Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Year-long 609-person study of low-carb vs. low-fat diets

The Lounge is for non-sport-related topics other than politics, war and religion. Order up your favorite beverage, kick back and enjoy the conversation! LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • Stanford University set out to determine which was more effective, a low-carb diet or a low-fat diet. 609 people and a year later, they found that both groups shed the same amount of pounds regardless of genes (there's belief/some small amount of evidence that certain genes react better for weight loss based on carbs or fat).

    The one common factor that explains it all? Both groups were eating 500-600 fewer calories per day throughout the study.

    :lol:

    Once again, I said this a lot when I was exercising daily and losing weight, when it comes to weight loss, all that matters is burning more calories than you take in. That's it. You can even eat nothing but junk food and lose weight as long as you're following the fewer-calories-in-than-out formula. (Google 'the Twinkie professor' if you don't believe this.)

    People that lose weight on a particular diet, whether it's keto, paleo, low-carb, low-fat, low-purple-veggies, or whatever the hell do it because they ALSO happen to be eating fewer calories, or exercising more, or both. Everything else is irrelevant noise.

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02 ... -of-genes/
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 30017
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • Couldn't agree more. That's really it folks.

    Consume less, burn more. No more fat body!

    My struggles with weight have always come from excessive caloric intake and not enough exercise to offset the intake. Period. When I have been at my leanest it was when my exercise was high and my food/drink intake was low(er).

    I am so sick of these fad DIETS. I know so many people who get on these "25 day cleanses" or similar paradigms where they put their bodies through this shock only to regain the pounds and then some once they are "off the cleanse" or diet.

    Sometimes Occam's Razor really does apply. Eat less, move more dummies. (mic drop)
    Image

    "Shaquem Griffin tells ESPN after he got drafted by Seattle; 'I can't breathe.' That's the only time you'll hear him say he can't do something." - Dan Wetzel via Twitter.
    User avatar
    Aros
    [[ .NET Godfather ]]
     
    Posts: 12790
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:58 am
    Location: Just 4 miles from Richard Sherman!


  • Sing it, brotha! There's so much total horse crap out there about dieting, it's not even funny - and most of it's flat-out WRONG, designed to make the author/creator money!
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 30017
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • Of course that is why we lose weight and I think most people know that. However, being able to stick to a way of eating for the long term is the secret to successful weight loss and maintenance which is why I chose low carb over low fat in 2003. It still works for me.
    User avatar
    dbmack
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 668
    Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:10 pm


  • For me I am a glutton by nature so portion control has always been my fight. I don't want to eat a palm-size of a good meal but a trough! Why would I want 1 glass of wine when 4 is so much better?!?

    This is the battle I continue to fight and will fight for the rest of my days. Discipline comes and goes. The key and the mystery is how do you maintain discipline for the rest of your life?
    Image

    "Shaquem Griffin tells ESPN after he got drafted by Seattle; 'I can't breathe.' That's the only time you'll hear him say he can't do something." - Dan Wetzel via Twitter.
    User avatar
    Aros
    [[ .NET Godfather ]]
     
    Posts: 12790
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:58 am
    Location: Just 4 miles from Richard Sherman!


  • For some of us it isn't just the weight though. A couple of years ago I was TDY in San Diego for three months, and decided that while I was there I would change a couple of things. So, I cooked Mediterranean style exclusively (like my doc had been on me about) and walked a lot. Not only did I drop 20 pounds, but I also dropped 20 cholesterol points (from 200 to 180). I don't think the cholesterol would have dropped like that on a junk food diet...

    As for portion control, eat all your meals from a saucer not a plate.
    User avatar
    GeekHawk
    US Navy ET Nuc
     
    Posts: 6460
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:29 pm
    Location: Orting WA, Great Northwet


  • This is why most Asian people are so thin. When you travel there the portions of most dishes are small. They eat a lot of rice with their meals however which is loaded with carbs, and most don't exercise much except for walking and working.

