PDA

View Full Version : CKD Diet Vs. Simply cutting calories.....



JustinASU
05-03-2003, 02:08 PM
CKD Diet Vs. Simply cutting calories.....

Which method is has proven more effective for you guys?

heathj
05-03-2003, 03:11 PM
When I make my diet...I just cut calories and make sure protein is 200+ at least...works great for me.

Ironman8
05-03-2003, 03:44 PM
I had better results with cutting cals than CKD.

Scythian_Blade
05-03-2003, 04:14 PM
Definitely CKD. Just cutting calories imo probably won't be as effective simply b/c it doesn't say anything about food choices/combinations/meal timing etc.

It largely would depend on what your diet looked like b/f just cutting cals.

Avatar
05-03-2003, 04:22 PM
you can gain weight on a CKD if you eat too many calories.

bradley
05-03-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Scythian_Blade
Definitely CKD. Just cutting calories imo probably won't be as effective simply b/c it doesn't say anything about food choices/combinations/meal timing etc.



When in calorie deficit food combinations really don't matter from what I understand.


It largely would depend on what your diet looked like b/f just cutting cals.

Why is this?

GhettoSmurf
05-03-2003, 07:27 PM
i personally havent had to cut yet, im just trying to put on some friggin weigt. but i think when it comes time 2 cut, i might try a CKD first. but it all depends on whats going on in my life. like if im in school maybe ill just try to cut, but if its during the summer, when i have more control over my diet and meal timing, i might consider trying a CKD.

captnjosh
05-03-2003, 08:05 PM
I think it is easier to cut cals.

Scythian_Blade
05-03-2003, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by bradley


When in calorie deficit food combinations really don't matter from what I understand.

I guess it comes down to my belief that food combos do matter. I have seen a lot of conflicting evidence coming from studies. But most larger scale studies I have looked at lose meaning imo since one should look at it on a case by case basis considering individual differences (like what type of diet would work best for ecto, endo etc.)

Until someone is able to explain it to me from a biochemical standpoint why food choices, food combos, meal timing etc don't matter, I just can't accept it and don't believe that a calorie is a calorie. jmo

The reason I made the comment about what a person's diet looks like before a cut is just because someone might be eating a junky bulk up and I would assume it needed to be 'cleaned' up a bit to show effective cutting results. Just reducing kcals doesn't take that need into account.

restless
05-04-2003, 03:15 AM
Food combination is only one form of splitting airs, regardless of what people like John Berardi say. It doesn't really matter, what exactly do you want explained to you? I can show you the research shwoyng that other than protein percentages in diet, there's no difference from meal timing, meal combination, meal distribution during the day, etc,ect....

The guys at T-mag used a screwed up study done in cops were they gave a high protein diet with high fat and low carbs to some cops and a low protein diet with a lof of carbs and then conclude that it's the carbs and not the protein that contribute to the difference. There's not a single shred of scientific evidence that food combining does anything at all.

With possible exception of post workout where you do want to keep the fat low, more not to interfere with digestion rate, it is not important.

bradley
05-04-2003, 05:01 AM
I agree with restless there is no proof, or any that I have found, that food combining works. Here are some interesting threads I ran across when reading through some of the stuff on google.

http://www.google.com/groups?q=food+combining+author:Lyle+author:McDonald&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=r&selm=3BB377AD.603DE9BC%40onr.com&rnum=3

http://www.google.com/groups?q=food+combining+author:Lyle+author:McDonald&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=r&selm=3C577CB7.3CE3749F%40onr.com&rnum=9


The reason I made the comment about what a person's diet looks like before a cut is just because someone might be eating a junky bulk up and I would assume it needed to be 'cleaned' up a bit to show effective cutting results. Just reducing kcals doesn't take that need into account.


Even if you replaced all of the junk food with clean food the individual would still gain weight if in a caloric surplus. Usually the case is when you clean up a diet you end up cutting cals because you end up eating less calorie dense foods. Trading out pizza for a chicken breast and veggies would effectively be cutting cals.


I just can't accept it and don't believe that a calorie is a calorie.

Why not? I would say a calorie is a calorie but not all calories are as beneficial to the body as others. For example, 100 calories from bacon fat would not be as beneficial as 100 calories from olive oil, but they are both still 100 calories, right.

Scythian_Blade
05-04-2003, 09:37 AM
Restless, Bradley. Thanks for the replies and I'll look into what you posted asap. I am gonna be out of town at the beach for the next few days and have to head out now.

-Blade

Scythian_Blade
05-07-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by restless
Food combination is only one form of splitting airs, regardless of what people like John Berardi say. It doesn't really matter, what exactly do you want explained to you? I can show you the research shwoyng that other than protein percentages in diet, there's no difference from meal timing, meal combination, meal distribution during the day, etc,ect....

I guess I want way more explained than is possible in any one thread. What I made was an unreasonable request. I am leery of many studies and would rather hit the textbooks for the type of answer I seek. I have ordered a decent nutritional biochem text so I can get a handle on some of this stuff.

For cutting purposes, I would tend to think protein makes a difference partly due to its muscle sparing properties and partly due to its thermogenic effects (Both help keep metabolism up). IF this were true, it would seem like other quite thermogenic carbohydrates (brocolli for instance) would tend to do the same from a thermogenic standpoint. I also have a hard time believing EFA intake has no bearing on weight loss on a cutting diet.


Originally posted by restless

The guys at T-mag used a screwed up study done in cops were they gave a high protein diet with high fat and low carbs to some cops and a low protein diet with a lof of carbs and then conclude that it's the carbs and not the protein that contribute to the difference. There's not a single shred of scientific evidence that food combining does anything at all.


I think Berardi even stated that he didn't have any viable research to back up his claims. Thanks for mentioning the cop study. He seems to recommend pretty high protein intake in some instances and this might explain why he does it to an extent.

Scythian_Blade
05-07-2003, 03:16 PM
]Originally posted by Bradley

I agree with restless there is no proof, or any that I have found, that food combining works. Here are some interesting threads I ran across when reading through some of the stuff on google.

Wow, thanks for the links. That is definitely a very interesting view by Lyle. I was unfamiliar with the Acylation Stimulation Protein. I was still under the 'old' impression that the lipoprotein lipases was the rate limiting step in determining fat storage. I definitely need to do a lot more research on this as it is clear we don't quite have the full picture yet.

One other thing. I knew Lyle was pretty adamantly against the whole food combining idea. Just didn't know his reasoning behind it. He and Berardi do not get along at all from what I understand. For that reason, I have to take what he says about it with a grain of salt. He mentioned that chylomicrons can stimulate FFA uptake and storage w/o insulin, which makes sense. But he doesn't say to what degree this occurs in comparison to a simultaneously high blood concentration of FFA's and high levels of insulin. And that is one of Berardi's selling points.

He did make an excellent point that Berardi's reasoning seems a bit incomplete (which we knew already), but I don't really see how he 'proved' him wrong either. I'll check some of the studies he referenced to see if there are clues either way.

Scythian_Blade
05-07-2003, 03:26 PM
]Originally posted by Bradley


Why not? I would say a calorie is a calorie but not all calories are as beneficial to the body as others. For example, 100 calories from bacon fat would not be as beneficial as 100 calories from olive oil, but they are both still 100 calories, right.


In a bomb calorimeter 100 kcals of olive oil would produce an identical amount of energy as 100kcals of bacon. But I don't believe that is necessarily the case in the human body. I think you have to take into account how much of the energy is actually absorbed into the body.

My simple understanding is that weightloss is solely the result of a difference in energy expenditure. An easier example than bacon vs. olive oil might be 100 kcals of sucrose vs. 100 kcals of brocolli. It would seem at least possible to me that the body would utilize more energy to digest brocolli than to digest sucrose. And that extra thermogenic energy would lead to greater weight loss simply due to the idea that it would lead to a greater energy expenditure at the end of a day (more 'calories out' for the same amount of 'calories in'. I am not trying to start an argument or be overly contentious, but I just don't see how you can say 'a calorie is a calorie' when taking into account thermogenic effects (and many others).

bradley
05-07-2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Scythian_Blade


In a bomb calorimeter 100 kcals of olive oil would produce an identical amount of energy as 100kcals of bacon. But I don't believe that is necessarily the case in the human body. I think you have to take into account how much of the energy is actually absorbed into the body.

My simple understanding is that weightloss is solely the result of a difference in energy expenditure. An easier example than bacon vs. olive oil might be 100 kcals of sucrose vs. 100 kcals of brocolli. It would seem at least possible to me that the body would utilize more energy to digest brocolli than to digest sucrose. And that extra thermogenic energy would lead to greater weight loss simply due to the idea that it would lead to a greater energy expenditure at the end of a day (more 'calories out' for the same amount of 'calories in'. I am not trying to start an argument or be overly contentious, but I just don't see how you can say 'a calorie is a calorie' when taking into account thermogenic effects (and many others).

Well a calorie is a unit of measure right? Well, I see what you are saying but a calorie is still a calorie. Taking the thermogenic effect of food into consideration would change your overall caloric balance at the end of the day, but the food still contains the same amount of calories. What I am trying to say is that I do not dispute the fact that some foods take more energy to be digested and be utilized than other foods. For instance celery(sp?), I believe, takes more energy to digest than the celery actually contains. This would mean that you are burning cals just be eating celery, but does this take away the fact that the celery still contains X number of cals?

Scythian_Blade
05-07-2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by bradley


Well a calorie is a unit of measure right? Well, I see what you are saying but a calorie is still a calorie. Taking the thermogenic effect of food into consideration would change your overall caloric balance at the end of the day, but the food still contains the same amount of calories. What I am trying to say is that I do not dispute the fact that some foods take more energy to be digested and be utilized than other foods. For instance celery(sp?), I believe, takes more energy to digest than the celery actually contains. This would mean that you are burning cals just be eating celery, but does this take away the fact that the celery still contains X number of cals?

Sure doesn't. I think we are in perfect agreement, just a difference in semantics.

bradley
05-07-2003, 05:11 PM
Here is another link that I found interesting and it is basically referring to the same topics we were discussing here:)http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Berardi+studies+food+combining&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3BB0C550.8FE6F327%40onr.com&rnum=2

noraa
05-10-2003, 03:22 AM
I will just add one thing into the equation

When you eat more protein, there is increased thermogenesis (not a lot mind you, but people seem to think it makes a difference)

What does burning protein mean

it means deaminating the protien, and feeding the remainder into the energy cycle.

ie protein is providing energy

if protien is providing energy, what ever is left (usually fat) will be stored...
much like carb intake decreases fat oxidation, so does protein intake.
If your calories are too much, irrespective of protein intake, you will gain weight...........

Durign a diet, take in enough protein to maintain muscle mass (usually 1g/lb), what makes up the rest doesnt realyl matter (apart from sateity and mental requirements)