The end of the video feed answers the question above, and is not surprising either...
SA is correct IMO. Burn more calories than you take in is where to start. Lack of discipline for me. Bad back has just been an excuse.
The opening statement was made up just to have fun. But, there probably is such a study, no doubt funded by tax dollars.
Attia addresses the difference between SA and me in saying some are metabolically flexible enough to better partition calories. I believe that is true. SA is adapted and staves off maladaptation with regular rigorous exercise. Me, I was maladapted from the womb so hormone regulation is a primary goal for me, nutritionally speaking. And, given our diets are so incredibly hyperinsulemic, I hazard that is true for the rest of our widening western culture.
Anyway, this is a pet topic of interest and I rarely see such a succinct summation of the whole problem so I decided to pass it along.
HA, imo, animal meat products should form the basis of our food pyramid.
Or maybe I am making excuses again.
I was sitting at my computer by the window yesterday when I looked up and saw the little red car zip into our parking space and an old man jump out.
“On no,” I thought, glancing at the clock. “3:30. My heart can’t take this excitement.”
I unlocked the door, and a second later my husband appeared. He hugged me tightly, backed up and said, “Wha’d’ya think? You wanna?”
“Oh, John, it’s too hot for the Nature Center. Let’s wait for a cooler day.”
“You know I’m not talking about the Nature Center,” he said, lifting and lowering his eyebrows in rapid succession.
“Oh John, really, we’re getting too old for this. It’s too much pressure, and we don’t have enough time.”
“Sure we do,” he said, looking at his watch, then giving me a come hither stare. “And age is just a number. How many times do I have to tell you that?”
I headed for the bedroom with Peter Pan on my heels.
He tore off his hospital-volunteer shirt and hurried to the bathroom while I removed my blouse and stepped into the closet. John was leaving the bathroom when I came from the closet and threw him a shirt. I put on a presentable blouse, then scurried into the bathroom for lipstick and a quick comb-thru. He stood at the door tucking in his shirt.
“Come on, you don’t need to do that. You look great.” My husband always says that.
He handed me “Old Blue,” and we rushed down the steps and got into the “Red Rocket,” John’s affectionate name for his late-life-crisis toy. I have to admit that behind the wheel of the cherry-red Scion XB, wearing his bright blue shirt, John looked like a young man -- not a gentleman of 85 with whistling hearing aids, a squeaky foot brace, and a groaning hernia.
I held onto the handle above the door as we zoomed onto the boulevard and headed south. At a red light, we looked frantically at the clock on the dashboard.
“Gonna be close!” My husband has always been a thrill seeker. Me? I closed my eyes. Minutes later, we pulled into a parking spot at our destination with only seconds to spare. John usually opens my door, but there was no time for niceties today. We hopped from the car, as though we were afraid of missing the overture at a hot-ticket Broadway musical – and ran through the door, stepping behind the last person in line just before the man pulled the rope across the aisle behind us and snapped it to the pole. Phew!
Anybody who thinks that true adventure and excitement are behind you when you’ve reached your eighties, clearly hasn’t experienced the Early Bird Special Senior Buffet at the Golden Corral -- with New England clam chowder that melts in your mouth, and corn bread worthy of the gods. Be warned. Prices go up at 4 o’clock. Peg
Pretty simple and spot on.
The gut microbiome is its own rabbit hole. Fascinating what occurs in there. Folks call it our “second brain.”
T2 diabetes is largely a lifestyle disease. One folks most folks need only suffer if they insist on eating carbs.
There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate btw. Don’t need a single one to live. Can’t say the same about amino acids or fats.
Calories in < calories out doesn't work. If that's the case, a normal weight male 35 yrs old that ate a 1500 calorie diet of pure processed sugar every day wouldn't stay slim, or healthy, very long...
I guess I am in the 5%.
I am one who can eat most anything, at least once in while (Biscuits and gravy! YUM! Only about once a month!) Repeated application of beers on a daily basis will collect on my gut but, with very little discipline, I have maintained my weight within a few pounds of 180 for the last 30+ years. I never feel deprived, if I want something I have it.
I walk between 2 and 4 miles every day and climb over 3000 steps per week.
My wife is an excellent cook and has studied health and nutrition for at least 40 years. The vast majority of what we eat is organic or at least more natural. I have always eaten a lot of meat and enjoy fresh vegetables. Most everything processed is a rarety.
One of my best friends would always encourage me to lose weight so I could be healthy and we could hunt together for many years. About 7 or 8 yrs ago he apologized for chiding me about my weight all those years. He said he'd noticed that I ate less than him, I ate generally better food than he did, I was just as active as him and had fewer other health issues than him.
People have different issues to address. We are not all built the same and some of us have to deal with extremes. Couldn't tell you where I am on the spectrum, but I can tell you that easy thermogenic math doesn't work for me like it does for my friend.
Those of you spouting off that weight loss is only calories in vs calories out simply don't have a clue.
Thanks for the heads up Owl. I'll dig a little deeper into what this guy is talking about and I may PM some specific questions to you after elk season. I gotta drag my fat ass all over the mountains while the keyboard warriors tell me I'm lazy. ;o)
I always thought regular fasting put your body into "starvation mode"...causing you to store more calories as fat reserves?
I have a friend that does intermittent fasting, he's over 60, looks good for his age.
Worked. Not hungry anymore...
It has been well known now for a long time among most nutritionists, that restricted caloric diets are not the answer for most people to lose and keep weight off. There is a reason for that. Most of it is due to not being sustainable. Yet, doctors and most every skinny person would insist that the problem was the the fat people were simply eating to much. So, they would suggest them to starve themselves. And, starving yourself is not sustainable.
The reason everyone who starves themselves while dieting, gain much more weight back, then they lost is, their body stops producing insulin in the amounts needed to break down the new amount of carbohydrates when you start eating again. When their bodies A1C level is low, they WILL eat much more per setting, then when normal or high. Without enough insulin to break it down, we all know where it goes then.
Since It takes a pattern of eating to get a A1C level to move or stabilize. It's a double whammy for these people. With the lower levels of insulin being produced plus, the craving and ability to eat so much more then usual, the end up OVER eating every setting, whether they try to or not.
People genetically predisposed against this do not understand what these people go through. So , they call them fat, lard ass, lazy, etc..... All along being too ignorant to know better. Because "What works for me must work for everyone right?". "It's easy, look at me. Just do what I do.". Look at this thread for proof. Tell me how you are doing with that 10 years from now if you used it to lose substantial weight. I hope well. But, averages say not.
There is a lot more to it then that or what I just typed. Which is what Owl is trying to point out to some of you.
Hackbow, I'll be glad to answer any questions at any time. We sound very similar.
Insulin is "the fat storage" hormone. Carbohydrate rich (even calorie restricted) diets chronically over produce insulin and cause the body to store fat. Makes sense. What does not make sense is why we have been so cultured to solve an overwhelmingly biochemical issue with physics (thermogenesis). At best, expenditure is a secondary concern for most people.
I know people that want to lose weight that you just cannot convince that eating healthy fats is better than eating carbs. I think there is a pretty popular diet out there right now called the Keto diet that kind of falls along those lines.
-That's what you implied. and I wrote "roughly 1/2 a marathon" - 13.1 miles. And that number falls roughly between the "10-20" you cited.
As for math, have you done the simple math relative to the margin of error required to just maintain static weight?
Assuming a 2500 calorie a day requirement x 365 days a year, a man needs to consume 912,500 calories a year. Given a pound of fat is 3500 calories, to maintain one's weight a man would have to intuitively consume to an accuracy of less than .383% in energy input versus output. That's absurd. No, rather the body is a highly complex homeostatic organism that seeks to maximize its being with the information, the food, provided. Give it "bad information" and you'll get bad results.
"So, it sounds like the guy on the video is advocating intermittent fasting? Did I get that wrong?" IF works for some, others not so much. Either way, it is not a primary mechanism to healthy eating. That stated, if your macros are good and your body is functioning healthily, IF has proven to be very anabolic for some people. That's good and logical because our DNA has evolved to eat sporadically rather than "a small meal 5-6 times a day." In fact, while not my argument, a good case could be made that if a person can't thrive on 1 big meal a day, they are doing something wrong.
"I always thought regular fasting put your body into "starvation mode"...causing you to store more calories as fat reserves?" It absolutely does if your diet is mandating a lot of insulin. One reason the calories in/out model does not work long term. The body down- regulates to accommodate the "crisis" of energy deficit. Further, the body will sacrifice lean body muscle to convert to glucose/glycogen because it is metabolically expensive and the body is qued via diet hormonally to store fat.
"I have a friend that does intermittent fasting, he's over 60, looks good for his age." He probably functions good for his age, too.
Likewise, I’m with you SA on “the buzz.” I’ve been taking hits my whole life. :)
These things saved me...I can cut sugar, potatoes, rice out of my diet easily, but bread/tortillas is tough. I wrap everything in these, fry them in coconut oil sometimes, I even toast them and throw them on a pizza stone in the broiler, to make low carb mini pizzas.
Yeah, August 1st/2nd has been wonderful to me over the years.
I’ve gone so far as to make my own bacon and eat two pieces every morning along with three eggs. Making your own bacon is not only rewarding, it healthy AND just flat out manly.
As long as a guy keeps trying, he is always in the fight. As soon as he gives up, it’s all over.
Zero processed foods other than sugarless cured bacon. No breads, potatoes or junk food period. Ever. No vegetable oils as they are unstable and toxic.
Green, fiborous veggies are whenever I want them. I supplement with dessicated beef organ pills because I can’t stomach organ meats just yet. (It is my contention that humans evolved to get their vitamins and minerals via organs, muscle meat and fat.) I also use coconut oil and butter.
I don’t cheat but a burger bun or a beer every 3-4 months. I have no urge to vary. At all. I love this plan of eating. Lost 80 pounds, fixed my insomnia. Energy is great. Never hungry. The only detriment was on lower protein levels, I’d gas quickly during a HiiT workout. I assume low glycogen levels?? Just needed to tweak up my protein intake.
Regardless of your personal metabolism and make up, you cannot gain weight unless you take in more calories than you burn.
That's all there is to it. Anything else is just an excuse.
Thanks Owl, that is the only way I could ever eat liver or brains. I love heart simmered in cold press olive oil, love tripe and tongue, can tolerate sweet bread and kidneys if I have to.
That's all there is to it. Anything else is just an excuse."
Respectfully Kyle, that's not all there is to it. Read Owl's posts above addressing the simple math used in the thermogenic model. Using your logic, "Regardless of your personal metabolism and make up...", building muscle and strength would simply be a function of how much weight one lifts and how often. There are way too many other factors to consider.
How do you explain my decades-long hunting partner who eats more than me (of any type of food) and has periodically "lived" in the weight room, whereas I haven't been in the weight room regularly in 36 years. He can't sustain weight gain, I struggle to lose a pound. He looks like an athlete but doesn't possess anywhere near my strength. He's 6'1" and I'm 5'11". We are 14 months apart in age and I outweigh him by over 100 lbs.
I have never made an excuse for my weight and understand that it is on me. I just need to find a way that works well. I've tried many methods over the years with a variety of results. None have worked as well as the high fat, very low carb way of life.
You may be in sheep shape, and I know you can run multiple circles around me. But you work out constantly. And me, being a fat lazy slug, pushed a pencil in office work for over 30 years and rarely darkened the doorway of a gym. You couldn't last 3 seconds with me armwrestling or splitting wood or carrying a 170 lb buddy on your back across a swamp while hunting (which I've done). Without trying, I know I am physically stronger than you (personal metabolism and makeup). If you and I were to go to the gym and throw iron around, my gains would be be much greater and much faster than yours.
You see, strength gains and increased lean muscle mass MUST ONLY be a function of #pounds of iron pushed + grams of protein consumed. What is the "excuse" of someone who is not as strong as me when they work out more than me? It can't possibly be their personal metabolism and makeup. Can it?
Perhaps I didn't say it clearly enough.
Of course, the fact is we all have different metabolisms and different bodies.
Yet if a person burns 'X" calories per day but takes in more than "X" caloroies per day, he will gain weight.
Now, one guy who is age 45, 5' 10" and weighs 180 will very likely have a different "X" than another guy of the same age, height and weight.
But that fact remains, if you consume more calories than you burn off, you will gain weight.
Interestingly, my steady-state aerobic capacity was and is off the charts high compared to where I was previously. It must be easier for me to use ketones in that capacity.
If you have any interest, get the organic sources without rice filler. My brand is Ancestral Supplements Grassfed Beef Liver but there are others out there.
Nope, I do not.
I maintain my weight +/- a couple of pounds year round.
I understand the body wants to gain weight going into the winter and shed weight going into the summer. So I simply take in fewer calories when the calendar calls for a weight gain, but take in a bit more when it calls for a weight loss.
With rare exceptions, usually caused by traveling when I consume more food and esp.liquids and burn off less than normal, (which adds a couple of pounds, but which drops off within three days of returning home), 95%+ of the days, my morning weight is within 154-159.
Calories in, Calories out.
It's not rocket science.
Nva, consider what you just wrote. Do you really believe you drop a couple pounds of travel weight in 3 days by creating a caloric deficit? 7000 calories in 3 days is rather severe. No, that's mostly water retention from the disruption to your routine (preferred food and exercise, etc.) Likewise, the variations you notice in your weight has more to do with inflammation and recovery from your training than the ability to shave weight by a margin of error equating to less than a mouthful a day.
No Kyle, I very clearly understood your statement and agree with it 100%. However, that statement was and is not relevant to the discussion. Did you watch the video of Rogan and Dr. Attia discussing the hormonal issue? How about any of the other videos that followed? I did. Dr. Attia appears to be very fit, said he has been studying and researching this topic for years, and he doesn't think the thermogenic model tells us what we need to know about one's ability to lose weight.
I'm sure even you can agree that any human needs some minimum number of calories to provide available, working fuel (energy) for whatever level of activity in which they engage on a daily basis. The doc's points were that some of those people (due in part to hormonal differences) will not process the incoming calories as efficiently to provide that energy. Therefore, to produce the same level of activity between two people, one may require more caloric intake. Then, the burning of the calories between the two may also be done at different rates for the same level of activity. If the less efficient person on the intake is also less efficient on the usage, then the fat lazy slob gets to enjoy buying husky jeans, paying more for shirts and the not-so-quiet derisive comments when dining out.
Again, your statement is 100% true. It was also akin to stating that 2 + 2 = 4 when the rest of the class was discussing differential equations. It is a base function of the problem we are trying to solve, but it doesn't help with the variables.
I propose we discuss this further in the mountains where we schedule a race and a weight lifting contest. I'll concede the first to you, you concede the latter to me and we'll shoot our bows then sip some good bourbon or single malt (no carbs!).
That is a fact of science.
This is like saying you can't increase your net worth unless you save more money than you spend. Both are true in a macro way but both are also extremely elementary.
In reality the rate at which you ultimately increase your net worth depends on how the money is invested.
Same for caloric utilization. Multiple factors affect caloric utilization. Attia points out some of them in the video but there are many others as well. This is valuable information as it allows people to plan when they eat and what they eat to improve overall body condition and maintain health. You really can alter caloric utilization if you understand the science.
She's now a healthy 140 and eats exactly the same things we do. She keeps the weight off with daily exercise and portion control. It's really that simple. Eat what you want but don't eat seven servings at once. Exercise. That's it.
Fortunately I'm the opposite and can eat anything I want and as much as I want. My exercise comes from my job and I've been the perfect 180lbs for years.
I hit the wall way too quickly when I try to stay in ketosis so I do eat more carbs at supper to sustain my work. I sit a lot at work interspersed with such things as a 100-200 yard dash including 60 feet vertical of stairs carrying 35 pounds. Some days I just walk a lot.
Funny but my workouts are not long enough or strenuous enough all by themselves to worry over except that I do them after a 12.5 hour workday. In the gym I usually set up three excersizes and do 3-4 supersets of each 3-4 times a week. Also, I do alternate push-ups and pull-ups every day at home in the morning.
My physical demands are all over the board but my weight stays pretty good. I wouldnt mind carrying a few more pounds of muscle but dont have the time to do any more in the gym.
WW, speaking of animals, what do you feed them to fatten them up for market?
Spike, I'm the first to admit this stuff is highly individualistic. But the macros Pig Doc alluded to have to be addressed first - which it seems you are doing. You are certainly well aware.
150 years ago people were probably not SITTING around discussing weight issues.
Two things changed since then. First, a food supply that is plentiful, convenient and dependable at a level above what is required to sustain us, albeit there are still distribution challenges geographically on occasion.
Second, modern convenient life styles have made the majority of us more lethargic.
