MY advice to anyone reading this dangerous twaddle is to get advice from a registered dietician. "Nutritionist" is not a regulated professional label and all sorts of nonsense some of it dangerous are peddled by so called "nutritionists" A dietician is a regulated profession, they have accredited training and belong to a professional body that ensures they do not give out dangerous tawddle as advice
the question is simply where does the energy go, is it stored, shat out, used in respiration or lost as heat or other options.
Which is all that matters from a diet POV, so just stating that a calorie in a calorie and claiming everyone else is talking bobbins isn't a any help nor provides any insight, just needlessly pedantic IMHO.
This just reads like bobbins to me.
Makes perfect sense to me, in simple terms: Measuring calories in (through the mouth) is relatively simple. Measuring calories out gets more tricky, you need to consider where the energy of each calorie is used, is it in the body or elsewhere - which is very difficult to measure, you have to live in a Calorimiter / drink heavy water at £1000 a pop - all very expensive and not accessible to anyone outside a research lab. Although Cambridge has a couple of labs that do just this eg the MRC-Dunn Human Nutrition Unit does this.
It’s a cookie, not a brownie (they are about 2.5g net carb), and it’s made from almond flour, erythritol, coconut oil, choc chips, pecans and baking powder. They are slightly smaller than a digestive.
No way do they have on 2.5 g of carbs then with that ingredient list - and your link was not to anything worth reading. See my comments about nutritionists
Provide me with links to reputable peer reviewed journals by proper scientists and I will read and learn.
absorbed vs excreted
Absorbed v Egested...just to continue the pendant mode!! I doubt much energy is excreted v egested. I reckon a poo would burn better than a piss. I suppose urea has some energy but doubt its that high.
Which is all that matters from a diet POV, so just stating that a calorie in a calorie and claiming everyone else is talking bobbins isn’t a any help nor provides any insight, just needlessly pedantic IMHO.
True, but anyone who claims to be a scientist and says not all calories are equal just makes me laugh!
I reckon a poo would burn better than a piss. I suppose urea has some energy but doubt its that high.
They do just this at the Dunn unit, you can sign up to one of their diets and they provide the food in exchange for all your poo which they then burn to see what and how much you didn't absorb. You can also volunteer to live in one of their Calorimiter chambers for a few days and have all your expired Co2 measured...
This thread reminds me about how much it annoys me that people do fasted rides to try and lose weight as thats what Froome does. Firstly they arent Froome, secondly Froome et al do it to be more efficient in fat metabolism to increase endurance which it may well do in a very marginal way, which is what they need your general stw nodder just needs a proper breakfast and some structured training with intervals and rest and a good balanced diet with some calorific debt to lose weight.
the question is simply where does the energy go, is it stored, shat out, used in respiration or lost as heat or other options.
Of course, so what controls what gets egested, what gets used for heat, what gets used for movement and what gets sorted as fat?
There are various hormones that control those parameters, and the levels of those hormones and the responses to them are affected by what you eat what you do, how you're trained and your genes.
Aaaaand I'm done beating my head against a brick wall.
I know what I'm eating and the mirror shows me it's working.
Of course, so what controls what gets egested, what gets used for heat, what gets used for movement and what gets sorted as fat?
Staggeringly complex and very person specific.
A huge amount depends on what enzymes you have in your gut, which is a combination of environment, diet and genetics. They can do biome transfusions from thin to fat people and vice versa and dramaticly alter the overall absorbstion ratio.
You not only have absorbtion efficiency but how the process interacts with hunger hormones eg grhelin (IIRC), so some people will feel satiated at a lower absorbtion level than others.
Then on top of that you have effects which are switched on and off depending on whether you are in a calorie deficit or not, so the behaviour can be modified again...
End result, we're all different, one diet might work wonders for one type of person but be hopeless for another as it's just unsustainable for a variety of reasons eg person A might feel a little hungry and be able to stick to it easily, person B might be left with insatiable hunger and mood swings and just can't stick to it. Person A might achieve a higher deficit due to how well their body absorbs the food, person B might be in a paper calorie deficit but in reality be neutral or in a surpless as their body is way more efficiecnt at absorbing calories on that diet.
very person specific.
Is it or are the differences actual quite small. As populations high calorie, high fat and sugar diets combined with lack of exercise lead to increased obesity. If everyone in the country reduced calories by 500 a day or whatever and moved more the country would get slimmer. Some more than others but the normal distribution would shift
20g of carbs per day? 😲
I’d pass our just walking downstairs.
I know what I’m eating and the mirror shows me it’s working.
Yes - you are eating less calories which is why you are losing weight.
I know what I’m eating and the mirror shows me it’s working.
Good for you, I saw the pictures and it's pretty impressive
Yes – you are eating less calories which is why you are losing weight.
you know when you said get advice from a professional, well that isn't you is it? So why should he pay any attention to what you say?
20g of carbs per day? 😲
I’d pass our just walking downstairs.
Yeah, it did feel like that at first. I even bonked on an eBike!
Is it or are the differences actual quite small
You tell me. I'm saying that the differences can be quite large, having seen how much some skinny people can eat and stay thin regardless of how much exercise they do.
Its funny how people fully accept that some people can bulk up in the gym more easily than others, but when you suggest that people might gain fat more easily, you're accused (implicitly) of enabling spineless fatties in denial.
There is no doubt that there are lots of people in denial about how much they eat or exercise. There is no doubt that on the whole, people eat too much, and on the whole this causes excess weight. This is not in question and I said that above. However it IS the case that the types of food you eat change how your body accumulates fat even for the same overall calorie intake, and it IS the case that different people process these foods differently. Sometimes markedly so.
the country would get slimmer. Some more than others
How much more?
your general stw nodder just needs a proper breakfast and some structured training with intervals and rest and a good balanced diet with some calorific debt to lose weight.
Who's a general STW nodder here? Some people on this forum have done quite a bit of training in various sports including cycling. It seems to me to be the congenitally thin who think this weight loss lark is easy, they seem convinced of their own superiority. I don't think many people who have gone from 30% body fat to 8% will tell you it's easy, unless they are selling you a book.
You tell me. I’m saying that the differences can be quite large,
I cant tell you, I havent seen any actual scientific evidence, why do you say it is large?
it IS the case that different people process these foods differently. Sometimes markedly so.
If this was the case the evidence would be easy to find wouldnt it?
Who’s a general STW nodder here? Some people on this forum have done quite a bit of training in various sports including cycling.
Well if they are the "some" they are not the majority or the general/average forum user.
This has really disappeared up its own arse. We have the Atkins diet, the Angelis diet and the TJ diet all stubbornly denying each other, its almost pointless writing anything else down.
This thread reminds me about how much it annoys me that people do fasted rides to try and lose weight as thats what Froome does. Firstly they arent Froome, secondly Froome et al do it to be more efficient in fat metabolism to increase endurance which it may well do in a very marginal way, which is what they need your general stw nodder just needs a proper breakfast and some structured training with intervals and rest and a good balanced diet with some calorific debt to lose weight.
This is exactly what I did during keto November through February, and continued to do and am still doing now with gradual increases in carbs to support the introduction of higher intensity intervals over the period. As I told you, I lost 8KG in the 3-4 month period from September, and ALL of my training metrics across my power zones show much greater levels of endurance. I'm also confidently about to add 15% to my FTP which is a large annual jump, because - before you bang on about an FTP test being HIIT - even threshold level intervals are supported by a wider base aka increased Mitichondria created by whatever the scientific words are for a move toward fat metabolism and mitochondrial development at Endurance level which my body created earlier in the year.
So it can annoy you as much as you like, but it works even for the "general stw nodder" if performed properly. God love a man that use the word "may" for proven science at Pro peloton level using a method thats been around for decades.
Yeah, it did feel like that at first. I even bonked on an eBike!
I’m being serious I have to pretty much constantly eat or I get migraines, I’d never function on 20g calories per day and staggered anyone can.
Is easy to use for photos just copy the direct link into here.
I cant tell you, I havent seen any actual scientific evidence, why do you say it is large?
No one knows. It's incredibly expensive to measure so no one has the budget to measure a large enough number of people with a large enough number of food types in a set of different scenarios. Nutrition research doesn't get a lot of funding compared with say Cancer etc.
In some cases, the ones which get publicised a lot, there are massive differences but as for how representative of the population as a whole they are, no one knows as they've not measured enough people yet.
You basically live in a Calorimiter chamber with everything in and out measured by a bunch of lab assistants - I'd guess at over £1000/day per person. You'd need to baseline each person and then make a change and see what happens.
At some point I suspect they'll build up enough knowledge to look at your DNA, work out which Genes you have etc and know how each one interacts with food, but that's a long way off....
At some point I suspect they’ll build up enough knowledge to look at your DNA, work out which Genes you have
Pedant point 3, we all have the same genes!!
This is exactly what I did during keto November through February, and continued to do and am still doing now with gradual increases in carbs to support the introduction of higher intensity intervals over the period. As I told you, I lost 8KG in the 3-4 month period from September, and ALL of my training metrics across my power zones show much greater levels of endurance. I’m also confidently about to add 15% to my FTP which is a large annual jump, because – before you bang on about an FTP test being HIIT – even threshold level intervals are supported by a wider base aka increased Mitichondria created by whatever the scientific words are for a move toward fat metabolism and mitochondrial development at Endurance level which my body created earlier in the year.
So it can annoy you as much as you like, but it works even for the “general stw nodder” if performed properly. God love a man that use the word “may” for proven science at Pro peloton level using a method thats been around for decades.
Thats a lovely long anecdote thanks.
Maybe if you ate properly you weight wouldnt yoyo, just a thought.
The TJ diet is backed by decades of pure science peer reviewed and is the scientific consensus. Eat all food groups in moderation, run a calories deficit to lose weight, reduce fat and sugar content, stop the refined sugars which includes maltodextrin ( which is an industrial byproduct sold as a food stuff), add fibre ie a basic balanced healthy diet
It has the advantage of being simple, of working and of being healthy
all this Keto nonsense is very unhealthy. Any weight loss on keto is down to running a calorie deficit because its hard to get as many calories from meat as it is from cakes
I loathe the nonsense peddled by "nutritionists" as its often ( but not always - there are some good folk using that label) dangerous twaddle like the keto diet.
Got to love an STW diet thread...
A lot like a pantomime; 'He's behind you, with a cake!'
‘He’s behind you, with a cake!’
Wish someone was today did 90km on roadbike and all the bloody cafes I went to were closed and I didnt have a mask to go in a shop....
Fascinating summary of current understanding of gut biome and obesity...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5082693/
Got to feel sorry for this guy, underwent a FT for a bacterial infection and ended up becoming obese as a side effect!
A recent case report described a patient who underwent a successful fecal microbial transplant for Clostridium difficile infection but then developed new-onset obesity after receiving stool from an overweight donor.
Also, on the subject of DNA sequencing:
In the study, the authors found that there was large variation in the glycemic response to the same food items between subjects, as well as to the consumption of standardized meals. In an attempt to explain this variation in the glycemic response, the gut microbiome was analyzed with both 16S rDNA and whole metagenomic sequencing and combined with traditional measures, such as blood sugar, diet, physical activity, and body measurements, to create a machine-learning algorithm that accurately predicts personalized responses to real-life meals. Moreover, the algorithm accurately predicted glycemic response in a separate validation cohort and in a follow-up dietary intervention study. This study provides an exciting framework to better understand an individual’s response to dietary interventions based on their microbiota. Perhaps the next step would be to use a similar approach to investigate whether information about an individual’s microbiota can predict dietary energy availability and better personalized diets for obesity prevention and/or treatment.
I suppose urea has some energy but doubt its that high.
Remarkably high actually, fixing nitrogen takes a lot of energy.
Pedant point 3, we all have the same genes!!
OK, now you're just trolling (or ignorant) No two human (not even identical twins) have identical sets of genes.
OK, now you’re just trolling (or ignorant)
How was the human genome mapped then?
OK, now you’re just trolling (or ignorant) No two human (not even identical twins) have identical sets of genes.
I’m going to call you out as wrong I’m afraid nick, as there’s overwhelming evidence over many years and threads culminating in this one that TJ and AA obviously both have the “I’m right despite masses of evidence to the contrary” gene.
How was the human genome mapped then?
Really? A small sample of humans were sequenced and combined to form a complete set of each chromosomes...The map is a "made up" human example, but doesn't represent one person, as the genome of everyone is different, it's why you can have a genetic fingerprint...
I’m going to call you out as wrong I’m afraid nick, as there’s overwhelming evidence over many years and threads culminating in this one that TJ and AA obviously both have the “I’m right despite masses of evidence to the contrary” gene.
Actually that would funnily enough make me wrong.
Also if you get one copy of each gene from each parent how would that work if we all had different genes?
mostly copy variations and mutations.
No two human (not even identical twins) have identical sets of genes.
well they do TBF
as there’s overwhelming evidence over many years and threads culminating in this one that TJ and AA obviously both have the “I’m right despite masses of evidence to the contrary” gene.
Masses of bullshine you mean? Ask a dietitian - you know a proper registered and trained professional if you should eat a balanced diet with low refined sugars or some fad diet like Keto
I have not read every post here but I have seen no credible evidence at all - just wo wo bullshine.
And you have provided no evidence that it's dangerous.
I have and here is more - from proper journals
https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/should-you-try-the-keto-diet
https://ep.bmj.com/content/102/4/194
The first link contains this comment from an actual dietician;
only short-term results have been studied, and the results have been mixed. We don't know if it works in the long term, nor whether it's safe
“We don’t know”
Hardly conclusive.
The second link only refers to studies of Keto diets for epileptic children. I didn’t see any reference to the Keto diet for non epileptic adults. I did only skim read it though.
mostly copy variations and mutations.
They are still the same genes, the genes are the same, different versions are alleles of the same gene.
well they do TBF
No, they don't. Even Zygotic twins have copy differences and mutations in their genes. Minor variations in the most part, but enough to see a difference. As well as that they could have aged related or exposure to carcinogens over time, (the same as all of us) which will change their genome
https://www.tvguide.co.uk/m-detail/3796564/30658687/lose-a-stone-in-21-days-with-michael-mosley
On channel 4 tonight, should be interesting
The TJ diet
Ok look. No-one is saying this is wrong, ok? So relax. Your disdain for bullshit (which I share) is colouring your view of this discussion. The principles you state are fine for most people in most situations, that's why it's the general GP grade advice.
On this thread we are interested people digging a little deeper, trying to understand the nuances. You've met me, you know I am not a fat tubber and I can ride. A GP would tell me I'm fine (and they have).
However my issue is that I want to be leaner because I want to race bikes, this is a pretty niche thing to do. So I want to know why I struggle to shift the 10kg I want to. What is it specifically about my habits or physiology (either genetic or acquired) is making it harder than it needs to be; or what I can do to make it more successful. Unlike you, I have tried a lot of experiments and come across various effects that I wish to understand.
I'm not a fan of keto, personally, but as I understand it the jury is out as to whether or not it's bad for you either short or long term. But low GI certainly isn't, particularly as I eat far more vegetables when I do the iDave diet.
No, they don’t. Even Zygotic twins have copy differences and mutations in their genes.
The genes are the same though.
or some fad diet like Keto
It's just another diet, works for some, not for others. When it works it has managed to overcome the two main obstacles with diets: compliance and achieving a calorie deficit. When it doesn't work it has failed on one of those two. Nothing to get your knickers in a twist over.
