Calories in vs. Calories Out--proof?

[Mike ODonnell]

Originally Posted by Scott Clark

Not that such foods don't have their place as a treat, but you know.

the general public "treat" themselves too much daily......got to work...get a treat....made it till lunch...another treat.....survived one day....one more treat.....

[Gittit Shwartz]

Originally Posted by Brian Stone

I'm not sure I buy into the good vs. bad inherent metabolism thing. I saw a program where BBC did a study on the metabolism claim, though it was far from comprehensive and scientifically valid since they only tested a single pair of people. Still, I found the results pretty interesting.

I began to very poorly summarize the program but found this summary here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/humanbody/tr.../fatthin.shtml

In short, they found no validity to the genetic "high and low metabolism" claims made.

I have not done much research otherwise on this point and intend to, but wanted to add that.

I've seen studies to that effect too. Not using the genetic cop-out at all. It's just by the time people start thinking maybe they should change their eating habits, these habits have already induced metabolic disorder. From the numbers I've seen someone who is hypothyroid my have a BMR that is 30-40% lower than normal.

And of course there's no argument that a smaller person burns less calories while restaurant portion sizes stay the same.

[Craig Loizides]

It looks like there was actually very little difference in what the study participants ate.

The goals were (C, P, F):
65/15/25
55/25/20
45/15/40
35/25/40

The food actually eaten was:
53/20/27
51/21/28
48/20/33
43/21/35

So, protein was exactly the same, carbs only ranged from 43 to 53, and fat from 27 to 35. It's not surprising that the results are similar in the different groups.

[Garrett Smith]

Seriously, Craig, is that what they actually ended up eating?

Hard to believe the garbage conclusions that the media is force-feeding people with this joke of a study, if that is really true.

[Aaron Gainer]

Calories in vs Calories out is the basis to lose weight mathematically. However, if someone isn't losing weight, are their hormones out of whack(thyroid, insulin, etc...)? Are they eating a bunch of starchy carbs? If the answer to both, then fix the diet and be strict with fruits, veggies, and meats.

As the saying goes: You eat like shit, be prepared to feel like shit.

[Ben Fury]

Originally Posted by Arien Malec

My takeaway is the same as I've commented multiple times:

There are multiple paths to health, but none of them include refined carbohydrates and processed oils.

Indeed. Aboriginals around the world were relatively healthy before we showed up with all our flour, sugar and shortening. Now they're all getting fat and falling over obese and diabetic with CVD. The benefits of civilization? Blockbuster movies do not begin to make up for the downside!

[Derek Weaver]

How much of it is the food and how much of it is the crappy lifestyle?

I saw on another forum a study where people ate McDonald's or some other fastfood place every day (sort of an anti-Super Size Me) but kept calories in check. Weight was down and blood profiles improved.

I'm not an advocate for this kind of approach at all, just food for thought. Take a group of hunter gatherers (at some point this applied to all of our ancestors), and have them sit on their backsides all day with tons of food... and they're going to get fat and sick.

[Scott Clark]

Originally Posted by Derek Weaver

How much of it is the food and how much of it is the crappy lifestyle?

I saw on another forum a study where people ate McDonald's or some other fastfood place every day (sort of an anti-Super Size Me) but kept calories in check. Weight was down and blood profiles improved.

I'm not an advocate for this kind of approach at all, just food for thought. Take a group of hunter gatherers (at some point this applied to all of our ancestors), and have them sit on their backsides all day with tons of food... and they're going to get fat and sick.

I think this is the main point. It's like the recent red meat study that was released last week.... it doesn't delve into the individual's lifestyle whatsoever or the content of their overall diet. The pathetic yet expected result of the study was having it's findings embellished and spun by the media to claim something that isn't there. I do believe that an active lifestyle does worlds of good, but I don't buy for a second that it can cover up the damage done from poor nutrition.

I believe the documentary you're referring to is Fathead. I've seen the youtube clips, need to see the whole thing.

[Mike ODonnell]

A big Mac won't give you insulin resistance.....drinks with 50g of sugar will.

[Derek Weaver]

Drinks with 50 grams of sugar followed up by absolutely zero activity will speed the process.