PDA

View Full Version : Is this a MYTH?



yeahfairly
12-11-2009, 01:36 AM
I have done a lot of research on fat loss, to include every fad diet out there. Some of the info you read is legit and some is BS. I've heard the calories in vs calories out, and to an extent, that's plausible and the main ingredient in any diet.

My question is this:

As far as excess carbs/proteins/fats being stored as fat, I am curious about the "Digestion rates of certain foods" + the amounts that can be efficiently converted to glucose to restore depleted supplies, which = the number of excess calories which will then be stored as fat. B asically, if I eat more calories at one meal than my body can use before my next feeding, will I not add to my fat stores?

I know that's as clear as mud (lol), but what I am getting at is "per meal calorie consumption". If I eat 2000 cals a day in two meals, can my body efficiently use a 1000 cal meal, without having an excess amount of nutrients being stored in the Lipose?

BadWog
12-11-2009, 01:43 AM
Whilst having two 1,000 calorie meals is far from optimal, so long as you are under your maintenance calories, getting sufficient protein and training you will lose weight/fat.

The glycemic index is a waste of time, just worry about meeting your daily calorie and macronutrient goals and you will be fine.

AdamRingshall
12-11-2009, 04:41 AM
It's a great question and I must start by saying that I couldn't disagree more with the remark about the Glycemic Index being a waste of time.

Anyone who knows anything real about fat loss, not just weight loss, and has gotten super lean knows that the key to fat loss is controlling blood sugar levels. This is because of the certain hormones that either aid fat loss or encourage it.

Yes calories in vs calories is the initial fundamental key to any diet but this is just the start and really only contributes to the weight loss, not necessarily fat loss. This is why people on traditional yo yo diets lose weight but not fat...

Anyway while you can take on board your total daily content in only 2 meals as per your example this is ineffective for fat loss because. 1. No your body will not do as good a job at digesting such a large amount of food and yes more will get stored as fat after that large sitting. 2. The nutrients will not be absorbed as well and your muscles will not be as adequately supplied with amino acids and glucose to aid muscle tissue building and maintainence, which is a massive contributor to fat loss!. 3. As mentioned blood sugar levels will peak and troph causing spikes in blood sugar levels large increases insulin levels and increasing fat storage, as well as big drops in blood sugar levels casuing sugar cravings and starving muscles which means a lowered metabolism which leads to 4. By going for this long period without food will lead to a decrease in metabolic rate and cause the body to enter starvation mode meaning it will become very efficient at storing adipose tissue (fat) once it is fed.

So calories is only a small portion of the equation when it comes to fat loss. This is why low calorie diets dont work and why some who actually eat much more caloires than others but structure their meals and eating plans in a very certain way have much lower levels of body fat.

Its how much you eat, how you eat, when you eat, what you eat and how often you eat all combined!!!

Hope that helps a little.
BodyByAdam.co.uk

itstheteam
12-11-2009, 04:56 AM
It's a great question and I must start by saying that I couldn't disagree more with the remark about the Glycemic Index being a waste of time.

Anyone who knows anything real about fat loss, not just weight loss, and has gotten super lean knows that the key to fat loss is controlling blood sugar levels. This is because of the certain hormones that either aid fat loss or encourage it.

Yes calories in vs calories is the initial fundamental key to any diet but this is just the start and really only contributes to the weight loss, not necessarily fat loss. This is why people on traditional yo yo diets lose weight but not fat...

Anyway while you can take on board your total daily content in only 2 meals as per your example this is ineffective for fat loss because. 1. No your body will not do as good a job at digesting such a large amount of food and yes more will get stored as fat after that large sitting. 2. The nutrients will not be absorbed as well and your muscles will not be as adequately supplied with amino acids and glucose to aid muscle tissue building and maintainence, which is a massive contributor to fat loss!. 3. As mentioned blood sugar levels will peak and troph causing spikes in blood sugar levels large increases insulin levels and increasing fat storage, as well as big drops in blood sugar levels casuing sugar cravings and starving muscles which means a lowered metabolism which leads to 4. By going for this long period without food will lead to a decrease in metabolic rate and cause the body to enter starvation mode meaning it will become very efficient at storing adipose tissue (fat) once it is fed.

So calories is only a small portion of the equation when it comes to fat loss. This is why low calorie diets dont work and why some who actually eat much more caloires than others but structure their meals and eating plans in a very certain way have much lower levels of body fat.

Its how much you eat, how you eat, when you eat, what you eat and how often you eat all combined!!!

