Is it just maths????

[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.

[induced_drag]

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.

IW.....you just make things too simple....that is your problem.

For some reason people dont want things to be that simple.

Hell....Pi is an irrational number that goes on for infinity....and this thread is like that in many ways. In real world applications we can consider it to be 3.14 and do just fine. A 200m diameter circle will only be 1/2mm off in circumference.

Hell NASA only uses Pi to 10 or 15 digits max in space calculations....yet some in this thread would point out that there is inherent error in their calculations. Well the space station and all the satellites do just fine with using imperfect calculations.

Why do our food calculations need to be more complex then NASA's? (half joking...but you get my point). People have shown that in the real world.....within the margin of error of measurement and in everyday examples....a calorie is a calorie. Are we using inherent errors when we calculate in this method?...sure.

Do they make a significant difference over time if a person sets reasonable macro goals and strives to eat a healthy balanced diet?.... Probably not.

[ntrllftr]

IW.....you just make things too simple....that is your problem.

For some reason people dont want things to be that simple.

Hell....Pi is an irrational number that goes on for infinity....and this thread is like that in many ways. In real world applications we can consider it to be 3.14 and do just fine. A 200m diameter circle will only be 1/2mm off in circumference.

Hell NASA only uses Pi to 10 or 15 digits max in space calculations....yet some in this thread would point out that there is inherent error in their calculations. Well the space station and all the satellites do just fine with using imperfect calculations.

Why do our food calculations need to be more complex then NASA's? (half joking...but you get my point). People have shown that in the real world.....within the margin of error of measurement and in everyday examples....a calorie is a calorie. Are we using inherent errors when we calculate in this method?...sure.

Do they make a significant difference over time if a person sets reasonable macro goals and strives to eat a healthy balanced diet?.... Probably not.

If a retard like me can get into single digit bodyfat... It can't be all that complicated. Can it?!

[bodyhard]

Why do our food calculations need to be more complex then NASA's? (half joking...but you get my point).

LOL, ID that is because this is the OV35 where arguing and trying to prove a point is more important than actual training.

[KenJenkinsII]

If a retard like me can get into single digit bodyfat... It can't be all that complicated. Can it?!

I was just thinking this hahaha. Sorry bro couldn't resist

[ntrllftr]

I was just thinking this hahaha. Sorry bro couldn't resist

[azeeb]

I agree with you 100%, BUT...

Hell....Pi is an irrational number that goes on for infinity....and this thread is like that in many ways. In real world applications we can consider it to be 3.14 and do just fine. A 200m diameter circle will only be 1/2mm off in circumference.

It will actually be off over a foot. 31.8 and some odd centimeters.

I think you meant off by .05%

[induced_drag]

I agree with you 100%, BUT...



It will actually be off over a foot. 31.8 and some odd centimeters.

I think you meant off by .05%

You are right! I was thinking .05%.....but got caught up in making my point....

Details details


Hell that fits right in with this thread anyway!

[ntrllftr]

You are right! I was thinking .05%.....but got caught up in making my point....

Details details


Hell that fits right in with this thread anyway!

Yeah, those deatils missed can kill a pilot.
The details on here will....


Welll...


Get you negged!

[Smelly bull]

LOL, ID that is because this is the OV35 where arguing and trying to prove a point is more important than actual training.

I was just thinking the same thing BH..

[HoustonTXMuscle]

In the time I was at the gym, this thread has grown by 2 more pages. Back on page 12, you asked:

Have you ever seen this? Do you have an opinion on it?
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/2/1/19

"Results
Response rate: 16% (n = 639). Half of the physicians did not know that canola oil and 26% did not know olive oil were good sources of monounsaturated fat. Ninety-three percent (84% of cardiologists vs. 96% of internists; p < 0.001) did not know that a low-fat diet, in general, would increase blood triglycerides. Approximately three-quarters (70% of cardiologists vs. 77% of internists; p < 0.01) did not know a low-fat diet would decrease HDL-c and almost half (45%) thought that a low-fat diet would not change HDL-c."

Yes. I've read the full article. No. The results do not surprise me. I know for a fact that in terms of nutrition, my knowledge far surpasses that of my cardiologist and my coach (strength training); but, I'm not paying either of them for nutritional advice. The only reason that I see a cardiologist twice a year is for semi-annual physicals as I've never had a PCP. Fifty years ago, I had a life-threating infection that resulted in pre-atrial contractions and since that time I've never had a normal EKG. Otherwise, I'm in excellent CV health, normally have a BP of 110/80 and my Total Cholesterol generally runs around 130 mg/dL with Triglycerides around 51 mg/dL

I consider dispensing medical advice over the internet and/or in a forum unethical. In fact, Furthermore, I probably pi$$ a lot of people off because, I won't give specific responses to PMs concerning allergies, immunodeficiencies, infections, etc. Aside from not having access to a complete history and physical, individual variables complicate the issue.

I find the same fault with much of the nutritional advice that I read in forums and on the internet (primarily because of diverse variables). As IW has mentioned, a lot of the information, in the absence of scientific evidence can mislead noobs. I've worked with nutritionists since the early 1980s. While it's more information than you need, I co-authored >3 peer-reviewed publications concerned with Omega 3s and certain forms of cancer. Two years ago when I wanted personal nutritional advice, I started working with a professional nutritionist (well-established national reputation). Currently, I eat 6 meals/day, tracking my calories, macros, and micro-nutrients. As I see it, one's diet is a personal matter which won't do others much good; mine is based on my RMR which is measured at least every 4 months, age, body measurements and other variables. It's gluten-free and essentially dairy-free. Because of the latter, I do take Calicum as one of my few supplements. Both those factors are by my own choosing and are totally unrelated to health issues. Growing up a dairy-farm, I literally abhor milk. Although I have the greatest respect for several of the individuals that have posted in this thread, many of the accounts of direct personal experience, I equate to anecdotal evidence. I applaud their efforts and am pleased that they have worked well. My diet works exceedingly well for me. Bottom line - the only advice that I'll listen to is from a professional nutritionist, whom I'm paying for advice. In the meanwhile, I'll probably continue to read threads like this one for entertainment value, read MuscleD mag, the journals to which I'm subscribed, check the facts on Pub Med, and refrain from giving out medical and/or nutritional advice.

Approaching the new subject: I was thinking:

[KLMARB]

In the time I was at the gym, this thread has grown by 2 more pages. Back on page 12, you asked:



"Results
Response rate: 16% (n = 639). Half of the physicians did not know that canola oil and 26% did not know olive oil were good sources of monounsaturated fat. Ninety-three percent (84% of cardiologists vs. 96% of internists; p < 0.001) did not know that a low-fat diet, in general, would increase blood triglycerides. Approximately three-quarters (70% of cardiologists vs. 77% of internists; p < 0.01) did not know a low-fat diet would decrease HDL-c and almost half (45%) thought that a low-fat diet would not change HDL-c."

Yes. I've read the full article. No. The results do not surprise me. I know for a fact that in terms of nutrition, my knowledge far surpasses that of my cardiologist and my coach (strength training); but, I'm not paying either of them for nutritional advice. The only reason that I see a cardiologist twice a year is for semi-annual physicals as I've never had a PCP. Fifty years ago, I had a life-threating infection that resulted in pre-atrial contractions and since that time I've never had a normal EKG. Otherwise, I'm in excellent CV health, normally have a BP of 110/80 and my Total Cholesterol generally runs around 130 mg/dL with Triglycerides around 51 mg/dL

I consider dispensing medical advice over the internet and/or in a forum unethical. In fact, Furthermore, I probably pi$$ a lot of people off because, I won't give specific responses to PMs concerning allergies, immunodeficiencies, infections, etc. Aside from not having access to a complete history and physical, individual variables complicate the issue.

I find the same fault with much of the nutritional advice that I read in forums and on the internet (primarily because of diverse variables). As IW has mentioned, a lot of the information, in the absence of scientific evidence can mislead noobs. I've worked with nutritionists since the early 1980s. While it's more information than you need, I co-authored >3 peer-reviewed publications concerned with Omega 3s and certain forms of cancer. Two years ago when I wanted personal nutritional advice, I started working with a professional nutritionist (well-established national reputation). Currently, I eat 6 meals/day, tracking my calories, macros, and micro-nutrients. As I see it, one's diet is a personal matter which won't do others much good; mine is based on my RMR which is measured at least every 4 months, age, body measurements and other variables. It's gluten-free and essentially dairy-free. Because of the latter, I do take Calicum as one of my few supplements. Both those factors are by my own choosing and are totally unrelated to health issues. Growing up a dairy-farm, I literally abhor milk. Although I have the greatest respect for several of the individuals that have posted in this thread, many of the accounts of direct personal experience, I equate to anecdotal evidence. I applaud their efforts and am pleased that they have worked well. My diet works exceedingly well for me. Bottom line - the only advice that I'll listen to is from a professional nutritionist, whom I'm paying for advice. In the meanwhile, I'll probably continue to read threads like this one for entertainment value, read MuscleD mag, the journals to which I'm subscribed, check the facts on Pub Med, and refrain from giving out medical and/or nutritional advice.

Approaching the new subject: I was thinking:

Thanks for the reply. I'd like the same type of study done on RDs, I think the results would be similar..

[azstrengthcoach]

Caloric intake is important no one is denying that and for some people any diet will work so long as you cut out calories. For some though the type of calories matters as much or more. If youre body is in a lipogenic state where fat is only stored and only carbs are burned, even on a low calorie diet you can still gain fat, eating a high carb diet. For these people a very low carb high fat diet can reverse lipogenesis and cause fat los EVEN ON HIGHER CALORIE DIETS. In such people the cells crave fat in will store and accumulate it even in a cloairc dficit. We know this to be true from animal studies involving hibernating animals, these animals will still gain fat mass during prehybernation even in a caloric deficit. Yes this is an extreme example, but this can happen in people too. For those who are not in a lipoltyic or fat loss state, carbs and fat are burned in the muscles for fuel and any caloric deficit works. For those who's cell are starving for fat, a high fat low cabr diet will reverse lipogenesis. This is why not all calories are created equal for all people. So the answer like always it IT DEPENDS

[DesertDude11]

LOL, ID that is because this is the OV35 where arguing and trying to prove a point is more important than actual training.

Ding.

Ding.

Ding.

Sadly, we have a winner.

[ntrllftr]

LOL, ID that is because this is the OV35 where arguing and trying to prove a point is more important than actual training.

Actually, what I hate is when you get into a debate with someone and they search the internet.
Then they copy what they think looks good then paste it in here. Good attempt of trying to make it look like they wrote it as their own.....

Caloric intake is important no one is denying that and for some people any diet will work so long as you cut out calories. For some though the type of calories matters as much or more. If youre body is in a lipogenic state where fat is only stored and only carbs are burned, even on a low calorie diet you can still gain fat, eating a high carb diet. For these people a very low carb high fat diet can reverse lipogenesis and cause fat los EVEN ON HIGHER CALORIE DIETS. In such people the cells crave fat in will store and accumulate it even in a cloairc dficit. We know this to be true from animal studies involving hibernating animals, these animals will still gain fat mass during prehybernation even in a caloric deficit. Yes this is an extreme example, but this can happen in people too. For those who are not in a lipoltyic or fat loss state, carbs and fat are burned in the muscles for fuel and any caloric deficit works. For those who's cell are starving for fat, a high fat low cabr diet will reverse lipogenesis. This is why not all calories are created equal for all people. So the answer like always it IT DEPENDS

[Old-Time-Lifter]

Actually, what I hate is when you get into a debate with someone and they search the internet.
Then they copy what they think looks good then paste it in here. Good attempt of trying to make it look like they wrote it as their own.....

LOL, but if he's going to cut and paste he should copy somebody that knows how to spell...

[azstrengthcoach]

LOL, but if he's going to cut and paste he should copy somebody that knows how to spell...

I hate autocorrect, and yes I wrote this its not a copy of anything.