A Little Nutritional Anecdote

[Elegiac]

You are looking at it too simply. YOU should study some basic chemistry. Chemicals interact with each other, they interact with energy, they interact with I don't know what. It's not as simple.
You are looking at it too "scientifically". What does common sense tell you? What is better? An apple or sugar extracted artificially from corn?
Look up Bergson and similar philosophers, you and most of today's society should learn from him.

And please don't tell me to "study basic chemistry" when you claim c6h12o6 is fructose. Thank you.

I think this merits a "Bitch Please".

Since when does 'common sense' trump science? And C6H12O6 is the chemical formula for Fructose, thank you.

[Beat5beat]

Then I should just nom on chile peppers and get even more bang (literally!) for the buck. 144 mg per 100g compared to 93 mg per 100g of kiwi. :P

You get a lot more than vitamin C out of a kiwi fruit. However chili peppers are good for you, I'm not sure exactly what your point is. As I already stated, a balanced diet is the healthiest.

[Elegiac]

Either you don't know your daily calorie expenditure, are miscounting your actual intake or your body is incapable of processing the levels of protein and fat that you are feeding it. One or more of those 3 things is a fact.

Nope, none of those are true in my case.

There is zero evidence indicating that calorie-in calorie-out diets are ineffective. Every single time it has been tested, it has been proven, Remember the twinkie diet?

As I said, take a squiz at one of Taubes' books. He lists in detail the studies supporting his thesis.

---------- Post added 2012-10-07 at 11:16 AM ----------

You get a lot more than vitamin C out of a kiwi fruit. However chili peppers are good for you, I'm not sure exactly what your point is. As I already stated, a balanced diet is the healthiest.

Chilli peppers are not high in sugar like kiwifruit.

[Callace]

This sounds much like that Atkins scam that everyone climbed aboard years ago and abruptly fled the scene when it was harshly debunked.

[Beat5beat]

As I said, take a squiz at one of Taubes' books. He lists in detail the studies supporting his thesis.[COLOR="red"]

I'm sure he does, and they also support his pocket book. You can find 5 studies saying the exact opposite of each other on pretty much any topic. Unfortunately his studies do not refute logic and basic chemistry.

[Elegiac]

This sounds much like that Atkins scam that everyone climbed aboard years ago and abruptly fled the scene when it was harshly debunked.

If you call less than four studies "harshly debunked".

Atkins had the right idea, but his nutritional approach had some flaws which were later corrected.

[belfpala]

You get a lot more than vitamin C out of a kiwi fruit. However chili peppers are good for you, I'm not sure exactly what your point is. As I already stated, a balanced diet is the healthiest.

My point was what Didactic said above: chile peppers don't have as much sugar.

But yes, I agree with a balanced diet, small portions, eating 5-6 times per day, and aiming for roughly 30% of my calories coming from each of fat, protein, and carbs. I don't count calories, just estimate. Seems to work well enough for me. I'm also more inclined to eat vegetables than most Americans, so that probably helps.

[Elegiac]

I'm sure he does, and they also support his pocket book. You can find 5 studies saying the exact opposite of each other on pretty much any topic. Unfortunately his studies do not refute logic and basic chemistry.

You clearly haven't read either Why We Get Fat, or Good Calories Bad Calories.

[Beat5beat]

Just answer these questions.

What does your body use to run?

What will happen if you do not provide it fuel?

What will happen if you provide it too much fuel?

Calories in vs Calories out is NOT refutable. The only thing that can vary is what your caloric needs are and how many calories your body is actually utilizing from what you give it (as the body often can't process what you are giving it). Are there thing you can do to force your body to require more or less calories? Sure, but ultimately it still boils down to the same basic formula, anyone that tells you differently has no clue what they are talking about.

[Elegiac]

It doesn't merit a "bitch please".
I stand corrected, I thought c6h12o6 was glucose but apparently the basic formula is the same.

Anyway my point still stands. I never said common sense trumps science. Just that often people forget it because of science. And this is the case.

Apple is good. Healthy. End of story.

And I disagree based on a large body of research. You can have your apple, I will continue to have my bacon.

---------- Post added 2012-10-07 at 11:23 AM ----------

Just answer these questions.

What does your body use to run?

What will happen if you do not provide it fuel?

What will happen if you provide it too much fuel?

Calories in vs Calories out is NOT refutable. The only thing that can vary is what your caloric needs are and how many calories your body is actually utilizing from what you give it (as the body often can't process what you are giving it). Are there thing you can do to force your body to require more or less calories? Sure, but ultimately it still boils down to the same basic formula, anyone that tells you differently has no clue what they are talking about.

Adenine Triphosphate, your point?

Weight gain has to do with insulin responses more than caloric intake.

[Beat5beat]

Adenine Triphosphate, your point?

Weight gain has to do with insulin responses more than caloric intake.

Insulin response has nothing to do with weight gain, only fat storage. If you stop eating, where do you think your body is going to get its fuel? from the fat stores. If you stored 500 calories worth of fat and later you need 500 calories worth of energy answer me a question, where is your body going to get that energy if you do not feed it that energy? This isn't refutable, are you telling me that your body will just die rather than convert the fat stores to energy?

[Elegiac]

Insulin response has nothing to do with weight gain, only fat storage.

Sorry, stopped reading there.

If you're going to be close-minded there really isn't a point in arguing with you.

[belfpala]

Insulin response has nothing to do with weight gain, only fat storage...

I think the point was not creating the fat storage in the first place. (Which, by the way, can be a very unhealthy thing, to be too lean; people on the bottom end of the BMI scale actually have higher morbidity than people on the obese end. Not that BMI is a good thing to use).

[Callace]

If you call less than four studies "harshly debunked".

Atkins had the right idea, but his nutritional approach had some flaws which were later corrected.

Uhuh. There are many things you can remove from your diet altogether and expect weight loss as a result, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
This is a textbook example of being logical about a problem without thinking about the context. If a lone person or " very select group" of people are advocating something, and you've paid money to learn more, you have been had.

I hope you don't have health problems later in life as a consequence of essential nutrients that you have deprived your body. This much is obvious though, the appeal of false authorities is an extremely marketable stupidity these days. Just look at Dr. Oz's success. That man's supposed accolades are still under heavy scrutiny. This is the same type of quackery.

[belfpala]

]
I hope you don't have health problems later in life as a consequence of essential nutrients that you have deprived your body.

Which essential nutrients? You can get almost everything you need from rice, beans, and kale, if you want. Mix in a bit of seafood there, a bit of citrus there, and you're set.

[Elegiac]

Uhuh. There are many things you can remove from your diet altogether and expect weight loss as a result, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
This is a textbook example of being logical about a problem without thinking about the context. If a lone person or " very select group" of people are advocating something, and you've paid money to learn more, you have been had.

I hope you don't have health problems later in life as a consequence of essential nutrients that you have deprived your body. This much is obvious though, the appeal of false authorities is an extremely marketable stupidity. Just look at Dr. Oz's success. That man's supposed accolades are still under heavy scrutiny.

The way I have formulated my current diet, I am getting what I need. Taubes' suggestions are working wonders; the funny thing his, his stuff isn't actually new. He's merely polishing off stuff that has been buried under the 'carbs good, fat bad' propaganda.

Look how many people still believe eggs lead to high cholesterol.

[Callace]

Which essential nutrients? You can get everything you need from rice, beans, and kale, if you want.

Vitamins, minerals, essential amino acids. Does that list cover the full gamut?

[Elegiac]

Vitamins, minerals, essential amino acids. Does that list cover the full gamut?

Pretty much. Essential nutrients aren't as sparcely found in food as most people would have you believe.

Funnily enough, red meat and green vegetables by themselves cover the list.

[Callace]

The way I have formulated my current diet, I am getting what I need. Taubes' suggestions are working wonders; the funny thing his, his stuff isn't actually new. He's merely polishing off stuff that has been buried under the 'carbs good, fat bad' propaganda.

Look how many people still believe eggs lead to high cholesterol.

That's good. But I'm very very skeptical about the fruit part. Do you take vitamins to account for that?

[Elegiac]

That's good. But I'm very very skeptical about the fruit part. Do you take vitamins to account for that?

Nope. You can get the necessary vitamins from meat.