Calorie Prioritization - Yes, a calorie is a calorie….
Replies
-
I am glad I read this! Thanks for posting this, it holds true for everyone! Basic,solid advice
Thumbs up.
P.s: I think you should paste this in every forum! People ,esp newcomers, need to see this.0 -
I'm just curious why you say that vegetables are a calorie dense food. Most of them are just water and indigestible fiber. Cucumbers and tomatoes for example are less than 1 Cal/gram usually.0
-
It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
0 -
I'm just curious why you say that vegetables are a calorie dense food. Most of them are just water and indigestible fiber. Cucumbers and tomatoes for example are less than 1 Cal/gram usually.
You need to reread the post. He said that vegetables are nutrient dense, they have lots of nutrients. The vitamin content of them is very high in proportion to the amount of calories in them as opposed to calorie dense foods that have fewer nutrients but more calories.0 -
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
0 -
I'm just curious why you say that vegetables are a calorie dense food. Most of them are just water and indigestible fiber. Cucumbers and tomatoes for example are less than 1 Cal/gram usually.
can you go back and check my OP? I think that I said "nutritionally dense" but there may be a typo....0 -
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
besides the fact that he cherry picked one day over Thanksgiving weekend...LOL0 -
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
Lyle's a pretty good example for that fallacy. He's one of the smartest guys in the business (as far as his information goes) and he doesn't look like he lifts. So it's pretty suitable
0 -
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
besides the fact that he cherry picked one day over Thanksgiving weekend...LOL
It was more than a weekend you did it for like 14 days, the journal does not lie, plus it was even before that particular weekend started.
The idea of a bulk is to gain as much as muscle with little fat as possible. Why bulk with high caloric dense foods that do nothing for you to build muscle? Do you really believe alcohol calories upwards to 600 will help you, plus the 400 calories from cookies that was seen daily for totals to 600-1000 bulk calories...
How does getting more empty, non nutritious calories build muscle? I would ask for an explanation but this whole topic becomes more opinion and then people start yelling BRO SCIENCE and it's just not worth anything.
Back to the OP's topic, CICO, which basically states obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories is a very flawed argument Not all the food is the same, and not everyone is the same, and reaction is where the calories matter anyways.
I just don't get the idea that as long as it's calories I will gain muscle, because I lift whatever amount of weight the person is lifting.
Stop grabbing straws, i'm sure someone will say that and has. I'll just look around at the world and see obesity going up and up, and think they are all fat because they ate too much. Then I will realize counting calories has been here forever, and that is surely working for us.
Calories are energy for sure, which is the definition of the calorie, but to the standpoint of what the food it is not = biologically and if it's not it makes them not the same and a calorie not a calorie. I can even link this and it will not help but I still will, because the evidence is growing that what we eat matters more than what is the calorie amount, and what we eat is how we get the calories in the first place!
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7838668.stm
I know people want the simplest way to get their goals, but for majority it's not simple as just eat less to lose weight, or eat more to gain weight. It varies and really bad advice to recommend someone who has never been "fat" to eat more junk to reach a number as long as they hit their macros. Or the opposite to someone who was "fat" to keep eating the junk because now they are under a number, the number is a tool not the answer. I thought Fitness was health related? Guess it only matters number wise...
Moderation/ sanity will come up next, if you need a cookie and some ice cream have it, i'll never say keep that out of your diet, but don't rely on those in large amounts to hit that darn number again, for a goal you took serious enough to start. Common sense.
Someone will bring up the Laws of Thermodynamics in their favor too. But here is the smoking gun. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed/isolated systems. The human body is not a closed/isolated system.
0 -
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
besides the fact that he cherry picked one day over Thanksgiving weekend...LOL
It was more than a weekend you did it for like 14 days, the journal does not lie, plus it was even before that particular weekend started.
The idea of a bulk is to gain as much as muscle with little fat as possible. Why bulk with high caloric dense foods that do nothing for you to build muscle? Do you really believe alcohol calories upwards to 600 will help you, plus the 400 calories from cookies that was seen daily for totals to 600-1000 bulk calories...
How does getting more empty, non nutritious calories build muscle? I would ask for an explanation but this whole topic becomes more opinion and then people start yelling BRO SCIENCE and it's just not worth anything.
Back to the OP's topic, CICO, which basically states obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories is a very flawed argument Not all the food is the same, and not everyone is the same, and reaction is where the calories matter anyways.
I just don't get the idea that as long as it's calories I will gain muscle, because I lift whatever amount of weight the person is lifting.
Stop grabbing straws, i'm sure someone will say that and has. I'll just look around at the world and see obesity going up and up, and think they are all fat because they ate too much. Then I will realize counting calories has been here forever, and that is surely working for us.
Calories are energy for sure, which is the definition of the calorie, but to the standpoint of what the food it is not = biologically and if it's not it makes them not the same and a calorie not a calorie. I can even link this and it will not help but I still will, because the evidence is growing that what we eat matters more than what is the calorie amount, and what we eat is how we get the calories in the first place!
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
I know people want the simplest way to get their goals, but for majority it's not simple as just eat less to lose weight, or eat more to gain weight. It varies and really bad advice to recommend someone who has never been "fat" to eat more junk to reach a number as long as they hit their macros. Or the opposite to someone who was "fat" to keep eating the junk because now they are under a number, the number is a tool not the answer. I thought Fitness was health related? Guess it only matters number wise...
Moderation/ sanity will come up next, if you need a cookie and some ice cream have it, i'll never say keep that out of your diet, but don't rely on those in large amounts to hit a number for a goal you took serious enough to start. Common sense.
Someone will bring up the Laws of Thermodynamics in their favor too. But here is the smoking gun. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed/isolated systems. The human body is not a closed/isolated system.
I don't see how this relates at all to OP quality information he has shared. It clearly comes across as you "shaming" OP for their own choices.
Great information for those interested in bulking.0 -
This is a great post. @JoshLibby drank too much haterade this morning.0
-
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
besides the fact that he cherry picked one day over Thanksgiving weekend...LOL
It was more than a weekend you did it for like 14 days, the journal does not lie, plus it was even before that particular weekend started.
The idea of a bulk is to gain as much as muscle with little fat as possible. Why bulk with high caloric dense foods that do nothing for you to build muscle? Do you really believe alcohol calories upwards to 600 will help you, plus the 400 calories from cookies that was seen daily for totals to 600-1000 bulk calories...
How does getting more empty, non nutritious calories build muscle? I would ask for an explanation but this whole topic becomes more opinion and then people start yelling BRO SCIENCE and it's just not worth anything.
Back to the OP's topic, CICO, which basically states obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories is a very flawed argument Not all the food is the same, and not everyone is the same, and reaction is where the calories matter anyways.
I just don't get the idea that as long as it's calories I will gain muscle, because I lift whatever amount of weight the person is lifting.
Stop grabbing straws, i'm sure someone will say that and has. I'll just look around at the world and see obesity going up and up, and think they are all fat because they ate too much. Then I will realize counting calories has been here forever, and that is surely working for us.
Calories are energy for sure, which is the definition of the calorie, but to the standpoint of what the food it is not = biologically and if it's not it makes them not the same and a calorie not a calorie. I can even link this and it will not help but I still will, because the evidence is growing that what we eat matters more than what is the calorie amount, and what we eat is how we get the calories in the first place!
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
I know people want the simplest way to get their goals, but for majority it's not simple as just eat less to lose weight, or eat more to gain weight. It varies and really bad advice to recommend someone who has never been "fat" to eat more junk to reach a number as long as they hit their macros. Or the opposite to someone who was "fat" to keep eating the junk because now they are under a number, the number is a tool not the answer. I thought Fitness was health related? Guess it only matters number wise...
Moderation/ sanity will come up next, if you need a cookie and some ice cream have it, i'll never say keep that out of your diet, but don't rely on those in large amounts to hit that darn number again, for a goal you took serious enough to start. Common sense.
Someone will bring up the Laws of Thermodynamics in their favor too. But here is the smoking gun. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed/isolated systems. The human body is not a closed/isolated system.
You really need to stop mis-representing my food diary. Feel free to list the 14 days straight that I had 1000 calories of cookies and alchohol. Yes, I get about 600 calories a day from calorie dense sources, not denying that.
If you have two people and one person has a surplus of vegetables and chicken (good luck doing that every day) and one person has a surplus of 500 calories of Oreos, please explain the exact science as to how the person eating chicken and vegetables will have more muscle growth the then the person eating 500 calories of Oreos. Please explain to us how calorie dense foods will provide no benefit to muscle building? We all know that to build muscle you need excess calories and a progressive lifting program. However, your argument seems to be that only certain types of calories build muscle, which is ridiculous.
You keep referring to empty calories, which you know is not true, because ALL calories contain energy; however, they are not all nutritionally the same, which I clearly pointed out in my OP. However, you then go on to say that all calories do provide energy, so which one is it; calories are empty or they provide energy?
For the record, this thread is not about CICO or Obesity rates, it was specifically notated as a guide for calorie prioritization during a bulk, if you want to have a debate about those topics, then please start your own thread.
0 -
Did someone say oreos????????0
-
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
besides the fact that he cherry picked one day over Thanksgiving weekend...LOL
It was more than a weekend you did it for like 14 days, the journal does not lie, plus it was even before that particular weekend started.
The idea of a bulk is to gain as much as muscle with little fat as possible. Why bulk with high caloric dense foods that do nothing for you to build muscle? Do you really believe alcohol calories upwards to 600 will help you, plus the 400 calories from cookies that was seen daily for totals to 600-1000 bulk calories...
How does getting more empty, non nutritious calories build muscle? I would ask for an explanation but this whole topic becomes more opinion and then people start yelling BRO SCIENCE and it's just not worth anything.
Back to the OP's topic, CICO, which basically states obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories is a very flawed argument Not all the food is the same, and not everyone is the same, and reaction is where the calories matter anyways.
I just don't get the idea that as long as it's calories I will gain muscle, because I lift whatever amount of weight the person is lifting.
Stop grabbing straws, i'm sure someone will say that and has. I'll just look around at the world and see obesity going up and up, and think they are all fat because they ate too much. Then I will realize counting calories has been here forever, and that is surely working for us.
Calories are energy for sure, which is the definition of the calorie, but to the standpoint of what the food it is not = biologically and if it's not it makes them not the same and a calorie not a calorie. I can even link this and it will not help but I still will, because the evidence is growing that what we eat matters more than what is the calorie amount, and what we eat is how we get the calories in the first place!
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
I know people want the simplest way to get their goals, but for majority it's not simple as just eat less to lose weight, or eat more to gain weight. It varies and really bad advice to recommend someone who has never been "fat" to eat more junk to reach a number as long as they hit their macros. Or the opposite to someone who was "fat" to keep eating the junk because now they are under a number, the number is a tool not the answer. I thought Fitness was health related? Guess it only matters number wise...
Moderation/ sanity will come up next, if you need a cookie and some ice cream have it, i'll never say keep that out of your diet, but don't rely on those in large amounts to hit that darn number again, for a goal you took serious enough to start. Common sense.
Someone will bring up the Laws of Thermodynamics in their favor too. But here is the smoking gun. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed/isolated systems. The human body is not a closed/isolated system.
You really need to stop mis-representing my food diary. Feel free to list the 14 days straight that I had 1000 calories of cookies and alchohol. Yes, I get about 600 calories a day from calorie dense sources, not denying that.
If you have two people and one person has a surplus of vegetables and chicken (good luck doing that every day) and one person has a surplus of 500 calories of Oreos, please explain the exact science as to how the person eating chicken and vegetables will have more muscle growth the then the person eating 500 calories of Oreos. Please explain to us how calorie dense foods will provide no benefit to muscle building? We all know that to build muscle you need excess calories and a progressive lifting program. However, your argument seems to be that only certain types of calories build muscle, which is ridiculous.
You keep referring to empty calories, which you know is not true, because ALL calories contain energy; however, they are not all nutritionally the same, which I clearly pointed out in my OP. However, you then go on to say that all calories do provide energy, so which one is it; calories are empty or they provide energy?
For the record, this thread is not about CICO or Obesity rates, it was specifically notated as a guide for calorie prioritization during a bulk, if you want to have a debate about those topics, then please start your own thread.
How is this thread not about CICO(calories in calories out) when the topic is about calories being a calorie? The dates you are looking for by the way are Nov 2nd to whenever you want to stop looking. Also, yes there is such a thing as a empty calorie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_calorie even the USDA says so.0 -
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
besides the fact that he cherry picked one day over Thanksgiving weekend...LOL
It was more than a weekend you did it for like 14 days, the journal does not lie, plus it was even before that particular weekend started.
The idea of a bulk is to gain as much as muscle with little fat as possible. Why bulk with high caloric dense foods that do nothing for you to build muscle? Do you really believe alcohol calories upwards to 600 will help you, plus the 400 calories from cookies that was seen daily for totals to 600-1000 bulk calories...
How does getting more empty, non nutritious calories build muscle? I would ask for an explanation but this whole topic becomes more opinion and then people start yelling BRO SCIENCE and it's just not worth anything.
Back to the OP's topic, CICO, which basically states obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories is a very flawed argument Not all the food is the same, and not everyone is the same, and reaction is where the calories matter anyways.
I just don't get the idea that as long as it's calories I will gain muscle, because I lift whatever amount of weight the person is lifting.
Stop grabbing straws, i'm sure someone will say that and has. I'll just look around at the world and see obesity going up and up, and think they are all fat because they ate too much. Then I will realize counting calories has been here forever, and that is surely working for us.
Calories are energy for sure, which is the definition of the calorie, but to the standpoint of what the food it is not = biologically and if it's not it makes them not the same and a calorie not a calorie. I can even link this and it will not help but I still will, because the evidence is growing that what we eat matters more than what is the calorie amount, and what we eat is how we get the calories in the first place!
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
I know people want the simplest way to get their goals, but for majority it's not simple as just eat less to lose weight, or eat more to gain weight. It varies and really bad advice to recommend someone who has never been "fat" to eat more junk to reach a number as long as they hit their macros. Or the opposite to someone who was "fat" to keep eating the junk because now they are under a number, the number is a tool not the answer. I thought Fitness was health related? Guess it only matters number wise...
Moderation/ sanity will come up next, if you need a cookie and some ice cream have it, i'll never say keep that out of your diet, but don't rely on those in large amounts to hit that darn number again, for a goal you took serious enough to start. Common sense.
Someone will bring up the Laws of Thermodynamics in their favor too. But here is the smoking gun. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed/isolated systems. The human body is not a closed/isolated system.
You really need to stop mis-representing my food diary. Feel free to list the 14 days straight that I had 1000 calories of cookies and alchohol. Yes, I get about 600 calories a day from calorie dense sources, not denying that.
If you have two people and one person has a surplus of vegetables and chicken (good luck doing that every day) and one person has a surplus of 500 calories of Oreos, please explain the exact science as to how the person eating chicken and vegetables will have more muscle growth the then the person eating 500 calories of Oreos. Please explain to us how calorie dense foods will provide no benefit to muscle building? We all know that to build muscle you need excess calories and a progressive lifting program. However, your argument seems to be that only certain types of calories build muscle, which is ridiculous.
You keep referring to empty calories, which you know is not true, because ALL calories contain energy; however, they are not all nutritionally the same, which I clearly pointed out in my OP. However, you then go on to say that all calories do provide energy, so which one is it; calories are empty or they provide energy?
For the record, this thread is not about CICO or Obesity rates, it was specifically notated as a guide for calorie prioritization during a bulk, if you want to have a debate about those topics, then please start your own thread.
How is this thread not about CICO(calories in calories out) when the topic is about calories being a calorie? The dates you are looking for by the way are Nov 2nd to whenever you want to stop looking. Also, yes there is such a thing as a empty calorie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_calorie even the USDA says so.
that is funny because on the third and fourth of November I had zero alcohol....
ok, please list the foods/calories that provide zero energy.
ETA - No here in my OP did I discuss CICO or Obesity rates. The topic is "calorie prioritization"0 -
Seeing the whole calorie is not a calorie thing come up a few times in this forum, so just wanted to lay out some thoughts on the subject for everyone.
From an energy standpoint, all calories are created equally; however, this does not mean that all calories are nutritionally the same.
So while 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of cookies from an energy standpoint, they are not nutritionally the same.
What this means when one is bulking is that one should prioritize calorie intake into three tiers.
Tier One = make sure that you eat nutritionally dense foods like vegetables, fish, rice, etc, so that one gets adequate micronutrients (nutrition)
Tier Two = deals with macronutrients and making sure that one is hitting protein and fat minimums.
tier three = filling in the rest of your day with calorie dense foods to make sure that one is getting into a caloric surplus. The recommendation is that after one gets micronutrients and protein and fat minimums, that the rest of your day should be filled in with carbs.
So over the course of the day one should be meeting micronutrient goals, hitting macronutrients, and then fill in with calorie dense foods to get into a surplus.
This does NOT mean that I am saying eat 2500 calories of pizza or donuts, as it would then be impossible to get adequate nutrition and hit macros.
enjoy the bulking!
This was clearly defined by OP the difference between calories as energy and calories as nutrition. There's nothing more to argue about it.0 -
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
besides the fact that he cherry picked one day over Thanksgiving weekend...LOL
It was more than a weekend you did it for like 14 days, the journal does not lie, plus it was even before that particular weekend started.
The idea of a bulk is to gain as much as muscle with little fat as possible. Why bulk with high caloric dense foods that do nothing for you to build muscle? Do you really believe alcohol calories upwards to 600 will help you, plus the 400 calories from cookies that was seen daily for totals to 600-1000 bulk calories...
How does getting more empty, non nutritious calories build muscle? I would ask for an explanation but this whole topic becomes more opinion and then people start yelling BRO SCIENCE and it's just not worth anything.
Back to the OP's topic, CICO, which basically states obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories is a very flawed argument Not all the food is the same, and not everyone is the same, and reaction is where the calories matter anyways.
I just don't get the idea that as long as it's calories I will gain muscle, because I lift whatever amount of weight the person is lifting.
Stop grabbing straws, i'm sure someone will say that and has. I'll just look around at the world and see obesity going up and up, and think they are all fat because they ate too much. Then I will realize counting calories has been here forever, and that is surely working for us.
Calories are energy for sure, which is the definition of the calorie, but to the standpoint of what the food it is not = biologically and if it's not it makes them not the same and a calorie not a calorie. I can even link this and it will not help but I still will, because the evidence is growing that what we eat matters more than what is the calorie amount, and what we eat is how we get the calories in the first place!
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
I know people want the simplest way to get their goals, but for majority it's not simple as just eat less to lose weight, or eat more to gain weight. It varies and really bad advice to recommend someone who has never been "fat" to eat more junk to reach a number as long as they hit their macros. Or the opposite to someone who was "fat" to keep eating the junk because now they are under a number, the number is a tool not the answer. I thought Fitness was health related? Guess it only matters number wise...
Moderation/ sanity will come up next, if you need a cookie and some ice cream have it, i'll never say keep that out of your diet, but don't rely on those in large amounts to hit that darn number again, for a goal you took serious enough to start. Common sense.
Someone will bring up the Laws of Thermodynamics in their favor too. But here is the smoking gun. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed/isolated systems. The human body is not a closed/isolated system.
You really need to stop mis-representing my food diary. Feel free to list the 14 days straight that I had 1000 calories of cookies and alchohol. Yes, I get about 600 calories a day from calorie dense sources, not denying that.
If you have two people and one person has a surplus of vegetables and chicken (good luck doing that every day) and one person has a surplus of 500 calories of Oreos, please explain the exact science as to how the person eating chicken and vegetables will have more muscle growth the then the person eating 500 calories of Oreos. Please explain to us how calorie dense foods will provide no benefit to muscle building? We all know that to build muscle you need excess calories and a progressive lifting program. However, your argument seems to be that only certain types of calories build muscle, which is ridiculous.
You keep referring to empty calories, which you know is not true, because ALL calories contain energy; however, they are not all nutritionally the same, which I clearly pointed out in my OP. However, you then go on to say that all calories do provide energy, so which one is it; calories are empty or they provide energy?
For the record, this thread is not about CICO or Obesity rates, it was specifically notated as a guide for calorie prioritization during a bulk, if you want to have a debate about those topics, then please start your own thread.
How is this thread not about CICO (calories in calories out) when the topic is about calories being a calorie? The dates you are looking for by the way are Nov 2nd to whenever you want to stop looking. Also, yes there is such a thing as a empty calorie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_calorie even the USDA says so.
You know what's kind of funny is the fact that what you link has a chart corresponding to the "appropriate" level of empty calories for individuals engaging in less than moderate exercise 30 minutes or less daily.
Last I checked, the vast majority of posters in the gaining weight section here have calorie limits of around 3000+ and activity level far exceeds those expectations; and thus they would fit the criteria of the below bolded section located in the link that YOU posted. It ties in quite nicely:
All people require certain essential nutrients, but food energy intake must be balanced with activity to maintain a proper body weight. People who engage in heavy physical activity need food energy as fuel, which can be supplied by empty calories in addition to foods with essential nutrients. Sedentary individuals and those eating less to lose weight may suffer malnutrition if they eat food supplying empty calories but not enough nutrients.[3][4] Dietitians and nutritionists prevent or treat illnesses by designing eating programs and recommending dietary modifications according to patient's needs.[5] Eating a variety of nutritious foods every day protects against chronic illness and helps to maintain a healthy immune system.[6]
Why is it that the individuals who always scrutinize posts such as this are the ones with closed diaries?0 -
I am failing to see how ones food diary has any correlation to one's ability to provided advice.0
-
LolBroScience wrote: »
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
besides the fact that he cherry picked one day over Thanksgiving weekend...LOL
It was more than a weekend you did it for like 14 days, the journal does not lie, plus it was even before that particular weekend started.
The idea of a bulk is to gain as much as muscle with little fat as possible. Why bulk with high caloric dense foods that do nothing for you to build muscle? Do you really believe alcohol calories upwards to 600 will help you, plus the 400 calories from cookies that was seen daily for totals to 600-1000 bulk calories...
How does getting more empty, non nutritious calories build muscle? I would ask for an explanation but this whole topic becomes more opinion and then people start yelling BRO SCIENCE and it's just not worth anything.
Back to the OP's topic, CICO, which basically states obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories is a very flawed argument Not all the food is the same, and not everyone is the same, and reaction is where the calories matter anyways.
I just don't get the idea that as long as it's calories I will gain muscle, because I lift whatever amount of weight the person is lifting.
Stop grabbing straws, i'm sure someone will say that and has. I'll just look around at the world and see obesity going up and up, and think they are all fat because they ate too much. Then I will realize counting calories has been here forever, and that is surely working for us.
Calories are energy for sure, which is the definition of the calorie, but to the standpoint of what the food it is not = biologically and if it's not it makes them not the same and a calorie not a calorie. I can even link this and it will not help but I still will, because the evidence is growing that what we eat matters more than what is the calorie amount, and what we eat is how we get the calories in the first place!
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
I know people want the simplest way to get their goals, but for majority it's not simple as just eat less to lose weight, or eat more to gain weight. It varies and really bad advice to recommend someone who has never been "fat" to eat more junk to reach a number as long as they hit their macros. Or the opposite to someone who was "fat" to keep eating the junk because now they are under a number, the number is a tool not the answer. I thought Fitness was health related? Guess it only matters number wise...
Moderation/ sanity will come up next, if you need a cookie and some ice cream have it, i'll never say keep that out of your diet, but don't rely on those in large amounts to hit that darn number again, for a goal you took serious enough to start. Common sense.
Someone will bring up the Laws of Thermodynamics in their favor too. But here is the smoking gun. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed/isolated systems. The human body is not a closed/isolated system.
You really need to stop mis-representing my food diary. Feel free to list the 14 days straight that I had 1000 calories of cookies and alchohol. Yes, I get about 600 calories a day from calorie dense sources, not denying that.
If you have two people and one person has a surplus of vegetables and chicken (good luck doing that every day) and one person has a surplus of 500 calories of Oreos, please explain the exact science as to how the person eating chicken and vegetables will have more muscle growth the then the person eating 500 calories of Oreos. Please explain to us how calorie dense foods will provide no benefit to muscle building? We all know that to build muscle you need excess calories and a progressive lifting program. However, your argument seems to be that only certain types of calories build muscle, which is ridiculous.
You keep referring to empty calories, which you know is not true, because ALL calories contain energy; however, they are not all nutritionally the same, which I clearly pointed out in my OP. However, you then go on to say that all calories do provide energy, so which one is it; calories are empty or they provide energy?
For the record, this thread is not about CICO or Obesity rates, it was specifically notated as a guide for calorie prioritization during a bulk, if you want to have a debate about those topics, then please start your own thread.
How is this thread not about CICO (calories in calories out) when the topic is about calories being a calorie? The dates you are looking for by the way are Nov 2nd to whenever you want to stop looking. Also, yes there is such a thing as a empty calorie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_calorie even the USDA says so.
You know what's kind of funny is the fact that what you link has a chart corresponding to the "appropriate" level of empty calories for individuals engaging in less than moderate exercise 30 minutes or less daily.
Last I checked, the vast majority of posters in the gaining weight section here have calorie limits of around 3000+ and activity level far exceeds those expectations; and thus they would fit the criteria of the below bolded section located in the link that YOU posted. It ties in quite nicely:
All people require certain essential nutrients, but food energy intake must be balanced with activity to maintain a proper body weight. People who engage in heavy physical activity need food energy as fuel, which can be supplied by empty calories in addition to foods with essential nutrients. Sedentary individuals and those eating less to lose weight may suffer malnutrition if they eat food supplying empty calories but not enough nutrients.[3][4] Dietitians and nutritionists prevent or treat illnesses by designing eating programs and recommending dietary modifications according to patient's needs.[5] Eating a variety of nutritious foods every day protects against chronic illness and helps to maintain a healthy immune system.[6]
Why is it that the individuals who always scrutinize posts such as this are the ones with closed diaries?
good point...I did not even bother clicking on the link ...
I think it also needs to be pointed out that if you need to get to 3000 + calories to get into a surplus that it is going to be almost impossible to do that on fish, chicken, fruit, rice, and vegetables alone...0 -
If including women that are gaining, I don't think it can be said that most are shooting for over 3000 calories. Also, not everyone who is bulking is also doing a lot of cardio. Meaning, the overall activity level of some who are bulking is not necessarily that high.LolBroScience wrote: »
Last I checked, the vast majority of posters in the gaining weight section here have calorie limits of around 3000+ and activity level far exceeds those expectations
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
besides the fact that he cherry picked one day over Thanksgiving weekend...LOL
It was more than a weekend you did it for like 14 days, the journal does not lie, plus it was even before that particular weekend started.
