PDA

View Full Version : Cuttting: Calorie is a calorie



Maxgain
01-13-2004, 06:44 AM
I know this has been discussed loads of times before on different issues about a calorie being a calorie but i could not find the answer for what im looking for.
Im starting my first cut and wondering why people recommend low carbs high fat and obviously high protein. If my cals are below maintainence should i not cut fats and carbs evenly to have energy to work out and as fats are so high in cals anyway.
Also if a calorie is a calorie how is the atkins diet so successful with people substituting carbs for fats which contain over twice the calories.
Any advice would be great as my knowledge really only contains that for bulking

johnny123
01-13-2004, 08:49 AM
in my experience, the fats really satiate my hunger, longer. then there the issue of insulin spikes with carbs, which triggers hunger for me.

Saint Patrick
01-13-2004, 12:28 PM
If a calorie is a calorie, then you could cut on candy bars.

Low carb isn't the only way to cut, I'm doing 4-5 days of cardio/week, and 3 days of lifting, so I need carbs for energy and glycogen replnishment.

Jasonl
01-13-2004, 09:30 PM
If you must know the low carb diet end to end, read some of Lyle Mcdonald's books, they're a great read, I can't put "Ultimate Diet 2.0" down.

Holto
01-14-2004, 10:04 AM
If a calorie is a calorie, then you could cut on candy bars.


why not ?

ebrunner
01-14-2004, 03:00 PM
why not ?

You could lose weight, provided that the calories you are taking in are less than what you are expending, but you would be losing a lot of muscle. There are several issues to keep in mind before you try the candy-bar diet:

1. It would be difficult to keep calories below maintenance eating candy bars. For the calories, they are not very satisfying, and it is likely that you will overeat. In addition, the insulin spike from the sugar would make you hungry soon after, causing you to eat again. This is one of the main reasons why people play with their macronutrient ratios (to control hunger/insulin).

2. The lack of protein in this diet would cause you to lose muscle. When cutting, the idea is to keep as much muscle as possible while losing as much fat as possible. This is the other reason people play with their macronutrient ratios (to preserve the most muscle while losing the most fat). The lack of muscle will slow your metabolism, making further fat loss more difficult.

3. This diet is not very nutritious. You are lacking vegetables, fiber, vitamins/minerals, phytochemicals, etc. These deficiencies may adversely affect your training by causing poor workouts or missed workouts due to illness. Lousy training would result in more muscle loss and less fat loss.

Jasonl
01-14-2004, 03:36 PM
why not ?
And they'll rot your teeth out!

Holto
01-15-2004, 08:50 AM
ebrunner:

we have this discussion about every two weeks

generally the context is

given that all essential nutrients are provided you can make up the rest of your cals with candy bars

like Lyle Mcdonalds quote about using table sugar

neither of us are endorsing it

it's just important to understand the principle of energy balance

many on here don't and think that eliminating carbs has some magical effect on weight loss

some have directly stated that keto diets can work while in a calorie surplus

trust me I'm all about phytonutrients

I eat 8-12 servings of veggies daily and 4 servings of fruit

on top of that I take phytonutrient supps

....................1

galileo
01-15-2004, 09:26 AM
People recommend lower carbs because you are able to manage insuln far easier than on a high carb/protein diet. Insulin stops lypolysis. If you need calories and you're not burning fat, what can you conclude will happen? In terms of cutting, as the question was addressed, you can not successfully cut on a table sugar/bodyweight protein diet. You will lose weight and likely some fat, but the cut will be far from successful.

I bet Lyle loves seeing that quote abused to death.

Behemoth
01-15-2004, 12:05 PM
Right, it's only going to work to a certain extent.



My favorite thing that people say is "as long as you're in a caloric deficit at the end of the day you'll lose weight". And while I don't blatently disagree with that you have to use some logic and think: ok, now what is "the end of the day". Surely your body doesn't sit down and tally the calories you've eaten throughout the day right before you go to bed. Counting calories from 2 p.m. thursday through 2 p.m. friday could result in a drastically different count than from midnight to midnight. Obviously if you counted calories between those two different time frames and it differed it would prove that "as long as you're in a caloric deficit at the end of the day you'll lose weight". Simply for the reason that counting between 2p.m. and 2p.m. could result in 2500 calories whereas midnight and midnight could result in 2000 calories. Thus pointing to the notion that your body does not have a reset time in which it forgets what you have eaten in the last 24 hours, but rather constantly operates comparing what you just ate with your current BMR.

ebrunner
01-15-2004, 02:06 PM
Behemoth,

People typically tally their calories from their first meal after waking to their last before sleep because it is most convenient. Of course, you could use an time interval that you choose, because you are taking a continuous average. If you were compare midnight to midnight with 2 pm to 2 pm, the daily totals for each individual period would be different, but the average over 2 or 3 days would be the same--everything you eat or burn will eventually get counted somewhere. If you got 2500 from 2 pm to 2 pm, and only 2000 from midnight to midnight, then you must have eaten 500 calories between 2 pm and midnight the first day that you didn't eat from 2 pm to midnight the second day.

Behemoth
01-15-2004, 02:09 PM
You missed the point.

EDIT: Maybe you didn't miss the point. My post didn't adhere directly to the beginning topic of the thread, but rather the related topic of being a caloric deficit at the end of the day I brought up.

aka23
01-15-2004, 02:38 PM
Also if a calorie is a calorie how is the atkins diet so successful with people substituting carbs for fats which contain over twice the calories.

There are several issues. In my opinion the two key ones are appetite control and water balance. Ketosis suppreses hunger. Less hunger makes it easier to eat fewer calories and lose weight. Avoiding sugar induced insulin spikes may have similar effects. Such a diet also increases water loss, which can make it appear that pounds are coming off the scale.

Other less important factors include
--Limited food selection make it easier to control your diet
--May burn more calories via TEF and thermogenisis
--A higher fat/protein diet may burn extra calories from wasting energy when converting fat to ketones and using ketones as fuel. The body makes less than 7 calories worth of usable energy per gram of ketones, perhaps as little as 4.5 cal/g, and about 9 calories per gram of free fatty acids. This would be more of an issue during the early weeks of such a diet when ketones are used more significantly.

Behemoth
01-15-2004, 05:18 PM
Behemoth,

People typically tally their calories from their first meal after waking to their last before sleep because it is most convenient. Of course, you could use an time interval that you choose, because you are taking a continuous average. If you were compare midnight to midnight with 2 pm to 2 pm, the daily totals for each individual period would be different, but the average over 2 or 3 days would be the same--everything you eat or burn will eventually get counted somewhere. If you got 2500 from 2 pm to 2 pm, and only 2000 from midnight to midnight, then you must have eaten 500 calories between 2 pm and midnight the first day that you didn't eat from 2 pm to midnight the second day.

Using that logic you could eat nothing for 24 hours, then eat double your maintenance for 24 more hours and it would work out to be the same. My whole point was a steady flow of equally divided calories is superior to any other way of dividing them.

ebrunner
01-15-2004, 07:23 PM
But if you were eating a steady flow of equally divided calories, how would you have ended up eating 2500 kc over one 24 hour time span, and 2000 kc over another?

The reasons fasting then eating double the next day doesn't work are (a) you lose muscle over the fast and (b) you put your body into starvation mode. Frequent, smaller meals are the best way to diet, because you avoid putting your body into starvation mode (and storing more fat when you do eat) and because you get a thermic effect every time you eat from the digestion process. However, I do wonder if the body would increase metablolism somewhat during the overfeeding period, and if this thermogenesis would be enough to counter the metabolic slowdown during the fast. Similarly, I wonder how many of the extra calories would go to muscle regeneration and how many calories would be stored as fat. I believe that most people are worse off starving then binging, but I wonder why the body's negative response to the binge is worse than the favorable response to the surplus (why do we lose mostly muscle when we starve and gain mostly fat when we binge).

We've gotten completely off-topic, but I think you and I are both trying to come up with a time interval during which the body actually responds to energy balance by losing/storing fat, and I believe that it is much shorter a time period than 24 hours--more like 2-4 hours, or the length of time that it takes for digestion to occur. Once food has emptied from the stomach, it has either been used for energy, or stored as fat and/or glycogen. 2-4 hours is probably also roughly the time it takes for the body to achieve a catabolic state and to perceive starvation if it doesn't get food.

Behemoth
01-15-2004, 08:26 PM
You pretty much just said what I've been arguing this whole time.

So now that we're in agreement I'm going to restate my original point: That "as long as you're in a caloric deficit at the end of the day you'll lose weight" is far from a quality diet. Grant it weight will be lost, but poorly so.

smalls
01-15-2004, 10:48 PM
ebrunner:



I eat 8-12 servings of veggies daily and 4 servings of fruit


....................1

My god in heaven that's pretty impressive.

Saint Patrick
01-15-2004, 11:05 PM
You pretty much just said what I've been arguing this whole time.

So now that we're in agreement I'm going to restate my original point: That "as long as you're in a caloric deficit at the end of the day you'll lose weight" is far from a quality diet. Grant it weight will be lost, but poorly so.

:withstupi

That's what I was hinting at with my candy bar comment.

Holto
01-16-2004, 09:55 AM
People recommend lower carbs because you are able to manage insuln far easier than on a high carb/protein diet. Insulin stops lypolysis. If you need calories and you're not burning fat, what can you conclude will happen?

if I need calories I wont have high insulin levels

it's as simple as that

the faster insulin goes up the faster it goes down and lypolysis starts again

the only way to keep insulin elevated is to keep eating

ie: a calorie surplus

and I bet Lyle wishes more people understood his quote

galileo
01-16-2004, 12:18 PM
I'd originally written out a large response on FFA release, fat mobilization, and utilization of fat as fuel but I'll save it. Since it's "as simple as that" everyone here will just have to take your word for it and start cutting on candy/protein.

crazy_cool
01-16-2004, 11:34 PM
Calorie is a calorie..... SO to build muscle you need calories...so does that mean you dont gotta worry about what kinds???? samething goes for looseing weight.


Your best bet, is to lower fat intake....lower carb intake slightly and increase protein. You dont wanna casue havoc by depleteing carbs to much from your body. You will start burning up muscle tissue. Here is a real simple way of doing it....

Goto the drug store, by something called "ketostix" ....piss on them every hour (since you should be drinking a ton of water, you probbly piss every hour anyways) There will be a little colour chart to follow in the box to look for. Try and balance your carb intake so you are just slightly in the "ketosis state" that the pictures show on the colour table. After a week of using these, you should get a good picture of how much carbs you should be takeing in. If the ketostix indicates you a colour that says your in ketosis...then you can bet big bucks your burning up muscle during that time. If your colour is indicating your slightly in ketosis...good chance your burning fat and not much muscle. Might help to UP your glutamine to make this a better odd!!!

Perhaps take fish oil pills to help keep a good efa supply. But dont cut out the carbs. Atkins diet is a chick diet...not a body builders diet. If your body dont got carbs comeing into that it needs....then itll feed off your muscles. Which you worked your ass off for. If you wanna drop 100 lbs quickly, yah atkins diet is the way to go...its fast, and it works. But if you wanna cut your fat off your body and keep as much muscle as possible...there is no miracle diet...it is just pure mental struggle ....its all a matter of you useing your will power.

good luck

warreport
01-17-2004, 12:01 AM
yeah atkins is a chick diet, but some people on this board have had good results using ckd or tkd diets, which work in a keto state. making blanket statements like that are not quite accurate

Holto
01-17-2004, 04:04 PM
I'd originally written out a large response on FFA release, fat mobilization, and utilization of fat as fuel but I'll save it. Since it's "as simple as that" everyone here will just have to take your word for it and start cutting on candy/protein.

I don't think anything said in this thread warrants this kind of attitude

Maxgain
01-17-2004, 04:20 PM
So as long as im in a calorie deficit protein intake is high and my meals are evenly spread out i should be ok.

Just another question when doing cardio for cutting is it true to do it on an empty stomach and not eat for an hour after so your body uses your fat supplies as fuel.Would you not lose too much mucsle this way? and do you treat pre and post workout nutrition as in bulking to supply maximum energy for lifting and for building muscle after? Thanks

Behemoth
01-17-2004, 05:23 PM
So as long as im in a calorie deficit protein intake is high and my meals are evenly spread out i should be ok.

This is what we've been discussing this whole thread. More or less, yes, you'll lose weight. But there are much better ways of doing it


Just another question when doing cardio for cutting is it true to do it on an empty stomach and not eat for an hour after so your body uses your fat supplies as fuel.Would you not lose too much mucsle this way? and do you treat pre and post workout nutrition as in bulking to supply maximum energy for lifting and for building muscle after? Thanks

The logic behind cardio on an empty stomache is that since theres no food present your body will choose its stores for energy. And it's true it will. But cardio on an empty stomache has proven to be very catabolic. Since your glycogen stores are so empty you beginning in a catabolic state, doing the cardio just adds to it.