My rant about 'calorie deficit' b.s.

[vickster]

Sorry mate, Vamp beat you to it, and I already replied, but if you'd like one of my sources, here's one! http://www.drbriffa.com

Oh is the point to get us to spend money on some geezer's ebooks and tapes and seminars? He does have lovely long shiny curly hair though

 

[bozmandb9]

Not enough official research done on the negative effects of sugar yet, Ill give you that.

Really there is, but the lobbyists in Washington prevent it from being acted on. In 2004, the WHO (World Health Organisation), was due to publish new guidelines warning about sugar, the food industry lobbyists in Washington persuaded the US Govt to intervene. They were unsuccessful in the end, but details are here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/25/d...and-the-guidelines.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

 

[bozmandb9]

.
As i have said several times without your seeming to notice, i have long had a diet of outstandingly good calories - but ate too many of them. Restricting my calorie intake on 2 days a week with no other changes of significance has take off 2 stones with no additional exercise.

Wrt why not a 1500 deficit? You seem to have missed the idea that long term gross deficits change metabolic rate AKA switching the body to starvation mode. It is you who has a hang up about a linear relationship, no one here is arguing there is. Another straw man of your own invention.

You rant against calorie counting yet advocate carb counting, protein counting and veg counting viz do you not recognise that counting food components is a proxy for counting calories?

My approach to the 5:2 diet involves no ongoing calorie counting - I now know what a roughly 500 or 600 calorie meal looks like, and it does not matter if i am out by 100/200 calories sometimes as there is still a big deficit on that day and one day at a time does not kick the body into starvation mode.

OK, and how many time have I said "if you eat too much, then you'll clearly lose weight by reducing the amount you eat"! All I'm saying is you don't need to go from too much, to too little.

Why the issue with my focus on making sure I get the right amount? This is exactly what I'm advocating?

I absolutely agree that long term deficits change metabolic rate, it's one of the points I'm making, which to me makes the calorie deficit method pointless. I'm glad the 5:2 diet works for you, and I have no issue with it.

 

[400bhp]

Really there is, but the lobbyists in Washington prevent it from being acted on. In 2004, the WHO (World Health Organisation), was due to publish new guidelines warning about sugar, the food industry lobbyists in Washington persuaded the US Govt to intervene. They were unsuccessful in the end, but details are here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/25/d...and-the-guidelines.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

When I said "official" I was referring to it being mainstream officially accepted.

 

[bozmandb9]

Oh is the point to get us to spend money on some geezer's ebooks and tapes and seminars? He does have lovely long shiny curly hair though

No the point was to show it's not just my point of view, that I've researched it a lot. I have no interest whatsoever in selling his books, and I'm happy to give another source, however I think we can be safe in assuming that he won't be inundated with orders. And do you seriously think I'd be going to these lengths to try to push books or seminars to such an unreceptive audience?

 

[400bhp]

Dr Briffa is a former columnist for the Daily Mail

 

[bozmandb9]

When I said "official" I was referring to it being mainstream officially accepted.

Oh, in that case I quite agree.

 

[michaelcycle]

Out of interest, why do you eat high quality calories, if you believe that it is only the calorie deficit which is important, or do you perhaps agree with me, that quality of calories is extremely important too?

Who exactly disagrees with that?

Except for obese people, where a quick reduction in weight even if it is achieved through less than ideal food choices because the benefits outweigh the risk, quality of calories is going to be important. The ultimate determinant of body fatness is quantity of calories (we have tightly controlled metabolic ward studies involving isocaloric diets dating back to the 1930s confirming this) but quality of calories makes exceeding quantity much more difficult and helps with calorie partitioning (the amount of energy devoted to muscle repair over fat storage and other groovy stuff) etc etc.

 

[PK99]

Out of interest, why do you eat high quality calories, if you believe that it is only the calorie deficit which is important, or do you perhaps agree with me, that quality of calories is extremely important too?

.

You REALLY do seem confused:

Good nutrition ie quality of food is related mainly to health

Calorie balance ie quantity of food is related mainly to weight.

If I mainline sugary biscuits all day, I will put on weight, but am likely to be unhealthy

If I mainline organic steak, olive oil and artizan bread, I will put on weight, but am likely to be healthy.

 

[bozmandb9]

You REALLY do seem confused:

Good nutrition ie quality of food is related mainly to health

Calorie balance ie quantity of food is related mainly to weight.

If I mainline sugary biscuits all day, I will put on weight, but am likely to be unhealthy

If I mainline organic steak, olive oil and artizan bread, I will put on weight, but am likely to be healthy.

Not confused just bored. Certain people here seem determined to argue for the sake if it, ignore it when I put direct questions, and deliberately misinterpret what I say.

I've made my point, some people have agreed, others don't. That's all.

 

[vickster]

I still don't really get your point? That eating only processed food isn't very good for you - well I think we all know that but often it just tastes soooo good

I don't need to pay some curly long haired dude to tell me that

 

[VamP]

I still don't really get your point? That eating only processed food isn't very good for you - well I think we all know that but often it just tastes soooo good

I don't need to pay some curly long haired dude to tell me that

I might take conditioner advice from him though

 

[bozmandb9]

I still don't really get your point? That eating only processed food isn't very good for you - well I think we all know that but often it just tastes soooo good

I don't need to pay some curly long haired dude to tell me that

Not at all.

The point is that whilst eating too much makes us overweight, and the solution is to eat less, we don't need to eat too little to lose weight, we can eat the right amount, especially if we focus on eating healthily.

 

[vickster]

Well yes obviously, so why the rant ?!

 

[Sittingduck]

It is down to your interpretation of 'too little' and 'the right amount'. These fluctuate, dpending on your level of activity and goals, as we all know.

OP: The rear guard action you seen fit to fight on this thread has been commendable, I must say. Stubborn and misguided but commendable.

Anyway - I though the thread was finished a couple of days ago... what happened??!!