Low Carb making news on GMB

[Dillinger]

Your sarcasm is noted. However, one of those statements is true.

Well, no, neither of those statements is true. Calories are a factor but not all calories are equal. To get fat you need insulin.

 

[TorqPenderloin]

Well, no, neither of those statements is true. Calories are a factor but not all calories are equal. To get fat you need insulin.

Please prove that statement "Not all calories are equal."

 

[zand]

Please prove that statement "Not all calories are equal."

Jeez walk in my shoes for 6 months then you wouldn't need to prove it, you would know it as fact. And your other explanation doesn't stand up to scrutiny either since when I eat less calories I tend to have more fibre, yet I put on weight.

As I said earlier it's no use trying to reason with my mind. It's my body that won't listen to your facts.

 

[zand]

Please prove that statement "Not all calories are equal."

Just noticed this when I logged out of my email account -

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/wei...loss/ar-BBmru7c?li=AAaeUIW&ocid=mailsignoutmd

 

[TorqPenderloin]

Just noticed this when I logged out of my email account -

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/wei...loss/ar-BBmru7c?li=AAaeUIW&ocid=mailsignoutmd

You realize the irony in posting that, right?

The first two sentences: "The calorie is a measure of energy. All “calories” have the same energy content."
That argues AGAINST your point

The third sentence: "However, this does NOT mean that all calorie sources have the same effects on your weight."
That promotes my point

 

[zand]

You realize the irony in posting that, right?

The first two sentences: "The calorie is a measure of energy. All “calories” have the same energy content."
That argues AGAINST your point

The third sentence: "However, this does NOT mean that all calorie sources have the same effects on your weight."
That promotes my point

But then all calories are not equal are they , if they have different effects on your weight?

I love logic. It makes sense. Everything you say is logical and makes sense to my brain. That is why I blindly followed that reasoning for so many years and ended up morbidly obese! Does that make sense to you? To follow something for years because people tell you that's the right thing to do? What would you do if you were me? Carry on as I was? Or ditch that thinking and do what works?

Next week I will double the amount of calories I consume in the hope of losing weight. It worked before. Or should I halve the calories I normally eat and slow down my metabolism again? What is most logical to you? Cut down calories or increase them to lose weight?

Edit: to me it makes sense to follow what has worked for me before, I really don't want to get back to the place where I was eating very little and getting ill all the time and still gaining weight. Never again. I will never starve myself again to lose weight.

 

[Totto]

Please prove that statement "Not all calories are equal."

Of course a calorie will always be a calorie. That is about energy content.

When eaten a lot of things comes into play so calories eaten are very unequal. If the calorie is from carbs it can be fattening and stimulating hunger, if from fats satiating.

To say that you can lose weight by eating less calories is like saying hormones, gut flora and genes are of no importance and that organic beings aren't organic beings but make by an industrial manufacturer. So simply not true.

 

[Lamont D]

Just as our fingerprints are different, then our own individual biological make up is!
So if Torq ate something and zand ate the same equal in all caloric, protein, fat etc.
The result would be different, and so would mine and so would anybody's, be different from the next person.
We all have different biodiversity and unique endocrine systems and how we deal with different foods, our tastes, likes and dislikes, our environment and culture, poverty and plenty, all plays a different role in our lives.
They have to come up with a balanced norm. And this is how things are measured.
As we all know, what works for one, wouldn't work for someone else.

 

[TorqPenderloin]

Of course a calorie will always be a calorie. That is about energy content.
When eaten a lot of things comes into play so calories eaten are very unequal. If the calorie is from carbs it can be fattening and stimulating hunger, if from fats satiating.
To say that you can lose weight by eating less calories is like saying hormones, gut flora and genes are of no importance and that organic beings aren't organic beings but make by an industrial manufacturer. So simply not true.

Let’s not forget that my exact words were “You're close, but it's where those calories come from rather than the calories themselves that matter in this case.”
If it was that obvious, we wouldn’t be this far along in the “discussion.”
In my opinion this is still about the basic concept of calories in and calories out.

In a "traditional" low-calorie diet, there are two ways to affect that equation:
1.) Eat less- no one wants to do that. It leaves you feeling hungry all the time.
2.) Exercise more- sounds painful. I don’t want to have to run 50km+ a week

The easier way, and the main benefit of a ketogenic diet….is to increase the total number of calories OUT.
Triglycerides cannot pass in/out of cells without being broken down. Instead, triglycerides must be broken down into three fatty acids and the glycerol that binds them.

What does that mean in simpler terms? It means that dietary fat has a very difficult time becoming body fat.

You would have to eat MASSIVE amounts of dietary fats in order to gain body fat. It’s my understanding that the binding agent (glycerol) in triglycerides can be converted into glucose….consequently, it is almost impossible to gain weight while in a state of ketogenesis.

Bottom line is that ketogenesis diets work for a number of different reasons:
1.) High fat/low carb intake is more satiating.
2.) Dietary fat is incredibly difficult to turn into body fat.
3.) Low carb consumption means less insulin production. Less insulin production means less chance of fat storage.
4.) Unlike carbohydrates, unused energy is exerted from the body rather than stored.
5.) When energy cannot be sourced from your diet, your body burns its own fat storage instead.
Again, we’re all basically arguing the same thing. The only difference is how we’re each supporting our opinions.

