How to drink more water and less bad "Crap"

[Skeptical]

Disagree: http://higher-thought.net/complete-notes-to-good-calories-bad-calories/#part-three The research, when examined in context, does not support the conventional theories concerning weight loss.

 

I can also invent an "Eisenhower paradox" where i quote eisenhower's "increasing difficulties with cholesterol" completely ignoring the fact that his increasing cholesterol could be a result of continued smoking.....

 

don't believe everything presented as scientific fact, that site you quoted is rediculous: do you excrete unabsorbed calories from easy-to-access sources of energy like proteins, fats and carbohydrates? show me some research showing that, and you can talk to me about "good and bad" calories. you have to expend the energy you eat, it is absorbed, and the only way you get rid of it is by using it.

 

And yet, if you leave someone in bed, and feed them 2000 calories a day, and you have someone exercise and eat 2000 calories a day, the difference in weight loss will be negligible. However, if you alter the percentage of carbohydrates in one's diet, there will be a noticeable change.

 

And no, not every calorie is created equally, rates of efficiency absorption vary hugely.

 

And yes, I'm sure that Gary Taubes is a fraud, and it's just that not a single researcher or representative from MIT, PBS or the NY Times has been able to poke any holes in his research, theories and presentation.

[tortilliachp]

Disagree: http://higher-thought.net/complete-notes-to-good-calories-bad-calories/#part-three The research, when examined in context, does not support the conventional theories concerning weight loss.

 

I can also invent an "Eisenhower paradox" where i quote eisenhower's "increasing difficulties with cholesterol" completely ignoring the fact that his increasing cholesterol could be a result of continued smoking.....

 

don't believe everything presented as scientific fact, that site you quoted is rediculous: do you excrete unabsorbed calories from easy-to-access sources of energy like proteins, fats and carbohydrates? show me some research showing that, and you can talk to me about "good and bad" calories. you have to expend the energy you eat, it is absorbed, and the only way you get rid of it is by using it.

 

And yet, if you leave someone in bed, and feed them 2000 calories a day, and you have someone exercise and eat 2000 calories a day, the difference in weight loss will be negligible. However, if you alter the percentage of carbohydrates in one's diet, there will be a noticeable change.

 

And no, not every calorie is created equally, rates of efficiency absorption vary hugely.

 

And yes, I'm sure that Gary Taubes is a fraud, and it's just that not a single researcher or representative from MIT, PBS or the NY Times has been able to poke any holes in his research, theories and presentation.

keep dreaming. if it was obvious, all nutritional advice in the world would be altered, unless you believe conspiracy theories. It would be nice if you were remotely close to the truth as experienced by us all, i sure wouldn't mind being able to eat according to his principles, but at least in my experience, eating a varied healthy diet seems to work. eating less lets me loose weight.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

And yet, if you leave someone in bed, and feed them 2000 calories a day, and you have someone exercise and eat 2000 calories a day, the difference in weight loss will be negligible.

 

An absolute lie. Calories can be counted. If you consume more than you burn, you gain weight. If you burn more than you consume, you lose weight.

[Giordano]

I must of gained over a 100 pounds then. Go figure.

 

Try to drink soda only when you eat at resturants is a good rule my family and I follow. My mother has refused to buy soda for home use years back so the only chance I get to drink soda is one cup after school every so and so.

 

In the meantime, you could drink water when at the computer. Keeps you busy while waiting for load times or whatever.

[Skeptical]

 

And yet, if you leave someone in bed, and feed them 2000 calories a day, and you have someone exercise and eat 2000 calories a day, the difference in weight loss will be negligible.

 

An absolute lie. Calories can be counted. If you consume more than you burn, you gain weight. If you burn more than you consume, you lose weight.

 

Read the book, the well-documented studies and the peer-reviewed research. The difference is negligible. It's all about what you put into your body, and you can only "Count Calories" if that's all the information that you want. It's just a rough estimate, nothing else.

[tortilliachp]

 

And yet, if you leave someone in bed, and feed them 2000 calories a day, and you have someone exercise and eat 2000 calories a day, the difference in weight loss will be negligible.

 

An absolute lie. Calories can be counted. If you consume more than you burn, you gain weight. If you burn more than you consume, you lose weight.

 

Read the book, the well-documented studies and the peer-reviewed research. The difference is negligible. It's all about what you put into your body, and you can only "Count Calories" if that's all the information that you want. It's just a rough estimate, nothing else.

