[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
Ok, I swear this isn’t a troll post. I;m just curious about how IF even works, because for YEARS I’ve read this is exactly how fat people eat, they go forever without eating then the binge for a few hours. I’ve also read the ‘eat more frequent meals = faster metabolism’, so I’m just curious if the previous stuff was just BB dogma?? Hope this isn’t too dumb of a question…[/quote]
I think it’s just associations.
Fat people are likely to skip breakfast, but then they’re also likely to snack on junk food during the day, eat unhealthy meals, and be inactive.
People who eat a healthy breakfast are more likely to be unfat, but that’s because they’re just paying better attention to their diet in general.
And then there are folks who start the day with an unhealthy breakfast and proceed to eat crap during the day. Those folks are the overachievers.
[/quote]
Its even simpler than that when you remember that fat people don’t count kcals
And no matter how/when one eats, results will always be fundamentally based on kcals in vs kcals out
yeah sorry, finger slipped and I hit enter and then laptop battery died. Its like I wasnt meant to post. I meant with the underlined words of chillians comments or cals in vs cals out. All the things I have seen and read dont point to this. What I have tested with myself and seen with clients and other training partners the conlusion is a no go.
I understand there is a huge debate/topic/ concern about this but I just dont think its that in any sense (cal in vs cal out). I didnt want to really jump on this because I wasnt quite sure what he/she meant by fundamentally. Im afraid this tpoic would open an angry can of worms.
[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
yeah sorry, finger slipped and I hit enter and then laptop battery died. Its like I wasnt meant to post. I meant with the underlined words of chillians comments or cals in vs cals out. All the things I have seen and read dont point to this. What I have tested with myself and seen with clients and other training partners the conlusion is a no go.
I understand there is a huge debate/topic/ concern about this but I just dont think its that in any sense (cal in vs cal out). I didnt want to really jump on this because I wasnt quite sure what he/she meant by fundamentally. Im afraid this tpoic would open an angry can of worms. [/quote]
[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
yeah sorry, finger slipped and I hit enter and then laptop battery died. Its like I wasnt meant to post. I meant with the underlined words of chillians comments or cals in vs cals out. All the things I have seen and read dont point to this. What I have tested with myself and seen with clients and other training partners the conlusion is a no go.
I understand there is a huge debate/topic/ concern about this but I just dont think its that in any sense (cal in vs cal out). I didnt want to really jump on this because I wasnt quite sure what he/she meant by fundamentally. Im afraid this tpoic would open an angry can of worms. [/quote]
So you dont believe in cals in vs cals out? Its not an argument its science. You should probably look into thermodynamics to get a better idea. Really though cals in vs out DOESNT MAKE SENSE TO YOU??? lol
[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
yeah sorry, finger slipped and I hit enter and then laptop battery died. Its like I wasnt meant to post.[/quote]
No, you wrote a complete sentence and clicked submit. Your finger did not slip, your laptop battery did not die. There’s no shame in being wrong (which you are), but it is utterly pathetic and laughable that you think anyone would believe this. Come back when you have something worth saying.
EDIT
Sorry, I didn’t mean any of that, my fingers slipped a whole bunch of times and then a cat jumped on my keyboard and hit enter.
it’s not as simple as calories in and calories out, even a monkey should know that.
of course if you always eat less than tdee you will loose fat( and eventually starve to death) but fat is not the only thing your body will metabolize. amino acids will be used and the body will prioritize less calories to keep your energy level up. hormone balance will also fuck itself if you got normal genetics and dont think about meal timing. not only that but the body will always be in a super fat storaging mode, meaning that the body prioritize much more calories to be stored as fat than ever before.
you all should buy the leptin diet and read it. it’s not a bodybuilding fad diet, it’s fucking science.
^^ Good post, but do keep in mind the difference between fundamentally based (which is truth) and entirely based (the straw man claim that you setup and countered)
Why don’t we (people in general) lose fat only when in a caloric deficit. I mean shouldn’t everybody lose fat first then lose muscle and bone? Hormones, macro split, what is it? A weight training individual eating the “correct” macro split and slightly below maintenance should be pretty lean and muscular right?
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
Why don’t we (people in general) lose fat only when in a caloric deficit. I mean shouldn’t everybody lose fat first then lose muscle and bone? Hormones, macro split, what is it? A weight training individual eating the “correct” macro split and slightly below maintenance should be pretty lean and muscular right? [/quote]
Our bodies would always prefer to shed muscle ahead of fat, as the former is more metabolically “costly” and less energy-dense (4 vs 9) and therefore less “necessary” for purely survival purposes.
But yeah, it’s hardly impossible to work around this
[quote]ultralars wrote:
it’s not as simple as calories in and calories out, even a monkey should know that.
of course if you always eat less than tdee you will loose fat( and eventually starve to death) but fat is not the only thing your body will metabolize. amino acids will be used and the body will prioritize less calories to keep your energy level up. hormone balance will also fuck itself if you got normal genetics and dont think about meal timing. not only that but the body will always be in a super fat storaging mode, meaning that the body prioritize much more calories to be stored as fat than ever before.
you all should buy the leptin diet and read it. it’s not a bodybuilding fad diet, it’s fucking science. [/quote]
Overal daily calories is paramount is more important then nutrient timeing in my opinion. I DO BELIEVE nutrient timing is a powerful weapon and i am not saying but if your eating too many calories to lose fat or too little to gain muscle your nutrient timing wont fucking matter. Thus its important but not as important as the daily overal intake. This is so misinterpreted nowadays almost as much as cheat foods and what constitues a cheat food etc. When I diet i eat cheeseburgers and reese puffs and it still works
[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
Why don’t we (people in general) lose fat only when in a caloric deficit. I mean shouldn’t everybody lose fat first then lose muscle and bone? Hormones, macro split, what is it? A weight training individual eating the “correct” macro split and slightly below maintenance should be pretty lean and muscular right? [/quote]
Our bodies would always prefer to shed muscle ahead of fat, as the former is more metabolically “costly” and less energy-dense (4 vs 9) and therefore less “necessary” for purely survival purposes.
But yeah, it’s hardly impossible to work around this
[/quote]
Well put. Stupid survival mechanisms. Don’t they know girlzzz love a six pack?
Iâ??m more in the quality over quantity and after chillian broke out the fundamentally true vs straw man his statement made a whole lot more sense and I agree with that. A calorie is not just a calorie and for everyone who is going to make a science argument saying that itâ??s purely based off a laboratory fact would have a counter agreement to disagree. I agree with statements/claims/research made in things like good calories bad calories by gary taubes. the mechanisms for breaking down food and shuttling them into areas be it muscle or fat or other are not all the same making not all calories consumed turned into fat. The cal in cal out theory is based on the 1st law of thermodynamics but its flawed because the first law is just a statement and any time that statement is changed or altered the entire law must balance itself out again.
The problems with this law and applying it humans is 1) no arrow of causality and 2) no independent variable. Hopefully we are all under the same idea that a cal is not just a cal (100 cal of lettuce is different than 100 cal of ice cream) even recently an article by Clay Hyght talked about insulin being more of the bigger issue rather than just cals - so with that out of the way the “science” behind it still seems to not really be there at all. Most studies done concerning cal in vs cal out diets = X predicted amount of weight loss have come up short and by that not hitting target goal weight loss (X) proving inaccuracy in study (MOst of these were done by Harvard and Harvard’s science explanation has been “well the test subject must have cheated from the diet.”) Its science right? Cal in cal out = loss weight…works every time!
For me the issue I have noticed is I dont see this every time and in fact more times than not this isnt the case (total cals for the day) I see other things like insulin, hormones, etc being more of the problem with fat gain and loss. Ive been doing lean gains now for a month?+/- (the original reason of this post) and sometimes I am unable to get in all my cals for the day, am I losing weight? No, not all the time. I increase energy expenditure; I must lean out great then right? No, not exactly. I over eat my cal limit because Im super hungry and therefore must get fat? Cant say that happens. People who go on low cal diets usually plateau, so they strict the cal more but they still dont get leaner. To me saying at the end of the day its cal in vs cal out doesnt line up and in the studies I have seen and read it makes more sense to me that it wouldnt line up.
There are other factors that needed to be equated and simply saying its how many cal you eat isnt something I agree with. IMO but that will get me shot around here. If we broke it down to the 1st law and argument then why arent competitive eaters like Takeru Kobayashi completely Marlin Brando? OH because he works outs. E in - E out but you couldnt even with morning fasted cardio, heavy O lifting mid-morning, power lifting post lunch, HIIT+Crossfit before dinner, 20k run dessert burn off what he is able to consume especially over a week not just a day. etc.
see: http://www.garytaubes.com/2010/12/inanity-of-overeating/
Rational: you caught me. I wrote that noticed i had 11% left in the battery and clicked submit, sorry for the tease.
INput of the equation is constant for most part…people don’t excrete significant calories unless they have a metabolic disorder…
The OUTput side changes…Thermic Effect of Food, Thermic Effect of Activity, Non Exercise Acitivty(random body twitching), and increases in LBM all change energy expediture…
random body twitching can burn significant calories…some people have a built in mechanism to prevent fat gain…in one study i’ve read, a guy burned close to an entire 1000 calorie surplus…i actually think people can burn even more than that…
there was an entire program on the BBC about making thin people fat(eating 2k over maintenace)…they showed how it effected the various people…one asian kid actually gained 5lbs of muscle without weight training eating absolute junk…