Weight Loss Thread

It was table sugar, butter, and cheesecake, all of it unlimited.

Khane_sl said:

The problem is we need to see real evidence of this in humans, not rats. That study is bonkers.

You've got 2 people, studied over a month. It's "shock and awe" science.

Click to expand...

Do most studies not start out on lab rats and then are brought to human experiment? That's what they just did, basically.

Itlan_sl said:

It was table sugar, butter, and cheesecake, all of it unlimited.

Click to expand...

So there was no control. No way of comparing actual caloric intake. Got it. Study debunked. They could have gotten fat because they ate 10x as many calories in the form of cheesecake as compared to the other 2 foods.

Itlan_sl said:

Do most studies not start out on lab rats and then are brought to human experiment? That's what they just did, basically.

Click to expand...

We agree, I already stated I think it could at least warrant study in humans.

Khane_sl said:

So there was no control. No way of comparing actual caloric intake. Got it. Study debunked.

Click to expand...

No, the point was to show the receptors which tell you "STOP FUCKING EATING WE'RE DONE" are turned off when that specific type of food is presented to the body. It wasn't shown as "well cheesecake makes you fat because it's more dense than pure fat or pure sugar." The point was to show obesity is attributed to processed foods fucking with your brain.

Did I confuse you a bit before? Sorry if I did.

It sounds like someone wanted to prove their hypothesis so they threw the actual scientific experimentation model out the window.

Itlan_sl said:

No, the point was to show the receptors which tell you "STOP FUCKING EATING WE'RE DONE" are turned off when that specific type of food is presented to the body. It wasn't shown as "well cheesecake makes you fat because it's more dense than pure fat or pure sugar." The point was to show obesity is attributed to processed foods fucking with your brain.

Did I confuse you a bit before? Sorry if I did.

Click to expand...

Well you didn't say anything about that being the point, you made it sound like all things being equal, eating both fat and sugar at the same time makes you fat because you've confused your body into not being able to burn those calories for energy.

But haven't we known that for years? Haven't humans typically done either a low fat, or low carb diet for the past 30 years? P.S. A lot of studies like that have been done on actual human beings, all with the same results on the effects on hunger and satiation.

Since you seem to have watched the whole thing and I can't be bothered to do more than the brief skim I already did. About the two brothers.

Did they eat before or after their exercise intervals? What did the high fat diet consist of? How about the high carb diet? The reason I ask is because it's common knowledge that simple carbs are much more readily available as energy so if they both ate 20 minutes before a workout it makes perfect sense the high carb brother would outperform. He's got the quicker energy source.

Khane_sl said:

Well you didn't say anything about that being the point, you made it sound like all things being equal, eating both fat and sugar at the same time makes you fat because you've confused your body into not being able to burn those calories for energy.

But haven't we known that for years? Haven't humans typically done either a low fat, or low carb diet for the past 30 years?

Click to expand...

Like I said, if I didn't make that clear before I apologize. The point I was trying to make is receptors die off due to that specific combination, and my question was whether that also applies to whole foods being consumed together, or if it strictly when foods are processed together in that 50:50 ratio.

Deathwing_sl said:

Yeah, but as Khane said, there was no control. There's differences between sucrose, butter, and cheesecake than one being sugar, one fat(mostly) and one fat and sugar. One of them tastes 10x better than the others. If I'm eating something really tasty, like cheesecake, even if my brain is telling me to knock it off, the other part of my brain being flooded with dopamine is saying to keep on going.

Ever gotten a sucrose or butter craving?

Click to expand...

So change the three items. I can almost guarantee similar results.

Deathwing_sl said:

Yeah, but as Khane said, there was no control. There's differences between sucrose, butter, and cheesecake than one being sugar, one fat(mostly) and one fat and sugar. One of them tastes 10x better than the others. If I'm eating something really tasty, like cheesecake, even if my brain is telling me to knock it off, the other part of my brain being flooded with dopamine is saying to keep on going.

Ever gotten a sucrose or butter craving?

Click to expand...

That's kind of the point of the study. You can't stop yourself because your brain is getting mixed signals. "I need to stop eating but it tastes so fucking good". Science has proven that phenomenon doesn't really occur when you eat the foods separately.

Itlan_sl said:

Like I said, if I didn't make that clear before I apologize. The point I was trying to make is receptors die off due to that specific combination, and my question was whether that also applies to whole foods being consumed together, or if it strictly when foods are processed together in that 50:50 ratio.

Click to expand...

It doesn't tend to happen when you eat the foods separately (as in you eat some chicken and then immediately snack on an apple). That makes sense to me because it isn't nearly as decadent as combining the foods into one dish to create a completely different taste profile. Basically, your taste buds are overriding your emergency shut off valve.

Also, haven't there been studies that prove that how fast you eat affects satiation as well? It takes a lot longer to eat some chicken and then eat an apple than it does to eat a piece of cheesecake. That would be pretty easy to prove. Serve test subjects hot soup (hot enough they have to blow on it between bites) in a bowl with a small spoon. Give them the same amount of calories of the same exact soup at a lower temperature and in a bottle (so they can eat it much faster).

Khane_sl said:

Well you didn't say anything about that being the point, you made it sound like all things being equal, eating both fat and sugar at the same time makes you fat because you've confused your body into not being able to burn those calories for energy.

But haven't we known that for years? Haven't humans typically done either a low fat, or low carb diet for the past 30 years? P.S. A lot of studies like that have been done on actual human beings, all with the same results on the effects on hunger and satiation.

Since you seem to have watched the whole thing and I can't be bothered to do more than the brief skim I already did. About the two brothers.

Did they eat before or after their exercise intervals? What did the high fat diet consist of? How about the high carb diet? The reason I ask is because it's common knowledge that simple carbs are much more readily available as energy so if they both ate 20 minutes before a workout it makes perfect sense the high carb brother would outperform. He's got the quicker energy source.

Click to expand...

They were both given freedom to eat as much as they wanted. Fat diet consisted of mainly unsaturated fats, but he also had bacon, cheese, etc. Carb diet consisted of basically anything and everything with carbs. The fat guy ate about 800 calories per meal, carbs 1250, naturally due to satiety.

They only showed one specific workout, and maybe you could provide more insight into this: they didn't eat for 12 hours (which I thought would give the advantage to the fat diet?), and the blood sugar levels and heart rate were both better for the carb diet while they did an hour of stationary bike. After that hour, they gave the carb diet brother a packet of sugar basically, and the fat diet brother a packet of butter, both ~equal in calories and obviously the carb diet steamrolled the fat diet, which is to be expected. The only part that threw me off was that he also outperformed him over the course of the hour cycling.

Khane_sl said:

It doesn't tend to happen when you eat the foods separately (as in you eat some chicken and then immediately snack on an apple). That makes sense to me because it isn't nearly as decadent as combining the foods into one dish to create a completely different taste profile. Basically, your taste buds are overriding your emergency shut off valve.

Also, haven't there been studies that prove that how fast you eat affects satiation as well? It takes a lot longer to eat some chicken and then eat an apple than it does to eat a piece of cheesecake. That would be pretty easy to prove. Serve test subjects hot soup in a bowl with a small spoon. Give them the same amount of calories of the same exact soup at a lower temperature and in a bottle (so they can eat it much faster).

Click to expand...

Correct, that's an old study, but still proves to be valid. I personally eat way too fucking fast no matter what I'm eating lol.

Eating slow can indeed affect appetite. It appears to affect how sated a person feels for hours after the meal even moreso:

Slower-Paced Meal Reduces Hunger but Affects Calorie Consumption Differently in Normal-Weight and Overweight or Obese Individuals | Elsevier
IJBNPA | Full text | Does eating slowly influence appetite and energy intake when water intake is controlled?
Slow eating may reduce hunger but not calorie intake - Medical News Today

As for the brothers. The high carb diet brother was eating 450 more calories per meal. If 3 meals a day that's a whopping 1350 calories. Of course he's going to perform better during exercise, he's got more energy to burn. Did the high fat brother still eat carbs or was it a 0 carb diet? Your body NEEDS carbohydrates. If he wasn't eating at least 60g of carbs a day (more really, for an hour of cycling I'd say 120-150g, when considering they were exercising regularly) he is going to get outperformed every single time. The fact that his body was resorting to burning non-essential protein (muscle mass) proves that he wasn't eating appropriately for the amount of exercise they were performing.

That is the problem I have with studies done on low carb diets. They almost never give the low carb test subjects the appropriate amount of carbs that would be recommended by someone like Dr. Atkins (were he still alive). The man actually stated in his book "If you are exercising eat more carbs, not more fat, more carbs". And then they demonize the actual low carb diets by name as if they had controlled the experiment to those diets' specifications.

I don't believe they were performing regularly, just that one instance actually. I'm not sure I was watching it at work so I may have missed a few things here and there lol.

Now that I never knew, how it affects your hunger later in the day. That's interesting, I can't read the article atm. Mind explaining the basic reasoning behind it? Also, that title... How exactly does it affect different people of different weights?

Deathwing_sl said:

Depends. Your example doesn't work, obviously. But, let's go larger and say...Thanksgiving feast?

Honestly, sounds like a case of sometimes your brain is its own enemy sometimes. Dumb it down for most people and just say "don't eat this", which is regrettable. We've discussed this before so I'm sure most people already know my stance on this. The rats should have been smart enough to know when to stop eating.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately you have to dumb it down for obese people. They don't have self control. If you're a normal weight you don't have to worry about it. Literally, you can completely ignore these studies. You have the willpower and state of mind to know when enough is enough.