 

the calorific value of food, at least as it is defined over here, is the energetic value absorbed with normal absorption of nutrients, not the total potential energy of the food itself. The same goes for all other nutritional information.

 

You could claim that's an estimate, but absorption of energy is very similar, to within a single percent, going by my old health and nutrition textbook...

 

I suggest getting facts before claiming knowledge.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

And yet, if you leave someone in bed, and feed them 2000 calories a day, and you have someone exercise and eat 2000 calories a day, the difference in weight loss will be negligible.

 

An absolute lie. Calories can be counted. If you consume more than you burn, you gain weight. If you burn more than you consume, you lose weight.

 

Read the book, the well-documented studies and the peer-reviewed research. The difference is negligible. It's all about what you put into your body, and you can only "Count Calories" if that's all the information that you want. It's just a rough estimate, nothing else.

 

I dont need to read the book. When I bulk weight I eat the same diet that I eat when I cut weight, but when bulking I eat more and when cutting I eat less.

 

Everyone who has disciplined experience in building their body can tell you this.

 

Also my dad's doctor told him he needed to drop about 40 pounds. His weight was stable, though. I told him to log everything he eats and the ammount. I cut his diet by 500 calories per day and hes been losing a steady 1-2 lbs per week.

 

Hell, the entire Weight Watchers program works off calorie counting...Plenty of sucess when people follow that program.

 

Ever watch The Biggest Loser? They count their calories. It's fact...science. It is the energy you take in compared to the energy you burn.

 

Unless maybe you are talking about someone eating a diet identical in calories but different in composition?

 

Because if person A eats a diet rich in vegetables and lean proteins and person B eats the same calories per day, but eats nothing but cheesecake, person B would probably be more unhealthy and probably fatter...

 

Or are you saying that if someone eats 4000 calories of good food, and person B eats all the same foods but the portions only add up to 1000 calories, person A will not weigh more? I'd have to disagree with that.

[Skeptical]

 

And yet, if you leave someone in bed, and feed them 2000 calories a day, and you have someone exercise and eat 2000 calories a day, the difference in weight loss will be negligible.

 

An absolute lie. Calories can be counted. If you consume more than you burn, you gain weight. If you burn more than you consume, you lose weight.

 

Read the book, the well-documented studies and the peer-reviewed research. The difference is negligible. It's all about what you put into your body, and you can only "Count Calories" if that's all the information that you want. It's just a rough estimate, nothing else.

 

I dont need to read the book. When I bulk weight I eat the same diet that I eat when I cut weight, but when bulking I eat more and when cutting I eat less.

 

Everyone who has disciplined experience in building their body can tell you this.

 

Also my dad's doctor told him he needed to drop about 40 pounds. His weight was stable, though. I told him to log everything he eats and the ammount. I cut his diet by 500 calories per day and hes been losing a steady 1-2 lbs per week.

 

Hell, the entire Weight Watchers program works off calorie counting...Plenty of sucess when people follow that program.

 

Ever watch The Biggest Loser? They count their calories. It's fact...science. It is the energy you take in compared to the energy you burn.

 

Unless maybe you are talking about someone eating a diet identical in calories but different in composition?

 

Because if person A eats a diet rich in vegetables and lean proteins and person B eats the same calories per day, but eats nothing but cheesecake, person B would probably be more unhealthy and probably fatter...

 

Or are you saying that if someone eats 4000 calories of good food, and person B eats all the same foods but the portions only add up to 1000 calories, person A will not weigh more? I'd have to disagree with that.

 

Carbs matter more than calories. I didn't say that it had no effect on weight, just little. And if your Dad is typical, then you just slashed his diet by what, 20%? And yet he sees what, a 0.5-1% weight change every week?

[Myweponsg00d]

Carbs matter more than calories. I didn't say that it had no effect on weight, just little. And if your Dad is typical, then you just slashed his diet by what, 20%? And yet he sees what, a 0.5-1% weight change every week?

 

Because calories directly correspond to pounds. Not a percent. When we are talking a pound of fat on your body, about 3500 calories are stored there.

 

So if a person takes in 2500 calories a day, and is maintaining weight, he can cut his diet to 2000 calories per day of the same foods. This will then create a caloric deficit of about 500 calories, meaning that your body will draw the energy from its fat stores.

 

So that adds up to 3500 caloric deficit per week, or a pound of fat, roughly, per week. Percent has nothing to do with it.

 

If you want to argue that a high carb 2500 cal diet is different than a 2500 cal high protein high fiber diet, then I agree with you. :grin: Types of food matter, yes. Carbs (high glycemic carbs) are evil, yes. But this is different from calories. Calories do matter.

[tortilliachp]

Carbs matter more than calories. I didn't say that it had no effect on weight, just little. And if your Dad is typical, then you just slashed his diet by what, 20%? And yet he sees what, a 0.5-1% weight change every week?

 

Because calories directly correspond to pounds. Not a percent. When we are talking a pound of fat on your body, about 3500 calories are stored there.

 

So if a person takes in 2500 calories a day, and is maintaining weight, he can cut his diet to 2000 calories per day of the same foods. This will then create a caloric deficit of about 500 calories, meaning that your body will draw the energy from its fat stores.

 

So that adds up to 3500 caloric deficit per week, or a pound of fat, roughly, per week. Percent has nothing to do with it.

 

If you want to argue that a high carb 2500 cal diet is different than a 2500 cal high protein high fiber diet, then I agree with you. :grin: Types of food matter, yes. Carbs (high glycemic carbs) are evil, yes. But this is different from calories. Calories do matter.

 

GI has nothing to do with energy-retention. A calorie is a calorie, converts into fat if you don't expend as much energy. I think the world would know, because you simply count calories when feeding the under-nourished (not mal-nourished).

[Myweponsg00d]

Carbs matter more than calories. I didn't say that it had no effect on weight, just little. And if your Dad is typical, then you just slashed his diet by what, 20%? And yet he sees what, a 0.5-1% weight change every week?

 

Because calories directly correspond to pounds. Not a percent. When we are talking a pound of fat on your body, about 3500 calories are stored there.

 

So if a person takes in 2500 calories a day, and is maintaining weight, he can cut his diet to 2000 calories per day of the same foods. This will then create a caloric deficit of about 500 calories, meaning that your body will draw the energy from its fat stores.

 

So that adds up to 3500 caloric deficit per week, or a pound of fat, roughly, per week. Percent has nothing to do with it.

 

If you want to argue that a high carb 2500 cal diet is different than a 2500 cal high protein high fiber diet, then I agree with you. :grin: Types of food matter, yes. Carbs (high glycemic carbs) are evil, yes. But this is different from calories. Calories do matter.

 

GI has nothing to do with energy-retention. A calorie is a calorie, converts into fat if you don't expend as much energy. I think the world would know, because you simply count calories when feeding the under-nourished (not mal-nourished).

 

The GI content of food is really too complicated to narrow down to this post, but the basic idea is that high GI foods will be digested extremely quickly. So if you are going to eat a high GI meal, followed by no food for 5 hours, this will cause a huge spike in your blood sugar for about 30 minutes and then the meal will be digested and unusable soon after.

 

Low GI carbs can be used for longer, meaning that your body has a better chance of using all of the energy immediately.

 

When you create large spikes and lows in blood glucose, your brain gets confusing messages and will often turn itself into "survival mode" and might take the previous meal and try to store it, or it might slow down its necessary processes to try to conserve energy.

 

I mean but I agree with your side dude...a calorie is basically a calorie, and 3500 excess calories will always be turned into the same ammount of body mass.

 

Theres a slight difference though, because with low GI carbs you will burn more natural calories than when you eat a diet of high glycemic carbs. Eating low fiber high sugar carbs wrecks your metabolism. But if we say that someone is burning 2000 calories a day no matter what, and he eats 2000 calories a day, it doesnt matter what he eats he will not gain or lose weight.

 

But in reality, eating the wrong types of foods can slow your metabolism.

[tortilliachp]

Carbs matter more than calories. I didn't say that it had no effect on weight, just little. And if your Dad is typical, then you just slashed his diet by what, 20%? And yet he sees what, a 0.5-1% weight change every week?

 

Because calories directly correspond to pounds. Not a percent. When we are talking a pound of fat on your body, about 3500 calories are stored there.

 

So if a person takes in 2500 calories a day, and is maintaining weight, he can cut his diet to 2000 calories per day of the same foods. This will then create a caloric deficit of about 500 calories, meaning that your body will draw the energy from its fat stores.

 

So that adds up to 3500 caloric deficit per week, or a pound of fat, roughly, per week. Percent has nothing to do with it.

 

If you want to argue that a high carb 2500 cal diet is different than a 2500 cal high protein high fiber diet, then I agree with you. :grin: Types of food matter, yes. Carbs (high glycemic carbs) are evil, yes. But this is different from calories. Calories do matter.

 

GI has nothing to do with energy-retention. A calorie is a calorie, converts into fat if you don't expend as much energy. I think the world would know, because you simply count calories when feeding the under-nourished (not mal-nourished).

 

The GI content of food is really too complicated to narrow down to this post, but the basic idea is that high GI foods will be digested extremely quickly. So if you are going to eat a high GI meal, followed by no food for 5 hours, this will cause a huge spike in your blood sugar for about 30 minutes and then the meal will be digested and unusable soon after.

 

Low GI carbs can be used for longer, meaning that your body has a better chance of using all of the energy immediately.

 

When you create large spikes and lows in blood glucose, your brain gets confusing messages and will often turn itself into "survival mode" and might take the previous meal and try to store it, or it might slow down its necessary processes to try to conserve energy.

 

I mean but I agree with your side dude...a calorie is basically a calorie, and 3500 excess calories will always be turned into the same ammount of body mass.

 

Theres a slight difference though, because with low GI carbs you will burn more natural calories than when you eat a diet of high glycemic carbs. Eating low fiber high sugar carbs wrecks your metabolism. But if we say that someone is burning 2000 calories a day no matter what, and he eats 2000 calories a day, it doesnt matter what he eats he will not gain or lose weight.

 

But in reality, eating the wrong types of foods can slow your metabolism.

 

Actually, GI is a measure of the heightening of blood glucose levels per weight. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with digestion, merely the direct absorption of carbohydrates. Grams of carbohydrate is a more valuable thing to measure. Insuin Index would be more important to measure, which would take into account proteins and fat more however, an orange has an II of over 200 (compared to 100 for white bread), rendering the scale useless, but still better than GI or glycemic load.

 

I could dip all my food in cholesterol to lower the GI of the meal. I could eat sawdust and lower the GI of my meal. I could drink olive oil with and maintain a GI of 0.

 

yet another health fad with no scientific basis. GI does serve as a worse II for diabetics though...

[Myweponsg00d]

 

Actually, GI is a measure of the heightening of blood glucose levels per weight. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with digestion, merely the direct absorption of carbohydrates. Grams of carbohydrate is a more valuable thing to measure. Insuin Index would be more important to measure, which would take into account proteins and fat more however, an orange has an II of over 200 (compared to 100 for white bread), rendering the scale useless, but still better than GI or glycemic load.

 

I could dip all my food in cholesterol to lower the GI of the meal. I could eat sawdust and lower the GI of my meal. I could drink olive oil with and maintain a GI of 0.

 

yet another health fad with no scientific basis. GI does serve as a worse II for diabetics though...

 

http://www.nutritiondata.com/help/estimated-glycemic-load

 

I think I was interchanging the use of the term "glycemic index" when I should have been saying what I know as the "glycemic load"?

 

And if you have extreme highs and lows in your blood sugar does that not wreck your metabolism? Compared to a fairly steady blood sugar.

[toast647]

I used to buy a lot of energy drinks at work, but I don't buy them anymore if I'm just going to be sitting around. Also used to drink a lot of coke just while scaping, after a while it just started to taste different because I drank so much. I've been drinking water like a champ for like 2 years. Wasn't really that hard

[tortilliachp]

 

Actually, GI is a measure of the heightening of blood glucose levels per weight. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with digestion, merely the direct absorption of carbohydrates. Grams of carbohydrate is a more valuable thing to measure. Insuin Index would be more important to measure, which would take into account proteins and fat more however, an orange has an II of over 200 (compared to 100 for white bread), rendering the scale useless, but still better than GI or glycemic load.

 

I could dip all my food in cholesterol to lower the GI of the meal. I could eat sawdust and lower the GI of my meal. I could drink olive oil with and maintain a GI of 0.

 

yet another health fad with no scientific basis. GI does serve as a worse II for diabetics though...

 

http://www.nutritiondata.com/help/estimated-glycemic-load

 

I think I was interchanging the use of the term "glycemic index" when I should have been saying what I know as the "glycemic load"?

 

And if you have extreme highs and lows in your blood sugar does that not wreck your metabolism? Compared to a fairly steady blood sugar.

 

actually, using energy is what controls metabolism. that's why muscular activity and gaining muscle mass is what aids weight loss.

 

GI and GL are attempts at measuring appetite. Appetite is primarily controlled by stomach content (being "full") and blood glucose levels. deficiency of particular nutrients may also contribute.

 

This is simple human biology and human biochemisty. It's part of middle school here, not that anyone remembers any of it.

[Skeptical]

 

And yet, if you leave someone in bed, and feed them 2000 calories a day, and you have someone exercise and eat 2000 calories a day, the difference in weight loss will be negligible.

 

An absolute lie. Calories can be counted. If you consume more than you burn, you gain weight. If you burn more than you consume, you lose weight.

 

Read the book, the well-documented studies and the peer-reviewed research. The difference is negligible. It's all about what you put into your body, and you can only "Count Calories" if that's all the information that you want. It's just a rough estimate, nothing else.

 

the calorific value of food, at least as it is defined over here, is the energetic value absorbed with normal absorption of nutrients, not the total potential energy of the food itself. The same goes for all other nutritional information.

 

You could claim that's an estimate, but absorption of energy is very similar, to within a single percent, going by my old health and nutrition textbook...

 

I suggest getting facts before claiming knowledge.

 

Wrong. I suggest using Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie#Kilogram_and_gram_calories.

 

Raising the temperature of water has nothing to do with the food value of a calorie.

[tortilliachp]

 

the calorific value of food, at least as it is defined over here, is the energetic value absorbed with normal absorption of nutrients, not the total potential energy of the food itself. The same goes for all other nutritional information.

 

You could claim that's an estimate, but absorption of energy is very similar, to within a single percent, going by my old health and nutrition textbook...

 

I suggest getting facts before claiming knowledge.

 

Wrong. I suggest using Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie#Kilogram_and_gram_calories.

 

Raising the temperature of water has nothing to do with the food value of a calorie.

 

what ?!? you quote an article that says:

In the context of food energy the term calorie generally refers to the kilogram calorie. However, the term kilocalorie (kcal), referring to one thousand gram calories, is also in widespread use especially by professional nutritionists (when speaking in terms of calories rather than joules). To avoid confusion, the prefix kilo- is not used with the kilogram calorie.

 

Kilogram calorie.

The kilogram calorie, large calorie, food calorie, Calorie (capital C) is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius.

Gram calorie

The gram calorie, small calorie or calorie (cal) is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water by 1 °C. The gram calorie was once commonly used in chemistry and physics.

 

then claim the opposite? sorry, "irony" in written form doesn't work, if that was your intent.

 

were you trying to quote this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_calorie

Food energy is the amount of energy obtained from food that is available through cellular respiration.

 

which could serve as a paraphrasing of my correct non-wikipedia statement because i actually know what i'm talking about here, not looking it up as i go along. are you trying to suggest that i defined the food calorie incorrectly based on water, which i did not do?

 

(not trying to sound defensive here, although it may look that way)

[Myweponsg00d]

Lmao...a calorie is a unit of energy, nothing more. ONE calorie is DEFINED as the ammount of energy used to increase a gram of water by 1 degree. This just means that it is the unit of measure.

 

For instance...ONE METRE is DEFINED as the distance that light travels in 1/300 millionth of a second. But I can say that a building is 20 metres tall and I am not talking about anything dealing with the travel of light...

 

The only reason we also use calories for energy measurement in food is because the number scale works pretty well.

[Bloodstain]

And if your Dad is typical, then you just slashed his diet by what, 20%? And yet he sees what, a 0.5-1% weight change every week?

 

Lol, 1 - 2 pounds per week is good and healthy.

[Skeptical]

And if your Dad is typical, then you just slashed his diet by what, 20%? And yet he sees what, a 0.5-1% weight change every week?

 

Lol, 1 - 2 pounds per week is good and healthy.

 

I didn't say that it was unhealthy: that's an excellent rate at which to lose weight.

 

But look at the disparity in the numbers.

[Skeptical]

 

the calorific value of food, at least as it is defined over here, is the energetic value absorbed with normal absorption of nutrients, not the total potential energy of the food itself. The same goes for all other nutritional information.

 

You could claim that's an estimate, but absorption of energy is very similar, to within a single percent, going by my old health and nutrition textbook...

 

I suggest getting facts before claiming knowledge.

 

Wrong. I suggest using Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie#Kilogram_and_gram_calories.

 

Raising the temperature of water has nothing to do with the food value of a calorie.

 

what ?!? you quote an article that says:

In the context of food energy the term calorie generally refers to the kilogram calorie. However, the term kilocalorie (kcal), referring to one thousand gram calories, is also in widespread use especially by professional nutritionists (when speaking in terms of calories rather than joules). To avoid confusion, the prefix kilo- is not used with the kilogram calorie.

 

Kilogram calorie.

The kilogram calorie, large calorie, food calorie, Calorie (capital C) is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius.

Gram calorie

The gram calorie, small calorie or calorie (cal) is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one gram of water by 1 °C. The gram calorie was once commonly used in chemistry and physics.

 

then claim the opposite? sorry, "irony" in written form doesn't work, if that was your intent.

 

were you trying to quote this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_calorie

Food energy is the amount of energy obtained from food that is available through cellular respiration.

 

which could serve as a paraphrasing of my correct non-wikipedia statement because i actually know what i'm talking about here, not looking it up as i go along. are you trying to suggest that i defined the food calorie incorrectly based on water, which i did not do?

 

(not trying to sound defensive here, although it may look that way)

 

Sorry about the double post guys, I couldn't get the edit button to work in Firefox? It just never finished loading, even after several tries.

 

"the context of food energy the term calorie generally refers to the kilogram calorie." (Wikipedia)

 

"The kilogram calorie, large calorie, food calorie, Calorie (capital C) is the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius."

 

^Nothing to do except how much energy is released from combustion.

[Bloodstain]

And if your Dad is typical, then you just slashed his diet by what, 20%? And yet he sees what, a 0.5-1% weight change every week?

 

Lol, 1 - 2 pounds per week is good and healthy.

 

I didn't say that it was unhealthy: that's an excellent rate at which to lose weight.

 

But look at the disparity in the numbers.

 

There is absolutely nothing abnormal about them.

[Myweponsg00d]

And if your Dad is typical, then you just slashed his diet by what, 20%? And yet he sees what, a 0.5-1% weight change every week?

 

Lol, 1 - 2 pounds per week is good and healthy.

 

I didn't say that it was unhealthy: that's an excellent rate at which to lose weight.

 

But look at the disparity in the numbers.

 

There is no disparity in the numbers. He started eating 500 fewer calories. Nothing else about his life changed, so that means his body had to get the energy from somewhere. AKA his fat stores.

 

So his body was using 500 cals of his body fat instead of using food. A pound of body fat can be turned into about 3500 calories of energy.

 

Your use of percentages doesn't make any sense. My dad cut his intake by 20%. He lost 1% per week. But if my dad weighed 1 pound he wouldve lost 20% of his body weight each day =P

 

Really though...percent just doesnt make any sense. Daily intake percent has nothing to do with weight loss percent...

[Skeptical]

And if your Dad is typical, then you just slashed his diet by what, 20%? And yet he sees what, a 0.5-1% weight change every week?

 

Lol, 1 - 2 pounds per week is good and healthy.

 

I didn't say that it was unhealthy: that's an excellent rate at which to lose weight.

 

But look at the disparity in the numbers.

 

There is no disparity in the numbers. He started eating 500 fewer calories. Nothing else about his life changed, so that means his body had to get the energy from somewhere. AKA his fat stores.

 

So his body was using 500 cals of his body fat instead of using food. A pound of body fat can be turned into about 3500 calories of energy.

 

Your use of percentages doesn't make any sense. My dad cut his intake by 20%. He lost 1% per week. But if my dad weighed 1 pound he wouldve lost 20% of his body weight each day =P

 

Really though...percent just doesnt make any sense. Daily intake percent has nothing to do with weight loss percent...

 

Positive energy balance hypothesis: weight gain is a result of energy intake exceeding expenditure

◦ just doesn't work that way; calorie restriction has been remarkably ineffective for weight

loss in obese patients

◦ low-fat, calorie-restricted diets are no better than balanced calorie-restricted diets

◦ long-term calorie-restriction studies even show slight fat gain

Conventional wisdom sticks with calorie restriction, despite the evidence

 

I really wish that I had the full text. I'll see about picking it up tomorrow so that I can provide the full study references that aren't in the summary.

[Bloodstain]

words

 

Ok, since you are basically denying one of the fundamentals of putting on and taking off weight, what DOES work in your opinion?