5 ms·

Whoever taught you that has poor understanding of biochemistry. Ever heard of futile cycles? Heat dissipation in the mitochondria? Hormonal effects of food? Ana

by trapper 18y ago

Whoever taught you that has poor understanding of biochemistry. Ever heard of futile cycles? Heat dissipation in the mitochondria? Hormonal effects of food? Anabolic/catabolic foods? Let alone the short, medium and long terms effects on the transcriptome. The major thing you don't understand is that what you do now has effects on your gene transcription over the next few months. Small changes can make huge differences not just in the short term, but longer term as well - in terms of your bodies energy efficiency (which you want to decrease if you are wanting to lose weight) and hormonal state (testo/corto relationships et al). There is tons of research on timing of nutrients. Transcriptome effects of nutrients. Short term hormonal effects. Thermic effect of foods. Etc etc. If one nutrient causes a change in energy out, then that nutrient has less of an effect than one that doesn't. Therefore, some nutrients affect energy balance differently than others. Tell me this if you still don't believe me: are there any foods or combinations of foods/timing that may cause a statistical difference in energy output in the short, medium and long term in humans?

jadence 18y ago
Sorry trapper but your entire post here wreaks of someone trying to "bully" the reader. You throw out a lot of esoteric terms w/ little to back it up. That said - are we even arguing about the same thing? You responded to my post that addressed the "eating at night" myth and you're going off on effects that food has "over the next few months."
- trapper 18y ago
  Perhaps. I am sick of this "Yes, it is a myth. Calories in versus calories out. It's as simple as that." being portrayed by people as a fact. It's just not so simple, and it's wrong. I could write long winded responses with references. The problem is you end up explaining most of biochemistry along with it, as the rabbit hole is truly deep. And people still don't get it, because most people even with undergrad degrees in biochem don't (you don't get to see the rabbit hole until you reach postgrad at most unis and read tons of papers). It's kind of like trying to explain why functional programming is better than OO to someone who just uses excel. None of the terminology used should be esoteric if you have studied biochemistry. Apologise for the tone, it is really frustrating seeing someone promote the same old myth.

by trapper 18y ago

jadence 18y ago

Sorry trapper but your entire post here wreaks of someone trying to "bully" the reader. You throw out a lot of esoteric terms w/ little to back it up. That said - are we even arguing about the same thing? You responded to my post that addressed the "eating at night" myth and you're going off on effects that food has "over the next few months."

trapper 18y ago
Perhaps. I am sick of this "Yes, it is a myth. Calories in versus calories out. It's as simple as that." being portrayed by people as a fact. It's just not so simple, and it's wrong. I could write long winded responses with references. The problem is you end up explaining most of biochemistry along with it, as the rabbit hole is truly deep. And people still don't get it, because most people even with undergrad degrees in biochem don't (you don't get to see the rabbit hole until you reach postgrad at most unis and read tons of papers). It's kind of like trying to explain why functional programming is better than OO to someone who just uses excel. None of the terminology used should be esoteric if you have studied biochemistry. Apologise for the tone, it is really frustrating seeing someone promote the same old myth.