3 ms·

It was what was handy on my phone. Here's a recent published NIH article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466941/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm

It was what was handy on my phone. Here's a recent published NIH article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466941/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466941/ Yeah pedantically you can nothing but Oreos and be "vegan". But FTA: "In a cohort of 4384 Taiwanese Buddhists, vegetarian men had approximately half of the rate of diabetes (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.28–0.89), and vegetarian post-menopausal women had one-quarter the rate of diabetes (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.15–0.42), compared with their omnivorous counterparts, despite statistical adjustment for body mass index and other factors. Interestingly, the omnivores in this study consumed a predominantly plant-based diet with little meat or fish, again implying that small amounts of meat contribute significantly to the development of insulin resistance" And the idea that fat = calories in - calories burned is a simplistic view that no serious nutritionist on either side of the debate believes.

woqe 9y ago
> And the idea that fat = calories in - calories burned is a simplistic view that no serious nutritionist on either side of the debate believes. I want to preface this comment by saying I am not attempting to be rude or combative, I am genuinely curious. If a calorie is a measure of energy contained in food, and food is the only source of energy for a body, and one mechanism by which the body uses that energy is to store fat, then a positive change in fat matter stored can maximally be the value of calorie intake converted to mass (in some discrete time). Or, a positive change in fat stored (mass) <= calories in (again, in some discrete time). Is this still too simplistic?
- christophilus 9y ago
  I think that saying: "A calorie is a calorie" is too simplistic because it's never just calories vs calories. 1000 calories of bananas comes with a lot of other content vs 1000 calories of ice cream. You get a lot of different nutrients, you get a lot of fiber, etc. The holistic combination of things you get in unrefined foods makes an impact on how your body processes and stores calories. [Edit: I hope it's clear that I don't advocate eating 1000 calories of any one food. :)]
NikolaeVarius 9y ago
I would be amazed if you could list credible nutritionists who would claim that calorie restriction will not help you lose weight.
kazinator 9y ago
Taiwanese Buddhists. Now there's a random sampling method!

woqe 9y ago

> And the idea that fat = calories in - calories burned is a simplistic view that no serious nutritionist on either side of the debate believes. I want to preface this comment by saying I am not attempting to be rude or combative, I am genuinely curious. If a calorie is a measure of energy contained in food, and food is the only source of energy for a body, and one mechanism by which the body uses that energy is to store fat, then a positive change in fat matter stored can maximally be the value of calorie intake converted to mass (in some discrete time). Or, a positive change in fat stored (mass) <= calories in (again, in some discrete time). Is this still too simplistic?

christophilus 9y ago
I think that saying: "A calorie is a calorie" is too simplistic because it's never just calories vs calories. 1000 calories of bananas comes with a lot of other content vs 1000 calories of ice cream. You get a lot of different nutrients, you get a lot of fiber, etc. The holistic combination of things you get in unrefined foods makes an impact on how your body processes and stores calories. [Edit: I hope it's clear that I don't advocate eating 1000 calories of any one food. :)]

NikolaeVarius 9y ago

I would be amazed if you could list credible nutritionists who would claim that calorie restriction will not help you lose weight.

kazinator 9y ago

Taiwanese Buddhists. Now there's a random sampling method!