Cal Countdown Milk & Insulin Response

Nutrition
82

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
I think the discussion of meat:milk protein is not as meaningless as peanut:almonds.

that’s a great opinion you have there. but then again, you know what they say about opinions…

BulletproofTiger wrote:
With that said, I don’t think a diet should be based solely on milk protein. Nothing specific I can state, but from a conservatism stand point, there is nothing in nutrition that should be taken to extremes, barring short term body recomp.

I’m having a hard time understanding your point. I never advocated a milk protein only diet.

But if milk protein elevates insulin (which it does, along with BCAAs by the way) and elevating insulin throughout the day is bad for body composition (which you and others seem to believe)

Then logically, a diet based ENTIRELY on milk protein (e.g. the V-Diet) should, according to you, be BAD for body composition. Guess what…it isn’t.

Have I made my point, or should I continue?

Re-read what I wrote homeslice… I said barring short term body recomp. Is V-diet effective? - undoubtedly. Healthy long-term? - unknown. I’m stating that the V-diet is not intended to be used indefinitely. With all nutrition concepts, just taking a conservative approach is usually the best balance between health and objectives.[/quote]

I’m sorry but I cannot continue arguing with someone who refuses to stick to the topic at hand.

nobody is arguing the merits of short term extreme diets

nobody is arguing against moderate approaches.

Once and for all: “Milk should not be excluded from a diet based solely on the fact that it causes an insulin response.”

Now, do you agree or disagree with the above statement?

83

I agree that milk should not be excluded from a diet based solely on the fact that it causes an insulin response. It’s not for everyone though due to the lactose, but that’s another consideration that somebody must make.

Cows milk protein is also a common food alergen but I think that instance is still pretty low like 1% or something.

The rise in insulin from milk isn’t a horrible thing and many of the specific amino acids (leucine, valine, isoleucine, lysine, and possibly phenyklananine) that cause the insulin spike also have an effect of increasing insulin sensitivity and lowering fasted blood glucose, which are good things.

I argued with the fact that you said “you and others seem to believe… elevating insulin throughout the day is bad for body composition,” which I did not say. Go ahead and quote me where I said that, or something I said implied that.

Second, the post is about the insulin response to Hood Calorie Countdown. I appear to have stuck to the topic at hand as I answered the question.

84

I see. If I misunderstood you than my mistake. I shouldn’t have lumped you in with the others (toocul4u). I don’t disagree with much you wrote there.

85

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:

And this has been my point from the very beginning. Focusing on the insulin response (or lack thereof) is missing the point.

Your body comp will be determined primarily by your calorie surplus/deficit. Then, below that are issues with macronutrients (basically, are you eating enough protein).

Then below that(MUCH below) are issues with nutrient timing (eating carbs and protein around your workout is about all you can do to optimize this) and finally, issues with individual food sub-types (e.g. sweet potatos vs white potatos, peanut butter vs. almond butter) are completely meaningless.

[/quote]

It really takes deeper thinking and understanding of the human body and it’s physiology and biochemistry to get past the small thinking you’ve written here. It is tough to get past the “calorie in = calorie out” principle, and it’s tough to not default the human body’s metabolism to the 1st law of thermodynamics, which is what you’re doing here. So I don’t completely blame you for missing the boat, because it’s more complex than you can grasp at this stage i guess.

I’d be curious what some of the experts on this site have to say about some of the things you’ve just written here.

86

[quote]toocul4u wrote:
It really takes deeper thinking and understanding of the human body and it’s physiology and biochemistry to get past the small thinking you’ve written here. It is tough to get past the “calorie in = calorie out” principle, and it’s tough to not default the human body’s metabolism to the 1st law of thermodynamics, which is what you’re doing here. So I don’t completely blame you for missing the boat, because it’s more complex than you can grasp at this stage i guess.

I’d be curious what some of the experts on this site have to say about some of the things you’ve just written here.[/quote]

All you’ve said so far is “it’s more complex than you can understand.”

Ok, suppose that it is. Perhaps you can break it down for us then. Go ahead, disprove the calories in/calories out equation. Scientific references would be appriciated.

As always, I look forward to hearing from you.