The idea of a bulk is to gain as much as muscle with little fat as possible. Why bulk with high caloric dense foods that do nothing for you to build muscle? Do you really believe alcohol calories upwards to 600 will help you, plus the 400 calories from cookies that was seen daily for totals to 600-1000 bulk calories...
How does getting more empty, non nutritious calories build muscle? I would ask for an explanation but this whole topic becomes more opinion and then people start yelling BRO SCIENCE and it's just not worth anything.
Back to the OP's topic, CICO, which basically states obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories is a very flawed argument Not all the food is the same, and not everyone is the same, and reaction is where the calories matter anyways.
I just don't get the idea that as long as it's calories I will gain muscle, because I lift whatever amount of weight the person is lifting.
Stop grabbing straws, i'm sure someone will say that and has. I'll just look around at the world and see obesity going up and up, and think they are all fat because they ate too much. Then I will realize counting calories has been here forever, and that is surely working for us.
Calories are energy for sure, which is the definition of the calorie, but to the standpoint of what the food it is not = biologically and if it's not it makes them not the same and a calorie not a calorie. I can even link this and it will not help but I still will, because the evidence is growing that what we eat matters more than what is the calorie amount, and what we eat is how we get the calories in the first place!
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
I know people want the simplest way to get their goals, but for majority it's not simple as just eat less to lose weight, or eat more to gain weight. It varies and really bad advice to recommend someone who has never been "fat" to eat more junk to reach a number as long as they hit their macros. Or the opposite to someone who was "fat" to keep eating the junk because now they are under a number, the number is a tool not the answer. I thought Fitness was health related? Guess it only matters number wise...
Moderation/ sanity will come up next, if you need a cookie and some ice cream have it, i'll never say keep that out of your diet, but don't rely on those in large amounts to hit that darn number again, for a goal you took serious enough to start. Common sense.
Someone will bring up the Laws of Thermodynamics in their favor too. But here is the smoking gun. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed/isolated systems. The human body is not a closed/isolated system.
You really need to stop mis-representing my food diary. Feel free to list the 14 days straight that I had 1000 calories of cookies and alchohol. Yes, I get about 600 calories a day from calorie dense sources, not denying that.
If you have two people and one person has a surplus of vegetables and chicken (good luck doing that every day) and one person has a surplus of 500 calories of Oreos, please explain the exact science as to how the person eating chicken and vegetables will have more muscle growth the then the person eating 500 calories of Oreos. Please explain to us how calorie dense foods will provide no benefit to muscle building? We all know that to build muscle you need excess calories and a progressive lifting program. However, your argument seems to be that only certain types of calories build muscle, which is ridiculous.
You keep referring to empty calories, which you know is not true, because ALL calories contain energy; however, they are not all nutritionally the same, which I clearly pointed out in my OP. However, you then go on to say that all calories do provide energy, so which one is it; calories are empty or they provide energy?
For the record, this thread is not about CICO or Obesity rates, it was specifically notated as a guide for calorie prioritization during a bulk, if you want to have a debate about those topics, then please start your own thread.
How is this thread not about CICO (calories in calories out) when the topic is about calories being a calorie? The dates you are looking for by the way are Nov 2nd to whenever you want to stop looking. Also, yes there is such a thing as a empty calorie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_calorie even the USDA says so.
0 -
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
besides the fact that he cherry picked one day over Thanksgiving weekend...LOL
It was more than a weekend you did it for like 14 days, the journal does not lie, plus it was even before that particular weekend started.
The idea of a bulk is to gain as much as muscle with little fat as possible. Why bulk with high caloric dense foods that do nothing for you to build muscle? Do you really believe alcohol calories upwards to 600 will help you, plus the 400 calories from cookies that was seen daily for totals to 600-1000 bulk calories...
How does getting more empty, non nutritious calories build muscle? I would ask for an explanation but this whole topic becomes more opinion and then people start yelling BRO SCIENCE and it's just not worth anything.
Back to the OP's topic, CICO, which basically states obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories is a very flawed argument Not all the food is the same, and not everyone is the same, and reaction is where the calories matter anyways.
I just don't get the idea that as long as it's calories I will gain muscle, because I lift whatever amount of weight the person is lifting.
Stop grabbing straws, i'm sure someone will say that and has. I'll just look around at the world and see obesity going up and up, and think they are all fat because they ate too much. Then I will realize counting calories has been here forever, and that is surely working for us.
Calories are energy for sure, which is the definition of the calorie, but to the standpoint of what the food it is not = biologically and if it's not it makes them not the same and a calorie not a calorie. I can even link this and it will not help but I still will, because the evidence is growing that what we eat matters more than what is the calorie amount, and what we eat is how we get the calories in the first place!
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7838668.stm
I know people want the simplest way to get their goals, but for majority it's not simple as just eat less to lose weight, or eat more to gain weight. It varies and really bad advice to recommend someone who has never been "fat" to eat more junk to reach a number as long as they hit their macros. Or the opposite to someone who was "fat" to keep eating the junk because now they are under a number, the number is a tool not the answer. I thought Fitness was health related? Guess it only matters number wise...
Moderation/ sanity will come up next, if you need a cookie and some ice cream have it, i'll never say keep that out of your diet, but don't rely on those in large amounts to hit that darn number again, for a goal you took serious enough to start. Common sense.
Someone will bring up the Laws of Thermodynamics in their favor too. But here is the smoking gun. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed/isolated systems. The human body is not a closed/isolated system.
1. Several people have already mentioned to you how your ad hominem doesn't change the quality of the advice, but you've doubled down o it.
2. Provided you've met the other minimum dietary requirements, indeed, there is no evidence supporting that "quality" of calories matters for gaining weight or muscle, certainly not much. And if there is evidence, it actually probably favors what is traditionally considered junk food: carbs to increase insulin signals (insulin is an anabolic hormone).
3. The laws of thermodynamics do not require a closed system. Certain statements of them apply only to closed systems, but all the laws of thermodynamics can be stated in a way that applies to open or closed systems. Open systems just have the difficulty that you must control for counting energy in and out. That's why metabolic ward studies are considered a gold standard - they can accurately account for everything going in (food, oxygen, water) and everything coming out (water, solid waste, heat, work).0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
If including women that are gaining, I don't think it can be said that most are shooting for over 3000 calories. Also, not everyone who is bulking is also doing a lot of cardio. Meaning, the overall activity level of some who are bulking is not necessarily that high.LolBroScience wrote: »
Last I checked, the vast majority of posters in the gaining weight section here have calorie limits of around 3000+ and activity level far exceeds those expectations
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
besides the fact that he cherry picked one day over Thanksgiving weekend...LOL
It was more than a weekend you did it for like 14 days, the journal does not lie, plus it was even before that particular weekend started.
The idea of a bulk is to gain as much as muscle with little fat as possible. Why bulk with high caloric dense foods that do nothing for you to build muscle? Do you really believe alcohol calories upwards to 600 will help you, plus the 400 calories from cookies that was seen daily for totals to 600-1000 bulk calories...
How does getting more empty, non nutritious calories build muscle? I would ask for an explanation but this whole topic becomes more opinion and then people start yelling BRO SCIENCE and it's just not worth anything.
Back to the OP's topic, CICO, which basically states obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories is a very flawed argument Not all the food is the same, and not everyone is the same, and reaction is where the calories matter anyways.
I just don't get the idea that as long as it's calories I will gain muscle, because I lift whatever amount of weight the person is lifting.
Stop grabbing straws, i'm sure someone will say that and has. I'll just look around at the world and see obesity going up and up, and think they are all fat because they ate too much. Then I will realize counting calories has been here forever, and that is surely working for us.
Calories are energy for sure, which is the definition of the calorie, but to the standpoint of what the food it is not = biologically and if it's not it makes them not the same and a calorie not a calorie. I can even link this and it will not help but I still will, because the evidence is growing that what we eat matters more than what is the calorie amount, and what we eat is how we get the calories in the first place!
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
I know people want the simplest way to get their goals, but for majority it's not simple as just eat less to lose weight, or eat more to gain weight. It varies and really bad advice to recommend someone who has never been "fat" to eat more junk to reach a number as long as they hit their macros. Or the opposite to someone who was "fat" to keep eating the junk because now they are under a number, the number is a tool not the answer. I thought Fitness was health related? Guess it only matters number wise...
Moderation/ sanity will come up next, if you need a cookie and some ice cream have it, i'll never say keep that out of your diet, but don't rely on those in large amounts to hit that darn number again, for a goal you took serious enough to start. Common sense.
Someone will bring up the Laws of Thermodynamics in their favor too. But here is the smoking gun. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed/isolated systems. The human body is not a closed/isolated system.