    If you are a beer drinker, think of all the carbs and sugars which turn into fat, because who exercises after beer?
    GIRL POWER !!!!!!!
    User avatar
    Ginahawk
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 22
    Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 11:49 am


  • I eat around 4,500 calories day, but still manage to burn them off.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4473
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • GeekHawk wrote:For some of us it isn't just the weight though. A couple of years ago I was TDY in San Diego for three months, and decided that while I was there I would change a couple of things. So, I cooked Mediterranean style exclusively (like my doc had been on me about) and walked a lot. Not only did I drop 20 pounds, but I also dropped 20 cholesterol points (from 200 to 180). I don't think the cholesterol would have dropped like that on a junk food diet...

    As for portion control, eat all your meals from a saucer not a plate.

    I didn't get into the healthy angle as far as what you eat - that's a different conversation. I'm just sayin', for weight loss, it's all 'bout them caloriez.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 30017
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • RolandDeschain wrote:Sing it, brotha! There's so much total horse crap out there about dieting, it's not even funny - and most of it's flat-out WRONG, designed to make the author/creator money!


    Image
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16051
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    Once again, I said this a lot when I was exercising daily and losing weight, when it comes to weight loss, all that matters is burning more calories than you take in. That's it. You can even eat nothing but junk food and lose weight as long as you're following the fewer-calories-in-than-out formula. (Google 'the Twinkie professor' if you don't believe this.)


    That's only half the equation, the other half is how the foods we eat affect our metabolism.

    Whole foods high in good fats, veggies, etc not only satiate and keep you full longer, but they don't cause glycemic insulin spikes that trigger fat storage and slow down weight loss.

    That's what most of these new studies are talking about. Foods high in starch, carbs and sugar don't satiate and will spike your blood sugar, and that glycemic spike triggers fat storage, and even produces fat.

    But no, it's not rocket science. If people want to be healthy and lose weight, eat whole foods, healthy fats and eat grains and sugar in moderation...........and of course exercise.

    Unfortunately we have a bajillion dollar diet industry that only makes money when you succeed, then fail over and over.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13609
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    RolandDeschain wrote:
    Once again, I said this a lot when I was exercising daily and losing weight, when it comes to weight loss, all that matters is burning more calories than you take in. That's it. You can even eat nothing but junk food and lose weight as long as you're following the fewer-calories-in-than-out formula. (Google 'the Twinkie professor' if you don't believe this.)


    That's only half the equation, the other half is how the foods we eat affect our metabolism.

    Whole foods high in good fats, veggies, etc not only satiate and keep you full longer, but they don't cause glycemic insulin spikes that trigger fat storage and slow down weight loss.

    That's what most of these new studies are talking about. Foods high in starch, carbs and sugar don't satiate and will spike your blood sugar, and that glycemic spike triggers fat storage, and even produces fat.

    But no, it's not rocket science. If people want to be healthy and lose weight, eat whole foods, healthy fats and eat grains and sugar in moderation...........and of course exercise.

    Unfortunately we have a bajillion dollar diet industry that only makes money when you succeed, then fail over and over.



    Funny how we were a healthier country when we grew our own, didn't use pesticides, growth chemicals, Hormones, and hybrids.

    Now you have to pay more for the foods that "supposedly" do not have these in them and are natural.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25062
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • chris98251 wrote:

    Funny how we were a healthier country when we grew our own, didn't use pesticides, growth chemicals, Hormones, and hybrids.

    Now you have to pay more for the foods that "supposedly" do not have these in them and are natural.


    The FDA's definition of "organic" is a joke, because food companies lobbied to have the loosest standards possible in order to get that label and make more money..........even though most organic foods have just as much chemicals as regular foods.

    And it's mostly in the US, go to just about anywhere else in the world and they have strict food laws and citizens who eat the right way, by shopping fresh with local grocers..............we're the idiots.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13609
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • chris98251 wrote:Funny how we were a healthier country when we grew our own, didn't use pesticides, growth chemicals, Hormones, and hybrids.

    Now you have to pay more for the foods that "supposedly" do not have these in them and are natural.

    Gah, come on, man. This is so much bull. The use of pesticides started 4,500 YEARS ago: http://agrochemicals.iupac.org/index.ph ... sobi2Id=31

    As for hybrids, that's been going on for 130+ years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_bre ... t_breeding

    Growth hormones, FDA has been approving for use in cattle/sheep/etc. since the 1950s: https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/Sa ... 055436.htm

    Look for other areas to blame when it comes to being supposedly less healthy (while living longer every year, I might add), because it's NOT all the stuff you just mentioned.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 30017
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Funny how we were a healthier country when we grew our own, didn't use pesticides, growth chemicals, Hormones, and hybrids.

    Now you have to pay more for the foods that "supposedly" do not have these in them and are natural.

    Gah, come on, man. This is so much bull. The use of pesticides started 4,500 YEARS ago: http://agrochemicals.iupac.org/index.ph ... sobi2Id=31

    As for hybrids, that's been going on for 130+ years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_bre ... t_breeding

    Growth hormones, FDA has been approving for use in cattle/sheep/etc. since the 1950s: https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/Sa ... 055436.htm

    Look for other areas to blame when it comes to being supposedly less healthy (while living longer every year, I might add), because it's NOT all the stuff you just mentioned.


    We get life extensions with mechanized industries, less wear and tear, drugs as well. You think back to the 1950's and those people now getting to their golden years and we start talking about mental disease, obesity, cancers that people did not have or were not diagnosed with back then. Wars had a little bit to do with average life expectancy as well.

    The food we eat is less nourishing then it ever has been, articles support this due to what I mentioned.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25062
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    RolandDeschain wrote:
    Once again, I said this a lot when I was exercising daily and losing weight, when it comes to weight loss, all that matters is burning more calories than you take in. That's it. You can even eat nothing but junk food and lose weight as long as you're following the fewer-calories-in-than-out formula. (Google 'the Twinkie professor' if you don't believe this.)


    That's only half the equation, the other half is how the foods we eat affect our metabolism.

    Whole foods high in good fats, veggies, etc not only satiate and keep you full longer, but they don't cause glycemic insulin spikes that trigger fat storage and slow down weight loss.

    That's what most of these new studies are talking about. Foods high in starch, carbs and sugar don't satiate and will spike your blood sugar, and that glycemic spike triggers fat storage, and even produces fat.

    But no, it's not rocket science. If people want to be healthy and lose weight, eat whole foods, healthy fats and eat grains and sugar in moderation...........and of course exercise.

    Unfortunately we have a bajillion dollar diet industry that only makes money when you succeed, then fail over and over.

    More like about a 15th of the equation, not half. Numerous studies show resting metabolic rates vary between 5-8%, depending on the study regardless of diet, exercise habits, etc. What you're claiming is a popular idea, but it's WILDLY overstated and not backed up by hard science to anywhere near the degree most people think.

    You should read this, Largent: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/

    We already know starvation mode is BS, but it continues to perpetuate itself, probably as a convenient excuse for people not trying hard enough to lose weight.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 30017
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • chris98251 wrote:The food we eat is less nourishing then it ever has been, articles support this due to what I mentioned.

    Not really. The decline in nutrition, increase in fat in meats, etc. largely comes from the diet we feed the animals to make them grow SIGNIFICANTLY faster: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... .shopping3

    For plants, the main reason is mass production mega-conglomerate-style farming. Significantly less nutrition is available in the soils used, which is why the vast majority of organic produce has almost no improvement over non-organic produce (and with many, there is no demonstrable nutritional benefit; it varies by the type of veggie, fruit, etc.): https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/scie ... crops.html

    Really, me linking a couple of things should be irrelevant. Do some independent research. Find out what's actually backed by reproducible independent studies, and what's not.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 30017
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:The food we eat is less nourishing then it ever has been, articles support this due to what I mentioned.

    Not really. The decline in nutrition, increase in fat in meats, etc. largely comes from the diet we feed the animals to make them grow SIGNIFICANTLY faster: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... .shopping3

    For plants, the main reason is mass production mega-conglomerate-style farming. Significantly less nutrition is available in the soils used, which is why the vast majority of organic produce has almost no improvement over non-organic produce (and with many, there is no demonstrable nutritional benefit; it varies by the type of veggie, fruit, etc.): https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/scie ... crops.html

    Really, me linking a couple of things should be irrelevant. Do some independent research. Find out what's actually backed by reproducible independent studies, and what's not.


    Your saying what I already said, foods are not as nutritious as they once were, we are killing the Seas and the Soils and in this country wasting like 40 percent of it in some way or form last thing I read on it. From over stocking to just plain throwing it out. The over speed growing is growth hormones. Ya think ten year old girls with developing breasts and 12 years olds with facial hair is evolution? The feed is being transferred to us as well.

    Throw in everything else and food doesn't even taste the same as it did 50 years ago, very bland in comparison.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 25062
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    RolandDeschain wrote:
    Once again, I said this a lot when I was exercising daily and losing weight, when it comes to weight loss, all that matters is burning more calories than you take in. That's it. You can even eat nothing but junk food and lose weight as long as you're following the fewer-calories-in-than-out formula. (Google 'the Twinkie professor' if you don't believe this.)


    That's only half the equation, the other half is how the foods we eat affect our metabolism.

    Whole foods high in good fats, veggies, etc not only satiate and keep you full longer, but they don't cause glycemic insulin spikes that trigger fat storage and slow down weight loss.

    That's what most of these new studies are talking about. Foods high in starch, carbs and sugar don't satiate and will spike your blood sugar, and that glycemic spike triggers fat storage, and even produces fat.

    But no, it's not rocket science. If people want to be healthy and lose weight, eat whole foods, healthy fats and eat grains and sugar in moderation...........and of course exercise.

    Unfortunately we have a bajillion dollar diet industry that only makes money when you succeed, then fail over and over.

    More like about a 15th of the equation, not half. Numerous studies show resting metabolic rates vary between 5-8%, depending on the study regardless of diet, exercise habits, etc. What you're claiming is a popular idea, but it's WILDLY overstated and not backed up by hard science to anywhere near the degree most people think.

    You should read this, Largent: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/

    We already know starvation mode is BS, but it continues to perpetuate itself, probably as a convenient excuse for people not trying hard enough to lose weight.


    Yep, you can lose weight by consuming less calories than you're burning, but it'll never work long term because it's neither a healthy way to lose weight, nor is it sustainable over a long period of time because in the end you're still eating the wrong foods.

    That's why none of the BS calorie restriction diets like Weight Watchers, Shakeology, Nutrisystem, Jenny Craig, whatever work for more than a month. Cause they sell your their own garbage food that's full of fake sugar, carbs and highly processed crap with zero nutritional value that is neither healthy nor will satiate you to not fall off the wagon.

    You want to get healthy and more importantly stay healthy, there's only one way to do it. Good fats and whole foods (veggies, nuts, beans, some dairy and some fruits)...........and a good exercise routine. That's it.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13609
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • *blink*

    I don't think you understood what I said, lol.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 30017
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • The word "organic" is so much over-used and mis-represented, because the simple definition of "organic" in chemistry is "containing carbon."

    So, by this very strictest definition, as in the field of organic chemistry, a crop which is regularly sprayed with organophosphate insecticides can technically be termed "organic."
    Aussie Seahawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 600
    Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:37 pm
    Location: Adelaide, South Australia


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:Yep, you can lose weight by consuming less calories than you're burning, but it'll never work long term because it's neither a healthy way to lose weight, nor is it sustainable over a long period of time because in the end you're still eating the wrong foods..


    Uh, consuming less calories than you're using is literally the only way you lose weight.

    Well, unless you have like a tapeworm or something like that.
    User avatar
    Spounge84
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1971
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 3:16 pm
    Location: Tacoma, WA


  • Spounge84 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:Yep, you can lose weight by consuming less calories than you're burning, but it'll never work long term because it's neither a healthy way to lose weight, nor is it sustainable over a long period of time because in the end you're still eating the wrong foods..


    Uh, consuming less calories than you're using is literally the only way you lose weight.

    Well, unless you have like a tapeworm or something like that.


    Not true at all, I eat between 2-3k calories a day from the foods I listed above, and work out maybe 2-3 times a week. Many days I consume more calories than I burn, and yet here I am still 160 lbs. Because I don't eat foods that spike my blood sugar levels and trigger fat storage.

    That's the entire point of this study, focus on good fats, veggies, etc and stop counting calories to lose weight. Unless you like being on an eternal yo yo diet of restricting calories.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13609
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • So you're telling me you've found a way to break the laws of thermodynamics? Because that's the only way you're losing weight if you consume more calories than you use.

    Also you seem to be misunderstanding the reason for watching the content of your food. That won't help weight loss at all, but nutritional health is more than just how much you weigh.
    User avatar
    Spounge84
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1971
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 3:16 pm
    Location: Tacoma, WA


  • Spounge84 wrote:So you're telling me you've found a way to break the laws of thermodynamics? Because that's the only way you're losing weight if you consume more calories than you use.


    Again, not true.

    Read up on the basics of ketogenic diets, once you rid your body of using carbs for energy by cutting out grains and sugar, it'll start burning fat regardless of good calories consumed. This is not something new, keto has been around for almost 100 years.

    That's why I said how the food you eat affects your metabolism is just as important as the food itself.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13609
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Is metabolism not a thing? How does a person know exactly how many calories they are burning?

    Also, I'm pretty sure that things like chewing habits affect how many calories are actually getting extracted. At least I'm sure I read that somewhere. Too lazy to look it up.
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4473
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • fenderbender123 wrote:Is metabolism not a thing? How does a person know exactly how many calories they are burning?.



    Depends on many factors...............your age, overall health, exercise habits, what you ate, when you ate it, etc.

    But in general most people burn about 1,500-1,600 calories per day. Conversely to lose a pound of fat, you need to burn 3,500 calories.

    Honestly there's literally dozens of metrics I've seen to measure all this, but I haven't paid attention to any of it for a decade.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13609
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Yet, no reliable study can find more than a 5-8% difference between resting metabolic rate for anyone, anywhere...

    It's all about the calories. Ketogenic is misleading. You can't follow ketogenic diets and lose weight while breaking the calories in vs. calories out rule - you just can't. Look, whatever works for you or anyone else is fine, but it's working because it's coinciding with reduced net calories, whether that's from more exercise, or eating fewer calories, or a combination of both.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 30017
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • But have they done studies to find out if different people extract different amounts of calories from the same quantity and type of food?
    User avatar
    fenderbender123
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4473
    Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm


  • RolandDeschain wrote:Yet, no reliable study can find more than a 5-8% difference between resting metabolic rate for anyone, anywhere...

    It's all about the calories. Ketogenic is misleading. You can't follow ketogenic diets and lose weight while breaking the calories in vs. calories out rule - you just can't. Look, whatever works for you or anyone else is fine, but it's working because it's coinciding with reduced net calories, whether that's from more exercise, or eating fewer calories, or a combination of both.


    I'm not saying you can, I'm saying that when you eat the right foods then you automatically eat less calories because you're not only satiated, but you're not causing glycemic spiked, which trigger fat storage. So it's not coincidence, it's on purpose.

    Again, I'm not saying anything groundbreaking, this information's been around for a LONG time.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13609
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • fenderbender123 wrote:But have they done studies to find out if different people extract different amounts of calories from the same quantity and type of food?

    Yes. Mixed results. Actually, one of the most promising ones I saw (I wish I had bookmarked it, I'll try to find it again at some point) was one that found differences in stomach bacteria to be playing a considerable role. In other words, if you've got a wider variety of stomach bacteria than the average person, more of your food gets broken down to be processed by your system and not as much of it passes through as waste. They suspected that people with "fast metabolisms" actually have a lower-than-average variance in stomach bacteria to be responsible for being able to eat like a pig every day without turning into a fat-ass. This actually makes a lot of sense, to my mind - particularly since no reliable study I've been able to find has demonstrated more than a small variance in base metabolic rate between people. If you've got extra stomach bacteria that make your body process 95% of the calories you ingest, and some people only have like 70% of that get processed by their bodies...that explains a lot - and proves once again, that life isn't fair. :)
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 30017
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Funny how we were a healthier country when we grew our own, didn't use pesticides, growth chemicals, Hormones, and hybrids.

