ExRx.net

That's a straw man.


Protein intake and resistance training is what determines muscle mass. It is a fact that using the muscle and taking in as much protein as your body can possibly use, is the only natural way to prevent muscle loss in a catabolic state.

I don't think anyone would dispute that.

Insulin is the one and only fat storage hormone. Nobody disputes that.

Sugars (glucose, sucrose etc) stimulate insulin release. Nobody disputes that.

Carbs metabolize into sugars. This is by definition, so it can't be disputed.

Taking these facts into consideration one can work out with logic alone, that one can manipulate insulin (and therefore fat storage) with carb consumption. People dispute that, despite the fact that if the above facts are true, this logically MUST also be true.

Wrong, you are leaving parts out of your math. That is what we are disputing.

Another straw man..... Imagine that.....

What I actually said was more like "I dieted without counting calories, therefore it is not impossible to diet without counting calories". If I can do something, then it can't be impossible.

"taking in as much protein as you can use...no one would dispute"

And neither do I! The issue is when you say "carbs are evil" because you need that space for protein, but you haven't determinied a threshold!

I did NS and gained muscle and lost very fast and trained pretty reasonably heavy volume...and I was fine!

Well then the remark was not germane to earlier discussion then! :)

Of COURSE, you can do that. Just like you can lift without a program or records also!

There is no orthodoxy and no religion. Empirical evidence and logical reasoning is all that matters here. If you make baseless assertions that go against the evidence, then you will be taken to task for it.


Some people consider you to be a troll. Some of your characteristics grate on peoples nerves too. That is why you have problems with getting banned. However I know the first thing is not true. You like any kind of attention you can get from people and you like arguing too. It's similar, but still not trolling. The second thing is irrelevant. Lack of annoying habits is not an eligibility requirement for forum membership, nor is being an asshat against the rules.

Nobody says carbs are evil....that's just silly. There is no single protein threshold, it is different for everyone. I can maintain with 200 grams per day. Some people need more, some people need less.

So 800 calories of my diet has to be protein. fat and carbs must split the rest. To eat that much protein and get your essential fats, you are going to need at least 200 calories from fat, if not more. To keep yourself from being hungry, you definitely need more fat, as it is very filling. So lets say I keep fat down to 50 grams, that's 1250 for fat and protein. That means at 1500 calories, I can only eat 62.5 carbs.

Now in reality, I would be absolutely starving on that. I'd also be completely lethargic and unable to exercise at all.


NS may have been ok for you. It is not for most people. You are not like most people. Your body is on one end of the bell curve. Most people are not like that.

It's the same thing with me, I'm on the other end. I can't cheat on the diet...EVER. I can't eat any white bread or rice, or pasta at all ever. Not one single doughnut, no pizza, not one single french fry. NONE. Even oatmeal and Kashi cereal has to be during bulks only and in small portions.
However I don't tell people that's what they have to do to lose weight. Most people are not like me. I have to do that to keep from getting fat. Most people do not. So I don't tell people to be as strict as me because it is not necessary.

So the advice I give is tailored to the majority of people. Unless of course I am speaking to one specific person about their unique situation. If you are one of the lucky few who can just eat less and get thin, great. Enjoy it, most people aren't so lucky.

It seems prudent anyway to only eat high-nutrient foods if you're cutting calories. You need essential fats and proteins, there's no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.

I like to look at carbs as an aid to exercise. It's well known that carbohydrates are beneficial to sports and exercise through the additional glycogen storage they promote, the maintanence of blood glucose and the insulin response which is needed for anabolism. So carbs during bulking or high intensity/endurance exercise or in training have there place. But when fat loss is your main priority, performance has to take a back seat while you're in a catabolic state the majority of the time.

Someone compared carbs to running your car on Nitrous Oxide. You wouldn't want to run on it constantly but when you need it, it gives an extra boost.

OK.

How do you KNOW, you need 200g? Have you had someone run an experiment on you with controls and all? And you throw out a lot of "mosts" and "many's" without controlled experiments and p tests statistics and the like to back it up.

How do you KNOW that NS won't work well for most people. I sure didn't notice any wastage trends in the discussions on the boards there (very avtive and well populated). Got some worriers (starters). But not a single one that wrote up a good case history. Mostly you get the whiners who complain about food taster or want to drink...or not eat their veggies. Or cheat. And then cry when they don't lose that week or get thrown off rhythm.

I don't KNOW NS is a great program in the sense of some science survey. I do KNOW that you don't know much about it either!

The answer to your first question, is trial and error. I needed 250 to grow, 200 wasn't cutting. 200 was probably over maintenance then, however I have more muscle now. I also know I have not lost muscle at 200. I don't have it exact down to the gram, but 200 is a good estimate for me. What if it was a little less. I know it isn't, but what if it was? Well then I'd be crapping out a few grams of protein I wasn't able to use, whoopty fv(k1ng do.

Answer number 2. Empirical evidence. There are plenty of studies. Try the reference section of "Good Calorie Bad Calorie" for starters. It has more than 60 pages of sited studies. Not to mention the biological processes I explained above. I also explained how the calorie counting approach is simplistic and based on a faulty premise. So you can get there with deductive reasoning too.

No, you don't know that. You don't know me. I have a great deal of knowledge.

The other way I know is through helping lots of people over the years. I get the expected results when I advise people to do certain things. I have demonstrated this in various people. There is a built in control too. Virtually everyone has tried the conventional calorie counting methods with very limited success. They get very little results for a lot of effort. I get them way better results for that effort. I started with a falsifiable hypothesis, and it proved it works many times. That means I'm right.

1. Earlier you bragged about not keeping records. How does that affect the dependability of your self-experimentation?

2. What's the one best study?

Actually I just mentioned not keeping records. Why would anyone brag about that. It is not any sort of an achievement. So that's a strange thing for you to say.

To answer your question, it does not affect the dependability. It just means I couldn't publish the results.

The Ancel Keys study on semi-starvation diets was pretty good. You could just look up Gary Taubes on youtube. He has lectures where he goes over several of the studies.