• US replaces food pyramid with 'healthy plate'
    198 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;30215811]there's a difference between obese and overweight, this article is using some [b]weighted language.[/b][/QUOTE] you're a really [i]punny[/i] guy [editline]3rd June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30215912]Um no. There is literally ZERO difference between eating 3000 calories a day in 3 large meals, or eating 3000 calories in small frequent snacks.[/QUOTE] if you ask any dietician, he will recommend that you eat evenly across the day, rather than having one or two huge meals, because it keeps your metabolism going, like zeke said.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30215912]Um no. There is literally ZERO difference between eating 3000 calories a day in 3 large meals, or eating 3000 calories in small frequent snacks.[/QUOTE] if you eat more often your body's metabolism increases which means your body can take more energy without having to store it as fat
[QUOTE=Kopimi;30215946]if you ask any dietician, he will recommend that you eat evenly across the day, rather than having one or two huge meals, because it keeps your metabolism going, like zeke said.[/QUOTE] Um yes and like I said, 90% of "dieticians" don't have a fucking clue and are regurgitating information that is 50 fucking years old. eating more frequently to "stoke the metabolism" is a bunch of broscience bullshit. There is zero difference in the thermic effect of 3000 calories in 3 meals, than 3000 calories in 6 meals
this plate bullshit makes absolutely no sense to me. there's no numbers or anything, just four vaguely different circle sections. what am I missing?
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30216038]There is zero difference in the thermic effect of 3000 calories in 3 meals, than 3000 calories in 6 meals[/QUOTE] With the whole weight loss thing, you can treat the food as a number that doesn't matter if you eat it all at once in 10 seconds, or over the course of a day. With how the body metabolizes the food, it's a time dependent process. Don't confuse the two.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30215912]Um no. There is literally ZERO difference between eating 3000 calories a day in 3 large meals, or eating 3000 calories in small frequent snacks.[/QUOTE] Uh, no. There's a huge difference...
[QUOTE=Greenen72;30216057]With the whole weight loss thing, you can treat the food as a number that doesn't matter if you eat it all at once in 10 seconds, or over the course of a day. With how the body metabolizes the food, it's a time dependent process. Don't confuse the two.[/QUOTE] Hi [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985[/url] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494[/url]
Also, they keep changing the pyramid to be more accurate to what the recommended diet is. I don't see how changing it from something like the good ol' pyramid is going to actually matter to anyone, but I guess everything needs a facelift from time to time.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;30216059]Uh, no. There's a huge difference...[/QUOTE] refer to the studies I just posted.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30216038]Um yes and like I said, 90% of "dieticians" don't have a fucking clue and are regurgitating information that is 50 fucking years old. eating more frequently to "stoke the metabolism" is a bunch of broscience bullshit. There is zero difference in the thermic effect of 3000 calories in 3 meals, than 3000 calories in 6 meals[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's right, almost all dietiticans are totally full of shit. Sorry man, I forgot your expertise in this area.
This will do nothing. Like, at all. Everyone knows smoking causes cancer, but people do it anyway. They don't care. Everybody knows that over-eating can lead to obesity, but they do it anyway. They don't care. It's not a matter of misinformation to the general public, it's a matter of of the public's view of its necessity. Frankly, the government has more things to worry about than trying to "slim down" America.
[QUOTE=Sanius;30216056]this plate bullshit makes absolutely no sense to me. there's no numbers or anything, just four vaguely different circle sections. what am I missing?[/QUOTE] It's so kids can keep in their heads "this is the vegie section of the plate" stuff. God knows who thinks this kind of stuff will work
[QUOTE=Greenen72;30216067]Also, they keep changing the pyramid to be more accurate to what the recommended diet is. I don't see how changing it from something like the good ol' pyramid is going to actually matter to anyone, but I guess everything needs a facelift from time to time.[/QUOTE] please explain to me how this makes any sense at all compared to the pyramid. I seriously can not figure out what the fuck it is that I'm looking at
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30216038]Um yes and like I said, 90% of "dieticians" don't have a fucking clue and are regurgitating information that is 50 fucking years old. eating more frequently to "stoke the metabolism" is a bunch of broscience bullshit. There is zero difference in the thermic effect of 3000 calories in 3 meals, than 3000 calories in 6 meals[/QUOTE] so you know better than people who have dedicated their life to studying the human diet, and who make their living helping people diet and exercise and lose weight? you're basically just saying "nuh uh" and denying facts that have been proven by studies conducted by people that dedicate their lives to learning about this stuff EDIT: i just got fucking served by your sources.
[QUOTE=Greenen72;30216080]It's so kids can keep in their heads "this is the vegie section of the plate" stuff. God knows who thinks this kind of stuff will work[/QUOTE] that's really fucking dumb
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30216068]refer to the studies I just posted.[/QUOTE] Cool, I'm going to eat all my meals all at once now every day so I don't have to eat multiple times in the day, I'll lose weight, I'll prove you right! Even though, in the last two years, I've dropped 80lbs through eating less food more often...
[QUOTE=Kopimi;30216083]so you know better than people who have dedicated their life to studying the human diet, and who make their living helping people diet and exercise and lose weight? you're basically just saying "nuh uh" and denying facts that have been proven by studies conducted by people that dedicate their lives to learning about this stuff[/QUOTE] READ THE FUCKING STUDIES I JUST POSTED. These are the actual studies conducted by people who are in the field of nutritional science actually conducting research and not taking information passed down for granted. The problem I have with dieticians is that they are NOT nutritional scientists, and a large majority seemingly have a habit of not accepting any research that does not fit in with what they learned while getting qualified.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30216105]READ THE FUCKING STUDIES I JUST POSTED. These are the actual studies conducted by people who are in the field of nutritional science actually conducting research and not taking information passed down for granted. The problem I have with dieticians is that they are NOT nutritional scientists, and a large majority seemingly have a habit of not accepting any research that does not fit in with what they learned while getting qualified.[/QUOTE] i edited my post before you posted this. in other words, i was terribly misinformed and you are right.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;30216095]Cool, I'm going to eat all my meals all at once now every day so I don't have to eat multiple times in the day, I'll lose weight, I'll prove you right! Even though, in the last two years, I've dropped 80lbs through eating less food more often...[/QUOTE] Anecdotal. In terms of real world weight loss, caloric intake is all that matters. You lost weight because you were eating less overall, not because of some fanciful process you believe happens when you eat smaller frequent meals. [editline]3rd June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;30216112]i edited my post before you posted this. in other words, i was terribly misinformed and you are right.[/QUOTE] Oh ok sorry bro
just for the sake of curiosity: why is it then, that there is widespread acceptance for the idea that the same calorie intake at a different rate boosts your metabolism and helps you lose weight?
hey mate ( this isnt trying to insult you or anything ) but how old are you human abyss
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30216064]Hi [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985[/url] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494[/url][/QUOTE] Fuck you, health class
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30216118]Anecdotal. In terms of real world weight loss, caloric intake is all that matters. You lost weight because you were eating less overall, not because of some fanciful process you believe happens when you eat smaller frequent meals. [editline]3rd June 2011[/editline] Oh ok sorry bro[/QUOTE] So if I eat 2400 calories all at once, nothing bad can happen to my weight [editline]3rd June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=caaaasus;30216138]hey mate ( this isnt trying to insult you or anything ) but how old are you human abyss[/QUOTE] 20.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;30216064]Hi [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985[/url] [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494[/url][/QUOTE] did you read these because they aren't very conclusive metabolism is an established science by dietitians and doctors, they generally agree that eating less more often not only affects your metabolism but also affects your attitude towards food in general
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;30216146]So if I eat 2400 calories all at once, nothing bad can happen to my weight [editline]3rd June 2011[/editline] 20.[/QUOTE] lets assume that the ammount of calories you burn digesting and processing food is ~10% . now lets say with 2400 calories *.1 = 240 now lets split that up into 6 meals of 400 calories each meaning 40 calories per meal and you get ~240~
[QUOTE=caaaasus;30216204]lets assume that the ammount of calories you burn digesting and processing food is ~10% . now lets say with 2400 calories *.1 = 240 now lets split that up into 6 meals of 400 calories each meaning 40 calories per meal and you get ~240~[/QUOTE] Well I understand that the same amount of energy would be used up and given in either case, that's not really what confuses me. It's the effect this has on the metabolism and on fat storage that makes me confused that 1 huge meal would be the same effect as multiple small ones.
A cup of unspecified dairy?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;30216236]Well I understand that the same amount of energy would be used up and given in either case, that's not really what confuses me. It's the effect this has on the metabolism and on fat storage that makes me confused that 1 huge meal would be the same effect as multiple small ones.[/QUOTE] fat storage generally ( as in almost never happens)doesnt happen unless theres a caloric excess , regardless of meal size.
[QUOTE=caaaasus;30216249]fat storage generally ( as in very rarely)doesnt happen unless theres a caloric excess , regardless of meal size.[/QUOTE] then what determines caloric excess?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;30216257]then what determines caloric excess?[/QUOTE] above the amount of calories needed to maintain current body composition (those nifty maintenance calorie calculators give you a rough estimate)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.