    Now you have to pay more for the foods that "supposedly" do not have these in them and are natural.

    Gah, come on, man. This is so much bull. The use of pesticides started 4,500 YEARS ago: http://agrochemicals.iupac.org/index.ph ... sobi2Id=31

    As for hybrids, that's been going on for 130+ years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_bre ... t_breeding

    Growth hormones, FDA has been approving for use in cattle/sheep/etc. since the 1950s: https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/Sa ... 055436.htm

    Look for other areas to blame when it comes to being supposedly less healthy (while living longer every year, I might add), because it's NOT all the stuff you just mentioned.


    We're suppose to trust the FDA? :D
    Long you live and high you fly, and smiles you’ll give and tears you’ll cry, and all you touch and all you see Is all your life will ever be
    User avatar
    twisted_steel2
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6673
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:41 am
    Location: Ballard


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    fenderbender123 wrote:But have they done studies to find out if different people extract different amounts of calories from the same quantity and type of food?

    Yes. Mixed results. Actually, one of the most promising ones I saw (I wish I had bookmarked it, I'll try to find it again at some point) was one that found differences in stomach bacteria to be playing a considerable role. In other words, if you've got a wider variety of stomach bacteria than the average person, more of your food gets broken down to be processed by your system and not as much of it passes through as waste. They suspected that people with "fast metabolisms" actually have a lower-than-average variance in stomach bacteria to be responsible for being able to eat like a pig every day without turning into a fat-ass. This actually makes a lot of sense, to my mind - particularly since no reliable study I've been able to find has demonstrated more than a small variance in base metabolic rate between people. If you've got extra stomach bacteria that make your body process 95% of the calories you ingest, and some people only have like 70% of that get processed by their bodies...that explains a lot - and proves once again, that life isn't fair. :)


    Up until about 2 years ago, I had a high metabolism. I would and could run up hills and feel good about it too. At that time I got hurt and have been slowing down. Both metabolism and eating habits have changed as I try to eat fairly healthy no matter what. I also think (tho not sure) that my BLOOD PRESSURE was a bit high then. Hence the metabolism spike all the time. Now it is a stronger use of the garden that I plan on. Speaking of which, I had retired about 10 years ago and had a couple of years before a situation with pay happened and my check dropped so low, that my after bills money left over was about 50 dollars. For 2 months I embellished on my garden and it was fantastic. Things changed after that 2 months and I was back to a decent check. But that meant my garden sustained me for 2 months. I am still doing a garden with only organic cow manure. How do I know it is organic??? It says so...on the label...somewhere...even if I have to print it on the label.

    I did try a diet on Sunday night...it was not that great a diet tho the pain that had been nagging me went away for a full day. I do not do fad diets, I keep up with my veggies and meats as much as I like. As my brother said, he eats great proper meals morning and noon and then can splurge on evening. He also hikes a bit now too.

    I just made some vegetarian pinto bean burritoes. I am gonna like them. How a bean can not be vegetarian is beyond me. LOL.
    R.I.P. Queen.
    User avatar
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8115
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:20 pm
    Location: A little ways from Boise.


  • Seahawkfan80 wrote:
    I just made some vegetarian pinto bean burritoes. I am gonna like them. How a bean can not be vegetarian is beyond me. LOL.


    They aren't?

    I mean, I get why some beans like re-fried beans aren't vegetarian, they're cooked in animal fat. But they should be vegetarian right?

    btw, beans are awesome for you, full of fiber and protein. But they are carby, so if you're trying to drop weight, beans can slow you down..........compared to lean meats, eggs, etc.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13609
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seahawkfan80 wrote:
    I just made some vegetarian pinto bean burritoes. I am gonna like them. How a bean can not be vegetarian is beyond me. LOL.


    They aren't?

    I mean, I get why some beans like re-fried beans aren't vegetarian, they're cooked in animal fat. But they should be vegetarian right?

    btw, beans are awesome for you, full of fiber and protein. But they are carby, so if you're trying to drop weight, beans can slow you down..........compared to lean meats, eggs, etc.


    Hmm...cooked in pnut oil...or vegetable oil...???

    Lean meats are like what I ate for lunch....deer burgers. We put the amount of fat from cattle in to make them about 90 percent lean.

    Oh and beans slow you down until you get up and you lose the methane build up. A few times in the last month or 3, I have lost a lot of weight or lots of room needing refilled after a relief of such. Sorry...it was an opening I had no choice to pass up.

    :stirthepot:
    R.I.P. Queen.
    User avatar
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8115
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:20 pm
    Location: A little ways from Boise.


  • Seahawkfan80 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seahawkfan80 wrote:
    I just made some vegetarian pinto bean burritoes. I am gonna like them. How a bean can not be vegetarian is beyond me. LOL.


    They aren't?

    I mean, I get why some beans like re-fried beans aren't vegetarian, they're cooked in animal fat. But they should be vegetarian right?

    btw, beans are awesome for you, full of fiber and protein. But they are carby, so if you're trying to drop weight, beans can slow you down..........compared to lean meats, eggs, etc.


    Hmm...cooked in pnut oil...or vegetable oil...???

    Lean meats are like what I ate for lunch....deer burgers. We put the amount of fat from cattle in to make them about 90 percent lean.

    Oh and beans slow you down until you get up and you lose the methane build up. A few times in the last month or 3, I have lost a lot of weight or lots of room needing refilled after a relief of such. Sorry...it was an opening I had no choice to pass up.

    :stirthepot:



    lol...........we eat quite a bit of elk, my buddy hunts and gives me a bunch of elk meat. My wife's not a big fan, so I have to sneak it into my chili or mix it with hamburger meat.

    She can't really tell the difference, but apparently it's a cute animal and we can't kill the cute animals, only the ugly ones.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13609
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seahawkfan80 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seahawkfan80 wrote:
    I just made some vegetarian pinto bean burritoes. I am gonna like them. How a bean can not be vegetarian is beyond me. LOL.


    They aren't?

    I mean, I get why some beans like re-fried beans aren't vegetarian, they're cooked in animal fat. But they should be vegetarian right?

    btw, beans are awesome for you, full of fiber and protein. But they are carby, so if you're trying to drop weight, beans can slow you down..........compared to lean meats, eggs, etc.


    Hmm...cooked in pnut oil...or vegetable oil...???

    Lean meats are like what I ate for lunch....deer burgers. We put the amount of fat from cattle in to make them about 90 percent lean.

    Oh and beans slow you down until you get up and you lose the methane build up. A few times in the last month or 3, I have lost a lot of weight or lots of room needing refilled after a relief of such. Sorry...it was an opening I had no choice to pass up.

    :stirthepot:



    lol...........we eat quite a bit of elk, my buddy hunts and gives me a bunch of elk meat. My wife's not a big fan, so I have to sneak it into my chili or mix it with hamburger meat.

    She can't really tell the difference, but apparently it's a cute animal and we can't kill the cute animals, only the ugly ones.


    Dont tell anyone..but moose meat tastes really good. I have a LOT of ELK and Deer meat. I am gonna go hunt this year for more deer...I like it. I am limiting my hunting for what I need and my friends need for survival. Cute animal??? interesting. I have a friend the same way...wife does not like wild meat....but Moose is not that different. Tastes the same.
    R.I.P. Queen.
    User avatar
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8115
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:20 pm
    Location: A little ways from Boise.


  • twisted_steel2 wrote:We're suppose to trust the FDA? :D

    I didn't say that; my point was about the timeline, that it's been around for quite a while at this point.

    For everything that has come in this thread after Twisted's reply...well, this thread took an interesting turn, haha.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 30017
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ




It is currently Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:21 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE .NET LOUNGE ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests