PDA

View Full Version : if a cal is a cal



Puttn
10-01-2002, 01:59 PM
[people say a cal is a cal in the end of the dya ... but carbs such as simple carb spike insulin does this effect weight gain any or is it sitll a calorie is a calorie

Stray
10-01-2002, 02:07 PM
Not all cals are created equal in my understanding.

galileo
10-01-2002, 02:44 PM
Here's a debate that'll never end. ;)

I think it means more at lower bf levels.

TreeTrunks
10-01-2002, 03:26 PM
A calorie is not a calorie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You got simple and complex carbs. Different types of fats. Different types of proteins. So in ecence its just as good to eat 300 grams of sugar a day and 60 grams of fat coming from hydrogenated oils and 200 grams of soy protein? NO ITS NOT!!!!!!!!!!!

Silverback
10-01-2002, 03:31 PM
in theory a cal is a cal but like others have said all the other macronutrients have an effect on metabolism, hormone release, temperature, digestive effectiveness etc... these combinations create weight gain/maintenance/loss.

bradley
10-01-2002, 04:21 PM
Like Big Ron said. I believe that it takes more energy for the body to break down protiens than say carbs (thermogenic effect of food). This is probably more of a question for TCD. Just wanted to add my .02

Puttn
10-01-2002, 04:39 PM
thanks guys i was just starting to become more leaniant about the foods i eat but i guess i still gotta watch what i eat pretty much to a dot... i just wanted to see what everyones input on the calorie is a calorie because people always refer to energy in vs energy out when it turns out tahts not the case

TreeTrunks
10-01-2002, 05:00 PM
.

Jilla82
10-01-2002, 05:32 PM
im not as hard core as most of you are, so I eat bread, pretzls, and gronala bars. I LOVE bread. Dont know why.

Puttn
10-01-2002, 06:12 PM
im a big fan of fresh home made bread i just lvoe the smell so i gotta eat it

Shao-LiN
10-01-2002, 06:29 PM
Eat bread...no one said it's bad for you.

Jilla82
10-01-2002, 06:56 PM
yea, they said I will get fat if I eat bread

Ti1301
10-02-2002, 02:15 AM
A cal is not a cal.

YatesNightBlade
10-02-2002, 04:05 AM
A Cal is now a Cal.

Your body has a preffered fuel. Calorie timing is important too. If I was to eat 4000 calories all at one ... i'd be pretty fat.

Avatar
10-02-2002, 05:27 AM
negating thermogenic effects of varying foods, when looking solely at weight gain, a cal is a cal. Give or take.

however, a cal is not a cal when looking at whether the weight gained is predominanently fat or muscle.

My opinion anyways.

TreeTrunks
10-02-2002, 07:17 AM
so if a calorie were just a calorie then we are assuming that to gain weight you need to eat more. So, since a calorie is just a calorie you could eat 500 grams of fat and still be big and kean? huh? ;scratch:

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-02-2002, 07:24 AM
A calorie is a unit of energy. One cal burned raises the temperature of water by one degree. Something like that anyway.

Different foods have different thermogenic properties, so some choices of food are 'better' than others.

Different foods illicit different hormonal responses, so some choices of food are 'better' than other.

However, hormonal response while in calorie deficit doesn't have the same impact.

The calorie flux is how many calories are going into the cell vs how many are going out. So positive flux = gain, negative flux = loss.

No matter what hormones are doing, if you're in a negative flux of calories, you body will respond by tapping into it's own stores. (with the exceptions being when you're getting down to real stubborn fat, maybe, and when you're close to 8% and less - ie further away from setpoint in most people).

Here's a Lyle McDonald quote:

"I will contend that, given sufficent protein and EFA's, you can get ripped on table sugar." - Lyle McDonald

This is not a diet i'd recommend to anyone, however. It's not ideal for a bodybuilder who is trying to conserve muscle tissue, and i've no doubt it will result in un-favourable training sessions, and i know for a fact I'd get cravings from hell and back.

Lyle McDonald got down to 7% bf drinking milk and eating 2 macDonald's happy meals a day last year. Purely because he included them in his daily calorie totals.

(Maybe not everyday, but most days at least, i believe).

Of course, the diet isn't the healthiest, judging on the partially hydrogenated and trans-fat content of Maccy D's and the sugariness of the bread used. Or the cow eye balls used to keep the meat moist. Or the old tramp's boot that provides the texture. Or the apple core found in the trash for crunch. Or the tail of the three-fined fish that provides that meaty taste.

But the point is that that calories are the determining factor, no matter how you care to play around with hormones like insulin and hGH.

Albeit, at lower bodyfat levels when you're tinkering below your setpoint, these do play a larger role (when it comes to stubborn fat etc.. insulin can be a bitch), but for the most part, focus on the calories.

I imagine Lyle, during the diet, had already seen to his daily protein and EFA counts and so just fitted the Mc D's and milk in with his remaining calories. If you can control the cravings you can still achieve.

Now, like i said, it's probably not ideal for a bodybuilder, even with adequate protein. Table sugar won't really supply the right kind of fuel for good workouts, you'll probably end up lifting less and thus, your body will have no need for the 'excessive' and more-active-than-fat muscle and will thus, break it down.

A diet of table sugar (given adequate protein/EFA amounts) would most likely result in some deficiencies in minerals and vitamins. There'd be no real phytochemicals or fibre so your intestinal health would deteriorate.

And eating food like this causes blood sugar swings which will result in the discomfort of cravings and hunger pangs and thus, you'll prolly end up eating more.

The individual's degree of insulin resistance also plays a large. role.

At the end of the day, think calories. Once your fat loss begins to slow or halt, change food sources to more optimal choices.

And good luck.

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-02-2002, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by TreeTrunks
so if a calorie were just a calorie then we are assuming that to gain weight you need to eat more. So, since a calorie is just a calorie you could eat 500 grams of fat and still be big and kean? huh? :scratch:

500g of fat is 4500 kcals. The person would have to be 300lb or so to maintain using that figure.

Not to mention there's no amino acids in there either, so problems WOULD arise. And vitamin/mineral deficiencies etc...

Besides, overfeeding on fat results in about 97% storage efficiency.

That is, overfeed on fat above maintenance, and 97% or so will be stored as fat.

If a 200lb man ate 500g of fat a day (going on body x 15kcals to maintain, he needs 3000kcals a day) then he'd be overfeeding on 1500kcals of fat, which is 166.6g. At 97% efficiency, he stands to gain about 161.6g of fat.

Over seven days, that's 1131.2g fat, which = 1.1kg (rounded figure). So that's like 0.5lb gain of fat a week.

If they did that for a year, theoretically, he'd get 26lbs of fat heavier.

This is, however, just going of what happend to study cases.


But let's face it, who is seriously gonna live off 500g of fat a day.

Puttn
10-02-2002, 07:33 AM
i just wanted to say thanks for all the posts helped a lot... the main reason for this post is im trying to broaden my diet by eating more of diff things but im still gonna try to eat as complex carbs and low saturated fats possible... as for hydronated oils i only get those from fat free cheeses and i dont think its that large a portion

galileo
10-02-2002, 07:36 AM
Glad you said it chiggs, these 2 dozen krispy kremes are looking at me funny.

TreeTrunks
10-02-2002, 08:50 AM
You obviously you missed. If a calorie is just a calorie, all calories being equal, saying that one is assuming that simple sugar are just as good as complex carbs and all fats are the same.

galileo
10-02-2002, 08:52 AM
You're the dumbass for not knowing the difference between your and you're.


Comin' atcha POW!

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-02-2002, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by TreeTrunks
TCD get your dick out of that quack Lyle McDonalds ass!! You obviously you missed. If a calorie is just a calorie, all calories being equal, saying that one is assuming that simple sugar are just as good as complex carbs and all fats are the same. I can't believe your a mod!!! This is commonsense ****!!! Your the ******* dumbass for believing that quack!


If you re-read my post clearly, you'll notice that i covered my bases.

Just because Lyle said you can ripped on table sugar, notice he didn't say you can hold onto all your muscle in the process. He merely said getting ripped on table sugar is possible. Which it is.

I never said simple sugars are "just as good" as complex carbs.

Just because i bitch-slapped your silly ass, don't degrade the forum with that kind of post.

And for your information, i WAS joking when i called you a dumbass. I've since edited my post.

TreeTrunks
10-02-2002, 09:04 AM
Don't degrade the thread? LOL kettle calling pot black. Anyways.

You don'r have to say that simple and complex carbs are the same. Just stating that all calories are equal is saying that. And thats also stating that all fats are the same, when we all know there not. Flax and canola are not the same. I'd rather not eat "empty calories." Like you said all of those food choices, hydro oils and table sugar, lack vitamins and minerals.

btw, make your joking a little more obvious. Its hard to tell when yout joking. Especially since we've exchanged words in the past.

galileo
10-02-2002, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by TreeTrunks
I'd rather not eat "empty calories

Don't then.

TreeTrunks
10-02-2002, 09:09 AM
ok I won't

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-02-2002, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by TreeTrunks
You don'r have to say that simple and complex carbs are the same. Just stating that all calories are equal is saying that. And thats also stating that all fats are the same, when we all know there not.


I covered that in my post. The calories are the same no matter where they come from. The effect the macronutrient has, that the calories are coming from, does play a role, but providing calorie deficit, you can still lose weight. Notice: weight. Sure, weight lifting itself is a signaller for the body to keep a hold of muscle incase of future events (i.e. the next lifting session), but using something like table sugar as a source of carbohydrate will most likely result in piss-poor lifting sessions, a drop in strength and thus, poundage moved, and so you'll most likely lose muscle.

Like i mentioned in my post.

Calorie deficit will result in loss. The amount of fat-to-muscle lost is a different story, however.

These are totally made up figures here, but where a table sugar diet with calories (theoretically) constructed to result in a net loss of 1lb per week, may result in 0.8lb of muscle loss and 0.2lb of fat loss.

However, a diet using more complex, low GI carbs may result in more favourable effects such as a 0.8lb of fat loss and 0.2lb of muscle loss (which may very well be replaced during a carb load or any type of refeed if you perform one).

So, is it possible to lose weight on a table sugar diet? Yup.

Is it advisable? Nope.




Flax and canola are not the same.

Note that Lyle's quote also covers that you need to consume a sufficient amount of EFAs.



I'd rather not eat "empty calories."

It's not something i'm advocating.

Like i mentioned in my post.



Like you said all of those food choices, hydro oils and table sugar, lack vitamins and minerals.


Yeah, like i mentioned in my post.



btw, make your joking a little more obvious. Its hard to tell when yout joking. Especially since we've exchanged words in the past.


We have? :scratch:

TreeTrunks
10-02-2002, 09:34 AM
Ok, I think I may be confusing it with food selections. I see what your saying though and I agree. With ya.

Yeah we exchanged wrds back in another thread a long time ago, not sure what the thread was or what it was over. Oh well i guess its water under the bridge.

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-02-2002, 09:42 AM
Yeah man, no problem.

By the way, i find your new location and addition to your title much amusing.

Trés Bien.


Ok then, time to shift this bad boy back on topic.


Any further comments/observations off anyone?

galileo
10-02-2002, 10:00 AM
I was considering on my next cut actually experimenting with these principles.

I'd buy some mineral liquids and load up on the multivitamins and psyllium powder and eat nothing but candy bars, milk, and EFA type oils all day. I'd count my calories and see what happens.

I'd have to get a new tube of toothpaste every 3 days though.

TreeTrunks
10-02-2002, 10:00 AM
can your avatar whip me?

TreeTrunks
10-02-2002, 10:02 AM
you know I think Monstar was cutting following those principles. He counted calories but ate whatever he wanted.

Yanick
10-02-2002, 10:02 AM
I dunno TCD. I think that a person would be capable of holding on to muscle on Lyle's "table sugar" diet. You're getting glucose/fructose from the table sugar, assuming enough protein/efa's + training, i can't see how you can't hold on to muscle.

BTW, you forgot to talk about the blood sugar swings/cravings, and tendency to over eat, that come with a high GI carb diet.

galileo
10-02-2002, 10:03 AM
I forgot to mention I'd only try it for 1-2 weeks to see if I lost fat proper. I wouldn't do a whole cut on that BS.

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-02-2002, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by galileo
I was considering on my next cut actually experimenting with these principles.

I'd buy some mineral liquids and load up on the multivitamins and psyllium powder and eat nothing but candy bars, milk, and EFA type oils all day. I'd count my calories and see what happens.

I'd have to get a new tube of toothpaste every 3 days though.

I really wouldn't recommend it, man.

The hunger pains, cravings et al usually result in a person overeating (ie breaking diet).

Have a go if you like, though.

Puttn
10-02-2002, 10:10 AM
well see i figured as long as i got my vits and mins.. and i got my protein and good fats as long as i counted calories i could gain muscle the same as eating all clean because life is short... and if i try to eat all clean its just not worth it.. ill never go pro i just wanna look good... and ive been fat in the past so a few simple sugars probably wont hurt you... especially if you move around somewhat throughout the day ... i am gonna do the same as you galileo and see how it works just by eating and aprox my cals

galileo
10-02-2002, 10:12 AM
I probably couldn't bring myself to it anyway. I feel like junk if I get grilled chicken from wendy's instead of dry grilling it myself, even if I do count the calories. I'm developing an OCD!

