im tired of people going "if its fits into your macros ur fine"

[kanny]

IT IS NOT TRUE.

Example: If a guy is try to cut on 200g of protein 200g of carbs 60g of fats.

He will eat 200g protein in terms of egg whites throughout the day

and right b4 bed

he chugs down a dextrose solution with 200g of carbs

and eats 60g of butter.


im pretty sure he wouldn't have a very effective cut.

Dieting is not all about calories its also about tiiming and selection of macros. There are many variable not only anaerobic and aerobic metabolism that governs fat loss, u must also consider factors such as glucagon/insulin secretion cortisol and etc

[Kelei]

Fail.

[kanny]

Fail.

how is it?

[Ted Nugent]

the situation you described is an extreme one that im sure nobody on here would ever do. im %99 sure that meal frequency and spacing out your food has minimal effect on body comp. and if it fits into your macros how could it not be fine? if im getting 60g of protein from McDonalds and 60g of protein from plain chicken breast..whats the difference?

[kanny]

the situation you described is an extreme one that im sure nobody on here would ever do. im %99 sure that meal frequency and spacing out your food has minimal effect on body comp. and if it fits into your macros how could it not be fine? if im getting 60g of protein from McDonalds and 60g of protein from plain chicken breast..whats the difference?

of course i would use an extreme example to show the stupidity of the quote to be used. Eg if you said to me "im the fastest runner in the world". no **** i would get usain bolt (the extreme) to run with u compare whether ur statement is true. i wouldn't try to get everyone in the world to run with u one by one to see would i?

Of i agree with the 60g of McDonalds vs 60g of protein from plain chicken breast (unless your speaking on molecular terms of bioavalibilty and etc), however people are like "can i eat pizza b4 bed?" and u see people going "carbs b4 night are NOTHING as long as it fits into ur macros"

kinda ridiculous

[Ted Nugent]

Of i agree with the 60g of McDonalds vs 60g of protein from plain chicken breast, however people are like "can i eat pizza b4 bed?" and u see people going "carbs b4 night are NOTHING as long as it fits into ur macros"

kinda ridiculous

i would hope you understand the concept of cals in vs. cals out? and much much wiser individuals than yourself (alan aragon, layne, horse, phosphate, etc..) all agree on the same points. i am going to base what i do on scientific research and the advice of very experienced guys, go ahead and keep eating your egg whites and brown rice every 3 hours and thinking its going to make a difference.

[kanny]

i would hope you understand the concept of cals in vs. cals out? and much much wiser individuals than yourself (alan aragon, layne, horse, phosphate, etc..) all agree on the same points. i am going to base what i do on scientific research and the advice of very experienced guys, go ahead and keep eating your egg whites and brown rice every 3 hours and thinking its going to make a difference.

sure my medical physiology knowledge doens't take me to the frontiers of the nutritional fields but
dude did u even read my post?

cals in vs cals = anaerobic + aerobic metabolism (basal metabolism + expenditure) i said that in the original post. and i told u i agree with u on the protein part so why u making jokes about the eggs whites and brown rice rofl.

my point is that meal composition and timing is just as important as fitting ur macros which im SURE alan f and layne will agree on this, considering in one of layne vids he was like "i like to have a big carb meal in the morning because the time where u are least likely to put on fat"

no disrespect but before u whip out all these snide remarks, read first

[Ted Nugent]

dude did u even read my post?

cals in vs cals = anaerobic + aerobic metabolism (basal metabolism + expenditure) i said that in the original post. and i told u i agree with u on the protein part so why u making jokes about the eggs whites and brown rice rofl.

my point is that meal composition and timing is just as important as fitting ur macros which im SURE alan f and layne will agree on this, considering in one of layne vids he was like "i like to have a big carb meal in the morning because the time where u are least likely to put on fat"

so before u whip out all these snide remarks, read first

i certaintly agree with the meal composition, no argument there. timing to a certain degree, i think the whole eat every 3 hours thing is balogney but on the other hand eating all your cals right before bed doesnt sound right to me either, finding a medium that works for you is the best idea. theres plenty of folks that eat only 2-3 meals a day and look just the same as those who eat 6-7 meals a day. sure an individuals metabolism, carb tolerance, activity level, lifestyle, etc all will greatly influence their body. i think you should do a little more research on the "importance" of meal timing/frequency

[Tiffany_P]

my point is that meal composition and timing is just as important as fitting ur macros

I see what you're saying, but at best, meal timing can have a slight impact on nutrient partitioning, which can affect body composition. Macros don't play as big a role as everyone pretends either. The key factors are calories, sufficient protein, and nutrient timing, in that order. The nutrient timing has way more to do with your workout schedule than the time of day it is.

