"Diet plays an important part in connection with certain ailments. Those who suffer from rheumatism must keep down red meats, and alcoholic drinks. The constipated ought to avoid cheese and eggs; a little olive oil with salads, plenty of green-stuffs and fruit, Hovis [wholemeal] bread instead of white, hot water before the first meal, stewed rhubarb or stewed apples, also raw apples, assist materially. The obese should avoid rich greasy dishes, fattening drinks such as cocoa, ale or stout, much liquid of any kind, pastries, potatoes, any starchy foods, pies, soups, white bread, sweets."
– Thomas Inch, 1910

Learning about nutrition in schools might be a good start. Even if it's just the basics in gym class

i did when i was a kid and it all turned out to be BS. BRB breakfast is most important meal of the day. BRB carbs being the bulk of your caloric intake.

Skipping breakfast alone would obliterate the obesity rates considering that would essentially put you on intermittent fasting. I didnt even notice until the last few years that I had spent most of my life intermittent fasting and that that part of my life i was putting in far less effort to be fit.

America is weird because it seems everyone is either fat as fuk or fit as fuk. I travelled across europe last year and EVERYONE is skinnyfat (more fatties in UK tho comparatively). Seriously. on my entire trip, across many countries, i only saw ONE person who looked like they actually lifted. Thats not an exaggeration, its like gyms dont exist there. But i guess thats still better than having a ton of legit fatties.

If you go out in public in America for a day you will see atleast dozens of people who are rock solid fit but then also land whales at the same time.

Definitely room for improvement as far as public education. There is a lot of seemingly conflicting information reported to the public and I think many people just say "screw it, the "experts" are full of crap".

Something new in public education that I wouldn't know if I didn't have a kid - the move away from textbooks and toward using online content to teach students.

I understand that textbooks are expensive and information can become dated quickly. OTOH right now it seems like teachers just teach their own beliefs, which could be cool if you have an analytical teacher that really tries to stay up on current information and is able to discern what is and isn't important. If you get a teacher that is lazy, buys into whatever comes up most in search engines, or just has their own bias?

My daughter was just telling me this week that her teacher told her that milk is worthless and doesn't really do anything for your body because it is just water with some fat in it and that people that don't have any red meat in their diet live a few years longer. This is her science teacher and she is in the advanced course (talented and gifted here).

I'm going to blame defective weight scales.

if you'd have continued to scroll down i answered this already

And here we have a classic low carb zealot that believes da sugar and corn has caused people to be fat. Has nothing to do with calories!

Phuck off with that bullchit. Calories in vs calories out is what it will always boil down to. Now, if you want to discuss blood panels and things like that, go for it. But as far as weight loss, you must consume less calories than you burn *******.

Holy **** this! Cronometer has really shown me how hard it is to hit 100% of RDA even with a multi vitamin

Ok, so you are suggesting (with a nice graph, no link or anything) our sugar consumption has gone waaaay down since 2000?

1. Be wary of this stuff. We know for a fact the sugar industry has manipulated data to protect themselves and to shift blame to fats.

Moving on, I'm looking for a source, because my gut tells me this idea that our sugar consumption dropped 20% or whatever this graph says is 100% bullchit that ignores HFCS, outright lying or twisting the truth in some other way.

https://www.thediabetescouncil.com/4...ricans-health/

^ neat link, lots of information on why sugar = poison, although nothing directly refuting it's been on the decline, although apparently people on average eat like 150 fuking pounds of sugar a year.

https://nutritionasiknowit.com/blog/...-americans-eat

This study actually somewhat backs you up Ayyy, it includes sugar and corn sweeteners, which had me concerned. It is showing a much milder drop off of sugar/sweeteners, though. Only 14% -- however, if it's dropping and obesity is increasing, there is that. In this study, it would appear people are also eating too many calories, which would explain the increase in obesity rates and support the idea that overall calories are a driving force.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition...-diet#section1

Another look at things, again it's wise to look at different sources - particularly when we know studies in general have been compromised by the sugar industry. Here, calories, trans-fats, vegetable oils, soybean oil, more processed foods and one interesting bit: The Low Fat Guidelines correlate EXACTLY when the obesity crisis hit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...th-celebrating

Another study, that also publishes entirely different exact #s, but supports the trend/idea that overall sugar consumption is slightly going down. Again, they have entirely different values/figures for this, meaning Who-The-Fuk-Knows, but that is a couple sources that at least are in some agreement that we seem to be using slightly less.

