PDA

View Full Version : Is it always just about calories in and calories out?



TiGeR AK
09-09-2003, 10:28 PM
let's say my daily intake consists of 40% carbs 40% protein 20% fat and 2000 cals


how would this be different from a daily intake of 20% carbs 60% protein and 20% fat all at the same 2000 calories?



if it's really all about cals in vs. cals out... then does the distribution of protein, fat, carbs really make a difference?

also... since i know bradley is gona reply because he is the omnipotent nutritionist at this website... i'm wondering.. how in the heck do you know so much about nutrition?? you amaze me :eek:

musclette
09-10-2003, 01:01 AM
Good question. I wanna know too.

I can only guess that with 20% carbs, you won't get enough energy to workout although you might have quite a bit of protein to aid growth. I might be wrong.

*waits for answer*

TiGeR AK
09-10-2003, 01:17 AM
yea... all this talk of "too many carbs will just go to fat if you don't exercise" really confuses me because people then also say "it's just calories in minus calories out."

so which is it?

ftotti10
09-10-2003, 01:57 AM
A shortage of carbs will definitely mean less energy. Your body will start utilizing protein for energy needs. Im sure Bradley can confim this but i'd imagine the body converts carbs to energy much more efficiently than it does protein. ALso you want your protein to be utilized for muscle growth and not as a second rate energy source.

Also carbs at particular times of the day are really important. Post workout and first thing in the morning are critical. Protein would not supply the required rise in blood sugar and therefore would not be suitable as a substitute for carbs in this instance.

Im sure Bradley will list a few more reasons why also

shansen008
09-10-2003, 02:32 AM
I have carbs in the morning and in my pre/post workout shakes. I cut them out of most meals, well any significant amount really. Im not running a marathon in my sleep, so why have a bunch of carbs with dinner?

musclette
09-10-2003, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by ftotti10
Also carbs at particular times of the day are really important. Post workout and first thing in the morning are critical. Protein would not supply the required rise in blood sugar and therefore would not be suitable as a substitute for carbs in this instance.

Im sure Bradley will list a few more reasons why also

I agree with having it early in the morning, like oatmeal. But I thought what's essential post workout are maltodextrin or dextrose with protein powder? I may be wrong cos it may just be for cutting. But why take carbs pwo? Is it essential or is it for bulking purposes only?

bradley
09-10-2003, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by TiGeR AK
let's say my daily intake consists of 40% carbs 40% protein 20% fat and 2000 cals

how would this be different from a daily intake of 20% carbs 60% protein and 20% fat all at the same 2000 calories?

if it's really all about cals in vs. cals out... then does the distribution of protein, fat, carbs really make a difference?


Assuming that both of the above diets are providing adequate amounts of protein and EFAs, there will be no significant difference between the two diets.

You might see a slight difference with the higher protein intake due to the thermal effect of food. To answer your question, no the macro ratios are really not that important, assuming that protein and EFAs are supplied in adequate amounts.:)

If you were only going to take in 20% of your daily calories from carbs, I would make sure and consume them around your workout. This would ensure that you are refilling muscle glycogen and providing your body with the necessary nutrients to recover properly.

I am assuming this is in reference to a diet that is below maintenance (cutting).

bradley
09-10-2003, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by TiGeR AK
yea... all this talk of "too many carbs will just go to fat if you don't exercise" really confuses me because people then also say "it's just calories in minus calories out."

so which is it?

Excess calories will cause fat gain.:)

The body is quite effecient at storing energy, whether that energy comes from excess fat calories or excess calories from carbs.

bradley
09-10-2003, 03:27 AM
Originally posted by ftotti10
A shortage of carbs will definitely mean less energy. Your body will start utilizing protein for energy needs. Im sure Bradley can confim this but i'd imagine the body converts carbs to energy much more efficiently than it does protein. ALso you want your protein to be utilized for muscle growth and not as a second rate energy source.

Carbs (glucose) is the body's preferred energy source, but you should also remember that the body can use fat for fuel as well. Just because carbs are not present does not necessarily mean that muscle catabolism will take place.



Also carbs at particular times of the day are really important. Post workout and first thing in the morning are critical. Protein would not supply the required rise in blood sugar and therefore would not be suitable as a substitute for carbs in this instance.


Pre/post workout carbs are very important, and I agree that carbs first thing in the morning would be beneficial as well.

bradley
09-10-2003, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by musclette


I agree with having it early in the morning, like oatmeal. But I thought what's essential post workout are maltodextrin or dextrose with protein powder? I may be wrong cos it may just be for cutting. But why take carbs pwo? Is it essential or is it for bulking purposes only?

Post workout carbs will replinish muscle glycogen that was depleted during training, blunt the effects of cortisol, which in turn will cause the body to be in an anabolic state.

The type of carb (low GI/high GI) would depend on timing, and the amount of carbs consumed would be more important than the type.

I recommend taking in carbs post workout, regardless of whether you are cutting or bulking.

TiGeR AK
09-10-2003, 03:09 PM
wut's a source of carbs that would be beneficial post-workout?

i know they say dextrose or maltodextrin (sp?) is good post workout... but where can that be found in regular foods/drinks? I don't really want to go out and buy the powder...

wut would be some good sources of post-workout carbs coming from real food sources?



-- bradely -- and those assumptions you made (adequate protein/carbs in each situation & below-maintenance diet) were also right on... so there would be no huge difference between the two... the nutrient breakdown is not extremely significant... i see. thanks as usual.

bradley
09-10-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by TiGeR AK
wut's a source of carbs that would be beneficial post-workout?

i know they say dextrose or maltodextrin (sp?) is good post workout... but where can that be found in regular foods/drinks? I don't really want to go out and buy the powder...

I really do not know of any foods that are 100% glucose or maltodextrin. You could use whole foods that were high on the GI, and these would work fine for pre/post workout. There are also some candies, such as smarties, that are composed of primarily dextrose.

Although dextrose powder is quite inexpensive, and can be found at most places that sell home brewing supplies.



wut would be some good sources of post-workout carbs coming from real food sources?

Anything that has minimal fat and high GI, such as candies (as mentioned above), white rice, bagels, etc.

dirty-c
09-11-2003, 06:49 AM
I'm really starting to subscribe to the theory that only total calorie balance matters in weight loss/weight gain, but the other day I thought of an exception to this rule.

Keep in mind that what I'm about to describe is about as far from healthy as you can get, but it does offer an intesting case study. I noticed that when I went on spring break two years ago, I had lost 4 pounds from the beginning to the end of the week. I was definitely consuming above maintenance calories everyday. Granted that 2/3 of those calories were coming from alcohol and mixers, I was still probably consuming about 4000 calories a day. We pretty much drank all day and all night for 7 straight days. I'll bet I drank a couple gallons of rum and coke and a couple cases of beer over the week.

Why do you suppose I might have lost weight?

jds22
09-11-2003, 07:43 AM
There are also some candies, such as smarties, that are composed of primarily dextrose.

:clap:

That's all I needed to know. Smarties it is.

Jerry

manowar669
09-11-2003, 08:41 AM
Why do you suppose I might have lost weight?


Water. I lose about 5-10lbs on a weekend where I consume lots of alcohol (parties etc.). I'll regain all that weight in a day or so of drinking plenty of water.

musclette
09-11-2003, 10:19 AM
So maltodextrin and dextrose are carbs that we need pwo? So simple sugars = carbs. Right?

the doc
09-11-2003, 10:28 AM
all complex carbs are converted to simple sugars (or simple carbs)eventually- the rate of hydrolysis will differ though, usually depending on the degree of carbohydrate crosslinking and fiber content

Severed Ties
09-11-2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by TiGeR AK
if it's really all about cals in vs. cals out... then does the distribution of protein, fat, carbs really make a difference?


Of course it's not, thats what that entire long thread at the top of this forum is about. Cals in vs cals out only one factor in the equation to leaness, NOT the factor.

If you don't believe me try eating 2K of McDonalds vs 2K of chicken and oatmeal and just see for yourself.

If it was as simple as Cals in vs cals out then obesity wouldn't be such a problem and people wouldn't feel so absolutely lost on how to burn fat.


ST

bradley
09-11-2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Severed Ties

If you don't believe me try eating 2K of McDonalds vs 2K of chicken and oatmeal and just see for yourself.

If it was as simple as Cals in vs cals out then obesity wouldn't be such a problem and people wouldn't feel so absolutely lost on how to burn fat.


ST

I know you have gone into this before, but don't see how this can happen. This is assuming that you are taking in all of the essential nutrients required by the body.

Unless the foods you are eating are changing the equation of calories in vs calories out. For example if you were to consume a diet high in protein vs. a diet high in carbs, you would change the calories out portion of the equation, increased calorie expenditure associated with protein.

Otherwise how can you alter the law of thermodynamics? The calories have to go somewhere?

Severed Ties
09-11-2003, 07:14 PM
Your not altering the law, you are altering where the nutrients are transported in the body.


ST

bradley
09-12-2003, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by Severed Ties
Your not altering the law, you are altering where the nutrients are transported in the body.


ST

I understand the concept of nutrient partitioning, to some degree anyway.:)

What you are referring to is more "steady state repartitioning" so to speak, in which you are really not losing bodyweight, but you are altering body composition.

This means that calories in versus calories out still holds true.

TiGeR AK
09-12-2003, 02:33 AM
ok.. but the diet that i am considering is not so extreme as fast food vs. chicken/oatmeal.

i'm just talking on a general basis here.

2 relatively clean diets with just the distribution of carbs and protein different.. would it be any different in terms of cutting and dieting?

bradley
09-12-2003, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by TiGeR AK
ok.. but the diet that i am considering is not so extreme as fast food vs. chicken/oatmeal.

i'm just talking on a general basis here.

2 relatively clean diets with just the distribution of carbs and protein different.. would it be any different in terms of cutting and dieting?

No, there will be no significant difference, assuming that you are taking in the proper amounts of essential nutrients that are required by your body.

Utilizing exercise and other nutritional strategies you can increase nutrient partitioning, which should help in improving overall body composition.

Bruise Brubaker
09-12-2003, 07:02 AM
The law is always the same, as said above. But what you eat can change the calories output, so what you eat and when you eat it can have influence on the calories out.

Severed Ties
09-13-2003, 04:58 PM
Can you tell I don't check this forum often,lol.

Yes steady state repartitioning is an excellent term for it. The law does hold true but I think most people fail at dieting because they misunderstand the laws application. This explains the difference in eating equal calories of chicken and oatmeal compared to McDonalds. Even if someone only ate chicken and oatmeal their is a point where the body can't use any more calories and would cause fat storage. But then again meal size, frequency and macronutrient breakdown all have physiological effects which alter thermodynamics or your metabolic expenditures. That however is whole different topic.

ST


Originally posted by bradley


I understand the concept of nutrient partitioning, to some degree anyway.:)

What you are referring to is more "steady state repartitioning" so to speak, in which you are really not losing bodyweight, but you are altering body composition.

This means that calories in versus calories out still holds true.

bradley
09-13-2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Severed Ties
Yes steady state repartitioning is an excellent term for it. The law does hold true but I think most people fail at dieting because they misunderstand the laws application. This explains the difference in eating equal calories of chicken and oatmeal compared to McDonalds.[b]

If you are referring to eating above maintenance then I see your point, but when eating below maintenance I do not see how it is going to make a significant difference.

As you stated, the macronutrient breakdown of the meal may have a small effect on the calories out part of the equation, but I doubt this would be significant.


[b]
Even if someone only ate chicken and oatmeal their is a point where the body can't use any more calories and would cause fat storage. But then again meal size, frequency and macronutrient breakdown all have physiological effects which alter thermodynamics or your metabolic expenditures.

A good analogy that I have seen is to think about meal size/frequency as a pendulum (sp?), in which with a large meal the pendulum will swing more towards fat storage, but also with longer time between meals it will swing back into fat burning. With smaller meals it will not swing as far over into the fat storage "zone" so to speak, but it will also not swing as far into the fat burning "zone." If that makes any sense to you:scratch:

What I am getting at is the fact that with all the minor "tweaks" that go along with dieting, the main factor will be calories in vs. calories out. Granted the timing of certain macronutrients will be helpful in ensuring that you retain LBM and burn fat, but you still have to take in less calories than you burn to lose weight.

Although I know that weight loss is not the most important factor, and improving overall body composition is the main goal. Although changing body composition while in a calorie surplus is not an everday occurance.:)