Hope that helps a little.
BodyByAdam.co.uk


I agree. I've tested this several times. Days I limit myself to 2 meals on extremely low calories. I usually drop pounds fast, and then go back to eating on my regular diet and the weight gets put right on. when i eat normally at 5 to 6 small meals a day i usually drop a pound or two a week, but it stays off, I dont put it right back on. The more i eat seems to workout for my body atleast in the more permanent weight I lose.

th3pwn3r
12-11-2009, 05:32 AM
It's a great question and I must start by saying that I couldn't disagree more with the remark about the Glycemic Index being a waste of time.

Anyone who knows anything real about fat loss, not just weight loss, and has gotten super lean knows that the key to fat loss is controlling blood sugar levels. This is because of the certain hormones that either aid fat loss or encourage it.

Yes calories in vs calories is the initial fundamental key to any diet but this is just the start and really only contributes to the weight loss, not necessarily fat loss.


So calories is only a small portion of the equation when it comes to fat loss. This is why low calorie diets dont work and why some who actually eat much more caloires than others but structure their meals and eating plans in a very certain way have much lower levels of body fat.

Its how much you eat, how you eat, when you eat, what you eat and how often you eat all combined!!!

Hope that helps a little.
BodyByAdam.co.uk

I hope nobody on this forum really believes all of what you've said here. Low calorie diets work(see gastric and true starvation) and the reason some who actually eat much more calories than others but structure their meals and eating plans in a very certain way have much lower levels of body fat is because they're more active, have more muscle mass and create a greater caloric deficit to become lean and do a good job of maintaining their lean physique.

iDrive
12-11-2009, 05:34 AM
I have done a lot of research on fat loss, to include every fad diet out there. Some of the info you read is legit and some is BS. I've heard the calories in vs calories out, and to an extent, that's plausible and the main ingredient in any diet.

My question is this:

As far as excess carbs/proteins/fats being stored as fat, I am curious about the "Digestion rates of certain foods" + the amounts that can be efficiently converted to glucose to restore depleted supplies, which = the number of excess calories which will then be stored as fat. B asically, if I eat more calories at one meal than my body can use before my next feeding, will I not add to my fat stores?

I know that's as clear as mud (lol), but what I am getting at is "per meal calorie consumption". If I eat 2000 cals a day in two meals, can my body efficiently use a 1000 cal meal, without having an excess amount of nutrients being stored in the Lipose?

Digestion rates don't really matter you will end up digesting most everything. Also the body is constantly breaking bonds and creating bonds (read: losing fat and gaining fat) the major determinant in weather you ultimately lose it or gain it is which one is greater at the end of the day. If you only eat 2 meals then the time spent not eating meals you're most likely breaking down stored fat for energy and then if you have a big meal even if you store it all as long as you don't store more than you broke down you'll lose fat.

In regards to glucose and restoring muscle glycogen you don't really need to worry about that unless you have 2 back to back intense workouts.



So calories is only a small portion of the equation when it comes to fat loss.

Its how much you eat, how you eat, when you eat, what you eat and how often you eat all combined!!!

You got this backwards. Calories are the bigger portion when it comes to fat loss and the rest is all a tiny portion of the smaller part of the equation (if it has any effect at all)

yeahfairly
12-11-2009, 05:49 AM
Well you hit on my main issue. Blood sugar / Insulin levels and how they contribute to fat storage when your body has an excess of calories. The excess has to go some where. I can tell when I have ingested too many carbs in a meal. I get hungry soon after eating and I crave sweets. My meals mainly consist of protein, good fat, and limited complex carbs. Sometimes I struggle eating before lunch so I pretty much settle on two meals a day + two protein shakes. I will figure out a schedule that allows me to eat 4 smaller meals a day. I know someone is itching to call BS on limiting the carbs, but I come from a long line of diabetics and feel my body responds best when the simple carbs are avoided. I have heard that restricting calories to around 450 per meal is optimal. Any thoughts on this?

itstheteam
12-11-2009, 06:34 AM
I hope nobody on this forum really believes all of what you've said here. Low calorie diets work(see gastric and true starvation) and the reason some who actually eat much more calories than others but structure their meals and eating plans in a very certain way have much lower levels of body fat is because they're more active, have more muscle mass and create a greater caloric deficit to become lean and do a good job of maintaining their lean physique.

yea thats true,

iDrive
12-11-2009, 07:27 AM
Well you hit on my main issue. Blood sugar / Insulin levels and how they contribute to fat storage when your body has an excess of calories. The excess has to go some where. I can tell when I have ingested too many carbs in a meal. I get hungry soon after eating and I crave sweets. My meals mainly consist of protein, good fat, and limited complex carbs. Sometimes I struggle eating before lunch so I pretty much settle on two meals a day + two protein shakes. I will figure out a schedule that allows me to eat 4 smaller meals a day.

Eating 2 times a day isn't detrimental. I used to have a real problem adhering to a feeding pattern where I ate breakfast because it caused me to be hungry all day (I'm never hungry in the morning, ever) I switched to eating only once or twice a day and I've been losing fat fine.
A lot of people have gotten lean/stayed lean/lean bulked on similar feeding patterns. Look up Intermittent Fasting, the Warrior Diet ( both have threads in the Advanced Nutrition section) or Eat Stop Eat.

Losing fat is more about adherence to diet than anything else.


I know someone is itching to call BS on limiting the carbs, but I come from a long line of diabetics and feel my body responds best when the simple carbs are avoided. I have heard that restricting calories to around 450 per meal is optimal. Any thoughts on this?

Carbs are personal preference and some people prefer to limit them as they can perform better but others find the opposite is true.
Again, adherence.

450 sounds like an arbitrary number pulled out of thin air to me.
Similar to:
No carbs after 5pm
Eat a small meal every 3 hours
Drink a Post-Workout shake 30mins after your workout.

yeahfairly
12-11-2009, 07:52 AM
Eating 2 times a day isn't detrimental. I used to have a real problem adhering to a feeding pattern where I ate breakfast because it caused me to be hungry all day (I'm never hungry in the morning, ever) I switched to eating only once or twice a day and I've been losing fat fine.
A lot of people have gotten lean/stayed lean/lean bulked on similar feeding patterns. Look up Intermittent Fasting, the Warrior Diet ( both have threads in the Advanced Nutrition section) or Eat Stop Eat.

Losing fat is more about adherence to diet than anything else.



Carbs are personal preference and some people prefer to limit them as they can perform better but others find the opposite is true.
Again, adherence.

Similar to:
No carbs after 5pm
Eat a small meal every 3 hours
Drink a Post-Workout shake 30mins after your workout.

Thanks! I have been running a 700 a day deficit for bout 4 weeks now. I have been concerned about only eating twice a day, but like you, I am not even close to hungry in the mornings. I was curious as to whether I was actually having a negative effect by fasting from 9PM at night till noon the next day and if the two 800 cal meals would be considered over eating. I drop a couple of low carb protein shakes during the day to keep my protein at 200 grams +.

th3pwn3r
12-11-2009, 07:57 AM
Thanks! I have been running a 700 a day deficit for bout 4 weeks now. I have been concerned about only eating twice a day, but like you, I am not even close to hungry in the mornings. I was curious as to whether I was actually having a negative effect by fasting from 9PM at night till noon the next day and if the two 800 cal meals would be considered over eating. I drop a couple of low carb protein shakes during the day to keep my protein at 200 grams +.

Meal frequency and/or timing are irrelevant. All that matters is that you're losing fat and preserving your muscle mass, all the other technicalities don't matter much.

iDrive
12-11-2009, 08:13 AM
Thanks! I have been running a 700 a day deficit for bout 4 weeks now. I have been concerned about only eating twice a day, but like you, I am not even close to hungry in the mornings. I was curious as to whether I was actually having a negative effect by fasting from 9PM at night till noon the next day and if the two 800 cal meals would be considered over eating. I drop a couple of low carb protein shakes during the day to keep my protein at 200 grams +.

Intermittent fasting commonly follows a 16hr fast (usually with ~8 of that sleep) and ~8hr feeding window.
Eat Stop Eat has 1-2 days of 24hr fasting per week.
Warrior diet (I believe) is fasting from sunrise to sunset.

So a fasting (non-eating) window of 9pm-12am is perfectly fine. I'll also note that many of these protocols break the non-eating phase around their workouts so pre-,post- workout meals/shakes are common, but not absolutely necessary.

As far as two 800 cal meals being over eating, that will only be considered over eating if you're maintenance level is under 1600.

yeahfairly
12-11-2009, 09:40 AM
Thanks Guys! I am trying to get back to around 200 lbs, which is a good weight for me, and I have about 30 more to drop. I have no problems controlling what I feed my body and high protein and moderate complex carbs is right down my alley. I can eat chicken, tuna, broccolli and lettuce every meal and not get bored. I am using whey and a EFA supplement. I use olive oil and peanut butter to keep my fat ratio where I want it. My concern was length of fast, meal timing, meal size, and keeping my cals up enough to prevent muscle loss.