Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Krypsjaq
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 60
Bisexual Female, 57
UK
Profile Follows
38
Forum
56
Groups
11
Meets Parties Stories

Forum
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
Quote by GnV
Well, we seem to be getting somewhere now..
The US has now declared that greenhouse gases are harmful to humans confused
Maybe the Administration didn't major in chemistry or physics but hasn't volumes of CO2 always been deadly?

they will be telling us Dihydrogen Monoxide is deadly to life next :evil2:
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
Quote by john469

Anybody can "prove" their point one way over another as there will be some sort of study going on that will show it.

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 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 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?

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.
Quote by easyrider_xxx
A wise man once told me "never try and teach a Kryps about de novo lipogenesis, nutrient partitioning or related issues, it's a waste of your time and it will annoy the hell out of you"

Quite right!!
Quote by Lost
I agree you did Kryps and I feel the debate went right over my head, as it did flower's.

Quite right smile
Seriously though, I'm done with this, so I'll bid ya farewell; I must away to the lovely t-girls of server 1.
no, just proves you are a dumb arrogant fukwit with no idea of science at all
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
Quote by flower411
This is very good I must say. lol

Very good...........but I have no idea what the feck they are trying to prove here dunno
Are 400 calories better or worse was the original question.........so what were they trying to prove :lol: . I lost it inbetween the name calling.
Dave_Notts
There was something in between the name calling ????
Fuck ....you far more observant than me :lol:
I never called anybody anything.
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
Quote by easyrider_xxx
so no proof then?

Are you a total moron - this guy has provided proof upon proof of his points via peer reviewed published academic studies, you on the other hand quote airy fairy nonsense and hold it up as incontrovertible fact.
proving that one group cheated does not constitute proof another group did, that is very bad science in the extreme.
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
thanks for all the name calling, but you didn't provide any proof that this particular group were under reporting. and as both groups were obese to start with why was it not assumed that both groups were under reporting and not just the low carb lot.
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
o by the way, here's a link. now i prefer to believe a 75 year old qualified doctor who is also a type 1 diabetic with these qualifications than an amateur internet googler who wants to bully his own ideas.
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
Quote by john469
So John as you seem to know what you are talking about here....two questions.
Firstly is the " new " calorie intake of an additional 400 good advice?

I would say that most folks were not eating the 2000cals (or lower) previously recommended, so in effect this new advice is pretty must lost on them LOL
Either way, I would say that as the info is based on the average person, 2400cals is fine for them, although at that calorie level, the protein must be kept up; I'll explain in a bit.
Secondly is our obese problem caused by either wrong food, or too much food, or the wrong kind of food, and coupled with little or no excersise, the main reasons for our obesity problems?

I would say wrong food is the modern day man made refined sugars and adulterated fats type of shite. These are metabolic perversions that it is thought affect folks bodies like triggers activating all manner of molecular mechanisms involved with various deleterious conditions; trust me, in 20 years time or sooner, we will see a class action against the makers of corn syrups and other similar shite ingredients by a whole legion of diabetic fatties in the same way we have seen ex smokers suing the tobacco firms. But right now the manufacturers of these things - especially the corn derived foods - practically run government, especially in the US.
As far as wrong 'kind' of food, I would suggest that the diets of most folks are way too slanted toward majority carbohydrates content, with some/low protein and moderate fat, a typical western diet ie: 60-70% carbs.
Ironic really since NOBODY actually needs to eat carbs to live LOL. Our bodies preferred/evolved mechanism for glucose synthesis is via something called gluconeogenesis (thats where the body turns some of its protein intake to glucose in the liver)
Telling someone to eat 2400 calories when it only contains 15% protein is a fucking joke. Most folks at that level of calories should keep protein at 35% of total calories.
Protein is metabolically costly (thats good) its great, but hey, bumping up protein (which normally comes from expensive groceries like meat etc) would mean most folks dent their fags and booze budget.
Because whatever the reasons we did not have this problem in the 60's and the 70's, so I can only presume it is peoples eating habits that have changed.

Yep. refind foods, of which have created the EXACT same health issues for domestic pets that have been fed the same shit!
Obese people are everywhere now and my business partner is about 4 stone overweight, and he openly admits his lifestyle is the reason for it. He certainly eats too many pies...and crisps....and all the other rubbish he knows he should not eat, plus he would not know excesise if it appeared out of his arse. lol

If he is happy, then fair do's, at least he is honest about it I guess, although lets see how happy is is at 45 when mr diabetes comes asking for the pipers fee; I guess he might be one of the many in twenty years looking to sue the makers of the refined crap stuffed into snack foods?
isn't it funny, you're saying exactly the same as I was, it's not the calories, it's in what form. but then again the reserve of the internet forum bully is to belittle and call names when you disagree, then google whatever website will reinforce whatever you believe in to prove you're right.
where we do agree is that it is the highly processed starchy carbohydrate food is the cause, but you try telling people, things like pasta and fruit juices and high energy drinks are not actually that good for them, or that tv dinners especially the "low fat ones" are just full of chemical crap and laden with carbs and it's just as quick to cook a steak if not quicker.
but even that is a simplification. it doesn't explain 2 people on the same diet with no exercise why one gets fat and the other stays slim. It doesn't explain why lots of obese people don't get diabetes and people like steve redgrave do, or why some professional sportsmen get fat while still in training and some sofa settler stays slim. and a whole host of other medical problems including strokes and heart attacks which are all linked to what you eat. If only it was as simple as saying everybody should eat X ammount of calories, pity it isn't.
as for your weblinks, you do realise that in areas they are very contradictory, but then again we live in an agenda driven science world and each of them links have their own prejudice built in. In lots of areas of research, not only diet, the outcome is predetermined by the sponsor, and evidence that doesn't fit in with the desired result is omitted. Hence the last few studies of low carb diets were conducted on rabbits and mice to prove that it was bad for humans. why do you think they use herbivores to prove that meat and fat is bad for humans if it's not to fit a certain agenda. They could of used dogs, but they wouldn't be able to prove what they wanted.
so back to what I've been saying, it's in what form those calories are not the number.
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
Quote by Kryps-jaq

obesity has everything to with what people eat, what I'm saying is the calorie idea is an over simplification of quite a complicated process and to bracket everybody as exactly the same and all should have the same number of calories is very very misleading.
you say yourself, you can eat what you want when you want and stay skinny, while somebody else who ate exactly the same as you would get fat and somebody else would lose weight. Jaq is exactly the same, she stuffs herself all the time and i think her last execise was a game of netball 15 years ago, and you know how slender she is.
what does matter is in what form them calories are and how your body deals with it, that is where all the advice is going wrong. If your daily intake was 2000 calories worth of fish, you'd stay slim. if on the other hand it was 2000 calories of dougnuts you'd get fat. which kind of throws the calorie equation out the window. It's all about undestanding the interaction between the digestive system and the endocrine system, what is stored in fat cells and why and how it gets there.

Yeah, because insulin sensitivity - and moreso insulin resistance - has nothing to do with OBESITY, now does it?
Just incase you missed that, why not tell us the major cause of insulin resistance again? Yeah, its obesisty!
nopes, it's the other way round, insulin resistance is the cause of obesity



Doh, own goal for messers Kryps-Jaq!!
Now folks, you might be asking why I have brought up insulin sensitivity?
Well, I'll explain (bend over again Kryps-Jaq) to wit:
Insulin is one of many compounds involved with something called 'nutrient partitioning' (the process involved in converting the food you eat/partitioning the food you eat into the tissue it ends up as ie: fat, muscle, bone etc)


Thus when you have knackered insulin sensitivity/hyperinsulinemia brought on from overdosing carbs (or moreso refined carbs such as fructose syrup or sucrose over the last 50 years) you will reduce your ability to handle carbs/sugar as efficiently as a healthy human.
Insulin resistance occurs as a result of the body attempting to 'defend itself' from the sugar intake (the intake of which would lead to the obese person becomming even fatter) in an effort to slow the increasing fat gain (when dieting, Insulin resistance is actually a good thing)
Unfortunately, due to the raft of modern day refined sugars available to consumers, this 'defensive insulin resistance' is thwarted by way of the aforementioned modern day refiend sugars that allow an obese, insulin resitant person to continue bombarding their system with calorie dense, nutritionally/metabolically perverse shite, of which, in the insulin resistant physiological environment will give rise to hyperinsulinemia, after which you are as close to fucked as you can get!
Not long after Hyperinsulinemia, the obese person will meet eyesight problems and heart issues amongst other maladies; but hey, who gives a fuck because 'all major studies show thats not the case' LOL

