Page 59 of 69 FirstFirst ... 9495758596061 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 590 of 686

Thread: The True Definition of Calories i.e. "Why what you believe is extremist BS" page 59

  1. #581
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,995
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by Lawyerchick12 View Post
    aaaanyway....OAN....how do you know if you have a high metabolism or if you are messing up your metabolism? Is it based on your frequent "expulsion" of waste? is it the unexplainable (I am sure it is explainable...just don't know what it is) wired feeling you get after you have just eaten? or is it as arbitrary as trying to determine your calorie output?
    You prove his point. CICO is useless as an actual intervention. Spot on in theory but useless in the real word. The best you can do is follow the evidence....LCHF has great result for improved metabolic health and reducing weight. Can you do it on HCLF....sure! Metabolic stats are not as good though. Are calories relevant? Yes, but with this stipulation....if you eat HFLC and till satiety you can expect far better results than HCLF till satiety. So eating till actually satisfies shows evidence for HFLC. Add that all up and pick your poison folks.
    Last edited by Neckhammer; 08-04-2012 at 08:19 PM.

  2. #582
    PrimalHunter's Avatar
    PrimalHunter is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    112
    Wow, how did I miss this giant thread the first time around?

    Anyway, people always talk about gaining or losing weight, but I never see much about what determines body composition. The number on the scale is one thing, but you also want your pounds in the right places.

    If you need 2500 calories a day to maintain, and you want to gain 20 lbs of muscle and lose 20 lbs of fat, how much should you eat? CICO doesn't seem to have much to say here.
    "Don't go in there, General, it's a trap! That's a grain chamber. It makes people like you into people like me."

  3. #583
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimalHunter View Post
    Wow, how did I miss this giant thread the first time around?

    Anyway, people always talk about gaining or losing weight, but I never see much about what determines body composition. The number on the scale is one thing, but you also want your pounds in the right places.

    If you need 2500 calories a day to maintain, and you want to gain 20 lbs of muscle and lose 20 lbs of fat, how much should you eat? CICO doesn't seem to have much to say here.
    Sure it does. It's called "calorie cycling." Look at "recomposition diets." They're usually called "recomps" or "recomping." The goal is to maintain the same weight while slowly shifting fat mass to lean mass. Typical recomp protocol is +20/-20, which means:

    1.) Eat a 20% caloric surplus on days you lift heavy weights, with most of the calories coming post-workout to ensure that the elevated anabolic hormones store the surplus calories as muscle instead of fat.

    2.) Eat a 20% caloric deficit on days you do not lift heavy. You don't want to go too much further than 20%, or you'll likely lose a disproportional amount of lean mass. If you want to do cardio to enhance the effectiveness, keep it low level. The higher the level, the more lean mass you lose.

    The reason why recomping isn't very popular is because it's very, very slow. Recomping 20 lbs could take years. Most people cut, then bulk. You can shed 20 lbs in 12 weeks easily and safely, then put yourself on a slow bulk plan for a long time. This is well-established in the fitness community.

    Calorie deficits and surpluses don't just come into play over the course of a week. It's over the course of mere hours. Your surplus is during points of heavy activity (so you gain mostly muscle), your deficit is at the point where you're sedentary (so you lose mostly fat), and at the end of the week, it's a wash calorically.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  4. #584
    Him's Avatar
    Him
    Him is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tejas Norte
    Posts
    282
    My WAG would be to estimate your current basal metabolic rate (BMR) based on body composition e.g. using the "Katch-Mcardle" (a name I found by googling) formula, estimate BMR at target body composition, BMR1 - BMR2 = change in calories.

    So going from 200lb at 30% BF to 200lb at 20% BF (in other words, converting 20lbs of fat to muscle) means increasing your intake by about 195 kcal per day, on average. How that is spread out over time (a whole bunch all at once, then less for awhile, or just a small increase) is a different subject of course.

    I have no idea if that's the "Right Way" though.
    Last edited by Him; 11-26-2012 at 12:59 PM.

  5. #585
    PrimalHunter's Avatar
    PrimalHunter is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    112
    Well, let's say you're doing a traditional bulk and cut, so you have sustained calorie surpluses and deficits. How does your body know that when you're bulking the extra calories should go to muscle, and when you're cutting the missing calories should come from fat?

    What would be different for someone seeking the sumo wrestler look? (Not sure if they actually want to be fat, or if it just happens that way.)
    "Don't go in there, General, it's a trap! That's a grain chamber. It makes people like you into people like me."

  6. #586
    ChocoTaco369's Avatar
    ChocoTaco369 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Narberth, PA
    Posts
    5,627
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimalHunter View Post
    Well, let's say you're doing a traditional bulk and cut, so you have sustained calorie surpluses and deficits. How does your body know that when you're bulking the extra calories should go to muscle, and when you're cutting the missing calories should come from fat?
    You have to go for subtle deficits and subtle surpluses. Think 20%. For a grown active male, that's around 500 calorie deficits and surpluses. If you keep deficits in the 20% range while you're sedentary, you are going to lose most of your weight from fat. If you increase the deficit too much or you try and be too active while on a deficit, then you will start burning lean tissue. Similarly, subtle surpluses of 20% calories or so after a workout - when you are in a very anabolic state - will generally go to lean muscle. There will always be tagalong fat on a surplus and there will always be lean tissue loss on a deficit, but this is how you maximize returns.

    Quote Originally Posted by PrimalHunter View Post
    What would be different for someone seeking the sumo wrestler look? (Not sure if they actually want to be fat, or if it just happens that way.)
    Massive caloric surpluses at all time is how you become a sumo wrestler. When you're chronically overeating huge surpluses, you are going to store mostly fat. The key is to not be too aggressive with cuts or bulks, and to time your deficits and surpluses.
    Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

  7. #587
    NDF's Avatar
    NDF
    NDF is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by PrimalHunter View Post
    Well, let's say you're doing a traditional bulk and cut, so you have sustained calorie surpluses and deficits. How does your body know that when you're bulking the extra calories should go to muscle, and when you're cutting the missing calories should come from fat?
    Lifting weights and maintaining the amount you are lifting is one way to encourage the missing calories to come from fat when you are dieting.

    Lifting weights and making progress(ie increasing reps and or weight lifted) while eating in a surplus is how you encourage extra calories to "turn into" muscle when eating in a surplus.

    You can't bulk without a lifting routine (unless you are taking hormones/drugs).
    You can lose weight without a lifting routine, however if you don't have adequate protein intake or are on a super steep deficit, you run the risk of losing muscle and fat rather than just fat.

  8. #588
    AdamW's Avatar
    AdamW is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    11
    Sorry to dig this thread up, but I just stumbled across it whilst also reading this article. Thought it may be of interest.

    It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds - Los Angeles Times
    It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds

    In an intensive, seven-month experiment during which 21 overweight men and women had their diets strictly controlled down to each last morsel, researchers showed that a traditional low-fat diet seemed to make the metabolism more sluggish than a high-protein one during the most difficult part of weight loss: keeping fat off once it's shed.

    The preliminary work, which was published Tuesday in the Journal of theAmerican Medical Assn., provides support for a growing group of scientists who argue that what people eat may be just as key as how much they eat.

    In a nutshell, "from a metabolic perspective, all calories are not alike," said study senior author Dr. David Ludwig, director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Children's Hospital Boston. "The quality of the calories going in affects the quantity of the calories going out."

  9. #589
    eKatherine's Avatar
    eKatherine is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Portland
    Posts
    5,425
    Quote Originally Posted by AdamW View Post
    Sorry to dig this thread up, but I just stumbled across it whilst also reading this article. Thought it may be of interest.

    It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds - Los Angeles Times
    It's not just how many calories, but what kind, study finds
    The fact that there are loads of articles out there on the topic of how the more we look at it, the more complex the interrelationships between nutrition and weight appear is irrelevant.

  10. #590
    Kochin's Avatar
    Kochin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Horsham
    Posts
    918
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    I'm currently religiously mapping my kcals. Not to control or restrict, but to observe.
    At the moment I'm slowly gaining weight, but my body-fat-% is going down, with my total fat barely increasing (gained 45g of fat last month out of the kg I put on, apparently). Pre-Primal I had lost three dress-sizes, was a healthy weight (even if my fat-LBM ratio was off a bit), but found it near-impossible to exercise. I was stable, but not very well.
    Upon eliminating grains and legumes (most of which now cause me pain to eat, implying I've always been intolerant and only noticed through omission), my kcal requirement dropped. This is unsurprising as I STILL wasn't doing much exercise and probably wasn't extracting all the kcals from grain anyway (so I may have eaten some 500kcal/day that I wasn't extracting from the food, due to gut imbalance caused by my intolerances).
    Then, I noticed I was fidgeting and walking more. I didn't only want to do more exercise, I couldn't stop myself, I NEEDED to. So my kcals crept up to keep me constant. Then they crept up again to build muscle. I've went from maintenance at 2000kcal of CW-healthy-eating, to maintenance at 1500kcal of Primal, to slight muscular increase at 3000kcal of Primal.

    The reason some people lose or maintain on more kcals might simply be: if you're eating right, you WANT to exercise. You fidget more, you do more, you burn more. So you go from burning 1300kcal and eating 1800kcal to burning 3000kcal and eating 2500kcal. On the SAD you eat food that makes you feel like crap and feel like eating more, that has no nutrients so you're continually hungry and that unbalances your gut flora and your natural peristalsis. Is it any wonder kcal restriction doesn't work if you're only burning your BMR of kcals? Is it any wonder that eating more healthful foods leads to more exercise and more kcals burned?

    Then you have another interesting phenomenon: if you eat too much fat, your body can basically dump some of it. You'd still gain weight, of course, but, unlike sugar, your body seems perfectly able to defecate almost all the fat you eat if you aren't using it, so any weight-gain is slow and minimal, compared to people who eat huge amounts of sugar, who can gain weight faster as the insulin-spike encourages storage and sugar is harder to just "dump" (pardon the pun). Combine with IF to "keep on top" of that small amount of storage and you're no longer in a kcal-surplus, despite eating so much.
    Some days I'll eat 200+ grams of fat. If I don't do much that day or the next day, most of it will come out the other end within 48h. So "kcals-in = kcals-out" still technically applies, but the kcals may not truly be going "in" to begin with.
    --
    Perfection is entirely individual. Any philosophy or pursuit that encourages individuality has merit in that it frees people. Any that encourages shackles only has merit in that it shows you how wrong and desperate the human mind can get in its pursuit of truth.

    --
    I get blunter and more narcissistic by the day.
    I'd apologize, but...

Page 59 of 69 FirstFirst ... 9495758596061 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •