Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Nutrition, Products & Supplements Info => Topic started by: jmt1 on September 08, 2006, 07:59:28 PM
-
Since there has been so much garbage posted on here the last few days, here is some sound real world nutritional advice from Charles Poliquin
There are many advantages to low-carb nutrition; that's why I tend to use it with about 75% of my clients.
Poliquin recomends .25 grams of carbs per pound of body weight.
I would like to make the following 10 points regarding low carb diets. Of course, I could go on and on regarding this subject, but these are important points to consider:
1.Carbohydrate intake should be individualized. Some people simply cannot train for extensive periods of time on low carb diets.
2.“Low carb for life” is the best solution for at least 75% of the population. By eliminating grains, 90% of the nation’s health care cost would go down, taking care of problems with triglycerides, LDL, C-reactive proteins, low androgens, etc.
3.People don’t need as many carbs as they think they do. A lot of people are kidding themselves about how many carbs they need. “Man, I need my carbs,” they say. Yeah, right! What you need to realize is that there is a difference between a mouth and a vacuum. Consider portion control as part of any program.
4.Make “low-carb” eating part of a lifestyle. Clients should consider a “low carb lifestyle” rather than merely a “low carb diet.” Forty to 50 grams per day of good carbs are plenty for most of the population. That is why there are so many fat dieticians and personal trainers.
5.Distinguish the difference between natural carbohydrates and “neo” carbs. Did a caveman have access to donuts (i.e. “neo-carbs”)? No. Did a caveman have access to pasta? No. Pasta is a “neo-carb.” Did a caveman have access to grapes? Yes. Grapes are natural, allowable carbs (in some instances.)
6.Nutrient timing makes a difference. I think a 200-pound man can stay lean eating 250 grams of carbohydrates a day, if 200 grams of them are taken post-workout. The other 50 grams must be spread out throughout the day in low glycemic portions.
7.Eat vegetables. No one eats enough vegetables. Have you ever heard of anybody binging on brussel sprouts? If you do not eat enough veggies, a daily intake of mixed fibers may be indicated for a short period.
8.Stay lean. The leaner you are, the more carbs you can eat. Remember, I said “stay lean,” not get lean. Get lean first if you want carbs.
9.Dramatically improve insulin sensitivity. There are plenty of nutraceuticals (i.e. R-form stabilized alpha-lipoic acid, not the useless racemic form that everybody sells) and botanicals that improve insulin sensitivity. There are also functional tests that can determine which work best for you. Insulin sensitivity and the ability to hypertrophy while leaning out are strongly correlated, more so than androgen output.
10.Mix it up. Every fifth day you should go back to eating more good carbs, as oxidation of BCAA is compromised on low carb diets. The amount of good carbs is inversely proportionate to your percentage of body fat. Remember - Low carb diets without a high intake of smart fats are suicidal
-
Krispy Kremes and oreos ar good carb sources.
-
low carbs are for bitches, you white piece of bread.
-
I love how people are scared of "White" flour like its going to magically make them fat.
AleXXX got obese by just eating Chicken and Oats.
hahahahahahah He even admitted it.
-
another big plus of low carbs is that you're more likely to add muscle while maintaining a state of fat loss... calories can be higher while still losing fat.
-
Calories cannot be higher than what you don`t burn.
Trying to eat more is dangerous when trying to diet. You will never get there.
-
I love how people are scared of "White" flour like its going to magically make them fat.
AleXXX got obese by just eating Chicken and Oats.
hahahahahahah He even admitted it.
White flour magically spikes insulin levels - which will eventually lead to hunger more quickly. Then people eat more.
I have a feeling that even medical studies won't convince tools like you.
-
White flour magically spikes insulin levels - which will eventually lead to hunger more quickly. Then people eat more.
I have a feeling that even medical studies won't convince tools like you.
It is a Scientific Impossibility to store fat while in an energy defecit.
An Insulin response does NOT CREATE added energy and therefore is only pertinent when NOT in a defecit.
Such as when someone is TRYING to GAIN.
-
White flour magically spikes insulin levels - which will eventually lead to hunger more quickly. Then people eat more.
I have a feeling that even medical studies won't convince tools like you.
White Flour does not have a terribly High GI by the way.
-
It is a Scientific Impossibility to store fat while in an energy defecit.
An Insulin response does NOT CREATE added energy and therefore is only pertinent when NOT in a defecit.
Such as when someone is TRYING to GAIN.
You didn't read what I wrote. The insulin spike leads to quicker hunger again - that causes poeple to eat more calories taking them out of deficit.
-
Most of the world population is carb intolerant... Only 25% of the population is carb sensitive.
Thats a big reason why there are so many fat and obese people/
Today's society is carb-crazy because we're surrounded by a ton of carbohydrate-rich foods.... It's just too easy and inexpensive to grab a high carb food versus something high-protein or high-fat.
Studies are clear that no matter how you define a low-carb nutrition approach, cutting back on carbs in one form or another will have numerous positive effects for your health and your body composition
-
Most of the world population is carb intolerant... Only 25% of the population is carb sensitive.
Thats a big reason why there are so many fat and obese people/
Today's society is carb-crazy because we're surrounded by a ton of carbohydrate-rich foods.... It's just too easy and inexpensive to grab a high carb food versus something high-protein or high-fat.
Studies are clear that no matter how you define a low-carb nutrition approach, cutting back on carbs in one form or another will have numerous positive effects for your health and your body composition
No such thing as Carb Toleration.
People are fat because the expend less energy than they take in.
-
You didn't read what I wrote. The insulin spike leads to quicker hunger again - that causes poeple to eat more calories taking them out of deficit.
Hunger does not cause people to eat.
People eat because they want to, not because they have to.
If you eat every 3 hours you won`t feel hungered. Next issue?
-
i do some personal training...i have had lots of regular clients who needed to drop body fat...one of the first things i have them do is cut out sugars, regular soda, processed stuff, flour products, ect....i usually add calories and replace those lost with protein and efa's...they start shedding fat almost overnight....lol
-
Hunger does not cause people to eat.
People eat because they want to, not because they have to.
If you eat every 3 hours you won`t feel hungered. Next issue?
Wow - and I thought you were dumb before that post.
I am not going to continue to converse with you like others battle forever. When your shrink says you are cured, let us all know.
-
No such thing as Carb Toleration.
People are fat because the expend less energy than they take in.
lol...there is insulin sensitivity/resistance.
thats why some bodybuilders take insulin and pack on lots of lean muscle tissue....while others use the same amount of insulin and get fat as hell, unless they are taking it with t3,clen,ect.
-
Lower better-quality carbs is the way to go; however this is nothing new. Polliquin is repeating what's been said and published by others.
-
i do some personal training...i have had lots of regular clients who needed to drop body fat...one of the first things i have them do is cut out sugars, regular soda, processed stuff, flour products, ect....i usually add calories and replace those lost with protein and efa's...they start shedding fat almost overnight....lol
Replacing calorie for calorie will not work, you will end up with the same sum and same amount of energy that HAS to be expended.Somewhere along the lines, you are creating a defecit and not replacing calorie for calorie. People cut out the sugars and such because a small amount adds up to a lot calories quick.
I don`t cut it out because I use them to stay in a defecit. I use them as my calories. I would rather eat a Krispy Kreme than a chicken breast.
A 250 calorie Krispy Kreme Doughnut is going to require the same amount of energy to burn as a 250 calorie Chicken breast.
-
a calorie = a calorie
haha...monster logic ;D
-
a calorie = a calorie
haha...monster logic ;D
It does!
A calorie is a unit of heat.
A degree of Farhenheit=a degree of Farhenheit.
A watt=a watt
A kelvin=A kelvin
-
TA you are a moron. Protein is essential to build lean muscle tissue. While agree with you that bodybuilders eat way to much protein, it's still important to build lean muscle tissue. Fats are imprtant too, hence the name "essential fats". However thee is no such thing as important or essential carbs. Your body doesnt need carbs. And in fact you can build a nice physique by not eating carbs at all. While carbs do give you energy to train harder, they are still not essential for your body.
People must eat as much calories as they need, however if you eat carbs, timing is everything and carb selection is as important as as anything else. You come here and think that by giving advice to eat Krispy Kreme you on to something. You are stupid and have absolutely no clue what you talking about.
-
TA you are a moron. Protein is essential to build lean muscle tissue. While agree with you that bodybuilders eat way to much protein, it's still important to build lean muscle tissue. Fats are imprtant too, hence the name "essential fats". However thee is no such thing as important or essential carbs. Your body doesnt need carbs. And in fact you can build a nice physique by not eating carbs at all. While carbs do give you energy to train harder, they are still not essential for your body.
People must eat as much calories as they need, however if you eat carbs, timing is everything and carb selection is as important as as anything else. You come here and think that by giving advice to eat Krispy Kreme you on to something. You are stupid and have absolutely no clue what you talking about.
I get PLENTY of protein daily to build my 50 ounces of muscle a year.
And to mantain what I have got.
It does not take 300 lbs of meat to do this.
-
It does!
A calorie is a unit of heat.
A degree of Farhenheit=a degree of Farhenheit.
A watt=a watt
A kelvin=A kelvin
ok...replace 1000 calories of baked chicken with veggies with 1000 calories of brownies, oreos...then call me in the morning.....lol
-
TA you are a moron. Protein is essential to build lean muscle tissue. While agree with you that bodybuilders eat way to much protein, it's still important to build lean muscle tissue. Fats are imprtant too, hence the name "essential fats". However thee is no such thing as important or essential carbs. Your body doesnt need carbs. And in fact you can build a nice physique by not eating carbs at all. While carbs do give you energy to train harder, they are still not essential for your body.
People must eat as much calories as they need, however if you eat carbs, timing is everything and carb selection is as important as as anything else. You come here and think that by giving advice to eat Krispy Kreme you on to something. You are stupid and have absolutely no clue what you talking about.
Carb timing has no basis when in a Caloric Deficit since everything ingested is expended.
-
Carb timing has no basis when in a Caloric Deficit since everything ingested is expended.
you are missing the point genius...all calories are metabolized differently.
the body will not use 1000 calories of chicken and spinach the same way it will use 1000 calories of krisy kremes.
if it did i would be knocking down some dounuts right now...lol
-
If the below statements are true, can I drink 40 beers a day at 100 calories a piece and gain muscle? Please let me know ASAP, as the local liquor store is having a sale on 30 packs.
A calorie is a unit of heat.
A degree of Farhenheit=a degree of Farhenheit.
A watt=a watt
A kelvin=A kelvin
-
a calorie = a calorie
haha...monster logic ;D
I didn't read all of the posts, what genius said that??
-
I didn't read all of the posts, what genius said that??
Einstein.
-
it's scientific data, a calorie is a measure of energy. do you really get people to pay you for advice?
There's difference between a calorie that has nutritional value and one that doesn't. If some one is on a calorie controlled diet (one that controls total body weight) then they can get away with incorporating some empty calories as long as it falls into their caloric range, but someone who wishes to retain muscle and controls their macronutriants (protien, carbs and fats) cannot afford to have empty calories simply because there nutriants are already at a deficit...in short, "a calorie is not a calorie"!
-
There's difference between a calorie that has nutritional value and one that doesn't. If some one is on a calorie controlled diet (one that controls total body weight) then they can get away with incorporating some empty calories as long as it falls into their caloric range, but someone who wishes to retain muscle and controls their macronutriants (protien, carbs and fats) cannot afford to have empty calories simply because there nutriants are already at a deficit...in short, "a calorie is not a calorie"!
It takes Minimal amounts to add and mantain muscle.
Eating 350 grams of protein a day (300 lbs of meat a year)
to add 48 ounces of muscle(the amount a Lifetime Natural can expect to gain via Human Physiology) Is clearly a gross error in efficiency.
300 lbs to produce 48 ounces is absurd.
Think about the logic in that.
-
Replacing calorie for calorie will not work, you will end up with the same sum and same amount of energy that HAS to be expended.Somewhere along the lines, you are creating a defecit and not replacing calorie for calorie. People cut out the sugars and such because a small amount adds up to a lot calories quick.
I don`t cut it out because I use them to stay in a defecit. I use them as my calories. I would rather eat a Krispy Kreme than a chicken breast.
A 250 calorie Krispy Kreme Doughnut is going to require the same amount of energy to burn as a 250 calorie Chicken breast.
Your logic only works if the food you are eating has absolutely no other effect on your body than to be burned for it's calories. Our bodies derive things from the foods we eat, and uses them for different purposes. A calorie is not just a calorie. If that was the case, then nothing would ever cause an insulin spike because nothing we ingest has any effect on our physiology. Your logic is internally inconsistent, which it has been from the very beginning. And I realise that you are not going ot be swayed, and that you will either ignore this, or just say you look better than everyone, insult me, and say I'm wrong "just because"; but I thought that it was important to point out that you owned yourself ;D
(http://www.owned.com/Owned_Pictures/Itshardtohavemuscleowned.jpg.jpg)
-
Your logic only works if the food you are eating has absolutely no other effect on your body than to be burned for it's calories. Our bodies derive things from the foods we eat, and uses them for different purposes. A calorie is not just a calorie. If that was the case, then nothing would ever cause an insulin spike because nothing we ingest has any effect on our physiology. Your logic is internally inconsistent, which it has been from the very beginning. And I realise that you are not going ot be swayed, and that you will either ignore this, or just say you look better than everyone, insult me, and say I'm wrong "just because"; but I thought that it was important to point out that you owned yourself ;D
(http://www.owned.com/Owned_Pictures/Itshardtohavemuscleowned.jpg.jpg)
The amount an INSULIN spike is Directly proportion to the AMOUNT of the Carbohydrate in question.
When in Low calories, a few cookies can equate to a cup of oats based on Glycemic Load.
The lower the calories go, the less and less it becomes a factor.
Throw in a defecit with an intense workout(demand for Carb and fat usage) the concern becomes even more non-existant.
Furthmore you require LOW amounts of protein to build muscle and sustain it.
The only thing that WILL cause you to atrophy is lack of training.
This can be seen when Astronauts,who eat well in space prefectly balanced, lose muscle tissue not due to lack of nutrition, but due to no gravity and lack of use.
-
Calories cannot be higher than what you don`t burn.
Trying to eat more is dangerous when trying to diet. You will never get there.
you keep missing the point...you can eat more calories and lose bodyfat...its about changing your body composition and low carb is the way to do that.
if your already at 8% bodyfat and wanna eat that junk then fine...it will catch up to you and you will gain fat...i dont care how low your calories are
like i said all calories are not metablolized the same way.
-
I'm extremely carb sensitive when preparing for a diet. I will continue to lean out at around 180-200 per day. If I go over that my vascularity and lines are noticably lesser the very next day. Everyone is different but for me to get very lean I need to keep my carbs around 1 grams per pound that I weigh and up the cardio. I respond much better to that and hold on to much more muscle mass than I do if I drastically cut my carb-intake.
-
I'm extremely carb sensitive when preparing for a diet. I will continue to lean out at around 180-200 per day. If I go over that my vascularity and lines are noticably lesser the very next day. Everyone is different but for me to get very lean I need to keep my carbs around 1 grams per pound that I weigh and up the cardio. I respond much better to that and hold on to much more muscle mass than I do if I drastically cut my carb-intake.
no you don`t.
There is no such thing as being Carb Sensitive in a caloric defecit....In a defecit all carbs HAVE to be USED so optimum fat storage can be used for fuel.
You are deluding yourself by "THINKING" key word "THINKING" that you need to do x to produce y.
You have done no Scientific methodolgy to determine this. It is based on what you THINK.
-
I'm extremely carb sensitive when preparing for a diet. I will continue to lean out at around 180-200 per day. If I go over that my vascularity and lines are noticably lesser the very next day. Everyone is different but for me to get very lean I need to keep my carbs around 1 grams per pound that I weigh and up the cardio. I respond much better to that and hold on to much more muscle mass than I do if I drastically cut my carb-intake.
no you are calorie sensitive, you meathead.
-
The amount an INSULIN spike is Directly proportion to the AMOUNT of the Carbohydrate in question.
So a calorie is not just a calorie. Carbohydrates cause insulin spikes among other things. So the type of calorie does in fact make a difference to how our physique developes. If you don't get the right vitamins and minerals from your food, you get scurvy. If calorie is just a calorie, none of that would happen.
And if when in a calorie deficit your body burns everything you eat and therefore the effects of the food does not matter, then you would get scurvy anytime you were dieting because your body was burning all the vitamins and minerals in your food instead of using them to maintain your health.
-
you keep missing the point...you can eat more calories and lose bodyfat...its about changing your body composition and low carb is the way to do that.
if your already at 8% bodyfat and wanna eat that junk then fine...it will catch up to you and you will gain fat...i dont care how low your calories are
like i said all calories are not metablolized the same way.
In a defecit, All calories ingested have to be COMPLETELY METABOLIZED and BURNED.
Hence the word Defecit.
You cannot store fat in a defecit....It is a Scientific Impossibility.
-
Can I eat Pringles Adonis?
How will I stay below my caloric limit?
one you pop you don't stop.
-
So a calorie is not just a calorie. Carbohydrates cause insulin spikes among other things. So the type of calorie does in fact make a difference to how our physique developes. If you don't get the right vitamins and minerals from your food, you get scurvy. If calorie is just a calorie, none of that would happen.
And if when in a calorie deficit your body burns everything you eat and therefore the effects of the food does not matter, then you would get scurvy anytime you were dieting because your body was burning all the vitamins and minerals in your food instead of using them to maintain your health.
As far as Energy Expenditure, a Calorie is a calorie.
It takes equal amounts of energy for a carb and a fat to be burned.
To be in a defecit, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT to LOSE BODYFAT,
All calories ingested will have to be burned. You CANNOT store in a defecit...It is an impossibility.
-
no you don`t.
There is no such thing as being Carb Sensitive in a caloric defecit....In a defecit all carbs HAVE to be USED so optimum fat storage can be used for fuel.
You are deluding yourself by "THINKING" key word "THINKING" that you need to do x to produce y.
You have done no Scientific methodolgy to determine this. It is based on what you THINK.
Sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black. Except in this case, there is loads of research out there on low carb diets, the effects of keytones on the body, as well as anecdotal reports and personal experiences that say the contrary. Yet you have not presented any evidence that is in any way valid. No research articles by peer reviewed journals, no long term studies, no response to all the holes in your logic.
-
I'm extremely carb sensitive when preparing for a diet. I will continue to lean out at around 180-200 per day. If I go over that my vascularity and lines are noticably lesser the very next day. Everyone is different but for me to get very lean I need to keep my carbs around 1 grams per pound that I weigh and up the cardio. I respond much better to that and hold on to much more muscle mass than I do if I drastically cut my carb-intake.
according to TA there is no such thing as being carb sensitve...lol
i agree with you....but needing that many carbs is often a psychological hurdle that people have a hard time getting over...i'm not saying 180-200g of carbs is too much for you but if you are trying to get in top contest shape than it is...as you lower your carbs add more protein and good fat.
-
High protein is the way to go. I recommend 1lb of chicken breast per pound of lean bodyweight.
-
according to TA there is no such thing as being carb sensitve...lol
he's right you fool, that's a term made up by ignorant bodybuilders like you that pull shit out of their asses.
-
As far as Energy Expenditure, a Calorie is a calorie.
It takes equal amounts of energy for a carb and a fat to be burned.
To be in a defecit, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT to LOSE BODYFAT,
All calories ingested will have to be burned. You CANNOT store in a defecit...It is an impossibility.
Then what about fat homeless people? Or look at a college campus, you will see tons of people who operate in a caloric deficit but have a beer gut from all fo the drinking they do? And it takes more energy to burn fat than a carb.
-
Then what about fat homeless people? Or look at a college campus, you will see tons of people who operate in a caloric deficit but have a beer gut from all fo the drinking they do? And it takes more energy to burn fat than a carb.
beer has calories you moron.
-
Sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black. Except in this case, there is loads of research out there on low carb diets, the effects of keytones on the body, as well as anecdotal reports and personal experiences that say the contrary. Yet you have not presented any evidence that is in any way valid. No research articles by peer reviewed journals, no long term studies, no response to all the holes in your logic.
thats because its not logical...its stupidity.
plain and simple...
take a person getting 1200 calories from baked chicken and spinach...replace that with 1200 calories from oreos and krispy kremes.
you know what happens...lol
-
thats because its not logical...its stupidity.
plain and simple...
take a person getting 1200 calories from baked chicken and spinach...replace that with 1200 calories from oreos and krispy kremes.
you know what happens...lol
you obviously don't know. Because you haven't done it. You are assuming.
-
beer has calories you moron.
But not alot. About 100 calories in a light beer. And for most people, they're not going to be drinking enough beer to send them out of a calorie deficit when they're only eating two or three times a day if that
-
he's right you fool, that's a term made up by ignorant bodybuilders like you that pull shit out of their asses.
lol...look at bodybuilders and insulin usage.
that is why one bodybuilder take insulin and gain lean muscle tissue like crazy...while another can take the same amount of insulin and get fat as hell, unless their taking t3, clen, ect.
insuliln sensitivity/resistance.
-
beer has calories you moron.
Saying that, alcohol has more calories per gram (7) as opposed to 4 calories for protien and 4 calories for carbs.....saying this, a calorie IS NOT a calorie!
-
But not alot. About 100 calories in a light beer. And for most people, they're not going to be drinking enough beer to send them out of a calorie deficit when they're only eating two or three times a day if that
Yes they are. People who are gaining fat are not in a deficit.
A regular bear has like 175 calories. Most guys that I know drink 5-10 beers when they go out.
That's a lot of calories
-
Saying that, alcohol has more calories per gram (7) as opposed to 4 calories for protien and 4 calories for carbs.....saying this, a calorie IS NOT a calorie!
that doesn't make sense.
you mean a gram is not a gram, since a gram of each macronutrient and alcohol has different amount of calories.
-
that doesn't make sense.
you mean a gram is not a gram, since a gram of each macronutrient and alcohol has different amount of calories.
Protien = 4 calories/gram
Carbs = 4 calories/gram
Fats = 9 calories/gram
Alcohol = 7 calories/gram
-
Protien = 4 calories/gram
Carbs = 4 calories/gram
Fats = 9 calories/gram
Alcohol = 7 calories/gram
I know, you're saying calories are different, when it's GRAMS not calories.
-
you obviously don't know. Because you haven't done it. You are assuming.
No, you're assuming. Because you are stating something with no evidence. Those of us who are saying that T.A. is crazy don't need to prove ourselves; that has already been done many times over by countless hours of research by doctors, scientists and nutritionist/dieticians, as well as ours and many other peoples experience. T.A. has to present a theory that does not have holes, and right now there are numerous very glaring ones. He also has to disprove all research up till this point on the topic. He cannot just declare that facts are now falsehood. He makes absolute statements, saying things are "impossible" or "there's no such thing", but there is nothing behind the statements to back them up. If it doesn't fit into his worldview, he just dismisses it and says it holds no merit. That is in no way scientific.
The burden of proof is on True Adonis, no one else.
-
he just said that if he switched the person's diet with cookies and donuts something would happen, but he has never done it.
so he is assuming.
-
No, you're assuming. Because you are stating something with no evidence. Those of us who are saying that T.A. is crazy don't need to prove ourselves; that has already been done many times over by countless hours of research by doctors, scientists and nutritionist/dieticians, as well as ours and many other peoples experience. T.A. has to present a theory that does not have holes, and right now there are numerous very glaring ones. He also has to disprove all research up till this point on the topic. He cannot just declare that facts are now falsehood. He makes absolute statements, saying things are "impossible" or "there's no such thing", but there is nothing behind the statements to back them up. If it doesn't fit into his worldview, he just dismisses it and says it holds no merit. That is in no way scientific.
The burden of proof is on True Adonis, no one else.
Homeless people tend not to have gym memberships or eat on a consistent basis to gain muscle.
However, there are a few homeless people with great abs.
Tommywishbone I think it was had a story of a homeless guy who did in fact weight train and ate chips and would hang around Golds Venice.
They had some sort of Bench Press competiton.
Homeless dude went in there and owned them all. hahhahahahha
If these people did some progressive weight training on low calories they would look great.
-
Does it occur to anyone that todays trainer/diet gurus are demonizing carbohydrates the same way they did to fat back in the 80's? Hell, I still have a diet article written in Flex back in 84 or 85 (I'll have to dig it out) by Dan Duchaine in which he enthusiastically recomends cutting fat calories to almost 5% while simultaneously amping carb consumption to around 70% or so. This is the same guru who later on wrote "Bodyopus" which extolled the virtues of the ketogenic diet! This low carb noise by the likes of Poliquin strikes me as more of the same old "there is only one true diet"... kind of like religion, no?
Lyle McDonald wrote a fine piece that sums up the diet scene:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/Articles/comparing1.html
-
We have all been brainwashed by bodybuilding propoganda (aka the magazines); Let TA lead the way!
-
My Low Carb lifestyle is fucking boring :'( No fat, NO fun... plain and simple.
-
There are many diet methods that work, but they all have one thing in common.
You are in a caloric defecit in a diet that works.
Secondly the bb industry sells the high protein diet because they make money selling protein supplements. You don't need to get that much protein. Therefore substitute protein with fat and carbs and make it easy on yourself.
-
As far as I remember, Mike Mentzer also had similar beliefs concerning the idea that a calorie is a calorie as far as nutrition during dieting goes. At least I think it was him, he was making the other competitors pissed by eating ice cream backstage before a show and so on.
And as far as TA's claim that when the body is burning everything it gets, and that it doesn't matter in what form the calories come, I will say it's legit. The part about the thermodynamics is right. A combustible process of the same materials does not create different results. When you have a combustible reaction with any carbon-based material, you will get the same byproducts. Energy does not come in different forms when it's released by combustion. As long as the combustion is complete, it will be the same. Bear in mind, this is based solely on proven theories of energy storage. Everything around us is energy, that's what makes the A-bomb a possibility. The calories are there as a measure of how much energy is released when a certain amount of a material is burned. The calories quantify the amount of energy stored in a certain amount of a certain substance. The laws of thermodynamics does not work differently for different materials. I think TA is right, there are lots of home scientists that makes theories that nutrition is extremely complex when the reality isn't necessarily so. I am not saying that he is right altogether, but when the body burns everything it gets, thus using it as energy, the laws of thermodynamics apply.
Not only that, but when you burn any food, it will become two things after a complete combustion, carbon and energy (in the form of heat). The combustion in the body is no different. And yes, everything you eat are made from the same building blocks. When burned, every food produces the same byproducts! Energy, as we know, cannot be created nor disappear. This means that if there are extra energy created which the body does not use, it will have to be stored. How this is stored is where the nutrition aspect comes in. This is however a totally different story. When the body uses everything it gets in, it's as simple as I have outlined here. There is no other way. Disputing this is disputing nature itself and its laws, which is a very rocky road, indeed.
There is a saying that doing the same thing twice and expecting different results is the definition of stupidity.
Not to mention that the guy who claimed that as fat has more calories per gram than carbs,and subsequently making the claim that a calorie is not a calorie based on said claim, is clearly misled. The calories are the same, there are just more of them in a gram of fat than in a gram of carbs. That should be obvious at this point.
-
It is a Scientific Impossibility to store fat while in an energy deficit.
An Insulin response does NOT CREATE added energy and therefore is only pertinent when NOT in a deficit.
Such as when someone is TRYING to GAIN.
cant someone cannibalize lean mass while in an energy deficit? (yes) wouldn't that encourage the STORAGE of fat during this deficit? (yes) doesn't this info make your first statement false? (uhhhhhh,yes!)
-
cant someone cannibalize lean mass while in an energy deficit? (yes) wouldn't that encourage the STORAGE of fat during this deficit? (yes) doesn't this info make your first statement false? (uhhhhhh,yes!)
If this was strictly true, we wouldn't have muscle at all, only fat, right? Fat is stored to be used as energy during hard times. If you use your muscle, the muscle will not nescessarily be the first to go.
-
Santa claus yes it was mike mentzer who believed that
i got ahold of one of his nutrition books that has long been out of print.
even for gaining muscle diet mike said you should eat maybe 100 extra calories per day over maintenance.
i think people have been so brainwashed the past 10 years that tons of protein is necessary to look like there heros in flex magazine, and md. what they fail to realize is all there heros are steroid abusing scumbags and liars.
at leas adonis posts his pics, i notice every single person on here who calls him a fraud , liar etc does not post there pics at all.
-
You have done no Scientific methodolgy to determine this. It is based on what you THINK.
It's called doing something one way and LOOKING IN THE MIRROR for a few days and doing it another way and looking in the mirror those days. I don't need "Scientific methodology" to determine whether it's sensible or not.
BTW, Adonis, I prefer to take advice from people that actually LOOK better than I do or have acheived a better level of CONDITIONING than I have, both of which you fall short in. To the point, if your methods don't produce better results than what I've done myself, why in the hell would I listen to you? That's about like hiring a 500 pound fatass to be my personal trainer..
-
That's about like hiring a 500 pound fatass to be my personal trainer..
I don't know if Dante does personal training so you may be out of luck.
-
you guys arguing on the side of adonis obviously dont have a clue about biochem. taking in sugars is vastly different then taking in complex carbs which cause less of a spike then sugars. you keep arguing the calorie equals a calorie but your logic is flawed my friend. the sources the calories come from act differently in your body and thus will have different effects on your apperance. i dont think you understand the concept of the GI. yes you will burn fat taking in being in a calorie deficiet, however, eating low calorie foods supplies your body with nutrients throughout the day rather then a dense calorie packed meal. you can stay in a anabolic state longer and the more servings of food throughout the day will have positive benefits on your metabolism. you would be smarter to eat lower calorie/carb foods more often to perserve mass and burn fat then take in denser caloric foods. you could say that eating less of the donuts etc would constitute the same logic, however, this is inherently harder in that you will be less satisfied due to smaller portions and a concept that you fail to acknowledge the sharp insulin spikes your high gi foods provide.
in sum, your concept will work however, it is much much harder to eat less food and the insulin spikes alone will cause you to get hungry to fast. also, ice cream and other products of that nature have no good vitamins and minerals. it might list some however, a mineral is not a mineral in that chemical processes leach many of the cofactors found in nature that must be present in order to work properly. a good example is salt. table salt is toxic because of this mechanism but celtic sea salt has over 80 minerals and trace elements which make it very healthy, and actually acts the opposite of table salt or pure nacl. you have no clue about nutrition and your physique shows it, you will lose the gayest show on earth.
-
you guys arguing on the side of adonis obviously dont have a clue about biochem. taking in sugars is vastly different then taking in complex carbs which cause less of a spike then sugars. you keep arguing the calorie equals a calorie but your logic is flawed my friend. the sources the calories come from act differently in your body and thus will have different effects on your apperance. i dont think you understand the concept of the GI. yes you will burn fat taking in being in a calorie deficiet, however, eating low calorie foods supplies your body with nutrients throughout the day rather then a dense calorie packed meal. you can stay in a anabolic state longer and the more servings of food throughout the day will have positive benefits on your metabolism. you would be smarter to eat lower calorie/carb foods more often to perserve mass and burn fat then take in denser caloric foods. you could say that eating less of the donuts etc would constitute the same logic, however, this is inherently harder in that you will be less satisfied due to smaller portions and a concept that you fail to acknowledge the sharp insulin spikes your high gi foods provide.
in sum, your concept will work however, it is much much harder to eat less food and the insulin spikes alone will cause you to get hungry to fast. also, ice cream and other products of that nature have no good vitamins and minerals. it might list some however, a mineral is not a mineral in that chemical processes leach many of the cofactors found in nature that must be present in order to work properly. a good example is salt. table salt is toxic because of this mechanism but celtic sea salt has over 80 minerals and trace elements which make it very healthy, and actually acts the opposite of table salt or pure nacl. you have no clue about nutrition and your physique shows it, you will lose the gayest show on earth.
wrong..try eating three satisfying meals a day (300 cals in the morning, I like strawberry frosted mini wheats with skim milk) 500 cal lunch, and 800 cal dinner. You won't get hungry and on 1600 cals per day you will lose fat like you wouldn't believe. I guarantee you will not lose muscle or strength. In fact if you train well you will keep getting stronger.
-
wrong..try eating three satisfying meals a day (300 cals in the morning, I like strawberry frosted mini wheats with skim milk) 500 cal lunch, and 800 cal dinner. You won't get hungry and on 1600 cals per day you will lose fat like you wouldn't believe. I guarantee you will not lose muscle or strength. In fact if you train well you will keep getting stronger.
what do you mean wrong, no eating multiple meals is a much better way to promote fat loss and hypertrophy. also, fat and protein content has alot to do with satiety and you have no idea what your talking about. you guys keep stating opinion and in fact you are wrong, this site would get molested by a site like avant for theories and thinking. you guys are meatbags, three meals a day is not ideal who ever said that or told you that is in fact wrong and everything that jmt1 said was correct.
-
Not to mention that the guy who claimed that as fat has more calories per gram than carbs,and subsequently making the claim that a calorie is not a calorie based on said claim, is clearly misled. The calories are the same, there are just more of them in a gram of fat than in a gram of carbs. That should be obvious at this point.
*pssssst: Intenseone's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. He used to be married to a big fat chick! ;D
-
wrong..try eating three satisfying meals a day (300 cals in the morning, I like strawberry frosted mini wheats with skim milk) 500 cal lunch, and 800 cal dinner. You won't get hungry and on 1600 cals per day you will lose fat like you wouldn't believe. I guarantee you will not lose muscle or strength. In fact if you train well you will keep getting stronger.
that must suck only eating three meals.
-
When you are in a caloric deficit everything you eat gets used. This is true.
With a caloric deficit you can not store bodyfat. This is true also.
So can you eat anything you want? Off course not.
The body needs amino acids in the bloodstream to prevent it from getting these aminos from its muscle.
Therefore a meal containing complete proteins at least every three hours is necessary.
This is just one factor but there are many others (insulin control is a very important one) why you can't just eat anything even in a caloric deficit.
-
posting real information based up clinical studies and scientific data is pretty useless on this board.
Gee... I haven't seen anyone on either side of the argument post links to studies to back up their claims. (links to the actual studies, not "articles" in some mag or website)
-
Gee... I haven't seen anyone on either side of the argument post links to studies to back up their claims. (links to the actual studies, not "articles" in some mag or website)
Try the First Law of Thermodynamics.
If you have any questions on any of the material, I will gladly answer.
-
yes you have a basic understanding of the first law of thermondynamics but you dont understand anything about biochem or human physiology. you are a gearbox and blanket statements such as the first law of thermodynamics doesnt cover the multiple pathways and complexities of human chemistry and nutritional utilization. you need to stop and read what everyone has posted, ice cream is not a good food source and has many toxins etc, as well as not having good proportions of critical aminos. just like all lettuce is lettuce gearbox, organic food has less toxins and the nutrients are combined properly with cofactors to allow better metabolic synchronage. your law of thermodyamics also doesnt work very well in some situations but i assume your non-intellectual brain doesn't fathom cosmolgy or quantum physics. sub-atomical particles dont always adhere to the laws we have prescribed and they are nothing more then our best way to categorize observations. do some reading and you will put your mind at rest.
-
you will have cancer soon, and many degenerative diseases.
-
Gee... I haven't seen anyone on either side of the argument post links to studies to back up their claims. (links to the actual studies, not "articles" in some mag or website)
Essential amino acis and muscle protein recovery from resistance exercise Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 283: E648-E657, 2002
The effect of Whey Protein Supplementation With and Without Creatine Monohydrate Combined With Resistance Training on Lean Tissue Mass and Muscle Strength International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2001, 11, 349-364
Effects pf postexercise carbohydrate-protein feedings on muscle glycogen restoration Journal of Applied Physiology 88:1976-1982, 2000
Amino acid ingestion improves muscle protein synthesis in the young and elderly Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 286: E321-E328, 2004
Protein supplements and exercise American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2000;72:551S-7S
I only have hardcopies. I have found that journal articles are hard to come by online unless you are actually a researcher, so I don't have links. If someone does happen to have a university account with any of the journals, they could look them up or possibly even post them. Anyway, here are some studies. Where are Adonis'?
-
here is something for you adonis.
http://www.johnberardi.com/index.htm
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/course/
there is a link to a free john beradi nutrition course.
maybe it can help you get on the right track.
-
this would be 70 grams of carbs grams! thats almost what I take in one week before a show.
Man that would probably make me very sick if I tried that long term.
idiotic
-
Low carb is NOT the way to go! High protein, moderate-to-high carb and LOW FAT (but with good fats) done with organic foods, meats and vegetation, is the only healthy way to go! Learn why here from my friend's website:
http://www.musclenow.com/highfatdiet.html
-
But not alot. About 100 calories in a light beer. And for most people, they're not going to be drinking enough beer to send them out of a calorie deficit when they're only eating two or three times a day if that
Bums on the street and kids in college are most likely not drinking light beer. And if a guy is averaging 5-6 beers a day it would only take about 2 average meals to put them over their daily intake level. Forget the snacks that most people eat everyday.
I agree with TA that a calorie is a calorie and that you only need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. It should be obvious by how many different diet programs that exist. All have different principles, but all have one thing in common - calorie deficit. The trick is to find a diet plan that doesn't leave you hungry or that doesn't allow you to eat some of the foods you enjoy - a tricky task.
If TA can lose weight while still eating the foods he enjoys and not feel hungry then he has a better chance for long term success than about 99% of the dieters out there that fail.
good luck TA.
PS low carbs definately works. I lose weight quickly while on low carbs at a rate of nearly 5 pounds per week without getting hungry. I eat mostly lean protein sources and vegetables while on a low carb diet. But the problem with this diet is that it doesn't allow me to drink beer and eat pizza and lasagna and other foods I enjoy. Hell, I couldn't go to one of my kids football games yesterday and eat not one thing from their snack shacks while only eating lean mean and vegetables. The world isn't set up to accomodate those who want to eat healthy regardless of what the food franchises preach.
-
Found some links....
Protein supplements and exercise American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2000;72:551S-7S
Link: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/2/551S
The effect of Whey Protein Supplementation With and Without Creatine Monohydrate Combined With Resistance Training on Lean Tissue Mass and Muscle Strength International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2001, 11, 349-364
Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11591884&dopt=Citation
-
Bums on the street and kids in college are most likely not drinking light beer. And if a guy is averaging 5-6 beers a day it would only take about 2 average meals to put them over their daily intake level. Forget the snacks that most people eat everyday.
I agree with TA that a calorie is a calorie and that you only need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. It should be obvious by how many different diet programs that exist. All have different principles, but all have one thing in common - calorie deficit. The trick is to find a diet plan that doesn't leave you hungry or that doesn't allow you to eat some of the foods you enjoy - a tricky task.
If TA can lose weight while still eating the foods he enjoys and not feel hungry then he has a better chance for long term success than about 99% of the dieters out there that fail.
good luck TA.
PS low carbs definately works. I lose weight quickly while on low carbs at a rate of nearly 5 pounds per week without getting hungry. I eat mostly lean protein sources and vegetables while on a low carb diet. But the problem with this diet is that it doesn't allow me to drink beer and eat pizza and lasagna and other foods I enjoy. Hell, I couldn't go to one of my kids football games yesterday and eat not one thing from their snack shacks while only eating lean mean and vegetables. The world isn't set up to accomodate those who want to eat healthy regardless of what the food franchises preach.
hmmm....once again a calorie IS NOT a calorie...open up your mind and except that fact...i dont care what they said on those weight watchers tv comercials.
all calories are metabolized differently...a person who gets 1500 calories a day from baked chicken and brocolli cant just replace that with 1500 calories from krispy kreme doughnuts and icream.
that is part of the reason so many misinformed people have trouble dieting....lets take the average housewife who needs to lose weight/bodyfat...they cut their calories without paying to their macronutrient levels as TA suggests...of course they can lose weight but most of the weight loss is from lean muscle tissue and water....as a result her metabolic rate drops...so now she needs to eat even less and she will start gaining fat.
i agree that very low or ketogenic diets are not the best choice for everyone...but for those who are trying to change their body composistion very low to moderate carb intake, paying attention to their macronutirents, is the way to go.
-
monster attempt by TA to make the competitors in Mr. getbig fat
-
monster attempt by TA to make the competitors in Mr. getbig fat
ensuring victory!! lol that would be funny!!!!
ta ta
-
Link: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/2/551S
Quote
The effect of Whey Protein Supplementation With and Without Creatine Monohydrate Combined With Resistance Training on Lean Tissue Mass and Muscle Strength International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 2001, 11, 349-364
Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11591884&dopt=Citation
-
As far as I remember, Mike Mentzer also had similar beliefs concerning the idea that a calorie is a calorie as far as nutrition during dieting goes. At least I think it was him, he was making the other competitors pissed by eating ice cream backstage before a show and so on.
And as far as TA's claim that when the body is burning everything it gets, and that it doesn't matter in what form the calories come, I will say it's legit. The part about the thermodynamics is right. A combustible process of the same materials does not create different results. When you have a combustible reaction with any carbon-based material, you will get the same byproducts. Energy does not come in different forms when it's released by combustion. As long as the combustion is complete, it will be the same. Bear in mind, this is based solely on proven theories of energy storage. Everything around us is energy, that's what makes the A-bomb a possibility. The calories are there as a measure of how much energy is released when a certain amount of a material is burned. The calories quantify the amount of energy stored in a certain amount of a certain substance. The laws of thermodynamics does not work differently for different materials. I think TA is right, there are lots of home scientists that makes theories that nutrition is extremely complex when the reality isn't necessarily so. I am not saying that he is right altogether, but when the body burns everything it gets, thus using it as energy, the laws of thermodynamics apply.
Not only that, but when you burn any food, it will become two things after a complete combustion, carbon and energy (in the form of heat). The combustion in the body is no different. And yes, everything you eat are made from the same building blocks. When burned, every food produces the same byproducts! Energy, as we know, cannot be created nor disappear. This means that if there are extra energy created which the body does not use, it will have to be stored. How this is stored is where the nutrition aspect comes in. This is however a totally different story. When the body uses everything it gets in, it's as simple as I have outlined here. There is no other way. Disputing this is disputing nature itself and its laws, which is a very rocky road, indeed.
There is a saying that doing the same thing twice and expecting different results is the definition of stupidity.
Not to mention that the guy who claimed that as fat has more calories per gram than carbs,and subsequently making the claim that a calorie is not a calorie based on said claim, is clearly misled. The calories are the same, there are just more of them in a gram of fat than in a gram of carbs. That should be obvious at this point.
You have no clue..
-
i agree that very low or ketogenic diets are not the best choice for everyone...but for those who are trying to change their body composistion very low to moderate carb intake, paying attention to their macronutirents, is the way to go.
Ketogenic diets make you feel like shit and prevent your mind from working properly... you walk around all day like you're drugged-out. That might be okay if you're a kid or have some mindless job, but if you spend your days making decisions that can have significant consequences, keto is not an acceptable choice.
-
You have no clue..
What do you expect? I am fortunate to even have internet access on the North Pole.
-
Ketogenic diets make you feel like shit and prevent your mind from working properly... you walk around all day like you're drugged-out. That might be okay if you're a kid or have some mindless job, but if you spend your days making decisions that can have significant consequences, keto is not an acceptable choice.
You have no clue either.
-
Ketogenic diets make you feel like shit and prevent your mind from working properly... you walk around all day like you're drugged-out. That might be okay if you're a kid or have some mindless job, but if you spend your days making decisions that can have significant consequences, keto is not an acceptable choice.
thats not true...talk to some people who have done low or keto diets for a while...most will report that they actually have better, more sustained energy levels.
the body does a very good job at using intramuscular triglyceride/fat and adipose fatty acids for energy...they are used only sparingly when carb intake is too high.
-
hmmm....once again a calorie IS NOT a calorie...open up your mind and except that fact...i dont care what they said on those weight watchers tv comercials.
all calories are metabolized differently...a person who gets 1500 calories a day from baked chicken and brocolli cant just replace that with 1500 calories from krispy kreme doughnuts and icream.
that is part of the reason so many misinformed people have trouble dieting....lets take the average housewife who needs to lose weight/bodyfat...they cut their calories without paying to their macronutrient levels as TA suggests...of course they can lose weight but most of the weight loss is from lean muscle tissue and water....as a result her metabolic rate drops...so now she needs to eat even less and she will start gaining fat.
i agree that very low or ketogenic diets are not the best choice for everyone...but for those who are trying to change their body composistion very low to moderate carb intake, paying attention to their macronutirents, is the way to go.
A calorie is a calorie as far as weight loss or gain is concerned, but not in the case of health.
-
A calorie is a calorie as far as weight loss or gain is concerned, but not in the case of health.
from Lean Eating...pt 1
A Calorie Is Not A Calorie
While the gurus and pundits of the past believed that all calories were created equal, and while much of the current dietetics herd still believes it, I'm here to tell you why it just ain't true. To do so, I'll focus on three main arguments: the Thermic Effect of Feeding (TEF), cross-cultural studies, and the effects of isoenergetic diets using different foods.
The TEF, as I've said many times before, represents the additional caloric expenditure (above resting metabolism) that it takes to digest, absorb, and process the food you eat. Studies on the thermic effect of different foods have been important in describing the different effects of the macronutrients on metabolism.
The TEF lasts from between one to four hours after eating a meal. When adding up the thermic effects from each of your meals, this extra metabolism represents between 5% and 15% of your total daily energy expenditure. Therefore, if your daily energy expenditure is 3,000kcal, about 150 to 450kcal of that comes from the TEF. Interestingly, different macronutrients tend to have different effects on metabolism.
-
A calorie is a calorie as far as weight loss or gain is concerned, but not in the case of health.
Nonsense.
-
As a unit of heat goes a CALORIE WILL ALWAYS BE A CALORIE!
In a caloric defecit, ALL CALORIES WILL BE BURNED!
simple as that.
-
As a unit of heat goes a CALORIE WILL ALWAYS BE A CALORIE!
Any scientist will agree to that, including me.
-
Any scientist will agree to that, including me.
yes but thats not the point.
a calorie of baked chicken and a calorie of chocolate cake are not metabolized the same way.
isnt that true? yes
if you simply cut calories and pay not attention to macronutrients you will get fat.
isnt that true? yes
its pretty simple really.
-
if you simply cut calories and pay not attention to macronutrients you will get fat.
How can you store fat if you are in a calorie deficit? If you burn more than you take in, what is your body using to make fat; does it just turn muscle into fat? Doesn't make sense to me.
-
The notion that "a calorie is a calorie" is utter nonsense:
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/9
-
The notion that "a calorie is a calorie" is utter nonsense:
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/9
First law of thermodynamics, about the conservation of energy
The increase in the energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of energy added to the system by heating, minus the amount lost in the form of work done by the system on its surroundings.
-
Human fat tissue contains about 87% lipids, so that 1 kg of body-fat tissue has roughly the caloric energy of 870 g of pure fat, or 7800 kcal. Therefore one has to create a −7800 kcal deficit between energy intake and use to lose 1 kg of body-fat. (In U.S. customary units, that is about 3500 kcal per pound.)
-
Human body is not a closed system. You have no clue what youre talking about.. :'(
http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.org/site/pdf/Manninen-JISSN-1-2-21-26-05.pdf
-
Human body is not a closed system. You have no clue what youre talking about.. :'(
http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.org/site/pdf/Manninen-JISSN-1-2-21-26-05.pdf
Your whole argument IS what I am advocating so it does not make a bit of sense to disagree with me.
A low-Carbohydrate Diet is just a simple reduction in energy.
The same reduction would be garnered in an Low Fat diet or Low Protein diet.
When in a caloric defecit all Calories ingested are used or expended.
-
It doesnt make sense to argue with a moron who knows nothing about physiology/biochemistry.. :'(
-
A low-Carbohydrate Diet is just a simple reduction in energy.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/83/2/260?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Krieger&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
-
It doesnt make sense to argue with a moron who knows nothing about physiology/biochemistry.. :'(
Thats why I haven`t really given you many replies.
:)
-
How can you store fat if you are in a calorie deficit? If you burn more than you take in, what is your body using to make fat; does it just turn muscle into fat? Doesn't make sense to me.
"A calorie is a calorie"
The old school of nutrition, which often includes most nutritionists, is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to gaining or losing weight. That weight loss or weight gain is strictly a matter of "calories in, calories out." Translated, if you "burn" more calories than you take in, you will lose weight regardless of the calorie source and if you eat more calories than you burn off each day, you will gain weight, regardless of the calorie source.
This long held and accepted view of nutrition is based on the fact that protein and carbs contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories per gram and the source of those calories matters not. They base this on the many studies that finds if one reduces calories by X number each day, weight loss is the result and so it goes if you add X number of calories above what you use each day for gaining weight.
However, the "calories in calories out" mantra fails to take into account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effects on the metabolism via countless pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned.
Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, etc. Translated, not only is the mantra "a calorie us a calorie" proven to be false, "all fats are created equal" or "protein is protein" is also incorrect. For example, we now know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins can have unique effects.
-
A good post jmt1 :)
-
"A calorie is a calorie"
The old school of nutrition, which often includes most nutritionists, is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to gaining or losing weight. That weight loss or weight gain is strictly a matter of "calories in, calories out." Translated, if you "burn" more calories than you take in, you will lose weight regardless of the calorie source and if you eat more calories than you burn off each day, you will gain weight, regardless of the calorie source.
This long held and accepted view of nutrition is based on the fact that protein and carbs contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories per gram and the source of those calories matters not. They base this on the many studies that finds if one reduces calories by X number each day, weight loss is the result and so it goes if you add X number of calories above what you use each day for gaining weight.
However, the "calories in calories out" mantra fails to take into account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effects on the metabolism via countless pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned.
Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, etc. Translated, not only is the mantra "a calorie us a calorie" proven to be false, "all fats are created equal" or "protein is protein" is also incorrect. For example, we now know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins can have unique effects.
Of course a calorie's a calorie but where these calories come from have a drastic effect on body composition...duh! Don't give me all this 1st Law of Thermodynamics bs....all these calorie counts come from calorimeters but how your body processes these foods can have a large variance. Don't forget all the vitamins and minerals all this refined fast food junk lacks...not to mention the absence of cancer-causing compounds that are the hallmrk of manmade foods, as well as between organic and non-organic. The body has understandable difficulty assimilating manmade crap and these toxins will end up sabotaging your muscle gains, fat loss, not to mention general health & wellbeing. As Jack LaLanne says, if man made it, don't eat it! The results speak for themselves...