- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
It's the carbs bruh
Posted on 5/12/24 at 5:49 pm
Posted on 5/12/24 at 5:49 pm
I think we'll live to see the final demise of the CICO (calories in, calories out) model of weight gain/loss. The body is a complex physiological system, not some simplified Newtonian machine. It's the carbs, and it has always been the carbs. If you quit for a while and feel low, just imagine what a crack addict feels like in withdrawal. It's so gross really when you can get outside of it and see it for what it is. Juicing. Getting puffy. Riding that inflammation to an early demise.
I love carbs. I like the energy they give me for exercise. But you have to manage your relationship with them. They are the root of the problem. You'll never know that until you quit and adapt to living without them.
I love carbs. I like the energy they give me for exercise. But you have to manage your relationship with them. They are the root of the problem. You'll never know that until you quit and adapt to living without them.
10
Posted on 5/12/24 at 6:09 pm to SquaringCircles
Vegetables are carbs.
Posted on 5/12/24 at 6:18 pm to SquaringCircles
I agree with this. 2000 calories worth of Twinkies has a lot different impact on a human body than 2,000 calories of ribeye steak.
I know LSU 777 will probably disagree, and that guy is smart as s*** about human physiology, but I just disagree him with him on the calorie in calorie out thing.
I know LSU 777 will probably disagree, and that guy is smart as s*** about human physiology, but I just disagree him with him on the calorie in calorie out thing.
Posted on 5/12/24 at 6:27 pm to SquaringCircles
quote:
I love carbs. I like the energy they give me for exercise. But you have to manage your relationship with them. They are the root of the problem. You'll never know that until you quit and adapt to living without them.
Lol, I’ll continue to eat my fruit and raw honey thx.
Posted on 5/12/24 at 7:49 pm to stuntman
I don’t think anyone would argue that calories are not equal in terms of body performance, composition, or general health.
CICO is simply in regards to weight loss.
So yes, when it comes to simply losing weight, it is that simple.
But when it comes to general health, obviously it becomes more complex, although not near as complex as some want to make it.
CICO is simply in regards to weight loss.
So yes, when it comes to simply losing weight, it is that simple.
But when it comes to general health, obviously it becomes more complex, although not near as complex as some want to make it.
Posted on 5/12/24 at 9:03 pm to Salmon
Fair enough, but I still don't understand the reasoning.
Ok, back to my example. Would one maintain/lose weight if eating 2k calories of twinkies a day? What about 2k calories of beef a day?
Ok, back to my example. Would one maintain/lose weight if eating 2k calories of twinkies a day? What about 2k calories of beef a day?
Posted on 5/12/24 at 9:47 pm to stuntman
quote:
Ok, back to my example. Would one maintain/lose weight if eating 2k calories of twinkies a day? What about 2k calories of beef a day?
Metabolic health and processes complicate the answer. You’re correct in that 2000 calories of beef would lead to better weight management than 2000 calories of Twinkies.
For one, the body uses more energy to burn protein than it does to burn carbohydrates. Something like 2-3 times as much. So you’re not technically using/storing 2000 calories of beef as you would 2000 calories of Twinkies.
Secondly, protein is essential for building or maintaining lean muscle mass. Lean muscle mass increases your BMR, meaning your 2000 calories is burned at a faster rate. Twinkies have little to no protein meaning you lose lean muscle mass thus lowering your BMR. You would have to burn calories with more work to process and burn all of the 2000 calories of Twinkies.
BUT, before you jump for victory, keep in mind that people have different caloric needs based on body composition, different BMRs influenced by genetics and lean muscle mass, different NEATs, and different experiences with physical exercise. Claiming that 2000 calories of beef will always win doesn’t tell the whole story. If someone needs 1800 calories to maintain weight, then they will gain weight on that protocol.
Posted on 5/12/24 at 9:55 pm to StringedInstruments
Thanks for the great reply, Stringed.
Would be nice to take a victory lap, but I know there are people better educated on this in here than I am. Just putting my views out there to see how they hold up against the criticisms it would get.
Being wrong about things sucks initially, but I don't mind it once that initial sting is gone, because it means I'm better informed about whatever the issue is.
Would be nice to take a victory lap, but I know there are people better educated on this in here than I am. Just putting my views out there to see how they hold up against the criticisms it would get.
Being wrong about things sucks initially, but I don't mind it once that initial sting is gone, because it means I'm better informed about whatever the issue is.
Posted on 5/12/24 at 10:51 pm to stuntman
quote:
I agree with this. 2000 calories worth of Twinkies has a lot different impact on a human body than 2,000 calories of ribeye steak.
Macronutrient profile =\= micronutrient profile
Posted on 5/13/24 at 2:49 am to SquaringCircles
Calories in calories out is somewhat of a limiting concept because we can only really guess how many calories we really are burning on a given day. That said, it still must be understood and accounted for.
