And for someone that’s going to school in communication JM comes across as a douchebag.
This kind of discussion helps us all, but when one side is blatantly hostile about it, and out to prove “what they know” at the expense of others it just puts people on the defensive. Feel free to look back and see who fired the proverbial first shot. Not that I think the lot of you new posters give 2 shits about it though.
I understand that I can come off as a bit contentious, however, if you’ll notice I never addressed the OP in a combative manner, nor anyone else who has expresses a interest in learning (like latenight_lifter)
However, I have little patience for those who purposefully present themselves as authorities on topics that they clearly have little understanding of. (e.g. laroyal’s assertion that elevated insulin causes fat storage, which is both boneheaded and embarrassingly inaccurate.
While I can forgive the average joe for buying into that stuff (hell, I even believed it for a while) Someone who presents themselves as an “expert” should be held accountable for their words.
Finally, when these self proclaimed “experts” refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence that stands in direct opposition to their ignorant positions, that’s where I stop playing nice and call them what they are: ignorant, fraudulent, morons who hurt people’s efforts to get in shape by spreading misinformation and lies.
[quote]laroyal wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
Gymjunkie wrote:
Okay, but my point was that practice/proof trumps THEORY…
I would agree with you, had you offered any ACTUAL proof.
Once again, anecdote and conjecture are fun and all, but worthless when one is trying to prove something.
Example: I was at my leanest over the summer. I also spent a lot of time sunbathing by the pool over the summer. Therefore, I conclude that tanning by the pool burns fat. IT WORKS FOR ME™!!1!
^^wrong.
By using empirical evidence as our guide, we can learn what ACTUALLY works, thereby saving a lot of “trial and error” time in the process.
OK we get it you are taking your first debate class and you display debating skills (mine were a little sharper my freshmen year of college when I was taking my required Philosophy class and learning what you are just now learning (as you can guess from my age that was some 17 years ago) Since then I have been making a great living doing what I love which is helping others get into the best shape of their lives.
I still haven’t seen a picture of you or your lackeys just a bunch of argumentitive jumble about how the rest of the world is wrong and YOU GUYS have the lean equation figured out. You are entitled to you opinion as others are entitled to theirs but if YOU can’t back it up with pics you’ll never be more than the little skinny fat armchair geek who tries to mask his lack of progress with a “hardgainer” label and assumes the rest of the world was blessed with genetics or takes drugs.
Seriously grow up and show a little respect to your fellow posters. It is ok to disagree but, it can be done with a bit of tact too. If you really don’t have anything better to do than sit here and debate a moot point I would say you should either hit the gym, re-evaluate your own workout or study for some of thosetough comm classes. [/quote]
haha wow, must be sad to know your greatest achievement in life will be that you’re a bally’s trainer. Good luck with the future attempts. Hope they go better than you’re obvious failed attempts at debate and wit.
My comment on protein intake was that the TEF of 70g of protein does not count for over 300 calories difference nor the difference in fat loss - the increase impacted hormones another way, which is what I have been saying all along.
On the topic of calorie partitioning…
Some of your favorite authors (read: Lyle) have written about this before. There are a couple of hormones that determine this, but from my understanding, it is mainly testosterone, insulin, cortisol, and leptin with regards to where calories are stored (in terms of muscle to fat ratio). We know these hormones exist. We also know that some people have more or less of them, and are more or less sensitive to them.
Think about it for a moment. Any endocrinologist will tell you that insulin and cortisol are opposing hormones - their release blunts the effect of the other. E.g. when your blood sugar goes too low from too much insulin, cortisol is raised to improve blood sugar by breaking down tissue. This is simple physiology - correct me if that is not true. Many authors write about the cortisol blunting effect of the PWO shake, which is one reason why it works so well for many of us. This is nothing new.
However, in a fat guy who is insulin resistant in the muscle tissue, the calories from those carbohydrates are less likely to go where you want them to, even though you are more sensitive post workout. Thus you will have the theory behind the high-dose glutamine/glycine shake with no carbohydrate. I can’t explain how it works because I honestly do not know, but I have seen it used with success - whether or not that means anything to anyone on this particular forum is another story. More and more authors are writing about this shake if you are paying attention…
We also know that testosterone affects calorie partitioning through androgen receptors on muscle cells. A good thing to happen is testosterone binding to androgen receptors instead of things like SHBG (caused by a myriad of things). Well, guess what? Most of your hormones are made from the same raw material (at least a lot of the major ones are). Using diet, supplementation, and lifestyle to change the ratio and sensitivity is the goal - and it works. Maybe not for you or everyone, but I have had success and so have many others.
Overall, it is overly simplistic to say calories do or do not matter, or that hormonal manipulation does or does not matter. Neither one will ever be the only determinant.
On a second note, calorie deficits:
Like I said before, I have had success using this method also. Some people need to learn to limit themselves.
I was fat when I was a kid. Really fat. I lost weight the “old-fashioned” way by working out and making better food choices. After that I started to try and get lean and muscular… and I saw a bit of success, but not as much as I liked. I was always pretty chubby… and it wasn’t until I went to PN by John Berardi that I started seeing success.
Calorie deficits are important. However, if you read (again, reading often and frequently, scientific and UNSCIENTIFIC literature is the key) the recent work of people like the good Dr. JB or successful nutritionists like Justin Harris, you will find carbohydrate manipulation to be prevalent… no, calorie intake/expenditure formulas are not ignored, but if you think that is the only determinant to fat loss you have another thing coming.
By strategically lowering your muscle glycogen stores (not possible on a high carb diet by the way) you can create a huge caloric deficit through a high carb day, since if that’s all you’re eating with some protein that day (think Anabolic Diet), the carbohydrate will be stored in the muscle (most likely) because of your improved insulin sensitivity and lack of muscle glycogen. This is nothing new yet again.
I think that if you took two twins, and put one guy on
40/40/20 carb/protein/fat 7 days a week
10/40/50 carb/protein/fat 6 days a week with one day of 50/40/10 carb/protein/fat
CALORIES EQUAL;
Put them on the same training and supplement protocols, I think that after 2-3 months you won’t have twins anymore. Twin #2, if the average weight-training dude like most of us, will have an improved body composition. At least, that is my intuition.
[quote]ksommer wrote:
My comment on protein intake was that the TEF of 70g of protein does not count for over 300 calories difference nor the difference in fat loss - the increase impacted hormones another way, which is what I have been saying all along.
On the topic of calorie partitioning…
Some of your favorite authors (read: Lyle) have written about this before. There are a couple of hormones that determine this, but from my understanding, it is mainly testosterone, insulin, cortisol, and leptin with regards to where calories are stored (in terms of muscle to fat ratio). We know these hormones exist. We also know that some people have more or less of them, and are more or less sensitive to them.
Think about it for a moment. Any endocrinologist will tell you that insulin and cortisol are opposing hormones - their release blunts the effect of the other. E.g. when your blood sugar goes too low from too much insulin, cortisol is raised to improve blood sugar by breaking down tissue. This is simple physiology - correct me if that is not true. Many authors write about the cortisol blunting effect of the PWO shake, which is one reason why it works so well for many of us. This is nothing new.
However, in a fat guy who is insulin resistant in the muscle tissue, the calories from those carbohydrates are less likely to go where you want them to, even though you are more sensitive post workout. Thus you will have the theory behind the high-dose glutamine/glycine shake with no carbohydrate. I can’t explain how it works because I honestly do not know, but I have seen it used with success - whether or not that means anything to anyone on this particular forum is another story. More and more authors are writing about this shake if you are paying attention…
We also know that testosterone affects calorie partitioning through androgen receptors on muscle cells. A good thing to happen is testosterone binding to androgen receptors instead of things like SHBG (caused by a myriad of things). Well, guess what? Most of your hormones are made from the same raw material (at least a lot of the major ones are). Using diet, supplementation, and lifestyle to change the ratio and sensitivity is the goal - and it works. Maybe not for you or everyone, but I have had success and so have many others.
Overall, it is overly simplistic to say calories do or do not matter, or that hormonal manipulation does or does not matter. Neither one will ever be the only determinant. [/quote]
Thanks for your explanation ksommer. I wonder how extensively one can manipulate their hormones to elicit a positive body composition change? You can control certain hormones through lifestyle. for instance, cortisol can be kept in check somewhat. Insulin can also be controlled somewhat. But what about testosterone? Beyond eating egg yolks to supply cholesterol, as raw material for all the steroid hormones. I know you can synthesis it in the liver and a few other places, btw. It always seemed counter intuitive to me to slam a highly insulogenic shake right after lifting, if you’re trying to lose fat.
I always thought it was a good idea to do a little bit of cardio to continue to burn fatty acids liberated from lifting. I do agree though that while dieting slamming some nutrients right after training is a good idea. About the glycine/glutamine, I know there are studies out there showing positive benefits to both, but for someone who can’t afford a steady supply it seems that just drinking a protein shake would do the trick. Insulin would spike which would help with protein synthesis and inhibit cortisol. I also would think that regardless of how insulin resistant someone is that a hard session of lifting would temporailly improve muscle’s insulin sensitivity enough for glucose to transported into the cell by the glut4’s, making carbs post workout a valuable aid. I don’t have any evidence to support this, I’ll look for some.
[quote]Thanks for your explanation ksommer. I wonder how extensively one can manipulate their hormones to elicit a positive body composition change? You can control certain hormones through lifestyle. for instance, cortisol can be kept in check somewhat. Insulin can also be controlled somewhat. But what about testosterone? Beyond eating egg yolks to supply cholesterol, as raw material for all the steroid hormones. I know you can synthesis it in the liver and a few other places, btw. It always seemed counter intuitive to me to slam a highly insulogenic shake right after lifting, if you’re trying to lose fat.
I always thought it was a good idea to do a little bit of cardio to continue to burn fatty acids liberated from lifting. I do agree though that while dieting slamming some nutrients right after training is a good idea. About the glycine/glutamine, I know there are studies out there showing positive benefits to both, but for someone who can’t afford a steady supply it seems that just drinking a protein shake would do the trick. Insulin would spike which would help with protein synthesis and inhibit cortisol. I also would think that regardless of how insulin resistant someone is that a hard session of lifting would temporailly improve muscle’s insulin sensitivity enough for glucose to transported into the cell by the glut4’s, making carbs post workout a valuable aid. I don’t have any evidence to support this, I’ll look for some. [/quote]
You have to determine what is robbing your body of its natural level of testosterone. It is documented that testosterone levels have fallen in this country by a lot in the past few years - not surprisingly, more and more crap food has come out. Environmental toxicity, poor food, high-glycemic load diets, mineral deficiencies, too much stress - they can all play a role in robbing you of your testosterone.
What is happening in my personal self is that I am converting a lot of my pregnenolone into cortisol. Charles wrote about this in an interview with TC on this site… it’s in the part 2. (The Prodigal Son). These aren’t really things you can know without BioSig or extensive hormone profiles. Giving someone the wrong protocol won’t give the same results as a protocol tailored to that person. If you gave me an insulin protocol, it won’t do shit. I actually tried an insulin protocol before I took the course and it didn’t really help me - not surprisingly, I was focusing on a problem I didn’t really have.
If you have NOT TAKEN BIOSIGNATURE, do not bother to reply to this post to argue with me. Your opinions mean virtually nothing if you have not taken the course, simply because you don’t know enough about it to make a criticism.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
I understand that I can come off as a bit contentious, however, if you’ll notice I never addressed the OP in a combative manner, nor anyone else who has expresses a interest in learning (like latenight_lifter)
However, I have little patience for those who purposefully present themselves as authorities on topics that they clearly have little understanding of. (e.g. laroyal’s assertion that elevated insulin causes fat storage, which is both boneheaded and embarrassingly inaccurate.
While I can forgive the average joe for buying into that stuff (hell, I even believed it for a while) Someone who presents themselves as an “expert” should be held accountable for their words.
Finally, when these self proclaimed “experts” refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence that stands in direct opposition to their ignorant positions, that’s where I stop playing nice and call them what they are: ignorant, fraudulent, morons who hurt people’s efforts to get in shape by spreading misinformation and lies.[/quote]
I’m a little late to this cluster fuck, but I wanted to add my $.02.
I agree with the basics of what you are saying. Calories are far and away most important and the benefits of low-carb diets are exaggerated for the active, non-insulin resistant individual. I have argued this several times on T-Nation before; it is my opinion that this website has a low carb bias.
That said, I disagree with your out of hand dismissals of various studies on the basis of their being funded by Atkins or being too wrought with the possibility of human error (self-reporting). These are complications, yes, but they do not invalidate (as you say) the studies.
You’re trying to be objective. This is great and this is needed in the bullshit artist field of fitness and nutrition. But be weary of allowing “science” to dictate to you. “Science” informs, experience dictates.
There is nothing worse than using shill accounts to back up your argument with immature flames that you wouldn’t put your own “name” to.
What is even more lame about it is that we don’t even know who you are anyway, even if you did put your own name to it.
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
There is nothing worse than using shill accounts to back up your argument with immature flames that you wouldn’t put your own “name” to.
What is even more lame about it is that we don’t even know who you are anyway, even if you did put your own name to it.[/quote]
if you think that I’m shadowsmyth69 you would be incorrect.
he has over 7,000 posts at another forum, of which I am also a member of but only have about a dozen posts at.
Also, it appears he is a marine technician from NY (see link)
whereas I am a college student currently in FL
honestly, do you really think after all I have written in here, that I would change my screen name just to talk a more shit? what would be the point?
I didn’t say who I thought it was (I really have no idea). There is more than one here, too.
Why am I not surprised?
[quote]ksommer wrote:
My comment on protein intake was that the TEF of 70g of protein does not count for over 300 calories difference nor the difference in fat loss - the increase impacted hormones another way, which is what I have been saying all along. [/quote]
This doesn’t change the fact that 140g protein is going to be more satiating (thus caloric intake-reducing) than 77g. Given that intake was self-reported, well…
Not to mention, it’s one thing to compare mismatched protein intakes. But this problem is compounded when it’s an adequate protein intake versus an inadequate protein intake for LBM retention.
[quote]Alan Aragon wrote:
This doesn’t change the fact that 140g protein is going to be more satiating (thus caloric intake-reducing) than 77g. Given that intake was self-reported, well…
Not to mention, it’s one thing to compare mismatched protein intakes. But this problem is compounded when it’s an adequate protein intake versus an inadequate protein intake for LBM retention. [/quote]
Valid points. In the lab I worked in, the majority of the research is on geriatrics and speculation into the amount of protein to sufficiently retain LBM. I know one of the studies we did showed that the RDA actually resulted in 14% LBM loss per year.
Still, you have to give SOME credit to the study for being at least remotely accurate. It couldn’t really be a piece of accepted literature had the other scholars found it to be woefully off base.
Even though the higher protein intake would of course be more satiating, they still ate more calories according to food logs.
It’s the inexact nature of the discipline. We can ask for better, but we won’t really get it!
[quote]ksommer wrote:
Alan Aragon wrote:
This doesn’t change the fact that 140g protein is going to be more satiating (thus caloric intake-reducing) than 77g. Given that intake was self-reported, well…
Not to mention, it’s one thing to compare mismatched protein intakes. But this problem is compounded when it’s an adequate protein intake versus an inadequate protein intake for LBM retention.
Valid points. In the lab I worked in, the majority of the research is on geriatrics and speculation into the amount of protein to sufficiently retain LBM. I know one of the studies we did showed that the RDA actually resulted in 14% LBM loss per year.
Still, you have to give SOME credit to the study for being at least remotely accurate. It couldn’t really be a piece of accepted literature had the other scholars found it to be woefully off base.
Even though the higher protein intake would of course be more satiating, they still ate more calories according to food logs.
It’s the inexact nature of the discipline. We can ask for better, but we won’t really get it![/quote]
Under-reporting dietary intake is more severe in obese individuals, and this was the population studied. What we can draw from the study is that adequate protein kicks the shit out of inadequate protein on a number of fronts.
What we can’t conclude from the study is that the higher protein diet was more lipolytic because it was less insulinogenic.
There are research examples showing no difference in fat loss between diets differing in insulin response (there’s even research showing an increase in fat loss in the more insulinogenic treatment), but again, these are trials where protein intake is better matched. The study you presented was a poor example for supportng your case.
PS - that’s weird as fuck how this site automatically chops the posts into segments. Unless of course, admin comes in & edits (even weirder).
wow this thread has been interesting. i havent checked T-Nation in a while and i am welcomed with this! i didnt really read through every single post and i just skimmed through it.
IMHO, i agree that counting calories during fat loss matters. JMoUCF87 is right about the importance of it. especially for a fatter individual trying to lose weight. however, i’d also like to add that it is also important that the fatter individual keep his diet clean.
while i agree that its possible to eat some “junk” food in a fat loss phase as long as the calories are still in deficit and the protein requirements are in, i wouldnt recommend it for the fatter individual. mainly because of psychological factors that are involved. a person trying to transition from bad eating habits to a better one will definitely lose control and binge when given an opportunity.
its like telling an alcoholic who is trying to quit drinking that he can have a can of beer every now and then as long as he doesnt exceed a certain amount per week. the addict will just lose control and lose all the gain he had. thats why i recommend INITIALLY, a fat individual should stick to a strict diet and once he has his habit and control down, he can have a bit more freedom.
as a biochem major myself i do believe that hormones play a huge role when it comes to fat loss. although i have not done much research in this biosig/hormonal thing, i have no doubt in its capability to make fat loss more efficient. i havent heard much about it yet but results do speak. if people are getting good results from using this method then it may be worth looking into. its still too early to discredit something like this.
lastly, i also think that buying into all these science stuff isnt as great as you think it is. i like reading about the science behind nutrition and sports etc just to know it but i dont find it relevant to my training/diet at all. i stick to methods that have worked in the past before all these science stuff entered the world of bodybuilding. a problem that i was once taught about and realized is true nowadays are ppl OVERANALYZE too much. tnation is a great site with tons of information, it had helped me a lot and at the same time crippled me. the reason is because its so full of information that i overanalyzed and got nowhere.
keep it simple guys.
eat protein.
eat more to get big.
eat less to lose fat.
easy.
[quote]shffl wrote:
eat protein.
eat more to get big.
eat less to lose fat.
easy. [/quote]
how is this any different from what I and others have been saying from the very beginning?
I’m not hating on you or anything, just making a point that you essentially just summed up what I’ve been saying for the last 8+ pages.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
I’m not hating on you or anything, just making a point that you essentially just summed up what I’ve been saying for the last 8+ pages.[/quote]
i know, im merely telling the other people whos too into the science stuff. i dont know who but i recall a lot of posts showing scientific studies. useless imo.
[quote]shffl wrote:
i know, im merely telling the other people whos too into the science stuff. i dont know who but i recall a lot of posts showing scientific studies. useless imo. [/quote]
sorry bud, but i gotta disagree with you there. sure, studies performed on populations cannot be directly prescribed to any one individual b/c of a myriad of confounding factors.
However, science is useful in helping disproving myths such as “you should never combine carbs and fat in the same meal” or “you’ll get fat if you eat ” or “don’t eat carbs before bed”.
it’s when people ignore the science and instead rigidly adhere to arbitrary rules like these (and many, many others) that causes people to not achieve their goals.