JC Denton wrote on Jul 7^th, 2024 at 5:51pm:


Holy frickin' crap, you know less than I do about weight loss. You are saying that "a calorie is a calorie, no matter what the source", are you? If so, you are wrong. Calories from fruits, vegetables, and grains are different to calories from fast food.

We had this guy called "Flyin'" Ryan Bayley who had a reputation of eating junk food, whilst he trained. He admitted that he did eat a fair amount of junk food. But, when he was selected to compete in Athens, Bayley had to undergo a strict diet. The diet paid off with his gold medal.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-07-22/ryan-bayley-junk-food-junkie-to-genuine-a...

Quote:

UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 7^th, 2024 at 7:39pm:


this is complete bullsh_t, a calorie is a calorie give or take some thermal/metabolic effects its just some food has less calories in it. an apple has a bunch of sh_t in there that isnt even calories like fibre and water, so of course eating an apple is going to have a different effect on your satiation as a potato fry. but a calorie still is practically just a calorie. you are mistaking things that aren't specifically calories but relate to nutrition such as nutritional density, fibre, water, etc with energy. CICO works and you are overcomplicating everything and making something that's already monumentally hard (weight loss) even more hard for everyone.

i have nfi what your anecdote is supposed to prove lmao

holy poo why do you keep bringing up that anecdote its meaningless, we're talking about calories as they affect WEIGHT LOSS, not necessarily HEALTH (that doesnt relate to weight level) or BODILY COMPOSITION, there is a difference between those things

thats what that nutrition professor was trying to prove when he got 99% of his calories from f_cking sugar foods and lost weight doing it

Quote:


no you literally cannot measure exactly what your real metabolizable energy intake is from food even from the calorie label bc there are different bodily processes and the exact biochemical composition of foods, but this is true for everything you f_cking do, you are never going to get your exact targetted weight loss ever, that doesn't mean that CICO doesnt work


your own anecdote just suggests you basically just massively cut your caloric intake relative to your energy expenditure, and WOW, you lost weight! amazing! you know what; ive lost weight eating bagels with cream cheese, frozen pizzas, beers and sultana bran and barely exercised at all, simply bc i was eating less than what i was before i was a heavier weight.t he ultimate master switch was the fact that we were both consuming less energy relative to how much we were using. that's it. were you even tracking calories before and after?

well that should apply to cafes, takeaways, restaurants and basically everywhere too

maccas is at least accountable, you know what youre roughly getting in a big mac meal

no clue what youre getting in the standard burger with the lot

JC Denton wrote on Jul 8^th, 2024 at 11:07am:




JC Denton, I happen to be diabetic. Years of regular alcohol consumption (and junk food) had led me to being diabetic. My diabetes also exacerbated my weight gain. My body could not effectively process the food I consumed, and I either kept an overweight/obese body type. Or I actually gained weight. It took my efforts of consuming a healthy diet of low sugar, low carbs, low fat to make the weight loss take effect. Here are some of the effects sugar has on the body.



Quote:




"Carbs in, carbs out" is theoretically sound. But, a carb is not the same carb among different foods. I challenge you to eat a Big Mac. On another day, I want you to eat the equivalent calorie count of the Big Mac with a salad meal. You can wash both meals down with a bottle of water. An hour after you consume both meals, I want you to take note of how you feel physically and mentally.

Quote:


I want to show you something:



In the last month, I have lost 3 kilograms. However, my strength has increased where I can carry a 36kg backpack reasonably easy -- I was jogging part of my walk last night with that backpack on. A month ago, I was struggling to walk around with the backpack. My muscle gain has been modest. But my fat cells are shrinking. I look better, too.

Can I put it to you that your weight loss "eating bagels with cream cheese, frozen pizzas, beers and sultana bran and barely exercised at all" is due to your muscles atrophying? The above picture of fat vs muscle shows that 5lbs of fat takes up more space than 5lbs of muscle. So, I could look muscular at 102kg. But, I could look severely obese at 102kg. The different is the body fat percentage and how much muscles I have on my body.

One example, Greg Kovacs: the heaviest body builder at 190kg



You could imagine a non-athlete obese person standing 193cm tall and weighing 190kg would look very obese. But, Kovacs being a bodybuilder managed to put on a lot of muscle and had a reasonably low body fat percentage. Perhaps I could suggest Australian glamour/fitness model, Ashleigh McAuliffe as an example for women. Ash was very skinny (underweight) in her late teens. By the time she was in her mid-20s, she gained about 10kg of muscle. She looked a lot healthier.

I seriously suggest you change your thought process, JC. Maybe you are still young and have a chance. But if you are my age (45) or older, you must change your mind and do away with fast food to be nothing more than a once a fortnight treat.

heres the guy you were holding up as a paragon of good health

https://www.reddit.com/r/bodybuilding/comments/1rfq2x/greg_kovacs_dies_at_age_44...

f_ckin dead at 44 years old from shooting roids in his ass (which is the only way he got to look the way he did and have the body composition he did - had very little to do with whether he was eating red salmon over pizza hut)

meanwhile this old bloke enjoying a big mac every day still goin strong



who would u rather be? who was healthier?

JC Denton wrote on Jul 8^th, 2024 at 4:08pm:


I thought I was very clear what I meant. You are saying a calorie is a calorie, regardless of source of nutrition. I am saying that a calorie is not a calore, if the source of nutrition is varying.

I have also said that "calorie in/calorie out" is theoretically sound. Actually, I mistakenly wrote "carbs in/carbs out". But, regardless of that minor error, the CICO theory is flawed due to the fact that the calories you consume in an apple is different to the calories you consume in a serving of french fries.

You cannot just see calorie intake for the body to be similar to putting money in a bank and then using the funds slowly during the day, and maybe spending a lot during physical exertions. My analogy for that would be if calorie intake to the body was like putting money in the bank and letting it be stored for a little while.

If I can make the distinction. If you put money in your bank and agree to the terms of fees being applied to use the bank's facilities. You also have a high interest when you want to take out a loan, because the bank knows that you are laundering some money and find you an unreliable customer. But your legitimate sources of income keep you credible... for now. Eventually, the tax man is going to write a please explain to you, and you will have a stroke. All you can do to recover is declare bankruptcy and recover with legitimate income sources to pay off that 'debt'.

For my analogy, my bank sees that I am a legitimate customer with legitimate income sources. I have a reasonably good credit rating, even after having history of POOR financial management. I mean, it took me years to get that good credit rating, though. As long as I continue to do the right thing, the bank will loan me what I need to use, and I will have to repay with low interest rates applied.

Is that abstract enough for you?

I did show you a photo of Greg Kovacs. He was a roided up body builder. But, I was trying to demonstrate, not just to you but, to people that someone weighing something like 190kg is not just people who are obese. Kovacs was an extreme version of heavy muscular. Most 190kg people I have seen in photos probably have been unable to touch their toes, they are so fat.

You are calling me a "fat guy". You call yourself a "thin guy". I bet the reality is that I have a higher body percentage of fat, compared to you. However, I bet I have more muscle on my body compared to you. I would probably be described as "muscular fat". Whereas, from what you are telling me, you are probably "skinny fat". My 102kg frame could probably bench press 70kg at most. Whereas, you could probably bench press 50kg. Even when I was 23 or 24 years old, I weighed 84kg and could bench press 70kg. I looked physically fit then. I am trying to get back to those days of physical fitness as soon as I can before my ageing body starts to factor into how fit I can get.

Speaking of thin, I suppose your sex life is not great? Consuming sugary foods is probably the worst thing for your willy. If you want to get strong erections, you keep away from sugar. The blood in your body will circulate better. You will have better stamina, too. Surely, you know the link between alcohol and erectile dysfunction. Ever since going sober, it is so easy for a near-middle-aged person like me to get hard erections. Could I suggest you drink green or black tea in the mornings. Drink diluted apple cider vinegar before bed. Also, when you are laying in bed, hold your breath for a period of 30 seconds. Recover and then repeat 2 or 3 more times. Not only will you drift off to sleep easier, by morning, you will probably be more 'equipped'.

I don't care if that last paragraph made you feel uncomfortable. But, you would know that I have been truthful here. Quietly alter your diet. In two weeks, you will see the difference.