Calorie Prioritization - Yes, a calorie is a calorie….
Replies
-
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.
That would be why the original post said "FIRST, get your nutritional requirements filled out by whole foods. THEN, fill up with calorie dense foods to get the calories in." It isn't so much an argument of semantics, as an argument of strawmen. 90% of the time, when CICOphants like myself espouse the value of calories in, calories out, they include usually have a: *for weight change, more than calories matter for health and body composition, type of disclaimer. For some reason everyone wants to pounce on the "for weight change" and pretend that was the only thing said about it.
I'd imagine if you did a linguistic analysis of the MFP forums, "for weight loss" would be a statistically significant phrase.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »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.
Again, this is a confusion between "calories" and "food." Absolutely no one ever claims that foods are identical for the purposes of nutrition, but that has 0 to do with whether a calorie is a calorie. If you genuinely think that people who say "a calorie is a calorie" are claiming that foods are identical or nutrition does not matter, you have misunderstood despite repeated explanations.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.
As to the first sentence, of course. As to the second, what? CICO means simply that you will lose weight if calories in are less than calories out, maintain if they are the same, gain if there's a calorie surplus. It does not mean that what you eat does not matter for any purpose (including maximizing muscle gain or retention).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.
If you want to lose weight, mainly fat, and fail to eat fewer calories than you burn, you will fail in the most complete and dramatic of ways.
If you want to lose weight, mainly fat, and have lots and lots to lose, and eat fewer calories than you burn, but mostly so-called "junk," you will lose weight, mainly fat, and thus succeed. If you struggle and feel hungry doing this, you will (well, if you have a brain at all) realize that you should shift how you are eating and do that -- that's why people often gravitate to healthier eating plans after starting just by reducing calories.
If you want to lose weight, mainly fat, and have only a little to lose, and eat fewer calories than you burn, nearly all fat and carbs, and perhaps have an overly aggressive deficit to boot, you may well lose more lean mass than you like (although probably still more fat, depending on lots of other variables like exercise). Most likely this won't be a total failure (depending on your goals and how low you are going for with the body fat), but these people may have the most reason to be careful about how they eat.
In all cases, it seems to me that CICO is the most significant thing, with other things of varying importance depending on goals.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.
I agree that this applies to all three "phases," which would be losing weight, maintaining weight, and gaining weight. I did not post this in the main forums because "a calorie is a calorie" threads always tend to turn into dumpster fires on the main forums; however, several members have asked me to put it on the general forum, and I may do that.
Actually, you could not bulk well on a sugar diet, beucase that person would be lacking in micronutrients and would not meet protein and fat minimums, so their bulk would be deficient of macros.
Also, how would CICO not pertain to people in maintenance, as you would need to balance the CI and CO sides in order to properly maintain weight…?0 -
Original post was nice and simple, thanks OP. There is no need to complicate it, it is great as is written. Good enough to make a sticky I think,0
-
...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?
I really think he doesn't know. I think he really believes the incorrect broscience he's spouting. Which is the sad part.0 -
Great post, pretty much explains IIFYM. It drives me nuts when people think IIFYM means "eat pizza and fries all day." Like no, because that would not FIT. MY. MACROS.
0 -
That drives me nuts also. when the green line is still left in those macros(like protein for example) meaning they were not hit.Great post, pretty much explains IIFYM. It drives me nuts when people think IIFYM means "eat pizza and fries all day." Like no, because that would not FIT. MY. MACROS.
0 -
-
0
-
Things get a bit different in an energy deficit, especially a prolonged one, because satiety becomes a big issue for many people, discretionary calories are smaller, and there is less room for error so to speak, when it comes to food selection.
I only mention this because it obviously changes the hierarchy of importance when it comes to prioritizing.
This list makes sense for bulking but I wouldn't apply it to a dieting scenario.
0 -
Things get a bit different in an energy deficit, especially a prolonged one, because satiety becomes a big issue for many people, discretionary calories are smaller, and there is less room for error so to speak, when it comes to food selection.
I only mention this because it obviously changes the hierarchy of importance when it comes to prioritizing.
This list makes sense for bulking but I wouldn't apply it to a dieting scenario.
What would you suggest for modification during a cut?0 -
Things get a bit different in an energy deficit, especially a prolonged one, because satiety becomes a big issue for many people, discretionary calories are smaller, and there is less room for error so to speak, when it comes to food selection.
I only mention this because it obviously changes the hierarchy of importance when it comes to prioritizing.
This list makes sense for bulking but I wouldn't apply it to a dieting scenario.
Curious, would you distinguish between straight weight loss and cuttinng?
So for the person that just wants to lose weight make sure protein is high, get adequate nutrition and just maintain deficit; for the person transitioning from bulk to cut the hierarchy still holds due to body comp goals and preserving mass?
0 -
raises glass!0
-
I've reread your original post, thought about it quite a bit actually, and I even recorded a video reply, but I decided not to upload it.
In doing all of this though, it gave me some good perspective on this. I actually don't disagree as strongly as I originally thought I would.
But for discussion sake I'm going to post some of my thoughts on this.
The first notable difference that I'd like to make is that when you are posting something directed at people who are intentionally in a bulking phase, you are very, very likely addressing a population of people who are successful at either losing fat or not getting fat to begin with. I say this with the assumption that people who are bulking are people who should be bulking. They are lean. (EDIT: So that I'm 100% clear to anyone reading this, I don't apply any judgment to the word "successful". I'm using it to describe someone who has been able to maintain leanness, not as a value judgment about that person compared to someone who is obese or overweight).
I'm going to speculate that the majority of people on this website (and in general) aren't in this population. This alone is a difference worth calling attention to.
As much as I don't want to come across as a goal-post-mover, I don't know that I would prioritize a list.
I would want the dieter to do whatever the heck they have to in order to maintain an energy deficit, and I'm of the belief that this list is going to differ a great deal from person to person.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
If the body recomposition goals are considered within the "health" label, I can accept that as a simplified shortened version, but still don't agree on the "plain calories" statement. All calories have nutrition attached to them, and regardless of loss/gain/recomp goals they can all be utilized in the more efficient methods to get to those goals. The end example for ndj1979 will apply here. The only exception I could see to the type of calories not mattering would be gains or losses with no regards to what it does to LBM/fat ratios. In that case, calories would just be calories, since the nutritional needs and desires could be ignored.That would be why the original post said "FIRST, get your nutritional requirements filled out by whole foods. THEN, fill up with calorie dense foods to get the calories in." It isn't so much an argument of semantics, as an argument of strawmen. 90% of the time, when CICOphants like myself espouse the value of calories in, calories out, they include usually have a: *for weight change, more than calories matter for health and body composition, type of disclaimer. For some reason everyone wants to pounce on the "for weight change" and pretend that was the only thing said about it.
I'd imagine if you did a linguistic analysis of the MFP forums, "for weight loss" would be a statistically significant phrase.
"Imagining" or interjecting opinion without a basis is woo. I just looked at a recent bookmarked thread concerning calories, and the trend is that the majority don't mention nutrition at all, simply calories. So crying strawman or interjecting your opinion don't make them facts. It means you relied on basing an argument on something not proven to be fact. If you want to do a linguistic analysis of the forums, knock yourself out.
Now certain individuals do have a trend of mentioning nutritional requirements along with calories, and I've noticed that just from casual observation. In the thread I referenced, ndj1979 was one of few that really fully addressed it, and I've noticed that as a trend in his posts. I'm sure it applies to quite a few more.
@lemurcat12 I'm not ignoring your input, but the explanation below applies to all I'm replying to. I hate the multi quote function here, and don't want to take the time to break it down question by question.I agree that this applies to all three "phases," which would be losing weight, maintaining weight, and gaining weight. I did not post this in the main forums because "a calorie is a calorie" threads always tend to turn into dumpster fires on the main forums; however, several members have asked me to put it on the general forum, and I may do that.
Actually, you could not bulk well on a sugar diet, beucase that person would be lacking in micronutrients and would not meet protein and fat minimums, so their bulk would be deficient of macros.
Also, how would CICO not pertain to people in maintenance, as you would need to balance the CI and CO sides in order to properly maintain weight…?
Understood on your first point, but my primary point was different types of bulks vs recomp, assuming the recomp intention is to gain muscle and not fat.
As for your second point, if the surplus could be filled in with anything, even after hitting your macro and micro goals, that surplus could be pure sugar. Which might be good if you had a small surplus and ate the sugar shortly before hitting the weight room. It might be bad if you used it for recovery just before trying to sleep. But in your original post, you suggested calorie dense, and likely carbs since the proteins and fats were already accounted for.
As for the last, CICO always pertains, I simply don't agree that it is the primary driver in all cases. The primary driver should be goal directed, and in line with goals, such as your suggestion of prioritization for bulking. If you ate your surplus and ignored the macros, the weight gain would still take place. But it would take place with a greater chance of putting on more fat.
The above image taken from the link shreddedbyscience.com/can-you-gain-weight-in-a-calorie-deficit/ from one of the recomp threads here, and originally posted by @LolBroScience
For the purpose of discussion, look at only the top 4 study groups, with the young people in the 8 week study. Based on the above chart, if a person was in recomp with a primary goal of msucle gain, where would you put your protein intake at? And to save people reading the entire thing now, use the below statement from the article to influence that decision:
"It should be noted that the correlations are all relatively weak, and would likely not reach statistical significance, however hopefully future research will help elucidate some of these observations:
Protein intake correlated relatively well with changes in muscle mass, but not with fat mass.
The Delta Q correlated best with fat mass (FM) changes (the strongest correlation out of all observed),
then total weight change. It didn’t correlate at all well with gains in LBM.
Protein intake did not seem to influence Delta Q in any way, although digging deeper into the Antonio studies seemed to indicate that increasing protein intake meant that study subjects reported calorie intakes that were closer to what would be expected for their weight and activity level. Whether this due to the protein, or simply that they realised they were the intervention group (and so made more of an effort to track accurately) is impossible to say."
And that is a study with very tight deficits and surpluses involved. Granted if someone was bulking with a large surplus and a diet that had fairly evenly spread out macros, the surplus nutritional value of the calories might fill any voids that existed. But if the person set say their protein goal towards the low side, how they fill those surplus calories might matter more. And the same applies to how goals and macros should be considered for maintenance or weight loss. The same concerns of muscle growth, retention, or loss should be addressed within any diet by adjusting macros. Since the usual cut after a bulk involves weight loss, done the wrong way a person could reduce LBM more than desired, and destroy some of the work progress they made bulking. For a person without as much LBM to start with, reducing it more results in the "skinny fat" type body.
For those reasons, I think calorie prioritization should be a valid concern for any diet, only excepting those that have no real fitness or health goals, but simply loss or gain of weight.
And the reason I reject the simplicity of CICO as the most effective model that keeps things simple is for the same reasons. I agree 100% that energy balance must be maintained. No science has every disputed that. But as the studies above show, the margins of error are great enough that studies such as these show what the simple CICO method says is not possible... that being that deficit and surplus do not directly correlate to gains or losses. Small margins of error over time on both the CI and CO side all add up. In the very first study example to the extent of CICO being off by a little over .4 per week. Which might thrill the person in that scenario gaining muscle and losing weight. But someone who uses CICO to lose weight and finds a trend of gaining weight is probably going to be frustrated. As such, without an understanding of non linear gains and/or losses, feedback loops and adjustments, etc, the simple CICO can readily fail.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
If the body recomposition goals are considered within the "health" label, I can accept that as a simplified shortened version, but still don't agree on the "plain calories" statement. All calories have nutrition attached to them, and regardless of loss/gain/recomp goals they can all be utilized in the more efficient methods to get to those goals. The end example for ndj1979 will apply here. The only exception I could see to the type of calories not mattering would be gains or losses with no regards to what it does to LBM/fat ratios. In that case, calories would just be calories, since the nutritional needs and desires could be ignored.
Which is exactly.....exactly...what stevencloser said in the post you quoted. Exactly. So you sure used a lot of words in that post when all you really had to say was "you're right".0 -
Which is exactly.....exactly...what stevencloser said in the post you quoted. Exactly. So you sure used a lot of words in that post when all you really had to say was "you're right".
Grossly different, as I don't accept "plain" calories exist. Even assuming the exact macro end totals are the same, I still maintain that the goal should be a primary driver. If you have two people of the exact weight and build, same calorie and macro goals that are set and met, and the same type of exercise done to reach their body composition goals, something as simple as how their TDEE is spread through the day should affect when they eat to fuel the workout(s) they do. As well as what they eat.
When someone can send me 100 calories with zero nutrition attached to it, I'll believe in plain calories. Until then, I'm not going to engage in any further hair splitting that destroys the OPs thread.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »
Which is exactly.....exactly...what stevencloser said in the post you quoted. Exactly. So you sure used a lot of words in that post when all you really had to say was "you're right".
Grossly different, as I don't accept "plain" calories exist. Even assuming the exact macro end totals are the same, I still maintain that the goal should be a primary driver. If you have two people of the exact weight and build, same calorie and macro goals that are set and met, and the same type of exercise done to reach their body composition goals, something as simple as how their TDEE is spread through the day should affect when they eat to fuel the workout(s) they do. As well as what they eat.
When someone can send me 100 calories with zero nutrition attached to it, I'll believe in plain calories. Until then, I'm not going to engage in any further hair splitting that destroys the OPs thread.
Just because you don't accepted it, doesn't make it not true. There are plenty of diets that will just make you lose weight (twinkie diet, all the MLM's with tons of supplements,etc...). And in many cases they will improve all your blood test and make you healthier, but some come at an expense (loss of muscle from inadequate protein and resistance training) but for some that might be acceptable (ie- if you are 300 lbs, any weight loss will generally help).
Personally, I think you are looking too much into the word plain calories. I believe it was referencing any type of calories, not empty calories or anything of the alike.0 -
I've reread your original post, thought about it quite a bit actually, and I even recorded a video reply, but I decided not to upload it.
In doing all of this though, it gave me some good perspective on this. I actually don't disagree as strongly as I originally thought I would.
But for discussion sake I'm going to post some of my thoughts on this.
The first notable difference that I'd like to make is that when you are posting something directed at people who are intentionally in a bulking phase, you are very, very likely addressing a population of people who are successful at either losing fat or not getting fat to begin with. I say this with the assumption that people who are bulking are people who should be bulking. They are lean. (EDIT: So that I'm 100% clear to anyone reading this, I don't apply any judgment to the word "successful". I'm using it to describe someone who has been able to maintain leanness, not as a value judgment about that person compared to someone who is obese or overweight).
I'm going to speculate that the majority of people on this website (and in general) aren't in this population. This alone is a difference worth calling attention to.
As much as I don't want to come across as a goal-post-mover, I don't know that I would prioritize a list.
I would want the dieter to do whatever the heck they have to in order to maintain an energy deficit, and I'm of the belief that this list is going to differ a great deal from person to person.
10-4 and I agree, which is why I tend to always tell people starting off just get in a deficit, try to keep your protein up, and find a form of exercise that you enjoy ….0 -
robertw486 wrote: »
Which is exactly.....exactly...what stevencloser said in the post you quoted. Exactly. So you sure used a lot of words in that post when all you really had to say was "you're right".
Grossly different, as I don't accept "plain" calories exist. Even assuming the exact macro end totals are the same, I still maintain that the goal should be a primary driver. If you have two people of the exact weight and build, same calorie and macro goals that are set and met, and the same type of exercise done to reach their body composition goals, something as simple as how their TDEE is spread through the day should affect when they eat to fuel the workout(s) they do. As well as what they eat.
When someone can send me 100 calories with zero nutrition attached to it, I'll believe in plain calories. Until then, I'm not going to engage in any further hair splitting that destroys the OPs thread.
Just because you don't accepted it, doesn't make it not true. There are plenty of diets that will just make you lose weight (twinkie diet, all the MLM's with tons of supplements,etc...). And in many cases they will improve all your blood test and make you healthier, but some come at an expense (loss of muscle from inadequate protein and resistance training) but for some that might be acceptable (ie- if you are 300 lbs, any weight loss will generally help).
Personally, I think you are looking too much into the word plain calories. I believe it was referencing any type of calories, not empty calories or anything of the alike.
That. Plain calories means "not caring wheter they're from carbs, fat or protein."
Also even if you were to take that approach, unless you have a very one-sided diet you'll still be in acceptable macros probably, the minimum amount of fats and protein required for a sedentary person isn't so high they need to pay extra attention to it. Usually.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.
The original post sucked. This is a good one.What you eat effects body composition too, not just how much you eat. The timing and frequency matters too. Different people respond differently to the same foods. A person responds differently to the same amount of calories from different foods. One simple example is insulin response to food and insulin sensitivity.0 -
Timing and frequency matters just about 0.0
-
ryanflebbe 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/
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.
The original post sucked. This is a good one.What you eat effects body composition too, not just how much you eat. The timing and frequency matters too. Different people respond differently to the same foods. A person responds differently to the same amount of calories from different foods. One simple example is insulin response to food and insulin sensitivity.
you have some studies to back up the frequency claim?
Did you even read my OP where I sad get micros and macros first?
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Timing and frequency matters just about 0.
I wouldn't say 0 but probably only 1% of the battle, which would only be noticeable to someone such as a bodybuilder that needs every little edge they can. For most it would be majoring in the minors, work on the other 99% first.0 -
When I say imagine, it is an English phrase, which instead of running on for multiple paragraphs to explicitly explain all the nuances of how I'm using it. That I don't have a statistical analysis doesn't mean it is without basis, nor injecting opinion. If you wanted to claim I'm subject to biases in what I recall, you'd have an actual point instead of trying to call me woo as a reflexive response to attempt to malign me based on what you think will most bother me.robertw486 wrote: »That would be why the original post said "FIRST, get your nutritional requirements filled out by whole foods. THEN, fill up with calorie dense foods to get the calories in." It isn't so much an argument of semantics, as an argument of strawmen. 90% of the time, when CICOphants like myself espouse the value of calories in, calories out, they include usually have a: *for weight change, more than calories matter for health and body composition, type of disclaimer. For some reason everyone wants to pounce on the "for weight change" and pretend that was the only thing said about it.
I'd imagine if you did a linguistic analysis of the MFP forums, "for weight loss" would be a statistically significant phrase.
"Imagining" or interjecting opinion without a basis is woo. I just looked at a recent bookmarked thread concerning calories, and the trend is that the majority don't mention nutrition at all, simply calories. So crying strawman or interjecting your opinion don't make them facts. It means you relied on basing an argument on something not proven to be fact. If you want to do a linguistic analysis of the forums, knock yourself out.
Now certain individuals do have a trend of mentioning nutritional requirements along with calories, and I've noticed that just from casual observation. In the thread I referenced, ndj1979 was one of few that really fully addressed it, and I've noticed that as a trend in his posts. I'm sure it applies to quite a few more.
You're also completely ignoring the current context. I explicitly stated the OP here said nutrition matters, but you came into this thread to argue about semantics when it is, directly, provably, a fact that the OP says nutrition matters and there was nothing semantic about it. If you want to have the argument that a lot of people mentioning CICO don't also mention calories, that's a fine discussion to have, but somewhere else. It is completely off basis in this thread and that you bring it up for this one and talk about semantics is without basis. That's why I explicitly called it a strawman. Instead you've tried move the strawman claim to being about people discussing calories in general.
Finally, you complained about me having no basis for my claim (I do have a basis, I just have a potentially mentally biased one, but maybe that's just semantics?), and yet you don't actually provide a link to the thread you claim everyone says calories and ignores nutrition.0 -
ryanflebbe 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/
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.
The original post sucked. This is a good one.What you eat effects body composition too, not just how much you eat. The timing and frequency matters too. Different people respond differently to the same foods. A person responds differently to the same amount of calories from different foods. One simple example is insulin response to food and insulin sensitivity.
you have some studies to back up the frequency claim?
Did you even read my OP where I sad get micros and macros first?
I'm not posting studies and I'm not criticizing your tier. What I am saying is that for body composition, it matters where those calories come from. You don't seem to distinguish between different kinds of carbs. Would you really claim that someone would have the same physique outcome by eating a thousand calories a day of their total calories, from donuts, eaten all at once, and from eating a thousand calories a day from brown rice, split between five meals a day? I would guess the total weight gained wouldn't be the same, even if you ate the same total amount of calories.0 -
ryanflebbe 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/
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.
The original post sucked. This is a good one.What you eat effects body composition too, not just how much you eat. The timing and frequency matters too. Different people respond differently to the same foods. A person responds differently to the same amount of calories from different foods. One simple example is insulin response to food and insulin sensitivity.
you have some studies to back up the frequency claim?
Did you even read my OP where I sad get micros and macros first?
ITT, NDJ is always wrong, so long as you ignore everything he writes except one or two sentences, and argue about those sentences absent everything else written above or below them.0 -
ryanflebbe 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/
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.
The original post sucked. This is a good one.What you eat effects body composition too, not just how much you eat. The timing and frequency matters too. Different people respond differently to the same foods. A person responds differently to the same amount of calories from different foods. One simple example is insulin response to food and insulin sensitivity.
you have some studies to back up the frequency claim?
Did you even read my OP where I sad get micros and macros first?
NDJ is always wrong.
Knew it.0 -
ryanflebbe wrote: »ryanflebbe 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/
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.
The original post sucked. This is a good one.What you eat effects body composition too, not just how much you eat. The timing and frequency matters too. Different people respond differently to the same foods. A person responds differently to the same amount of calories from different foods. One simple example is insulin response to food and insulin sensitivity.
you have some studies to back up the frequency claim?
Did you even read my OP where I sad get micros and macros first?
I'm not posting studies and I'm not criticizing your tier. What I am saying is that for body composition, it matters where those calories come from. You don't seem to distinguish between different kinds of carbs. Would you really claim that someone would have the same physique outcome by eating a thousand calories a day of their total calories, from donuts, eaten all at once, and from eating a thousand calories a day from brown rice, split between five meals a day? I would guess the total weight gained wouldn't be the same, even if you ate the same total amount of calories.
You'd guess wrong on both accounts.0 -
ryanflebbe wrote: »ryanflebbe 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/
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.
The original post sucked. This is a good one.What you eat effects body composition too, not just how much you eat. The timing and frequency matters too. Different people respond differently to the same foods. A person responds differently to the same amount of calories from different foods. One simple example is insulin response to food and insulin sensitivity.
you have some studies to back up the frequency claim?
Did you even read my OP where I sad get micros and macros first?
I'm not posting studies and I'm not criticizing your tier. What I am saying is that for body composition, it matters where those calories come from. You don't seem to distinguish between different kinds of carbs. Would you really claim that someone would have the same physique outcome by eating a thousand calories a day of their total calories, from donuts, eaten all at once, and from eating a thousand calories a day from brown rice, split between five meals a day? I would guess the total weight gained wouldn't be the same, even if you ate the same total amount of calories.
What will be different? Both the carbs in the brown rice and in the donuts will be broken down into glucose before they can be used. About the only difference in the carbs of the two would be brown rice might have more fiber, which will be digested somewhat differently.
If they're both eaten in the context of an otherwise complete diet so that they only difference is that one diet has 250g worth of non-fiber carbs from brown rice, and another has 250g worth of non-fiber carbs from donuts, there will be a negligible difference in composition. In some contexts, the quick digestion of the donuts might even be advantageous for fueling performance. That's where meal timing will become mildly important.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions