Is more calories a good idea?

Fatty.

Joke btw.

Hi Dave,

Just popping in to say that this is absolutely wrong mate, and therein lies the origin of the bullshit being punted out by Kryps.

There exists no study - not one - that has been rigidly controlled [for calorie intake and energy expenditure and using a confined subject group] that demonstrates a metabolic advantage from eating high carbs/low fat over high fat/low carbs or vice versa, not one! ergo the reason Kryps has failed [abysmally so infact] to provide evidence!

Indeed, when looking at the biggest studies (that may or may not be controlled as per my above criteria) concerned with whether or not different macro nutrient profiles (high fat/low carb vs high carb/low fat etc) have any bearing upon fat loss, we can see the conclusions stating macronutrient profile to have no bearing at all!

Have a read of this article, it details the study by Sacks et al, a study involving 811 subjects in an effort to elucidate whether differing macronutrient profiles had any effect upon weight loss ie: is there a metabolic advantage to be seen by changing one macronutrient profile for another?

HARVARD UNIVERSITY: RE: Sacks et al, The study authors concluded that the most effective predictive measure of diet success was not macronutrient composition

Here is the NEJM paper written by Sacks et al that the above article references:

The New England Journal Of Medicine: Comparison of Weight-Loss Diets with Different Compositions of Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrates.

CONCLUSION: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.

On top of the above study, there have infact been other studies which have been controlled as per my above rigid criteria performed on confined subject groups showing no metabolic advantage from eating one food grouping over another as per my cited studies in this thread.

As said, only a most foolish of toolbags would attempt to argue that a metabolic advantage from differing macronutrient profiles exists, not that I am pointing any fingers here, you understand? ahem, cough.

But of course, to Kryps this is all a grand conspiracy, that he (with his secret evidence) will freely slander as bollocks whilst presenting fuck all in opposition.



Quite right!!



Quite right

Seriously though, I'm done with this, so I'll bid ya farewell; I must away to the lovely t-girls of server 1.

And, let`s face it ....many of them have usually made up their minds about the outcome they want and therefore bias their experiments accordingly. I do think the rather petulant name calling just goes to show how spurious and irrelevant the posters claims are.

Right......

Forget about all the bollox that nobody here can seem to understand...including me!

From my point of view I started this thread as we HAVE a massive obesity problem here in the UK. I am not that bothered if adults want to eat themselves into an early heart attack or at the very least diabetes.It is the MASSIVE rise in child obesity that I am a lot more concerned with. Future generations of obese kids, eating too much crap food.

Now I ain't no scientist or some clever arse , who can even begin to understand the way the body burns calories, or stores fat. What I do know is what I SEE every day of the week. Obese kids who will grow up with all sorts of health problems, and with kids this is the responsibility of the parents around them.

As has been said many times....is it abuse by the parents to allow their own kids to get obese?

Sorry for a " thickie " in the scientific stuff, I am not that bothered. Bottom line is as an adult if you want to eat all the pies and cakes and end up obese with life threatening health problems, then fine go ahead but....for me the issues of obesity need to be taught to our youngsters, to try and stop an even bigger percentage of future adults from the same trap.

That is why I think it is WRONG advice to say people can now eat another 400 calories, when we have the problems we have now. The original article ( which some took to heart )indicated that is like eating a cheeseburger extra everyday. With me living near a school of primary age, and seeing kids that young so obviously overweight, and normally brought into school by overweight parents,that advice I believe is irresponsible and arrogant in the extreme.

God help our youngsters and their offspring IF this food issue is not somehow brought under control. Either by learning in schools, or adults being involved to try and stop the stem of overweight kids.

The system harks on about teaching kids about sex at five years of age, which is bollox, I believe that time would be much better spent educating kids about the dangers of overeating.....but they won't though.

However your body works EVERY overweight person I know ( and there are a few )admit it is THEIR lifestyle choice, which is the main reason for their weight.....too many fatty foods....too much booze....too much crap food....and NO exercise. When obese people say this THEY know it is their fault, but choose to do nothing about it.

Kids are a different issue, and if their parents have that attitude, then they will as sure as eggs are eggs, pass that same attitude onto their kids.

We did NOT NOT NOT have this problem in the 50's or the 60's or the 70's, this is a new wave thing brought about by peoples eating habits and kids laziness. Anything else is just scientific hog wash.

The only people who seem to not want to admit this is the very people this article is talking about.

LIFESTYLE CHOICE.......period.

Erm no Dave.

You dont realise the bollock you have dropped.

You talk of 'patrons, sponsors and agendas?

Well, the corn/wheat industries RUN government in the U.S.

Due to gov subsidies, you can buy their shit for LESS than they cost to produce; this is why shit like HFCS and GM wheat products can be found in EVERYTHING at some point of production; they are so damn cheap to use.

Thus, if there existed such a controlled study showing a metabolic advantage resulting from [for example] eating high carbs/low fat, these HUGE corporations would have have found it, why? because such a study would be GOLD when advertising their corn and GM wheat products to the dimwits who know nothing of the issue...

...however such a study doesnt exist and cannot be fabricated, end of!

The same is true of high fat/low carbs showing a metabolic advantage, if such a study existed, the billion dollar meat industry would be over it like flies on shit; it doesnt, they arent!

Sorry mate, try again.

Last edited by on 28th Nov 2009 - 4:59am; edited 5 times in total

Yes mate, after eliminating the carbs (a 'ketogenic' diet), she didnt replace them with anything, thus she was eating less overall than usual.

If she was on say 2500 calories per day, from which <>40% came from carbs, when you take that (in addition to the exercise) you can guestimate she would have then had somewhere around <> 1500 calories each day which would have put her into a deficit resulting in the weight loss.

Check out this link from the man they call Mr Keto, he wrote the book on keto dieting, makes Atkins look like a dimwit, he will tell you himself there is no metabolic advantage... but also provide evidence to prove it not mere piss and wind theorising of the kind you get from the other side:

Ketogenic Low-Carbohydrate Diets have no Metabolic Advantage over Nonketogenic Low-Carbohydrate Diets – Research Review

This is before we even get to the fact that fats and proteins satisfy hunger more efficiently than sugars, which is why - and as shown above - in studies concerned with misreporting of food intake in dieters we see many subjects eating snack foods without even realising it.

Nothing magical happens on an Atkins diet, no metabolic advantage.

and to think i used to shout at people like that in the gym.
sometimes you forget people have a real problem and need help not someone taking the piss out of them or trying to mould them into something they will never be.