4 ms·

Actually you are most likely wrong. There is really good evidence that the number of calories don't matter and that the type of calories are everything. Peo

Actually you are most likely wrong. There is really good evidence that the number of calories don't matter and that the type of calories are everything. People associate the number of calories as mattering because they change other things at the same time. Please watch videos from Gary Taubes who wrote "Good Calories Bad Calories" and "Why we get fat". Here's his google talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4 On a personal note, I lost 40 lbs and I eat far more calories now than I did before. Open you mind for a bit and really watch that video, you might be convinced that what you think about calories are all wrong. I certainly changed what I thought was true as fact.

alexhawket 15y ago
15 studies showing caloric intake is the primary factor for weight loss: http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.html http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.htm...
b3b0p 15y ago
This is nearly a 90 minute video of Gary Taubes, do you have any other sources? A pubmed study for example or similar?
- nosequel 15y ago
  If you watch for only 10 minutes you hear no less than 5 or 6 sources that he gives. If you are too lazy to watch a video, than no number of sources are going to help you.
Cl4rity 15y ago
"Actually you are most likely wrong." I take it you're kidding, so I'll treat it as such. Taubes, and only Taubes, has blamed refined carbohydrates as the single and absolutely positive source for all our dietary-related maladies. Clearly, you chose to ignore the example of the professor who went on the Twinkie diet. For 10 weeks, the professor had a "steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too." His body mass index dropped to healthy weight, his bad cholesterol went down 20% and good cholesterol went up 20%, and his triglycerides were cut by 39% -- these are not inconsiderable numbers. Again, I'm not preaching that diet--I'd never do it myself. However, it is direct, physical proof that Gary Taubes is wrong. Also, consider that the regions on the planet with the most centenarians (people who live to be 100 or more) are the same regions where bread, pasta and rice intake are high.

alexhawket 15y ago

15 studies showing caloric intake is the primary factor for weight loss: http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.html http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.htm...

b3b0p 15y ago

This is nearly a 90 minute video of Gary Taubes, do you have any other sources? A pubmed study for example or similar?

nosequel 15y ago
If you watch for only 10 minutes you hear no less than 5 or 6 sources that he gives. If you are too lazy to watch a video, than no number of sources are going to help you.

Cl4rity 15y ago

"Actually you are most likely wrong." I take it you're kidding, so I'll treat it as such. Taubes, and only Taubes, has blamed refined carbohydrates as the single and absolutely positive source for all our dietary-related maladies. Clearly, you chose to ignore the example of the professor who went on the Twinkie diet. For 10 weeks, the professor had a "steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too." His body mass index dropped to healthy weight, his bad cholesterol went down 20% and good cholesterol went up 20%, and his triglycerides were cut by 39% -- these are not inconsiderable numbers. Again, I'm not preaching that diet--I'd never do it myself. However, it is direct, physical proof that Gary Taubes is wrong. Also, consider that the regions on the planet with the most centenarians (people who live to be 100 or more) are the same regions where bread, pasta and rice intake are high.