Calorie Prioritization - Yes, a calorie is a calorie….
Replies
-
ryanflebbe wrote: »By body composition, we are both talking about muscle vs fat gain right? I am. Eating the donuts every day will spike insulin more, and do it when you have eaten more calories than you can burn so over time you will be slightly fatter with slightly less muscle. Also, I eat 5000 calories a day, and I can eat 1000 calories from rice in one sitting, although different spacing seems more prudent. I've eaten and trained many different ways and read quite a bit on physiology, nutrition, etc. and your body doesn't always respond as it theoretically should. There are so many factors and variables to bodybuilding. Studies don't always predict real life results when the scale, intensities, and variables come into play, either.
I always thought insulin was an anabolic driver........
Yes, when your body needs it. That is why it's produced in the first place, but the body doesn't know that you would or wouldn't be trying to increase it.
Your body only "needs" so much muscle mass......hence RDA recommendations. Building muscle you're forcing your body to do things it doesn't "need" to do....
Not sure what you are saying here, now we are talking about how much mass we gain? I
Umm....you're on the gaining weight board dude. It's like, the overriding topic and stuff...
0 -
-
0
-
juggernaut1974 wrote: »ryanflebbe wrote: »By body composition, we are both talking about muscle vs fat gain right? I am. Eating the donuts every day will spike insulin more, and do it when you have eaten more calories than you can burn so over time you will be slightly fatter with slightly less muscle. Also, I eat 5000 calories a day, and I can eat 1000 calories from rice in one sitting, although different spacing seems more prudent. I've eaten and trained many different ways and read quite a bit on physiology, nutrition, etc. and your body doesn't always respond as it theoretically should. There are so many factors and variables to bodybuilding. Studies don't always predict real life results when the scale, intensities, and variables come into play, either.
I always thought insulin was an anabolic driver........
Yes, when your body needs it. That is why it's produced in the first place, but the body doesn't know that you would or wouldn't be trying to increase it.
Your body only "needs" so much muscle mass......hence RDA recommendations. Building muscle you're forcing your body to do things it doesn't "need" to do....
Not sure what you are saying here, now we are talking about how much mass we gain? I
Umm....you're on the gaining weight board dude. It's like, the overriding topic and stuff...
It had nothing to do with the comment before. That is why I said it, stop taking things out of context.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »
You get a lot of time in prison to lift, and think about biochemistry...0 -
-
ryanflebbe wrote: »By body composition, we are both talking about muscle vs fat gain right? I am. Eating the donuts every day will spike insulin more, and do it when you have eaten more calories than you can burn so over time you will be slightly fatter with slightly less muscle. Also, I eat 5000 calories a day, and I can eat 1000 calories from rice in one sitting, although different spacing seems more prudent. I've eaten and trained many different ways and read quite a bit on physiology, nutrition, etc. and your body doesn't always respond as it theoretically should. There are so many factors and variables to bodybuilding. Studies don't always predict real life results when the scale, intensities, and variables come into play, either.
Why would insulin mean more fat storage than muscle? You know muscle cells have insulin receptors too, don't you? You know insulin is an anabolic hormone, don't you? You know the main divider between whether calories are partitioned to fat or muscle for an individual (assuming appropriate muscle stimulus) is insulin sensitivity, driven by current body fat levels, don't you? I'm not seeing why fast carbs versus slow carbs would change this appreciably, but if you have research that shows such an effect, I'd be interested.
This really isn't research with some text, it just the explanation.
Link http://www.metaboliceffect.com/science-insulin/
"Insulin and fat storage
"Many people refer to insulin as the fat storing hormone, but it is important to understand where this comes from. Remember, insulin’s primary job is to lower blood sugar and get it into the cell where it can be used for energy.
Along with this, it also helps the cellular intake of amino acids and other nutrients. As we discussed, insulin resistance can result in large amounts of blood sugar that cannot be used.
At first glance, this may seem like a good thing. After all, if the body can’t use sugar well, then surely it will begin to use its fat stores? Unfortunately this is not how it works.
When confronted with excess food, insulin is released to get the nutrients into the cell to be burned. It also wants to save any leftover for a rainy day. So, it interacts with two key fat releasing and storing enzymes. These are lipoprotein lipase (LPL) and hormone sensitive lipase (HSL). This is where the fat storing action of insulin becomes prominent.
On your fat cells, LPL works to break down the triglyceride molecule (three fats attached to a glycerol backbone) to individual fats so they can be stored in the cell. HSL does the opposite, breaking down triglycerides in the cell so the fat can be released and burned.
Insulin is a powerful stimulator of LPL and a powerful inhibitor of HSL. So, as insulin levels rise in the body they not only increase fat storage, but perhaps more importantly block fat breakdown.
Just because fat gets released from a cell does not mean it will be burned. Insulin also has a role to play here. The chief rate limiting step in getting fat into a cell and burned has to do with an enzyme called CPT-1. Guess what insulin does to this enzyme? Blocks it!
Adding insult to injury, the liver is no longer responding to insulin’s suppressive effect on glucose production. This results in muscle protein being stripped and used for energy instead instead of fat. The body does this because it can easily convert the amino acids alanine and glutamine to sugar. Taken together, insulin resistance means fat storage and muscle loss."
Mouse study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121204145549.htm
Since soda is the most consumed and has a great deal of sugar (carb), this might be interesting as well..
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/
0 -
I really don't feel like answering every question, or comment. Maybe later. The whole point
I have been trying to make is that saying that eating more or less calories than you burn to gain or lose weight and then stopping there and saying that beyond a little difference in macro percentages, nothing else matters, is wrong. What you eat and when you eat it are important considerations that can influence muscle and fat gain.0 -
ryanflebbe wrote: »I really don't feel like answering every question, or comment. Maybe later. The whole point
I have been trying to make is that saying that eating more or less calories than you burn to gain or lose weight and then stopping there and saying that beyond a little difference in macro percentages, nothing else matters, is wrong. What you eat and when you eat it are important considerations that can influence muscle and fat gain.
I agree!0 -
ryanflebbe wrote: »I really don't feel like answering every question, or comment. Maybe later. The whole point
I have been trying to make is that saying that eating more or less calories than you burn to gain or lose weight and then stopping there and saying that beyond a little difference in macro percentages, nothing else matters, is wrong. What you eat and when you eat it are important considerations that can influence muscle and fat gain.
Until you cite your references to this you're going to get a lot of push back. What context are you speaking of? Natural Bodybuilders? Powerlifters? Professional athletes? The average Joe or Jane?0 -
ryanflebbe wrote: »By body composition, we are both talking about muscle vs fat gain right? I am. Eating the donuts every day will spike insulin more, and do it when you have eaten more calories than you can burn so over time you will be slightly fatter with slightly less muscle. Also, I eat 5000 calories a day, and I can eat 1000 calories from rice in one sitting, although different spacing seems more prudent. I've eaten and trained many different ways and read quite a bit on physiology, nutrition, etc. and your body doesn't always respond as it theoretically should. There are so many factors and variables to bodybuilding. Studies don't always predict real life results when the scale, intensities, and variables come into play, either.
Why would insulin mean more fat storage than muscle? You know muscle cells have insulin receptors too, don't you? You know insulin is an anabolic hormone, don't you? You know the main divider between whether calories are partitioned to fat or muscle for an individual (assuming appropriate muscle stimulus) is insulin sensitivity, driven by current body fat levels, don't you? I'm not seeing why fast carbs versus slow carbs would change this appreciably, but if you have research that shows such an effect, I'd be interested.
I can also say from personal experience that this is true. When comparing something like doughnuts and broccoli, it's commonly said on here that in real life, we don't eat in a vacuum. When you add in other factors like stress, sleep, and the fact that in some cases food choices can impact those factors, things get complicated.ryanflebbe wrote: »By body composition, we are both talking about muscle vs fat gain right? I am. Eating the donuts every day will spike insulin more, and do it when you have eaten more calories than you can burn so over time you will be slightly fatter with slightly less muscle. Also, I eat 5000 calories a day, and I can eat 1000 calories from rice in one sitting, although different spacing seems more prudent. I've eaten and trained many different ways and read quite a bit on physiology, nutrition, etc. and your body doesn't always respond as it theoretically should. There are so many factors and variables to bodybuilding. Studies don't always predict real life results when the scale, intensities, and variables come into play, either.0 -
ryanflebbe wrote: »By body composition, we are both talking about muscle vs fat gain right? I am. Eating the donuts every day will spike insulin more, and do it when you have eaten more calories than you can burn so over time you will be slightly fatter with slightly less muscle. Also, I eat 5000 calories a day, and I can eat 1000 calories from rice in one sitting, although different spacing seems more prudent. I've eaten and trained many different ways and read quite a bit on physiology, nutrition, etc. and your body doesn't always respond as it theoretically should. There are so many factors and variables to bodybuilding. Studies don't always predict real life results when the scale, intensities, and variables come into play, either.
Why would insulin mean more fat storage than muscle? You know muscle cells have insulin receptors too, don't you? You know insulin is an anabolic hormone, don't you? You know the main divider between whether calories are partitioned to fat or muscle for an individual (assuming appropriate muscle stimulus) is insulin sensitivity, driven by current body fat levels, don't you? I'm not seeing why fast carbs versus slow carbs would change this appreciably, but if you have research that shows such an effect, I'd be interested.
This really isn't research with some text, it just the explanation.
Link http://www.metaboliceffect.com/science-insulin/
"Insulin and fat storage
"Many people refer to insulin as the fat storing hormone, but it is important to understand where this comes from. Remember, insulin’s primary job is to lower blood sugar and get it into the cell where it can be used for energy.
Along with this, it also helps the cellular intake of amino acids and other nutrients. As we discussed, insulin resistance can result in large amounts of blood sugar that cannot be used.
Hmmmm the building blocks of muscles.....
The rest goes on to discuss insulin resistance and its effects..........
0 -
ryanflebbe wrote: »I really don't feel like answering every question, or comment. Maybe later. The whole point
I have been trying to make is that saying that eating more or less calories than you burn to gain or lose weight and then stopping there and saying that beyond a little difference in macro percentages, nothing else matters, is wrong. What you eat and when you eat it are important considerations that can influence muscle and fat gain.
I am still waiting for your explanation as to how one person eating in a 1000 calorie surplus of doughnuts somehow gains more fat and less muscle than someone eating a 1000 calorie surplus of chicken and brown rice....0 -
ryanflebbe wrote: »By body composition, we are both talking about muscle vs fat gain right? I am. Eating the donuts every day will spike insulin more, and do it when you have eaten more calories than you can burn so over time you will be slightly fatter with slightly less muscle. Also, I eat 5000 calories a day, and I can eat 1000 calories from rice in one sitting, although different spacing seems more prudent. I've eaten and trained many different ways and read quite a bit on physiology, nutrition, etc. and your body doesn't always respond as it theoretically should. There are so many factors and variables to bodybuilding. Studies don't always predict real life results when the scale, intensities, and variables come into play, either.
Why would insulin mean more fat storage than muscle? You know muscle cells have insulin receptors too, don't you? You know insulin is an anabolic hormone, don't you? You know the main divider between whether calories are partitioned to fat or muscle for an individual (assuming appropriate muscle stimulus) is insulin sensitivity, driven by current body fat levels, don't you? I'm not seeing why fast carbs versus slow carbs would change this appreciably, but if you have research that shows such an effect, I'd be interested.
This really isn't research with some text, it just the explanation.
Link http://www.metaboliceffect.com/science-insulin/
"Insulin and fat storage
"Many people refer to insulin as the fat storing hormone, but it is important to understand where this comes from. Remember, insulin’s primary job is to lower blood sugar and get it into the cell where it can be used for energy.
Along with this, it also helps the cellular intake of amino acids and other nutrients. As we discussed, insulin resistance can result in large amounts of blood sugar that cannot be used.
At first glance, this may seem like a good thing. After all, if the body can’t use sugar well, then surely it will begin to use its fat stores? Unfortunately this is not how it works.
When confronted with excess food, insulin is released to get the nutrients into the cell to be burned. It also wants to save any leftover for a rainy day. So, it interacts with two key fat releasing and storing enzymes. These are lipoprotein lipase (LPL) and hormone sensitive lipase (HSL). This is where the fat storing action of insulin becomes prominent.
On your fat cells, LPL works to break down the triglyceride molecule (three fats attached to a glycerol backbone) to individual fats so they can be stored in the cell. HSL does the opposite, breaking down triglycerides in the cell so the fat can be released and burned.
Insulin is a powerful stimulator of LPL and a powerful inhibitor of HSL. So, as insulin levels rise in the body they not only increase fat storage, but perhaps more importantly block fat breakdown.
Just because fat gets released from a cell does not mean it will be burned. Insulin also has a role to play here. The chief rate limiting step in getting fat into a cell and burned has to do with an enzyme called CPT-1. Guess what insulin does to this enzyme? Blocks it!
Adding insult to injury, the liver is no longer responding to insulin’s suppressive effect on glucose production. This results in muscle protein being stripped and used for energy instead instead of fat. The body does this because it can easily convert the amino acids alanine and glutamine to sugar. Taken together, insulin resistance means fat storage and muscle loss."
Mouse study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121204145549.htm
Since soda is the most consumed and has a great deal of sugar (carb), this might be interesting as well..
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/
from your first article:
Insulin and muscle building
Before we jump to conclusions and assume all insulin is bad, we need to take a step back. Insulin itself is not bad, it is insulin resistance that is the problem. Insulin is key to feeding our cells, and it is essential to get amino acids into tissues to provide fuel for muscle growth.
In other words, for body change you need enough insulin to build muscle, but not so much to store fat. Rather than simply trying to lower insulin to extremely low levels and possibly losing muscle in the process, it is far better to maximize insulin sensitivity.
The best way to maximize insulin sensitivity is through exercise. An August 2010 review in the American Journal of Physiology, Endocrinology and Metabolism points to muscle contraction as an insulin independent mechanism to move glucose into the cells.
Muscle contractions increase the number of glucose receptors on the cell surfaces. This is important because these receptors are down regulated in insulin resistance. Through contraction induced mechanisms the cell can get fed, increase its glycogen storage, and retain or even gain muscle.
which is exactly what we have been saying...0 -
ryanflebbe wrote: »By body composition, we are both talking about muscle vs fat gain right? I am. Eating the donuts every day will spike insulin more, and do it when you have eaten more calories than you can burn so over time you will be slightly fatter with slightly less muscle. Also, I eat 5000 calories a day, and I can eat 1000 calories from rice in one sitting, although different spacing seems more prudent. I've eaten and trained many different ways and read quite a bit on physiology, nutrition, etc. and your body doesn't always respond as it theoretically should. There are so many factors and variables to bodybuilding. Studies don't always predict real life results when the scale, intensities, and variables come into play, either.
Why would insulin mean more fat storage than muscle? You know muscle cells have insulin receptors too, don't you? You know insulin is an anabolic hormone, don't you? You know the main divider between whether calories are partitioned to fat or muscle for an individual (assuming appropriate muscle stimulus) is insulin sensitivity, driven by current body fat levels, don't you? I'm not seeing why fast carbs versus slow carbs would change this appreciably, but if you have research that shows such an effect, I'd be interested.
This really isn't research with some text, it just the explanation.
Link http://www.metaboliceffect.com/science-insulin/
"Insulin and fat storage
"Many people refer to insulin as the fat storing hormone, but it is important to understand where this comes from. Remember, insulin’s primary job is to lower blood sugar and get it into the cell where it can be used for energy.
Along with this, it also helps the cellular intake of amino acids and other nutrients. As we discussed, insulin resistance can result in large amounts of blood sugar that cannot be used.
At first glance, this may seem like a good thing. After all, if the body can’t use sugar well, then surely it will begin to use its fat stores? Unfortunately this is not how it works.
When confronted with excess food, insulin is released to get the nutrients into the cell to be burned. It also wants to save any leftover for a rainy day. So, it interacts with two key fat releasing and storing enzymes. These are lipoprotein lipase (LPL) and hormone sensitive lipase (HSL). This is where the fat storing action of insulin becomes prominent.
On your fat cells, LPL works to break down the triglyceride molecule (three fats attached to a glycerol backbone) to individual fats so they can be stored in the cell. HSL does the opposite, breaking down triglycerides in the cell so the fat can be released and burned.
Insulin is a powerful stimulator of LPL and a powerful inhibitor of HSL. So, as insulin levels rise in the body they not only increase fat storage, but perhaps more importantly block fat breakdown.
Just because fat gets released from a cell does not mean it will be burned. Insulin also has a role to play here. The chief rate limiting step in getting fat into a cell and burned has to do with an enzyme called CPT-1. Guess what insulin does to this enzyme? Blocks it!
Adding insult to injury, the liver is no longer responding to insulin’s suppressive effect on glucose production. This results in muscle protein being stripped and used for energy instead instead of fat. The body does this because it can easily convert the amino acids alanine and glutamine to sugar. Taken together, insulin resistance means fat storage and muscle loss."
Mouse study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121204145549.htm
Since soda is the most consumed and has a great deal of sugar (carb), this might be interesting as well..
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/
I'm glad you posted this. It explains a few concepts I was trying and apparently failing to get across.0 -
But doughnuts have the insulin effect and the vegetables do not. The spike of insulin would differ no matter the calories amount, sugar is the variable, the amount the kind, and how it's broken down. THE END
You are aware that protein also causes a rise in blood sugar/insulin spike also, right?
Here's a good research review article to help you learn a little more about what insulin is and what it does, complete with plenty of scientific studies done on humans (not mouse studies, as you linked in your subsequent post): weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/0 -
ryanflebbe wrote: »I really don't feel like answering every question, or comment. Maybe later. The whole point
I have been trying to make is that saying that eating more or less calories than you burn to gain or lose weight and then stopping there and saying that beyond a little difference in macro percentages, nothing else matters, is wrong. What you eat and when you eat it are important considerations that can influence muscle and fat gain.
If by this you mean that the largest considerations is finding a method that allows you to consistently and long term stick to a calorie and macro goal that is in-line with your weight, performance, composition and activity goals then we agree.
If by this you mean you need to eat x meals to lose weight ... err, no.
I think the general issue is where one places the bar of "important consideration" and the relevant goal context.
You have a significant amount of people coming to the board asking "I eat healthy but can't loose (sic) weight", or "do I need to drink water to lose weight" or "I'm struggling to eat 6 meals a day, help I can't lose" or "should I stop snacking after 7 pm", etc...
Getting cals & macros aligned is significantly important to weight loss - the other considerations? A lot less.
Majoring in the minors seems to be a particular problem for a lot of people - so while what you are saying is true, context trumps secondary considerations.
0 -
ryanflebbe wrote: »By body composition, we are both talking about muscle vs fat gain right? I am. Eating the donuts every day will spike insulin more, and do it when you have eaten more calories than you can burn so over time you will be slightly fatter with slightly less muscle. Also, I eat 5000 calories a day, and I can eat 1000 calories from rice in one sitting, although different spacing seems more prudent. I've eaten and trained many different ways and read quite a bit on physiology, nutrition, etc. and your body doesn't always respond as it theoretically should. There are so many factors and variables to bodybuilding. Studies don't always predict real life results when the scale, intensities, and variables come into play, either.
Why would insulin mean more fat storage than muscle? You know muscle cells have insulin receptors too, don't you? You know insulin is an anabolic hormone, don't you? You know the main divider between whether calories are partitioned to fat or muscle for an individual (assuming appropriate muscle stimulus) is insulin sensitivity, driven by current body fat levels, don't you? I'm not seeing why fast carbs versus slow carbs would change this appreciably, but if you have research that shows such an effect, I'd be interested.
This really isn't research with some text, it just the explanation.
Link http://www.metaboliceffect.com/science-insulin/
"Insulin and fat storage
"Many people refer to insulin as the fat storing hormone, but it is important to understand where this comes from. Remember, insulin’s primary job is to lower blood sugar and get it into the cell where it can be used for energy.
Along with this, it also helps the cellular intake of amino acids and other nutrients. As we discussed, insulin resistance can result in large amounts of blood sugar that cannot be used.
At first glance, this may seem like a good thing. After all, if the body can’t use sugar well, then surely it will begin to use its fat stores? Unfortunately this is not how it works.
When confronted with excess food, insulin is released to get the nutrients into the cell to be burned. It also wants to save any leftover for a rainy day. So, it interacts with two key fat releasing and storing enzymes. These are lipoprotein lipase (LPL) and hormone sensitive lipase (HSL). This is where the fat storing action of insulin becomes prominent.
On your fat cells, LPL works to break down the triglyceride molecule (three fats attached to a glycerol backbone) to individual fats so they can be stored in the cell. HSL does the opposite, breaking down triglycerides in the cell so the fat can be released and burned.
Insulin is a powerful stimulator of LPL and a powerful inhibitor of HSL. So, as insulin levels rise in the body they not only increase fat storage, but perhaps more importantly block fat breakdown.
Just because fat gets released from a cell does not mean it will be burned. Insulin also has a role to play here. The chief rate limiting step in getting fat into a cell and burned has to do with an enzyme called CPT-1. Guess what insulin does to this enzyme? Blocks it!
Adding insult to injury, the liver is no longer responding to insulin’s suppressive effect on glucose production. This results in muscle protein being stripped and used for energy instead instead of fat. The body does this because it can easily convert the amino acids alanine and glutamine to sugar. Taken together, insulin resistance means fat storage and muscle loss."
Mouse study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121204145549.htm
Since soda is the most consumed and has a great deal of sugar (carb), this might be interesting as well..
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/
Someone bulking should already have done a cut or recomp to be at a lower body fat level. At that point, if they are insulin resistant, they have deeper issues than a bunch of guys on an internet forum should be advising. They're also rather statistically rare.
So is your argument is bulking is bad for gaining muscle for overweight people? I wouldn't disagree with that statement.0 -
But doughnuts have the insulin effect and the vegetables do not. The spike of insulin would differ no matter the calories amount, sugar is the variable, the amount the kind, and how it's broken down. THE END
You are aware that protein also causes a rise in blood sugar/insulin spike also, right?
Here's a good research review article to help you learn a little more about what insulin is and what it does, complete with plenty of scientific studies done on humans (not mouse studies, as you linked in your subsequent post): weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
I can only respond to this by saying you NEED protein, you DO NOT need simple carbs like PROCESSED SUGARY FOODS doughnuts, cookies, ice cream, as you made completely aware by posting this.0 -
But doughnuts have the insulin effect and the vegetables do not. The spike of insulin would differ no matter the calories amount, sugar is the variable, the amount the kind, and how it's broken down. THE END
You are aware that protein also causes a rise in blood sugar/insulin spike also, right?
Here's a good research review article to help you learn a little more about what insulin is and what it does, complete with plenty of scientific studies done on humans (not mouse studies, as you linked in your subsequent post): weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
I can only respond to this by saying you NEED protein, you DO NOT need simple carbs like PROCESSED SUGARY FOODS doughnuts, cookies, ice cream, as you made completely aware by posting this.
thats funny because doughnuts have fat in them and I am pretty sure that you need a minimum amount of fat in your diet...
what about complex carbs, do you need them?
and since we are in the gaining forum you are going to need a certain amount of carbs to stimulate muscle growth and what not, because insulin...
0 -
But doughnuts have the insulin effect and the vegetables do not. The spike of insulin would differ no matter the calories amount, sugar is the variable, the amount the kind, and how it's broken down. THE END
You are aware that protein also causes a rise in blood sugar/insulin spike also, right?
Here's a good research review article to help you learn a little more about what insulin is and what it does, complete with plenty of scientific studies done on humans (not mouse studies, as you linked in your subsequent post): weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
I can only respond to this by saying you NEED protein, you DO NOT need simple carbs like PROCESSED SUGARY FOODS doughnuts, cookies, ice cream, as you made completely aware by posting this.
You NEED about 50-60 grams of protein as well as NEED about as much fat, giving you at most 780 kcal intake that you NEED, which is way below what any sane person should eat total.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »ryanflebbe wrote: »I really don't feel like answering every question, or comment. Maybe later. The whole point
I have been trying to make is that saying that eating more or less calories than you burn to gain or lose weight and then stopping there and saying that beyond a little difference in macro percentages, nothing else matters, is wrong. What you eat and when you eat it are important considerations that can influence muscle and fat gain.
If by this you mean that the largest considerations is finding a method that allows you to consistently and long term stick to a calorie and macro goal that is in-line with your weight, performance, composition and activity goals then we agree.
If by this you mean you need to eat x meals to lose weight ... err, no.
I think the general issue is where one places the bar of "important consideration" and the relevant goal context.
You have a significant amount of people coming to the board asking "I eat healthy but can't loose (sic) weight", or "do I need to drink water to lose weight" or "I'm struggling to eat 6 meals a day, help I can't lose" or "should I stop snacking after 7 pm", etc...
Getting cals & macros aligned is significantly important to weight loss - the other considerations? A lot less.
Majoring in the minors seems to be a particular problem for a lot of people - so while what you are saying is true, context trumps secondary considerations.
I pretty much agree with what you are saying, particularly when it comes to people just starting to try to lose or gain weight(like most on this site). However, I get annoyed when one of the first things thrown at them is that calories are all that count. The composition of those calories, or when they are eaten don't matter. That's not a very good start to getting educated about nutrition. Of course amount of calories is the predominant factor in gaining or losing weight, and the first thing people pursuing those goals should concentrate on.0 -
ryanflebbe wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »ryanflebbe wrote: »I really don't feel like answering every question, or comment. Maybe later. The whole point
I have been trying to make is that saying that eating more or less calories than you burn to gain or lose weight and then stopping there and saying that beyond a little difference in macro percentages, nothing else matters, is wrong. What you eat and when you eat it are important considerations that can influence muscle and fat gain.
If by this you mean that the largest considerations is finding a method that allows you to consistently and long term stick to a calorie and macro goal that is in-line with your weight, performance, composition and activity goals then we agree.
If by this you mean you need to eat x meals to lose weight ... err, no.
I think the general issue is where one places the bar of "important consideration" and the relevant goal context.
You have a significant amount of people coming to the board asking "I eat healthy but can't loose (sic) weight", or "do I need to drink water to lose weight" or "I'm struggling to eat 6 meals a day, help I can't lose" or "should I stop snacking after 7 pm", etc...
Getting cals & macros aligned is significantly important to weight loss - the other considerations? A lot less.
Majoring in the minors seems to be a particular problem for a lot of people - so while what you are saying is true, context trumps secondary considerations.
I pretty much agree with what you are saying, particularly when it comes to people just starting to try to lose or gain weight(like most on this site). However, I get annoyed when one of the first things thrown at them is that calories are all that count. The composition of those calories, or when they are eaten don't matter. That's not a very good start to getting educated about nutrition. Of course amount of calories is the predominant factor in gaining or losing weight, and the first thing people pursuing those goals should concentrate on.
most advice that is given to newbies is that calorie deficit is the most important factor for weight loss, and then as one gets leaner one should pay attention to micros and macros and find some form or lifting regimen or exercise that they enjoy.
Please link us to a thread on the gaining forum where someone said "eat all the calories you want and don't worry about micros and macros"? The ONLY time I see "just eat" recommended is when someone is recovering from an eating disorder and they need to add 30 pounds just to get to a healthy weight, and even those threads typically say that said person should be getting adequate nutrition and macros.
For the millionth time, all calories are the same from an energy standpoint; however, they are not all nutritionally the same.0 -
ryanflebbe wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »ryanflebbe wrote: »I really don't feel like answering every question, or comment. Maybe later. The whole point
I have been trying to make is that saying that eating more or less calories than you burn to gain or lose weight and then stopping there and saying that beyond a little difference in macro percentages, nothing else matters, is wrong. What you eat and when you eat it are important considerations that can influence muscle and fat gain.
If by this you mean that the largest considerations is finding a method that allows you to consistently and long term stick to a calorie and macro goal that is in-line with your weight, performance, composition and activity goals then we agree.
If by this you mean you need to eat x meals to lose weight ... err, no.
I think the general issue is where one places the bar of "important consideration" and the relevant goal context.
You have a significant amount of people coming to the board asking "I eat healthy but can't loose (sic) weight", or "do I need to drink water to lose weight" or "I'm struggling to eat 6 meals a day, help I can't lose" or "should I stop snacking after 7 pm", etc...
Getting cals & macros aligned is significantly important to weight loss - the other considerations? A lot less.
Majoring in the minors seems to be a particular problem for a lot of people - so while what you are saying is true, context trumps secondary considerations.
I pretty much agree with what you are saying, particularly when it comes to people just starting to try to lose or gain weight(like most on this site). However, I get annoyed when one of the first things thrown at them is that calories are all that count. The composition of those calories, or when they are eaten don't matter. That's not a very good start to getting educated about nutrition. Of course amount of calories is the predominant factor in gaining or losing weight, and the first thing people pursuing those goals should concentrate on.
The composition in terms of macros is going to be just fine if the person just eats consciously without paying too much attention to macro intake. The amounts that are actually necessary are so low it's unlikely to be under the minimums. If you want to be as optimal in everything as you can, that's when you absolutely should make sure about your macros. For everyone else being in a ballpark between the 60-120 g of protein that would be about minimum-optimum for a normal weight adult male is good enough.
And timing still didn't matter unless maybe if you're an elite athlete concerned with getting that 1% extra performance.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »ryanflebbe wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »ryanflebbe wrote: »I really don't feel like answering every question, or comment. Maybe later. The whole point
I have been trying to make is that saying that eating more or less calories than you burn to gain or lose weight and then stopping there and saying that beyond a little difference in macro percentages, nothing else matters, is wrong. What you eat and when you eat it are important considerations that can influence muscle and fat gain.
If by this you mean that the largest considerations is finding a method that allows you to consistently and long term stick to a calorie and macro goal that is in-line with your weight, performance, composition and activity goals then we agree.
If by this you mean you need to eat x meals to lose weight ... err, no.
I think the general issue is where one places the bar of "important consideration" and the relevant goal context.
You have a significant amount of people coming to the board asking "I eat healthy but can't loose (sic) weight", or "do I need to drink water to lose weight" or "I'm struggling to eat 6 meals a day, help I can't lose" or "should I stop snacking after 7 pm", etc...
Getting cals & macros aligned is significantly important to weight loss - the other considerations? A lot less.
Majoring in the minors seems to be a particular problem for a lot of people - so while what you are saying is true, context trumps secondary considerations.
I pretty much agree with what you are saying, particularly when it comes to people just starting to try to lose or gain weight(like most on this site). However, I get annoyed when one of the first things thrown at them is that calories are all that count. The composition of those calories, or when they are eaten don't matter. That's not a very good start to getting educated about nutrition. Of course amount of calories is the predominant factor in gaining or losing weight, and the first thing people pursuing those goals should concentrate on.
The composition in terms of macros is going to be just fine if the person just eats consciously without paying too much attention to macro intake. The amounts that are actually necessary are so low it's unlikely to be under the minimums. If you want to be as optimal in everything as you can, that's when you absolutely should make sure about your macros. For everyone else being in a ballpark between the 60-120 g of protein that would be about minimum-optimum for a normal weight adult male is good enough.
And timing still didn't matter unless maybe if you're an elite athlete concerned with getting that 1% extra performance.
^ This. If you're at the level that you need to track and correlate if having a meal at 3:15 or 3:37 matters, or if 10grams more protein versus 10 more grams of carbs matters to your performance, you should not only be getting paid to be that concerned, but paid enough that you've hired someone to help you nutritionally and statistically prove that it is correct, and correct for you.0 -
ryanflebbe wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »ryanflebbe wrote: »I really don't feel like answering every question, or comment. Maybe later. The whole point
I have been trying to make is that saying that eating more or less calories than you burn to gain or lose weight and then stopping there and saying that beyond a little difference in macro percentages, nothing else matters, is wrong. What you eat and when you eat it are important considerations that can influence muscle and fat gain.
If by this you mean that the largest considerations is finding a method that allows you to consistently and long term stick to a calorie and macro goal that is in-line with your weight, performance, composition and activity goals then we agree.
If by this you mean you need to eat x meals to lose weight ... err, no.
I think the general issue is where one places the bar of "important consideration" and the relevant goal context.
You have a significant amount of people coming to the board asking "I eat healthy but can't loose (sic) weight", or "do I need to drink water to lose weight" or "I'm struggling to eat 6 meals a day, help I can't lose" or "should I stop snacking after 7 pm", etc...
Getting cals & macros aligned is significantly important to weight loss - the other considerations? A lot less.
Majoring in the minors seems to be a particular problem for a lot of people - so while what you are saying is true, context trumps secondary considerations.
I pretty much agree with what you are saying, particularly when it comes to people just starting to try to lose or gain weight(like most on this site). However, I get annoyed when one of the first things thrown at them is that calories are all that count. The composition of those calories, or when they are eaten don't matter. That's not a very good start to getting educated about nutrition. Of course amount of calories is the predominant factor in gaining or losing weight, and the first thing people pursuing those goals should concentrate on.
I think you touch on an important point - how much to focus on addressing the basic question of 'gah, i just want to lose this weight' versus 'think more globally' especially since the second leads so many people to focus on the 'wrong' things.
The format here is isn't really often productive for a nutritional education or even for understanding a person's context.
It is an ongoing conversation - at all levels of knowledge.0 -
But doughnuts have the insulin effect and the vegetables do not. The spike of insulin would differ no matter the calories amount, sugar is the variable, the amount the kind, and how it's broken down. THE END
You are aware that protein also causes a rise in blood sugar/insulin spike also, right?
Here's a good research review article to help you learn a little more about what insulin is and what it does, complete with plenty of scientific studies done on humans (not mouse studies, as you linked in your subsequent post): weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
I can only respond to this by saying you NEED protein, you DO NOT need simple carbs like PROCESSED SUGARY FOODS doughnuts, cookies, ice cream, as you made completely aware by posting this.
thats funny because doughnuts have fat in them and I am pretty sure that you need a minimum amount of fat in your diet...
what about complex carbs, do you need them?
and since we are in the gaining forum you are going to need a certain amount of carbs to stimulate muscle growth and what not, because insulin...
I'm also pretty sure they are different types of fats, but I'm not gonna sit here all day going over every little detail because you cherry pick a word for phrase and run with it. About the doughnut. Yes there is fat, but there is fat in peanut butter, coconut oils too. The difference once again is what the food is, not all food is equal, on a caloric level, nutritional level, and biological level. If a person needs a doughnut to get fat they are doing something wrong, when there are plenty of other foods, that will do the same thing and are just as easy to consume and an overal healthy choice.
If they only had doughnuts to eat, which is doubt is the situation, then fine do what you have to do, but everything has consequences, and eating doughnuts to get fat macros will have it's.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »But doughnuts have the insulin effect and the vegetables do not. The spike of insulin would differ no matter the calories amount, sugar is the variable, the amount the kind, and how it's broken down. THE END
You are aware that protein also causes a rise in blood sugar/insulin spike also, right?
Here's a good research review article to help you learn a little more about what insulin is and what it does, complete with plenty of scientific studies done on humans (not mouse studies, as you linked in your subsequent post): weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
I can only respond to this by saying you NEED protein, you DO NOT need simple carbs like PROCESSED SUGARY FOODS doughnuts, cookies, ice cream, as you made completely aware by posting this.
You NEED about 50-60 grams of protein as well as NEED about as much fat, giving you at most 780 kcal intake that you NEED, which is way below what any sane person should eat total.
Ok thanks for telling me this, but we weren't talking about fat yet at all. One topic at a time.
0 -
But doughnuts have the insulin effect and the vegetables do not. The spike of insulin would differ no matter the calories amount, sugar is the variable, the amount the kind, and how it's broken down. THE END
You are aware that protein also causes a rise in blood sugar/insulin spike also, right?
Here's a good research review article to help you learn a little more about what insulin is and what it does, complete with plenty of scientific studies done on humans (not mouse studies, as you linked in your subsequent post): weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
I can only respond to this by saying you NEED protein, you DO NOT need simple carbs like PROCESSED SUGARY FOODS doughnuts, cookies, ice cream, as you made completely aware by posting this.
thats funny because doughnuts have fat in them and I am pretty sure that you need a minimum amount of fat in your diet...
what about complex carbs, do you need them?
and since we are in the gaining forum you are going to need a certain amount of carbs to stimulate muscle growth and what not, because insulin...
I'm also pretty sure they are different types of fats, but I'm not gonna sit here all day going over every little detail because you cherry pick a word for phrase and run with it. About the doughnut. Yes there is fat, but there is fat in peanut butter, coconut oils too. The difference once again is what the food is, not all food is equal, on a caloric level, nutritional level, and biological level. If a person needs a doughnut to get fat they are doing something wrong, when there are plenty of other foods, that will do the same thing and are just as easy to consume and an overal healthy choice.
If they only had doughnuts to eat, which is doubt is the situation, then fine do what you have to do, but everything has consequences, and eating doughnuts to get fat macros will have it's.
You're precious.
Have another oldie but goldie along the linesof NDJ's "calories are equal but nutrition isn't".
You don't get extra credits for going above and beyond your micronutrient needs.0 -
But doughnuts have the insulin effect and the vegetables do not. The spike of insulin would differ no matter the calories amount, sugar is the variable, the amount the kind, and how it's broken down. THE END
You are aware that protein also causes a rise in blood sugar/insulin spike also, right?
Here's a good research review article to help you learn a little more about what insulin is and what it does, complete with plenty of scientific studies done on humans (not mouse studies, as you linked in your subsequent post): weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
I can only respond to this by saying you NEED protein, you DO NOT need simple carbs like PROCESSED SUGARY FOODS doughnuts, cookies, ice cream, as you made completely aware by posting this.
thats funny because doughnuts have fat in them and I am pretty sure that you need a minimum amount of fat in your diet...
what about complex carbs, do you need them?
and since we are in the gaining forum you are going to need a certain amount of carbs to stimulate muscle growth and what not, because insulin...
I'm also pretty sure they are different types of fats, but I'm not gonna sit here all day going over every little detail because you cherry pick a word for phrase and run with it. About the doughnut. Yes there is fat, but there is fat in peanut butter, coconut oils too. The difference once again is what the food is, not all food is equal, on a caloric level, nutritional level, and biological level. If a person needs a doughnut to get fat they are doing something wrong, when there are plenty of other foods, that will do the same thing and are just as easy to consume and an overal healthy choice.
If they only had doughnuts to eat, which is doubt is the situation, then fine do what you have to do, but everything has consequences, and eating doughnuts to get fat macros will have it's.
what is the consequence of having one doughnut a day?
well since absolutely no one eats a diet of only doughnuts not really sure what you are talking about. You can have a few doughnuts in the context of an overall healthy diet and have zero issues.
I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand but all calories provide the same energy, they just do not have the same nutritional profile.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