Dr. Eades finally admits calories DO count
- Thread starter pete69
- Start date
scientific muscle
New Member
beingisbeing
New Member
thats pretty damn funny. did he actually ever say that 'calories don't count' ?
<div>
(pete69 @ May 28 2008,9:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So much for his claims of a metabolic advantage...
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike....re-1243</div>
I pointed this out at Lyle's, but how is that post at all contradictory to his stance? Even in Protein Power, which has been around for over a decade, Eades was apparently indicating that calories DO still matter.
The only thing a "metabolic advantage" would imply is the ability to consume comparatively more calories via a low carb diet vs. a higher carb diet for any particular outcome.
Bear in mind I am not a low carb apologist, do not even believe in the metabolic advantage, but people saying "he believes in the metabolic advantage LULZ LOOK AT HOW HE CONTRADICTS HIMELF" = silly.
Why silly? Because there is literally nothing contradictory about believing in a metabolic advantage for low carb diets and also believing calories still count.
(pete69 @ May 28 2008,9:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So much for his claims of a metabolic advantage...
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike....re-1243</div>
I pointed this out at Lyle's, but how is that post at all contradictory to his stance? Even in Protein Power, which has been around for over a decade, Eades was apparently indicating that calories DO still matter.
The only thing a "metabolic advantage" would imply is the ability to consume comparatively more calories via a low carb diet vs. a higher carb diet for any particular outcome.
Bear in mind I am not a low carb apologist, do not even believe in the metabolic advantage, but people saying "he believes in the metabolic advantage LULZ LOOK AT HOW HE CONTRADICTS HIMELF" = silly.
Why silly? Because there is literally nothing contradictory about believing in a metabolic advantage for low carb diets and also believing calories still count.
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(mikeynov @ May 29 2008,1:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Also, our very own Martin Levac makes an appearance in Eades' blog, conjecturing that protein intake might be inhibiting fat loss on a low carb diet due to its effects on insulin.
</div>
Yes, that was me.
(mikeynov @ May 29 2008,1:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Also, our very own Martin Levac makes an appearance in Eades' blog, conjecturing that protein intake might be inhibiting fat loss on a low carb diet due to its effects on insulin.
Yes, that was me.
beingisbeing
New Member
yeahhhhhhhhhhhh martin, WOOHOO
HST REPRESENT
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(beingisbeing @ May 28 2008,10:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">thats pretty damn funny. did he actually ever say that 'calories don't count' ?</div>
As far as I know, no he did not. He announced this post a while back and many waited for it in great anticipation because it would explain a whole lot about why fat loss stalls at some point. One reply shows that it wasn't as informational as we were lead to believe. I thought there would be an explanation of the mechanisms involved in why calories count but all I got was that somehow, without further detail, calories matter. So the apparent solution is to count calories after all. To me, that doesn't answer the question. How do calories matter?
Throughout his blog he speaks of insulin and carbohydrates, etc. We see that he knows the mechanisms that control fat accumulation so it's only natural that he would also consider those mechanisms, or some other mechanism yet to be discovered as the case may be, as the cause of fat loss stall.
(beingisbeing @ May 28 2008,10:51)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">thats pretty damn funny. did he actually ever say that 'calories don't count' ?</div>
As far as I know, no he did not. He announced this post a while back and many waited for it in great anticipation because it would explain a whole lot about why fat loss stalls at some point. One reply shows that it wasn't as informational as we were lead to believe. I thought there would be an explanation of the mechanisms involved in why calories count but all I got was that somehow, without further detail, calories matter. So the apparent solution is to count calories after all. To me, that doesn't answer the question. How do calories matter?
Throughout his blog he speaks of insulin and carbohydrates, etc. We see that he knows the mechanisms that control fat accumulation so it's only natural that he would also consider those mechanisms, or some other mechanism yet to be discovered as the case may be, as the cause of fat loss stall.
It all started when Eades compared 2 studies done decades apart in completely different conditions. I think it was the psychological effects of subjects in the Minnesota Starvation Study vs. a low carb diet study by Dr. Yudkin. He used this and lousy rodent research to support a metabolic advantage to low carb diets.
Anthony Colpo called him on it. Anthony even put up something like a 20,000 dollar challenge to Eades, who swore that he would prove there is a metabolic advantage to low carb diets, and support his claim with metabolic ward studies. Anthony Colpo exposed him, and even wrote a little book worth reading, They're All MAD, over at lowcarbmuscle.
Anthony Colpo called him on it. Anthony even put up something like a 20,000 dollar challenge to Eades, who swore that he would prove there is a metabolic advantage to low carb diets, and support his claim with metabolic ward studies. Anthony Colpo exposed him, and even wrote a little book worth reading, They're All MAD, over at lowcarbmuscle.