87

[quote]First JMoUCF87 wrote: I pull my knowledge from many individuals. Among them are:

…John Berardi (yes Mr. “a calorie is not a calorie” himself)

[quote]Then JMoUCF87 wrote:
Go ahead, disprove the calories in/calories out equation. Scientific references would be appriciated.

As always, I look forward to hearing from you.[/quote]

You seem to contradict yourself. So we can understand what you want us to try and give scientific explanation for, please explain if you mean that a calorie is not a calorie philosophy A) is bogus, B) the importance of which is overhplayed WRT normal training, C) the importance of which is overhplayed WRT body recomp.

I look forward to hearing from you.

88

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
toocul4u wrote:
It really takes deeper thinking and understanding of the human body and it’s physiology and biochemistry to get past the small thinking you’ve written here. It is tough to get past the “calorie in = calorie out” principle, and it’s tough to not default the human body’s metabolism to the 1st law of thermodynamics, which is what you’re doing here.

So I don’t completely blame you for missing the boat, because it’s more complex than you can grasp at this stage i guess.

I’d be curious what some of the experts on this site have to say about some of the things you’ve just written here.

All you’ve said so far is “it’s more complex than you can understand.”

Ok, suppose that it is. Perhaps you can break it down for us then. Go ahead, disprove the calories in/calories out equation. Scientific references would be appriciated.

As always, I look forward to hearing from you.[/quote]

I don’t suppose, I know. That’s why any of us trying to explain this to you probably won’t work. I’ve done the reading and the finding of knowledge myself, and I think you should do the same. If I hand feed the knowledge to you, there’s little chance you’ll care any more than you do now.

But if you really care about understanding, and not just about arguing, then YOU will do the work to understand the intricacies. otherwise, keep arguing just because you like argument

89

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
First JMoUCF87 wrote: I pull my knowledge from many individuals. Among them are:

…John Berardi (yes Mr. “a calorie is not a calorie” himself)

Then JMoUCF87 wrote:
Go ahead, disprove the calories in/calories out equation. Scientific references would be appriciated.

As always, I look forward to hearing from you.

You seem to contradict yourself. So we can understand what you want us to try and give scientific explanation for, please explain if you mean that a calorie is not a calorie philosophy A) is bogus, B) the importance of which is overhplayed WRT normal training, C) the importance of which is overhplayed WRT body recomp.

I look forward to hearing from you.

[/quote]

If i seem to contradict myself, I apologize. I will (once again) try to make my stance crystal clear (although no matte how clear I try to make it, some seem to hear only what they want to)

As far as body composition is concerned, the one single factor that determines if one will gain or lose weight is calorie balance. You MUST be in a surplus to gain fat, and you MUST be in a deficit to lose it (there is one exception to this that comes to mind, but I won’t address it right now).

Now, as far as determining what TYPE of weight is lost (i.e. fat or muscle) that is primarily, ~80% or so, genetically determined (although it can be altered greatly by the use of pharmaceuticals)

The main thing we can do nutritionally to influence where calories go when we eat them (muscle gain vs fat gain) is by:

  1. ensuring sufficient protein intake: too little, and you lose too much muscle on a diet, and gain too much fat in a surplus

  2. ensuring sufficient micronutrient intake: I always say its a good idea to eat lots of fruits and veggies and take 3g of EPA+DHA per day

  3. ensuring one is in a fed state during weight training: this means not lifting weights on an empty stomach. make sure you have carbs+protein around training, nothing fancy either, chocolate milk works great. As does a tuna sandwich (eaten maybe 1-1.5 hours pre-workout).

That’s it. To recap: eat enough calories for your goal, eat enough protein, eat fruits and veggies, have carbs+protein around your workout.

Notice that I didn’t say anything about avoiding processed foods, or avoiding HFCS, or avoiding carbs at any time during the day/night, or avoiding dairy, or any other stupid made up bodybuilding myth that gets perpetuated on fitness message boards.

