Steve, take a deep breath. It's okay.
I don't know why you raise so many trivial objections but let me say I stand by all my statements.
It's quite obvious you see negativity in me. That's an extension of yourself though. I can't help the tone you attach to the words you read on the screen. I assure you I'm cool as a cucumber... no needs for deep breaths on my end.
I'm also not attacking you. I'm discussing the information at hand, which has nothing to do with you. I'm not sure why you felt the need to take it to a personal level. I'm also not sure why you'd try and minimize my opinion by saying it's trivial. My refute to both of your claims above is of importance to some as we've been down this path in this community before with a lot of interest.
As I like to say, If a coversation takes place where there are opposing viewpoints in terms of the information (not the people involved), there's nothing to get emotional and/or personal about. If somebody wants to say something counter to my stated ideology, as far as I'm concerned that person is free to do so.
The key point is, being forced to defend your beliefs will either 1) reinforce them or 2) create doubt, in which case you reassess and either go back to 1) or you learn something. In any event, having people disagree can only be a positive outcome IMO.
If you can't think in those terms and are an ego-driven prima donna, sure, I understand the need to take it to the emotional level. But I assure you the people here see through that. I've seen you post a number of times and your information is solid. But this community, as a whole, values the integrity of information. And, as a whole, we don't take kindly to people getting emotionally huffy puffy simply b/c their information is called into question.
It simply doesn't help anyone.
I'm not allowed to post URLs yet, so google the words 'all calories not equal' and look at the dozens of studies that corroborate my claim.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting nutrients and calories are one in the same. I don't need studies to tell me the difference between nutrients and calories. What you said above is commingling completely different concepts. That is what I called into question.
There's no doubt that carbohydrates will affect the body differently than fats. But those are nutrients. Not calories.
A calorie is ALWAYS a calorie, it is impossible to be anything else.
Just as a kilogram is always a kilogram.
It's a unit of measurement.
Nutrients do not provide the body calories. Calories are a proxy measurement of energy food provides to the body, ultimately showing itself in ATP. Nutrients (not calories) do different things to the body.
The primary importance of food is to 1) provide essential nutrients and 2) energy (calories). Any food can provide the second, select foods provide the first. Sort the first, let the second come from whatever means actually allows the person to maintain their energy intake in the right direction.
If your 'research papers' go into the differences between nutrients... I agree. But that's not what I was refuting. I was refuting your claims above with regards to calories.
I'm well versed in the research, as I'm sure you are. Research is only as good as how well the reader can comprehend and apply what's being stated. If you want to PM the links I'd be happy to discuss this in further detail with you.
And to be straight, I was asking if you're sure about more meals per unit of time = faster metabolism, but at this point... that might as well be dropped for the time being.
