rooting for the calories in calories out model. I want to live in a world where 1,000 calories of cheez its, ice cream and soda have the same impact on my body as 1,000 calories of salmon, broccoli and olive oil.
__________________
"Oh, twice as much ain't twice as good
And can't sustain like one half could
It's wanting more that's gonna send me to my knees" - John Mayer
flintnational is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2019, 03:58 PM   #108
Full time employment: Posting here.
bjorn2bwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Western US
Posts: 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintnational View Post
I am secretly rooting for the calories in calories out model. I want to live in a world where 1,000 calories of cheez its, ice cream and soda have the same impact on my body as 1,000 calories of salmon, broccoli and olive oil.
Heh heh, this guy did the experiment for you --------


Quote:
Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, set-out to disprove the many diets that claim calorie-counting is completely irrelevant and unnecessary for the sake of weight-loss. Certainly, Haub isn’t trying to claim that eating Twinkies and Oreos is beneficial to our health, but he does use an array of junk-food to demonstrate that despite the quality of what a person eats, if the calories are deficient, weight-loss is possible.

https://www.diabetesdaily.com/blog/o...-works-268743/
bjorn2bwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2019, 04:10 PM   #109
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
flintnational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlanta Suburb
Posts: 1,230
^^It is not that calories do not count. I think it has more to do with some calories do a better job of stimulating appetite and some do a better job of satiating appetite.

To pull us back on topic, my wife and I easily skip breakfast and have restricted our eating window to about 7 hours per day, 17 hour fast. I don't think we could have done this consuming refined carbs. But, on a lower carb whole food diet, we are just not hungry in the AM.
__________________
"Oh, twice as much ain't twice as good
And can't sustain like one half could
It's wanting more that's gonna send me to my knees" - John Mayer
flintnational is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2019, 05:36 PM   #110
Full time employment: Posting here.
ugeauxgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Rural Alabama
Posts: 579
I skip breakfast, and find it helpful for maintaining my weight. I also eat low carb. DH Pooh Poohed both of these till one of his friends tried it, and then lost 20 LBs cutting out carbs. He marveled at how he was hardly hungry anymore. He didn't want to try skipping breakfast but one of his friends tried it so he's considering trying that too.

Since we're posting studies- here is a compilation of 23 studies comparing the weight loss between low fat and low carb diets.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition...-low-fat-diets
__________________
Projected retirement--2020 at age 48
ugeauxgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2019, 07:38 PM   #111
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pasadena CA
Posts: 2,766
I have become very interested in food issues after being dxd as prediabetic. I radically altered my diet reducing carbs. I was never heavy, went through chemo/radiation for throat cancer (also which damaged my thyroid) and lost interest in food. For me food is medicine, I eat when its time and tightly controlled. I used My Fitness Pal to track ALL my food for several months untiil I just knew what to eat. I now have normal HbA1c levels. But there are problems in the kingdom. DW is a vegan so we have a vegan-carnivore house. And what would kill me works for her. She can eat a carby meal with desert and her Blood Sugar (BS) barely moves. DW is not overweight but struggles mightly to lose the last 5-10 pounds to get to her ideal weight/size. She eats very little food, I pile up food on my plate, am never hungery and have trouble keeping on weight despite many calories, probably because they are low carb.
After my two years of my 'personal science experiment', internet readings and reading research papers I have only come to three conclusions ABSOLUTELY NOTHING applies to everyone all the time. There are vast differences on how people successfully eat. And one thing I believe will not work for anyone over time is a high carb AND high fat diet. And DIETS DON'T WORK, we need to find our successful WOE (Way Of Eating)
We are all our own science experiment. I have found what works for me.
__________________

__________________
T.S. Eliot:
Old men ought to be explorers
yakers is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intermittent Fasting - my result so far robnplunder Health and Early Retirement 94 03-21-2019 05:04 AM
Windows 10 Start Button Intermittent!!! Midpack Other topics 27 01-15-2016 07:48 PM
Fasting vs non-fasting blood tests kaneohe Health and Early Retirement 3 08-28-2009 09:17 PM
Intermittent Generator Light TromboneAl Other topics 7 07-20-2007 01:01 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:29 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.