Is more calories a good idea?

27 Nov 2009

you guys really - I never made the initial arguments and only chipped in this evening after getting so frustrated that Kryps is obviously not listening to John's cogent, researched and supported points.
As a former biochemist, I can tell you that John is right - but you believe what you want
I know why fat people get fat - if they want to be fat then I don't have a problem with that
As for the semi-literate accusation of a feeble attempt at abuse, it was a sarcastic riposte - if we want an abuse competition, then we should start another thread.
A wise man once told me "never try and teach a pig to sing, it's a waste of your time and it annoys the hell out of the pig"
So this is my last word on this topic - I'm off to eat some cream cakes smile

27 Nov 2009

Being honest here the ones siding with kryps, do you really understand what the fuck was being said here, cos I sure as hell do not.
It seems to me that both parties SEEM to know what they are saying, but one of them MUST be wrong.
Are there any clever ones here other than the two main posters, who really has a clue who is right and who is wrong here
I bet ya don't !!!
They both tell a good story. lol

So......does eating another cheeseburger a day make you more liable to put weight on, if so is it good advice to eat another 400 calories??

27 Nov 2009

Quote by easyrider_xxx
you guys really - I never made the initial arguments and only chipped in this evening after getting so frustrated that Kryps is obviously not listening to John's cogent, researched and supported points.
As a former biochemist, I can tell you that John is right - but you believe what you want
I know why fat people get fat - if they want to be fat then I don't have a problem with that
As for the semi-literate accusation of a feeble attempt at abuse, it was a sarcastic riposte - if we want an abuse competition, then we should start another thread.
A wise man once told me "never try and teach a pig to sing, it's a waste of your time and it annoys the hell out of the pig"
So this is my last word on this topic - I'm off to eat some cream cakes

Fatty.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Joke btw.

27 Nov 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
It seems to me that both parties SEEM to know what they are saying, but one of them MUST be wrong.

I couldn't tell you what they were talking about so I have no idea. However, in science it may not be a case of right or wrong but of pobability...........but sometimes the less probable turns out to be right.
Anybody can "prove" their point one way over another as there will be some sort of study going on that will show it. Where it falls on its arse is when you start looking at the parameters of the study and look for what has been left out or assumed. It is very interesting.......but nothing concrete I have seen here......yet.
In my job I have always found scientists will bump their gums and they will force their view forward......but when they have to stand in the dock to prove their point.......they run a mile.........or the "proof" is not as solid as they first claimed it was.
Dave_Notts

27 Nov 2009

Quote by john469

Anybody can "prove" their point one way over another as there will be some sort of study going on that will show it.

Hi Dave,
Just popping in to say that this is absolutely wrong mate, and therein lies the origin of the bullshit being punted out by Kryps.
There exists no study - not one - that has been rigidly controlled that demonstrates a metabolic advantage from eating high carbs/low fat over high fat/low carbs or vice versa, not one! ergo the reason Kryps has failed to provide evidence!
Indeed, when looking at the biggest studies (that may or may not be controlled as per my above criteria) concerned with whether or not different macro nutrient profiles (high fat/low carb vs high carb/low fat etc) have any bearing upon fat loss, we can see the conclusions stating macronutrient profile to have no bearing at all!
Have a read of this article, it details the study by Sacks et al, a study involving 811 subjects in an effort to elucidate whether differing macronutrient profiles had any effect upon weight loss ie: is there a metabolic advantage to be seen by changing one macronutrient profile for another?

Here is the NEJM paper written by Sacks et al that the above article references:
The New England Journal Of Medicine: Comparison of Weight-Loss Diets with Different Compositions of Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrates.
CONCLUSION: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.
On top of the above study, there have infact been other studies which have been controlled as per my above rigid criteria performed on confined subject groups showing no metabolic advantage from eating one food grouping over another as per my cited studies in this thread.
As said, only a most foolish of toolbags would attempt to argue that a metabolic advantage from differing macronutrient profiles exists, not that I am pointing any fingers here, you understand? ahem, cough.
But of course, to Kryps this is all a grand conspiracy, that he (with his secret evidence) will freely slander as bollocks whilst presenting fuck all in opposition.

Quote by easyrider_xxx
A wise man once told me "never try and teach a Kryps about de novo lipogenesis, nutrient partitioning or related issues, it's a waste of your time and it will annoy the hell out of you"

Quite right!!

Quote by Lost
I agree you did Kryps and I feel the debate went right over my head, as it did flower's.

Quite right smile

Seriously though, I'm done with this, so I'll bid ya farewell; I must away to the lovely t-girls of server 1.
no, just proves you are a dumb arrogant fukwit with no idea of science at all

27 Nov 2009

I don't pretend to be a scientist or a genius though I do profess to being at least moderately literatate and persuaded by arguement that appeals to A) my own personal experiences, and B) More effective communication. I also find trhat redicule and belittlement get my back up preventing whatever seems reasonable in arguement from getting a fair hearing.
There are a multitude of articles on this subject and what is wanted to be found will be by whichever interested party. However, a reasonably easy to follow and in my mind good article is this one >>
OK, I'm not going to pretend its scientific just that it seems reasonable, reasoned and runs in tandem with my own and others I know of experiences.

27 Nov 2009

Right......
Forget about all the bollox that nobody here can seem to understand...including me!
From my point of view I started this thread as we HAVE a massive obesity problem here in the UK. I am not that bothered if adults want to eat themselves into an early heart attack or at the very least is the MASSIVE rise in child obesity that I am a lot more concerned with. Future generations of obese kids, eating too much crap food.
Now I ain't no scientist or some clever arse , who can even begin to understand the way the body burns calories, or stores fat. What I do know is what I SEE every day of the week. Obese kids who will grow up with all sorts of health problems, and with kids this is the responsibility of the parents around them.
As has been said many times....is it abuse by the parents to allow their own kids to get obese?
Sorry for a " thickie " in the scientific stuff, I am not that bothered. Bottom line is as an adult if you want to eat all the pies and cakes and end up obese with life threatening health problems, then fine go ahead but....for me the issues of obesity need to be taught to our youngsters, to try and stop an even bigger percentage of future adults from the same trap.
That is why I think it is WRONG advice to say people can now eat another 400 calories, when we have the problems we have now. The original article ( which some took to heart )indicated that is like eating a cheeseburger extra everyday. With me living near a school of primary age, and seeing kids that young so obviously overweight, and normally brought into school by overweight parents,that advice I believe is irresponsible and arrogant in the extreme.
God help our youngsters and their offspring IF this food issue is not somehow brought under control. Either by learning in schools, or adults being involved to try and stop the stem of overweight kids.
The system harks on about teaching kids about sex at five years of age, which is bollox, I believe that time would be much better spent educating kids about the dangers of overeating.....but they won't though.
However your body works EVERY overweight person I know ( and there are a few )admit it is THEIR lifestyle choice, which is the main reason for their weight.....too many fatty foods....too much booze....too much crap food....and NO exercise. When obese people say this THEY know it is their fault, but choose to do nothing about it.
Kids are a different issue, and if their parents have that attitude, then they will as sure as eggs are eggs, pass that same attitude onto their kids.
We did NOT NOT NOT have this problem in the 50's or the 60's or the 70's, this is a new wave thing brought about by peoples eating habits and kids laziness. Anything else is just scientific hog wash.
The only people who seem to not want to admit this is the very people this article is talking about.
LIFESTYLE CHOICE.......period.

28 Nov 2009

Quote by john469

Anybody can "prove" their point one way over another as there will be some sort of study going on that will show it.

Hi Dave,
Just popping in to say that this is absolutely wrong mate, and therein lies the origin of the bullshit being punted out by Kryps.

At present only. It does not mean there won't be. When one group of scientists can get a patron to sponsor them because of their own agenda then watch the study spring to life to prove their hypothesis.
Science is like politics in my eyes. It depends on who has the money and the time to prove their hypothesis. When they ridicule others hypothesis by saying "Well we proved ours and you can't prove yours" means what exactly? All it means to me is that one has the purse strings.
When I started in my field I was under the illusionment that we should prove our theories and then prove or disprove a counter theory to demonstrate balance. All that I can see here is that one side has proved it has a backer.
Dave_Notts

28 Nov 2009

Can someone tell me then why my Missus ate "healthier" than any other person than i know - lots of vegetables, low fat everything and exercised regularly in the gym never lost any weight at all.
Then, she tries this Atkins diet, virtually eliminated carbs from her diet and lost 6 kilos in a matter of months. Bearing in mind she was only little anyway this represented about 10% of her body weight literally dropping off her.
How does that work then?

28 Nov 2009

and to think i used to shout at people like that in the gym.
sometimes you forget people have a real problem and need help not someone taking the piss out of them or trying to mould them into something they will never be.