ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Sat Nov 01, 2014 9:12 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:15 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Davis, California
I am fine with it being more complicated than calories in versus calories out. What I am saying is that it is very clear that the number is 3500 so if over time you are consuming 3500 calories fewer over 2 weeks consistently and engaging in some form of exercise, you will lose very close to half of a pound per week, assuming you have the fat to lose and arent at some extreme end of the fat-skinny spectrum.

Also to note...you say that the total calories includes metabolism. Well last time I checked, if you arent including your BMR, thermal effect of food, and activity together, then you arent calculating calories out. So assuming you are at a steady weight level eating X calories and you start eating X-500, your processes will continue to be stable in the viscinity of X, and all of your conversion of fat to glucose is already accounted for so you can look at your adjustment as true difference in calories in and calories out, and thus conclude if you eat 3500 calories fewer, then you will lose fat over time at a rate of 3500 kcal per lb. Certainly if you drop 100 lb., then your biochemistry and "baseline" will be very different and then you may notice some deviation from this because what was going on at weighing Y is much different than weighing Y-100.

I have read a lot of "calorie is not a calorie" articles but unless you are getting 100% of your calories from one source it really isnt that important


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:32 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
I don't dispute that a pound of fat contains 3500 calories. I do take metabolism into account. However there are some parts of metabolism that are not taken into account.

The standard way input is counted is what is listed on the food package. It is going to be less by the time it's glucose. We don't know by how much either. It depends on what you ate. Then there is the insulin factor. Foods vary greatly on how much affect they have on insulin. Insulin can inhibit fat loss. It can also lead to storage if you eat a lot of carbs at one time. Then there is the glucagon factor. Eating few carbs in a meal means blood sugar will be low glucagon is released to keep them where they need to be and it can aid fat loss. Then there is the fact that so many people are so very different. The amount of nutrients absorbed in the intestines varies. Some people's bodies are more or less efficient, IE starvation dieters and meal skippers have adapted by becoming more efficient in digestion. Different people who are all considered to have normal thyroids, have varying thyroid function. I'm sure there are more factors I don't even know about.

Weight actually isn't a factor because that and body comp are taken into account in BMR. Percentage of fat makes a difference, but you already admitted that.

On the output side, that might be straight forward. If it is just BMR and thermal effect and so on plus your calories burned in cardio, that is easy and straight forward. However if you do weights or HIIT and that sort of thing, just adding in those calories isn't going to cut it. Your energy consumption is very elevated for a period of time somewhere in the neighborhood of 24 hours. You can maybe get close by multiplying by 9. But if you do that you are to the middle of the equation by figuring total output on the cellular level and not just the output of your body. That is because the energy your body uses in recovery isn't really part of the physical activity, it is an after effect.

So again I say when total output on a cellular level exceeds the direct input of external nutrients by 3500 calories, we can be certain this deficit was made up by exactly 1 pound of fat. Unless of course some muscle was broken down also.

However if total calories listed on food packages is x. If BMR, thermal, and calories burned during all activities are added together and is y. And x-y=-3500. Your fat loss could really be just about anything.

Besides that if you cut calories low enough to loose weight on the cake and doughnut diet, you will go through adaptation that will make your body more and more efficient.

If you're right, why can't you eat anything you want and still loose weight? Why does my insulin resistance make weight loss harder? How can people have a genetic disposition to putting on weight? How is it possible for a body to adapt to less food? How can 300 calories burned lifting weights burn 9 times the fat of 300 calories burned on the treadmill? Why does 1 fat guy have to have a perfect diet and exercise program and another can just switch to diet soda to loose weight?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:20 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Davis, California
I disagree that the calories listed on the package is substantially different than what is actually useable by the body. Obviously there is some variation among population but the 3500 is still a very approriate baseline; thats why nutrition experts still tell people that there are 3500 kcal in a lb. of fat. At this point I think I should bring up a inconsistency which leads me to believe that 9cal per gram listed on food is already adjusted for what is biochemically available. If you convert that 1 lb of fat ....

9cal/gram *1000g/kg *1kg/2.2lb.=4090 cal/lb.

Clearly this is a discrepancy between the food label and the quoted value of what it takes to lose 1 lb. of fat. I suspect although do not know that this is the difference you continually mention accounting for conversion to glucose. In other words, if you take your fat in your body and convert it to glucose, the energy value difference between the glucose and the fat will be 4090-3500=590.

Also, if you are working lifting a lot, then you should find something that correctly reports some estimate of your calorie usage. Certainly, sitting and diong bench press for 30 minutes burns a very minimal amount of calories why doing it but the activity will still be listed as having a high calorie expenditure. This must be coming from the calorie burning later, otherwise I should be burning comparable calories sitting and typing right now.

I really dont see your point here: "However if total calories listed on food packages is x. If BMR, thermal, and calories burned during all activities are added together and is y. And x-y=-3500. Your fat loss could really be just about anything. "

Your fat loss will be very closely in the neighborhood of 1lb, whether it is 1.1lb or .9lb is within variation but it's not like it can be 7 lbs. or that you actually gain 3 lb. instead of losing.

There are some caveats with eating anything you want. For one, the whole biochemistry we are discussing relies on some specific inputs in ordre to correctly function. Assuming those are met (vitamins, minerals, some carbs, some fat, some protein), you can eat just about anything within reason and lose weight. If you are running the same calorie deficit and replace a bowl of oatmeal with a slice of cake with equivalent calories, you will still lose the same amount as long as you don't change wha tyou are doing. Often, people reduce their calories and then feel like they have no energy to workout so they reduce their training as well; that clearly doesn't help the situation and can actually result in worsening the composition as I am sure you are aware. I know plenty of people who eat perfectly clean and have no muscle becuase they never lift. I know people who eat horribly and are very fit and muscular because they train hard (high output). Not sure I know a lot of people who eat clean and train hard and are still fat.

Your insulin resistance does make weight loss harder, but chances are you arent eating a calorie deficit if you are still having trouble losing weight. Energy conservation isnt rocket science, its very clear. Where is the energy going then , if it isnt going to the body? That is my big question. There must be a reason macronutrients have values per gram. What does that value represent? Nothing?

I would say people have a cultural disposition to overreat moreso than pure genetics. Often at a young age, children eat too much and this creates fat cells that can not be destroyed. The fat cells can only decreae in size or possibly be destroyed very gradually. This is the difficulty of losing weight, if you cheat, your body immediately stores it at fat again because those shrunken fat cells want to be a certain size. If someone consistently is in the red they will lose fat.

I dont know of any evidence saying a calorie burned lifting weights burns 9 times the fat than a calorie burned on a treadmill. Obviously lifting weights improves composition so your muscle goes up regardless of how your weight changes. THe weight changes purely based on your calorie deficit/surplus.

The 1 fat guy probably is eating 1000 calories too many everyday and the other guy was only eating 200. Thus a smaller change can do a lot more.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:14 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
I still disagree. I really don't think you have proved your point or proven me wrong.

I don't think dietary fat and body fat are the same. besides the process of digesting dietary fat and mobilizing body fat are pretty different.

As for calories per gram, that is what they are before they go in your mouth. A gram of carbs or protein contain enough energy to heat 4 KG of water by 1 degree C. While dietary fat contains enough to heat 9 KG of water 1 degree C.

I suppose I can't be sure if the body fat can supply 3500 calories of blood glucose, or if it is 3500 calories, as in it could raise 35 KG of water from freezing to boiling.

Trans fats are a good example of a contradiction to this. Two groups of monkeys were put on a calorie deficit diet. THe group with no trans fats lost weight as expected. THe group that had transfats gained weight.

Then there is me, I tried a calorie restricted diet and lost very little weight. The went on a low carb diet where I at as many or more calories then when I was gain weight, and I lost weight doing that. These were both without exercise.

Where does it go? Usually it is wasted. It can just pass through. Insulin has a lot to do with what can be used and what can be stored.

Also some peoples intestines are better at absorbing nutrients. Everyone has some nutrients that don't get absorbed.

Cake VS oatmeal. The cake get converted fast and easy and spikes the insulin. You can't use it all right away, so it gets stored as fat, which will be as hard to loose as any fat. Later on you maybe loose a little fat, but the gains from the cake cancel it out. The oatmeal is harder to breakdown, this uses more energy (that means calories) It gets in the blood a little at a time and less insulin is needed. By the time it has all gone through, you have been able to use it up. There is nothing to cancel out your weight loss.

The 9 times thing is here. http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/Misconceptions.html

It is the explanation for the second point that disproves the first misconception.

Bench press for 30 minutes burns lots of calories. I think it is somewhere around 300. Siting and typing doesn't even compare to lifting weights. The metabolism is just raised which causes it to use more energy. It also has to repair your muscles and possibly build more tissue.

My point of "However if total calories listed on food packages is x. If BMR, thermal, and calories burned during all activities are added together and is y. And x-y=-3500. Your fat loss could really be just about anything. " just means there are other variables. It is in contract to the previous statement where I am refering to the cellular level.

You said "Your fat loss will be very closely in the neighborhood of 1lb, whether it is 1.1lb or .9lb is within variation but it's not like it can be 7 lbs. or that you actually gain 3 lb. instead of losing." It is not that extreme, but yes you can gain a pound or loose 2 or 3.

Eat trans fat and sugar, you will gain weight with a calorie deficit. Then eat NO carbs at all, just protein and fat. You may loose weight so fast you'll feel sick.

You said "The 1 fat guy probably is eating 1000 calories too many everyday and the other guy was only eating 200. Thus a smaller change can do a lot more."
That is impossible. One would be a lot fatter. According to your 3500 rules a larger calorie surplus would result in more fat gain.

Besides that, this isn't just a theory I read about. It worked not only on my body, but on other people's too.

Here is an article that might help you understand. Or maybe I explained it just fine but your stuck on this 3500 and your mind is closed.

http://www.pahealthsystems.com/message41365.html
http://www.zonefreshdelivery.com/articl ... ed_equ.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:41 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Davis, California
I will believe dietary fat and stored fat are different.

"Trans fats are a good example of a contradiction to this. Two groups of monkeys were put on a calorie deficit diet. THe group with no trans fats lost weight as expected. THe group that had transfats gained weight."

*** How is this possible? This violates conservation of energy! The more likely thing is that the one that ate tras fats had his metabolism lowered as time passed and therefore he no longer had a calorie deficit. How did the study monitor BMR?

"Then there is me, I tried a calorie restricted diet and lost very little weight. The went on a low carb diet where I at as many or more calories then when I was gain weight, and I lost weight doing that. These were both without exercise."

***Perhaps your calorie deficit was so large that your BMR slowed to keep you alive. That would be our evolutionary programming.

Where does it go? Usually it is wasted. It can just pass through. Insulin has a lot to do with what can be used and what can be stored.

***OK sure.

Also some peoples intestines are better at absorbing nutrients. Everyone has some nutrients that don't get absorbed.

***If they arent getting absorbed, then that means even further (aside from BMR lowering) that they cant gain weight if they are below their caloric expenditure.

Cake VS oatmeal. The cake get converted fast and easy and spikes the insulin. You can't use it all right away, so it gets stored as fat, which will be as hard to loose as any fat. Later on you maybe loose a little fat, but the gains from the cake cancel it out. The oatmeal is harder to breakdown, this uses more energy (that means calories) It gets in the blood a little at a time and less insulin is needed. By the time it has all gone through, you have been able to use it up. There is nothing to cancel out your weight loss.

***This doesn't make sense. What you said is fine. But you are saying in the case of the cake that you can't use it up while in the case of the oatmeal, you can? Well if you arent using the oatmeal (ie exercising) then it too will get stored as fat. If you are exercising, then the oatmeal might be better as it is a carbohydrate and can provide more glycogen but the fat from the cake can also provide energy if you are exercising, especially in an aerobic mode, where fat is easily converted. In either case, I don't see how you have proven that one will result in a long term weight (calorie) gain.

The 9 times thing is here. http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/Misconceptions.html

***This doesnt say the calorie expenditure is all at the time of lifting. It is listing the total calorie expenditure, which it seems is comparable to walking for 30 minutes? It doesnt say there are hidden calories getting burned after you stop lifting beyond this 300. The 300 is it. Furthermore, we are now talking about weight loss, not fat loss. Even if we are talking fat loss, clearly if you are running a calorie deficit and exercising, your muscle glycogen will get used up leaving fat and muscle tissue as fuel sources. While some muscle will likely be used (we agree on this I believe), some fat will also be used.

You said "Your fat loss will be very closely in the neighborhood of 1lb, whether it is 1.1lb or .9lb is within variation but it's not like it can be 7 lbs. or that you actually gain 3 lb. instead of losing." It is not that extreme, but yes you can gain a pound or loose 2 or 3.

Again, how can you gain anything? You are in a calorie deficit. Please explain the conservation of energy in this system. Where is the energy coming from to be stored as mass on the body? If you are storing without using it, then where is the energy coming from to do everyday activities? The answer is, nutrients affect the BMR which is altered so you are no longer in a calorie deficit. When you eat more in this phase, you gain even more weight because your metabolism is slowed from the low calorie eating. This doesnt have to do with nutrients magically altering their calorie content. It has to do with changing the output.

You said "The 1 fat guy probably is eating 1000 calories too many everyday and the other guy was only eating 200. Thus a smaller change can do a lot more."
That is impossible. One would be a lot fatter. According to your 3500 rules a larger calorie surplus would result in more fat gain.

*** I dont see how. The difference between the two fat people could also be composition even though they weigh a similar a mount. A difference in 2-4% muscle mass could account for large calorie burning differences over a few months.

I will look at these articles. Please note, I am not stuck on 3500 kcal/lb. I am stuck on that there is some number that provides a good baseline for accounting for fat in the body and how it is burned. Individuals are small variations on this baseline.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:35 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
On the trans fat issue nobody knows why that is possible. There are no insulin differences or anything. The trans fat has some kind of effect on metabolic function, but it is unknown what that effect is, or how it happens.

How could I loose weight eating more calories on low carb? More of the calories got used during digestion, there was not enough insulin to store anything. Also much of unused protein is wasted. Then probably most of the fat use happens at night when not eating. While there was no calorie deficit from what I ate to my activity. There was a calorie deficit from usable blood glucose to total energy expended by all cells.

This is because the body is a complex machine, not a battery.

BMR is changed by what you eat. That is part of what I am talking about. That is why it is only the same on a cellular level where all energy is in 1 form, and it refuels cells as they expend energy.

Cake VS oatmeal. It does make sense because your body has more time to use the oatmeal because it is digested slowly. You get the cake all at once. You don't have the time to use all of it, therefore it gets stored.

Again the body is not a battery.

9 times thing. The whole point is that it is not at the time of lifting. The 300 you get while doing it. The reason it burns 9 times the fat is it raises your BMR dramatically for several hours. I am talking fat use, not weight loss. Muscle loss can be avoided while dieting by eating excessive amounts of protein. Of course if you cut calories too low then it can't be avoided.

"Again, how can you gain anything? You are in a calorie deficit."
Yes BMR being changed by different nutrients has a lot to do with that. Of course nutrients don't alter their content. They alter your metabolism, and are digested differently.

The Fat guys: If there was a difference in muscle mass then then the other guy would not have a 1000 calorie surplus anymore. Or if he did, the mass is already figured into the surplus via BMR. It is undeniable that if one guy couldn't loose weight because he started with a larger calorie surplus, he would have gained weight more rapidly then the other guy. As it was in this example they were both maintaining their weight before hand actually.

There is not a number that provides a good baseline. If there was, there would be nothing on this site or any other about weight loss. Why bother if it can be summed up with a single subtraction problem?

Here is the baseline for NON-lowcarb. Remove transfat, sugar, white flour, and starch veggies (corn potatoes etc) from diet. Keep calories the same. Start basic weight lifting program for beginners. (ie low volume, full body, heavy weights that only allow 10 reps or there abouts, 3 days a week). Just a little cardio, 20 minutes or so once or twice a week. It can be increased later, but not to much at first because the body will adapt to it. If you aren't loosing much weight reduce calories by 100 or 200 a day and have only 1 peice a day of non-berry fruit. Never cut calories to the point of hunger. Hunger is a good indication that you are lowering your BMR and making things worse. Then of course that is general and different people with different metabolic issues will need different diet plans.

That is as close to a simple baseline as you are going to get. x-y=z only works on the cellular level. The only way it can encompass your whole body is if you do only cardio and are fed intravenously.

You are now admiting to changes in BMR, if you can get Cake VS Oatmeal, that's 90% of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:12 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Davis, California
On the trans fat issue nobody knows why that is possible. There are no insulin differences or anything. The trans fat has some kind of effect on metabolic function, but it is unknown what that effect is, or how it happens.

How could I loose weight eating more calories on low carb? More of the calories got used during digestion, there was not enough insulin to store anything. Also much of unused protein is wasted. Then probably most of the fat use happens at night when not eating. While there was no calorie deficit from what I ate to my activity. There was a calorie deficit from usable blood glucose to total energy expended by all cells.

This is because the body is a complex machine, not a battery.

***All of these points somehow make it seem as though the body can violate conservation of energy; which regardless of how complex the machinery, is not possible. You can't put on mass without consuming energy and mass, that is a fundamental law. Trans fat can have an effect on metabolic function but that doesnt change how much energy is stored in fat, it changes how much energy you need to function. These are completely different things.

BMR is changed by what you eat. That is part of what I am talking about. That is why it is only the same on a cellular level where all energy is in 1 form, and it refuels cells as they expend energy.

***I never said otherwise. I merely stated the energy in fat must be the same, as chemically must be the case. BMR changing is always possible but not the same thing as changing the amount of calories in a chemical structure. You are talking about chaning the input, I am talking about changing the output.

Cake VS oatmeal. It does make sense because your body has more time to use the oatmeal because it is digested slowly. You get the cake all at once. You don't have the time to use all of it, therefore it gets stored.

***But how is it using it? So what if you get the cake all at once and store some as fat. If you then require energy later, you will use some of that energy. The point is you are burning some amount of calories during the day. It is like you are saying the cake calories are put in a vault and can never be accessed but that isnt true, the body has processes that function very well to turn stored mass into energy.

9 times thing. The whole point is that it is not at the time of lifting. The 300 you get while doing it. The reason it burns 9 times the fat is it raises your BMR dramatically for several hours. I am talking fat use, not weight loss. Muscle loss can be avoided while dieting by eating excessive amounts of protein. Of course if you cut calories too low then it can't be avoided.

***Your reference on this site does not say anything of the sort. It just says lifting weights burns 300 calories and 9 times more of them come from fat than from aerobic exercise. You keep changing back and forth between fat loss and weight loss. You have said, a guy can eat a calorie deficit and then gain X lb. You never specify if those are pounds of fat or muscle; they are just pounds.

"Again, how can you gain anything? You are in a calorie deficit."
Yes BMR being changed by different nutrients has a lot to do with that. Of course nutrients don't alter their content. They alter your metabolism, and are digested differently.

***Again this is not the same as changing the amount of energy in fat. This is changing the BMR.

There is not a number that provides a good baseline. If there was, there would be nothing on this site or any other about weight loss. Why bother if it can be summed up with a single subtraction problem?

***Because many people think the world is an incredibly complicated place when often times it can be astonishingly and accurately described by a few principles.

You are now admiting to changes in BMR, if you can get Cake VS Oatmeal, that's 90% of it.

*** I always admitted to changes in BMR but I fail to see the difference in cake versus oatmeal in terms of weight loss. Clearly there is a difference in terms of fat loss, because one stores less fat and therefore it is more likely you will gradually deplete fat stores because you are not adding to them.

Your comment that the body is not a battery is somewhat telling of your understanding of biochemistry. The whole of biochemistry is founded upon the ideas of thermodynamics which is based upon the law of conservation of energy. All of the processes that go on inside and around the cell conserve energy. If everything inside a system is conserving energy then so must the system in which such smaller units operate. Therefore the body must conserve energy.

Your studies, atleast the one comparing the high GI to low GI, seem like a lackluster effort to support some corporate diet. First of all it isnt even a fair comparison to compare a 43/30/27 ratio to a 40/30/30. Where is the control there? How do they infer that the change in weight loss isnt from the macronutrient discrepancy and is from the high GI? Furtheremore, where does it explain that they know the BMR didnt change? Their evidence, atleast as apparent in the study presented, seems anecdotal at best. Besides, most of their claims are about a change in resting calorie burning, BMR, not in the way nutrients are processed in the body. Rather than processing a gram of fat in a different way, you could observe the same effect if the body processed less total fat. How is this ruled out?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:34 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Davis, California
A note on your other study, did you read this in the forum below that post?

"For anyone interested in who's paying these "researchers" see:

http://downstate.edu/kingsbrook/sponsor.html

Wanna bet there was a lot of data dredging going on to get the required
results?


Just BTW, PRNewswire is not a legit news site. You have to pay to get
your "news" posted to PRNewswire. Drug companies like it because no one
cares whether the claims being made are true or not. They'll take your
press release at face value and publish it."

I would like a good scientific journal article with detailed studies. I have access to just about every journal there is on campus so I can see any reference you tell me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:41 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
Getting angry? At least try to keep it friendly.

Sorry if the sites weren't legit. I just picked a couple at random that looked like they explained it well.

transft/low carb: The body doesn't violate conservation of energy. Some nutrients are easier to use for energy. Excess protein does get wasted, hence the reputation taking in too much whey shake at a time has. It makes you crap something awful. Nutrients do change metabolism as you admit. So I don't get what your arguing about. It sounds like you agree but then say I said something I didn't. I have never disputed the 3500 calories in a pound of fat. I just dispute the claim in your first post that all nutrients are the same and anaerobic activity doesn't cause an increase in BMR.

Your second point: It sure did sound like you did say that. I never said the calories change in a chemical structure, they don't. I am talking about both. input is different for different nutrients. Digestion and breaking down of food will use more energy from some nutrients then others. The energy has to come from somewhere, it comes from the food. Those calories don't disappear they are used. If you have 100 calories and you use 25, there are only 75 left not 100. Then calories from protein get used to build new tissue, old cells die and new ones grow. This uses the protein, so it's calories aren't used for energy, but they are used.

Cake: It just uses it as energy to get you through the day. They are not put in a vault. The problem is that your body wants to stay static. When you start running on body fat your BMR is lowered to try to conserve it. Where as with the oatmeal you haven't taken a step backwards so to speak.

9x: Wrong, it says per calorie expended. It also says elsewhere that anaerobic activity does raise metabolism for hours afterwards where aerobics do not. Besides that you can't burn 9 times the fat without expending 9 times the energy. Where did the energy from the fat go otherwise? I am only talking fat loss/use. If I ever said weight loss it was imprecise but meant to be fat loss.

"Again this is not the same as changing the amount of energy in fat. This is changing the BMR"

Huh? I never said that, I never disputed it. BMR is one of the factors that changes based on what you eat and what you do.

Cake and Oatmeal again. The difference in fat loss is my point. Fat loss can cause weight loss but not always. hmmm, either my accidental use of the term "weight loss" confused you or you really love to debate.

So the body IS like a battery? So when energy goes into the battery, it doesn't just get stored or get discharged? Some of it repairs the inner workings of the battery? I'll have to see if I can get one of those batteries for my laptop!

Back to all nutrients the same again? But earlier you said the opposite. Either way say you take in 100 calories of sugar and it costs 10 to break it down. You only have 90 left not the whole 100. Then say you eat 100 calories or ground beef. lets say 30 calories of protein go to repair muscle and that sort of thing. Then it costs 15 more to convert the rest to glucose. Then the fat needs 20 to digest and convert it. So out of that only 45 calories are left, not 100. Then there is also the insulin factor. Obviously those are just made up numbers for the purpose of the example.

You agree, then you don't, then you do, then you don't. I'm confused.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:35 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Davis, California
I am not angry at all.

Picking poor sources just reflects poorly in a scientific discussion.

Okay, so basically my original point was only that the amount of calories in fat is the same. I always maintained or perhaps indirectly thought understood, that BMR could freely fluctuate; that was never my intent to debate. Certainly different nutrients are different, hence they are called different things.

It seems like we mostly agree. A few points perhaps unrelated

When a battery is recharged, there is a separation of charges of the acid and conjugate acid in the battery. For this reason the charge on a battery changes in temperature. The equilibrium constant of a chemical reaction depends on temperature. If repair you count reformation or separation of the piecies, then yes it repairs itself.

You say your body likes to stay static, but you say it readily stores new fat, that doesnt seem static does it?

I think we are done, unless there is something more to say. I enjoyed the debate and learned or atleast refined my understanding of some things.

Thank you


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:40 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
The body being static is the conventional wisdom. Of course conventional wisdom is usually synonymous with crap. As I think about it, it does like to change in some ways. Fat loss is hard, bmr is lowered to try to hold onto it. Muscle gain requires a lot of stress to be placed on the muscles to stimulate growth. Gains in bone mass also require a lot of weight baring. The body does try to store fuel and has carvings for simple carbs which are the easiest to store. It tries to make one lighter by removing bone from areas that bear little weight and muscle that is not used is also broken down. This also lowers energy needs. So it looks like it tries to conserve energy.

So as I think about it the body doesn't try to stay static, it tries to conserve energy and that is the reason for the lower bmr when running on body fat.

I like a good debate. It gets me thinking.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 1:53 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member

Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 6:56 am
Posts: 243
Location: Hamilton, ON Canada
Dino,

Did anyone actually answer your question?

Holy crap - Ryan/Ironman - i am blown away by your knowledge! Whatever happened to just lifting, drinking milk and eating 3 sqaures of clean food? LOL


I love this site!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:42 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Posts: 1996
Location: Texas
My eyes have crossed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:51 pm 
Thanks for the replies.This has been an awesome discussion so far!

Ok I have another question,since this is the best place and time to ask this question.
On cheat days will it be better to train that body part where we want size and require excess calories (eg. shoulders,arms) and not places such as abs and obliques etc. ?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:04 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 pm
Posts: 667
Location: Davis, California
This is kind of difficult to judge since you dont know exactly when your body is going to be needing the extra calories. It has a pretty large window in terms of repair. I would say it is probably too much trouble to really worry about this and you should just take a cheat day once in a while and then stick to your regimen and not worry about what muscle days these cheat days fall on.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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