Fats vs. Carbs

[Ghosting]

In after AA (too).

[Ghosting]

In after AA.

Wow, you got ripped fast.

[FitnessTom]

It was more like me kicking around a 3-legged puppy. Dude couldn't defend his arguments worth crap.

I agree. I think other people did a better job of having an intellectual debate with you. There was a ton of information in the entire comment thread to absorb.

[alan aragon]

I agree. I think other people did a better job of having an intellectual debate with you. There was a ton of information in the entire comment thread to absorb.

The thing is, no one in that discussion could sufficiently argue on the basis of research. People let their emotions & conspiracy theories get the best of them. I'd rather argue on the basis of science than emotion/whim/hunch.

Here's a review that came out after my Lustig thrashing, and once again, it concurs with the evidence I presented:

"The issue of dietary fructose and health is linked to the quantity consumed, which is the same issue for any macro- or micro nutrients. It has been considered that moderate fructose consumption of ≤50g/day or ~10% of energy has no deleterious effect on lipid and glucose control and of ≤100g/day does not influence body weight. No fully relevant data account for a direct link between moderate dietary fructose intake and health risk markers."

FULL TEXT, BABY.

[MikeK46]

I agree. And I should've said minimum fat gain rather than none.

How do you feel about the debate of purely focused on calories in/out vs. what those calories are made up of in regards to macronutrients?

What debate? Of course macronutrients are important, starting with protein. Protein is constantly being broken down as a natural physiological process. It is an indisputable fact that to increase lean mass, you need a surplus of protein beyond that necessary to maintain existing lean mass as well as cover amino acid requirements.

The recommendation to consume 1-1.5g/lb lean mass is to ensure that this surplus always exists, so that when combined it with resistance training, there are surplus amino acids available for synthesis of new muscle tissue.

Fat is an essential macronutrient as well, and has its own contributions (especially hormonal) to lean mass gains. So again, to maximize the potential for synthesis of new muscle tissue, fat intake should follow the recommended amount.

[FitnessTom]

The thing is, no one in that discussion could sufficiently argue on the basis of research. People let their emotions & conspiracy theories get the best of them. I'd rather argue on the basis of science than emotion/whim/hunch.

Here's a review that came out after my Lustig thrashing, and once again, it concurs with the evidence I presented:

"The issue of dietary fructose and health is linked to the quantity consumed, which is the same issue for any macro- or micro nutrients. It has been considered that moderate fructose consumption of ≤50g/day or ~10% of energy has no deleterious effect on lipid and glucose control and of ≤100g/day does not influence body weight. No fully relevant data account for a direct link between moderate dietary fructose intake and health risk markers."

FULL TEXT, BABY.

That was a real good read. I must say I was still sort of on the fence about fructose, but it's hard to deny overwhelming evidence... Thank you.

Edit: Also while I think anectodal evidence is useful, it is incredibly inferior to real data, which is why i quickly stopped with testimonials here.

Further, trying to prove a point by stating credentials is quite a desparate/useless strategy that has nothing to do with facts. "232k youtube hits"

[jpzsports]

Rather, the diet's contribution to bodyweight is dependent on caloric balance and the diet's contribution to body composition is dependent on micro/macronutrient sufficiency.

=)

I think this sums it up best.

[sailingpece]

I've been getting a little confused with comparing fats vs. protein vs calorie intake. Some say weight gain is purely caused by a surplus of calories. While I agree partially, I also feel like it depends on where those calories come from.

Although there's ALOT more to what ACTUALLY happens, BUT given a known calorie expenditure vs intake in the same time frame, then its just common sense:

input > output Mass increase
input < output Mass decrease
input = output Mass in equilibrium

NOTE: Here we're just taking about ENERGY...when it comes to the FUNCTION of macro-nutrients things change a little bit, but not much.

Do foods that are high in fat cause weight gain because they are high in fat, or just because they tend to also be high in calories? I know that 1 gram of fat has 9 calories vs 1 gram of protein/carbs has 4.

Again, weight gain has to do with energy intake vs expenditure...When you examine the individual macro-nutrients, that's when things like body composition come into play, but it isn't THAT different for the average person than if you were to look at it strictly from an energy in vs out point of view. Ultimately, as far as energy expenditure is concerned, all macro-nutrients if they are for whatever reason to be used for energy, enter common ATP yielding pathways



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Let's say someone at a 2000 calorie diet of pure protein and another person ate pure fat. They're both the same calories, but wouldn't the protein one lead to more muscle and a leaner body? And wouldn't the fat diet lead to a higher body fat % ?

Consider the thermogenic effect of food here...protein is on the higher end, carbohydrates vary, and fats are on the lower end...From an energy point of view refer to the intake vs expenditure principle once more, if these two individuals expended the same amount of energy in the same time frame During the time frame which they ingested 2000 calories of whatever macro-nutrients, then yes their net change in body mass should be the same...will their body composition be different ? Mayb, mayb not, I think that is highly subjective and is dependent on hormones, and exercise.

All the fat you ingest will either be used, partially used/partially stored, or stored completely, but 2000 calories that are expended need to come from somewhere...bringing you back to square one.

And lastly, many people are saying how a diet high in carbs is what is really causing obesity, etc. Because too many carbs ends up being converted to fat. I agree, but shouldn't fats still be kept somewhat low (besides healthy fats) since fat is already fat? So it's basically the same as a carb that's been converted already.

Obesity is caused by many things...genetics and lifestyle being the major causes...but putting genetics aside, if for whatever reason you take in more calories than you consume, your body was designed to store the surplus regardless of what the macronutrient is...pay attention to that last sentence, I said your body STORES it...the FORM of storage is highly dependent on exercise and the hormonal state...anabolic hormones swimming in the blood stream with plenty of amino acids and a damaged muscle screams a signal to your body "store nutrients in the damaged muscle(glucose), and use the functional units(amino acids) to fix the damage"

Thats my two cents

[juliacheh]

Love me some sugar.
No crashes, sorry, carbophobes.

Leaner and stronger than ever in my life!

[Cumulonimbus]

sailingpece, great sum up, repped on recharge

Julia, you know how I know you're dieting and eat high CHO?

[juliacheh]

sailingpece, great sum up, repped on recharge

Julia, you know how I know you're dieting and eat high CHO?

No, tell me please

[Cumulonimbus]

Trollin' due to dieting and energetic as fuk due to CHO

wooooooooooooooo

[juliacheh]

Trollin' due to dieting and energetic as fuk due to CHO

wooooooooooooooo

Yeah you know me well, unlike Fitness Tom.

Also, libido is ridiculous.

[synthetic]

Although there's ALOT more to what ACTUALLY happens, BUT given a known calorie expenditure vs intake in the same time frame, then its just common sense:

input > output Mass increase
input < output Mass decrease
input = output Mass in equilibrium

NOTE: Here we're just taking about ENERGY...when it comes to the FUNCTION of macro-nutrients things change a little bit, but not much.



Again, weight gain has to do with energy intake vs expenditure...When you examine the individual macro-nutrients, that's when things like body composition come into play, but it isn't THAT different for the average person than if you were to look at it strictly from an energy in vs out point of view. Ultimately, as far as energy expenditure is concerned, all macro-nutrients if they are for whatever reason to be used for energy, enter common ATP yielding pathways



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Consider the thermogenic effect of food here...protein is on the higher end, carbohydrates vary, and fats are on the lower end...From an energy point of view refer to the intake vs expenditure principle once more, if these two individuals expended the same amount of energy in the same time frame During the time frame which they ingested 2000 calories of whatever macro-nutrients, then yes their net change in body mass should be the same...will their body composition be different ? Mayb, mayb not, I think that is highly subjective and is dependent on hormones, and exercise.

All the fat you ingest will either be used, partially used/partially stored, or stored completely, but 2000 calories that are expended need to come from somewhere...bringing you back to square one.



Obesity is caused by many things...genetics and lifestyle being the major causes...but putting genetics aside, if for whatever reason you take in more calories than you consume, your body was designed to store the surplus regardless of what the macronutrient is...pay attention to that last sentence, I said your body STORES it...the FORM of storage is highly dependent on exercise and the hormonal state...anabolic hormones swimming in the blood stream with plenty of amino acids and a damaged muscle screams a signal to your body "store nutrients in the damaged muscle(glucose), and use the functional units(amino acids) to fix the damage"

Thats my two cents

super excellent post.. reps, especially on the last part, the concetrations of the fat type or carb type is a big influence on hormones

[Cumulonimbus]

super excellent post.. reps, especially on the last part, the concetrations of the fat type or carb type is a big influence on hormones

[kusok]

Someone HAS TO explain this to me. Why do people do that? Is that 3 plates??? Why? Does this help stack dishes from dishwasher back to the shelves better? Does that make you a babe magnet? Earn you $$$? Why would someone try this???

*mind blown*

[synthetic]

Someone HAS TO explain this to me. Why do people do that? Is that 3 plates??? Why? Does this help stack dishes from dishwasher back to the shelves better? Does that make you a babe magnet? Earn you $$$? Why would someone try this???

*mind blown*

ask your self that when you lift any barbell weight then... It was an attempt while training for a olympic lifting competition.

[Cumulonimbus]

Why upload for it general public to view in the first place?

[WonderPug]

Why upload for it general public to view in the first place?

A deep seeded desire to be ridiculed would be my best guess...

[deeAvi]

i once read from alan that a high amount of fat can resort in storing more body fat. isn't that true? even if its cal in vs cal out

[kusok]

ask your self that when you lift any barbell weight then... It was an attempt while training for a olympic lifting competition.

haha, but I'm trying to understand why. I can understand trying to be a babe magnet and doing some shoulder presses etc. I can understand Olympic lifts if one is a lifter and it earns one $$$ for a living in some way, I can understand some combat athlete training for strength and power etc. But I don't get why a normal person would try something so heavy, so useless, so dangerous, and then post it...

I'm just sayin, no hate.

[Cumulonimbus]

i once read from alan that a high amount of fat can resort in storing more body fat. isn't that true? even if its cal in vs cal out

The body is very efficient at oxidization and selection macronutrients to oxidize and store. Almost 100% of the time, dietary fats main fate is to be stored. This is even more true as CHO intake goes up since the rate of CHO oxidzation increases to match CHO intake.

But through a bunch of funky on going metabolic processes and favoring of oxidization, it all boils down to cals in vs. cals out.

[sailingpece]

I had argued this whole issue with my exercise physiology professor, the conclusions we came up with is that:

1. Taking all other factors out of consideration, energy in vs out determines Delta(weight) lol...this has a large enough influence to be the sole factor when considering general health.

2. Since glycogen stores are relatively constant, so is bone and mineral content...any change in weight is for the most part either gains in adipose tissue or muscle tissue, the change is largly dependent on the type of exercise induced, diet, gender, and most importantly the hormonal state...but I still think exercise is the most important factor.

In reference to #2 above, take for example the hormone insulin, which is known to inhibit lypolisis, thereby allowing any fat intake within that hormonal state to be forced into storage, this would ultimately increase the proportion of fat mass....but we are not eliminating the energy in vs out principle here, it still applies...That's where people choke and begin to confuse weight gain and body re-composition.

Nothing new here but its just impossible to answer these types of questions with a paragraph or two, and when we give people the "energy in vs out" argument they're very unsatisfied, but why not ? The human body is amazing for making things that simple....The supplement industry wants people to think that eating is sooo complicated, when in reality its a hind brain activity that should be spontaneous and free !

[x-ray vision]

Is that 3 plates???

One 45 and two 25s (visible).

[synthetic]

Why upload for it general public to view in the first place?

i left it in there as a humor thing because i dont put many vids up

haha, but I'm trying to understand why. I can understand trying to be a babe magnet and doing some shoulder presses etc. I can understand Olympic lifts if one is a lifter and it earns one $$$ for a living in some way, I can understand some combat athlete training for strength and power etc. But I don't get why a normal person would try something so heavy, so useless, so dangerous, and then post it...

I'm just sayin, no hate.

i recently did toughmudder... www.toughmudder.com ...a little bit more crazy then what i did in the video... tell all those people that they are doing something useless. Its called taking a challenge, to see how you fare vs the pros.

The supplement industry wants people to think that eating is sooo complicated, when in reality its a hind brain activity that should be spontaneous and free !

because the food industry has made our foods complicated and our technological achievements making a more seditary life style

One 45 and two 25s (visible).

35 / 45 / 15 / 10

265lb

[kusok]

I had argued this whole issue with my exercise physiology professor, the conclusions we came up with is that:

1. Taking all other factors out of consideration, energy in vs out determines Delta(weight) lol...this has a large enough influence to be the sole factor when considering general health.

2. Since glycogen stores are relatively constant, so is bone and mineral content...any change in weight is for the most part either gains in adipose tissue or muscle tissue, the change is largly dependent on the type of exercise induced, diet, gender, and most importantly the hormonal state...but I still think exercise is the most important factor.

In reference to #2 above, take for example the hormone insulin, which is known to inhibit lypolisis, thereby allowing any fat intake within that hormonal state to be forced into storage, this would ultimately increase the proportion of fat mass.... but we are not eliminating the energy in vs out principle here, it still applies...That's where people choke and begin to confuse weight gain and body re-composition.

Nothing new here but its just impossible to answer these types of questions with a paragraph or two, and when we give people the "energy in vs out" argument they're very unsatisfied, but why not ? The human body is amazing for making things that simple....The supplement industry wants people to think that eating is sooo complicated, when in reality its a hind brain activity that should be spontaneous and free !

...

[kusok]

i recently did toughmudder... www.toughmudder.com ...a little bit more crazy then what i did in the video... tell all those people that they are doing something useless. Its called taking a challenge, to see how you fare vs the pros.

I get it, challenge for the sake of challenge. It certainly looks "interesting" having someone shove you in the ass as you try to climb a wall that you can walk around, covered in mud, crawling under wires etc. Not my cup of tea, but I get it. Looks extremely useful too

[sailingpece]

...

Well more like theoretically but :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17974732

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:

In addition to neonatal hypoglycemia, infants who are born large for gestational age are at risk for developing obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes later in life. The aim of this study was to investigate glucose production, lipolysis, and insulin sensitivity in infants who were born large for gestational age to mothers without diabetes. The effect of glucagon administration on production of energy substrates was also investigated.
METHODS:

Ten healthy term infants who were born large for gestational age to mothers without diabetes were studied 16 +/- 8 hours postnatally after a 3-hour fast. Rates of glucose production and lipolysis were analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry following constant rate infusion of [6,6-(2)H2]glucose and [2-(13)C]glycerol. Insulin sensitivity was assessed by the Homeostasis Assessment Model. In 8 of the infants, the effect of an intravenous injection of 0.2 mg/kg glucagon was also analyzed.
RESULTS:

Plasma glucose and glycerol averaged 3.8 +/- 0.5 mmol/L and 384 +/- 183 micromol/L, respectively. The glycerol production rate, reflecting lipolysis, was 12.7 +/- 2.9 micromol/kg per min. Mean rate of glucose production was 30.2 +/- 4.6 micromol/kg per min. Homeostasis Assessment Model insulin sensitivity corresponded to 82% +/- 19%, beta-cell function to 221% +/- 73%, and insulin resistance to 1.3 +/- 0.3. After glucagon administration, rate of glucose production increased by 13.3 +/- 8.3 micromol/kg per min and blood glucose by 1.4 +/- 0.5 mmol/L. Glycerol production decreased from 12.8 +/- 3.0 to 10.7 +/- 2.9 micromol/kg per min. Mean insulin concentration increased from 10.9 +/- 3.0 to 30.9 +/- 10.3 mU/L. There was a strong inverse correlation between the decrease in lipolysis and increase in insulin after glucagon administration.
CONCLUSIONS:

Infants who are born large for gestational age show increased lipolysis and a propensity for decreased insulin sensitivity already at birth. The simultaneous increase in plasma insulin correlated strongly with the noted decrease in lipolysis, indicating an antilipolytic effect of insulin in these infants.

[alan aragon]

Sailingpiece, lipolysis is not a rate-limiting process to fat oxidation. This has been seen in controlled iconditions using athletic adults, so your correlational infants-under-infusion study doesn't do much. I think you're still stuck in the old thinking of ↑insulin = ↓lipolysis = ↑fat storage. This model is outated, incomplete, and devoid of context (which is everything). If, as you assert, a more insulinogenic environment would lead to "an increased proportion of fat mass" regardless of the chronically sustained net caloric balance, then how would you explain the multiple controlled studies in human adults comparing diets of diffferent insulinogenic capacities yielding no significant difference in body composition? It's easy to assume & make claims, but you'd have to put up better evidence to substantiate these claims.

[Ghosting]

www.toughmudder.com

Could have sworn this was bodybuilding.com and not checkoutmyenduranceandstickyourhandupmybutt.com