Weight Loss Thread

Sanrith Descartes · Aug 8, 2022

Hoss said:
Beer may be bad, but tequila is 0 carbs.

Right now I'm counting total carbs not net carbs. I don't want to fuck with what's working, but when I get to a plateau, I think I'm going to try net carbs for a while and then I'll try this stuff.

Net is the way to go in my opinion. In most cases its dietary fiber that is indigestible to the human body so it doesnt do anything but pass through. So shit like spinach, broccoli, celery etc are close 1 or less grams of carbs per serving. Shit like carrots, corn etc just dont have enough fiber to balance the carbs.

I guess since I started with net carbs (Atkins), its just second nature for me now to count that way.

Those high fiber breads are really solid. I did a couple of patty melts with the artisan bread (minus the onions) the other night. Was great.

Fogel · Aug 8, 2022

Corn also has no nutritional value, its pure calories

Hoss · Aug 8, 2022

Captain Suave said:
Alcohol is empty calories, no room in the budget.

That's why atkins type diets are da bomb. They don't give a fuck about your calories. CICO is a theory from the 1800's in need of a serious update.

Sanrith Descartes said:
Net is the way to go in my opinion. In most cases its dietary fiber that is indigestible to the human body so it doesnt do anything but pass through. So shit like spinach, broccoli, celery etc are close 1 or less grams of carbs per serving. Shit like carrots, corn etc just dont have enough fiber to balance the carbs.

My wife reads everything. I hate to read. So she's my SME on this and she says net carbs is a bullshit shell game. But at the same time, I have noticed that if I go over on carbs with certain things, like carrots or salads or nuts, it doesn't seem to hurt my weight loss the same as if I had the exact same number of carbs of bread. So I think there might be something to it as long as I don't overdo it. Like, I bet if you decided to eat the whole loaf of bread in a sitting there would be problems.

Captain Suave · Aug 8, 2022

Hoss said:
CICO is a theory from the 1800's in need of a serious update.

There are complicating factors like hunger motivation and differential caloric absorbtion for various foods, but overall it simply must be true due to the first law of thermodynamics. I don't disagree that low-carb diets are easier due to high satiety, but the reason you lose weight is because you absorb fewer calories than you burn. The mass literally leaves your body as CO2 as your body oxidizes sugars and citric acid.

Sanrith Descartes · Aug 8, 2022

Hoss said:
My wife reads everything. I hate to read. So she's my SME on this and she says net carbs is a bullshit shell game. But at the same time, I have noticed that if I go over on carbs with certain things, like carrots or salads or nuts, it doesn't seem to hurt my weight loss the same as if I had the exact same number of carbs of bread. So I think there might be something to it as long as I don't overdo it. Like, I bet if you decided to eat the whole loaf of bread in a sitting there would be problems.

Its biology brother. Mammals cannot digest cellulose. So if a veggie has 5g of carbs and 2g of dietary fiber (ie cellulose) you cant physically digest it so it passes through like it isnt there. Thus you subtract it from the carbs. If you ate nothing but dietary fiber you would starve to death.

Quote from the Dartmouth Biology page - "The National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine recommends the adult male consume at least 38 grams of soluble fiber per day – the only kind of fiber humans can digest (1). The other more abundant type of fiber, insoluble fiber, passes through the human digestive system virtually intact and provides no nutritional value.

https://sites.dartmouth.edu/dujs/2011/02/03/turning-waste-into-food-cellulose-digestion/

Captain Suave · Aug 8, 2022

Sanrith Descartes said:
Mammals cannot digest cellulose.

I know what you meant, but cows, horses, sheep, goats, koalas, pandas, etc, all digest cellulose. Most of them need extra stomachs, enzymes, and/or symbiotic bacteria, though, which we obviously don't have.

Hoss · Aug 8, 2022

Captain Suave said:
There are complicating factors like hunger motivation and differential caloric absorbtion for various foods, but overall it simply must be true due to the first law of thermodynamics. I don't disagree that low-carb diets are easier due to high satiety, but the reason you lose weight is because you absorb fewer calories than you burn. The mass literally leaves your body as CO2 as your body oxidizes sugars and citric acid.

It doesn't take into account the calories in your shit. Eat a high fat diet and your shit starts to float because of all the undigested fat. But you hit the nail on the head whether you meant to or not. Carbs get stored by the body no matter what (with the possible exception of what sanrith is talking about). But with fats, if the body doesn't need them, they just pass through the digestive tract. So yeah, you absorb fewer calories even though you're usually eating more of them. That's why I said the theory from the 1800's needs a revamp and not that it needs to be tossed out.

Captain Suave · Aug 8, 2022

Hoss said:
It doesn't take into account the calories in your shit.

Sure it does. That's exactly what I meant by differential absorption.

My point is that if you measure calories ABSORBED, as opposed to calories in the mouth, CICO applies. The fact that you're greasing your intestines on a high-fat diet doesn't really matter, just like counting calories in indigestible fiber.

Hoss · Aug 8, 2022

Sanrith Descartes said:
Its biology brother. Mammals cannot digest cellulose. So if a veggie has 5g of carbs and 2g of dietary fiber (ie cellulose) you cant physically digest it so it passes through like it isnt there. Thus you subtract it from the carbs. If you ate nothing but dietary fiber you would starve to death.

Lemme get this straight, you're not talking about dropping a bunch of sugar onto some raw twine (just trying to think of something that would be pure fiber) and treating it as if it's no carbs? Because in that case the body would still metabolize the sugar as it passed the raw twine. So what you must be talking about is the carbs inherent in some things that also have fiber. Is that right?

Hoss · Aug 8, 2022

Captain Suave said:
Sure it does. That's what I meant by differential absorption.

My point is that if you measure calories ABSORBED, as opposed to calories in the mouth, CICO applies. The fact that you're greasing your intestines on a high-fat diet doesn't really matter, just like counting calories in indigestible fiber.

When I said that I meant that CICO doesn't take it into account. Weight watchers or any other calorie counting club doesn't use whatever version of CICO you're talking about where you only look at absorption. They look at what goes in your pie hole.

Captain Suave · Aug 8, 2022

Hoss said:
Lemme get this straight, you're not talking about dropping a bunch of sugar onto some raw twine (just trying to think of something that would be pure fiber) and treating it as if it's no carbs? Because in that case the body would still metabolize the sugar as it passed the raw twine. So what you must be talking about is the carbs inherent in some things that also have fiber. Is that right?

Dude. He's talking about the dietary fiber that appears on nutrition labels under "Total Carbohydrates". In that section, "Dietary Fiber" shouldn't count against your carb limits because you can't digest them.

Hoss said:
When I said that I meant that CICO doesn't take it into account. Weight watchers or any other calorie counting club doesn't use whatever version of CICO you're talking about where you only look at absorption. They look at what goes in your pie hole.

CICO is a concept, not a branded plan. It's literally physics. The only debate is over the accounting. Generally speaking, calories in your mouth is a fair proxy for calories absorbed unless your diet is 70% fat. If your diet is 70% fat and you're shitting fat, then you could have just bought and eaten less fat.

Hoss · Aug 8, 2022

Captain Suave said:
Dude. He's talking about the dietary fiber that appears on nutrition labels under "Total Carbohydrates". In that section, "Dietary Fiber" shouldn't count against your carb limits because you can't digest them.

I know where the thing is he's talking about but that doesn't answer my question.

Captain Suave · Aug 8, 2022

Hoss said:
I know where the thing is he's talking about but that doesn't answer my question.

What he's talking about is deducting dietary fiber from the count of total carbohydrates. Presumably he has a carb target measured in grams. If he met the carb target with X grams of dietary fiber he would be getting zero actual calories in carbs, which isn't the point, so he only measures digestible, or net, carbs.

If he were measuring carbs by digestible calories, dietary fiber would get a weight of zero and be excluded. If he were eating livestock hay, which according to a calorimeter has 1000 calories per pound, he'd die because none of those calories are absorbable by humans because they are locked in cellulose, aka dietary fiber.

Sanrith Descartes · Aug 8, 2022

Hoss said:
Lemme get this straight, you're not talking about dropping a bunch of sugar onto some raw twine (just trying to think of something that would be pure fiber) and treating it as if it's no carbs? Because in that case the body would still metabolize the sugar as it passed the raw twine. So what you must be talking about is the carbs inherent in some things that also have fiber. Is that right?

No. I am talking about focusing on vegetables that are naturally high in cellulose (aka dietary or insoluable fiber). Protein (steak, fish etc) has zero carbs (you know this I assume). You eat it with veggies. Focus on veggies that are high in insoluable fiber (which your body doesnt digest). Subtract the insoluable fiber (dietary fiber) from the veggies carb count and that is the grams of carbs your body is actually digesting. Keep that number under 25g a day for magic.

There is an entire other discussion of sugar alcohols in pre-prepared foods but we arent there right now.

Sanrith Descartes · Aug 8, 2022

Captain Suave said:
What he's talking about is deducting dietary fiber from the count of total carbohydrates. Presumably he has a carb target measured in grams. If he met the carb target with X grams of dietary fiber he would be getting zero actual calories in carbs, which isn't the point, so he only measures digestible, or net, carbs.

If he were measuring carbs by digestible calories, dietary fiber would get a weight of zero and be excluded. If he were eating livestock hay, which according to a calorimeter has 1000 calories per pound, he'd die because none of those calories are absorbable by humans because they are locked in cellulose, aka dietary fiber.

This. Entering ketosis for most folks is about 25g of digestible carbs a day to attain and maintain.

Hoss · Aug 8, 2022

Wait a minute, are you saying all fiber is carbs? As in, there's no way to eat 100g of fiber without also eating at least 100g of carbs?

Captain Suave · Aug 8, 2022

Hoss said:
Wait a minute, are you saying all fiber is carbs? As in, there's no way to eat 100g of fiber without also eating at least 100g of carbs?

Jesus. Fiber is chemically a carbohydrate (comprised of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen), which is why it's listed under Total Carbohydrates on nutrition labels. However, it is a carbohydrate indigestible by humans and doesn't count towards digestible carb thresholds necessary for ketosis.

For the sake of this discussion you can say no, fiber is not a "carb". Though a chemist will disagree with you.

wormie · Aug 8, 2022

Hoss said:
Wait a minute, are you saying all fiber is carbs? As in, there's no way to eat 100g of fiber without also eating at least 100g of carbs?

Wait until you find out that a lot of fiber, cellulose for example, is sugars!

Hoss · Aug 8, 2022

Captain Suave said:
Jesus. Fiber is chemically a carbohydrate (comprised of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen), which is why it's listed under Total Carbohydrates on nutrition labels. However, it is a carbohydrate indigestible by humans and doesn't count towards digestible carb thresholds necessary for ketosis.

For the sake of this discussion you can say no, fiber is not a "carb". Though a chemist will disagree with you.

OK then you could get a food with 5g of carbs, 10g of fiber and then add 5g of carbs through a sugar coating and you're saying that would be like eating no carbs. Sounds like bullshit.

Hoss · Aug 8, 2022

wormie said:
Wait until you find out that a lot of fiber, cellulose for example, is sugars!

Thanks for your solid contribution in the grown up section bro.

Weight Loss Thread

You have insufficient privileges to reply here.

Mr. Poopybutthole

Make America's Team Great Again

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.

You have insufficient privileges to reply here.

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.

Make America's Team Great Again

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.

Make America's Team Great Again

Make America's Team Great Again

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.

Make America's Team Great Again

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.

You have insufficient privileges to reply here.

You have insufficient privileges to reply here.

Make America's Team Great Again

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner

Make America's Team Great Again

Make America's Team Great Again