Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: dseiler on January 30, 2007, 09:56:55 AM

Title: Weight Loss: Calories in v. Calories Out
Post by: dseiler on January 30, 2007, 09:56:55 AM
What's so hard about this theory?

You burn more calories than you take in, you drop excess weight.

You cycle your carbs and you can burn fat effectively while retaining muscle.

You time your carbs properly and you can make good gains (speaking only from a nutrition standpoint) and minimize fat.



Title: Re: Weight Loss: Calories in v. Calories Out
Post by: wood on January 30, 2007, 10:03:40 AM
Maybe some have tried the carb cycling, stressed about timing and not gotten the results they wanted and are looking for a different, easier approach? 

Or maybe they've gotten good results with a conventional diet but have found it to be boring and tedious, not to mention expensive?

 
Title: Re: Weight Loss: Calories in v. Calories Out
Post by: YoungBlood on January 30, 2007, 10:04:39 AM
Because you get idiots that feel a calorie of protein is not the same as a calorie of fat.
In the end, it's basic math, and you're right- a calorie is a calorie. Balance intake against output, and you maintain weight. More intake then output, weight gain. More output vs intake, weight loss.
Boil it down to whatever you'd like to think, but that is all there is to it.
Title: Re: Weight Loss: Calories in v. Calories Out
Post by: MindSpin on January 30, 2007, 10:09:38 AM
a calorie is a calorie, but foods impact hormones in a number of different ways.  So, macro nutrient type and composition DO have a tremendous impact on end results.   
Title: Re: Weight Loss: Calories in v. Calories Out
Post by: Brutal_1 on January 30, 2007, 01:41:12 PM

LOL, you can't use that word "hormone" around here! ;D  You'll ruin the whole "a calorie is just a calorie" theory ::)


I wish the body was that simple!  Okay 1000 kcals from french fries or chicken breast, no difference ::)

But then somewhere along the line someone had to pick up an endocrinology book and learn that different foods effect the hormones in your body too?! ::)  Too much for this board to handle... :P
Title: Re: Weight Loss: Calories in v. Calories Out
Post by: The True Adonis on January 30, 2007, 01:42:55 PM
You don`t need to cycle anything.

You don`t need to time anything.


Bodybuilders are not doing anything that would require such scrutiny.
Title: Re: Weight Loss: Calories in v. Calories Out
Post by: The Squadfather on January 30, 2007, 01:44:04 PM
You don`t need to cycle anything.

You don`t need to time anything.


Bodybuilders are not doing anything that would require such scrutiny.
hahahaha, are you saying that most "bodybuilders" DRASTICALLY overestimate how many calories they burn and how much energy they expend, Adonis?
Title: Re: Weight Loss: Calories in v. Calories Out
Post by: thisGuy on January 30, 2007, 02:08:27 PM
LOL, you can't use that word "hormone" around here! ;D  You'll ruin the whole "a calorie is just a calorie" theory ::)


I wish the body was that simple!  Okay 1000 kcals from french fries or chicken breast, no difference ::)

But then somewhere along the line someone had to pick up an endocrinology book and learn that different foods effect the hormones in your body too?! ::)  Too much for this board to handle... :P

Don't forget about thermogenesis.... I'll give TA time to google it.
Title: Re: Weight Loss: Calories in v. Calories Out
Post by: MindSpin on January 31, 2007, 10:47:37 AM
You don`t need to cycle anything.

You don`t need to time anything.


Bodybuilders are not doing anything that would require such scrutiny.

So two monozygotic twins on an idenatical training regimen and identical caloric intake but varying macro nutrient percentages & type will experience the same results in body composition?