Does anyone here "juice"?

[Crystallas]

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.

Doesn't matter, they are not linked with the point that I made. If that's bad science, show me the good science. Bad science would be, like you said, drawing a conclusion without a basis, ie: dismissing something because without any evidence, all you need to say is they don't know how to count calories(or worse, say because of other cases, that the same case exists here). That would be bad science.

 

[FirstTimer]

Doesn't matter, they are not linked with the point that I made. If that's bad science, show me the good science. Bad science would be, like you said, drawing a conclusion without a basis, ie: dismissing something because without any evidence, all you need to say is they don't know how to count calories(or worse, say because of other cases, that the same case exists here). That would be bad science.

He's repeatedly told you who to look up and read.

Are you fucking dumb?

 

[Crystallas]

He's repeatedly told you who to look up and read.

Are you fucking dumb?

Well I'm not you, so of course not.

Asking for proof from a self-proclaimed expert is fair. Name dropping =/= providing the studies that "repeatedly disprove" the very specific question that I asked. And yes, I googled all of the authors that he mentioned with terms related to th question with no luck.

 

[RosettaStoned]

Doesn't matter, they are not linked with the point that I made. If that's bad science, show me the good science. Bad science would be, like you said, drawing a conclusion without a basis, ie: dismissing something because without any evidence, all you need to say is they don't know how to count calories(or worse, say because of other cases, that the same case exists here). That would be bad science.

They are linked. What you are taking about stemmed from the MAD crowd. I know, I watched it happen and engaged in the debate real time. Science uses the information available. We know for a fact that you must have a caloric deficit to lose weight. A decade of ward controlled research proves this. We know that people misrepresent their caloric intake for a host of different reasons. Also shown in decades of research. If we know there has to be a deficit to lose, then we know that people are either mistaken, or lying when they claim they lost while not in a deficit.

 

[FirstTimer]

And yes, I googled all of the authors that he mentioned with terms related to th question with no luck.

Ok well then yes, you're fucking dumb.

 

[Crystallas]

Whatever you want to take for granted, fine. But since you claim to know, can you give me the data, and not just a 'take my word for it' answer. Please, research data, not name dropping to sift through a needle in a haystack work of someone's life work.


I swear to fucking god. I am asking questions, and you keep treating this as a debate. :x

 

[RosettaStoned]

I'll be happy to provide you all the research when I'm at a computer. Or you can dig through vsn where I have posted it all before.

 

[Crystallas]

I don't use VSN. But sure, when you get a chance.

 

[FirstTimer]

Google is hard

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

 

[JosMin]

Google is hard

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

So am I.

 

[Crystallas]

Google is hard

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

Again, not what I was asking. But then again, you might be answering someone else. This data is information that I know, I am in agreement with, I understand, and it is easy to find. That should help with the people who have asked related questions in this post.

 

[RosettaStoned]

I don't use VSN. But sure, when you get a chance.

In the meantime here is a decent list of literature regarding needing a deficit to lose. Different food types do not matter in terms of weight loss. Energy balance does.

Studies consistently show that weight loss is primarily determined by caloric intake, not diet composition (Hill et al.,1993)

In all cases, individuals on high-fat, low-CHO diets lose weight because they consume fewer calories (Freedman et al. 2001)

Alford et al. (1990) manipulated CHO content of low calorie diets (1200 kcal/d) to determine possible effects on body weight and body fat reduction over 10 weeks. Women in each diet group consumed either a low-, medium-, or high-CHO diet. The low-CHO diet was 15% to 25% CHO (75 g/d) (30% protein, 45% fat), the moderate-CHO diet was 45% CHO (10% protein, 35% fat), and the high-CHO diet was 75% CHO (15%protein, 10% fat). Weight loss occurred in all groups, but there was no significant difference in weight loss among the groups. Percent body fat loss, based on underwater weighing was similar among the groups. Alford et al. concluded, “there is no statistically significant effect derived in an overweight adult female population from manipulation of percentage of CHO in a 1200-kcal diet. Weight loss is the result of reduction in caloric intake in proportion to caloric requirements.” (Freedman et al., 2001)

Golay and colleagues (1996) followed 43 obese patients for 6 weeks, who received a low cal diet (1000 kcal), and participated in a structured, multidisciplinary program that included physical activity (2 h/d), nutritional education, and behavioral modification. The diet contained either 15% CHO (37.5 g), or 45% CHO. Protein content of the diets was similar (approx: 30%) and fat made up the difference. After 6 weeks, there was no significant difference in weight loss between the different diet groups. Significant and similar decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip ratios were seen in both groups.*

Wing and colleagues (1995) confined 21 severely obese women to a*metabolic*ward for 31 days. They were randomly assigned to a non-ketogenic or ketogenic (10 g CHO) liquid formula diet (600 kcals) for 28 days. At end of study weight losses were similar.*

A portion of weight loss in the early stages of low carb dieting is due to water losses (Bell et al., 1969; Van Itallie et. al. 1975), however, the majority of weight loss in the early stages of a mixed diet is primarily due to loss in body fat (Yang and Van Itallie, 1976); other studies support this finding. Losses of protein and fat are about the same when following a ketogenic, or isocaloric, non-ketogenic diet (Golay et al. 1996)*

"In the short-term, low-CHO ketogenic diets cause a greater loss of body water than body fat." (Freedman et al. 2001)

"Low-CHO diets are high in fat, especially saturated fat, and cholesterol. They are also high in protein (mainly animal), and provide lower than recommended intakes of vitamin E, vitamin A, thiamin, vitamin B 6, folate, calcium, magnesium, iron, potassium and dietary fiber." (Freedman et al. 2001). In these instances supplementation is required for proper nutrition.*

 

[Crystallas]

Thanks, I understand. I am also in agreement.


Just to be clear, my question and disagreement is very narrow. Asking how specific diets dramatically increase caloric intakes, and contribute to fat loss on no activity changes. That is the question. My disagreement is that I reject the premise that the diet should be dismissed because the assumption is the caloric count is done in error, but I would accept a specific study, in pertaining to strictly HCRV that states otherwise.

Why I personally think this is important, not just because I can confirm my own results. Mainly because it deals with basic and abundant foods, so the effects are not just a fad diet that should be scoffed at by those who have different nutritional philosophies. Especially when existing science doesn't conflict when asking a question(scientific method).

 

[RosettaStoned]

Thanks, I understand. I am also in agreement.


Just to be clear, my question and disagreement is very narrow. Asking how specific diets dramatically increase caloric intakes, and contribute to fat loss on no activity changes. That is the question. My disagreement is that I reject the premise that the diet should be dismissed because the assumption is the caloric count is done in error, but I would accept a specific study, in pertaining to strictly HCRV that states otherwise.

Why I personally think this is important, not just because I can confirm my own results. Mainly because it deals with basic and abundant foods, so the effects are not just a fad diet that should be scoffed at by those who have different nutritional philosophies. Especially when existing science doesn't conflict when asking a question(scientific method).

You keep saying fat loss. There is a difference between fat loss and weight loss. Micronutrients can effect body composition. However they have no effect on weight loss. Every controlled study done where the subjects consumed a caloric surplus they gained weight. Every controlled study done where subjects consumed a deficit they lost weight.

Here is a great article regarding this referenced with relevant research.

http://evidencemag.com/why-calories-count/

I don't know how else to explain this to you. You cannot lose weight in a caloric surplus no matter where those calories come from.

 

[RosettaStoned]

The only answer to your question is that they don't. The only variable is the reported caloric intake, which simply doing a Google search of misreported calorie intake reveals that people are bad at it. Any time the calories are ward controlled the results are the same regardless of different micronutrient ratios. Every. Single. Time.

 

[RosettaStoned]

Just to reiterate from the above article that is extremely well referenced.

This is why most free-living studies lasting longer than six months have found that people on high- or low-carb diets lose the same amount of weight.33,43,45,62,124,125*It’s probably also why many free-living studies have found that people lose the same amount of weight eating high- or low-carb diets.

This is why you should be highly skeptical of people who claim they lost weight without eating fewer calories. Calories count. These people are just not counting them accurately, if at all.

 

[RosettaStoned]

Regarding errors in calorie tracking, even dieticians are bad at it, and some people have misreported by up to 2000 calories.

People are horrible at estimating their calorie intake.72-101*102-120

Overweight and obese people (especially women) are often the worst, but most people underestimate their calorie intake to some degree.

It’s true for men and women and people of all ages.

It’s true when people are given specific instructions on how to measure their food intake.

It’s true for dietitians.102

It’s true even when people are*paid*to track their food intake.104

In some cases, people who claim they can’t lose weight by cutting calories underestimate their food intake by 47%, and overestimate their exercise levels by 51%.75Other data has shown that people can underreport their food intake by up to 2,000 calories per day.89

 

[bearmick]

How can you be off by 2,000 in one day? I'm pretty certain that without even counting as I was going, I could be asked any given night how many calories I consumed on that day, and I could get it within 200. Having said that, I prepare and cook almost everything I eat myself. I could see how people who eat in restaurants or take outs could be off. But I can't imagine how anyone could be two thousand off. Even one thousand.

 

[Schmidtaki]

How can you be off by 2,000 in one day? I'm pretty certain that without even counting as I was going, I could be asked any given night how many calories I consumed on that day, and I could get it within 200. Having said that, I prepare and cook almost everything I eat myself. I could see how people who eat in restaurants or take outs could be off. But I can't imagine how anyone could be two thousand off. Even one thousand.

I know a lot of people who just consume food without any thought to how many calories are involved. For instance my boss thinks going to a Chinese restaurant and getting their $5 chicken with a shit ton of rice is less calories then me eating a Healthy Choice Steamers meal for lunch. He is probably taking in 1-2k calories from all that rice not to mention the amount of oil in the food as well. But he doesn't see it that way.

To answer your question, a lot of people don't have a clue how many calories they intake and the truth is that most in the long run don't care.

 

[Crystallas]

You keep saying fat loss.

Because I am very precise in my words. When I say fat loss, I mean fat loss.

I don't know how else to explain this to you. You cannot lose weight in a caloric surplus no matter where those calories come from.

You repeat the same thing, then I repeat the same thing. This is because I'm talking about a specific case, you're talking in general to caloric intake.

It's impossible to answer one question, by answering a similar but still a very different question(over and over and over).

I'll show you the question you are answering, then I'll show you the question I am asking(again). And of course, you are free to ignore the question and move on. You're in no obligation to answer, and I don't think you have an answer, I can't find anyone with an answer(based on a specific study within the perimeters mentioned, not a related study, not the say so of one expert without the actual details because then it's just someones word against another's word).

You're answering: Can the body burn a caloric surplus? And, do people make mistakes in counting their caloric intakes? <-not my questions, but this is what you are answering on a repeat cycle, even though I keep saying that is not what I am asking, I keep telling you I am in full agreement, and after I write this, I will no longer know how to explain this to you. I speak 4 languages fluently, maybe I there is some disconnect here and I can try to ask you in another language?

My question: How do specific diets dramatically increase caloric intakes, and contribute to fat loss on no activity changes?