-
[QUOTE=azstrengthcoach;1016696373]Yes or no?[/QUOTE]
You are forcing a binary choice based on a subjective statement:
"According to you calories in vs calories out is all that [b]matters[/b] correct?"
If you want to play false dichotomies find another partner, preferably one that is a lot more naive.
-
[QUOTE=brandoncpt;1016661163]I didn't read the whole thread so I apologize if this has been talked about. Carbs go through glycolysis and then through the Krebs cycle. Protein has to be broken down before it can go through glycolysis and then the Krebs cycle. Fat is broken down into glycerol and fatty acids. The fatty acids are broken down further and proceed to the Krebs cycle, while glycerol goes to glycolysis and then the Krebs cycle. Each is handled differently and the body's hormone responses are different for each. I don't see how calories in could equal calories out. Personally when I eat 1800 calories a day I experience more weight loss when my macros are from mostly fats and protein.[/QUOTE]
Not to nitpick here, especially since I agree with your view. Glycerol and protein are used as the substrates for hepatic gluconeogenesis, once they are converted to glucose, glycolysis can occur...
I hope this thread really opens people's eyes to the problem of oversimplified thermodynamics (calories in/out) and how it is actually contributing to the obesity emidemic. The answer is a wider understanding of lipogenesis, lipolysis, and lipostasis, and the adaptive nature of each.....
-
[QUOTE=mslman71;1016699353]You are forcing a binary choice based on a subjective statement:
"According to you calories in vs calories out is all that [b]matters[/b] correct?"
If you want to play false dichotomies find another partner, preferably one that is a lot more naive.[/QUOTE]
According to crawling calories in vs calories out counts not what you eat. Then he said within reason, I'm just trying to figure out his stance. It doesn't how many studies or evidence I provide to prove all calories aren't created equal he won't concede the point.
-
[QUOTE=induced_drag;1016664453]I made the same point that what people point out as slowing metabolism is mostly due to age related muscle loss and reduced activity....so yes.
On the other point....the guy seriously claims his slowing metabolism caused him to gain 50 lbs [b] IN TWO[/b] months. Serious...TWO MONTHS. Yes....I know... not even worth laughing at.[/QUOTE]
It was not a slowing of metabolism, it was a massive rise in lipogenic adaptation. Rising levels of anorexigenic hormonal resistance as well as increasing hyperinsulinemia.
-
[QUOTE=KLMARB;1016704603]It was not a slowing of metabolism, it was a massive rise in lipogenic adaptation. Rising levels of anorexigenic hormonal resistance as well as increasing hyperinsulinemia.[/QUOTE]
Not even going to look all that up, i'm just chalking it up to my body slowing down.:D
Do you play a Dr in real life or just on the net?
-
[QUOTE=ironwill2008;1016595833]^^^^ THIS.
....
To those who think all the minor details brought out ITT make such a big difference for anyone other than a [i]contest-prepper,[/i] good luck sticking to eating fish heads, brown rice and broccoli for 10 meals a day, every day...
....Carry on.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ljimd;1016599923]Dang Bill, you just ruined my lunch with the fish head reference[img]
http://assets.bodybuilding.com/forum/images/icons/icon9.gif[/img].[/QUOTE]
Mine too as it comes pretty close to what I eat at 1:30 daily.
[IMG]http://i1073.photobucket.com/albums/w389/htxmbob/fish2_zps856a256c.jpg[/IMG]
exception being that I generally make a fish-head curry for on-the-run snacks (in a shaker cup) when I need that extra boost of Omega-3s
[youtube]LWCgwmxcENw[/youtube]
-
[QUOTE=Corbi;1016706793]Not even going to look all that up, i'm just chalking it up to my body slowing down.:D
Do you play a Dr in real life or just on the net?[/QUOTE]
50lbs in two months isn't your body slowing down, that's hormonal
-
[QUOTE=azstrengthcoach;1016700903]According to crawling calories in vs calories out counts not what you eat. Then he said within reason, I'm just trying to figure out his stance. It doesn't how many studies or evidence I provide to prove all calories aren't created equal he won't concede the point.[/QUOTE]
You're arguing the wrong point. If two cities are 999 miles apart and two other cities are 1001 miles apart are the same distance apart? No they aren't. Does it matter? Under most circumstances, no, not really. 1000 is a reasonably good estimate.
The problem gets more complicated when you get into differentiating between instantaneous (day to day) changes in dietary composition versus chronic or long term eating habits because of feedback mechanisms. Within the realm of holding the mechanisms constant they have done a pretty good job of normalizing thermodynamic calories in foods by the now used term "food calorie," which accounts for variations in uptake and all that, other things being constant, but if you do something to significantly affect that system then things change. On top of the complication of feedback mechanisms are the time constants within each one of those mechanisms. Some things change quickly in response to diet, some slowly. I would have to def to HoustonTXMuscle on this one as he is much closer to this than I am. I'm over 20 years removed from my biochem/cell/A&P days.
For the average person eating an even somewhat reasonably balanced diet, dirty or otherwise, it isn't going to make a huge difference what the source of calories are. I have no doubt you can bias the situation in your favor by selecting one over another, at least for a while, but I am confident enough to consider this a second order effect. I've been in this game a long time, and I have lost weight on nothing but vending machine crackers and "diet" bread, and I have lost weight on a well balanced diet. The unifying theme in all of those was caloric deficit, and the rate of loss was primarily a function of the magnitude of the deficit and my body weight, not of the composition of the foods I was eating.
I'm tired of hearing 75% of the overweight people I speak to claiming to be 0.1% outliers in the metabolic distribution. The practical solution is caloric deficit. The academic solution is somewhat immaterial and it isn't a point solution, rather a distribution. In the end YOU HAVE TO OBEY THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS. Your mean maintenance level might differ from someone of the same weight and body composition and you may have a somewhat different uptake efficiency but in the end you can't create energy from nothing.
-
[QUOTE=azstrengthcoach;1016707493]50lbs in two months isn't your body slowing down, that's hormonal[/QUOTE]
Like I said, whatever. I'm not a damn Dr, all I know is I gained 50 lbs and it scared the crap outta me for a bit.
BTW, you are now just parroting what others have already said.
-
[QUOTE=azstrengthcoach;1016672783]I think ID is tying to point out that gaining 50lbs on 2 months isn't due to the gradual age related decline I metabolism. Clearly something hormonal happened.[/QUOTE]
Although I disagree with you on a lot of things, at least you can hold an intelligent discussion....and actually try to make valid points. Here is his exact statement below....This is the kind of intelligence we are dealing with here.....
[QUOTE=Corbi;1016307093]... Then in the span of 2 months from sept to the end of oct I started gaining weight for no apparent reason, was putting on 1+ lbs a day at times. Went from that skrawny ass 150 lbs to 200+ in under 60 days. ... so went to a dr and he assured me all was oik.....[b] So yes I had a massive metabolism reduction...[/b].[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=IronCharles;1016690213]This post proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are clueless about nutrition . Are you seriously implying that everyone's metabolism is the same? You are going to take figures off a webpage and say that's me?? Lol, everyone's metabolism is different, bro. No, really ....its true! Yet you're going to take a couple statements you found with Google and say they prove what happened to Corbi and I never happened??
I just cannot stop laughing! At least you admit you were wrong, and that metabolic aging is real. Too bad you don't realize that it changes changes at different rates for different people. Keep trying to pigeonhole people with your stereotypes. Even you can eventually guess and be right once in a while. Today just isn't that day.[/QUOTE]
Charles,
When speaking of nutrition or any science, you ALWAYS speak in generalizations. And with them, there are always outliers....100% true. But if we get stuck in talking about all the exceptions, then there really is no conversation.....in fact, if science did not rule out conditions depending upon scarcity, there would be nothing that was ever conclusive to any degree.
-
[QUOTE=mslman71;1016708533]You're arguing the wrong point. If two cities are 999 miles apart and two other cities are 1001 miles apart are the same distance apart? No they aren't. Does it matter? Under most circumstances, no, not really. 1000 is a reasonably good estimate.
The problem gets more complicated when you get into differentiating between instantaneous (day to day) changes in dietary composition versus chronic or long term eating habits because of feedback mechanisms. Within the realm of holding the mechanisms constant they have done a pretty good job of normalizing thermodynamic calories in foods by the now used term "food calorie," which accounts for variations in uptake and all that, other things being constant, but if you do something to significantly affect that system then things change. On top of the complication of feedback mechanisms are the time constants within each one of those mechanisms. Some things change quickly in response to diet, some slowly. I would have to def to HoustonTXMuscle on this one as he is much closer to this than I am. I'm over 20 years removed from my biochem/cell/A&P days.
For the average person eating an even somewhat reasonably balanced diet, dirty or otherwise, it isn't going to make a huge difference what the source of calories are. I have no doubt you can bias the situation in your favor by selecting one over another, at least for a while, but I am confident enough to consider this a second order effect. I've been in this game a long time, and I have lost weight on nothing but vending machine crackers and "diet" bread, and I have lost weight on a well balanced diet. The unifying theme in all of those was caloric deficit, and the rate of loss was primarily a function of the magnitude of the deficit and my body weight, not of the composition of the foods I was eating.
I'm tired of hearing 75% of the overweight people I speak to claiming to be 0.1% outliers in the metabolic distribution. The practical solution is caloric deficit. The academic solution is somewhat immaterial and it isn't a point solution, rather a distribution. In the end YOU HAVE TO OBEY THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS. Your mean maintenance level might differ from someone of the same weight and body composition and you may have a somewhat different uptake efficiency but in the end you can't create energy from nothing.[/QUOTE]
No I'm saying either calories are the only part that matters or they are not. If they are not then you have to concede that WHAT YOU EAT, MATTERS AS WELL AS HOW MUCH YOU EAT. You guys keep saying it doesn't make much of a difference to the average person, but you've provided no evidence to support your claim.
-
[QUOTE=azstrengthcoach;1016711123]No I'm saying either calories are the only part that matters or they are not. If they are not then you have to concede that WHAT YOU EAT, MATTERS AS WELL AS HOW MUCH YOU EAT.[/QUOTE]
What does "matters" mean?
-
[QUOTE=azstrengthcoach;1016711123]No I'm saying either calories are the only part that matters or they are not. If they are not then you have to concede that WHAT YOU EAT, MATTERS AS WELL AS HOW MUCH YOU EAT. You guys keep saying it doesn't make much of a difference to the average person, but you've provided no evidence to support your claim.[/QUOTE]
Funny since everything that you ever claimed as good advice is from "studies" or what other people say.
No actual proof to back it up.
Pot calling kettle.
-
[QUOTE=PrimeBeef;1016561853][url]http://www.jacn.org/content/23/5/373.full[/url]
Another interesting reference on thermic effect of protein, high protein diet and effect on weight loss.
If protein has a 20-30% higher thermic effect (essentially burning of more energy to process), then how can a calorie of protein be equal to a calorie of fat (that has the lowest thermic effect) when looking at the net effect?[/QUOTE]Because the estimate of 4 calories per gram of protein [B]already has the thermic effect factored in.[/B] Protein yields more like 7 cals per gram in a lab setting, but once digested leaves about 4 available calories per gram.
-
[QUOTE=induced_drag;1016710863]Although I disagree with you on a lot of things, at least you can hold an intelligent discussion....and actually try to make valid points. Here is his exact statement below....This is the kind of intelligence we are dealing with here.....
Charles,
When speaking of nutrition or any science, you ALWAYS speak in generalizations. And with them, there are always outliers....100% true. But if we get stuck in talking about all the exceptions, then there really is no conversation.....in fact, if science did not rule out conditions depending upon scarcity, there would be nothing that was ever conclusive to any degree.[/QUOTE]
It's good to see captain pompous is chimming in. ID we all now to you and your ultimate intelligance. Get off you ****ing high horse. I liked you better when you had some humility and actually tried to be helpfull even if it was ultra long winded. I think all you self promoting and pic/vid posting to please your band of nut huggers and all the elbow jobs you get got to your head. Come back to reality king of the interwebz.
Oh and ill admit my tinfoil helmet if you'll admit you AA use!
AZ I want to congradulate you. Your probably one of the most educated here on the subjects yet you've allowed yourself to completly get lost spun around and sound like your lost.
Thank you guys this was one of the most entertaining train wrecks I've seen in awhile.
Btw going after IW is always a bad idea here man!
-
[QUOTE=mslman71;1016713613]What does "matters" mean?[/QUOTE]
For weight loss and fat loss
-
[QUOTE=ntrllftr;1016715053]Funny since everything that you ever claimed as good advice is from "studies" or what other people say.
No actual proof to back it up.
Pot calling kettle.[/QUOTE]
Back to your bridge that's a good boy
-
[QUOTE=azstrengthcoach;1016778323]For weight loss and fat loss[/QUOTE]
You can track calories and nothing more and manage weight and fat loss.
-
[QUOTE=bigvin73;1016760683]It's good to see captain pompous is chimming in. ID we all now to you and your ultimate intelligance. Get off you ****ing high horse. I liked you better when you had some humility and actually tried to be helpfull even if it was ultra long winded. I think all you self promoting and pic/vid posting to please your band of nut huggers and all the elbow jobs you get got to your head. Come back to reality king of the interwebz.
[/QUOTE]
No prob man.... I can see how you think I might be coming off that way, but if you look at the thread that precipitated this, you will see the real story.
I do lose patience after a while when the same people over and over do the same BS. It does get tiring.
After a while I dont care and I will tell them how I really feel.
Unbecoming....sure.... But true...yes.
If you look back at the history of my disagreements, you will see it is the same group of characters. And the part that makes it the worst, is they are not even respectable in the least from a lifting standpoint. They are 'average' at best and like to bust my balls.
It really would be better if this were the 'real world'. I doubt any man would talk to another with the antagonistic attitude that proceeds most of these exchanges. It would likely lead to this issue being settled in a different manner.
I have gotten to let most stuff slide off my back, but sitting around for the past two days with an ice pack on my nutz has me in, shall we say, a more feisty mood.
No worries, all in all, I am here to exchange ideas and listen to people with good information as well as share some.
Have a good night man.
-
[QUOTE=induced_drag;1016801103] I doubt any man would talk to another with the antagonistic attitude that proceeds most of these exchanges.[/QUOTE]
I agree with this.
-
[QUOTE=induced_drag;1016801103]
I do lose patience after a while when the same people over and over do the same BS. It does get tiring.
[/QUOTE]
And I agree with this. When the same person feels the need to challenge people's real life experiences with unsolicited broscience and cherry-picked internet quotes and call them liars, it gets old quick.
When one person has a problem with another, it can often be attributed to misunderstandings. But when many people have issues with the same person, you start seeing a pattern, and you realize that that's just how that person is. Not much one can do about it, really.
-
[QUOTE=IronCharles;1016811413]And I agree with this. When the same person feels the need to challenge people's real life experiences with unsolicited broscience and cherry-picked internet quotes and call them liars, it gets old quick.
When one person has a problem with another, it can often be attributed to misunderstandings. But when many people have issues with the same person, you start seeing a pattern, and you realize that that's just how that person is. Not much one can do about it, really.[/QUOTE]
Charles,
I can actually agree with most of what you say in the above. People often confuse the willingness to debate, with the desire to 'argue'.
What is the most telling for me, is when people do not want to talk about the actual topic at hand and instead will bring in personal insults or accusations of supposed 'use' (which has nothing remotely to do with the topic being discussed). This tells me not only about their lack of knowledge on what they speak, but complete lack of character.
Like I said, I highly doubt most men would handle themselves in this manner in the real world face to face.
-
[QUOTE=induced_drag;1016817133]Charles,
I can actually agree with most of what you say in the above. People often confuse the willingness to debate, with the desire to 'argue'.
What is the most telling for me, is when people do not want to talk about the actual topic at hand and instead will bring in personal insults or accusations of supposed 'use' (which has nothing remotely to do with the topic being discussed). This tells me not only about their lack of knowledge on what they speak, but complete lack of character.
Like I said, I highly doubt most men would handle themselves in this manner in the real world face to face.[/QUOTE]
Sht, most of the women here wouldn't talk to me at all IRL, let alone rudely. :D
Mace hurts. :D...I'm told. :D
-
[QUOTE=mslman71;1016790353]You can track calories and nothing more and manage weight and fat loss.[/QUOTE]
Agreed but do you think it maximizes both say like for a competition?
-
[QUOTE=azstrengthcoach;1016858033]Agreed but do you think it maximizes both say like for a competition?[/QUOTE]
I don't have any experience with competition. By the time you reach competitive levels you're many standard deviations over (hopefully) and I imagine 2nd and higher order effects become relevant.
-
[QUOTE=mslman71;1016862763]I don't have any experience with competition. By the time you reach competitive levels you're many standard deviations over (hopefully) and I imagine 2nd and higher order effects become relevant.[/QUOTE]
I'm not disputing that calories are a big component, but most experts now agree that calories in vs calories out is only part of the equation.
-
[QUOTE=azstrengthcoach;1016711123]No I'm saying either calories are the only part that matters or they are not. If they are not then you have to concede that WHAT YOU EAT, MATTERS AS WELL AS HOW MUCH YOU EAT. You guys keep saying it doesn't make much of a difference to the average person, but you've provided no evidence to support your claim.[/QUOTE]
Magic TEF fail.
[url]http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v61/n5/full/1602564a.html[/url]
Magic TEF fail #2
[url]http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/4/652.full[/url]
Variances in food labels, the actual fat content of your meat, the efficacy of your measuring cup, or food scale, the deviations in a DEXA scan would account for variation very similar to TEF effect in many short duration studies.
TEF may have an effect on extreme high protein diets. Absolutely. Unquestionably a may. Chase that vs chasing calories is absurd, unnecessary, over complicating a simple calculation. It's chasing a may, fractional return.
-
[QUOTE=azstrengthcoach;1016865833]I'm not disputing that calories are a big component, but most experts now agree that calories in vs calories out is only part of the equation.[/QUOTE]
In the limiting case true calories in must be at least equal to calories expended or you will eventually die. No exceptions. I've found that working backwards from the most basic of conservation laws works well, at least for me.
-
[QUOTE=mslman71;1016880833]In the limiting case true calories in must be at least equal to calories expended or you will eventually die. No exceptions. I've found that working backwards from the most basic of conservation laws works well, at least for me.[/QUOTE]
The laws of thermodynamics don't explain calories in vs calorie out
-
[QUOTE=azstrengthcoach;1016882823]The laws of thermodynamics don't explain calories in vs calorie out[/QUOTE]
Yes, they do, and I can state that with absolute unwavering certainty. We are not magic.