ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Sun Nov 23, 2014 2:04 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:39 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm
Posts: 4424
NightFaLL wrote:
Calories do matter - part of the reason I rarely read this site is the polarized views on it.

Low carb, as much fat as you want? Yeah right. I could throw down 5000 calories worth of protein and fat every day and I guarantee I'd put on pounds upon pounds of fat.

Carbs are not bad, fat beyond 90-100g a day is utterly pointless, and calories in vs calories out should ALWAYS be the base guideline for any fat loss plan.


that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Whoever said that throwing down 5000 calories of protein and fat wouldn't make you fat?

Carbs aren't bad (the only thing I ever hear described as "bad" on here are grains...) but it's a VERY easy variable to manipulate. Much easier than calorie counting, in my opinion anyway. If I were to try and cut using calories I'd have to weigh everything I eat. Not going to happen. If, however, I just manipulate how many servings of carbs I have a day and when I have them, I can lose weight much easier.

you're just as heavily biased in favour of calorie counting as the people you accuse


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:35 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 778
robertscott wrote:
NightFaLL wrote:
Calories do matter - part of the reason I rarely read this site is the polarized views on it.

Low carb, as much fat as you want? Yeah right. I could throw down 5000 calories worth of protein and fat every day and I guarantee I'd put on pounds upon pounds of fat.

Carbs are not bad, fat beyond 90-100g a day is utterly pointless, and calories in vs calories out should ALWAYS be the base guideline for any fat loss plan.


that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Whoever said that throwing down 5000 calories of protein and fat wouldn't make you fat?

Carbs aren't bad (the only thing I ever hear described as "bad" on here are grains...) but it's a VERY easy variable to manipulate. Much easier than calorie counting, in my opinion anyway. If I were to try and cut using calories I'd have to weigh everything I eat. Not going to happen. If, however, I just manipulate how many servings of carbs I have a day and when I have them, I can lose weight much easier.

you're just as heavily biased in favour of calorie counting as the people you accuse


It's been said multiple times by people on this site that processed or even unprocessed Carbs are the reason we're fat and that calories are irrelevant.

In this very thread someone points out that calories do not matter, as a matter of fact:

Quote:
Caloric reduction never leads anywhere. The only thing reducing your energy intake will do is shut down or atleast lower some levels of your metabolism, and force the body to do the same with less energy. You might lose weight, but it will be a mix of muscle and fat. Plus, after you end your diet, your weight will most likely bounce straight back if not higher, because your body has coped to deal with lower energy intake.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:40 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 778
Ironman wrote:
While saying it is polarized here could be a fair criticism, portraying an equally polarized view as not being so really takes away from any impact of said criticism. Plus there are some of us with a little more nuanced view on this; a view that may change just a little here and there based on new evidence.

I would like to see someone throw down 5000 calories of fatty meat. I have to have a certain amount of carbs in the diet to make it that high. I'd be ready to throw up well before the end of that day. If you get it down you would gain weight. It would be to a different degree than with different macros though. If that wasn't true than you could bulk up on anything too. You can't though. I need less carbs than most, and even I can't do that.

The quicker something digests, the less time you have to use it before it gets stored as fat. Once it is in the fat stores, it takes more effort to get the body to use it as energy, as the body will down-regulate metabolism a little when burning fat. At the same time if it's more quickly digested, it's more readily available to fuel a workout, and is much more efficient than relying on fat stores, or slower digesting foods.

Either macros matter or they don't, either carbs offer more quick energy or they don't. You can't have it both ways.



Macros matter - secondary to calories - when trying to lose weight.

Macros affect the type of weight lost.

Carbs offer quick energy in what sense? Fat can be broke down and used for energy as quickly, it just can't be used in an anaerobic environment because it needs oxygen to be 'oxidized'.

I'm curious where you believe I've stated anything the opposite?

I'm simply saying I can eat a pound of candy a day and still lose 95+% fat while on a diet. Because I'd still be able to keep my protein up and keep my calories below maintenance.

Dubs seems to believe calories don't matter, which is an extremely polarized view. I've yet to state a polarized view on the subject, other than the fact that calories in vs calories out is a scientific fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:45 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 778
Dub wrote:
Yeah, there are many polarized views about the issue. Have you ever wondered why?
I'm not to bash you or anything, but to throw in my opinion about the issue. Ironman is a wise fellow, said alot of things I would have said and agreed to, but let me give my 2 cents.

A calorie isn't a calorie. That's a given. Not everything you eat will have the same results on digestion. Not even close. There are several things in physiological level why all the grams of nutrients aren't the same. Calories in - calories out is not a way I would go. Atleast by a longer shot.

Caloric restriction works only so far. A small one is alright (200kcal) reduction from what you truly need. If you cut back on everything, no matter the nutrients, for a thousand calories, you'll be in trouble. The body still uses over 2000 calories daily, there's nothing you can do about it. Unless you severely restrict your calories and exercise much. Then your body will seriously trigger into starvation and slower your metabolism down a notch. Then you use less energy. When there is a noticeable caloric defiency day in and day out, the body notices it and tries to reach balance. That's a fact. When you end your "diet" and try to eat normally, you will gain fat because of the sad fact your metabolism is still very degraded from the starving. The biggest loser constests are the best example of this fact.

Exercise changes everything. When you exercise, you use a way lot more calories. Nutrients come less important; the muscle absorbs anything it can, no matter what you eat. Severe calorie cutting and exercise will most likely lead to recovery issues and loss in muscle mass as well as fat.

I think carbs are the primary fuel for exercise. When we think about optimal performance and recovery, carbs should belng to your nutrition pre-workout, during workout and after workout. The windows in before and after can vary from long to short depending on exercise and goals. Nowhere else do you need carbs except for that window. That's a sad fact, and the main reason why the world is so obese. Carbs are evil for non-exercisers. Why? Because they are so easy to overconsume. Eat a bag of candy (100-250g or even more), that's what many people do several times a week. Well, that one bag can give you over 60-150g of carbs instantly. Can you imagine what that does in your body? Try to consume that much fat or protein in a short period of time. It's impossible. To eat that much protein, you should binge down over 300-700g of meat in a relatively short time. And still it wouldn't have the same effect on your body, because the nutrients aren't the same. The same goes with fat. You just can't overeat too much fat that easily.

Then again, I would like to point out that in moderation everything is alright. You can eat low-fat and high carb and still not gain pounds. Atleast some people can. Especially for athletes this has been a staple for decades, and it seems to work as well. The body needs energy and nutrients. If you give the body the right amount of those nutrients, it'll stay the same. If you exercise, you need more nutrients. If you sleep all day, you shouldn't be eating that much. Even though the point of using the energies and calories you have eaten is relatively true, it needs moderation and thought for optimal results. It's not about the calories, and neither is caloric reduction. They both happen because of the amount of nutrients you should consume. Let's think it that way. For general weight loss, there is a rule of thumb to lessen the amount of calories eaten. How does that happen? By cutting the sugars and excess carbs. Tadah. Caloric reduction shouldn't lead to nutrient cutting, nutrient cutting should lead to caloric reduction. The point in burning more than you eat lies behind the fact you must first burn of the glucose and carbs from your body before the fat gets it's turn (in general). So, wouldn't it be easier to burn more than you eat if you already cut back on carbs on average non-exercise days. Then the body can concentrate on burning off the fat. Plus, I don't think we even have to mention what Insulin bursts do to fat loss. There's another reason why caloric reduction with high amount of carbs doesn't work so well.

So instead of daily caloric defiencys, I'm still in favor of carb cycling. It involves lower calorie days and higher calorie days, but it's not about the calories. It never has been.


I didn't read through the entire thing, you mention quite a few constantly repeated myths.

Starvation mode is extremely over exaggerated - I'm 220lbs currently at about 14% body fat and 5'9" - I can eat 1100 calories a day for 2 weeks straight without a decrease in metabolism, strength performance, or anything of the like.

It's 95% protein, of course, a protein sparing modified fast - but it works and I never go in to 'starvation' mode.

I do agree, all calories are not the same - but at the end of the day, for a reduction in weight(non water), calories in has to be less than calories out. It's thermodynamics, it's that simple.

I would never recommend someone eat a pound of candy a day to lose weight - but I also think it's silly for you to tell someone who is trying to lose weight to 'not count calories'.

Should you focus entirely on them? No - you should re-evaluate your lifestyle and adjust it accordingly to meet your goals - but you shouldn't assume you can eat as much as you want as long as there aren't carbs, that's the point I'm making.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:47 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm
Posts: 4424
NightFaLL wrote:
It's been said multiple times by people on this site that processed or even unprocessed Carbs are the reason we're fat and that calories are irrelevant.

In this very thread someone points out that calories do not matter, as a matter of fact:

Quote:
Caloric reduction never leads anywhere. The only thing reducing your energy intake will do is shut down or atleast lower some levels of your metabolism, and force the body to do the same with less energy. You might lose weight, but it will be a mix of muscle and fat. Plus, after you end your diet, your weight will most likely bounce straight back if not higher, because your body has coped to deal with lower energy intake.


was that Dub? His posts were too long for me to bother reading.

I believe that processed carbs are bad. Absolutely. I do not think carbs are the reason we are fat. I think overeating is what makes us fat. I also think that people overeat carbs.

NightFaLL wrote:
I've yet to state a polarized view on the subject, other than the fact that calories in vs calories out is a scientific fact.


your first post in the thread came across as being very polarised. Calories in vs calories out is indeed a scientific fact, but insulin spikes blunting fat loss is also a scientific fact. The easiest way to avoid that is to avoid having a high carb intake all day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:57 am 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:40 pm
Posts: 1141
Location: Lapland, Finland
NightFaLL wrote:
Carbs offer quick energy in what sense? Fat can be broke down and used for energy as quickly, it just can't be used in an anaerobic environment because it needs oxygen to be 'oxidized'.
Carbs offer quick energy. High GI carbs are absorbed and ready to use in blood, muscles and liver way faster than fat and protein. Fat and protein absorb way slower than simple sugars. Plus, carbs are the primary source of exercise. Fat oxidation is way slower and more inefficient way to produce energy. Fat oxidation only happens in low effort exercising, or after an intense bout. In fact, your body can produce five times more energy from carbs than fats. Again, research supported fact. Making ATP of carbs is way more efficient. Hence, carbs offer quick energy. Ask any Endurance or Long length competitor (ultra-marathons, triathlons, etc.). Only a fool would take fat snacks during exercises.

Quote:
I'm simply saying I can eat a pound of candy a day and still lose 95+% fat while on a diet. Because I'd still be able to keep my protein up and keep my calories below maintenance.
First, that logic will do better with exercise. Without exercise it will screw with your health and more likely build fat eventually, no matter what. Why? Because of insulin and carbos effects on your system. Even if you can eat a pound of candy a day without gaining fat, you'd still get better results without the candy and replaced with protein and fat. Simple as that.

Quote:
Dubs seems to believe calories don't matter, which is an extremely polarized view.

Once again, it's not about the calories, it's about the macros. Hence, calories don't matter. You can have two diets with the exact same calorie amount, but totally different results. That is a scientific fact that can be proven with several studies. Calories in - calories out doesn't have physiological sense because calories in different nutrients aren't the same, and don't have the same results when digested. That, again, is a scientific fact supported by laws of physics.

_________________
Physical Preparedness Coach
Co-Owner of UniFit Oy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 12:38 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6427
Location: Halifax, NS
Making blanket statement like "calories don't matter" is part of the problem. They obviously do matter. The real question is "how much do they matter?" If you need 2000 calories and you eat 5000 calories, it doesn't matter what it is, it's too much. If you need 2000 calories, and you eat 2000 calories, but half is empty calories, then you won't get enough nutrients to support your body's needs and you will likely lose muscle and gain fat. What you eat matters. How much you eat matters. This debate is getting silly.

_________________
Stu Ward
_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:32 pm 
Offline
Veteren Member
Veteren Member

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:12 pm
Posts: 2406
robertscott wrote:
was that Dub? His posts were too long for me to bother reading.


He is quite enthusiastic about this topic. In my kindest ways I"ve suggested shorter posts will help spread the message better

Personally, I think it really surprises people how much "real food" they can eat once they get the sugary sauces, chips, and sodas off the menu. The empty and non filling calories add up quick. This may lead to the mis understanding that you can "eat all you want" as long as its good. More like "you won't feel like over eating" if you stick to the "good foods", is closer to reality


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:42 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm
Posts: 4424
stuward wrote:
Making blanket statement like "calories don't matter" is part of the problem. They obviously do matter. The real question is "how much do they matter?" If you need 2000 calories and you eat 5000 calories, it doesn't matter what it is, it's too much. If you need 2000 calories, and you eat 2000 calories, but half is empty calories, then you won't get enough nutrients to support your body's needs and you will likely lose muscle and gain fat. What you eat matters. How much you eat matters. This debate is getting silly.


best post of the thread so far.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:17 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 778
robertscott wrote:
your first post in the thread came across as being very polarised. Calories in vs calories out is indeed a scientific fact, but insulin spikes blunting fat loss is also a scientific fact. The easiest way to avoid that is to avoid having a high carb intake all day.


Insulin spikes blunt fat loss temporarily - once those calories dissipate, though, and you're in a negative balance, there will be fat/weight loss.

It's not like you eat 300g of carbs and instantly have an insulin spike the rest of the day - at some point it fades. Protein also gives a modest insulin spike.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:21 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 778
Dub wrote:
NightFaLL wrote:
Carbs offer quick energy in what sense? Fat can be broke down and used for energy as quickly, it just can't be used in an anaerobic environment because it needs oxygen to be 'oxidized'.
Carbs offer quick energy. High GI carbs are absorbed and ready to use in blood, muscles and liver way faster than fat and protein. Fat and protein absorb way slower than simple sugars. Plus, carbs are the primary source of exercise. Fat oxidation is way slower and more inefficient way to produce energy. Fat oxidation only happens in low effort exercising, or after an intense bout. In fact, your body can produce five times more energy from carbs than fats. Again, research supported fact. Making ATP of carbs is way more efficient. Hence, carbs offer quick energy. Ask any Endurance or Long length competitor (ultra-marathons, triathlons, etc.). Only a fool would take fat snacks during exercises.

Quote:
I'm simply saying I can eat a pound of candy a day and still lose 95+% fat while on a diet. Because I'd still be able to keep my protein up and keep my calories below maintenance.
First, that logic will do better with exercise. Without exercise it will screw with your health and more likely build fat eventually, no matter what. Why? Because of insulin and carbos effects on your system. Even if you can eat a pound of candy a day without gaining fat, you'd still get better results without the candy and replaced with protein and fat. Simple as that.

Quote:
Dubs seems to believe calories don't matter, which is an extremely polarized view.

Once again, it's not about the calories, it's about the macros. Hence, calories don't matter. You can have two diets with the exact same calorie amount, but totally different results. That is a scientific fact that can be proven with several studies. Calories in - calories out doesn't have physiological sense because calories in different nutrients aren't the same, and don't have the same results when digested. That, again, is a scientific fact supported by laws of physics.


Where are the studies showing that fat is absorbed more slowly?

Fat is more easily stored as fat than any other macro. That's been proven multiple times, there is very little conversion from dietary fat to fat stores.

You're also saying calories don't matter, but then comparing exact calories of two different diets? Why would their calories need to be the same if a purely fat/protein diet was better than one with protein/carbs/fat?

You're really just spouting off low-carb propaganda and claiming it as 'scientific fact' repeatedly. I'm done arguing with you, you're obviously married to your beliefs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:36 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm
Posts: 4424
NightFaLL wrote:
robertscott wrote:
your first post in the thread came across as being very polarised. Calories in vs calories out is indeed a scientific fact, but insulin spikes blunting fat loss is also a scientific fact. The easiest way to avoid that is to avoid having a high carb intake all day.


Insulin spikes blunt fat loss temporarily - once those calories dissipate, though, and you're in a negative balance, there will be fat/weight loss.

It's not like you eat 300g of carbs and instantly have an insulin spike the rest of the day - at some point it fades. Protein also gives a modest insulin spike.


Yeah I definitely agree with that, but when you consider that most people will be eating carbs all day, it's not so good.

I must admit I'm a little biased in favour of fasting/carb cycling type diets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:45 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 778
robertscott wrote:
NightFaLL wrote:
robertscott wrote:
your first post in the thread came across as being very polarised. Calories in vs calories out is indeed a scientific fact, but insulin spikes blunting fat loss is also a scientific fact. The easiest way to avoid that is to avoid having a high carb intake all day.


Insulin spikes blunt fat loss temporarily - once those calories dissipate, though, and you're in a negative balance, there will be fat/weight loss.

It's not like you eat 300g of carbs and instantly have an insulin spike the rest of the day - at some point it fades. Protein also gives a modest insulin spike.


Yeah I definitely agree with that, but when you consider that most people will be eating carbs all day, it's not so good.

I must admit I'm a little biased in favour of fasting/carb cycling type diets.


I've never said there was anything wrong with them - I always cut carbs when I'm dieting.

The point I'm making is that simply reducing carbs doesn't make you lose fat - the reduction in calories does.

He made it seem as though you could eat over maintenance and as long as it wasn't grains/processed carbs/etc, you wouldn't gain any weight/fat. Which is entirely incorrect.

Also, you're not going to put on significant amounts of muscle without carbs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 3:41 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
Oscar_Actuary wrote:
Personally, I think it really surprises people how much "real food" they can eat once they get the sugary sauces, chips, and sodas off the menu. The empty and non filling calories add up quick. This may lead to the mis understanding that you can "eat all you want" as long as its good. More like "you won't feel like over eating" if you stick to the "good foods", is closer to reality


I think that about hits the nail on the head. I'm almost certain you can over eat from just natural protein and fat sources, particularly if you make a concentrated effort to get loads of fat in there. However, it's not easy, I doubt that most could over eat it even if you asked them to which, as you said, leads to the idea that if you cut carbs, you can eat however much you want.

I seen this picture on facebook recently which i can't be bothered searching for, it had a plate of about 8 different fruits next to a Snickers, showing that they're equal in calories, saying something like, "you think you will still be hungry if you eat healthy?". I think that's a good example since it's carbs vs carbs in that case. There's a significant difference in how you feel after eating 8 pieces of fruit vs 1 snickers, and potentially a rushed trip to the nearest bathroom shortly after all that fruit, but atleast they actually have some nutrients in them.

Eat "nutritious unprocessed food". Why count calories if you don't need to? If you need to then, yeh, go ahead and count. This is normally for people who are already dialled in as it is but "normal" people struggle enough with change as it is. It's unlikely but yes, still possible that you'll over eat with even "real" food but it would take a real concentrated effort to do so.

Also, as an aside, I have 2 interesting clients just now. Both do over 12 hours of exercise per week. One, I reckon, eats about 1000 calories per day, if i'm being generous from her food log. The other i've worked with little longer so she eats more now, but she was under that amount, and she actually trained to up to 16 hours per week. She essentially ate less than me yet exercises 3 times as much me, but i'm leaner. I have a few examples now where i've increased food intake and reduced exercise volume and it's lead to fat loss - all in women, too, which may or may not be relevant.

I've mentioned this to people before and they just say, "they lie about what they eat" but, I don't think so.

Most people just need to eat "better", I think. "Better" is relevant to the person.

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:28 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm
Posts: 4424
NightFaLL wrote:
I've never said there was anything wrong with them - I always cut carbs when I'm dieting.

The point I'm making is that simply reducing carbs doesn't make you lose fat - the reduction in calories does.

He made it seem as though you could eat over maintenance and as long as it wasn't grains/processed carbs/etc, you wouldn't gain any weight/fat. Which is entirely incorrect.

Also, you're not going to put on significant amounts of muscle without carbs.


I think we probably agree on more than we disagree on. I reckon the secret to building muscle and staying lean is all about managing insulin. Timing carbs helps me do that.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group