PDA

View Full Version : Ability to gain fat



RussianRocket
06-21-2005, 04:44 PM
I have little knowledge of diet and so forth but my question is this. If i am able to gain fat/weight this will benefit me in putting on some muscle, right? Recently i've noticed that i'm starting to put some fat on. First thing i though was, finally my metabolism is slowing down which can benefit me in shorter run.

getfit
06-21-2005, 04:45 PM
how's your diet like?

RussianRocket
06-21-2005, 04:53 PM
It's pretty clean so far, a lot of veggies/fruit whole grain breads, red meat. Overall very evently based i think, i drink a lot of juice because it's free from work. Thats aobut it.

edit: oh yeah, MILK.

getfit
06-21-2005, 04:55 PM
you get in your good fats as well?

Built
06-21-2005, 05:17 PM
Fruit juice is full of fructose. I'd avoid it, personally.

RussianRocket
06-21-2005, 05:44 PM
you get in your good fats as well?

not as many as i'd like but its getting there.

The juice is free, so i MUST drink it. :)

Built
06-21-2005, 06:13 PM
Well, if I was having trouble with fat gain, I'd be looking to eliminate things that might be contributing to this fat gain. Of the things you consume, fruit juice would be the first place I'd look to eliminate or reduce.

Up to you.

:)

RussianRocket
06-21-2005, 06:47 PM
i dont have a problem with fat as of now. I'm still pretty lean, but have gained some fat, which i think is good so far. We'll find out at the end of the summer.

Manveet
06-21-2005, 06:50 PM
There isn't a single food source out there that will make you fat. Rather, you have keep your total calories in check. If juice can fit into your diet, then go for it. However, it is imperative that you have all other aspects of your diet in check (i.e enough protein, enough carbs and healthy fats).

Built
06-22-2005, 12:31 AM
Manveet, are you suggesting that you cannot affect partioning by the dietary choices you make?

Canadian Crippler
06-22-2005, 12:35 AM
I think what he's saying is that when calories out > calories in, you will not gain fat whether these calories are from fructose or from protein.

Built
06-22-2005, 12:53 AM
Sounds like a fairly naïve approach.

Manveet
06-22-2005, 10:09 AM
Manveet, are you suggesting that you cannot affect partioning by the dietary choices you make?

Sure you can, but the effect will be negligible anyway.

Manveet
06-22-2005, 10:10 AM
Sounds like a fairly naïve approach.

I don't think it's a naive approach at all. In fact, it's probably a more sane, and intelligent approach to dieting.

Built
06-22-2005, 01:34 PM
Ever had a problem with fat gain, Manveet?

Know anybody who's really had to struggle with this this problem (I don't mean lazy whiners, I mean people who fight like hell to get it off, and fail)?

And have you studied any of the literature on insulin resistance and the connection between it and high fructose consumption?

Just out of curiosity.

Manveet
06-22-2005, 02:31 PM
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/articles/nutrition/cal_cal.php

"I want to mention that relatively fewer studies have been done comparing different sources of carbohdyrates or fat. There are studies looking at the impact of sucrose (table sugar) vs. starch within the context of strictly controlled caloric intakes and they usually show no difference. That is, given an identical caloric intake, the source of the carbohydrates shows minimal differences. Similar studies have been done with dietary fat, typically showing similarly small differences. This is especially true when calories are restricted. "

I'm too lazy to go look up the studies.

*edit*

We've also already had a long thread on a similiar topic.

http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=49903&highlight=white+flour+coke

Vapour Trails
06-22-2005, 04:27 PM
I'm going to agree with the above. There is far too much fussing about where a calorie comes from. In the end, its the total consumed vs. total expended over a long duration that determines whether you are 30% bf or 5%. The foods that we choose to make up our 3500 daily calories or 5000 daily calories or whatever quantity are of minor importance (assuming adequate protein intake).

spanky33
06-22-2005, 05:04 PM
Personally, I think the total consumed vs. total expended generally applies when you hit equilibrium or close to it (i.e. maintenance eating for a long period of time). When you are significantly over or under maintenance, ratios matter. For example, over eating fat for a few days will make you gain more fat than over-eating carbs or protein for a few days. Under-eating and not getting enough protein will also be detrimental and different from eating a lot of protein, and less of the other two. So in general, when you're not in equilibrium, ratios matter. When at equilibrium, it really makes no difference IMO.

WBBIRL
06-22-2005, 06:49 PM
@Spanky

So your suggesting that if your at maintance calories, i could get 70% from fat and 15% from carbs and proteins and it wouldnt matter????

@Manveet

That quote you posted makes absoluetly no sense... I dont think anyone was arguing that the source of carbs or fats was the problem, fact is your still getting them. Builts body doesnt take well to carbohydrates.... they spike appetite so she uses more fats.

In general, Ill agree that calories are the key. You can't eat 5k cals a day if they only come from protein, your body will still store the extra as fat.... no matter how you get the cals. I try to keep carbs as the lowest ratio because I feel they are the most nutrient worthless form of caloires... their fast energy but dont help your body as much as protein or good fats would. Im not really sure but I think they only bad fats are the trans fats.

spanky33
06-22-2005, 09:40 PM
@Spanky

So your suggesting that if your at maintance calories, i could get 70% from fat and 15% from carbs and proteins and it wouldnt matter????

that's right. why would it matter? if u'r at equilibrium then u'r at equilibrium. why would it matter?? as long as you're not avoiding a macro, it should be fine. can you explain why it wouldn't be?

Built
06-22-2005, 09:55 PM
So there's no such thing as a clean bulk, then?

spanky33
06-22-2005, 10:49 PM
is that question directed towards me? i was referring to maintenance eating, not bulking. as i said earlier, when eating hyper or hypocaloric, ratios DO matter

Manveet
06-23-2005, 01:20 PM
So there's no such thing as a clean bulk, then?






the bottom line is gaining fat is determined by the quantity of calories not the quality

we eat clean to maximize the nutritive value of our food, not because clean food is magic

ie:

clean bulk VS dirty bulk

the real difference is in the number of calories we eat above maintenance

I don't think Holto will mind that I borrowed one of his quotes

Manveet
06-23-2005, 01:23 PM
?

@Manveet

That quote you posted makes absoluetly no sense... I dont think anyone was arguing that the source of carbs or fats was the problem, fact is your still getting them. Builts body doesnt take well to carbohydrates.... they spike appetite so she uses more fats.

In general, Ill agree that calories are the key. You can't eat 5k cals a day if they only come from protein, your body will still store the extra as fat.... no matter how you get the cals. I try to keep carbs as the lowest ratio because I feel they are the most nutrient worthless form of caloires... their fast energy but dont help your body as much as protein or good fats would. Im not really sure but I think they only bad fats are the trans fats.

Built made a reference to fructose and fat gain. I am assuming that she was implying that high GI carbs increase fat storage, so they should be avoided. This is actually a myth. Maybe if I have some time I can find the studies Lyle referenced in that quote above.

Built
06-23-2005, 01:30 PM
Fructose isn't a high GI carb.

The issue with fructose is in it's relationship to increasing triglycerides, which, in turn, is linked with insulin resistance.

Having lived through this particular nightmare (ie high tris and IR), I'm necessarily interested in research relating to this link, which has been established in animals and which is ongoing with humans.

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/5
http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/4/456

Manveet
06-24-2005, 11:39 AM
Fructose isn't a high GI carb.

The issue with fructose is in it's relationship to increasing triglycerides, which, in turn, is linked with insulin resistance.

Having lived through this particular nightmare (ie high tris and IR), I'm necessarily interested in research relating to this link, which has been established in animals and which is ongoing with humans.

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/5
http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/4/456

You are correct, fructose is not a high GI carb, my mistake.

McDevitt RM, Poppitt SD, Murgatroyd PR, Prentice AM.

Medical Research Council Dunn Clinical Nutrition Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom. r.mcdevitt@au.sac.ac.uk

BACKGROUND: Previous short-term studies (< or =6 h) showed differences in energy expenditure (EE) and macronutrient oxidation in response to overfeeding with different types of dietary carbohydrate. This finding could have implications for obesity. OBJECTIVE: We used 96-h continuous whole-body calorimetry in 8 lean and 5 obese women to assess metabolic disposal (energy dissipation and glycogen or fat storage) of a controlled excess of dietary energy supplied as different carbohydrate sources or as fat. DESIGN: Five dietary treatments were applied in random order: energy balance (control) and overfeeding by 50% of energy requirements with fat (O(fat)) or predominantly with glucose, fructose, or sucrose (O(cho)). Macronutrient oxidation rates were assessed from nonprotein gaseous exchanges. Net macronutrient balances were calculated as cumulative differences between intake and oxidation. RESULTS: Increased EE in response to overfeeding dissipated 7.9% of the energy excess with a variation in EE of <1.7% across overfeeding treatments (NS). EE during the O(fat) treatment significantly exceeded that during the control treatment in the lean but not in the obese women. There were no significant differences between lean and obese women in macronutrient oxidation or balances, so data were pooled. O(cho) induced glycogen storage on day 1 ( approximately 100 g) but thereafter progressively stimulated carbohydrate oxidation so that balance was reached on days 3 and 4. Fat oxidation was proportionately suppressed. Of the excess carbohydrate, 74% was oxidized; there were no significant differences between the various O(cho) treatments. O(fat) stimulated fat oxidation by 18% and suppressed carbohydrate oxidation. On average, 12% of the excess energy was stored as glycogen and 88% as fat; there was no significant difference between overfeeding treatments. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in fat balance during controlled overfeeding with fat, fructose, glucose, or sucrose.

Again, I might need to do some more research in this area.

Built
06-24-2005, 12:44 PM
The conclusion you quoted is not proof of no effect, but rather is not proof of an effect. Not quite the same thing, of course.

It's an interesting puzzle.

From http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/76/5/911

"the 2 monosaccharides—glucose and fructose—are metabolized differently. Hellerstein (111) showed that there is little de novo lipogenesis from glucose under eucaloric conditions in humans. In contrast, Schwarz et al (29, 30, 112) reported 3- to 15-fold increases in fractional de novo lipogenesis from fructose above fasting concentrations in obese and lean subjects (29, 30) and nearly 30% of circulating triacylglycerol palmitate after fructose ingestion resulted from de novo lipogenesis derived from fructose (112). "

My thinking is that since the original post had to do with belly fat, which is associated with insulin resistance, and he's drinking fruit juice all day (fructose and other sugars) eliminating the calories consumed from the fruit juice won't hurt, and might help.

shansen008
06-24-2005, 06:30 PM
not as many as i'd like but its getting there.

The juice is free, so i MUST drink it. :)

Is it real fruit juice though? Look at the label, i bet it has a ton of high fructose corn syrup, and like 10% juice. Hell even if it was 100% juice, juice is very calorie dense. Imagine how many pieces of fruit you would have to squeeze to get 1 tall glass of juice. Then ask how many glasses of juice youre drinking per day. Next do the math and ask yourself if you would ever conceive of actually eating that much fruit while trying to stay lean.

I eat about 2-4 pieces of fruit per day, i think thats probably above average. I bet that wouldnt even be 1 glass of juice if i were to "juice" my fruit. Not only that but you miss out on the fiber by just drinking the juice.

Juice = evil :evillaugh

Built
06-24-2005, 06:44 PM
Yep. EAT fruit, don't drink it.