To further make the point about nutrient partitioning, a similar model can be shown for those males with declining testosterone levels.
As these guys age and their test levels drop, their bodies will not be able to 'partition' energy from food as effectively into muscle mass, which is one of the pathways responsible for us becomming flabbier and less muscular as we age.
Oh and Kryps, re: your little 'donuts vs fish' bon mot, ITS UTTER BULLSHIT!
You have just revealed your ABSOLUTE ignorance re: de novo lipogenesis; what it is and how it works in the human model.
If a persons total energy expenditure (TEE) is 2000 calories, then they can eat those doughnuts all day long and wont get fat. As I have shown, DNL just does NOT happen in humans unless gross overfeeding occurs.
However, if a person is sat on their ass all day and eats that fish, then yes, they will get fatter.
You cannot explain to us just how your model occurs, you CANNOT thus WILL NOT prove your point, why? because its a bullshit point! you simply sit there and spew nonsense.
Oh and please, since you enjoy couching rather condescending rhetoric re: asking folks - in patronizing fashion - if they 'know how food is turned into fat in the body' lets take the debate into the biochemical pathways for storing said fat, if ya want?
I will seriously enjoy making you look quite the fool; so please, lets get onto the paracrine activity of leptin not to mention fat metabolism vis a vis HSL, ASP, insulin, carnitine palmityl transferase and the Krebs cycle <<< small clue, that little lot forms part of the machinery surrounding the 'how' food energy is metabolised to and from fat/muscle/other tissue, you clown!
Failing that, I URGE anyone here who might believe what you are saying (which thankfully from the above replies doesnt appear to be that many) to visit any one of the many big physiology forums around and post up the claims you have made, then come back here and tell us how many times they were torn a new asshole.
Honestly, if what you are saying had zero impact for potentially affecting the quality of life of many whom might be reading, that would be fine, but some of the notions you are advocating are so absurd that I feel somewhat of a need to see them refuted for the bullshit they are.
i'll come back to this tomorrow
but as a diabetic I think I've studied this long and hard enough
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
Quote by john469

obesity has everything to with what people eat, what I'm saying is the calorie idea is an over simplification of quite a complicated process and to bracket everybody as exactly the same and all should have the same number of calories is very very misleading.
you say yourself, you can eat what you want when you want and stay skinny, while somebody else who ate exactly the same as you would get fat and somebody else would lose weight. Jaq is exactly the same, she stuffs herself all the time and i think her last execise was a game of netball 15 years ago, and you know how slender she is.
what does matter is in what form them calories are and how your body deals with it, that is where all the advice is going wrong. If your daily intake was 2000 calories worth of fish, you'd stay slim. if on the other hand it was 2000 calories of dougnuts you'd get fat. which kind of throws the calorie equation out the window. It's all about undestanding the interaction between the digestive system and the endocrine system, what is stored in fat cells and why and how it gets there.

Yeah, because insulin sensitivity - and moreso insulin resistance - has nothing to do with OBESITY, now does it?
Just incase you missed that, why not tell us the major cause of insulin resistance again? Yeah, its obesisty!



Doh, own goal for messers Kryps-Jaq!!
Now folks, you might be asking why I have brought up insulin sensitivity?
Well, I'll explain (bend over again Kryps-Jaq) to wit:
Insulin is one of many compounds involved with something called 'nutrient partitioning' (the process involved in converting the food you eat/partitioning the food you eat into the tissue it ends up as ie: fat, muscle, bone etc)


Thus when you have knackered insulin sensitivity/hyperinsulinemia brought on from overdosing carbs (or moreso refined carbs such as fructose syrup or sucrose over the last 50 years) you will reduce your ability to handle carbs/sugar as efficiently as a healthy human.
Insulin resistance occurs as a result of the body attempting to 'defend itself' from the sugar intake (the intake of which would lead to the obese person becomming even fatter) in an effort to slow the increasing fat gain (when dieting, Insulin resistance is actually a good thing)
Unfortunately, due to the raft of modern day refined sugars available to consumers, this 'defensive insulin resistance' is thwarted by way of the aforementioned modern day refiend sugars that allow an obese, insulin resitant person to continue bombarding their system with calorie dense, nutritionally/metabolically perverse shite, of which, in the insulin resistant physiological environment will give rise to hyperinsulinemia, after which you are as close to fucked as you can get!
Not long after Hyperinsulinemia, the obese person will meet eyesight problems and heart issues amongst other maladies; but hey, who gives a fuck because 'all major studies show thats not the case' LOL

To further make the point about nutrient partitioning, a similar model can be shown for those males with declining testosterone levels.
As these guys age and their test levels drop, their bodies will not be able to 'partition' energy from food as effectively into muscle mass, which is one of the pathways responsible for us becomming flabbier and less muscular as we age.
Oh and Kryps, re: your little 'donuts vs fish' bon mot, ITS UTTER BULLSHIT!
You have just revealed your ABSOLUTE ignorance re: de novo lipogenesis; what it is and how it works in the human model.
If a persons total energy expenditure (TEE) is 2000 calories, then they can eat those doughnuts all day long and wont get fat. As I have shown, DNL just does NOT happen in humans unless gross overfeeding occurs.
However, if a person is sat on their ass all day and eats that fish, then yes, they will get fatter.
You cannot explain to us just how your model occurs, you CANNOT thus WILL NOT prove your point, why? because its a bullshit point! you simply sit there and spew nonsense.
Oh and please, since you enjoy couching rather condescending rhetoric re: asking folks - in patronizing fashion - if they 'know how food is turned into fat in the body' lets take the debate into the biochemical pathways for storing said fat, if ya want?
I will seriously enjoy making you look quite the fool; so please, lets get onto the paracrine activity of leptin not to mention fat metabolism vis a vis HSL, ASP, insulin, carnitine palmityl transferase and the Krebs cycle <<< small clue, that little lot forms part of the machinery surrounding the 'how' food energy is metabolised to and from fat/muscle/other tissue, you clown!
Failing that, I URGE anyone here who might believe what you are saying (which thankfully from the above replies doesnt appear to be that many) to visit any one of the many big physiology forums around and post up the claims you have made, then come back here and tell us how many times they were torn a new asshole.
Honestly, if what you are saying had zero impact for potentially affecting the quality of life of many whom might be reading, that would be fine, but some of the notions you are advocating are so absurd that I feel somewhat of a need to see them refuted for the bullshit they are.
i'll come back to this tomorrow
but as a diabetic I think I've studied this long and hard enough
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
Quote by kentswingers777
I always thought calories were calories?
But can see where you are coming from with the doughnuts.
It is toooo complicated for me to understand all this, as I have never had to bother with it.
But can understand people's confusion IF they are obese or need to lose weight.
All I do know is the weightwatchers classes of this world make an absolute fortune.
But surely excersise along with your diet, helps you to lose weight?
Which means there are a lot of kids who either eat rubbish, or who just plonk themselves down in front of the telly everyday.
It is funny and have seen this many times....when we go shopping on a Saturday, there is a family where I would say they are all well overweight. The kids are a boy of about 12 and the girl about 9. She is huge and always heads straight for the cake counter, and one of her parents buys her two large cakes. It does baffle me that one.blink

how much jogging do you do then kenty
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
Quote by kentswingers777
So Kryps...
Are you seriously saying that obesity now has nothing to do with what people eat, or how little excersise they do?
Of course people are different and you can have a skinny kid who eats anything, plays on his computer all the time and never gets fat but.....that is the exception to the rule.
I see obese kids everyday of the week, ya wanna pop into your local supermarket and see them. They a lot of the time are with obese parents too.
I do not give a monkeys really as I am one of those lucky ones who has always been able to eat what they want, when they want.
For my own opinions I think obesity IS brought about by people eating too much, maybe the wrong sort of food, and add that to slouching around all day, and there lies the problem.
Any Doctor at your local GP clinic will advise overweight people to cut down on what they eat, and take plenty of excersise.
Now I would trust a GP who has taken 9 years minimum to get to that position, over any report, either saying one thing or another.
Now where's that choclate bar gone. wink

obesity has everything to with what people eat, what I'm saying is the calorie idea is an over simplification of quite a complicated process and to bracket everybody as exactly the same and all should have the same number of calories is very very misleading.
you say yourself, you can eat what you want when you want and stay skinny, while somebody else who ate exactly the same as you would get fat and somebody else would lose weight. Jaq is exactly the same, she stuffs herself all the time and i think her last execise was a game of netball 15 years ago, and you know how slender she is.
what does matter is in what form them calories are and how your body deals with it, that is where all the advice is going wrong. If your daily intake was 2000 calories worth of fish, you'd stay slim. if on the other hand it was 2000 calories of dougnuts you'd get fat. which kind of throws the calorie equation out the window. It's all about undestanding the interaction between the digestive system and the endocrine system, what is stored in fat cells and why and how it gets there.
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
Quote by Steve
How many people sat in front of pc's all day back in the 60's and 70's ?
How many kids came home from school and sat in front of pc's and games consoles till it was bedtime in the 60's and 70's ?
It is a lot to do with lack of excersise..

the exercise thing again. how many kids went home in the 60s and 70s and read books and watched telly , they didn't get fat. and how does it explain those today that are skinny and play games machines. that is all rose tinted specs stuff.
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
all your points prove to me you have no idea how the human body works.
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
I would also point out there's calories in petrol, but that won't do ya much good either.
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
Quote by john469
you're not thinking straight are you.
a calorie is a unit of measurement, you can no more store a calorie than you can a centimetre or a watt.
to store, it must have physical form. It's what that form is that counts, not how much energy it gives off in a calorimeter

no offence but:

No shit, is a calorie a unit of energy? no, really? is it? nah, go on!!!

Wow, there was I thinking that we measure the energy in food by the number of calories of which pertain to said food. I mean, damn, what else would we measure food energy with? fairy teeth?
Sir/madam, might I inform you that I am infact thinking perfectly straight, and it is you that leaves one wondering if you have ever availed yourself re: the definition of irony?
You really didnt read this article I linked to earlier, did ya? come on, meet me half way here, just give it a whirl, you'll be better for it, honest smile

For those who might actually be interested in this lark (and who might want to learn how to decipher nutrional 'numbers' on a food label) check this out:
As said, we measure the energy in food with the calorie unit:
ie: carbohydrates will have 4 calories per gram, as will protein, whereas fat differs slightly and has a mighty 9 calories per gram.
Thus, if you eat twenty Cadburys Creme Eggs you will have consumed the following:
Based on 1 creme egg 39g, which is:
- carbs x 4 = cals from carbs
- protein x 4 = cals from carbs
- fat x 9 = cals from fat
- calories
So: x 20 Creme Eggs =
- carbs 553.8 x 4 = 2215.2 cals
- protein 23.4 x 4 = 93.6 cals
- fat 124.8 x 9 = 1123.2 cals
- calories 3471
...So, if you had consumed those 20 creme eggs whislt sat on your ass all day (a feat which would have required no more than approx 1600 cals TEE) you would now be 'in the black' to the tune of about 1800cals with your fat bank.
If you did this each day for a good month, you would have credited yourself with a massive 50400 calories from food energy, which would equate to you being rewarded with one stone of lard (one lb of fat contains approx 3500 calories)
And that, as Paul Daniels might say, isnt magic, but it is how folks who eat more than they use get fat.
Hope this isnt boring you 'too' much :)
so intake equals calories of grass, tell me what happens?
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
Quote by john469
Just to finish here, I'll use a picture to make a graphic point re: energy in/energy out.
Take a look at this pic of pro bodybuilder Lee Priest; you can see what eating more and doing less will do.
As the pic shows, its his job to overeat and do less, just before engaging in a phase of eating less and doing more; I guess someone really needs to tell him about how 'Every single scientific study has shown that the correlation of calorific intake blah blah blah':

you're not thinking straight are you.
a calorie is a unit of measurement, you can no more store a calorie than you can a centimetre or a watt.
to store, it must have physical form. It's what that form is that counts, not how much energy it gives off in a calorimeter
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
Quote by kentswingers777
The fat/overweight/obese issue is a big problem in our society and Kenty is right to bring this nonsenical report to our attention.
Being overweight in your 20's and 30's is no real issue but once you turn 40 you are putting your life in danger through risk of diabetes, hardening of the arteries, stroke and heart disease. You owe it to yourself and your family to take as much care of yourself as you do of them.
No need to be anal and boring about it, but any Doctor wil tell you that if you want quality of life in your middle ages years don't eat the extra calories suggested in the report and DO undertake a bit more exercise. It's just common sense as many others have said in this thread.

