[josephr25]

Originally Posted by xtac

im the opposite i need to lose weight
im hire a personal trainer, this shit is to much to learn.... i dont even know how to lift correctly :/

I went to www.stronglifts.com as recommended by another forum member. It has increased my strength a lot and i am losing body fat, although I am still not where I want to be.

Just make sure to eat right; I try to eat a lot more fruits and vegetables in my diet. I also only take a multivitamin, flaxseed oil, fish oil, protein shakes, and tonalin CLA. None of that weird pre-workout or complicated matrix shit.

[Turbo>NA]

Originally Posted by xtac

im the opposite i need to lose weight
im hire a personal trainer, this shit is to much to learn.... i dont even know how to lift correctly :/

Took me some what a year to understand how to correctly weight lift. But it was worth it.

[oldaccount]

Originally Posted by Bobby_Light

I feel you're overdoing the protein powder. The nutrients in it are suspect. Realize that the body doesn't recognize calories as much as it does nutrients. People can eat an entire bag of potato chips and still not feel full despite multiple hundred of calories. Why? Zero nutrients; you give the body nothing. Ever seen someone eat 5 steaks at a sitting. Never. The steak is so nutrient packed you get full quickly. It's the difference between eating and nourishing yourself.

This comparison would make sense if it didnt completely ignore the fact that 5 steaks would also provide a shit ton of calories.

[Turbo>NA]

Originally Posted by Suareezay

This comparison would make sense if it didnt completely ignore the fact that 5 steaks would also provide a shit ton of calories.

and fat. More fat in the daily value...

I believe 50 grams of fat a day is normal for a diet correct?

[Skeptikal12]

Originally Posted by Turbo>NA

and fat. More fat in the daily value...

I believe 50 grams of fat a day is normal for a diet correct?

Thats pretty low in terms of fat. I'd take how much you *want* to weigh in pounds and divide it by 2. The number you get, aim to eat that many grams of fat per day.

Say you are 220 Lbs now but want to get down to 200 Lbs. Aim to eat about 100 grams of fat per day.

Its important, especially to keep your test levels up.

[RNJ26]

Pretty interesting thread. Here's my .02 cents...

I went through a shit load of excersise programs and just a month ago settled on something that's really been working for me.

Mon - chest
Tue - back
Wed - legs
Thu - shoulders
Fri - bi's/tri's
Sat - rest
Sun - rest

I don't have an issue working out bi's and tri's same day. My arm workout is ez-barblell curls supersetting with dumbell hammer curls supersetting with reverse barbell curls. 1 minute rest and do 2 more sets. After I destroy my bi's I jump into tri's and bang out reverse cable pulldowns supersetting with rope pulldowns supersetting with front bar pressdown. I repeat this for 3 sets and call it a day. I don't see why you should do all kinds of crazy arm excersises when your arms are getting worked out when you do your shoulders, back, and chest.

[oldaccount]

Originally Posted by Turbo>NA

and fat. More fat in the daily value...

obviously.

I believe 50 grams of fat a day is normal for a diet correct?

there is no way to answer this without context. Assuming you're not doing anything specialized, like a PSMF or something, you generally want at least 20-30% of your calories to come from fat.

[Bobby_Light]

Originally Posted by Suareezay

This comparison would make sense if it didnt completely ignore the fact that 5 steaks would also provide a shit ton of calories.

The point was you can't eat 5 steaks at a sitting because the food is far too nutrient rich; it nourishes the body. Calories from non-foods don't provide nourishment.

Here's one you might like better.

100 calories from a "100 calories snack pack" vs 100 calories of green vegetables. Equal calories but one provides much more than the other despite the same caloric intake.

[Bobby_Light]

Originally Posted by Turbo>NA

and fat. More fat in the daily value...

I believe 50 grams of fat a day is normal for a diet correct?

Putting a single number on how much fat intake everyone should have just doesn't work. Everyone one's demands are different dependent upon a variety of factors. Most americans undereat healthy fat to their detriment. The american diet is very deficient in omega 3 fatty acids and far too rich in inflammatory omega 6 fatty acids which many feel is why we have so much degenerative disease in this country.

Everyone associates eating fat with getting fat. That's incorrect. If you eat fat, you don't get fat as it allows you to regulate your blood sugar which provides satiety and long-term energy. See book "Eat Fat, Lose Fat" by Mary Enig. An exceptional book.

Eat fat - bile is release from the gallblader to break down ingested fats. Bile doesn't send a fat storage signal to the body and fats effect on blood sugar is very, very little.

However,

Eat carbohydrate - spike blood sugar - release insulin - insulin is a fat storage hormone. Body fat is stored excess blood sugar.

If you want to be lean (and healthy), eat healthy fats.

Coconut Oil
Raw butter
Palm oil
Raw dairy, raw colostrum
Ghee
Avocado
Any animal food - fish, chicken, beef, buffalo
Avoid vegetable oils, hydrogenated anything

Like I said in my previous posts you have to have fat in the diet (essential fatty acids). Fat is the precursor to ALL of your steroidal hormones like DHEA and testosterone and Vitamin D. It provides intergrity to cell walls. Helps repair the brain and skin. Protect the digestive tract. Etc, etc.

The low-fat BS marketed to Americans is a joke. Anything that is "low fat" is "high carb". See above for how stupid that is. Don't fall for it. If you want to look like the food pyramid (skinny at the top and fat around in the middle), eat lots of carbohydrate and fats "sparingly". It's a recipe for being unhealthy, depressed, and chunky.

[oldaccount]

Originally Posted by Bobby_Light

Eat carbohydrate - spike blood sugar - release insulin - insulin is a fat storage hormone. Body fat is stored excess blood sugar.

oh god.

If you want to look like the food pyramid (skinny at the top and fat around in the middle), eat lots of carbohydrate and fats "sparingly". It's a recipe for being unhealthy, depressed, and chunky.

you can achieve the same result by eating lots of fat and little carbs. So what? In the context of isocaloric diets, the proportions of fat to carbs doesn't matter.

[Bobby_Light]

Originally Posted by Suareezay

oh god.

Please refute my statement if you feel it is invalid.

Originally Posted by Suareezay

you can achieve the same result by eating lots of fat and little carbs. So what? In the context of isocaloric diets, the proportions of fat to carbs doesn't matter.

You are mistaken. Where your nutrients are coming from, how much, and when you are eating them certainly have a massive influence on whether you improve your body comp or you don't. It's not just calories in, calories out.

Regulating blood sugar and manipulating nutrient intake to force the body to use fat stores as energy are paramount. Eating a shit ton of carbohydrates allows you to do neither.

[oldaccount]

Originally Posted by Bobby_Light

Please refute my statement if you feel it is invalid.

ok.

***

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full...8deeb08a678686

We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.

In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another.

Johnston CS et. al. Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. (2006) 83: 1055-1061

Background:Low-carbohydrate diets may promote greater weight loss than does the conventional low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet. Objective:We compared weight loss and biomarker change in adults adhering to a ketogenic low-carbohydrate (KLC) diet or a nonketogenic low-carbohydrate (NLC) diet. Design:Twenty adults [body mass index (in kg/m2): 34.4 ± 1.0] were randomly assigned to the KLC (60% of energy as fat, beginning with 5% of energy as carbohydrate) or NLC (30% of energy as fat; 40% of energy as carbohydrate) diet. During the 6-wk trial, participants were sedentary, and 24-h intakes were strictly controlled. Results:Mean (±SE) weight losses (6.3 ± 0.6 and 7.2 ± 0.8 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.324) and fat losses (3.4 and 5.5 kg in KLC and NLC dieters, respectively; P = 0.111) did not differ significantly by group after 6 wk. Blood ß-hydroxybutyrate in the KLC dieters was 3.6 times that in the NLC dieters at week 2 (P = 0.018), and LDL cholesterol was directly correlated with blood ß-hydroxybutyrate (r = 0.297, P = 0.025). Overall, insulin sensitivity and resting energy expenditure increased and serum -glutamyltransferase concentrations

decreased in both diet groups during the 6-wk trial (P < 0.05). However, inflammatory risk (arachidonic acid:eicosapentaenoic acid ratios in plasma phospholipids) and perceptions of vigor were more adversely affected by the KLC than by the NLC diet. Conclusions:KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15867892

Energetics of obesity and weight control: does diet composition matter?
Schoeller DA, Buchholz AC.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 53706, USA. dschoell@nutrisci.wisc.edu

Greater average weight losses (2.5 kg over 12 weeks) have been reported for low-carbohydrate diets (<90 g/day) compared with traditional low-fat (<25% of energy), hypocaloric diets, implying a 233 kcal/day greater energy deficit. It has therefore been suggested that a low-carbohydrate diet may provide a metabolic advantage (an increase in energy expenditure), resulting in a positive effect on weight loss and maintenance. However, a review of studies in which 24-hour energy expenditure was measured did not provide evidence to support a metabolic advantage of low-carbohydrate diets and showed little evidence of a metabolic advantage of high-protein (>25% of energy) diets. Nonetheless, diets high in protein, but either low or modest in carbohydrate, have resulted in greater weight losses than traditional low-fat diets. We speculate that it is the protein, and not carbohydrate, content that is important in promoting short-term weight loss and that this effect is likely due to increased satiety caused by increased dietary protein. It has been suggested that the increased satiety might help persons to be more compliant with a hypocaloric diet and achieve greater weight loss. The current evidence, combined with the need to meet all nutrient requirements, suggests that hypocaloric weight-loss diets should be moderate in carbohydrate (35% to 50% of energy), moderate in fat (25% to 35% of energy), and protein should contribute 25% to 30% of energy intake. More studies of the efficacy of weight-loss and weight-maintenance diets that address protein content are needed. In addition, controlled studies of total energy expenditure or physical activity measured under free-living conditions that directly compare high-protein diets with those containing low and moderate carbohydrate content should also be performed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413100

Effect on 24-h energy expenditure of a moderate-fat diet high in monounsaturated fatty acids compared with that of a low-fat, carbohydrate-rich diet: a 6-mo controlled dietary intervention trial.
Rasmussen LG, Larsen TM, Mortensen PK, Due A, Astrup A.

Department of Human Nutrition, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark. logr@life.ku.dk

BACKGROUND: Dietary fat has a lower thermogenic effect than does carbohydrate. A moderate-fat diet, high in monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA diet), may decrease energy expenditure (EE) and thereby induce weight gain. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare changes in 24-h EE and substrate oxidation after a 6-mo controlled dietary intervention with either a MUFA or a low-fat (LF) diet. DESIGN: Twenty-seven overweight [body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 28.1 +/- 0.4] nondiabetic subjects aged 18-36 y followed an 8-wk low-calorie diet and a 2-wk weight-stabilizing diet and then were randomly assigned to a MUFA (n = 12) or LF (n = 15) diet for 6 mo. Substrate oxidation and 24-h EE were measured by whole-body indirect calorimetry. The first measurement (0 mo) was taken during the weight-stabilizing diet, and the second measurement was taken after the 6-mo intervention. RESULTS: A tendency was seen toward a lower 24-h EE with the MUFA than with the LF diet (P = 0.0675), but this trend did not remain after adjustment for the initial loses of fat mass and fat-free mass (P = 0.2963). Meal-induced thermogenesis was significantly (P < 0.05) lower with the MUFA than with the LF diet, but no time x treatment interaction was found. A significant (P = 0.0456) treatment x time interaction was found for spontaneous physical activity. CONCLUSION: Despite a slightly lower meal-induced thermogenesis, the MUFA diet had an effect on 24-h EE that was not significantly different from that of the LF diet after a 6-mo controlled dietary intervention.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 May;79(5):899S-906S.Click here to read Links

Comment in:
Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Nov;80(5):1445-6; author reply 1446.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Nov;80(5):1445; author reply 1446.

Is a calorie a calorie?
Buchholz AC, Schoeller DA.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1415 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA.

The aim of this review was to evaluate data regarding potential thermodynamic mechanisms for increased rates of weight loss in subjects consuming diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate. Studies that compared weight loss and energy expenditure in adults consuming diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate with those in adults consuming diets low in fat were reviewed. In addition, studies that measured the metabolizable energy of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates were reviewed. Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an approximately equal to 2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.

J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Mar;90(3):1475-82. Epub 2004 Dec 14. Links
The role of energy expenditure in the differential weight loss in obese women on low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets.

Brehm BJ, Spang SE, Lattin BL, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D'Alessio DA.
R.D., University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 210038, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0038, USA. bonnie.brehm@uc.edu
We have recently reported that obese women randomized to a low-carbohydrate diet lost more than twice as much weight as those following a low-fat diet over 6 months. The difference in weight loss was not explained by differences in energy intake because women on the two diets reported similar daily energy consumption. We hypothesized that chronic ingestion of a low-carbohydrate diet increases energy expenditure relative to a low-fat diet and that this accounts for the differential weight loss. To study this question, 50 healthy, moderately obese (body mass index, 33.2 +/- 0.28 kg/m(2)) women were randomized to 4 months of an ad libitum low-carbohydrate diet or an energy-restricted, low-fat diet. Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured by indirect calorimetry at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months. Physical activity was estimated by pedometers. The thermic effect of food (TEF) in response to low-fat and low-carbohydrate breakfasts was assessed over 5 h in a subset of subjects. Forty women completed the trial. The low-carbohydrate group lost more weight (9.79 +/- 0.71 vs. 6.14 +/- 0.91 kg; P < 0.05) and more body fat (6.20 +/- 0.67 vs. 3.23 +/- 0.67 kg; P < 0.05) than the low-fat group. There were no differences in energy intake between the diet groups as reported on 3-d food records at the conclusion of the study (1422 +/- 73 vs. 1530 +/- 102 kcal; 5954 +/- 306 vs. 6406 +/- 427 kJ). Mean REE in the two groups was comparable at baseline, decreased with weight loss, and did not differ at 2 or 4 months. The low-fat meal caused a greater 5-h increase in TEF than did the low-carbohydrate meal (53 +/- 9 vs. 31 +/- 5 kcal; 222 +/- 38 vs. 130 +/- 21 kJ; P = 0.017). Estimates of physical activity were stable in the dieters during the study and did not differ between groups. These results confirm that short-term weight loss is greater in obese women on a low-carbohydrate diet than in those on a low-fat diet even when reported food intake is similar. The differential weight loss is not explained by differences in REE, TEF, or physical activity and likely reflects underreporting of food consumption by the low-fat dieters.

1: J Nutr. 2005 Oct;135(10):2387-91. Related Articles, Links


Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.

Raatz SK, Torkelson CJ, Redmon JB, Reck KP, Kwong CA, Swanson JE, Liu C, Thomas W, Bantle JP.

General Clinical Research Center, Department of Medicine, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. raatz@med.umn.edu

Reducing the dietary glycemic load and the glycemic index was proposed as a novel approach to weight reduction. A parallel-design, randomized 12-wk controlled feeding trial with a 24-wk follow-up phase was conducted to test the hypothesis that a hypocaloric diet designed to reduce the glycemic load and the glycemic index would result in greater sustained weight loss than other hypocaloric diets. Obese subjects (n = 29) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 diets providing 3138 kJ less than estimated energy needs: high glycemic index (HGI), low glycemic index (LGI), or high fat (HF). For the first 12 wk, all food was provided to subjects (feeding phase). Subjects (n = 22) were instructed to follow the assigned diet for 24 additional weeks (free-living phase). Total body weight was obtained and body composition was assessed by skinfold measurements. Insulin sensitivity was assessed by the homeostasis model (HOMA). At 12 wk, weight changes from baseline were significant in all groups but not different among groups (-9.3 +/- 1.3 kg for the HGI diet, -9.9 +/- 1.4 kg for the LGI diet, and -8.4 +/- 1.5 kg for the HF diet). All groups improved in insulin sensitivity at the end of the feeding phase of the study. During the free-living phase, all groups maintained their initial weight loss and their improved insulin sensitivity. Weight loss and improved insulin sensitivity scores were independent of diet composition. In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects.

Comparison of 3 ad libitum diets for weight-loss maintenance, risk of cardiovascular disease, and diabetes: a 6-mo randomized, controlled trial.
Due A, Larsen TM, Mu H, Hermansen K, Stender S, Astrup A.

Department of Human Nutrition, Centre for Advanced Food Studies, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.

BACKGROUND: The optimal dietary content and type of fat and carbohydrate for weight management has been debated for decades. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the effects of 3 ad libitum diets on the maintenance of an initial weight loss of >or=8% and risk factors for CVD and diabetes during a 6-mo controlled dietary intervention. DESIGN: Nondiabetic overweight or obese [mean +/- SD body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 31.5 +/- 2.6] men (n = 55) and women (n = 76) aged 28.2 +/- 4.8 y were randomly assigned to a diet providing a moderate amount of fat (35-45% of energy) and >20% of fat as monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA diet; n = 54), to a low-fat (20-30% of energy) diet (LF diet; n = 51), or to a control diet (35% of energy as fat; n = 26). Protein constituted 10-20% of energy in all 3 diets. All foods were provided free of charge from a purpose-built supermarket. RESULTS: More subjects dropped out of the MUFA (28%) group than out of the LF group (16%) and control group (8%) (MUFA compared with control: P < 0.05). All groups regained weight (MUFA: 2.5 +/- 0.7 kg; LF: 2.2 +/- 0.7 kg; and control: 3.8 +/- 0.8 kg; NS). Body fat regain was lower in the LF (0.6 +/- 0.6%) and MUFA (1.6 +/- 0.6%) groups than in the control group (2.6 +/- 0.5%) (P < 0.05). In the MUFA group, fasting insulin decreased by 2.6 +/- 3.5 pmol/L, the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance by 0.17 +/- 0.13, and the ratio of LDL to HDL by 0.33 +/- 0.13; in the LF group, these variables increased by 4.3 +/- 3.0 pmol/L (P < 0.08) and 0.17 +/- 0.10 (P < 0.05) and decreased by 0.02 +/- 0.09 (P = 0.005), respectively; and in the control group, increased by 14.0 +/- 4.3 pmol/L (P < 0.001), 0.57 +/- 0.17 (P < 0.001), and 0.05 +/- 0.14 (P = 0.036), respectively. Dietary adherence was high on the basis of fatty acid changes in adipose tissue. CONCLUSIONS: Diet composition had no major effect on preventing weight regain. However, both the LF and MUFA diets produced less body fat regain than did the control diet, and the dropout rate was lowest in the LF diet group, whereas fasting insulin decreased and the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance and ratio of LDL to HDL improved with the MUFA diet. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00274729.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat...a-calorie.html

for the most part, studies where protein is adequate (or at least close to it), varying carbs and fats within the context of an identical caloric intake tends to have a minimal overall effect. What effect is occasionally seen tends to be small and highly variable (some subjects do better with one diet than another but there’s no consistent advantage). With the possible exception of extreme conditions (folks looking for super-leanness or folks who are super-obese), caloric intake is the greater determinant of results than the macronutrient composition.

my point is that if calories are being strictly controlled, the source doesn’t appear to make a humongous difference in terms of body composition changes. As well, once you get protein intake to proper levels, fooling around with carbohydate and fat ratios (within the context of identical caloric intakes) don’t seem to make a huge amount of difference either. The bottom line still comes down to calories in versus calories out

I suggest reading this thread, Bobby. You might learn something: http://forums.jpfitness.com/diet-nut...tml#post748988

[Turbo>NA]

thats a lot of info

[oldaccount]

Originally Posted by Turbo>NA

thats a lot of info

It all just means that from a body composition standpoint, once protein ia accounted for, it doesnt make much of a difference where the rest of your calories come from; they will have to come from either carbs or fat, and for the most part the proportions dont really matter. But that wont stop nutters like Bobby Light from imposing nonsensical and dogmatic guidelines in an attempt to sound, to the lay person, like they know what they're talking about.

[oldaccount]

Originally Posted by Bobby_Light

I feel you're overdoing the protein powder. The nutrients in it are suspect. Realize that the body doesn't recognize calories as much as it does nutrients. [b][People can eat an entire bag of potato chips and still not feel full despite multiple hundred of calories. Why? Zero nutrients; you give the body nothing./b] Ever seen someone eat 5 steaks at a sitting. Never. The steak is so nutrient packed you get full quickly. It's the difference between eating and nourishing yourself.

No nutrients in a bag of chip? No macronutrients called carbs and fats? Sweet, chips are calorie free. Bobbly Light says so.

[Bobby_Light]

I love that you took time out of your day in the attempt to prove me wrong, but your studies prove nothing as they focus on insulin resistance and weight gain/loss NOT improvements in body composition and largely in obese populations. Realize that you can lose weight and still go backward aka become less metabolically efficient (or degrade body comp). The studies completely ignore nutrient timing as well which is incredibly important.

You also make the mistake of saying that I recommend a low carb diet which is not the case. I feel your carbohydrate intake should be in relation to your activity level. On your very active days, you need more carbohydrate and vice versa. I am not recommending low this or low that or high this or high that. I mentioned that fact that carbohydrate and insulin are in bed with each other because individuals are over-consuming carbohydrate without the appropriate activity preceding or following its consumption leading to fat storage. Insulin is both friend and foe as it is fat storing yet extremely anabolic and its manipulation (and others) is important in reaping the benefits of your activity in the gym.

To say a calorie is a calorie is not true IMO. One hundred calories from a green veggie is not equal to a one hundred calories from a pop tart or ice cream. The body sees them differently despite both being carbohydrate sources, and you can tell by the vitality and body composition of those who eat the respective foods that this is fact. I don't need a study to tell me that.

Here is truth - the kinds/sources of food you chose to eat, when you eat them, and how much make an impact on body composition (and your health).

Read up.
http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_a..._cycling_codex

[Bobby_Light]

Originally Posted by Suareezay

No nutrients in a bag of chip? No macronutrients called carbs and fats? Sweet, chips are calorie free. Bobbly Light says so.

Yes, the potato chips do have carbohydrate and fat but offer nothing to the body. Potatoes are after all a carbohydrate source, and the oil they are fried in is a fat. Fried potatoes in rancid vegetable oils. Yum. The liver loves those extra chemicals thrown in too.

[Bobby_Light]

Originally Posted by Suareezay

It all just means that from a body composition standpoint, once protein ia accounted for, it doesnt make much of a difference where the rest of your calories come from; they will have to come from either carbs or fat, and for the most part the proportions dont really matter. But that wont stop nutters like Bobby Light from imposing nonsensical and dogmatic guidelines in an attempt to sound, to the lay person, like they know what they're talking about.

Bologna. The studies prove nothing and you bring nothing to this conversation except copy and pasting and criticism. Tell the bullshit you write to a competitive fitness athlete. You'll be laughed at.

[oldaccount]

Originally Posted by Bobby_Light

I love that you took time out of your day in the attempt to prove me wrong, but your studies prove nothing as they focus on insulin resistance and weight gain/loss NOT improvements in body composition and largely in obese populations. Realize that you can lose weight and still go backward aka become less metabolically efficient (or degrade body comp). The studies completely ignore nutrient timing as well which is incredibly important.

You also make the mistake of saying that I recommend a low carb diet which is not the case. I feel your carbohydrate intake should be in relation to your activity level. On your very active days, you need more carbohydrate and vice versa. I am not recommending low this or low that or high this or high that. I mentioned that fact that carbohydrate and insulin are in bed with each other because individuals are over-consuming carbohydrate without the appropriate activity preceding or following its consumption leading to fat storage. Insulin is both friend and foe as it is fat storing yet extremely anabolic and its manipulation (and others) is important in reaping the benefits of your activity in the gym.

Now youre just shifting the goal posts, moving your position from 'eat carbs = store fat' to 'ok carbs are good, but you have to match them to your activity level.' Do you even know what youre typing?

To say a calorie is a calorie is not true IMO. One hundred calories from a green veggie is not equal to a one hundred calories from a pop tart or ice cream.

No, it is true. The green veggies will provide fiber, vitamins, minerals, alkalinity, and some other stuff that can be made up elsewhere that the ice cream wont provide, but assuming isocaloric conditions, replacing X amount of calories from green veggies with X amount of calories from ice cream (which would be a trivial amount of ice cream in the first place) wont have any impact on body composition. To say that it would means you dont understand the energy balance equation.

The body sees them differently despite both being carbohydrate sources, and you can tell by the vitality and body composition of those who eat the respective foods that this is fact. I don't need a study to tell me that.

Because, generally, people who have good body composition are more active , manage their calories to some degree, get adequate protein, EFAs, etc. People with shitty body composition are less active, eat too much, dont get adequate protein, EFAs, etc. Durrrr. Lets try to compare apples to apples here.

Here is truth - the kinds/sources of food you chose to eat, when you eat them, and how much make an impact on body composition (and your health).

obviously.

Read up.
http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_a..._cycling_codex

tmuscle

[oldaccount]

Originally Posted by Bobby_Light

Yes, the potato chips do have carbohydrate and fat but offer nothing to the body. Potatoes are after all a carbohydrate source, and the oil they are fried in is a fat. Fried potatoes in rancid vegetable oils. Yum. The liver loves those extra chemicals thrown in too.

Words mean things. You said potato chips provide no nutrients. Carbs and fats are nutrients. You then say they offer nothing to the body. They offer calories to the body. Youre full of shit.

And yes, chips are pretty yummy.

[oldaccount]

Originally Posted by Bobby_Light

Bologna. The studies prove nothing and you bring nothing to this conversation except copy and pasting and criticism. Tell the bullshit you write to a competitive fitness athlete. You'll be laughed at.

Once again youre proving you dont have a clue what youre even talking about. Athletes generally dont know their ass from a hole in the ground unless their trainer/coach does, and plenty of them dont. Competitive athletes are genetically advantaged outliers who would excel at their sport regardless of the goofy, dogmatic, nonsensical shit their trainers put them up to in an attempt to look smart and important.

Tell a religious nutter that God doesnt exist. Youll be laughed at. Does this mean that God exists? No, it just means the religious nutter is a delusional moron with a false belief.

[Bobby_Light]

Originally Posted by Suareezay

Now youre just shifting the goal posts, moving your position from 'eat carbs = store fat' to 'ok carbs are good, but you have to match them to your activity level.' Do you even know what youre typing?

You simply had the mindset that I was recommending low carb dieting which is far from the truth as I specifically mention macronutrient cycling in previous posts outside of our conversation within this same thread. Diet is dynamic and will vary depending upon activity type, duration, etc.

The idea of a "food" being "low fat" only shows that it has been processed indicating that it is not a whole food but rather an imitation. There aren't skin or 2% cows. That was my message regarding the "low fat" mantra.

Originally Posted by Suareezay

No, it is true. The green veggies will provide fiber, vitamins, minerals, alkalinity, and some other stuff that can be made up elsewhere that the ice cream wont provide, but assuming isocaloric conditions, replacing X amount of calories from green veggies with X amount of calories from ice cream (which would be a trivial amount of ice cream in the first place) wont have any impact on body composition. To say that it would means you dont understand the energy balance equation.

Now we're talking about making it up in the diet elsewhere? This is ridiculous.

Your statement is false because of their respective impacts on blood sugar and insulin is completely different and completely lacks micronutrients needed for metabolic processes. Ice cream will produce blood sugar highs and low resulting in food cravings, premature hunger, emotional imbalance, low energy, and lack of mental acuity.

In addition, sugar is inflammatory to the GI tract and inhibits the immune system. Green veggies have the opposite effect. But wait, I guess we'll make it up elsewhere in the diet. My bad.

There is more to losing weight/improving body comp than the energy balance equation or EVERY person who was hypocaloric would lose weight and improve body composition no matter what they ate. THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN! Everybody would be ripped if that was the case. Like I said previously there is more to equation than energy in and energy out. I see this everyday. Lifestyle, nutrition, internal bodily function, and mental/emotional state of the trainee matter significantly.

Originally Posted by Suareezay

Because, generally, people who have good body composition are more active , manage their calories to some degree, get adequate protein, EFAs, etc. People with shitty body composition are less active, eat too much, dont get adequate protein, EFAs, etc. Durrrr. Lets try to compare apples to apples here.

Now you're onto essential fatty acids. WTF? I thought fat intake didn't matter?

You're creating your own BS scenarios in your head and twisting what I am writing by paraphrasing.

"Here is truth - the kinds/sources of food you chose to eat, when you eat them, and how much make an impact on body composition (and your health)."

I appreciate you agreeing with the above as now you are officially a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by Suareezay

tmuscle

Just an article written by one of the best strength coaches in the world. That information is gold. You're helpless.