The main reason things like carnivore work so well is that it is truly limiting. Its hard to gorge yourself in excess calories when you are just consuming protein and fat. Its also limiting in that I cant just go get bacon and eggs in a vending machine.
I can also go out and for pretty cheap, house a 2000 calorie meal that is carb heavy just out in the town or traveling. Cant do that with protein and fat.
Its the lifestyle and behavior modification in addition to the limiting of inflammation promoting foods etc that builds a healthy body
The main reason things like carnivore work so well is that it is truly limiting. Its hard to gorge yourself in excess calories when you are just consuming protein and fat. Its also limiting in that I cant just go get bacon and eggs in a vending machine.
I can also go out and for pretty cheap, house a 2000 calorie meal that is carb heavy just out in the town or traveling. Cant do that with protein and fat.
Its the lifestyle and behavior modification in addition to the limiting of inflammation promoting foods etc that builds a healthy body
Posted on 5/13/24 at 7:25 am to SquaringCircles
Fructose is not the problem. Processed sugar and carbs are the problem.
Posted on 5/13/24 at 8:31 am to SquaringCircles
Gain weight eat more calories than you burn.
Lose weight burn more calories than you eat.
This is fact. You can complicate it as much as you want but this is fact.
Lose weight burn more calories than you eat.
This is fact. You can complicate it as much as you want but this is fact.
Posted on 5/13/24 at 8:44 am to SquaringCircles
quote:You made this statement to discount the truth of CICO because it’s too simplistic, but then argue something just as simplistic:
The body is a complex physiological system, not some simplified Newtonian machine.
quote:
It's the carbs bruh
Posted on 5/13/24 at 8:52 am to SquaringCircles
quote:
I think we'll live to see the final demise of the CICO (calories in, calories out) model of weight gain/loss
Posted on 5/13/24 at 8:52 am to stuntman
quote:
Would one maintain/lose weight if eating 2k calories of twinkies a day? What about 2k calories of beef a day?
you would need some insane discipline to stick to a twinkies only calorie deficit cause you would feel terrible, have awful poops, and never feel full for the lack of protein.
Posted on 5/13/24 at 9:07 am to stuntman
quote:
I agree with this. 2000 calories worth of Twinkies has a lot different impact on a human body than 2,000 calories of ribeye steak.
this i agree with when talking overall health and what kind of weight it will be
but this
quote:
know LSU 777 will probably disagree, and that guy is smart as s*** about human physiology, but I just disagree him with him on the calorie in calorie out thing.
we can disgree but I have over 200 studys and atleast a dozen meta analysis that is on my side
once calories and protein are equated, you lose body weight at the same rate. Body fat too.
the misconception comes from people not tracking calories and going low carb, they tend to keep energy output the same and eat less over time and tend to lose water weight.
if you really believe in CICO then you have not really tracked closely.
Posted on 5/13/24 at 9:11 am to stuntman
quote:
Would one maintain/lose weight if eating 2k calories of twinkies a day? What about 2k calories of beef a day?
well that would depend on the persons BMR and TDEE but if you are asking if the two things are equal....
no, because thermic effect of food aka dietary induced thermogensis.
the protein in the beef is going to take about 20% of those calories just to digest.
not need to know if that is over tdee and fat content of the meat as Fat is by far the easiest macro to store as fat
also would matter if the person is doing resistance training to use the protein as fuel to build muscle
etc etc
so its really hard to say as you can see. But in the end the beef will prolly cause more because protein can not be equated.
and weight does not equal body fat btw.
Posted on 5/13/24 at 12:10 pm to SquaringCircles
Thermodynamics is a solid principle that is not ever changing bro
Posted on 5/13/24 at 1:15 pm to SquaringCircles
quote:
They are the root of the problem. You'll never know that until you quit and adapt to living without them.
I am surprised at the number of downvotes on the OP. I expect to see that on the OT board, but not here. Dude is offering logical information from his own experience and research.
Unfortunately this is one of those "against the grain" situations. If you know, you know.
If you have tried the carnivore diet, seriously and faithfully, you know for a fact the it'll clear up all kinds of chronic issues.
The carnivore diet is tough. No carbs is tough. I do the carnivore/no carbs diet periodically and the results are simply impressive. Always.
Anecdotal, maybe, but my personal experience:
Completely off blood pressure meds (after 10 years daily RX)
Fall asleep quickly, sleep soundly and wake up refreshed EVERY DAY.
Completely cleared up dry skin/eczema I had dealt with for years.
And very surprisingly, my tinnitus I've had since I was in my 20 cleared up completely.
Posted on 5/13/24 at 1:32 pm to eatpie
quote:
I am surprised at the number of downvotes on the OP.
Because over half the people on here don't even know you only need carbs or fats not both.
The other half have convinced themselves the secret to metabolic health are things like ozempic and diet sodas, and things loaded with artificial sweeteners, gums, emulsifiers, etc.
Same folks think that eating fats make you 'fat' and that eating cholesterol gives you 'high' cholesterol.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News