Alwyn Cosgrove: "Calories in vs out = BS"

[Al Shades]

TMUSCLE: You've battled cancer. Twice. Not many people can say that. What lessons did that teach you? I don't mean the "enjoy the little things/ work less, love more" kind of thing; I mean lessons that you learned about the body?

Alwyn Cosgrove: Okay. There are a few things. The caloric balance model of calories in, calories out? Bull****.

I was in a negative caloric state (and vomiting) for months, lost muscle mass but gained weight (fat). I know the growth of the disease and the drugs involved in treating it change everything ? but I had a malignant disease, wasn't eating or training towards the end and probably gained 20lbs. Even after the treatment, without chemo, it took a long time to cut the weight ? so it's not just about calories.

Massive levels of cortisol have profound negative partitioning effects; calories go away from muscle and towards fat. I get that ? but to create "mass" where there is no additional raw material ? no fuel or building blocks present, violates the entire caloric balance model.

For the same reason that giving someone Testosterone will increase muscle mass and cause fat loss without training or changing diet, women in our gym will experience body comp changes when they're going through menopause ? even if training and caloric intake remains unchanged.

We see studies all the time about how adding a grapefruit to the diet increases fat loss despite being eucaloric. The low-carb studies have shown people losing fat when eating more calories as compared to high-carb diets. We've seen studies that show a loss in fat when you add in fish oil to the diet despite no change in calories. The caloric balance model just isn't complete.
http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_interviews/sucker_punch_alwyn_cosgrove

Yes, it's on T-Nation. That doesn't mean anything by itself. Nearly every well known coach and author has been featured on T-Nation at one time or another.

AC has now joined the growing list of respected fitness authors and coaches who have either questioned or outright renounced the conventional "caloric model" of body recomposition.

Other people from this list include Patrick Arnold and Charles Poliquin.

See the following thread for references:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=363152281&postcount=45

[fyre500]

My problem with the statement is that he was on drugs to battle the cancer. They could (and most likely) have easily modified the chemical balance in his body and altered the way his body stores fat. He also gives an example of someone using Testosterone. Using an anabolic steroid modifies your body's chemical balance as well.

[papasmurf2217]

I'd like to see an activity and caloric breakdown of what and how much he was eating during that period of time in which he gained 20 pounds. However, I do not see him backing up his claim with any information regarding the two?

[Al Shades]

My problem with the statement is that he was on drugs to battle the cancer. They could (and most likely) have easily modified the chemical balance in his body and altered the way his body stores fat. He also gives an example of someone using Testosterone. Using an anabolic steroid modifies your body's chemical balance as well.

But that's the whole point. Hormones matter. A person's hormonal state is the primary determinant of his ability to gain or lose weight and the body composition he is capable of achieving. That is what I, Alwyn, Pat Arnold, and Diana Schwarzbein (endocrinologist cited by Charles Poliquin) have been saying.


I'd like to see an activity and caloric breakdown of what and how much he was eating during that period of time in which he gained 20 pounds. However, I do not see him backing up his claim with any information regarding the two?

How do you expect to be able to measure such data consistently, in the real world? I don't think you can.

[papasmurf2217]

How do you expect to be able to measure such data?

I understand that he was vomiting on a regular basis, but was he compensating by eating more? He says he was in a negative caloric state, why should I believe him? He doesn't give me any information saying that he "ate 1500 calories/day and vomited 3 times". He also fails to mention how long it took him to gain the weight. Do you see where I am coming from? There are many holes in his "data".

My question is why should I believe this guy, a man with cancer and on drugs, who says in two paragraphs that "calories in, calories out" means nothing? Why should I believe his extreme case in which he is battling cancer when there is another article that says the model works fine http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html ?

[fyre500]

But that's the whole point. Hormones matter. A person's hormonal state is the primary determinant of his ability to gain or lose weight and the body composition he is capable of achieving. That is what I, Alwyn, Pat Arnold, and Diana Schwarzbein (endocrinologist cited by Charles Poliquin) have been saying.

My point of view is that for most people, calories in vs. calories out is perfectly fine. Most people are trying to drop to a mediocre bodyfat level (12-15%), not down to a bodybuilding competition level (4-6%). Those who are cutting in preparation for a show have completely different guidelines. They are attempting to drop their bodyfat down to dangerous levels.

Most of the people on this website are not and will not ever be involved in competitive bodybuilding. The majority of them are teenagers and young adults just trying to put on some mass or cut down to a respectable bodyfat. Unless someone has a debilitating disease or is on some sort of medication that modifies the body's chemistry, calories in vs. calories out works just as it should.

[adoniscomplex]

alwyn is a smart guy but he is using a sole personal experience and acting as if its science
id feel different if he was like ive worked with 1k people and they have all had such and such result

[Al Shades]

alwyn is a smart guy but he is using a sole personal experience and acting as if its science
id feel different if he was like ive worked with 1k people and they have all had such and such result

What the hell is wrong with using personal experience as science?

You wouldn't disagree with it if it were some research scientist in a lab giving his personal experience, would you?

Like many others on this board, you seem to have a completely erroneous understanding of what the process of "science" is all about.

What makes you think Alwyn hasn't worked with plenty of people? He writes further on in the same article that he bases his views on his extensive coaching experience.

[Al Shades]

I understand that he was vomiting on a regular basis, but was he compensating by eating more?

I would take his statement of being in a negative caloric state as well as the fact that he was vomiting to imply that this was not the case.


He says he was in a negative caloric state, why should I believe him? He doesn't give me any information saying that he "ate 1500 calories/day and vomited 3 times". He also fails to mention how long it took him to gain the weight. Do you see where I am coming from? There are many holes in his "data".

There are holes in every set of data. It is impossible to resolve this dispute with math equations. If that wasn't the case, it would have been done already.


My question is why should I believe this guy, a man with cancer and on drugs, who says in two paragraphs that "calories in, calories out" means nothing? Why should I believe his extreme case in which he is battling cancer when there is another article that says the model works fine http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html ?

1) Because he wasn't only using his own experience as an example. Read the rest of what he wrote and consider it:


For the same reason that giving someone Testosterone will increase muscle mass and cause fat loss without training or changing diet, women in our gym will experience body comp changes when they're going through menopause ? even if training and caloric intake remains unchanged.

We see studies all the time about how adding a grapefruit to the diet increases fat loss despite being eucaloric. The low-carb studies have shown people losing fat when eating more calories as compared to high-carb diets. We've seen studies that show a loss in fat when you add in fish oil to the diet despite no change in calories. The caloric balance model just isn't complete.

That sounds very similar to what Pat Arnold said, doesn't it?


a person can reduce calories and take an anabolic steroid and gain muscle and bodyweight. i have seen it happen. i have seen it happen to myself

look up the term "feed efficiency".
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=226392471&postcount=130

2) The article you cited does not claim the model works fine. It attempts to rehabilitate the model by qualifying it with numerous additional factors. In other words, it demonstrates that the caloric model, in its simplest form, is woefully inadequate.

From the article:

"Now, energy in is actually the simplest aspect of all of this, this represents the number of calories that you ingest each day from the nutrients protein, carbs, fat, fiber and alcohol.

Of course, even that is not so simple. First and foremost, not all foods are digested with identical efficiency
...
There can be some variance between different sources of the same nutrient as well
...
I?d mention that, currently, no-one knows how to modify this in any useful fashion (although weight loss per se appears to cause the gut bacteria to shift to a different type) but that technology (through the use of pre- or pro-biotics) will likely come through in a few years.
...
Even that's not complete and there are other things that can go on the energy out side of it, various inefficiencies in biochemical pathways (that basically waste calories through heat) and such things.
...
Here's what I want to talk about now: every factor on the right hand side, BMR/RMR, TEF, TEA and SPA/NEAT can change based on environment.

"Inaccurate" or "incomplete" is not the same thing as invalid. The caloric balance model is an example of a theory that looks good on paper but has little real world application due to the number of variables involved with it and the complexity of measuring them independently.

If you followed my links you would have seen that such variables had already been addressed in similar fashion by Pat Arnold:

ONe thing people always forget

in addition to the factor of calories in, and metabolic rate, is the issue of nutrient utilization.

Bodies can vary greatly in their ability to process, store, and utilize calories in food. Some people can eat 1000 calories a day and derive 1000 calories of energy from it while others are so inefficient at digestion, assimilation, and metabolism of food that they have to ingest maybe 2000 calories of food to get 1000 calories of energy

they have done studies with anabolic steroids and shown that they do not really raise the metabolic rate measurably. However, animals can take steroids and eat the same amount of food that control animals do yet gain alot more weight? What is going on here? Its nutrient utilization, feed efficiency, call it what you will

This is why the advice "just eat more" is poor. Sometimes eating smarter can put more weight on you then just eating more. Also, the advice of having to eat more to gain weight from steroids is wrong.
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=2830309&postcount=23

[papasmurf2217]

2) The article you cited does not claim the model works fine. It attempts to rehabilitate the model by qualifying it with numerous additional factors. In other words, it demonstrates that the caloric model, in its simplest form, is woefully inadequate.




The equation is perfectly valid and humans are as subject to the laws of thermodynamics as anything else in the universe. Physics is not just a good idea, kids, it?s the law.

Most claims that the energy balance equation is invalid are due to people simply not knowing what they are talking about. The equation is valid, it has to be, what?s invalid are people?s assumptions about how things should work.

...?

[Al Shades]

"Inaccurate" or "incomplete" is not the same thing as invalid. The caloric balance model is an example of a theory that looks good on paper but has little real world application due to the number of variables involved with it and the complexity of measuring them independently.

...!

You can come up with an equation with variables for absolutely anything.

It doesn't mean a thing until you can define all the variables and measure them consistently.

[papasmurf2217]

So nothing works on paper and everything is different for everybody.

We know this.

Are you suggesting, rather than "eat more/eat less", for people to eat "better foods"?

[adoniscomplex]

What the hell is wrong with using personal experience as science?

You wouldn't disagree with it if it were some research scientist in a lab giving his personal experience, would you?

Like many others on this board, you seem to have a completely erroneous understanding of what the process of "science" is all about.

What makes you think Alwyn hasn't worked with plenty of people? He writes further on in the same article that he bases his views on his extensive coaching experience.

alwyn works with tons of people yet he is using personal experience of his own
the issue here is every trainer bitches when someone says i got hoyyge doing this
alwyn would call bs on stuff like that

after reading the full interview i do to some point agree
cals in v cals out is very important but other things are likely to be going on

[Al Shades]

So nothing works on paper and everything is different for everybody.

We know this.

Are you suggesting, rather than "eat more/eat less", for people to eat "better foods"?

It depends on the context. In some cases, yes, though not all. You have to look at the whole picture. If someone is unable to gain or lose, I'd look at their hormones first before telling them to adjust calories. Dietary composition matters because foods are capable of influencing hormones.

By the way, there are plenty of theories that work equally well on paper and in the real world. Calories in vs out just isn't one of them.


alwyn works with tons of people yet he is using personal experience of his own
the issue here is every trainer bitches when someone says i got hoyyge doing this
alwyn would call bs on stuff like that

Well, I certainly wouldn't. Those types of personal anecdotes are exactly what I seek out. I want to know, in peoples' own words, what worked for them and what didn't. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a legitimate process of inquiry.

[fyre500]

It depends on the context. In some cases, yes, though not all. You have to look at the whole picture. If someone is unable to gain or lose, I'd look at their hormones first before telling them to adjust calories. Dietary composition matters because foods are capable of influencing hormones.

By the way, there are plenty of theories that work equally well on paper and in the real world. Calories in vs out just isn't one of them.

"Hormones" just sounds like one more excuse for fat people that say they've tried everything and just can't lose weight. Why is hormones such a big deal? I know they play an influence on your body composition but saying that it's necessary to check their hormone levels instead of just telling them to watch what they eat and monitor their food intake is ridiculous.

Those who are obese (due to caloric excess reasons, not diseases such as diabetes) could easily lose weight just by monitoring their food intake, keeping a food log, and modifying accordingly. It's not rocket science. It's reasons like the hormone argument and more that discourages people from losing weight. They think there's so much data that needs to be mapped and so much work that needs to be done to drop some fat. The truth is that all they need to do is know what's being shoved into their mouth.

[Al Shades]

"Hormones" just sounds like one more excuse for fat people that say they've tried everything and just can't lose weight. Why is hormones such a big deal? I know they play an influence on your body composition but saying that it's necessary to check their hormone levels instead of just telling them to watch what they eat and monitor their food intake is ridiculous.

Those who are obese (due to caloric excess reasons, not diseases such as diabetes) could easily lose weight just by monitoring their food intake, keeping a food log, and modifying accordingly. It's not rocket science. It's reasons like the hormone argument and more that discourages people from losing weight. They think there's so much data that needs to be mapped and so much work that needs to be done to drop some fat. The truth is that all they need to do is know what's being shoved into their mouth.

I don't disagree. That's why I said it all depends on the context. Part of what that involves is the sort of person you're dealing with. Hormones can be used as an excuse but so can calories. Weak-minded individuals will latch onto anything. It's just as easy to imagine people justifying poor diets on the basis of a caloric deficit as it would be for them to blame hormones.

I do not support blanket recommendations for all training populations.

[nick1990]

yeah saw this article this morning and thought to post it, but thought it might cause a lot of controversey lol

[adoniscomplex]

Well, I certainly wouldn't. Those types of personal anecdotes are exactly what I seek out. I want to know, in peoples' own words, what worked for them and what didn't. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a legitimate process of inquiry.

hardly , talk to regular people about weight loss is everyone of them says i tried everything

[SeanEH]

I would take his statement of being in a negative caloric state as well as the fact that he was vomiting to imply that this was not the case.


I would take his statement of being in a negative caloric state while gaining fat as a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of negative caloric state. Weight could fluctuate depending on water retention (definitely a possibility with chemo) regardless of calories, but if body mass is being added then a caloric surplus exists. If this is not so, then let's hear your definition of caloric surplus.

[NDame616]

I understand that he was vomiting on a regular basis, but was he compensating by eating more? He says he was in a negative caloric state, why should I believe him?

I've personally met Alwyn. Nice as hell, great guy, friendly, etc.

If he told me he banged Miley Cyrus anally, I'd believe it.

He wouldn't just lie about stuff like this to make a point.

[s.o.u.p]

I've always had my gripes about calories in/calories out, were human beings, not baloons.

Lyle macdonald just put out a page on how how it's much more complicated than that.

He even extended the equasion, and still said it's not enough.

I think that making the food side of the equasion oversimple allows for someone to call someone else less dedicated or lazy, and that's why people like it so much.

Some people just don't know what to expect, there's a large fluxuation of information out there, how much should someone expect to gain from a certain amount of cals on a certain diet, how much should someone expect to lose from a caloric defecit and no carbs?

Hormones make a big difference too, sure the energy storage might be the right amount, but how much would go to muscle? How much to fat?

People really should be focussing on composition, and putting less emphasis on overall weight.

[signature166]

Al, thanks for posting the article and defending your initial statement. Though we may ultimately disagree, I admire your perseverence, rationality, and civility.

Alwyn Cosgrove's battle against cancer, and his success in the face of such painful adversity is nothing short of awe-inspiring. I have a deep respect Alwyn Cosgrove and his opinions on training, fat loss, and nutrition. The context and content of this interviewer places me, as the critic, in a precarious position. I am not saying anything negative about Alwyn Cosgrove's powers of self-perception, but rather the lack of objectivity and bondage to bias inherent in all of us as human beings. Furthermore, and of equal importance, the editors at T-Muscle deliberately alter the style, tone, and substance of the articles they publish. What is displayed on your computer screen are not the words that the author submitted for publication, or spoke at the interview, or, in the alternative, the opinions that the authors express in the article/interview are not the same ones they would express if speaking in person with you over coffee or a protein shake.



http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_interviews/sucker_punch_alwyn_cosgrove

Yes, it's on T-Nation. That doesn't mean anything by itself. Nearly every well known coach and author has been featured on T-Nation at one time or another.



It does mean something. It means that its been edited to include hyperbole and inflammatory language that provokes and produces controversy thus bringing more attention, more views, and, as part of the plan, more supplement sales.

Saying otherwise is completely dishonest. Besides that, and I don't care what TC or Lou Schuler have to say about this, this interview was published in suspicious proximity to Lyle McDonald's outstanding article on the Energy Balance Equation. Lyle is a critic of the guys over at T-nation, and he's not trying to keep it a secret.


But that's the whole point. Hormones matter. A person's hormonal state is the primary determinant of his ability to gain or lose weight and the body composition he is capable of achieving. That is what I, Alwyn, Pat Arnold, and Diana Schwarzbein (endocrinologist cited by Charles Poliquin) have been saying.



How do you expect to be able to measure such data consistently, in the real world? I don't think you can.

Lol, I enjoy how you put your name first in the above list of incisive pioneers. Yes hormones matter, they alter the numerical values of the RMR/BMR, SPA, and "Change in Body Stores" part of the equation, but they don't change the laws of physics as represented--albeit incompleley--by the equation. I have no issue with looking for "real world" methods of helping people achieve their body composition goals, and I believe that a thorough understanding of the complex model of the energy balance equation (not the cals = cals out oversimplification) and physiology will best guide the search.


What the hell is wrong with using personal experience as science?

Because its not science and his experience wasn't a product of the scientific method. Though he has been successful and produced "real world" results in thousands of clients, this doesn't mean that his opinion about his personal experience (the primary evidence against the energy balance equation in the interview) has been properly examined for validity threats and properly qualified after such an examination.


You wouldn't disagree with it if it were some research scientist in a lab giving his personal experience, would you?

I would absolutely disagree unless he was talking about his personal experience of learning about the subject matter that he was studying through the application of the scientific method in carrying out structured, reproducible trials (or experiments) while reading the relevant peer-reviewed literature on the subject. I wouldn't listen to him if he was giving his personal experience about how great his wife is in bed or how wonderful his cooking tastes.


Like many others on this board, you seem to have a completely erroneous understanding of what the process of "science" is all about.

What makes you think Alwyn hasn't worked with plenty of people? He writes further on in the same article that he bases his views on his extensive coaching experience.

LOL! C'mon Al, you're smarter than this. You don't get to redefine science to suit your purposes. Alwyn has worked with plenty of people and he does have extensive coaching experience, but that doesn't make him a scientist (under any meaningful definition of the word).


I would take his statement of being in a negative caloric state as well as the fact that he was vomiting to imply that this was not the case.



There are holes in every set of data. It is impossible to resolve this dispute with math equations. If that wasn't the case, it would have been done already.



1) Because he wasn't only using his own experience as an example. Read the rest of what he wrote and consider it:



That sounds very similar to what Pat Arnold said, doesn't it?

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=226392471&postcount=130

If he was in a negative caloric balance then he would have necessarily been losing fat or losing muscle or both. He doesn't even mention the possibility that he continued to gain weight through the retention of water, rather than gaining fat itself. Lyle's article covers this issue. I am inclined to think he was retaining water as a result of the powerful chemotherapy and the resultant miserable condition.

Either way, he doesn't directly address the decrease in SPA/NEAT and BMR/RMR that comes from being treated for cancer while stopping the training that he had been doing for years and losing muscle mass, nor does he address the issue of water retention.


2) The article you cited does not claim the model works fine. It attempts to rehabilitate the model by qualifying it with numerous additional factors. In other words, it demonstrates that the caloric model, in its simplest form, is woefully inadequate.

From the article:


"Inaccurate" or "incomplete" is not the same thing as invalid. The caloric balance model is an example of a theory that looks good on paper but has little real world application due to the number of variables involved with it and the complexity of measuring them independently.

If you followed my links you would have seen that such variables had already been addressed in similar fashion by Pat Arnold:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=2830309&postcount=23

The fact that older models were "woefully inadequate" says nothing about the knowledge and the insight that we gain from using the updated, more complete versions of the energy balance equation as a guide when planning body composition programs or helping someone to overcome a plateau when they are struggling with fat loss or muscle gain.


...!

You can come up with an equation with variables for absolutely anything.

It doesn't mean a thing until you can define all the variables and measure them consistently.

Lyle clearly defined enough variables to make the equation useful in almost all contexts for almost all purposes. Measuring them consistently is a separate issue. If I were a betting man, I would put money on measurement of the different variables becoming easier and easier over time.


It depends on the context. In some cases, yes, though not all. You have to look at the whole picture. If someone is unable to gain or lose, I'd look at their hormones first before telling them to adjust calories. Dietary composition matters because foods are capable of influencing hormones.

By the way, there are plenty of theories that work equally well on paper and in the real world. Calories in vs out just isn't one of them.

If you want to make the incompleteness argument against the energy balance equation you must admit that it applies with equal force to your argument about looking at hormones and the effects of dietary composition on hormones. The same qualification I made above about the rapidity of progress applies to your choice of using hormone levels to determine dietary composition.



Well, I certainly wouldn't. Those types of personal anecdotes are exactly what I seek out. I want to know, in peoples' own words, what worked for them and what didn't. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a legitimate process of inquiry.

I want to know what the relevant literature says, and, when it is incomplete, I'll go ask people for explanations in their own words to fill in what remains of the gaps. It is a legitimate process of inquiry, but it is no substitute for the scientific method and its built-in controls.


I don't disagree. That's why I said it all depends on the context. Part of what that involves is the sort of person you're dealing with. Hormones can be used as an excuse but so can calories. Weak-minded individuals will latch onto anything. It's just as easy to imagine people justifying poor diets on the basis of a caloric deficit as it would be for them to blame hormones.

I do not support blanket recommendations for all training populations.

Neither do I.

Al, for people like you who are concerned with "real world" results and "real world" applicability, then you should be the first person to recognize the limitations of Cosgrove's experience with the energy balance equation while undergoing chemotherapy to treat cancer. His very specific circumstances has virtually no applicability to almost everyone in the physique community. In fact, its even less applicable than the scientific studies that most of the "real world" guys claim have little to no applicability to the "real world."

Thanks again for posting the article and the other references.

[Autobody]

Where in the energy Balance equation does AAS / cortisol fit? While I am sure we can all agree that this man's peice is n=2, I do think there exsists the "possibility" for different factors for weight gain outside of Calories in Calories out.

[papasmurf2217]

I've personally met Alwyn. Nice as hell, great guy, friendly, etc.

If he told me he banged Miley Cyrus anally, I'd believe it.

He wouldn't just lie about stuff like this to make a point.

Nah, I wasn't knocking him. I'm sure he knows what he's talking about and I have a vast amount of respect for anyone who has to go through what he did. Based on my understanding of how weight gain works, I was just trying to piece together how he gained the 20 pounds.

[signature166]

1. Where in the energy Balance equation does AAS / cortisol fit?
2. I do think there exsists the "possibility" for different factors for weight gain outside of Calories in Calories out.

1. Here is the more better equation from Lyle McDonald's article (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html):

Energy In (corrected for digestion) = (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT) + Change in Body Stores

Cortisol and AAS effect the "Change in Body Stores" by increasing fat mass and decreasing muscle mass and by increasing muscle mass while decreasing fat mass respectively. They alter the partitioning of incoming nutrients and the reusing or disposal of byproducts of tissue breakdown and remodeling.

2. There exists the "possibility" for different factors for weight gain outside of the absurd, gross oversimplification of a model expressed by the equation Calories in Calories out (assuming you mean cals in = cals out).

There's a difference between not understanding the energy balance equation itself and there being "possibilities" outside of the laws of physics. Furthermore, there is a difference between trying to apply a simple, incorrect, or incomplete model to the net effect of a number of simultaneous, interrelated processes and there being "possibilities" outside the laws of physics.

If there are issues with the completeness of the current model (which, if you read the article I linked above in detail there are, but they are small) then strive to create a better model, don't scrap the one we have in favor of anecdote, biased personal experience, or broscience.

[SDC77]

Anecdotal and utterly useless evidence for anyone other than Alwyn Cosgrove. I respect his workout creations but he is retarded if he actually believes this crap applies to regular people not having radioactive material pumped into their veins.

[dustinlima]

i vote for thermodynamics and the different molecules energy likes to present itself as

[Opies]

laws of physics > anecdotal evidence

Calories in vs out IS the final word. That does not mean we fully understand it by a long stretch, and there are no doubt a myriad of factors at work, but the laws of thermodynamics cannot be broken by cancer drugs and cortisol

[gonna_be_big]

laws of physics > anecdotal evidence

Calories in vs out IS the final word. That does not mean we fully understand it by a long stretch, and there are no doubt a myriad of factors at work, but the laws of thermodynamics cannot be broken by cancer drugs and cortisol

i agree with this man.. everyone is like oh its not that simple you have to consider lots of variables - like NEAT for example.

now wouldnt calories burnt from NEAT count as "calories out" - same as TEF.

nobody is saying JUST to factor in the calories spent during the day and through exercise and ignore other functions the body has! its all just included in part of this simple equation.

[Al Swearengen]

laws of physics > anecdotal evidence

Calories in vs out IS the final word. That does not mean we fully understand it by a long stretch, and there are no doubt a myriad of factors at work, but the laws of thermodynamics cannot be broken by cancer drugs and cortisol

so hormones play no role in body composition? lulz

you have so much to learn as do we all. if there is one thing that cannot be disputed it would be this statement, "hormones run our bodies and our world"

[EmperorRyker]

The role hormones play in is already included under the calories out category.

[RealMenDeadLift]

so hormones play no role in body composition? lulz

you have so much to learn as do we all. if there is one thing that cannot be disputed it would be this statement, "hormones run our bodies and our world"

hormones affect the "in" vs "out" , it simply varies among individuals

[wobemaster]

To everyone that thinks thermodynamics is bs, please read lyle's article that signiture linked earlier on.. it covers it in great detail.

I'm just going to add that most people simply seem to be confused. cals in = cals out is accurate. The hormonal levels, neat, tef, digestion etc are all part of that equation, either on the 'in' side or the 'out' side, they dont act independantly of it.

[Al Swearengen]

To everyone that thinks thermodynamics is bs, please read lyle's article that signiture linked earlier on.. it covers it in great detail.

I'm just going to add that most people simply seem to be confused. cals in = cals out is accurate. The hormonal levels, neat, tef, digestion etc are all part of that equation, either on the 'in' side or the 'out' side, they dont act independantly of it.

that seems to be a contradiction in terminology. how can hormonal levels, neat, tef, digestion etc all be part of cals in = cals out? if one day i loose x amount of fat on x amount of calories and the next day the same x amount of calories yields no fat loss because of hormonal levels or more simple carbs and less protein and fibrous carbs and then cals in= cals out becomes what?

[signature166]

that seems to be a contradiction in terminology. how can hormonal levels, neat, tef, digestion etc all be part of cals in = cals out? if one day i loose x amount of fat on x amount of calories and the next day the same x amount of calories yields no fat loss because of hormonal levels or more simple carbs and less protein and fibrous carbs and then cals in= cals out becomes what?

It becomes a meaningless oversimplification if you continue to think of the energy balance equation as "cals in = cals out."

Have you read this article?
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

Energy In (corrected for digestion) = (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT) + Change in Body Stores

Hormones affect the building and breakdown of muscle, the storage and burning of fat, nutrient partitioning, water retention, hunger, satiety, SPA, and RMR/BMR. The food you eat affects these hormones, as well as TEF, but it doesn't alter the fact that calories ingested must either leave your body in the form of heat or other energy and, if those calories don't leave in the form of heat or other energy, they will be stored as fat or muscle or other tissue.

[Holyspokes]

that seems to be a contradiction in terminology. how can hormonal levels, neat, tef, digestion etc all be part of cals in = cals out? if one day i loose x amount of fat on x amount of calories and the next day the same x amount of calories yields no fat loss because of hormonal levels or more simple carbs and less protein and fibrous carbs and then cals in= cals out becomes what?

They alter the amount of energy out, and energy in. Energy comes from calories. Thus the oversimplification.

[Opies]

so hormones play no role in body composition? lulz



strong reading comprehension

[Al Shades]

To everyone that thinks thermodynamics is bs,

Nobody is suggesting that thermodynamics is BS, you're misunderstanding the point of our criticism.

What we're suggesting is that thermodynamics is far too complicated to be able to apply with any accuracy to real world scenarios.

It is therefore a useless model.

[Opies]

nobody is suggesting that thermodynamics is bs, you're misunderstanding the point of our criticism.

What we're suggesting is that thermodynamics is far too complicated to be able to apply with any accuracy to real world scenarios.

It is therefore a useless model.

LOL

oh man oh man

[dustinlima]

Nobody is suggesting that thermodynamics is BS, you're misunderstanding the point of our criticism.

What we're suggesting is that thermodynamics is far too complicated to be able to apply with any accuracy to real world scenarios.

It is therefore a useless model.IF NOT GOVERNING LAWS OF PHYSICS/LIFE, WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE?
And, for the record, these laws are pretty complicated. I don't think there could exist a simple model that can accurately predict the changes of a human body.
If you don't want to learn the principles of conversation of energy to the necessary extent then get yourself a Total Metabolism Forecaster (or w/e) or a nutritionist. For that matter, I'm sure the complex energy balance of the body is not even close to being fully mapped out...

On that note, this poll is rigged because incomplete isn't necessarily very inaccurate.

[signature166]

On that note, this poll is rigged because incomplete isn't necessarily very inaccurate.



Poll is strong false dichotomy.

[Al Swearengen]

strong reading comprehension

strong ass hole traits

[Al Swearengen]

It becomes a meaningless oversimplification if you continue to think of the energy balance equation as "cals in = cals out."

Have you read this article?
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

Energy In (corrected for digestion) = (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT) + Change in Body Stores

Hormones affect the building and breakdown of muscle, the storage and burning of fat, nutrient partitioning, water retention, hunger, satiety, SPA, and RMR/BMR. The food you eat affects these hormones, as well as TEF, but it doesn't alter the fact that calories ingested must either leave your body in the form of heat or other energy and, if those calories don't leave in the form of heat or other energy, they will be stored as fat or muscle or other tissue.

that was my point in wording it that way because many people over simplify it by saying it's just c in = c out. it depends a great deal on the individual as well as what you mentioned also with many people having many differences in insulin levels and cortisol levels among just a few.

[Opies]

strong ass hole traits

u mad lol?

cals in vs out is the final word. period. Is it a simplification? yes. We obviously cannot factor our body chemistry in because we only understand how it affects calorie balance in a rudimentary way, and it is impossible for us to document changes in it. Because of this, we see the obvious solution is to remove the middle man of calorie calculating and simply observe rate of change. Once you have established a general trend in terms of rate of change, you can adjust your calories accordingly.

On a side note, we also do not need to establish a perfect equation for cals in vs out, because an estimate is good enough. Our current calculations are sufficient to get people into the ballpark they need to be in in terms of intake, and then small adjustments are made from there. The system works perfectly despite having an array of variables that cannot be calculated with accuracy.

[signature166]

that was my point in wording it that way because many people over simplify it by saying it's just c in = c out. it depends a great deal on the individual as well as what you mentioned also with many people having many differences in insulin levels and cortisol levels among just a few.

Whether or not what you said above is true, the more better model that I posted above is currently the BEST model that we have NOW. Hormones are a component of the total body composition picture that you are trying to construct in your head, but they are only one piece.

No one, except Al Shades and possibly you, dimisses the model as useless or impractical because it is a complicated explanation of a more complex phenomenon. The hormone based model that you two have been hinting at or obliquely referring to is less complete than the refined energy balance equation, and the intricate interactions amongst the hormones are still rather murky.

[Blindead]

What the hell is wrong with using personal experience as science?

You wouldn't disagree with it if it were some research scientist in a lab giving his personal experience, would you?

Like many others on this board, you seem to have a completely erroneous understanding of what the process of "science" is all about.

What makes you think Alwyn hasn't worked with plenty of people? He writes further on in the same article that he bases his views on his extensive coaching experience.

Yes, I would. This has 0 application to the real world.

[dat]

Al Shades:

The caloric model is just that, a model. It's not completely accurate or complete, never was intended to be and nor will it ever be; the human body is far too complex to come even close to developing an accurate model. Ignoring hormonal/chemical imbalance in the body is one of the assumptions made to simplify the model to make it applicable to real world situations.

The model is pretty accurate for a huge majority of the population. You have found (at least) one "reputable author" who does not fit in to the scope of the model (where drugs/disease/chundering have pushed him out of the scope). You can't just completely throw out the model as it doesn't work for every Tom, Dick and Alwyn.

Your claim of thermodynamics being useless shows your complete misunderstanding of it.

You claim in your signature that BBers know more about BBing than scientists, yet, you never seem to listen or take on board opinions from either of them. If you are trying to be a revolutionary (it certainly seems like it), you seem to be going about it the wrong way.

[Al Swearengen]

Whether or not what you said above is true, the more better model that I posted above is currently the BEST model that we have NOW. Hormones are a component of the total body composition picture that you are trying to construct in your head, but they are only one piece.

No one, except Al Shades and possibly you, dimisses the model as useless or impractical because it is a complicated explanation of a more complex phenomenon. The hormone based model that you two have been hinting at or obliquely referring to is less complete than the refined energy balance equation, and the intricate interactions amongst the hormones are still rather murky.

i never said i didn't agree with what you were saying and i'm unsure where you gathered that from.

[dimasso69]

Nah, I wasn't knocking him. I'm sure he knows what he's talking about and I have a vast amount of respect for anyone who has to go through what he did. Based on my understanding of how weight gain works, I was just trying to piece together how he gained the 20 pounds.

I don't understand that part either..he had to be in a calorie excess or the chemicals/medicines he was on caused weight gain, i do hear alot about anti depressants causing weight gain for people without change in their diet, so maybe these medicines did the same for this man.


so hormones play no role in body composition? lulz

you have so much to learn as do we all. if there is one thing that cannot be disputed it would be this statement, "hormones run our bodies and our world"

Hormones obviously play a role in body composition, but regardless can't it be said cals in vs. cals out=weight gain or loss not regarding composition. But of course if your thyroid gland is slower than normal you must eat less due to a slower metabolism, but you still can lose weight by eating less cals than you burn.


And im reading this article OP posted i just find it hard to belive due to some of the things the guy is saying like:

" Eat perfectly and you'll make amazing changes, even without training."--was on the side under a caption
"I was in a negative caloric state (and vomiting) for months, lost muscle mass but gained weight (fat). I know the growth of the disease and the drugs involved in treating it change everything"
^This varaible in bold is huge, wouldn't you guys agree.

And on a side note does anyone know what he means by:
"You get away with ****ty training when you're young"

[Al Swearengen]

I don't understand that part either..he had to be in a calorie excess or the chemicals/medicines he was on caused weight gain, i do hear alot about anti depressants causing weight gain for people without change in their diet, so maybe these medicines did the same for this man.



Hormones obviously play a role in body composition, but regardless can't it be said cals in vs. cals out=weight gain or loss not regarding composition. But of course if your thyroid gland is slower than normal you must eat less due to a slower metabolism, but you still can lose weight by eating less cals than you burn.


And im reading this article OP posted i just find it hard to belive due to some of the things the guy is saying like:

" Eat perfectly and you'll make amazing changes, even without training."--was on the side under a caption
"I was in a negative caloric state (and vomiting) for months, lost muscle mass but gained weight (fat). I know the growth of the disease and the drugs involved in treating it change everything"
^This varaible in bold is huge, wouldn't you guys agree.

And on a side note does anyone know what he means by:
"You get away with ****ty training when you're young"


i would agree it is. i'm not arguing against that i'm arguing against calling Energy In (corrected for digestion) = (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT) + Change in Body Stores this - c in = c out. it just confuses far more people then it could ever help. it's like saying this to people, gas in = car go and that's all you need to know. lulz

[gonna_be_big]

i would agree it is. i'm not arguing against that i'm arguing against calling Energy In (corrected for digestion) = (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT) + Change in Body Stores this - c in = c out. it just confuses far more people then it could ever help. it's like saying this to people, gas in = car go and that's all you need to know. lulz

which equation do you think confuses more people? the cals in vs cals out??

[signature166]

which equation do you think confuses more people? the cals in vs cals out??

Yes. The oversimplified version that gets repeated ad naseum on BB.com.

cals in = cals out

The people who are confused wouldn't understand the more complicated equation without someone explaining it to them in detail. Someone, Lyle McDonald, has taken the time to explain it to them in detail, but, for the most part, the most confused and those who would be helped the most by understanding the complicated equation choose not to read the article.

[gonna_be_big]

Yes. The oversimplified version that gets repeated ad naseum on BB.com.

cals in = cals out

The people who are confused wouldn't understand the more complicated equation without someone explaining it to them in detail. Someone, Lyle McDonald, has taken the time to explain it to them in detail, but, for the most part, the most confused and those who would be helped the most by understanding the complicated equation choose not to read the article.

cals in vs cals out really isnt that hard to understand.... what i find REALLY hard to understand is how people cant figure out that theres OBVIOUSLY a whole bunch of different functions in our body that will change the exact equation for everyone (as shown in lyles equation), people have slower/faster metabolisms, etc so just because somebody else can lose weight on 3000 calories doesnt mean YOU can!!

[Al Shades]

Furthermore, and of equal importance, the editors at T-Muscle deliberately alter the style, tone, and substance of the articles they publish. What is displayed on your computer screen are not the words that the author submitted for publication, or spoke at the interview, or, in the alternative, the opinions that the authors express in the article/interview are not the same ones they would express if speaking in person with you over coffee or a protein shake.

It does mean something. It means that its been edited to include hyperbole and inflammatory language that provokes and produces controversy thus bringing more attention, more views, and, as part of the plan, more supplement sales.

I do not think that T-Nation distorts its contributors' views to such an extent that one could read an article and come away with a completely false understanding of the author's intent.

"Cals in vs out = BS" is a pretty unequivocal statement. I interpret that statement, and the subsequent explanation, to suggest that Alwyn believes the caloric model is "bad" not because it has any theoretical defects but simply because it cannot be applied meaningfully in real world contexts. There are too many variables, that, while one can readily identify them as "X, Y and Z" on a piece of paper, simply defy measurement in the real world.

I have read interviews of fitness professionals on many bodybuilding related sites, including this one, and tone they follow is very similar to that used by T-Nation.

Authors become associated with certain memes and schools of thought over time by the articles they publish. Alwyn Cosgrove, for instance, is associated with functional training, fitness industry know-how, and "real" core training.

I have yet to encounter an incident in which an author published something on another site that contradicted or seriously challenged his already-established views, as previously articulated by articles on T-Nation.

The day that Charles Poliquin publishes an article somewhere recommending the USDA food pyramid for nutrition, let me know.

Similarly, tell me when Alwyn Cosgrove starts endorsing machine training and metabolic energy equations as the best tools for fat loss.

The point is, T-Nation isn't nearly as bad as you're claiming. What I wrote about it was precisely correct:

The fact that the article appears on T-Nation means nothing, because practically all well known authors in this field have been published on the site at one time or another.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to read T-Nation and easily separate the useful information from the marketing. For example, the supplement ads usually come at the end of articles and the editors never fail to include a picture of whichever supplement they want people to buy.


Saying otherwise is completely dishonest. Besides that, and I don't care what TC or Lou Schuler have to say about this, this interview was published in suspicious proximity to Lyle McDonald's outstanding article on the Energy Balance Equation. Lyle is a critic of the guys over at T-nation, and he's not trying to keep it a secret.

Who cares. It's still just an interview and every statement published therein was something that Alwyn wrote or said. You have no real proof to suggest otherwise, only your existing bias against T-Nation. There may or may not be a back story involving a rivalry between Lyle McDonald and the T-Nation editors, but even if there is, it doesn't necessarily have to affect you. Let the simplest explanation rule the day until evidence can be produced to suggest otherwise: They're business competitors and try to one-up each other.


Lol, I enjoy how you put your name first in the above list of incisive pioneers. Yes hormones matter, they alter the numerical values of the RMR/BMR, SPA, and "Change in Body Stores" part of the equation, but they don't change the laws of physics as represented--albeit incompleley--by the equation. I have no issue with looking for "real world" methods of helping people achieve their body composition goals, and I believe that a thorough understanding of the complex model of the energy balance equation (not the cals = cals out oversimplification) and physiology will best guide the search.

You're presenting a refutation to an argument that I never made. I never said the expanded model was wrong, I said it couldn't be applied any more meaningfully or accurately to real world situations than the simple model.


Because its not science and his experience wasn't a product of the scientific method. Though he has been successful and produced "real world" results in thousands of clients, this doesn't mean that his opinion about his personal experience (the primary evidence against the energy balance equation in the interview) has been properly examined for validity threats and properly qualified after such an examination.

That doesn't mean it "isn't science". If you don't think it has been properly examined or challenged, then why not examine and challenge it rather than proceeding on the assumption that it's false? Don't you get that? It's exactly what this forum is for. It is for science.

Science does not live in some lab, it is right here and right now. It is available to every individual to apply to any situation.

The "scientific method" is still only a model that has produced, with regularity, results which have subsequently been discarded as false or erroneous.

This method is not applied the same way in every research study, but by the same token it is applied to some degree in nearly every anecdotal study.



I would absolutely disagree unless he was talking about his personal experience of learning about the subject matter that he was studying through the application of the scientific method in carrying out structured, reproducible trials (or experiments) while reading the relevant peer-reviewed literature on the subject. I wouldn't listen to him if he was giving his personal experience about how great his wife is in bed or how wonderful his cooking tastes.

Numerous testimonials or anecdotal reports are one example of a "reproducible trial". "Peer reviewed literature" is any literature that one's peers choose to review. You are a peer on this board and you have been presented with reviewing today's literature. Either complete the task, or abandon your argument.


LOL! C'mon Al, you're smarter than this. You don't get to redefine science to suit your purposes. Alwyn has worked with plenty of people and he does have extensive coaching experience, but that doesn't make him a scientist (under any meaningful definition of the word).

Yes, I am smart enough not to subscribe to the conventional definition of "science" that most people use. There is a philosophy underlying the practice of science and if you want to question my underlying philosophy, I'll have you know that I'm an empirical nominalist. I think your position is untenable and I'm prepared to argue it all the way.


If he was in a negative caloric balance then he would have necessarily been losing fat or losing muscle or both.

Isn't the whole point of this discussion to question that very premise? You've made a circular argument above.

Alwyn explicitly states that he gained fat while he was in a negative caloric state, so you can't challenge his statement by saying he "necessarily would have lost fat had he been in a negative caloric state", because that issue is the very matter in question.

You may challenge the veracity of Alwyn's statement on his contention that he was in a negative caloric state or that he gained fat, but you cannot proceed by circular argument.

That's how science works.



He doesn't even mention the possibility that he continued to gain weight through the retention of water, rather than gaining fat itself. Lyle's article covers this issue. I am inclined to think he was retaining water as a result of the powerful chemotherapy and the resultant miserable condition.

Either way, he doesn't directly address the decrease in SPA/NEAT and BMR/RMR that comes from being treated for cancer while stopping the training that he had been doing for years and losing muscle mass, nor does he address the issue of water retention.

From a body composition perspective: Water weight is, for all intents and purposes, identical to adipose tissue and opposite to lean body mass. That is, it is "undesirable body mass" (UDB).

From a weight and caloric perspective: If AC's weight gain was caused by water retention alone, then this fact alone is certainly enough to invalidate the caloric model.

The popular interpretation of the model suggests, "fewer calories = decreased weight, period". Here we have a scenario where Alwyn describes the opposite, "less calories = more weight", and the fact that the weight may have been brought on by water retention does nothing to repudiate the criticism of the model.


The fact that older models were "woefully inadequate" says nothing about the knowledge and the insight that we gain from using the updated, more complete versions of the energy balance equation as a guide when planning body composition programs or helping someone to overcome a plateau when they are struggling with fat loss or muscle gain.

To sum it up in a nutshell, here's the final verdict:

The simple model is woefully inadequate and practically guarantees failure when applied to real world situations.

The expanded model is theoretically accurate based on current information and assumptions regarding human physiology, but introduces variables that are impossible to quantify at the present time.

In short, you have two models that are equally useless, albeit for slightly different reasons.

I hope this helps you understand the nature of my criticism. Nobody is putting the theoretical validity of thermodynamics up for trial.



Lyle clearly defined enough variables to make the equation useful in almost all contexts for almost all purposes. Measuring them consistently is a separate issue. If I were a betting man, I would put money on measurement of the different variables becoming easier and easier over time.

Variables aren't of any use outside the lab and classroom until they can be quantified. That's a fact.

[Al Shades]

If you want to make the incompleteness argument against the energy balance equation you must admit that it applies with equal force to your argument about looking at hormones and the effects of dietary composition on hormones. The same qualification I made above about the rapidity of progress applies to your choice of using hormone levels to determine dietary composition.

Not quite, because we're talking about two different approaches that try to accomplish the same thing.

The problem with putting everything in an equation as a bunch of variables is that one is then tasked with quantifying it in precise terms, at the risk of being unable to proceed. Not so with the approach that I'm advocating, which basically relies on using educated guesses made by individuals based on their understanding of variables involved.

Essentially, I'm advocating educated guesses as a superior method method of problem solving at this time, given the current level of knowledge and capability.

If you think this sounds strange, consider that there are no shortage of things which, in day to day life, we don't attempt to quantify, simply because we haven't yet developed the tools to do so effectively.

Theoretically, if we could quantify everything in precise terms, we'd probably do so, right? The general trend has been towards increased quantification in all areas. The fact that there yet remain things that go unquantified is a testament to the shortcomings of our current state of knowledge.


I want to know what the relevant literature says, and, when it is incomplete, I'll go ask people for explanations in their own words to fill in what remains of the gaps. It is a legitimate process of inquiry, but it is no substitute for the scientific method and its built-in controls.

Controls are only one aspect of the scientific process, though they happen to be the one to which most people irrationally attach the greatest degree of importance.

First of all, people mistakenly view control in binary terms: an experiment is either "controlled" or it is not, whereby in the former the degree of control is frequently assumed to be "perfect".

In reality, "perfect control" doesn't exist and would require time travel, and therefore the concept must be viewed in terms of probability.

There is one factor that cannot be reproduced in ANY experiment ever conducted and that is the fact that it will never occur in exactly the same space-time event as any other experiment. Therefore, space-time cannot be controlled for. When evaluated in the context of, for example, quantum dynamics, this is a MAJOR problem with the current model and one that is completely unsolvable.

By the way, the essence of philosophical nominalism is that no two events are ever alike and that "universal qualities" do not exist. I told you that I was an empirical nominalist. Now, hopefully, you might understand why I place so much emphasis on seemingly strange issues and argue the way I do.



Al, for people like you who are concerned with "real world" results and "real world" applicability, then you should be the first person to recognize the limitations of Cosgrove's experience with the energy balance equation while undergoing chemotherapy to treat cancer. His very specific circumstances has virtually no applicability to almost everyone in the physique community. In fact, its even less applicable than the scientific studies that most of the "real world" guys claim have little to no applicability to the "real world."

I have no special reverence for Alwyn's personal experience on the matter. I could easily have made this thread without citing his anecdote. As I said, he is just the latest in a long line of respectable authorities who have gone on record with similar statements on this issue.


LOL

oh man oh man

If you think what I'm saying is ridiculous, then I invite you to walk into an American retail establishment and ask yourself just how many of the fatbodies in there could, if their lives depended on it, differentiate between endo and exo-thermic.

Remember: The "real world" context here is average people using the caloric model to successfully alter their weight and body composition.

The fact that you can identify variables in theory and put them into an equation (as Kyle has done) is not significant in-and-of-itself.

His equation is solid on theoretical grounds but there really isn't anything that special about it. All of its variables have been suggested at one time or another by various authors, but the overriding issue is that it still remains completely impractical for real life situations.

[nano.ix]

AS your entire basis of Cin vs Cout being flawed is only based one one case, where as there are thousands of cases to prove otherwise. Taking into account this is a special case, it does not hold much/if any scientific basis towards healthy individuals. Provide some 'scientific evidance' in a healthy individual and the playing field will be leveled.

This is like arguing glutamine works b/c it was tested to be benifical to burn victims :rolleyes:

[Al Shades]

AS your entire basis of Cin vs Cout being flawed is only based one one case, where as there are thousands of cases to prove otherwise. Taking into account this is a special case, it does not hold much/if any scientific basis towards healthy individuals. Provide some 'scientific evidance' in a healthy individual and the playing field will be leveled.

This is like arguing glutamine works b/c it was tested to be benifical to burn victims :rolleyes:

It isn't based on only one case and I choose to present my argument by logic, not by quantity of experiential/experimental evidence.

If the entire body of evidence were to be examined I would guess it could go either way in terms of the quantity favoring one side or the other. But again, that's not my concern here.

By the way, do you really weight 211 @ 6'2 and eat only 2,000 calories? If so, you have a ridiculously low maintenance requirement and are, in fact, living proof of the folly of metabolic equations.

[gonna_be_big]

It isn't based on only one case and I choose to present my argument by logic, not by quantity of experiential/experimental evidence.

If the entire body of evidence were to be examined I would guess it could go either way in terms of the quantity favoring one side or the other. But again, that's not my concern here.

you said that cals in vs cals out isnt good for normal every day people?? ive heard of SOOOOOO many people losing weight JUST by reducing their calorie intake and eating healthy instead of junk food.

but its probably because of how it affected their hormones and not the reduced calorie intake?

[Al Shades]

you said that cals in vs cals out isnt good for normal every day people?? ive heard of SOOOOOO many people losing weight JUST by reducing their calorie intake and eating healthy instead of junk food.

but its probably because of how it affected their hormones and not the reduced calorie intake?

Strictly speaking, they didn't knowingly "reduce calorie intake", they simply ate less food.

I'm certainly not disputing the merits of that.

But you have to admit, knowledge of how to apply the calorie equation was completely unnecessary for them to achieve that result.

Anytime you use the equation, you are operating under the assumption that caloric intake and expenditure can be precisely measured, neither of which is true, and that is where the problems begin.

I don't even believe the numbers on nutrition labels anymore, and that's to say nothing of variable digestion and absorption rates between individuals.

It is laughable to be throwing around complicated, multi-variable equations when we can't even accurately measure a single variable. You'd need your own bomb calorimeter just to get a good idea of the energy content in an apple.

Bottom line, we don't know ****. The caloric equation gives people a false sense of confidence and that's why I oppose it.

[nano.ix]

It isn't based on only one case and I choose to present my argument by logic, not by quantity of experiential/experimental evidence.

If the entire body of evidence were to be examined I would guess it could go either way in terms of the quantity favoring one side or the other. But again, that's not my concern here.

By the way, do you really weight 211 @ 6'2 and eat only 2,000 calories? If so, you have a ridiculously low maintenance requirement and are, in fact, living proof of the folly of metabolic equations.

Can you provide more cases of this then? You say there are many, but I haven't read any.

:confused:
I'm not maintaining + not eating only 2kcal.

[signature166]

I do not think that T-Nation distorts its contributors' views to such an extent that one could read an article and come away with a completely false understanding of the author's intent.

I met Lou Schuler in person. He told me that T-nation author's make **** up from time to time.


"Cals in vs out = BS" is a pretty unequivocal statement. I interpret that statement, and the subsequent explanation, to suggest that Alwyn believes the caloric model is "bad" not because it has any theoretical defects but simply because it cannot be applied meaningfully in real world contexts. There are too many variables, that, while one can readily identify them as "X, Y and Z" on a piece of paper, simply defy measurement in the real world.

So, this is your argument? And nothing else?


I have read interviews of fitness professionals on many bodybuilding related sites, including this one, and tone they follow is very similar to that used by T-Nation.

Authors become associated with certain memes and schools of thought over time by the articles they publish. Alwyn Cosgrove, for instance, is associated with functional training, fitness industry know-how, and "real" core training.

I have yet to encounter an incident in which an author published something on another site that contradicted or seriously challenged his already-established views, as previously articulated by articles on T-Nation.

Training. Not nutrition. Besides, his Afterburn contains large material, substantive chunks of information lifted out of Lyle McDonald's work with small changes made here and there to make it not verbatim theft.


The day that Charles Poliquin publishes an article somewhere recommending the USDA food pyramid for nutrition, let me know.

Once again, training, not nutrition. King Charles isn't to be trusted on nutrition.


Similarly, tell me when Alwyn Cosgrove starts endorsing machine training and metabolic energy equations as the best tools for fat loss.

The point is, T-Nation isn't nearly as bad as you're claiming. What I wrote about it was precisely correct:

The fact that the article appears on T-Nation means nothing, because practically all well known authors in this field have been published on the site at one time or another.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to read T-Nation and easily separate the useful information from the marketing. For example, the supplement ads usually come at the end of articles and the editors never fail to include a picture of whichever supplement they want people to buy.



Who cares. It's still just an interview and every statement published therein was something that Alwyn wrote or said. You have no real proof to suggest otherwise, only your existing bias against T-Nation. There may or may not be a back story involving a rivalry between Lyle McDonald and the T-Nation editors, but even if there is, it doesn't necessarily have to affect you. Let the simplest explanation rule the day until evidence can be produced to suggest otherwise: They're business competitors and try to one-up each other.

Except that your thread title that lead into your argument is a product of the rivalry, the business competition. Thats not a good way to start.

[signature166]

You're presenting a refutation to an argument that I never made. I never said the expanded model was wrong, I said it couldn't be applied any more meaningfully or accurately to real world situations than the simple model.

My apologies for misconstruing your argument--I guess I mixed it up with other arguments made by those on your "side" of the debate. In any event, I explained in other posts how the expanded model can be applied more meaningfully and accurately than the simple model.


That doesn't mean it "isn't science". If you don't think it has been properly examined or challenged, then why not examine and challenge it rather than proceeding on the assumption that it's false?

1. It isn't science. Once again, you don't have license to redefine science or any other terms to suit your purposes. I don't care if you subscribe to nominal empiricism. No one else with whom you are communicating agrees with you. You can create your own definitions of words and create your own concepts all day long, but as long as you are communicating with other people who don't subscribe to your made-up definitions and concepts you have to use their words and concepts. The word "science" already has a meaning in this context. If you want to define another word to stand for what you want the word "science" to mean, then go ahead and make your own word, but "science" is already taken and it has a meaning that is not the same as your made-up meaning.

2. I did examine it and challenge it. That's what my long, rambling post to which you are replying was about.


Don't you get that? It's exactly what this forum is for. It is for science.

Science does not live in some lab, it is right here and right now. It is available to every individual to apply to any situation.

Playing fast and loose with the language again.


The "scientific method" is still only a model that has produced, with regularity, results which have subsequently been discarded as false or erroneous.

People erroneously applying the scientific method (no scare quotes), or applying it dishonestly or in self-interest, have produced results which have been subsequently discarded as "false" or erroneous. Not the fault of the scientific method, but rather the researchers themselves or the peer reviewers.


This method is not applied the same way in every research study, but by the same token it is applied to some degree in nearly every anecdotal study.

The degree to which the scientific method is applied in nearly every anecdotal "study" vs. the degree to which is applied in a double-blind randomized placebo controlled peer-reviewed trial makes all the difference. Being all loosey-goosey with the scientific method eliminates or neuters the controls which protect against bias and validity threats.

Without the inclusion of a control group and/or a placebo group (when appropriate) the results of the anecdotal "study" are completely invalid. Have you read the literature on the power of the placebo effect?



Numerous testimonials or anecdotal reports are one example of a "reproducible trial". "Peer reviewed literature" is any literature that one's peers choose to review. You are a peer on this board and you have been presented with reviewing today's literature. Either complete the task, or abandon your argument.

LMAO! More made-up definitions?? Just stop.


Yes, I am smart enough not to subscribe to the conventional definition of "science" that most people use. There is a philosophy underlying the practice of science and if you want to question my underlying philosophy, I'll have you know that I'm an empirical nominalist. I think your position is untenable and I'm prepared to argue it all the way.

Your entire rebuttal depends on your redefinition of the terms that I used in my argument. No.


Isn't the whole point of this discussion to question that very premise? You've made a circular argument above.

Not circular. Necessarily = must follow from the definition of negative caloric balance and the laws of thermodynamics.

[signature166]

Alwyn explicitly states that he gained fat while he was in a negative caloric state, so you can't challenge his statement by saying he "necessarily would have lost fat had he been in a negative caloric state", because that issue is the very matter in question.

You may challenge the veracity of Alwyn's statement on his contention that he was in a negative caloric state or that he gained fat, but you cannot proceed by circular argument.

That's how science works.


I was in a negative caloric state (and vomiting) for months, lost muscle mass but gained weight (fat). I know the growth of the disease and the drugs involved in treating it change everything — but I had a malignant disease, wasn't eating or training towards the end and probably gained 20lbs. Even after the treatment, without chemo, it took a long time to cut the weight — so it's not just about calories.

Let's look at what you said in bold vs what AC said in bold. AC has no credibility because he has no objectivity and nothing to verify that he actually gained adipose tissue and not water weight--"fat" is placed in parentheses in the "interview" itself. I am challenging the veracity--he provides no proof other than personal testimonial, and that even falls short of your made-up definitions of "study" and "reproducible trial" and "science," etc. His RMR/BMR would have dropped and he would have had virtually no SPA/NEAT, very little TEF, no TEA, etc so his claim that he was in a caloric deficit is laughable.

Let's look at the underlined parts of your post and AC's quote from the "interview." My argument is not circular because of the definition of negative caloric balance and the laws of thermodynamics. The definition of negative caloric balance is verifiable and exists independently of my "assumptions" and my arguments, as do the laws of thermodynamics. Note that I said "losing fat or muscle or both." Excuse me for omitting "connective tissue," I meant to include that too. If I include connective tissue, then my argument stands.


From a body composition perspective: Water weight is, for all intents and purposes, identical to adipose tissue and opposite to lean body mass. That is, it is "undesirable body mass" (UDB).

Lol wut? Stop with the made-up definitions. Maybe in your mind, working with "real world" clients, water weight is identical to adipose tissue, but thats not what this debate is about. We are talking about anabolic and catabolic physiological processes that store and release energy from the body respectively and how to account for those changes in energy. "For all intents and purposes" except for the one at hand. And don't try to change this into "See, you are making my point for me, thats what I've been saying all along." For purposes of the discussion of the energy balance equations and its usefullness as a model for body (re)composition, water weight and fat mass are two totally seperate things.


From a weight and caloric perspective: If AC's weight gain was caused by water retention alone, then this fact alone is certainly enough to invalidate the caloric model.

No. Not unless we believe in your made-up definitions, and we certainly do not.


The popular interpretation of the model suggests, "fewer calories = decreased weight, period". Here we have a scenario where Alwyn describes the opposite, "less calories = more weight", and the fact that the weight may have been brought on by water retention does nothing to repudiate the criticism of the model.

I don't give a **** about the "popular interpretation of the model." I've never said anything good about that "popular interpretation," and I've been talking about the enhanced model this whole time. Besides that, its completely disingenuous of you to argue against the strawman "cals in = cals out" model when several of us have already posted the enhanced model.



To sum it up in a nutshell, here's the final verdict:

Just stopping you here for a moment to point out that this one of several unjustified conclusory statements.


A. The simple model is woefully inadequate and practically guarantees failure when applied to real world situations.

B.The expanded model is theoretically accurate based on current information and assumptions regarding human physiology, but introduces variables that are impossible to quantify at the present time.

C. In short, you have two models that are equally useless, albeit for slightly different reasons.

A+B =/= C. Even if B was true, which it isn't--there are ways of measuring the variables, C does not follow. The expanded model is very useful as a guide. No one is saying that we at home can plug in the variables and get a number. No criticism that you have leveled against it makes it anything less than the best currently available model for the underlying processes. I never argued that it is 100% accurate or complete or works like a math equation.


Variables aren't of any use outside the lab and classroom until they can be quantified. That's a fact.

They can be quantified. Outside the lab the model is still the best guide, the best explanation, the best tool to understand whats going on.


Not quite, because we're talking about two different approaches that try to accomplish the same thing.

The problem with putting everything in an equation as a bunch of variables is that one is then tasked with quantifying it in precise terms, at the risk of being unable to proceed. Not so with the approach that I'm advocating, which basically relies on using educated guesses made by individuals based on their understanding of variables involved.

Strawman.


Essentially, I'm advocating educated guesses as a superior method method of problem solving at this time, given the current level of knowledge and capability.

Educated guesses? Completely inferior to the expanded model. I'll take the model plus educated guesses, thank you. Educated guesses, as I've explained before, are ancillary.


If you think this sounds strange, consider that there are no shortage of things which, in day to day life, we don't attempt to quantify, simply because we haven't yet developed the tools to do so effectively.

Theoretically, if we could quantify everything in precise terms, we'd probably do so, right? The general trend has been towards increased quantification in all areas. The fact that there yet remain things that go unquantified is a testament to the shortcomings of our current state of knowledge.

Things can be quantified. If they aren't being quantified at home in a way that everyday people can use them, its because of limitations of techology, not the current state of knowledge in this context.


Controls are only one aspect of the scientific process, though they happen to be the one to which most people irrationally attach the greatest degree of importance.

Once again, placebo effect and researcher bias.

[signature166]

First of all, people mistakenly view control in binary terms: an experiment is either "controlled" or it is not, whereby in the former the degree of control is frequently assumed to be "perfect".

In reality, "perfect control" doesn't exist and would require time travel, and therefore the concept must be viewed in terms of probability.

Another strawman.


There is one factor that cannot be reproduced in ANY experiment ever conducted and that is the fact that it will never occur in exactly the same space-time event as any other experiment. Therefore, space-time cannot be controlled for. When evaluated in the context of, for example, quantum dynamics, this is a MAJOR problem with the current model and one that is completely unsolvable.

If its a "MAJOR" problem for the current model and its "completely unsolvable" then its a problem for all models, even your weasly "educated guess" model. Which, by the way is contained in your head, completely amorphous to those of us who are not you, and therefore is saved from scrutiny or verification by other people. You can't "disprove" something if you can't critically examine it.

So, now you are arguing against the laws of thermodynamics? This isn't your argument.


By the way, the essence of philosophical nominalism is that no two events are ever alike and that "universal qualities" do not exist. I told you that I was an empirical nominalist. Now, hopefully, you might understand why I place so much emphasis on seemingly strange issues and argue the way I do.

*YAWN* You are so far away from the original argument. I may be a future determinist, but that doesn't change the way that I behave within the society and environment into which I was born. Your philosophical nominalism ("nominalism") will get you no where in your "educated guesses" or in working with clients. Its not applicable here. Its the farthest thing from "real world" applicability that anyone has said in this entire thread.

Ought implies can.

You place so much emphasis on seemingly strange issues and argue the way that you do because you want to sound smarter than you are, confuse everyone else, and create artificial hurdles for those debating you. Bringing up your philosophical nominalism and empiricism is irrelevant in this context, distracting, and intentionally misleading.


I have no special reverence for Alwyn's personal experience on the matter. I could easily have made this thread without citing his anecdote. As I said, he is just the latest in a long line of respectable authorities who have gone on record with similar statements on this issue.

Bolded: NOT on this issue the way it was laid out in the interview and then the way that the interview was used by you in your argument.

You should have made the thread without citing his anecdote, except that his anecdote is an integral piece of your argument.

[signature166]

It isn't based on only one case and I choose to present my argument by logic, not by quantity of experiential/experimental evidence.

If the entire body of evidence were to be examined I would guess it could go either way in terms of the quantity favoring one side or the other. But again, that's not my concern here.

By the way, do you really weight 211 @ 6'2 and eat only 2,000 calories? If so, you have a ridiculously low maintenance requirement and are, in fact, living proof of the folly of metabolic equations.

He is not "living proof" of anything. Why more unwarranted conclusions and distractions? See his post below.


Can you provide more cases of this then? You say there are many, but I haven't read any.

:confused:
I'm not maintaining + not eating only 2kcal.

Yep.


Strictly speaking, they didn't knowingly "reduce calorie intake", they simply ate less food.

Strictly speaking they did.


I'm certainly not disputing the merits of that.


But you have to admit,

He doesn't have to admit anything. No more unjustified conclusions.


knowledge of how to apply the calorie equation was completely unnecessary for them to achieve that result.

Doesn't matter in terms of the bigger argument.


Anytime you use the equation, you are operating under the assumption that caloric intake and expenditure can be precisely measured, neither of which is true, and that is where the problems begin.

I don't even believe the numbers on nutrition labels anymore, and that's to say nothing of variable digestion and absorption rates between individuals.

Measureable and quantifiable. Stop masquerading your own biased assumptions as fact. And, if you want to play around with the definition of the word "precisely" then go ahead, but its not going to invalidate any arguments on this "side" of the debate.


It is laughable to be throwing around complicated, multi-variable equations when we can't even accurately measure a single variable. You'd need your own bomb calorimeter just to get a good idea of the energy content in an apple.

Strawman, strawman, strawman. No one in this thread who is a rational, thinking person made the argument that we can use the model in every day life as if it was a mathematical equation to spit out numbers--thats why we call it a model. Its a guide, one tool in the toolbox, and, even if it can't be used as a calculation, its still more useful than your "educated guesses."


Bottom line, we don't know ****. The caloric equation gives people a false sense of confidence and that's why I oppose it.

Bottom line, the energy balance equation, in its updated and expanded form, is the best model that we have for explaining changes or lack thereof in body composition.

[Al Shades]

I met Lou Schuler in person. He told me that T-nation author's make **** up from time to time.

Good. I still believe that Alwyn said exactly what was written in that piece and meant it, and you still have nothing related to this particular article that would suggest otherwise.


So, this is your argument? And nothing else?

At the surface, yes. Everything else is written in support of the above.


Training. Not nutrition. Besides, his Afterburn contains large material, substantive chunks of information lifted out of Lyle McDonald's work with small changes made here and there to make it not verbatim theft.

I don't care about Alwyn's particular experience with regards to nutrition. We're not discussing nutrition, per se, we're discussing body composition and how to alter it. Alwyn takes a training based approach and he certainly has plenty of experience there with average people. Others might take a nutrition based approach. Nutrition and metabolism are not the same fields of study.


Once again, training, not nutrition. King Charles isn't to be trusted on nutrition.

Oh, but he is. In fact, I'm far more interested by Poliquin's ideas on nutrition, metabolism, and progressive medicine than I am by his conventional strength training programs.


Except that your thread title that lead into your argument is a product of the rivalry, the business competition. Thats not a good way to start.

My thread title is a direct quote from Alwyn Cosgrove. Something that he wrote and presumably endorses. Anything beyond that with regards to a rivalry is mere speculation on your part. If you are so concerned about the veracity of the quote, maybe you can email him about it and he'll tell you whether T-Nation made it up.


My apologies for misconstruing your argument--I guess I mixed it up with other arguments made by those on your "side" of the debate. In any event, I explained in other posts how the expanded model can be applied more meaningfully and accurately than the simple model.

Okay, good to narrow the focus of the discussion.



1. It isn't science. Once again, you don't have license to redefine science or any other terms to suit your purposes. I don't care if you subscribe to nominal empiricism. No one else with whom you are communicating agrees with you. You can create your own definitions of words and create your own concepts all day long, but as long as you are communicating with other people who don't subscribe to your made-up definitions and concepts you have to use their words and concepts. The word "science" already has a meaning in this context. If you want to define another word to stand for what you want the word "science" to mean, then go ahead and make your own word, but "science" is already taken and it has a meaning that is not the same as your made-up meaning.

It's too bad, for your own sake, that you don't care about my philosophical beliefs, because everything that I write is grounded in them. They are completely, entirely relevant to this discussion and every discussion I partake in as they form the basis for my reasoning. Everything that I say can be reduced to these basic principles.

What you call my attempt to "redefine" terms is a simple disagreement over definitions, which is a very basic point of contention in most arguments (indeed, some arguments consist of nothing more than that).

I absolutely can and will question YOUR definitions and understanding of certain terms; that is one of the principle reasons for having a forum such as this one, in my understanding.

It's impossible to engage in a meaningful debate without first coming to an agreement on definitions; that much you seem to understand.

However, you seem to think that I should eschew my own definitions in favor of yours, a contention which I absolutely reject on principle.

I'm afraid you don't get to pick my argument for me. If I choose to argue certain issues on philosophical grounds, (as a perusal of my post history would affirm that I often do), then so be it.

Sometimes - frequently, even - there is nothing more to an argument, when it is reduced to its most basic premises, than a simple disagreement over definitions. That is precisely the point that I am trying to hammer.

The whole reason why I brought up my philosophical views is that I realized we had such a disagreement on our hands.

Get it now? It wasn't evenly slightly irrelevant - it is, to the contrary, the single most relevant issue posted yet on this thread.



2. I did examine it and challenge it. That's what my long, rambling post to which you are replying was about.

Yes, and then I posted my refutation of your posts, so the matter is far from settled.



Playing fast and loose with the language again.

Not in the slightest. This is precisely what science is. Your objection denotes your adherence to an objective world view, whereas my own world view is subjective. That is the root of the disagreement.



People erroneously applying the scientific method (no scare quotes), or applying it dishonestly or in self-interest, have produced results which have been subsequently discarded as "false" or erroneous. Not the fault of the scientific method, but rather the researchers themselves or the peer reviewers.

That's immaterial to what I wrote, because faithful applications of the scientific method have also resulted in conclusions that have been discarded.


The degree to which the scientific method is applied in nearly every anecdotal "study" vs. the degree to which is applied in a double-blind randomized placebo controlled peer-reviewed trial makes all the difference. Being all loosey-goosey with the scientific method eliminates or neuters the controls which protect against bias and validity threats.

Trouble is, as one "threat" to the integrity of the process is eliminated, another surfaces. For example, the more effort is exerted in "controlling" an experiment, the greater the likelyhood that its designers will pick the wrong thing to study - thus ending up with a superbly controlled, meaningless result that does not answer the question they set out to answer. Nothing comes for free - to eliminate "bias and validity threats", sacrifices must be made in other areas.

The scientific method is a MODEL and the purpose of any model is to facilitate understanding of a certain concept or to bring about useful RESULTS.

Insofar as the above is true, every single time someone accomplishes something that he intended to do (whether tying his shoes or designing a jumbo jet) and accomplishes that task WITHOUT relying on the model in its entirety, it basically demonstrates the insufficiency of said model.

The "final test" is whether or not something WORKS - in real life - not whether you have an impressive looking study on paper that doesn't tell you anything useful.


Without the inclusion of a control group and/or a placebo group (when appropriate) the results of the anecdotal "study" are completely invalid. Have you read the literature on the power of the placebo effect?

Invalid? Even when said results are successfully applied to bring about a solution to the original question?

Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is all about.

Science is a tool, and as a tool, it serves its master. You are letting the tool become your master.

The "final result" of a study isn't the conclusion that is reached at the end and published in some database: it is the application of that conclusion in some novel and useful way. Any study that fails to accomplish the latter can truly be considered worthless.

Research and information-gathering methods are a means to an end. That end is progress, improvement.



LMAO! More made-up definitions?? Just stop.

Why stop? So that I can use your made-up definitions rather than my own? I don't think I will stop, I think I'll continue.



Your entire rebuttal depends on your redefinition of the terms that I used in my argument. No.

Indeed, it does. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. When you understand that, you'll understand my entire argument. Congratulations - you may not have conquered the fortress, but you now have it in sight.


Not circular. Necessarily = must follow from the definition of negative caloric balance and the laws of thermodynamics.

It *is* circular because we are questioning the applicability of such laws to body composition changes in real world scenarios; that's what the entire discussion is about.

AC claims his experience demonstrates that the calorie equation can't always be applied meaningfully.

[Al Shades]

Let's look at what you said in bold vs what AC said in bold. AC has no credibility because he has no objectivity and nothing to verify that he actually gained adipose tissue and not water weight--"fat" is placed in parentheses in the "interview" itself. I am challenging the veracity--he provides no proof other than personal testimonial, and that even falls short of your made-up definitions of "study" and "reproducible trial" and "science," etc. His RMR/BMR would have dropped and he would have had virtually no SPA/NEAT, very little TEF, no TEA, etc so his claim that he was in a caloric deficit is laughable.

Alwyn doesn't have objectivity but neither does anyone else.
Objectivity requires omniscience, so this is a moot point.

You can certainly challenge the veracity, all you have to do is specify the grounds. I gave you an example already. You can dispute his assertion that he was in a deficit or that he gained fat.

From the looks of it, you are challenging his claim that he was in a deficit. This has already been addressed earlier in this thread, and as you'll recall I mentioned that he was vomiting and not holding food. Presumably he had a high BMR/RMR upon admission to the hospital, yet he claims only to have gained weight during his stay, not to have lost any weight upon admission.



Let's look at the underlined parts of your post and AC's quote from the "interview." My argument is not circular because of the definition of negative caloric balance and the laws of thermodynamics. The definition of negative caloric balance is verifiable and exists independently of my "assumptions" and my arguments, as do the laws of thermodynamics. Note that I said "losing fat or muscle or both." Excuse me for omitting "connective tissue," I meant to include that too. If I include connective tissue, then my argument stands.

The definition of those concepts is one thing. Their applicability is another. This argument is about the latter, not the former. Hence, the issue is, indeed, circular.

Connective tissue is grouped into the category of "lean body mass" (lbm) for the purpose of this analysis in much the same way as water weight is grouped into the category of "undesirable body mass" (ubm), so it's a moot point.



Lol wut? Stop with the made-up definitions. Maybe in your mind, working with "real world" clients, water weight is identical to adipose tissue, but thats not what this debate is about. We are talking about anabolic and catabolic physiological processes that store and release energy from the body respectively and how to account for those changes in energy. "For all intents and purposes" except for the one at hand. And don't try to change this into "See, you are making my point for me, thats what I've been saying all along." For purposes of the discussion of the energy balance equations and its usefullness as a model for body (re)composition, water weight and fat mass are two totally seperate things.

You're not disagreeing with anything I wrote in the above paragraph, are you? I'll say it again: For the purpose of body composition, water and fat are identical.

Do you want to discuss water and fat in a context other than body composition - say, cell-level physiology? Fine, then don't respond to the latter pertaining to body composition, but rather, address the claim that I made right after it. That's simple enough to do, isn't it?


No. Not unless we believe in your made-up definitions, and we certainly do not.

Not much of a rebuttal, I'm afraid. If you refuse to accept my definitions, then this argument cannot proceed.



I don't give a **** about the "popular interpretation of the model." I've never said anything good about that "popular interpretation," and I've been talking about the enhanced model this whole time. Besides that, its completely disingenuous of you to argue against the strawman "cals in = cals out" model when several of us have already posted the enhanced model.

The expanded model still delivers the same incomplete or erroneous verdict as the simple model in that the added variables in the former cannot be meaningfully quantified, whereas people do quantify routinely their caloric intake and expenditure (even if they do it inaccurately).

Thus, for all its added complexity, the expanded model ends up being used exactly the same way as the basic model, because when you eliminate all the variables that can't be measured, all you're left with is still: calories in vs out

That's why the popular interpretation of the models matter.



Just stopping you here for a moment to point out that this one of several unjustified conclusory statements.

A+B =/= C. Even if B was true, which it isn't--there are ways of measuring the variables, C does not follow. The expanded model is very useful as a guide. No one is saying that we at home can plug in the variables and get a number. No criticism that you have leveled against it makes it anything less than the best currently available model for the underlying processes. I never argued that it is 100% accurate or complete or works like a math equation.

But it is absolutely no better than various other "guides" that don't take the form of equations. The point is, we have a relationship and a number of variables. You can get the information from an equation or you can get it by reading a paragraph. It doesn't make a difference.


They can be quantified. Outside the lab the model is still the best guide, the best explanation, the best tool to understand whats going on.

I don't think those variables can be accurately quantified and I disagree that the expanded model serves as the best tool for learning, judging by the number of people who are apt to interpret it as nothing more than the simple model with a few variables thrown which don't affect the outcome.



Strawman.

...is a "an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position". How did I misrepresent your position?

You wrote:
If you want to make the incompleteness argument against the energy balance equation you must admit that it applies with equal force to your argument about looking at hormones and the effects of dietary composition on hormones.

I disagreed with your contention that the incompleteness argument applied in equal measure to the hormonal model for to the reasons noted above.

Where's the strawman? There isn't one.


Educated guesses? Completely inferior to the expanded model. I'll take the model plus educated guesses, thank you. Educated guesses, as I've explained before, are ancillary.

Educated guesses are capable of producing results, whereas the expanded model is not. If you disagree, show me how you'd plug in the numbers for the variables in the expanded model to arrive at a conclusion.


Things can be quantified. If they aren't being quantified at home in a way that everyday people can use them, its because of limitations of techology, not the current state of knowledge in this context.

Actually, it's both, although either would be sufficient to prove my point.


Once again, placebo effect and researcher bias.

And once again, controls are only one aspect of the scientific process.

As one "threat" to the integrity of the process is eliminated, another surfaces. For example, the more effort is exerted in "controlling" an experiment, the greater the likelyhood that its designers will pick the wrong thing to study - thus ending up with a superbly controlled, meaningless result that does not answer the question they set out to answer. Nothing comes for free - to eliminate "bias and validity threats", sacrifices must be made in other areas.

[Al Shades]

Another strawman.

Another mischaracterization, I'm afraid. The term you may be searching for is red herring, although that, too, would be a false characterization.

You said this:
I want to know what the relevant literature says, and, when it is incomplete, I'll go ask people for explanations in their own words to fill in what remains of the gaps. It is a legitimate process of inquiry, but it is no substitute for the scientific method and its built-in controls.

I said this:
Those types of personal anecdotes are exactly what I seek out. I want to know, in peoples' own words, what worked for them and what didn't. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a legitimate process of inquiry.

Both of us were stating our personal preferences with respect to the type of information we seek out. The statements I made above were intended to clarify those preferences. There is no strawman, I did not misrepresent your argument, I merely expanded on my own argument.



If its a "MAJOR" problem for the current model and its "completely unsolvable" then its a problem for all models, even your weasly "educated guess" model. Which, by the way is contained in your head, completely amorphous to those of us who are not you, and therefore is saved from scrutiny or verification by other people. You can't "disprove" something if you can't critically examine it.

No, to the contrary, it's a problem only for models which require reproducible trials, which mine does not. You see, the primary criterion of my model is that it produces not reproducible trials, but actual results. This is what I was telling you earlier in the "philosophy of science" context.

My model isn't any more amorphous than the subjective experience of the millions of researchers who claim to subscribe to the scientific method. You don't think that each and every one of them operates in exactly the same way, do you?

You can critically examine my model by the variables which I've cited as being a part of it.


*YAWN* You are so far away from the original argument. I may be a future determinist, but that doesn't change the way that I behave within the society and environment into which I was born. Your philosophical nominalism ("nominalism") will get you no where in your "educated guesses" or in working with clients. Its not applicable here. Its the farthest thing from "real world" applicability that anyone has said in this entire thread.

Read above.



Ought implies can.

You place so much emphasis on seemingly strange issues and argue the way that you do because you want to sound smarter than you are, confuse everyone else, and create artificial hurdles for those debating you. Bringing up your philosophical nominalism and empiricism is irrelevant in this context, distracting, and intentionally misleading.

I don't know the context in which "ought implies can" is made and my references to philosophy are absolutely not distracting or misleading, they are entirely on-topic.


Bolded: NOT on this issue the way it was laid out in the interview and then the way that the interview was used by you in your argument.

You should have made the thread without citing his anecdote, except that his anecdote is an integral piece of your argument.

My argument doesn't rest on AC's anecdote. I cited it only because it confirms my own beliefs. In general, I don't like arguing by reference and citation, but by logic. You are free to disregard the anecdote but then you still have the rest of my argument to deal with.

[Al Shades]

He is not "living proof" of anything. Why more unwarranted conclusions and distractions? See his post below.

His post doesn't refute anything. Anyone who can stay over 200 lbs. at 2,000 calories a day for even a month is living proof of the folly of metabolic equations.



Strictly speaking they did.

Strictly speaking they didn't. Caloric content is not equivalent to food quantity and they could have simply added more calorie dense foods to their diet while reducing their total food consumption.

Furthermore, to "knowingly reduce calories", one has to know what calories are and be able to measure them accurately. These people didn't. As I said, they ate less food, which caused them to burn more energy than they took in, which caused their body to metabolize some of its tissues for energy and decreased their weight correspondingly.


He doesn't have to admit anything. No more unjustified conclusions.

He may not have to admit it but it's true all the same. You don't have to have any idea what the hell a calorie is to simply consume less food and lose weight.


Doesn't matter in terms of the bigger argument.

Who says it was meant to apply to the biggest argument? All I said was, you have to admit these people made no conscious effort to reduce calories, and thats 100% true.


Measureable and quantifiable. Stop masquerading your own biased assumptions as fact. And, if you want to play around with the definition of the word "precisely" then go ahead, but its not going to invalidate any arguments on this "side" of the debate.

"Measurable and quantifiable" is not a response to what I wrote. I have no idea what you're trying to say.



Strawman, strawman, strawman. No one in this thread who is a rational, thinking person made the argument that we can use the model in every day life as if it was a mathematical equation to spit out numbers--thats why we call it a model. Its a guide, one tool in the toolbox, and, even if it can't be used as a calculation, its still more useful than your "educated guesses."

That's exactly what the person to whom I was responding implied:

"you said that cals in vs cals out isnt good for normal every day eople?? ive heard of SOOOOOO many people losing weight JUST by reducing their calorie intake and eating healthy instead of junk food.

but its probably because of how it affected their hormones and not the reduced calorie intake?"



Bottom line, the energy balance equation, in its updated and expanded form, is the best model that we have for explaining changes or lack thereof in body composition.

Any model that can and is often reduced to "calories in vs out" is accurate, incomplete, and woefully inadequate.

As stated previously, the expanded model adds nothing new in the way of variables that haven't been proposed before by multiple authors.

[nano.ix]

Could you explain your theory on this on your 'logic'. You haven't reasoned anything or explained how things would work, yet you say your views come from logic.

[Al Shades]

Could you explain your theory on this on your 'logic'. You haven't reasoned anything or explained how things would work, yet you say your views come from logic.

Did you follow and read every link that I posted on this thread?

I get tired of repeating myself.

Diana Schwarzbein.

Armed with google, that name alone should tell you everything you need to know.

[nano.ix]

Did you follow and read every link that I posted on this thread?

I get tired of repeating myself.

Diana Schwarzbein.

Armed with google, that name alone should tell you everything you need to know.

Yes I have, but you said your views come from your logic and reasoning. I want to hear you explain your point on the matter instead of just saying 'look at this'.

If you want to negate 'science' and go on a completly 'philosophical/logical' front, I'm game ... just give me your rational.

[Al Shades]

Yes I have, but you said your views come from your logic and reasoning. I want to hear you explain your point on the matter instead of just saying 'look at this'.

If you want to negate 'science' and go on a completly 'philosophical/logical' front, I'm game ... just give me your rational.

But I've done that, too. I'll have to dig through my post history for that.

What topic, specifically, are you interested in reading about?

"Calories in vs out" as regards weight changes only? Or as regards body composition? Because they are different topics, and I've written about both.

I don't think I've ever articulated all of my views on the caloric model in one place. Much of what I write is taken from alternative and progressive medicine. I seek to unite "mainstream" bodybuilding thought (i.e. the dominant schools of thought on boards such as this one) with progressive health topics that make sense and would appeal to bodybuilders.

I'm opposed to mainstream medicine and mainstream dogma regarding health/fitness/nutrition, so much of my effort is spent on trying to convince the bodybuilding crowd not to rely on the latter for advice, as my sig attests.

Rather than relying on doctors and medical associations who work with the old and frail, I think athletes and bodybuilders should obtain information from progressive minded physicians who operate at the fringes of their profession. I try to obtain information from the "cutting edge". Sometimes that means looking at the latest advances in a conservative field, while other times it means discarding establishment propaganda in favor of time-tested anecdotes.

I am constantly on the lookout for any statements made by reputable "establishment" figures that would place them in this category.

I endorse: Fat consumption, particularly from saturated fats, low carb dieting for fat loss, strength training as a superior form of exercise to aerobic training, machine isolation training as the most effective form of exercise for hypertrophy, the theory of fluid vs. contractile hypertrophy, the theory of strength as an unknown quality, hormonal testing, vitamin and mineral assessment and supplementation to restore optimal health and performance, steroid hormone supplementation for optimal health and performance, the concept of glandular dysfunctions as legitimate medical conditions capable of treatment through dietary modification, raw milk.

I oppose: Aerobic exercise and all endurance sports, mainstream doctors, symptom-based drug therapy, any low fat, high carb or low protein diet, vegetable diets, soy foods, stimulant consumption, excessive otc or rx drug use, most non-hormonal bodybuilding supplements (vitamins and minerals don't count, they are for health not performance) because they don't work, core training, functional training, dirty bulking, the bulk/cut paradigm, the concept of bodybuilding stage shows, anabolic insulin spikes, pubmed and the entire cult of scientism built around double-blind research studies, professional dieticians and nutritionists who are certified by the government and endorse the government-recommended low fat high carb diet.

The Good Names: Weston Price, Charles Poliquin, Atkins, Keto, Anabolic Diet, Diana Schwarzbein, Adrenal Fatigue, James Wilson, Carb Cycling

The Bad Names: AMA, FDA, USDA, ADA, "good fats" (a misleading term meant which applies only to plant fats when animal fats are the best kind), any governmental health/nutrition organization

This would probably be simpler if you just interrogated me in question-and-answer format.

[nano.ix]

Just want to zoom in on this:


"Calories in vs out" as regards weight changes only? Or as regards body composition? Because they are different topics, and I've written about both.

Strictly speaking Cin vs Cout is only concidering weight change. This is something we can both agree on to the fullest right? The problem I find is that when people say Cin = Cout as the be-all end-all, they don't articulate the reasoning very well b/c they leave out the three small words "essential dietary requirements".

Without meeting your EDR's your body composition is pretty chaotic as what your deficient in will create alternations.

... I'll leave it at that to hear the response instead of writing more off the bat (tired :o).

[signature166]

Before you answer anything else, I would like you to address my concerns with respect to your post that is quoted below. I missed this earlier because I was in a hurry, but your entire argument rests on the answers that you can provide to my questions about your post:


But that's the whole point. Hormones matter. A person's hormonal state is the primary determinant of his ability to gain or lose weight and the body composition he is capable of achieving. That is what I, Alwyn, Pat Arnold, and Diana Schwarzbein (endocrinologist cited by Charles Poliquin) have been saying.

How do you even know what hormones are? How do you name them and differentiate them? How did you come to know about how different foods, different macronutrients, affect hormone levels? How do you know what hormones produce what effects in the body? How do you know that certain hormones affect body composition? How do you know that food affects hormones which then affect body composition?

Through science as I conceive it? Or somehow through your kind of "science"? I am very curious as to how you will answer these questions.


It depends on the context. In some cases, yes, though not all. You have to look at the whole picture. If someone is unable to gain or lose, I'd look at their hormones first before telling them to adjust calories. Dietary composition matters because foods are capable of influencing hormones.

By the way, there are plenty of theories that work equally well on paper and in the real world. Calories in vs out just isn't one of them.


Once again, how you you know that hormones affect body composition, and how you know that foods are capable of influencing hormones?



It's too bad, for your own sake, that you don't care about my philosophical beliefs, because everything that I write is grounded in them. They are completely, entirely relevant to this discussion and every discussion I partake in as they form the basis for my reasoning. Everything that I say can be reduced to these basic principles.

What you call my attempt to "redefine" terms is a simple disagreement over definitions, which is a very basic point of contention in most arguments (indeed, some arguments consist of nothing more than that).

I absolutely can and will question YOUR definitions and understanding of certain terms; that is one of the principle reasons for having a forum such as this one, in my understanding.

It's impossible to engage in a meaningful debate without first coming to an agreement on definitions; that much you seem to understand.

However, you seem to think that I should eschew my own definitions in favor of yours, a contention which I absolutely reject on principle.

I'm afraid you don't get to pick my argument for me. If I choose to argue certain issues on philosophical grounds, (as a perusal of my post history would affirm that I often do), then so be it.

Sometimes - frequently, even - there is nothing more to an argument, when it is reduced to its most basic premises, than a simple disagreement over definitions. That is precisely the point that I am trying to hammer.

The whole reason why I brought up my philosophical views is that I realized we had such a disagreement on our hands.

I'm not ignant of philosophy. I studied some of it in undergrad. I understand the importance of definitions. I've read some papers that began with 10 pages of definitions before any arguing was done. I enjoyed metaphysics the most, but that's probably because my professor was charismatic in a nerdy way.

I'm glad that you found a set of philosophical priniciples that resonate with you and shape your worldview. Its nice to have a foundation from which to argue on any subject. A solid foundation plus a deep understanding of logic makes you a formidable opponent in any argument. I'm not going to argue against the set of principles that you have chosen. I'm sure that someone who is as well-versed in logic and epistemology as you are could choose a set of principles that argue against your principles, and that his principles are equally valid. The two of you could then argue to a standstill on every topic under the sun. This is one of the reasons why I have difficultly with Justice Scalia's SCOTUS opinions because his reasoning is usually flawless, but I often object to his conclusions nonetheless because of my adherence to a different set of foundational principles of Constitutional interpretation.

I recognize that our disagreement on definitions applies to the argument at hand in that at some fundamental level you disagree with the framework within which I'm arguing, and you propose an alternate framework which if applied to the available data would alter all of my conclusions. I accept that possibility, but reject that your objections to my framework are valid in this context. The model is still useful as a guide to understanding changes in body composition, even if you disagree with how it was created and what it represents.


Get it now? It wasn't evenly slightly irrelevant - it is, to the contrary, the single most relevant issue posted yet on this thread.

The thread continues to be about the usefullness of the model. Your philosophical beliefs about the acquisition of knowledge are not helpful in explaining why the model is useless. You could have made your entire argument without ever mentioning any of your definitions, but you chose to anyway.


Not in the slightest. This is precisely what science is. Your objection denotes your adherence to an objective world view, whereas my own world view is subjective. That is the root of the disagreement.

That may be the root of the disagreement in your mind, but not in the minds of everyone you are arguing with. If you mean objectivity in the strict philosophical sense, then you essentially reject everything that has been discovered using the scientific method. Though I understand the objectivity-subjectivity debate in analytic philosophy, I reject it out of hand as useless in this context. If you choose to continue further in this direction, I'm done.


That's immaterial to what I wrote, because faithful applications of the scientific method have also resulted in conclusions that have been discarded.

As a personal point, I don't accept any one study as proving anything, nor a metanalysis or review of the literature as proving anything. I accept the weight of the evidence over time--studies carried out on the same topic again and again until a clear picture begins to emerge, but I am always open to new evidence that has better explanatory and predictive power. The energy balance model has these qualities that other currently existing models lack.


Trouble is, as one "threat" to the integrity of the process is eliminated, another surfaces. For example, the more effort is exerted in "controlling" an experiment, the greater the likelyhood that its designers will pick the wrong thing to study - thus ending up with a superbly controlled, meaningless result that does not answer the question they set out to answer. Nothing comes for free - to eliminate "bias and validity threats", sacrifices must be made in other areas.

Re: the bolded text above--If you are going to say "For example," then please be so kind as to provide us with a real example of what you are talking about.

Please tell me about some of these "sacrifices."


The scientific method is a MODEL and the purpose of any model is to facilitate understanding of a certain concept or to bring about useful RESULTS.

The expanded energy balance equation model facilitates understanding better than any other model that has been proposed.


Insofar as the above is true, every single time someone accomplishes something that he intended to do (whether tying his shoes or designing a jumbo jet) and accomplishes that task WITHOUT relying on the model in its entirety, it basically demonstrates the insufficiency of said model.

How do you design a jumbo jet without using several complicated and related models? Someone doing something without relying on a model in its entirety merely shows that there are other models and other ways of doing things, but it doesn't say that one model is insufficient for achieving the same goal.


The "final test" is whether or not something WORKS - in real life - not whether you have an impressive looking study on paper that doesn't tell you anything useful.

Double-blind placebo-controlled peer-reviewed trials take place in real life. They are designed, conducted, statisticized, written, reviewed, and published by real people. The test subjects are also real people who exist in the real world in real life. An individual study always shows that the methods chosen worked to produce the result. Studies themselves aren't paper and words, but rather methods and a procedure that produce data from which conclusions are drawn, and all of it is recorded on paper.



Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is all about.

Science is a tool, and as a tool, it serves its master. You are letting the tool become your master.

I am using the tool the way that it was designed. I am using the tool that works best compared to all of the other tools available. I choose to use one tool, but if someone else showed me a better tool, I would use it instead. That's where you are fundamentally misunderstanding my views about the scientific method.


The "final result" of a study isn't the conclusion that is reached at the end and published in some database: it is the application of that conclusion in some novel and useful way. Any study that fails to accomplish the latter can truly be considered worthless.

No. If people fail to accomplish using the study "in some novel and useful way" it doesn't say that the study itself it useless because a study may only reveal one piece of a complex puzzle that requires other studies to complete it. This happens rather frequently. Some studies never accomplish application of their conclusions "in some novel and useful way," but serve to raise further questions that will later reveal answers that can be applied as you describe, or help to better focus the search and refine the questions being asked.


Research and information-gathering methods are a means to an end. That end is progress, improvement.

Science as I understand it has contributed plenty to progress and improvement.



Congratulations - you may not have conquered the fortress, but you now have it in sight.

GTFO


It *is* circular because we are questioning the applicability of such laws to body composition changes in real world scenarios; that's what the entire discussion is about.

No. Being in a caloric deficit means one thing and one thing only. Its meaning doesn't change in different contexts.

[signature166]

The definition of those concepts is one thing. Their applicability is another. This argument is about the latter, not the former. Hence, the issue is, indeed, circular.

No, once again. Caloric deficit means caloric deficit. If you choose to redefine those terms too, then I'm not playing anymore and I'm taking my toys home with me.


You're not disagreeing with anything I wrote in the above paragraph, are you? I'll say it again: For the purpose of body composition, water and fat are identical.

Do you want to discuss water and fat in a context other than body composition - say, cell-level physiology? Fine, then don't respond to the latter pertaining to body composition, but rather, address the claim that I made right after it. That's simple enough to do, isn't it?

Cell-level physiology is inseparable from metabolism, and, in an earlier post, you said we are talking about metabolism.


Not much of a rebuttal, I'm afraid. If you refuse to accept my definitions, then this argument cannot proceed.

Then the argument cannot proceed. You want to pretend you are playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers. Whether you're an empirical nominalist or not, you're still playing with yourself.


The expanded model still delivers the same incomplete or erroneous verdict as the simple model in that the added variables in the former cannot be meaningfully quantified, whereas people do quantify routinely their caloric intake and expenditure (even if they do it inaccurately).

They can be meaningfully quantified in a controlled study in a metabolic lab. They can be measured by currently available technology. You being disingenous if you accept inaccurate quantification of caloric intake while rejecting the "incomplete or erroneous" result from the expanded model because "it cannot be meaningfully quantified." Your example of people inaccurately quantifying their caloric intake and expenditure fails to meet the standards which you require the expanded model to meet.


Thus, for all its added complexity, the expanded model ends up being used exactly the same way as the basic model, because when you eliminate all the variables that can't be measured, all you're left with is still: calories in vs out

Once again, you can measure the variables with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Second, ability to measure the variables themselves because of limitations of technology and personal resources says nothing about the usefullness of the model as a guide for seeking out answers.


That's why the popular interpretation of the models matter.

Wrong again. I don't care what someone who doesn't understand the model thinks about the model.


But it is absolutely no better than various other "guides" that don't take the form of equations. The point is, we have a relationship and a number of variables. You can get the information from an equation or you can get it by reading a paragraph. It doesn't make a difference.

The paragraph is a different form of representing the same concepts represented by the equation. One model, two ways of representing it.


I don't think those variables can be accurately quantified and I disagree that the expanded model serves as the best tool for learning, judging by the number of people who are apt to interpret it as nothing more than the simple model with a few variables thrown which don't affect the outcome.

I don't care about the people who don't understand it. There are those of us who try our best to understand it so we can help those who don't. Once again, not a fault of the model. Oversimplifying a complex process because people don't understand it doesn't serve any useful purpose. Even if your educated guess model is simple and effective, its based on an understanding of the complex underlying processes.


I disagreed with your contention that the incompleteness argument applied in equal measure to the hormonal model for to the reasons noted above.

As a point of fact, you never laid out the hormonal argument in any of your posts in this thread. If you linked to a bunch of other external sources that explain the model, it doesn't count in my mind.


Educated guesses are capable of producing results, whereas the expanded model is not. If you disagree, show me how you'd plug in the numbers for the variables in the expanded model to arrive at a conclusion.

I already addressed the issue of "plug[ging] in numbers." An "educated guess" is merely an educated guess and will not produce results any faster than the energy balance model except with the help of luck, and I don't care about luck or chance.


But I've done that, too. I'll have to dig through my post history for that.

What topic, specifically, are you interested in reading about?

"Calories in vs out" as regards weight changes only? Or as regards body composition? Because they are different topics, and I've written about both.

Links or nothing.


I don't think I've ever articulated all of my views on the caloric model in one place. Much of what I write is taken from alternative and progressive medicine. I seek to unite "mainstream" bodybuilding thought (i.e. the dominant schools of thought on boards such as this one) with progressive health topics that make sense and would appeal to bodybuilders.

Wtf are alternative and progressive medicine?


I'm opposed to mainstream medicine and mainstream dogma regarding health/fitness/nutrition, so much of my effort is spent on trying to convince the bodybuilding crowd not to rely on the latter for advice, as my sig attests.

I am also opposed to mainstream medicine and mainstream dogma regarding health/fitness/nutrition, but that says nothing about the relevant, quality studies that are indexed on pubmed.


Rather than relying on doctors and medical associations who work with the old and frail

You don't have to rely on those people. There are plenty of studies on healthy people, recreationally trained people, and athletes, but you have to look for them, they won't come looking for you.


I think athletes and bodybuilders should obtain information from progressive minded physicians who operate at the fringes of their profession. I try to obtain information from the "cutting edge". Sometimes that means looking at the latest advances in a conservative field, while other times it means discarding establishment propaganda in favor of time-tested anecdotes.

I want to know more about these "time-tested anecdotes" and how they were tested and why you think they are effective? Whats the mechanism of action?


I am constantly on the lookout for any statements made by reputable "establishment" figures that would place them in this category.

Me too. But then they say something self-serving and erroneous and I go back to ignoring them.


I endorse: Fat consumption, particularly from saturated fats,

Me too. This is something I want to comment on specifically. "Mainstream" medicine may still be crapping on saturated fats, but the evidence from the studies and the reviews of studies shows otherwise. The best reviews out there show that saturated fats have no effect or a positive effect on the diseases they supposably cause. People continue to choose to believe what they want to believe because cognitive dissonance is difficult to deal with.


low carb dieting for fat loss

For the right people in the right situation.


strength training as a superior form of exercise to aerobic training

Generally speaking, yes.


machine isolation training as the most effective form of exercise for hypertrophy

This is debatable, but I would agree that there is no convincing evidence to show that free weights are better for purposes of stimulating muscular hypertrophy.


the theory of fluid vs. contractile hypertrophy[/quote[

I'm not sure that this is an entirely accurate characterization of the issue, but I am open to being influenced on this issue.

[QUOTE=Al Shades;371007071]the theory of strength as an unknown quality

I'm not familiar with this idea. Could you tell me more or link me somewhere? Thank you.


hormonal testing, vitamin and mineral assessment and supplementation to restore optimal health and performance, steroid hormone supplementation for optimal health and performance, the concept of glandular dysfunctions as legitimate medical conditions capable of treatment through dietary modification, raw milk.

I would like to know more about those too. I guess you'll say to search your post history and your links.


I oppose: Aerobic exercise and all endurance sports

I don't oppose them, but I don't think they are particularly enjoyable or useful to me.



mainstream doctors, symptom-based drug therapy, any low fat, high carb or low protein diet, vegetable diets, soy foods, stimulant consumption, excessive otc or rx drug use, most non-hormonal bodybuilding supplements (vitamins and minerals don't count, they are for health not performance) because they don't work, core training, functional training, dirty bulking, the bulk/cut paradigm, the concept of bodybuilding stage shows, anabolic insulin spikes,

I agree with some of the above, but I won't "throw the baby out with the bathwater."


pubmed and the entire cult of scientism built around double-blind research studies

We will continue to disagree on this point, probably forever.


professional dieticians and nutritionists who are certified by the government and endorse the government-recommended low fat high carb diet.

Yes, many of them are complete idiots in spite of all of their years of schooling.


The Good Names: Weston Price, Charles Poliquin, Atkins, Keto, Anabolic Diet, Diana Schwarzbein, Adrenal Fatigue, James Wilson, Carb Cycling

Hhmmm.....


The Bad Names: AMA, FDA, USDA, ADA, "good fats" (a misleading term meant which applies only to plant fats when animal fats are the best kind), any governmental health/nutrition organization

Yeah, ummm....maybe. I've found that some of these organizations know better, and specifically people within these organizations know better, but they release information that caters to the lowest common denominator, thus their output is generally in the form of oversimplification which is further perverted by the quality of reporting in the popular mediums of communication.


This would probably be simpler if you just interrogated me in question-and-answer format.

Simpler? I doubt it.

[alan aragon]

I think the crux of the disagreement here is that Al's standard of evidence is far lower than what replicated RCTs can tell us. I see a lot of appeals to authority, and a lot of selective skepticism. I see a lot of dogmatism, and frankly a lot of nuttiness. Looking to Poliquin for nutritional education is a cardinal sign of a pathological attraction to voodoo. I agree that your list of "the bad names" deserves a lot of criticism. But, for you to selectively miss the BS-mongering in your "good names" list simply shows that you need to do some more objective investigating.

[dimasso69]

Just want to zoom in on this:


Strictly speaking Cin vs Cout is only concidering weight change. This is something we can both agree on to the fullest right? The problem I find is that when people say Cin = Cout as the be-all end-all, they don't articulate the reasoning very well b/c they leave out the three small words "essential dietary requirements".

Without meeting your EDR's your body composition is pretty chaotic as what your deficient in will create alternations.

... I'll leave it at that to hear the response instead of writing more off the bat (tired :o).

Exactly..As far as i know..which i know isn't all that much, but would it be wrong to say once you get EFA's, sufficent nutrients for your body, and a sufficent amount of protein for yourself you can fit in whatever else does for your daily allowence of calories. Now my question is, how do you figure out these needs? I know one should eat a lot of fruit and veges, but how do you really know if your getting enough micronutrients in one's diet?

[nano.ix]

So ... Al ran off? No rebutal? :(

[signature166]

So ... Al ran off? No rebutal? :(

He said he would refuse to continue if I rejected his definitions.

[nano.ix]

He said he would refuse to continue if I rejected his definitions.

Jerk :mad:

[signature166]

Jerk :mad:

I'm sad. I really want to see his answer to the first question of my last post.

[nano.ix]

I'm sad. I really want to see his answer to the first question of my last post.

Alternative and progressive medicine's are awesome bro :D

[Mighty-Boosh]

Not going to read everything but i want to post what has happened with me personally (yes i agree everyone is different)

For me Calories in vs Calories out is complete nonsense, just doesn't apply to me (I believe not others aswell, but for the sake of the story i'll stick with me).

For the longest time i was eating 3500 calories a day and keeping to it quite strictly for a period of a year. I gained decent lost a little fat in the process i was pretty happy. My split was about 36/36/28, P/C/F. (According to fitday)

Starting doing a lot of reading on "alternative" websites about nutrition, read some books by Cordain and Weston Price and decided hell i'll try something new.

So on to try the new diet, after a week of eating on it i was curious as to what my total caloric intake was and my macro split. I was up at 5,000 calories a day on a 65/27/8 split F/P/C. (again according to fitday)

All my carb sources were either fruit or vegetables, ate lots of meat full fat, lean whatever. Ton of nuts, coconut oils, raw milk cheeses.

Since i was eating 1500 calories more a day and i was maintaining at 3500 on my old diet over the last two months i according the cals in/out rule should have gained 24 pounds be it muscle or fat.

In fact almost the opposite occurred, over the last 2 months i have in fact lost 15 pounds and much of that was fat and maybe a little muscle since i haven't been able to train much due to an injury.

So for me personally cals in/out just doesn't cut it.

[signature166]

Not going to read everything but i want to post what has happened with me personally (yes i agree everyone is different)

For me Calories in vs Calories out is complete nonsense, just doesn't apply to me (I believe not others aswell, but for the sake of the story i'll stick with me).

For the longest time i was eating 3500 calories a day and keeping to it quite strictly for a period of a year. I gained decent lost a little fat in the process i was pretty happy. My split was about 36/36/28, P/C/F. (According to fitday)

Starting doing a lot of reading on "alternative" websites about nutrition, read some books by Cordain and Weston Price and decided hell i'll try something new.

So on to try the new diet, after a week of eating on it i was curious as to what my total caloric intake was and my macro split. I was up at 5,000 calories a day on a 65/27/8 split F/P/C. (again according to fitday)

All my carb sources were either fruit or vegetables, ate lots of meat full fat, lean whatever. Ton of nuts, coconut oils, raw milk cheeses.

Since i was eating 1500 calories more a day and i was maintaining at 3500 on my old diet over the last two months i according the cals in/out rule should have gained 24 pounds be it muscle or fat.

In fact almost the opposite occurred, over the last 2 months i have in fact lost 15 pounds and much of that was fat and maybe a little muscle since i haven't been able to train much due to an injury.

So for me personally cals in/out just doesn't cut it.

Oh, ok. In that case I take back everything I wrote in this thread.

[Mighty-Boosh]

Oh, ok. In that case I take back everything I wrote in this thread.

I haven't yet got to read much of this thread, so much walls of text and a bit busy atm, but i just wanted to share what has happened with me personally and i very much respect your opinion on the matter and would like to hear what you think about my personal case.

[gjohnson5]

so hormones play no role in body composition? lulz

you have so much to learn as do we all. if there is one thing that cannot be disputed it would be this statement, "hormones run our bodies and our world"

I agree, that certainly not the case
However in order to induce changes in metabolism large enough, you would need to take an injectible potent enough (tr-en for example) to induce those changes.

In a natural user, I would say no. Not unless they got a sever burn or are fasting....

[Al Swearengen]

I agree, that certainly not the case
However in order to induce changes in metabolism large enough, you would need to take an injectible potent enough (tr-en for example) to induce those changes.

In a natural user, I would say no. Not unless they got a sever burn or are fasting....

well it works both ways and in this case it works against us when our hormonal levels react to an ever diminishing amount of calories to the point where sparing muscle on what were are eating in order to still loose fat becomes ever diminishing and we have to do something to reset things or just continue reducing cals until lean mass and fat are being burned equally.

[dustinlima]

While it's an adequate system, the right hand side of the eqn (cals out / accumulation) need some work

[signature166]

While it's an adequate system, the right hand side of the eqn (cals out / accumulation) need some work

you're mom need some work

[Al Shades]

I ran out of time to reply to the lengthy posts in this thread, but I plan to get to them. In the meantime, I'll add this:

"It is now known that the energy liberated from the combustion of a food is not identical to the energy available to the body from consumption of that food. This is the concept of "metabolizable energy," or the difference between the gross energy (as measured by bomb calorimetry) of consumed food and the energy contained in feces and urine (also measured by bomb calorimetry)."

-American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Sounds just like the posts I quoted by Pat Arnold. Same conclusion, different methods of getting there. One used controlled studies, the other used logical reasoning combined with anecdotal experience.


a person can reduce calories and take an anabolic steroid and gain muscle and bodyweight. i have seen it happen. i have seen it happen to myself

look up the term "feed efficiency".


ONe thing people always forget

in addition to the factor of calories in, and metabolic rate, is the issue of nutrient utilization.

Bodies can vary greatly in their ability to process, store, and utilize calories in food. Some people can eat 1000 calories a day and derive 1000 calories of energy from it while others are so inefficient at digestion, assimilation, and metabolism of food that they have to ingest maybe 2000 calories of food to get 1000 calories of energy

they have done studies with anabolic steroids and shown that they do not really raise the metabolic rate measurably. However, animals can take steroids and eat the same amount of food that control animals do yet gain alot more weight? What is going on here? Its nutrient utilization, feed efficiency, call it what you will

This is why the advice "just eat more" is poor. Sometimes eating smarter can put more weight on you then just eating more. Also, the advice of having to eat more to gain weight from steroids is wrong.

[Al Shades]

Doctors need to be "trained" like little children...

"Medical education is extremely intense, and extremely broad. It has to be. That said, there is a lot it doesn't cover. We learn the atomic structure of every amino acid (most of us promptly forget all of this after the biochemistry final). We learn the equations for cardiovascular physiology. We learn the branches of every nerve, the origin and attachment for every muscle in the human body.

But we don't learn the basics of healthy nutrition. We don't learn about cardiovascular and musculoskeletal adaptations and responses to exercise. We don't learn about how insulin facilitates the utilization of protein and creatine.

We don't even learn what all of those muscles in the body actually do. We don't learn about the difference between myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Or the training effect of high versus low reps.

Heck, most doctors aren't even aware of the concept of High Intensity Interval Training, let alone how much more effective it is than steady-state cardio."

"Doctors have a lot of opinions on diet and exercise. Weight training isn't healthy. Weight training hurts your heart. You'll destroy your joints. Squats are bad for the knees. Deadlifting is bad for the back. You should only do light weight and high reps. You're too heavy and will die of heart disease and diabetes unless you lose some weight. You're destroying your kidneys with all that protein. Creatine is bad for you. The only exercise you need is cardio. I could go on for days."
-Nikhil Rao, Medical Resident

"To put it bluntly, however, most MDs I've seen post-injury were huge disappointments. Without an MRI (and believe me, you won't get one as expeditiously as your favorite NFL player), their guess of the extent of your injury is only slightly better than yours ... but a lot more expensive." - Jack Reape, T-Nation

"I have seen this several times in my own bad experiences with the many doctors I have been to in my life. I once had a uro PA who kept saying he examined me in his notes (which I got later) and it was boiler plate bull*** (maybe from another patient, eg ""his abdominal exam is benign, no CVA tenderness nor flank masses, the liver and spleen are non palpable"", etc), and he never touched me, other to give me my regular prostate massage and check the secretion. IMO that is bordering on incompetence. The sad part is if you ever had to go to court for something for whatever reason, a judge is going to believe the damn doctor's notes (whether typed after dictation or handwritten by the doctor). The medical arena is viewed as god, but it is far from that."

"your doctor sounds like a fuking quack "yeah most of my patients complain about feeling like **** for a third of their TRT treatment cycle. I'm satisfied with these results and really don't think there is any room for improvement." Man I could design a better TRT regimen than what that lady is giving you."

I might just have to scrape together the cash to see Dr Crisler. All of the local docs seem to be ignorant to this field of medicine[HRT]. It's really pretty pathetic?

"My PCP did some really stupid things with me (1 shot/ month to start) before I got him trained, but eventually we're thinking along the same lines. He was worried about testosterone spiking lipid levels and when he saw that I my LDL wasn't going to go crazy, he became more reasonable.

If her ultimate destination with treatment is one shot every 3 weeks simply because that is ""her protocol"", then dump her before you waste any more time. If she is satisfied with ""most of her patients...getting worse until getting the next one"", she isn't worth working with. If, she plans on ramping up to weekly injections and has good reasons to start slowly, then you may want to stick it out.

If she is willing to read the stuff you provide as mine was, you might take her on as a charity case. Some physicians are actually trainable.

If you provide articles, highlight them. They are more likely to read the highlights than the whole article. -ProfBush, BB.com"

LL: "I just wrote a scientific review about the huge disconnect that exists between academic textbooks and the actual published scientific literature when it comes to protein and athletes. This is the first time anyone has ever objectively looked at the anti-protein messages out there in some textbooks and certain personal-training manuals.

I was absolutely shocked at some of the language that's been used: Protein is hard on the kidneys, it weakens bones, it's high in saturated fat ? you guys have heard it all before"

Lonnie Lowery: Again, I know all this sounds really old hat to your readers, but you have to understand how dissuasive the anti-protein language is in both academia and the dietetics setting.

Just like there's racism and sexism, there appears to be a kind of 'nutrientism' held against protein that should be applied to carbs and fats as well. I've actually heard very well-respected educators say things like 'those dumb weight-training meatheads and their extra protein.'

TN: "Would you say that in some of these bigger certification programs the pendulum has finally started to swing away from carbs, and more toward the primacy of fat and protein?

Lonnie Lowery: That's an interesting question. I think for most Testosterone Muscle readers this is all really old news, but you'd be surprised at how often even the most enlightened academics still see fat and protein as kind of second-rate. I'm hoping my most recent work will help start to remedy that."

"Just about every contributor we have who's an RD (along with being PhDs) will tell you the same thing: most dietitians know dick.

I think it was Berardi or maybe Lowery who wrote about ""holding their nose"" and taking the test, sort of like the person who needs a personal trainer certification for a job and has to put down answers he disagrees with just to pass and get the piece of paper.

Becoming an RD is a necessary evil for many of these guys. They know they need those initials for certain organizations, magazines, companies, etc. to work with them. For others it's a first step, then they get their PhDs or what have you. And the good ones agree: RDs are way behind, and generally not to be listened to when it comes to physique improvement or performance nutrition.

As Dr. Bowden writes, 'Remember, these RD's are the same people who think the best diet for hospital patients includes white bread and Jell-o.'
-Chris Shugart"

[signature166]

Doctors need to be "trained" like little children...

"Medical education is extremely intense, and extremely broad. It has to be. That said, there is a lot it doesn't cover. We learn the atomic structure of every amino acid (most of us promptly forget all of this after the biochemistry final). We learn the equations for cardiovascular physiology. We learn the branches of every nerve, the origin and attachment for every muscle in the human body.

But we don't learn the basics of healthy nutrition. We don't learn about cardiovascular and musculoskeletal adaptations and responses to exercise. We don't learn about how insulin facilitates the utilization of protein and creatine.

We don't even learn what all of those muscles in the body actually do. We don't learn about the difference between myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Or the training effect of high versus low reps.

Heck, most doctors aren't even aware of the concept of High Intensity Interval Training, let alone how much more effective it is than steady-state cardio."

"Doctors have a lot of opinions on diet and exercise. Weight training isn't healthy. Weight training hurts your heart. You'll destroy your joints. Squats are bad for the knees. Deadlifting is bad for the back. You should only do light weight and high reps. You're too heavy and will die of heart disease and diabetes unless you lose some weight. You're destroying your kidneys with all that protein. Creatine is bad for you. The only exercise you need is cardio. I could go on for days."
-Nikhil Rao, Medical Resident

"To put it bluntly, however, most MDs I've seen post-injury were huge disappointments. Without an MRI (and believe me, you won't get one as expeditiously as your favorite NFL player), their guess of the extent of your injury is only slightly better than yours ... but a lot more expensive." - Jack Reape, T-Nation

"I have seen this several times in my own bad experiences with the many doctors I have been to in my life. I once had a uro PA who kept saying he examined me in his notes (which I got later) and it was boiler plate bull*** (maybe from another patient, eg ""his abdominal exam is benign, no CVA tenderness nor flank masses, the liver and spleen are non palpable"", etc), and he never touched me, other to give me my regular prostate massage and check the secretion. IMO that is bordering on incompetence. The sad part is if you ever had to go to court for something for whatever reason, a judge is going to believe the damn doctor's notes (whether typed after dictation or handwritten by the doctor). The medical arena is viewed as god, but it is far from that."

"your doctor sounds like a fuking quack "yeah most of my patients complain about feeling like **** for a third of their TRT treatment cycle. I'm satisfied with these results and really don't think there is any room for improvement." Man I could design a better TRT regimen than what that lady is giving you."

I might just have to scrape together the cash to see Dr Crisler. All of the local docs seem to be ignorant to this field of medicine[HRT]. It's really pretty pathetic?

"My PCP did some really stupid things with me (1 shot/ month to start) before I got him trained, but eventually we're thinking along the same lines. He was worried about testosterone spiking lipid levels and when he saw that I my LDL wasn't going to go crazy, he became more reasonable.

If her ultimate destination with treatment is one shot every 3 weeks simply because that is ""her protocol"", then dump her before you waste any more time. If she is satisfied with ""most of her patients...getting worse until getting the next one"", she isn't worth working with. If, she plans on ramping up to weekly injections and has good reasons to start slowly, then you may want to stick it out.

If she is willing to read the stuff you provide as mine was, you might take her on as a charity case. Some physicians are actually trainable.

If you provide articles, highlight them. They are more likely to read the highlights than the whole article. -ProfBush, BB.com"

LL: "I just wrote a scientific review about the huge disconnect that exists between academic textbooks and the actual published scientific literature when it comes to protein and athletes. This is the first time anyone has ever objectively looked at the anti-protein messages out there in some textbooks and certain personal-training manuals.

I was absolutely shocked at some of the language that's been used: Protein is hard on the kidneys, it weakens bones, it's high in saturated fat ? you guys have heard it all before"

Lonnie Lowery: Again, I know all this sounds really old hat to your readers, but you have to understand how dissuasive the anti-protein language is in both academia and the dietetics setting.

Just like there's racism and sexism, there appears to be a kind of 'nutrientism' held against protein that should be applied to carbs and fats as well. I've actually heard very well-respected educators say things like 'those dumb weight-training meatheads and their extra protein.'

TN: "Would you say that in some of these bigger certification programs the pendulum has finally started to swing away from carbs, and more toward the primacy of fat and protein?

Lonnie Lowery: That's an interesting question. I think for most Testosterone Muscle readers this is all really old news, but you'd be surprised at how often even the most enlightened academics still see fat and protein as kind of second-rate. I'm hoping my most recent work will help start to remedy that."

"Just about every contributor we have who's an RD (along with being PhDs) will tell you the same thing: most dietitians know dick.

I think it was Berardi or maybe Lowery who wrote about ""holding their nose"" and taking the test, sort of like the person who needs a personal trainer certification for a job and has to put down answers he disagrees with just to pass and get the piece of paper.

Becoming an RD is a necessary evil for many of these guys. They know they need those initials for certain organizations, magazines, companies, etc. to work with them. For others it's a first step, then they get their PhDs or what have you. And the good ones agree: RDs are way behind, and generally not to be listened to when it comes to physique improvement or performance nutrition.

As Dr. Bowden writes, 'Remember, these RD's are the same people who think the best diet for hospital patients includes white bread and Jell-o.'
-Chris Shugart"

Blah blah blah blah blah...you never answered the first question in my last post.

[Al Shades]

Blah blah blah blah blah...you never answered the first question in my last post.

Because I haven't gotten around to it yet.

[illninofan21]

Personally, I think it works up until a certain point.

If you're looking to get to 12-15% body fat, then look no further.

If you want to go lower, then it might take something else.

[signature166]

Personally, I think it works up until a certain point.

If you're looking to get to 12-15% body fat, then look no further.

If you want to go lower, then it might take something else.

Yeah totally. If you are looking to get below 12% body fat it takes radical physiology!

[illninofan21]

Yeah totally. If you are looking to get below 12% body fat it takes radical physiology!

Laugh if you want, for some people (no matter how hard they bust their ass) it's a little more complicated than "calories in vs. calories out".

[AbAbber2k]

Laugh if you want, for some people (no matter how hard they bust their ass) it's a little more complicated than "calories in vs. calories out".

Ya like... dedication, commitment, planning, information gathering, and having the drive and desire to continue improving and tweaking your diet and training so you don't plateau.

Course in the end, all that leads to is continually managing your diet so your energy balance is always just low enough to keep pushing those results.

Oh wait...

[illninofan21]

Ya like... dedication, commitment, planning, information gathering, and having the drive and desire to continue improving and tweaking your diet and training so you don't plateau.

Course in the end, all that leads to is continually managing your diet so your energy balance is always just low enough to keep pushing those results.

Oh wait...

It's hard, we all know that, it's not supposed to be easy and personally I'm fine with that, and if that means that it's a little more complicated than calories in vs. calories out...so be it.

[tagun]

Ya like... dedication, commitment, planning, information gathering, and having the drive and desire to continue improving and tweaking your diet and training so you don't plateau.

Course in the end, all that leads to is continually managing your diet so your energy balance is always just low enough to keep pushing those results.

Oh wait...

Whops! :)

[illninofan21]

I guess if you don't agree with someone it gives them the license to be a complete douche-turd.

[taffer]

I think that you have to look at this in a couple of different ways
Firstly, whether or not you gain/lose fat/muscle is one things (composition, partitioning, etc) then there is how much you gain/lose.
So in his case, he would be very inactive, and a lowered metabolism, etc (lowers calories out), throwing up, which actually doesnt lower calories as much as you might think. So its totally possible to gain weight...
Then you have what he is losing/gaining. Lack of training, and treatments would have a massive effect, losing muscle definatly creates the impression of gaining even more fat.
Despite what might be apparent, there are tons of factors that effect calories in vs out, its just not always so black and white and its pretty hard to measure it.

[signature166]

I think that you have to look at this in a couple of different ways
Firstly, whether or not you gain/lose fat/muscle is one things (composition, partitioning, etc) then there is how much you gain/lose.
So in his case, he would be very inactive, and a lowered metabolism, etc (lowers calories out), throwing up, which actually doesnt lower calories as much as you might think. So its totally possible to gain weight...
Then you have what he is losing/gaining. Lack of training, and treatments would have a massive effect, losing muscle definatly creates the impression of gaining even more fat.
Despite what might be apparent, there are tons of factors that effect calories in vs out, its just not always so black and white and its pretty hard to measure it.

Hey dipsh*t, you didn't read anything that came before this, did you? Your post offers nothing that hasn't already been discussed ad naseum, and on top of that you're an idiot who writes at a 4th grade level.

[On Fire]

An interesting read, but my anecdotal experiences differ from his, so who is "wrong" really?

[Krique]

Just out of curiosity... whether or not the argument of Calories in = Calories out being right or wrong... how much control do we really have over other factors? If we have hormone deficiencies, for example, how much can we do unless it is to a point where doctors will prescribe anything?

[signature166]

Just out of curiosity... whether or not the argument of Calories in = Calories out being right or wrong... how much control do we really have over other factors? If we have hormone deficiencies, for example, how much can we do unless it is to a point where doctors will prescribe anything?

Its rare that you would have an actual hormone imbalance. You can't necessarily control the factors of the energy balance equation on the energy out side, but if you understand whats going on with the out side factors of the energy balance then you can strategize to overcome the obstacle or plateau.

[paulifer]

the advanced nutrition portion is messing with my head. everything i thought i knew about nutrition and weight training........IS WRONG!

[BRO_RESULTS]

From the guy that Alwyn plagiarized:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

[GoodShoot]

MY .02

calories in calories out is like saying

amount of hours worked = amount of money saved

there are far too many variables excluded, therefore results don't always = input, but sometimes do



I'm really not concerned with the people who don't believe hormones play a major role in body composition and in my opinion the primary role.

who I am concerned with is anyone who is struggling to obtain the body composition they desire and have never been able to achieve with the premise of cals in vs cals out.

the main law of body composition is the inverse relationship between hgh/insulin. In my opinion from personal results.

maybe im wrong? but if your struggling its worth a shot. read up on insulin levels and how to reduce them.

try it for 2 weeks, I believe you won't be disappointed.

[bango skank]

My problem with the statement is that he was on drugs to battle the cancer. They could (and most likely) have easily modified the chemical balance in his body and altered the way his body stores fat. He also gives an example of someone using Testosterone. Using an anabolic steroid modifies your body's chemical balance as well.

Regardless of the mechanism, weight change is more complex than cals in/cals out.

[AbAbber2k]

Regardless of the mechanism, weight change is more complex than cals in/cals out.

No, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't. If you have issues which make it harder to lose weight, you work harder and eat less. If you're a "hard gainer" you stop fooling yourself and start eating more.

There are always exceptions, but acting like everyone is an exception is the biggest load of bull, and this forum is full of it.

[IanR1205]

One thing I've learned from this thread is that actually taking in calories and burning them is a lot more interesting than reading about it.

[SDC77]

It is about calories in v/s calories out. All of the fancy macro ratios, nutrient timing, etc. is for nothing unless total calories are kept in the required amounts for one's desired goals.

You will never gain weight in a calorie deficit. You will never lose weight in a calorie surplus. I understand that it is currently sexy and cool to measure your piss, weigh your fingernail clippings, and to make life as inconvenient and miserable as possible just so you can labor under the delusion that the reason you lost or gained is due to your "regimen", but no.

[liegelord]

It comes down to proper training, train in a manner that allows consistent strength gains and proper nutrition. That means eating real food, not the shi*t made in a factory, lean meat, lots of veggies, nuts, some fruit and plenty of water.

And I mean extraordinary strength, 2x+ bodyweight deadlifts, chins with 50%+ bw. Focus should be on proven movements through the full range of motion e.g., squats, deads, cleans, presses, dips & chins.

When you strip away all the BS and fads, the method is easy. Look at this physical development, no drugs, no supps, just brutal strength and proper nutrition. It's no surprise Sig could easily do planches, even one handed.
http://www.oldtimestrongman.com/images2/sig_klein2.gif
http://s2.hubimg.com/u/1601329_f260.jpg

[asto_86]

lol... this thread fails.. The reason people do not lose/gain weight is simply because they are eating too much or not enough. Anyone complaining about it not working that way is simply over/under estimating their output, and over/under estimating their intake. There is no exception unless you have a growing tumor/fetus inside you.

[rgurleyjr]

If someone creates a 6,000 calorie deficit a week with cardio for three weeks straight with zero weight loss on the scale at the end of three weeks, can someone explain what happened if cals in=cal's out?

[dustinlima]

retarded thread is retarded. energy in = energy out + accumulation, period

sure, there are numerous variables that go into the energy balance... completion of digestion, heat/work expended, resting rate, hormones, etc. ALL OF THESE VARIABLES ONLY MODIFY HOW MUCH ENERGY IS GOING IN, AND HOW MUCH IS GOING OUT. Whatever is left is your accumulation (or reverse of accumulation)

Sure it can be VERY complicated, but ENERGY IN = ENERGY OUT, no matter how many variables there are.



FIRST ****ING LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS /thread

[rgurleyjr]

Because I ran 60 miles for three weeks straight with zero scale loss. With that much running, you would think that I would have at least lost a pound of muscle?

[dustinlima]

so hormones play no role in body composition? lulz

you have so much to learn as do we all. if there is one thing that cannot be disputed it would be this statement, "hormones run our bodies and our world"you <offensive putdown>, he's saying that hormones do not create energy from nothing (like God might)

edit: mr swearengen deleted his post, but he was quoting a post from opies or somethin

[dustinlima]

Because I ran 60 miles for three weeks straight with zero scale loss. With that much running, you would think that I would have at least lost a pound of muscle?are you saying you ran 3 wks straight and only got in 60 miles? or are you saying you thought you created a deficit, but were wrong? or are you saying you lost a lot of energy and are confused by water?

[rgurleyjr]

are you saying you ran 3 wks straight and only got in 60 miles? or are you saying you thought you created a deficit, but were wrong? or are you saying you lost a lot of energy and are confused by water?

Your a moron who can't read obviously. I ran 180 miles over 3 weeks eating 2,000-2,200 cals each week. Estimating 1 mile=100 cals, 60=6,000 cal's. Someone explain?

[DorianJ]

And yet people on concentration camps never gained fat and in spite of their age and body differences they were all emaciated. And I have never seen or heard someone gaining fat from being sick and eating less calories than he or she needs. His experience, if true, is contrary to the repeated experience, I'm sure, of 99% of all doctors working in hospitals.

When people on Atkins or Protein Power can't lose weight, they analyze their food properly, find out they're on a caloric excess, cut calories and start losing immediately. Even Eades admitted, finally, that that's what he does with the hudreds of people who can't lose weight while following his diet. When people are counting calories and they can't lose weight, they ask someone to make a better analysis for them, the find out they were underestimating the calories they were eating, they cut calories and start losing immediately.

[BadWog]

And yet people on concentration camps never gained fat and in spite of their age and body differences they were all emaciated. And I have never seen or heard someone gaining fat from being sick and eating less calories than he or she needs. His experience, if true, is contrary to the repeated experience, I'm sure, of 99% of all doctors working in hospitals.

When people on Atkins or Protein Power can't lose weight, they analyze their food properly, find out they're on a caloric excess, cut calories and start losing immediately. Even Eades admitted, finally, that that's what he does with the hudreds of people who can't lose weight while following his diet. When people are counting calories and they can't lose weight, they ask someone to make a better analysis for them, the find out they were underestimating the calories they were eating, they cut calories and start losing immediately.

Spot on. Repped.

[jiberish.]

Pretty piss poor self case study. Lost muscle mass...duuh your in bed for months. Gained fat..hospital food is so high quality and healthy...

I would have though his metabolism would have slowed alot because he was never moving.

[asto_86]

Your a moron who can't read obviously. I ran 180 miles over 3 weeks eating 2,000-2,200 cals each week. Estimating 1 mile=100 cals, 60=6,000 cal's. Someone explain?

ya.. something you posted is false.. You being able to run at that capacity makes it easy for me to believe that your body is much more efficient than you give it credit for.

[rgurleyjr]

I'm serious, this really happened. Now granted that I have been doing a lot of cardio for the 6 months prior, 60 miles of running would at least create a deficit to lose a pound of fat. Now either my hormones are seriously messed up or cals in doesn't always equal cals out.

[asto_86]

running 60 miles a week on a 2000 calorie diet is probably one of the dumbest ideas anyone could have actually... and because you did it, I would say your hormones and metabolism are fuked.

[rgurleyjr]

But why didn't I lose weight if cal's in=cal's out?

[Sabouneh]

But why didn't I lose weight if cal's in=cal's out?

something is missing in this equation here... i think you ate more than you thought..... not saying this is you but some people count calories from the food they eat and do not include the half pound of butter ... olive oil ... peanut butter... mayo.. that they use as condiments or for preparing their food..

[rgurleyjr]

No, I counted my cal's to a T. Trust me, I had lost over 20lbs the first 5-6 months leading up till November when I decided to run that much for three weeks. I weighed myself at the same time every day, my weight went up and down a few pounds but I lost nothing on the scale. Even if I did eat 500 cal's over maintenance a day, I still should have lost at least one pound.

[Reman]

No, I counted my cal's to a T. Trust me, I had lost over 20lbs the first 5-6 months leading up till November when I decided to run that much for three weeks. I weighed myself at the same time every day, my weight went up and down a few pounds but I lost nothing on the scale. Even if I did eat 500 cal's over maintenance a day, I still should have lost at least one pound.

You can lose fat without it showing up on a scale. Extra weight might just be water.

[dustinlima]

Your a moron who can't read obviously.obviously


accumulation = in - out 4 life

[nondualism]

I think it's safest just to avoid anyone associated with T-nation.com or Biotest.

Bad, BAD info with those guys. Thibadeaux, Chris Shugart, Berardi, etc....

Just such bad info....over-complex training advice, Chris Shugart is a self-hating FFB who reminds me of 'White' in 'Dodgeball', and Berardi is still putting up the 'don't count calories, high gi/gl foods are the debbil unless eaten after work outs, here, buy some Surge' crap.

Blech..

[IanR1205]

I think it's safest just to avoid anyone associated with T-nation.com or Biotest.

Bad, BAD info with those guys. Thibadeaux, Chris Shugart, Berardi, etc....

Just such bad info....over-complex training advice, Chris Shugart is a self-hating FFB who reminds me of 'White' in 'Dodgeball', and Berardi is still putting up the 'don't count calories, high gi/gl foods are the debbil unless eaten after work outs, here, buy some Surge' crap.

Blech..

Nobody makes me bleed my own blood!