|
-
02-06-2019, 06:28 PM #271
-
02-07-2019, 01:05 AM #272
If you read the whole article you may notice that it references several peer reviewed scientific studies that debunk everything Fung claims.
Same for fat loss. No significant difference in fat loss between high carb/low fat vs. high fat/low carb: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27385608
The health benefits in humans are only shown in studies where participants ate in caloric deficit. If you remove the caloric deficit component the health benefits disappear.
Besides that, IF has been shown to reduce testosterone and 24h muscle protein synthesis. 24h muscle protein synthesis is important for muscle growth (obviously).
-
-
02-07-2019, 02:10 AM #273
-
02-07-2019, 02:57 AM #274
-
02-07-2019, 03:36 AM #275
-
02-07-2019, 03:41 AM #276
Again, I lack in depth knowledge of nutrition and metabolism but I wonder sometimes do people even know what a calorie is. A calorie is just a measurement of energy. You could use joules if you wanted. Do people even know the basis of measuring the energy in food? It's not a reflection of how humans metabolise nutrients, it's is based on how much energy is released when you set a your food on fire... Saying someone consumes / needs 2,000 calories is such an oversimplification.
A metre is a measure of distance. If I moved 2,000 metres, it only tells you so much. Did I walk? Did I run? Did I skip? Did I go up hill? Did I go downhill? Was my movement efficient? Inefficient? Etc. etc. "2,000 metres" provides limited information just like "2,000 calories" does - there's variation within those values.
-
-
02-07-2019, 04:22 AM #277
If you realise that you lack the background to debate this, then why do you try? A calorie is indeed a unit of energy. Many places do use joules. First law of thermodynamics should shed some light why energy in food is *the* most important factor in this equation. Saying that someone needs 2000cal is NOT an oversimplification, on the contrary, you are arguing that other factors are much more important than the total energy in vs total energy out.
-
02-07-2019, 04:27 AM #278
Who in this thread does have the relevant background? Besides I didn't write that my background wasn't relevant, I wrote this: "I lack in depth knowledge of nutrition and metabolism". I'm not Layne Norton or Alan Aragon.
It is an oversimplification. It just reflects the energy in protein, carbohydrates, etc. How they are metabolised and how different individuals metabolise them varies.Last edited by crunchfit; 02-07-2019 at 04:33 AM.
-
02-07-2019, 04:35 AM #279
-
02-07-2019, 04:37 AM #280
-
-
02-07-2019, 04:41 AM #281Originally Posted by 3maj
Again, 2,000cals = 2,000 calories is an oversimplification. You contradict yourself and agree with me:
Originally Posted by 3majOriginally Posted by 3maj
-
02-07-2019, 04:44 AM #282
-
02-07-2019, 05:02 AM #283
-
02-07-2019, 05:14 AM #284
- Join Date: Feb 2015
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Posts: 33,530
- Rep Power: 219405
you're missing the point.
the point is calories in vs calories out is the main determinant in all of this, I never said insulin had absolutely zero involvement. Also there are studies that show that insulin is also a minor factor in this, as evidenced by a keto vs/ high carb diet where although they had different levels of insulin, weight loss was virtually the same and insulin only explains anywhere from 1-10% of fat loss.
-
-
02-07-2019, 05:21 AM #285
-
02-07-2019, 05:30 AM #286
You are agreeing with me again. That's exactly my point. Any unit of measurement only provides certain information. A kilo of feathers is different to a kilo of lead! And with regards to calories, the energy contained in carbs, proteins, fats, whatever, don't reflect how they're metabolised. Just to highlight again that you agree biological variations exist:
Originally Posted by 3maj
-
02-07-2019, 05:48 AM #287
His point is that when it comes to losing weight those variances aren't that important, it's total energy intake that matters. Obviously protein and carbs and lipids are metabolized differently, shuttled through different pathways for assimilation, etc etc etc.
Energy is energy though.**MFC**
**Barbara Palvin is my 10/10 crew**
-
02-07-2019, 05:56 AM #288
As I said myself and that guy are in agreement (with regards to the points I actually made) Again, there is variation within that total intake. Just one paper as an example - there are plenty more if someone wanted to put more effort in:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20565999
fat oxidation were higher on a high-protein diet without than with carbohydrates exchanged for fat.
-
-
02-07-2019, 06:03 AM #289
Sounds like that paper found no difference in energy expenditure when messing with carb and fat ratios on a high protein diet., so not sure what point you're trying to make with it... makes sense higher fat would lead to more fat oxidation, but if energy exp stayed the same then the body is just using whatever it's given to burn for fuel, carbs or fat it don't give af.
**MFC**
**Barbara Palvin is my 10/10 crew**
-
02-07-2019, 06:29 AM #290
-
02-07-2019, 09:18 AM #291
-
02-07-2019, 10:27 AM #292
Yeah motherfker, it's a goddamned fad. Ten years ago were there multiple websites and programs devoted to it? Was it trending on instagram/********? Was the Misc talkign about it? Were all of the normies getting into it and talking about it? Hell nah, and they won't be ten years from now either. Smack piss fk boy.Nuggets of Wisdom
-
-
02-07-2019, 10:32 AM #293
-
02-07-2019, 10:35 AM #294
except excess fat is unhealthy and fasting is healthy. Being obese is a relatively new thing for humans, we clearly aren't adapted for it despite it obviously being possible. Periods of not eating is as old a thing to humans as humanity itself, obesity isn't. Takes a ****load of energy surplus to get obese, old school humans rarely if ever had that.
**MFC**
**Barbara Palvin is my 10/10 crew**
-
02-07-2019, 11:02 AM #295
I've been fasting for years, and really my whole life I ate like that intuitively (no breakfast, no snacks, usually two big meals a day) and I never notice any difference in aesthetics or performance unless I alter how much and what I eat. I'm not saying that fasting isn't healthy, and there is definitely literature proving some health benefits, but I don't believe that it makes any difference when it comes to aesthetics.Nuggets of Wisdom
-
02-07-2019, 11:41 AM #296
-
-
02-07-2019, 11:46 AM #297
-
02-07-2019, 11:49 AM #298
well aesthetics are just muscle mass with no excess fat mass, can do that a bunch of different way so long as proper lifting methods and adequate protein are maintained. I'm just talking about health and well being in general, fasting seems to do good chit to the human body and in other animals been shown to have a life extending effect.
**MFC**
**Barbara Palvin is my 10/10 crew**
-
02-07-2019, 11:51 AM #299
-
02-07-2019, 11:58 AM #300
Bookmarks