PDA

View Full Version : I can't believe its not butter......



raven23
07-04-2004, 03:18 PM
Hey fellas, just wonderin if "i cant believe its not butter" (cholesterol free, 10g fat per serv., 2sat, 8 unsat), is a good source of my healthy fats? I LOVE to put it in my Natural Style oatmeal, and its tastes great, and from the label, it looks ligit......

Any Thoughts?
Thanx

Vido
07-04-2004, 03:25 PM
I have no idea what it's made of, but I can guarantee you the answer is "No".

buffzilla
07-04-2004, 03:27 PM
Hey fellas, just wonderin if "i cant believe its not butter" (cholesterol free, 10g fat per serv., 2sat, 8 unsat), is a good source of my healthy fats? I LOVE to put it in my Natural Style oatmeal, and its tastes great, and from the label, it looks ligit......

Any Thoughts?
Thanx

No its a hydrogenated fat, it's much better to use olive oil. I dip my bread in olive oil then put it in the toaster, I won't touch margarine or butter. Olive oil might not taste so great in oatmeal, perhaps sunflower oil would be better.

Holto
07-04-2004, 06:23 PM
butter is an excellent source of nutrients including cholesterol that is not yet oxidixed

Vido
07-04-2004, 06:44 PM
Flax oil actually doesn't taste half bad on oats, especially when you add some chocolate protein powder to the mix as well.

Saint Patrick
07-04-2004, 06:47 PM
I agree Olive Oil /pwns fake butter.

pruneman
07-04-2004, 08:12 PM
i put olive oil in my oats

thetopdog
07-04-2004, 11:01 PM
Flax oil actually doesn't taste half bad on oats, especially when you add some chocolate protein powder to the mix as well.

If they had a puking smiley, I would use it here. Some of you guys are just nasty, haha

Vido
07-05-2004, 01:00 AM
If they had a puking smiley, I would use it here. Some of you guys are just nasty, haha

Don't knock it 'til you try it, it's actually pretty delicious. Unfortunately, I don't eat it very often because I try to do the whole avoid carbs and fats in the same meal thing...which actually ties into the original thread now that I think about it. I never even read the post very carefully. 1) Why the %$#@ are putting some butter product on oats??? If anything, THAT is disgusting :D.
2) You should try to avoid mixing carbs and fats in the same meal.

theomen
07-08-2004, 11:01 PM
on the whole, if it's solid at room temp, it's either sat fat or trans fat.

ryuage
07-09-2004, 04:36 AM
I believe the large portion of fat from that would be trans fats.

galileo
07-09-2004, 06:38 AM
2) You should try to avoid mixing carbs and fats in the same meal.

Give us some reason. If your reason is that the insulin spike will drive the fat from your blood stream into your fat cells, don't even bother.

meltedtime
07-09-2004, 07:20 AM
I Can't Believe It's Not Butter now contains no trans fatty acid. From what I've been able to find it is the trans fat in the hydrogenated oils that is bad for you. If ICBINB does not contain trans fat it should be a better choice than regular margarine.

I would recommend you use real butter. In small amounts it is not harmful to you or your diet.

melt

Holto
07-09-2004, 12:00 PM
butter in large amounts is not bad either

it's when your diet totally lacks polys and mono's

Holto
07-09-2004, 12:01 PM
I Can't Believe It's Not Butter now contains no trans fatty acid

lot's of foods that were realy culprits for trans will be coming out trans free

even oreo has some trans free varieties...

theomen
07-09-2004, 12:44 PM
ah, Oreos, my old friends....god I miss oreos, why can't someone invent a high protein, poly fat oreo?

Max-Mex
07-09-2004, 02:29 PM
Just take the cookies apart and make your own filling omen. I'm sure it's not that hard to come up with a tasty high protien/mono fat filling.

dxiw
07-09-2004, 02:43 PM
eat Smart Balance.. tastes good lowers cholesterol, has no trans fat, like one gram of saturated fat, and the rest unsaturated.

Vido
07-09-2004, 05:10 PM
Give us some reason. If your reason is that the insulin spike will drive the fat from your blood stream into your fat cells, don't even bother.

Well how about don't eat high GI carbs and fats together then? Is that better?

Whatever works, works. It's just like how some people grow better off a 6 day split and others a 2 day split. I personally feel not mixing the macros makes a difference, which is good enough "reason" for me.

I did see the thread on this and the scientific evidence to prove me wrong. So, should I stop recommending this strategy to others? Yeah, probably. Is that enough to make me change my own diet? Not at all.

Augury
07-09-2004, 06:05 PM
I did see the thread on this and the scientific evidence to prove me wrong. So, should I stop recommending this strategy to others? Yeah, probably. Is that enough to make me change my own diet? Not at all.

Whoa. Erm....dude? Im just getting wrapped up into the whole John Bernardi thing and i just saw this. You wanna point me in the direction of this thread? Or can you toss the info into My journal? I dont wanna be doing something that suddenly has had the scientific rug pulled out from under it :(

Augs

Holto
07-10-2004, 09:36 PM
well truthfully the no carbs+fat thing had its foundation shattered before it began

the principle of energy balance has been known for a long time

imagine this

clinical study

two groups in a calorie deficit

both groups get the same amount of cals

1 combines fat with carbs
2 no fat with carbs

result: identical weight loss

if anyone thinks group two would lose more expain how

cals in VS cals out

if group 2 can lose more weight they either burn more cals or consume less cals

but both groups consume the exact amount of cals and follow identical activity profiles

so for group 2 to lose more weight they need a way to excrete calories which dosen't happen in the human body except in fairly extreme medical conditions

thetopdog
07-11-2004, 01:31 AM
well truthfully the no carbs+fat thing had its foundation shattered before it began

the principle of energy balance has been known for a long time

imagine this

clinical study

two groups in a calorie deficit

both groups get the same amount of cals

1 combines fat with carbs
2 no fat with carbs

result: identical weight loss

if anyone thinks group two would lose more expain how

cals in VS cals out

if group 2 can lose more weight they either burn more cals or consume less cals

but both groups consume the exact amount of cals and follow identical activity profiles

so for group 2 to lose more weight they need a way to excrete calories which dosen't happen in the human body except in fairly extreme medical conditions


I think the key is the type of weight that's lost, the thinking goes that group 1 would store more fat so more of the weight lost would have to come from muscle I guess

I'm not saying that would be the case (I really have no idea about the whole combining fat/carbs issue, I don't think it makes enough of a difference to worry about), but that's the logic behind the argument.

It's not JUST about cals in vs. cals out, or else we would all just get the required amount of protein and EFAs, take a multivitamin and eat $hit for the rest of our diets. I'm almost positive that someone eating 200g of protein and getting his carbs from oats and veggies will gain less fat than someone eating the same amount of overall protein and calories, but getting his carbs from candy

Vido
07-11-2004, 06:56 PM
It's not JUST about cals in vs. cals out, or else we would all just get the required amount of protein and EFAs, take a multivitamin and eat $hit for the rest of our diets. I'm almost positive that someone eating 200g of protein and getting his carbs from oats and veggies will gain less fat than someone eating the same amount of overall protein and calories, but getting his carbs from candy

Agreed.

Holto
07-11-2004, 09:40 PM
I think the key is the type of weight that's lost, the thinking goes that group 1 would store more fat so more of the weight lost would have to come from muscle I guess

no

your body will never burn muscle over fat

so that eliminates that possibility


It's not JUST about cals in vs. cals out, or else we would all just get the required amount of protein and EFAs, take a multivitamin and eat $hit for the rest of our diets

been there done that...exactly as you described it

I lost 35 lbs @ a rate of 5.4 lbs/month eating white flour and coke all day


I'm almost positive that someone eating 200g of protein and getting his carbs from oats and veggies will gain less fat than someone eating the same amount of overall protein and calories, but getting his carbs from candy

the only way you would gain less fat is to burn more calories

otherwise where would the extra calories come from that would result in extra fat storage ?

if you can't answer that it's because it's impossible

here is another one that bradely was famous for

you eat a meal that is cake cookies and coca cola

your insulin levels skyrocket along with your blood glucose level

a great deal of the calories from the meal get stored as fat

since insulin works in a negative feedback loop you allways oversecrete it so in a case of them skyrocketing the result is low blood sugar

low blood sugar is one of the key mechanisms that starts your body to make fatty acids available

so the guy next to you that ate yams and steak is not burning fat and you are

which is better for fat loss ?

neither...it dosent matter all that matters is total cals

but surely one would be better for controling hunger which is what most dieting myths are based on

if you truly understand the mechanisms by which we gain and lose weight you will be able to spot the myths

if you dont understand the underlying science you are relegated to believing in other peoples opinions

Holto
07-11-2004, 09:42 PM
Agreed.

tell me why the no carbs+fat group will lose more weight...

this is what we are all about here

Vido
07-11-2004, 10:09 PM
tell me why the no carbs+fat group will lose more weight...

this is what we are all about here

I never "agreed" to that. I agreed that if you take 2 people and have both eat the same number of calories, but one eats clean and the other eats crap, that the one who eats clean will have the better physique.

Vido
07-11-2004, 10:14 PM
I lost 35 lbs @ a rate of 5.4 lbs/month eating white flour and coke all day


Congratulations are most certainly deserved. However, you can't use yourself as a prototype for the general masses on this form. You were severely overweight...you've lost close to 70lbs (according to your signature) and are still cutting. Diet matters much less for someone who is very overweight. You might be able to get down to 15% bodyfat, or even 12-13% worrying only about total calories. Once you're at this point, however, things become more complex.

Holto
07-11-2004, 11:43 PM
and if you could add any facts to support these bold statements I would be very interested in hearing them

from a scientific standpoint (ie: actual fact) what you just said is rediculous

Vido
07-12-2004, 05:41 PM
and if you could add any facts to support these bold statements I would be very interested in hearing them

from a scientific standpoint (ie: actual fact) what you just said is rediculous

LOL, let me reach into my pocket and pull out my studies. Sorry, but I have a life :rolleyes:.

Now, I hate to use pro bbers as an example, but it's just the easiest thing to do in this case. Please tell me why, when Ronnie Coleman is preparing for the Olympia, he doesn't use your white flour and coke diet, and just worry about dropping his calories every week?

Alright, that was a tough one so I'll give you another chance. If you can't tell me why Ronnie Coleman uses a more complex diet than just counting calories, then maybe you could tell me why EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD OTHER THAN YOU also uses a different approach?

I don't know what you're at now, but when you get down to 12% and then try to reduce that further to 8-9%, please share with us all how well your "white flour and coke" diet works in terms of fat gain and muscle retention.

I already said it once, but it doesn't seem like you read it, so let me repeat myself. A diet that works in getting someone from 25%bf to 20%bf will not work in getting someone from 13% to 8%...period. Just so we know what I mean by "works", I'm referring to a diet that achieves the desired fat loss, while retaining muscle...maybe this is the point you're missing (and I think it is). We're not after "weight loss" here, but "fat loss" (with muscle retention).

Holto
07-12-2004, 08:26 PM
A diet that works in getting someone from 25%bf to 20%bf will not work in getting someone from 13% to 8%...period

I read this the first time you said it

I have read it hundreds of times in the twelve years I have been studying nutrition

however...I have never found anything to support this ludicruos statement

I don't want studies Vido I want you to explain this rediculous statement using scientific facts

if you have any

if you don't have any facts to support your opinion then I dont' know why you would even have such and opinion

other that you read it in flex

Holto
07-12-2004, 08:51 PM
and in case anybody is actually reading this I don't recommend eating junk

right now my diet is insanely clean almost totally organic, no refined sugar, no trans, no synthetic preservatives, no white flour

and I'm losing weight at the exact same rate as when I was eating pure junk

I lost the first 35 lbs @ a rate of 5.4lbs/month

and the last 35 lbs @ a rate of 5.4lbs/month

why

because I'm taking in the same amount of cals

Vido
07-12-2004, 10:53 PM
and in case anybody is actually reading this I don't recommend eating junk

right now my diet is insanely clean almost totally organic, no refined sugar, no trans, no synthetic preservatives, no white flour

and I'm losing weight at the exact same rate as when I was eating pure junk

I lost the first 35 lbs @ a rate of 5.4lbs/month

and the last 35 lbs @ a rate of 5.4lbs/month

why

because I'm taking in the same amount of cals

Before I respond to your other post, I'll ask you a simple question while I still have some semblance of composure:

Could you please stop referring to "weight" loss? I don't care if you lost 7 lbs, 70 lbs, 170 lbs, or 500 lbs, what was the ratio of fat to muscle loss? THIS is what's important.

Vido
07-12-2004, 11:18 PM
I read this the first time you said it

I have read it hundreds of times in the twelve years I have been studying nutrition

however...I have never found anything to support this ludicruos statement

I don't want studies Vido I want you to explain this rediculous statement using scientific facts

if you have any

if you don't have any facts to support your opinion then I dont' know why you would even have such and opinion

other that you read it in flex

In your 12 years of studies, you have clearly not learned how to spell or construct a proper paragraph.

First, if calories are all that matter, why have you changed your diet to make it "clean". You said it yourself..."weight loss" is the same either way.

Second, if you know so much, why are you eating "organic" food when there aren't any studies documenting that "organic" food is better for you?

Third, just curious about this one, but are you taking the same amount of calories now as you were when you were heavier and you're losing at the same rate? If you are, then you just shot yourself in the foot because your maintenance calories should constantly be dropping with your bodyweight. Eating clean could then explain why you're still losing "weight". If this isn't the case, it still proves nothing because you've yet to include muscle loss in your calculations, and until you do, nothing you claim is sound.

I apologize that I have no studies available. It's unfortunate that the scientific community would never fund a study so RIDICULOUS (correct spelling) as to compare eating a diet of white flour and coke to a "clean" one. In order for a study to be done it needs to be approved and have funding. It is very difficult to get funding, or be published for that matter, if you're "proving" something that is already fairly well regarded as the truth because there's no real point in it. In addition, you would never have a researcher advocating something like all calories are equal because it is a faulty argument that would never be supported by conclusions from any one study.

Also, a study won't "prove" anything per se because you'd need high external validity in it in order to generalize the findings. In most cases, even if such a study would be done, it's unlikely that it would have high external validity because it would have to be done in laboratory settings where environmental factors would be negated to a certain degree. With regard to metabolism and hormonal balances, etc., environmental factors play a huge role in determining the outcomes.

Not everything in life needs a study to be generally accepted as truth. Are you under the impression that smoking weed is not good for you? Oh really? You are eh? Did you read about that in a medical journal?

In actuality, the only studies finding any serious health implications from smoking pot were funded by the US government. They have not been replicated and as such, there is no binding scientific evidence to show that smoking pot is bad for you. The fact that something so obvious to the general public has yet to be proved with certainty after decades upon decades just goes to show you how futile it is to look for conclusive evidence that all calories are not equal.

Now, you don't want studies, but you do want scientific facts? Where pray tell do you think these "facts" come from?

theomen
07-12-2004, 11:20 PM
I'm an insane dieter and eat insanley clean, but acording to the law of thermodynamics, (and I've picked many of my exercise physiology profesors brains for the past three years over this) all that matters is calories in vs calories out. I still eat no refined sugars, high glycemic carbs besides fruit, monounsat fats, etc... but I have to admit besides some people feeling better when eating clean (most people feel better while eating clean) fat loss is 99% thermodynamics, if not 100% IMO

Vido
07-12-2004, 11:29 PM
I'm an insane dieter and eat insanley clean, but acording to the law of thermodynamics, (and I've picked many of my exercise physiology profesors brains for the past three years over this) all that matters is calories in vs calories out. I still eat no refined sugars, high glycemic carbs besides fruit, monounsat fats, etc... but I have to admit besides some people feeling better when eating clean (most people feel better while eating clean) fat loss is 99% thermodynamics, if not 100% IMO

It doesn't surprise me that your physiology professors could not find the major flaw in this approach. Why, you ask? Because they are not bodybuilders. It's the same as your doctor recommending you eat 60g of protein/day because he assumes you're sedentary. "Professionals" are not always more right, depends on the subject at hand. Just like Holto, your physiology professors are looking at "weight" loss. Let me say this one more time...WEIGHT LOSS IS NOT IMPORTANT. FAT LOSS IS WHAT'S IMPORTANT. Will you lose the same amount of WEIGHT on a 2000 calorie diet of cookies and cake as a 2000 calorie balanced "clean" diet? (Well no you won't actually because you're not taking into account the thermodynamic effects of food and other metabolic processes, but leaving these out...) Yes, you will. Will the ratio of muscle to fat loss be as good? Please, for the love of God, tell me you agree the answer is no...this is getting painful.

theomen
07-12-2004, 11:44 PM
I agree, to a degree, that's why I eat clean (if I found out I was eating clean just for sh*ts and giggles I might shoot myself), but I think this argument was about would you lose the same amount...eh, it's late, I just hit my legs at the gym, maybe I missed a post about quality of the fat loss.

Manveet
07-13-2004, 10:55 AM
lol, great thread.

buffzilla
07-13-2004, 01:28 PM
I can't believe it's not olive oil. Why the F*** are you using this crap instead of olive oil?

Trent_Steel
07-13-2004, 04:01 PM
Olive oil is much better I have to agree. I can't believe that ICBINB doesn't have trans fats.

theomen
07-13-2004, 06:28 PM
I usually use EV Olive Oil if I need a fat for cooking or for whatever, but if I just need buttery flavoring I use ICBINB fat free, calorie free spray.

wibble
07-13-2004, 07:13 PM
Damn I was wondering why there was like 39 replies to a thread entitled "I can't believe its not butter". I figured you guys were all Fabio fans, but now I see the reasoning. ;)

Augury
07-13-2004, 07:48 PM
wibble....your little icon thing scares me. i cant sleep at night after seeing it.

Augs

Maki Riddington
07-13-2004, 08:36 PM
I would love to see someone post a detailed account of their journey from 11% down to 8% on a coke and flour diet.

Holto
07-13-2004, 11:51 PM
I would love to see someone post a detailed account of their journey from 11% down to 8% on a coke and flour diet.

I figure I'm in the high teens right now

when I get to 11 I'll start a journal and take about 40% of cals from sucanat and at least 2 cokes a day

Holto
07-13-2004, 11:51 PM
Vido:

I'll answer all your questions right after you answer mine

wibble
07-14-2004, 01:25 AM
wibble....your little icon thing scares me. i cant sleep at night after seeing it.

Augs

LOL sorry Augs, I hope it doesn't affect your workouts! ;)

Vido
07-14-2004, 10:22 AM
Vido:

I'll answer all your questions right after you answer mine

All you said was you wanted "scientific facts", not studies. I told you, or rather I implied to you by asking you where you wanted these "facts" from, that this request is impossible. In case you didn't know the answer to my question, let me inform you. Scientific facts come from *Gasp*...scientific STUDIES. I already told you in great detail why no such studies would ever be conducted.

I'm anxiously awaiting your journal.

Holto
07-14-2004, 11:17 PM
All you said was you wanted "scientific facts", not studies. I told you, or rather I implied to you by asking you where you wanted these "facts" from, that this request is impossible. In case you didn't know the answer to my question, let me inform you. Scientific facts come from *Gasp*...scientific STUDIES. I already told you in great detail why no such studies would ever be conducted.

I'm anxiously awaiting your journal.

do you think it took a clinical trial to determine there are a 4 cals in a gram of carbs...oh my god what a pathetic cop out

perhaps you don't realize the difference between scientific study and scientific studies

I'm not asking for you to prove your theories with an actual study

I'm asking for any kind of verbal explanation with some facts thrown in

if you had any facts you could provide them and you wouldn't need clinicals to reference them

this is wbb when you make a statement be prepared to support it...

if you can't suport it...don't post it

Augury
07-15-2004, 06:42 AM
I think this thread has officially become a "squabble".

That word isnt used enough and Im going to make an effort to use it far more often. Along with the word "plethora".

Augs

AllUp
07-15-2004, 12:43 PM
"squabble".

That word isnt used enough
It isn't. :thumbup:

Vido
07-15-2004, 07:57 PM
do you think it took a clinical trial to determine there are a 4 cals in a gram of carbs...oh my god what a pathetic cop out

***It would not take a clinical trial to prove this. They DID do a scientific study to arrive at this result.***

perhaps you don't realize the difference between scientific study and scientific studies

***Nope, guess I don't. Enlighten me.***

I'm not asking for you to prove your theories with an actual study

I'm asking for any kind of verbal explanation with some facts thrown in

if you had any facts you could provide them and you wouldn't need clinicals to reference them

this is wbb when you make a statement be prepared to support it...

if you can't suport it...don't post it

***I hardly think that seeing as how the majority here agrees with me (and by majority I mean everyone), I don't think it's really necessary...but tell me what you would like explained and I will do my best. If you're wanting me to explain why you can't get ripped eating white flour and coke it shouldn't be too hard.***

Holto
07-16-2004, 12:20 PM
great vido:

explain to me why you can't get ripped (less than 11%) eating white flour and coke

the scenario I'm hypothesizing about is where you are creating an energy debt of about 500 cals/day = 3500 cals/week = 1 lb of adipose tissue

I know what your answer is going to be

The media (ie: magazines and supp companies) dosen't want you to believe it's this easy so you need to keep buying their products

Augury:

you should set vido up with the ULR for the other site where you were asking about fat + carbs

those guys study nutrition science over there and don't buy into common myths

Holto
07-16-2004, 12:24 PM
the difference between study and a study is the presence of a hypothesis

when fat soluble factor "A" was discovered (later named retinol) it was not part of an organized study and there was no hypothesis trying to be proven/disporven

the same for water soluble B & C...literally discovered while doing general analysis

Manveet
07-16-2004, 01:16 PM
the difference between study and a study is the presence of a hypothesis

:confused: :confused:

Vido
07-16-2004, 01:18 PM
great vido:

explain to me why you can't get ripped (less than 11%) eating white flour and coke

the scenario I'm hypothesizing about is where you are creating an energy debt of about 500 cals/day = 3500 cals/week = 1 lb of adipose tissue



Just so everyone here is clear, is this a diet of ONLY white flour and coke, 50% white flour and coke, or what?

Vido
07-16-2004, 01:26 PM
the difference between study and a study is the presence of a hypothesis


:confused: :confused:

My thoughts exactly.

Vido
07-16-2004, 01:33 PM
I know what your answer is going to be

The media (ie: magazines and supp companies) dosen't want you to believe it's this easy so you need to keep buying their products



I'd love for you to point out where I ever claimed supplements were necessary.

Holto
07-18-2004, 06:46 PM
the difference between study and a study is the presence of a hypothesis

when fat soluble factor "A" was discovered (later named retinol) it was not part of an organized study and there was no hypothesis trying to be proven/disporven

take my example above

when retinol was discovered it was not part of a scientific study of any kind

there was no name, title, purpose or hypothesis involved

it was just some scientist looking at something under a microscope

and he *discovered* retinol

so what I'm getting at is that things are discovered and things are studied

trying to find out if retinol cures blindness would be a study as there is a hypothesis present

casually looking at some carrots under a microscope to pass the time is not a study, it's a lack of MTV and better things to do

Weston Price is considered the father of nutrition science

he packed his bag and travelled to the arctic, he had no intentions of studying anthing in particular, he was exploring and discovering

he discovered the relationship between calcium intake and tooth enamel (he was a dentist)

since then specifities of calcium have been studied ie: intakes, absorbtion rates etc

Holto
07-18-2004, 06:50 PM
I'd love for you to point out where I ever claimed supplements were necessary.

not at all

I'm saying that this fear of losing muscle when cutting is fostered by the media

this is how they make us consume things

fear = consumption

Marily Manson expained this beatifully in bowling for columbine

on edit: it's the fear of losing muscle while cutting and gaining too much fat when bulking that proliferates nutrition vodoo that defies the basics of energy balance

Holto
07-18-2004, 06:54 PM
Just so everyone here is clear, is this a diet of ONLY white flour and coke, 50% white flour and coke, or what?

lets say that all 38 essential nutrients are present in necessary quantities to sustain life

15 % fat (including both EFA's)
20 % protein (including all 8 EAA's)
65 % white flour and coke

Holto
07-18-2004, 07:03 PM
and if anyone following this remembers Lyle's quote about getting ripped off table sugar

here is one of the studies that propted it

I have to admit it is amazing to see


Int J Obes. 1990 Nov;14(11):927-38.

Effects of sucrose on resting metabolic rate, nitrogen balance, leucine turnover
and oxidation during weight loss with low calorie diets.

Hendler R, Bonde AA.

Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven,
CT 06510.

Our research has shown that 800 kcal/day sucrose diets, unlike pure protein
diets, maintained resting metabolic rate (RMR) and triiodothyronine (T3) levels.
Concern that thermogenesis from sucrose might reflect protein catabolism led to
this study, in which 23 obese women were studied as inpatients for 2 weeks on
diets (kcal = 50 percent of RMR) containing either 93 percent sucrose (S, n =
7), sucrose plus protein (75 percent/20 percent, SP, n = 9), or fat plus protein
(75 percent/20 percent, FP, n = 7). RMR, leucine kinetics (1-14C)leucine method)
and nitrogen balance were measured. RMR fell (P less than 0.03) with SP and FP
(-8.4 +/- 2.5 percent, -7.5 +/- 2.5 percent), but was maintained by S (+ 0.3 +/-
2.4 percent, P = 0.05 vs. SP and FP). Plasma leucine decreased (P less than
0.01) with S and SP by 36.6 +/- 4.0 percent and 17.0 +/- 4.7 percent, but
increased by +52.8 +/- 9.0 percent (P less than 0.01) with FP (P = 0.0001 vs. S
or SP). Leucine turnover, oxidation, and nonoxidative disposal all decreased (P
= 0.0001) with S and with SP, in contrast to FP, in which these parameters were
unchanged (all P = 0.0001 vs. S or SP). Cumulative (2 week) nitrogen loss was
least (P = 0.001) in SP (-2.56 +/- 0.41 mol) compared with S (-4.37 +/- 0.19
mol) and FP (-4.76 +/- 0.12 mol), which did not differ. Since inclusion of
sucrose in hypocaloric diets maintained RMR while decreasing leucine turnover,
oxidation, and nitrogen loss, we conclude that the thermogenic effects of
sucrose do not depend on protein catabolism.

_________________________________________________________________

losing muscle when cutting can only occur in a negative nitrogen balance ie: nitrogen loss

here the group that ate ZERO protein had less nitrogen loss than the group that actually ate fat+protein

pruneman
07-18-2004, 07:53 PM
I can't believe it's not....um...on page 5 by now. :p

...sticky? :D

Vido
07-18-2004, 07:54 PM
on edit: it's the fear of losing muscle while cutting and gaining too much fat when bulking that proliferates nutrition vodoo that defies the basics of energy balance

I think the main difference in our thought patterns is that you want science to back up your theories, and I want real-life experience. Even the study you posted below, I read and think "So what?". That's great that a sucrose diet didn't have detrimental effects on obese women...how does that do anything for me?

I think the fear of losing muscle while cutting is extremely warranted. I've never known anyone who has cut a significant amount of fat (let's say 10+ lbs) drug-free, without losing muscle in the process. I've also never heard of anyone on these boards accomplishing that feat either (unless on drugs or a newbie).

I've been doing some reading lately on the whole carbs + fats thing, and I admit it seems that you are correct. That, however, doesn't change my stance on the other issues in this thread.

Vido
07-18-2004, 08:24 PM
Concern that thermogenesis from sucrose might reflect protein catabolism led to this study, in which 23 OBESE WOMEN were studied as inpatients for 2 weeks on diets (kcal = 50 percent of RMR)

This is why studies or "study" or whatever do very little to sway me. No studies are done on bodybuilders, and very few are even done on normal, somewhat active individuals. I'm sorry, but my body has very little in common with a 400 lb woman or a rat.

Do you think the nitrogen ratios in an obese woman are even remotely similar to those in a male bodybuilder?

What I got from the study (and yes, I could be way off base), was that they are concluding that one can consume carbohydrates (they used sucrose as an example) and still lose weight, basically discrediting Atkins type diets. I don't think anything revolutionary was discovered.

IdaMAN
07-18-2004, 08:38 PM
I can't believe this thread is still going on! lol. I like becel myself.

Vido
07-18-2004, 08:43 PM
lets say that all 38 essential nutrients are present in necessary quantities to sustain life

15 % fat (including both EFA's)
20 % protein (including all 8 EAA's)
65 % white flour and coke

Now, I don't know if this is considered backtracking or not, but I would like to qualify what I said earlier. It IS possible to get to 8% eating a diet like the one above, but my point this whole time has been that in doing so you are sacrificing lean body mass. You know those starving children in Africa? Lots of them are probably 8%, but do they look good/healthy?

Let's take a hypothetical character with stats 6'0 180 lbs 11% bf whose goal is to get down to 8%. All I'm saying (and I think the same can be said for anyone who stated they were interested in seeing you do this white flour and coke diet yourself) is that the guy WILL reach 8% bodyfat. The only question is will he be 170 lbs or 155 lbs when he gets there? In one case, he'd look quite good, and in the other case, he'd look like a bonerack. (Well, 6'0 170 is pretty skinny as well, but for argument's sake we'll say it looks good...)

I mentioned in a post above that I have yet to see someone cut without losing some muscle in the process. The problem with your white flour and coke diet is that the ratio of muscle to fat loss will be higher than with a more "normal" diet. I don't know if we have the same goals physique-wise because you keep referring to "weight" loss, which means nothing to me. It seems to me like you would be just as happy being the 155lb guy as you would being the 170lb guy as long as you reached your target of 8%.

In addition to being unhealthy, the white flour and coke diet would not give you any source of sustained energy, nor would it leave you with adequate protein intake. A result of decreased energy would be more strength loss. This is another reason for increased catabolism. Although strength does not equal size or vice versa, the two factors are correlated in some way. I think strength loss is actually a more important factor than people make it out to be on a cutting diet. The majority just presume that they will indeed lose strength, and as a result, accept it. While strength gain does not equal muscle gain, strength loss does equal muscle loss. Don't believe me? I beg you to drop 30 lbs off of your current squat or bench for a few weeks and tell me you didn't lose size. A goal of any cutting diet should be to maintain (or even gain) strength. I have trouble believing one could accomplish such a feat with 65% of his/her calories coming from white flour and coke.

Holto
07-19-2004, 12:08 PM
I'm sorry, but my body has very little in common with a 400 lb woman or a rat

there is only one human physiology

I could go on for thousands of lines that describe how your body works exactly like a rats...physiologically speaking

this is why billions of dollars are spend on rat studies

if the fat ladies had almost no nitrogen loss while eating ZERO protein

a bodybuilder who is cutting on coke+whitebread+tons of protein should have very little nitrogen loss

this is one of the take home ideas from this study

Holto
07-19-2004, 12:13 PM
Now, I don't know if this is considered backtracking or not, but I would like to qualify what I said earlier. It IS possible to get to 8% eating a diet like the one above, but my point this whole time has been that in doing so you are sacrificing lean body mass.

all I want is for you to explain why...

why are you sacrificing LBM VS a clean diet ?

and I agree all WEIGHT loss plans result in loss of some LBM what I'm saying is that it's this fear that spawns vodoo diet plans

from what I gather the ONLY thing that is relevant to loss of LBM is the caloric deficit created (assuming adequate protein intake)

a daily debt of 500 cals is easily resolved with adipose tissue

if there are other factors that effect the loss of LBM on a cut I would love to hear it explained (assuming adequate protein intake)

Holto
07-19-2004, 12:25 PM
and btw Vido thanks for being a good sport

I have been paying more attention to your posts lately and I am in no way trying to imply that you don't know what you are talking about

so far I agree with 99% of what you are saying on this board and I'm not advocating a diet of white flour+coke so in essence I agree with you on this too

Augury
07-19-2004, 05:32 PM
....and I'm not advocating a diet of white flour+coke so in essence I agree with you on this too

*puts down his bulging shopping bags, several bricks of flour and cans of coke spilling onto the floor*

you mean....its not a great idea?...but i just spent 250 on flour...and i was so looking forwards to the permanent heartburn...

Vido
07-19-2004, 05:33 PM
there is only one human physiology

I could go on for thousands of lines that describe how your body works exactly like a rats...physiologically speaking

this is why billions of dollars are spend on rat studies

if the fat ladies had almost no nitrogen loss while eating ZERO protein

a bodybuilder who is cutting on coke+whitebread+tons of protein should have very little nitrogen loss

this is one of the take home ideas from this study

Billions of dollars are spent on rat studies because you could never get approval for human trials on the grand majority of those studies done.

A bodybuilder who is cutting on "tons of protein" is probably going to be ok...20% of calories like you suggested in the example diet is not "tons of protein". On a 2000 calorie diet, that's a measly 100g of protein...this won't achieve the nitrogen balance a dieter is after.

Vido
07-19-2004, 05:40 PM
from what I gather the ONLY thing that is relevant to loss of LBM is the caloric deficit created (assuming adequate protein intake)

a daily debt of 500 cals is easily resolved with adipose tissue

if there are other factors that effect the loss of LBM on a cut I would love to hear it explained (assuming adequate protein intake)

I don't really understand where you're coming from here. Are you saying that given a daily deficit of 500 calories (and adequate protein intake) there is a certain % of fat and muscle loss that happens regardless of the rest of the diet? 500 cals/day = 3500 cals or 1lb lost/week. If I follow correctly (which I somehow don't think I do) you're saying that regardless of the source of those calories you will lose, for example, 50% fat and 50% muscle, or a 60/40 split, or a 70/30 split or whatever? The point being that there is a ratio and it cannot be turned in your favour by dieting a certain way. This is what I think you are getting at, but I'm not sure.

I think this is getting interesting, so I'm looking forward to having you clear things up for me.

Augury
07-19-2004, 05:51 PM
If I follow correctly you're saying that regardless of the source of those calories you will lose, for example, 50% fat and 50% muscle, or a 60/40 split, or a 70/30 split or whatever? The point being that there is a ratio and it cannot be turned in your favour by dieting a certain way. This is what I think you are getting at, but I'm not sure.

I think this is getting interesting, so I'm looking forward to having you clear things up for me.

Yeah. This is heading towards the crux of where Im interested too. Im gona hold back on my own opinions here and just listen. Essentially this is a question about whether you can push bodyrecomposition towards your own goals by manipulating macronutrients/training or whether you simply cant. Im curious to hear whats next.

Vido
07-19-2004, 06:14 PM
all I want is for you to explain why...

why are you sacrificing LBM VS a clean diet ?


You have made reference to what I think is a critical factor on a cutting diet in your most recent posts...adequate protein intake. On a diet of white flour and coke, or Mcdonald's, etc. chances are protein intake is not "adequate". It's debateable what an "adequate" level is, but when in a caloric deficit it becomes so very easy to lose muscle that a positive nitrogen balance is of the utmost importance. Thus, although I can't really put a specific number or percentage value on the term "adequate", I certainly believe the more the merrier. At least if your protein intake is "too high" (which is really not possible for any reason that I can think of), all you will do is convert the excess to carbs via glucogenesis...that doesn't help you in anyway, nor does it hurt you.

Another aspect of a clean diet vs. one involving a bunch of high GI carbs is a more constant flow of energy, instead of peaks and successive crashes. If this isn't a problem for an individual, then as long as those peaks are during workouts (and the strength loss that I discussed in an above post does not occur) then I guess it's not an issue. I would rather feel decent for most of the day, rather than go on highs and lows...that's me personally.

It's odd that it's so difficult to answer such a seemingly obvious question, but maybe I'm beginning to realize it's not so obvious afterall. I think the points I've made thus far are valid, but if I were you I still wouldn't be convinced. It would be nice if more of the knowledgeable people on this board would contribute their thoughts as I feel this is turning into quite a good thread.

Vido
07-19-2004, 07:19 PM
I had a longer post typed out and deleted it by accident :bang: .

Manveet came across an article written by Lyle McDonald pertaining to what is being discussed here. Basically, there were 3 main points to take home:

1. Sufficient protein intake always beats insufficient protein intake...this is a must for any diet.

2. Given sufficient protein intake, and keeping calories constant, there is negligible effects at best from manipulating quantities and types of carbs and fats.

3. Those wishing to get quite lean (sub-10%) might need a more drastic approach.

Holto, I think we both agree with Lyle that adequate protein is necessary. It seemed to me in your initial posts that you did not feel this way and that is why I so vehemently disagreed.

Point #2 is basically what you have been arguing all along, and after attempting to explain why a "clean" diet would preserve more LBM, it does not come as a shock to me to hear Lyle say this. Lyle does, however, add that on something like a white flour and coke diet one must supplement EFA's, vitamins, minerals, etc. Basically, what you miss out on from eating "clean" has to be supplemented.

Point #3 reminds me of a quote from a very intelligent person...


Diet matters much less for someone who is very overweight. You might be able to get down to 15% bodyfat, or even 12-13% worrying only about total calories. Once you're at this point, however, things become more complex.

bentkarnes
07-19-2004, 07:47 PM
i just read this whole post in one sitting, i deserve a medal, or maybe not cuz i didnt learn a thing... but i use becel, relax, its butter, but then again, i dont have a weight problem.

Vido
07-19-2004, 09:55 PM
i just read this whole post in one sitting, i deserve a medal, or maybe not cuz i didnt learn a thing... but i use becel, relax, its butter, but then again, i dont have a weight problem.

I think you should have learned something. There's a lot of interesting information in here, if you can just sift through the squabbling.

dsuh
07-19-2004, 10:23 PM
Well.. The answer is pretty obvious to me. Just walk around the gym and find the guys that are big and ripped (8% bf of less) and ask them about their diet. I don't think 1 person would say 'coke and white flour'.

Vido
07-19-2004, 11:16 PM
Well.. The answer is pretty obvious to me. Just walk around the gym and find the guys that are big and ripped (8% bf of less) and ask them about their diet. I don't think 1 person would say 'coke and white flour'.

They might say they use "coke" to get really ripped, but they wouldn't be talking about the kind you drink ;).

Augury
07-20-2004, 05:36 AM
They might say they use "coke" to get really ripped, but they wouldn't be talking about the kind you drink ;).

How can they possibly be getting ripped whilst using a hotter burning, faster oxidizing form of coal? :windup:

Augs the pokey.

Holto
07-20-2004, 09:25 PM
A bodybuilder who is cutting on "tons of protein" is probably going to be ok...20% of calories like you suggested in the example diet is not "tons of protein". On a 2000 calorie diet, that's a measly 100g of protein...this won't achieve the nitrogen balance a dieter is after.

well if we look at clinical data I think most people would be shocked at how much 100g of protein can do for nitrogen balance

www.pubmed.nl

I strongly recommend it just for getting bearings, not for setting your intakes

we take in way more than we need but thats the safest way to do it

1 LB of muscle = 448 grams

since it's 70% water that leaves a possible 134 grams of protein

and from that we subtract the carbohydrate component of glycogen, ATP/CP and amino acids pooled in the cell

so what I'm saying is 100g of protien is almost a lb of muscle

I'm in therapy now from an injury and a year 1/2 layoff, training upper body at a moderate intensity and playing basketball once a week and I take 100-120g's daily and my entire body is growing

if I was able to do squats and deads I think I would be taking more though

Holto
07-20-2004, 09:45 PM
Are you saying that given a daily deficit of 500 calories (and adequate protein intake) there is a certain % of fat and muscle loss that happens regardless of the rest of the diet?

assuming adequate protein this is exactly what I'm saying

and if there are other factors the size of the deficit is the greatest determining factor in loss of LBM



500 cals/day = 3500 cals or 1lb lost/week. If I follow correctly (which I somehow don't think I do) you're saying that regardless of the source of those calories you will lose, for example, 50% fat and 50% muscle, or a 60/40 split, or a 70/30 split or whatever? The point being that there is a ratio and it cannot be turned in your favour by dieting a certain way. This is what I think you are getting at, but I'm not sure

I think with a daily deficit of 500 it's possible to build muscle

so the odds are stacked in our favour out of the gate if we don't push the envelope

fat is a fuel souce and an insulator

muscle provides motion,posture,generates heat, makes our heart beat and lungs function

1 lb of muscle = ~600 cals

so 1 lb of fat = 5.8 lbs of LBM

now lets look at your idea of percentages

if you were to rectify a caloric deficit of 87,500 cals (enough for 25lbs of fat) with 90% fat and 10% lbm you would lose

14lbs muscle
22lbs fat

Holto
07-20-2004, 09:59 PM
Those wishing to get quite lean (sub-10%) might need a more drastic approach

I think this comes from the competitors who do the chicken and broccoli thing

earlier I said that there is only 1 human physiology

this is especially relevant when looking at the sub-10% athlete

we know our physiology dosen't change

but we do vary biochemically as in the obese woman who oversecretes insulin with every bite of her saltine cracker

the sub-10% athlete's fat cells release less leptin

this creates drastic hunger which causes these guys to use drastic measures

imagine eating 2000 cals in brocolli and boneless skinless chicken breasts

thats an insane amount of food which could make you feel full while training hard and doing cardio regardless of leptin levels

a good percentage of dieting myths have to do with hunger

3 meals VS 5 meals, eating low glycemic both viable strategies to avoid hunger while in a deficit yet both disproven by scientific studies

Holto
07-20-2004, 10:06 PM
something else that puts it in perspective

there is a finite limit to how many lbs of fat you can burn in a week (~5)

the limit is reached when enzmes needed to utilize fat are no longer available

enzmes to get it out of the cell, UCP's to break the chains apart, and then turning it into energy in various locations in the body in various ways

at this point muscle and bone are preyed upon, and your liver is making glucose out of itself

the closer we get to this finite limit the more LBM we lose

we could plot it as a curve that starts out flat and once you pass 2-3lbs/week it rises exponentially

Vido
07-21-2004, 12:02 AM
assuming adequate protein this is exactly what I'm saying

and if there are other factors the size of the deficit is the greatest determining factor in loss of LBM


Are you familiar with Lyle McDonald's UD2 diet? Myself and others have tried it recently with great success. The main goal is losing fat, without losing any muscle or strength, and the majority of the people that I'm aware have tried it have experienced great success. The only reason for my bringing it up is that it is a diet where you can legitimately lose 100% fat, 0% muscle drug-free, and he doesn't mention anything about your total caloric deficit being any sort of determining factor. It's a very good read even if you don't fancy the diet itself.

Vido
07-21-2004, 12:23 AM
I think this comes from the competitors who do the chicken and broccoli thing

earlier I said that there is only 1 human physiology

this is especially relevant when looking at the sub-10% athlete

we know our physiology dosen't change

but we do vary biochemically as in the obese woman who oversecretes insulin with every bite of her saltine cracker

the sub-10% athlete's fat cells release less leptin

this creates drastic hunger which causes these guys to use drastic measures

imagine eating 2000 cals in brocolli and boneless skinless chicken breasts

thats an insane amount of food which could make you feel full while training hard and doing cardio regardless of leptin levels

a good percentage of dieting myths have to do with hunger

3 meals VS 5 meals, eating low glycemic both viable strategies to avoid hunger while in a deficit yet both disproven by scientific studies

I don't disagree with the brocoli and chicken breasts thing. It's known as the "Volumetrics Weight Control Plan" whereby you focus on eating low-density foods, so you can eat a lot of food without many calories. It's based on the idea that your body doesn't get used to consuming a certain number of calories per day, but a certain portion of food. Satiety is reached by having a large portion of food, rather than a lot of calories.

However, I don't agree that hunger is the reason for doing more extreme diets as your bodyfat approaches single digits. My reasoning is that your body has a set point. Now the term "set point" I think usually applies to bodyweight, but there's no reason it can't apply to bodyfat as well. There's argument in another thread over what the "average" and "optimal" bodyfat percentages are for an adult male, but let's just say your body wants to be at 15%. Now, the reason the extreme approaches are needed to PRESERVE LEAN BODY MASS while cutting to single digits is because as your body strays from its set point, the ratio of fat/muscle loss swings further and further away from your favour.

You have to remember, your body has no use for excess muscle from an evolutionary or physiological standpoint, but excess fat does serve some purpose. In other words, your body wants you to be fat...maybe not 30%, but it certainly does not want you to be at 8%. Being at 8% serves absolutely no purpose to you as a human being, other than being more aesthetically pleasing.

So let's just say a hypothetical person started his cut at 25%. Maybe the fat/muscle loss ratio was 60/40, given a certain caloric deficit. Then, as this person neared his optimal bodyfat %, or set point, that ratio swung a bit to 50/50. Now, however, that our hypothetical subject is at 10% his body is really fighting with him. This guy is already 5% lower bodyfat than he "should" be, and his body is doing anything to prevent him from getting even further away from that point. The ratio is all of a sudden 25/75! In order for our subject to reach his goal of 8% bodyfat he's going to have to become a toothpick...unless he can sway that ratio back in his favour. This is why bodybuilders must use "extreme" approaches when dieting to low bodyfat.

Read Lyle's book as I know you like scientific facts to back up theories. These are my theories...Lyle will give you the science.

Vido
07-21-2004, 12:26 AM
the closer we get to this finite limit the more LBM we lose

we could plot it as a curve that starts out flat and once you pass 2-3lbs/week it rises exponentially

I don't think most people have to worry about reaching the point of exponential LBM losses, as 2-3 lbs a week is a lot of weight to be losing. In fact, unless you're extremely overweight, weight loss that rapid isn't even healthy.

Vido
07-21-2004, 11:59 AM
Parusing through other threads I see a lot of discussion over the topic of "a calorie is a calorie". It seems that most people, including some that I consider well-respected (GeoffGarcia, Gino, ectx) do believe that you can turn the fat/muscle loss ratio in your favour. I'm really not sure why all of them have decided to stay away from this thread.