Irish Poker Boards
Register Arcade FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Go Back   Irish Poker Boards > Community, Tech, and Feedback > Community & Games
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 28-02-18, 10:50   #1361
Mellor
Member
 
Mellor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 10,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny Crane View Post
Considering how few people count calories should we not being seeing much higher fluctuations in weight across the population?
What makes you think we don't?
Some random Joe who eats loads one day and little the next day with no regard for counting calories - also has no regard for accurately tracking his daily weight.
I've pretty detailed weight stats for all of February. I'll post them up tomorrow.


Adding noticeable weight takes sustained overeating. Especially when you consider that an overeat of 2000 cals also adds c.400 cals to energy expenditure.
__________________
Mellor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-18, 13:37   #1362
Tar.Aldarion
Member
 
Tar.Aldarion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 6,101
Send a message via MSN to Tar.Aldarion Send a message via Skype™ to Tar.Aldarion
I thought calories on packets these days took into account processing costs?

I've tracked my weight every day for 4 months (192lb -> 165lb), you see patterns with that much tracking (and a year stint of tracking before also). I'll lose 2lb-3lb each night mostly from water, I'll be a similar weight heavier by evening etc mostly from meal weight/water but there can be variation depending on what you eat/drink, salt intake retaining more water etc. You don't see as much weight variation in the population as at a certain point people stabilise (meaning slowly go up in weight each year at a similar rate - the older people get the higher weight they typically are) and are for the most part are all overweight so have a high TDEE. You probably see more weight variation than you realise from looking at people alone.

As for diet it really just depends on your willpower, and that's what most of these ideas spring from. The stronger it is the less minutiae matter. I eat a huge amount of carbs, eat at restaurants all the time, go on food tours and so on, it doesn't really matter for me personally.
__________________

Last edited by Tar.Aldarion; 28-02-18 at 13:45.
Tar.Aldarion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-18, 13:42   #1363
Theresa
lwaysone
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny Crane View Post
Considering how few people count calories should we not being seeing much higher fluctuations in weight across the population?


People do tend to eat slightly less but it's more about blood sugar/insulin
I think you are misattributing the water retention of ingesting carbs to some effect insulin and blood sugar would have on your fat levels on you on a day to day basis.

When you ingest a lot of carbs, your body stores 3-4g water for every gram of carbs.

So its easy to see where people think OMG carbs make me fat. OMG carbs have an effect on insulin levels. OMG insulin makes me fat.

Insulin just pushes that carb/glucose and water into cells. More carbs means more water means you think its the carb/glucose/sugar thats making you fat.
__________________
"The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity."
Theresa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-18, 13:50   #1364
Theresa
lwaysone
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tar.Aldarion View Post
I thought calories on packets these days took into account processing costs?

I've tracked my weight every day for 4 months (192lb -> 165lb), you see patterns with that much tracking (and a year stint of tracking before also). I'll lose 2lb-3lb each night mostly from water, I'll be a similar weight heavier by evening etc mostly from meal weight/water but there can be variation depending on what you eat/drink, salt intake retaining more water etc. You don't see as much weight variation in the population as at a certain point people stabilise (meaning slowly go up in weight each year at a similar rate - the older people get the higher weight they typically are) and are for the most part are all overweight so have a high TDEE. You probably see more weight variation than you realise from looking at people alone.

As for diet it really just depends on your willpower, and that's what most of these ideas spring from. The stronger it is the less minutiae matter. I eat a huge amount of carbs and so on, it doesn't really matter for me personally.
1. Do they? I can't imagine this is the case. Cost/Accuracy issues.

A calorie is an actual unit of energy and is fixed. The energy you metabolize from eating a calorie would fluctuate.

2. Older people don't hold on to muscle as well as young people. They atrophy. Then its hard to change eating habits as quick so they need less calories, and ingest the same, and put on weight... slowly.

3. The last part is true. Its about willpower, willpower to constantly restrict yourself and to that many of the successful diets push psychological tricks and covert restriction.

I eat a tonne of carbs and Ive a decently low bodyfat %, and I train a hell of a lot better for eating the carbs.

Im sure the next argument in here will be about bodytype and endomorph/ectomorph etc etc. This is also all lies.
__________________
"The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity."

Last edited by Theresa; 28-02-18 at 13:57.
Theresa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-18, 13:55   #1365
Theresa
lwaysone
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellor View Post

Adding noticeable weight takes sustained overeating. Especially when you consider that an overeat of 2000 cals also adds c.400 cals to energy expenditure.
*noticeable should say non-temporary.

I can be noticeably more "doughy" after a weekend smashing pizza, beer and drinking enough hungover water to fill a lake.

3 days training and eating ok, and Im back to a noticeable difference. Im sure you experience this too.

To Mellors point though - To actually get bigger as in be more muscley takes so much fucking effort in eating alone its unreal. In fact, if you were to eat the diet Denny mentioned previously you'd likely be eating all day and doing nothing else.

There is a reason professional "Big" fuckers eat (what is now considered) "badly" in the off season.
__________________
"The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity."
Theresa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-18, 14:04   #1366
Denny Crane
Undefeated
 
Denny Crane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,381
I'm asking about two different things in my post. Don't mean anything about water retention.


Quote:
What makes you think we don't?
If the difference is +-a few hundred cals either way, people's weights manage to remarkably stable over time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post
I think you are misattributing the water retention of ingesting carbs to some effect insulin and blood sugar would have on your fat levels on you on a day to day basis.

When you ingest a lot of carbs, your body stores 3-4g water for every gram of carbs.

So its easy to see where people think OMG carbs make me fat. OMG carbs have an effect on insulin levels. OMG insulin makes me fat.

Insulin just pushes that carb/glucose and water into cells. More carbs means more water means you think its the carb/glucose/sugar thats making you fat.
I mean blood sugar/hunger levels, and insulins effects on HSC and fatty deposits. From the science from Taubes says that even slightly elevated insulin levels cause fat to accumulate.
__________________


Last edited by Denny Crane; 28-02-18 at 14:09.
Denny Crane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-18, 14:18   #1367
Theresa
lwaysone
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny Crane View Post

I mean blood sugar/hunger levels, and insulins effects on HSC and fatty deposits. From the science from Taubes says that even slightly elevated insulin levels cause fat to accumulate.
Which is true... if an overall surplus has been consumed, then the stimulus is there. If there is a deficit, it won't.

Insulin is the pusher! Thats it. It pushes fat/carb/protein/water/nutrients into cells.

The overall calorie expenditure (and training stimulus) dictates what happens then.
__________________
"The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity."
Theresa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-18, 14:52   #1368
Tar.Aldarion
Member
 
Tar.Aldarion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 6,101
Send a message via MSN to Tar.Aldarion Send a message via Skype™ to Tar.Aldarion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post
1. Do they? I can't imagine this is the case. Cost/Accuracy issues.
As far as I have seen mentioned and read, yes. Any studies I have read have been US based not sure about here but would have thought it would be the same. It can't be too accurate I imagine but it's certainly a lot closer than mass to energy in a machine.

Quote:
Of note, it is important to distinguish that food label calories actually represent metabolizable energy, which is total caloric content minus calories that are presumably not absorbed by the body and excreted as waste. Therefore, the absolute amount of calories in food is higher than the calories stated on the label and this was evident in our sample of snack food items (6.7 kcal [−4.9, 31.9], p<0.05). Since nutrient absorption has a high inter-individual variability in humans (22), it may be of more value to report gross calories on food labels as a more reproducible measure of caloric content in prepackaged snack food items.
Quote:
As specified by the Code of Federal Regulations (10), calories on food labels represent metabolizable energy, i.e. total (gross) calories minus calories that are excreted in stool and urine. However, doubts regarding the accuracy of energy content labeling of packaged foods have been expressed. A study from the early 1990s showed that measured energy in packaged food differed by approximately 25% from the label (11). Additionally, a recent study investigated the food label accuracy of reduced-energy restaurant foods and frozen ready-to-eat meals and reported that some restaurant foods contained up to 200% of stated calories and the average energy content of frozen meals was 8% higher than originally stated (12).
(10) Code of Federal Regulations: 21 CFR 101.9.
There also seems to be this for studying humans excrement and seeing what was not taken in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_system
Packaging probably follows the amounts laid out by that system 4 Kcal/g for protein, 4 Kcal/g for carbohydrate, and 9 Kcal/g for fat. Alcohol is calculated at 7 Kcal/gfor rough estimates of processed calories.

However I also read studies stating we "absorb" 30% less calories than stated on nuts such as almonds when using the above method, so I imagine this stuff is just all over the place.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3396444/

Quote:
Im sure the next argument in here will be about bodytype and endomorph/ectomorph etc etc. This is also all lies.
What about fecal transplant for healthier gut biomes? I only heard of that as vegan poop is apparently the gold standard



There are some interesting studies about "a calorie is a calorie" on wiki:

Quote:
Harvard University Research[edit]
In 2011, a group of Harvard University researchers published the results of a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that followed 120,877 highly educated men and women over a period of 12 to 20 years. The study focused on factors that influence weight gain including diet, exercise, sleep, smoking, alcohol intake and television watching. Participants began the study as healthy adults. Every two years, they would complete detailed questionnaires about their eating and other habits. The results found that an array of factors influenced the fluctuation of a person's weight. The average participant gained about one pound per year. Among the results of the study, it was found that the types of foods people ate had a larger effect on weight gain than physical activity.[17] According to the researchers "Consumption of processed foods that are higher in starches, refined grains, fats, and sugars can increase weight gain." and "These results suggest that future policies and research efforts to prevent obesity should consider food structure and processing as potentially relevant dietary metrics."[18] The lead author of the study concluded in an interview that trying to count calories, in an effort to lose weight, would be futile unless one is examining the kinds of calories being consumed.[17]

Boston Children's Hospital Clinical Trial
In 2012, the Journal of the American Medical Association published the results of a clinical trial performed by a group of researchers that investigated whether dietary composition affected weight loss.[19] The study tracked 21 individuals. The individuals first lost at least 12.5% of their body weight, and were then placed on one of three different dietary regimens:

A diet high in protein and fat, but with fewer carbohydrates
A diet low in fat, emphasizing whole grains, fruit and vegetables
A diet with a low glycemic index, focusing on the type of carbohydrates consumed
The results showed that the first group burned the most calories, but also displayed increased markers of stress and inflammation in the body, which can lead to cardiovascular disease, among other health problems. The second group burned fewer calories than the other two groups, and also displayed certain metabolic indicators that typically precede weight gain. The third group burned a reasonable number of calories, but notably did not display increased markers of disease-causing stress. 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.[4][9]
__________________

Last edited by Tar.Aldarion; 28-02-18 at 15:11.
Tar.Aldarion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-18, 15:23   #1369
Denny Crane
Undefeated
 
Denny Crane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post
Which is true... if an overall surplus has been consumed, then the stimulus is there. If there is a deficit, it won't.

Insulin is the pusher! Thats it. It pushes fat/carb/protein/water/nutrients into cells.

The overall calorie expenditure (and training stimulus) dictates what happens then.
But what I've read from Taubes contradicts that
__________________

Denny Crane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-18, 16:23   #1370
Theresa
lwaysone
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tar.Aldarion View Post
As far as I have seen mentioned and read, yes. Any studies I have read have been US based not sure about here but would have thought it would be the same. It can't be too accurate I imagine but it's certainly a lot closer than mass to energy in a machine.




(10) Code of Federal Regulations: 21 CFR 101.9.
There also seems to be this for studying humans excrement and seeing what was not taken in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_system
Packaging probably follows the amounts laid out by that system 4 Kcal/g for protein, 4 Kcal/g for carbohydrate, and 9 Kcal/g for fat. Alcohol is calculated at 7 Kcal/gfor rough estimates of processed calories.

However I also read studies stating we "absorb" 30% less calories than stated on nuts such as almonds when using the above method, so I imagine this stuff is just all over the place.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3396444/



What about fecal transplant for healthier gut biomes? I only heard of that as vegan poop is apparently the gold standard



There are some interesting studies about "a calorie is a calorie" on wiki:
None of the bolded parts in your reply are in opposition to what Im saying. We are agreeing.

The lead author of the study concluded in an interview that trying to count calories, in an effort to lose weight, would be futile unless one is examining the kinds of calories being consumed.


Agree. Calories are metabolized differently. So you need to focus on the macro type - but calories in, calories out.

The results showed that the first group burned the most calories, but also displayed increased markers of stress and inflammation in the body, which can lead to cardiovascular disease, among other health problems.

This is a central tenet of vegan propaganda... and I actually agree with it. Meat seems to be bad for you. Its delicious though.


The third group burned a reasonable number of calories, but notably did not display increased markers of disease-causing stress. 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.


Agree. The "Complexity" of the carb affects calorie metabolization (complex = less, simple = more). It also affects blood sugar levels.

Again... calories in, calories out.

A "calorie is not a calorie" is a different argument though - and the answer is its not. A carb calorie is different to a protein calorie, simply because you metabolize more.

This is the thing. People conflate so many things in this domain. And this is what causes confusion.
__________________
"The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity."
Theresa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-18, 16:24   #1371
Theresa
lwaysone
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny Crane View Post
But what I've read from Taubes contradicts that
Can you show me? Or TLDR it for me.

Im very willing to be proved to be misguided on this.

If humans eating contradicts the law of conservation of energy I'll eat my hat (and make some energy disappear from the universe in the process)
__________________
"The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity."
Theresa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-02-18, 23:06   #1372
Mellor
Member
 
Mellor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 10,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tar.Aldarion View Post
I thought calories on packets these days took into account processing costs?
I don't believe so. I've heard it suggested that certain food packages were doing it ,but it's very dodgy imo. A very quick way to prove that is to look at the calories for a 100g of pure oil, it will be close to 900. Or a pure carb like sugar, close to 400. A 10-20% slice off the top would be obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tar.Aldarion View Post
As far as I have seen mentioned and read, yes. Any studies I have read have been US based not sure about here but would have thought it would be the same. It can't be too accurate I imagine but it's certainly a lot closer than mass to energy in a machine.

(10) Code of Federal Regulations: 21 CFR 101.9.
There also seems to be this for studying humans excrement and seeing what was not taken in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_system
Packaging probably follows the amounts laid out by that system 4 Kcal/g for protein, 4 Kcal/g for carbohydrate, and 9 Kcal/g for fat. Alcohol is calculated at 7 Kcal/gfor rough estimates of processed calories.

However I also read studies stating we "absorb" 30% less calories than stated on nuts such as almonds when using the above method, so I imagine this stuff is just all over the place.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3396444/
That's talking about something else entirely.
Excluding the energy in fecal matter, basically means that the energy in dietary fibre isn't added to the calories count. Fibre has similar energy to carbohydrate, in the US it's listed as carb. Where as the rest of the world separates it out (which makes much more sense in terms of energy content being 4g per card). See these two made up food labels. Both show the same food and energy. But the US way totals carbs differently.

US Label  Rest of the world 
Energy400 Energy400
Carbs120 Carbs100
Sugars10 Sugars10
Fibre20 Fibre20

In both cases the fibre energy (if we burned it say) isn't counted towards the total. But what we talking about is the thermic effect of food. This energy that is "lost" by the process, but the energy is still metabolised.
Say you eat the 100g carbs above. Your body metabolises, c.400 calories from this, but physically digesting it to get those calories also requires energy (about 10-15%). So you burn 50 calories from your existing energy stores, by metabolising the 400. The net effect is 350 calories are available for other functions (or weight gain).
The typical thermic effect of food is accounted for in typical metabolic rates (like BMR). But when people significantly increase or decrease their intake. The net increase or decrease is reduced because their metabolic adjusts accordingly. The amount of that adjustment is variable depending the exact food you are eating; i.e. protein, fat, carbs (simple/complex).




There are some interesting studies about "a calorie is a calorie" on wiki:[/QUOTE]
__________________
Mellor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-18, 00:01   #1373
Mellor
Member
 
Mellor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 10,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theresa View Post
*noticeable should say non-temporary.

I can be noticeably more "doughy" after a weekend smashing pizza, beer and drinking enough hungover water to fill a lake.

3 days training and eating ok, and Im back to a noticeable difference. Im sure you experience this too.
I'd argue that what's noticeable for somebody paying attention to their weight/body comp is much less than a regular Joe whose weight could creep up a few kg over a long period without them noticing. You hear/see people who weigh themselves genuinely shocked at the amount they gained.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny Crane View Post
If the difference is +-a few hundred cals either way, people's weights manage to remarkably stable over time.
700 cals equates to 100g body fat. That's nothing in terms of daily fluctuation (see graph below). It doesn't exactly work in terms of 24 hour balance. Between available energy in your system and time to turn food, you have a bit of an energy buffer day to day.
Eat +700 cals for 10 days straight. And you'll mostly likely gain c.1kg


My tracked weight graph.
Blue dots are daily weights, orange is weighted average, dotted line is linear trend.
Daily fluctuations of 0.5kg was common, max was 1kg. These were all taken first thing in the morning. Fluctuations over the course of the day is on top of this.

__________________
Mellor is offline   Reply With Quote
Thanks From:
Old 16-05-18, 09:53   #1374
Denny Crane
Undefeated
 
Denny Crane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,381
Went to a physio about an issue, and while I was there I asked about my rotor cuff (been bothering me for about ten years), the physio went straight for dry needling and to crack my back...which was a bit more alternative than I was expecting?
__________________

Denny Crane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-18, 10:15   #1375
brady23
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny Crane View Post
Went to a physio about an issue, and while I was there I asked about my rotor cuff (been bothering me for about ten years), the physio went straight for dry needling and to crack my back...which was a bit more alternative than I was expecting?
The physio I use has performed dry needling on me, I was surprised too. He's also got a physio who specialises in holistic treatement now also.

You should check out rolfing/hellerwork. It's alternative in that it's not mainstream but there isn't much spiritual stuff or anything like that added on.

I find it more invasive than a standard physio. I describe as a combo of PNF stretching and deep tissue physio.
It's well worth trying and it's definitely been one of the best forms of therapy I've gone for.
brady23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-05-18, 10:42   #1376
Tar.Aldarion
Member
 
Tar.Aldarion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 6,101
Send a message via MSN to Tar.Aldarion Send a message via Skype™ to Tar.Aldarion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny Crane View Post
From what I've read in the last while, the optimal way of eating seems to involve:

Negligible sugar, low carbs, high protein and mostly green vegetables. No processed food.
Eating in an 8hour window or less (Seems to be differing opinion on whether the main meal should be in the morning or evening though)
Occasional 24 fast
Far more water than you think you should drink

that sound about right?
Just was skimming past this and was thinking about it recently. I suppose it depends on what you are aiming for. I don't see any reason to limit carbs? Or why high protein? When thinking about longevity the main concern seems to be lowering calorie intake from what I've been reading. Another thing (I don't know if it's true or bs) is limiting methionine (an essential amino acid - protein) to the minimal amount you need, I've been sent a bunch of research papers to read on that that I haven't gotten around to. https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...2U2Z2tGX3QwOFU

Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny Crane View Post
Went to a physio about an issue, and while I was there I asked about my rotor cuff (been bothering me for about ten years), the physio went straight for dry needling and to crack my back...which was a bit more alternative than I was expecting?
That seems a bit mad. Maybe since it's been ten years and you've got treatment before(?) they are like fuck it let's try this. Even having it in their repertoire would be odd to me.

Guy sitting beside me in work has suffered from RSI for years, tried a million professionals to fix it, there was a near golf ball sized lump on his wrist at one point. Only thing that sorted that was needling funnily enough.
__________________

Last edited by Tar.Aldarion; 16-05-18 at 10:46.
Tar.Aldarion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-18, 21:43   #1377
dobby
Member
 
dobby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: The Infirmary
Posts: 7,542
Need some advice please.

Having trouble making lunches for work. Working as a delivery driver and always try to have something light or at least good food because it's not an active job. In the colder months I had salads, pasta with pesto, stuff like that. But with the hot weather the salad and pasta are turning to shite so I was stopping into a deli every day.

What I've been doing the last week or so is bringing grapes, strawberries, apples and just eating them on the move during the day.

Can anyone recommend anything else or is that alright?

Reason I'm asking is I'm trying to lose the belly, already playing football and training twice a week, soccer starting again soon too but the food is killing me.

Breakfast is a bowl of muesli or porridge. Dinner is usually a simple meat, veg, spud. Sometimes spag bol or similar.
dobby is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Irish Poker Boards > Community, Tech, and Feedback > Community & Games

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT. The time now is 09:16.