How Does this Effect Body Fat and Weight?

Training
41

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand it.[/quote]

Ok, then please explain to me what the physical (not psychological) pathway of G-flux is that cannot simply be explained by the application of the energy balance model. Because if the energy balance model applies and we properly formulate the idea behind the original thought experiment, then I don’t see how there should be a difference between the two.[/quote]

Energy balance when applied to body is completely faulty
[/quote]

What evidence suggests that? Perhaps you don’t understand the model fully. [/quote]

Please explain it then and show me I’m wrong [/quote]

Haha. Brilliant argumentation tactic. I think it is your turn here. It would be a lot easier for you to point out what the model cannot explain in your opinion, than that I show that the full model does a pretty damn good job.[/quote]

It’s been pointed out by many ppl that you can rearrange macros with no change in energy intake or output and they can progress further in weight loss. Wow that was hard. Thanks for your time. Great discussion. I was hoping you were actually gonna provide some support and maybe I could learn something…guess not[/quote]

That does not contradict the model at all, only people’s dumbed down interpretation of it. As I suspected, you seem to only have an overly simplified idea of the model in mind. You should read up about it - it’s not a bad model and should certainly not be so easily dismissed.[/quote]

Again I will ask nicely plz elaborate[/quote]

Well, you can easily formulate the balance equation in terms of macros (IN and OUT) and not simply in terms of calories. As a result, the idea behind the “a calorie isn’t a calorie” proposition is not a problem anymore for the model. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to go into all the nifty details. Too much work + there are probably better sources.[/quote]

You can easily format it macros yet you don’t have time. Doesn’t sound easy

42

Sooo… eat the same calories, burn the same calories, yet have your energy balance shift to a deficit?

Is this something I can buy off the TV for just a few easy payments?

43

[quote]anonym wrote:
Sooo… eat the same calories, burn the same calories, yet have your energy balance shift to a deficit?

Is this something I can buy off the TV for just a few easy payments?[/quote]

Talk to dd and stu they both have talked about it.

44

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
Sooo… eat the same calories, burn the same calories, yet have your energy balance shift to a deficit?

Is this something I can buy off the TV for just a few easy payments?[/quote]

Talk to dd and stu they both have talked about it. [/quote]

Well, not really.

Stu wrote that, “it’s never really about what you ingest, it’s about what you digest.”

Not being able to absorb calories lowers the energy that goes in, creating a deficit.

45

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
It’s been pointed out by many ppl that you can rearrange macros with no change in energy intake or output and they can progress further in weight loss.[/quote]

Seriously, who are the “many” who have pointed this out?

We have (had) two… one of whom, in reality, made no such claim.

That leaves us with one, who, if anything, will argue that rearranging his macros INCREASED his metabolism. Which, again, doesn’t support your assertion.

46

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
It’s been pointed out by many ppl that you can rearrange macros with no change in energy intake or output and they can progress further in weight loss.[/quote]

Seriously, who are the “many” who have pointed this out?

We have (had) two… one of whom, in reality, made no such claim.

That leaves us with one, who, if anything, will argue that rearranging his macros INCREASED his metabolism. Which, again, doesn’t support your assertion.[/quote]

Well since stu has stated he has seen in his clients. JM and Shelby have said the same. I’d say that’s a good sample size.

I have a feeling you are trying to argue wording here as I would agree that that may be possible. I would also guess there are other mechanisms involved but none would be in our control for output. Our body just does it and some might be better than others

47

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
It’s been pointed out by many ppl that you can rearrange macros with no change in energy intake or output and they can progress further in weight loss.[/quote]

Seriously, who are the “many” who have pointed this out?

We have (had) two… one of whom, in reality, made no such claim.

That leaves us with one, who, if anything, will argue that rearranging his macros INCREASED his metabolism. Which, again, doesn’t support your assertion.[/quote]

Stu and DD spoke about it in this thread:

48

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand it.[/quote]

Ok, then please explain to me what the physical (not psychological) pathway of G-flux is that cannot simply be explained by the application of the energy balance model. Because if the energy balance model applies and we properly formulate the idea behind the original thought experiment, then I don’t see how there should be a difference between the two.[/quote]

Energy balance when applied to body is completely faulty
[/quote]

What evidence suggests that? Perhaps you don’t understand the model fully. [/quote]

Please explain it then and show me I’m wrong [/quote]

Haha. Brilliant argumentation tactic. I think it is your turn here. It would be a lot easier for you to point out what the model cannot explain in your opinion, than that I show that the full model does a pretty damn good job.[/quote]

It’s been pointed out by many ppl that you can rearrange macros with no change in energy intake or output and they can progress further in weight loss. Wow that was hard. Thanks for your time. Great discussion. I was hoping you were actually gonna provide some support and maybe I could learn something…guess not[/quote]

That does not contradict the model at all, only people’s dumbed down interpretation of it. As I suspected, you seem to only have an overly simplified idea of the model in mind. You should read up about it - it’s not a bad model and should certainly not be so easily dismissed.[/quote]

Again I will ask nicely plz elaborate[/quote]

Well, you can easily formulate the balance equation in terms of macros (IN and OUT) and not simply in terms of calories. As a result, the idea behind the “a calorie isn’t a calorie” proposition is not a problem anymore for the model. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to go into all the nifty details. Too much work + there are probably better sources.[/quote]

You can easily format it macros yet you don’t have time. Doesn’t sound easy[/quote]

Well, typically it is better for the learning process to work stuff out by yourself, but I will post a summary of what I have in mind these days. I have already whipped up a description with a numerical example. I have to read it over to double check.

Can one embed a PDF on this forum somehow or do I have to post it as a photo?

49

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
It’s been pointed out by many ppl that you can rearrange macros with no change in energy intake or output and they can progress further in weight loss.[/quote]

Seriously, who are the “many” who have pointed this out?

We have (had) two… one of whom, in reality, made no such claim.

That leaves us with one, who, if anything, will argue that rearranging his macros INCREASED his metabolism. Which, again, doesn’t support your assertion.[/quote]

Stu and DD spoke about it in this thread:

[/quote]

Uh, yeah…and that didn’t amount to much but questions about increased metabolism which comes after a prolonged decrease in calories…once you increase them slightly.

I didn’t read anything about a scientific explanation outside of that. That was why I was discussing increasing calories after that long on a deficit.

50

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
It’s been pointed out by many ppl that you can rearrange macros with no change in energy intake or output and they can progress further in weight loss.[/quote]

Seriously, who are the “many” who have pointed this out?

We have (had) two… one of whom, in reality, made no such claim.

That leaves us with one, who, if anything, will argue that rearranging his macros INCREASED his metabolism. Which, again, doesn’t support your assertion.[/quote]

Well since stu has stated he has seen in his clients. JM and Shelby have said the same. I’d say that’s a good sample size.
[/quote]

Of what?

People who saw their metabolisms increase after a prolonged caloric deficit when they increased them?

51

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
I have a feeling you are trying to argue wording here as I would agree that that may be possible. I would also guess there are other mechanisms involved but none would be in our control for output. Our body just does it and some might be better than others [/quote]

I am only arguing wording to the extent that I am trying to see how someone can stay in perfect energy balance yet lose weight. You are basically saying that these (Stu, Starnes, et al) individuals – intelligent though they are – are somehow able to defy physiology, physics and logic.

This sounds like a more extreme version of the “metabolic advantage” argument touted by Taubes and his cronies… only here, there is no metabolic advantage, because metabolism ostensibly plays no part in what’s going on.

52

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
I have a feeling you are trying to argue wording here as I would agree that that may be possible. I would also guess there are other mechanisms involved but none would be in our control for output. Our body just does it and some might be better than others [/quote]

I am only arguing wording to the extent that I am trying to see how someone can stay in perfect energy balance yet lose weight. You are basically saying that these (Stu, Starnes, et al) individuals – intelligent though they are – are somehow able to defy physiology, physics and logic.

This sounds like a more extreme version of the “metabolic advantage” argument touted by Taubes and his cronies… only here, there is no metabolic advantage, because metabolism ostensibly plays no part in what’s going on.[/quote]

That is what I wrote in the thread they linked…yet for some reason, people are just now seeing that?

53

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
I have a feeling you are trying to argue wording here as I would agree that that may be possible. I would also guess there are other mechanisms involved but none would be in our control for output. Our body just does it and some might be better than others [/quote]

I am only arguing wording to the extent that I am trying to see how someone can stay in perfect energy balance yet lose weight. You are basically saying that these (Stu, Starnes, et al) individuals – intelligent though they are – are somehow able to defy physiology, physics and logic.

This sounds like a more extreme version of the “metabolic advantage” argument touted by Taubes and his cronies… only here, there is no metabolic advantage, because metabolism ostensibly plays no part in what’s going on.[/quote]

That is what I wrote in the thread they linked…yet for some reason, people are just now seeing that?[/quote]

Theoretically, at least, greater weight loss can be achieved when diets shift to higher percentages of protein intake for a given caloric value as a result of its substantially greater thermic effect. So, “shifting macronutrients” might elicit a greater rate of weight loss even at the same level of dietary “restriction”, but for the most part this advantage is more academic than practical.

It’s also, not so surprisingly, accounted for when energy balance is applied to the body.

FTR, neither carbohydrate or fat can claim this advantage based on the consensus of research spanning ~80 years.

54

[quote]anonym wrote:
Theoretically, at least, greater weight loss can be achieved when diets shift to higher percentages of protein intake for a given caloric value as a result of its substantially greater thermic effect. So, “shifting macronutrients” might elicit a greater rate of weight loss even at the same level of dietary “restriction”, but for the most part this advantage is more academic than practical.

It’s also, not so surprisingly, accounted for when energy balance is applied to the body.

FTR, neither carbohydrate or fat can claim this advantage based on the consensus of research spanning ~80 years…[/quote]

I agree, and again, most of this is due to increases in metabolism…not some magic shift in “macros”.

55

All I believe that DD and myself wrote about was that without dropping overall calories, within certain circumstances, you can keep progress going by juggling macros to a certain extent, even adding in certain macros (raising calories) and stimulating the metabolism, causing further fat loss in the process. It’s the view that all you need to worry about are calories, with no consideration for the different effects each macros creates within the body, that creates a lot of the bickering.

The subject came about in the aforementioned thread because PX adamantly stated that you had to continually keep dropping calories to keep losing weight, and that’s why you can’t diet for prolonged periods of time. This was refuted by referring to the many natty pros who will “diet” for anywhere up to 5-6 months for a big show, with some actually ending up with greater nutrient intake to keep their metabolisms speeding along before a show as well as a good number of coaches and authors who have committed to articles that it is not the case.

S

56

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

The subject came about in the aforementioned thread because PX adamantly stated that you had to continually keep dropping calories to keep losing weight, and that’s why you can’t diet for prolonged periods of time.
S[/quote]

That isn’t what I wrote. The thread is right there. I SAID YOU CAN’T HOLD THE SAME CALORIC RESTRICTION…which is not what you are doing.

I tried explaining this to you several times only to have you ignore it.

You act like you are speaking to someone uneducated.

57

Ok, while I never actually give enough of a rats ass in these types of threads to go back and actually look in older threads when people start bitching, here you go. Below is what you wrote in the previously mentioned thread:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Do you understand that your body is adaptive and the longer you diet the more restrictive the caloric intake needs to be? [/quote]

S

58

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Ok, while I never actually give enough of a rats ass in these types of threads to go back and actually look in older threads when people start bitching, here you go. Below is what you wrote in the previously mentioned thread:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Do you understand that your body is adaptive and the longer you diet the more restrictive the caloric intake needs to be? [/quote]

S[/quote]

Uh, yeah…taken out of an entire thread where we discussed increasing metabolism by increasing calories…which was the first recommendation I made to that poster.

You do understand that, right?

Also, no offense, but that statement is CORRECT. The only way around that statement is to increase the body’s metabolism…which involves…WAIT FOR IT…INCREASING CALORIES…which is what my first response was about.

This may be news to you, but you are speaking to someone who does know what he is talking about.

59

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Ok, while I never actually give enough of a rats ass in these types of threads to go back and actually look in older threads when people start bitching, here you go. Below is what you wrote in the previously mentioned thread:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Do you understand that your body is adaptive and the longer you diet the more restrictive the caloric intake needs to be? [/quote]

S[/quote]

Uh, yeah…taken out of an entire thread where we discussed increasing metabolism by increasing calories…which was the first recommendation I made to that poster.

You do understand that, right?

Also, no offense, but that statement is CORRECT. The only way around that statement is to increase the body’s metabolism…which involves…WAIT FOR IT…INCREASING CALORIES…which is what my first response was about.

This may be news to you, but you are speaking to someone who does know what he is talking about.[/quote]

I fail to see how it changes the meaning of the statement you made about continually increasing deficits.

Look, I’m done, I hate when I get caught in these crap threads going back and forth. I liked it better after your little time-out when you stayed in the new forum they made for you and were noticeably on your best behavior.

“You do understand that, right?”

S

60

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

I fail to see how it changes the meaning of the statement you made about continually increasing deficits.[/quote]

Then you don’t want to understand.

The only way that statement doesn’t work…IS IF YOU INCREASE THE METABOLISM…which TAKES INCREASING CALORIES.

Oh, I am sure you do like it better when people don’t confront you at all on what you say even when it is wrong.