Disaster after following the TA principles.

[Krankenstein]

Have you???  The conclusion isnt the only part I should have highlighted.  Read the results paragraph son.  Look at the amount of protein they took in.  Uh oh......higher protein than what you and Adam are 'commanding' everyone to do???

[The_Leafy_Bug]

Oh wait....high protein/low carb sucks right???

Effects of variation in protein and carbohydrate intake on body mass and composition during energy restriction: a meta-regression 1 ,2 ,3
James W Krieger1, Harry S Sitren1, Michael J Daniels1 and Bobbi Langkamp-Henken1

1 From the Departments of Food Science and Human Nutrition (JWK, HSS, and BL-H) and of Statistics (MJD), University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

2 Supported by the primary investigator (JK). Funding did not come from any outside source.

3 Reprints not available. Address correspondence to J Krieger, University of Florida, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, PO Box 110370, Gainesville, FL 32611-0370. E-mail: jkrieger@ufl.edu.
 
Background: It is unclear whether low-carbohydrate, high-protein, weight-loss diets benefit body mass and composition beyond energy restriction alone.

Objective: The objective was to use meta-regression to determine the effects of variations in protein and carbohydrate intakes on body mass and composition during energy restriction.

Design: English-language studies with a dietary intervention of ≥4200 kJ/d (1000 kcal/d), with a duration of ≥4 wk, and conducted in subjects aged ≥19 y were considered eligible for inclusion. A self-reported intake in conjunction with a biological marker of macronutrient intake was required as a minimum level of dietary control. A total of 87 studies comprising 165 intervention groups met the inclusion criteria.

Results: After control for energy intake, diets consisting of ≤35–41.4% energy from carbohydrate were associated with a 1.74 kg greater loss of body mass, a 0.69 kg greater loss of fat-free mass, a 1.29% greater loss in percentage body fat, and a 2.05 kg greater loss of fat mass than were diets with a higher percentage of energy from carbohydrate. In studies that were conducted for >12 wk, these differences increased to 6.56 kg, 1.74 kg, 3.55%, and 5.57 kg, respectively. Protein intakes of >1.05 g/kg were associated with 0.60 kg additional fat-free mass retention compared with diets with protein intakes ≤1.05 g/kg. In studies conducted for >12 wk, this difference increased to 1.21 kg. No significant effects of protein intake on loss of either body mass or fat mass were observed.
Conclusion: Low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets favorably affect body mass and composition independent of energy intake, which in part supports the proposed metabolic advantage of these diets.

Let me make this clear for you......





 

















FAT FREE MASS!!!!!! MASS IS NOT EQUAL TO FAT

[climber]

Not neccesarily. Certain lifts can be effected by weight like squats and deadlift. Having a bigger waist aids greatly in these lifts. I did however beat my  bench press and nearly matched my deadlift at a weight that was 60 pounds lighter then what i previously was. I even benched more when i leaned out then i did when i was fat. I think it is fair to say i didn't lose any muscle but im basing this simply by visual appearance. Strength is not an indication of how much muscle one has.

You're a newbie. Only been lifting for what one/two years? Probably just newbie strength gains. Get with a good program and stick to it for 5 years then come back here and try to give advice.

[The_Leafy_Bug]

You're a newbie. Only been lifting for what one/two years? Probably just newbie strength gains. Get with a good program and stick to it for 5 years then come back here and try to give advice.

You are ignorant. Im not giving out advice. Simply sharing my experiences and apparently some of you are very offended when i tell other people how i cut.

[ManBearPig...]

Answer me this power rod. Which weighs more? A pound of feathers or a pound of bricks.

why don't you not answer with a question?

nice "intelligence" question.  i'm the educated one out of the two.

is eating a 100 calories of chicken the same as eating 100 calories of cardboard?

[Bast000]

Hey Leafy Bug:

1) What stimulus will result in greater absorption and uptake through enterocytes, higher endogenous secretion of insulin, and subsequently a greater anabolic effect in vivo?

A) 100 calorie oral intake of carbohydrates
B) 100 calorie oral intake of lipids

2) You claim "not to lose an ounce of muscle" when dieting to a lower weight. Assuming all your weight loss was comprised of fat & water only (no muscle loss), should you not have the same or greater strength at the lower bodyweight? Please explain.

With less glycogen while in a deficit how will can you possibly have the same strength? 

[The_Leafy_Bug]

why don't you not answer with a question?

nice "intelligence" question.  i'm the educated one out of the two.

is eating a 100 calories of chicken the same as eating 100 calories of cardboard?

For energy yes. They are as equal as a pound of feathers and a pound of bricks although im sure card board would be composed mostly of carbohydrates. Chicken may have more protien but 100 calories of card board is equal to 100 calories of chicken. Just like a gas stove will warm a pan the same as an electric.

[climber]

For energy yes. They are as equal as a pound of feathers and a pound of bricks although im sure card board would be composed mostly of carbohydrates. Chicken may have more protien but 100 calories of card board is equal to 100 calories of chicken. Just like a gas stove will warm a pan the same as an electric.

You retarded greyhound jockey! Cardboard is cellulose, humans cannot digest cellulose. You cannot eat paper/wood/cardboard!

[ManBearPig...]

For energy yes. They are as equal as a pound of feathers and a pound of bricks although im sure card board would be composed mostly of carbohydrates. Chicken may have more protien but 100 calories of card board is equal to 100 calories of chicken. Just like a gas stove will warm a pan the same as an electric.

are you staking your "reputation" on the following statement then:

"I , Leafy Bug/Buttsuck, hereby proclaim that for muscle building, fat loss, and overall health and physical well being, when it comes to nutrition, there is absolutely no difference between eating meat and cardboard".


Would you sign your name under that statement?

[The_Leafy_Bug]

are you staking your "reputation" on the following statement then:

"I , Leafy Bug/Buttsuck, hereby proclaim that for muscle building, fat loss, and overall health and physical well being, when it comes to nutrition, there is absolutely no difference between eating meat and cardboard".


Would you sign your name under that statement?

Of course not because you need your vitamins and minerals.

You retarded greyhound jockey! Cardboard is cellulose, humans cannot digest cellulose. You cannot eat paper/wood/cardboard!

I was under the impression that cardboard was edible and capable of living off of. If you want we can change it to a diet of solid chicken and a diet of solid orange peels.

[Bast000]

Not all calories you consume are devoted to muscle synthesis.  So some calories you can eat from any source.  That's the point of the "TA principles."

[The_Leafy_Bug]

Not all calories you consume are devoted to muscle synthesis.  So some calories you can eat from any source.  That's the point of the "TA principles."

The funny thing is that they don't realize is that a diet of pure chicken breast would be just as unhealthy as a diet of pure cardboard. Why they can't see this i don't know.

[ManBearPig...]

Of course not because you need your vitamins and minerals. I was under the impression that cardboard was edible and capable of living off of. If you want we can change it to a diet of solid chicken and a diet of solid orange peels.

why would you ever think cardboard is edible and capable of living off of?

but ok, what if i wrapped a multivitamin/multi-mineral pill into a sheet of paper.  if i ate just that, would that be the same as eating 100 calories of chicken?

theoretically (i'll leave this up to the google nerds), cardboard would have the same number of nutrients as most fibrous green vegetables.  i'm willing to bet that if you chopped a chunk of a tree out you'd find millions of nutrients in it and could eat it if you could get it soft enough to chew it.  i mean, the tree has to feed itself from the dirt somehow too, right?  so technically, cardboard (tree/tree bark) does have vitamins and minerals in it.  do you think you could survive off eating wood?

[ManBearPig...]

Not all calories you consume are devoted to muscle synthesis.  So some calories you can eat from any source.  That's the point of the "TA principles."

what do you mean by "some calories"?  1 %?  3?  50%?

[The_Leafy_Bug]

If you read the the studies abstract Adam posted about the mice, the researchers does not claim that the results are directly applicable to humans. The doctor advices a healthy diet and no overconsumption of calories.

Yet ShiftedShapes claims that humans eating a bit more than Baseline = playing with their lives, and that they are cutting their livespan by 20%.

He's full of shit, just like Adam, he's taking a tiny indicator of something and makes a bold claim out of it, and then refers to the "studies" that specifically does not claim what he claims.

 

Hey, i never said 200 about baseline would severly put your life in danger but i can garuntee you that eating 1000 or more daily will have its effects on shortening your life.

why would you ever think cardboard is edible and capable of living off of?

but ok, what if i wrapped a multivitamin/multi-mineral pill into a sheet of paper.  if i ate just that, would that be the same as eating 100 calories of chicken?

theoretically (i'll leave this up to the google nerds), cardboard would have the same number of nutrients as most fibrous green vegetables.  i'm willing to bet that if you chopped a chunk of a tree out you'd find millions of nutrients in it and could eat it if you could get it soft enough to chew it.  i mean, the tree has to feed itself from the dirt somehow too, right?  so technically, cardboard (tree/tree bark) does have vitamins and minerals in it.  do you think you could survive off eating wood?

Apparently its not edible according to climber. Look im not saying its healthy. There are people who eat dirt and bugs and have just as much muscle mass if not more then the people here on getbig. The point we are making is you guys are splitting hairs.

[climber]

The funny thing is that they don't realize is that a diet of pure chicken breast would be just as unhealthy as a diet of pure cardboard. Why they can't see this i don't know.

That is untrue. I promise you that if one were to eat only chicken breast they would live for quite a long time. Minerals like Iron are deficient in chicken so that would be a limiting factor. Eat only cardboard and you'll be dead with in a week.

[Krankenstein]

Let me make this clear for you......
FAT FREE MASS!!!!!! MASS IS NOT EQUAL TO FAT

Now let me make this clear to you.....FAT FREE MASS = MUSCLE.  Meaning that with HIGH PROTEIN LOW CARB DIETS FAT FREE MASS WAS SPARED dipshit.

[Bast000]

what do you mean by "some calories"?  1 %?  3?  50%?

Basically I get 50-100g protein, some vegetables, a piece of fruit, and the rest is whatever  (fast food, simple carbs).  And some of the protein always comes from "whatever" as well.  The most important thing is to eat the right amount of calories.

[The_Leafy_Bug]

Now let me make this clear to you.....FAT FREE MASS = MUSCLE.  Meaning that with HIGH PROTEIN LOW CARB DIETS FAT FREE MASS WAS SPARED dipshit.

I never resulted to name calling.... fatfree mass could be water. Shows how little you know. If you can't argue maturly then your are free to leave and huff and puff in your corner. Don't be mad because i have proven you wrong.

[Krankenstein]

The funny thing is that they don't realize is that a diet of pure chicken breast would be just as unhealthy as a diet of pure cardboard. Why they can't see this i don't know.

This should be just precious......tell us oh wise one.....PLEASE.....how could it be "just as unhealthy"

[Bast000]

Now let me make this clear to you.....FAT FREE MASS = MUSCLE.  Meaning that with HIGH PROTEIN LOW CARB DIETS FAT FREE MASS WAS SPARED dipshit.

moderate protein and moderate carb diets are More muscle sparing.

[ManBearPig...]

Basically I get 50-100g protein, some vegetables, a piece of fruit, and the rest is whatever  (fast food, simple carbs).  And some of the protein always comes from "whatever" as well.  The most important thing is to eat the right amount of calories.

why not have 0 protein?  instead of 200-400 calories of protein, why not have 200 calories of cake every day?

[The_Leafy_Bug]

This should be just precious......tell us oh wise one.....PLEASE.....how could it be "just as unhealthy"

Because you would be mal nourished..... Seriously man are you thinking before you post. You are getting owned by a 20 year old kid with 2 years of bodybuilding experience. Don't you have alot of experience in this?

[Bast000]

why not have 0 protein?  instead of 200-400 calories of protein, why not have 200 calories of cake every day?

Some protein is needed for muscle synthesis.

[climber]

why not have 0 protein?  instead of 200-400 calories of protein, why not have 200 calories of cake every day?

That's because protein contains nitrogen. Your body needs nitrogen to function. Cake does not have enough nitrogen in it. There are also some amino acids found in dietary protein that humans cannot make within their bodies.