CI/CO says I need 3500 calorie deficit to lose one pound of fat.
How many calories does it take to gain one pound of muscle mass? A pound of protein is about 1555 calories. So 1555kcal?
Oh wait, I have to exercise to build muscle. How many calories worth of exercise does it take to build one pound of muscle? Oh, it varies does it?
So gaining one pound of muscle varies with diet, exercise, level of conditioning, genetics, etc, but gaining or losing one pound of fat is fixed to a simple formula?
"It's a great life, if you don't weaken.". John Buchan
When you lose weight, you lose a mix of fat, lean tissue and water. Losing a pound of fat is going to translate into more than a pound of weight loss if you're on a constant deficit because you will lose some percentage of lean mass in the process, which will fluctuate based on:
a.) The aggressiveness of your deficit - larger calorie deficits will translate into more lean tissue loss.
b.) The method you lost the fat - someone doing chronic cardio to lose that fat likely lost more muscle in the process.
c.) Your weight training activity - lifting weights on a deficit will help preserve more lean mass.
d.) Your own genetics - some people store fat more efficiently than others, some release it more easily than others.
e.) How much water weight do you store per pound of fat? This could depend on so many factors!
I weigh about 10 lbs less than when I started my Primal journey over 2 years ago, yet I can benchpress 40 lbs more, I can deadlift 150 lbs more and squat 50 lbs more. Macro composition plays a role in body composition, nutrient timings play a role in body composition, the aggressiveness of calorie surpluses and deficits affect where our gains and losses in fat mass and lean mass come from, we miscalculate our TDEE with generalized formulas, we misinterpret how many calories we actually take in and we do crazy things like starvation diet and ruin our metabolic rate, but CICO is always perfect. The problem is with the individual because most people just don't understand how to lose weight properly.
Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.
Fascinating. How many of the 600 kCal/day were carbohydrates? Even if it was 100% (Which, I'd bet my copy of Good Calories, Bad Calories that it wasn't), that only adds up to 150g carbohydrates. If it was 60%, you're down to 90g carbohydrate. How are you claiming to know that the carbohydrate restriction didn't have an impact, but the overall caloric restriction did?Originally Posted by the link
I was trying to understand how your claim "But losing weight can help to restore insulin sensitivity by reducing fat in the pancreas" followed from the link you posted. My question (and it's a question, maybe there's something in the link I missed) is how does improved insulin sensitivity in response to feeding 11 people 600 kCal/day prove this is the mechanism rather than the inherent carbohydrate restriction?
That. And if you're interested in why fat ends up in organs where it doesn't belong in the first place: http://vimeo.com/52645372This study demonstrates that the twin defects of beta cell failure and insulin resistance that underlie type 2 diabetes can be reversed by acute negative energy balance alone. A hierarchy of response was observed, with a very early change in hepatic insulin sensitivity and a slower change in beta cell function. In the first 7 days of the reduced energy intake, fasting blood glucose and hepatic insulin sensitivity fell to normal, and intrahepatic lipid decreased by 30%. Over the 8 weeks of dietary energy restriction, beta cell function increased towards normal and pancreatic fat decreased. Following the intervention, participants gained 3.1 ± 1.0 kg body weight over 12 weeks, but their HbA1c remained steady while the fat content of both pancreas and liver did not increase. The data are consistent with the hypothesis that the abnormalities of insulin secretion and insulin resistance that underlie type 2 diabetes have a single, common aetiology, i.e. excess lipid accumulation in the liver and pancreas . This provides a unified hypothesis to explain a common disease that previously appeared to require separate disease processes affecting the pancreas and insulin-sensitive tissues.
It's really not a carbohydrate problem.
Last edited by Timthetaco; 03-07-2013 at 12:13 PM.
Also, they don't claim to have proven that 2 observed effects (reduction of fatty liver/pancreas and increased insulin sensitivity) are caused by the exact same mechanism. They claim to have come up with that hypothesis as a result of the results of this n=11 trial. Which I think is great, but it certainly doesn't prove that carbohydrate restriction doesn't restore insulin sensitivity and it may suggest the opposite.