Calorie Prioritization - Yes, a calorie is a calorie….
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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.
Assuming that both people are in a 1000 calorie surplus (not sure why anyone would want to do that) then yes, there gains should roughly be the same. Please explain how your body differentiates between a surplus of a thousand calories of donuts and a thousand calories of brown rice and chicken? And good luck getting into a thousand calorie surplus just eating chicken and brown rice.
With all due respect, the comparison points that you are making are strawmen, as I dont think anyone is going to consume a thousand calories of either food group. But please explain to us how your body distinguishes between a surplus of the same unit of energy (calories)...
Are you really arguing that people eating 1000 calories of chicken and brown rice would gain less than a person eating 1000 calories of donuts?
Also, carbs = carbs...
0 -
Carbs maybe carbs only when categorizing,, but they surely don't do the same thing. Just as a calorie is categorized as proteins, fats, carbs. The chain in the molecule makes them different.
0 -
just going to leave these hear about meal timing and what not...
http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/53
http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/5
https://m.facebook.com/alan.aragon.796/posts/10152774524314992?stream_ref=10
http://www.drillercrossfit.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/nutrient-timing-table_r4-01-1024x837-1.png0 -
Carbs maybe carbs only when categorizing,, but they surely don't do the same thing. Just as a calorie is categorized as proteins, fats, carbs. The chain in the molecule makes them different.
All digestible carbs get turned into glucose and fructose by your body. The process of breaking the bonds apart only takes negligible amounts of calories.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Carbs maybe carbs only when categorizing,, but they surely don't do the same thing. Just as a calorie is categorized as proteins, fats, carbs. The chain in the molecule makes them different.
All digestible carbs get turned into glucose and fructose by your body. The process of breaking the bonds apart only takes negligible amounts of calories.
While that is true, the speeds of digestion differs greatly, and if you don't believe this please stop posting.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Carbs maybe carbs only when categorizing,, but they surely don't do the same thing. Just as a calorie is categorized as proteins, fats, carbs. The chain in the molecule makes them different.
All digestible carbs get turned into glucose and fructose by your body. The process of breaking the bonds apart only takes negligible amounts of calories.
While that is true, the speeds of digestion differs greatly, and if you don't believe this please stop posting.
And what does the speed of digestion have to do with body composition or weight loss/gain, in the context of a diet that has the same calories and macros?0 -
but but but pizza.........
0 -
A candy bar would give a huge amount of energy fast, while the same calorie amount of broccoli is broken down slower and gives a steady amount energy.
Thus the difference between simple and complex carbs, not to mention the health benefits. The only way I can see someone really utilizing a candy bar.cookie, ice cream, or something with a huge amount of processed sugar is after a workout or before. The problem is it looks like a few people don't believe in meal timing or think it's not important, but it's very hyporcitalcal that most weight lifters, no matter the goal, have preworkout and post workout meal, aka meal timing, THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO HMMM....0 -
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
-
stevencloser wrote: »Carbs maybe carbs only when categorizing,, but they surely don't do the same thing. Just as a calorie is categorized as proteins, fats, carbs. The chain in the molecule makes them different.
All digestible carbs get turned into glucose and fructose by your body. The process of breaking the bonds apart only takes negligible amounts of calories.
While that is true, the speeds of digestion differs greatly, and if you don't believe this please stop posting.
And what does the speed of digestion have to do with body composition or weight loss/gain, in the context of a diet that has the same calories and macros?
Lets just keep asking more questions avoiding the obvious. That is what most of these replies are.
What is the obvious? I had the exact same question.
I'm not trying to ask questions but your responses are leaving me with lots.
Eta - just saw your edit. Never mind. If you need to resort to insulting the intelligence of those who question you instead of explaining yourself I suspect I don't need to hear what you have to say anyway.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions