This isn't true as someone else pointed out. Your body will burn more calories breaking down protein than it will Twinkies.
Zamial said:Next year at the week long event I may attempt to disprove a theory that medieval people did not drink water and only drink small beer for the duration. But I do make ales and meads that are period but I would REALLY like to make a stien beer with period equipment. One day when my pocket contains more than lint I may attempt it...
Ive heard of mead but what is stien beer? And how would you make it with period equipment? That sounds interesting...
This isn't true as someone else pointed out. Your body will burn more calories breaking down protein than it will Twinkies.
Zamial said:Stein beer is made from super heating granite rocks and lowering them into the wort to make it boil.
Anyone in here who thinks that certain calories make you more fat than others are 100% wrong.
Healthwise is a different story, but you will gain just as much weight eating 6000 calories a day of chicken breasts as you would Snickers bars.
This isn't true as someone else pointed out. Your body will burn more calories breaking down protein than it will Twinkies.
I won't waste my time posting links you won't click. If you really belive all calories are the same just search Bing/Google and you'll quickly find 100s of articles that explain why they are not.
TheSlash said:Everything excess except alcohol, fiber, and crap like splenda turns to fat, but that means your body still processes it. No one said calories are the same. The only thing that is the same is how much energy is in a kcal. See it is a unit of measure. If your body burned 3000 kcals of energy any given day and you eat 2999 usable kcals of energy, guess what, you lost weight. If you ate 3001 kcals you just gained weight. Not talking about health! That should be obvious that a mealplan of twinkies will lead to health problems.
That should be obvious that a mealplan of twinkies will lead to health problems.
Eat less and workout....That's what I do, so I can drink this beer...
Safa said:I don't exercise so I can end up looking better. I do it so I can eat whatever I want whenever I want and drink ungodly amounts of beer.
Its not that I like exercise. I hate it. I just love eating and drinking so much, its worth it.
OP: you're drinking beer, its got alcohol in it, its going to make you fat no matter how many calories it has.
KeyWestBrewing said:Someone fill me in if I'm wrong here but.... Isn't the idea of eating more, smaller, healthy meals in a day vs 2 or 3 healthy big ones supposed to be that by eating more frequent smaller meals it helps increase your metabolism? I know a guy that some years back went from being very over weight to very fit preaching that this and exercise was better for ones metabolism. Thoughts?
Someone fill me in if I'm wrong here but.... Isn't the idea of eating more, smaller, healthy meals in a day vs 2 or 3 healthy big ones supposed to be that by eating more frequent smaller meals it helps increase your metabolism? I know a guy that some years back went from being very over weight to very fit preaching that this and exercise was better for ones metabolism. Thoughts?
kroach01 said:Actually alcohol inhibits lipolysis (fat breakdown), so it can allow fat to build up. But yeah, alcohol won't directly be converted to fat.
Fasting and going long periods of time without eating also has metabolic benefits. I find I get a lot less hungry fasting and only eating 1-2 meals a day than I do eating a ton of small ones. I think it is just whatever method gets you to eat the right amount of the right food. I have seen both methods work for people although the intermittent fasting route is the one that I will vouch for.
Ok, so the number 3000=3000. I get that.
TheSlash said:I think that is the point most argue. It's strictly numbers, strictly for weight loss numbers.
I hope everyone knows there are differences in food types and how they are handled by the body for things like health and composition and well being.
At its most basic, if we eat exactly the number of calories that we burn and if we're only talking about weight, the answer is no.
If we look at the nutritional label on the back of a packet of maple-and-brown-sugar oatmeal, it has 160 calories. This means that if we were to pour this oatmeal into a dish, set the oatmeal on fire and get it to burn completely, the reaction would produce 160 kilocalories -- enough energy to raise the temperature of 160 kilograms of water 1 degree Celsius. If we look closer at the nutritional label, we see that our oatmeal has 2 grams of fat, 4 grams of protein and 32 grams of carbohydrates, producing a total of 162 calories (apparently, food manufacturers like to round down). Of these 162 calories, 18 come from fat (9 cal x 2 g), 16 come from protein (4 cal x 4 g) and 128 come from carbohydrates (4 cal x 32 g).
Cortisol is lipolytic, not lipogenic. It mobilizes energy stores, not builds them.
Why is the glycemic index BS?
This former method is using a bomb calorimeter and is almost completely phased out because it doesn't consider how the energy must be metabolized to be used in the body. The latter Atwater method is what is used now and is a separate method.
I see what you're saying though that an excess of calories is an excess nonetheless. I think I misunderstood the point you were making.
TheSlash said:Cortisol is lipogenic, meaning it directs the body to store body fat. And importantly, as cortisol levels rise, levels of growth hormone and testosterone levels drop, and vice-a-versa.
Glycemic index is if the food is eaten on its own for one, when you mix foods you cannot get a picture of the GI. What matters is calories.
In one of the most recent studies of the glycemic index, researchers from the University of Minnesota tested whether lowering the GI of a diet already low in calories would have any further effect on weight loss.
The researchers compared the effects of three low-calorie diets, each with a different glycemic load, on 29 obese adults. All of the diets — high GI, low GI or high fat — provided the same number of calories.
For the first 12 weeks, all food was provided to the subjects (the feeding phase). Then, 22 subjects were told to follow the assigned diet for an additional 24 weeks (the free-living phase).
After 12 weeks, all three groups lost weight. However, there was no significant difference in weight loss between the groups. Subjects on the low GI diet lost, on average, 21.8 pounds (9.9 kilograms), while those on the high GI diet lost 20.5 pounds (9.3 kilograms).
"In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects," conclude the researchers.
Eating a diet with a low glycemic load can help with weight loss. But, that's largely because many foods with a low glycemic index (with the exception of high-fat foods like nuts and avocados) also have a lower energy density.
Most fruits and vegetables, for example, have a low glycemic load. So, when you eat fewer foods with a high glycemic load (e.g. cookies, cakes, or sweets) and more foods with a low glycemic load (e.g. fruits and vegetables), you end up eating fewer calories. The result is that you lose weight.
Cortisol is a stress hormone, like epinephrine. Cortisol raises blood sugar and breaks down fat to prepare the body for the stressor. It is without a doubt lipolytic. You would want to be in an energy mobilization state when stressed, not the opposite.
...I'm still waiting for someone to suggest an all-PBR drinking regimen to the OP...
I don't exercise so I can end up looking better. I do it so I can eat whatever I want whenever I want and drink ungodly amounts of beer.
Its not that I like exercise. I hate it. I just love eating and drinking so much, its worth it.
OP: you're drinking beer, its got alcohol in it, its going to make you fat no matter how many calories it has.
Enter your email address to join: