5 ms·

> calorie intake has nothing to do with obesity who is saying that? > that's what all those others say too where? the author is talking about energy balance

> calorie intake has nothing to do with obesity who is saying that? > that's what all those others say too where? the author is talking about energy balance disorder vs insulin hypothesis. first stops at "expend more than you intake and everything will be ok", second goes further and explores difference between sources of calories and why it's wrong to say that caloric number is all you need to care about. > show me someone who can eat 1000 Cals a day and not loose weight > show me someone who can eat 5000 Cals of bacon a day and not gain weight except those are not the claims being made. that's a second strawman in your comment, you really should read up on ketogenic diet before criticizing it.

roel_v 9y ago
"who is saying that?" "The conventional thinking, held by the large proportion of the many researchers and clinicians I’ve interviewed over the years, is that obesity is caused by caloric excess." "The minority position in this field — one that Dr. Ludwig holds, as do I after years of reporting — is that obesity is actually a hormonal regulatory disorder, and the hormone that dominates this process is insulin." 5 or so paragraphs in. Waffling and innuendo about how it's really not about calories, while when you look deeper, it is - but they never acknowledge it as such because if they would, WTF would be so special about it? "second goes further and explores difference between sources of calories and why it's wrong to say that caloric number is all you need to care about." Caloric number is all you need to care about. It's just easier to control when your blood sugar levels don't swing all over the place. Caloric intake is like the first oscillation on a 1D Perlin noise function; cutting back specific foods (not 'sources of calories', but specific compounds that have a certain effect on the body) are a second oscillation, transposed on the first one. So you can cut back all the carbs you want, if you don't get your daily energy intake below your energy expenditure, you'll never lose weight. There are other ways of losing weight too, that would work for everybody, but they're mentally hard(er). You can lose weight by eating a McD hamburger and small portion of fries each day, as long as you don't eat anything else (actually, after those two, you still have a 1000 cal budget left, which you could expend on another two portions of fries, or pure sugar if you'd like, and you'd still loose weight). "you really should read up on ketogenic diet before criticizing it." I'm not critizing the low carbs diet itself; it's well-known that cutting back on carbs is a relatively easy way to loose weight. When I used to fight and had to cut weight, it was standard advise to the point that it was obvious to everybody who'd spend any time in the gym, even those who had been doing it since the '80s at least. What I'm critizing is these shysters who peddle this sort of 'advise' as something or somehow magical or more than a trick to make it easier to get you calorie intake down. Because that's all it is. A good trick, sure, but still just a way to get your calorie intake down.
- 1123581321 9y ago
  What you are missing is that diet can affect metabolic rate. If eating equal amounts of different food causes weight loss, technically energy consumption is now less than expenditure but it is the change in expenditure that matters. It is true that it is harder to overeat on a high fat, low carb diet, though.
- keymone 9y ago
  > obesity is actually a hormonal regulatory disorder, and the hormone that dominates this process is insulin where exactly in this sentence did you read "calories don't matter"? > Caloric number is all you need to care about no it is not. calorie source is important. some sources spike your insulin, some don't. insulin spikes are bad. > just a way to get your calorie intake down no, it's a way to lower blood glucose and remove insulin spikes. healthy caloric deficit is important for sustainable weight loss, but avoiding foods that cause insulin roller coaster is also important. and to get into ketosis it's literally the only thing that matters.
  - roel_v 9y ago
    "where exactly in this sentence did you read "calories don't matter"?" Oh please. 'Sure I called him a no-good cotton picker, but where did I say he's a lesser human? How dare you call me racist!' It's blatantly obvious that the spin the OP is putting on his message is that it's not the calories that matter, but rather 'where those calories came from', whatever that means. If you're going to play word games (the lowest form of debate), we have nothing to talk about here. "some sources spike your insulin, some don't. insulin spikes are bad." Insulin spikes do not cause your weight to go up. They lead to eating more, which is what makes your weight go up. "but avoiding foods that cause insulin roller coaster is also important." OK then please describe what is important about it that does not lead back to eating less. And don't say 'just google keto diet' because it's all the same - words and words and more words to not have to deal with the elephant in the room which is caloric intake. Again, I'm not saying low carb diets don't work. They obviously do, and they're easier for many people to stick to than other diets. What I'm arguing against is the mysticism around a subset of them, the refusal to just call things for what they are. It's a cult thing, it seems.

roel_v 9y ago

"who is saying that?" "The conventional thinking, held by the large proportion of the many researchers and clinicians I’ve interviewed over the years, is that obesity is caused by caloric excess." "The minority position in this field — one that Dr. Ludwig holds, as do I after years of reporting — is that obesity is actually a hormonal regulatory disorder, and the hormone that dominates this process is insulin." 5 or so paragraphs in. Waffling and innuendo about how it's really not about calories, while when you look deeper, it is - but they never acknowledge it as such because if they would, WTF would be so special about it? "second goes further and explores difference between sources of calories and why it's wrong to say that caloric number is all you need to care about." Caloric number is all you need to care about. It's just easier to control when your blood sugar levels don't swing all over the place. Caloric intake is like the first oscillation on a 1D Perlin noise function; cutting back specific foods (not 'sources of calories', but specific compounds that have a certain effect on the body) are a second oscillation, transposed on the first one. So you can cut back all the carbs you want, if you don't get your daily energy intake below your energy expenditure, you'll never lose weight. There are other ways of losing weight too, that would work for everybody, but they're mentally hard(er). You can lose weight by eating a McD hamburger and small portion of fries each day, as long as you don't eat anything else (actually, after those two, you still have a 1000 cal budget left, which you could expend on another two portions of fries, or pure sugar if you'd like, and you'd still loose weight). "you really should read up on ketogenic diet before criticizing it." I'm not critizing the low carbs diet itself; it's well-known that cutting back on carbs is a relatively easy way to loose weight. When I used to fight and had to cut weight, it was standard advise to the point that it was obvious to everybody who'd spend any time in the gym, even those who had been doing it since the '80s at least. What I'm critizing is these shysters who peddle this sort of 'advise' as something or somehow magical or more than a trick to make it easier to get you calorie intake down. Because that's all it is. A good trick, sure, but still just a way to get your calorie intake down.

1123581321 9y ago
What you are missing is that diet can affect metabolic rate. If eating equal amounts of different food causes weight loss, technically energy consumption is now less than expenditure but it is the change in expenditure that matters. It is true that it is harder to overeat on a high fat, low carb diet, though.
keymone 9y ago
> obesity is actually a hormonal regulatory disorder, and the hormone that dominates this process is insulin where exactly in this sentence did you read "calories don't matter"? > Caloric number is all you need to care about no it is not. calorie source is important. some sources spike your insulin, some don't. insulin spikes are bad. > just a way to get your calorie intake down no, it's a way to lower blood glucose and remove insulin spikes. healthy caloric deficit is important for sustainable weight loss, but avoiding foods that cause insulin roller coaster is also important. and to get into ketosis it's literally the only thing that matters.
- roel_v 9y ago
  "where exactly in this sentence did you read "calories don't matter"?" Oh please. 'Sure I called him a no-good cotton picker, but where did I say he's a lesser human? How dare you call me racist!' It's blatantly obvious that the spin the OP is putting on his message is that it's not the calories that matter, but rather 'where those calories came from', whatever that means. If you're going to play word games (the lowest form of debate), we have nothing to talk about here. "some sources spike your insulin, some don't. insulin spikes are bad." Insulin spikes do not cause your weight to go up. They lead to eating more, which is what makes your weight go up. "but avoiding foods that cause insulin roller coaster is also important." OK then please describe what is important about it that does not lead back to eating less. And don't say 'just google keto diet' because it's all the same - words and words and more words to not have to deal with the elephant in the room which is caloric intake. Again, I'm not saying low carb diets don't work. They obviously do, and they're easier for many people to stick to than other diets. What I'm arguing against is the mysticism around a subset of them, the refusal to just call things for what they are. It's a cult thing, it seems.