What's Really Making Us Fat?

[ATL_Gator]

Originally Posted by GuyWhiteyCorngood

... Any who thinks in terms of energy in = energy out is equally wrong.

Sorry to interject, but the engineer in me can't get past this.

I agree with this statement 110%!

The correct equation is

Energy In = Energy Out + Energy Stored

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

However, you can't out-exercise overeating ...

I disagree with this statement.. well sort of.

For "the regular joe".. sure.

HOWEVER, as a blanket statemnt.. I don't think it is true if you follow conservation of energy. AS an example, if you believe what Michael Phelps says he eats when he is training hard combined with swimming a lot, he most certainly "over eats" per any definition we can come up with.. He works it off.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Hehe, I think they're whack-doodles myself. But I have no compunction about using them and then casting them overboard.

Seriously though, there does seem to be significant infighting in Paleo ranks. Seems that more and more of them are moving away from low-carb. And more and more appear likely to categorize their approach as 'soft-Paleo.'

Basically, soft-Paleo is all there ever was since it is basically impossible to replicate the Paleolithic diet and because nobody really does it. Wolf and Sisson both hawk supplements.

You're totally right about not being able to be "true Paleo". Take fruit for example. There's not really any truly natural choices for fruit because everything has been selectively bred for sweetness, texture, etc. But then again, I don't know many who claim to be "true Paleo." Every paleo nerd in my crossift gym takes a mixed approach - like Sisson's 80/20 rule. Nobody is ready to give up beer.

You can look at the extremes by sampling the loudmouth bloggers and evangelicals, but based on my real-world Paleo experience, most of us are more moderate. I think people start off by being swayed by the extreme arguments, but over time, we find the most sustainable path.

What I've been shooting for is a focus on nutrient density, which means lots of raw veggies. I think overall nutrient density is more important than macronutrient ratios. A lot of my food intake comes from greens tossed in a Blendtec. I usually toss in some coconut oil or avocado to make it more filling and get some good fat. It's super convenient, which makes it more sustainable.

I think a lot of paleo folks screw up by eating way too much meat, and if they get it from a feedlot, then it's just all around bad.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by ATL_Gator

Sorry to interject, but the engineer in me can't get past this.

I agree with this statement 110%!

The correct equation is

Energy In = Energy Out + Energy Stored




I disagree with this statement.. well sort of.

For "the regular joe".. sure.

HOWEVER, as a blanket statemnt.. I don't think it is true if you follow conservation of energy. AS an example, if you believe what Michael Phelps says he eats when he is training hard combined with swimming a lot, he most certainly "over eats" per any definition we can come up with.. He works it off.

I see what you're saying. What I have in mind by overeating is consuming more calories than you expend. Their is no known antidote for that. The regular joe has neither the time nor the capacity to exercise enough to compensate for the calories he consumes.

But no, I don't believe what Michael Phelps says.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by GuyWhiteyCorngood

You're totally right about not being able to be "true Paleo". Take fruit for example. There's not really any truly natural choices for fruit because everything has been selectively bred for sweetness, texture, etc. But then again, I don't know many who claim to be "true Paleo." Every paleo nerd in my crossift gym takes a mixed approach - like Sisson's 80/20 rule. Nobody is ready to give up beer.

You can look at the extremes by sampling the loudmouth bloggers and evangelicals, but based on my real-world Paleo experience, most of us are more moderate. I think people start off by being swayed by the extreme arguments, but over time, we find the most sustainable path.

What I've been shooting for is a focus on nutrient density, which means lots of raw veggies. I think overall nutrient density is more important than macronutrient ratios. A lot of my food intake comes from greens tossed in a Blendtec. I usually toss in some coconut oil or avocado to make it more filling and get some good fat. It's super convenient, which makes it more sustainable.

I think a lot of paleo folks screw up by eating way too much meat, and if they get it from a feedlot, then it's just all around bad.

Hey, what are Paleos saying about the latest red meat scare ?

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Hey, what are Paleos saying about the latest red meat scare ?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. There are so many red meat scares it's hard to keep track.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by GuyWhiteyCorngood

I'm not sure what you're talking about. There are so many red meat scares it's hard to keep track.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17349943

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17349943

The canned Paleo answer should probably focus on:

- causation vs. correlation (like the trumped up China Study)
- false dichotomy (forgetting that pastured meat is way different than the feedlot stuff)

My stance is that I feel like I eat meat more because I want it, not because I need it. Every now and then (not often enough) I like to have meatless days. Just pure raw food vegan days. But I like to experiment. I think the ideal diet is raw foods and a little bit of natural meat.

[Dreamliner]

Continuing with the video, watching dribs and drabs:

(7) Yes, yes, we know that eating fat doesn't make people fat. But notice what's happening here. Realizing that eating fat is not making us fat, somehow we're expected to believe that eating carbs is making us fat. We're switching one demon for another!

(8) Nowadays doctors are telling pre-diabetics and diabetics to lose weight. And guess what ? When they lose weight ... their blood sugar levels regulate.

(9) But we're being badgered into believing that this method is failing, presumably because people are enjoying success without demonizing carbs.

(10) However (here is a ray of hope for low-carbers!), low-carb is actually beginning to gain traction in medical circles ... years after we've known that the Carb-Insulin Hypothesis is false.

[ATL_Gator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

I see what you're saying. What I have in mind by overeating is consuming more calories than you expend. Their is no known antidote for that. The regular joe has neither the time nor the capacity to exercise enough to compensate for the calories he consumes.

But no, I don't believe what Michael Phelps says.

Ok, that clears some stuff up.

I guess we think about over-eating differently.

I consider the "energy out" part of the equation as 3 parts...
existence + basic activity + extra activity

Existence = BMR
basic activity = waking up and doing the minimum requirements for the day (work, home movements, social life movements)
extra activity = what is beyond "basic". Going to the gym or for a run, doing projects around the house added physical labor that is optional for the day, so on and so forth.

to me, "over-eating" is consuming more calories than what is required based on "existence + normal activity".. Thus, by that line of thinking, you can "out exercise over eating" since "exercise" (or extra activity) is not part of my over-eating definition.

Did that make sense? I did to me, at least once.

Edit.. and for the record.. I don't necessarily believe he is eating 10,000+ calories.. but it wouldn't shock me if he was eating considerably over 5,000... his BMR can't be that high.. for him not to gain significant amounts of weight during training, he must be burning it off.

[Dreamliner]

I understand. It's not the way I tend to think about it. But it makes perfect sense. I can tell you that for clients of mine who are game for counting calories, I encourage them to base their calorie intake on BMR, hell with activity, and consider calories burned through activity bonus.

[LeafUF]

ATL I like to look at the whole picture. BMR+TEF+NEAT+Exercise to give you a decent idea of the calories out a person will have in a given day. And if you take in more than that consistently you are going to gain weight. Plain and simple.

I also think its OK to go over some days and under others because over time it should balance out. Its when you take in too much day after day that it becomes a problem.

I try to eat less on days I do not exercise because for one I am usually not as hungry and two I know I didnt burn that extra couple hundred calories in the gym.

[Dreamliner]

I actually find myself asking people to count calories less and less if for no other reason than ... they can't count! Even registered dieticians underestimate their own caloric intake. Of course when somebody's a tub of goo the margin of error is greater when you tell them to, say, reduce to 1,500 calories.

Interesting note on NEAT: as people lose weight NEAT tends to decrease. It may be wired-in. Regardless, just another reason why some would say that exercise is actually more important during the latter stages of weight loss and also for maintenance purposes.

[LeafUF]

Dream is that note on NEAT saying people become less active or that the calories burned from doing every day stuff decreases. If its the latter that makes sense to me, considering it becomes easier to do many things as you get closer to a healthy weight you would burn less calories doing so. Unless I am thinking of this incorrectly.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by LeafUF

Dream is that note on NEAT saying people become less active or that the calories burned from doing every day stuff decreases. If its the latter that makes sense to me, considering it becomes easier to do many things as you get closer to a healthy weight you would burn less calories doing so. Unless I am thinking of this incorrectly.

Both, actually. It stands to reason that resting energy expenditure would decrease owing not only to the lighter weight but also movement efficiency. But also voluntary general activity decreases. Perhaps it's a survival mechanism kicking in. In any case, more and more we're hearing that exercise is at least as importance for weight maintenance as for weight loss. It's almost as if people need to be reminded to keep moving as they near and reach their goals.

[Dreamliner]

Followup on red meat scare study. Turns out that subjects in the highest quintile of red meat consumption consumed 800 more calories a day than those in the lowest quintile, were less active, much more likely to smoke and have diabetes and less attendant to health overall. This would serve to suggest that the conclusion being drawn from the study is a damnable lie:

http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=3143

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Followup on red meat scare study. Turns out that subjects in the highest quintile of red meat consumption consumed 800 more calories a day than those in the lowest quintile, were less active, much more likely to smoke and have diabetes and less attendant to health overall. This would serve to suggest that the conclusion being drawn from the study is a damnable lie:

http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=3143

Like I said, causation vs. correlation. That's why I'm not a fundamentalist on this stuff. Too many variables.