Most vets and cat experts actually say you shouldn’t feed them dairy for that exact reason.
ALso, why did cats start consuming cows milk?
Hedgehogs!
They were feline thirsty?
And where do they get it from?
Us humans, we are forcing it on them it is not something that is natural for them.
They take too much plucking, not worth the effort.
2 Likes
Cow tits!
Because the cows are convienently in the pasture next to their hedge.
… and as you pointed out saucers of the stuff some leave in their gardens for cats or the purpose of ‘attracting’ hedgehogs (and or badgers for that matter).
Their tits are so small I can’t even see them let alone pluck them. 
Jedi do
But I am not one of those Jedi’s
Whey is / was fed to pigs - many animals will lick up spilt milk - I once saw a fox doing just that.
Sounds correct.
But what is the calorific availability of the food once consumed?
Sweetcorn is a good example - look in the pan the day after you have consumed it and you will see that the body has definitely not used the entire caloric availability. Conduct a bomb test and you are testing the entire sweetcorn - reducing it to ash. So the caloric value stated is different from the caloric availability of the food. As I said, an inaccurate way of conducting a diet.
This is important because it goes to how different foods are treated by the body - the caloric availability of soft drinks is very high (Sugar and Water) very easily absorbed into the bloodstream. High fibre foods have lower caloric availability - it takes metabolic effort to extract the calories.
So when you hear “a calorie is a calorie is a calorie” that is patently nonsense when it comes to foods.
3 Likes
Commercial profits from milk is just a by product of the pleasures the original farmers derives from squeezing cow tits. It can get lonely in farms.
Sure, all organic based ‘compounds’ are burnt and we don’t even use all of them, notably protiens and fats, for energy (unless in a situation of starvation).
My example is peanuts, after eating peanuts my guess is 90% comes out the other end. Great source of fiber (too good for me) that causes me to run to the toilet.
I’m diabetic (classed type 1 but i feel it’s a lot more complicated than that) I just count the carbohydrates that go in, then again that’s to balance the insulin and energy out with what I eat.
I’m not getting involved on the dieting stuff as I’m one of those ‘lucky’ ones that doesn’t get fat (or it seems). I’ve been 75 Kg since the age of 21 except for a 15 year period (suffered from Lyme disease and part of that was water retention edema, i could fluctuate from 85 to 110 and back again in 4 days (that’s one hell of a lot of pissing btw). I auto medicalised and after cure got back to 75Kg exercise or not.
If I exercise above normal daily exertion i.e 45 mins of cycling (that’s 45 mins at 80 rpm) I can take off almost 10 Kg.
I do find what I eat significantly changes how I feel. My feel good diet is basically soups with root crops and beans with perhaps some pork or chicken thrown in (occassionally beef if the price is right) (Edit: eaten with rice or wheat (past, semolina) and a healthy intake of fresh apples and oranges (to get the carbs)). This also prevents any small weight variations junk food binges can cause a few Kgs to go on (just because I feel hungrier and eat more and the calorific value per gram is higher).
Just for info my BMI should be between 64 and 86 Kg and I’m smack bang in the middle.
This from the BBC today.
Another nail in the coffin for the outmoded Calories In Calories Out theory.
Even so they still came to the conclusion that you need to watch your diet and take physical exercise. So even if the reasoning is incorrect the conclusion is the same.
How is it that with all the advances in science over the centuries, we still can’t make up our minds how to keep a healthy weight? You’d think it would be an easy enough thing to research. Every time there’s a new piece of advice I’m immediately sceptical, because in a couple of months there’ll be a new study proving the opposite. Is it because it’s such a big industry that finding an answer is against too many vested interests?
@BigJon what is it precisely you think CICO means? Because this doesnt remotely refute it.
I referenced Pontzer in one of my earlier posts on this thread, as he is the main founder of what is now called the constrained model of energy expenditure. Basically, if you increase energy expenditure from physical activity your overall energy expenditure still stays in the same ball park range because of a reduction in various other elements of energy expenditure. It is one of the reasons exercise is not that effective a tool to produce weight loss and why you didn’t “earn” that slice of cake just because you exercised today.
What he describes is not particularly novel as the mechanisms causing this have been long well understood. I think what the value of his work is the demonstration of how powerful the effect is…how difficult it is to outrun.
Separately from this there is good experimental evidence that exercise alone tends not to reliably result in weight loss. This is counterintuitive reality for many people that requires an explanation, and this constrained model of energy expenditure provides one. Importantly, it does so by explaining it in the context of CICO - it doesnt produce a sustained caloriv deficit. It actually validates the CICO model
Kind of -
But the basic premise that the body operates like a machine and can be regulated by calories in v calories out is now completely disproven. I nor any sane individual could possibly argue that exercise is not beneficial for humans. As a mechanism for weight loss though it is pretty much useless
1 Like
There is very little evolutionary benefit from maintaining what we now consider to be a healthy weight and so we have essentially no biological mechanisms for help maintaining it.
In contrast, there are many reasons it is advantageous to be good at storing fat and so we have many biological mechanisms designed to help us do that. When coupled with an environment that promotes obesity, you’re basically dealing with an uphill task.
1 Like
I meant why don’t we seem to understand it? Why can we put a rover on Mars, but not decide whether avocadoes make us fat or not?
Honestly, I think we do understand it pretty well. But yes, there are lots of vested interests in trying to position their product in a specific way that makes the conversation seem confusing. And yes, there is also lots of bad science.
Once you get away from the concept of “is this food healthy” to “what does a healthy diet look like” so much of the discussion becomes refocused as pointless misdirection you can ignore.
2 Likes