You really need to stop mis-representing my food diary. Feel free to list the 14 days straight that I had 1000 calories of cookies and alchohol. Yes, I get about 600 calories a day from calorie dense sources, not denying that.
If you have two people and one person has a surplus of vegetables and chicken (good luck doing that every day) and one person has a surplus of 500 calories of Oreos, please explain the exact science as to how the person eating chicken and vegetables will have more muscle growth the then the person eating 500 calories of Oreos. Please explain to us how calorie dense foods will provide no benefit to muscle building? We all know that to build muscle you need excess calories and a progressive lifting program. However, your argument seems to be that only certain types of calories build muscle, which is ridiculous.
You keep referring to empty calories, which you know is not true, because ALL calories contain energy; however, they are not all nutritionally the same, which I clearly pointed out in my OP. However, you then go on to say that all calories do provide energy, so which one is it; calories are empty or they provide energy?
For the record, this thread is not about CICO or Obesity rates, it was specifically notated as a guide for calorie prioritization during a bulk, if you want to have a debate about those topics, then please start your own thread.
How is this thread not about CICO (calories in calories out) when the topic is about calories being a calorie? The dates you are looking for by the way are Nov 2nd to whenever you want to stop looking. Also, yes there is such a thing as a empty calorie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_calorie even the USDA says so.
This section is mostly men. There are also women posters in this section close to or above 3,000 calories.
An hour per day of lifting 4-5x per week is nearly double the 30 minutes per day of "moderate" exercise. Additionally, the intensity is more than likely higher for someone looking to build muscle. Would you not agree? Now, add in the possibility of cardio... even larger activity level.
0 -
Ok, that makes sense, although I thought I've seen posts from others saying that lifting does not burn as many calories as steady-state cardio. According to my Fitbit, I can burn about 150-170 calories in 30 minutes from moderate cardio. I don't know that lifting burns as many, but I guess you do have a point.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
If including women that are gaining, I don't think it can be said that most are shooting for over 3000 calories. Also, not everyone who is bulking is also doing a lot of cardio. Meaning, the overall activity level of some who are bulking is not necessarily that high.LolBroScience wrote: »
Last I checked, the vast majority of posters in the gaining weight section here have calorie limits of around 3000+ and activity level far exceeds those expectations
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
besides the fact that he cherry picked one day over Thanksgiving weekend...LOL
It was more than a weekend you did it for like 14 days, the journal does not lie, plus it was even before that particular weekend started.
The idea of a bulk is to gain as much as muscle with little fat as possible. Why bulk with high caloric dense foods that do nothing for you to build muscle? Do you really believe alcohol calories upwards to 600 will help you, plus the 400 calories from cookies that was seen daily for totals to 600-1000 bulk calories...
How does getting more empty, non nutritious calories build muscle? I would ask for an explanation but this whole topic becomes more opinion and then people start yelling BRO SCIENCE and it's just not worth anything.
Back to the OP's topic, CICO, which basically states obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories is a very flawed argument Not all the food is the same, and not everyone is the same, and reaction is where the calories matter anyways.
I just don't get the idea that as long as it's calories I will gain muscle, because I lift whatever amount of weight the person is lifting.
Stop grabbing straws, i'm sure someone will say that and has. I'll just look around at the world and see obesity going up and up, and think they are all fat because they ate too much. Then I will realize counting calories has been here forever, and that is surely working for us.
Calories are energy for sure, which is the definition of the calorie, but to the standpoint of what the food it is not = biologically and if it's not it makes them not the same and a calorie not a calorie. I can even link this and it will not help but I still will, because the evidence is growing that what we eat matters more than what is the calorie amount, and what we eat is how we get the calories in the first place!
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
I know people want the simplest way to get their goals, but for majority it's not simple as just eat less to lose weight, or eat more to gain weight. It varies and really bad advice to recommend someone who has never been "fat" to eat more junk to reach a number as long as they hit their macros. Or the opposite to someone who was "fat" to keep eating the junk because now they are under a number, the number is a tool not the answer. I thought Fitness was health related? Guess it only matters number wise...
Moderation/ sanity will come up next, if you need a cookie and some ice cream have it, i'll never say keep that out of your diet, but don't rely on those in large amounts to hit that darn number again, for a goal you took serious enough to start. Common sense.
Someone will bring up the Laws of Thermodynamics in their favor too. But here is the smoking gun. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed/isolated systems. The human body is not a closed/isolated system.
You really need to stop mis-representing my food diary. Feel free to list the 14 days straight that I had 1000 calories of cookies and alchohol. Yes, I get about 600 calories a day from calorie dense sources, not denying that.
If you have two people and one person has a surplus of vegetables and chicken (good luck doing that every day) and one person has a surplus of 500 calories of Oreos, please explain the exact science as to how the person eating chicken and vegetables will have more muscle growth the then the person eating 500 calories of Oreos. Please explain to us how calorie dense foods will provide no benefit to muscle building? We all know that to build muscle you need excess calories and a progressive lifting program. However, your argument seems to be that only certain types of calories build muscle, which is ridiculous.
You keep referring to empty calories, which you know is not true, because ALL calories contain energy; however, they are not all nutritionally the same, which I clearly pointed out in my OP. However, you then go on to say that all calories do provide energy, so which one is it; calories are empty or they provide energy?
For the record, this thread is not about CICO or Obesity rates, it was specifically notated as a guide for calorie prioritization during a bulk, if you want to have a debate about those topics, then please start your own thread.
How is this thread not about CICO (calories in calories out) when the topic is about calories being a calorie? The dates you are looking for by the way are Nov 2nd to whenever you want to stop looking. Also, yes there is such a thing as a empty calorie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_calorie even the USDA says so.
An hour per day of lifting 4-5x per week is nearly double the 30 minutes per day of "moderate" exercise. Additionally, the intensity is more than likely higher for someone looking to build muscle. Would you not agree? Now, add in the possibility of cardio... even larger activity level.
I'm in the gym 5x per week at a minimum of 75 minutes with some sessions closer to 120 minutes.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, that makes sense, although I thought I've seen posts from others saying that lifting does not burn as many calories as steady-state cardio. According to my Fitbit, I can burn about 150-170 calories in 30 minutes from moderate cardio. I don't know that lifting burns as many, but I guess you do have a point.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
If including women that are gaining, I don't think it can be said that most are shooting for over 3000 calories. Also, not everyone who is bulking is also doing a lot of cardio. Meaning, the overall activity level of some who are bulking is not necessarily that high.LolBroScience wrote: »
Last I checked, the vast majority of posters in the gaining weight section here have calorie limits of around 3000+ and activity level far exceeds those expectations
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
besides the fact that he cherry picked one day over Thanksgiving weekend...LOL
It was more than a weekend you did it for like 14 days, the journal does not lie, plus it was even before that particular weekend started.
The idea of a bulk is to gain as much as muscle with little fat as possible. Why bulk with high caloric dense foods that do nothing for you to build muscle? Do you really believe alcohol calories upwards to 600 will help you, plus the 400 calories from cookies that was seen daily for totals to 600-1000 bulk calories...
How does getting more empty, non nutritious calories build muscle? I would ask for an explanation but this whole topic becomes more opinion and then people start yelling BRO SCIENCE and it's just not worth anything.
Back to the OP's topic, CICO, which basically states obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories is a very flawed argument Not all the food is the same, and not everyone is the same, and reaction is where the calories matter anyways.
I just don't get the idea that as long as it's calories I will gain muscle, because I lift whatever amount of weight the person is lifting.
Stop grabbing straws, i'm sure someone will say that and has. I'll just look around at the world and see obesity going up and up, and think they are all fat because they ate too much. Then I will realize counting calories has been here forever, and that is surely working for us.
Calories are energy for sure, which is the definition of the calorie, but to the standpoint of what the food it is not = biologically and if it's not it makes them not the same and a calorie not a calorie. I can even link this and it will not help but I still will, because the evidence is growing that what we eat matters more than what is the calorie amount, and what we eat is how we get the calories in the first place!
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
I know people want the simplest way to get their goals, but for majority it's not simple as just eat less to lose weight, or eat more to gain weight. It varies and really bad advice to recommend someone who has never been "fat" to eat more junk to reach a number as long as they hit their macros. Or the opposite to someone who was "fat" to keep eating the junk because now they are under a number, the number is a tool not the answer. I thought Fitness was health related? Guess it only matters number wise...
Moderation/ sanity will come up next, if you need a cookie and some ice cream have it, i'll never say keep that out of your diet, but don't rely on those in large amounts to hit that darn number again, for a goal you took serious enough to start. Common sense.
Someone will bring up the Laws of Thermodynamics in their favor too. But here is the smoking gun. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed/isolated systems. The human body is not a closed/isolated system.
You really need to stop mis-representing my food diary. Feel free to list the 14 days straight that I had 1000 calories of cookies and alchohol. Yes, I get about 600 calories a day from calorie dense sources, not denying that.
If you have two people and one person has a surplus of vegetables and chicken (good luck doing that every day) and one person has a surplus of 500 calories of Oreos, please explain the exact science as to how the person eating chicken and vegetables will have more muscle growth the then the person eating 500 calories of Oreos. Please explain to us how calorie dense foods will provide no benefit to muscle building? We all know that to build muscle you need excess calories and a progressive lifting program. However, your argument seems to be that only certain types of calories build muscle, which is ridiculous.
You keep referring to empty calories, which you know is not true, because ALL calories contain energy; however, they are not all nutritionally the same, which I clearly pointed out in my OP. However, you then go on to say that all calories do provide energy, so which one is it; calories are empty or they provide energy?
For the record, this thread is not about CICO or Obesity rates, it was specifically notated as a guide for calorie prioritization during a bulk, if you want to have a debate about those topics, then please start your own thread.
How is this thread not about CICO (calories in calories out) when the topic is about calories being a calorie? The dates you are looking for by the way are Nov 2nd to whenever you want to stop looking. Also, yes there is such a thing as a empty calorie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_calorie even the USDA says so.
An hour per day of lifting 4-5x per week is nearly double the 30 minutes per day of "moderate" exercise. Additionally, the intensity is more than likely higher for someone looking to build muscle. Would you not agree? Now, add in the possibility of cardio... even larger activity level.
I'm in the gym 5x per week at a minimum of 75 minutes with some sessions closer to 120 minutes.
I'm not talking burns, I'm talking in relation to TDEE or Total Daily Intake. Speaking for myself, my maintenance calories are around 3100-3200, and that is with 0 dedicated cardio built in.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, that makes sense, although I thought I've seen posts from others saying that lifting does not burn as many calories as steady-state cardio. According to my Fitbit, I can burn about 150-170 calories in 30 minutes from moderate cardio. I don't know that lifting burns as many, but I guess you do have a point.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
If including women that are gaining, I don't think it can be said that most are shooting for over 3000 calories. Also, not everyone who is bulking is also doing a lot of cardio. Meaning, the overall activity level of some who are bulking is not necessarily that high.LolBroScience wrote: »
Last I checked, the vast majority of posters in the gaining weight section here have calorie limits of around 3000+ and activity level far exceeds those expectations
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
besides the fact that he cherry picked one day over Thanksgiving weekend...LOL
It was more than a weekend you did it for like 14 days, the journal does not lie, plus it was even before that particular weekend started.
The idea of a bulk is to gain as much as muscle with little fat as possible. Why bulk with high caloric dense foods that do nothing for you to build muscle? Do you really believe alcohol calories upwards to 600 will help you, plus the 400 calories from cookies that was seen daily for totals to 600-1000 bulk calories...
How does getting more empty, non nutritious calories build muscle? I would ask for an explanation but this whole topic becomes more opinion and then people start yelling BRO SCIENCE and it's just not worth anything.
Back to the OP's topic, CICO, which basically states obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories is a very flawed argument Not all the food is the same, and not everyone is the same, and reaction is where the calories matter anyways.
I just don't get the idea that as long as it's calories I will gain muscle, because I lift whatever amount of weight the person is lifting.
Stop grabbing straws, i'm sure someone will say that and has. I'll just look around at the world and see obesity going up and up, and think they are all fat because they ate too much. Then I will realize counting calories has been here forever, and that is surely working for us.
Calories are energy for sure, which is the definition of the calorie, but to the standpoint of what the food it is not = biologically and if it's not it makes them not the same and a calorie not a calorie. I can even link this and it will not help but I still will, because the evidence is growing that what we eat matters more than what is the calorie amount, and what we eat is how we get the calories in the first place!
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
I know people want the simplest way to get their goals, but for majority it's not simple as just eat less to lose weight, or eat more to gain weight. It varies and really bad advice to recommend someone who has never been "fat" to eat more junk to reach a number as long as they hit their macros. Or the opposite to someone who was "fat" to keep eating the junk because now they are under a number, the number is a tool not the answer. I thought Fitness was health related? Guess it only matters number wise...
Moderation/ sanity will come up next, if you need a cookie and some ice cream have it, i'll never say keep that out of your diet, but don't rely on those in large amounts to hit that darn number again, for a goal you took serious enough to start. Common sense.
Someone will bring up the Laws of Thermodynamics in their favor too. But here is the smoking gun. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed/isolated systems. The human body is not a closed/isolated system.
You really need to stop mis-representing my food diary. Feel free to list the 14 days straight that I had 1000 calories of cookies and alchohol. Yes, I get about 600 calories a day from calorie dense sources, not denying that.
If you have two people and one person has a surplus of vegetables and chicken (good luck doing that every day) and one person has a surplus of 500 calories of Oreos, please explain the exact science as to how the person eating chicken and vegetables will have more muscle growth the then the person eating 500 calories of Oreos. Please explain to us how calorie dense foods will provide no benefit to muscle building? We all know that to build muscle you need excess calories and a progressive lifting program. However, your argument seems to be that only certain types of calories build muscle, which is ridiculous.
You keep referring to empty calories, which you know is not true, because ALL calories contain energy; however, they are not all nutritionally the same, which I clearly pointed out in my OP. However, you then go on to say that all calories do provide energy, so which one is it; calories are empty or they provide energy?
For the record, this thread is not about CICO or Obesity rates, it was specifically notated as a guide for calorie prioritization during a bulk, if you want to have a debate about those topics, then please start your own thread.
How is this thread not about CICO (calories in calories out) when the topic is about calories being a calorie? The dates you are looking for by the way are Nov 2nd to whenever you want to stop looking. Also, yes there is such a thing as a empty calorie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_calorie even the USDA says so.
An hour per day of lifting 4-5x per week is nearly double the 30 minutes per day of "moderate" exercise. Additionally, the intensity is more than likely higher for someone looking to build muscle. Would you not agree? Now, add in the possibility of cardio... even larger activity level.
I'm in the gym 5x per week at a minimum of 75 minutes with some sessions closer to 120 minutes.
I'm not talking burns, I'm talking in relation to TDEE or Total Daily Intake. Speaking for myself, my maintenance calories are around 3100-3200, and that is with 0 dedicated cardio built in.
i do minimal cardio - 20 minutes a week - and right now to gain about a pound per week I need to eat 3300 calories a day ...0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
besides the fact that he cherry picked one day over Thanksgiving weekend...LOL
It was more than a weekend you did it for like 14 days, the journal does not lie, plus it was even before that particular weekend started.
The idea of a bulk is to gain as much as muscle with little fat as possible. Why bulk with high caloric dense foods that do nothing for you to build muscle? Do you really believe alcohol calories upwards to 600 will help you, plus the 400 calories from cookies that was seen daily for totals to 600-1000 bulk calories...
How does getting more empty, non nutritious calories build muscle? I would ask for an explanation but this whole topic becomes more opinion and then people start yelling BRO SCIENCE and it's just not worth anything.
Back to the OP's topic, CICO, which basically states obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories is a very flawed argument Not all the food is the same, and not everyone is the same, and reaction is where the calories matter anyways.
I just don't get the idea that as long as it's calories I will gain muscle, because I lift whatever amount of weight the person is lifting.
Stop grabbing straws, i'm sure someone will say that and has. I'll just look around at the world and see obesity going up and up, and think they are all fat because they ate too much. Then I will realize counting calories has been here forever, and that is surely working for us.
Calories are energy for sure, which is the definition of the calorie, but to the standpoint of what the food it is not = biologically and if it's not it makes them not the same and a calorie not a calorie. I can even link this and it will not help but I still will, because the evidence is growing that what we eat matters more than what is the calorie amount, and what we eat is how we get the calories in the first place!
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
I know people want the simplest way to get their goals, but for majority it's not simple as just eat less to lose weight, or eat more to gain weight. It varies and really bad advice to recommend someone who has never been "fat" to eat more junk to reach a number as long as they hit their macros. Or the opposite to someone who was "fat" to keep eating the junk because now they are under a number, the number is a tool not the answer. I thought Fitness was health related? Guess it only matters number wise...
Moderation/ sanity will come up next, if you need a cookie and some ice cream have it, i'll never say keep that out of your diet, but don't rely on those in large amounts to hit that darn number again, for a goal you took serious enough to start. Common sense.
Someone will bring up the Laws of Thermodynamics in their favor too. But here is the smoking gun. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed/isolated systems. The human body is not a closed/isolated system.
You really need to stop mis-representing my food diary. Feel free to list the 14 days straight that I had 1000 calories of cookies and alchohol. Yes, I get about 600 calories a day from calorie dense sources, not denying that.
If you have two people and one person has a surplus of vegetables and chicken (good luck doing that every day) and one person has a surplus of 500 calories of Oreos, please explain the exact science as to how the person eating chicken and vegetables will have more muscle growth the then the person eating 500 calories of Oreos. Please explain to us how calorie dense foods will provide no benefit to muscle building? We all know that to build muscle you need excess calories and a progressive lifting program. However, your argument seems to be that only certain types of calories build muscle, which is ridiculous.
You keep referring to empty calories, which you know is not true, because ALL calories contain energy; however, they are not all nutritionally the same, which I clearly pointed out in my OP. However, you then go on to say that all calories do provide energy, so which one is it; calories are empty or they provide energy?
For the record, this thread is not about CICO or Obesity rates, it was specifically notated as a guide for calorie prioritization during a bulk, if you want to have a debate about those topics, then please start your own thread.
How is this thread not about CICO (calories in calories out) when the topic is about calories being a calorie? The dates you are looking for by the way are Nov 2nd to whenever you want to stop looking. Also, yes there is such a thing as a empty calorie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_calorie even the USDA says so.
You know what's kind of funny is the fact that what you link has a chart corresponding to the "appropriate" level of empty calories for individuals engaging in less than moderate exercise 30 minutes or less daily.
Last I checked, the vast majority of posters in the gaining weight section here have calorie limits of around 3000+ and activity level far exceeds those expectations; and thus they would fit the criteria of the below bolded section located in the link that YOU posted. It ties in quite nicely:
All people require certain essential nutrients, but food energy intake must be balanced with activity to maintain a proper body weight. People who engage in heavy physical activity need food energy as fuel, which can be supplied by empty calories in addition to foods with essential nutrients. Sedentary individuals and those eating less to lose weight may suffer malnutrition if they eat food supplying empty calories but not enough nutrients.[3][4] Dietitians and nutritionists prevent or treat illnesses by designing eating programs and recommending dietary modifications according to patient's needs.[5] Eating a variety of nutritious foods every day protects against chronic illness and helps to maintain a healthy immune system.[6]
Why is it that the individuals who always scrutinize posts such as this are the ones with closed diaries?
good point...I did not even bother clicking on the link ...
I think it also needs to be pointed out that if you need to get to 3000 + calories to get into a surplus that it is going to be almost impossible to do that on fish, chicken, fruit, rice, and vegetables alone...
And that you don't get brownie points for eating 10 times the RDA for any micro nutrient either.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, that makes sense, although I thought I've seen posts from others saying that lifting does not burn as many calories as steady-state cardio. According to my Fitbit, I can burn about 150-170 calories in 30 minutes from moderate cardio. I don't know that lifting burns as many, but I guess you do have a point.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
If including women that are gaining, I don't think it can be said that most are shooting for over 3000 calories. Also, not everyone who is bulking is also doing a lot of cardio. Meaning, the overall activity level of some who are bulking is not necessarily that high.LolBroScience wrote: »
Last I checked, the vast majority of posters in the gaining weight section here have calorie limits of around 3000+ and activity level far exceeds those expectations
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
besides the fact that he cherry picked one day over Thanksgiving weekend...LOL
It was more than a weekend you did it for like 14 days, the journal does not lie, plus it was even before that particular weekend started.
The idea of a bulk is to gain as much as muscle with little fat as possible. Why bulk with high caloric dense foods that do nothing for you to build muscle? Do you really believe alcohol calories upwards to 600 will help you, plus the 400 calories from cookies that was seen daily for totals to 600-1000 bulk calories...
How does getting more empty, non nutritious calories build muscle? I would ask for an explanation but this whole topic becomes more opinion and then people start yelling BRO SCIENCE and it's just not worth anything.
Back to the OP's topic, CICO, which basically states obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories is a very flawed argument Not all the food is the same, and not everyone is the same, and reaction is where the calories matter anyways.
I just don't get the idea that as long as it's calories I will gain muscle, because I lift whatever amount of weight the person is lifting.
Stop grabbing straws, i'm sure someone will say that and has. I'll just look around at the world and see obesity going up and up, and think they are all fat because they ate too much. Then I will realize counting calories has been here forever, and that is surely working for us.
Calories are energy for sure, which is the definition of the calorie, but to the standpoint of what the food it is not = biologically and if it's not it makes them not the same and a calorie not a calorie. I can even link this and it will not help but I still will, because the evidence is growing that what we eat matters more than what is the calorie amount, and what we eat is how we get the calories in the first place!
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
I know people want the simplest way to get their goals, but for majority it's not simple as just eat less to lose weight, or eat more to gain weight. It varies and really bad advice to recommend someone who has never been "fat" to eat more junk to reach a number as long as they hit their macros. Or the opposite to someone who was "fat" to keep eating the junk because now they are under a number, the number is a tool not the answer. I thought Fitness was health related? Guess it only matters number wise...
Moderation/ sanity will come up next, if you need a cookie and some ice cream have it, i'll never say keep that out of your diet, but don't rely on those in large amounts to hit that darn number again, for a goal you took serious enough to start. Common sense.
Someone will bring up the Laws of Thermodynamics in their favor too. But here is the smoking gun. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed/isolated systems. The human body is not a closed/isolated system.
You really need to stop mis-representing my food diary. Feel free to list the 14 days straight that I had 1000 calories of cookies and alchohol. Yes, I get about 600 calories a day from calorie dense sources, not denying that.
If you have two people and one person has a surplus of vegetables and chicken (good luck doing that every day) and one person has a surplus of 500 calories of Oreos, please explain the exact science as to how the person eating chicken and vegetables will have more muscle growth the then the person eating 500 calories of Oreos. Please explain to us how calorie dense foods will provide no benefit to muscle building? We all know that to build muscle you need excess calories and a progressive lifting program. However, your argument seems to be that only certain types of calories build muscle, which is ridiculous.
You keep referring to empty calories, which you know is not true, because ALL calories contain energy; however, they are not all nutritionally the same, which I clearly pointed out in my OP. However, you then go on to say that all calories do provide energy, so which one is it; calories are empty or they provide energy?
For the record, this thread is not about CICO or Obesity rates, it was specifically notated as a guide for calorie prioritization during a bulk, if you want to have a debate about those topics, then please start your own thread.
How is this thread not about CICO (calories in calories out) when the topic is about calories being a calorie? The dates you are looking for by the way are Nov 2nd to whenever you want to stop looking. Also, yes there is such a thing as a empty calorie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_calorie even the USDA says so.
An hour per day of lifting 4-5x per week is nearly double the 30 minutes per day of "moderate" exercise. Additionally, the intensity is more than likely higher for someone looking to build muscle. Would you not agree? Now, add in the possibility of cardio... even larger activity level.
I'm in the gym 5x per week at a minimum of 75 minutes with some sessions closer to 120 minutes.
I'm not talking burns, I'm talking in relation to TDEE or Total Daily Intake. Speaking for myself, my maintenance calories are around 3100-3200, and that is with 0 dedicated cardio built in.
Dang son, I hope I get there some day.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
Funny, Lyle does actually get that a lot... until someone who looks like he lifts too much says "Lyle knows his stuff, who are you?"It's funny that you think you're getting all your nutritional needs when most of the time you're getting upwards to 1000 calories from alcohol and food with high sugar. Hard to take what you say serious when you don't practice what you preach at all. Nice journal.
It would be nice if you would actually evaluate the content of his post rather than using what he eats as justification to disregard the post.
What he eats has nothing to do with the words he just put on the screen.
Do you disregard Lyle's material because he doesn't look like he lifts?
Both the complaint at NDJ and Lyle are good example of an actual ad hominem fallacy instead of how the term is thrown out every time someone insults them.
besides the fact that he cherry picked one day over Thanksgiving weekend...LOL
It was more than a weekend you did it for like 14 days, the journal does not lie, plus it was even before that particular weekend started.
The idea of a bulk is to gain as much as muscle with little fat as possible. Why bulk with high caloric dense foods that do nothing for you to build muscle? Do you really believe alcohol calories upwards to 600 will help you, plus the 400 calories from cookies that was seen daily for totals to 600-1000 bulk calories...
How does getting more empty, non nutritious calories build muscle? I would ask for an explanation but this whole topic becomes more opinion and then people start yelling BRO SCIENCE and it's just not worth anything.
Back to the OP's topic, CICO, which basically states obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories is a very flawed argument Not all the food is the same, and not everyone is the same, and reaction is where the calories matter anyways.
I just don't get the idea that as long as it's calories I will gain muscle, because I lift whatever amount of weight the person is lifting.
Stop grabbing straws, i'm sure someone will say that and has. I'll just look around at the world and see obesity going up and up, and think they are all fat because they ate too much. Then I will realize counting calories has been here forever, and that is surely working for us.
Calories are energy for sure, which is the definition of the calorie, but to the standpoint of what the food it is not = biologically and if it's not it makes them not the same and a calorie not a calorie. I can even link this and it will not help but I still will, because the evidence is growing that what we eat matters more than what is the calorie amount, and what we eat is how we get the calories in the first place!
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/06/when-a-calorie-is-not-just-a-calorie/
I know people want the simplest way to get their goals, but for majority it's not simple as just eat less to lose weight, or eat more to gain weight. It varies and really bad advice to recommend someone who has never been "fat" to eat more junk to reach a number as long as they hit their macros. Or the opposite to someone who was "fat" to keep eating the junk because now they are under a number, the number is a tool not the answer. I thought Fitness was health related? Guess it only matters number wise...
