PDA

View Full Version : Eating clean - does it matter? Why bother?



TheLittleGuy
04-03-2006, 01:44 PM
In this thread (http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=77101), Canadian Crippler points out the difference between eating clean and eating dirty:


Originally Posted by Canadian Crippler
Clean bulk = eating foods with protein, good low GI carbs, mono/poly fats, and little preservatives

Dirty bulk = eating foods that bring you to your daily calorie and protein goals, regardless of the other crap in it

But my question is -- does it really matter? Provided your overall calorie intake in the day is the same, you're getting a sufficient quantity of protein and carbohydrate, and you're not maintaining the diet forever, will it affect your body?

Suppose I'm a 160lb guy aiming to consume about 3500 calories a day. Provided I get in four protein shakes at 40g of protein and 375 cals each (thereby achieving the 1g per pound rule and 1500 cals), does it really matter whether the remaining 2000 calories come from two Big Mac value meals and a salad (gotta have something green)? And for the sake of argument, let's assume I'm taking a good-quality multivitamin to meet my nutritional requirements.

Okay, arguably I'll be consuming more saturated and trans-fats than I would, and I might be consuming a higher ratio of fat to protein/carbs than I would if I bulked clean. But can my body tell the difference? Isn't a calorie a calorie, regardless of where it's come from?

And I'll throw the final variable into the mix -- I find it hard to consume enough calories in "clean" foods without sacrificing my appetite at mealtimes, but I can easily sneak in 1000-1500 calories a day in junk (chips, etc) without taking away my appetite. If a calorie isn't just a calorie, and it's important where they come from, would you opt for:

1. Fewer, but "cleaner" calories
2. More, but "dirtier" calories

Assume a 3-4 month bulk for the purposes of this discussion.

Note: I'm not a nutritionalist, so I really don't have any idea whether a calorie is a calorie or not, or quite how my body processes and utilizes the energy I put in. So I'm genuinely interested in the response to this topic!

Built
04-03-2006, 01:53 PM
Okay, my take on it.
"Clean" means I know exactly what's in it, and I can put it into fitday weighed out by the GRAM.
"Dirty" means I don't know exactly what's in it or exactly how much it weighs, so I have to guess. This matters WAY more to me on a cut than a bulk.
On a side note, "junk" to me means crap like donuts and cake, and particularly foods that contain trans fats. Stuff that has NO nutritional value beyond calories. I'll still eat it, but not often. Cheat meals and festivals only.

TheLittleGuy
04-03-2006, 01:58 PM
On a side note, "junk" to me means crap like donuts and cake, and particularly foods that contain trans fats. Stuff that has NO nutritional value beyond calories. I'll still eat it, but not often. Cheat meals and festivals only.


But that's exactly my point. If I already *know* that I've hit my daily requirements for protein, vitamins and minerals, essentially the only other target I need to hit is overall calories, right?

So (in theory) after my 4 protein shakes and a multi-vitamin, as long as I record the calories on the back of the pack of potato chips and record them in fitday, it doesn't matter. From my body's point-of-view, 2000 calories of chips looks just like 2000 calories of broccoli, right?

I take your point about trans-fats, but how dangerous is a diet high in trans-fats if its only maintained for 3-4 months during a bulk?

djreef
04-03-2006, 03:21 PM
We'll let you answer some of those questions by yourself in 30 years, after they've scraped the sludge out of your CVS. Trans fats/hydrogenated oils are not something you should cycle.

DJ

eatit
04-03-2006, 03:27 PM
you're better off going with what you think is right and sticking to it on this one. This argument has been brought up a million bazillion times and you'll find extremists/blind followers on both sides.

Jordanbcool
04-03-2006, 08:24 PM
But that's exactly my point. If I already *know* that I've hit my daily requirements for protein, vitamins and minerals, essentially the only other target I need to hit is overall calories, right?

So (in theory) after my 4 protein shakes and a multi-vitamin, as long as I record the calories on the back of the pack of potato chips and record them in fitday, it doesn't matter. From my body's point-of-view, 2000 calories of chips looks just like 2000 calories of broccoli, right?

I take your point about trans-fats, but how dangerous is a diet high in trans-fats if its only maintained for 3-4 months during a bulk?

No. A calorie is not a calorie. It is very easy to assume that but its just not true at all. I can pull up the thread with two very well written articles discussing the whole idea of a "calorie being a calorie".

Let me explain.

1 calorie of protein or carb or fat is just one calorie right? Wrong. It is widely known that protein takes more energy (calories) to digest then fat or carbs. This is why high protein diets i.e. bodybuilding diets usually work.

As for the trans fat/saturated fat not being "harmful". I have mixed feelings on that. Im a fatass at heart and i love to eat. My fitdays are crazy. On cuts i actually think its not as bad to eat crap then it is on bulks.

Sound weird? Consider that on a bulk your on a calorie surplus. On a cut your on a calorie deficet. Your body will burn up pretty much everything you put into it on cuts, if you do them right. Am i saying to run out and eat all your calories in mcdonalds. No. If you dont meet your protein requirements that day your body (at the end of the night) will often use muscle cells as energy. Keeping protein high saves your muscles.

As for the fats and carbs. Those two things I know less about. The big debate on eating at night for example. Carbs trigger an insulin response in the body, which leads to fat storage. This is why you should NOT eat bread before bed!

Fats keep test. levels high promoting muscle repair. Also good fats help burn off bad fats!!!

See all three of the macros have totally different outcomes/affects on the body and metabolism. They all have there weakness's and strengths. Making poor food choices usually end up in one thing. A huge fatass. Not only do bad foods have no value to your body at all, but most of it is fat. This fat will not help burn off bad fat like "good" fat does (found in fish, nuts etc.) but rather it will encourage your body to store and store and store.

Bottom line.

Its ok to cheat often (weekly) but do NOT base your calories on fast food and protein shakes.

-jordan

Stackattack
04-03-2006, 08:55 PM
Ignoring the health issues assosiated with dirty bulks. I believe the insulin response ****ty foods such as doughnuts, soda and other assorted sugary crap cause is the primary reason more fat is generally gained whilst bulking dirty. Even if the calories are the same as when bulking cleanly.

brickt.
04-04-2006, 01:02 AM
Carbs trigger an insulin response in the body, which leads to fat storage. This is why you should NOT eat bread before bed!

This isn't entirely true. It depends on insulin sensitivity, the total amount of carbs in your diet, and what activity was done during that timeframe.


Also good fats help burn off bad fats!!!

Um, what's a bad fat?

Built
04-04-2006, 01:05 AM
Trans fats are bad fats. I suppose that's what he meant?

And insulin doesn't always lead to fat storage. It IS a storage hormone, but it also stores into muscle.

brickt.
04-04-2006, 01:06 AM
Trans fats are bad fats. I suppose that's what he meant?

Ignoring trans, I was wondering if he thought sats were bad. Also, I highly doubt dietary fats will negate the effects of trans.

Jordanbcool
04-04-2006, 05:29 AM
Trans fats are bad fats. I suppose that's what he meant?

Ignoring trans, I was wondering if he thought sats were bad. Also, I highly doubt dietary fats will negate the effects of trans.

Yea, but i didnt say negate....I said they HELP your body to get rid/burn them off. And "bad" fats is a very broad term...

-jordan

Davidelmo
04-04-2006, 10:18 AM
I dont really like eating.. I know that sounds weird but my appetite is so small.

I try to meet my calorie needs with clean food but dirty food are ofen easier.

I'm not hugely bothered by the overall effect on my health. I lift, I'm physically very fit, cardiovascularly very fit etc and people still live into old age sitting on their arses eating crap allll day long. I figure I've got a decent head start and a few grams of unhealthy crap wont kill me.

Holto
04-04-2006, 04:42 PM
1 calorie of protein or carb or fat is just one calorie right? Wrong. It is widely known that protein takes more energy (calories) to digest then fat or carbs. This is why high protein diets i.e. bodybuilding diets usually work.


Science is way ahead of you in accouting for this. Since you haven't used the terms gross and net I'll assume this is all new to you.

A food is rated in gross energy, the energy the food yields is it's net energy.

A food cannot be rated in terms of net energy because of individual digestive systems. Some may expend more energy per gram in digesting and assimilating a given macro than others.



Carbs trigger an insulin response in the body, which leads to fat storage.

Not permanent fat storage. If it did we would have clinical evidence of this.



Also good fats help burn off bad fats!!!

Since you have stated this so factually would you care to explain.

Holto
04-04-2006, 04:43 PM
And "bad" fats is a very broad term...

Name three.

brickt.
04-04-2006, 05:04 PM
Yea, but i didnt say negate....I said they HELP your body to get rid/burn them off. And "bad" fats is a very broad term...

-jordan

Jordan, there are NO bad fats, apart from man made trans fats.

Repeat. NO BAD NATURAL FATS.

Jordanbcool
04-04-2006, 06:43 PM
Science is way ahead of you in accouting for this. Since you haven't used the terms gross and net I'll assume this is all new to you.

A food is rated in gross energy, the energy the food yields is it's net energy.

A food cannot be rated in terms of net energy because of individual digestive systems. Some may expend more energy per gram in digesting and assimilating a given macro than others.




Not permanent fat storage. If it did we would have clinical evidence of this.




Since you have stated this so factually would you care to explain.


Good fats such as those found in natural peanut butter, fish, etc. (Omega 3 fatty acids), have been shown to enhance the mobilization of current fat stores. Basically is just assits leptin, which is a protein that manages fat reserves.

As for the whole carb insulin response. If you train at night this obviously is the exact opposite as it would benifit you to eat some carbs for muscle building. However, if your not training late in the evening you should stay away from carbs for the reasons I already mentioned.

As for brickt and such, i meant by bad fat that it burns fat already stored. Obviously one would consider this bad unless you like being fat!! Or unless you have an already extremely low bf%.

Now brickt. I have to ask you a personal question. I recently had a test in that wellness class a few days ago....On one of the questions it asked "what uses the greatest amount of fat stores". One of the answers was sprints which is what i chose. However my teacher and I got into an argument because she said "A light 3 mile (20 minute each mile) would burn the most fat because its taking the longest". I first told her that the question was to vauge to begin with because it dosent include what time your running etc. I told her if I where to run sprints in the morning i would burn off tons of fat (and muscle). She then started telling me that its impossible to burn off glycogen stores!!! Can someone please tell me how i can approach her to up my grade? I know im right but i dont know what to say to her...If im wrong then please correct me.

-jordan

Shao-LiN
04-04-2006, 06:52 PM
All things being equal, a calorie is a calorie in my book. Eating clean will allow you to eat more food since you can account for what is in it, and can control what goes into it. A "dirty" diet, at least to me, means eating processed and fast foods, etc. The biggest problem with these foods is that there are a lot of extra macros such as fats and carbs which limits how much of it you can eat (assuming you do control your diet).

So, the difference (again, in my opinion), is that a clean diet may keep you more satiated since you can eat a higher volume of food than when eating "dirty".

As far as eating carbs will make you store fat, that is an overgeneralization. You can eat protein before bed and store fat if you're in a caloric surplus. I think I've eaten at least 2 pieces of bread (~30g carbs) before bed the last 3-4 weeks and I've still been losing/maintaining weight.

brickt.
04-04-2006, 06:54 PM
All three types of fats have pros and cons.

For example: If you have no w-3 (omega 3) in your diet, you'll die. However, if you have too much of it, bad stuff also happens (I don't have any links for this, just read something about mega dosing fish oil causing insulin stuff ups)

Saturated fats have an anabolic effect, but too much can cause the problems that society likes to propogate all day.

It's all relative.

-

Low intensity/steady state exercise burns mostly fat during the period in which you are exercising. This is because your body doesn't have a need to tap into stored glycogen to derive energy, as it can get it from stored bodyfat.

High Intensity exercise burns mostly glycogen during the period in which you are exercising. This is because the body can't mobilize and oxidise bodyfats quick enough to get the energy. However, your metabolism is greatly raised after the exercise, and this does alot to burn fat for the rest of the day.

You should never do higher intensity exercise fasted. This is becuase, as already stated, the body can't get the energy from fat quick enough, and has to go for another method. As there is no glycogen to tap into, it'll start eating your pecs for food.

This is my understanding of how this **** all works. I'm sure Slim will come in and :whip: me on some points, but on the whole, I think it's fairly accurate.

Jordanbcool
04-04-2006, 08:47 PM
All three types of fats have pros and cons.

For example: If you have no w-3 (omega 3) in your diet, you'll die. However, if you have too much of it, bad stuff also happens (I don't have any links for this, just read something about mega dosing fish oil causing insulin stuff ups)

Saturated fats have an anabolic effect, but too much can cause the problems that society likes to propogate all day.

It's all relative.

-

Low intensity/steady state exercise burns mostly fat during the period in which you are exercising. This is because your body doesn't have a need to tap into stored glycogen to derive energy, as it can get it from stored bodyfat.

High Intensity exercise burns mostly glycogen during the period in which you are exercising. This is because the body can't mobilize and oxidise bodyfats quick enough to get the energy. However, your metabolism is greatly raised after the exercise, and this does alot to burn fat for the rest of the day.

You should never do higher intensity exercise fasted. This is becuase, as already stated, the body can't get the energy from fat quick enough, and has to go for another method. As there is no glycogen to tap into, it'll start eating your pecs for food.

This is my understanding of how this **** all works. I'm sure Slim will come in and :whip: me on some points, but on the whole, I think it's fairly accurate.


O of course. As with everything. I think the only thing you cant go wrong with drinking is H20. I've never heard anyone dieing from that lol.

So my health teacher is right :( I was sure I had a good understanding of HIIT. Guess not.....:mad:

I'm glad to post relavent information though. My research/reading has been paying off. I've learned alot :)

-jordan

brickt.
04-04-2006, 09:04 PM
I think the only thing you cant go wrong with drinking is H20. I've never heard anyone dieing from that lol.

Actually, apparently people have died from overconsumption of h20.

I read some frat boy was made to drink so much water during his initiation that his blood thinned dramatically, causing death.

Optimum08
04-04-2006, 10:38 PM
I think the only thing you cant go wrong with drinking is H20. I've never heard anyone dieing from that lol.

Actually, apparently people have died from overconsumption of h20.

I read some frat boy was made to drink so much water during his initiation that his blood thinned dramatically, causing death.

there was a thread on this exact subject recently, the state your body is in is called IIRC hyperhydration or something like that, basically the sodium/water balance in your blood is disrupted, basically causing all your organs to shut down and causing death. (the sparknoted/probably not all correct version)

Slim Schaedle
04-05-2006, 12:01 AM
I'm sure Slim will come in and :whip: me
Apparently we can't use this little guy anymore. Two posts in the thread pertaining to raw eggs were deleted. Censorship su-ks.


It's almost 2am. I can't sleep. I don't know why. Class comes too early tomorrow. But hey, I get my bone density checked with some machine thingy at the hospital, so that is cool.

Ok, I guess I have a point somewhere.

I think I'll stay out of this one. You and Holto and Built addressed anything that made me more awake than I currently am, I think.

PS: oh yeah, I hate the use of the term "burn" when it comes to "calories."

I have also eaten bread before bed and been very lean at the time.

umm, I think that's it

TheGimp
04-05-2006, 04:25 AM
Good fats such as those found in natural peanut butter, fish, etc. (Omega 3 fatty acids)

Citing natural peanut butter as a source of Omega-3s is ridiculous. There's about 80mg per 100g.

TheLittleGuy
04-05-2006, 05:00 AM
Here's what really got me thinking about the "myth" of eating dirty -- it was performed in response to "Supersize Me". Eating a diet of garbage (but if you'll notice, keeping the calories consistent), and following a comprehensive exercise program, his health seemingly improved:

http://www.truthinfitness.org/projects/mcDonalds/journal.html

Here's what he had to say on the "calorie is a calorie" argument:


Many people have asked me if it matters where their calories come from. At the most basic, eating exactly the number of calories that you burn and if you are only talking about weight, not fat loss, the answer is no -- a calorie is a calorie. A protein calorie is no different from a fat calorie -- they are simply units of energy. As long as you burn what you eat, you will maintain your weight; and as long as you burn more than you eat, you will lose weight. But if we're talking nutrition, it definitely matters where those calories originate. We will be posting information regarding nutrition soon.

Davidelmo
04-05-2006, 06:37 AM
^^ Yah I agree.

If gaining/losing weight (weight in general - not specifically muscle or fat) was all that mattered then all you should worry about is total calories, surely?
If you maintenance is 3500kcal.. you could drink 3000kcal worth of olive oil/butter/whatever a day and still lose weight. You could also eat 3000kcal worth or protein or carbs and lose weight too. Just the same as if you ate 4000kcal of fat, protein or carbs you'd gain weight.

Of course there are far more factors such as meal timings etc. If you ate ALL 750g of those carbs at once, more might be stored than if you spaced them out. But at the end of the day, you're still in calorie deficit and thats what matters, right? Healthy? no. But you WILL lose weight.

Of course WE (as bodybuilders) have different needs.. a certain amount of protein to maintain LBM and fats which are important for proper body function.

Jordanbcool
04-05-2006, 06:53 AM
http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=76734

In that thread are the two links I'm talking about illustrating how a calorie is NOT a calorie.

I think everyone would agree that they are fantastic articles that are well written and thought out.

BTW. I could not find this link using a search because it was so broad. If you type in "A calorie is not a calorie" in the search it will not show up. Why is that? No wonder people always make the same repeated threads :rolleyes: I had to manually look through gator's posts! Luckily though i remembered he was the one who made it.....

-jordan

Davidelmo
04-05-2006, 07:27 AM
Yes, there is the thermic effect but it's effects are pretty small.

Even in that study the candidates were using an extra 20-40kcal over a 6 hour period... it's such a negligible difference.

(Besides, it didnt have much to do with eating clean... that argument is more about macronutrients.)

TheLittleGuy
04-05-2006, 07:34 AM
In that thread are the two links I'm talking about illustrating how a calorie is NOT a calorie.

Interesting reading -- thanks for the links. However, this is what really caught my eye regarding the effects of a low-GI diet:


Increased satiety
Decreased hunger

Since my problem is that I can't comfortably consume enough calories (I'm always full when I try to "bulk clean"), perhaps focusing on a diet that left me feeling MORE hungry with DECREASED satiety would be beneficial?

Here's another interesting article (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/Articles/calorieacalorie.html) on the same subject. It concludes a few things:


So is a calorie a calorie? Yes and no. Based on the data, my general feeling is this:

1. A sufficient protein intake will always beat out an insufficient protein intake, no matter what you do. Since all of the diets described in this book are based around sufficient protein, this is a non-issue.

2. Assuming caloric intake can be controlled (and protein is adequate of course), shuffling of carbs and fats tends to have a minor, approaching negligble effect.

3. There might be exceptions at the extremes (folks going to single digit bodyfat or extreme obesity) but that doesn't apply to the majority of folks.

It then goes on to explain the same points as above (about satiety and hunger based on intake of certain types of food), saying:


...it might very well be possible to lose all the weight/fat you wanted on a calorie controlled junk-food diet with some high quality protein source. The problem that would probably arise is that most people wouldn't be able to control their hunger or appetite on such a diet and they'd probably end up eating more in the long run. In eating more, they'd either lose less weight/fat or even gain it. Even if a given dietary approach appears optimal for some reason, if you can't control your caloric intake, and end up eating more because of it, it won't produce results.

[...]

It's obviously easier to overconsume calories from jelly beans or candy than from vegetable just as it's easier to eat 3000 calories from butter than from celery (no human alive could eat enough celery to get 3000 digestible calories). That matters hugely under conditions where folks are allowed to eat whatever they want. Quite in fact, many many diets are based around this simple fact: make people eat less of the foods that are easy to overconsume and/or make them eat lots of those foods that are tough to overeat and they will lose weight because they automatically reduce their caloric intake.

And I understand his point. If you try to lose weight by consuming nothing but 1500 cals of jelly beans each day, you're probably doomed to failure.

But if you're on a bulking diet, and assuming you're consuming adequate protein, what's the harm in consuming 1500 empty calories that leave you MORE hungry? Surely the only risk is that you'll overconsume calories. But if you're like me, and have trouble getting enough calories in, that's a good thing?

Davidelmo
04-05-2006, 07:41 AM
I dont know about anyone else but I'm NEVER affected by this whole "hunger/satiety" thing.

I've never eaten a load of sugar and realised I'm starving and I dont particularly find protein and fats more fulfilling either.

TheLittleGuy
04-05-2006, 07:49 AM
I've never eaten a load of sugar and realised I'm starving and I dont particularly find protein and fats more fulfilling either.

If I drink a 300-calorie MRP, with its high protein content, it basically kills my appetite. Same thing if I eat a piece of chicken, steak, etc.

If I consume 300-calories worth of potato chips, it doesn't even make a dent in my hunger.

A full plate of vegetables fills me up, but may only offer a few hundred calories. A Big Mac, with 600 calories, still leaves me with room for more food.

As the article cited points out, it's a lot tougher to eat 3000 calories of celery than it is to eat 3000 calories of butter.

Davidelmo
04-05-2006, 07:58 AM
If I drink a 300-calorie MRP, with its high protein content, it basically kills my appetite. Same thing if I eat a piece of chicken, steak, etc.

If I consume 300-calories worth of potato chips, it doesn't even make a dent in my hunger.

A full plate of vegetables fills me up, but may only offer a few hundred calories. A Big Mac, with 600 calories, still leaves me with room for more food.

As the article cited points out, it's a lot tougher to eat 3000 calories of celery than it is to eat 3000 calories of butter.

But that's more down to volume that satiety... veggies contain less calories per gram then chips. To get 300kcal of veggies you'd have to eat a huge plate - filling your stomach.

See for me, the 300kcal MRP doesn't affect me any more than pure carbs of the same volume (i.e. that occupy the same amount of space in my stomach.)

Jordanbcool
04-05-2006, 10:11 AM
But that's more down to volume that satiety... veggies contain less calories per gram then chips. To get 300kcal of veggies you'd have to eat a huge plate - filling your stomach.

See for me, the 300kcal MRP doesn't affect me any more than pure carbs of the same volume (i.e. that occupy the same amount of space in my stomach.)

Well its all different for each person what makes you hungry or not.

Like i've said a bajillion times, i love carbs but people like built hate them because they make her hungry. I seem to do fine with them so it dosent bother me. One good thing about bodybuilding is after you have the basics down you can pretty much tweak everything to fit your needs. Workouts/splits/supplements/food can all be tailored.

The hard part is finding something that works for everyone. And hence debates such as this thread.

-jordan

Holto
04-05-2006, 10:21 AM
Jordan:

Are you suggesting we can help fight starvation in 3rd world countries by giving them there one meal of *gasp* high GI rice right before bed?

Because if what you are saying is true we could be saving millions of lives.



http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=76734

In that thread are the two links I'm talking about illustrating how a calorie is NOT a calorie.

Your referencing some guys opinion. That is all those articles contain. They refer to a mess of studies they don't cite. I wonder why :scratch:. T-Mag is famous for citing upwards of 20 clincial studies (with proper titles) per article.

The only thing that even resembles evidence:

In a study by Agus et al (2000), it was demonstrated that during a short, 6 day, low-calorie diet, a low-GI carb intake preserved metabolism and enhanced fat loss vs. a high-GI diet. The low GI group saw a 5% decline in metabolic rate and a 7.7lb weight loss while the high-GI group saw an 11% decline in metabolic rate and a 6.6lb weight loss. In these subjects, fasted glucose and insulin values were lower in the low-GI group, indicating better glucose and insulin sensitivity.

Try to find this study in an legit engine, pubmed etc...you won't. Also anybody that has a clue about human physiology knows to disregard evidence where subjects lost MORE than 1lb/day. Did they test bone density or bodyfat? How do they know what was lost. If they tested body composition (like any credible study should) they would not call it weight.

This one is so rediculous I shoudn't even post it:

Spieth et al (2000) and Ludwig et al (2000) showed that 4 months of low-GI eating was superior to 4 months of high-GI eating in overweight teens. The low-GI group lost 1.5 points on the BMI scale and 2.2 lbs while the high-GI group gained 2.88lbs and increased their BMI. In addition, these studies showed that a low GI meal reduced food intake during subsequent meals while the high GI meal lead to overeating

Is this a clinical study? No. Did it happen inside a clinic? No. Did the subjects even count cals? I doubt it. Try to find the full text, you won't. I guarantee it's a bunch of people eating totally randomly. The only thing they changed is some were eating high GI and some were eating low GI. The high GI group clearly ate more calories. How can I say that for sure? It's impossible to gain weight during a calorie deficit.



BTW. I could not find this link using a search because it was so broad. If you type in "A calorie is not a calorie" in the search it will not show up.

Type your phrase in, select "Titles Only", in diet and nutrition and it's the fourth result. The better you get at searching, the better you get at learning.

ddegroff
04-05-2006, 10:33 AM
http://www.wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=76734

In that thread are the two links I'm talking about illustrating how a calorie is NOT a calorie.

I think everyone would agree that they are fantastic articles that are well written and thought out.

BTW. I could not find this link using a search because it was so broad. If you type in "A calorie is not a calorie" in the search it will not show up. Why is that? No wonder people always make the same repeated threads :rolleyes: I had to manually look through gator's posts! Luckily though i remembered he was the one who made it.....

-jordan

I read both those articles in gator's thread. I think the results that they got had more to do with meal timing and C/P/F ratio per meal than "a calorie is not a calorie". Eating a doughnut (high fat, high sugar) is going to react differently in the body than oats/almonds. Also if i remember correctly that article talked about they had most of their calories at night before bed. Holy **** thats what we do, are we gonna get fat, most likely no. Why? because we focus most of our cals around our workout and activity. When the cops lost some weight on the same calories, what was the one variable that changed? timing, instead of eating most of the calories at night they at them throughout the day, around all they're activity. a calorie is a calorie, now how the body uses it is a different story (i think thats what Holto was getting at).

Holto
04-05-2006, 10:48 AM
I wouldn't take anything from the police officers seriously. Again, they were at work, eating randomly, not counting calories.

There is a reason why clinical studies are the be all and end all of real research. A bunch of cops on the beat is not the same as 'subjects' living, eating and sleeping in a totally controlled environment where the researchers prepare and weigh their meals.

ddegroff
04-05-2006, 10:51 AM
^^^ I totally agree with you, i was just breaking down the results in the study really didn't matter. The only variable changed was timing.

Holto
04-05-2006, 10:57 AM
I just found this gem:

"Since this is clearly a hypocaloric diet, they should've been losing weight. But they weren't."

How the fuk do you maintain weight in a calorie deficit? What makes your heart beat? What makes your lungs billow?

Answer some of those Jordan.

I think it's official now T-Mag should only be known as T-Rag.

The greatest thing about the principle of energy balance is that it's not a rule of biology, it's an irrefutable rule of physics that governs biological systems.

ddegroff
04-05-2006, 11:02 AM
I think it's official now T-Mag should only be known as T-Rag.

The greatest thing about the principle of energy balance is that it's not a rule of biology, it's an irrefutable rule of physics that governs biological systems.

T-rag = i like it

isn't a calorie the quantity needed to raise water by one degree C? i think thats impossible to change

dubdoob
04-05-2006, 11:34 AM
Eating clean is essential when cutting. You're not getting a lot of calories and you need a lot more bang for your buck. Getting enough nutrients, and satisfying hunger is why you should eat clean.

Holto
04-05-2006, 12:28 PM
Absolutely. No comparison in how I feel when I eat clean, or rather, live clean. We just might live longer too. Although high calorie bulking diets will kill us faster than anything.

Holto
04-05-2006, 12:40 PM
T-rag = i like it

For years any reference to T-Rag was immediately laughed off the board. It has only been in the post At Large era where we had a mix of vets/newbies that anybody has really referenced them. I thought they were getting better until this last article where the police officers had magical fairies climb in their nostrils and sprinkle pixie dust (4 cals/gram) down their throats.

I mean seriously there is no way at least one guy in their editing dept knew that was dead wrong. My only conclusion is that they are focussed on the bottom line. Being controversial leads people to their site. Traffic drives revenue. They know half of what they write is garbage, but it works. I was on there more today then I have since they first went online.

Jordanbcool
04-05-2006, 01:34 PM
Jordan:

Are you suggesting we can help fight starvation in 3rd world countries by giving them there one meal of *gasp* high GI rice right before bed?

Because if what you are saying is true we could be saving millions of lives.




Your referencing some guys opinion. That is all those articles contain. They refer to a mess of studies they don't cite. I wonder why :scratch:. T-Mag is famous for citing upwards of 20 clincial studies (with proper titles) per article.

The only thing that even resembles evidence:

In a study by Agus et al (2000), it was demonstrated that during a short, 6 day, low-calorie diet, a low-GI carb intake preserved metabolism and enhanced fat loss vs. a high-GI diet. The low GI group saw a 5% decline in metabolic rate and a 7.7lb weight loss while the high-GI group saw an 11% decline in metabolic rate and a 6.6lb weight loss. In these subjects, fasted glucose and insulin values were lower in the low-GI group, indicating better glucose and insulin sensitivity.

Try to find this study in an legit engine, pubmed etc...you won't. Also anybody that has a clue about human physiology knows to disregard evidence where subjects lost MORE than 1lb/day. Did they test bone density or bodyfat? How do they know what was lost. If they tested body composition (like any credible study should) they would not call it weight.

This one is so rediculous I shoudn't even post it:

Spieth et al (2000) and Ludwig et al (2000) showed that 4 months of low-GI eating was superior to 4 months of high-GI eating in overweight teens. The low-GI group lost 1.5 points on the BMI scale and 2.2 lbs while the high-GI group gained 2.88lbs and increased their BMI. In addition, these studies showed that a low GI meal reduced food intake during subsequent meals while the high GI meal lead to overeating

Is this a clinical study? No. Did it happen inside a clinic? No. Did the subjects even count cals? I doubt it. Try to find the full text, you won't. I guarantee it's a bunch of people eating totally randomly. The only thing they changed is some were eating high GI and some were eating low GI. The high GI group clearly ate more calories. How can I say that for sure? It's impossible to gain weight during a calorie deficit.




Type your phrase in, select "Titles Only", in diet and nutrition and it's the fourth result. The better you get at searching, the better you get at learning.


First off I have no clue what your even talking about at the start of your sentence. Third world countries??? What on earth!? I mean I dunno I'm still scratching my head as to why you said that. I said I liked carbs. Does that make me want to feed third world countries???!!!:scratch:

Secondly I read the first article and everything makes perfect relavent sense pertaining to bodybuilding. The timing of meals, what you eat, how a calorie is NOT a calorie. All of which has been widely known and backed up by bodybuilders worldwide. I dont see you posting ANY links listing studies of people on the jellybean diet that lost weight. If you have some links I'm all ears.

Lastly, Eh. Thanks for the "titles only" I totally forgot about that.....

-jordan

Also, I reread the articles. Many people seem to believe that just because your in a caloric defficit you will lose weight. I highly doubt thats the ONLY way you will lose weight or fat for that matter. Like that article clearly explains timing of your meals is very VERY important. If i ate all 3300 cals. for my maintanence weight in one meal of total crap an hour before i went to bed would i stay at my current weight. NO. I would actually LOSE weight because during the rest of the day my body would starve itself and then store everything at night as a result. How on earth could you argue with that when its so obvious that timing of meals and what you eat has a HUGE outcome on weight gain and loss.

Slim Schaedle
04-05-2006, 01:36 PM
*goes on jellybean diet for this summer's cut.

Pics will be up in September.

Built
04-05-2006, 01:43 PM
I love carbs. Carbs are totally yummy. <eyes sweet potato longingly: "Soon, my pretty, soon... ">

Jordanbcool
04-05-2006, 01:45 PM
*goes on jellybean diet for this summer's cut.

Pics will be up in September.

Hahaha O i know. The way these guys talk....

I'm thinking about going on the fried chicken diet.

I mean a calorie is a calorie 100% and the timing of meals has absolutly nothing to do with weight loss or gain.

*sarcasim ended*

-jordan

Davidelmo
04-05-2006, 02:01 PM
Also, I reread the articles. Many people seem to believe that just because your in a caloric defficit you will lose weight. I highly doubt thats the ONLY way you will lose weight or fat for that matter. Like that article clearly explains timing of your meals is very VERY important. If i ate all 3300 cals. for my maintanence weight in one meal of total crap an hour before i went to bed would i stay at my current weight. NO. I would actually LOSE weight because during the rest of the day my body would starve itself and then store everything at night as a result. How on earth could you argue with that when its so obvious that timing of meals and what you eat has a HUGE outcome on weight gain and loss.

I think you're missing the point.. OF COURSE the meal timing makes a difference, and I dont think I've seen anyone argue against that.

But at the end of the day, I'm sure you'd lose weight on 3000kcal worth of sugar if your maintenance was 3500kcal. You HAVE to.. energy balance principle. If anyone can gain weight on a calorie deficit then they're performing a miracle. That statement in the article about "this is a hypocaloric diet but they gained weight" is complete and utter bullsh*t. They've got their numbers wrong.

Yes you have the thermic effect but like I pointed out before, the effect is SOO small it's not worth worrying about.

Holto
04-05-2006, 02:03 PM
First off I have no clue what your even talking about at the start of your sentence. Third world countries??? What on earth!? I mean I dunno I'm still scratching my head as to why you said that. I said I liked carbs. Does that make me want to feed third world countries???!!!:scratch:

You boldly stated eating carbs at night has an effect on fat gain due to the insulin response leading to fat depostion. What you fail to understand is that post meal depostion of fat has no effect on permanent fat storage. If this is true we could be preventing death by starvation in 3rd world countries by giving these daily meals of rice in the evening.



Also, I reread the articles. Many people seem to believe that just because your in a caloric defficit you will lose weight. I highly doubt thats the ONLY way you will lose weight or fat for that matter.

Jordan. Don't dodge these questions.

How is it possble to maintain weight during a calorie deficit?

What makes your heart beat?

What makes your lungs billow?

Your body can't spend energy it doesn't have. Clearly you don't understand the principle of energy balance. Until you do you will look in all the wrong directions.

.

ddegroff
04-05-2006, 02:17 PM
For years any reference to T-Rag was immediately laughed off the board. It has only been in the post At Large era where we had a mix of vets/newbies that anybody has really referenced them. I thought they were getting better until this last article where the police officers had magical fairies climb in their nostrils and sprinkle pixie dust (4 cals/gram) down their throats.

I mean seriously there is no way at least one guy in their editing dept knew that was dead wrong. My only conclusion is that they are focussed on the bottom line. Being controversial leads people to their site. Traffic drives revenue. They know half of what they write is garbage, but it works. I was on there more today then I have since they first went online.

i find with a lot of the t-rag stuff is all about trying to redefine an old subject and sell a product to those who don't see it for what it is.

Ok, im done with t-rag. On with calorie is not a calorie....

Junin
04-05-2006, 02:33 PM
I think part of the problem, Jordan, is that you are saying things as if they are absolute truths. The more I learn about diet, nutrition, and physical fitness, the more I realize how much I DON'T know. I feel as if some of the friction you are receiving is due to your conviction. We all want to believe that we are experts on these sorts of things, but are we really?

This isn't a personal battle. We should all take a step back and try to remain objective (even lurkers like me).

Built
04-05-2006, 02:34 PM
Good thought Junin.

(Ever thought of working for the U.N.?)

Holto
04-05-2006, 02:38 PM
I think part of the problem, Jordan, is that you are saying things as if they are absolute truths.

Beautifull. The rest of the post was solid too. Alot of people do a few bulks and a few cuts and think they understand the big picture while they are totally missing some key underlying principles.

Jordanbcool
04-05-2006, 03:19 PM
Beautifull. The rest of the post was solid too. Alot of people do a few bulks and a few cuts and think they understand the big picture while they are totally missing some key underlying principles.

Im just saying, its insane to ever think you could cut (or bulk for that matter) on crap foods. Im sorry but thats just crazy. If it was possible or even plausable they wouldnt have a "what bodybuilders eat" section in this forum! Its just common sense that crap in=crap out its that simple. Theres is more to dieting then just simple numbers of caloric deficits to lose weight. Timing of meals, what you eat, how much you eat of it all have a HUGE effect on the outcome of your body. Like I said though its ok to cheat but the "jellybean" diet is NOT what i had in mind.

Also about the carb insulin response thing. Yes you can eat bread or carbs before bed and be lean. Or not store any extra fat for that matter. Its a matter of consistancy is what im saying. You simply should not eat tons of carbs before bedtime constantly. You just shouldnt. I know none of what I'm saying is anything new either. Of course you have your rare exceptions that can eat whatever and not gain anything. You also have people that smoke for 70+ years but die of old age. I'm just trying to give a genral perspective on things you should and should not do when dieting for bodybuilding purposes and eating bad food is one of them.

-jordan

Holto
04-05-2006, 04:01 PM
Ok Jordan:

You dodged my questions after I pointed out you were dodging my questions.

I'll take that as you acknowledging you don't know what you are talking about.



Im just saying, its insane to ever think you could cut (or bulk for that matter) on crap foods.

And you base this on...your opinion. Have you tried it? I have.

I think it's insane to make up your mind in the absense of evidence.

I lost 83lbs at a rock steady rate of 5.5lbs/month. There were entire months where I was eating pizza and drinking coke, + assorted crap daily. Other months I was eating an almost 100% low GI organic diet. With constant cals I lost steady weight.

Built
04-05-2006, 04:04 PM
Im just saying, its insane to ever think you could cut (or bulk for that matter) on crap foods. Im sorry but thats just crazy. If it was possible or even plausable they wouldnt have a "what bodybuilders eat" section in this forum! Its just common sense that crap in=crap out its that simple. Theres is more to dieting then just simple numbers of caloric deficits to lose weight. Timing of meals, what you eat, how much you eat of it all have a HUGE effect on the outcome of your body. Like I said though its ok to cheat but the "jellybean" diet is NOT what i had in mind.

Also about the carb insulin response thing. Yes you can eat bread or carbs before bed and be lean. Or not store any extra fat for that matter. Its a matter of consistancy is what im saying. You simply should not eat tons of carbs before bedtime constantly. You just shouldnt. I know none of what I'm saying is anything new either. Of course you have your rare exceptions that can eat whatever and not gain anything. You also have people that smoke for 70+ years but die of old age. I'm just trying to give a genral perspective on things you should and should not do when dieting for bodybuilding purposes and eating bad food is one of them.

-jordan

Well, there are plenty of experts who agree with you.

Lyle McDonald isn't one of 'em. Maybe go over to bodyrecomp and ask him why.

ddegroff
04-05-2006, 04:20 PM
i eat the way I do right now for four reasons:
1)Health (ie clean foods, fish oil, etc)
2)Keep the lbm that I do have and get rid of the last few lbs
3)I get hungry about every hour, thats tough when you have less calories than you need. So i keep my CHO around workout (because they are few in #), eat PRO/FAT the rest of the time. I want to hit my PRO/fat grams and fill in with CHO (i know you know that), this is easier to control with healthy nutrient dense food.

Consistancy is a big part, but so is a CALORIC DEFICIT. I cant say i can lose the weight eating pizza all day, because i haven't ever done it that way. But Holto sounds like it worked for him.

Davidelmo
04-05-2006, 05:08 PM
Im just saying, its insane to ever think you could cut (or bulk for that matter) on crap foods. Im sorry but thats just crazy. If it was possible or even plausable they wouldnt have a "what bodybuilders eat" section in this forum! Its just common sense that crap in=crap out its that simple. Theres is more to dieting then just simple numbers of caloric deficits to lose weight. Timing of meals, what you eat, how much you eat of it all have a HUGE effect on the outcome of your body. Like I said though its ok to cheat but the "jellybean" diet is NOT what i had in mind.

Those foods are listed there because they are the best. The meats contain the "best" proteins. The foods listed are healthy with fibre, vitamins, healthy fats etc etc etc. They are the optimal foods but not the only option.

You could definately cut on pizza etc as long it met your calorie and protein goals.

brickt.
04-05-2006, 05:12 PM
Jordan, if you believe so visciously that a calorie is NOT a calorie, why do you eat frosted miniwheats, cheesecake and whatever else was on your fitday?


One night me and built were having a huge discussion on what i should eat before going to bed. Since i was 450 cals. down and my fat was pretty low that day i opted for a small slice of cheesecake to fill out those gaps. I eat frosted mini wheats all the time. On bulks and cuts. I like them.

Cheescake before bed! Cheesecake = sugar! OMG CARBS BEFORE BED!

I think you'll find most of us eat clean due to how it makes us feel and perform; not because we're food nazis.

A little piece of advice Jordan, before you get burnt right off this board:

You're learning all this stuff, which is great. However, I'd be hesitant to now be trying to replicate this new knowledge as your own fixed and experienced doctrine. It's one thing to know and feel what you know to be true, and another to just replicate someone elses words/thoughts/studies.

Jordanbcool
04-05-2006, 08:59 PM
Jordan, if you believe so visciously that a calorie is NOT a calorie, why do you eat frosted miniwheats, cheesecake and whatever else was on your fitday?



Cheescake before bed! Cheesecake = sugar! OMG CARBS BEFORE BED!

I think you'll find most of us eat clean due to how it makes us feel and perform; not because we're food nazis.

A little piece of advice Jordan, before you get burnt right off this board:

You're learning all this stuff, which is great. However, I'd be hesitant to now be trying to replicate this new knowledge as your own fixed and experienced doctrine. It's one thing to know and feel what you know to be true, and another to just replicate someone elses words/thoughts/studies.

I told you I eat mini wheats because they are a comfort food and they are right in the morning (before workouts which is a must). Also the cheesecake was a one time thing when it was eaten at night. I never said you could never cheat. In fact I said the opposite.

Indeed. But i cannot create my own studies. I've read in so many bodybuilding magazines/books/sites the important reasons why you cannot cut or bulk on junk food.

Everyone keeps saying its possible to cut on pizza/junk food. I doubt though that they based there entire meals around it like the OP of this thread was suggesting.

-jordan

brickt.
04-05-2006, 11:17 PM
Everyone keeps saying its possible to cut on pizza/junk food. I doubt though that they based there entire meals around it like the OP of this thread was suggesting.

Is it possible to cut on pizza/junk food. Millions of people around the world are doing it, right this moment, to tell you the truth. Whether the net result will be a loss of fat or muscle, I can't tell you.

However, if you're not a complete ******, I think it's possible to lose fat with a diet including daily alotments of pizza/subway/icecream.

EDIT: Comfort food? Meat Pies, Sushi, Fatty Pasta dishes are some of my comfort foods, but aren't part of my daily diet. I eat them on occasion, for an occasion.

ddegroff
04-05-2006, 11:28 PM
I think you'll find most of us eat clean due to how it makes us feel and perform; not because we're food nazis.


haha, wouldn't say i'm a food nazi, but pretty damn close. My girlfriend trys to make me cheat all the time, ahh.

I love sushi, to bad the CHO's are so freakin high.

deeder
04-06-2006, 12:11 AM
hehehe

Hyperhydration... Cells going :micro:

Sidior
04-06-2006, 01:22 AM
Jordanbcool, still waiting on you to answer Holto's direct questions for you...

Jordanbcool
04-06-2006, 12:23 PM
Ok Jordan:

You dodged my questions after I pointed out you were dodging my questions.

I'll take that as you acknowledging you don't know what you are talking about.




And you base this on...your opinion. Have you tried it? I have.

I think it's insane to make up your mind in the absense of evidence.

I lost 83lbs at a rock steady rate of 5.5lbs/month. There were entire months where I was eating pizza and drinking coke, + assorted crap daily. Other months I was eating an almost 100% low GI organic diet. With constant cals I lost steady weight.

On my opinion???!!! You cant be serious.

Anyways. Like I CLEARLY (im tempted to quote myself but you can obviously read a later post i made) theres people that can smoke but not die of lung cancer. Why? I dont freaking know. Great you lost weight by eating junk food. Write a book about it. I know many obese people would love to read it.

Me on the other hand I never started losing weight till I stopped eating crap food. I've found that now I eat MORE food then I did before. However; once i started dieting was when weight started coming off.

Evidence? Lack of?? Give me some instances of people losing weight on the coke pizza diet. There arent any. There are however numerous studies/instances/real life expierences when people lose weight simply by changing there disgusting eating habits.

My basic point is that poor diets RARELY work therefore you should not be promoting them!!! If they do work its because your naturally prone to losing weight and being lean or because your running your butt off.

-jordan

seK
04-06-2006, 01:38 PM
You can eat whatever you like as long as its below your maintenance cal's and you will lose weight. Its just not always healthy.

Built
04-06-2006, 02:18 PM
Here you go Jordan: http://www.azcentral.com/home/food/articles/0712mcdonalds0712.html

betastas
04-06-2006, 04:06 PM
The Conservation of Energy Law states that:

"The total inflow of energy into a system must equal the total outflow of energy from the system, plus the change in the energy contained within the system."

Energy can change forms, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The changes in energy that we would experience in a system (our body) would include basic metabolic functions, output of energy in the form of work (ie. exercise, movements), heating of the body and a numerous assortment of other functions (ask a biologist. I'm an engineering student).
This being said, science has yet to find and prove that energy can be created or destroyed in a system like the human body. In fact, all testing done in an attempt to create or destroy energy by any means has led to the theorem being proved time and time again.
The human body is no different. Any energy that you consume in the form of food or water, absorb in the form of heat, or expel in the form or mechanical, thermal or solid waste energy (yes, mass is directly related to energy, recall E = mc^2) can be accounted for. It is impossible for the human body to violate this conditon. So how can eating the same amount of "bad" calories not net you the same fat loss as "good" calories?

There are several factors, all of which can fit under the human factor. Didn't you know it, humans always tend to be the weak link in the progression of information and science.

People who claim they lost fat/weight after they started eating clean while maintaining the same calories are lying. They did one of the following things, most likely in combination:
a) They ate less. We already arrived at the conclusion that eating 3000 calories of celery is well nigh impossible. By eating less calorie-dense foods they feel they are eating the same. In fact, they are eating less calories, equal (or even more!) food mass.

b) They changed their macros. Eating mostly carbs and fats (donuts, fries, burgers, breads, pastas, cheeses) to eating leaner meats, whole wheats and less fat (low fat diets are still the trend), their macros have completely changed. This is also in conjunction with reason 'a'.

c) They lied. They never kept track in the first place. When you say "oh I think I eat the same" it's because you don't know worth a damn. Their testimony becomes useless.

d) Could not curb their hunger. Eating foods that elect less of an insulin response (typically those found in healthier choices) helps eliminate or reduce that carb-crash hunger that occurs after consumption. Two equal portions of carbs can behave on different ends of the spectrum in terms of insulin response. We all agree to this (I should damn well hope). In conjunction with this response is hunger. When you feel like you're starving for the next two hours waiting for your next meal (read: "bad" carb choices) you're more likely to give in. This is why it is harder to stick to a "bad" diet in terms of fat loss.


Complications arise with food timings. If you want to cram in all your food at once you will have issues with muscle loss, fat gain and other problems. This is not due to the diet. This is due to decision making based on hunger, not rational planning. It is entirely in the realm of possibility to divide up which "bad" foods you want to eat when, fix the amount of proteins and fats, and then try to follow through with it as a standard cutting diet. Aside from battling the hunger you will be feeling, and the lack of vitamins and minerals from the vegetables and fruits you don't want to eat, you will experience the same progress. This is provided that you account for the vitamins and minerals by taking a sufficient quantity in supplement. Many of these studies have people eating a set limit in a day. This is wrong. They will starve much of the day after they have succumbed to the hunger from the post-insulin rush. The study should use a constant rate of consumption instead, something like X calories / 3 hours. This is much closer to the diet those of us cutting use.

In conclusion, the human body does not violate the laws of Thermodynamics. It cannot. It does not. It never will. The things you hear about eating cleaner being the only reason for improvement are lies. They don't account for calories, vitamins and minerals (from a natural source I might add - artifical supplements pale in comparison), and the inability of humans to estimate consistently. Many of the studies that account for calories fail to account for timings and the rate of consumption, instead just approaching in a 24 hour period. So long as energy, macros and rate of consumption are kept in check, there is no reason to say that it is impossible to cut on "bad" foods.

Fin.

brickt.
04-06-2006, 04:28 PM
Jordan,

You lost weight because you were eating less cals and no you weren't eating 'more food' in terms of energy, but perhaps 'more food' in terms of volume.

100g carb worth of celery is a ****load bigger than 100g worth of sugar, but, with all things being equal, they provide the same energy.

ShockBoxer
04-06-2006, 04:32 PM
I eat primarily 'clean' food because it's just so freaking hard to accurately track calories on 'bad' food.

I eat 110 grams of meatballs a day for lunch. They're deli bought.

Are they 110 grams of ground beef?

Are they 80 grams of ground beef and 30 grams of ground up bread/wheat?

The simple 110 grams of 'meatballs' could be anywhere in calories from 440 to 990 if every gram had a macro value. Fitday has ground beef (4 oz cooked) listed at 306 calories so evidently every gram DOES NOT have a macro value.

And that's on an item that is weighed at the counter (because they charge by weight). How much does a slab of cheesecake weigh, for example? What if it's a different recipe that calls for more water to not be as dense?

Ironically enough most 'true' junk food is clearly nutritionally labelled and most fast food restaurants have nutritional information for every item so theoretically it would be easiest to track. Good luck getting your protein macro in against their heavy onslaught of carbs and fat, though.

djreef
04-07-2006, 09:01 AM
Shock nailed it. It's all the other bullsh!t that shows up in bad foods that cant be accounted for, that is problematic. As an example, 'food industry' food is cram packed full of misc chemicals that have little or nothing to do with food.

DJ

Jordanbcool
04-07-2006, 03:09 PM
The Conservation of Energy Law states that:

"The total inflow of energy into a system must equal the total outflow of energy from the system, plus the change in the energy contained within the system."

Energy can change forms, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The changes in energy that we would experience in a system (our body) would include basic metabolic functions, output of energy in the form of work (ie. exercise, movements), heating of the body and a numerous assortment of other functions (ask a biologist. I'm an engineering student).
This being said, science has yet to find and prove that energy can be created or destroyed in a system like the human body. In fact, all testing done in an attempt to create or destroy energy by any means has led to the theorem being proved time and time again.
The human body is no different. Any energy that you consume in the form of food or water, absorb in the form of heat, or expel in the form or mechanical, thermal or solid waste energy (yes, mass is directly related to energy, recall E = mc^2) can be accounted for. It is impossible for the human body to violate this conditon. So how can eating the same amount of "bad" calories not net you the same fat loss as "good" calories?

There are several factors, all of which can fit under the human factor. Didn't you know it, humans always tend to be the weak link in the progression of information and science.

People who claim they lost fat/weight after they started eating clean while maintaining the same calories are lying. They did one of the following things, most likely in combination:
a) They ate less. We already arrived at the conclusion that eating 3000 calories of celery is well nigh impossible. By eating less calorie-dense foods they feel they are eating the same. In fact, they are eating less calories, equal (or even more!) food mass.

b) They changed their macros. Eating mostly carbs and fats (donuts, fries, burgers, breads, pastas, cheeses) to eating leaner meats, whole wheats and less fat (low fat diets are still the trend), their macros have completely changed. This is also in conjunction with reason 'a'.

c) They lied. They never kept track in the first place. When you say "oh I think I eat the same" it's because you don't know worth a damn. Their testimony becomes useless.

d) Could not curb their hunger. Eating foods that elect less of an insulin response (typically those found in healthier choices) helps eliminate or reduce that carb-crash hunger that occurs after consumption. Two equal portions of carbs can behave on different ends of the spectrum in terms of insulin response. We all agree to this (I should damn well hope). In conjunction with this response is hunger. When you feel like you're starving for the next two hours waiting for your next meal (read: "bad" carb choices) you're more likely to give in. This is why it is harder to stick to a "bad" diet in terms of fat loss.


Complications arise with food timings. If you want to cram in all your food at once you will have issues with muscle loss, fat gain and other problems. This is not due to the diet. This is due to decision making based on hunger, not rational planning. It is entirely in the realm of possibility to divide up which "bad" foods you want to eat when, fix the amount of proteins and fats, and then try to follow through with it as a standard cutting diet. Aside from battling the hunger you will be feeling, and the lack of vitamins and minerals from the vegetables and fruits you don't want to eat, you will experience the same progress. This is provided that you account for the vitamins and minerals by taking a sufficient quantity in supplement. Many of these studies have people eating a set limit in a day. This is wrong. They will starve much of the day after they have succumbed to the hunger from the post-insulin rush. The study should use a constant rate of consumption instead, something like X calories / 3 hours. This is much closer to the diet those of us cutting use.

In conclusion, the human body does not violate the laws of Thermodynamics. It cannot. It does not. It never will. The things you hear about eating cleaner being the only reason for improvement are lies. They don't account for calories, vitamins and minerals (from a natural source I might add - artifical supplements pale in comparison), and the inability of humans to estimate consistently. Many of the studies that account for calories fail to account for timings and the rate of consumption, instead just approaching in a 24 hour period. So long as energy, macros and rate of consumption are kept in check, there is no reason to say that it is impossible to cut on "bad" foods.

Fin.


Your case seems pretty tight and i cant see anything wrong with it.

I still think its a very bad idea and very risky to cut on poor foods. It may work for some people but it may not work for you.

That being said, do whatever. Its a free world.

I just know, even with the information shared. I'd still never cut on bad foods. Atleast not base my whole diet around it.

-jordan

Jordanbcool
04-07-2006, 03:12 PM
I eat primarily 'clean' food because it's just so freaking hard to accurately track calories on 'bad' food.

I eat 110 grams of meatballs a day for lunch. They're deli bought.

Are they 110 grams of ground beef?

Are they 80 grams of ground beef and 30 grams of ground up bread/wheat?

The simple 110 grams of 'meatballs' could be anywhere in calories from 440 to 990 if every gram had a macro value. Fitday has ground beef (4 oz cooked) listed at 306 calories so evidently every gram DOES NOT have a macro value.

And that's on an item that is weighed at the counter (because they charge by weight). How much does a slab of cheesecake weigh, for example? What if it's a different recipe that calls for more water to not be as dense?

Ironically enough most 'true' junk food is clearly nutritionally labelled and most fast food restaurants have nutritional information for every item so theoretically it would be easiest to track. Good luck getting your protein macro in against their heavy onslaught of carbs and fat, though.


I agree with djreef and shockboxer.

Built
04-07-2006, 03:22 PM
Nobody said cutting on McDonalds was optimal.

Just possible.

Not how I would choose to do it either - but mostly out of hunger. I'd be hungry as hell if I tried to eat that way.

Jordanbcool
04-07-2006, 03:32 PM
Nobody said cutting on McDonalds was optimal.

Just possible.

Not how I would choose to do it either - but mostly out of hunger. I'd be hungry as hell if I tried to eat that way.

Hell built i learned most of my nutrition habits from you :)

Speaking of that im going to the track tonight with some friends....and i have a few twenties burning a hole in my wallet. Im probably going to eat my weight in chicken wings tonight. Wish me luck :burger:

-jordan

betastas
04-07-2006, 10:29 PM
Hell built i learned most of my nutrition habits from you :)

Speaking of that im going to the track tonight with some friends....and i have a few twenties burning a hole in my wallet. Im probably going to eat my weight in chicken wings tonight. Wish me luck :burger:

-jordan


Good luck!

... and you are correct. It wouldn't be wise to base a diet around poor foods at all. Feeling bad, hungry, lower immune function... No thanks.

Built
04-07-2006, 10:43 PM
OMG I ♥ wings.

Mmmmmmmmm....

Jordanbcool
04-08-2006, 02:25 PM
OMG I ♥ wings.

Mmmmmmmmm....

FATTY!

hehe.

-jordan

Built
04-08-2006, 03:03 PM
I am SO fat right now.

<munches avocado>

brickt.
04-08-2006, 04:37 PM
I am SO fat right now.

<munches avocado>

Her humps. Her humps, her humps, her humps.


..

Holto
04-08-2006, 05:31 PM
Jordan. Don't dodge these questions.

How is it possble to maintain weight during a calorie deficit?

What makes your heart beat?

What makes your lungs billow?

Your body can't spend energy it doesn't have. Clearly you don't understand the principle of energy balance. Until you do you will look in all the wrong directions.

.

These are the questions you have now dodged for a third time after another member called you out.

Just for the record. I like and respect Jordan, but I like and respect WBB more. I don't want people spewing opinion as fact.

Also for the record I currently eat rediculously clean and feel great.

The reason people think you can't cut on junk is because nobody that eats junk counts cals. You'd have to have something seriously wrong with you to be eating an all junk diet and counting cals. Wait, that was me. In my case I was on medical house arrest and was comforted a great deal by the junk I consumed.

If eating 5 doughnuts/day halted weight loss then we would be feeding starving children doughnuts. If eating carbs before bed had any impact on body composition we would have aid camps serving their daily meals of rice in the evening.

Davidelmo
04-08-2006, 06:58 PM
^^ I agree.

Also, another reason is that if you're counting cals accurately on a cut, the last thing you want is a greasy takeaway burger with god-know how much oil in it because that will screw up your tracking. At least with "clean" foods you know whats in them.

UrbanSmooth
04-08-2006, 08:27 PM
The cleaner you eat, the better you look, and FEEL, too! Seriously! Good eating is quite cosmetic and euphoric, in a way, ahahahaa! Ok. :whazzup:

Jordanbcool
04-08-2006, 08:39 PM
These are the questions you have now dodged for a third time after another member called you out.

Just for the record. I like and respect Jordan, but I like and respect WBB more. I don't want people spewing opinion as fact.

Also for the record I currently eat rediculously clean and feel great.

The reason people think you can't cut on junk is because nobody that eats junk counts cals. You'd have to have something seriously wrong with you to be eating an all junk diet and counting cals. Wait, that was me. In my case I was on medical house arrest and was comforted a great deal by the junk I consumed.

If eating 5 doughnuts/day halted weight loss then we would be feeding starving children doughnuts. If eating carbs before bed had any impact on body composition we would have aid camps serving their daily meals of rice in the evening.


Holto what would you like me to say for that? Its a very vague and oversimplified question.

I could answer...Air.....water.......energy? if thats what your looking for....blood vessels to carry oxygen to you lungs to make them billow. Your heart....

I respect you to but i really didnt know what you wanted me to say to that so i ignored it.

Also no "real" bodybuilder has ever tried a junk food diet for fear of the horrible results that could happen to there body and appearence. And when i say real I mean someone like jay cutler or ronnie coleman. Not even them...just any proffesional bodybuilder. All of us on this board do diet and work out like them but its considered more of a hobby for us. Even if we base our lives around it.

Also its a proven fact that eating alot of carbs consistantly (at night, mind you) effects your insulin levels which can trigger fat storage. I really dont know what else to say about that. Even built confirmed this. Although you'd have to eat alot of carbs for a few weeks each night for it to affect your insulin that much...

Also we'd NEVER feed starving children doughnuts to stop weight lose. why? THEY ARE STARVING! They need nutrients, vitamins, minerals. The main object is to get them functioning normally. Not to stuff them.

All that being said. Your very knowledgeable and im flattered that you have respect for me. I think your the first person to say that lol. :)

-jordan

EDIT: Reread your post. http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/gain.htm

Myth defused.

Holto
04-08-2006, 09:13 PM
Holto what would you like me to say for that? Its a very vague and oversimplified question.

You are so right. Let me break this down I think I have a good model for this.

180lb lifter who maintains on 2400 cals.

The athlete is consuming 2300 cals per day for 100 days.

The total deficit created over this time period is 10,000 cals.

That means the body expended 10,000 cals (*that it did not eat*) to pump blood, breath air, fire neurons etc.

Where *must* it get this energy from?






Also no "real" bodybuilder has ever tried a junk food diet.

This is exactly the type of statement that you need to stop making.

How can you possibly ever determine this? Do you have any estimation of how many men and women have earned a pro card since the inception of the sport, or how little is know about the vast majority of them?

I saw Chris Cormier at the Toronto Pro eating more ice cream than Built eats in a year out of huge plastic container. The type that baskin robin puts cakes in.


Also its a proven fact that eating alot of carbs consistantly effects your insulin levels which can trigger fat storage. I really dont know what else to say about that. Even built confirmed this.


Why do you connect depositing fat after a meal with *permanent* fat storage?

It's like thinking your money is gone because you put it in the bank.

You keep talking about carbs and how important they are as fuel for bb's and this is very true 'while working out'. At rest the bodies primary fuel source is fat.

Please take note of this next statement and anybody jump in here if I'm http://www.ganjatalk.com/forum/images/smilies/pipe.gif

It is physiologically possible to deposit all the calories, from all your meals, for months on end, and still lose major fat in that timeframe.

You deposit and mobilize later.

It was once thought that eating fat made us fat. Fat is most easily stored as fat simply because it is allready converted. In reality there is no connection here at all.

Eating high fat meals may lead to greater post meal deposition but it does not impact fat gain or lost in a given timeframe.

We do not have clinical data where subjects in two groups eating equal calories had a differential in fat gain due to carb intake. The reason we don't have this data is the principle of energy balance.



All that being said. Your very knowledgeable and im flattered that you have respect for me.

You know I think alot of us here have respect for you and that is why in the thread a few weeks ago you were complaining about people following you around. We see you working really hard in the gym, on your diet and to learn about nutrition. We want to help you tie it all together.

I see a guy who has bulked and cut properly and is really pumped up on the ability to control his body. You have also reached this point at a fairly young age.

So in essence you know how to bulk and cut but you don't know why. You know the methods but not the phsiology and biochemistry to explain it accurately. But that's why you are here.

Keep at it.

Built
04-08-2006, 09:23 PM
Also its a proven fact that eating alot of carbs consistantly (at night, mind you) effects your insulin levels which can trigger fat storage. I really dont know what else to say about that. Even built confirmed this.

I don't think I did. I eat most of my carbs at night - I train at night.

I got down to 14% bodyfat last fall doing this - leanest I've been in my life.

I'm not sure I've read anything that proves that eating a lot of carbs consistently at night affects insulin levels in such a way as to trigger fat storage.

OVEREATING at night will make you fat.

But overeating any time of the day will make you gain weight, yes?

Jordanbcool
04-08-2006, 09:36 PM
You are so right. Let me break this down I think I have a good model for this.

180lb lifter who maintains on 2400 cals.

The athlete is consuming 2300 cals per day for 100 days.

The total deficit created over this time period is 10,000 cals.

That means the body expended 10,000 cals (*that it did not eat*) to pump blood, breath air, fire neurons etc.

Where *must* it get this energy from?





This is exactly the type of statement that you need to stop making.

How can you possibly ever determine this? Do you have any estimation of how many men and women have earned a pro card since the inception of the sport, or how little is know about the vast majority of them?

I saw Chris Cormier at the Toronto Pro eating more ice cream than Built eats in a year out of huge plastic container. The type that baskin robin puts cakes in.



Why do you connect depositing fat after a meal with *permanent* fat storage?

It's like thinking your money is gone because you put it in the bank.

You keep talking about carbs and how important they are as fuel for bb's and this is very true 'while working out'. At rest the bodies primary fuel source is fat.

Please take note of this next statement and anybody jump in here if I'm http://www.ganjatalk.com/forum/images/smilies/pipe.gif

It is physiologically possible to deposit all the calories, from all your meals, for months on end, and still lose major fat in that timeframe.

You deposit and mobilize later.

It was once thought that eating fat made us fat. Fat is most easily stored as fat simply because it is allready converted. In reality there is no connection here at all.

Eating high fat meals may lead to greater post meal deposition but it does not impact fat gain or lost in a given timeframe.

We do not have clinical data where subjects in two groups eating equal calories had a differential in fat gain due to carb intake. The reason we don't have this data is the principle of energy balance.




You know I think alot of us here have respect for you and that is why in the thread a few weeks ago you were complaining about people following you around. We see you working really hard in the gym, on your diet and to learn about nutrition. We want to help you tie it all together.

I see a guy who has bulked and cut properly and is really pumped up on the ability to control his body. You have also reached this point at a fairly young age.

So in essence you know how to bulk and cut but you don't know why. You know the methods but not the phsiology and biochemistry to explain it accurately. But that's why you are here.

Keep at it.


Many bodybuilders eat tons of icecream. You see them eating it. Yes. Lee priest admits to gorging himself the day after his competition. The amount of icecream he eats is disgusting.

That does not mean that he revolves his entire diet around ice cream or junk foods. Nor do any other bodybuilders.

Could i know that no one has ever tried it. Atleast any pro bodybuilders? No. But could anyone? Like you said there are so many countless numbers. However, if they based their whole diet around junk food they probably wouldnt be afraid or ashamed to share their information/diet considering their bodies. That would be easily and quickly publisized. After all. Wouldnt you want to see someone that looked like ronnie coleman who ate only twinkies and snack cakes? I would. Since no one has yet to come forward though, its safe to assume that there is no one.

Also earlier you gave an example of a 180 pound bodybuilder. In the example you made its impossible to burn more then you have.

Let me explain.

The body does not save all its energy the whole day and use it at the end of the day. No. That just wouldnt work. Your body periodically uses/stores energy depending on its needs at that time. Your body dosent know what time it is. It has no clock. It only goes off what you feed it. For example. After a workout your body is craving energy and glygocen to refuel. Your bodies main concern is to give those muscles energy to grow and adapt. The rest of your body is taken care of. You have fat stores, glygocen etc. to feed what it needs. This is why when you go under mainanece you dont pass out and die instantly!!! This is why I sent you the link to "losing fat while gaining muscle". It was a long held belief that you could not do both at the same time since they require different calories to accomplish. Through research though we've found our close minded thinking to be incorrect. The body doesnt do calculations to figure if it can spare calories to feed muscles. It just does it...because its our body!

Im really confused about the difference between fat storage and permanent fat storage. They sound the same to me.

-jordan

Jordanbcool
04-08-2006, 09:37 PM
I don't think I did. I eat most of my carbs at night - I train at night.

I got down to 14% bodyfat last fall doing this - leanest I've been in my life.

I'm not sure I've read anything that proves that eating a lot of carbs consistently at night affects insulin levels in such a way as to trigger fat storage.

OVEREATING at night will make you fat.

But overeating any time of the day will make you gain weight, yes?

If you train at night the carbs go to your muscles. They have a purpose. This is why its recommended that you eat carbs at night after a nightly workout to prevent catabolism.

-jordan

Holto
04-08-2006, 09:38 PM
I think the part you confirmed would be that eating an individual meal high in carbs may trigger a greater insulin response, leading to more fat deposited.

This is what I am comparing to putting money in the bank. You could take it out a few minutes later.

Jordanbcool
04-08-2006, 09:40 PM
I think the part you confirmed would be that eating an individual meal high in carbs may trigger a greater insulin response, leading to more fat deposited.

This is what I am comparing to putting money in the bank. You could take it out a few minutes later.

O lol ok.

-jordan

Sorry i am a bodybuilder afterall.....according to some we arent so "bright" (another thread)

Built
04-08-2006, 09:43 PM
:withstupi

It is SO hard to wade through all the stuff out there. It's ALL right, sorta, mixed in with mythology and partial truths; things that only work if you're assisted, things that work if you're genetically gifted, things that work sub-optimally - there are issues that are a concern if you're not tracking and monitoring your caloric intake - but these don't matter if you are, or if they do, the impact is negligable.

But then, we're all just works in progress here, aren't we?

Built
04-08-2006, 09:44 PM
O lol ok.

-jordan

Sorry i am a bodybuilder afterall.....according to some we arent so "bright" (another thread)

Q: why do so many bodybuilders do everything in sets of 10 reps?
A: because that's when we run out of fingers

We're all trying to figure this crap out, Jordan. Consider yourself a member of a very distinctive club. ;)

Holto
04-08-2006, 09:53 PM
Also earlier you gave an example of a 180 pound bodybuilder. In the example you made its impossible to burn more then you have.

Your getting warmer.

The body does have the calories. It *stored* them from previous meals in our fat cells. We store fat for periods where we are in a deficit.

So in a time of deficit ie: the 100 days that I outlined, the body has created a long term (not daily) deficit of 10,000 cals. The body has no choice but to burn those cals. You are correct to say the body can't burn a calorie it does not eat. The truth is we did eat the cals we burn to rectify a deficit. We ate them in a time of surplus.

This is really easy math bro I think your problem is that you don't want to think it's that simple.

Maintenance calories Jordan. This is what the body uses to maintain an even weight. If our 180lb athlete simply dropped down to buring 2300 cals nobody would ever lose weight.

This is exactly why I gave you this example over a period of 100 days and I knew somewhere in your answer you would address the daily model.

It is this simple. The fitness mags & other media, supp pirates, trainers and everybody that wants your money wants you to belive it's super complicated. That a certain planetary alignment must take place.

It's not rocket surgery. -Brickt
.

Built
04-08-2006, 09:57 PM
In other news, my back almost doesn't hurt.

Kinda.

That is all.

brickt.
04-08-2006, 10:08 PM
^^
In other news, you smell funky.

Wouldnt you want to see someone that looked like ronnie coleman who ate only twinkies and snack cakes?

No one could get a physique like Ronnie eating a diet of only twinkies and snack cakes. No one. Hell, just about no one could get a physique like his on the perfect diet of chicken and oats and test. His genetics are just insane.

betastas
04-08-2006, 10:09 PM
Could i know that no one has ever tried it. Atleast any pro bodybuilders? No. But could anyone? Like you said there are so many countless numbers. However, if they based their whole diet around junk food they probably wouldnt be afraid or ashamed to share their information/diet considering their bodies. That would be easily and quickly publisized. After all. Wouldnt you want to see someone that looked like ronnie coleman who ate only twinkies and snack cakes? I would. Since no one has yet to come forward though, its safe to assume that there is no one.

Also earlier you gave an example of a 180 pound bodybuilder. In the example you made its impossible to burn more then you have.

Let me explain.

The body does not save all its energy the whole day and use it at the end of the day. No. That just wouldnt work. Your body periodically uses/stores energy depending on its needs at that time. Your body dosent know what time it is. It has no clock. It only goes off what you feed it. For example. After a workout your body is craving energy and glygocen to refuel. Your bodies main concern is to give those muscles energy to grow and adapt. The rest of your body is taken care of. You have fat stores, glygocen etc. to feed what it needs. This is why when you go under mainanece you dont pass out and die instantly!!! This is why I sent you the link to "losing fat while gaining muscle". It was a long held belief that you could not do both at the same time since they require different calories to accomplish. Through research though we've found our close minded thinking to be incorrect. The body doesnt do calculations to figure if it can spare calories to feed muscles. It just does it...because its our body!

Im really confused about the difference between fat storage and permanent fat storage. They sound the same to me.

-jordan


1. The body has a clock. It is the circadian clock, and regulates many body functions and hormone releases. Jet Lag? Trouble adjusting to daylight savings? It has adapted to a pattern close to our earthly rotation (24h, 11m), the variance caused by season changes. Here is a BBC link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/377146.stm

and here is another link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_rhythm

Just google "circadian clock" for more information. I wanted to nip that in the bud.



Also Jordan, you don't understand the Law of Conservation of Energy. This is a principle that drives the whole world. You can't magically produce energy, or pretend that "bad" foods somehow don't apply to this law. If you have 100 calories of cake and 100 calories of oats, they are both 100 calories. We all agree that macros matter and that all sources don't process the same (fructose != glucose != sucrose). However - eating bad food can not make you fat. . A caloric surplus CAN. It's really so damn simple.

Eat > Maintenance = Get Heavier
Eat < Maintenance = Get Lighter

EDIT: Body composition is not taken into consideration into my excellent bulking and cutting guide.

Period. No matter what you eat. You can eat bacon all day at less than maintenance and lose weight. There is no voodoo magic behind it. It is merely the Law of Conservation of Energy. Please, spend 10 minutes looking it up in wikipedia or on google. There's a reason your computer works for you to look this up. Conservation of Energy is a big part of it. Appreciate it. Understand it.

No more voodoo magic!

Jordanbcool
04-08-2006, 10:09 PM
In other news, my back almost doesn't hurt.

Kinda.

That is all.

I felt like answering this first. I didnt even know your back was hurting.

Also that was very random...:D

-jordan

Jordanbcool
04-08-2006, 10:11 PM
^^
In other news, you smell funky.

Wouldnt you want to see someone that looked like ronnie coleman who ate only twinkies and snack cakes?

No one could get a physique like Ronnie eating a diet of only twinkies and snack cakes. No one. Hell, just about no one could get a physique like his on the perfect diet of chicken and oats and test. His genetics are just insane.

No. His steriods are insane

His genetics give him that nasty mole on his head.

And the ability to shrug 700 pounds for reps.

-jordan

Jordanbcool
04-08-2006, 10:14 PM
1. The body has a clock. It is the circadian clock, and regulates many body functions and hormone releases. Jet Lag? Trouble adjusting to daylight savings? It has adapted to a pattern close to our earthly rotation (24h, 11m), the variance caused by season changes. Here is a BBC link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/377146.stm

and here is another link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circadian_rhythm

Just google "circadian clock" for more information. I wanted to nip that in the bud.



Also Jordan, you don't understand the Law of Conservation of Energy. This is a principle that drives the whole world. You can't magically produce energy, or pretend that "bad" foods somehow don't apply to this law. If you have 100 calories of cake and 100 calories of oats, they are both 100 calories. We all agree that macros matter and that all sources don't process the same (fructose != glucose != sucrose). However - eating bad food can not make you fat. . A caloric surplus CAN. It's really so damn simple.

Eat > Maintenance = Get Heavier
Eat < Maintenance = Get Lighter

EDIT: Body composition is not taken into consideration into my excellent bulking and cutting guide.

Period. No matter what you eat. You can eat bacon all day at less than maintenance and lose weight. There is no voodoo magic behind it. It is merely the Law of Conservation of Energy. Please, spend 10 minutes looking it up in wikipedia or on google. There's a reason your computer works for you to look this up. Conservation of Energy is a big part of it. Appreciate it. Understand it.

No more voodoo magic!


But your body could never predict when its going to get food right? That was my point.

Also I hate thinking of the whole "energy you dont have" thing. Its way to simplified when it comes to bodybuilding. WAY to simplified. Its like telling someone go put out a forest fire with a bucket of water...It just aint gonna work.

-jordan

Holto
04-08-2006, 10:14 PM
Jordan:

Are you saying Ronnie Coleman has anywhere near average genetics?

If so can you please actually state that because I would have to immediately put that in a sig.

Jordanbcool
04-08-2006, 10:20 PM
Jordan:

Are you saying Ronnie Coleman has anywhere near average genetics?

If so can you please actually sate that because I would have to immediately put that in a sig.

"Ronnie coleman isnt very impressive. If I took steroids, i'd look exactly like him. The only thing special about him is that massive mole on the top of his egg-shaped head".

That was for laughs mind you. But feel free to put it in your sig. Ronnies genetics are indeed insane but I was just trying to point out that genetics alone did not get him that far.

Also i <3 him. Hes so much better then that over-paid muscle-tech-bitch douche named jay cutler.

Any bodybuilder associated with that company is worthless IMO. Just for the simple fact that i loathe muscle-tech with every inch of my soul. If i see another random supplement with the letters "ic" or "tech" in it, im going to flip out.

Gakic
Cell tech
Nitro tech...
Leukic
Creakic
Anyone see a damned pattern?

-jordan

Holto
04-08-2006, 10:21 PM
If an athlete maintains on 2400 calories and eats 2300 calories for 100 days how many calories is he burning per day by the 100th day? Assume activity is 100% constant each day.

I think your answer to this question will start a whole new world of understanding.

The reason this seems so cold and mechanical and oversimplified is because it's not a law of biology, it's a law of physics that governs biological systems.

betastas
04-08-2006, 10:21 PM
But your body could never predict when its going to get food right? That was my point.

Also I hate thinking of the whole "energy you dont have" thing. Its way to simplified when it comes to bodybuilding. WAY to simplified. Its like telling someone go put out a forest fire with a bucket of water...It just aint gonna work.

-jordan

You have the energy. Stored in fat. It's there. Trust us.


I don't get what you mean about your body predicting when it will get food. It sends the stimulus of demanding food by being hungry. If you don't eat it goes to plan B and cannabalizes muscle tissues, turns stored body fat into energy, and can remove glycogen stores from the muscles.

Can you make it clearer what you mean about the body predicting its food? I don't understand the context of importance this has at all.

Holto
04-08-2006, 10:23 PM
I was just trying to point out that genetics alone did not get him that far.

Absolutely. I think it was Yates that said when you are on an oympia stage everybody up there is a genetic wonder.

Look at Dexter Jackson eating cookies almost right up to the day of contests.

brickt.
04-08-2006, 10:29 PM
But your body could never predict when its going to get food right? That was my point.

Also I hate thinking of the whole "energy you dont have" thing. Its way to simplified when it comes to bodybuilding. WAY to simplified. Its like telling someone go put out a forest fire with a bucket of water...It just aint gonna work.

-jordan

No. Let's REALLY simplify this.

Ok Jordan, you just eat a 500 calorie meal and for arguments sake, 300 of those cals went to muscles, and 200 went to fat.

During the time you spent before you ate again, your body expended 600 calories; 200 from muscle, and 400 from fat. Your body is now 100 calories 'lighter' than it was when you first had that meal.

Now, the above analogy is very fragile, and anyone with any knowledge of biochem will rip it apart, but if you take it into account, your knowledge of how your body uses energy will be a bit more complete.

Holto
04-08-2006, 10:31 PM
Let him get the last question I asked him.

One model at a time.

Right now we are working with 100 days.

DONT MISS THIS Q ****************************************

If an athlete maintains on 2400 calories and eats 2300 calories for 100 days how many calories is he burning per day by the 100th day? Assume activity is 100% constant each day.

The reason this seems so cold and mechanical and oversimplified is because it's not a law of biology, it's a law of physics that governs biological systems.

*********************************************************************

betastas
04-08-2006, 10:44 PM
The reason this seems so cold and mechanical and oversimplified is because it's not a law of biology, it's a law of physics that governs biological systems.[/B]


.. and Conservation of Energy :D

But yes. The question.

Davidelmo
04-09-2006, 05:49 AM
Holto, you're doing a really good job :D

I'll chip in and say the same.. if your maintenance is 3000 and you eat 2500 a day, that extra 500 HAS to come from within your body. Your body needs that energy to stay at constant temperature, to beat your heart etc. Luckily you have stores of energy (fat, muscle, glycogen etc) which can be used, but either way that energy is coming from within your body.

Your body doesn't care where the calories are from, so long as it has the energy to beat your heart, contract your muscles etc. A chocolate calorie is the same as an oat calorie.. it's just energy which your body can use.

I know it seems too simple, but if everyone knew this stuff there wouldn't be any demand for weight loss drugs, fad diet, hypnotism, surgery etc etc.

Do you see how it's impossible to gain weight on a calorie deficit? It's impossible. You can't get out more energy than you put in.

Binbs
04-09-2006, 06:16 AM
David regarding your last statement, it is possisble to gain more LBM even while losing weight right? or maintaining the same weight if you lowered your bf%. Correct?

Davidelmo
04-09-2006, 06:43 AM
Possible but difficult.

It takes a long time and you'd have to be monitoring calories pretty carefully.

Most people here bulk to build muscle (with inevitable fat) then cut (diet to lose fat) to reveal the muscle.

It would be possible for someone who is obese to lose weight on the scales but actually be gaining muscle.. especially if it's the first time they have worked out or dieted. That's because they have a lot of fat to lose and it will come off fairly quickly if it's their first real exercise/diet.

I wouldn't rely on it though. Something like staying at 180lbs but reducing body fat from 15% to 10% would require you to lose ~10lbs of muscle while losing 10lbs of fat... a pretty difficult task if you ask me!

Binbs
04-09-2006, 06:58 AM
Ok, thanks for your response David.

Davidelmo
04-09-2006, 07:02 AM
No problem :)

Jordanbcool
04-09-2006, 08:38 AM
Possible but difficult.

It takes a long time and you'd have to be monitoring calories pretty carefully.

Most people here bulk to build muscle (with inevitable fat) then cut (diet to lose fat) to reveal the muscle.

It would be possible for someone who is obese to lose weight on the scales but actually be gaining muscle.. especially if it's the first time they have worked out or dieted. That's because they have a lot of fat to lose and it will come off fairly quickly if it's their first real exercise/diet.

I wouldn't rely on it though. Something like staying at 180lbs but reducing body fat from 15% to 10% would require you to lose ~10lbs of muscle while losing 10lbs of fat... a pretty difficult task if you ask me!


This is the point im trying to make. Even you say it can be done. I realize you cannot simply make energy come out of thin air but I assume you guys are trying to show me that you cannot stay the same weight if you dont eat your maintanece cals. Even if it is just 100 calories under. The problem with all the examples your giving me is.

1) How could you ever come up 100 calories short. Ever? Even if you tracked it on fitday theres still small differences in what fitday says and the calories your actually consuming. My point is that you could never come up EXACTLY 100 short even if you tracked it perfectly. Even then, if you had an extra tsp of mustard that would throw the results off because its not exactly 100 calorie deficet anymore.

2) You cannot create/or destroy energy thats not there. Totally true. However your body has countless sources to get that energy. If it needs it, it will find it. It gets energy from pretty much everything you put in your mouth and anything you have stored at that time.

3) You guys are trying to show me that its impossible to stay the same weight while eating under maintanence cals. I totally disagree with this. Scale weight often times does not give you a very good reading on what you actually weigh. This is why when you weigh yourself it should be in the morning. You have to factor in water weight, and the fact that muscle weighs more then fat. Both these factors would have a HUGE impact on what the scale spits out at you. http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/gain.htm

The link above shows that it IS possible to gain muscle while losing fat right? Even though from a scientific point of veiw its impossible to gain weight while being in a caloric deficit. Im just trying to make everyone realize that the body DOES NOT work that way. It spends the energy as it needs it. If it has to much it will store it. Not enough it will burn it. You all get the picture.

However i'd like to state that it would be pretty much next to impossible to gain 10 pounds of muscle while losing 10 pounds of fat. The differeneces would never be that great. If anything it would be 2 pounds of muscle gained while you lost 8 pounds of fat or something along those lines.

-jordan

Davidelmo
04-09-2006, 09:04 AM
This is the point im trying to make. Even you say it can be done. I realize you cannot simply make energy come out of thin air but I assume you guys are trying to show me that you cannot stay the same weight if you dont eat your maintanece cals. Even if it is just 100 calories under. The problem with all the examples your giving me is.

1) How could you ever come up 100 calories short. Ever? Even if you tracked it on fitday theres still small differences in what fitday says and the calories your actually consuming. My point is that you could never come up EXACTLY 100 short even if you tracked it perfectly. Even then, if you had an extra tsp of mustard that would throw the results off because its not exactly 100 calorie deficet anymore.
Yes it would be extremely difficult to track, but this was a hypothetical imaginary situation where this practical problem wouldn't matter. In a lab study food intake would be VERY well controlled so it would be possible to achieve this accuracy but for any of us, it would be hard, especially since our day to day energy expenditure is different.



2) You cannot create/or destroy energy thats not there. Totally true. However your body has countless sources to get that energy. If it needs it, it will find it. It gets energy from pretty much everything you put in your mouth and anything you have stored at that time.
You're right that you can not create/destroy energy.. it has to come from somewhere else. Those sources are FOOD intake and from stores within your body. If you are not supplying enough energy through food your body has to use those countless sources... including fat, protein, glycogen etc. By utilising these sources and releasing energy from them, you're losing weight.



3) You guys are trying to show me that its impossible to stay the same weight while eating under maintanence cals. I totally disagree with this. Scale weight often times does not give you a very good reading on what you actually weigh. This is why when you weigh yourself it should be in the morning. You have to factor in water weight, and the fact that muscle weighs more then fat. Both these factors would have a HUGE impact on what the scale spits out at you. http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/gain.htm
Again, we were talking hypothetically. Yes your scale weight varies day to day and even throughout the same day due to ALL SORTS of factors like how how/cold the weather is. But in this hypothetical situation we were discounting that because the scale weight isn't what matters.. it's LBM and fat that we're talking about. I could drink 3L of calorie-free water and the scales would say I'm almost 7lbs heavier... but that doesn't mean I've gained weight.

Also, muscle doesn't weigh more than fat. 1lb of muscle weighs the same as 1lb of fat. Just the muscle takes up less space.. but the scales dont measure how much volume you occupy! :p



The link above shows that it IS possible to gain muscle while losing fat right? Even though from a scientific point of veiw its impossible to gain weight while being in a caloric deficit. Im just trying to make everyone realize that the body DOES NOT work that way. It spends the energy as it needs it. If it has to much it will store it. Not enough it will burn it. You all get the picture.
I dont see where it says that in the link, sorry.
You can gain MUSCLE in a calorie deficit but you can't gain WEIGHT. You still have to be getting that energy from somewhere. The study was talking about how some men managed to gain muscle while losing fat. If you gained 2lbs of muscle and lost 7 lbs of fat, you've still lost 5lbs of weight. But, as the study said, it's difficult because if you're catabolising fat for energy because of calorie deficit, building muscle (which requires a lot of calories) is not exactly top priority.



However i'd like to state that it would be pretty much next to impossible to gain 10 pounds of muscle while losing 10 pounds of fat. The differeneces would never be that great. If anything it would be 2 pounds of muscle gained while you lost 8 pounds of fat or something along those lines.


You're right about this.. for those reasons I listed above.

Holto
04-09-2006, 09:25 AM
1) How could you ever come up 100 calories short. Ever?

Two words. Clincal Research. In a fully equipped medical clinic you could very easily determe the subjects RMR and through a medical kitchen give subjects maintenance - 100 cals.

If you think this is impossible you need to start reading bro.


3) You guys are trying to show me that its impossible to stay the same weight while eating under maintanence cals.

If it is possible. Please walk us through it. Explain it to me scientifically. If you can't it's probably because it's not possible. Also take note that everybody on this site that has been studying nutrition longer than you is on the same page on this.



********** JORDAN ****************

DON'T DODGE THIS QUESTION

If an athlete maintains on 2400 calories and eats 2300 calories for 100 days how many calories is he burning per day by the 100th day?

Assume activity is 100% constant each day.

Also for the sake of easy math we will assume zero metabolic suppresion. In reality suppresion would be around 5 or 10% but lets ignore that.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/Dodge_logo.png

UrbanSmooth
04-09-2006, 02:05 PM
Ronnie Coleman is impressive. Why did you say that he isn't?

Jordanbcool
04-09-2006, 03:14 PM
Ronnie Coleman is impressive. Why did you say that he isn't?

I was hoping someone would put what I said in their sig. It was for laughs.

-jordan

Jordanbcool
04-09-2006, 03:17 PM
Two words. Clincal Research. In a fully equipped medical clinic you could very easily determe the subjects RMR and through a medical kitchen give subjects maintenance - 100 cals.

If you think this is impossible you need to start reading bro.



If it is possible. Please walk us through it. Explain it to me scientifically. If you can't it's probably because it's not possible. Also take note that everybody on this site that has been studying nutrition longer than you is on the same page on this.



********** JORDAN ****************

DON'T DODGE THIS QUESTION

If an athlete maintains on 2400 calories and eats 2300 calories for 100 days how many calories is he burning per day by the 100th day?

Assume activity is 100% constant each day.

Also for the sake of easy math we will assume zero metabolic suppresion. In reality suppresion would be around 5 or 10% but lets ignore that.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/Dodge_logo.png

*Dodges question*

Sike. But really. You already answered it yourself. I really dont know what you want me to say.

My basic point is that science goes as far as the lab most of the time. Life is never so cut and dry as people try to make it. Thats all..

I honestly dont know what everyone wants me to get out/learn from all this.

-jordan

Davidelmo
04-09-2006, 03:25 PM
Come on jordan.. you're missing the point.

You can't gain weight on calorie deficit, end of story.

Energy balance.. it's a universal LAW that can not be broken. The human body is amazing but it cant defy physics. Besides, all biology is chemistry, all chemistry is physics, all physics is maths :p

brickt.
04-09-2006, 03:54 PM
I honestly dont know what everyone wants me to get out/learn from all this.


We're all just pretty much amazed by your utter steadfast beliefs that defy MILLIONS of years of science.

1) How could you ever come up 100 calories short. Ever? Even if you tracked it on fitday theres still small differences in what fitday says and the calories your actually consuming. My point is that you could never come up EXACTLY 100 short even if you tracked it perfectly. Even then, if you had an extra tsp of mustard that would throw the results off because its not exactly 100 calorie deficet anymore.

Answer:Hypothetical situation. No IF, BUTS, MAYBES. Answer the question, posted by Holto, like, 23 times.

3) You guys are trying to show me that its impossible to stay the same weight while eating under maintanence cals. I totally disagree with this. Scale weight often times does not give you a very good reading on what you actually weigh. This is why when you weigh yourself it should be in the morning. You have to factor in water weight, and the fact that muscle weighs more then fat. Both these factors would have a HUGE impact on what the scale spits out at you.

Answer: Please tell me WHAT THE **** DOES WATER WEIGHT have to do with energy/calories/food? Sure, I could eat 50grams of salts and drink 20litres of water, but my BODY TISSUE which is DIRECTLY related to CALORIES/ENERGY has NOT CHANGED.

Holto
04-09-2006, 04:19 PM
I really dont know what you want me to say.

I want you to give me a number.

How many cals is our athlete burning?

Just either throw a number out there or tell me my number is ok to use.

Then we can go back to the total deficit created and we can work on how this deficit is met.

You told me early on that the athlete can't spend energy he doesn't have. We have pointed out that this energy is stored as fat.

You keep atacking the model. Why don't you just try to work through this scenario.

If you can go with my answer of 10,000 calories being the deficit created.

Where must the energy come from to keep up with bodily functions?

Holto
04-09-2006, 04:24 PM
Life is never so cut and dry as people try to make it.

This is where you make a tragic mistake in your logic.

The reason you think this is because people with Masters Degrees in Marketing have carefully set up the fitness media to make you think this. Don't believe the hype.

Do you honestly not see how much harder it would be to sell weight loss products & services if weight loss was simple?

There is only one human physiology. We do not vary physiologically at all. We vary biochemically. If something is proven to be physiologically true in a lab then it's true for all people in all instances. Period.

betastas
04-09-2006, 04:28 PM
My basic point is that science goes as far as the lab most of the time. Life is never so cut and dry as people try to make it. Thats all..

I honestly dont know what everyone wants me to get out/learn from all this.

-jordan

There is a saying amongst Engineers and Scientists of all fields.

"If it's good in theory, but not in practicality, then the theory is wrong".

Do you understand this?

As an Engineering student I *only* deal with applications where real life is taken into consideration. Guess what? When an intelligent person undertakes a theory in real life... it works... If the procedure is not followed as per the theorem, it doesn't work. This is where we get the $%@& about people whining that bad food makes them fat as they shovel boxes of Ho-Hos into their craw. It's not the food. As Bryan Griffon from Family Guy so eloquently said, "PUT DOWN THE FORK".

You cannot gain tissue weight on a caloric deficit.

What we want you to learn out of this is the following.

1. You can't gain weight eating sub-maintenance. PERIOD.

2. Your body won't conjure energy from nowhere to make you gain this weight. It isn't there. It can't produce more energy in a process than it intakes. This is a fundamental law of science.

3. The source of the calories is irrelevant. There is much reasoning behind eating clean than dirty in terms of feeling good and being healthy. In terms of caloric energy distribution and weight loss, the source is irrelevant.

4. The reason why people don't typically cut on junk food is that they can't eat as much food volume, they don't get the natural vitamin and mineral sources, and they have to deal with the cravings that typically arise from the hunger that they will be dealing with.



Edit: In addition, please see Holto. He has a post or two for your review.

Jordanbcool
04-09-2006, 04:43 PM
To HOLTO: Like you said. The deficit would be about 10,000.

Anyways the extra energy would have to come from either muscle tissue, fat tissue, or a combination of glycogen/water stores.

For arguments sake. Your right. The person in your scenerio would have to lose weight.

Now you guys need to be more specific when your talking about weight!!!!

Theres a huge difference between total weight, LBM, fatty tissue, water weight and the like.....I think all of us spent hours debating something that didnt need to be debated...

-jordan

Davidelmo
04-09-2006, 04:55 PM
^^ OH COME ON!!! You're trying to backpedal on this one now Jordan.

I pointed this out before, saying that I could drink 3L of water and gain WEIGHT but since water has no calories, I still need energy from somewhere... that results in loss of tissue. Regardless of what the number on the scale says, you're losing tissue i.e. losing weight.

We were always talking hypothetically and you knew that.. don't pretend you didn't. It was ALWAYS clear we were talking about LBM and fat and nothing else.. water weight has nothing to do with it and you know it.
If that's what we were bothered about why dont we all just go and drink 10L of water a day.. quickest 20lbs you'll ever gain!

Please, just accept that we are right on this:

Eat over maintenance, gain weight (i.e. tissue mass)
Eat under it, lose weight (i.e. tissue mass)
ALWAYS. Every single time. Every single normal person.

Your body doesn't care WHERE the calories come from. A calorie is a calorie and as long as you're in calorie deficit you can eat cupcakes all day long and still lose weight. It might not be optimal because there's not enough protein, vitamins, fibre etc but it would work.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
04-09-2006, 05:20 PM
I must agree with betastas and David on this one.

Holto
04-09-2006, 06:47 PM
To HOLTO: Like you said. The deficit would be about 10,000.

Anyways the extra energy would have to come from either muscle tissue, fat tissue, or a combination of glycogen/water stores.

Jordan is my new baby daddy.

Ok I don't even know what that means but it sounded funny in my head.

Now. I knew you would take it where you just took it and I have my next question.

Do you know how many cals a lb of LBM yields?

We all have a good idea of how many cals it takes to build a lb of LBM but most of us tend to reciprocate this to get an idea of what it yields.

448 grams in a lb.

A lb of muscle is ~70% water.

That leaves 134 grams of lets call non water. The non water can yield aminos by breaking down the structural proteins that make up your indidvidual fibers. The muscle cell itself contains glycogen,labile (free) aminos and lipids.

For argument sake lets say it's just all protein and it works out to 4 cals/gram. That means a lb of LBM yields a mere 537 calories.

Now lets go back to our 180lb athlete and his 10,000 calorie deficit.

If he lost 100% fat he lost 2.8lbs.

If he lost 100% LBM he lost 18.6lbs.

Can you see the difference?

What I'm getting at is that if a crappy diet could *potentially* result in say 50% LBM and 50% FAT lost we would all be mormons.

Lets look at those numbers

@ 50/50 our athlete lost 1.4lbs of fat and 9.3lbs of muscle.

Could you imagine how crappy someone would look after losing this.

On edit:

Just proofreading and I realized that in this situation:

If he lost 100% LBM he lost 18.6lbs.

Our athlete lost 4 years worth of gained LBM in 3 months. Doesn't sound possible to me. Basically our muscle was never intended to provide in times of famine. Sure a very small percentage of cals will come from it but fat is the stored fuel. LBM provides locomotion and heat it's was never intended as a fuel source. If it was it would be more calorie dense.

Jordanbcool
04-09-2006, 08:04 PM
^^ OH COME ON!!! You're trying to backpedal on this one now Jordan.

I pointed this out before, saying that I could drink 3L of water and gain WEIGHT but since water has no calories, I still need energy from somewhere... that results in loss of tissue. Regardless of what the number on the scale says, you're losing tissue i.e. losing weight.

We were always talking hypothetically and you knew that.. don't pretend you didn't. It was ALWAYS clear we were talking about LBM and fat and nothing else.. water weight has nothing to do with it and you know it.
If that's what we were bothered about why dont we all just go and drink 10L of water a day.. quickest 20lbs you'll ever gain!

Please, just accept that we are right on this:

Eat over maintenance, gain weight (i.e. tissue mass)
Eat under it, lose weight (i.e. tissue mass)
ALWAYS. Every single time. Every single normal person.

Your body doesn't care WHERE the calories come from. A calorie is a calorie and as long as you're in calorie deficit you can eat cupcakes all day long and still lose weight. It might not be optimal because there's not enough protein, vitamins, fibre etc but it would work.

I never said energy comes out of no where. A calorie is a measure of energy if you want to simplify everything. Hmmm

Dosent fat have 9 calories per gram? Much more then carbs (4) or protein (4)

"A calorie is not a calorie" deals more with grams and macros then it does the actual calories itself. Everyone knows this...

-jordan

Also why are you supposed to get 95% of your calories in a PSMF from protein? Would it have something to do with a CALORIE NOT BEING A CALORIE!!!!!

brickt.
04-09-2006, 08:17 PM
Dear Holto,

Jesus, you are good. Even I learnt something from your last post!

From Brickt.

brickt.
04-09-2006, 08:20 PM
Also why are you supposed to get 95% of your calories in a PSMF from protein? Would it have something to do with a CALORIE NOT BEING A CALORIE!!!!!

Please, read the book before you say that.

The PSMF is a diet that is about 800-1200calories a day, which equates to about 200-250g protein, vegies and fishoil. The 200-250g protein (dependant on bodyweight, bf and activity) is there to stimulate, along with HEAVY ASS TRAINING, just enough protein synthesis so that muscle lose is at a minimum, not because it has any magical effects that make you superhuman.

Slim Schaedle
04-09-2006, 08:24 PM
Hey y'all,

I had some extra time tonight so I spent a few hours drawing a calorie.

I am not an artist, but I think it's pretty good.

betastas
04-09-2006, 08:28 PM
Wow. It is VERY good. :D

Built
04-09-2006, 10:32 PM
That's uncanny!

Slim, you captured the ESSENCE of a calorie.

Simply a masterpiece.

<kisses fingertips joined with thumb in a gesture of delight> Muah!

Slim Schaedle
04-09-2006, 10:39 PM
I just figured it was time to let people in on what a calorie really looks like.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
04-09-2006, 10:46 PM
I just figured it was time to let people in on what a calorie really looks like.Uh...I thought my browser was messed up when I didn't see it...then I realized. :thumbup:

Sidior
04-10-2006, 12:22 AM
Please, read the book before you say that.

The PSMF is a diet that is about 800-1200calories a day, which equates to about 200-250g protein, vegies and fishoil. The 200-250g protein (dependant on bodyweight, bf and activity) is there to stimulate, along with HEAVY ASS TRAINING, just enough protein synthesis so that muscle lose is at a minimum, not because it has any magical effects that make you superhuman.
:withstupi

If you are eating only 800-1200 cals and your maintenance cals are lets say 3500 you will lose weight. What kind of cals you eat and if you train determine if the weight you lose is muscle or fat. Eating 800 cals of protien though won't cause less or more weight loss than 800 cals of carbohydrates.

Slim Schaedle
04-10-2006, 05:42 AM
Eating 800 cals of protien though won't cause less or more weight loss than 800 cals of carbohydrates.
More energy is required for digestion of proteins compared to carbohydrates.

So, technically it would.

f=ma
04-10-2006, 06:09 AM
ok for those of us who just awoke can you explain the essence of a calorie? :(

Davidelmo
04-10-2006, 06:19 AM
Also why are you supposed to get 95% of your calories in a PSMF from protein? Would it have something to do with a CALORIE NOT BEING A CALORIE!!!!!

That's because your calorie intake is so low and your protein requirement is so high that you need almost all of those calories from protein.

If you're 200lbs, doing a PSMF on 1000kcal - you need that 1g/lb at least. That's 800kcal used up already. Add a tbsp of fish oil and there you go.

Davidelmo
04-10-2006, 06:21 AM
:withstupi

If you are eating only 800-1200 cals and your maintenance cals are lets say 3500 you will lose weight. What kind of cals you eat and if you train determine if the weight you lose is muscle or fat. Eating 800 cals of protien though won't cause less or more weight loss than 800 cals of carbohydrates.

Although the protein would help to preserve your muscle more than the carbs would.

(Nothing wrong with your post Sidior.. I'm just making the difference clear :) )

Davidelmo
04-10-2006, 06:23 AM
More energy is required for digestion of proteins compared to carbohydrates.

So, technically it would.

How much difference is there?

Clifford Gillmore
04-10-2006, 06:56 AM
A minor amount.

Jordanbcool
04-10-2006, 07:16 AM
How much difference is there?

*shrugs*

But the difference is considerable if you eat alot of protein...

-jordan

Jordanbcool
04-10-2006, 07:24 AM
*shrugs*

But the difference is considerable if you eat alot of protein...

-jordan

:offtopic:

This thread already has a ton of people looking at it which is great. Um, this past week I gained a pound instead of losing any weight. Its ok though cus im still on track. What weight is that? All these days i've been eating 2800 calories, and on rest days i've been eating 2600. However one day I ate 3000 calories (on a very hard upper body day). On that day my macros were fantastic. Yesterday though i ate 3500 calories when my maintinence is 3300 (when I was at 190). Im really confused as to the level I should set my calories. I know the 3500 was way to high but I had ran 4 miles (2 miles were HIIT) so i figured it was fine. I'm debating if I should drop the calories back down to 2700, and 2500 on rest days. Last time I did that I lost 3 lbs!

This cut is very frustrating right now..

-jordan

EDIT: haha how the hell did I make two posts out of that??? I ended up quoting myself??? Weird..

Holto
04-10-2006, 07:50 AM
But the difference is considerable if you eat alot of protein...

To make this bold statement you must have allready done the math.

Can you show us your numbers?

I worked it out to be a lb of fat every 3-4 months. Nothing to sneeze at but nothing to write home about.

IMO, based on my calculations, the difference is far from considerable.

Jordanbcool
04-10-2006, 07:52 AM
To make this bold statement you must have allready done the math.

Can you show us your numbers?

I worked it out to be a lb of fat every 3-4 months. Nothing to sneeze at but nothing to write home about.

IMO, based on my calculations, the difference is far from considerable.

What numbers did you use?

-jordan

P.S. Could someone give me any advice/direction for this following week concerning calories?

Holto
04-10-2006, 08:39 AM
Even I learnt something from your last post!

Thanks bro.

I spent alot of time on this site from 2001 on and in my early years here there were tons of guru's.

Holto
04-10-2006, 08:48 AM
What numbers did you use?

Show me yours first.

j/k

I'll try to find it I used some #'s Slim posted on TEF of foods.

I worked it out from there.

Jordanbcool
04-10-2006, 09:29 AM
Show me yours first.

j/k

I'll try to find it I used some #'s Slim posted on TEF of foods.

I worked it out from there.

I never calculated anything. So i cant give you any numbers at all. Protein's always been known to take more calories to digest then fat and carbs. I was just giving you my 2 cents. I was assuming that in large amounts having a high protein diet would burn a considerable amount of calories (like jay cutlers 1000 grams or something of that nature). And god damnit someone answer my post about those calories in my diet!!!!!!! lol

-jordan

ddegroff
04-10-2006, 09:45 AM
:offtopic:

This thread already has a ton of people looking at it which is great. Um, this past week I gained a pound instead of losing any weight. Its ok though cus im still on track. What weight is that? All these days i've been eating 2800 calories, and on rest days i've been eating 2600. However one day I ate 3000 calories (on a very hard upper body day). On that day my macros were fantastic. Yesterday though i ate 3500 calories when my maintinence is 3300 (when I was at 190). Im really confused as to the level I should set my calories. I know the 3500 was way to high but I had ran 4 miles (2 miles were HIIT) so i figured it was fine. I'm debating if I should drop the calories back down to 2700, and 2500 on rest days. Last time I did that I lost 3 lbs!

This cut is very frustrating right now..

-jordan

EDIT: haha how the hell did I make two posts out of that??? I ended up quoting myself??? Weird..

i think your changing to many variables. and worrying too much. i now in your previous post (another thread) you said you know what your maintence cals are (3300) because you ate at that for a week or so. So whatever you do that day eating 3300cals you wont gain weigh, or lose weight (ie HIIT, Weight Lifting, etc). Your cutting, you need to create a caloric deficit (which you know), and you want to create this through diet. So, on workout days eat 2800cals (HIIT or weight training), on off days eat 2600cals. Do this for atleast a couple of weeks. Even if you had a great workout, and it kicked your butt, still only eat 2800cals. Now after a couple of weeks, then see what the weight loss is like. I remember one of your other threads about losing 3lbs in one week, and i told you to relax and do it for another week. You oblivisouly didn't do this (^your post in this thread tells me that).

I'll say it again, keep your cals the SAME (either weight days of rest days) and increase the activity to keep the weight coming off. At the start of my cut I didnt carb cycle, I ate 2200 cals everyday (no HIIT or SS cardio either). Then when I hit a plateau I added HIIT to the mix. Then when I hit the next plateau after that I started carb cycling, more on heavy activity days, lower on rest days. Change one variable at a time, a week at a time.

Davidelmo
04-10-2006, 09:45 AM
If I remember correctly (which I probably dont) that Berardi study on t-mag (lol) showed that over a 6 hour period, the high protein diet guys burnt an extra... wait for it... 20kcal, compared to the high carb guys.

ddegroff
04-10-2006, 09:47 AM
Holy crap 20kcal!!!

Alex.V
04-10-2006, 09:49 AM
Our athlete lost 4 years worth of gained LBM in 3 months. Doesn't sound possible to me. Basically our muscle was never intended to provide in times of famine. Sure a very small percentage of cals will come from it but fat is the stored fuel. LBM provides locomotion and heat it's was never intended as a fuel source. If it was it would be more calorie dense.

Not intended, but in famine it's an ideal fuel source. Burning LBM is perfect for a body in a hypocaloric situation. It serves the dual purpose of providing amino acids clearly not being obtained in the diet, as well as reducing the body's overall caloric needs. It's because of this latter result that LBM is actually the preferred source in times of famine.


Now maybe I'm skimming this thread too much (likely), but there seems to be an assumption among the thermodynamics crowd that the body is a static system. The body is adaptive, and energy needs are adjusted quickly based on intake/environment. To assume that a given activity level for a given body composition will burn X number of calories is a gross oversimplification. There are entirely too many systems in the body that can slow down, shut down, or run faster based on body temperature, level of various energy-state indicating molecules (ATP, ADP, pyruvate, acetyl-CoA, etc.) to simply assign a given number (we'll take 3000) as a basal caloric need. When caloric intake declines, the body's first response is to start dipping into stores. However, a whole host of other processes begin to slow down, including cell division (DNA replication, membrane synthesis, and other energy-intensive activities), synthesis and repair of contractile proteins, etc. etc.

The body can also throw a few "master switches" which will result in everything from lowering body temperature to decreasing motor unit recruitment for every given movement.

These simple "power saving" modifications will drop your caloric expenditure pretty significantly, which would allow your body to maintain on a lower intake.

What this essentially means is that to break it down and say "calories in versus calories out" is ridiculous. Yes, the body obeys certain rules. But there are so many loopholes and power shunts that to assume a hundred calorie a day deficit will do ANYTHING to body weight is a little silly. The body tracks trends: Significant long term differences in what is being demanded of it. Altering the source of calories, or even altering their timing, will do almost nothing to alter the body's basic composition. Why? The reasons I just said. The body is far more likely to adjust its needs over the short term than carry out costly and wasteful processes like storing/burning huge amounts of fat.

And going back to the source of these calories... The body really doesn't care if you get your fat/protein from triple whoppers with cheese or from chicken breasts and fish oil. The overall impact on composition will be similar. I can't necessarily speak for other factors (overall body health, since the lack of certain unsaturated fats will have a really bad impact on everything from heart health to cell membrane integrity), but really the thought that eating clean will make you leaner is a little silly. I got remarkably lean eating one of those aforementioned triple whoppers every morning, not to mention downing a few beers every evening, all while eating a moderately hypocaloric diet and upping my activity.


So my advice:

-Spend less time on the math. Much less time. Calculating your calories to anything under a plus or minus 200 range is silly, as is worrying about a single day where you go ~500 over or under. There are simply too many factors at work to think you can narrow down your body's exact needs. Chances are, you'll spend so much time second guessing your system (and fighting it) that you'll end up hindering yourself.

-Worry less about eating clean for LBM/fat purposes. Eat clean when you can because it's simply healthy. Nobody here can really deny that you should get some fiber, make sure you're getting your unsaturated fats, and try to get in the vitamins and minerals you need. Eating clean-ish is a good way to do it. But all your cells see are lipids, amino acids, and carbohydrates. Regardless of what they looked like when they went in your mouth (and regardless of whether they were "processed" or not. I hate that term. Like it's always a bad thing. I mean really.)

Holto
04-10-2006, 09:52 AM
Holy crap 20kcal!!!

That was how I worked it out. Thanks.

If I eat 200g's of protein instead of carbs I can lose an extra lb of fat every 87 days. Not ground breaking.

I'm doing some heavy reading will check back later.

Holto
04-10-2006, 10:05 AM
What this essentially means is that to break it down and say "calories in versus calories out" is ridiculous.

And going back to the source of these calories... The body really doesn't care if you get your fat/protein from triple whoppers with cheese or from chicken breasts and fish oil.

Thanks Belial. Lots of info in this post and you've given me some things to read up on.

The two statements I quoted seem like a contradiction. The math/model was totally hpothetical and merely to illustrate the impact of the law of conservation of energy while in a caloric deficit.

.

Jordanbcool
04-10-2006, 10:10 AM
i think your changing to many variables. and worrying too much. i now in your previous post (another thread) you said you know what your maintence cals are (3300) because you ate at that for a week or so. So whatever you do that day eating 3300cals you wont gain weigh, or lose weight (ie HIIT, Weight Lifting, etc). Your cutting, you need to create a caloric deficit (which you know), and you want to create this through diet. So, on workout days eat 2800cals (HIIT or weight training), on off days eat 2600cals. Do this for atleast a couple of weeks. Even if you had a great workout, and it kicked your butt, still only eat 2800cals. Now after a couple of weeks, then see what the weight loss is like. I remember one of your other threads about losing 3lbs in one week, and i told you to relax and do it for another week. You oblivisouly didn't do this (^your post in this thread tells me that).

I'll say it again, keep your cals the SAME (either weight days of rest days) and increase the activity to keep the weight coming off. At the start of my cut I didnt carb cycle, I ate 2200 cals everyday (no HIIT or SS cardio either). Then when I hit a plateau I added HIIT to the mix. Then when I hit the next plateau after that I started carb cycling, more on heavy activity days, lower on rest days. Change one variable at a time, a week at a time.


Ahh my main man! :)

Anyways I thought I was being pretty good with the diet except yesterday. Yesterday was a horrible day for my diet. I went up to 3500 but I didnt think it would affect me at all. The HIIT (atleast i thought) should have compinsated for this, because I ran farther and harder then normally. Anyways as i've said before scale weight is really NOTHING compared to actual weight. If this 1 pound I gained was muscle then thats fantastic. I'm just really bothered by how my weight is fluctuating so much. Im sitting here wondering if im losing fat, muscle or water weight. Ever since i've changed my auxilary reps. i've been blasting through my platueas with great success. Also in the mirror I seem to be getting more toned as my diet/workout are being tweaked constantly (props to brickt/built for this). Like brickt said though scale weight is a great motivator to show progress. I just dont want to fall short of my 10% BF goal by June. I wish there was some magical calculation or scale that I could jump on that said "jordan you fatass you gained 1 pound of fat" or "Jordan stop drinking so much damned water" or "jordan you gained 1 pound of muscle on a cut??!! Good job!"

Something like that would help me greatly.

Anyways I was thinking about doing something like i did last week. Have everyday take 2700 calories and 2500 on rest days. This would go back down to my previous caloric intake. I would keep activity the same as I am now, but i'd include 1 day where i'd eat 3000 calories. It would be below 3300 but high enough to keep my metabolism from tapering off. Through my research the best diets are constantly changing. Obviously I wouldnt have the 3500 mess up that I did this week. Just one day where i'd go 3000 and it would be on a hard upper body day.

Thoughts anyone? Built?? Your my celeb model when it comes to dieting. Anything you have to say would be great.

-jordan

Holto
04-10-2006, 10:21 AM
Jordan.

Pay to have your bodyfat tested or buy a caliper.

ddegroff
04-10-2006, 10:23 AM
^thats good advice.

the scale is a great tool to use, but can be a pain in butt if you do it to much. Try weighing yourself once a week @ the same time. I weigh myself 3times a week. The third time is the only time that really matters to me. Sounds like you have a good plan just follow it for a few weeks then re-evaluate.



Edit: Holto got in there before I did.

Jordanbcool
04-10-2006, 11:52 AM
Jordan.

Pay to have your bodyfat tested or buy a caliper.

I already have. I can get a free one taken with my college health class. Currently its 14.5%. I plan to get it tested every 2 weeks.

Maybe i'll get it taken again thursday or do it once a week instead of even worrying about the scale weight. That would be more logical but I dont want to annoy my health teacher. Meh. We'll see.

I'll fart around with my calories. I just dont want to fall short of my 10% goal. I think i've given myself plenty of time...but then again. I dunno we'll see.

-jordan

Slim Schaedle
04-10-2006, 12:42 PM
That was how I worked it out. Thanks.

If I eat 200g's of protein instead of carbs I can lose an extra lb of fat every 87 days. Not ground breaking.

I'm doing some heavy reading will check back later.


But I was still correct in my last post. Woohooo.

:hump:

Alex.V
04-10-2006, 01:17 PM
Actually, the total energy rating for a gram of protein varies between 3.8 and 5.2 kcal/gram, depending on types of amino acids in the polypeptide, how much you're subtracting for urea production (and other pathways required to convert the amino acid to pyruvate), etc. Carbohydrates vary as well, but typically are rated slightly lower in terms of kcal/gram, in the order of .05/.1 fewer kcal/gram.

While this doesn't totally negate the argument that protein is "less efficient" when it comes to totaling up the actual caloric intake, it pokes enough holes in it (and casts enough doubt) to make it a shaky position.

So basically, again, forget the damn math. It'll lead you to making assumptions that you shouldn't.

Alex.V
04-10-2006, 01:23 PM
Ah, sorry, .05/.1 MORE kcals/gram for carbohydrates.

Sorry, I'm tired. I tried to wash my hands with hair gel instead of liquid soap, and I put saline solution on my toothbrush this morning. I mean, it was right next to the toothpaste.

....It's been one of those pathetic days.

Holto
04-10-2006, 02:30 PM
....It's been one of those pathetic days.

We need more posters that are still informative on bad days.

Alex.V
04-10-2006, 03:23 PM
Informative maybe, but definitely embarassed. I usually put soap on my hands, lather up, then wash my face.

You have any idea how long it takes to get hair gel out of your eyebrows?



...apropos to absolutely nothing.

f=ma
04-10-2006, 03:38 PM
probably depends on the size of your eyebrows

brickt.
04-10-2006, 05:21 PM
Belial is a meathead. A goddamn brainy meathead. Cheers for the cool sciency stuff!

Jordan - My advice is this: you've freaked out and ****ed around with your variables too much. I'd go back to scratch - figure out your maintenance cals, get a diet that has a weekly defecit of 3500cals, then.. STICK WITH IT.

Holto
04-10-2006, 06:11 PM
figure out your maintenance cals

That sounded like where I would start looking as well.

I like how Lyle dubbed it the baseline diet.

Jordanbcool
04-10-2006, 08:17 PM
That sounded like where I would start looking as well.

I like how Lyle dubbed it the baseline diet.

Well cant we/I just figure out my maintenance cals. now without wasting a week? It was 3300 calories when I was 190 pounds when I did hardly any activity that week. Right now I weigh 187. Isnt there some simple calculations to do to get me back on track?

-jordan

f=ma
04-10-2006, 08:23 PM
3lbs is not going to make much of a difference in BMR

just figure your cals plus or minus 200ish and eat. if you dont lose weight, lower cals. if you do, eat that amount of cals until you stop losing weight.

this isnt rocket science

Alex.V
04-10-2006, 08:44 PM
Well cant we/I just figure out my maintenance cals. now without wasting a week? It was 3300 calories when I was 190 pounds when I did hardly any activity that week. Right now I weigh 187. Isnt there some simple calculations to do to get me back on track?

-jordan

Simple. Divide your goal weight by your current weight, then multiply your result by 2000. Add 500 multiplied by your number of income tax deductions, then subtract 10% for every time you look in the mirror and pinch the fat around your stomach. Then, adding pi plus the rotation of the earth in rad/s should bring you pretty close to your target caloric intake assuming you'd like to gain or lose less than ounce a day.

f=ma
04-10-2006, 08:53 PM
haha don't forget to account for the phase of the moon

Jordanbcool
04-10-2006, 08:56 PM
3lbs is not going to make much of a difference in BMR

just figure your cals plus or minus 200ish and eat. if you dont lose weight, lower cals. if you do, eat that amount of cals until you stop losing weight.

this isnt rocket science

Yea well when you have limited time to cut you tend to stress if your going to meet your goal or come up short. I dont need to tell you guys how bad my last cut ended...

-jordan

UrbanSmooth
04-10-2006, 09:31 PM
:whazzup:

brickt.
04-10-2006, 09:44 PM
:whazzup:

Next time, guide your cursor away from the 'Submit Reply' button, and relocate it over the 'X' in the top left hand corner of your screen. Click.

Jordan, if you worked out your BMR to be 3300, eat 2800 a day, or hell even 2900 if you're really concerned, and keep it there for like two weeks. See what happens.

ddegroff
04-10-2006, 09:46 PM
^good call (both points)

UrbanSmooth
04-10-2006, 09:52 PM
Beat it, dude.

Jordanbcool
04-10-2006, 09:56 PM
Next time, guide your cursor away from the 'Submit Reply' button, and relocate it over the 'X' in the top left hand corner of your screen. Click.

Jordan, if you worked out your BMR to be 3300, eat 2800 a day, or hell even 2900 if you're really concerned, and keep it there for like two weeks. See what happens.

Im going to eat 2900 one hard and heavy upper body day. Every other day i'll eat 2700 and 2500 on non lift days. I'll see how that works out. Im just annoyed with the scale. I should be losing a pound a week. Instead im either losing a TON of weight (3 lbs) or gaining weight (1 lb) when the calories im consuming/activity im doing are pretty much the same!!!

-jordan

brickt.
04-10-2006, 10:11 PM
Jordan,

Swing us your fitday link

Jordanbcool
04-11-2006, 05:53 AM
Jordan,

Swing us your fitday link

http://www.fitday.com/WebFit/DayFoodsTab.asp

Look all through next week and tell me what I did wrong....That sunday was god aweful.

-jordan

EDIT: Also April 7th was a bad day to. I didnt come close to my normal protein macros. I need to be much more diligent....

brickt.
04-11-2006, 04:35 PM
That ain't your fitday link.

Log into to fitday, click on 'home,' and down the bottom there should be a link that looks like

http://www.fitday.com/WebFit/PublicJournals.html?Owner=MYNAMEISJORDAN

Post THAT link

ddegroff
04-11-2006, 04:41 PM
also i'm wondering if for two weeks just do same cals each day, even rest for two weeks. See how much progress you see, then start carb cycling. This way you have a better feeling on home CHO's you need for a good workout, school etc.

Just a thought.

betastas
04-11-2006, 06:34 PM
For my cutting, all it took was constant calorie intake, +PWO shake on workout days. So I would have about 250 less on non-WO/Cardio days. Patience and consistency took me to 10%.

Jordanbcool
04-11-2006, 06:47 PM
http://www.fitday.com/WebFit/PublicJournals.html?Owner=jordanbcool

Jordanbcool
04-11-2006, 06:55 PM
also i'm wondering if for two weeks just do same cals each day, even rest for two weeks. See how much progress you see, then start carb cycling. This way you have a better feeling on home CHO's you need for a good workout, school etc.

Just a thought.

I dunno. Ever since I started taking caffeine and got my hands on some good quality frozen chicken breasts my macros have been textbook perfect. Much better then even I could have imagined! Its amazing how much 14oz of chicken breasts will give you in the protein macros. I think my basic problems are that im simply not being diligent enough with my diet. This week im hitting 2700 four days, 2900 a hard upper body day, and 2500 the remaining two days (ones an SS day and the other a rest day). This *should* work out better then last weeks, because my activity will be the same but my calories will be decreased by 100. I really wished I would have stayed at 2700 from the getgo. That 3 lb drop was just a fluke. Atleast thats what I got from my research. Apparently your first 2 weeks of a cut dont really count because most of the weight gained or lost will be water weight. Depending on how you play around with your macros/calories.

Another question regarding cardio. In everyones opinion what would you rather do? A SS day, HIIT, or evening cardio just before bed? The basic principle is to burn off more then you take in obviously. I just want a consistant cardio that I know im not wasting my time in. I've always heard/read AM cardio is ideal because you burn the most fat. Evening is good to keep your metabolism elevated while you sleep and HIIT is good for the strain it puts on your muscles (so you dont burn them up). Thoughts?

-jordan

Built
04-11-2006, 06:58 PM
With extended SS there's a risk of fast twitch, well, basically learning to act as slow twitch - not good. But a little - say 12 minutes or so, after intense activity can be helpful for active recovery while burning off FFAs mobilized by the intense activity.

HIIT works fast twitch. Might be a good option for a couple of sessions a week.

Jordanbcool
04-11-2006, 07:06 PM
With extended SS there's a risk of fast twitch, well, basically learning to act as slow twitch - not good. But a little - say 12 minutes or so, after intense activity can be helpful for active recovery while burning off FFAs mobilized by the intense activity.

HIIT works fast twitch. Might be a good option for a couple of sessions a week.

KK

Take a looky at my fitday built. I think brickt might take a while to respond. Tell me what you think.

-jordan

brickt.
04-11-2006, 07:13 PM
Ok.

The macros look pretty good, maybe up fats a little and lower protein a little to compensate.

I'd drop all the 'unclean' foods for the moment. Why? Because they are generally LOADED with sodium, which could be making you hold lots of water, and depending on your schedule and activity, your scale weight could be all over the place, every single day.

Stay at 2700~ for the moment, track for two weeks, and don't look at the scale during that time. Report back then.

I woudn't worry, it's generally pretty hard to screw this **** up too much.

Jordanbcool
04-11-2006, 07:18 PM
Ok.

The macros look pretty good, maybe up fats a little and lower protein a little to compensate.

I'd drop all the 'unclean' foods for the moment. Why? Because they are generally LOADED with sodium, which could be making you hold lots of water, and depending on your schedule and activity, your scale weight could be all over the place, every single day.

Stay at 2700~ for the moment, track for two weeks, and don't look at the scale during that time. Report back then.

I woudn't worry, it's generally pretty hard to screw this **** up too much.


I have to do something for those two weeks. If not the scale Im getting a BF% taken. Sorry lol just cant go that long without having some indication of progress.

-jordan

brickt.
04-11-2006, 07:28 PM
2700 will probably be under your maintenance.

Another option is, for the next two weeks, drop your cals down to 2300-2400. Keep your protein and fats HIGH, and drop carbs til you get to there. Train VERY heavy - probably, 3 x 4-6 reps for compounds only. After the two weeks, see how much weight you've lost and up your cals accordingly.

In two weeks you won't lose muscle if your protein is there and you're training heavy.

A second opinion on my opinion is always appreciated ;) (Built, Holto, Pup, Slim)

Jordanbcool
04-11-2006, 08:12 PM
2700 will probably be under your maintenance.

Another option is, for the next two weeks, drop your cals down to 2300-2400. Keep your protein and fats HIGH, and drop carbs til you get to there. Train VERY heavy - probably, 3 x 4-6 reps for compounds only. After the two weeks, see how much weight you've lost and up your cals accordingly.

In two weeks you won't lose muscle if your protein is there and you're training heavy.

A second opinion on my opinion is always appreciated ;) (Built, Holto, Pup, Slim)

O i know its def. under my maintenance. I have no doubt i'll lose weight. Its just what kind of weight and how fast will i lose it. I'd be perfectly fine with just one pound a week.

About the downing my cals. I may try that but like you said. Another opinion would be good. So i know what im getting into.

-jordan

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
04-11-2006, 10:01 PM
You should go on the Twinkie bulk.

ddegroff
04-11-2006, 10:51 PM
2700 will probably be under your maintenance.

Another option is, for the next two weeks, drop your cals down to 2300-2400. Keep your protein and fats HIGH, and drop carbs til you get to there. Train VERY heavy - probably, 3 x 4-6 reps for compounds only. After the two weeks, see how much weight you've lost and up your cals accordingly.

In two weeks you won't lose muscle if your protein is there and you're training heavy.

A second opinion on my opinion is always appreciated ;) (Built, Holto, Pup, Slim)


thats exactly what I did on the begining of my cut. Lost a good 12lbs in 6wks, then I stalled out so i dropped em by 100cals and started to carb cycle. I've been able to add weight on some of the lifts.

Jordanbcool
04-12-2006, 08:12 AM
thats exactly what I did on the begining of my cut. Lost a good 12lbs in 6wks, then I stalled out so i dropped em by 100cals and started to carb cycle. I've been able to add weight on some of the lifts.

Soo drop down to 2300? Sounds good to me, although im going to have to do it tomarrow cus I just ate a buttload of carbs. well see how it works out. Thanks guys.

-jordan

ddegroff
04-12-2006, 08:14 AM
thats really the only difference is the amount of CHO's that you consume. Try it out and see how it works. good luck!

Slim Schaedle
04-12-2006, 08:36 AM
Wow

What a thread.

Reminds me of the good ol days when everyone would argue and you still learned something new and useful every time.

ddegroff
04-12-2006, 08:37 AM
yeah this thread really went full circle.

Holto
04-12-2006, 09:44 AM
Reminds me of the good ol days.

WBB is back. With vets like Built and Slim and folks like Scarz that are in school full time learning the hard science it's a nice mix. Throw in a couple Jordan's to challenge the establishment and bam. E-Learning at it's finest.

Slim Schaedle
04-12-2006, 09:49 AM
WBB is back. With vets like Built and Slim and folks like Scarz that are in school full time learning the hard science it's a nice mix. Throw in a couple Jordan's to challenge the establishment and bam. E-Learning at it's finest.
And to Jordan: as much as anyone gets on you here, your posts are appreciated and definitely gives us reason to stir up the pot and even learn something oursleves.

Keep it up.

Clifford Gillmore
04-12-2006, 10:03 AM
Ugh, I have waay to much to learn.

Built
04-12-2006, 12:18 PM
You and me both, Risk.

Jordon, when you're stalled, you sometimes just need to really shake things up. Two weeks of lower cals, lower carbs, higher fat and protein, SHORT heavy lifting (little or NO cardio) won't hurt you. Try it, see what happens.

Jordanbcool
04-13-2006, 08:21 AM
You and me both, Risk.

Jordon, when you're stalled, you sometimes just need to really shake things up. Two weeks of lower cals, lower carbs, higher fat and protein, SHORT heavy lifting (little or NO cardio) won't hurt you. Try it, see what happens.

Indeed. I worry to much about my weight fluctiation now that I think about it. But hey. Who dosent? No one wants to lose one ounce of muscle, unless your a moron. I just dont want to end up getting my weight goal but not looking good/still being flabby. I work very hard in the weight room, and I know everyone else here does. Once im down to 10% then its a slow bulk for me....Anyways back on topic.

I'm going to finish out this week strong with 2700 cals on lifting/HIIT days. 2500 on rest days and one 2900 day. Next week though (depending on my weight loss) I'll drop it down to 2400ish and go from there. Great advice though from everyone in this thread. Its gone on 6+ pages!!

To slim: Haha. A few jordans :D lol. I'd say I learned most of my knowledge not from this site but from my own research/trial and error. What this site did very well was put 2 and 2 together. For instance. I always knew that it was good to take fish oil on a cut. Why? I never knew. Now I know its because it stops muscle breakdown and saves those pecs from being chalked up.

I also knew eating alot of protein was good but never the exact amount you should be eating. Things like these. Once I found out why, I needed to do them it made my workouts better, my diet more effective and my success much much greater. Everytime someone asks me "Hey i'd like to look good this summer". I tell them three things.

1) Join fitday.com and make an account
2) Join your local gym
3) Join www.wannabebig.com

If you do all three of those. You'll look great.

-jordan

Alex.V
04-13-2006, 09:37 AM
WBB is back. With vets like Built and Slim and folks like Scarz that are in school full time learning the hard science it's a nice mix.

I didn't know alls yous guys were in school for the sciency stuff. Where? What?

Holto
04-13-2006, 10:57 AM
I didn't know alls yous guys were in school for the sciency stuff. Where? What?

Start here:

www.MythAndFiction.com