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-02-2002, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Yanick
I dunno TCD. I think that a person would be capable of holding on to muscle on Lyle's "table sugar" diet. You're getting glucose/fructose from the table sugar, assuming enough protein/efa's + training, i can't see how you can't hold on to muscle.

BTW, you forgot to talk about the blood sugar swings/cravings, and tendency to over eat, that come with a high GI carb diet.

Well yeah, there's that. Most people can't stick to diet very well in the face of cravings and hunger.

Anyhoo, as far as retaining muscle, providing you're shifting the weight then yeah, your body probably will try it's best to retain the muscle.

It's having enough steam to generate your workouts that will more or less ultimately lead to the muscle loss (well, that and the calorie deficit).

Yanick
10-02-2002, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy
It's having enough steam to generate your workouts that will more or less ultimately lead to the muscle loss (well, that and the calorie deficit).

Yeah, got that part, but i'm saying that with the given fuel (table sugar), you should be able to push the same weight. But its all just conjecture at this point i guess.

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-02-2002, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Puttn
well see i figured as long as i got my vits and mins.. and i got my protein and good fats as long as i counted calories i could gain muscle the same as eating all clean because life is short... and if i try to eat all clean its just not worth it.. ill never go pro i just wanna look good... and ive been fat in the past so a few simple sugars probably wont hurt you... especially if you move around somewhat throughout the day ... i am gonna do the same as you galileo and see how it works just by eating and aprox my cals

So i take it you're cutting?

What kind of leaniency are you talking about in relation to the food choices?

Seriously, you'll find it much easier in terms of cravings and hunger if you stick to "clean" foods.

You'll suffer NPY-induced sugar cravings eventually on any diet down, but if you'll notice they don't come as badly or as quickly if you choice more optimal foods. And diets without hunger pangs or cravings are so much easier to stick to.

Obviously, you'll want to eat chocolate and such, just as anyone would - once something becomes disallowed the body automatically wants it (notice you crave junk food more when cutting when it's not allowed, even in the first week before leptin has had a real chance to drop at all, compared to when you're bulking?)

If you can live with the hunger and cravings then go ahead, but i'd still say save the junk for moderation during a carb load or refeed.

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-02-2002, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Yanick


Yeah, got that part, but i'm saying that with the given fuel (table sugar), you should be able to push the same weight. But its all just conjecture at this point i guess.

Depends.

Maybe doing some sort of loading technique with the sugar before training may help?

I dunno. It's not something i have any intention of experimenting with. Have a go if you like, and be sure to let us know.

Yanick
10-02-2002, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy
Maybe doing some sort of loading technique with the sugar before training may help?

I dunno. It's not something i have any intention of experimenting with. Have a go if you like, and be sure to let us know.

I have no desire to try a diet like that, seeing as i have almost 0 willpower. I was just wondering why (more detailed than, 'not an efficient fuel') you thought that one would lose muscle on the 'table sugar' diet.

Puttn
10-02-2002, 11:33 AM
i dont mean going and eating chocolate and candies like snickers... i mean like having white bread now and again.. having grilled chicken sandwhiches from mcdonalds... having steak and mashed potatoes at a bar and grill things like that... having a low fat granola bar... having a granola bar period thats not whole oats.. jsut things that may not be that low on the gi but still arent pure sugar....

Stray
10-02-2002, 11:36 AM
Pure sugar cutting diet huh....does your book there say anything about any pure beer diet plans?

*crosses fingers*

Puttn
10-02-2002, 11:55 AM
thats another thing on weekends i have 4 or 5 beers on a night and i just figure it into my carb % and calorie total

galileo
10-02-2002, 12:05 PM
Coffee is my miracle for removing hunger cravings.

gino
10-02-2002, 12:06 PM
If you're trying to lose fat and gain or maintain muscle, pay attention to where your calories come from, not just how many. If you're obese, and need to lose WEIGHT to get healthy, worry more about calories. I don't think anyone here falls into the obese category and everyone wants to preserve muscle, so "cutting on table sugar" will not apply to anyone, so forget that. A calorie may be a calorie as far as how the body burns it as energy, but what energy stores the body uses when, and the storage of calories is a different story.

Glycemic response plays the same role in lean people as it does in fat people, so I'd suggest fat people follow the same guidelines(low GI/GR foods) to lose fat the MOST effectively. Options to influence fat loss narrow as you get leaner, and insulin response becomes MORE important, but that doesn't mean it's any LESS effective for overweight people.

Yanick
10-02-2002, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by gino
If you're trying to lose fat and gain or maintain muscle, pay attention to where your calories come from, not just how many. If you're obese, and need to lose WEIGHT to get healthy, worry more about calories. I don't think anyone here falls into the obese category and everyone wants to preserve muscle, so "cutting on table sugar" will not apply to anyone, so forget that. A calorie may be a calorie as far as how the body burns it as energy, but what energy stores the body uses when, and the storage of calories is a different story.

Not trying to start a debate.

Table sugar and an apple still wind up being the same thing to your body, glucose/fructose. Obviously the digestion time is quite different, and insulin becomes involved. But assuming no pathophysiologies like Insulin Resistant, and assuming you aren't dieting for competition insulin becomes a non-issue, except the whole blood sugar swing issue. If you're eating at caloric deficit, insulin has nothing to store. Obviously the hunger pangs are not really comfortable or desirable, but to some people the lack of variety is just as bad.

Also don't forget, you aren't just eating table sugar, that statement is assuming that your protein/efa needs have been taken care of. Add in the lifting and you can pretty much get ripped on table sugar.


Glycemic response plays the same role in lean people as it does in fat people, so I'd suggest fat people follow the same guidelines(low GI/GR foods) to lose fat the MOST effectively. Options to influence fat loss narrow as you get leaner, and insulin response becomes MORE important, but that doesn't mean it's any LESS effective for overweight people.

Low GI/II is optimal, i totally agree. But is the 'table sugar diet' possible, i'm pretty sure it is, and will it conserve muscle, i also think it is, but as i have said before, its pretty much conjecture because i doubt anyone will ever test it out. Even if we get some volunteers we will never have enough subjects for the results to be meaningful.

Puttn
10-02-2002, 01:46 PM
i read a book today in health class well not a whole book but some parts and they said that studies show insulin spikes doesnt lead to obesity or fat but just reduces energy after a period of time and wont keep you feeling as full therefore you eat more addin gmore cals = fat = it leads back to this so they believe it

TreeTrunks
10-02-2002, 05:01 PM
What gino said is what I have been trying to say. He just says it in a more eloquent fashion. Oh yeah he knows his **** too, that has something to do with it as well ;)

Yanick
10-02-2002, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Puttn
i read a book today in health class well not a whole book but some parts and they said that studies show insulin spikes doesnt lead to obesity or fat but just reduces energy after a period of time and wont keep you feeling as full therefore you eat more addin gmore cals = fat = it leads back to this so they believe it

Puttn,

Do some research on 'Insulin Resistance.' On another board, someone has been telling me over and over that now a days 4 out of 5 people are IR to some extent.

But overall, i do agree with that statement. Like i said before, if you are eating at a caloric deficit, insulin has nothing to store. Assuming your skeletal muscle is not overly IR, that is.

Puttn
10-02-2002, 09:05 PM
ok i will do that see what it says but if you think about it .. it makes sense insulin just provides how your energy goes not really weather you make urself fat or not

duque21
10-02-2002, 10:29 PM
Over seven days, that's 1131.2g fat, which = 1.1kg (rounded figure). So that's like 0.5lb gain of fat a week.


Just a lil correction(since there are rarely any ever made to your post) 1.1kg= 2.25 lbs not .5 lbs....:thumbup:


Just messin, I am really not that anal about detail...

The_Chicken_Daddy
10-03-2002, 07:16 AM
Good point actually, and well spotted. I divided when i should have multiplied.

It actually makes it even worse.

(By the way, i actually get 2.42lbs now, not 2.25lbs.



Was up wit dat?!



Not that much difference though).

Anyhoo, gaining 2lb or so of fat a week, that would theoretically make a person 104lbs heavier over a year. lol. I doubt that would happen, but if someone was to overfeed on 500g fat every day for a year they'd be fookin' close.

We should experiment. Who wants to eat 500g fat a day for the next year?

Any takers?

Avatar
10-03-2002, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy


We should experiment. Who wants to eat 500g fat a day for the next year?

Any takers?

You supply me with a year's supply of flax oil and I'm your man robboe.

:thumbup: