Belly Fat Increasing.

Ask or answer questions, discuss and express your views

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, parth, stuward

Oscar_Actuary
Veteren Member
Veteren Member
Posts: 2406
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:12 pm

Post by Oscar_Actuary » Sat Feb 12, 2011 1:00 pm

let me just reiterate that we have some bright folks here (duh). I appreciate NightFall taking the contra and not just going along. By no means do I mean to endorse any position (I'm a baby in education here).


jackthestrat
Novice
Novice
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:58 pm

Post by jackthestrat » Sat Feb 12, 2011 1:43 pm

Levis-

Look up the following exercises:

Barbell:

Squat
Deadlift
Press
Bench Press

Do these, do them heavy, and eat a lot more things that have a face. And don't worry about gaining a little bit of fat. This is the recipe for getting big and strong. As for your trainer - if he is anything like 90% of personal trainers here in the US, he doesn't know his bum from a parrot. You can, and will, get big and strong doing those four exercises with heavy weights and eating right.

User avatar
Ironman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3991
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am

Post by Ironman » Sat Feb 12, 2011 2:44 pm

NightFaLL wrote: If there's anything you should take away from this it's that you've been severely mislead on how the human body functions. I posted some links, I think you should read them.
You have got to be kidding me. You have admitted yourself that you don't really understand most of this.

If carbs are not a quicker energy source then why do you need them to bulk?

You say calories matter, but then say carbs can't really be stored as fat. That is logically inconsistent.

It is also documented that various metabolic disorders do exist, yet you imply they don't and everyone is the same.

For that matter how can you even compare the energy needs of an active person with a more sedentary person? That's ridiculous.

It has been proven that carbs break down into sugars, which are shuttled to the cells by insulin, including fat cells. Insulin is the hormone responsible for fat storage. That is a long proven fact. Yet you seem to act like manipulating hormones can't have any impact.


Do you even understand my argument? It sounds like you are trying to argue whether carbs are good or bad, which is a completely useless concept as they are neither.

Please tell me how you can eat more carbs than you can use at one time, and then expect to not gain weight by being at maintenance when it's averaged over the course of a day. That suggests that you can burn body fat as easily as food. This violates the law of conservation. How do you explain that?

Your links have similar flaws.

I'd also like to know how you have absolute certainty that there are no unknown factors, when there are still things that are unknown on this subject.

Biology students will relieved to know their bio-chem and high level math classes can be replaced with elementary math.

Nevage
Member
Member
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 4:31 pm

Post by Nevage » Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:55 am

I actually love these debates. Just as long as they don't get too heated because I like hearing both sides and from what I gather Ironman is very carb intolerant as far as weight gain goes compared to Nightfall, but Nightfall used to be overweight.

It looks like both of you have sort of got to the same composition through alternative ways. I think Nightfall may be more tolerant to carbs which is why the calories come into play. But I think if Ironman has many more than maintenance carbs while maintaning calories, bodyfat seems to accumulate which seems like a hormonal response difference.
It's also never been established that weight gain and overeating have a cause/effect relationship. Only an association has been proven.
Never thought of that, I just assumed. It's one of them things that seem to break a physical law but in reality can't be explained properly.. I.e the skinny kid who can eat 3X that of the chubby kid and stay lean.

User avatar
Ironman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3991
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am

Post by Ironman » Sun Feb 13, 2011 1:58 pm

Nevage wrote:I actually love these debates. Just as long as they don't get too heated because I like hearing both sides and from what I gather Ironman is very carb intolerant as far as weight gain goes compared to Nightfall, but Nightfall used to be overweight.

It looks like both of you have sort of got to the same composition through alternative ways. I think Nightfall may be more tolerant to carbs which is why the calories come into play. But I think if Ironman has many more than maintenance carbs while maintaning calories, bodyfat seems to accumulate which seems like a hormonal response difference.
It's also never been established that weight gain and overeating have a cause/effect relationship. Only an association has been proven.
Never thought of that, I just assumed. It's one of them things that seem to break a physical law but in reality can't be explained properly.. I.e the skinny kid who can eat 3X that of the chubby kid and stay lean.
Yes, that's exactly right. That's part of my argument too. Nightfall, you and myself are good examples of how different people can be. I'm on the end that has issues with carbs, you are on the end that needs more carbs just simply because of how much energy you expend, and the better insulin sensitivity that is associated with that. Nightfall sounds like he is more in the middle, with a more average metabolism and insulin function.

So with bulking for example, the amount of carbs nightfall needs would make me gain too much fat. However for you, it wouldn't be enough to build much muscle.

Gene's are expressed differently in different people, and your past eating habits can have an effect as well. Not to mention activity. A person that spends most of their time doing a labor job and playing sports needs a lot more quick energy than a couch potato. That isn't even getting into people that have various different metabolic problems. That's a whole other thing.


One example of eating more because you are getting bigger is growing kids. Another is hibernating animals. It depends on what has energy priority. A disorder of the fat storage system can cause fat to be stored preferentially over feeding your cells. So people eat more and are forced to expend less energy. Now of course with people who don't have this problem it doesn't work that way. The problem is eating junk food tends to give people that problem.


User avatar
Jungledoc
moderator
moderator
Posts: 7578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea

Post by Jungledoc » Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:42 pm

Let me tackle the "do calories matter" issue one more time.

To ask "do calories matter" is like asking do degrees matter? If you want to know how hot it is outside, or if you want to compare the weather in two places, then the degree (whichever kind you prefer) is just the ticket. If you want to measure what they measure, then yes, nothing beats calories for that purpose. If you want to compare how much two different substances raise the temperature of a bomb calorimiter, then the calorie is what you want.

Unfortunately, we don't have any easy ways of comparing the energy production in the human body of different substances, nor do we have a simple way of comparing the metabolic results of different nutrients.

"Calories don't matter" implies that only the type of macronutrient is important to predicting weight gain or loss. To oversimplify (and I know that no one here is claiming this) it might be the claim that eathing 8000 calories of protein would not cause weight gain, but 1800 calories of carb would. Clearly a silly proposition.

"Only calories matter" implies that 3000 cal of protein would have the same effect as 3000 calories of carbohydrate. Also a silly idea.

I would say that calories don't matter, because the calorie is such a poor measure of the energy obtained from food by a living body, by chemical, metabolic means, not by burning food in a calorimeter.

What "matters" is the available energy content of the food, and the metabolic behavior of the food. It's not so much "calories in-calories out" but "energy in-energy out", and I'd suggest that calories are not a good way to measure this. In addition to that, carbohydrates have different metabolic affects than protein or fat. Given the same energy intake, a diet that is relatively high in carbohydrate will lead to a greater degree of fat storage than one that is relatively lower.

We always have to deal with conservation of energy. If you assume that the body will use all of the available energy in food, and that we can measure how much energy there is and that it is easy to measure energy consumed, then it is a simple equation. But the energy can go to a lot of different purposes, and there is nothing that says that all of the consumed energy is used by the body. So it's virtually impossible to measure the energy in with confidence. Similarly, the energy out side of the equation is difficult to measure precisely.

So I tell people who want to lose weight, "eat less, and eat proportionately less carbohydrate, and exercise more--and if you're still not losing weight, do more of the above". Not "eat fewer calories than you burn, and if you're not losing than you are deluded or lying about how much you are eating or how much you're exercising."

User avatar
Ironman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3991
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am

Post by Ironman » Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:22 pm

Yep, that's the same thing I think. I don't think it can get any more clear and concise than that. You're better at explaining stuff like that.

User avatar
TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
Posts: 3129
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Va Beach, Va

Post by TimD » Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:25 am

I've stayed out of this one, letting the others go at it, but frankly I have a problem with the term "Carbohydrate". You just cannot lablel carbohydrates as bad or good, because the term encompasses such a wide variety of foods. From personal experience over 50 years, I've been able to shed fat using both methods mentioned, i.e. low fat, moderate "carb", meaning carbs from natural sources, non processed, both starchy and nonstarchy (fibrous veg) along with moderate lean protein, keeping an eye on total kcal in. I've also gone to the other end of the spectrum, and gone basically meat and fat. Both worked. However, from my observations, and this was me and my opinion, I was much harder, and stronger, on the meat and fat version.
Now, what I think, is that in order to lose the belly fat, or just stay healthy and lean, a good rule of thumb wouod be to follow Berardi's good common sense 7 habits, which focuses in on protein sources, lots of veg, some fruit, some fibrous legumes, some whole grains (true whole grains, barley, brown rice, etc), legumes, and stay away from the processed stuff (pastas, breads). This seems to work the best for me, and just tweak it one way or the other to fit it to your needs.
Tim

robertscott
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 4424
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm

Post by robertscott » Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:19 am

you make a good point there Tim, I can't remember which one but I remember one of the t-nation authors talking on the subject and he basically said that if your carbs are coming from things like sweet potatoes, brown rice etc, then you shouldn't get fat anyway even if you are overeating to build muscle

NightFaLL
Member
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am

Post by NightFaLL » Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:37 am

robertscott wrote:you make a good point there Tim, I can't remember which one but I remember one of the t-nation authors talking on the subject and he basically said that if your carbs are coming from things like sweet potatoes, brown rice etc, then you shouldn't get fat anyway even if you are overeating to build muscle
That's 100% incorrect - that's what we call 'bro science'. Sweet potatoes and rice, when over eaten, have the same potential to cause fat gain (due to inhibiting fat oxidation).

T-Nation, where it seems a lot of people on here get their information, is a supplement company - nothing more.

Everything on their site is designed to make money/sell supplements and most of their writers are geared out of their mind and as such have little idea how to train as a natural.

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6648
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:06 am

Sweet potatoes, oats and brown rice are gluten free sources or carbs so they have value over, say bread. This is why they are recommended as carb sources.

Of course you can't eat unlimited of anything without adding fat.

User avatar
Jungledoc
moderator
moderator
Posts: 7578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea

Post by Jungledoc » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:18 am

Well, what makes carbs different from one another is related to digestion and absorption, and what comes along with them. Once digested, they are all broken down to monosacchrides, and follow a common path in the body.

I'd have a pretty hard time overeating on sweet potatoes! Rice, yeah, maybe I could, if I had plenty of gooey stuff along with it. The "rules" about types of carbs tend to limit one to more slowly-digested and absorbed foods, and if followed, lead to limiting the total amount. Even the advice to get all of your carbs from veggies and fruit will leave most people with less energy from carbs. Yes, you could go overboard, and sabotage the whole project, but it's harder to do that with broccoli than with cake and ice cream.

robertscott
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 4424
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm

Post by robertscott » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:55 am

NightFaLL wrote:
robertscott wrote:you make a good point there Tim, I can't remember which one but I remember one of the t-nation authors talking on the subject and he basically said that if your carbs are coming from things like sweet potatoes, brown rice etc, then you shouldn't get fat anyway even if you are overeating to build muscle
That's 100% incorrect - that's what we call 'bro science'. Sweet potatoes and rice, when over eaten, have the same potential to cause fat gain (due to inhibiting fat oxidation).

T-Nation, where it seems a lot of people on here get their information, is a supplement company - nothing more.

Everything on their site is designed to make money/sell supplements and most of their writers are geared out of their mind and as such have little idea how to train as a natural.
you missed my point, I know that over eating anything can make you fat (dur). What I meant was that too many people consider carbs to be this evil enemy that plans to sabotage your waistline, when in fact many carb sources are actually quite good for you, just as long as you don't take the piss.

Although on the subject of overeating, I was watching a documentary about this clinic in America for hugely obese people, we're talking folk that are like 600lbs. Like whale size... Anyway, this patient said to the doctor, "How can I be not be losing weight? All I eat is oranges." The doctor's reply was "Well if you eat 45 oranges a day, that will still make you fat."

NightFaLL
Member
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am

Post by NightFaLL » Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:30 pm

I agree, that's the point I was trying to make - that carbs are not why americans are fat - it's because they eat a $h1t ton and they eat junk carbs.

robertscott
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 4424
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm

Post by robertscott » Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:55 am

yeah man, too many people think it's as black and white as carbs being either "good" or "bad" when really they're neither, and both.

People shouldn't be scared of carbs, but they shouldn't fill up on crap carb sources either


Post Reply