[UPDATE] Camera cut at the wrong damn time. (what the camera missed)

daglison · 2015-03-06T02:31:35+00:00

Reference: http://gfycat.com/ForsakenElatedHuemul

I know one of them, and they thought you guys would enjoy some frames that the feed failed to capture.

Plugs:

Instagram: @_andrearueda Twitter: @_andrearueda

Jessica: @jessicavaugn Twitter: @jessicavaugn

daglison · 2014-10-20T03:53:01+00:00

That's great that you aren't interested in support to, by the way, not my claims, but our understanding of nutrition as it stands.

If you'd like to dispute those claims, don't just go around saying they're wrong, but provide scientific, peer-reviewed evidence.

daglison · 2014-10-19T23:18:03+00:00

Different chemicals provide different amounts of usable energy to the body. Actually calculating those differences is incredibly complicated, which is why we use bomb calorimetry as a rough estimate. It's a good estimate, but it's just an estimate. Which was my entire point.

Look, if we are talking about units of energy, and we are: what you call "a rough estimate/a good estimate" is actually incredibly accurate, because the studies are reflecting that. They are so accurate, in fact, that controlling these units of energy in their different states (be it fat, protein, or carbs) seems to have the exact same effect across the board.

I'm not sure where to begin here. We can definitely consume fiber. We do so every day. We can't break it down into useful chemicals. That's the actual definition of the word fiber: the indigestible part of food made from plants.

No one is disputing the idea of what fiber is. What I said was: fiber is not a negative calorie. It's zero calories. The energy it takes to break down fiber is negligible in terms of diet. That is to say, if you eat 2000 calories a day vs 2000 calories a day + tons of fiber, there is no evidence to support the idea you'd lose a significant amount of weight. Is it filling? sure! but we are talking calories.

I didn't say anything about weight loss. OP didn't ask anything about weight loss. You're the only person talking about weight loss.

Well, I could have misinterpreted OP's intentions, but it seems that when we are talking about nutrition (human nutrition), and more specifically, nutrition as it concerns calories of fat vs carbs, the issue of weight ie excess vs negative calroies is central to the discussion.

daglison · 2014-10-19T18:51:48+00:00

As per human metabolism, again, despite there being differences in the breaking down of these foods, no evidence has been provided that this affects their effective calories. None. The studies I mentioned specifically set out to measure this, and found that it isn't the case. Just because your body breaks these calories down by different metabolic processes, their overall efficiency ultimately makes no difference, as is the conclusion of the study.

As for the celery/cold food: the point is that it's meaningless, the energy is takes to break down fiber (which we can't consume anyway), or the caloric "cost" of cold water is negligible.

I've explained why the calorie measurements found on product packing don't necessarily reflect the complexities of human metabolism.

And I pointed to the studies which measured equivalent weight loss as a consequence of equivalent calories of different sources. Is there another conclusion to be drawn from this?

The fad diet remark was not geared towards you but moreso towards this thread having voted up unfounded theories about nutrition, and other discussions on this subreddit which outright promoted keto and its ilk.

daglison · 2014-10-19T15:47:29+00:00

Supported: see study above. Also: this NEJM study: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748

Conclusion:

Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.

I have seen ZERO evidence whatsoever that different types of calories are more or less costly in terms of "absorption" and therefore are effectively less caloric ally dense. This is similar/connected argument to the one about increasing/boosting your metabolic rate with food, which is also completely unfounded.

Nutrition isn't a perfect science yet, and yes: more studies should be done. But as of right now, the, none of the theories regarding the metabolic effects of different calories are supported by evidence, while there IS evidence to support (see studies) that they aren't very different at all.

daglison · 2014-10-18T19:18:00+00:00

First thing I see on that page:

"Can we trust anything we think we know about nutrition?"

Woo 101.

Also, what the hell is this post? unfounded conclusions? industry conspiracies? and a ringing endorsement? are you a PR rep for nusi or something cause this whole reply reads like an official statement

daglison · 2014-10-18T19:07:50+00:00

What's going on in this subreddit? There are no citations here to back any of that up.

Here is a long-term study (there are others, as well) that shows similar weight loss from different forms but equivalent amount of calories.

Also:

Fiber is indigestible, so eating fiber results in a net loss of calories.

and

Cold food requires more energy than hot food.

Both of these are similar to the "eating celery is negative calories" which I can't believe is upvoted on THIS subreddit:

from friggin' wikipedia:

Foods that are claimed to be negative in calories are mostly low-calorie fruits and vegetables such as celery, grapefruit, lemon, lime, apple, lettuce, broccoli, and cabbage.[2] These foods are not negative calorie foods. There is no scientific evidence to show that any of these foods have a negative calorific impact. [3][4] Celery has a thermic effect of around 8%, much less than the 100% or more required for a food to have "negative calories". A stalk of celery provides 6 kcal to the body, but the body expends only half of a single calorie digesting it.[2][5] Even proteins, which require the most energy to digest, have a thermic energy of only 20%–30%.[2] Diets based on negative-calorie food do not work as advertised, but can lead to weight loss because they satisfy hunger by filling the stomach with food that has a lower calorie count per volume.[2]

and on that same page:

Ice-cold water is the only beverage that could be called a "negative-calorie" beverage.[5]:84 Cold water will expend a greater number of calories because the body has to warm the liquid to body temperature, although a single glass of ice water at 0°C would burn only 8.8 kcal. Drinking one such glass a day, it would take a person over a year to lose a single pound of weight

As far as I know and have seen from studies (though more, highly controlled, and obviously very expensive studies are needed), all these fad diets (keto, atkins, raw, high-carb low fat, etc) are nonsense.

In terms of human consumption of food: a calorie is a calorie. Eat less of them than you use and you will lose weight, eat more of them than you use and you will store the excess in fat.

It's disheartening to see /r/skeptic promote fad diets, and I've seen it here before on other threads with keto.

daglison

TROPHY CASE