Does anyone here "juice"?

[Jester]

Not steroids but with veggies and fruit! I recently watched a documentary called "fat, sick and nearly dead" and my head has been spinning ever since. I'm not an unhealthy guy, but I could do much better in my food consumption. So I've been watching all sorts of shit along the subject and I finally broke down and bought a juicer yesterday!

I must say overall, after a 65$ fruit and veggie run, I'm enjoying my first few drinks(meals). It's amazing how much of the stuff you can put through the juicer to give you 800ml or so.

My first drink consisted of kale, celery, cucumber, tomato, carrots and parsley. The taste was overall decent but not great, but after about halfway I could feel my stomach kinda turning in itself, so I fridged the leftovers. A couple hours later and feeling a little better, I got hungry and finished off my drink. I had an all fruit blend for dinner and I was full until bedtime.

Does anyone else juice or have recipes???

I don't, but you are a fruit

 

[RosettaStoned]

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



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?

I have answered the question numerous times. They don't. The reason you think there isn't an answer is because there is no peer reviewed research that demonstrates this. In reality there is no peer reviewed research that demonstrates this because it doesn't happen. What actually happens is that people make changes that leads them to consume less calories. They don't realize this is what's happening. This is due to numerous factors. They may consume they same number of meals, but that doesn't mean they are consuming more calories. They may feel fuller due to the satiety effect of different foods. That doesn't mean they consumed more calories. The science is very clear. This is simple and obvious human error.

Unless you are very untrained you cannot lose fat while eating a caloric surplus. Since you specified no activity changes even that is not a possible explanation.

The answer once again is that you are wrong about your caloric intake. Anybody who claims to have lost fat on a surplus of calories is wrong unless they have just started resistance training.

 

[Crystallas]

 

[RosettaStoned]

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.

Because people don't have a clue. There are people in this thread who seem to not be completely Special person who have had it laid out for them over and over and still don't get it.

 

[nvanprooyen]

I'll believe a diet like this works, when I see some actual scientific data to back it up. I combed around looking for some studies but came up blank. Not saying I don't believe you Crys....but need more than anecdotal accounts of results. E.g. multiple participants, tightly controlled intake etc.

To play the devils advocate, let's say it actually does work. The only possible reason I can think of, beyond "noob effect" (which has already been covered)...would be hormonal impact. E.g. leptin, ghrelin etc.

 

[RosettaStoned]

I'll believe a diet like this works, when I see some actual scientific data to back it up. I combed around looking for some studies but came up blank. Not saying I don't believe you Crys....but need more than anecdotal accounts of results. E.g. multiple participants, tightly controlled intake etc.

To play the devils advocate, let's say it actually does work. The only possible reason I can think of, beyond "noob effect" (which has already been covered)...would be hormonal impact. E.g. leptin, ghrelin etc.

This wouldn't account for any noticeable effect, especially when looking at an entire control group. I know you're playing Devils advocate but even still.

 

[RosettaStoned]

I'm sorry you don't like the answer, but they don't. The answer is they are wrong about their calorie consumption, and so are you.

 

[Crystallas]

I'll believe a diet like this works, when I see some actual scientific data to back it up. I combed around looking for some studies but came up blank. Not saying I don't believe you Crys....but need more than anecdotal accounts of results. E.g. multiple participants, tightly controlled intake etc.

To play the devils advocate, let's say it actually does work. The only possible reason I can think of, beyond "noob effect" (which has already been covered)...would be hormonal impact. E.g. leptin, ghrelin etc.

Believe what? I'm looking for the data too. Like I said, I was genuinely asking. The diets work for many people. People who are far more educated on nutrition than myself or anyone who has posted in this thread. So the natural progression here would be to understand why. To get the study data, to confirm the results, and not just copy/paste old data and dismiss the real world results without having as exact of an explanation(without assumptions) as possible.

I'm not a vegetarian, not a vegan, a fruitarian, or any of those things. But you know what, I love learning from people that have differing opinions. I can spend all day and confirm what I already know, but that doesn't help, nor does it make me more right. That would be groupthink. The vegans suffer from their groupthink, the paleos suffer from their groupthink, shit, nearly all hardcore supporters of any diet type suffers from their groupthink. Nothing I can say or do will change the nature of people falling into groupthink, however I hope we all learn from each other. Not just run around calling people names for having differing views. If you want to play with the big boys, don't bring the topic to the playground.

 

[FirstTimer]

Believe what? I'm looking for the data too. Like I said, I was genuinely asking. The diets work for many people. People who are far more educated on nutrition than myself or anyone who has posted in this thread. So the natural progression here would be to understand why. To get the study data, to confirm the results, and not just copy/paste old data and dismiss the real world results without having as exact of an explanation(without assumptions) as possible.

And you've been slapped in the face with a boatload of evidence showing how they don't know as much as you think they do(or even they think they do.)

Stop.

They are wrong. The premise for your question is wrong.

It's done.

 

[Crystallas]

I'm sorry you don't like the answer, but they don't. The answer is they are wrong about their calorie consumption, and so are you.

Right. Assumptions > Studies. Oh wait, I forgot, you already shared the info and links answering your own question, you don't need to answer the actual question, when you can answer a different one. Round and round the world goes.

 

[FirstTimer]

Right. Assumptions > Studies. Oh wait, I forgot, you already shared the info and links answering your own question, you don't need to answer the actual question, when you can answer a different one. Round and round the world goes.

The studies back up the fact that people are tards about consumption.

Are you high?

 

[RosettaStoned]

Right. Assumptions > Studies. Oh wait, I forgot, you already shared the info and links answering your own question, you don't need to answer the actual question, when you can answer a different one. Round and round the world goes.

I answered your question. You're too fucking stupid and stubborn to get it. The studies have been done on trying to increase calories and losing fat. What happened was it didn't fucking happen. You're too fucking stupid to accurately track your calories. The end.

 

[Crystallas]

And you've been slapped in the face with a boatload of evidence showing how they don't know as much as you think they do(or even they think they do.)

Stop.

They are wrong. The premise for your question is wrong.

It's done.

What am I wrong about?

Recap: Here are the only facts that I presented. The rest were questions. Instead of two hard boiled eggs for lunch, I eat 10 bananas. The rest of my diet is exactly the same(I may consume more calories now for the rest of my diet than before, but for arguments sake, we'll say it's the same), the activity is exactly the same or even less because I've been snowed in.

The caloric intake is 100% more. Unless science is wrong at measuring calories, and for whatever reason, science was mis-reporting that the 80 calorie egg, actually was off by (as much as)2000 calories.

Either you have substance related to the discussion, or no substance and just want to say I'm wrong and dumb for the sake of it, which is fine, that's your problem.

 

[Crystallas]

You're too fucking stupid and stubborn to get it. .

This is your argument. And you're the one responding if you feel this way.

 

[FirstTimer]

What am I wrong about?

Recap: Here are the only facts that I presented. The rest were questions. Instead of two hard boiled eggs for lunch, I eat 10 bananas. The rest of my diet is exactly the same(I may consume more calories now for the rest of my diet than before, but for arguments sake, we'll say it's the same), the activity is exactly the same or even less because I've been snowed in.

The caloric intake is 100% more. Unless science is wrong at measuring calories, and for whatever reason, science was mis-reporting that the 80 calorie egg, actually was off by (as much as)2000 calories.

Either you have substance related to the discussion, or no substance and just want to say I'm wrong and dumb for the sake of it, which is fine, that's your problem.

I've posted a study showing what you are saying is not possible. RS has done the same. You're too dumb to get it.

You're wanting people to post evidence and you're either not even reading it or too stupid to even understand it. This is like trying to teach trig to a 1st grader with down syndrome.

 

[FirstTimer]

LOL at Crys getting salty and banning RS

 

[Crystallas]

The studies back up the fact that people are tards about consumption.

Are you high?

That is a generalization. Since you don't understand how scientific method works, there is no point.

This means someone can ask an unpopular question based on whatever findings, looking for an answer. The "expert" can guess at an answer, this would mean giving out a generalization, like we have seen here to define others. Which by the very fact of demonstrating the same errors in research, that means the research of that "expert" can be flawed as well. So by this very conclusion, you are saying that no caloric counts are ever accurate, unless they fit into your bias. That is not good science.

 

[Crystallas]

LOL at Crys getting salty and banning RS

I'm the one that unbanned him from the last mess. I made it clear, back and fourth is fine. If he just wants to call someone names, then don't do it here.

Studies have shown that bad apples spoil the bunch.

 

[FirstTimer]

That is a generalization. Since you don't understand how scientific method works, there is no point.

This means someone can ask an unpopular question based on whatever findings, looking for an answer. The "expert" can guess at an answer, this would mean giving out a generalization, like we have seen here to define others. Which by the very fact of demonstrating the same errors in research, that means the research of that "expert" can be flawed as well. So by this very conclusion, you are saying that no caloric counts are ever accurate, unless they fit into your bias. That is not good science.

No. What we are saying is the law of thermodynamics is sound and the issues with calorie counting are real and repeatable observable results that have been shown to provide numerous "false positives" in repeated studies. It's not "supporting a bias" unless you consider the law of thermodynamics to be "biased"

 

[FirstTimer]

I'm the one that unbanned him from the last mess. I made it clear, back and fourth is fine. If he just wants to call someone names, then don't do it here.

You got salty. It's cool.