[141455675]

shudup shudup shudup

[Ted Nugent]

The nutrient timing has way more to do with your workout schedule than the time of day it is.

x1,000,000

[kanny]

i certaintly agree with the meal composition, no argument there. timing to a certain degree, i think the whole eat every 3 hours thing is balogney but on the other hand eating all your cals right before bed doesnt sound right to me either, finding a medium that works for you is the best idea. theres plenty of folks that eat only 2-3 meals a day and look just the same as those who eat 6-7 meals a day. sure an individuals metabolism, carb tolerance, activity level, lifestyle, etc all will greatly influence their body. i think you should do a little more research on the "importance" of meal timing/frequency

then we have no disagreements then, just because im a 166 pounder doens't mean i dont have some basic knowledge of nutrition learnt from med school. I think ur inferring quite a bit i never said i was an advocate of the 6 meals a day thing and how its superior to the 2-3 meals a day. Its just im a bit pissed off at people going by the holy maxim of "if it fits in ur macro its all good"
This basically says that a fat guy can eat donuts all day which is pretty much fat + carbs as long as he fits his carb and fat targets. Then go home and drink a couple scoops of whey isolate and get ripped.

that i dont agree with. just sayin'

[The Solution]

IT IS NOT TRUE.

Example: If a guy is try to cut on 200g of protein 200g of carbs 60g of fats.

He will eat 200g protein in terms of egg whites throughout the day

and right b4 bed

he chugs down a dextrose solution with 200g of carbs

and eats 60g of butter.


im pretty sure he wouldn't have a very effective cut.

Dieting is not all about calories its also about tiiming and selection of macros. There are many variable not only anaerobic and aerobic metabolism that governs fat loss, u must also consider factors such as glucagon/insulin secretion cortisol and etc

Is anyone that stupid to drink 200g of glucose and 60g of butter, you really stretch what your trying to say and you dont accept the fact of MODERATION by playing things into your diet, if you want some cereal.. eat it and fit it in.. You can fit a slice of pizza into your diet.

If you want a piece of cake, FIT IT IN.

To be the burden and say to get all of your carbs from something void of nutrients is stupid and yet NO one would do it.

[Disenfranchised]

eating all your cals right before bed doesnt sound right to me

Why?

[Gabriel01]

then we have no disagreements then, just because im a 166 pounder doens't mean i dont have some basic knowledge of nutrition. I think ur inferring quite a bit i never said i was an advocate of the 6 meals a day thing and how its superior to the 2-3 meals a day. Its just im a bit pissed off at people going by the holy maxim of "if it fits in ur macro its all good"
This basically says that a fat guy can eat donuts all day which is pretty much fat + carbs as long as he fits his carb and fat targets. Then go home and drink a couple scoops of whey isolate and get ripped.

that i dont agree with. just sayin'

It's really a fact, that your calories does not matter where they come as long your caloric requirements are met and Yes, you can get way with big macs and still lose FAT.

This is just an example from an expert, Tom Venuto :

TOM VENUTO ANSWERS: Of course it?s possible. You just have to eat small enough portions of chocolate or pizza so you?re still in a calorie deficit. In fact, you could eat 100% pizza and 100% chocolate diet and still lose weight. Heck, if a guy can eat 100% Subway and lose weight, why not 100% pizza?

All you need is a calorie deficit. Of course, I DON?T recommend you eat a100% junk food diet because that?s going to have a negative impact on your health. I?m just trying to make the point that fat loss revolves around having that calorie deficit.

http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archiv...ating_pizz.php

also read alan's Aragon articles on a smiler subjects..

[Results_Driven]

IT IS NOT TRUE.

im pretty sure he wouldn't have a very effective cut.

Your body doesnt make a distinction between days. Your weight loss would not be affected by eating 200g +60g butter all at once if you calories result in a decifit of energy expenditure over time.

To your body, energy is energy.


Other than brah science, what research are you relying on that supports the argument :
"Consuming daily intake of fat+carbs at once ruins the effectiveness of a calorie deficit when trying to lose fat"

[fyre500]

That example is overkill to the max.

Sure, macro timing DOES have an affect on body composition but it's practically insignificant. As people have mentioned before, 95% of the people in the Nutrition section are not professional bodybuilders and probably should not be trying to cut down to a sub single digit BF %.

With your crazy example, what do you think would happen to that person while cutting? My guess is that they will see results as long as they have a proper calorie deficit each day, even if they are eating dextrose and butter right before bed. In the end, that person's body is yearning for more calories since your example has them eating just 200g of protein through the whole day. That's only 800 calories for an entire day... plenty of room left.

Again, macro timing CAN have an affect but I doubt anyone would notice.

And you want an example? I was cutting on a standard BB diet for about 2 months before I started the V-Diet. I ate very well during the day but when I came home from work (about 10:30pm) I would usually eat a bunch of cereal (I'm talking about the good stuff too -- Fruity Pebbles, Honeycomb, you get the idea). Easily hundreds of calories of pure, sugary, delicious carbs.

My results? I was still losing weight every week.

[Deborah_Lyn]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,500565,00.html

Low-Carb? Low-Fat? Study Finds Calories Count More

LOS ANGELES ? Low-fat, low-carb or high-protein? The kind of diet doesn't matter, scientists say. All that really counts is cutting calories and sticking with it, according to a federal study that followed people for two years.

However, participants had trouble staying with a single approach that long and the weight loss was modest for most.

As the world grapples with rising obesity, millions have turned to popular diets like Atkins, Zone and Ornish that tout the benefits of one nutrient over another.

Some previous studies have found that low carbohydrate diets like Atkins work better than a traditional low-fat diet. But the new research found that the key to losing weight boiled down to a basic rule ? calories in, calories out.

"The hidden secret is it doesn't matter if you focus on low-fat or low-carb," said Dr. Elizabeth Nabel, director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, which funded the research.

Limiting the calories you consume and burning off more calories with exercise is key, she said.

The study, which appears in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, was led by Harvard School of Public Health and Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana.

Researchers randomly assigned 811 overweight adults to one of four diets, each of which contained different levels of fat, protein and carbohydrates.

Though the diets were twists on commercial plans, the study did not directly compare popular diets. The four diets contained healthy fats, were high in whole grains, fruits and vegetables and were low in cholesterol.

Nearly two-thirds of the participants were women. Each dieter was encouraged to slash 750 calories a day from their diet, exercise 90 minutes a week, keep an online food diary and meet regularly with diet counselors to chart their progress.

There was no winner among the different diets; reduction in weight and waist size were similar in all groups.

People lost 13 pounds on average at six months, but all groups saw their weight creep back up after a year. At two years, the average weight loss was about 9 pounds while waistlines shrank an average of 2 inches. Only 15 percent of dieters achieved a weight-loss reduction of 10 percent or more of their starting weight.

Dieters who got regular counseling saw better results. Those who attended most meetings shed more pounds than those who did not ? 22 pounds compared with the average 9 pound loss.

Lead researcher Dr. Frank Sacks of Harvard said a restricted calorie diet gives people greater food choices, making the diet less monotonous.

"They just need to focus on how much they're eating," he said.

Sacks said the trick is finding a healthy diet that is tasty and that people will stick with over time.

Before Debbie Mayer, 52, enrolled in the study, she was a "stress eater" who would snack all day and had no sense of portion control. Mayer used to run marathons in her 30s, but health problems prevented her from doing much exercise in recent years.

Mayer tinkered with different diets ? Weight Watchers, Atkins, South Beach ? with little success.

"I've been battling my weight all my life. I just needed more structure," said Mayer, of Brockton, Mass., who works with the elderly.

Mayer was assigned to a low-fat, high-protein diet with 1,400 calories a day. She started measuring her food and went back to the gym. The 5-foot Mayer started at 179 pounds and dropped 50 pounds to 129 pounds by the end of the study. She now weighs 132 and wants to shed a few more pounds.

Another study volunteer, Rudy Termini, a 69-year-old retiree from Cambridge, Mass., credits keeping a food diary for his 22-pound success. Termini said before participating in the study he would wolf down 2,500 calories a day. But sticking to an 1,800-calorie high-fat, average protein diet meant no longer eating an entire T-bone steak for dinner. Instead, he now eats only a 4-ounce steak.

"I was just oblivious to how many calories I was having," said the 5-foot-11-inch Termini, who dropped from 195 to 173 pounds. "I really used to just eat everything and anything in sight."

Dr. David Katz of the Yale Prevention Research Center and author of several weight control books, said the results should not be viewed as an endorsement of fad diets that promote one nutrient over another.

The study compared high quality, heart healthy diets and "not the gimmicky popular versions," said Katz, who had no role in the study. Some popular low-carb diets tend to be low in fiber and have a relatively high intake of saturated fat, he said.

Other experts were bothered that the dieters couldn't keep the weight off even with close monitoring and a support system.

"Even these highly motivated, intelligent participants who were coached by expert professionals could not achieve the weight losses needed to reverse the obesity epidemic," Martijn Katan of Amsterdam's Free University wrote in an accompanying editorial.

======================

imo - do what work for you. BBers eat tons more protein than most everybody. If what you are eating works, then do it.

im pretty sure he wouldn't have a very effective cut.

completely subject, imo, effective how?

[Phosphate bond]

IT IS NOT TRUE.

Example: If a guy is try to cut on 200g of protein 200g of carbs 60g of fats.

He will eat 200g protein in terms of egg whites throughout the day

and right b4 bed

he chugs down a dextrose solution with 200g of carbs

and eats 60g of butter.


im pretty sure he wouldn't have a very effective cut.

Dieting is not all about calories its also about tiiming and selection of macros. There are many variable not only anaerobic and aerobic metabolism that governs fat loss, u must also consider factors such as glucagon/insulin secretion cortisol and etc

Nutritional requirements to metabolize calories?

[stormballer33]

So what it comes down to it, its calories in=calories out which leads to fat loss, Does anyone known an estimated (obviously differs for everyone) the longest one should go without calories (estimated hours/maybe days) before one begins to turn to muscle for energy and not fat. Are there any studies that explain what percentage of muscle and percentage of fat the body consumes for energy when in a calorie deficit? After a period of time in a deficit a person goes into "starvation mode" where the body begins to feed on muscle more than fat for energy. When does this "Starvation mode" (estimated of course) start and end. I think a lot of people try to eat 5-6 small meals a day in order to stop the burning of muscle. And why is it usually stated to eat 500 calories under maintained, if you eat less under maintained will your body use more muscle as energy or is this just a number someone made up (forget about the healthy way for a second and try to answer these questions). I am just curious what you have to say, I will continue on my 4-5 meals a day at maintained calories ha-ha

[SpinFan]

That example is overkill to the max.

x2

Wtf is wrong with people lately? Why do you WANT to believe that you need to micromanage every fine detail of your diet for results?

Live your life, meet your minimal protein, fat, and macronutrient requirements, and move on.

If you want to live your life brotastically that's fine, but science does not support that lifestyle, and so threads like this are useless.

Fail.

[Holyspokes]

Why does someone make this rant thread everyday about being sick of people saying "fit in into your macros". They don't even understand what they are complaining about. NO ONE is saying, "You don't need vegetables or healthy foods, just eat fast food for all your meals and make it fit your macrozzzz". NO.

They are saying, don't worry a piece of pizza or a candy bar won't hurt your goals as long as your calories are where you want them to be at the end of the day. Even one WHOLE "dirty" meal per day won't hold you back.

Too many people that frequent this subsection, and maybe just this site in general, down play the importance of work ethic and determination in workouts and want to rely on some perfect magical diet that will do all the work for them...

[Gabriel01]

talk about incoming posts. - 17 posts so far exluding OP posts, are suggesting otherwise .

[wave_length]

IT IS NOT TRUE.

Example: If a guy is try to cut on 200g of protein 200g of carbs 60g of fats.

He will eat 200g protein in terms of egg whites throughout the day

and right b4 bed

he chugs down a dextrose solution with 200g of carbs

and eats 60g of butter.


im pretty sure he wouldn't have a very effective cut.

Dieting is not all about calories its also about tiiming and selection of macros. There are many variable not only anaerobic and aerobic metabolism that governs fat loss, u must also consider factors such as glucagon/insulin secretion cortisol and etc

With a few minor modifications to the above, providing him with all required macros and micros, that diet would be optimal for body composition.

[Disenfranchised]

Why does someone make this rant thread everyday about being sick of people saying "fit in into your macros". They don't even understand what they are complaining about. NO ONE is saying, "You don't need vegetables or healthy foods, just eat fast food for all your meals and make it fit your macrozzzz". NO.

They are saying, don't worry a piece of pizza or a candy bar won't hurt your goals as long as your calories are where you want them to be at the end of the day. Even one WHOLE "dirty" meal per day won't hold you back.

Too many people that frequent this subsection, and maybe just this site in general, down play the importance of work ethic and determination in workouts and want to rely on some perfect magical diet that will do all the work for them...

Are you saying that diet doesn't matter as long as you bust your ass in the weight room? LOL!

[Gabriel01]

damn, this thread should be closed. or do we need scientific re-reasearch to close this one?

[Tiffany_P]

So what it comes down to it, its calories in=calories out which leads to fat loss, Does anyone known an estimated (obviously differs for everyone) the longest one should go without calories (estimated hours/maybe days) before one begins to turn to muscle for energy and not fat. Are there any studies that explain what percentage of muscle and percentage of fat the body consumes for energy when in a calorie deficit? After a period of time in a deficit a person goes into "starvation mode" where the body begins to feed on muscle more than fat for energy. When does this "Starvation mode" (estimated of course) start and end. I think a lot of people try to eat 5-6 small meals a day in order to stop the burning of muscle. And why is it usually stated to eat 500 calories under maintained, if you eat less under maintained will your body use more muscle as energy or is this just a number someone made up (forget about the healthy way for a second and try to answer these questions). I am just curious what you have to say, I will continue on my 4-5 meals a day at maintained calories ha-ha

You have so much to learn that it'd be imposssible to address all your concerns in one post. I'll give you some short answers.

-The amount of muscle you lose while dieting is determined by the amount of fat you have, the size of your calorie deficit (fat can only be mobilized at a certain rate), the amount of protein you are consuming, and the amount and types of exercise you're doing.
-Starvation mode refers to the slowing of your metabolism due to prolonged dieting. It does not mean that your body is using muscle instead of fat for fuel. It means that you are losing fat at a slower rate than what your calorie deficit would predict. During a complete fast, metabolism can start to slow down by the third day. Eating 5-6 meals a day does not prevent starvation mode. It CAN help prevent muscle loss but ONLY in diets where adequate protein is not being consumed. If you are consuming enough protein, then it doesn't matter how many meals you eat.
-500 calories is an arbitrary number that people use because it results in a fat loss of 1 lb per week. The fatter you are, the greater calorie deficit you can get away with.

Please read some of these articles and be enlightened:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/articles

[Phosphate bond]

Are you saying that diet doesn't matter as long as you bust your ass in the weight room? LOL!

I don't think that is what he meant.

But what you are saying here is probably the truth.

Seriously a person could have the most inefficient diet in the world but as long as he or she was willing to endure a lot of pain the stimulus for muscle growth would still be there.

It is just that some of these proper diets may help training volume/intensity (all things being equal) as long as the equivalent amount of determination is put into the idea of training.

[fyre500]

Are you saying that diet doesn't matter as long as you bust your ass in the weight room? LOL!

Obviously you can't read. Here, let me bold the most important part:

Why does someone make this rant thread everyday about being sick of people saying "fit in into your macros". They don't even understand what they are complaining about. NO ONE is saying, "You don't need vegetables or healthy foods, just eat fast food for all your meals and make it fit your macrozzzz". NO.

They are saying, don't worry a piece of pizza or a candy bar won't hurt your goals as long as your calories are where you want them to be at the end of the day. Even one WHOLE "dirty" meal per day won't hold you back.

Too many people that frequent this subsection, and maybe just this site in general, down play the importance of work ethic and determination in workouts and want to rely on some perfect magical diet that will do all the work for them...

And for those of you who think that Holyspokes doesn't know what he's talking about, try visiting this thread and you'll see that the guy is ripped and yet his pre-bed meal last night was 3 peanut butter & banana sandwiches and a handful of M&Ms. The majority of meals he posts are similar in chaotic deliciousness as well.

That should be a big hint that carbs before bed are NOT the enemy. Overeating and binging are the enemies here. It's called moderation and ample protein intake. Exercise helps too.

[rainieravesouth]

extreme example is extremely invalid. no one who had any common sense or practiced moderation would do that. moderation is key. It mean to be able to not binge or go overboard on food. it means you can have a cookie or 2 and stop from eating the whole bag. moderation doesnt mean eat 60 g of butter for your fats for the day, or eating 200 g of dextrose before bed. OP just doesnt get it.


BB definition of "clean" is vastly overrated. people try to eat clean and then have a cheat. how is that healthy? how do you look at foods as a "cheat?"