Exactly the kind of prejudicial nonsense that’s peddled about all the time. Every single scientific study has shown that the correlation of calorific intake and weight gain is very spurious indeed and exercise plays a very minor role. And by scientific study I mean the ones with out a pre-determined outcome where any evidence that goes against the wanted result is disregarded.
For example, eat calories of grass every day, see how fat you get.
As for sports, there is hundreds of thousands of people in this country who played sports when they were younger, suffering from bad backs, knees shoulders, you name it, so it didn’t do their quality of life in later years any good.
As I said in earlier post, a calorie is a unit of measurement, and not a very accurate guide for anything.
As for the NHS guidelines, have you not thought it might be that that’s causing the problem and not the solution.
Cows do seem to be a rather large animal. lol
yea, trouble is the energy in grass is in the form of cellulose which is undigestable in the human body so passes straight through and you'd die of starvation.
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
Quote by Too Hot
The fat/overweight/obese issue is a big problem in our society and Kenty is right to bring this nonsenical report to our attention.
Being overweight in your 20's and 30's is no real issue but once you turn 40 you are putting your life in danger through risk of diabetes, hardening of the arteries, stroke and heart disease. You owe it to yourself and your family to take as much care of yourself as you do of them.
No need to be anal and boring about it, but any Doctor wil tell you that if you want quality of life in your middle ages years don't eat the extra calories suggested in the report and DO undertake a bit more exercise. It's just common sense as many others have said in this thread.

Exactly the kind of prejudicial nonsense that’s peddled about all the time. Every single scientific study has shown that the correlation of calorific intake and weight gain is very spurious indeed and exercise plays a very minor role. And by scientific study I mean the ones with out a pre-determined outcome where any evidence that goes against the wanted result is disregarded.
For example, eat calories of grass every day, see how fat you get.
As for sports, there is hundreds of thousands of people in this country who played sports when they were younger, suffering from bad backs, knees shoulders, you name it, so it didn’t do their quality of life in later years any good.
As I said in earlier post, a calorie is a unit of measurement, and not a very accurate guide for anything.
As for the NHS guidelines, have you not thought it might be that that’s causing the problem and not the solution.
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
Quote by flower411
you could all try adding a little common sense to the debate.
think about what a calorie is. it's a unit of measurement, nothing more. The calorie debate since the invention of weight watchers and various other pseudo-scientific groups is one big red herring. It's not how many calories one consumes, it's in what form and how the body processes it that counts. If you want to go back to basic biology, think about how food gets from ya stomach to a fat cell, then you'll realise all the diet advice on NHS and BBC et al is all based on predjudice and ignorance, not science.
as for exercise, that's a smokescreen for all the smug i go for a run every day and i'm skinny brigade.

I sooooo knew that a thread about diet and exercise would get you back in here !!! rotflmao
well i did let a few pass, but it is about time some of the myths were dispersed.
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
you could all try adding a little common sense to the debate.
think about what a calorie is. it's a unit of measurement, nothing more. The calorie debate since the invention of weight watchers and various other pseudo-scientific groups is one big red herring. It's not how many calories one consumes, it's in what form and how the body processes it that counts. If you want to go back to basic biology, think about how food gets from ya stomach to a fat cell, then you'll realise all the diet advice on NHS and BBC et al is all based on predjudice and ignorance, not science.
as for exercise, that's a smokescreen for all the smug i go for a run every day and i'm skinny brigade.
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
any couples going to kentswingsensations on the 12th September.
looking for fun and frolics before Jaq goes away again.
View Post
Krypsjaq
Warming the Bed
Actually, fruit and fruit juices are possibly the worse things a type 2 diabetic can consume. Firstly because everyone is being told they are healthy so they tend to eat and drink more than they should and because of this conviction, don’t test themselves afterwards. As every individual is different, the only way to know if your body can handle fruit or not is to test every 15 minutes or so for a few hours after eating some, the same as they should do after any food. After seeing the results I got, fructose raises the blood sugar more slowly, but then it stays high a lot longer, Personally, I won’t touch the stuff. After all, why as a diabetic, eat something that can be up to 20% sugar even if it is fructose.
View Post