why you guys mad. When I die I’ll wish I had spent more time arguing on forums.
one reason shifting calories from fat to carbs can help is that carbs are more expensive to metabolize than fat. I think that goes along with someone in this thready saying it’s not what you injest it’s what you digest
I think G-flux in a nutshell is that given the same difference in caloric intake output, training and eating more = more lifting/HIIT/cardio, thus more good stuff like stimulus to grow, better hormone balance, better recovery, and a faster metabolism.
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
one reason shifting calories from fat to carbs can help is that carbs are more expensive to metabolize than fat.[/quote]
While this may work out nicely in theory, real life isn’t an Excel spreadsheet or a Petri dish; in reality, there are ~80 years worth of metabolic ward studies demonstrating that once protein is controlled for and water is taken into account, there is no difference between emphasizing fat and carbohydrate ratios for weight loss at a given caloric intake.
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
one reason shifting calories from fat to carbs can help is that carbs are more expensive to metabolize than fat.[/quote]
While this may work out nicely in theory, real life isn’t an Excel spreadsheet or a Petri dish; in reality, there are ~80 years worth of metabolic ward studies demonstrating that once protein is controlled for and water is taken into account, there is no difference between emphasizing fat and carbohydrate ratios for weight loss at a given caloric intake.[/quote]
I know you have a bank of studies at hand
Mind posting some supporting that. I haven’t seen any like that. I have seen a couple supporting what brown said.
Also back to the OP on glfux as our knowledge expands I would argue that gflux could possible work creating a fat burning muscle building environment through hormonal environment and altered gene transcription and possibly some epigenetics changes. As research comes out showing cardio changes the genetic make up and activity and allows more fast burnt that would support being more active vs lower cals. Just some thoughts
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
Interesting, thanks for that. My information source was instagram so I won’t argue it lol.
From a practical standpoint, I’ve recently liked shifting calories more towards carbs because I get better pumps and am more full.[/quote]
No problem. Here’s a little snippet that shows a slice of the trend, courtesy of Anthony Colpo’s Fat Loss Bible.
I’m much more inclined to carbs, myself… I appreciate a good steak as much as the next guy, but at the end of the day I’ll take a bowl of rice over a tablespoon of coconut oil and feel much better for it.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
I know you have a bank of studies at hand
Mind posting some supporting that. I haven’t seen any like that. I have seen a couple supporting what brown said.[/quote]
Haha and just like that, I’m all predictable and shit.
I posted about a dozen or so in a PWI thread (of all things) maybe 1-1.5 years ago. I’ll see if I can find it, but for now I feel the pic is pretty illustrative.
Ha, small world, but now you can tell people that the source is Chapter 1 of The Fat Loss Bible by AC.
Of course, now I’m confused on two things: 1) is this the picture that made you feel fat has a metabolic advantage over carbs, and 2) wtf IS instagram, anyway? I only see it attributed to people sharing pictures with shitty coloring on Facebook.
I just took your picture and ran it through instagram lol. It’s a way for non-artistic people to feel deep and artsy. From a bodybuilding perspective, it’s great to stalk yoga pants wearing fitness women. I post whatever my current avi is here on instragram for the ladies, but I don’t use a filter because it makes you look more cut and is cheating according to them (look at Px’s avi right now)
Yesterday I got a text asking if the pic in my avi was with or without a pump. Girl doesn’t even lift and knows to ask : /
^That’s pretty much what I figured it was; but then, I just got into that whole “Snapchat” thing a few months ago so my transformation into a full-blown geriatric luddite is pretty much only a matter of time.
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
Yesterday I got a text asking if the pic in my avi was with or without a pump. Girl doesn’t even lift and knows to ask : /[/quote]
Either way, it got her interested enough to strike up a conversation.
“Obese patients confined to the hospital, allowed the freedom of the ward and receiving diets of from basal minus 30 per cent to basal minus 48 per cent calories lose weight equally well when these diets contain 90 or 13 Gm. of protein.”
"…we found that subjects lost weight more rapidly during the low-calorie ketogenic diet period than during the mixed diet period (Fig. 1). However, the increment in weight loss exhibited during the ketogenic diet period was due solely to excretion of excess water.
“…it appears obvious that under conditions of precise consistency of caloric intake, and essentially constant physical activity, qualitative modification of the diet with respect to the amount or kind of fat, amount of carbohydrate, and amount of protein, makes little or no difference in the rate of weight loss.”
“After this initial loss of [salt and water] weight as measured by the scales, continued and sustained loss of adipose tissue depends in the final analysis on prolonged restriction of calories, regardless of whether these are derived from fat, carbohydrate, or protein.”
“The higher protein content of tlmis study did not affect the prior conclusion that any difference in time rate of weight loss between fat and carbohydrate containing diets was due to the sodium and fluid-retaining capacity of dietary carbohydrate.”
“The present work confirms earlier reports, however, that the only metabolic advantage offered by a low-carbohydrate diet is its dehydrating potential.”
“The diet which consisted almost entirely of protein did not spare body protein better or induce a greater rate of weight loss than did the mixture of protein and carbohydrate.”
“The results of this study show that similar weight losses can be achieved by obese subjects on VLCD of either mixed nutrients (CD) or pure protein (PP).”
The problem with many studies is obese patients. There metabolism and hormones are so out of whack the results can’t be extrapolated to healthy individual
More training + more recovery ability = greater training effect
It seems like a pretty “duh” concept to me. If you can train more and recover faster you can make better progress. I don’t really need a study or some “g-flux” wording for that to make pretty logical sense…
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
The problem with many studies is obese patients. There metabolism and hormones are so out of whack the results can’t be extrapolated to healthy individual
Thanks for all the links[/quote]
The problem with these studies and (information in general) is they get all twisted by time it gets to the second person, and even more so when used for arguments.
Fat goes from having higher satiety to metabolically cheaper.
adjusting macros for fat loss goes to adjusting macros for weight loss.
Lifting for hypertrophy turns into lifting for strength.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
More training + more recovery ability = greater training effect
It seems like a pretty “duh” concept to me. If you can train more and recover faster you can make better progress. I don’t really need a study or some “g-flux” wording for that to make pretty logical sense…[/quote]
DING DING DING!!!
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
The problem with many studies is obese patients. There metabolism and hormones are so out of whack the results can’t be extrapolated to healthy individual [/quote]
Without logging into my campus account to access them all:
"The first group studied was comprised of four healthy male prison volunteers of about normal weight and distribution of adipose tissue. Their ages ranged from 29-40 years.
Group 2 consisted of five young girls, ages 15, 16, 17, 20, and 21, and two older women, aged 36 and 53. All of this group were significantly obese but otherwise healthy"
“…all were free from complicating disease.”
“Each was overweight by any standard and free from any complicating disease. Physical examination and thyroid-function tests showed no abnormalities aside from the obesity.”
“17 moderately obese young women in good health and receiving no medication were admitted… All subjects underwent a complete medical history, physical examination, electrocardiogram, chest x-ray, urinalysis, and clinical chemistries.”
“Seventeen healthy obese subjects were studied. All had normal fasting plasma glucose values and a normal response to a 417-mmol (75-g) oral glucose-tolerance test (12). Thyroid, liver, and renal function tests as well as serum electrolytes and resting electrocardiograms were within normal limits. No subjects were taking any medications.”
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Thanks for all the links[/quote]
