|
Workout Thread IV (pg. 587)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
, it probably has alot more to do with the fudgecakes and icecream.
|
Yeah, BECAUSE OF THE ING SUGAR. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Mine is sated only by the sweet steaming blood of my enemies. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| I eat pieces of like you for breakfast! |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
 |
|
|
| Chris Crossland |
| You eat pieces of for breakfast? |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'm starting to believe you think that people's appetite is sated entirely by bulk mass of food in their stomach. |
Psychologically and perhaps physically im sure it helps when you consume alot and little calories are the result.
metabolic breakdown of food doesnt happen immediatley you know. It takes some to realize the energy input after you consumed it. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
metabolic breakdown of food doesnt happen immediatley you know. It takes some to realize the energy input after you consumed it. |
The body is not that easily fooled by high-mass, low calorie food. I watched a documentary about E-numbers and additives and they were talking about "diet" foods where sugar was replaced by low-calorie sweeteners. Even when the person couldn't consciously taste the difference, the body still recognised the lower calorific content of the diet version at the time of eating, and MRI scans showed the brain found diet foods less pleasurable and less satisfying.
This is one of the reasons why, as Fledz said, "low fat" foods are a crock of . Your body isn't fooled by the mass of the meal and the E-number taste replacements. It knows it isn't getting the fat and it isn't getting the calories, and it will demand more food as a result. You can't just replace all the food in your diet with lower-fat equivalents and not expect the body to notice. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
It's about more than the calorie content you ing idiot. When you put simple sugars into your body, your body goes to them first for energy, but since it's a source of energy your body is only able to use a small percentage of it, and then it stores the rest as fat. Since those sugars are so readily available/easy to use, your body doesn't have to do much work to break them down. So while the caloric content may not be as high, it DOES compound the problem...just the effects are more insidious.
http://www.caloriesperhour.com/tutorial_diet_fat.php |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Miss Pie
It's about more than the calorie content you ing idiot. When you put simple sugars into your body, your body goes to them first for energy, but since it's a source of energy your body is only able to use a small percentage of it, and then it stores the rest as fat. Since those sugars are so readily available/easy to use, your body doesn't have to do much work to break them down. So while the caloric content may not be as high, it DOES compound the problem...just the effects are more insidious.
http://www.caloriesperhour.com/tutorial_diet_fat.php |
Im not arguing that, you're jumping the gun AGAIN because you're an idiot.
If you reduce your fatty foods intake, its easier to maintain caloric deficit. Thats not to say substitute fatty foods with high sugars.
Even if sugars are stored as fats and you have a constant caloric deficit, they will eventually be broken down and used for energy.
| quote: |
Many fat-free products have been filled with sugar (and salt) to replace the flavor that was lost when the fat was removed. Whatever you're eating, the formula stays the same: Consume more calories than you burn and you will gain weight. So simply counting fat intake won't do the job.
|
FATTY FOODS CONTAIN MORE CALORIES
i didnt say simply count fat you presumptuous cretin. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| No, you're an idiot. You'll grab at anything to try and prove you're right, but you're wrong. |
|
|
|
|
