Reasons Why Low Carb Is The Way TO GO...

[Mr. Intenseone]

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!

[Bast000]

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

[Bast000]

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.

[Mr. Intenseone]

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

[Bast000]

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.

[El_Spiko]

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.

[Bast000]

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.

[The True Adonis]

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.

[mental_masturbator]

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

[tweeter]

We have all been brainwashed by bodybuilding propoganda (aka the magazines); Let TA lead the way!

[In it 2 win it]

My Low Carb lifestyle is fucking boring        No fat, NO fun... plain and simple.

[Bast000]

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.

[Santa Claus]

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.

[eastcoastbbman]

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!)

[Santa Claus]

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.

[fitnessman]

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.

[TheEgoCrusher]

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..

[shiftedShapes]

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.

[Necrosis]

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.

[shiftedShapes]

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.

[Necrosis]

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.

[G o a t b o y]

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! 

[pobrecito]

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.

[SquatAss]

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.

[G o a t b o y]

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)