Does anyone here "juice"?

[Crystallas]

Ya, sign up for a university study where calories are controlled and see how much you actually consume. Or just learn how to read and understand peer reviewed research. If that's too much read the literature reviews of people like Alan Aragon, Lyle McDonald, Eric Helms... etc. The shit isn't complicated. There is no biological process that allows the body to lose energy in an energy surplus, or store energy in an every deficit. This has been known for literally decades.

The bold part is not the argument that was being made. Not by me. Everything that occurs, occurs for a reason, and has been researched, and has been proven(and none of it is in conflict with your original argument).

My argument was the added calories are burned through thermogenesis. HCRV diets create a conflict for the body to store fat. That doesn't mean the body loses energy, it merely doesn't convert as much to fat because of the high increase in fiber, and likely other things as it's not just one or two causes, but a long list of contributions that add up. ESPECIALLY when someone goes from a trash processed food diet with unbalanced nutrition, but contains low calories.

 

[RosettaStoned]

The bold part is not the argument that was being made. Not by me. Everything that occurs, occurs for a reason, and has been researched, and has been proven(and none of it is in conflict with your original argument).

My argument was the added calories are burned through thermogenesis. HCRV diets create a conflict for the body to store fat. That doesn't mean the body loses energy, it merely doesn't convert as much to fat because of the high increase in fiber, and likely other things as it's not just one or two causes, but a long list of contributions that add up. ESPECIALLY when someone goes from a trash processed food diet with unbalanced nutrition, but contains low calories.

Fiber isn't counted because most of it isn't digested. What I'm telling you is that the effects you're taking about don't amount to much. Every food has a thermic effect. This is at the macronutrient level. It doesn't matter what the source of carbs are for example, the thermic effect is the same.

 

[Crystallas]

Fiber isn't counted because most of it isn't digested. What I'm telling you is that the effects you're taking about don't amount to much. Every food has a thermic effect. This is at the macronutrient level. It doesn't matter what the source of carbs are for example, the thermic effect is the same.

Then we're back to square one. Why do people double their caloric intakes with NO change to their activity on a HCRV diet and lose fat? Fiber only counts for a tiny tiny bit of calories within the diet, almost nothing.

There has to be some explanation, because this is the case. People are losing fat on HCRV, and even if they are not counting their calories correctly, the huge increase in calories, and any human error that is made in counting calories can not compensate for the difference.

Also, bare in mind. I am not recommending HCRV, nor have I stated it to be a good or bad or smart diet. I am only discussing one overwhelming fact, that people consume considerably more calories on it, doing the same activities as before, and lose fat.

 

[RosettaStoned]

Then we're back to square one. Why do people double their caloric intakes with NO change to their activity on a HCRV diet and lose fat? Fiber only counts for a tiny tiny bit of calories within the diet, almost nothing.

There has to be some explanation, because this is the case. People are losing fat on HCRV, and even if they are not counting their calories correctly, the huge increase in calories, and any human error that is made in counting calories can not compensate for the difference.

Also, bare in mind. I am not recommending HCRV, nor have I stated it to be a good or bad or smart diet. I am only discussing one overwhelming fact, that people consume considerably more calories on it, doing the same activities as before, and lose fat.

Losing fat, or losing weight? You can recomp. You cannot lose weight on a caloric surplus. The thermic effect of different foods is not going to make a large impact. Those people are not accurate in tracking their calories. Again, there is a lot of research showing that people are astonishingly bad at it. There is a lot of research showing that the #1 factor in weight loss/gain is energy balance. And as we all know due to thermodynamics that you cannot lose weight in a caloric surplus. The answer should be very obvious to you.

 

[RosettaStoned]

And yes human error certainly can compensate for the difference. Studies have shown people being off by thousands of calories if I recall correctly.

 

[KittiesKorner]

glad it worked out for you

 

[Crystallas]

This is going nowhere. Studies show nobody knows how to count their calories. Hundreds of thousands of people are just bad calorie counters. That's an obvious explanation to me. Makes perfect sense. Good, I'm glad we're done with that. Shit, discredit anything as human error that challenges popular science. That's the way to do it.

 

[RosettaStoned]

So you believe the laws of thermodynamics are incorrect? If that makes more sense to you than what has already been shown (people are bad at estimating their intake), then you're dumb. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[-Cago34-]

Be the bigger man and walk away, Crystallas

 

[Crystallas]

So you believe the laws of thermodynamics are incorrect? If that makes more sense to you than what has already been shown (people are bad at estimating their intake), then you're dumb. I don't know what else to tell you.

For the third time. I'll color it and put it in bold since it didn't register the other two times.

I don't believe what I stated conflicts with the laws of thermodynamics.

Also, I don't think their is any law of physics that is exempt from being challenged. Everything has an explanation. Being dismissive is a bias, therefore unscientific or bad science.

Good science continues to break down, measure, and study the cause, effect, and any metric that is possible for capture.

"A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics
Richard D Feinmancorresponding author1 and Eugene J Fine1,2
1Department of Biochemistry, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY 11203 USA
2Department of Nuclear Medicine, Jacobi Medical Center, Bronx, NY 10461 USA

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/

The principle of "a calorie is a calorie," that weight change in hypocaloric diets is independent of macronutrient composition, is widely held in the popular and technical literature, and is frequently justified by appeal to the laws of thermodynamics.

In our previous review of metabolic advantage [4] we showed that there is, in fact, no theoretical violation of the laws of thermodynamics, and we provided a plausible mechanism. In general the pathways for gluconeogenesis that are required in order to supply obligate glucose (e.g. to brain and CNS), in combination with increased protein turnover, could account for the missing energy. Here, we simplify the thermodynamic argument and review some of the relevant principles. We show, moreover, that well-established data in the traditional nutritional literature predict metabolic advantage and no one should be surprised. The ironic conclusion is that the principle that weight gain on isocaloric diets must always be independent of macronutrient composition would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

I remember this argument by popular science and nutritionists bouncing around between all kinds of fad diets, and different versions of Atkins. All of which was dismissed because it wasn't true, violated the laws of thermodynamics, etc. But wait, it took years until the studies showed up to show how none of which was in any conflict to the laws of thermodynamics. As mentioned by these two scientists, basically because they're dumb and wanted to actually execute research(opposed to being smart, and simply dismissing the data like everyone else.)

 

[Crystallas]

Be the bigger man and walk away, Crystallas

I might, but this is the most civil I have ever seen RosettaStoned on CCS. We don't need to agree, just be respectful. So as long as this lasts, I'm fine with some back and fourth.

 

[RosettaStoned]

For the third time. I'll color it and put it in bold since it didn't register the other two times.

I don't believe what I stated conflicts with the laws of thermodynamics.

Also, I don't think their is any law of physics that is exempt from being challenged. Everything has an explanation. Being dismissive is a bias, therefore unscientific or bad science.

Good science continues to break down, measure, and study the cause, effect, and any metric that is possible for capture.



I remember this argument by popular science and nutritionists bouncing around between all kinds of fad diets, and different versions of Atkins. All of which was dismissed because it wasn't true, violated the laws of thermodynamics, etc. But wait, it took years until the studies showed up to show how none of which was in any conflict to the laws of thermodynamics. As mentioned by these two scientists, basically because they're dumb and wanted to actually execute research(opposed to being smart, and simply dismissing the data like everyone else.)

Except when you dig into the actual methods of the research they essentially are incorrect. Again, when I am at a computer I will be happy to present you with the relevant research as well as address the analysis you provided.

 

[RosettaStoned]

To briefly address, Lyle McDonald put it pretty well. "Fienman is an idiot who doesn't understand the difference between low carb and high protein. "

 

[nvanprooyen]

You are wrong. When I am at a computer I will provide you the research. Nutrient timing is insignificant.

Are you talking about calorie partitioning?

Edit, meant to quote bot

 

[nvanprooyen]

Also would like to throw out there that weight loss doesn't necessarily mean fat or lbm loss. E.g. water.

 

[nvanprooyen]

I need to dig around on pubmed later and see if there have been any controlled studies on this HCRV thing

 

[Schmidtaki]

This is America! Did you guys hear you can burn snow nowadays and that the recent snowfall in Georgia was all part of some government conspiracy were they jettison plastics into our atmosphere? God I love this country!

[video=youtube;JBQ7oVsH3iE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBQ7oVsH3iE[/video]

 

[RosettaStoned]

I need to dig around on pubmed later and see if there have been any controlled studies on this HCRV thing

This is about metabolic advantage. It's purported by Taubes, Eades, Feinman etc. It's been debunked. The research they use is shit, and they draw conclusions from predictions with no basis. Alan Aragon, and Anthony Colpo have addressed it pretty well.

 

[Crystallas]

This is about metabolic advantage. It's purported by Taubes, Eades, Feinman etc. It's been debunked. The research they use is shit, and they draw conclusions from predictions with no basis. Alan Aragon, and Anthony Colpo have addressed it pretty well.

HCRV and that study by Feinman that I quoted are not linked.

 

[RosettaStoned]

HCRV and that study by Feinman that I quoted are not linked.

It's the same thought process. That wasn't an actual study you posted. It was a review of studies that drew a prediction without basis. The studies actually shown are severely flawed, Anthony Colpo has pointed this out. The controls were essentially shit.