Is it just maths????

[Big_Sky_Guy]

I cant believe this thread is still going....wtf have i started with a simple innocent question

Not sure what you started, but 035 will certainly finish it off topic for you!

[ironwill2008]

Just gonna quote this, because I think this is the whole point of IIFYM in a nutshell.

Co-signed.

[KenJenkinsII]

I am just going to start putting protein powder in my ice cream

[azstrengthcoach]

Just felt like I need to change my AVI to participate in this discussion


Hope AZcoach approves...


Crap...didnt update for some reason....this is what I meant to post. (at least I know what level to wear my shorts at )

I'm azstrengthcoach and I approve this message

[wrhalljr]

Don't bother; I already know what you'll find. No regular/long term poster here ever recommends to someone to "only eat ice cream or junk food." How do I know this? From interacting with most of them on a daily basis both in the open forums and in the journals for several years.

I think it's equally "dangerous" to advise noobs that they must eat only boiled chicken, broccoli, and brown rice 12 times a day in order to build a good physique.

.

First of all I never said that they "recommend" anything...I said that they post on here as an example of their 30 day or 60 day video that they can eat only ice cream or junk food and get cut or lose weight...and all I'm saying is that when someone looks at that from the outside it is easy to believe that even the most reasonable person can take that and run with it as that is ok because most people are always looking for the easy way out and the path that is the most convenient...I would say that to your second point, which I also have never seen recommended on here, that you "only eat chicken, broccoli, and rice 12 times a day", is no where near equally as dangerous as the other, not even close...the only point I am trying to make is that even when someone just states "a calorie is a calorie period" as fact, without any clarification, it can be used by the casual observer the wrong way! And as far as cake and ice cream and junk in general, browsing the many transformation articles on here one will not find a single one that gives anything considered "junk" food as even a part of their daily intake (outside of a cheat day or re-feed meal) and most are actually much closer to the "chicken, rice, and broccoli" extreme example you gave then to the "junk" one I gave!

[ironwill2008]

......snip....

Keep posting the same thing over and over and over. Maybe eventually someone will get your point, whatever it might be.

[Guinea-pig]

I am just going to start putting protein powder in my ice cream

While you're at it go have a moderate workout to.

[bodyhard]

You guys are arguing a moot point as neither side is going to budge.


Although I have to say I agree with wrhalljr, that people in general, love the easy way out, and if they read that they can eat ice cream, cake, soda, chips etc etc and still lose weight they will run with that sh!t on the real.

[Brad805]

Did all catch Layne's new vlog? Seems relevant.

http://www.biolayne.com/nutrition/bi...s-your-macros/

He is quite pleased with the amount of butthurt caused.

[induced_drag]

F....in general, browsing the many transformation articles on here one will not find a single one that gives anything considered "junk" food as even a part of their daily intake.

Not trying to argue with you. And I KNOW that 99% of people on here are SICK of seeing these pics....but below is pics of my first 11 weeks back in the gym. Guess it is the beginning of my "transformation" but you are correct that there is not 'article' about it.

Also....this was PRE TRT. I was hypo-thyriod at this time AND hypo-gonadal. Considered the 1-2 punch against dropping fat. I did not know either at the time....but found out about a year later.


Anyway.....during this time, I set out to do things 'right' and put balance in my diet. I included room for 'junk' as I would fail in the past trying to go too strict. I hit my macros every day...but here is the 'junk' I ate during this transformation.

Pizza (at least once a week)
Pasta (at least once a week)
Icecream (3 servings a week)
Breakfast cereal (3 times a week)
Chocolate Chip Cookies (several times a week)
Dark Chocolate (almost a little every other day or so).


Long story short....I had NO PROBLEMS sticking to it because I did not feel I was being deprived of anything. I used carb cycling to allow me to have higher carb days and this allowed me to eat things. (one of the reasons I love carb cycling and still use it...as a higher carb day is always around the corner)


Anyway....I am NOT a naturally lean guy...and this is my transformation, with room for junk in moderation.....11 weeks
(sorry to those that are sick of seeing this! )

[KenJenkinsII]

You guys are arguing a moot point as neither side is going to budge.


Although I have to say I agree with wrhalljr, that people in general, love the easy way out, and if they read that they can eat ice cream, cake, soda, chips etc etc and still lose weight they will run with that sh!t on the real.

This thread had me thinking how can someone eat ice cream and still lose weight? So I looked up my favorite at cold stone and the small size was 1110 calories and 120 g of carbs. That is over half my calories and all of my carbs for one day.

[ironwill2008]

Did all catch Layne's new vlog? Seems relevant.

http://www.biolayne.com/nutrition/bi...s-your-macros/

He is quite pleased with the amount of butthurt caused.

Embedded:




^^^^ Common sense.

[induced_drag]

This thread had me thinking how can someone eat ice cream and still lose weight? So I looked up my favorite at cold stone and the small size was 1110 calories and 120 g of carbs. That is over half my calories and all of my carbs for one day.

Serving size bud....it is all in the serving size. YOU have to moderate as food vendors have the idea that MORE is better. I often will buy a treat and throw out 3/4 of it. I eat what I want and throw the rest away....

[ironwill2008]

....how can someone eat ice cream and still lose weight? .

Simple; don't eat the entire portion. Use some discipline.

[KenJenkinsII]

Serving size bud....it is all in the serving size. YOU have to moderate as food vendors have the idea that MORE is better. I often will buy a treat and throw out 3/4 of it. I eat what I want and throw the rest away....

Simple; don't eat the entire portion. Use some discipline.

Trust me guys I understand, you guys sold me on this concept several months ago. I was just shocked when I saw those numbers. It drives my wife crazy that she will bake cookies and I eat one and I know others have said the same thing but you have to admit we are very different than the general population. If you tell the average person they can lose weight and still eat ice cream they will go with good intentions and end up eating the whole thing. Hell I still do that with chips and salsa. On the other hand nobody wants to eat chicken brown rice and broccoli every meal every day either. Hence fitting everything into your macros seems the most practical approach.

[KLMARB]

I've never tried a keto diet before. I feel like absolute **** when I reduce carbs, even to the 150-200 grams a day level. I assume that's what you mean by a anorexigenic resistance withdrawal. Right now I am trying to slowly bulk and increase strength, but I will keep this in mind for something to investigate in the future.

Excellent. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Success!

[wrhalljr]

You guys are arguing a moot point as neither side is going to budge.


Although I have to say I agree with wrhalljr, that people in general, love the easy way out, and if they read that they can eat ice cream, cake, soda, chips etc etc and still lose weight they will run with that sh!t on the real.

^^^ that is my point...and I don't disagree with anything in the video except to say that is all well and good for you IW or you ID with a level of knowledge and some will power...but I see people daily that tell me when they have a little they have a lot and that it is of much more benefit to them when they don't even have those things in their home because the propensity for them to end up back in a bad place is much greater...the same reason many people who go grocery shopping extremely hungry buy much more food and junk that they don't need or really even want but at the time it all "looked good"...

[ironwill2008]

^^^ that is my point...and I don't disagree with anything in the video except to say that is all well and good for you IW or you ID with a level of knowledge and some will power...but I see people daily that tell me when they have a little they have a lot and that it is of much more benefit to them when they don't even have those things in their home because the propensity for them to end up back in a bad place is much greater....

But it's not up to you, or I, or anyone else to legislate willpower. All we can do at this level (on the interwebz) is to provide the information on how to figure your requirements and then implement them, and where to obtain the tools (a food scale and a subscription to Fitday/whichever tracker) to do so. It's then up to the individual to use them as he best is able.

It's my position that someone will be much less likely to go full retard and on a binge if he'll allow some macro room for things he likes in his daily intake after he's already accounted for the essentials.


If your view is different, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Lvisaa2]

^^^ that is my point...and I don't disagree with anything in the video except to say that is all well and good for you IW or you ID with a level of knowledge and some will power...but I see people daily that tell me when they have a little they have a lot and that it is of much more benefit to them when they don't even have those things in their home because the propensity for them to end up back in a bad place is much greater...the same reason many people who go grocery shopping extremely hungry buy much more food and junk that they don't need or really even want but at the time it all "looked good"...

Those same people don't have the willpower to eat a super restrictive diet. Someone's willpower, or lack thereof, does not invalidate a protocol.

[KLMARB]

Kane (Timberwolf) is a genetic freak, not fair comparing him to a us mere mortals. LOL

He will also buy a dozen KK doughnuts and eat the whole box. Not to mention poptarts.

Ah, that's because he has no lipogenic adaptation. I also can do the same thing, and the next day test postive for lipolysis using Ketostix. That type of carb/glycogen recompensation is beneficial, in the hormonal sense of restoration of leptin response. You just have to make sure you're lipolytic/glycogen depleted when you do it. That's also how you turn a holiday meal into a leptin/glycogen restoration/recompensation opportunity, making it a metabolic positive, rather than worrying about it causing fat gain.

[ntrllftr]

Ah, that's because he has no lipogenic adaptation. I also can do the same thing, and the next day test postive for lipolysis using Ketostix. That type of carb/glycogen recompensation is beneficial, in the hormonal sense of restoration of leptin response. You just have to make sure you're lipolytic/glycogen depleted when you do it. That's also how you turn a holiday meal into a leptin/glycogen restoration/recompensation opportunity, making it a metabolic positive, rather than worrying about it causing fat gain.

I tried telling people that the other day. All I got was I'm insane.

Maybe because I didn't use all those fancy words though.

Carry on!

[TyronK]

No doubt the science teacher is correct about the (flawed) unit of measure we use to track dietary intake, however even if the unit is not correct, as long as it is used to determine movement, (for example gain weight or muscle, lose weight or muscle) the function of the measurement will work even if flawed, for bodybuilding purposes. No???

I think the issue of the calories listed on food labels vs "true" calories was addressed in this and a couple of other posts:

They aren't true calories (1 g H2O 1 degree celsius, or in this case 1 kg H2O). They've been adjusted (Atwater, Wilbur not Lee) from true bomb calorimetry measurements. Anyway, unless you're snorting nothing but high fructose corn syrup or mainlining lard for weeks on end I would sweat the differences between eating "clean" and, I guess, eating "dirty." All other things being equal a reasonable diet that favors carbs or protein or some other combo will be close enough to meeting the "a calorie a calorie" requirement.From an individual's standpoint, if you track from day to day and stick to a relatively consistent intake strategy the slight systematic error that you introduce will be nulled out when you calibrate to your rate of weight change (loss, gain, same).

[KLMARB]

I tried telling people that the other day. All I got was I'm insane.

Maybe because I didn't use all those fancy words though.

Carry on!

The really crazy thing is that if people would actually understand the biochemistry of this topic, you really have lots of latitude as far as your nutrition. The key is understanding how to prevent the negative (lipogenic) adaptations..

[dunemonkey]

But it's not up to you, or I, or anyone else to legislate willpower. All we can do at this level (on the interwebz) is to provide the information on how to figure your requirements and then implement them, and where to obtain the tools (a food scale and a subscription to Fitday/whichever tracker) to do so. It's then up to the individual to use them as he best is able.

It's my position that someone will be much less likely to go full retard and on a binge if he'll allow some macro room for things he likes in his daily intake after he's already accounted for the essentials.


If your view is different, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I don't have the street cred to get too far into this, but I agree. If the answer is "don't say anything that people might possible twist to suit their compulsions," then good luck. If they're not going to exercise the tracking and/or discipline, than telling them or not telling them "a calorie is a calorie" isn't going to make much difference either way. It's just like people who ask me how I quit dipping. The bottom line is to resolve not to do it every morning and keep that resolve all day. Sure I can complicate it and offer all kinds of other advice, but that doesn't make the first statement wrong. It doesn't really matter which way or reason they chose to abandon their resolve [chose to dip that day/choose to eat a whole pizza instead of the amount that fits into their macros], I can't legislate their resolve. Best to just educate them, and better yet educate them to educate themselves, and rely on them either A) exercise the resolve; or B) don't exercise the resolve and not get the results. I can't get on board with the idea that we have to mindf**k people just the right way to trick them into eating right/quitting nicotine, etc. And this all comes from someone who has been on both sides of the resolve coin. Just give them the info you believe in and tell them to show self-discipline. The rest really has to be up to them.

[TyronK]

I don't have the street cred to get too far into this, but I agree. If the answer is "don't say anything that people might possible twist to suit their compulsions," then good luck. If they're not going to exercise the tracking and/or discipline, than telling them or not telling them "a calorie is a calorie" isn't going to make much difference either way. It's just like people who ask me how I quit dipping. The bottom line is to resolve not to do it every morning and keep that resolve all day. Sure I can complicate it and offer all kinds of other advice, but that doesn't make the first statement wrong. It doesn't really matter which way or reason they chose to abandon their resolve [chose to dip that day/choose to eat a whole pizza instead of the amount that fits into their macros], I can't legislate their resolve. Best to just educate them, and better yet educate them to educate themselves, and rely on them either A) exercise the resolve; or B) don't exercise the resolve and not get the results. I can't get on board with the idea that we have to mindf**k people just the right way to trick them into eating right/quitting nicotine, etc. And this all comes from someone who has been on both sides of the resolve coin. Just give them the info you believe in and tell them to show self-discipline. The rest really has to be up to them.

LOL, I have no street cred neither but the original premise was unanswerable in a sense that not enough parameters were given which allowed some to chime in with some extreme cases or scenarios. Reading credible scientific journals, 95% of obesity is due to overconsumption and not some overlying metabolic disorder. And for the vast majority, the so called "calorie in vs calorie out" (maybe a better term is calorie expended) method will work incredibly well as long as they are disciplined and pay attention to portion control. So put me in the camp (again, no street cred) of that weight loss will be more or less the same provided the macro contents of the two diets are within reason of one another.

[fcnz32]

An equal calorie deficit of two "dopplegangers" produces the same weight loss ONLY if the macro profile is exactly the same and exercise is exactly the same (lifting or lack thereof).

If either of those two caveats is not met then the two people will NOT lose the same amount of weight which a lot of you seem to think. For example if person A achieves a 500 calorie deficit through strictly dieting (no exercise) and person B achieves a 500 calorie deficit with weightlifting accounting for some of that deficit then both will lose a DIFFERENT amount of weight.

Why? Because 3500 calories = 1 lb is only true for FAT. When you throw lean mass into the mix, this 3500 calorie calculation to lose a lb is not true anymore. I believe 1 lb of muscle = about 1600 calories (makes sense since 1 g protein = 4 cals and 1 g fat = 9 cals). This means that it takes less of a calorie deficit to lose muscle than it does fat. Since Person A is not weightlifting, everyone will agree that they will lose more muscle than person B. Thus, person A will lose more overall weight, however person B will lose more fat mass than person A.

Lets look at numbers in case you still don't get it. These are just examples and might not be real world scenarios but the relative numbers still work to illustrate my point. Equal calorie deficits:

Person A 3500 calorie deficit - 1750 cals was compensated from fat = 1/2 lb of fat. Other 1750 was compensated from muscle = over a 1lb of muscle. Total weight loss = about 1.5lb

Person B 3500 calorie deficit - body compensated all 3500 cals by using fat since lifting promoted maximum muscle retention. Total weight loss = 1lb

You can play with the ratios all but my statements will still hold true. So you see. It IS just maths. But since most of you can't math...well, that's where all the BS comes from.

[KenJenkinsII]

[azeeb]

Why? Because 3500 calories = 1 lb is only true for FAT. When you throw lean mass into the mix, this 3500 calorie calculation to lose a lb is not true anymore. I believe 1 lb of muscle = about 1600 calories (makes sense since 1 g protein = 4 cals and 1 g fat = 9 cals).

This is exactly what I have been thinking. You were able to put it into words much better than I could.

If your body is burning muscle for energy you will lose more weight, simply because a pound of muscle doesn't have the calories a pound of fat does.

Eating at maintenance, or even a mild diet, this is probably rarely a concern. Try to diet too aggressively, and you get in trouble fast. The weight comes flying off, but it is not fat.

[KLMARB]

LOL, I have no street cred neither but the original premise was unanswerable in a sense that not enough parameters were given which allowed some to chime in with some extreme cases or scenarios. Reading credible scientific journals, 95% of obesity is due to overconsumption and not some overlying metabolic disorder. And for the vast majority, the so called "calorie in vs calorie out" (maybe a better term is calorie expended) method will work incredibly well as long as they are disciplined and pay attention to portion control. So put me in the camp (again, no street cred) of that weight loss will be more or less the same provided the macro contents of the two diets are within reason of one another.

Not to bust on you, really, I mean no offense, but, that concept/doctrine has been around for over 50 years. How's it working? It might as well be called: "How to create an obesity epidemic using oversimplified thermodynamics"....

Please read the whole thread...

[Old-Time-Lifter]

An equal calorie deficit of two "dopplegangers" produces the same weight loss ONLY if the macro profile is exactly the same and exercise is exactly the same (lifting or lack thereof).

If either of those two caveats is not met then the two people will NOT lose the same amount of weight which a lot of you seem to think. For example if person A achieves a 500 calorie deficit through strictly dieting (no exercise) and person B achieves a 500 calorie deficit with weightlifting accounting for some of that deficit then both will lose a DIFFERENT amount of weight.

Why? Because 3500 calories = 1 lb is only true for FAT. When you throw lean mass into the mix, this 3500 calorie calculation to lose a lb is not true anymore. I believe 1 lb of muscle = about 1600 calories (makes sense since 1 g protein = 4 cals and 1 g fat = 9 cals). This means that it takes less of a calorie deficit to lose muscle than it does fat. Since Person A is not weightlifting, everyone will agree that they will lose more muscle than person B. Thus, person A will lose more overall weight, however person B will lose more fat mass than person A.

Lets look at numbers in case you still don't get it. These are just examples and might not be real world scenarios but the relative numbers still work to illustrate my point. Equal calorie deficits:

Person A 3500 calorie deficit - 1750 cals was compensated from fat = 1/2 lb of fat. Other 1750 was compensated from muscle = over a 1lb of muscle. Total weight loss = about 1.5lb

Person B 3500 calorie deficit - body compensated all 3500 cals by using fat since lifting promoted maximum muscle retention. Total weight loss = 1lb

You can play with the ratios all but my statements will still hold true. So you see. It IS just maths. But since most of you can't math...well, that's where all the BS comes from.

True.

But John Q Public is only thinking about weight loss and not 'fat' loss. For weight loss a calorie is a calorie... for fat loss not so good.

Calorie to calorie works great to drop 'weight' FAST but it's about the worse thing you can do not only for 'fat' loss but for permanent weight loss.