Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Has this been done yet?
Four pies, a cornetto, a kebab, and a box of chips was my last shopping list. Spent as much at 4am as I did from 10pm-2am...
(pretty sure we haven't had the 'I irrationally hate Vice' debate for a few days)
and drinking like fuck. SCIENCE>
Saying this, if you adjust your diet, you can kinda compensate quite well.
When I did the paleo diet / lifestyle for three months or so, I was drinking and getting drunk and I didn't' really have any weight gain.
I haven't tread the article.
And wine and spirits don't make you put on weight but beer has a very high GI rating and makes you fat as fuck.
I knew it! Pints are fattening as fuck. So I stand my point. Ok, so it's not the booze that makes you fat but all the other shit, but go out on the lash, drink pints, get fat.
or should that be heavyweight...?
so unless you drink 'em straight, you're fucked.
of cancer of any kind, and I'll be a very happy man.
then you have almost nailed your upper limit before and food and other drinks. I reckon that will make you fat.
And yes, I am a doctor.
It's not very long.
wine and spirits are not, so fill your boots :)
seriously, you could drink yourself skinny (if you weren't already trim and taught like myself).
But, yeah, the thrust of the article's pretty correct - if you're a healthy individual then a few glasses of wine a week won't make a great deal of difference.
and if you consume calories in excess of what you use then you will gain fat. it blows my mind that people don't grasp this. alcohol makes you fat just like lettuce makes you fat just like pizza makes you fat - IF YOU EAT OR DRINK ENOUGH OF IT TO BE IN A CALORIC SURPLUS.
you would die before you got fat
ergo lettuce doesn't make you fat
although it might make you dead
but alright gud 1 m8
that a sophomoric thermodynamics diet bore is sassing me tbh
It really doesn't.
You could not get fat from eating just lettuce, even if you ate buckets of the stuff, you'd be well bony.
you're completely missing the point. the calories in lettuce are no less valid than the calories in pizza. you can't say "this food makes you fat, that food doesn't make you fat" IT'S THE NET INTAKE OF THE CALORIES THAT MAKES YOU FAT AND THEREFORE ANY FOOD CAN MAKE YOU FAT OR NOT BE FAT.
if your maintenance calories were 2000 and you ate 2500 worth of lettuce (this is an extreme example because obviously it would be difficult to actually do that) then you WOULD gain fat.
THEN we'll see who the big man is
(it's you, fatty)
it might be true but it doesn't mean anything
are you seriously suggesting the fat macro is the only thing that can make you gain weight?
Are you seriously suggesting that eating lettuce can make you fat?
average lettuce is ~ 500g so 70 calories per head
So for an adult male to be in surplus it would take 36 heads of iceberg lettuce in 24 hours. 1.5 an hour (if you didn't sleep).
Good luck getting fat on that.
he probably could.
meths clearly is.
you can actually blend plates and plates worth of lettuce into one smoothie and drink it pretty easily. and do that for the entire day, getting in all your calories. that's a thing btw. it's called juicing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwHHYJJM45M
and sounds gross
it isn't at all.
see literally every reply to you in this thread
say butter makes you fat, lettuce doesn't they aren't just talking about hitting a surplus of calories in either - they mean the ease in which they will get to the surplus eating either.
it sets off the autist in me though when people claim "that food doesn't make you fat", or "revelation! this thing actually doesn't make you fat!" It's just the dumbest thing.
is "the dumbest thing"?
the evidence suggests otherwise. His theory is that the body doesn't assimilate the energy in alcohol.
thermodynamics is not different for everyone. if someone maintains their weight at 2000 calories and someone else maintains their weight at 3000, an addition of 500 to both with cause weight gain in both.
but I don't think it's fair that I can't eat as much as other people
life isn't fair.
let's settle this by you eating lettuce until you get fat.
When you've done that I don't think any of us will argue with you.
if that or something similar hasn't already been done and documented somewhere in some physiology journal to demonstrate calories
are you 12?
has to have at least one bro-scientist shouting BUT CONSERVATION OF ENERGY CALORIES IN CALORIES OUT NEWTON NEWTON NEWTON and then getting furious if anyone suggests there could be anything more to the discussion.
It's like a rule of the internet or something.
to sit alongside godwin's law and the wadsworth constant
...actually, I'd prefer if it didn't
I don't know who this is but I absolutely salute your trolling. you win
so we'll leave it there
but it is usually vodka and a mixer, and i think i'm in pretty good shape.
i think there is something in it
SMASH (MEHODOR'S TEDIOUS NUTRITIONAL ADVICE)
he's not giving advice, he's just stating some meaningless facts
barely eat any lettuce
you also drank one pint of beer? What then, morons?
the clash on the palette would kill you.
at least a couple of beers most nights, more on the weekend. I am in decent shape, I don't eat ridiculously healthily. In theory the calories in the beer is as many calories as in a kebab or a chinese takeaway every night. That would make me fat, as my student days proved.
There are obviously some weird anomalies that science is working on understanding (as per the article) but Mehodor's point is basically where we are at the moment in terms of understanding weight gain, in simple terms. I think seeing it as a mathematical equation is actually the best way to lose/maintain weight.
that some mathematical equations fall short in reality and don't really have a place in a conversation about losing weight.
to say it doesn't matter what the food is. The calories are the important thing. Obviously you can eat as much lettuce as you like, generally, and you won't reach a calorie surplus. But it was part of a wider point about people over-complicating dieting, when it really is as simple as basic adding and subtracting.
How can you work that out in real life easily?
Or doing the sums in your head. It's remarkably simple.
what is the sum and I'll show you
before you start. There's not one calorie target for everyone. But that doesn't mean it doesn't work.
is it possible that two people with he same age, weight and activity can still lose weight differently?
and take the same number in, then my understanding is that, with a small margin for error, they will lose or gain exactly the same as each other.
is the problem here really isn't it. But that was the tone of the conversation and that's why someone showing off about how good they are at maths is silly.
who can show off as much as he wants because jonny_rat is fabulous
suggest that a super-simple calorie in/calorie out model isn't particularly helpful. It's one thing to see it as a mathematical model, it's another to suggest that the model in question just involves balancing the books. There are modifiers on uptake and there are modifiers on output, and telling someone that they have to do x amount of exercise because they've eaten y amount of beans ends up being deeply unhelpful in many cases, because what results in weight loss for one person will produce weight maintenance or gain in another.
and?? fucking hell
what's the equation?
you are extremely dense.
that was three years ago, so, er
I lose weight when I don't exercise, as I shed muscle and then start to need to eat less.
On the whole, it's a good thing to work with.
which is what I assume we're talking about here.
I'm interested to know more about that. It's worked with mathematical precision for me, and other people I know. So I'd be surprised if it's not commonly useful.
very mathematical, or just slightly mathematical?
by eating the calories I was supposed to.
I just don't believe that anyone is sticking to a suggested calorie limit and ballooning in weight, or cramming themselves with 3500 calories a day and staying slim. By and large, it does work. Maybe there are anomalies. I don't know. But by and large, it works.
in saying that it works for people it works for. If you can establish what your own ratio of gain to loss is, and stick to it (while maintaining all other possible variables, such as diet content, level of exercise/exertion/anything else that might have an impact), then it's going to work.
Problems arise when you generalise that ratio to others however.
I've never said there's a magic ratio that works for everyone. But essentially it does come down to calories used and calories taken in. I agree those variables are absolutely essential to that, but once you've got a handle on your ratio, you can control your weight using it. Is my understanding.
now that we've kinda agreed on the inter-individual variation on the ration, doesn't it seem reasonable to look at the intra-individual variation as well? Do we think that it doesn't matter what format the calories come in?
I'm more split on this one, but even if I do agree with that statement in principle (ie. as a rule of thermodynamics, etc) I don't know how much application it has in practice, because our bodies aren't buckets: they're filter systems. Different foodstuffs promote more uptake of calorie-laden material.
My belief is that weight is purely dictated by calories (not mass of food but calories) but the nutritional value of those calories varies hugely, and that has a big impact on the kind of body shape you get (although weight I still believe will correlate with calories) and your mental well-being. Which is just as important. I'm certainly not advocating having your calories and maintaining your weight any way you like. You could eat sweets alone, meet your calorie requirement and maintain your weight. But you'd be massively unhealthy in other ways very quickly.
which of course makes it sound even more complicated again.
The calorie is the fuel value of the material absorbed by the body (indeed you actually calculate calories in food by burning them in a controlled environment), but there are a some important variables affecting how much fuel your body uses after it passes through your mouth. On a base level, you could have the shits and it could go though like a rat down a drainpipe.
Energy density within the type of food you eat is key (fat isn't bad because it's fat: it can be bad because of the energy density), and the things you've mentioned about wellbeing are more to do with the good stuff you get alongside that energy. But - and this is where we're getting into slightly wooly territory - there is lots of talk about different energy absorption rates being promoted by accompanying nutrients.
As far as I'm concerned, as far as intra-individual variation goes, the stuff marckee mentioned about changes in exercise levels is way more important.
As an aside, I guess the reason I wanted to respond to this part of the thread was that I think encouraging people to see weight loss as a simple calorie reduction/exercise increase function is potentially dangerous. I do accept that it works for many people, but I have - in a few cases - seen that it doesn't fix people's problematic relationships with their own bodies, or food.
I can understand that for some people, it might be difficult not to just disregard it for some reason. but whatever model or method they're following, their weight loss or gain is determined by their net calories and that is a fucking motherfucking son of a bitch fact.
This was when I was working in health psychology, so I was balls deep in it back then. Tell you what, if I get a chance to look through the literature at the weekend I'll drop you a PM. As I said, the view might have changed in the three years that I've been away from it all. As I was finishing up, the personalised plan (and positive reinforcement) view was in its ascendency.
but I suspect the degrees of difference are pretty minor in the bigger picture.
Again, happy to be proved wrong.
the causes of obesity. But try to think of them as less about cause and effect as looking at how much of a person's weight can be explained by genetic or environmental factors. Now, there's some debate as to what the mechanism of effect that genetic influences might be - that is, is it behavioural mechanisms for appetite, or is it just that the ratios (as we've discussed) are different?
I have no idea where to start looking for the intervention studies, but I'll have a think about it.
I'll read properly later. I'm certainly wary of making these claims if genetics do play a large part in people's weight. I've always found it difficult to get my head around, purely on a physics basis, but I'll read those carefully and see what they suggest.
What happened to the lettuce?
but not people, or their language
it's also rank outside of a bloody mary situation.
as long as it's peeled with a potato peeler to get the stringy stuff off. Lovely with strong cheese and glass or two of red
but the idea of 'negative calories' has to be a lot of pish.
that would mean if you were stranded on a desert island and ate nothing but celery, you would die? no way is that true
what's the point in having a discussion if people are going to start throwing around implausible scenarios like this?
maybe you're right
It just means that there aren't people there eating all the celery already.
And with that, I yield.
of advocaat between us the other night. Mixed with sprite. We're both size eights (WITH CHEBS) so basically, just eat and dirnk what you want but dance a lot and live under extreme stress.
(I'd rather be fat).
which is a shame.
of malnutrition from negative calories.
they lack the strength required to lift their forks up to their mouths
which food can you eat the most of without dying?
which is rice
Total fucking lie if you ask me
well done everyone.
BUT MEHODOR WON'T LETTUCE!!!!!
I think there was celery in my soup at lunch and it's made me dangerously weak
Cause if you ate some lettuce, you'd burn it off by just breathing and blinking?
thought it was sugar.
You're calorie allowance is based on what you use up in a day, doing things exactly like those. But still, if you ate more lettuce than you used up, you would gain weight. Obviously.
You'd probably drown from it, wouldn't you? Cause of all the water in lettuce.
Doesn't change the basic point being made.
the whole row is that the point is true but of extremely limited utility
(who are you, anyway?)
It is of great utility if everyone stopped being so hung up on lettuce!
because its lettuce. Pizza - yeah. Lettuce, nah.
It doesn't make sense.
It makes perfect sense.
How many calories do you use breathing all day?
if you were a professional balloon animalist, probably quite a lot
or how successful they are.
It's inaccuracies like this that are ruining this thread.
This was the highlight for me. Thanks Japes!
Let's look at it the other way round. You could eat a whole lettuce (70 calories) or about an 8th of a slice of pizza for the same amount of calories. They would both add the same amount of weight (nothing, basically). Say the daily calorie intake that would maintain your weight was 2000 calories, 70 calories isn't going to make much difference. but 2500 calories of pizza would. And so, hypothetically would 2500 calories of lettuce.
that science is trying to figure out when it comes to alcohol. By and large, the article agrees with the basic premise of calories and how they work.
I thought the point was that the calories contained in food =/= the calories your body absorbs from consuming food
Well it's more 'calories contained in food = calories absorbed by body EXCEPT this weird alcohol thing that doesn't fit the rule' - which is quite different from saying the whole system is bunkem.
you COULD have had my story about a high sided chicken biryani pizza in sri lanka, dis, but you blew it.
in pizza hut.
jqust thinking that
and therefore contributing to obesity then?
but it and other types of carbs do affect your hormones (cortisol?) which can mean that your body is less efficient at burning calories.
i could do with a workout partner though really.
If anyone wants to join me for a session just let me know!
can you just ban this dullard already
and dont even get me started on multiple log ins. no way i could deal with it.
I have been eating 147 lettuces a day. I KNEW I was going wrong somewhere
watch them hips!
Don't even care how many calories is in each. Might even eat a pizza too.
somebody explain it in more depth pls
like a mildly autistic cool hand luke
Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like lettuce any more than you men.
reading this thread with my afternoon cup of tea has really cheered me up, thanks guys.
and slap em in the chops
'just eat lettuce forever'
HAS NOBODY LEARNED NOTHING?
(had pizza AND lettuce for my tea tonight, btw)
I still don't know whether the pieces of corn that I sometimes see in my poos should be counted as part of my calorie intake.
calories in wee
as mehodor pointed out, thermodynamics or something, so that corn has been 100% efficiently turned into energy and what you are seeing is an illusion.
My mouth feels too big when I say it aloud.
You know what I hate? Low calorie 'energy' drinks.