I think I’ll save this post for future reference. Copy & paste could save me a ton of time …

90

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:

  1. what works for you will work for someone else, you are not as special as you think

  2. if you were diabetic, you would have mentioned it in the original post, because you did not, I assumed (correctly, i might add) you were not diabetic

3)regulating blood sugar levels have little if anything to do with body composition. it has everything to do with regulating blood sugar levels. if regulating blood sugar levels is your goal, awesome.

I completely agree with #1, I never did like that argument.

However, #3 couldn’t be further from the truth.[/quote]

How do you know? What reading have you done, apart from every article on this site (and the other normal literature being biased Taubes esque shit) that makes you think that you are qualified and absolutely correct in making that statement and just saying he is flat out wrong as so many people here have?

It’s just the bro consensus around here and supports the low carb mantra sold by the products. Which I do like and enjoy. But seriously. Read Lyle’s site and the other guys recommnded. Read the books and resources linked. Science. Real. At least a little perspective if only from an opposing view. Guaranteed to blow your mind.

This is the main thing that bothers me with this thread. Not that I entirely disagree with a lot of what is being said, just the attitudes towards the information being presented.

I only get really pissed over this stuff when it’s like the thread about the guy’s mom and cholesterol- people giving information/advice that could legit hurt someone. Not really the case here but certainly worth discussing intelligently and openly.

91

Pretty much every point JMO has argued in this thread has been supported by science on his side, and those opposing are, IMO, clinging to bro-ology. “Carbs and insulin are bad, I heard it from science”. Come on.

Some people certainly do better on low carbs, and some people have shit insulin sensitivity for sure, and it should be a consideration in diet. But low carb has no magical effect on fat storage either. And telling everyone to automatically eat low carb is just fucking stupid, especially when that recommendation usually comes with intaking ridiculous amounts of calories.

Insulin stores fat, carbs can be stored as fat from de novo lipogenesis (which is very inefficient but made more efficient by high carb intake), everything spikes insulin, eating stores fat and fat gets oxidized between meals, and the big picture is that at the end of the day the body will make up for whatever you do and use the calories efficiently.

I like the general guideline set, to get a fuckton of protein and varying fat and carbs depending on your goals and individual factors including training. Insulin is a consideration but isn’t magical or a good excuse to automatically rally against carbs for your entire life without looking into the possibilities or reasons for shit,

which I think should be a prerequisite for actively participating and making a point of insulting people and telling them they are wrong, even if they come across poorly.

92

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
rrjc5488 wrote:

Lets say my maintenance calorie intake is 3000 calories.

If I eat 2900 calories of Surge, cookies, milk, candy, whatever, with X grams of protein, I will get fatter than if I ate 3100 calories of clean food sources, still with X amount of protein.

That also goes against your simple, clean cut, always works “cals in vs cals out arguement.”

you can believe whatever you want, but that doesn’t make it true.

If you can give me an objective definition of “clean” then I will concede the argument and admit defeat.

as far as LyleMcD is concerned, he has openly admitted he did some stupid shit back in the day (haven’t we all?) I don’t know anyone who has trained perfectly from day one.

however, while he is my most trusted/respected source of information, I pull my knowledge from many individuals. Among them are:

Alan Aragon
Jamie Hale
Leigh Peele
Martin Berkhan
Blade
Fireproof
Layne Norton (natural pro bodybuilder)
John Berardi (yes Mr. “a calorie is not a calorie” himself)

this is only a list off the top of my head, there are many other.

my point is, virtually all of them will tell you the same thing:

  1. creating a caloric deficit is the only way to lose fat
  2. low carb diets, while sometimes useful, are not necessarily the only way, nor always the best way to lose fat
  3. you do not have to eat “clean” 100% of the time to see OPTIMAL results

and finally, they would ALL agree that the insulin spike from calorie countdown milk will not harm your physique goals in any way, shape, or form.
[/quote]

same here.

Hiding behind pictures of muscley guys does not make you right.

Some of the guy’s on JMO’s list are insanely ripped, and all of them, including Lyle, have worked with clients across all spectrums and have plenty of hands on experience, have extensive backgrounds in nutrition and physiology, and are extremely well respected and grounded in their information sources.

The forum you referenced that JMO uses has an entire sub forum where people message each other and discuss various scientific studies, give them some credit.

