Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: March 02 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 19643
Posted: July 04 2011 at 09:10
Henry Plainview wrote:
progkidjoel wrote:
@Henry: Please explain to me how I'm missing the point. ;-)
Well you could watch that hour long video....
I've watched parts of the video before, not the entire thing. But you still disagreed with me when I said that energy in > energy out = weight gain.
Henry Plainview wrote:
@Rob: I wasn't suggesting that a diet can be healthy regardless of the caloric intake, rather that junk food does not make you fat. Someone could easily eat junk food every meal every day and lose weight/fat if their intake was below their maintenance. It wouldn't be healthy, but it's entirely possible.
That is exceedingly unlikely. Which is what the obesity problem is all about.
Never said it was likely, but it is possible.
Let's say you have a caloric maintenance of 2000 calories a day. You can eat 3 big macs a day, at 576 calories each, with a total intake of 1728. A pound of fat is roughly 3500 calories, which means that a person is working at a caloric defecit of 272 calories a day. That equates to a little more than half a pound of fat loss a week, and is well within the defecit range of up to 500 calories a day which will avoid feelings of fatigue, muscle loss, lean body mass loss and strength loss.
It's possible, just not particularly doable. And no one these days orders just a big mac.
@Rob: I wasn't suggesting that a diet can be healthy regardless of the caloric intake, rather that junk food does not make you fat. Someone could easily eat junk food every meal every day and lose weight/fat if their intake was below their maintenance. It wouldn't be healthy, but it's entirely possible.
Maybe, but that's taking into account numerous other variables, such as how each individual processes sugars. And these variables change over time.
Joel, you're 17, right? When I was 17, I consumed an incredible amount of junk food in a given day (I went through a stage of eating ice cream for breakfast) and I never gained any weight. I had the physique of a young god.
Wait until you're 27 and see how much junk food your body will tolerate before you start seeing undesirable consequences.
Let's say you have a caloric maintenance of 2000 calories a day. You can eat 3 big macs a day, at 576 calories each, with a total intake of 1728. A pound of fat is roughly 3500 calories, which means that a person is working at a caloric defecit of 272 calories a day. That equates to a little more than half a pound of fat loss a week, and is well within the defecit range of up to 500 calories a day which will avoid feelings of fatigue, muscle loss, lean body mass loss and strength loss.
It's possible, just not particularly doable. And no one these days orders just a big mac.
Big Macs aren't junk food though. They contain protein, fiber, Vitamins A, C, calcium and iron.
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
Posted: July 04 2011 at 09:15
Epignosis wrote:
progkidjoel wrote:
@Rob: I wasn't suggesting that a diet can be healthy regardless of the caloric intake, rather that junk food does not make you fat. Someone could easily eat junk food every meal every day and lose weight/fat if their intake was below their maintenance. It wouldn't be healthy, but it's entirely possible.
Maybe, but that's taking into account numerous other variables, such as how each individual processes sugars. And these variables change over time.
Joel, you're 17, right? When I was 17, I consumed an incredible amount of junk food in a given day (I went through a stage of eating ice cream for breakfast) and I never gained any weight. I had the physique of a young god.
Wait until you're 27 and see how much junk food your body will tolerate before you start seeing undesirable consequences.
I didn't follow the discussion previously to this, but this post has to be quoted for truth (happened exactly the same to me).
Joined: March 02 2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 19643
Posted: July 04 2011 at 09:20
Epignosis wrote:
progkidjoel wrote:
Let's say you have a caloric maintenance of 2000 calories a day. You can eat 3 big macs a day, at 576 calories each, with a total intake of 1728. A pound of fat is roughly 3500 calories, which means that a person is working at a caloric defecit of 272 calories a day. That equates to a little more than half a pound of fat loss a week, and is well within the defecit range of up to 500 calories a day which will avoid feelings of fatigue, muscle loss, lean body mass loss and strength loss.
It's possible, just not particularly doable. And no one these days orders just a big mac.
Big Macs aren't junk food though. They contain protein, fiber, Vitamins A, C, calcium and iron.
But they are incredibly inefficient means for getting those macros, as far as density goes.
What's a textbook example of fast food then?
Rob/Alex: I have no idea how that phenomena works, although I've read a ton of explanations for it (caloric maintenance going down post-puberty, people overestimating how much energy they intake, the list goes on) I haven't found an explanation which applies a broad range of possibility/plausibility to it myself, rather than simple correlation = causation explanations.
Let's say you have a caloric maintenance of 2000 calories a day. You can eat 3 big macs a day, at 576 calories each, with a total intake of 1728. A pound of fat is roughly 3500 calories, which means that a person is working at a caloric defecit of 272 calories a day. That equates to a little more than half a pound of fat loss a week, and is well within the defecit range of up to 500 calories a day which will avoid feelings of fatigue, muscle loss, lean body mass loss and strength loss.
It's possible, just not particularly doable. And no one these days orders just a big mac.
Big Macs aren't junk food though. They contain protein, fiber, Vitamins A, C, calcium and iron.
But they are incredibly inefficient means for getting those macros, as far as density goes.
What's a textbook example of fast food then?
Rob/Alex: I have no idea how that phenomena works, although I've read a ton of explanations for it (caloric maintenance going down post-puberty, people overestimating how much energy they intake, the list goes on) I haven't found an explanation which applies a broad range of possibility/plausibility to it myself, rather than simple correlation = causation explanations.
Maybe we're having a communication issue. To (most of) us in America, fast food is not automatically junk food.
Junk food is a food that is very high in sugar or saturated fat content, yet contains a negligible amount of nutrients. Cotton candy, for instance.
All I was pointing out though, is that caloric intake vs expense isn't sufficient for maintaining health. That's why it isn't unusual for thin people to get diabetes or die of a stroke due to a blood clot. In other words, you can get 1400 calories a day from Coke and lose weight, but then you are far more likely to get kidney stones or become diabetic.
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
Posted: July 04 2011 at 09:36
progkidjoel wrote:
But you still disagreed with me when I said that energy in > energy out = weight gain.
I'm not disagreeing with that! Of course that is physically true, but reducing weight loss to thermodynamics is completely missing the reasons why people gain weight and cannot lose it.
Polo wrote:
I can't listen to J-pop because it's way too cute and silly.
But what about K-POP
(Another forum I go to had a k-pop fad, like half the userbase became an indistinguishable blur of young Korean girls, it was weird and annoying)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.855 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
I WILL NOT CHANGE THIS SHRED ROOM'S TITLE
Topic Options
Henry Plainview wrote:
