Right, time to lose weight.

[F ES Sitecore]

Munchies_Matt wrote:

Well since plant fiber is a carb, dont you suppose I was referring to the usual rice, potatoes, flour trio? (not to mention sugars)

LOL so now we need to know what you mean, not what you say? Regardless, not eating refined carbs is fairly unrealistic too.

Munchies_Matt wrote:

Wow, I didnt realise me wanting to lose weight was such an argument.

I didn't say it was, I think it's fairly obvious the arguments I was referring to are your arguments that losing weight involves knowledge if chemistry, that it is complicated, that you can maintain a no-carb lifestyle and all the other things you (and others) have repeatedly said on this thread. Seeing as it looks like you're finally out of anything of merit to say there is no point dragging this onto semantics.

[Munchies_Matt]

F-ES Sitecore wrote:

so now we need to know

So you never heard of the GI diet, refined carbs? Really? Do we need to tell you everything?

F-ES Sitecore wrote:

not eating refined carbs is fairly unrealistic too

Because white rice, potatoes, and white flour is impossible not to eat? FFS get real would you.

F-ES Sitecore wrote:

your arguments that losing weight involves knowledge if chemistry

No I didnt. I never mentioned chemistry.

[F ES Sitecore]

Munchies_Matt wrote:

So you never heard of the GI diet

Garbage fad diet that won't help you lose weight in the long-term.

Munchies_Matt wrote:

Because white rice, potatoes, and white flour is impossible not to eat?

I said fairly unrealistic, not impossible....it's even in the text you quoted. Straw-man argument.

Munchies_Matt wrote:

I never mentioned chemistry.

You might not have mentioned the literal word chemistry, but when you talk about sugars, fats, insulin and their effects that is chemistry - "the scientific discipline involved with compounds composed of atoms, i.e. elements, and molecules, i.e. combinations of atoms: their composition, structure, properties, behavior and the changes they undergo during a reaction with other compounds"

[Munchies_Matt]

You are wrong and full of shit.

[F ES Sitecore]

F-ES: 1 Matt: 0

[Munchies_Matt]

That just proves it.

[F ES Sitecore]

F-ES: 2 Matt: 0

[Munchies_Matt]

See, you are fighting still. Since your first comment you have been antagonistic, negative, and combative. This post of yours just exposes you true intent. Why? Had a bad day? Compensating? Someone damaged you as a kid and you are angry at the world?

[F ES Sitecore]

Still got no actual arguments I see so are resorting to ad hominem. F-ES: 3 Matt: 0

[Munchies_Matt]

:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

[F ES Sitecore]

Bless, having the "last word" is all you have left.

[Munchies_Matt]

No really, :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

[F ES Sitecore]

Bless, having the "last word" is all you have left.

[Dan Neely]

at 120kg he really should lose a bit of weight first. The rule of thumb I've seen quoted here is that above 250lbs (113 kg) the peak loads running puts on your joints begin to exceed the maximum that the joints were designed to withstand and the risk of a soft tissue injury starts to increase rapidly.

Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt

[Foothill]

I was trying to make the point that not all calories are equal because the body handles them differently. As for obesity in developing nations: take a look at world obesity rates[^]. Obesity exists the world over but the occurrence is much lower in conflict counties. There are several notable outliers near the bottom of the obesity ranking, such as India, Japan, and South Korea. A lot of the countries near the bottom share traits. Some are equatorial, providing year-round food sources, and others are in areas of extreme geography, which are places without stable food sources. It's also notable that a lot of the counties at the bottom also are near the bottom of the GDP per capita ranking. Meaning that their populations have less money to by excess food unlike their counterparts in richer countries.

if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016

[F ES Sitecore]

Foothill wrote:

I was trying to make the point that not all calories are equal because the body handles them differently.

A calorie is the amount of energy needed to heat a gram of water but 1C, or about 4.2 joules of energy if we're talking SI units. Saying the body handles calories differently is like saying water heated to 100C scolds your skin differently depending on if it was heated by a microwave or a kettle. So let's say I do no exercise and eat 5,000 calories of burgers a day, will I gain more weight than if I drank 5,000 calories of booze instead? Where does the 5,000 calories have to come from in order for me to not gain weight? Or will I gain weight regardless because the "calories in vs calories out" theory is not a myth after all?

[Foothill]

Well, since you want to be specific, yes, a calorie is indeed the amount of energy required to heat water. When it comes to nutrition, little distinction is made to differentiate which molecules will be hydrolyzed to create that energy. Do you dispute that? Additionally, the way our bodies handle the intake of those chemicals also varies dependent on the molecule. Do you dispute that?

if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016

[F ES Sitecore]

We're not talking about nutrition though, we're talking about calories\energy. I notice you didn't answer any of the questions I asked though, predictably preferring staw-man arguments to backing up the actual claims you actually made.

[Foothill]

*** Roles up sleeves *** Okay, lets put this in another way. To the question you asked:

F-ES Sitecore wrote:

So let's say I do no exercise and eat 5,000 calories of burgers a day, will I gain more weight than if I drank 5,000 calories of booze instead? Where does the 5,000 calories have to come from in order for me to not gain weight? Or will I gain weight regardless because the "calories in vs calories out" theory is not a myth after all?

Heck yes you/re going to gain weight if you consume 5000 calories without burning it off. However.... The point I was originally trying to make is that one needs to think about how they consume those calories as they are absorbed at different rates. To many people a calorie is a calorie no matter how they are eaten and that is a mistake. If you eat your calories, they have to be digested which slows their rate absorption giving your body time to process them. Calories delivered by fluid are not digested and absorbed very quickly in comparison. This, in turn, causes the body to start storing those calories into fat to clear the bloodstream of all the extra sugars. The effect that you feel is that quick rush of energy followed by a crash. In reality you get hungry and tired even though your body just got done storing a bunch of excess sugar as fat.

F-ES Sitecore wrote:

We're not talking about nutrition though, we're talking about calories\energy. I notice you didn't answer any of the questions I asked though, predictably preferring staw-man arguments to backing up the actual claims you actually made.

You asked questions that, scientifically speaking, only have one answer. This is seen as confrontational and argumentative. If you want to get into an argument over minutia, there are plenty of others around here willing to give you the time.

if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016

[F ES Sitecore]

Foothill wrote:

Heck yes you/re going to gain weight if you consume 5000 calories without burning it off.

So calories in vs calories out isn't a myth as you originally claimed?

Foothill wrote:

The point I was originally trying to make is that one needs to think about how they consume those calories as they are absorbed at different rates.

But ultimately they're still absorbed, and if there is a surplus they will end up as fat regardless of how quick they were absorbed or what their source was.

Foothill wrote:

ou asked questions that, scientifically speaking, only have one answer

Yes, the right answer. I'm just trying to get you to see it.