Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Calories in and out just refers to creating a calorie deficit: Take in fewer calories than you burn. That works despite any individual variations in how individuals "extract" calories from food.
Yes.
I want to add, DIT (diet induced thermogenesis) is very real. If you eat 1000 calories from protein your body will require 300 calories to digest it meaning you only net 700 calories. 1000 calories from normal carbohydrates only requires around 100 calories and 1000 calories from fat requires around 50 calories.
And ALL this can be measured and accounted for by measuring BMR then having the person eat and watching an increase in metabolism (heart rate, breathing rate, core temperature) for the next 6-8 hours. And this I must add is part of the calories out side of the equation.
I will keep hammering calories in/out. There is no magic diet nor bad food that caused everyone to get fat. Calories are cheaper and more convenient than ever before and we are more sedentary than ever before. It’s true that it’s easier to eat more calories of cake than when eating leafy green vegetables, which is why if you want to lose weight best to avoid high-calorie dense foods and switch to lower-calorie voluminous foods.
I want to add, DIT (diet induced thermogenesis) is very real. If you eat 1000 calories from protein your body will require 300 calories to digest it meaning you only net 700 calories. 1000 calories from normal carbohydrates only requires around 100 calories and 1000 calories from fat requires around 50 calories.
And ALL this can be measured and accounted for by measuring BMR then having the person eat and watching an increase in metabolism (heart rate, breathing rate, core temperature) for the next 6-8 hours. And this I must add is part of the calories out side of the equation.
I will keep hammering calories in/out. There is no magic diet nor bad food that caused everyone to get fat. Calories are cheaper and more convenient than ever before and we are more sedentary than ever before. It’s true that it’s easier to eat more calories of cake than when eating leafy green vegetables, which is why if you want to lose weight best to avoid high-calorie dense foods and switch to lower-calorie voluminous foods.
confused -- calories in/out doesnt work when you add your thermogen factor. should a person subtract the processing calories?
I want to add, DIT (diet induced thermogenesis) is very real. If you eat 1000 calories from protein your body will require 300 calories to digest it meaning you only net 700 calories. 1000 calories from normal carbohydrates only requires around 100 calories and 1000 calories from fat requires around 50 calories.
And ALL this can be measured and accounted for by measuring BMR then having the person eat and watching an increase in metabolism (heart rate, breathing rate, core temperature) for the next 6-8 hours. And this I must add is part of the calories out side of the equation.
I will keep hammering calories in/out. There is no magic diet nor bad food that caused everyone to get fat. Calories are cheaper and more convenient than ever before and we are more sedentary than ever before. It’s true that it’s easier to eat more calories of cake than when eating leafy green vegetables, which is why if you want to lose weight best to avoid high-calorie dense foods and switch to lower-calorie voluminous foods.
You are ignoring the fact that metabolic syndrome results from too much refined carbohydrates, plus not enough exercise.
If a person has metabolic syndrome, they could eat very little and still stay fat.
You are ignoring the fact that metabolic syndrome results from too much refined carbohydrates, plus not enough exercise.
If a person has metabolic syndrome, they could eat very little and still stay fat.
No. Gaining tissue always requires a calorie surplus. Your body cannot create tissue from nothing. It needs energy to create tissue and since human beings are not plants, that always comes from food.
People with metabolic syndrome suffer severe hunger pangs and energy loss on a diet but they still lose weight. They’re also more likely to lose muscle tissue vs fat than people with normal metabolic function on a calorie deficit. But they still lose weight.
And entering this metabolic dysfunction is not necessarily due to carbs but due to an excess of carbs relative to their energy expenditure.
If I were a doctor (I'm a nurse), I would focus on the fact that your elevated triglycerides are obvious evidence of diet indiscretions and would first try eliminating bad foods (baked goods, snacks, processed foods, pizza, fried foods, etc.) as a start. Then I would recheck your numbers in 6 months and go from there.
My mother had high cholesterol and lived to be 92 with no evidence of heart disease.
I have high cholesterol like my mother but my triglycerides are low. I have low BP and my weight is fantastic. My doctor feels that I don't need medication based on the total picture--my health is great, I'm low to normal weight, and my BP is great. If I had high BP and some cardiac issues, I'm sure she would put me on medication. Currently I'm on red yeast rice instead. Clinical trials have shown red yeast rice can improve cholesterol. My numbers are erratic though. I have to eat a near-perfect diet to hit around 200 total. I noticed the last set of tests I had done showed the normal range for total cholesterol as 150-250 mg/dL although borderline high was up to 239. I was 228 and my doctor said my numbers looked good.
A friend of mine's cholesterol was around 269 and she's been high for a few years now, with little effort to improve her diet. She's in her 70's and mildly overweight. She eats a LOT of bad foods. However, her doctor decided not to put her on meds just yet but ordered a cardiac CT test which will give more information about her cardiac health. I would go that route before going on meds. Statins are for the rest of your life and they do have adverse effects.
Total cholesterol should not be relied upon alone to determine the health of your heart. Total cholesterol itself is not that important.
It is the ratio between total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol that counts. The ratio should be under 4.5.
Target value of LDL is based on your overall risk of heart disease. Your target values are:
less than 100 mg/dL if you have heart disease or diabetes
less than 130 mg/dL if you have 2 or more risk factors
less than 130 mg/dL 160 mg/dL if you have 0 or 1 risk factor.
Risk factors include cigarette smoking, hypertension, low HDL (less than 40 mg/dL), family history, age (male 55 or older; female 65 or older), being overweight, and failure to exercise regularly.
50% of those who die from a heart attack will have "perfect" total cholesterol levels (less than 200 or even 180).
50% of those who die from a heart attack will have "perfect" total cholesterol levels (less than 200 or even 180).
I thought I read that somewhere, too. I've also come across studies that say that cholesterol can be too low, making you at risk for certain health conditions. Who knows?
Cholesterol is a controversial topic, like a lot of things; but, if you have heart disease or diabetes, it becomes much more important of an issue. Likewise, if heart disease runs in your family (parents, siblings, etc.), you would be probably want to pay more attention to the numbers.
"Red yeast rice contains chemicals that are similar to prescription statin medications. One of these, called monacolin K, has the same makeup as the drug lovastatin (Mevacor). Doctors prescribe statins to lower LDL ("bad") cholesterol levels and help reduce the risk of heart disease.
Researchers are not sure if red yeast rice lowers cholesterol because of the statin-like chemical or because of other things in red yeast rice, such as unsaturated fatty acids, isoflavones, and phytosterols. But because many red yeast rice supplements did have monacolin, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considered them to be drugs. Manufacturers were supposed to remove any red yeast rice products with monacolin from the market. As a result, many of the red yeast rice products you can buy may not contain monacolin. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell whether a product contains monacolin because it is not listed on the label."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
