Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
"Drink Shakeology because protein turns to fat"
Replies
-
all you need to LOSE WEIGHT is a calorie deficit.
to BE HEALTHY you need to consider a lot more than just calorie deficit
Honestly, this doesn't seem like it should need repeated as often as it seems to around here.13 -
all you need to LOSE WEIGHT is a calorie deficit.
to BE HEALTHY you need to consider a lot more than just calorie deficit
Honestly, this doesn't seem like it should need repeated as often as it seems to around here.
It needs to be repeated because sadly, too many people take that first sentence to mean, "Eat all the [insert "junk" food of choice] you want and don't worry about anything but calories!"
It doesn't seem to matter how many times we add the disclaimer that health and nutrition are about more than purely calorie intake and we're only talking about weight loss, someone will jump on the all-or-nothing Twinkie bandwagon.9 -
Honestly, I'd be more concerned with the levels of lead in Shakeology.
0 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »Shakeology is a scam, Beachbody is for the weak, and yes, excess calories are stored as fat even if they come from protein.
I'm confused, how is Beachbody for the weak? I've lost 40lbs following different workout programs they have and I'm very far from weak. Enlighten me.
AH! We found the beachbody salesman! Welcome to the logic zone where all you need is a calorie deficit to lose 40 pounds! *queue twilight theme*
If all you needed was a calorie deficit I wouldn't be getting my butt up and working out as hard as I do six days a week. I'm not a coach, I'm not affiliated with them at all, I have not purchased a single shake or supplement. It was a simple question so if YOU have been unsuccessful do not play yourself and take that out on me with your attitude.
All you need is a calorie deficit.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
When you're all out of insight but you can't admit you're wrong, just make it personal
Disagreeing with someone and choosing not to pursue the subject does not mean I'm wrong. I don't know if you're aware of this but you're not obligated to travel down every path you come across.13 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »Shakeology is a scam, Beachbody is for the weak, and yes, excess calories are stored as fat even if they come from protein.
I'm confused, how is Beachbody for the weak? I've lost 40lbs following different workout programs they have and I'm very far from weak. Enlighten me.
AH! We found the beachbody salesman! Welcome to the logic zone where all you need is a calorie deficit to lose 40 pounds! *queue twilight theme*
If all you needed was a calorie deficit I wouldn't be getting my butt up and working out as hard as I do six days a week. I'm not a coach, I'm not affiliated with them at all, I have not purchased a single shake or supplement. It was a simple question so if YOU have been unsuccessful do not play yourself and take that out on me with your attitude.
All you need is a calorie deficit.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
When you're all out of insight but you can't admit you're wrong, just make it personal
Disagreeing with someone and choosing not to pursue the subject does not mean I'm wrong. I don't know if you're aware of this but you're not obligated to travel down every path you come across.
You're right, choosing not to pursue a subject and disagreeing with someone doesn't make you wrong. Believing that weight loss is not effectively approached by maintaining a calorie deficit and that intense exercise is necessary for weightloss is what makes you wrong.17 -
xmichaelyx wrote: »Shakeology is a scam, Beachbody is for the weak, and yes, excess calories are stored as fat even if they come from protein.
I'm confused, how is Beachbody for the weak? I've lost 40lbs following different workout programs they have and I'm very far from weak. Enlighten me.
AH! We found the beachbody salesman! Welcome to the logic zone where all you need is a calorie deficit to lose 40 pounds! *queue twilight theme*
If all you needed was a calorie deficit I wouldn't be getting my butt up and working out as hard as I do six days a week. I'm not a coach, I'm not affiliated with them at all, I have not purchased a single shake or supplement. It was a simple question so if YOU have been unsuccessful do not play yourself and take that out on me with your attitude.
All you need is a calorie deficit.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
When you're all out of insight but you can't admit you're wrong, just make it personal
Disagreeing with someone and choosing not to pursue the subject does not mean I'm wrong. I don't know if you're aware of this but you're not obligated to travel down every path you come across.
You're right, choosing not to pursue a subject and disagreeing with someone doesn't make you wrong. Believing that weight loss is not effectively approached by maintaining a calorie deficit and that intense exercise is necessary for weightloss is what makes you wrong.
Intense exercise (or exercise of any kind, for that matter) is not necessary for weight loss. Weight loss is achieved through calorie deficit. Exercise can help create that deficit and it's a good idea for a lot of other reasons, but it is not a requirement for weight loss in any way, shape or form.12 -
lucerorojo wrote: »I don't know but the idea that you can't get fat from alcohol doesn't make sense, with CICO. It's still calories. The sugar in it would be used as sugar from any food source, wouldn't it? What does a beer belly come from?
If you are a heavy drinker you can still gain weight a shot of liqueur (1.5 fl oz) is 97 calories - that would mean 4 shots would be 380 calories. A calorie is a calorie and 4 shots is a meal.0 -
lucerorojo wrote: »I don't know but the idea that you can't get fat from alcohol doesn't make sense, with CICO. It's still calories. The sugar in it would be used as sugar from any food source, wouldn't it? What does a beer belly come from?
If you are a heavy drinker you can still gain weight a shot of liqueur (1.5 fl oz) is 97 calories - that would mean 4 shots would be 380 calories. A calorie is a calorie and 4 shots is a meal.
Actually no - as long as you are not drinking beer/wine (which have significant amounts of carbs) or the sweet mixed drinks (i.e. drinks that contain sugars), or eating a ton of food along with the drinks - straight liquor such as whisky/vodka/scotch/etc. is not converted to fat and is simply eliminated from the body.
See this article for a fairly good explanation of what happens with alcohol:
http://www.leangains.com/2010/07/truth-about-alcohol-fat-loss-and-muscle.html2 -
lucerorojo wrote: »I don't know but the idea that you can't get fat from alcohol doesn't make sense, with CICO. It's still calories. The sugar in it would be used as sugar from any food source, wouldn't it? What does a beer belly come from?
If you are a heavy drinker you can still gain weight a shot of liqueur (1.5 fl oz) is 97 calories - that would mean 4 shots would be 380 calories. A calorie is a calorie and 4 shots is a meal.
Actually no - as long as you are not drinking beer/wine (which have significant amounts of carbs) or the sweet mixed drinks (i.e. drinks that contain sugars), or eating a ton of food along with the drinks - straight liquor such as whisky/vodka/scotch/etc. is not converted to fat and is simply eliminated from the body.
See this article for a fairly good explanation of what happens with alcohol:
http://www.leangains.com/2010/07/truth-about-alcohol-fat-loss-and-muscle.html
Oh good god, there is so much wrong with this it makes me feel dumber even reading it.0 -
lucerorojo wrote: »I don't know but the idea that you can't get fat from alcohol doesn't make sense, with CICO. It's still calories. The sugar in it would be used as sugar from any food source, wouldn't it? What does a beer belly come from?
If you are a heavy drinker you can still gain weight a shot of liqueur (1.5 fl oz) is 97 calories - that would mean 4 shots would be 380 calories. A calorie is a calorie and 4 shots is a meal.
Actually no - as long as you are not drinking beer/wine (which have significant amounts of carbs) or the sweet mixed drinks (i.e. drinks that contain sugars), or eating a ton of food along with the drinks - straight liquor such as whisky/vodka/scotch/etc. is not converted to fat and is simply eliminated from the body.
See this article for a fairly good explanation of what happens with alcohol:
http://www.leangains.com/2010/07/truth-about-alcohol-fat-loss-and-muscle.html
Oh good god, there is so much wrong with this it makes me feel dumber even reading it.
