PDA

View Full Version : Clean??



kate
03-21-2006, 04:39 PM
is chocolate considered clean? :nod:

getfit
03-21-2006, 04:40 PM
dark chocolate

drew
03-21-2006, 09:42 PM
As long as you don't drop it on the floor.

If you've dropped it on the floor, I'll still eat it.

ddegroff
03-21-2006, 11:48 PM
5 second rule...

If it fits into your daily cals you should be good. like getfit said make sure its dark, more anti-oxidents

gator
03-22-2006, 09:50 AM
If it fits into your daily cals you should be good. like getfit said make sure its dark, more anti-oxidents

I dont agree with this, a calorie is not a calorie this debate is been done many times. He was asking about eating clean and chocolate is definatly not clean, no matter how you try to justify it. I'm not saying you shouldn't eat a little here or there but its not considered clean.

ArchAngel777
03-22-2006, 10:03 AM
I dont agree with this, a calorie is not a calorie this debate is been done many times. He was asking about eating clean and chocolate is definatly not clean, no matter how you try to justify it. I'm not saying you shouldn't eat a little here or there but its not considered clean.

But is it dirty? :D

getfit
03-22-2006, 10:21 AM
on dark chocolate

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4101

ArchAngel777
03-22-2006, 10:27 AM
on dark chocolate

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4101

Personally, I think it is fine in small amounts, however, articles can be found all over supporting things that are generally not healthy.

This applies to a lot of things though... Find something that is bad, then type in www.google.com and search for "_____ really bad for you?" and you will probably find an article to say that it is good for you, in some way... LOL...

But honestly, perceived bad things in moderation is fine... Just don't go around eating the whole bag of dove chocolates... mmmm, havn't had one of those in 5 months now.

getfit
03-22-2006, 10:30 AM
most definently,as said, everything in moderation.

Dark chocolate is still good though huh? ;)

ddegroff
03-22-2006, 10:38 AM
I dont agree with this, a calorie is not a calorie this debate is been done many times. He was asking about eating clean and chocolate is definatly not clean, no matter how you try to justify it. I'm not saying you shouldn't eat a little here or there but its not considered clean.

I guess we disagree on what eating clean is. I see it as eating the correct macro's for your caloric goal (cutting or bulking). I feel eating clean means no pizza, fast food, etc. A piece of dark chocolate is full of anti-oxidants.
What if he eats a piece post-workout, all those sugars would go to good use. Now i'm not saying saying a whold chocolate bar but one piece isnt going to hurt.

Slim Schaedle
03-22-2006, 10:42 AM
I dont agree with this, a calorie is not a calorie this debate is been done many times.
Even though the combination/forms of macronutrients in a particular food may not be optimal for one's overall goals, a calorie is a calorie.

A molecule of glucose is a molecule of glucose.

It doesn't change because you name it something different or combine it with other foods, ingredients, etc.

Getfit is right to say that if it fits into your daily breakdown, then it's alright.

Maybe not optimal, but that term is up for debate too.

Holto
03-22-2006, 10:45 AM
When I make my own bars I use unsweetened dark chocolate and then add honey and evaporated cane sugar juice.

I get noticeably more energy and no crash VS the chocolate sweetened with refined sugar.


Chocolate is definatly not clean

Whats wrong with it specifically?

If your answer is refined sugar I'm with you all the way.

gator
03-22-2006, 11:57 AM
Even though the combination/forms of macronutrients in a particular food may not be optimal for one's overall goals, a calorie is a calorie.



Very wrong, 10 grams of carbs almost means nothing considering how many types of carbs there are. If your eating 200 grams of good carbs a day, whole wheat bread and oats, vs 200 grams of HI GI carbs and Hi sucrose carbs you aren't going to get the same results. If you eat 500 calories of straight sugar in 1 sitting vs 500 calories of healty fats in one sitting you will again get no where near the same results.

gator
03-22-2006, 11:59 AM
Whats wrong with it specifically?

If your answer is refined sugar I'm with you all the way.

thats the main reason. I'm starting to shy away from dextrose and most simple sugars now the more I learn about things. I think bodytype is a big consideration when talking about sugars. I'm a meso and can gain weight and lose weight easily so I'm now trying to cut back on my refined sugar intake.

Holto
03-22-2006, 12:16 PM
I'm now trying to cut back on my refined sugar intake.

Yep.

This is why I make anything that has a fair bit of sugar from scratch.

I'm working on a recipe for organic spelt breadsticks.

ArchAngel777
03-22-2006, 12:30 PM
most definently,as said, everything in moderation.

Dark chocolate is still good though huh? ;)

Indeed.


As for the argument below... A calorie isn't a calorie? Hmmm, I have a hard time believing that... Let me explain why.

Your body needs X amount of energy per day to survive. So, lets say your body needs 3,000 calories to maintain your current weight. So, you decide to take in 1,000 from table sugar alone, another 500 from fat and 500 from protein. You have a deficit of 1,000 calories... Net weight loss of, what? two pounds per week.

How does that change if you decide to eat 1,000 calories of potatoes instead of that sugar? You still have a 1,000 calorie deficit. Since a calorie is a unit of energy, that is the common denominator in all foods eaten. That is, as we know it, energy in a pure form applied across all levels. I guess I fail to see how a calorie isn't a calorie unless we are talking about not meeting certain protein and fat needs. Meaning, you at least need to take in enough protein for the bodies turnover of it, but anything after that gets used for energy... So why does it matter if it is high GI or not? So long as you can control your appetite, you are still 1,000 calories under your intake. That is lost energy and that has to translate into weight loss, presumably fat loss if you are taking in enough fats and protein and are lifting.

The only way I could conceive that a calorie isn't a calorie is if one type of calorie (say from table sugar) causes the bodies metabolism to slow down... If that has been proven, then the issue is settled I guess. But if that hasn't been proven, then I'd pretty much be confident with my answer above.

To clarify better of what I am saying. If you are getting your daily need of protein and fats, then whatever your extra calories are, it shouldn't matter where they come from, since they are turned into energy anyway. So after a certain point, calories don't matter at all, as far as energy goes. Perhaps there is something to be said for health on the matter, but I doubt on calories.

In addition, I also don't believe that Carbs + Fat meals make you fat. That has been stated by Berardi and every others. Now, I am nowhere near as qualified as someone as Berardi, but even he admits that he can't prove the theory and it could be just that, a "theory". So, he could be right, but at this point, I don't believe it.


Edit ** As for the GI/GL business... I have always been under the impression that is for appetite control, not for weight control. If your GL load is high, typically it is said to spike insulin to store fat. Now, whether it is stored as far or not doesn't matter, because the fat itself is used to fuel's the bodies weight loss during a calorie deficit anyway. It just moving from one area to the other, essentially. Perhaps a wasted step, but if that is the case, the body would use more energy converting it back and forth than it would have in using the energy in the first place, rather than storing it. So hypothetically, you burn more calories from storing it, and then bringing it out of storage. Whatever the case, I only care about the GL for appetite control, nothing more. Even then, it only matters if you are eating only carbs for the meal, since fats/protein slow down the digestion/assimilation process.

Built
03-22-2006, 12:42 PM
<- ate chocolate every day of her cut down to 14% last summer.

Not a LOT of chocolate, but whatever I could afford the calories for.

I really hate the term "clean" for food. Makes it sound like a religion.

ArchAngel777
03-22-2006, 12:46 PM
<- ate chocolate every day of her cut down to 14% last summer.

Not a LOT of chocolate, but whatever I could afford the calories for.

I really hate the term "clean" for food. Makes it sound like a religion.

I classify foods differently now... I certainly think there is dirty foods (like fast food!) but for the most part, I look at them like this:


Will this food cause me to lose control of my diet? Will it give me a raging appitite? Will I easily become addicted?

That is basically my take on all foods... So, as a result, I ditch things I know the cause me to "binge" or so on... For me, that means no Soda, Chocolate (cocoa is fine though) table sugar, etc... I don't see those foods as "dirty" perse, but I do deem them as unhealthy things to eat for myself to attain the goals I want. Others will have difficult foods that they need to avoid... Some people are alcoholics on this board and can't go a week without binge drinking, etc... That is why for those people, they need to stay away from it. Everyone has their poison.

gator
03-22-2006, 01:17 PM
This is in responce to ArchAngel.

Lets say you eat 500 cals of oats and 500 cals of dextrose and you just sit on your butt all day. With the oats it's a slow sustained release of nutrients to your body. With dextrose it's a quick insulin spike, and once your glycogen levels are back up the excess sugar has no where to go but into fat storage. A calorie is definatly not a calorie


Also your talk about GI and your last paragraph is kinda non sense, I would just suggest you do some reasearch on it.

ArchAngel777
03-22-2006, 01:26 PM
This is in responce to ArchAngel.

Lets say you eat 500 cals of oats and 500 cals of dextrose and you just sit on your butt all day. With the oats it's a slow sustained release of nutrients to your body. With dextrose it's a quick insulin spike, and once your glycogen levels are back up the excess sugar has no where to go but into fat storage. A calorie is definatly not a calorie


That still does not explain the difference. On a cut, the calories have to come from somewhere! So whether 200 of those are used and then the other 300 are stored, they are going to have to be pulled from storage to keep up with the energy needs of the body. Do yourself a favor, get a chalk board and draw a flow chart.

The body needs X amount of calories to sustain its weight. Whether you dump 2000 of those calories in right away (thus, lets pretend 1,500 go to storage) and then another person eats those 2,000 over the course of the day doesn't matter in the end. Because 1,500 of those calories have to be removed from storage to sustain the bodies calorie needs in the first scenario anyway. So, tell me why it matters on a cut again? Also, it wouldn't matter on a bulk either... Extra calories are brought in and stored. So in either situation, I don't see how it makes a difference whether each meal the body stores 200 calories over 5 meals or wether one big meal stores 1,000... In the end, there is 1,000 units of energy being stored as fat...

ArchAngel777
03-22-2006, 01:31 PM
Also your talk about GI and your last paragraph is kinda non sense, I would just suggest you do some reasearch on it.

It quite possibly in non-sense. Though from what I have studied and read over the years seems to be what I wrote. I could be wrong, but I guess I would have to be pointed out where I am wrong exactily. Would you be so kind to point it out without being so condescending?

Thanks.

Canadian Crippler
03-22-2006, 01:34 PM
That still does not explain the difference. On a cut, the calories have to come from somewhere! So whether 200 of those are used and then the other 300 are stored, they are going to have to be pulled from storage to keep up with the energy needs of the body. Do yourself a favor, get a chalk board and draw a flow chart.

The body needs X amount of calories to sustain its weight. Whether you dump 2000 of those calories in right away (thus, lets pretend 1,500 go to storage) and then another person eats those 2,000 over the course of the day doesn't matter in the end. Because 1,500 of those calories have to be removed from storage to sustain the bodies calorie needs in the first scenario anyway. So, tell me why it matters on a cut again? Also, it wouldn't matter on a bulk either... Extra calories are brought in and stored. So in either situation, I don't see how it makes a difference whether each meal the body stores 200 calories over 5 meals or wether one big meal stores 1,000... In the end, there is 1,000 units of energy being stored as fat...Amount of calories determine if you gain or lose weight

Types of calories determine what type of weight you gain or lose.

You're right, if you eat 1500 calories of sugar in one sitting and 500g chicken in another vs. 2000 calories of good food spread throughout the day, the weightloss you see on the scale will be the exact same. The actual lean mass you retain will be less however.

ArchAngel777
03-22-2006, 01:35 PM
Amount of calories determine if you gain or lose weight

Types of calories determine what type of weight you gain or lose.

You're right, if you eat 1500 calories of sugar in one sitting and 500g chicken in another vs. 2000 calories of good food spread throughout the day, the weightloss you see on the scale will be the exact same. The actual lean mass you retain will be less however.

If the body is getting all the protein requirements it needs, why would one lose more LBM?

ddegroff
03-22-2006, 02:18 PM
i'm with archangel on this one. GI scale tells us how quickly the body will use it, so for hunger control you would want to eat low GI carbs so that they are broken down slower. High GI carbs are good when you need the them the quickest (ie during exercise or pwo). a calorie is a calorie, i dont see how it could be any different.

also the reason eating 500cals of sugar vs. eating 500g of oats is going to be the same is its 500 total cals. Even if you sit on your ass all day its still 500 total cals. The only difference is how fast your body uses those 500 cals. Let me ask you this, if i only eat 500cals from sugar and sit on my ass all day am i going to get fat? (meaning 500cals total/day)

ArchAngel777
03-22-2006, 02:27 PM
BTW, Crippler, you sort of took me out of context above. I never said that macros were not important. I believe those ARE important. But within the macronutrient, concerning carbohydrates, then it doesn't matter whether it is from sugar or oats or any other carb for that matter.

JustLost
03-22-2006, 02:54 PM
I really hate the term "clean" for food. Makes it sound like a religion.

That's because it is! ;)

Clean-vs-unclean = religion.

Calculating and counting macros = applied science.

Note that the macros approach calls for individual responsibility and decision making, while "clean" generally ends up depending on some "authority". Look at the topics here or on any similar nutrition forum, and you'll see hundreds of threads along the lines of "Is peanut butter okay?" "Are sandwiches clean?" "Is whey permissible for breakfast?" (saw that yesterday).

"Permissible"? WTF?

A million different questions, all having the same basic answer: add up the macros and see if it works for your individual situation.

Sorry to go off on such a ramblerant, but the "clean religion" is kind of a hotbutton with me these days.

PS: Various Ben & Jerry's products have been finding their way into my cut with great success. ;)

Built
03-22-2006, 02:57 PM
That's because it is! ;)

Clean-vs-unclean = religion.

Calculating and counting macros = applied science.

Note that the macros approach calls for individual responsibility and decision making, while "clean" generally ends up depending on soem "authority". Look at the topics here or on any similar nutrition forum, and you'll see hundreds of threads along the lines of "Is peanut butter okay?" "Are sandwiches clean?" "Is whey permissible for breakfast?" (saw that yesterday).

"Permissible"? WTF?

A million different questions, all having the same basic answer: add up the macros and see if it works for your individual situation.

Sorry to go off on such a ramblerant, but the "clean religion" is kind of a hotbutton with me these days.

PS: Various Ben & Jerry's products have been finding their way into my cut with great success. ;)

Muah! Muah! Muah! Muah! Muah!

eps
03-22-2006, 03:06 PM
I sometimes add unsweetened cocoa (good antioxidants) to my shakes, but I guess you want to eat chocolate bars -- like a lot of people said, go for dark chocolate in moderation

Holto
03-22-2006, 03:17 PM
As for eating sugar VS oats. There is zero scientific evidence to suggest you will lose more LBM when cutting or gain less fat while bulking.

I'm not saying I advocate eating copious amount of sugar but to suggest that a calorie is not a calorie is unfounded.

It will be a long time before we have any clinical data to refer to.

I personally would like to see a high GI cut VS a low GI cut in a clinical setting. I don't expect a difference in body composition or body mass but it would be interesting to see if there is a difference in basal insulin levels etc.

brickt.
03-22-2006, 03:28 PM
Go back to bodybuilding.com, gator.

The single piece of Dove Dark Originals Chocolate has 3g carbs.... OH NOES TEH INSULIN GONNA SPIKE ME A NEW ONE!!!111

Focused70
03-22-2006, 03:35 PM
most definently,as said, everything in moderation.

Dark chocolate is still good though huh? ;)

yes as long as its Belgian. ;)

getfit
03-22-2006, 03:53 PM
yes as long as its Belgian. ;)
if this doesn't amaze or tempt anyone well.............

these are teh bomb!

http://www.rosecitychocolates.com/rosecityselection.html

Holto
03-22-2006, 03:55 PM
Go back to bodybuilding.com, gator.

I'd rather he stay here and learn the science that our sport is so deeply rooted in. Then go smack some sense into the lot at bb.com.

Slim Schaedle
03-22-2006, 04:42 PM
Very wrong, 10 grams of carbs almost means nothing considering how many types of carbs there are. If your eating 200 grams of good carbs a day, whole wheat bread and oats, vs 200 grams of HI GI carbs and Hi sucrose carbs you aren't going to get the same results. If you eat 500 calories of straight sugar in 1 sitting vs 500 calories of healty fats in one sitting you will again get no where near the same results.
Really, I didn't know all that:windup:

gator, that's why I mentioned optimal results, and personal goals....which are relative.

Slim Schaedle
03-22-2006, 04:58 PM
This is in responce to ArchAngel.

Lets say you eat 500 cals of oats and 500 cals of dextrose and you just sit on your butt all day. With the oats it's a slow sustained release of nutrients to your body. With dextrose it's a quick insulin spike, and once your glycogen levels are back up the excess sugar has no where to go but into fat storage. A calorie is definatly not a calorie
500 calories of glucose (or carbohydrate, sugar, whatever term you want to use) is only 125grams

Do you have any idea what the glycogen storage capacity is of the liver and muscle tissue?

Neither the 500 cals of low GI carbs or high GI carbs are going to be converted to fat. (assuming our test only involves these calories, and no the food) Glycogensis truly is a wonderful thing.

A calorie is a measure of heat energy......a calorie is a calorie

brickt.
03-22-2006, 05:02 PM
500 calories of glucose (or carbohydrate, sugar, whatever term you want to use) is only 125grams

Do you have any idea what the glycogen storage capacity is of the liver and muscle tissue?

Neither the 500 cals of low GI carbs or high GI carbs are going to be converted to fat. (assuming our test only involves these calories, and no the food) Glycogensis truly is a wonderful thing.

A calorie is a measure of heat energy......a calorie is a calorie

I <3 you.

Also, O/T do you have a good online source for the table of elements? I can't seem to find any that are all that spectacular.

Slim Schaedle
03-22-2006, 05:06 PM
I <3 you.
:hump:

Slim Schaedle
03-22-2006, 05:15 PM
Also, O/T do you have a good online source for the table of elements? I can't seem to find any that are all that spectacular.
http://periodic.lanl.gov/default.htm

gator
03-22-2006, 05:17 PM
I'd rather he stay here and learn the science that our sport is so deeply rooted in. Then go smack some sense into the lot at bb.com.

I haven't seen much science shown to me here in this thread....

Also I would like you guys to know that everything i post here is not exactly what I believe in. A lot of what I do is.....I post stuff people at other forums say over here and see what evidence you counter with and I do the same with your info at other forums. No offense to you guys but with the lack of evidence here I'm pretty sure that a calorie is not a calorie.


If you take my 500 calories oats vs 500 calories dextrose example. When some of that dextrose is store as fat, Whats to say your body is going to tap into all of your fat storages first? Your body could take energy from 85% fat and 15% from your muscles. If your body just took energy from fat storage we wouldn't ever loose LBM on a cut.

So I do agree in terms of weight a calorie is a calorie, but where those calories come from has a lot to do with how much fat or LBM is gained or lost.

Slim Schaedle
03-22-2006, 05:22 PM
I haven't seen much science shown to me here in this thread....

Also I would like you guys to know that everything i post here is not exactly what I believe in. A lot of what I do is.....I post stuff people at other forums say over here and see what evidence you counter with and I do the same with your info at other forums. No offense to you guys but with the lack of evidence here I'm pretty sure that a calorie is not a calorie.


If you take my 500 gram oats vs 500 gram dextrose example. When some of that dextrose is store as fat, Whats to say your body is going to tap into all of your fat storages first? Your body could take energy from 85% fat and 15% from your muscles. If your body just took energy from fat storage we wouldn't ever loose LBM on a cut.
I'm not sure I understand anything of what you just posted.

There's plenty of science on this board. Search around.

Your example was using 500 calories, and now you are using grams.

Even when you do use grams, my claim still stands (depending on muscular development, as it would dictate the storage capacity of glycogen there)

Also, what kind of eveidence do you want to prove a calorie is calorie. A calorie is a measurement. A calorie is not some sort of magical thing that floats around in your body changing form. (a molecule is, though)

gator
03-22-2006, 05:24 PM
the grams was a typo, now it's fixed. where is the science in this thread, there is none.

Slim Schaedle
03-22-2006, 05:30 PM
the grams was a typo, now it's fixed. where is the science in this thread, there is none.
make some up

Your argument actually had more merit using grams, and not calories, soooooooo.......

Bohizzle
03-22-2006, 05:37 PM
just like slim said, a calorie is a unit of measurement. it's a unit of energy. i believe it is the amount of energy needed to heat 1 cubic centimetre of water 1 degree celsius. Fuel can be measured in calories along with many other non food related products. Therefore a calorie really is just a calorie.

Andrew

gator
03-22-2006, 05:42 PM
Here I'll provide some science.....

Nutritional Mythology
By Joel Marion
Previously published in Muscle Media, April 2003
Once upon a time, in a place far, far away, a medical doctor, a registered dietician, and a college nutrition professor all gathered at the local pub after a hard days work. Bored, and longing for excitement, the three jolly fellows put their heads together and compiled the world's very first book of nutritional folklores. The book consisted of four wonderful "myths," and although completely fictional, they were amazingly convincing; all those who read the book believed the tales to be true. Some time later, the book was brought to the attention of the town governor. After reviewing its contents, he declared the bound pages as nutritional gospel and demanded that it be replicated and distributed amongst the townspeople. Afraid to go against the governor's wishes, the three authors remained silent and allowed for the mythological writings to be treated as fact. As the years passed on, hard copies of the book became scarce and eventually nonexistent; however, the tales therein have been passed down from generation to generation and are still believed today.
Okay, okay, I'll admit, that was a load of crap. But for whatever reason, these myths are incredibly popular, and they must be exposed...now!

Myth Number 1: A calorie is a calorie; if you consume less than you burn, you'll lose fat.
The Real Deal: The numeric value of an individual's caloric intake is not the only factor that affects body composition. The following must also be considered:

The thermic effect of the food ingested. The thermic effect of food (TEF) measures the amount of energy that is required to support the processes of digesting, absorbing, and assimilating food nutrients as well as the energy expended as a result of the central nervous system's stimulatory effect on metabolism when food is ingested [9]. Of the three macronutrients, protein carries the highest thermic effect.
The fiber content of the food ingested. Due to its chemical makeup, fiber is classified as a carbohydrate; however, it is unlike other carbohydrates in that it is an indigestible nutrient [9]. Even though each gram of fiber contains four calories, these calories will remain undigested and will not be absorbed. Therefore, if one were to consume 300 calories of red beans (a food in which nearly 1/3 of the caloric content is from fiber), approximately 100 of these calories would pass through the intestinal tract undigested.
The glycemic and insulin indices of the food ingested. The glycemic and insulin indices are scaled numbers that refer to how quickly a particular carbohydrate source enters the bloodstream as sugar and how much insulin is needed to rid that sugar from the bloodstream, respectively. Generally speaking, there is a positive relationship between the two; that is, the quicker sugar enters the bloodstream, the more insulin is needed to rid that sugar from the bloodstream. When high levels of insulin are present within the blood, fat burning is brought to a screeching halt, which is anything but desirable for those whose goal is to obtain a lean, muscular physique.
The macronutrients present in the food ingested. Although insulin's primary function is to shuttle glucose (sugar) into skeletal muscle, it also carries many other nutrients to their respective storage sites; this includes lipids (fat). Since carbohydrate ingestion stimulates a large insulin response and fat ingestion gives rise to blood lipid levels, the two, when consumed together, promote the greatest fat storage.
The size, frequency, and time of ingested meals. Large, infrequent meals tend to promote storage of the ingested nutrients as the body is unsure as to when the next feeding will take place. Conversely, consuming smaller, frequent meals will result in an increase in metabolism and utilization of the ingested nutrients. Also, ingesting a large amount of carbohydrates before bed spikes insulin, deters nocturnal thermogenesis, and increases fat storage during sleep. On the contrary, consuming a great deal of calories early in the day does not bring about this problem; rather, these calories are likely to be used as energy to support daily activities.

As you can see, someone could be eating a relatively small amount of calories daily, but at the same time promoting a great deal of fat storage by 1) making poor food choices, 2) combining macronutrients in a nonproductive fashion, and 3) consuming food infrequently and at inopportune times. To illustrate this further, let's take a look at a recent study conducted by Demling et al which analyzed the diets of 38 police officers [10]. Demling found that although the officers were consuming a hypocaloric diet (fewer calories than they burn), they all had unhealthy levels of body fat and had been gaining fat mass over the past five years. If all you had to do to lose fat was consume fewer calories than you burn, then these individuals would be losing fat, not gaining it! And to confirm the importance of the factors that I previously mentioned, let's take a look at some of the other things that Demling noted:

Only 15% of their diet consisted of protein, the macronutrient with the greatest TEF.
Their diet contained very little fiber.
Over 50% of their carbohydrate intake was derived from simple sugars, which have very high glycemic and insulin indices.
They didn't note this, but I'm willing to bet that they didn't avoid the fat-carb combo.
They ate infrequently, only 10% of their caloric intake was consumed at breakfast, and over 50% was consumed right before bed.
By now, it should be obvious that fat loss isn't just a matter of calories in, calories out.

ddegroff
03-22-2006, 05:47 PM
No offense to you guys but with the lack of evidence here I'm pretty sure that a calorie is not a calorie.

thats like saying an inch isnt and inch, or a gram isnt a gram.



If you take my 500 calories oats vs 500 calories dextrose example. When some of that dextrose is store as fat, Whats to say your body is going to tap into all of your fat storages first? Your body could take energy from 85% fat and 15% from your muscles. If your body just took energy from fat storage we wouldn't ever loose LBM on a cut.

So I do agree in terms of weight a calorie is a calorie, but where those calories come from has a lot to do with how much fat or LBM is gained or lost.

I don't really understand your logic here. At first you were saying that where the cals come from (dex vs. oats) is what matters. Then you say that the 500cals from dex are going to turn to fat. EXCESS calories are what turn into fat (PRO, CHO, FAT). Then you go onto talk about how the body uses stored energy. These are two different ideas.

So on a cut the reason you eat 1g/lb of LBM and lift heavy is so your body is convinced it needs your muscle. You eat CHO around your workout so that your body uses those during exercise. Your body mostly uses fat while at rest. BUT how does that have anything to do with how your body stores the CHO's (either dex or oats).

gator
03-22-2006, 05:52 PM
thats like saying an inch isnt and inch, or a gram isnt a gram.



I don't really understand your logic here. At first you were saying that where the cals come from (dex vs. oats) is what matters. Then you say that the 500cals from dex are going to turn to fat. EXCESS calories are what turn into fat (PRO, CHO, FAT). Then you go onto talk about how the body uses stored energy. These are two different ideas.

So on a cut the reason you eat 1g/lb of LBM and lift heavy is so your body is convinced it needs your muscle. You eat CHO around your workout so that your body uses those during exercise. Your body mostly uses fat while at rest. BUT how does that have anything to do with how your body stores the CHO's (either dex or oats).


some of your info is wrong, read a little more carefully. Also read my example, especially the part in bold. Your body is very complex, and you can't debate cals in vs cals out with out talking about tons of things like insulin, stored energy etc. Man why are we all soo worried about eatin 6 meals a day and timing our meals if a calorie is just a calorie.

brickt.
03-22-2006, 05:55 PM
Gator posted a big sciencey thing

Your bolded type is comparing apples and oranges. We at WBB generally claim that once Protein and Fat requirements have been met, the rest is basically irrelevant. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm an oats over dextrose kinda guy, just because I feel better on oats.

Also, we are people that perform heavy resistance training which tells your body to spare body protein. It appears that the study group were not training.

I can see why the study group had terrible body composition results.

Like I said, that study, in this particular sense, is comparing apples to oranges.

PS: Where did you source that article?

gator
03-22-2006, 05:57 PM
Your bolded type is comparing apples and oranges. We at WBB generally claim that once Protein and Fat requirements have been met, the rest is basically irrelevant. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm an oats over dextrose kinda guy, just because I feel better on oats.

Also, we are people that perform heavy resistance training which tells your body to spare body protein. It appears that the study group wern't not training.

Like I said, apples to oranges.

PS: Where did you source that article?

It says the source if you read the whole thing, at the top. It's ok, you can now make excuses as to why the study sucks...how about this, just keep doing what your doing...I mean so many people on this board are huge (sarcasm)

ddegroff
03-22-2006, 05:57 PM
Here I'll provide some science.....

Nutritional Mythology
By Joel Marion
Previously published in Muscle Media, April 2003
Once upon a time, in a place far, far away, a medical doctor, a registered dietician, and a college nutrition professor all gathered at the local pub after a hard days work. Bored, and longing for excitement, the three jolly fellows put their heads together and compiled the world's very first book of nutritional folklores. The book consisted of four wonderful "myths," and although completely fictional, they were amazingly convincing; all those who read the book believed the tales to be true. Some time later, the book was brought to the attention of the town governor. After reviewing its contents, he declared the bound pages as nutritional gospel and demanded that it be replicated and distributed amongst the townspeople. Afraid to go against the governor's wishes, the three authors remained silent and allowed for the mythological writings to be treated as fact. As the years passed on, hard copies of the book became scarce and eventually nonexistent; however, the tales therein have been passed down from generation to generation and are still believed today.
Okay, okay, I'll admit, that was a load of crap. But for whatever reason, these myths are incredibly popular, and they must be exposed...now!

Myth Number 1: A calorie is a calorie; if you consume less than you burn, you'll lose fat.
The Real Deal: The numeric value of an individual's caloric intake is not the only factor that affects body composition. The following must also be considered:

The thermic effect of the food ingested. The thermic effect of food (TEF) measures the amount of energy that is required to support the processes of digesting, absorbing, and assimilating food nutrients as well as the energy expended as a result of the central nervous system's stimulatory effect on metabolism when food is ingested [9]. Of the three macronutrients, protein carries the highest thermic effect.
The fiber content of the food ingested. Due to its chemical makeup, fiber is classified as a carbohydrate; however, it is unlike other carbohydrates in that it is an indigestible nutrient [9]. Even though each gram of fiber contains four calories, these calories will remain undigested and will not be absorbed. Therefore, if one were to consume 300 calories of red beans (a food in which nearly 1/3 of the caloric content is from fiber), approximately 100 of these calories would pass through the intestinal tract undigested.
The glycemic and insulin indices of the food ingested. The glycemic and insulin indices are scaled numbers that refer to how quickly a particular carbohydrate source enters the bloodstream as sugar and how much insulin is needed to rid that sugar from the bloodstream, respectively. Generally speaking, there is a positive relationship between the two; that is, the quicker sugar enters the bloodstream, the more insulin is needed to rid that sugar from the bloodstream. When high levels of insulin are present within the blood, fat burning is brought to a screeching halt, which is anything but desirable for those whose goal is to obtain a lean, muscular physique.
The macronutrients present in the food ingested. Although insulin's primary function is to shuttle glucose (sugar) into skeletal muscle, it also carries many other nutrients to their respective storage sites; this includes lipids (fat). Since carbohydrate ingestion stimulates a large insulin response and fat ingestion gives rise to blood lipid levels, the two, when consumed together, promote the greatest fat storage.
The size, frequency, and time of ingested meals. Large, infrequent meals tend to promote storage of the ingested nutrients as the body is unsure as to when the next feeding will take place. Conversely, consuming smaller, frequent meals will result in an increase in metabolism and utilization of the ingested nutrients. Also, ingesting a large amount of carbohydrates before bed spikes insulin, deters nocturnal thermogenesis, and increases fat storage during sleep. On the contrary, consuming a great deal of calories early in the day does not bring about this problem; rather, these calories are likely to be used as energy to support daily activities.

As you can see, someone could be eating a relatively small amount of calories daily, but at the same time promoting a great deal of fat storage by 1) making poor food choices, 2) combining macronutrients in a nonproductive fashion, and 3) consuming food infrequently and at inopportune times. To illustrate this further, let's take a look at a recent study conducted by Demling et al which analyzed the diets of 38 police officers [10]. Demling found that although the officers were consuming a hypocaloric diet (fewer calories than they burn), they all had unhealthy levels of body fat and had been gaining fat mass over the past five years. If all you had to do to lose fat was consume fewer calories than you burn, then these individuals would be losing fat, not gaining it! And to confirm the importance of the factors that I previously mentioned, let's take a look at some of the other things that Demling noted:


thats a very interesting article. What I bolded is what I feel is most important. fat w/ CHO leads to eaiser fat storage. But that doesnt make your oats vs. dex argument true. This article shows there are many other things going on here than what kind of CHO's your consumeing. The way we eat dex is with whey protein anyway. The study is interesting and it goes on to talk about they were in caloric deficit, but still were overweight. Maybe it has to do with their diet, like ummm the doughnuts (fat + CHO).

EDIT: My previous post was what I thought about your previous post. i didn't get it in before you posted the article. And what info is wrong?

gator
03-22-2006, 06:01 PM
thats a very interesting article. What I bolded is what I feel is most important. fat w/ CHO leads to eaiser fat storage. But that doesnt make your oats vs. dex argument true. This article shows there are many other things going on here than what kind of CHO's your consumeing. The way we eat dex is with whey protein anyway. The study is interesting and it goes on to talk about they were in caloric deficit, but still were overweight. Maybe it has to do with their diet, like ummm the doughnuts (fat + CHO).

ahh your starting to learn that a calorie is not just a calorie and many things take place inside the body.

another somewhat interesting article.

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/5/1529

ShockBoxer
03-22-2006, 06:11 PM
Anthony's articles "The Carbohydrate Manifesto" is another good article (two part).

ddegroff
03-22-2006, 06:14 PM
ahh your starting to learn that a calorie is not just a calorie and many things take place inside the body.


I said it was interesting, not that a calorie is anything different than a calorie. I guess I didnt cleary explain myself. I will agree there is something to be said about a poor diet, fat + CHO meals, and meal timing. Also it does explain why a caloric deficit isnt the only step in losing weight.

Calorie = is the amount of energy (heat) necessary to raise the temperature of 1 g of water 1degree C.

What most of us are talking about when we say calories is kcal = 1000 calories. For each gram of CHO or protein that the body uses, 4kcal is realeased. That says nothing about how we store the excess energy or in what form. So a calorie is a calorie but HOW we store a calorie is a different game with many variables.

brickt.
03-22-2006, 06:18 PM
It says the source if you read the whole thing, at the top. It's ok, you can now make excuses as to why the study sucks...how about this, just keep doing what your doing...I mean so many people on this board are huge (sarcasm)

Oh, man you opened a can of worms.

Firstly: I never claimed that the study sucked; in fact, I have a large amount of respect for Joel Marion.

Secondly: I will keep on doing what I'm doing - Low GI carbs 100%

Thirdly: Do a search of threads started by users "narcissus," "BCC," "Anthony," "Hatred." Yep, your right, they're all small and soft.

EDIT: I was asking YOU where YOU sourced the article.

gator
03-22-2006, 06:32 PM
EDIT: I was asking YOU where YOU sourced the article.

I've just never been asked to source the source of an article.

brickt.
03-22-2006, 06:34 PM
*slaps forehead*

Where did you come across that article?

gator
03-22-2006, 06:39 PM
*slaps forehead*

Where did you come across that article?

bodybuilding.com, I know most of you hate that site and there are a lot of morons there but if you leark around the derek charlebois contest prep section, you can find some good stuff. Derek a guy trying to get his pro card, and his trainer who is part of a supplement research team provide a lot of good information.

xlerate9
03-23-2006, 07:24 AM
I just ate a piece of dark chocolate after reading this thread. Man was it good.

TheGimp
03-23-2006, 07:45 AM
bodybuilding.com, I know most of you hate that site and there are a lot of morons there but if you leark around the derek charlebois contest prep section, you can find some good stuff.

*lurk