BYND

[pmward]

I have a friend that is a dr and did research into the current studies on this and found that there was not enough evidence in the research to suggest any kind of link between soy and testosterone. In other words, as most things you read on the internet that are diet related, the bloggers just twist and make shit up to generate clicks and make money. These things eventually become so wide spread and people hear them enough times that people accept them as truth and spread it further without even verifying that there is any truth behind the claims (see keto, intermittent fasting, anything with the word "toxins" in it, and gluten "sensitivity" for further examples of diet fad falsehoods becoming accepted as truth simply through mass proliferation by clueless, shyster, self-proclaimed "experts" on blogs, the internet, and TV).

Hey, don't forget about all the BS accepted as truth that is proliferated by governments and big business, they are no better!

Yep it's all the same thing, spreading misinformation for profit or to fulfill some other motive. It's just very visible in the diet/nutrition world. If you actually read the scientific research on diet/nutrition you find that the stuff pandered about on the internet and commonly accepted is generally false, greatly exaggerated, or cherry picking something out of the abstract and quoting it out of context. Business and government do the same, they just generally try to hide their tracks a bit better.

[Cortopassi]

No doubt when I go Keto/low carb for more than a couple weeks, I have more energy, I lose weight and joints never hurt.

I've just never been able to stick with it 100% for more than about 3 months.

I never eat bread or pasta, but chips and sweets kill me.

[pmward]

No doubt when I go Keto/low carb for more than a couple weeks, I have more energy, I lose weight and joints never hurt.

I've just never been able to stick with it 100% for more than about 3 months.

I never eat bread or pasta, but chips and sweets kill me.

I'm not saying that you can't lose weight on keto. There is just no difference between keto or any other diet. The law of thermodynamics cannot be manipulated, at the end of the day the only thing that matters is energy in vs energy out (i.e. calories and exercise). Scientific research shows that in a calorie equated diet keto is no more effective than a balanced diet approach. Moreover, cutting out entire food groups for long periods can cause malnutrition in the form of nutrient deficiencies. Personally, I think people are much better off just doing a lower calorie balanced diet if they want to lose weight. Not only is it healthier in it's micro-nutritional makeup, but it's also more sustainable (and that's the most important piece of the pie anyways, because as you pointed out, if you can't stick to a diet what good is it anyways?). Contrary to what bloggers say, unless you have an existing professionally diagnosed medical condition that states otherwise, there is nothing wrong with eating bread or pasta. They are perfectly healthy foods. As in all things, balance is the key, imo. Is it good to eat bread 3x a day 365 days per year? Probably not. Is there anything wrong with eating a sandwich with two slices of white bread, some lean meats, and veggie toppings for lunch a couple days a week? Absolutely not. The actual scientific research shows basically that grandma was right all along. But grandma's advice is not exciting, it doesn't generate controversy and debate, it doesn't generate a cult following, it doesn't generate clicks, and it doesn't generate revenue... so the truth falls on deaf ears. Capitalism.

[flyingpylon]

There's more to health and diet optimization than weight loss. So while it's true that calories in/out is a factor and the laws of thermodynamics cannot be manipulated, IMO that doesn't mean that everything else is automatically irrelevant.

Food and humans are far too complex for there to be a "perfect" diet or universal rules about eating anyway.

[pmward]

There's more to health and diet optimization than weight loss. So while it's true that calories in/out is a factor and the laws of thermodynamics cannot be manipulated, IMO that doesn't mean that everything else is automatically irrelevant.

Food and humans are far too complex for there to be a "perfect" diet or universal rules about eating anyway.

Totally agree. My point exactly.

[Cortopassi]

[there is nothing wrong with eating bread or pasta. They are perfectly healthy foods.

I think that is the one point I'd dispute. If your body can handle it in moderation, sure. If you are a type 2 diabetic and cut carbs out, as far as everything I have read and researched, your blood sugar will be fine. It's only when you add carbs that it becomes an issue. Does that make them 100% bad, no. But moderating them has benefits.

In any event, it should be abundantly clear that something is wrong with either the type or quantity of food when you look at typical Americans and their body size over the past 30 years.

[pmward]

[there is nothing wrong with eating bread or pasta. They are perfectly healthy foods.

I think that is the one point I'd dispute. If your body can handle it in moderation, sure. If you are a type 2 diabetic and cut carbs out, as far as everything I have read and researched, your blood sugar will be fine. It's only when you add carbs that it becomes an issue. Does that make them 100% bad, no. But moderating them has benefits.

That was taken out of context. If you look at the words I said just before these I qualified that so long as the person had no pre-existing professionally diagnosed medical issues (meaning diabetes, metabolic syndrome, celiac, etc that are diagnosed by a real dr, not off of webmd). If someone has no medical conditions that state otherwise, then it is perfectly fine and healthy to eat a balanced amount and variety of carbs.

In any event, it should be abundantly clear that something is wrong with either the type or quantity of food when you look at typical Americans and their body size over the past 30 years.

Agreed 110%.

[Xan]

The law of thermodynamics cannot be manipulated, at the end of the day the only thing that matters is energy in vs energy out (i.e. calories and exercise).

I don't think you can say for sure you know the directionality there. Take for example your body temperature: do you have to carefully regulate how much heat you take in versus how much heat you put out in order to maintain a 98 degree temperature? When you have a cold, do you make sure to take in a little extra heat to get a fever going? Absolutely you don't. Your body has an equilibrium. When it aims for 98 degrees, it hits it. When it aims for more, it hits it. This means that the heat you expel versus retain is primarily a factor of what your body's target temperature is.

Similarly, the your body decides whether to burn or store calories depending on what its target weight is. Some foods (carbs) make your body want to store more. Other foods make it want to store less. For weight purposes anyway, we should be finding out ways to tell our bodies not to want to store as much, and the best way to do that seems to be limiting intake of carbohydrates.

[dualstow]

BYND right back up today, whoohoo!

(Apologies for the on-topic post)

I can’t see buying new shares anytime soon, and good competitors must be right around the corner. However, with Beyond Meat now on shelves at places like Whole Foods, I feel comfortable holding.

They’ve got a good lead for now.

[pmward]

The law of thermodynamics cannot be manipulated, at the end of the day the only thing that matters is energy in vs energy out (i.e. calories and exercise).

Similarly, the your body decides whether to burn or store calories depending on what its target weight is. Some foods (carbs) make your body want to store more. Other foods make it want to store less. For weight purposes anyway, we should be finding out ways to tell our bodies not to want to store as much, and the best way to do that seems to be limiting intake of carbohydrates.

Do you have a scholarly source for this claim? If you look in the actual research you will find this all to be false. Foods do not store more or less based on their macro-nutritional make up. It's strictly off of their caloric value. The body is in a constant process of burning and storing. This process goes on 24/7 regardless of what you eat. A calorie can be stored as fat, then pulled right back off 20 minutes later. There are two sides to the math equation, and you have to account for both. But at the end of the day it truly is just a math equation. If on the whole there is a surplus of calories you will have net storage. If there is a deficit of calories there will be a net loss. If they are equal, then things stay the same.

Not to mention that if anything, fats store technically store more of their calories than carbs because fats can be stored as is with little to no processing required. The chemistry involved in turning a carb into a lipid to be stored burns quite a bit of the calories. It's a super inefficient process.

Fats are not better than carbs. Even with what I wrote above, carbs are not better than fats. It's all relative to the diet as a whole, the individuals metabolism, the total calories consumed, and the total calories burned.

[Cortopassi]

The law of thermodynamics cannot be manipulated, at the end of the day the only thing that matters is energy in vs energy out (i.e. calories and exercise).

Similarly, the your body decides whether to burn or store calories depending on what its target weight is. Some foods (carbs) make your body want to store more. Other foods make it want to store less. For weight purposes anyway, we should be finding out ways to tell our bodies not to want to store as much, and the best way to do that seems to be limiting intake of carbohydrates.

Do you have a scholarly source for this claim? If you look in the actual research you will find this all to be false. Foods do not store more or less aside from their caloric value. If anything, fats store more than carbs because fats can be stored as is. The chemistry involved in turning a carb into a lipid to be stored burns quite a bit of the calories. It's a super inefficient process. Fats are not better than carbs. Even with what I wrote above, carbs are not better than fats. It's all relative to the diet as a whole, the individuals metabolism, the total calories consumed, and the total calories burned.

Have you read http://garytaubes.com/works/books/good- ... -calories/

and his follow-on book Why We Get Fat? I did a long time ago, cannot quote anything directly, sorry.

There is quite a lot of science that (I'm simplifying here) would show if you put two people in a room for a month and fed one 5000 calories a day from carbs, and one 5000 a day from fats and protein that at the end of the month there will be a significant difference in health and weight between the two.

I understand this is a religious argument for a lot of people, and I have my own views that many may not agree with. You can search on any of low fat/high fat/lo carb/high carb diets and will find adherents to all styles.

--Saturated fat is fine
--Cholesterol is not to be worried about
--I will never take a statin
--I limit carbs where I can
--The standard American diet is built on BS

[pmward]

Similarly, the your body decides whether to burn or store calories depending on what its target weight is. Some foods (carbs) make your body want to store more. Other foods make it want to store less. For weight purposes anyway, we should be finding out ways to tell our bodies not to want to store as much, and the best way to do that seems to be limiting intake of carbohydrates.

Do you have a scholarly source for this claim? If you look in the actual research you will find this all to be false. Foods do not store more or less aside from their caloric value. If anything, fats store more than carbs because fats can be stored as is. The chemistry involved in turning a carb into a lipid to be stored burns quite a bit of the calories. It's a super inefficient process. Fats are not better than carbs. Even with what I wrote above, carbs are not better than fats. It's all relative to the diet as a whole, the individuals metabolism, the total calories consumed, and the total calories burned.

Have you read http://garytaubes.com/works/books/good- ... -calories/

and his follow-on book Why We Get Fat? I did a long time ago, cannot quote anything directly, sorry.

There is quite a lot of science that (I'm simplifying here) would show if you put two people in a room for a month and fed one 5000 calories a day from carbs, and one 5000 a day from fats and protein that at the end of the month there will be a significant difference in health and weight between the two.

I understand this is a religious argument for a lot of people, and I have my own views that many may not agree with. You can search on any of low fat/high fat/lo carb/high carb diets and will find adherents to all styles.

--Saturated fat is fine
--Cholesterol is not to be worried about
--I will never take a statin
--I limit carbs where I can
--The standard American diet is built on BS

I have not read that book. I find it better to read the research studies themselves as opposed to reading an opinion. Let me be clear here though, I'm not saying I'm anti-keto or anything. If this fits someone's lifestyle, tastes, and motivations then cool. But it is not superior in any way to any other diet. They are all equal as long as calories are equal.

[Cortopassi]

pmward,

I respectfully disagree. Calories are not equal. But that's fine. My study is myself and how my body does better when it has less carbs. I assume the studies you are reading don't have conflicts of interest. So many do.

[pmward]

pmward,

I respectfully disagree. Calories are not equal. But that's fine. My study is myself and how my body does better when it has less carbs. I assume the studies you are reading don't have conflicts of interest. So many do.

A calorie is 4.184 joules of energy. Whether that calorie is from fat or carb makes 0 difference it is still 4.184 joules. Therefore, 4.184 joules of energy burned will burn said calorie. A gram of fat has 9 calories and a gram of carb or protein has 4 calories. Please do some research. There is plenty of unbiased research out there and it is quite conclusive. It's a math equation. 3-2 can never equal 3, 3-2 always HAS to equal 1. You can respectfully disagree and say 3-2=3 all you want, but it doesn't make it any more true.

[Xan]

pmward,

I respectfully disagree. Calories are not equal. But that's fine. My study is myself and how my body does better when it has less carbs. I assume the studies you are reading don't have conflicts of interest. So many do.

A calorie is 4.184 joules of energy. Whether that calorie is from fat or carb makes 0 difference it is still 4.184 joules. Therefore, 4.184 joules of energy burned will burn said calorie. A gram of fat has 9 calories and a gram of carb or protein has 4 calories. Please do some research. There is plenty of unbiased research out there and it is quite conclusive. It's a math equation. 3-2 can never equal 3, 3-2 always HAS to equal 1. You can respectfully disagree and say 3-2=3 all you want, but it doesn't make it any more true.

Again, you're assuming which is the independent variable and which is the dependent variable. You're saying weightgain = caloriesin - caloriesout. Isn't it also possible that caloriesout = caloriesin - weightgain?

[pmward]

pmward,

I respectfully disagree. Calories are not equal. But that's fine. My study is myself and how my body does better when it has less carbs. I assume the studies you are reading don't have conflicts of interest. So many do.

A calorie is 4.184 joules of energy. Whether that calorie is from fat or carb makes 0 difference it is still 4.184 joules. Therefore, 4.184 joules of energy burned will burn said calorie. A gram of fat has 9 calories and a gram of carb or protein has 4 calories. Please do some research. There is plenty of unbiased research out there and it is quite conclusive. It's a math equation. 3-2 can never equal 3, 3-2 always HAS to equal 1. You can respectfully disagree and say 3-2=3 all you want, but it doesn't make it any more true.

Again, you're assuming which is the independent variable and which is the dependent variable. You're saying weightgain = caloriesin - caloriesout. Isn't it also possible that caloriesout = caloriesin - weightgain?

No I've been saying the whole time that calories in and calories out factor into weight change. The correct formula though isn't necessarily to weight gain though, it would have to specifically be tailored to body fat change and body fat change is a derivative of whether or not there is a net surplus or deficit of calories. So it would be calories in - calories out = calories stored as the correct equation. Likewise calories in - calories stored = calories out. The equation to find fat lb gained can be attained by the fact that there are 3500 calories in 1lb of fat.

The only difference between the macros is the thermal effect of food (TEF) which is the amount of calories it takes to break a food down. Foods higher in protein and fiber (by the way fiber is a carb) have a higher TEF. There are also some chemistry processes that burn extra energy. This is what I was alluding to earlier when I was stating that it's less efficient to store carb as it is to store fat. Likewise, fructose in fruits requires more processing than a regular carb to turn it into usable form which burns some of the calories. But I digress. That can be quite the rabbit hole in and of itself that I would rather not have to type out the specifics to.

[Xan]

body fat change is a derivative of whether or not there is a net surplus or deficit of calories.

You're begging the question again. Is body fat change a DERIVATIVE of there being a surplus of calories, or is there a surplus of calories (which then get burned during daily activity) depending whether the body already has enough calories to reach its target weight?

Would you say that your body temperature is a derivative of whether or not you've absorbed more heat than you've put out over the course of the day?

[pmward]

body fat change is a derivative of whether or not there is a net surplus or deficit of calories.

You're begging the question again. Is body fat change a DERIVATIVE of there being a surplus of calories, or is there a surplus of calories (which then get burned during daily activity) depending whether the body already has enough calories to reach its target weight?

Would you say that your body temperature is a derivative of whether or not you've absorbed more heat than you've put out over the course of the day?

You're alluding to metabolism, and yes metabolism does have an obvious part to play. Some people's bodies will burn extra calories through thermogenesis and other metabolic functions better than others. Your body burns calories to generate body heat in thermogenesis. So if you "absorb more heat" by eating more calories than your body uses then your body will store those calories as fat. At the end of the day the calories are still being burned in these metabolic processes so it doesn't change the equation any. And if you weight the same person every day, and measure everything they eat, and compare the results you can find a good ballpark of what their maintenance calories are and then tailor a diet so that they lose weight based on that number. Obviously, human beings are a living organism and we are not static, things are always changing so yesterdays metabolism is not todays metabolism; activity levels change, people in a surplus tend to fidget more than people in a deficit (which burns calories), immune system changes amounts burned based on how active it needs to be, etc, etc so it's very complex. But at the end of the day, the amount of calories consumed minus the amount of calories burned (regardless how those calories are burned) equals the calories stored.

[pmward]

I think we have discussed this topic before. I think everyone's body is different and perhaps responds better to certain types of food. But I tend to agree with pmward here, and nutrition used to be my hobby. Corto, you have met me IRL and know that I am not overweight. I eat tons of carbs, mostly whole grains, but plenty of refined stuff, too. As long as I maintain my activity level and don't consume too many total calories, it doesn't seem to matter*. If I cut out carbs, I feel like crap.


*The exception seems to be craft beer. It definitely makes my midsection grow, so I only allow myself an occasional treat of IPA.

Yeah, I'm the same. I eat a healthy balanced diet with a decent amount of carbs and am on the leaner side. I also "feel like crap" if I eat too little carbs, but I live a very active lifestyle and that probably has a lot to do with it. Carbs = life when you're active, haha. I've also lost weight purposefully before on a high carb diet just to prove it could be done in a debate with a friend, haha. But I do agree that different people "feel better" when they eat more or less of certain foods. And that's cool. Like I said above, I have nothing against the keto diet if it fits someones lifestyle. I only have something against the people who say it's superior to other diet solutions from a weight loss perspective. If someone feels better when they eat low carb, or if that fits their lifestyle or palate, or if they just generally can comply with the diet better than other solutions: have at it, imo. I'm all for anything that works for someone.

The problem comes in where a lot of people these days think the only way to lose weight is to eat low or no carb. Then they try, feel like crap, relapse, and repeat that process over and over getting nowhere in the process. Not to mention the mental guilt and shame that it breeds if someone fails to comply with their carb restrictions can cause some unhealthy mental side effects. This especially considering that when someone has not eaten carbs in awhile their muscles are depleted of glycogen. When they binge on carbs they will have a spike on the scale the next day because of extra glycogen storage in the muscles. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, glycogen is a good thing, but it sure feels punishing for the person at the time to see the scale go up 1-2lb overnight like that after "failing". Whereas, if they ate a different calorie equated diet that they could comply with they would have actually made real progress. I would argue the mental game is the most important variable in dieting and fitness. As fun as it is to debate these things, they are all secondary to that.

[Kriegsspiel]

I'm in the "find what works for you" camp. You need to eat sufficient protein, essential fatty acids, and vitamins/minerals, but outside of that you can make up the rest of your food however you want.

[boglerdude]

> But at the end of the day, the amount of calories consumed minus the amount of calories burned (regardless how those calories are burned) equals the calories stored.

With some foods you excrete more calories. I try to eat mostly fiber and protein
https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011 ... -excretion

More on topic, Meatless Future or Vegan Delusions? The Beyond Meat Valuation
http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/201 ... sions.html

[dualstow]

We knew this was coming as it’s been in the earliest BYND articles, but Tyson Foods is introducing its own meatless meat now.

They used to own a stake in either Impossible or Beyond, and sold it when they decided to develop their own product.

Tastes like chicken!

[Cortopassi]

I think I was mentally going down a different track. I agree, eat what makes you feel good and doesn't metabolically screw you up or make you go to an unhealthy weight. I do like my carbs, but there's no doubt once I've gone through the 3-5 days of sluggishness starting one of my lo-carb attempts, I always have felt better from that point on. And as a byproduct, I have lost weight. But like a drug, I always get tempted off lo-carb.

My argument is with the 50 years of demonizing certain foods (sat fat, eggs, meat) and pushing low fat, higher in sugar and carb substitutes. I think (maybe??) we can all agree that was a mistake that has had decades-long ramifications for the health of people in this country.

Can we agree that too much sugar is bad? Forces the overproduction of insulin which makes your body want to store it as fat? And that any carb consumed eventually becomes sugar in the body? Higher carb consumption by typical sedentary Americans leads to more diabetes?

If you can agree with this, the issues I have is how on earth can this clip I show below be happening? There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is malicious or ill-informed or what.

https://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php ... diabetics/

A clip:

[pmward]

I think I was mentally going down a different track. I agree, eat what makes you feel good and doesn't metabolically screw you up or make you go to an unhealthy weight. I do like my carbs, but there's no doubt once I've gone through the 3-5 days of sluggishness starting one of my lo-carb attempts, I always have felt better from that point on. And as a byproduct, I have lost weight. But like a drug, I always get tempted off lo-carb.

My argument is with the 50 years of demonizing certain foods (sat fat, eggs, meat) and pushing low fat, higher in sugar and carb substitutes. I think (maybe??) we can all agree that was a mistake that has had decades-long ramifications for the health of people in this country.

Can we agree that too much sugar is bad? Forces the overproduction of insulin which makes your body want to store it as fat? And that any carb consumed eventually becomes sugar in the body? Higher carb consumption by typical sedentary Americans leads to more diabetes?

If you can agree with this, the issues I have is how on earth can this clip I show below be happening? There is a disconnect somewhere and I don't know if it is malicious or ill-informed or what.

Yes I do mostly agree with all the above. I could nitpick a couple things from a technical aspect (like the storing fat thing, as even if the body stores energy as fat temporarily it still gets burned through activity and metabolic processes so the rule of calories in - calories out = net storage at the end of the day still applies) but on the whole I agree with the general sentiment. The American diet is high calorie, high fat (especially saturated fats), high simple sugar, lots of liquid calories, low micro nutritional content, low fiber, low variation, lots of processed foods, lots of man made chemicals, lots of booze, etc. There's a whole lot of room for improvement for the average American. I am definitely in support of anything that gets someone to make dietary improvements. Joining the keto cult may provide the motivation for some to improve their diet, or at least put some conscious thought into what they are putting in their body, and that's definitely a very good thing. So while it's not my personal diet of choice, and when I help family or friends out with diet plans I don't recommend keto to them unless they are already gung ho about it, I think it does have a place. I just take issue with some of the misinformation that bloggers, businesses, and the media put out about it in the name of generating revenue.

[anato]

A couple of years back I spent an interesting night at a dinner party listening to a micro-biology researcher who'd been studying gut bacteria for years (first time I heard about poop transplant), and that turns out to be pretty much as important as what you eat to influence how much fat you store, by working on this or that nutrient and help your body metabolize it.
So there are people who can eat bacon&eggs 5 times a day and be as lean as a stick, and people who get overweight just by looking at a beer.

The poop transplant was particularly interesting: lean people who got poop from fat donors started putting up weight, keeping the same diet, and viceversa. He then went wild talking about future applications in which they could analyze a stool sample and come out with a personalized diet for anybody.

So that's another big argument for just finding whichever diet works for you (or your gut bacteria), with enough of all nutrients, and just be happy with it