So, please, point out what's wrong with the article?0 -
lucerorojo wrote: »I don't know but the idea that you can't get fat from alcohol doesn't make sense, with CICO. It's still calories. The sugar in it would be used as sugar from any food source, wouldn't it? What does a beer belly come from?
If you are a heavy drinker you can still gain weight a shot of liqueur (1.5 fl oz) is 97 calories - that would mean 4 shots would be 380 calories. A calorie is a calorie and 4 shots is a meal.
Actually no - as long as you are not drinking beer/wine (which have significant amounts of carbs) or the sweet mixed drinks (i.e. drinks that contain sugars), or eating a ton of food along with the drinks - straight liquor such as whisky/vodka/scotch/etc. is not converted to fat and is simply eliminated from the body.
See this article for a fairly good explanation of what happens with alcohol:
http://www.leangains.com/2010/07/truth-about-alcohol-fat-loss-and-muscle.html
Oh good god, there is so much wrong with this it makes me feel dumber even reading it.
So, please, point out what's wrong with the article?
I didn't say there was anything wrong with the article, but there is definitely something wrong with your assertion that you will can't possibly gain weight drinking whisky/vodka/scotch because it is "simply eliminated from the body. Unless you can point me to a whisky, vodka, or scotch that contains zero calories then you are absolutely incorrect. When it comes to weight loss, a calorie is still a calorie and any calories consumed from vodka are not miraculously immune to CICO.1 -
Actually. current research is showing that alcohol might actually be an exception because of the way that the body metabolizes the alcohol:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/mens-health/11135838/Is-booze-making-you-fat-Not-necessarily.html
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa35.htm
http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2013/10/cocktail-science-do-alcohol-calories-count-digesting-spirits.html
I know, the third one is not a real serious article, but he does have links out to papers and research that backs up his claims.0 -
But, if the alcohol is being used for energy, then fat isn't. So while alcohol may not be stored in any way, having it in your system means other fuel sources are not used. So the impact is still based on the number of calories.6
-
I don't think it is used as energy. Alcohol breaks down in the liver to acetate which is dumped into the blood stream for the kidneys to filter and excrete. Some portion of the acetate gets converted to Acetylcarnitine (but it's not known how much) which is a pre-cursor to the l-carnitine amino acid (not an energy source in and of itself). These is some breakdown into fatty acids, but the liver would only create .8 grams of fat acids from 24 grams of pure alcohol - which means that you would have to drink a toxic amount of alcohol to have any meaningful effect on energy production or weight. Oh, there is also no biological pathway to convert alcohol to sugar, so no energy production there.
Which explains a lot - ever notice how you feel wiped out and your *kitten* is dragging the ground after a night of drinking? Since energy production is basically put on hold until all of the alcohol is removed from your system, depending on much you drank and how long of a period you drank, you are running on stored reserves. After the alcohol has been removed from your system, the body goes into overtime to replenish the stores - thus making you feel tired and lethargic.
So basically, yes there are calories in hard liquor, but the vast majority of those calories are not biologically available to the human body.2 -
I don't think it is used as energy. Alcohol breaks down in the liver to acetate which is dumped into the blood stream for the kidneys to filter and excrete. Some portion of the acetate gets converted to Acetylcarnitine (but it's not known how much) which is a pre-cursor to the l-carnitine amino acid (not an energy source in and of itself). These is some breakdown into fatty acids, but the liver would only create .8 grams of fat acids from 24 grams of pure alcohol - which means that you would have to drink a toxic amount of alcohol to have any meaningful effect on energy production or weight. Oh, there is also no biological pathway to convert alcohol to sugar, so no energy production there.
Which explains a lot - ever notice how you feel wiped out and your *kitten* is dragging the ground after a night of drinking? Since energy production is basically put on hold until all of the alcohol is removed from your system, depending on much you drank and how long of a period you drank, you are running on stored reserves. After the alcohol has been removed from your system, the body goes into overtime to replenish the stores - thus making you feel tired and lethargic.
So basically, yes there are calories in hard liquor, but the vast majority of those calories are not biologically available to the human body.
This is really interesting, and I had no idea it worked this way. I'll have to look into it further. I always thought that being tired was due to physical exertion; for me, drinking tends to go hand-in-hand with dancing.
I always thought "stored reserves" referred to fat.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »But, if the alcohol is being used for energy, then fat isn't. So while alcohol may not be stored in any way, having it in your system means other fuel sources are not used. So the impact is still based on the number of calories.
That is/was my thinking, but the nih link seems to refute that. I didn't read all of it, but it seemed to show that even though (some) people consumed extra Calories - by way of alcohol consumption - they weren't actually any heavier/fatter than those who didn't drink, but had the same number of non-alcoholic Calories. Or something to that effect, anyway.
eta: I'm not entirely sure we can truly conclude that alcohol doesn't contribute to fat/weight gain, based off of that. But, probably at least that it doesn't contribute nearly as much as one might expect.0 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »But, if the alcohol is being used for energy, then fat isn't. So while alcohol may not be stored in any way, having it in your system means other fuel sources are not used. So the impact is still based on the number of calories.
That is/was my thinking, but the nih link seems to refute that. I didn't read all of it, but it seemed to show that even though (some) people consumed extra Calories - by way of alcohol consumption - they weren't actually any heavier/fatter than those who didn't drink, but had the same number of non-alcoholic Calories. Or something to that effect, anyway.
eta: I'm not entirely sure we can truly conclude that alcohol doesn't contribute to fat/weight gain, based off of that. But, probably at least that it doesn't contribute nearly as much as one might expect.
yeah dont think drinking alcohol makes you fat as my mom is an alcoholic,she drinks beer all day and eats maybe once a day. its a small meal because she was always thin and ate smaller meals. she is now maybe 70 lbs if that. now for her not eating much is why she is so thin. but if alcohol made you fat or was stored as fat then she should have fat or be fat, she literally has a very small % of fat on her body. even when she ate more food she wasnt fat.2 -
I just wanted to say a big thank you, @Gallowmere1984. That site is wonderfully informative.
+1. I bookmarked that site and will be going back there to learn more.
2 -
lucerorojo wrote: »I don't know but the idea that you can't get fat from alcohol doesn't make sense, with CICO. It's still calories. The sugar in it would be used as sugar from any food source, wouldn't it? What does a beer belly come from?
If you are a heavy drinker you can still gain weight a shot of liqueur (1.5 fl oz) is 97 calories - that would mean 4 shots would be 380 calories. A calorie is a calorie and 4 shots is a meal.
Actually no - as long as you are not drinking beer/wine (which have significant amounts of carbs) or the sweet mixed drinks (i.e. drinks that contain sugars), or eating a ton of food along with the drinks - straight liquor such as whisky/vodka/scotch/etc. is not converted to fat and is simply eliminated from the body.
See this article for a fairly good explanation of what happens with alcohol:
http://www.leangains.com/2010/07/truth-about-alcohol-fat-loss-and-muscle.html
Oh good god, there is so much wrong with this it makes me feel dumber even reading it.
So, please, point out what's wrong with the article?
I didn't say there was anything wrong with the article, but there is definitely something wrong with your assertion that you will can't possibly gain weight drinking whisky/vodka/scotch because it is "simply eliminated from the body. Unless you can point me to a whisky, vodka, or scotch that contains zero calories then you are absolutely incorrect. When it comes to weight loss, a calorie is still a calorie and any calories consumed from vodka are not miraculously immune to CICO.
Alcohol is the one macronutrient which has a 100% oxidation rate and there is zero storage in the body - unlike proteins, fats and carbohydrates, all of which are (or at least can be) stored. The body regards alcohol as a poison, and will (oversimplification, but....) put the oxidation of all other macronutrients aside while it eliminates the alcohol. It "sees" the alcohol as priority #1.
With that said, whiskey, vodka, rum, etc. aren't 100% ethyl alcohol. Most hard liquors are somewhere around 40%-45% (80-90 proof), and beer/wine is way lower than that (3% - 15%'ish) - so there are other ingredients besides pure ethyl alcohol in them, which are mostly carbohydrate. So if you were to drink 16 oz. of straight vodka which is 86 proof (43% alcohol), about 43% of those calories are pure ethyl alcohol and will be oxidized rather than stored. But that leaves 57% of the calories that come from other sources, which could be stored (still keeping in mind that there is no net fat storage while you're in a caloric deficit). And once you get into beer/wine or mixed drinks, you're throwing a significant amount of calories into the mix which aren't alcohol and won't be immediately oxidized. Creamy coffee drinks and fruity umbrella drinks can have a ton of sugar/fat calories in addition to the alcohol content.
So the bottom line is that if your diet consisted entirely of Everclear liquor (which is 99% alcohol/198 proof), you could pretty safely say that even if you're in a caloric surplus there isn't going to be any fat storage because you're going to oxidize all those alcohol calories. But that's one of those ridiculous extremist hypothetical scenarios because you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what would happen to you if your diet consisted of 1200-1800 calories of Everclear liquor on a daily basis.11 -
That's definitely false. Some people who do beach body and call themselves coaches that really don't have a clue should start looking into nutrition and fitness more. Or they should start a course for people to learn. Others I'm sure have great knowledge and use the program as something added into their lifestyle.
I think it's a the whole idea of what people believe work for their bodies. I personally like smoothies and shakes. I find a lot of the ones out there have too much other added stuff in them so I usually make a shake with hemp powder, chia seed powder or a vegan shake (because I can't do dairy). A lot of them have stevia in them and I can't stand that taste! We don't need to have mega amounts of protein. Our bodies know how much we need.
I tried shakeology once and know people who drink it daily. I didn't like it at all. It has stevia and I'm assuming that's why I didn't like it. It's outrageously expensive, which is ridiculous. I'm sure it's beneficial for some people because the workouts are great. I mean I like them, but I love a ton of DVD programs that I get off Amazon too and YouTube.
I would never want to offend anyone who swears by shakeology, but I feel like they are all "drinking the coolade"
Any healthy protein shake you have replacing a meal or having as a snack while following any program will work I'm sure. It's all about eating healthy and keeping active.
0 -
Shakeology is just a new relacement and an expensive one I have used it it's okay I prefer pea protein now it's much easier to digest and has a higher protein amount ... even switched my almond milk for pea milk0
-
So, I should use these particular protein shakes because protein is bad for me?1
-
I dont drink shakeology as its overprice MLM bs. but I drink and eat a lot of protein and hmmm hasnt turned to fat yet. been doing it 5 years. ANYTHING turns to fat if you are in a calorie surplus.5
-
Angel49kitty wrote: »The first study admits that the increase in potential health issues is more likely from red meat intake and that eating higher than the RDA intake of protein not from red meat is "possibly" an issue that they don't have proof for, but only definitely an issue if you have a medical condition. Still doesn't have anything to do with storing protein as fat.
Second one has nothing at all to do with protein intake beyond the fact that they had a lower drop out rate for the high protein intake group. Had nothing at all to do with storing protein as fat.
Third one states, "when energy demand is low, excess protein can be converted to glucose" (glucose isn't fat, it's sugar). If you read it they talk about all the positive reasons for eating a high protein diet. They also talk about the kidney issue and how it has more to due with the possible build up of acids, but if you eat fruits and vegetables they act as an acid buffer to negate possible harmful effects. No statements about excess protein turning into fat.
Well, I feel silly, I clearly remembered them incorrectly. My sincerest apologies! Thanks for taking the time to double-check with me (without calling me a liar or an idiot, as the majority of the internet would have).
Wait a minute.
Did I honestly just see someone on MFP admit that they were wrong after being presented with evidence that contradicted their original statement?
(Checks news to see if world peace broke out)
11 -
Since nobody has shared it yet, here's a relevant excerpt from Lyle's "How We Get Fat" article, which was linked in the first reply:Protein isn’t going to be converted to and stored as fat. But eat excess protein and the body will burn more protein for energy (and less carbs and fat). Which means that the other nutrients have to get stored. Which means that excess protein can still make you fat, just not by direct conversion. Rather, it does it by ensuring that the fat you’re eating gets stored.
Of course protein also has the highest thermic effect, more of the incoming calories are burned off. So excess protein tends to have the least odds of making you fat under any conditions; but excess protein can make you fat. Just not by direct conversion to fat; rather it’s indirectly by decreasing the oxidation of other nutrients.
Ok, is the above clear enough? Because I can’t really explain it any simpler but will try one last time using bullet points and an example. Let’s assume someone is eating at exactly maintenance calories. Neither gaining nor losing fat. Here’s what happens with excess calories. Assume that all three conditions represent identical increases in caloric intake, just from each of the different macros. Here’s what happens mechanistically and why all three still make you fat:
Excess dietary fat is directly stored as fat
Excess dietary carbs increases carb oxidation, impairing fat oxidation; more of your daily fat intake is stored as fat
Excess dietary protein increases protein oxidation, impairing fat oxidation; more of your daily fat intake is stored as fat
Got it? All three situations make you fat, just through different mechanisms. Fat is directly stored and carbs and protein cause you to store the fat you’re eating by decreasing fat oxidation.
And I’d note again, since someone will invariably misread this that that doesn’t mean that a low-carb and/or low-protein diet is therefore superior for fat loss. I’m not saying that and don’t think that I am. Because in such a situation, while you may be burning more fat, you’re also eating more dietary fat. So net fat balance can be unchanged despite the dicking around with macronutrient content. It still comes down to the deficit.7 -
So take the Shakeology aspect out of it... Say I burn 1700 calories in one day, and I eat 1700 calories, exactly. What if I sit down and eat 40 grams of protein in one sitting during that day? Those calories will be burned, but will eating all that protein at one time be a waste of the benefit? Should I spread it out more?0
-
OP your first intuition was correct that anything will lead to accumulation of fat of you are in caloric surplus and a caloric deficit will result in a loss of fat regardless of the macro composition. So your Shakeology friends belief amounts to Woo.
Sure, protein can be metabolically converted to fat but fat will be utilized for energy if you are in a caloric deficit...so who cares. If for some reason protein was turned into fat more than other macros then having more protein while in caloric deficit would actually be good for fat loss since any metabolic conversion would not be 100% efficient and so energy would be lost in the conversion.
What I mean by that is this. Pretend you eat 1000 calories of protein and it all gets metabolically converted to fat but the process of conversion is 90% efficient so you end up with 900 calories worth of fat. But you are in caloric deficit so your body then needs to use that fat and the fact it was first converted from protein would mean overall you would end up having to use more fat to make yo p for the efficiency loss from conversion.
I mean that isn't what is going to happen, your body isn't going to convert protein to fat while in caloric deficit but even if for some reason it did that would actually have the opposite effect of what Shakeology friend is claiming.3 -
BrunetteRunner87 wrote: »So take the Shakeology aspect out of it... Say I burn 1700 calories in one day, and I eat 1700 calories, exactly. What if I sit down and eat 40 grams of protein in one sitting during that day? Those calories will be burned, but will eating all that protein at one time be a waste of the benefit? Should I spread it out more?
From Alan Aragon: https://atlargenutrition.com/is-there-a-limit-to-how-much-protein-the-body-can-use-in-a-single-meal/
From Examine.com: https://examine.com/nutrition/how-much-protein-can-i-eat-in-one-sitting/7 -
Shakeology is still a thing?0
-
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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