• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

marlowe221

Counting Carbs

Recommended Posts

No worries, FruityGun! A good discussion has a tendency to wander a bit, especially when it is a good discussion among thoughtful people.

 

Speaking of digestion, I have noticed some... *ahem* difficulty at what I will politely call the "end phase" of the digestion process that I did not have before I stopped eating apples regularly. To be perfectly honest, it has been frustrating.

 

I would definitely be interested in reading more about the role of dietary fiber in carb/sugar/calorie absorption though. 

Well, the most popular book you can read about eating this way, which definitely covers digestion, is 'The 80/10/10 Diet' by Douglas N Graham. I know all about it, but I haven't actually read the book (I'm bad XD). But a lot of people with questions about the lifestyle start by reading the book. BTW, 80/10/10 means 80% complex carbohydrates (fruits and vegetables), 10 percent lean protein (veggies, fruits, nuts, etc.), and 10 percent fat (avocados, coconuts, nuts, seeds). A lot of raw eaters/raw till 4 people don't worry too much about exact amounts anymore. As long as you aren't downing avocados, coconuts, nuts, and seeds, you should be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think I want to be a fruitarian myself. But I am wondering if I went a bit overboard in cutting out all fruit. At this point I have not eaten any fruit in about 6 weeks (at least).

Edit: I am also thinking that maybe more fiber would actually be helpful in my fat/weight loss quest and that perhaps i have been inadvertently sabotoging myself by not getting enough fiber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think I want to be a fruitarian myself. But I am wondering if I went a bit overboard in cutting out all fruit. At this point I have not eaten any fruit in about 6 weeks (at least).

Edit: I am also thinking that maybe more fiber would actually be helpful in my fat/weight loss quest and that perhaps i have been inadvertently sabotoging myself by not getting enough fiber.

Oh wow. Six weeks? I'm not suggesting you will be a full fruitarian. Just suggesting some helpful info. Various fruits do so many things for the human body (including fiber) that avoiding them completely could hardly work out in your favor. You could start off with a big fruit breakfast, have a side of fruit at lunch, fruit for snacks, etc. Regardless, fruit is not going to make you fat. So add some back to your diet. It can only help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Alright. I came up with another answer for you. Let me know if this helps.

Eating 3000 calories of fruit per day will yield less (or no) fat gain compared to eating 3000 calories of junk food.

Here's why:

1. Absorption. You're body spends more energy trying to break down the fiber in the fruit, and you end up not absorbing 100% of the calories from the fruit you eat. Whereas, you usually absorb all the calories from junk because it is so highly processed already.

2. How fruit affects you. When you eat fruit, there is not a strong insulin response because of the fiber. Therefore our body doesn't go straight into fat storage mode, as it would if you ate a big cake.

There are probably a couple other factors too. Its very UNLIKELY that one would be able to eat enough excess fruit to gain substantial fat, but it is possible. So, technically excess calories from fruit can (although unlikely) make you fat, but you can get away with eating many more calories in fruit than you could of other foods. That is why fruitarians are always so slim after being on the lifestyle long enough.

 
And I want to elaborate on how one would consume so much fruit that they would gain weight in the long run. So, if you slowly consumed fruit all day, you wouldn't gain weight. If you ate three super huge fruit meals (ten bananas per meal, a galleon of fruit smoothie, an entire watermelon per meal, etc.) then you would not gain weight. You would likely only gain weight if you were smashing in fruit non-stop all day. I've found that when I have consumed large fruit meals, it takes a while to complete an entire fruit meal, and afterwards I'm completely satisfied and don't want or need to eat for a while. So, weight gain should not be an issue in the long run.
 

I think it can be more complex. Fruitarians consume almost no fat. Eating fat, you have more fat in the blood stream. This makes insulin not efficient at the cell membrane and also not thyroxin.  So insulin builds and that in turns plows calories into fat cells EVEN IF YOU ARE STARVING. There is some special clarity you can reach once you de-fat your diet. You can feel it. I think factors are much more complex than simply too many calories.

 

Also, it's not just a matter of proving that excess calories from fruit will not make you fat, it's a matter of disproving the entire "calories in/calories out" paradigm which has been hammered into people from a young age. It rests on the *incorrect assumption* that the relationship between caloric intake and body weight is linear or even logarithmic (in reality, it is far more complex, sometimes even inverse,and the body resists all attempts to intentionally modify weight via changing caloric intake.) This is too big of a topic for me to address here but you can start with the Ancel Keys Starvation Study (the Minnesota Starvation Experiment) and from then on, read about anorexia recovery (how they do it in inpatient facilities), additional carb overfeeding studies, learn about carbohydrate metabolism and metabolism in general, and talk to people who have had different experiences with weight and caloric intake.

 

(I keep finding more information to add. XP)

 

 

It's worth keeping clear exactly what we're talking about when we quote numbers for caloric intake. One of the basic points that JPrev and Hazard have been arguing is that weight gain or loss is a function of caloric intake, and that if you take in more calories than you expend, you will gain weight, regardless of where those calories come from. I think, though, that they would agree (and I'd be interested to hear why not, if not), that the relevant number for intake is the calories that you actually absorb; if something goes in one end and out the other, unchanged, you haven't extracted any energy from it, and it doesn't count toward your caloric balance. So what matters from that standpoint is digestible calories. Now, there's a bit of fuzziness when it comes to fiber, as some if it can be digested, but only very slowly, or only after bacterial fermentation in the large intestine, so how much energy you actually extract from it is probably variable. So one question regarding your 3000 calories fruit vs 3000 calories of junk food would be whether you're counting the fiber in the fruit toward those 3000 calories. If so, then your 3000 calories of fruit will have fewer digestible calories than your 3000 calories of junk food.

 

Your point 1 suggests an additional effect, though, by which fiber actually inhibits absorption of nutrients from other sources, so that you absorb less of the energy from the non-fiber parts of the fruit than you would if you had ingested them without the fiber (so, for example, if you juiced an orange and drank the juice, you would get more energy from it than you would have gotten from the juice alone had you eaten the whole thing). If that's the case, then even if your 3000 calories of fruit doesn't include the fiber, it would still result in less total caloric intake than the 3000 calories of junk food (somewhat dependent on what we mean by "junk food", but in this context, lots of simple carbohydrates and little to no fiber is probably all that's needed). I hadn't heard of such an effect, and I haven't found much about it from a little googling. This review seems to have some interesting stuff, but from a quick skim, it looks like most of the suggested mechanisms for fiber playing a role in weight loss are related to overall differences in typical high-fiber and low-fiber diets: fiber promotes satiety, so you tend to eat less of high-fiber foods than low-fiber ones, high-fiber diets tend to be lower in fat and simple carbohydrates, etc. That is, you tend to gain less weight on a high-fiber diet because you tend to eat fewer calories in the first place. That said, they do refer to a study suggesting that "dietary fiber may decrease a diet's metabolizable energy (ME), which is gross energy minus the energy lost in the feces, urine and combustible gases", which might be (I'm not sure if I'm understanding that particular sentence correctly, and haven't looked at the cited study yet) the effect you're talking about. If that's the case, it's definitely interesting, and might be a step toward reconciling the idea that calories from fruit (or, presumably, whole grains, beans, etc) are somehow treated differently with the basic calories in-calories out calculation. At the end of the day, though, it's basically just an adjustment of the "calories in" number, so while it would further add to the difficulty of taking in enough calories in fruit to actually gain weight, it wouldn't in itself change the fact that if you ate enough fruit to take in (as in, digest and actually absorb) more calories than you expend, you would gain weight.

 

Your point 2 seems more complicated. There does seem to be evidence for fiber reducing postprandial insulin response and increasing insulin sensitivity, but it's not clear that that would lead to less fat deposition at the same level of caloric intake. I tend to be skeptical about statements like "your body doesn't go straight into fat-storage mode, like it would if you ate a cake", because whether or not the energy is immediately stored as fat doesn't change the fact that it has to go somewhere, whether it's stored, burned, or excreted; my suspicion would be that any effect on weight gain specifically related to the insulin response would be due to you remaining satiated longer, and so being less likely to eat more, and ultimately consuming fewer calories than you would have otherwise. That said, this article has a comment in the abstract about the difference in insulin response possibly affecting lipolysis, and tending to prevent obesity. I don't understand how that would work, and unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the full text of the article yet, but it'll be interesting to look into more. It's also worth noting that insulin performs a LOT of different functions, so effects on insulin response are invariably going to be pretty complicated.

 

I don't think anyone here is going to argue against the idea that you're unlikely to gain significant weight eating nothing but fruit. The argument is that the primary reason for that is simply that it would be difficult to consume enough calories from fruit to maintain a caloric surplus, rather than that energy consumed as fruit somehow doesn't count toward your net energy balance (or doesn't count in the same way as energy from other sources). So far, I haven't seen anything in your arguments based on fruitarianism that provides compelling evidence that the calories in-calories out model (as I understand it, anyway) is wrong. It does look like fiber might have some interesting effects on the "calories in" end of that, which I hope to get some time to look into more soon.

 

We should try to be as clear as possible about what we're arguing about, though. If you try to convince people that eating less and moving more is not an effective way to lose weight, or that calories from some sources (meaning calories that you actually absorb) don't count at all, or that it's impossible to gain weight by eating certain foods, regardless of quantity, you're going to have a hard time, because those statements all run directly counter to the well-established, scientifically well-supported consensus position. If, on the other hand, you're arguing that eating lots of X food is good for weight loss, or that Y food has interesting and relevant effects on nutrient absorption, metabolism, etc, you'll still find skepticism and spirited discussion, but probably not with the same sense of unyielding opposition. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should try to be as clear as possible about what we're arguing about, though. If you try to convince people that eating less and moving more is not an effective way to lose weight, or that calories from some sources (meaning calories that you actually absorb) don't count at all, or that it's impossible to gain weight by eating certain foods, regardless of quantity, you're going to have a hard time, because those statements all run directly counter to the well-established, scientifically well-supported consensus position. If, on the other hand, you're arguing that eating lots of X food is good for weight loss, or that Y food has interesting and relevant effects on nutrient absorption, metabolism, etc, you'll still find skepticism and spirited discussion, but probably not with the same sense of unyielding opposition. 

Wow! Just wow! You just wrote a novel! That is a great compilation of information. I don't think I disagree with anything you said there. Thanks for the information! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you are a tough one to convince... and I don't blame you. It took me a while to be convinced too. 

Haha, "convince" makes it sound like this is a debate. Biological chemistry doesn't change because we choose to believe differently. There are always going to be exceptions, but just because one guy can smoke a pack a day and never experience lung cancer doesn't mean cigarettes aren't harmful.

Now, before you bury me in studies, go and pick up Bio Chem 101. Once you've got your head around basic system functions, I will gladly debate with you (in fact, I welcome it, I love bantering back and forth on the science with my dietician buddies- just not when its based on anecdotal evidence or observational data).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... after spending time reviewing old biochem books, surfing PubMed, and reading through several articles................. Eld got there first.  He covered - very well - several of the things I intended to say, and even linked one of the journal citations I read today.

 

Which means, I don't have to do as much typing!  Thank you Eld.  :D

 

So, I'll add what little's left that I can.

 

1. Absorption. ....(snip)....  you end up not absorbing 100% of the calories from the fruit you eat.

 

Of the fiber that is contained in fruit, it appears about 1/3rd of it on average is soluble.  Among those soluble fibers particularly relevant to the topic are pectins and gums, which form gel-like suspensions "trapping" some carbohydrates and preventing them from being absorbed during travel through the small intestine.  Much of what we use to make the gel is reclaimed in the large intestine, freeing the carbohydrates, but by then some of them do, apparently, get expelled from the body along with the fiber itself.  This seems to be confirmed.

 

confirmed_poster-p228887304544419212t5wm

And that's pretty dang cool.

 

 

 

 

 There are probably a couple other factors too. Its very UNLIKELY that one would be able to eat enough excess fruit to gain substantial fat, but it is possible. 
And I want to elaborate on how one would consume so much fruit that they would gain weight in the long run. So, if you slowly consumed fruit all day, you wouldn't gain weight.

 

Never underestimate the amount of food a motivated strength trainee can eat when bulking.  :D   I can down 4000 calories in a single meal at a pizza buffet - I'm pretty sure I can eat enough squishy fruits like bananas in a day to gain weight from fruit alone.  Bananas are like 100-150 calories (depending on size) per banana.  50 bananas a day should do it.  That would only be 3 bananas per waking hour (new speed measurement for the Imperial system?).  

 

I could totally eat 3 bph.

 

minion-gifs-10.gif

 

 

 

Also, it's not just a matter of proving that excess calories from fruit will not make you fat, it's a matter of disproving the entire "calories in/calories out" paradigm which has been hammered into people from a young age.

 

When people say "calories in, calories out", they're not denying that the body is actually more complex than this. 

 

5af1800dbd18b30ced7a98fd63f0fe1f411091a0

 

What they're asserting is that most of the other things that are involved have such a negligible effect on weight management that they just aren't worth worrying over.  Simply by counting calories, and adjusting up or down, adherents to CI/CO can achieve their desired effect of weight loss, weight maintenance, or weight gain.

 

 

 

(I keep finding more information to add. XP)

 

Tell Indigo, gianna, and Peter I said "Hello!"  :tongue:

 

 

 

So bringing this back around to my original concern that I posted when I entered this conversation - I think we've reached an agreement that consuming 12,000 calories of fruit per day would result in me becoming obese (unless I were Michael Phelps or a marathon runner).  But in order to get all the protein that I need, I'd pretty much have to eat that many calories of fruit.  When I mentioned that number earlier, I wasn't exaggerating.  I even limited my math to using only the fruit with the highest protein-to-calorie ratio (though I'd actually have to eat a variety of fruits for a complete amino acid profile, which would raise the number of calories).

 

That would be the challenge for someone like me in becoming a fruitarian:  Figuring out how to both (A) eat the 130 grams of protein I need every day while (B ) not eating so many calories that I grow obese.

 

I don't think that can be done eating only fruit - unless I became an extreme endurance athlete too to vastly increase my energy expenditure to offset the increased calorie intake.

 

 

Now, I've only been discussing pure fruitarianism.  I haven't looked at Raw till 4 yet.  If it's basically fruitariasm most of the day and then anything goes at night, cool!  But I don't know what it allows after 4.  If it allows anything, then great!  I could easily meet all my protein needs by having fish, chicken, beef, lamb, eggs, milk, yogurt, etc etc in the dinner hours.  If it doesn't allow meat?...... then things would get more complicated.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I've only been discussing pure fruitarianism.  I haven't looked at Raw till 4 yet.  If it's basically fruitariasm most of the day and then anything goes at night, cool!  But I don't know what it allows after 4.  If it allows anything, then great!  I could easily meet all my protein needs by having fish, chicken, beef, lamb, eggs, milk, yogurt, etc etc in the dinner hours.  If it doesn't allow meat?...... then things would get more complicated.

LOL! What a fun post! I think it's cool how you guys have ended up teaching me some things about eating fruit.

 

So... Raw Till 4... Before I tell you how Raw Till 4 is supposed to be done, I'll remind you that it was invented... I think a year and a half ago. Of course it has picked up speed since then and is becoming fairly popular. However, the diet (or lifestyle) was INVENTED. If you wanted to try eating fruit until 4 and then eat natural/healthy foods that were lean and low sodium (even if that included meat) then I don't see why it wouldn't work. However, I'm not like most vegetarian/vegans... I don't think meat is terrible for the human body. Anyone else doing Raw Till 4 would tell you that meat kills you... Just FYI.

 

Raw Till 4 is meant to operate by eating raw fruits until 4:00. Then, you eat very large healthy high-carb vegan meals after 4:00. The high-carb part is important to keep you full and satisfied. Some dinner options are rice, potatoes, sweet potatoes, soup, corn pasta, sushi, asian food (including vegan chinese takeout), curry... you get the idea... If it contains a lot of rice or potatoes and/or is vegan and low in sodium or gluten-free or and doesn't contain a lot of processed crap but is still high-carb... then it's good. Also be sure to drink a lot of water and avoid stimulants. No coffee, caffeine, alcohol, etc. And another important detail is that after 4:00 when you start eating cooked food, don't eat any fruit after that point. I think that has something to do with avoiding bloating or something. Not certain.

 

Although, combining Raw Till 4 with eating meat and vegetables at night sounds sort of like a modified paleo diet. Hm... And I should mention that there is one area that fruitarianism stands out against every other diet (and I'm not sure where Raw Till 4 stands here)... And you can google search and youtube search this too... A lot of people have used fruitarianism or raw veganism to cure major illnesses, cancer, diabetes, diseases where they were told they had only a few months to live... Just something to keep in mind (I know I do).

 

So... I guess my answer is that you should try a 'modified raw till 4.' Why not? Who knows... you could start a new diet trend. lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 A lot of people have used fruitarianism or raw veganism to cure major illnesses, cancer, diabetes, diseases where they were told they had only a few months to live... Just something to keep in mind (I know I do).

 

I can accept that fruitarianism and/or raw veganism could have a positive effect concerning type 2 diabetes.  That's a disease its been established responds to lifestyle changes.

 

Fruitarianism or raw veganism curing cancers, however, isn't something I'll believe without substantial evidence supporting it.  People observing that "I ate this way and it disappeared" doesn't constitute substantial evidence.  That's observation that "this" happened and then "this" happened.  A probable causal link between the two isn't established.  What those people believe is a hypothesis, not a conclusion.  Treating it as a conclusion is a kind of confirmation bias.  The hypothesis would need testing.

 

A certain percentage of cancers go into remission naturally regardless of lifestyle.  Some people who were fruitarians or raw vegans may have had cancers that went into remission, but how many fruitarians or raw vegans have had cancers that didn't go into remission?  I doubt we know these numbers.  Somebody somewhere would have had to collect the population data on that topic for us to know, and nothing I've come across yet suggests that that's ever been done.  But I suspect that if we did know those percentages, they would probably fall in line with the percent of total cancers that we already expect to go into remission in any given population regardless of lifestyle.  That would be the logical working assumption until its proven incorrect.

 

 

  Anyone else doing Raw Till 4 would tell you that meat kills you... Just FYI.

 

Well, I killed the meat first by proxy.  So it's only fair.

 

6t1RRBA.gif

 

 

 

 

Thank you for the info. :)   There are some things I'll take away from this discussion that I might apply and see what happens.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the info. :)   There are some things I'll take away from this discussion that I might apply and see what happens.

You're welcome! And thank you for giving me some pointers too. This has been a fun conversation. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, this is why I like this site so much!  Most forum discussions on a controversial subject tend to devolve into 'ME no dum-dum, YOU dum-dum!' exchanges.  We're polite, reasonable, and willing to back our arguments with evidence. Yay us!

 

 

 

WIth that in mind, I've been getting pretty good results from Tim Ferris' Slow Carb diet.  I've gone from 228 lbs on October 3rd to about 212 now, with very minimal exercise.  It works very well for me, since I hate counting calories and macronutrients, and I respond very well to controlled-carbohydrate regimens.  I also enjoy a good pigout, which the program allows once per week.  (Gotta get my fruit allotment, after all.)

 

 

From what the OP has stated, the weight loss does seem to be going well.  Taking body measurements is a very good idea; another method for gauging progression is to weigh yourself daily and take the average at the end of each week.  My weight tends to fluctuate wildly through the course of a week, and taking the average lets me know if the general trend is downward or upward.  Having the data available also allows me to spot plateaus.

 

Adding in bodyweight exercise definitely will help; I know my body adjusts very quickly to my exercise routines, so I have to keep switching things up.  There are tons of bodyweight circuit routines out there; Mark Lauren's book "You Are Your Own Gym" has killer ten week rotations that will definitely confuse your system.  Even if you go with the classic Kushti wrestler program (dands, bethaks, bridging, and club swinging), you'll still get results.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now that we've utterly derailed the thread, had some fun arguments, learned some things, and found at least a few things we can agree on, maybe it's worth a quick comment (maybe not so quick, given how long I've now spent tweaking it) to emphasize a general point that might be a bit more related to the OP.

 

This one gets repeated over and over, but for good reason: the best diet is the one that works for you. There's no universally best diet, and the only reasonable way to compare two diets is based on which of them is more effective at helping you achieve your specific goals. If one of your goals is weight loss, then a common feature among diets that help you achieve that goal will be that you take in (in the sense of actually metabolize) less energy then you expend, but that can happen in multiple ways. If you find it easiest to just track everything you eat, estimate your caloric needs based on that, and adjust your intake/expenditure to get the weight loss you want, do that. If you can't bear to actually track everything and prefer to just emphasize eating lots of fiber and other filling foods, and use whatever other tips and tricks to get used to eating less in general, that can work too. You really love fruit and don't ever want to eat anything else? See how it works. Think a low-carb diet sounds great, because you hate bread? You're weird, but that's not my business. 

 

The key point, though, is that any of those is fine if and only if it helps you achieve your goals. Thought low-carb sounded good, but you're having trouble sticking with it because being seen in public using lettuce as a burger bun is too embarrassing? Better think about making some exceptions. Loving your fruitarian diet, but having trouble getting the nutrients you need? Maybe just being fruitarian during the day and eating a less restrictive diet in the evenings will work better (I'd bet that's basically the origin of Raw Till 4). Some people will find it easier to follow a plan with some specific list of allowed foods, while others would find that horrifyingly stifling and wouldn't stick with it for a week, let alone a lifetime. The main points are that 1) you have to find something that YOU can stick to consistently, long-term, and 2) you need to monitor your progress toward your current goals, whatever they may be, and be prepared to change your plan if you find that it's not giving you the results you want (or if you find that you're particularly deficient in some nutrient or something like that - I'm assuming that a basic level of physical health is a pretty universal goal).

 

Understanding some of the mechanisms behind metabolism and nutrition, in addition to just being generally interesting, can be very useful in estimating your needs (for energy, particular nutrients, etc), evaluating what plans are likely to meet them, and troubleshooting when you find something's not working as well as you'd hoped, but at the end of the day, the one metric that really matters is your results. That said, acquiring and applying that information depends on accurate information being available, which is why some of us are prone to getting into protracted arguments over people's claims about whether and how certain diets work. It's not that we're denying that some people get exactly the results they want from eating paleo or fruitarian or whatever else; we just want to make sure that as much of the information available here (or anywhere else we have any chance of influencing) is as accurate and understandable as possible, so that new people coming in have a better chance of finding what will work for them*.

 

*Some of us may also just really like being right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've run longterm keto. I think it's more effective when your bodyfat% is high. I read an article about it once. I'm guessing it has to do with breaking the insulin resistance cycle that got the person fat in the first place and to do with training the body to burn fat primarily. Once bodyfat% drops low enough, keto diets suffer hormone production problems which greatly diminishing fat loss potential.

So Keto is not ideal for OP's situation of trying to deal with the last 10lbs of body fat.

And about the fruit thing... It's impossible to enter deep ketosis while chomping away at fruit. Doesn't work like that. No point in low carb diet if you put in an eat-tons-of-fruit exception. Like super silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Absorption. You're body spends more energy trying to break down the fiber in the fruit, and you end up not absorbing 100% of the calories from the fruit you eat. Whereas, you usually absorb all the calories from junk because it is so highly processed already.

 

Not true. There is no such thing as "negative calorie" foods. There are two types of fiber, digestible and non-digestible. Non-digestible fiber isn't absorbed by the body, whereas digestible is. As fruit is not 100% non-digestible fiber there are still biologically available calories.

 

2. How fruit affects you. When you eat fruit, there is not a strong insulin response because of the fiber. Therefore our body doesn't go straight into fat storage mode, as it would if you ate a big cake.

 

Not true, if you ate a cake with the same amount carbohydrates as a piece of fruit your body would respond with the same spike in insulin and blood glucose. Your body can't tell the difference between cake and fruit, it can only tell the difference between nutrients and minerals.

 

you can get away with eating many more calories in fruit than you could of other foods

 

No, you can't.

 

If you ate three super huge fruit meals (ten bananas per meal, a galleon of fruit smoothie, an entire watermelon per meal, etc.) then you would not gain weight

 

The average banana has 100-150 calories in it. That's 1000-1500 calories in the 10 banana's, let's be conservative and say that they're small banana's so 1000 calories. There's 3,785ml in 1 gallon. Approximately 3.75kg net weight. If you made a smoothie consisting of banana and apple, equal portions that's roughly 15 banana's and 15 apple's if they were around 120g each. So that's a further 1,500 calories from the banana and roughly 900 from the apple. We're currently sitting at 3,400 calories (and we're being conservative, remember). Let's say you have a 1.5kg Watermelon, which is pretty average, that should be about 460 calories.So we're at 3,860 calories. That's a pretty high calorie count for someone who is either maintaining their weight or trying to lose it. It'll be okay for a bulk but there's not enough protein.

 

So insulin builds and that in turns plows calories into fat cells EVEN IF YOU ARE STARVING

 

No it doesn't. Insulin is an important hormone in our body but it can't store fat unless you're consuming more energy (calories) than you're expending. If your body did that it would break physics.

 

There is some special clarity you can reach once you de-fat your diet. You can feel it. I think factors are much more complex than simply too many calories.

 

What you can feel is probably your brain not operating correctly due to the lack of essential fats.

 

Also, it's not just a matter of proving that excess calories from fruit will not make you fat, it's a matter of disproving the entire "calories in/calories out" paradigm which has been hammered into people from a young age.

 

When the human body is dependent on insulin calories in/calories out is true. Outside special medical conditions the only thing that can alter that is if your body is running on ketones which operate on a completely different level to insulin.

 

It rests on the *incorrect assumption* that the relationship between caloric intake and body weight is linear or even logarithmic (in reality, it is far more complex, sometimes even inverse,and the body resists all attempts to intentionally modify weight via changing caloric intake.) 

 

There is no incorrect assumption. Just scientific fact of how insulin effects the human body in regard to regulating weight. There are a lot of complexities to the human body but weight regulation is quite easily understood and manipulated, outside of specific medical conditions.

 

 

 

In short; You've got no scientific proof to back up your theory of eating infinite fruit will not lead to weight gain and it goes against everything the medical professional as a whole has known. Your ideals are founded on nothing more than completely anecdotal evidence which is not compelling. I'm not a dietitian, so I don't know everything there is about nutrition but I did do up to Nutrition 203 when I was studying Physiotherapy & Sport Science, and I know enough that when clients come to me with weight related injuries I refer them to a dietitian who does not recommend a completely fruit diet as it is impractical and not well-balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true. There is no such thing as "negative calorie" foods. There are two types of fiber, digestible and non-digestible. Non-digestible fiber isn't absorbed by the body, whereas digestible is. As fruit is not 100% non-digestible fiber there are still biologically available calories.

 

The proposed mechanism (that your body somehow spends so much energy trying to digest the fiber and somehow doesn't get around to the rest) is pretty clearly not right, but there does seem to be some evidence that fiber can inhibit the your ability to absorb nutrients from other food consumed at the same time (see the review I linked in my first post here, for example). That doesn't make it a "negative calorie food", which usually refers to foods that supposedly take more energy to metabolize than they provide. There's quite a bit that's still not understood about fiber (afaik, there's not even really a consensus definition of what counts as fiber and not), but there's certainly no cut and dried digestible/non-digestible division. Much of what's generally referred to as fiber cannot be digested in the stomach, but can be at least partially digested after bacterial fermentation in the intestines; how much energy you actually get out of foods like that will depend on a large number of factors (distribution of bacterial species in your particular intestines, how long it actually spends in the intestines, etc). Obviously fruit has biologically available calories, but it's not unreasonable to suggest that some of its energy content is less readily metabolized than that of some other kinds of foods.

 

Not true, if you ate a cake with the same amount carbohydrates as a piece of fruit your body would respond with the same spike in insulin and blood glucose. Your body can't tell the difference between cake and fruit, it can only tell the difference between nutrients and minerals.

 

Different nutrients (and even different carbohydrates) certainly do have different effects in the body. Fructose, for example, is metabolized by the liver and does not, by itself, produce a significant insulin response. The claim that the insulin response from fruit is significantly lower than from cake is plausible, but could use substantiation. Whether it's true or not, insulin does a lot of different things, and its role in weight gain is certainly not nearly as simple as  "less insulin -> less fat". But the claim at the opposite extreme, that there's no way your body can respond differently to cake and fruit, or even just to the carbohydrates in each, is equally simplistic, and calls just as much for evidence to back it up.

 

No, you can't.

 

Correct, assuming you're counting calories actually digested. If you're counting all potentially digestible calories in the food, which may be more or less fully digested and metabolized depending on the source, for reasons mentioned above and I'm sure many others, than maybe you can and maybe you can't.

 

The average banana has 100-150 calories in it. That's 1000-1500 calories in the 10 banana's, let's be conservative and say that they're small banana's so 1000 calories. There's 3,785ml in 1 gallon. Approximately 3.75kg net weight. If you made a smoothie consisting of banana and apple, equal portions that's roughly 15 banana's and 15 apple's if they were around 120g each. So that's a further 1,500 calories from the banana and roughly 900 from the apple. We're currently sitting at 3,400 calories (and we're being conservative, remember). Let's say you have a 1.5kg Watermelon, which is pretty average, that should be about 460 calories.So we're at 3,860 calories. That's a pretty high calorie count for someone who is either maintaining their weight or trying to lose it. It'll be okay for a bulk but there's not enough protein.

 

Not going to bother checking the math, but the idea is certainly right. Whatever differences there might be in metabolism, there's no food that won't make you gain weight if you take in more energy than you expend.

 

No it doesn't. Insulin is an important hormone in our body but it can't store fat unless you're consuming more energy (calories) than you're expending. If your body did that it would break physics.

 

Storing fat without a caloric surplus wouldn't "break physics", it would just require the energy to come from somewhere else (metabolizing some of your protein stores, for example). The statement you're replying to is plenty incorrect, though.

 

What you can feel is probably your brain not operating correctly due to the lack of essential fats.

 

When the human body is dependent on insulin calories in/calories out is true. Outside special medical conditions the only thing that can alter that is if your body is running on ketones which operate on a completely different level to insulin.

 

Calories in/calories out is just as true for ketogenic diets as for any other. Ketones aren't any more magical than fruit.

 

There is no incorrect assumption. Just scientific fact of how insulin effects the human body in regard to regulating weight. There are a lot of complexities to the human body but weight regulation is quite easily understood and manipulated, outside of specific medical conditions.

 

The basic idea that weight changes are driven by energy balance is indeed quite simple, but the biological processes involved are as complex as any others. Few, if any, of the details are well-enough understood to be considered "scientific fact".

 

 

In short; You've got no scientific proof to back up your theory of eating infinite fruit will not lead to weight gain and it goes against everything the medical professional as a whole has known. Your ideals are founded on nothing more than completely anecdotal evidence which is not compelling. I'm not a dietitian, so I don't know everything there is about nutrition but I did do up to Nutrition 203 when I was studying Physiotherapy & Sport Science, and I know enough that when clients come to me with weight related injuries I refer them to a dietitian who does not recommend a completely fruit diet as it is impractical and not well-balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, classy. If you're going to come into a thread to refute claims that the original poster has already backed off from, complaining of the lack of scientific evidence, be prepared to back up your own claims with more than simplistic insults and a mention of a class you took once.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, classy. If you're going to come into a thread to refute claims that the original poster has already backed off from, complaining of the lack of scientific evidence, be prepared to back up your own claims with more than simplistic insults and a mention of a class you took once.

 

Feel free to come to Australia and read my lecture notes. Or better yet, when I start lecturing Physiology 101, 102, 201 and Intro to Physiotherapy at the University of Newcastle next year, come and sit in on a few lectures. You obviously need a better education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to come to Australia and read my lecture notes. Or better yet, when I start lecturing Physiology 101, 102, 201 and Intro to Physiotherapy at the University of Newcastle next year, come and sit in on a few lectures. You obviously need a better education.

I'd be happy to read your lecture notes. In the meantime, if you're interested in explaining, civilly, what you think i got wrong, I'd be interested to hear it, and I imagine some of the other people following the thread would as well. Otherwise, we should stop wasting everyone's time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, for one, would love to see Clandestine's take on things explained more thoroughly.  Eld took the time to give a thoughtful reply and then you just called him an idiot, which is pretty lame.  The thread was really cool because people with very diverse views on theses things were communicating respectfully until the idiot bomb got dropped.  Now, I actually AM an idiot when it comes to this stuff and find the conversation fascinating.  So, if you want to back up your claims then please share your wisdom on the matters at hand.  I'll be watching to see how you discuss further everything that Eld mentioned.  Hopefully it can be done more respectfully in the spirit of the thread.  I'm new here and trying to absorb what I can, much like the digestive tract being discussed herein.

 

*oops, apparently I put this up at the exact same time as the more succinct version above, but I hope that the conversation continues*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to come to Australia and read my lecture notes. Or better yet, when I start lecturing Physiology 101, 102, 201 and Intro to Physiotherapy at the University of Newcastle next year, come and sit in on a few lectures. You obviously need a better education.

So the idea if someone questions your statements is to call them an idiot? You must be one hell of a teacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to come to Australia and read my lecture notes. Or better yet, when I start lecturing Physiology 101, 102, 201 and Intro to Physiotherapy at the University of Newcastle next year, come and sit in on a few lectures. You obviously need a better education.

 

Need proof?  Okay.  Just fly to Australia.  Nice.

 

Not sure why you're so butthurt over this.  Eld was pretty much backing up most of your claims with more in depth notes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please refrain from personally attacking members. I am all for debate and discussion but do not let it spiral out of control. Remember, we're all here to learn and nutrition is a complicated subject.

Thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.