PDA

View Full Version : So wait...you're saying Cals IN vs Cals OUT??



HighSchoolGuy
04-18-2009, 07:04 PM
If I ate 3500cals of pure chicken breast/fish/whole wheat bread/pasta/peanuts.
(only healthy foods)
OR
I ate 3500cals of pure chicken breast/some doritoes/chocolate cake/mcdonalds/some veggies. (healthy foods + junk + fast food)

I will grow the exact same? As long as calories are the same?

Does the body choose where to put the excess calories? That basically means clean bulk/dirty bulk is exactly the same. It should be called close bulk and excess bulk..or something.

I used the search, and everyone says cals are cals. But that can't be right can it?

nockits
04-18-2009, 07:19 PM
i don't think this is true. i think the ratio of proteins/carbs/fat is what counts here. although i'm not sure what the exact numbers are.
protein is about 1.5g per lb, but im not sure about the 2.
you can increase the calorie count, as long as the ratio remains the same, i think thats how it works.

Torrok
04-18-2009, 07:35 PM
also, the quality, vitamins and minerals, and type of food counts. quality woudl be like, which do you think is better: frozen packed, processed, shipped and microwaved beef from mcdonalds, or lean, healthy fed, organic, carefully packaged and delivered or even better fresh off the farm beef?
honesly life is simpler if you just go and eat these: http://whfoods.org/foodstoc.php

rctriplefresh5
04-18-2009, 08:13 PM
calories equals growth. heres an example of my diet. i am a pler not a bodybuilder but its all the same.

http://fitday.com/fitness/PublicJournals.html?Owner=SICKONSTORM

Klotz
04-18-2009, 08:34 PM
Calories in vs Calories out determines how much weight you gain/lose. The composition of your body and your overall health depend on what the calories consist of.

Big Jay
04-18-2009, 08:49 PM
agree with wats said so far... plus i'm thinkin a diet with alot of sugar would produce different results than a diet with low sugar

Kastro
04-18-2009, 09:07 PM
Calories in vs Calories out determines how much weight you gain/lose. The composition of your body and your overall health depend on what the calories consist of.

This one.

dumbbell
04-18-2009, 10:38 PM
Calories in vs Calories out determines how much weight you gain/lose. The composition of your body and your overall health depend on what the calories consist of.

:thumbup:
I second that.

big joe
04-19-2009, 10:20 AM
If you think of calories as fuel, there are different grades. High octane fuel such as chicken breast and tuna will burn cleaner then low grade fuels such as twinkies and donuts. Carbon buildup and sludge (FAT) results from too much low grade fuel. Also remember there are 9 calories per gram of fat and only 4 calories per gram of protien and carbs.

slashkills
04-19-2009, 11:24 AM
Here is a qoute from the power fat loss plan on efs


Not all calories were created equal

Letís start with calories. Yes, they are a consideration but not the overriding factor of success or failure. Focus on consuming the right foods in the right combination and at the right time. The calorie issue will take care of itself. After all, would you consider 2,000 calories of corn chips to be equivalent to 2,000 calories of lean protein? The answer is no because each would have a distinctly different impact on your hormonal environment that governs fat loss, muscle growth, and performance.

Phenom
04-19-2009, 12:13 PM
So basically you're asking if macros are meaningless? Think about it.

Progress
04-19-2009, 07:34 PM
Calories in vs Calories out determines how much weight you gain/lose. The composition of your body and your overall health depend on what the calories consist of.

Not sure if I agree with this.

Let's assume protein stays at least at 1-1.5g/lb LBM and caloric fat is at least .5g/lb LBM.

Amount/percentage of calories above or below maintenance have WAY more affect on composition than macros.

A slow bulk, assuming it's clean, will result in a more efficient body re-composition, meaning ratio of fat gain to muscle gain will be small. A fast bulk, even assuming it's clean, will likely result in a less than efficient recomp.

You can eat as cleanly as you'd like but if you bulk at 200% maintenance you're going to get fat.

Trainwreck
04-19-2009, 08:39 PM
Wouldn't bulking with healthy foods mean that you would spend less time cutting? (assuming of course that your macros are where they should be) or am I just way off

Progress
04-20-2009, 08:53 AM
Wouldn't bulking with healthy foods mean that you would spend less time cutting? (assuming of course that your macros are where they should be) or am I just way off

A slow bulk (10-20% above maintenance) will limit fat gain if macros are in order. Like I said, regardless if your diet is clean or dirty, if you're eating at a relatively high percentage above maintenance, you won't be able to keep fat off. Our bodies are just not that efficient. The most efficient bulks and cuts should be carried over a long period of time or just with limited results.

Cards
04-20-2009, 08:56 AM
So basically you're asking if macros are meaningless? Think about it.

I don't think this is what he was getting at. I believe it was based on the idea that if you meet your macros, can the body distinguish calories.

I think a better question would have been:

"Assuming macronutrient needs are met, is a piece of whole wheat bread the same as a doughnut?"

In my opinion, yes. I don't believe the body can tell the difference in calories but it will have an effect on your health.

rbtrout
04-20-2009, 10:33 AM
As far as fast vs. slow bulk, your body can only burn off so many cals. Anything over that will be stored - as fat. I've tested this quite a bit on myself. Fast bulk (higher % over maintenance), even with clean food, equals more fat. Slower bulks, eating crap still equals more fat. A well-balanced diet on a slower bulk is the ticket to minimal fat gains. Same goes for cutting and muscle loss. For some one obese, it will be different, but for most of us, a fast cut will result in more muscle loss than a slow cut will.

Brad08
04-20-2009, 10:36 AM
Nutrient partitioning has a role here but I'm not really sure it answers the question of, if you overeat, does it matter if those calories are "clean" or "dirty" (assuming, of course, you get enough protein, which is always important).


At a very fundamental level, the problem that natural bodybuilders and athletes have is one of partitioning; that is, where the calories go when you eat more of them or come from when you eat less of them. In an ideal universe, every calorie you ate would go to muscle tissue, with none going into fat cells; youíd gain 100% muscle and no fat. In that same ideal universe, every calorie used during dieting would come from fat stores; youíd lose 100% fat and no muscle. Unfortunately, we donít live in an ideal universe.

Calorie Partitioning Part 1 (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/calorie-partitioning-part-1.html)
Calorie Partitioning Part 2 (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/calorie-partitioning-part-2.html)

Brad08
04-20-2009, 10:38 AM
Fast bulk (higher % over maintenance), even with clean food, equals more fat. Slower bulks, eating crap still equals more fat.

In your experience, eating crap made you fat(ter) while bulking than if you'd eaten clean?

rbtrout
04-20-2009, 10:43 AM
Oh yes. In fact, I've measured the difference with calipers in just one week. I spent several years testing this on myself, just to see how it would go. The problem is - I love to eat. I really have to watch what I eat or I put on alot of bf, especially in the stomach.
When I bulked fast (eating about 6000 cals per day) and all the food was measured out and very clean, I put on fat, but not as much as eating crap. The benefits during that bulk were eating cleanly, I had more strength than when I ate crap.

11not10
04-20-2009, 12:40 PM
A slow bulk (10-20% above maintenance) will limit fat gain if macros are in order. Like I said, regardless if your diet is clean or dirty, if you're eating at a relatively high percentage above maintenance, you won't be able to keep fat off. Our bodies are just not that efficient. The most efficient bulks and cuts should be carried over a long period of time or just with limited results.

this

Songsangnim
04-20-2009, 05:58 PM
In your experience, eating crap made you fat(ter) while bulking than if you'd eaten clean?

Calories from a fat source are stored more readily as body fat than calories from carbohydrates or protein. While the difference is not huge, over a period of time it can add up.

Unreal
04-20-2009, 06:04 PM
But if your eating the same exact macro breakdown does it matter if it is a donut or a cup of oats and peanut butter. If both are 300cals with 30g carbs and 10gs of fat?

The problem with dirty food to me is it is hard to track, not filling, calorie dense, lacks nutrients, and can contain bad trans fat.

I would say if your eating 3500 cals with the same exact macro breakdown (protein,fat,carbs), getting sufficient fiber and nutrients then the difference between eating all "clean" foods and "dirty" foods will be so small I doubt it could be statistically measured.

Brad08
04-22-2009, 07:59 AM
But if your eating the same exact macro breakdown does it matter if it is a donut or a cup of oats and peanut butter. If both are 300cals with 30g carbs and 10gs of fat?

The problem with dirty food to me is it is hard to track, not filling, calorie dense, lacks nutrients, and can contain bad trans fat.

I would say if your eating 3500 cals with the same exact macro breakdown (protein,fat,carbs), getting sufficient fiber and nutrients then the difference between eating all "clean" foods and "dirty" foods will be so small I doubt it could be statistically measured.

At least one diet expert agrees (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-to-a-fast-food-meal-compared-with-nutritionally-comparable-meals-of-different-composition-research-review.html)


Fundamentally, my belief is that, given identical macro-nutrient intakes (in terms of protein, carbs, and fats) that there is going to be little difference in terms of bodily response to a given meal. There may be small differences mind you (and of course research supports that) but, overall, they are not large. And certainly not of the magnitude that many make it sound like.

. . . .

Itís not uncommon for the physique obsessed to literally become social pariahs, afraid to eat out because eating out is somehow defined as Ďuncleaní (never mind that a grilled chicken breast eaten out is fundamentally no different than a grilled chicken breast cooked at home) and fast food is, of course, the death of any diet. This is in addition to the fact that apparently eating fast food makes you morally inferior as well. Well, thatís what bodybuilders and other orthorexics will tell you anyhow.

Except that itís clearly not. Given caloric control, the bodyís response to a given set of nutrients, with the exception of blood lipids would appear to be more determined by the total caloric and macro content of that meal more than the source of the food.

In terms of the hormonal response, clean vs. unclean just doesnít matter, itís all about calories and macros.

VikingWarlord
04-22-2009, 12:50 PM
Not sure if I agree with this.

Let's assume protein stays at least at 1-1.5g/lb LBM and caloric fat is at least .5g/lb LBM.

Amount/percentage of calories above or below maintenance have WAY more affect on composition than macros.

A slow bulk, assuming it's clean, will result in a more efficient body re-composition, meaning ratio of fat gain to muscle gain will be small. A fast bulk, even assuming it's clean, will likely result in a less than efficient recomp.

You can eat as cleanly as you'd like but if you bulk at 200% maintenance you're going to get fat.

It looks like you said pretty much exactly what he did. His wording was just slightly awkward. I read his statement "...the composition of your body and your overall health depend on what the calories consist of" to say that the composition of the calories determines your body composition in the end.

If that's the case, you're both saying the same thing and I agree. So would anyone with even a cursory understanding of metabolic physiology.


Calories from a fat source are stored more readily as body fat than calories from carbohydrates or protein. While the difference is not huge, over a period of time it can add up.

This depends a lot on what else is going on with metabolic hormone levels. If insulin levels are kept low, glucagon levels rise and that will result in fat being more readily utilized for fuel.

Brad08
04-22-2009, 02:45 PM
I read his statement "...the composition of your body and your overall health depend on what the calories consist of" to say that the composition of the calories determines your body composition in the end.


IF calories are held constant, right? Because if they aren't, then the precise ratio of carbs to fat makes less difference than the AMOUNT of calories you eat. For example, you WILL get fat if you eat too many calories; it doesn't matter if you're eating 10% carbs or %50 carbs.

Or do you disagree?

VikingWarlord
04-22-2009, 02:49 PM
IF calories are held constant, right? Because if they aren't, then the precise ratio of carbs to fat makes less difference than the AMOUNT of calories you eat. For example, you WILL get fat if you eat too many calories; it doesn't matter if you're eating 10% carbs or %50 carbs.

Or do you disagree?

That was in the first part of his statement that I didn't quote. "Calories in vs Calories out determines how much weight you gain/lose" pretty much sums it up.

If calories are kept at a constant rate above maintenance, weight will come. The composition of the weight is added can be affected by the source of those calories.

That's how I interpreted his original statement and I'm inclined to agree in general. As I mentioned above, individual biochemical/hormonal differences can yield varying results.

Brad08
04-22-2009, 03:00 PM
Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

VikingWarlord
04-22-2009, 03:12 PM
Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

That was just my interpretation of that post and, if that's the original intent, I agree wholeheartedly.

As mentioned, the wording was a little odd so any kind of misinterpretation is possible.

Progress
04-23-2009, 09:36 AM
That was in the first part of his statement that I didn't quote. "Calories in vs Calories out determines how much weight you gain/lose" pretty much sums it up.

If calories are kept at a constant rate above maintenance, weight will come. The composition of the weight is added can be affected by the source of those calories.

That's how I interpreted his original statement and I'm inclined to agree in general. As I mentioned above, individual biochemical/hormonal differences can yield varying results.

My chief point is that "calories in/out" meaning percentage above or below maintenance is more important to changes in body composition than macro composition is to body composition.

So basically the composition of the body is determined by how much you gain/lose (cals in/out). They're not mutually exclusive. If calories in is much greater than maintenance, body composition will have a high fat/LBM ratio and vice versa.

Does that make sense?

VikingWarlord
04-23-2009, 10:14 AM
My chief point is that "calories in/out" meaning percentage above or below maintenance is more important to changes in body composition than macro composition is to body composition.

So basically the composition of the body is determined by how much you gain/lose (cals in/out). They're not mutually exclusive. If calories in is much greater than maintenance, body composition will have a high fat/LBM ratio and vice versa.

Does that make sense?

The composition isn't necessarily determined by caloric consumption. The overall weight is. According to everything I've ever read, nutrient partitioning DOES matter to some degree or another.

If someone maintains at 2500 and add 20%, you're eating at 3000kCal. According to this:


...the composition of the body is determined by how much you gain/lose (cals in/out).

your claim plainly states that the subject would gain the exact same composition ratio of LBM to fat by eating 3000kCal worth of Hostess snack cakes as he would eating quality lean protein and unsaturated fats with complex carbohydrates...a clean diet.

This just isn't going to happen.

The sources of those calories WILL have an effect on overall composition, (and try hard to listen this time, ok?) ONCE CALORIC NEEDS ARE DETERMINED. The extent of it depends on many other individual factors like hormonal activity and biochemistry but to say that it has no effect at all is ludicrous.

Holto
04-23-2009, 10:26 AM
Sometimes it's good to visit extremes to illustrate a point. Imagine a scenario where an athlete consumed maintenance calories +25% and ate ZERO protein, he would gain weight and rapidly lose lean mass.

If we're discussing clean VS dirty, we really should compare equivalent calories and macro ratios.

Brad08
04-23-2009, 12:19 PM
Sometimes it's good to visit extremes to illustrate a point. Imagine a scenario where an athlete consumed maintenance calories +25% and ate ZERO protein, he would gain weight and rapidly lose lean mass.



This reminds me of that infamous kid on BB.com who bulked on like 6 packages a day of this chicken and rice stuff, which had no protein and was basically just chicken-flavored rice. He thought it included protein b/c it said "chicken". He gained weight alright.

rctriplefresh5
04-23-2009, 12:21 PM
This reminds me of that infamous kid on BB.com who bulked on like 6 packages a day of this chicken and rice stuff, which had no protein and was basically just chicken-flavored rice. He thought it included protein b/c it said "chicken". He gained weight alright.
dreamer lol

Brad08
04-23-2009, 12:27 PM
poor kid. LOL

Progress
04-23-2009, 02:53 PM
The composition isn't necessarily determined by caloric consumption. The overall weight is. According to everything I've ever read, nutrient partitioning DOES matter to some degree or another.

If someone maintains at 2500 and add 20%, you're eating at 3000kCal. According to this:



your claim plainly states that the subject would gain the exact same composition ratio of LBM to fat by eating 3000kCal worth of Hostess snack cakes as he would eating quality lean protein and unsaturated fats with complex carbohydrates...a clean diet.

This just isn't going to happen.

The sources of those calories WILL have an effect on overall composition, (and try hard to listen this time, ok?) ONCE CALORIC NEEDS ARE DETERMINED. The extent of it depends on many other individual factors like hormonal activity and biochemistry but to say that it has no effect at all is ludicrous.

Perhaps I spoke in hyperbole. I'm going to concede my point and defer to Lyle's quote that Brad posted.

Max Thunder
04-23-2009, 04:37 PM
It's about hormones, not calories. But on average, more cals in than out = make you fat. That's my opinion. But it's pretty hard to gain fat if you don't eat any carbs or even very low carb, no matter how much calories you eat, so high insulin is a huge mediator of fat gain. When I eat a ton of fat, thermogenesis is sky high (and I probably spill ketones in my urine). On the other hand, when I haven't eaten in a while, my hands and feet are cold.

When the right hormones are elevated (free testosterone, growth hormone), which is what happens with heavy training, high-fat/protein diet and steroid injections, then the extra calories will not lead to as much fat gain.

Holto
04-24-2009, 10:24 AM
It's about hormones, not calories. But on average, more cals in than out = make you fat. That's my opinion. But it's pretty hard to gain fat if you don't eat any carbs or even very low carb, no matter how much calories you eat, so high insulin is a huge mediator of fat gain.

This is where you have to defer to physics. If you didn't eat any carbs, and consumed an extra 500 calories per day, those calories are stored. The body is a closed system, governed by the laws of thermodynamics.

Manipulating hormones just makes things easier, such as being less hungry.

Max Thunder
04-24-2009, 01:57 PM
The laws of thermodynamics say that energy is always converted and never lost, not that it must be stored...

Unreal
04-24-2009, 02:30 PM
Exactly so the carbs are converted into FFA which are then stored because they are not magic pixie dust that disappears.

Songsangnim
04-25-2009, 09:29 PM
The laws of thermodynamics say that energy is always converted and never lost, not that it must be stored...

If it's never lost then it must be either used or stored (after conversion).

MadScientist
04-26-2009, 01:10 PM
It does matter,

SAT FAT /=/ UNSAT FAT

Or else I shall drink VEG oil on a bulk instead of fish oil.

Different types of protein have different bio-availability and absorption rates/

Different carbs affect or do not affect insulin levels, energy levels (just your "feeling" of having energy), differenty glycemic indexes.


Different foods = Different goals.

The bigger you are, the less it matters.

Have a cheat meal on me,
But dont cheat every day.

rctriplefresh5
04-26-2009, 01:24 PM
the past few days i have been buying nestle toll house cookies and baking them 12 cookies equals 12 grams of protein 2200 calories likw 250 carbs. remarkably for the first time in like a year my lifts have been increasing. obviously cleaner calories are probably better, but i think eating calories i ngeneral is better than eating nothing.