Moderation/ sanity will come up next, if you need a cookie and some ice cream have it, i'll never say keep that out of your diet, but don't rely on those in large amounts to hit that darn number again, for a goal you took serious enough to start. Common sense.
Someone will bring up the Laws of Thermodynamics in their favor too. But here is the smoking gun. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed/isolated systems. The human body is not a closed/isolated system.
You really need to stop mis-representing my food diary. Feel free to list the 14 days straight that I had 1000 calories of cookies and alchohol. Yes, I get about 600 calories a day from calorie dense sources, not denying that.
If you have two people and one person has a surplus of vegetables and chicken (good luck doing that every day) and one person has a surplus of 500 calories of Oreos, please explain the exact science as to how the person eating chicken and vegetables will have more muscle growth the then the person eating 500 calories of Oreos. Please explain to us how calorie dense foods will provide no benefit to muscle building? We all know that to build muscle you need excess calories and a progressive lifting program. However, your argument seems to be that only certain types of calories build muscle, which is ridiculous.
You keep referring to empty calories, which you know is not true, because ALL calories contain energy; however, they are not all nutritionally the same, which I clearly pointed out in my OP. However, you then go on to say that all calories do provide energy, so which one is it; calories are empty or they provide energy?
For the record, this thread is not about CICO or Obesity rates, it was specifically notated as a guide for calorie prioritization during a bulk, if you want to have a debate about those topics, then please start your own thread.
How is this thread not about CICO (calories in calories out) when the topic is about calories being a calorie? The dates you are looking for by the way are Nov 2nd to whenever you want to stop looking. Also, yes there is such a thing as a empty calorie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_calorie even the USDA says so.
You know what's kind of funny is the fact that what you link has a chart corresponding to the "appropriate" level of empty calories for individuals engaging in less than moderate exercise 30 minutes or less daily.
Last I checked, the vast majority of posters in the gaining weight section here have calorie limits of around 3000+ and activity level far exceeds those expectations; and thus they would fit the criteria of the below bolded section located in the link that YOU posted. It ties in quite nicely:
All people require certain essential nutrients, but food energy intake must be balanced with activity to maintain a proper body weight. People who engage in heavy physical activity need food energy as fuel, which can be supplied by empty calories in addition to foods with essential nutrients. Sedentary individuals and those eating less to lose weight may suffer malnutrition if they eat food supplying empty calories but not enough nutrients.[3][4] Dietitians and nutritionists prevent or treat illnesses by designing eating programs and recommending dietary modifications according to patient's needs.[5] Eating a variety of nutritious foods every day protects against chronic illness and helps to maintain a healthy immune system.[6]
Why is it that the individuals who always scrutinize posts such as this are the ones with closed diaries?
good point...I did not even bother clicking on the link ...
I think it also needs to be pointed out that if you need to get to 3000 + calories to get into a surplus that it is going to be almost impossible to do that on fish, chicken, fruit, rice, and vegetables alone...
And that you don't get brownie points for eating 10 times the RDA for any micro nutrient either.
yes, the old saying holds true here "you don't get extra credit for extra micro nutrients"0 -
Sometimes I think the variations in opinions in threads like this are accounted for in semantics and how well people communicate. At other times I question that, with variables that differ from person to person and their views.
And let me first say that I don't at all disagree with the original post in any form that wouldn't split hairs or make assumptions. I might add that I viewed the input as long term trends and priorities for bulking, as it might confuse some thinking that eating a steak in the morning is more important than some quick energy food if that is more appropriate. But follow along, and I'll suggest that this thread itself veers off the simple principles often preached here about sticking to the basics of CICO.
The example here is a bulk, what many might call a "dirty" bulk, with priority being on maximizing muscle gains by staying in surplus, feeding the proper protein essential for muscle repair, but not having a large concern with fat accumulation along the way.
If the intent was a "clean" bulk with greater priority on minimal fat gains while accepting the possibility of slower muscle growth, the nutrient priorities would remain essentially the same, but the emphasis would be on finding a smaller window of surplus. The trade off being possibility of slower or lesser muscle gains, but hopefully with lower fat growth as well.
If the intent was recomp, the emphasis on nutrition shifts towards adequate protein, very minimal surplus or slight deficit, and as with the two above adequate carbs and fats. Most would accept that muscle gains might be slower than either of the above, but by cutting fat at the same time it would essentially be a bulk and cut cycle rolled into one consistent method of workout and/or eating.
All three examples apply and are accepted by those wishing to build muscle, with varied degrees of how much fat gain is accepted (or rejected). And I completely agree with the calorie prioritization suggested by ndj1979 in the example he used.
But I see absolutely no reason why weight loss is not viewed in the same way. A person who has no regard for LBM losses would have different nutritional desires than a person who accepts some LBM losses, who would differ from a person desiring only to lose fat and having priority on LBM retention. Similar to someone doing bulk and cut cycles, individual goals alter nutritional needs, as well as possibly workout methods.
And though I'm not any type of specialist in the nutrition field, I've yet to find a way to get adequate nutrition on zero calories, nor have I found a way to intake adequate calories without some nutritional needs being met. Calories and nutrition are never completely disunited. If they were one could easily meet exacts of both without any of the concern that is being expressed on this thread. But in reality, the priority has to be specific to the individual, desired results, workouts performed to get those results, etc. At the end if done in that fashion with proper priorities, the surplus (or deficit) exists and maintains energy balance regardless, but does so in a way that doesn't have major negative impact on the specific goals and methods.
Energy balance and accepting CICO can't be disputed, but if a calorie was a calorie in the sense of nutrition, then one could bulk well on a sugar diet. The reality is that those wanting to lose might also have the same concerns as to priorities in muscle retention or loss. And as such, CICO really only applies if one wants to lose weight with no concerns, and the heavy lifters want to bulk on fat. And for that reason, I reject CICO as the most important single thing for either group. The science that applies to the building community is the same science that applies to the weight loss community.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Sometimes I think the variations in opinions in threads like this are accounted for in semantics and how well people communicate. At other times I question that, with variables that differ from person to person and their views.
And let me first say that I don't at all disagree with the original post in any form that wouldn't split hairs or make assumptions. I might add that I viewed the input as long term trends and priorities for bulking, as it might confuse some thinking that eating a steak in the morning is more important than some quick energy food if that is more appropriate. But follow along, and I'll suggest that this thread itself veers off the simple principles often preached here about sticking to the basics of CICO.
The example here is a bulk, what many might call a "dirty" bulk, with priority being on maximizing muscle gains by staying in surplus, feeding the proper protein essential for muscle repair, but not having a large concern with fat accumulation along the way.
If the intent was a "clean" bulk with greater priority on minimal fat gains while accepting the possibility of slower muscle growth, the nutrient priorities would remain essentially the same, but the emphasis would be on finding a smaller window of surplus. The trade off being possibility of slower or lesser muscle gains, but hopefully with lower fat growth as well.
If the intent was recomp, the emphasis on nutrition shifts towards adequate protein, very minimal surplus or slight deficit, and as with the two above adequate carbs and fats. Most would accept that muscle gains might be slower than either of the above, but by cutting fat at the same time it would essentially be a bulk and cut cycle rolled into one consistent method of workout and/or eating.
All three examples apply and are accepted by those wishing to build muscle, with varied degrees of how much fat gain is accepted (or rejected). And I completely agree with the calorie prioritization suggested by ndj1979 in the example he used.
But I see absolutely no reason why weight loss is not viewed in the same way. A person who has no regard for LBM losses would have different nutritional desires than a person who accepts some LBM losses, who would differ from a person desiring only to lose fat and having priority on LBM retention. Similar to someone doing bulk and cut cycles, individual goals alter nutritional needs, as well as possibly workout methods.
And though I'm not any type of specialist in the nutrition field, I've yet to find a way to get adequate nutrition on zero calories, nor have I found a way to intake adequate calories without some nutritional needs being met. Calories and nutrition are never completely disunited. If they were one could easily meet exacts of both without any of the concern that is being expressed on this thread. But in reality, the priority has to be specific to the individual, desired results, workouts performed to get those results, etc. At the end if done in that fashion with proper priorities, the surplus (or deficit) exists and maintains energy balance regardless, but does so in a way that doesn't have major negative impact on the specific goals and methods.
Energy balance and accepting CICO can't be disputed, but if a calorie was a calorie in the sense of nutrition, then one could bulk well on a sugar diet. The reality is that those wanting to lose might also have the same concerns as to priorities in muscle retention or loss. And as such, CICO really only applies if one wants to lose weight with no concerns, and the heavy lifters want to bulk on fat. And for that reason, I reject CICO as the most important single thing for either group. The science that applies to the building community is the same science that applies to the weight loss community.
Plain calories just for weight loss, proper attention to macros and micros for health (which not losing important lean mass or getting overfat is part of). That gets said about 178453 times each day.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions