the "science" of fat loss

[animal1991]

In one of my study guides it states that in a "study" a group of men and women followed a diet in which they were in a calorie deficit. In the "study" it states that the participants did not experience any weight loss and only one man and one woman lost some weight. So according to them the say the whole "calorie in vs calorie out" theory is flawed..

Then in another "study" the participants followed a low fat diet and lost a significant amount of weight.

Now in my study guide it states that to lose weight you have to lower your fat intake. So what they are actually saying is that "fat makes you fat".

The statement is stupid to me because we all know to lose weight/fat you have to establish a calorie deficit first and bodybuilders have been doing this for decades, no matter what diet they follow (keto, high carb, balanced etc.)

Discuss...

[Metabolic]

In one of my study guides it states that in a "study" a group of men and women followed a diet in which they were in a calorie deficit. In the "study" it states that the participants did not experience any weight loss and only one man and one woman lost some weight. So according to them the say the whole "calorie in vs calorie out" theory is flawed..

Then in another "study" the participants followed a low fat diet and lost a significant amount of weight.

Now in my study guide it states that to lose weight you have to lower your fat intake. So what they are actually saying is that "fat makes you fat".

The statement is stupid to me because we all know to lose weight/fat you have to establish a calorie deficit first and bodybuilders have been doing this for decades, no matter what diet they follow (keto, high carb, balanced etc.)

Discuss...

Post the studies, see what methodology they followed, how did they handle the different variables, who performed the studies, etc.

There is more to science that just reading it from the internets

[beverast]

1. If it was a study where the participants reported their caloric intake/activity level themselves, it's bullshit because people tend to overestimate activity and underestimate intake by quite a big margin.

2. An isocaloric amount of fat and carbohydrates is, depending on composition, not providing the same amount of energy. Fat is processed and stored with near 100% efficiency and little TEF, whereas up to 20% of the carbohydrates you take in might just be "lost" (not absorbed; mainly dependent on fiber content). Carbohydrates also have a higher TEF.

[Metabolic]

1. If it was a study where the participants reported their caloric intake/activity level themselves, it's bullshit because people tend to overestimate activity and underestimate intake by quite a big margin.

2. An isocaloric amount of fat and carbohydrates is, depending on composition, not providing the same amount of energy. Fat is processed and stored with near 100% efficiency and little TEF, whereas up to 20% of the carbohydrates you take in might just be "lost" (not absorbed; mainly dependent on fiber content). Carbohydrates also have a higher TEF.

This depends on the total amount of both, though.  More carbs ingested, and less fats, more carbs are stored and less fat, vice versa its the same.  

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/nutrient-intake-nutrient-storage-and-nutrient-oxidation.html

[beverast]

This depends on the total amount of both, though.  More carbs ingested, and less fats, more carbs are stored and less fat, vice versa its the same.  

Carbs are only stored as fat in significant amounts if your diet is artificially low in fat (rule of thumb would be <10% of total caloric intake from fat) or after artificially high carb overfeeding (we're talking 600-800g every single day for at least 3-4 days). The only pathway for this conversion in humans is de novo lipogenesis, which is a way smaller player than most people make it out to be. The way carbohydrates contribute to fat gain is via insulin/activation of lipoprotein lipase, which blocks the oxidation of fatty acids.

[Metabolic]

Carbs are only stored as fat in significant amounts if your diet is artificially low in fat (rule of thumb would be <10% of total caloric intake from fat) or after artificially high carb overfeeding (we're talking 600-800g every single day for at least 3-4 days). The only pathway for this conversion in humans is de novo lipogenesis, which is a way smaller player than most people make it out to be. The way carbohydrates contribute to fat gain is via insulin/activation of lipoprotein lipase, which blocks the oxidation of fatty acids.

We agree...its just that carbs and fat are "interdependant" storage wise, thats why they DO have a similar storage efficiency in a regular non artificial diet like keto or whatever..  Which is also the reason why ketogenic diets are simply not better than regular diets.  Eat more fats, and no carbs, and store more fats.


ps: Im not sure where were you going to with that answer...

[animal1991]

"Dr Michael Colgan conducted a study at Colgan Institure in San Diego California with four men and two women aged 23-40 whose weight and body fat were stable, that is, did not vary week to week by more than 2%. For six weeks, they reduced their usual lunch by 250-400 calories every day, and kept all other meals strictly at their usual levels. According to the American diet industry, that's a sure fire prescription for losing weight. Over the six weeks, subjects reduced their so-called "caloric intake" by a total of 8400 to 18900 calories. According to the calories in - calories out myth that dominates the dieting industry, these subjects should have lost substantial weight. At approximately 3600 calories per pound, they should have lost between 2,25-5,25 pounds. In fact, only one man and one woman lost any weight, the man 0,9kg and the woman 0,3kg. The other four lost nothing at all. Counting calories just doesn't add up."

[beverast]

Bogus study with self reported caloric intake and a sample size of 8. There can be a billion reasons this didn't work out.

[animal1991]

"Dr Wayne Miller and colleagues at the University of Illinois did a convincing series of studies with RATS. They gave one group of rats a diet containing 42% fats, not too different from the standard American diet. They gave a seconde froup a low-fat diet of Ralston Purina animal chow. Both groups ate as much as desired. Over 60 weeks, both groups ate almost exactly the same number of calories (36000 per rat). Common beliefs in the weight-loss industry about calorie intake and body fat, would predict that bothe groups would be equally fat. The high-fat group was very plump with an average bodyfat of 51%. The low-fat group was lean with an average bodyfat of 30%. There is no longer any doubt that fat calories pack on bodyfat."

[beverast]

Counting calories just doesn't add up.

There is no longer any doubt that fat calories pack on bodyfat.

Ok, now spill the beans.

What are they trying to sell?

[animal1991]

Ok, now spill the beans.

What are they trying to sell?

I don't know!
This is the shit they print in our study material and preach it as gospel. WTF! Some of our lecturers don't know shit.

[ChopperRider]

In one of my study guides it states that in a "study" a group of men and women followed a diet in which they were in a calorie deficit. In the "study" it states that the participants did not experience any weight loss and only one man and one woman lost some weight. So according to them the say the whole "calorie in vs calorie out" theory is flawed..

Then in another "study" the participants followed a low fat diet and lost a significant amount of weight.

Now in my study guide it states that to lose weight you have to lower your fat intake. So what they are actually saying is that "fat makes you fat".

The statement is stupid to me because we all know to lose weight/fat you have to establish a calorie deficit first and bodybuilders have been doing this for decades, no matter what diet they follow (keto, high carb, balanced etc.)

Discuss...

TL:DR

go out fatboy!
 

[Rudee]

Folks, there is no linear relationship between calorie consumption and weight gain/loss.  Consider this: whatever your current daily calorie consumption average is, lets say that you increased it by an average of 400 calories per day for a year without any change to your activity level.  Then lets say you increased your average calorie consumption by another 600 calories per day for the following year. If you do the math, with a pound of fat equaling 3500 calories, this would mean that in those two years you should gain over 100 pounds, right?  Not likely.  You would likely gain some weight, but time and time again it's been proven that there is no linear relationship between calorie consumption and weight gain.  

Similarly, if there was a linear relationship between calorie intake and weight loss, cutting daily calorie intake from 3000 to 1000 calories would result in a 60,000 calorie deficit, and a 17 pound weight loss in 30 days, which would equate to a 200 pound weight loss after 12 months. What if a person began the diet weighing 200 pounds, would that person disappear?   Get the point?

[Hulkotron]

"The Colgan Institute" is an online scam that hawks miracle weightloss drugs.

[Metabolic]

Folks, there is no linear relationship between calorie consumption and weight gain/loss.  Consider this: whatever your current daily calorie consumption average is, lets say that you increased it by an average of 400 calories per day for a year without any change to your activity level.  Then lets say you increased your average calorie consumption by another 600 calories per day for the following year. If you do the math, with a pound of fat equaling 3500 calories, this would mean that in those two years you should gain over 100 pounds, right?  Not likely.  You would likely gain some weight, but time and time again it's been proven that there is no linear relationship between calorie consumption and weight gain.  

Similarly, if there was a linear relationship between calorie intake and weight loss, cutting daily calorie intake from 3000 to 1000 calories would result in a 60,000 calorie deficit, and a 17 pound weight loss in 30 days, which would equate to a 200 pound weight loss after 12 months. What if a person began the diet weighing 200 pounds, would that person disappear?   Get the point?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand this is why Lyle McDonalds, Alan Aragon, Stephan Guyenet and even the retard Taubes can ackowledge the role of hormones in weight variations.  Which accounts for all the mathematical extreme, and ridiculous, cases you point out, because you know....you can eventually die of food deprivation, its called Inanition.  So yeah, one COULD say that calorie deprivation for all that period of time wil llead to an eventual mass of 0 after irreversible decomposition, hence why Zyzz is so shredded he has 0 % bodyfat.

Fact of the matter is calories is the best measure for bodyweight regulation we can figure, and use to our advantage in daily life, and it works pretty well.

[Mr Nobody]

 

[D.O.U.P]

Fuck this bullshit!

I'm sick of reading postings OVERANALYISING diet and training.

99% of the time, Its posted by a fat person. AND HOW DID THEY GET THAT WAY? EATING TO FUCKING MUCH, NOT DOING CARDIO AND BEING LAZY!!!!

The "SCIENCE" crap is a FRONT for LAZIENES, so what do these fuckers do? THEY TAKE MORE GAS AND PONTIFICATE BOUT USELESS TRAINING PROTOCOLS!

Harsh? Yes. TRUE? YES!

[wes]

Fuck this bullshit!

I'm sick of reading postings OVERANALYISING diet and training.

99% of the time, Its posted by a fat person. AND HOW DID THEY GET THAT WAY? EATING TO FUCKING MUCH, NOT DOING CARDIO AND BEING LAZY!!!!

The "SCIENCE" crap is a FRONT for LAZIENES, so what do these fuckers do? THEY TAKE MORE GAS AND PONTIFICATE BOUT USELESS TRAINING PROTOCOLS!

Harsh? Yes. TRUE? YES!

Very true............good post as usual bro!

[Metabolic]

Fuck this bullshit!

I'm sick of reading postings OVERANALYISING diet and training.

99% of the time, Its posted by a fat person. AND HOW DID THEY GET THAT WAY? EATING TO FUCKING MUCH, NOT DOING CARDIO AND BEING LAZY!!!!

The "SCIENCE" crap is a FRONT for LAZIENES, so what do these fuckers do? THEY TAKE MORE GAS AND PONTIFICATE BOUT USELESS TRAINING PROTOCOLS!

Harsh? Yes. TRUE? YES!

Yeah bro! you right bro! fuck biology, bro! Only need more juice, bro!

It amazes me how much people miss the point when dealing with "serious" subjects.

[D.O.U.P]

Yeah bro! you right bro! fuck biology, bro! Only need more juice, bro!

It amazes me how much people miss the point when dealing with "serious" subjects.

Dum-dum.

Reread my post. DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHAT I WROTE ?

Wholly shit.

[D.O.U.P]

Very true............good post as usual bro!

Wise Wes,

Thanks.

I'm just getting started................. .........

[Metabolic]

Dum-dum.

Reread my post. DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHAT I WROTE

Wholly shit.

"Fuck this bullshit!

I'm sick of reading postings OVERANALYISING diet and training."

"The "SCIENCE" crap is a FRONT for LAZIENES, so what do these fuckers do? THEY TAKE MORE GAS AND PONTIFICATE BOUT USELESS TRAINING PROTOCOLS!"

You urgently need to go back to middle school where they teach you how to elaborate on your ideas because you clearly cant seem to convey the message you have in mind and just write whatever hits your mind.

Which is another way of saying, then WHAT THE FUCK did you mean with your post? Doesnt it occur to you that there are lots of poeple actually interested in biology (including sterngth training, which is why we are here?)

[D.O.U.P]

"Fuck this bullshit!

I'm sick of reading postings OVERANALYISING diet and training."

"The "SCIENCE" crap is a FRONT for LAZIENES, so what do these fuckers do? THEY TAKE MORE GAS AND PONTIFICATE BOUT USELESS TRAINING PROTOCOLS!"

You urgently need to go back to middle school where they teach you how to elaborate on your ideas because you clearly cant seem to convey the message you have in mind and just write whatever hits your mind.

Which is another way of saying, then WHAT THE FUCK did you mean with your post? Doesn't it occur to you that there are lots of people actually interested in biology (including strength training, which is why we are here?)

You write like a bitter fatty.

Gut is at 36 inches. Correct?

I AM interested in the science of bodybuilding, BUT NOT AS A COVER FOR LACK OF DEDICATION, WILL POWER and common sense.

Did you comprehend that? Shall I ELBORATE?

[Metabolic]

You write like a bitter fatty.

Gut is at 36 inches. Correct?

I AM interested in the science of bodybuilding, BUT NOT AS A COVER FOR LACK OF DEDICATION, WILL POWER and common sense.

Did you comprehend that? Shall I ELBORATE?

Oh the cute drugaddict is calling me a fatty...care to make it interesting, ignorant fuck?

[D.O.U.P]

Oh the cute drugaddict is calling me a fatty...care to make it interesting, ignorant fuck?

NOW ya talking mang

What is AMAZING is that you STILL haven't comprehended my two posts.

I attempted to write it simply, since you lack basic reading comprehension skills.

Let's try ONE MORE TIME.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of a very overweight poster (animal something)  who uses large doses of anabolics, quoting a flawed scientific study  WHEN HE SHOULD BE CONCERED ABOUT EATING LESS AND DOING CARDIO.

Get it genius?

Probably not.