Low Carb making news on GMB

[Lamont D]

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

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

I'm not answering that one!!!!

 

[SunnyExpat]

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

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

Why, are you saying I am, because I don't fit your rules?

 

[SunnyExpat]

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!

Again, you insist I can't be myself, because your rules don't apply to me?

 

[SunnyExpat]

Quite funny really, lchf, only one way works, no one can be different?

Trust me, I'm not the same as you!
My body tells me how it works, I'm sure your body tells you.

If you can't cope with the fact I'm different to you, that's never going to be my problem.

 

[Lamont D]

Again, you insist I can't be myself, because your rules don't apply to me?

That is not a personal attack on you, far from it!
You were quoting about the law of physics applying to you and as a engineer you believe that it applies to everybody.
I was giving you my personal response to something that doesn't necessarily apply to me and others.

It has nothing to do with what my lifestyle is or what you need to do to feel good.
And what works for you!

We are all unique and weird in our own way, the amount of weirdness is the debating point!

 

[zand]

Why, are you saying I am, because I don't fit your rules?

lol No of course .....you fit the mainstream rules, you're the normal one. My objection isn't to you at all. You and I accept that we are different and have both found what works for us. That's fine. What isn't fine is someone else telling me I don't know how my own body works, or that I must be getting my calorie intake wrong because I don't fit in with the laws of physics! Why would I? I'm not a machine! It's biology I look to when figuring out how my body works not physics. Now that has to be sense doesn't it?

 

[SunnyExpat]

I've never said it applies to everyone.

I wish it didn't apply to me, I'm envious of those that can eat as much as they want to, believe me.
Also, I find fat doesn't leave me feeling full, which again is a real pain, as it's really easy to end up over eating as it's got twice the calories, and I certainly seem to be over efficient at storing them

 

[Administrator]

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

The pertinent point here is that the same concept(s) don't necessarily apply as a one-fits-all. Hence why some are living evidence that LC works and for some, it doesn't seem to (for whatever reason).

 

[Administrator]

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.

The strangest thing we ever saw was the person who lost weight on a Twinkie Diet.
http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2014/10/27/is-a-calorie-really-just-a-calorie/

Twinkies being those sausage-shaped cakes that are pretty yuck!

 

[Administrator]

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

As Bob Marley said, 'experience teaches wisdom'

This is an interesting read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_calorie_is_a_calorie

In particular, "The researchers concluded that the type of calories consumed does affect the number of calories burned by an individual. This conclusion is in direct contrast to what the commonly held belief implies."

 

[Administrator]

I've never said it applies to everyone.

I wish it didn't apply to me, I'm envious of those that can eat as much as they want to, believe me.
Also, I find fat doesn't leave me feeling full, which again is a real pain, as it's really easy to end up over eating as it's got twice the calories, and I certainly seem to be over efficient at storing them

This is an interesting read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_calorie_is_a_calorie

In particular, "The researchers concluded that the type of calories consumed does affect the number of calories burned by an individual. This conclusion is in direct contrast to what the commonly held belief implies."[/QUOTE]

 

[Administrator]

I give you Murphy's law and double it up with sods law, as I am without doubt the exception to the rule!

ah - Professor Sod and one of the only true, universal laws.

 

[SunnyExpat]

This is an interesting read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_calorie_is_a_calorie

In particular, "The researchers concluded that the type of calories consumed does affect the number of calories burned by an individual. This conclusion is in direct contrast to what the commonly held belief implies."

I agree, we all seem to process food differently. In the same article, exercise gets a mention. While I may not actually burn all the calories, I find even a small amount of hard exercise radically alters the way my body behaves, and I find I can eat proportionally more calories and not gain weight, than if I don't exercise.
Still have to keep below the calories in/calories out though, even if I can move the ceiling a bit up and down.

 

[TorqPenderloin]

The pertinent point here is that the same concept(s) don't necessarily apply as a one-fits-all. Hence why some are living evidence that LC works and for some, it doesn't seem to (for whatever reason).

I think we all agree with that point. However, the fundamental concept with ANY DIET is to have more energy leaving your body than entering. That concept holds true for: keto, Atkins, LCHF, Zone, Paleo, etc

The difference between these diets is how you affect certain variables (eat less, exercise more, consume fewer carbs, eat food your body can't easily store as fat, etc).


My only goal in replying to this thread was to have a conversation about the science of losing weight (and more specifically fat). I realize different approaches works for different people. However, energy conservation laws tell us that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be transferred.

Long story short: it doesn't matter how unusual your situation is, you still can't defy the basic laws of physics.

 

[Administrator]

I think we all agree with that point. However, the fundamental concept with ANY DIET is to have more energy leaving your body than entering. That concept holds true for: keto, Atkins, LCHF, Zone, Paleo, etc

The difference between these diets is how you affect certain variables (eat less, exercise more, consume fewer carbs, eat food your body can't easily store as fat, etc).


My only goal in replying to this thread was to have a conversation about the science of losing weight (and more specifically fat). I realize different approaches works for different people. However, energy conservation laws tell us that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be transferred.

Long story short: it doesn't matter how unusual your situation is, you still can't defy the basic laws of physics.

A number of people have had successes with a LCHF diet by not necessarily editing the calories, rather the carb content. Agreed that it won't work for all, but there are a number of threads on the forum where calories went up and carbs went down and there was still weight loss. Not denying the energy creation/destruction element, but there must be variances in the way the body metabolises these nutrients amongst a general population?

 

[SunnyExpat]

A number of people have had successes with a LCHF diet by not necessarily editing the calories, rather the carb content. Agreed that it won't work for all, but there are a number of threads on the forum where calories went up and carbs went down and there was still weight loss. Not denying the energy creation/destruction element, but there must be variances in the way the body metabolises these nutrients amongst a general population?

Most of those have been a short term rise in fat at the same time, so definitely a different initial response. It is well known that the two types of food are digested differently in the body, and switching over from one to the other takes time.
But I wonder if after a period, the body would adapt to the increased fat, and start to process the new diet more efficiently, and hence gain weight?
It would also help explain why you can kickstart a stalled weight loss on a diet, simply by altering your eating pattern for a day or two.

Also, a lot of lchf posters on here do seem to eat quite low calorie, even if they don't specifically seem to count calories.
(They still eat a lot less than me in many cases, and I need to count otherwise I do overeat)

 

[Administrator]

Most of those have been a short term rise in fat at the same time, so definitely a different initial response. It is well known that the two types of food are digested differently in the body, and switching over from one to the other takes time.
But I wonder if after a period, the body would adapt to the increased fat, and start to process the new diet more efficiently, and hence gain weight?
It would also help explain why you can kickstart a stalled weight loss on a diet, simply by altering your eating pattern for a day or two.

Also, a lot of lchf posters on here do seem to eat quite low calorie, even if they don't specifically seem to count calories.
(They still eat a lot less than me in many cases, and I need to count otherwise I do overeat)

Something certainly to be said for the body getting 'used to' the fuel that gets put inside it

 

[zand]

Long story short: it doesn't matter how unusual your situation is, you still can't defy the basic laws of physics.

Since I only managed to maintain my weight when consuming 1000 calories per day and walking at least 2 brisk miles a day, then I'm doomed to stay fat forever. Physics says so.

 

[Celeriac]

I'm not any kind scientist but from watching vids by Gary Taubes, Dr Lustig etc I have this idea in my head that the First Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems.

The human body would seem to me, to be leaky i.e. we lose heat, sweat, urine and poo. Maybe someone with more of a scientific mind can comment ?

The human body can run on carbs or ketones or both. At night, even if someone doesn't eat LCHF we can switch over to ketones while we sleep. Babies being breastfed are growing on ketones.

It's quite reasonable to say that what works for one person doesn't work for another. We have two types of genes, the hereditary ones and the environmentally- influenced ones so maybe everyone has an individual metabolic system in the same way that we have different fingerprints.

I have never counted calories and never been on a calorie controlled diet and I don't religiously count carbs either. I eat what we decide to make from the available food. Sometimes we don't feel like much, other times we'll eat more.

I tend to think that I do eat more calories though because I eat more high fat low carb low protein dairy than I used to. Just one tub of creme fraiche is 764 calories and 300ml of double cream is over 1317 calories. Yumm

 

[Indy51]

There are so many blogposts out there on the subject, it's become a completely overdone discussion. Who really cares anyway? We each work out what works for us. This is just the first on the 27,900 or so search results returned from "why the laws of thermodynamics does not apply to calorie counting":

http://davidgillespie.org/why-the-first-law-of-thermodynamics-has-no-place-in-human-nutrition/

Some of my favourites can be found at the blog of Dr Richard Feinman:
http://feinmantheother.com/category/thermodynamics/