The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness
Latest Article

The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness

It’s no secret that when people contradict themselves, it has the effect of making the flaws in their actions or statements seem glaringly obvious. But what about when WE ourselves get caught contradicting ourselves by someone else?

By: Nick Tumminello Added: January 6th, 2014
More Recent Articles
Contrast Training for Size
By: Lee Boyce
An Interview with Marianne Kane of Girls Gone Strong
By: Jordan Syatt
What Supplements Should I be Taking? By: Jay Wainwright
Bench Like a Girl By: Julia Ladewski
Some Thoughts on Building a Big Pull By: Christopher Mason

Facebook Join Facebook Group       Twitter Follow on Twitter       rss Subscribe via RSS
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 66

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Always in the Action Severed Ties's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Taj Mahal
    Posts
    0

    Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition

    I've talked about the importance of macronutrients many times on the forum yet some people can't get past the idea of calories in vs calories out. It's not about one or the other but rather utilizing both if you want to get LEAN not THIN.

    This article ties both idea's together beautifully.

    Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition

    By Will Brink© 2003
    When people hear the term Unified Theory, some times called the Grand Unified Theory, or even "Theory of Everything," they probably think of it in terms of physics, where a Unified Theory, or single theory capable of defining the nature of the interrelationships among nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces, would reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of various field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations.
    Such a theory could potentially unlock all the secrets of nature and the universe itself, or as theoretical physicist Michio Katu, puts it "an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God." That's how important unified theories can be. However, unified theories don't have to deal with such heady topics as physics or the nature of the universe itself, but can be applied to far more mundane topics, in this case nutrition.

    Regardless of the topic, a unified theory, as sated above, seeks to explain seemingly incompatible aspects of various theories. In this article I attempt to unify seemingly incompatible or opposing views regarding nutrition, namely, what is probably the longest running debate in the nutritional sciences: calories vs. macro nutrients.

    One school, I would say the 'old school' of nutrition, maintains weight loss or weight gain is all about calories, and "a calorie is a calorie," no matter the source (e.g., carbs, fats, or proteins). They base their position on various lines of evidence to come to that conclusion.

    The other school, I would call more the 'new school' of thought on the issue, would state that gaining or losing weight is really about where the calories come from (e.g., carbs, fats, and proteins), and that dictates weight loss or weight gain. Meaning, they feel, the "calorie is a calorie" mantra of the old school is wrong. They too come to this conclusion using various lines of evidence.

    This has been an ongoing debate between people in the field of nutrition, biology, physiology, and many other disciplines, for decades. The result of which has led to conflicting advice and a great deal of confusion by the general public, not to mention many medical professionals and other groups.

    Before I go any further, two key points that are essential to understand about any unified theory:

    A good unified theory is simple, concise, and understandable even to lay people. However, underneath, or behind that theory, is often a great deal of information that can take up many volumes of books. So, for me to outline all the information I have used to come to these conclusions, would take a large book, if not several and is far beyond the scope of this article.

    A unified theory is often proposed by some theorist before it can even be proven or fully supported by physical evidence. Over time, different lines of evidence, whether it be mathematical, physical, etc., supports the theory and thus solidifies that theory as being correct, or continued lines of evidence shows the theory needs to be revised or is simply incorrect. I feel there is now more than enough evidence at this point to give a unified theory of nutrition and continuing lines of evidence will continue (with some possible revisions) to solidify the theory as fact.
    "A calorie is a calorie"

    The old school of nutrition, which often includes most nutritionists, is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to gaining or losing weight. That weight loss or weight gain is strictly a matter of "calories in, calories out." Translated, if you "burn" more calories than you take in, you will lose weight regardless of the calorie source and if you eat more calories than you burn off each day, you will gain weight, regardless of the calorie source.

    This long held and accepted view of nutrition is based on the fact that protein and carbs contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories per gram and the source of those calories matters not. They base this on the many studies that finds if one reduces calories by X number each day, weight loss is the result and so it goes if you add X number of calories above what you use each day for gaining weight.

    However, the "calories in calories out" mantra fails to take into account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effects on the metabolism via countless pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned.

    Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, etc.

    Translated, not only is the mantra "a calorie us a calorie" proven to be false, "all fats are created equal" or "protein is protein" is also incorrect. For example, we now know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins can have unique effects.

    The "calories don't matter" school of thought

    This school of thought will typically tell you that if you eat large amounts of some particular macro nutrient in their magic ratios, calories don't matter. For example, followers of ketogenic style diets that consist of high fat intakes and very low carbohydrate intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.) often maintain calories don't matter in such a diet.

    Others maintain if you eat very high protein intakes with very low fat and carbohydrate intakes, calories don't matter. Like the old school, this school fails to take into account the effects such diets have on various pathways and ignore the simple realities of human physiology, not to mention the laws of thermodynamics!

    The reality is, although it's clear different macro nutrients in different amounts and ratios have different effects on weight loss, fat loss, and other metabolic effects, calories do matter. They always have and they always will. The data, and real world experience of millions of dieters, is quite clear on that reality.

    The truth behind such diets is that they are often quite good at suppressing appetite and thus the person simply ends up eating fewer calories and losing weight. Also, the weight loss from such diets is often from water vs. fat, at least in the first few weeks. That's not to say people can't experience meaningful weight loss with some of these diets, but the effect comes from a reduction in calories vs. any magical effects often claimed by proponents of such diets.

    Weight loss vs. fat loss!

    This is where we get into the crux of the true debate and why the two schools of thought are not actually as far apart from one another as they appear to the untrained eye. What has become abundantly clear from the studies performed and real world evidence is that to lose weight we need to use more calories than we take in (via reducing calorie intake and or increasing exercise), but we know different diets have different effects on the metabolism, appetite, body composition, and other physiological variables...

    Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition

    ...Thus, this reality has led me to Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition which states:

    "Total calories dictates how much weight a person gains or loses;
    macro nutrient ratios dictates what a person gains or loses"

    This seemingly simple statement allows people to understand the differences between the two schools of thought. For example, studies often find that two groups of people put on the same calorie intakes but very different ratios of carbs, fats, and proteins will lose different amounts of bodyfat and or lean body mass (i.e., muscle, bone, etc.).

    Some studies find for example people on a higher protein lower carb diet lose approximately the same amount of weight as another group on a high carb lower protein diet, but the group on the higher protein diet lost more actual fat and less lean body mass (muscle). Or, some studies using the same calorie intakes but different macro nutrient intakes often find the higher protein diet may lose less actual weight than the higher carb lower protein diets, but the actual fat loss is higher in the higher protein low carb diets. This effect has also been seen in some studies that compared high fat/low carb vs. high carb/low fat diets. The effect is usually amplified if exercise is involved as one might expect.

    Of course these effects are not found universally in all studies that examine the issue, but the bulk of the data is clear: diets containing different macro nutrient ratios do have different effects on human physiology even when calorie intakes are identical (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11).

    Or, as the authors of one recent study that looked at the issue concluded:

    "Diets with identical energy contents can have different effects on leptin concentrations, energy expenditure, voluntary food intake, and nitrogen balance, suggesting that the physiologic adaptations to energy restriction can be modified by dietary composition."(12)

    The point being, there are many studies confirming that the actual ratio of carbs, fats, and proteins in a given diet can effect what is actually lost (i.e., fat, muscle, bone, and water) and that total calories has the greatest effect on how much total weight is lost. Are you starting to see how my unified theory of nutrition combines the "calorie is a calorie" school with the "calories don't matter" school to help people make decisions about nutrition?

    Knowing this, it becomes much easier for people to understand the seemingly conflicting diet and nutrition advice out there (of course this does not account for the down right unscientific and dangerous nutrition advice people are subjected to via bad books, TV, the 'net, and well meaning friends, but that's another article altogether).

    Knowing the above information and keeping the Unified Theory of Nutrition in mind, leads us to some important and potentially useful conclusions:

    An optimal diet designed to make a person lose fat and retain as much LBM as possible is not the same as a diet simply designed to lose weight.

    A nutrition program designed to create fat loss is not simply a reduced calorie version of a nutrition program designed to gain weight, and visa versa.

    Diets need to be designed with fat loss, NOT just weight loss, as the goal, but total calories can't be ignored.