... so what does all this mean?

That's up for each of us to decide. I still stand by most of what I believed prior to this discussion, but we should all always be open to new things.

My thoughts: With diet,contextis king. Meaning, yesterday, I made a mug cake with a little erythritol and 2 tbsp of butter and a bit of coconut oil. Tons of calories right there, not even getting to the other ingredients (almond flour, an egg, maybe some coconut flour and shredded coconut). My overall meal though didn't include much in the way of carbs, no sugars, nothing that was spiking my insulin too much beyond the protein I took in. Meaning: not a problem.

That same mug cake with some of the left-over Easter ham replaced with a coke, though? Even calorie-for-calorie swapped perfectly, so that my meal would have had the overall same calories?

All that fat in conjunction with all that sucrose would have been VERY bad for weight gain, but there is more context even there.

So, as I've been carb-low for a few weeks, my personal glycogen stores in my liver and muscles are utterly depleted and I've been in deep ketosis for days. So, that Coke, ham and mug cake meal, while not good, would not have had the same impact on me VS someone who was eating carbs and did not have a depleted glycogen stores in their body. In my case, my liver had room to take the hit. Someone else, someone who was eating too much, too many carbs, too often and wasn't active enough to compensate -- that person would see a far more negative impact with that meal when it comes to fat storage, VS someone with an empty carb tank like me.

... in short: Context matters.

Yes, calories are important but they are not the Be-All-End-All.

Overall: Americans at least, we eat too often, we eat too much when we eat and we eat the wrong kinds of foods. Too many calories, too much processed junk, too much sugar and not active enough to balance all the calories we constantly expose ourselves to. We are constantly in a "fed" state and do not give our bodies the ability to access our fat stores and use them, it all goes one-way, storage.

When it comes to this, I personally am doing keto right now, but keto is entirely unnecessary. Nobody *HAS* to be keto or low-carb. The Low Fat Guidelines are complete crap, of course, but that doesn't mean Keto is the only answer, either. A lot of this comes down to context and is a lot more complicated than calories-in-calories-out. Someone mentioned a twinkie diet, I haven't seen that and I am very incredulous that anyone could lose weight on those for very long without chemicals/PEDs.

Iifym

Calories matter of course, particularly if you want to lose weight (at some point, you HAVE to eat less, you have to give your body a chance to access it's fat stores somehow, otherwise you will never lose weight regardless of diet).

Sugar/corn are big contributors, yes. Not the only culprit or reason but one of them. Fat gain is largely hormonal, and sugars/carbs - they are impactful.

Calories in/out is not "all" that matters by a long shot and that approach to weight loss historically has like a 98% chance offailure, which pretty much means you're completely wrong with your dogmatic and overly simplified approach to weight gain/loss.

In 1990 not one state had MORE than 15% obesity. In 2016 even the states with the lowest obesity rates have over 22%, so the states with the highest obesity today are likely much much higher ie obesity rates could have doubled.

this is my opinion, everyone wants a simple answer to a question that doesn't have a simple answer. Sugar/carbs is the new scapegoat when there are tons of studies to back up that carbs aren't inherently bad nor do they lead to more fat gain than fats and infact it's the opposite due to the way the body has to breakdown carbs through de novo lipogenesis but that's irrelevant when looking at extended periods. Calories are what matters and if we're looking at stuff with minute details there will be a difference but it is completely irrelevant to the problem at hand is aiken to the "but this exercise was shown to cause .1% more hypertrophy" which is irrelevant in the grand scheme of chit.

Ignorance on diet and nutrition is absolutely mind blowing regarding the general public, we're over here on a bodybuilding forum arguing about something that may or may not make a 5% difference in the grand scheme of chit when i'd bet everything I own 90% of the population couldn't tell you 1) what a carbohydrate is 2) what protein is 3) what fats are and 4) what a calorie is. Blaming any certain macro has always and will always boil down to $$$$ with atkins being the first guy to really push his diet towards higher fats and plenty other following selling books and making a profit off their "wokeness". Remember with Dr. Fung he makes money off what he preaches, never forget that when listening to people preach

It's so easy to manipulate what studies say and data regarding diet to tailor to your beliefs and with the general pop being ignorant and many unwilling to learn about food it's easy to throw some studies at people and convince them that ____ is evil and making you fat. For example most studies done on fructose show it to be overall pretty damn useless for humans to eat relative to other forms of sugar, but i could very easily pull up hundreds of studies pointing to how it doesn't cause the same insulin spike that sucrose or dextrose does, how it's less likely to be stored as fat when compared to other forms of sugar and how it has less effect on blood sugar than other forms of sugars and how it was once used suggested to be the best sugar for diabetics. All i'd have to do there is show that higher insulin causes fat gain in studies, how higher fasted blood sugar levels leads to xyz and how other studies have shown that those who eat higher amounts of fats and sucrose are fatter than those who eat more fructose. None of it would be a lie but in the context it could be presented it would be misleading as fck and most people don't have the time nor the care to look into it further.

Oh, so you're just gonna go back on this nonsensical statement then? Good to knowFor weight loss.. pure weight loss, CICO is all that matters. You want to discuss holding on to or potentially building more lean muscle? Then yeah you should probably have higher protein. But people have lost weight eating nothing but ice cream just to prove the point

Low carb/no sugar works because you are removing those calories. Keto is also very popular right now because people lost 10 pounds in the first week due to glycogen/water loss. People get excited about that.

this is the one reason I think keto is actually incredibly beneficial for those willing to do it (and especially those who aren't active), seeing the scale drop so quick can be a massive boost in morale and enough to convince someone to stick to it. But selling it like some do where you should put butter in your coffee, eat spoonfuls of coconut oil with every meal and so on to "kick start it" or the idea that you can't gain fat eating keto is beyond retarded

I'm not even against Keto. I'm currently on a keto diet for my gastro issues and it has really helped. But I also know that it isn't necessary to lose weight. I lost 40 pounds 3 years ago on a purely CICO diet with moderate-high protein.

The rise of fast/snack food is the cause. Use to be you would get 3 meals a day, but now people are getting multiple high-caloric meals throughout the day. Then you have snacks added which is typically aorund 100-200 calories each.

I mean go to any drive-thru and most of the cars are being occupied by fatties. Walk-in, and against fatties with their fat kids. Nothing wrong with a burger on the weekend, but people are eating this **** not such daily, but 2-3 times a day. LOL @ people worrying about sugar when they're gulping down bigmacs like its nothing.

Yes, I was wrong. I had read or listened to one study awhile back -- and it was comparing the daily energy expenditures of Now vs. (iirc?) the 70s or 80s and there being little difference. I mistakenly attributed that to the 1950s and when I looked closer, nothing supported that.Let's be clear:

1. Your argument is CICO is ALL that matters, meaning there is no other factor. My argument is that CICO is not 100% of the equation, that there are other factors that influence it.

With this ice cream diet, anyone can do anything and lose weight for weeks, often even months, but Long-term, I am very skeptical of someone eating Ice Cream for 3+ months, not juiced to the gills, who is able to do anything but gain fat weight. Someone said this earlier with twinkies, I don't think they put up the study or experiment. I'd still like to see that.

You can't make blanket statements like "Low carb/no sugar works because you are removing those calories", in many cases, perhaps, but that is far too strong a statement. Again, my position is and always has been: To lose weight at some point you MUST eat less (less calories) so, even in my world, going Keto and eating maintenance+ is not going to drop weight on anyone (beyond initial water and glycogen depletion).

I like low carb but it's entirely unnecessary. However, to lose fat there needs to be some conditions that exist, a few of which are not directly related to calories. Our bodies tend to be binary, which holds true here. We exist in either a fasted or fed state, even fat Walmart cows who weigh 300+ lbs, even they sleep at night and spend (far too little) time in a fasted state part of each day. With obese people, there is an imbalance there. Too much time in a fed state, often every waking moment, and not nearly enough in a fasted state. While fed, you're not losing weight. Now, calories indirectly are a big factor here, eating and calories are what place someone in a fed state. Eating less calories? That is far more likely to have a better balance between the two and be fasted (and potentially burning fat) than fed (and impossible to burn fat without some kind of chemical/drug in the equation).

Again, calories matter, but just as (if not more) important are hormones. Boys and girls have roughly the same body type pre-puberty. They hit puberty? Big changes, boys gain massive lean mass, girls get fatter, the fat distribution between the two is radically different (girls: hips, breasts, legs; boys: other places).

It's not CICO there, nobody argues it, we all know exactly why. It is ENTIRELY hormones and, again, we all know this.

However, you said earlier: CICO is all that matters, there is nothing else that has any importance (with fat gain). Nothing. So, explain to me why universally girls get fatter than boys when hitting puberty.

In any event, someone (not sure if it was you or not), called me a "zealot" earlier here. To me, that means someone who is unwilling to look at anything but their current belief. I do not think that applies to me at all. I'm constantly looking, reading, running personal experiments and seeing what is out there. Even in this thread, I've adjusted some beliefs which were shaky in the light of some of what I was hearing.

I have some hard beliefs (like, on SOME level, sugar/sucrose/fructose is BAD) but many of my beliefs here are of the soft variety (CICO is important; there are other factors). The people who are saying CICO is the Be-All-End-All, that's a hard belief and, at least as I see it, one that really can't be defended. It simply doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.

Here is a video from Dr. David Ludwig, full disclosure - I haven't watched it all yet, so sorry no cliffs, but I am watching it now and I think what he talks about, based on my knowledge of him outside this video, brings up some good ideas about how Carbs (sugar particularly) have a bigger impact on weight than just their energy/calories.



https://youtu.be/OK1zePxBJu4


edit: And, I'm adding something here -- another knock against CICO is this, which is as much personal experience, but there are studies that back this up as well.

Personally, I think a slight decrease in daily calories (500 being about the limit) and taking a long, slow approach to weight loss is a good method and one which works.

What doesn't work? Crash Ratfish-style starvation efforts, with endless LISS, eating like a mouse and cutting your daily calories to nothing. It, like everything, works for 4-6 weeks, but beyond that for almost everyone -- it utterly fails. It ruins your metabolism, your body goes nuts with hormones like ghrelin driving you mad and NOBODY goes on a 1,000+ deficit for Long Term with any success.

And, again, I think for a lot of people (particularly lifting/active people who are leanish, 15% or below), that slow 500/cal deficitis the best way to drop weight, notice I made zero mention of fasting, keto or anything but calories (although, you need clean sources of cals). However, it's not just the calories for it's success -- there are other factors at work there.

So much this ^. So easy to get on a binge sequence with these modern chitty processed foods. Brb dunkin donuts for breakfast one time, start craving more **** food in the afternoon, next morning wake up and crave the same dunkin donuts **** again, etc etc before you know it you've added 10 pounds and have to lay down and rot.

ayy lmao, iifym bro



Also I think it's just that there is WAY too much calorically dense food around to eat. It's incredibly easy to eat past your TDEE even as a big guy.

6'3, 210lb sedentary calorie requirements:

Dude.. I don't blame these companies because they just sell a product that we all want but holee FUK. ONE burger at 5 guys is bare minimum 800 calories. Thats flippin insane when you sit and plan out your daily meals. Not to mention how easily you can swallow those burgers, probably takes less than 10 minutes to eat and you can pick it up any time with almost no effort.

To me its really just food availability clashing with our most primal desire: eat food. Yea they probably make things more addictive, but just like a dog you have that part of your brain that wants to always consume more. Its been trained in us for millions of years through evolution - before we were even human.

Btw, I posted a video in post #174 with Dr. David Ludwig. I'm about done now and, more than ever, it clearly points out the utterly backwards thinking that is CICO=100% mentality.

Good stuff, he's talking entirely about (mostly) human (and a couple animal) studies, it rather quickly destroys that line of thinking.

Not sure whether or how to cliff it, but if anyone is really open-minded but thinks the CICO model is right, within 10 minutes you'll be questioning that for sure.

How are you gunna defeat physics and somehow get fat taking in less energy then your body needs to sustain itself.....

everyone gets super fat super fast and people wonder why healthcare is such a mess. color me shocked.

That was long.

The reason why women gain more fat weight (as opposed to lean mass) than men is indeed hormonal. But the actual weight part, as opposed to fat/muscle allocation, is just conservation of matter/energy (CICO). Hormones can't change that.

That said, satiety is critically important to CICO. If you're full, you're less likely to eat (less in). Some foods are more filling per calorie than others, and meats/fats/low calorie vegetables generally tend to be more filling than refined sugars. That's probably one key aspect to keto's efficacy. The diet discourages people from drinking sugar water (soda or juice) that's loaded with calories and provides next to no satiety. As others have noted, the immediate glycogen/water weight drop also makes the diet popular.

No?

Will a type 1 diabetic gain weight if their maintenance is 2K/day and they intake 3k of calories? How about 5k? What about if they stuff themselves with 7K or more?

How about type 2 diabetics who are prescribed Insulin? Overwhelmingly, they gain fat weight as a side-effect. Are you suggesting they are ALL just pigging out and eating too much? That's not how it works, though. Most people, when diagnosed with t2 diabetes alter their diets and at least try to eat somewhat healthier than before. Better foods, less calories, they tend to include more exercise. Not all, but most. However, almost all who are prescribed insulin -- they gain fat. Why is this?

Hormones absolutely can dictate fat storage, and it's usage.

Again, back to men/women hitting puberty -- nobody is arguing it's not the test vs estrogen dictating fat gains. Suddenly, calories and food doesn't matter. Nobody is going to even try and say that well girls just eat more suddenly and all boys start lifting weights for muscle gains. Everyone but the most woke SJW all accepts it's the hormones but we are going to just ignore the effect certain foods have on our hormones beyond this instance? Why?

They put up the Twinkie diet experiment, here it is again. I think you make good points, btw:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08...sor/index.html

with protein being equal CICO is all that matters.

If insulin by itself caused fat weight, it would not be used for other sports purposes by those trying to optimize body fat levels. You pulled your figures out of your ass, but I'll humor you. Yes, people on insulin who gain "fat weight" are simply eating more than their maintenance calories. For many, initial weight gain is likely water because they are no longer flushing the glucose from their body.

Also, you should read James Krieger's series on insulin.

https://weightology.net/insulin-an-u...ad-reputation/

It's like you can't read. I said CICO is all that matters for weight loss. I didn't specify the type of body tissue lost. I then conceded that in order to maintain proper lean muscle that you should likely have a moderate-high protein intake while in the deficit.. BUT from a purely weight loss perspective, that is not necessary.

Also, how does one gain fat while in a deficit? Referring to yet another nonsensical statement by you.We are talking about losing weight.. Damn