 

[zand]

Agreed. Fat does not make you fat despite it having 9 cals per gram whilst carbs and protein only have 4 cals per gram, so that why the rest of us are saying that not all calories are equal. Your argument was misleading because others on this forum use the cals in/cals out argument to argue that fat does indeed make you fat.

 

[Celeriac]

Calorie confusion ?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061120060301.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie

 

[Daffodils1]

You're close, but it's where those calories come from rather than the calories themselves that matter in this case.

This article explains my point better than I ever could: http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter

Ultimately, the mistake you're both making is that you're considering only part of the equation. You may eat 2300 calories and only burn 2000, but an additional 500 may pass undigested or unstored as fat. Consequently, you'd effectively be maintaining a 200 calorie deficit (2300-2000-500=-200).

As we all know, some (but not all) carbohydrates are broken down to create glucose. Glucose then yields insulin release(us type 1s being the exception). Insulin leads to energy storage (fat in this case). With a low carb diet, fat storage is much more difficult (less insulin production) which means more dietary fat passes through your body.

As I've mentioned previously, think about how our bodies process fiber. Fiber is a carbohydrate and it does contain energy. However, our bodies are unable to breakdown fiber molecules. Consequently, fiber passes through our bodies as undigested energy. It's for similar reasons why fiber helps people feel full (and keep them regular). The article uses a more extreme example to explain that diesel fuel has calories, yet our bodies would process it much differently than normal food.

This concept also supports my theory that there different causes of insulin resistance (aka T2 diabetes). For some, it may be genetics or other uncontrollable factors. However, it's pretty easy to see how your body could develop a resistance/tolerance to insulin after years of massive carbohydrate consumption/massive insulin releases. On the other hand, a ketogenic diet limits insulin release which limits fat storage and glucose is primarily sourced from glycerol after trilycerides are broken down (although I question if it's a treatment for insulin resistance, or a treatment for hyperglycemia).

Hi, just catching up with this thread...Torq, when you mention some but not all carbs break down to glucose, just wondering which ones don't (and can I eat more of those?!

 

[Brunneria]

The calorie theory so loved by the mainstream is as full of holes as a swiss cheese.

Genuine questions:

- Are there any studies on whether the human body gets more (or less) calorific 'bang for its buck' when it is in ketosis, compared with glucose burning?

- And has there been a study specifically on women with wacky hormones (since we seem to be the ones where calories don't function as predicted using the standard theory). This study would need to show what happens when this select band of women are given different macro nutrient intake (fats v carbs v protein), with consistent calorie content, and the effects (weight, metabolic rate, etc.) are examined? Of course, this study would be very difficult to design. Too many hormonal variables. No consistency.

Goodness. That kind of proves the point, doesn't it? Too many variables. So applying a consistent, simplistic calorie theory to so many differently functioning bodies, is nonsensical.

Without such studies, this debate will just go around and around in circles of pointlessness.

Meanwhile, those of us who have spent our lives learning what does work for us will continue to manage without mainstream approval.

 

[SunnyExpat]

Jeez walk in my shoes for 6 months then you wouldn't need to prove it, you would know it as fact. And your other explanation doesn't stand up to scrutiny either since when I eat less calories I tend to have more fibre, yet I put on weight.

As I said earlier it's no use trying to reason with my mind. It's my body that won't listen to your facts.

Ha, I'll willingly swop for your shoes!

I eat calories, carbs,or protein, or fat, and I increase in weight.
I really wish I was like some posters on here, that seem to be able to just keep eating fat regardless.

 

[zand]

Ha, I'll willingly swop for your shoes!

I eat calories, carbs,or protein, or fat, and I increase in weight.
I really wish I was like some posters on here, that seem to be able to just keep eating fat regardless.

Now you know that's not true because even when I double my calorie intake I'm still consuming less than you, you've told me that before.

 

[SunnyExpat]

Now you know that's not true because even when I double my calorie intake I'm still consuming less than you, you've told me that before.

It's strictly down to calories in, calories out for me, but if you still eat less calories even on high fat then, surely that's still calorie deficit?
But every day, I have to balance my intake, any high day is simply robbing the future at some point.

 

[zand]

It's strictly down to calories in, calories out for me, but if you still eat less calories even on high fat then, surely that's still calorie deficit?

Yes true. But when I'm in even more of a deficit but the calories are mostly carbs then I don't lose weight or I could put on weight.

 

[SunnyExpat]

Yes true. But when I'm in even more of a deficit but the calories are mostly carbs then I don't lose weight or I could put on weight.

My problem is I'm an ex-engineer, and after a lifetime, my body knows, "you cannae change the laws of physics".

 

[zand]

My problem is I'm an ex-engineer, and after a lifetime, my body knows, "you cannae change the laws of physics".

So are you telling me I'm a liar then?

Edit: or that I am a human being, not a machine?

 

[Lamont D]

My problem is I'm an ex-engineer, and after a lifetime, my body knows, "you cannae change the laws of physics".

The laws do not apply to me as I'm different to everybody bar a handful on this planet!
I break every endocrinologist basis for developing my condition as it should not develop naturally! I have!
The laws on physics, chemistry, biology, I defy them.
My life I should be insulin resistant, but for some weird hormonal problem, I over produce excess insulin eat time I eat carbs, any carbs!
So Mr engineer, I give you Murphy's law and double it up with sods law, as I am without doubt the exception to the rule!