    This is why the diets I design for people-or write about-for gaining or losing weight are not simply higher or lower calorie versions of the same diet. In short: diets plans I design for gaining LBM start with total calories and build macro nutrient ratios into the number of calories required. However, diets designed for fat loss (vs. weight loss!) start with the correct macro nutrient ratios that depend on variables such as amount of LBM the person carries vs. bodyfat percent , activity levels, etc., and figure out calories based on the proper macro nutrient ratios to achieve fat loss with a minimum loss of LBM. The actual ratio of macro nutrients can be quite different for both diets and even for individuals.

    Diets that give the same macro nutrient ratio to all people (e.g., 40/30/30, or 70,30,10, etc.) regardless of total calories, goals, activity levels, etc., will always be less than optimal. Optimal macro nutrient ratios can change with total calories and other variables.

    Perhaps most important, the unified theory explains why the focus on weight loss vs. fat loss by the vast majority of people, including most medical professionals, and the media, will always fail in the long run to deliver the results people want.

    Finally, the Universal Theory makes it clear that the optimal diet for losing fat, or gaining muscle, or what ever the goal, must account not only for total calories, but macro nutrient ratios that optimize metabolic effects and answer the questions: what effects will this diet have on appetite? What effects will this diet have on metabolic rate? What effects will this diet have on my lean body mass (LBM)? What effects will this diet have on hormones; both hormones that may improve or impede my goals? What effects will this diet have on (fill in the blank)?

    Simply asking, "how much weight will I lose?" is the wrong question which will lead to the wrong answer. To get the optimal effects from your next diet, whether looking to gain weight or lose it, you must ask the right questions to get meaningful answers.

    Asking the right questions will also help you avoid the pitfalls of unscientific poorly thought out diets which make promises they can't keep and go against what we know about human physiology and the very laws of physics!
    People that want to know my thoughts on the correct way to lose fat should read my ebook Diet Supplements Revealed,
    If you want to know my thoughts on the best way to set up a diet to gain weight in the form of muscle while minimizing bodyfat, consider reading my ebook Muscle Building Nutrition (AKA Brink's Bodybuilding Bible) BTW, both ebooks also cover supplements for their respective goals along with exercise advice.

    There are of course many additional questions that can be asked and points that can be raised as it applies to the above, but those are some of the key issues that come to mind. Bottom line here is, if the diet you are following to either gain or loss weight does not address those issues and or questions, then you can count on being among the millions of disappointed people who don't receive the optimal results they had hoped for and have made yet another nutrition "guru" laugh all the way to the bank at your expense.

    Any diet that claims calories don't matter, forget it. Any diet that tells you they have a magic ratio of foods, ignore it. Any diet that tells you any one food source is evil, it's a scam. Any diet that tells you it will work for all people all the time no matter the circumstances, throw it out or give it to someone you don't like!

    About the Author - William D. Brink

    Will Brink is a columnist, contributing consultant, and writer for various health/fitness, medical, and bodybuilding publications. His articles relating to nutrition, supplements, weight loss, exercise and medicine can be found in such publications as Lets Live, Muscle Media 2000, MuscleMag International, The Life Extension Magazine, Muscle n Fitness, Inside Karate, Exercise For Men Only, Body International, Power, Oxygen, Penthouse, Women’s World and The Townsend Letter For Doctors. He is the author of Priming The Anabolic Environment and Weight Loss Nutrients Revealed. He is the Consulting Sports Nutrition Editor and a monthly columnist for Physical magazine and an Editor at Large for Power magazine. Will graduated from Harvard University with a concentration in the natural sciences, and is a consultant to major supplement, dairy, and pharmaceutical companies.

    He has been co author of several studies relating to sports nutrition and health found in peer reviewed academic journals, as well as having commentary published in JAMA. He runs the highly popular web site BrinkZone.com which is strategically positioned to fulfill the needs and interests of people with diverse backgrounds and knowledge. The BrinkZone site has a following with many sports nutrition enthusiasts, athletes, fitness professionals, scientists, medical doctors, nutritionists, and interested lay people. William has been invited to lecture on the benefits of weight training and nutrition at conventions and symposiums around the U.S. and Canada, and has appeared on numerous radio and television programs.

    William has worked with athletes ranging from professional bodybuilders, golfers, fitness contestants, to police and military personnel.

