Nope, none of those are true in my case.
As I said, take a squiz at one of Taubes' books. He lists in detail the studies supporting his thesis.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?
---------- Post added 2012-10-07 at 11:16 AM ----------
Chilli peppers are not high in sugar like kiwifruit.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
This sounds much like that Atkins scam that everyone climbed aboard years ago and abruptly fled the scene when it was harshly debunked.
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.
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.
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 ----------
Adenine Triphosphate, your point?
Weight gain has to do with insulin responses more than caloric intake.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
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?
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).
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi