You must log in or register to comment.
Oh how I hate the whole idea of detox and clean as it relates to nutrition. I worked at a health food store when I was young and while there was good nutritious food there, plenty of good people, the whole idea of ‘clean’ comes from a very dark place. I remember the raw foods guys and the idea of breathetarians. Like the less physical and embodied you were, the better person you were, enlightened. The idea of the physical world being unclean and something you should try to be free of, I hate it.
It really is more of a religious idea than anything to do with physical health. I think you have to enjoy being embodied, love the physical plane of existence, to have a healthy body. Not perfect.
ETA: OMG another comment reminded me. Also the colonics people trying to get literally clean inside, horrified at the stuff that came out of them, convinced it was toxic. I’m sure they are all dead by now.
I worked at a vitamin store chain owned by the parents of a college friend of mine (who is now worth $34 million lol - that chain has turned into a miniature Whole Foods) for a few months. I remember one customer came in because she was going through a divorce, and the cashier said “oh, you need St. John’s Wort for that”. Nobody there thought this was unusual in any way.
Also knew a guy in college who claimed to be a Breathitarian. We caught him at the Ponderosa steak house in the next town over one night.
I remember one customer came in because she was going through a divorce, and the cashier said “oh, you need St. John’s Wort for that”.
Capitalist witch woman gives antidepressants
100%. For example right now the meat and dairy lobby groups are pushing hard for everyone to eat for more protein than they need. Now, I have people who can’t tell the difference between a cytokine and a histone without using Google, even if it slapped them round the face, telling me they need 100g plus a day in Brotien. Its just a coincidence that this so called health advice makes those groups a lot more money.
I’ve heard that you cannot absorb (for lack of a better word) more that 30g of protein/day (adjust for your body weight).
Is that remotly true?
deleted by creator
It depends on what you mean by absorb. To make into muscle, it’s about right. Maybe a bit more for a man on a hard weight lifting regime. Like, 4 x 1-1.5 hours a week. The rest will be stored as fat, if it isn’t used for energy, the same as anything else. That could also be seen as absorbed but I think you mean the first one.
The number of people that don’t believe that taking in fewer calories than you put out will cause you to lose weight still astounds me. Your body isn’t some magic device that doesn’t have to obey the laws of physics.
Some people mistake healthier with less calories.
I switched from a box of Little Debbie’s a day to a bag of trail mix! Why can’t I lose weight?
That olive oil you’re using is good for you, sure, but it’s not a freebee. It has calories. Things like this are often not even noticed or counted.
I’ll just keep repeating this, but your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) is not scientifically set in stone.
While it’s accurate for I would say 90% of the population, rough estimate, there are many things that can cause your BMR to not be accurate, like thyroid issues or lack of musculature due to sedentary lifestyle or due to hormone imbalances or any number of myriad things.
I went and had mine tested and it cost me I believe $70 at a sports medicine place, and I burn approximately 200 calories less than my BMR chart says that I should.
So if I wanted to maintain my weight, and I ate the calories the internet says that I should every day, I would actually gain almost 20 lbs a year (a nice rough estimate is every 10 calories a day you cut from your diet you lose one pound a year).
And as I am working on losing weight, and I’m eating 500 calories under my BMR, I’m actually only eating 300 calories under my true BMR, which means my weight loss is incredibly slow.
So yes, while calories and calories out is true, there are external factors that make it difficult to get accurate numbers to compare against.
Therefore calories in calories out is much simpler to say than it is to do for some percentage of the population.
Not only is it not set in stone, it appears that your BMR is affected by what you do. If not provided with sufficient nutrition, the body seems to adapt and lowers BMR.
Yet, cico works.
You have completely missed the point of my entire rant.
Cico works, but “o” is a variable that can vary wildly from person to person, day to day based on environmental, genetic, and nutritional factors.
I’m confused. Your original comment was worded as if it stood in contradiction to cico.
Does not what you said just boil down to cico works, but knowing how much energy your body uses on a daily average (o in cico) is difficult to know and to not trust random values on the internet?
My original, original comment was that your BMR is not as sure as everyone claims it is on the internet.
If you go look up your BMR, it’ll ask you your height and weight and age and gender and give you a number of calories you’re going to automatically burn every single day, like it’s gospel truth.
And if I stuck to that number, I would gain roughly 20 pounds a year, at least until the increase in weight and my metabolism and my calories actually balanced out.
Which means that finding out the O in CICO can be much more difficult for some people than other people.
And once your metabolism is fucked, there’s not exactly a whole lot of information out there on how to unfuck it, other than “stay on a diet”, which, as you’ve just seen, isn’t necessarily easy, there’s not hard numbers to follow, and “exercise”, which is fine, but probably what I actually need to do is put on muscle, which means eating calories above how many I’m burning so that my body has the fuel to create more muscle.
So if I want to fix my body and lose the last 30 pounds I’m trying to lose, what I actually need to do is overeat until I put on like 10 pounds of muscle and then eat a high protein diet to maintain that muscle while I’m eating low carbs and low calories overall so that I can burn off as much of the fat as possible.
The problem is to put on 10 pounds of muscle can take 6 months to a year, and any time you’re gaining weight, it’s difficult to control what goes to muscle and what goes to fat. So even if I use a DEXA scan and measure until I’ve got 10 additional pounds of muscle, I might put on 20 pounds in the process, the rest of which would be fat.
This means all of the discipline I’ve had in maintaining my diet now has to change in order to fix my body, which now has to change in order to fix my metabolism, so that I can then go back to doing what I’m doing now and have it actually work the way it’s supposed to, and if I fuck up along the way, and my body goes back to burning 200 calories a day under my BMR, then I just have to live on a fucking starvation diet which will get more and more strict and more and more extreme the closer I get to my goal.
And the worst part is that’s just a theory. I don’t have any way of proving that. I do know that a pound of muscle burns like four calories more per day than a pound of fat does, so that will improve my daily fat burn by 40 calories, which isn’t exactly the 200 calories I’m under, but there’s no fucking way in hell I’m gonna put on 50 pounds of muscle unless I start taking steroids.
So, going back to your original thing, I was never saying CICO did not work. I was saying that, once again, you have to actually know what the O is, and it’s not the same for everyone, and it’s not always easy to find out, and if it’s fucked, it’s not easy to fix.
The people that love going “CICO! CICO!”, always overlook the actual complexity of the argument.
Simple ≠ easy
The equation is simple. Actually losing weight is difficult. This is what confused me about your first comment, I couldn’t tell if you were saying that it was not simple or not easy. And as you said, losing weight could be lost as either fat or muscle. If your energy intake is less than what you need to sustain your body, the body will take from your reserves (could be fat or muscles).
I am sure there are complexites to this that I am missing, like what happens if you were to starve then start eating again. The advise I find to be the best is to try to find a diet that you can maintain indefinitely. That does not mean to never eat ice cream, it means to eat less ice cream. If you are eating one bag of chips per day, make it once a weak. Did you eat X today, don’t eat Y as well
Gaining muscles though, all I know about that is mostly nothing so I won’t speak on it.
Yes. And you can carefully select the value for your case.
Eating a tapeworm also makes you lose weight, doesn’t mean it’s healthy. Not everyone can starve themselves thin in a healthy way.
You don’t need to “starve” yourself. That journey can be milder (though longer).
This is what you’re not getting. Some people do. Just getting to the point of not feeling like they’re starving puts them over their calories out.
Can you monitor your health while cico?
I can’t digest pork well (it runs right through me and frequently causes vomiting), so I don’t l eat it, but if I were to follow a diet with 500 calories of pork in it, I might get 100 from it. On the other hand, I digest beans and lentils incredibly well, with no noticeable gas. I can imagine that I might actually get 110 calories from a “100 calorie serving.” It is possible to determine your caloric intake despite this variation, but because people aren’t well educated about it, they see a mismatch in the math and reality and think it’s pointless to calculate it at all instead of realizing they need to adjust it for their specific digestive system.
Bro you ever try to make money selling horse radish extract? You gotta find creative ways to convince people to buy your product. 100% a marketing scheme.
Speaking of marketing scheme, I still have a laugh when people think the air fryer is the greatest kitchen equipment ever and so healthy because there’s no oil used.
It’s a bench top conventional oven.