    He can be contacted at: PO Box 812430
    Wellesley MA. 02482.
    Email: wbrink@earthlink.net



    Article References:

    (1) Farnsworth E, Luscombe ND, Noakes M, Wittert G, Argyiou E, Clifton PM. Effect of a high-protein, energy-restricted diet on body composition, glycemic control, and lipid concentrations in overweight and obese hyperinsulinemic men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jul;78(1):31-9.

    (2) Baba NH, Sawaya S, Torbay N, Habbal Z, Azar S, Hashim SA. High protein vs high carbohydrate hypoenergetic diet for the treatment of obese hyperinsulinemic subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 Nov;23(11):1202-6.

    (3) Parker B, Noakes M, Luscombe N, Clifton P. Effect of a high-protein, high-monounsaturated fat weight loss diet on glycemic control and lipid levels in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002 Mar;25(3):425-30.

    (4) Skov AR, Toubro S, Ronn B, Holm L, Astrup A.Randomized trial on protein vs carbohydrate in ad libitum fat reduced diet for the treatment of obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 May;23(5):528-36.

    (5) Piatti PM, Monti F, Fermo I, Baruffaldi L, Nasser R, Santambrogio G, Librenti MC, Galli-Kienle M, Pontiroli AE, Pozza G. Hypocaloric high-protein diet improves glucose oxidation and spares lean body mass: comparison to hypocaloric high-carbohydrate diet. Metabolism. 1994 Dec;43(12):1481-7.

    (6) Layman DK, Boileau RA, Erickson DJ, Painter JE, Shiue H, Sather C, Christou DD. A reduced ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein improves body composition and blood lipid profiles during weight loss in adult women. J Nutr. 2003 Feb;133(2):411-7.

    (7) Golay A, Eigenheer C, Morel Y, Kujawski P, Lehmann T, de Tonnac N. Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1996 Dec;20(12):1067-72.

    (8) Meckling KA, Gauthier M, Grubb R, Sanford J. Effects of a hypocaloric, low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, blood lipids, blood pressure, glucose tolerance, and body composition in free-living overweight women. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2002 Nov;80(11):1095-105.

    (9) Borkman M, Campbell LV, Chisholm DJ, Storlien LH. Comparison of the effects on insulin sensitivity of high carbohydrate and high fat diets in normal subjects. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1991 Feb;72(2):432-7.

    (10) Brehm BJ, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D'Alessio DA. A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Apr;88(4):1617-23.

    (11) Garrow JS, Durrant M, Blaza S, Wilkins D, Royston P, Sunkin S. The effect of meal frequency and protein concentration on the composition of the weight lost by obese subjects. Br J Nutr. 1981 Jan;45(1):5-15.

    (12) Agus MS, Swain JF, Larson CL, Eckert EA, Ludwig DS. Dietary composition and physiologic adaptations to energy restriction.Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Apr;71(4):901-7.
    "Your bench makes Jesus cry." -Shark

    This is 10% luck, 15% skill, 20% concentrated power of will, 5% pleasure and 50% pain, and 100% reason to remember the name...

  2.    Support Wannabebig and use AtLarge Nutrition Supplements!


  3. #2
    Journalist galileo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    9,289
    I haven't yet read it, but Lyle McDonald has commented on such -

    Quote Originally Posted by lylemcd
    I've seen folks like Berardi, I think Brink and Krieder reference it to support all manners of idiotic claims. Krieder used it to claim that low GI was more protein sparing, nevermind that the low GI group had more total protein.

    Berardi misinterpreted it completely, said that one group lost more fat (the study only looked at weight changes), etc.

    In Will's 'Unified theory of nutrition' where he makes claims about a calorie not being a calorie, I'm fairly sure that EVERY study he references is comparing low and high protein intakes. This is fairly common.

  4. #3
    Always in the Action Severed Ties's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Taj Mahal
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by galileo
    I haven't yet read it, but Lyle McDonald has commented on such - I'm fairly sure that EVERY study he references is comparing low and high protein intakes.
    Lyle should look at what he's referencing before commenting.

    Max-Mex- Agree this not info for newbies as people need to get a handle on total caloric first but I think we need some advanced discussion now and again.


    This caught my eye as well....

    New data supports Low glycemic diet

    Public release date: 26-Aug-2004
    [ Print This Article | Close This Window ]

    Contact: Bess Andrews
    elizabeth.andrews@childrens.harvard.edu
    617-355-6420
    Children's Hospital Boston

    New data validate the low-glycemic diet
    Recruits sought for large human trial of 'atkins alternative'
    A carefully controlled animal study provides clear evidence that a low-glycemic-index (low-GI) diet – one whose carbohydrates are low in sugar or release sugar slowly – can lead to weight loss, reduced body fat, and reduction in risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
    "The study findings should give impetus to large-scale trials of low-GI diets in humans," says senior author David Ludwig, MD, PhD, director of the Optimal Weight for Life (OWL) obesity program at Children's Hospital Boston. His group's findings appear in the August 28th issue of The Lancet.

    Many studies, including small studies in humans, have suggested that low-GI diets are beneficial, but due to study design, the observed benefits could have come from other aspects of the subjects' diets, such as fiber or overall caloric intake. For this reason, no major health agency or professional association references glycemic index in their dietary guidelines, Ludwig says.

    In the current study, rats were fed tightly controlled diets with identical nutrients, except for the type of starch. Both diets were 69 percent carbohydrates, but 11 rats were randomly assigned to a high-GI starch and 10 to a low-GI starch. Food portions were controlled to maintain the same average body weight in the two groups.

    At follow-up, the high-GI group had 71 percent more body fat and 8 percent less lean body mass than the low-GI group, despite very similar body weights. The fat in the high-GI group was concentrated in the trunk area, conferring "the apple shape as opposed to the pear shape," Ludwig says. (Having an apple shape is a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease in humans.)

    The high-GI group also had significantly greater increases in blood glucose and insulin levels on an oral glucose tolerance test, and far more abnormalities in the pancreatic islet cells that make insulin, all changes that occur in diabetes. Finally, the high-GI group had blood triglyceride levels nearly three times that of the low-GI group, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease.

    In a further experiment, rats were randomly assigned to one of the two diets, and, at week 7, were crossed over to the alternate diet for another 3 weeks. Rats that switched from a low to high GI diet showed greater increases in blood glucose and insulin than rats that were switched from high to low GI. Finally, 24 mice were randomly assigned to the low- or hi-GI diet. At week 9, the high-GI group had 93 percent more body fat than mice on the low-GI diet.

    "What the study shows is that glycemic index is an independent factor that can have dramatic effects on the major chronic diseases plaguing developed nations – obesity, diabetes, and heart disease," says Ludwig. "This is the first study with hard endpoints that can definitively identify glycemic index as the active dietary factor."

    Unlike the popular Atkins diet, which seeks to minimize carbohydrate intake, the low-GI diet makes distinctions among carbs. It avoids high glycemic-index foods, such as white bread, refined breakfast cereals, and concentrated sugars, which are rapidly digested and raise blood glucose and insulin to high levels. Instead, it emphasizes carbohydrates that release sugar more slowly, including whole grains, most fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes.

    "The Atkins diet tries to get rid of all carbohydrates, which we think is excessively restrictive," says Ludwig. "You don't have to go to this extreme if you pay attention to the glycemic index and choose low-GI carbs."


    ###
    Children's Hospital Boston is now recruiting adult subjects for a large-scale, 18-month human study of the low-GI diet. Subjects will receive comprehensive dietary and behavioral counseling in individual and group sessions that will enable them to put low-GI diets into effect. To enroll, subjects must be overweight, 18 to 35 years old, and motivated to attend weekly sessions for four months and return for follow-up through 18 months. People interested in enrolling should contact Erica Garcia-Lago at 617-355-2500.

    Children's Hospital Boston is the nation's leading pediatric medical center, the largest provider of health care to Massachusetts' children, and the primary pediatric teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School. Children's provides pediatric and adolescent health services for patients from birth through age 21. In addition to 325 inpatient beds and comprehensive outpatient programs, it houses the world's largest research enterprise based at a pediatric medical center. More than 500 scientists, including eight members of the National Academy of Sciences, nine members of the Institute of Medicine and 10 members of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute comprise Children's research community
    "Your bench makes Jesus cry." -Shark

    This is 10% luck, 15% skill, 20% concentrated power of will, 5% pleasure and 50% pain, and 100% reason to remember the name...

  5. #4
    !!! TTT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Severed Ties
    ........
    .....................

    This caught my eye as well....

    New data supports Low glycemic diet

    Public release date: 26-Aug-2004
    [ Print This Article | Close This Window ]

    Contact: Bess Andrews
    elizabeth.andrews@childrens.harvard.edu
    617-355-6420
    Children's Hospital Boston

    New data validate the low-glycemic diet
    Recruits sought for large human trial of 'atkins alternative'
    A carefully controlled animal study provides clear evidence that a low-glycemic-index (low-GI) diet – one whose carbohydrates are low in sugar or release sugar slowly – can lead to weight loss, reduced body fat, and reduction in risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
    "The study findings should give impetus to large-scale trials of low-GI diets in humans," says senior author David Ludwig, MD, PhD, director of the Optimal Weight for Life (OWL) obesity program at Children's Hospital Boston. His group's findings appear in the August 28th issue of The Lancet.

    Many studies, including small studies in humans, have suggested that low-GI diets are beneficial, but due to study design, the observed benefits could have come from other aspects of the subjects' diets, such as fiber or overall caloric intake. For this reason, no major health agency or professional association references glycemic index in their dietary guidelines, Ludwig says.

    In the current study, rats were fed tightly controlled diets with identical nutrients, except for the type of starch. Both diets were 69 percent carbohydrates, but 11 rats were randomly assigned to a high-GI starch and 10 to a low-GI starch. Food portions were controlled to maintain the same average body weight in the two groups. ..................................................................................................
    Good posts, ST. Interesting read - thanks.

    I don't like this part of the second experiment though (highlighted in bold) - looks a bit dodgy to me.
    Last edited by TTT; 02-19-2005 at 06:46 PM.

  6. #5
    Always in the Action Severed Ties's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Taj Mahal
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by TTT
    Good posts, ST. Interesting read - thanks.

    I don't like this part of the second experiment though (highlighted in bold) - looks a bit dodgy to me.

    TTT- the highlighted part is the most critical part of the study. The food portions need to be controlled to measure if there is any significant difference between the rats being fed hi-GI and low GI diets. It is definitly odd that the researchers choose to feed them a caloric intake to maintain the same average bodyweight but if you go to the full study I'd be very interested to see if the lo-GI group was feed more calories per day to maintain there weight or if there were any changes in fat to LBM ratio's. I agree the reseachers choose an odd way to go about it as a fixed diet for both groups seems logical.

    ST
    "Your bench makes Jesus cry." -Shark

    This is 10% luck, 15% skill, 20% concentrated power of will, 5% pleasure and 50% pain, and 100% reason to remember the name...

  7. #6
    En botella whey! Max-Mex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Dorchester, MA
    Posts
    4,808
    Good read ST. However, I think people get so obsessed with macros they totally forget that total calorie consumption is just as important. Generally when people on this board post about not being able to gain/lose weight, more often that not they are taking in too much or not enough calories. I think once people get calorie intake settled, then macros will help tweak weight loss/gain more.
    Burritos are the bomb for bulking!
    My Food Journal


    PB's&Goals

    Deadlift: PR 1@440, Goal 1@450
    Squat: PR 1@375, Goal 1@400
    Bench: PR 2@275, Goal 1@300

  8. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    White Rock, B.C.
    Posts
    3,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Severed Ties
    However, the "calories in calories out" mantra fails to take into account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effects on the metabolism via countless pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned.

    Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, etc.

    Translated, not only is the mantra "a calorie us a calorie" proven to be false, "all fats are created equal" or "protein is protein" is also incorrect. For example, we now know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins can have unique effects.
    I think this guy is bang-on. I'm not sure how one could refute any of the above.

  9. #8
    is numero uno Saint Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    6,557
    Bump

  10. #9
    Lurking lilmase1153's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    In the Gym
    Posts
    4,546
    damn good read ST
    PRs
    bp-295x2, 225x15 squat-405x3
    height 5'2 weight 140lbs

    All hail mase, the king of homosexual reference. - xian
    Pfffff. I've had jerk off sessions more intense than that workout. StackAttack in reference to CanadianCripplers w/o

    Fuzzy Pics 6/07 http://wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=98659

  11. #10
    Banned spencerjrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Americas Crappiest City
    Posts
    15
    So basically to summarize "Your body can tell the difference between different kinds of foods regardless of identical calorie counts."

    Wow I never would have thought of that on my own. If articles like this are all it takes to be a leading researcher in your field I should go work at NASA. Honestly if I'm missing something here please point it out and I will gladly apologize for my sarcasm but from reading the article I don't see any information you couldnt get from asking a room full of kindergarten students.
    Last edited by spencerjrus; 02-18-2005 at 12:33 PM.

  12. #11
    putting in work Roark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,441
    this interests me. i'll be coming off my first true "bulk" in about 2.75 more pounds.

    i'm hoping to figure out the best way to maintain the muscle while losing fat.

  13. #12
    Senior Member smalls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by spencerjrus
    So basically to summarize "Your body can tell the difference between different kinds of foods regardless of identical calorie counts."

    Wow I never would have thought of that on my own. If articles like this are all it takes to be a leading researcher in your field I should go work at NASA. Honestly if I'm missing something here please point it out and I will gladly apologize for my sarcasm but from reading the article I don't see any information you couldnt get from asking a room full of kindergarten students.
    LOL, this topic has been debated back and forth many times on this site, ST was posting a well written article explaining his point of view. It discussed the topic a little more in depth then "your body telling the difference between different kinds of foods." Also the author is not a leading researcher in the nutrition field.

    Edit: cuz I dont wanna get banned.
    Last edited by smalls; 02-18-2005 at 02:02 PM.
    Diet is key, the calorie is king

    "Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be."
    --Abraham Lincoln

    "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
    Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination
    alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."
    Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933)
    30th U.S. President

    "If you want to look abnormal you have to eat abnormal,lol."--ST

  14. #13
    IS THIS THING ON?
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by spencerjrus
    So basically to summarize "Your body can tell the difference between different kinds of foods regardless of identical calorie counts."

    Wow I never would have thought of that on my own. If articles like this are all it takes to be a leading researcher in your field I should go work at NASA. Honestly if I'm missing something here please point it out and I will gladly apologize for my sarcasm but from reading the article I don't see any information you couldnt get from asking a room full of kindergarten students.
    Then go ask a room full of kindergarten kids and see what answers you get. I have had a bunch of PhD level researchers tell me at conferences how much they like that article, but clearly, you are more advanced then any of them or myself.

  15. #14
    260(-62) from 193 from 275
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Oshawa-->Toronto
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by WillBrink
    Then go ask a room full of kindergarten kids and see what answers you get. I have had a bunch of PhD level researchers tell me at conferences how much they like that article, but clearly, you are more advanced then any of them or myself.
    Wow. How unprofessional of you. If you are who you claim to be.

    The Fitness Industry is a 1 billion dollar industry.
    --Dairy Queens Blizzard pulls in 3/4 of a billion.
    --------------We are the elite.------------

  16. #15
    IS THIS THING ON?
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Holto
    Wow. How unprofessional of you.
    How so? Can't deal with it when a person defends themselves after some person makes insulitng (and incorrect) comments? Professionalism does not = accepting insults from people. Deal with it.

  17. #16
    Moderator Adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    5,720
    Thanks for the bump St. P
    Best Meet @ Lifts@181:...............Best gym lifts
    Squat...- 403..........................Squat....- 395 w/belt
    Bench...- 303..........................Bench....- 300....Paused in meet - 281
    Deadlift.- 503.....Unofficial 513...Deadlift..- 490
    Total....- 1,203...IPF Class II......All done raw, Touch'n go bench

    "Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly" Robert F. Kennedy

    "A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he gives up"

    "However beautiful the strategy you should occasionally look at the results" John Berardi

    Powerlifting Westside Style

  18. #17
    Moderator Adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    5,720
    Did anyone read this book? 'Muscle Building Nutrition'
    Best Meet @ Lifts@181:...............Best gym lifts
    Squat...- 403..........................Squat....- 395 w/belt
    Bench...- 303..........................Bench....- 300....Paused in meet - 281
    Deadlift.- 503.....Unofficial 513...Deadlift..- 490
    Total....- 1,203...IPF Class II......All done raw, Touch'n go bench

    "Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly" Robert F. Kennedy

    "A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he gives up"

    "However beautiful the strategy you should occasionally look at the results" John Berardi

    Powerlifting Westside Style

  19. #18
    Lurking lilmase1153's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    In the Gym
    Posts
    4,546
    no adam but after reading this i think i will have to pick it up..
    PRs
    bp-295x2, 225x15 squat-405x3
    height 5'2 weight 140lbs

    All hail mase, the king of homosexual reference. - xian
    Pfffff. I've had jerk off sessions more intense than that workout. StackAttack in reference to CanadianCripplers w/o

    Fuzzy Pics 6/07 http://wannabebigforums.com/showthread.php?t=98659

  20. #19
    Administrator chris mason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    12,607
    Has anyone ever seen Will Brink? The guy is a chubby little man who doesn't look like he trains or has any clue about nutrition.

    When someone is supposed to be a guru they had better practice what they preach or I have a very hard time buying into their ideas (assuming they are able to practice it---i.e. not physically handicapped etc.). I might otherwise assume the lack of drive which allows themselves to look like a slob (if they are a fitness guy or gal) might just translate into their work and thus their work might be the result of a haphazard work ethic.

    My 2 cents.


    AtLarge Nutrition Supplements – Get the best supplements and help support Wannabebig!

  21. #20
    newbie Beef101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    58
    very interesting read, i can see articles like these will come in handy in my future studies.

  22. #21
    Meathead Philosopher Pup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    6,793
    Quote Originally Posted by chris mason
    Has anyone ever seen Will Brink? The guy is a chubby little man who doesn't look like he trains or has any clue about nutrition.
    I don't think that this is ever a decent premise for an argument about someone's knowledge base regarding exercise or nutrition. An individual may be a researcher in a lab or research the pubmed articles like the Avant Labs guys do, this doesn't necessarily make them stupid or their information unworthy or stupid because they don't necessarily "look the part". Guys like John Berardi are special cases...John is an athlete who just happens to hold a PhD, this Will Brink may just be someone interested in the field and done research on the subject.

    Case in point: when PowermanDL first came to WBB, i recall you hating him with a passion because some 160lb guy certainly couldn't know anything worthwhile about powerlifting, olympic lifting or exercise physiology in general. But in fact, he turned out to be pretty spot on with a good deal of his stuff, has written articles for mindandmuscle magazine (a good online magazine imo) and was even a moderator here that helped a good many people with their training.

    A man's physical stature does not always define the quality of his intellect.
    May you be in heaven an hour before the devil knows you're dead.

  23. #22
    IS THIS THING ON?
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by chris mason
    Has anyone ever seen Will Brink? The guy is a chubby little man who doesn't look like he trains or has any clue about nutrition.
    Is that right?

    http://brinkzone.com/gallery.php?gcatid=13

    Top pics are how I look now at 41. Bottom left pic is me in my 20s. I was 5'7" and apprx 205bs at 8-9% BF. No, I am not exactly going to challange anyone for the My Olympia, but I have done the est I can with the genetics I was born with.
    Last edited by cphafner; 07-24-2006 at 06:44 PM.

  24. #23
    Moderator Adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    5,720
    I saw a pic taken from far away.
    He sure didn't seem to have a bodybuilders build.
    I like the information posted above though, its similar to Berardi's(and he has a great physique) and I've been using his advice for the last 12 months with tremendous results.
    Best Meet @ Lifts@181:...............Best gym lifts
    Squat...- 403..........................Squat....- 395 w/belt
    Bench...- 303..........................Bench....- 300....Paused in meet - 281
    Deadlift.- 503.....Unofficial 513...Deadlift..- 490
    Total....- 1,203...IPF Class II......All done raw, Touch'n go bench

    "Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly" Robert F. Kennedy

    "A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he gives up"

    "However beautiful the strategy you should occasionally look at the results" John Berardi

    Powerlifting Westside Style

  25. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    ME, USA
    Posts
    556
    Yeah, good stuff. Makes sense.

  26. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    White Rock, B.C.
    Posts
    3,664
    I guess Lyle McDonald's not very credible either then eh Chris?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •