BYND

A place to talk about speculative investing ideas for the optional Variable Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Post Reply
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: BYND

Post by pmward » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:43 am

flyingpylon wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:40 am
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.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1806
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: BYND

Post by Cortopassi » Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:58 am

pmward wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:23 am
[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
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: BYND

Post by pmward » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:07 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:58 am
pmward wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:23 am
[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.
Cortopassi wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:58 am
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%.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2591
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: BYND

Post by Xan » Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:38 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:23 am
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.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10436
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Contact:

Re: BYND

Post by dualstow » Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:03 pm

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.
VENEZUELA: U.K. Judge Rejects Maduro’s Bid for Gold
pmward
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: BYND

Post by pmward » Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:31 pm

Xan wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:38 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:23 am
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.
Last edited by pmward on Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1806
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: BYND

Post by Cortopassi » Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:58 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:31 pm
Xan wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:38 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:23 am
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
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: BYND

Post by pmward » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:06 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:58 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:31 pm
Xan wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:38 pm


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.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1806
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: BYND

Post by Cortopassi » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:18 pm

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
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: BYND

Post by pmward » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:46 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:18 pm
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.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2591
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: BYND

Post by Xan » Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:50 pm

pmward wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:46 pm
Cortopassi wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:18 pm
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
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1177
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:39 pm

Re: BYND

Post by pmward » Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:57 pm

Xan wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:50 pm
pmward wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:46 pm
Cortopassi wrote:
Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:18 pm
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.
Post Reply