What makes you fat, carbs or calories? - Page 7

Finnish Fan · 01-15-2009, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USAMMAFAN

Its fucking calories, that Atkins shit is a just a fad diet.

If you only burn 2000 calories and take in 3000 calories of protein you will gain fat

If you burn 2000 and only take in 1500 calories from jelly dougnuts you will lose.

Of course the jelly doughnuts would not be a healty diet.

So tell me then since you seem to know this stuff:

How could prisoners in concentration camps during World War II survive, despite doing heavy work (burning up to 5000 calories per day according to studies), and not getting a lot to eat (about 1500 calories per day).

They had a 3500 calorie deficit every day, yet survived hundreds of days.

Let me know when you've worked the numbers out.

Pinoy Badboy** · 01-16-2009, 12:26 PM

I'm still on paleo bro..good stuff. I'll make a thread about my results and stuff in the future.

Rowan11088 · 01-16-2009, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finnish Fan

So tell me then since you seem to know this stuff:

How could prisoners in concentration camps during World War II survive, despite doing heavy work (burning up to 5000 calories per day according to studies), and not getting a lot to eat (about 1500 calories per day).

They had a 3500 calorie deficit every day, yet survived hundreds of days.

Let me know when you've worked the numbers out.

Well let's get a few things straight. A hell of a lot of them DID die, which suggests that any of them who were truly running such a deficit were probably among that number. Individual differences in energy efficiency can account for a lot. And how exactly is this relevant to this discussion? Are you claiming that these people DIDN'T lose weight?

But I really don't want to talk about starving people, if that's OK.

Monger · 01-16-2009, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finnish Fan

So tell me then since you seem to know this stuff:

How could prisoners in concentration camps during World War II survive, despite doing heavy work (burning up to 5000 calories per day according to studies), and not getting a lot to eat (about 1500 calories per day).

They had a 3500 calorie deficit every day, yet survived hundreds of days.

Let me know when you've worked the numbers out.

I decided to look some stuff up after reading this. Here's an interesting site...
Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A few things that jump out...

Calorie level started at around 1,750. Later it was dropped to 1,200-1,500 and then from 600-1000.

The average weight of the prisoners dropped to 88lbs. Caloric maintenance is linier to weight, for the most part. So without activity these dudes would have no issues surviving on 600-1000 calories a day (10 calories per pound is more than reasonable for an inactive person). Of course, they were not inactive as you and the article points out. But 5,000 calories a day? Where is that cited? A 5,000 calorie out put for these guys would be almost 57 calories per pound which seems highly unlikely to me.

A 180lb guy @ 15% BF could generate ~94,000 calories from fat stores alone. Probably another 50,000 or so from cannibalizing muscle and other tissue to get down to 90lbs. That, along with the fact that his ****bolism was slowing down and that his general caloric needs were dropping by the day due to weight loss… it makes perfect sense to me that he could survive for quite a long time. Especially since he was allowed to receive food from the outside according to the quote below.

Quote:

from early 1943 on some of the factory workers were allowed to receive food parcels from their families (mostly Poles and Frenchmen). This allowed many of them not only to evade the risk of starvation, but also to help other prisoners who had no relatives outside the camps — or were not allowed to receive parcels.[55]

So even guys that weren't allowed to receive parcels still go extra food by the sounds of it. They did not want the prisoners to die. They wanted them to work. I got the impression that they fed them as well as they could for as long as they could and rations were dropped when they started running out of food... at which time they allowed people to ship food in.

I didn't see anything that mentioned how long these guys lasted but I got the impression that it wasn't very long on average. There are no records to indicate how much food was shipped in either.

I think your argument is poor considering the lack of more detailed records from that time and all of the variables that are involved.

**romistrub** · 01-16-2009, 02:20 PM

Uh, guys... seriously?

A calorie *is not just a calorie*, at least not as calories are assayed from food.

Someone on a diet of 100% protein at an assayed energy content of 1500 kcal will have a far different actual energy consumption than someone on a diet of 100% carbs with the same assayed energy content. It won't be a little different, either. It would be *way* different.

Monger · 01-16-2009, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by romistrub

It would be *way* different.

No it wouldn't. Let's use some real numbers...

TEF for protein is around 25%, Carbs 15-20% (lets use 17.5%), and fat is around 3%. Although those numbers look huge in variance... they don't look so huge when placed in a practical scenario.

Let’s use 3 possible high protein diets at 3,000 calories.

Diet 1
300g pro = 1200 calories = 900 after TEF
225g carb = 900 calories = 743 after TEF
100g fat = 900 calories = 873 after TEF

Total calories after TEF = 2516

Diet 2
200g pro = 800 calories = 600 after TEF
325 carb = 1300 calories = 1073 after TEF
100g fat = 900 calories = 873 after TEF

Total calories after TEF = 2546

Diet 3
200g pro = 800 calories = 600 after TEF
150g carb = 600 calories = 495 after TEF
178g fat = 1602 calories = 1554 after TEF

Total calories after TEF = 2649

Ironically, just judging by TEF alone, high fat diets should yield the least results for dieters.

Also keep in mind that 3,000 calories is going to be very high for anyone trying to lose weight and lesser amounts will yield lesser variances between total TEF.

This is why I stated earlier that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monger

While true, it's extremely overrated unless you’re on some kind of extreme protein diet. Otherwise, the differences in TEF don't add up to all that much within the context of a reasonable diet for the average person.