Body chemistry, the micros you speak of etc. are all contributing factors, but I am still stuck on the input/output being the main component. I remain impressed, but unconvinced.
Maybe I am just trying to cover my hotdog guilt;)
If calories in/out was the primary driver of fat tissue, why didn’t my older brother get fat as a kid. He was a vacuum. It was nothing for him to eat a large pizza and wash it down will whole milk and cookie dough. He ate like that everyday. Yet, he didn’t grow out at all. Skinny as a rail. But he put on a foot of height in about 2 years. Now that he is middle aged, he’ll put on fat just looking at the desert table. If you ponder the difference and have the right answer, then you have identified the primary catalysts in the equation. It’s true when we’re teenagers and it’s true as adults.
There is no way around that.
If you have any experience with livestock, you know about feed/gain ratios. Livestock have been selectively bred to gain more weight on the same amount of feed. This reduces production costs.
Some cows are known as "hard keepers." They consume the same amount of feed but stay skinny. That trait has been selectively bred out.
People from areas with a long history of food shortages (often islands) tend to gain weight more easily because they have the genes to survive on fewer calories. The "hard keepers" of these populations were weeded out by starvation long ago.
There can be science behind what you are saying, but it is still a matter of calories in and calories out.
1. Make sure you drink ton's of water. You will dehydrate more easily. Also insure your electrolyte intake is good otherwise you will feel like crap.
2. It will take your body awhile to adjust, a few days to a week or more. The less carbs you eat the faster you will get there. Once your body becomes "fat adjusted" you'll feel great, have more energy, better cognitive abilities, won't feel as hungry, etc. I actually force myself to eat now to meet my macros for the day. I focus more on protein and eat less fat as long as you keep it balanced. A guy that really knows nutrition told me that protein is always the goal, fat is just the lever to keep you feeling full.
I drew the same conclusion Owl did from what you posted. It's more than calories in and out or the livestock would have the same results.
Many folks shifting to a "keto" approach do so from an excessive intake approach. They have been eating to much food for months, years, decades, then suddenly make a huge shift in lifestyle, and eat significantly fewer calories - bingo, weight loss.
Do types of calories matter? Yes. There have been some studies pointing out micro nutrients may play a role in satiety for example... Not to mention common sense, do you eat lots of food that is basically just energy supply or food that provides all the components you need - not just Fat, Pro, Carb? Does it make sense to get your 2500 calories a day from all donuts and ice cream, or salads, venison, eggs, cheese, fruits, tubers, legumes, grains, etc?
You dont need to understand nutritional biochemistry or human physiology to answer that question.
Having said that, it's a super allostatic system. It's not a toggle or simple homeostatic loop. It's an evolving system which varies in response to myriad inputs to seek stability through modulation. It's (we) are not "stable". We just operate within a range of parameters seeking a relatively standard operating platform relative to the experiences we are encountering.
Can keto work great. Yes. Can work great for some folks. Can a balanced diet work great. Yes. Can a higher carb diet work great. Yes. Are carbs optional? No. Do we absolutely have to have big quantities, no. But find a human who never eats any form of plants and you have found a rare human - outside Inuits and the Masi, maybe a few other tribal folks. Then again, none of them worry about being Keto, they just eat what they have. If a time of year occurs when they can eat more plants, they do. There in lies what gets me with the "carbs are not essential" line of thinking, every plant is carbohydrate, so sure, we can supply energy and building blocks in general, but it's definitely a limiter on what we can do if we cant eat plants.
Is Keto adaptable? Think about human beings and our success. Like Coyotes, black bears, etc., one reason we were so darn successful as a species in every environment is that we can practically eat any and everything. Need to eat a near vegan diet in a given climate/region - no problem, we humans can do it and thrive. Need to eat a near keto diet in a given climate/region - no problem, we humans can do it and thrive.
We are amazingly adaptable animals.
End point to me, is to 1.) Eat in a way you enjoy - otherwise you wont sustain it and it wont work (if you only enjoy eating donuts and icecream, change, wont be easy, but find a way that follows the next steps that you can enjoy); 2.) Eat minimally processed foods and as much variety as fits for you (that's harder for restrictive folks like Keto or Vegan, less hard for omnivores who are more moderation focused); 3.) Be active, consistently - lift heavy things and put them down repeatedly, run, bike, swim, ski, rock climb, take zumba, just be active; 4.) if you want to get leaner, try learning what portions look like within your current style of eating before going into another dietary pattern (the most "user" friendly examples of this, are the hand system that Precision Nutrition has put together. That's a great group of folks, they do awesome work and their info is worth a read). Number 4 is important because it's really easy to think: I know how much energy I'm eating. Using a system that fits you, and does not require a scale etc helps calibrate what you are doing a lot.
Dietary habits are not either or. There is a ton of gray, and many good options. Really just comes down to what works psychologically and physically for you.
Trax, fwiw, I stick with fibrous vegetables and do not count carbs. I don't count anything. Satiety is my check valve. I never had that on a high carb diet. I'll stick with the biochemical model of fueling.
If you consume less than you use/get rid of you lose weight.
There is no way around that basic fact.
The fact that those who are in the business of bringing more pounds of meat to market faster breed specifically for ever-increasing weight gain proves that caloric intake is not the only factor. If it was, all breeds would gain at the same rate and efficiencies. The rancher would only need to choose which animals he like looking at the most.
We currently value lean meat in the marketplace, but prior to the 1960's, domestic meat production focused on how much fat was on the butchered animal. The breeders of that time period worked just as diligently to find the genetic traits that led to greater fat accumulation. All breeds, and individuals within those breeds, were/are not created equal, physiologically speaking. The same applies today with farm animals and people alike.
- Absolutely not. But, then, neither do you judging by your livestock example. You're making my argument without recognizing it, which tells me, maybe, you view genetics as a rather 2 dimensional inevitability. It's not. Think of metabolic process genetics like a series of locks. If you don't present the "correct" key (epigenetics), you don't unlock the genetic coding. If you do, you will. For instance someone with a genetic predisposition to get T2 diabetes can avoid or "cure" it with correct diet composition.
Think of their racks. Nutrition plays a role, but so does genetics.
Owl, maybe it is much more complex? How do we not turn the key for cancer? I know skinny, in shape, proper diet controlled guys that still fight T2. Age is our common "vice".
Spike Bull 's Link
BTW, the person sitting in their butt eating a bag of chips is encoding information that tells their body to both store fat and sit on its butt. Telling that person to “just eat less chips “ is tantamount to telling a heroine addict to get clean by taking smaller doses of junk 3-5 times a day. The better approach would be to avoid the heroine altogether.
You “ 2+2” folks don’t realize you are living between the parentheses of a bigger equation.
Spike Bull 's Link
Spike Bull 's Link
I bet the teenager burns a lot more calories.
I ran 8-12 miles a day for years until I got my first management/office position. Weight started going on immediately.
Glad you liked it, hope you like the next one. That doc who explains our evolution as meat eaters covers it well.
Start working harder and the equation changes. Does diet influence substrate utilization? Yes. Does fitness though? YES. This pic is from a presentation I do occasionally. It's an N=1, which I see repeated... but again, it's an N=1. It's based on the R value from VO2 testing I did over several years in the 90's. I chose 150bpm to approximate a standard stress level. It was a level I could have ridden for 4-6 hours no problems asked over the last few years of data listed. R (RQ in this case) value is a marker of substrate use. 1 or higher = mostly carbohydrate being used as fuel, .7 (or below) = mostly fats. At max most folks who are used to working hard and can tolerate some effort will go 1.1~ ish... super fit folks at rest will be below the .7. This is just a ratio of the oxygen and CO2 going in and coming out while you breathe. More carbs burning, more CO2 comes out, which is part of why we breathe harder when we exercise or exert ourselves.
Point of the pic... That's the 90's. "cutting edge" sports nutrition was erring to high carb diets as a focus. there were years there where I was eating 70% carbs and aiming for 10-20% fat. How in the heck was I able to burn more fat while training if I was eating so many carbs? Fitness. I got aerobically fitter (you can see that with higher VO2 readings) and thus, was better able to burn fat.
Could I have increased the amount of fat I burned had I used a more balanced or a low carb diet instead?
Would that NEGATIVELY impact my capacity to metabolize carbohydrate down the road, even short term? Yes, there is evidence for that. In a very acute sense, you reduce ability to metabolize carb's as well when you are not eating them. That's not a big issue, unless you are an endurance athlete who competes in a variant of endurance sport where speed still matters.
I go back to my last post. You can burn fat really well on a variety of diets. You probably are not doing it best if you eat super high carb... But maximizing that ability may not be ideal for some folks...
Observation suggests the folks best suited to low carb/Keto style diets are 1.) those who like it; 2.) those with a current med history of diabetes/dislipidemia; 3.) those with a family history of diabetes/dislipidemia; 4.) those who live a fairly sedentary life; 5.) those who do very long very steady endurance activities (but this one is highly debatable) which are rarely very intense in an acute sense.
My data may be an outlier. There are elite ultra distance folks doing Keto diets that do great. Are they great on those diets because the diet is magic or because they have a huge preponderance of slow twitch muscle fiber and thus a very large aerobic ability to metabolize those fats, or perhaps because they were born with better than normal efficiency?
I've seen a lot of folks have their best 100 milers with zero GI issues doing 300-400 calories per hour while running of all carb. I've seen folks blow current scientific evidence sky high and do 600-800 calories of carbs an hour during 100 mile mtb races and rip - some of those are folks with aerobic powers in the 80's (VO2mx) who would be metabolizing 1.5-2X more fat sitting hear reading this than any of us given the astonishing aerobic fitness they have built over years.
Keto can work awesome. So can other diets. Energy matters - so does quality - of diet. How much and the type of activity you do plays a big role in how you work and operate. We are just so dang adaptable, that almost anything can work to help use be well - outside being sedentary and eating junk food. Cant fix those last two, they are killers.
What's weight lifting got to do with hunting and esp. with hunting the high country?
Cardio and attitude determine your abilities to hunt in the high country.
Cardio fitness also is without question the #1 factor in maintaining great stamina, heart rate and blood pressure.
I'll be 70 in five weeks. Yet my resting heary rate is 52 bpm, my average BP is 118/78 or thereaboutsand when I did a stress echo cardiogram a few weeks ago, I basically destroyed the treadmill and the expectations f the ladies who gave me the test.
I never get sick, not even a cold, and even at my age, several sheep and high mountain elk guides and outfitters have been astonished with my fitness, despite my age.
The carb craze is really recent. While we can utilize them, it makes sense that they may cause maladaptations in most, if not, all human metabolisms. Certainly processed foods and junk food.
You are denying gravity because helium balloons don't immediately fall to the earth.
Some calories are not digested, some are burned as energy, some are used to build muscle or fat. Each body does this in its own way (and the process can change), but it still happens.
ANY calorie that is not disposed of becomes muscle or fat. Weight goes up.
If more calories are used than are taken in, then muscle or fat is used as the energy source and weight goes down.
You can obfuscate all you want, but the facts remain.
Ha, there you go again, my friend.
"I can't wait to read your explanation of how gravity has caused societal body weight crisis."
Not what I said, is it?
You brought it up, I would like an explanation as well.
HA, if it is not germane to the topic, why mention it?
ceteris paribus, if I maintain my body weight because my daily caloric intake is 2500, and I burn exactly 2500 daily, will I lose weight if I maintain the same activity level but cut my intake to 2000 calories?
Assume the calories are the same ratios as before, i.e. same fat, carb, fiber, complex sugars, protein etc.
I would assume yes, and I think that is what is confusing
According to the BMR calculations detailed on www.medicalnewstoday.com, I need 3721 calories per day to maintain my current weight. When I was still consuming carbs in bread, pasta, fruit and beer, my caloric intake trying to lose weight was roughly 2500-3000 per day. Even if I averaged 3000/day, I should have been losing 1 pound every 5 days (700 cal x 5 days = 3500 cal). Instead, I gained weight.
In the last 3-4 months I have phased out bread, pasta, fruit and beer (that hurt). I consume somewhere between 3500-5000 calories per day. I've lost 36 lbs as of this morning. Not a thing has changed in my physical activity - only my diet.
My experience cannot be possible if the thermogenic equation is the ONLY thing that matters. In other words something else is going on to influence the outcome. Hence, ceteris paribus, my personal metabolism, makeup and/or type of foods ingested are at least partially responsible for the rate at which I gain or lose weight. Independent of the # of calories consumed.
Interestingly, that seemed to be Owl's intent in posting Dr. Attia's interview with Rogan. No one has claimed the thermogenic equation isn't valid or that thermodynamic law has somehow been magically suspended. However, there is more than ample evidence for additional and influencing variables, including hormonal factors.
I bet the 2+2 crowd still trusts the original government supplied food pyramid too.
My body type is endomorphic. I can gain or lose relatively easily and all my life I have been able to create short term losses whenever motivated. At 38, that ceased to be the case.
Kyle, weightlifting has little to do with hunting the high country, in and of itself. And quite honestly, neither does being fat and never having run a 5K, let alone a marathon - again, in and of itself. Cardio and strength can both help immensely, especially the cardio. But I have managed to live out of my pack for up to 18 days without coming close to ideal BMI or running to train. I'm headed into the backcountry for 11 or 12 days in just a few weeks and I haven't run in years.
My suggestion that we meet in the mountains, pretend to hold contests in which each of us would completely outdo the other, then have a good drink together was simply a way to say we should get together 1) in the mountains, since we both love them, 2) to enjoy a great drink together, since we both sip on the good stuff from time to time, and 3) to finally meet and share stories. Don't let your panties get so bunched up. ;o)
We are talking about humans, not power plants. In humans and animals thermodynamics only pertains to Gross Energy. Gross energy minus fecal energy loss is Digestible Energy. Digestible Energy minus urinary and gas losses is Metabolizable Energy. Metabolizable Energy minus heat increment is Net Energy, which is the energy actually available for maintenance and productive functions. Excess NE above needs for maintenance and productive functions is turned in adipose tissue and there is additional energy loss in that process. Net Energy is typically 50-60% of Gross Energy. Take out another 20% for maintenance and less than 40% of Gross Energy (thermodynamic energy) is available for growth and other productive functions. In other words, thermodynamics is largely meaningless in human caloric utilization.
Which means that you have disposed of more calories than you consumed.
Anything else is just an excuse for making those bad choices.
-Perhaps, but repeatedly chiming in with unrelated "truths" serves what virtue to you? It is contextual nonsense.
That almost looks like Freeglee!
I'll answer with what I recently shared with another: I have no more cravings for junk food or carb sources. I look at old trigger foods like a dog looks a t a Lamborghini. The dog has no intrinsic fascination with a Lamborghini; it's just another tire to piss on. I can't explain it better than that. I intellectually know I love all the crappy foods (especially beer!!) but I just can't muster any particular interest in them. So, I want for nothing I don't give myself. That is a completely different phenomenon from where I have been all my life.
The fruit part really sucks, but whiskey easily replaces the beer :-) The thing that kills me is not having ice cream! I love ice cream and no mas for me. Very sad.
Actually most of what you have posted here is just plain wrong and/or off topic. Trying to relate human nutrition and thermodynamics, which you did, is comically ignorant. Humans and animals handle energy a bit differently than coal-fired power plants. I have MS and PhD degrees in animal nutrition and 35 years experience as a nutritionist so I know a bit about this topic. Keep bringing it. It's quite entertaining.
I have neither and never claimed to. I also never questioned your expertise on the topic.
Sorry, these videos are longer than the average attention span but are potentially life altering for giving the proper perspective on evolution and nutrition. This is an expose' on our guts compared to our supposed "closest ancestors." Interestingly, they are hind gut digesters(fermenters) whereas we are not. We need to eat meat, fat, organs and marrow. This is good news for bowhunters.:)
Maybe he wants to compare things he knows to get a better understanding of what he doesn't know in order to learn?
Wrong contributer quoted, edited.
No milk, eh?
And a little bacon grease when we fry 'em. Sunny side up. :-)
I've got a supplier for duck eggs this summer. REALLY enjoy those. They fluff baked goods up way better than any chicken egg. :-)
If you get a chance, you should try a few.
One of our HVAC guys used to bring me duck eggs. Loved them more than chicken eggs. Then he got tired of how big a mess the ducks made of his coup, so he brought me in a dog crate full of big white ducks. I took the entire flock on a camping trip with us, and the stories I have about that adventure would have you guys peeing yourselves.
It's good food for the soul.
Thanks for posting Owl.
I enjoy duck fat. Prior to eating keto, one of my favorite restaurant dishes was duck breast served over duck fat fried rice. I may try it over roasted cauliflower rice.
Spike Bull 's Link