5 ms·

> For Leila, the results were very different. Whereas pasta was "bad" for me, it was fine for her. Yoghurt was good for me, but bad for her, and our responses t

by tomp 11y ago

> For Leila, the results were very different. Whereas pasta was "bad" for me, it was fine for her. Yoghurt was good for me, but bad for her, and our responses to bread and butter were also complete opposites. (Note: "bad" and "good" above refers to "high-GI" and "low-GI", respectively.) Another interesting anecdotal observation from my acquaintances: our relationships with food differ significantly. While some people simply like to eat (like myself - I find great pleasure in food and seemingly can't ever get enough), others simply don't find such enjoyment in eating - food tastes good for them, but not particularly amazing, and they don't seem to perceive the same amount of Freudian pleasure from the feeling of fullness. Interestingly, this seems to correlate highly (and again, anecdotally) with our life-long struggles with weight - the first group has to be conscious not to eat too much (and put on too much weight), while the second group consists of mainly skinny individuals, some of whom struggle putting on weight. So the "goodness" and "badness" of food might have completely different base levels across population!

ksec 11y ago
I guess the saying, everybody is different applies here. I still remember the days when I could eat 3 - 4 pound of beef, along side with mesh potato, or 12 inch Pizza, or whole bucket ( 10pcs ) KFC, per meal! And these meals would come with Coke as well. in Tea time i will eat Ice Cream, eat lots of yogurt etc. I dont do lots of sports, may be once a week maximum. Otherwise I just sit down playing World of Warcraft or watching TV. All while I don't gain 1 pound of weight! I had a VERY hard time gaining weight when I was in the age of 16 - 22. I even tried those weight gainer and protein. And does't work Now that i am a lot older, trying to lose some weight, I find out a lot of these theories simply don't make sense when i was younger. If you are what you eat, then I was definitely eating 4000+ calories per day and not getting Fat. I think, everybody has a different body type that reacts differently.
- arethuza 11y ago
  As someone who cooks for a 17 year old who trains for and plays rugby quite seriously the sheer amount of food an active teenager can consume is quite staggering.
  - douche 11y ago
    It's pretty nuts. I used to eat the same kinds of things I eat now, except I would eat three plates of it, instead of one. Along with around a gallon of whole milk a day... I was just playing soccer and basketball, not trying extra hard to bulk up for football or anything.
- tomp 11y ago
  > then I was definitely eating 4000+ calories per day and not getting Fat I'm not sure about that... allegedly, research suggests that most people have the same BMR (basal metabollic rate), and that there is nothing like "fast metabolism" (i.e. people get rougly equal amounts of energy from food). What I was referring to above, and what the article referrs to (with Glicemic Index) is purely psychological - how much food you want to eat, and how hungry/satiated you feel. I'm still pretty sure that calories-in/calories-out theory is more-or-less correct.
  - mistermann 11y ago
    > I'm still pretty sure that calories-in/calories-out theory is more-or-less correct. From where do you derive this certainty? There's plenty of anecdotal evidence indicating significant variance among individuals. Simply less efficient absorption of ingested calories would obviously make a huge difference, and I don't think there's any reason to think everyone absorbs calories with identical efficiency is there?
    - Retric 11y ago
      Your gut has been optimized over billions of years of evolution to work. A much more likely difference is how jittery some people are. Sure, if A and B sit still for 8 hours there is no difference. But, many people are constantly in motion. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2163173/Toddlers-daily-antics-equivalent-doing-83-rounds-boxing-ring.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2163173/Toddlers-d...
    - vonmoltke 11y ago
      That issue does not affect the correctness of CICO, which is more or less thermodynamics. This issue just means that the CI for two people given the exact same portion of food is not necessarily the same.
      - mistermann 11y ago
        If one is discussing effectiveness of different weight loss approaches, ignoring CI variance based on the exact input foods, and the underlying reasons for that, seems.....unwise.
- CaptainAmerica 11y ago
  > then I was definitely eating 4000+ calories per day and not getting Fat. Not true at all, you weren't even counting your calories you're just throwing out a number. And if you were counting you were counting wrong. That's a huge part of people who say they can't gain or lose weight. They claim to eat these vast amount (or extremely low amount) of calories when they really have no idea. People trying to lose weight will look at a burger and say "that's about 400 calories" and someone trying to gain weight will look at the same burger and say "that's about 1500 calories", when in reality its somewhere around 900. Do that for 3-4 meals a day and boom, you've got your "I eat 4000+ calories and can't gain weight".
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - xeromal 11y ago
    It definitely can be the case. Absorption of calories depends on the person so the same people who eat 2k calories could get roughly 2k calories OR LESS depending on the gut bacteria and other variables. I do agree with you on people's reported caloric intake. Most people inaccurately record their eating habits. I use an app to get an idea of what my day was like.
    - logfromblammo 11y ago
      Nutritional panel information is not an in vivo measurement. If you put 100g of broccoli in a bomb calorimeter and burn it in pure oxygen, you heat it up by 34 kilocalories. If you put it in a human digestive tract instead , the human can absorb anywhere from 0 to 34 kilocalories of food energy from it. We already have ample evidence that the food energy absorbed may be affected by the microbiome in the intestines, the preparation method used, the time of day, the time of year, and other foods that may have been eaten at around the same time. But the calorimetry does establish a hard upper limit on absorbable food energy. This is why non-ruminant herbivores with shorter digestive tracts--like the arctic hare--will engage in coprophagy. They will eat their "first-through" turds, because there is still some food energy in them. Ruminants do essentially the same thing with multiple stomachs and regurgitation. If you aren't weighing your food and burning your poop in a calorimeter, you are inaccurately reporting your caloric intake. Even then, you can't really know for sure how much of that energy was absorbed for use by human cells, and how much was used to sustain your microbiome.

by tomp 11y ago

ksec 11y ago

I guess the saying, everybody is different applies here. I still remember the days when I could eat 3 - 4 pound of beef, along side with mesh potato, or 12 inch Pizza, or whole bucket ( 10pcs ) KFC, per meal! And these meals would come with Coke as well. in Tea time i will eat Ice Cream, eat lots of yogurt etc. I dont do lots of sports, may be once a week maximum. Otherwise I just sit down playing World of Warcraft or watching TV. All while I don't gain 1 pound of weight! I had a VERY hard time gaining weight when I was in the age of 16 - 22. I even tried those weight gainer and protein. And does't work Now that i am a lot older, trying to lose some weight, I find out a lot of these theories simply don't make sense when i was younger. If you are what you eat, then I was definitely eating 4000+ calories per day and not getting Fat. I think, everybody has a different body type that reacts differently.

arethuza 11y ago
As someone who cooks for a 17 year old who trains for and plays rugby quite seriously the sheer amount of food an active teenager can consume is quite staggering.
- douche 11y ago
  It's pretty nuts. I used to eat the same kinds of things I eat now, except I would eat three plates of it, instead of one. Along with around a gallon of whole milk a day... I was just playing soccer and basketball, not trying extra hard to bulk up for football or anything.
tomp 11y ago
> then I was definitely eating 4000+ calories per day and not getting Fat I'm not sure about that... allegedly, research suggests that most people have the same BMR (basal metabollic rate), and that there is nothing like "fast metabolism" (i.e. people get rougly equal amounts of energy from food). What I was referring to above, and what the article referrs to (with Glicemic Index) is purely psychological - how much food you want to eat, and how hungry/satiated you feel. I'm still pretty sure that calories-in/calories-out theory is more-or-less correct.
- mistermann 11y ago
  > I'm still pretty sure that calories-in/calories-out theory is more-or-less correct. From where do you derive this certainty? There's plenty of anecdotal evidence indicating significant variance among individuals. Simply less efficient absorption of ingested calories would obviously make a huge difference, and I don't think there's any reason to think everyone absorbs calories with identical efficiency is there?
  - Retric 11y ago
    Your gut has been optimized over billions of years of evolution to work. A much more likely difference is how jittery some people are. Sure, if A and B sit still for 8 hours there is no difference. But, many people are constantly in motion. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2163173/Toddlers-daily-antics-equivalent-doing-83-rounds-boxing-ring.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2163173/Toddlers-d...
  - vonmoltke 11y ago
    That issue does not affect the correctness of CICO, which is more or less thermodynamics. This issue just means that the CI for two people given the exact same portion of food is not necessarily the same.
    - mistermann 11y ago
      If one is discussing effectiveness of different weight loss approaches, ignoring CI variance based on the exact input foods, and the underlying reasons for that, seems.....unwise.
CaptainAmerica 11y ago
> then I was definitely eating 4000+ calories per day and not getting Fat. Not true at all, you weren't even counting your calories you're just throwing out a number. And if you were counting you were counting wrong. That's a huge part of people who say they can't gain or lose weight. They claim to eat these vast amount (or extremely low amount) of calories when they really have no idea. People trying to lose weight will look at a burger and say "that's about 400 calories" and someone trying to gain weight will look at the same burger and say "that's about 1500 calories", when in reality its somewhere around 900. Do that for 3-4 meals a day and boom, you've got your "I eat 4000+ calories and can't gain weight".
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- xeromal 11y ago
  It definitely can be the case. Absorption of calories depends on the person so the same people who eat 2k calories could get roughly 2k calories OR LESS depending on the gut bacteria and other variables. I do agree with you on people's reported caloric intake. Most people inaccurately record their eating habits. I use an app to get an idea of what my day was like.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    Nutritional panel information is not an in vivo measurement. If you put 100g of broccoli in a bomb calorimeter and burn it in pure oxygen, you heat it up by 34 kilocalories. If you put it in a human digestive tract instead , the human can absorb anywhere from 0 to 34 kilocalories of food energy from it. We already have ample evidence that the food energy absorbed may be affected by the microbiome in the intestines, the preparation method used, the time of day, the time of year, and other foods that may have been eaten at around the same time. But the calorimetry does establish a hard upper limit on absorbable food energy. This is why non-ruminant herbivores with shorter digestive tracts--like the arctic hare--will engage in coprophagy. They will eat their "first-through" turds, because there is still some food energy in them. Ruminants do essentially the same thing with multiple stomachs and regurgitation. If you aren't weighing your food and burning your poop in a calorimeter, you are inaccurately reporting your caloric intake. Even then, you can't really know for sure how much of that energy was absorbed for use by human cells, and how much was used to sustain your microbiome.