Calorie surplus and body composition question

The guy is basically Anti high carb/low fat.

But I don't understand why Holyhead made him about "anti bad calories for fat loss".

Me: God and Jesus are your saviours.
You: No they are not.
Me: You need to read the Bible.
You: I don't need to read the Bible, isn't it stories from the Old Testament and a New Testament after Jesus?
Me: No you obviously haven't read the Bible.

 

The effects of nutrients on blood sugar control is a major part of the book and a major factor in weight loss. The book isn't the bible and it's a long way from perfect, but it is a (largely) readable review of the scientific literature on nutrition.

There's a reason the dumbed down less scientific version of the same book is called "Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It".

 

i personally having gone on the wagon again find i can increase muscle with a calorie deficit if my diet is 80% protein virtually no carbs most days, maybe im just wierd

 

The part I disagree with is highlighted in pink.

I'm not disagreeing with you on blood sugar, or the effects of carbs/insulin low GI or anything to do with ratios of food groups.

I'm just saying calories are calories in regards to weight loss. Taube's doesn't say otherwise. He talks about "good and bad calories" in regards to health. Diabetes, Heart disease etc.

I'm all for high protein low carb diets, but to state low protein high carb can't = fat loss, or that high protein/low carb CAUSES fat loss is a lie.

Simply put it's calories in vs calories out.

 

i'm with you, although i eat way less protein than that. i'm currently in a caloric deficit to get ready for a bjj competition. i've not cut out carbs, i've only cut out highly processed carbs like bread and pasta, grits, pollenta, tortillas, cereals, etc.. still eat lots of veggies, moderate amounts of fruit and other legumes, and moderate amount of protein. one, i've lost lots of fat, not exactly to be unexpected because i'm in a caloric deficit. but i've also definitely built some muscle up.

for me, it's possible to lose fat and build muscle. i just don't think you're going to build much muscle. ideally, you'd want to lose the fat first and get the caloric deficit out of the way, then go the other way to build muscle.

this is just my experience though.

 

I don't think anyone was saying it can't be done. Increasing muscle (what does this mean?) Size? Definition? Strength? Is possible.

Maybe the 80% protein you are now taking is the protein you need for your size/strength to be noticeable and you weren't taking enough protein before.

But to gain maximal strength and have enough energy to provide you to perform power lifting lifts, you will need an adequate level of carbs and surplus in calories.

Or, try running a marathon with 80% protein and a calorie deficit.

 

The bit I didn't say is highlighted in red.

A calorie deficit leads to fat loss, but that's not the whole story and since the calories you put in play an important role in determining the amount of calories you burn, it's not enough to say that the number of calories you ingest is the only thing that matters.

Ingesting 2000 'bad' calories will lead to a smaller final deficit than ingesting 2000 'good' calories.

 

yeah im big enough for what i want just wanting to lose the beerfat, but i find you can gain strength as opposed to muscle size which is superficial to some degree

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by righty
Your body does not care about where calories and macros come from. Eating the same calories of junk vs. Clean eating will result in the same gains or losses as each other.

Now you're just contradicting yourself.

 

No, those posts are 100% in alignment. You body absolutely does care where the calories come from. You absolutely wont get the same losses on a poor diet compared to a good one where the calorie intake is the same.

A calorie deficit will lead to weight loss (by definition). But a calorie deficit is a function of the number of calories ingested and the type of calories that are ingested.

Where is the inconsistency?

 

It's not quite that simple.

There are several facts you must consider that will alter the "calories in v calories out" simplification that people use.

1. Your body can turn anything you eat into fat.

2. Your body only uses carbohydrates for fuel. It can convert fat and protein into carbohydrates, which are then used as fuel.

3. Your body can't turn anything else into protein (muscle). You need protein for your body to build muscle mass. Thus, if you want to build muscle mass you need to consume protein. The best sources of protein are animal sources. Sorry, PETA. Science trumps dim-witted tree-hugging bimbos.

4. Muscle is three times as dense as fat. Thus, if you are building muscle and losing fat, you can still gain weight in the process.

5. The previous points on glycaemic index and how long it takes for carbs, proteins, and fats to cause a rise in your blood sugar are correct. Keeping your blood sugar stable will reduce hunger.

6. Fibre and protein are very important in feeling full (satiety)

7. Your body NEEDS fat and will make it if you don't eat enough. It needs fat more than it needs protein, but as I said, your body will make it from protein and carbs if it needs it.

8. Your body won't build muscle unless it needs it. Thus, in order to build muscle mass you need to convince your body that you need the extra muscle mass. This is where the weight lifting or other exercise comes into play.

9. Muscles need fuel. The more muscle mass you have, the higher your basal metabolic rate and thus your basal caloric needs.

10. Talk to your physician before beginning any weight-loss or exercise programme. I am a physician, but I am not YOUR physician.

 

I'd rather walk thanks

 

It is.

I was making point by point responses to your 10 points, but I realised we do not disagree.

Everything said an done.

It really is as simple as calories in vs calories out. This doesn't mean I'm recommending anyone to eat 2000 calories of ice cream instead of a balanced diet.

I'm just acknowledging yes, it is possible to lose weight by just eating a ton of ice cream a day.

 

and the point of that exactly is? i'm not exactly all peta, but this is just nonsensical trolling that should be pointed out as such.

you can get protein from non-animal sources, it just takes a bit more work. there also is some evidence linking meat to a variety of diseases, you know, science and all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study_%28book%29

doesn't seem like the peta types are quite so dim-witted now, does it.

addendum: and with a slight expansion of the vegan diet, to meat by-products, one can easily get more than enough protein without ever having to eat actual animal flesh.

 

The most effective sources of proteins are animal sources, and PETA (and other related organizations such as ELF and ALF, which PETA supports financially and with services) ARE wackos. Bombing and burning down restaurants because they serve meat is not the act of sane people.

You can easily obtain the number of grammes of protein, but can you obtain enough of each of the essential amino acids? Lysine is particularly difficult to mange on a vegan diet.

 

But the question at hand is not JUST losing weight, and even if it were, you'd still be hard pressed to do it easily with just a calories in v calories out approach. That's why that idea was abandoned decades ago in favour of tracking protein, carbohydrates, and fats in various ways to ensure a proper balance.

Remember, your body can't turn anything else into protein, so unless you consume enough protein (and be sure to include the essential amino acids in there) you're going to have problems.

 

Sure. In the developed world this means you have to spend more money on groceries most of the time, and hopefully your supermarket keeps all the required things to combine for proper nutrition. Thinking about having to go to multiple stores on shopping day . . . sounds lovely.

Not only that, I find it hard to believe that the majority of the world not living in the developed world would have access to all these various combinations of things. Sure, it's cool to talk about how you can use this or that for an effective diet, but more often then not it's not practical for people to do in my opinion.

Protein is not the only thing vegans have to manage to get a proper amount of with their nutritional concerns.

 

i didn't say that they weren't wacko, and yes, harming people or private property is wacko. i think we can all agree on that.

but it's the trolling that bugs me.

vegans are not any more dim-witted than the rest of the world's population. for 90% of the worlds population (maybe more), one can get more than enough protein needed for a long and healthy life with a purely plant-based diet, and be at a lower risk for all kinds of diseases. this is what the science says. as americans, we've been somehow conditioned to eat meat all the time. you want to talk dim-witted? how about rural americans that eat meat and starch practically every meal?

yes, you're right about the lysine. i did say it took more work. correct me if i'm wrong, but don't both quinoa and soy offer a complete amino acid profile?

 

so grocery stores don't have leafy greens, nuts, dried legumes and grains? that's pretty much all you need to combine. add some yogurt and eggs to the mix, and i'm pretty sure you can get all the protein you could ever need.

 

Then you wouldn't be a vegan would you? Which is the topic of discussion.