You need to open your eyes and stop being close minded about stuff outside what you know right now, in my opinion. I’ve been trying to do the same WRT other things myself.

People who aren’t bodybuilders can know their shit, and an extensive science background is a necessity, as is hands on experience.

Claiming that someone’s advice isn’t valid or that they are a bad source of knowledge because they don’t look like… oh I don’t know, Martin Berkham=n… is just fucking stupid and unreasonable.

93

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
Affliction wrote:

You need to realize that the “one-size-fits-all” mentality that you have is a very naive perspective.

Thank you, but I hardly have a “one-size-fits-all” approach. I have used low carb diets successfully in the past, I’ve used high carb diets successfully as well.

I understand there are issues with glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity etc.

certainly, some individuals do better on a lower carb approach (read: lower carb doesn’t mean “less than 30g/day”, as some seem to believe)

what bothers me, is that this board (moreso than anywhere else on the internet, except maybe LC forums) has an “anti carb/anti insulin” mentality that is VERY misguided.

and anyone who dares to challenge the prevailing dogma/myths that surrounds the vilified macronutrient is painted as some sort of heretic.

I’m simply trying to bring some sanity to this board and maybe, just maybe, provide some useful information to people who are reading this forum. While I may do this in a crass manor, sometimes that’s what it takes to get peoples attention.[/quote]

+1 again…

JMO may be a dick =) but he is absolutely right. Insulin is not the end of the world and there is a definite dogma about here, the replacement of which would truly HELP people

94

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
First JMoUCF87 wrote: I pull my knowledge from many individuals. Among them are:

…John Berardi (yes Mr. “a calorie is not a calorie” himself)

Then JMoUCF87 wrote:
Go ahead, disprove the calories in/calories out equation. Scientific references would be appriciated.

As always, I look forward to hearing from you.

You seem to contradict yourself. So we can understand what you want us to try and give scientific explanation for, please explain if you mean that a calorie is not a calorie philosophy A) is bogus, B) the importance of which is overhplayed WRT normal training, C) the importance of which is overhplayed WRT body recomp.

I look forward to hearing from you.

If i seem to contradict myself, I apologize. I will (once again) try to make my stance crystal clear (although no matte how clear I try to make it, some seem to hear only what they want to)

As far as body composition is concerned, the one single factor that determines if one will gain or lose weight is calorie balance. You MUST be in a surplus to gain fat, and you MUST be in a deficit to lose it (there is one exception to this that comes to mind, but I won’t address it right now).

Now, as far as determining what TYPE of weight is lost (i.e. fat or muscle) that is primarily, ~80% or so, genetically determined (although it can be altered greatly by the use of pharmaceuticals)

The main thing we can do nutritionally to influence where calories go when we eat them (muscle gain vs fat gain) is by:

  1. ensuring sufficient protein intake: too little, and you lose too much muscle on a diet, and gain too much fat in a surplus

  2. ensuring sufficient micronutrient intake: I always say its a good idea to eat lots of fruits and veggies and take 3g of EPA+DHA per day

  3. ensuring one is in a fed state during weight training: this means not lifting weights on an empty stomach.

make sure you have carbs+protein around training, nothing fancy either, chocolate milk works great. As does a tuna sandwich (eaten maybe 1-1.5 hours pre-workout).[/quote]

That’s it. To recap: eat enough calories for your goal, eat enough protein, eat fruits and veggies, have carbs+protein around your workout.[/quote]
Agree

[/quote]Notice that I didn’t say anything about avoiding processed foods, or avoiding HFCS, or avoiding carbs at any time during the day/night, or avoiding dairy, or any other stupid made up bodybuilding myth that gets perpetuated on fitness message boards.
[/quote]

I don’t think you should downplay the importance of avoiding processed foods/HFCS

Overall I think the point needs to be made that if people can’t tell you their daily kCal requirement, and can’t also tell you the # of grams of protein/carbs/fat eaten per day, then they shouldn’t spend hours scrutinizing/worrying about nutrition labels, or avoiding a nutrigrain bar that has HFCS in it.

95

in my defense, I’m only a dick under the Internet’s veil of anonymity :wink: