is a calorie just a calorie?

joejccva71

Conclusion: In the short term, high-protein, low-carbohydrate
ketogenic diets reduce hunger and lower food intake significantly
more than do high-protein, medium-carbohydrate nonketogenic
diets. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:44 –55

;-) Need i say more?

Now this gets in to the entire thing of metabolic slow down, what we experienced following that program. If we eat less, there is more to it than that. Eating less doesn't always produce greater fat loss either. As you know.

I was just debunking that study by pointing out that it was because the dieters had reduce hunger and lower food intake moreso than a high-protein, MC dieters that was the result of their weight loss.

But I realize there's more to it than that, they didn't explain how much of a deficit both LC and MC dieters ate. They didn't explain what their TDEE was, etc.

tigersword

And if you are in net cal deficit for the day, it doesn't matter. No need to be scared of the insulin fairy.

seems more efficient to banish the insulin fairy and be able to pull on fat reserves 24/24 rather than just after the glucose has got out of the way. But I don't disagree. You need a deficit to cause a loss, if you were on a drip of insulin it wouldn't happen though, so low carb gives me the best chance I feel.

Except you don't need insulin to store fat... Nor does low insulin automatically mean you burn fat. There's this pesky little thing called "FOOD" that kind of keeps you from burning fat 24/7, as eating food, of any type, raises insulin.

yarwell

There's this pesky little thing called "FOOD" that kind of keeps you from burning fat 24/7, as eating food, of any type, raises insulin.

How big is the insulin response to eating fats, and how long does it last ?

If the ketogenic diet suppresses appetite that's still a factor in its favour to my mind.

Acg67

http://www.ajcn.org/content/87/1/44.full.pdf

"Average weight loss was significantly (P 0.006) greater with the LC diet
than with the MC diet: 6.34 and 4.35 kg, respectively "

Fig 5 and Table 4.

Low carb diet had a 2lb water loss, MC diet 0.5 lb.

"When considered over the span of 4 wk, however, only 35% of
the difference in total weight loss between the 2 diets was accounted for by water depletion. The remainder of the difference
was accounted for mainly by fat mass and some lean mass."

And what is this supposed to support?

tigersword

And if you are in net cal deficit for the day, it doesn't matter. No need to be scared of the insulin fairy.

seems more efficient to banish the insulin fairy and be able to pull on fat reserves 24/24 rather than just after the glucose has got out of the way. But I don't disagree. You need a deficit to cause a loss, if you were on a drip of insulin it wouldn't happen though, so low carb gives me the best chance I feel.

Too bad low card/keto diets have no metabolic advantage

WHere you get this? sounds like lyle, the same guy who recommends cutting out carbs for cutting.

I'm off to the gym but find me tightly controlled studies other then the Kekwick and Pawan studies or the Rabst studies to show me otherwise

Okay find me a study that supports your claims that's not the Johnston study from The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Let's start with these

http://www.ajcn.org/content/20/10/1104.full.pdf

http://www.ajcn.org/content/21/11/1291.full.pdf

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/92/11/4480.full

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8968851

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8561057

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2319073

II read some of them, now here's the question. Low carb diets does cause some water weight loss initially. Lets say 5lbs. This would give a favorable advantage in terms of weight loss for any low carb group. If fat loss is the same, the low carb group will still be ahead 5lbs regardless due to the water/glycogen loss.

Yet these studies say weight loss is the same, this won't be possible. I sense bogus studies.

ETA: "I became interested in the ketogenic diet two and one-half years ago when I used a modified
form (called a cyclical ketogenic diet) to reach a level of leanness that was previously impossible
using other diets" - Lyle Mcdonald pg. 5 "The Ketogenic Diet"

You're assuming that the the non- low carb group doesn't also lose water weight. Keto loses more water weight initially, after a few months of time, the other group catches up. Let's go with a theoretical example. Let's say that both groups lose one pound of fat per week. The Low carb group loses 5 pounds of water weight initially, and the other group loses half a pound of water weight a week. After 10 weeks, the low carb group has lost 10 pounds of fat and 5 pounds of water weight, for a total of 15 pounds. The other group has lost 10 pounds of fat, and 5 pounds of water weight, for a total of 15 pounds.

This is the exact point of the statement, "low carb diets offer no metabolic advantage." With a low carb diet, you lose all the excess water weight up front, as you reduce glycogen stores and don't replenish them. On a typical lower calorie diet, you lose water weight gradually. Net fat loss is the same either way. That's why just about every study that compares the 2 diets for 6 months to a year tend to show identical overall weight loss at the end.

mfpcopine

I suspect that a calorie is not just a calorie and that different bodies process calories differently. But given the current state of our knowledge, the best approach still is calorie counting, eating primarily healthy, nutrient-dense food, and following some kind of proportions such as 40/30/30, or whatever works.

ninerbuff

No, a calorie is not just a calorie. You can't eat 14 Twinkies a day (at 150 cal each) and expect to reach your goals. There is much more involved, especially in refined vs unprocessed foods and the body's insulin response to them.

Well YES you can eat Twinkies and lose weight.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

joejccva71

No, a calorie is not just a calorie. You can't eat 14 Twinkies a day (at 150 cal each) and expect to reach your goals. There is much more involved, especially in refined vs unprocessed foods and the body's insulin response to them.

Well YES you can eat Twinkies and lose weight.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

He didn't have a good answer when I brought up the same thing about the Twinkie diet guy.

hazelsmrf

You will lose weight on low carb, you will lose weight on low fat, and you will lose weight just counting calories and eating twinkies all day.

I would debate that all diets would give you the same *health* benefits though. I would think that a less processed diet would be optimal in the long run. This would not be the twinkie diet. It *could* be the low fat diet, except that many people do low fat = low fat mayo, low fat cookies, low fat whatever, where the fat is just replaced with more sugar. So that's pretty processed. Then again you can do low carb and eat a ton of foods where the sugar has been removed and replaced with god knows what, so a low carb diet could be highly processed as well.

Me personally, low carb worked well for me because it controlled my hunger better than low fat. I found the idea of full fat cheese much more appealing than low fat cheese. I found the idea of eating the whole egg more appealing than eating egg white omelettes etc. So low carb was more attractive to me. I was never a big fruit eater so not eating bananas and potatoes was much less of an issue. Someone that loves fruit and grains might do better on low fat? I liked low carb because I didn't have to count calories, if I overate I would not lose weight, but I found that my appetite usually kept my calories in check.

In the end though, I found a ketogenic diet to be too restrictive for me and the restriction caused me to go a bit crazy off plan, I'd be in an all or nothing mindset where a small setback would be a huge failure and I'd go on a cookie binge or other carby unhealthy things. So while I still prefer eating full fat foods, I now no longer eat low carb. Instead I do intermittent fasting and count my calories and it's working out much better for me now. And then there are those who don't want to count calories and low carb is just easier for them, everyone needs to just figure out what works for them and isn't a "diet" but something they can stick to in the long run.

mygrl4meee

No, a calorie is not just a calorie. You can't eat 14 Twinkies a day (at 150 cal each) and expect to reach your goals. There is much more involved, especially in refined vs unprocessed foods and the body's insulin response to them.

Imagine you have two peeled oranges. One you drop in a juicer, the other one you eat like an apple. There are the same calories and nutrients in each one. HOWEVER, your body's response to eating it vs drinking it is wholly different. The juiced orange has already had a large portion of the digestive process already done for you, so the sugar in it slams into your bloodstream in a rush. Your body looks at this sudden surplus of simple carbs and says, whoa! I can only store so much of this in my liver and tissue as glycogen - but I better not waste the rest! So I'll just convert this stuff to fat, put a little away here, a little away there - for later, of course. Now, EAT the orange (normally, not chewing it for half an hour to replicate the juicer), and your body breaks it down in your stomach over TIME. The sugar enters your bloodstream in a trickle, not a flood. Your body uses the carbs directly, and doesn't try to store it as fat. Get it?

Does this mean that eating fruit in a smoothie isn't good for weight loss?

You need to eat a diet that is high in protein, at least 40% of calories and 50% if you really want results. A high protein diet is the absolute basis of any serious fat-loss plan. Yeah, everyone says that it doesn't matter just so long as you hit your targets - but that's bull****. Ask any bodybuilder getting ripped for a competition and you will hear the same thing - high protein, because it works. Chicken breast, turkey breast, egg whites, white fish, lean red meat. Your carbs should be complex, preferably fibrous - broccoli, beans, asparagus, cauliflower, spinach, etc.

earlyxer

No, a calorie is not just a calorie. You can't eat 14 Twinkies a day (at 150 cal each) and expect to reach your goals. There is much more involved, especially in refined vs unprocessed foods and the body's insulin response to them.

Well YES you can eat Twinkies and lose weight.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

He didn't have a good answer when I brought up the same thing about the Twinkie diet guy.

Here is your Twinkie Guy:

"Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks."

"Haub's body fat dropped from 33.4 to 24.9 percent. This posed the question: What matters more for weight loss, the quantity or quality of calories?"

This guy is at 25% body fat - you call that a success? And what was the protein shake in there - 52 grams? And the vegetables? Just what is your point ? This guy is not eating Twinkies exclusively.

I said "You can't eat 14 Twinkies a day (at 150 cal each) and expect to reach your goals" If it will make you happy, I'll amend that . If your goal is to get to just borderline obese, you can do it on 14 Twinkies a day. If you want to get lean, like 15% or less, you can't do it on Twinkies.

I'd like YOU tell me how juicing an orange versus eating an orange is the same thing, because it's not. That's like saying eating boiled wheat is the same as eating wheat flour of the same portion. How your body has to process food has a huge impact on whether you store it as fat or use it as fuel. Every time you process it, sugar/carbs go up, fiber goes down, and nutrition is lost, regardless of whether you are in calorie surplus or deficit.

Acg67

okay so we're clear. here is my debate.

1. those studies are BS, as most are. So those aren't valid.
I think some of them even use BIA method to calculate Bodyfat, obviously hydration plays a role in this and we know the effect of low carb diets and hydration.

2. TEF, i claim there is a metabolic advantage to low carb diets assuming calorie consumption is equal. I was slightly confused on joe's comment about this.

3. Insulin, any program that reduces weight will automatically reduce insulin. Don't get sassy with the fat consumption.
If carb reduction didn't have any effect on insulin i'd agree. As I said if you reduce calories, do low carb, paleo, or whatever you do... it will reduce insulin.

ETA: I think a big problem is "theoretical" weight loss and actual weight loss. In theory i can lose 2lbs a week consuming lets say 2,500 calories. If most of my calories come from carbs, it doesn't happen. If most come from protein it does. In theory the carbs would produce the same effect, being calorie per calorie.

Hold protein and cals constant which would have a higher TEF a high cho/low fat or high fat/low cho diet?

And yet even though fasting insulin greatly decreases in low carb, they don't show significantly greater fat loss, holding cals and protein constant. oops

Acg67

I'd like YOU tell me how juicing an orange versus eating an orange is the same thing, because it's not. That's like saying eating boiled wheat is the same as eating wheat flour of the same portion. How your body has to process food has a huge impact on whether you store it as fat or use it as fuel. Every time you process it, sugar/carbs go up, fiber goes down, and nutrition is lost, regardless of whether you are in calorie surplus or deficit.

Care to substantiate the bolded, specifically that you will get fatter in a caloric deficit based on the foods you eat

joejccva71

No, a calorie is not just a calorie. You can't eat 14 Twinkies a day (at 150 cal each) and expect to reach your goals. There is much more involved, especially in refined vs unprocessed foods and the body's insulin response to them.

Well YES you can eat Twinkies and lose weight.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

He didn't have a good answer when I brought up the same thing about the Twinkie diet guy.

Here is your Twinkie Guy:

"Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks."

"Haub's body fat dropped from 33.4 to 24.9 percent. This posed the question: What matters more for weight loss, the quantity or quality of calories?"

This guy is at 25% body fat - you call that a success? And what was the protein shake in there - 52 grams? And the vegetables? Just what is your point ? This guy is not eating Twinkies exclusively.

I said "You can't eat 14 Twinkies a day (at 150 cal each) and expect to reach your goals" If it will make you happy, I'll amend that . If your goal is to get to just borderline obese, you can do it on 14 Twinkies a day. If you want to get lean, like 15% or less, you can't do it on Twinkies.

I'd like YOU tell me how juicing an orange versus eating an orange is the same thing, because it's not. That's like saying eating boiled wheat is the same as eating wheat flour of the same portion. How your body has to process food has a huge impact on whether you store it as fat or use it as fuel. Every time you process it, sugar/carbs go up, fiber goes down, and nutrition is lost, regardless of whether you are in calorie surplus or deficit.

If my goal is weight loss, then yes I can eat 14 Twinkies a day pending that I'm still in a deficit under TDEE. What part of this don't you understand? I consume alot of poptarts, bacon, chocolate milk, and ice cream in my diet and I burn fat and lose weight. Others here also consume junk food on a regular basis and continue to lose weight and burn fat.

Healthy is subjective. Who do you think is more healthy?

Someone that is 5'8, 280lbs that eats fruits and vegetables, sits on the couch all day and doesn't exercise

or

Someone that is 5'8, 165lbs that eats some junk food in their diet, exercises regularly, and eats enough protein to maintain LBM.

I await your answer.

earlyxer

Mygrl -

As counterintuitive as it may seem, fruit is actually not very good for fat loss. Most fruits are very high in sugar (most, not all). I mean, a can of Coke (12 oz) has 39 grams of sugar. The equivalent weight of grapes has 54 grams of sugar.

Acg67

Mygrl -

As counterintuitive as it may seem, fruit is actually not very good for fat loss. Most fruits are very high in sugar (most, not all). I mean, a can of Coke (12 oz) has 39 grams of sugar. The equivalent weight of grapes has 54 grams of sugar.

Eek! sugar?

Here's a fun study

Note the results of the diet that was 43% sucrose (table sugar)

Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Apr;65(4):908-15.
www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf

Weight, REE, percentage total body fat, and percentage trunk body fat

Change in weight for the high- and low-sucrose groups across the course of the study is shown in Figure 1. There were
no significant differences between groups in mean weight, REE, percentage total body fat, or percentage trunk fat (Table
4). The time effect was significant for weight (P < 0.001, rı2 = 0.88), percentage total body fat (P < 0.001, rj2 0.51), percentage trunk fat (P < 0.001, rj2 0.50), REE (P < 0.001, ı2 0.54), and diastolic (P > 0.001, iı2 0.10) and systolic (P > 0.001, ı2 0.10) blood pressure; all scores decreased over the duration of the study. All group-by-time interactions were nonsignificant (Table 4), indicating that the groups did not differ in the magnitude of this decrease over the duration of the study, ie, there were no treatment effects. As also shown in Table 4, the proportion of variance explained by the interaction term was uniformly small for all variables.

Fasting glucose, TSH, FT3, and FT4

No significant group differences were found for fasting glucose, urine norepinephrine, TSH, VFı, or VF4 (Table 5).
There was a significant time effect for norepinephrine (P < 0.001, ı 0.15) and VF3 (P < 0.001, ij2 0.51), with concentrations decreasing over time. There was a small but significant increase over time in Ff4 (P = 0.001, ‘rj2 0.13). No significant group-by-time interactions were detected (Table 5).

Plasma lipids

Mean concentrations of fasting total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triacylglycerol were not significantly
different between groups (Table 6). The time effect was significant for all lipid measures: total cholesterol (P < 0.001, ı2 0.63), HDL cholesterol (P < 0.001, ij2 0.73), LDL cholesterol (P < 0.001, ‘q2 0.32), and triacyiglycerol (P 0.04, ı2 0.10). The time-by-group effect, however, was significant for total cholesterol (P = 0.009, ‘rı2 0.16) and LDL cholesterol (P = 0.014, ıj2 0.15), with the low-sucrose group exhibiting a larger decrease than the high-sucrose group for both of these measures (Table 6).

Psychologic and behavioral variables

There were no significant group differences in mean levels of hunger, negative affect, positive affect, depression, or anxiety,
or in the vigilance task (Table 7). The time effect was significant for negative affect (P < 0.001, tıj2 0.47), depression (P < 0.001, q2 0.29), positive affect (P < 0.001, ı 0.43), and the vigilance task (P = 0.005, q2 0.13), with all subjects improving on these measures. The time effect was also significant for hunger (P = 0.008, ij2 0.08); all subjects reported lower levels of hunger at the end of the study than at the beginning. No significant time-by-group interactions were detected.

[/quote]

tigersword

No, a calorie is not just a calorie. You can't eat 14 Twinkies a day (at 150 cal each) and expect to reach your goals. There is much more involved, especially in refined vs unprocessed foods and the body's insulin response to them.

Well YES you can eat Twinkies and lose weight.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

He didn't have a good answer when I brought up the same thing about the Twinkie diet guy.

Here is your Twinkie Guy:

"Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks."

"Haub's body fat dropped from 33.4 to 24.9 percent. This posed the question: What matters more for weight loss, the quantity or quality of calories?"

This guy is at 25% body fat - you call that a success? And what was the protein shake in there - 52 grams? And the vegetables? Just what is your point ? This guy is not eating Twinkies exclusively.

I said "You can't eat 14 Twinkies a day (at 150 cal each) and expect to reach your goals" If it will make you happy, I'll amend that . If your goal is to get to just borderline obese, you can do it on 14 Twinkies a day. If you want to get lean, like 15% or less, you can't do it on Twinkies.

I'd like YOU tell me how juicing an orange versus eating an orange is the same thing, because it's not. That's like saying eating boiled wheat is the same as eating wheat flour of the same portion. How your body has to process food has a huge impact on whether you store it as fat or use it as fuel. Every time you process it, sugar/carbs go up, fiber goes down, and nutrition is lost, regardless of whether you are in calorie surplus or deficit.

Um, yes, I do call dropping body fat by 8.5% in 10 weeks a success.

The level of processing of a food is irrelevant compared to total calorie intake. If you are eating in a consistent calorie deficit, it will have no impact on NET fat loss. Here's a tip for you. EVERY TIME you eat your body stores fat. It doesn't matter what you eat, it doesn't matter how often you eat, it doesn't matter when you eat. Your body can not use all the calories you eat at any one meal all at once, therefore, it stores the rest as fat until needed. When you are at a calorie deficit, all of that is burned off anyway, plus previously stored fat to make up the deficit, no matter what it was originally. The only possible way your body can store fat and not burn it off is if you are eating a calorie excess. It's physics and math, it's not really that hard to figure out.

earlyxer

Joejccva -

Okay, Joe, you're 100% correct. Eat those 14 Twinkies a day. Have some Ring Dings too, okay? I don't know what your goals are, but really - I'm 14% body fat right now. Where are you? Looking at your photo, I'd put you at 22%. Maybe higher.

I don't ask homeless people for financial advice, if you get my meaning.

wackyfunster

Short answer: Yes, a calorie is just a calorie.

Long answer: "A calorie is just a calorie" addresses probably 90% of the issue. Before worrying about the other 10%, make sure you are actually counting your calories correctly, doing weight training, are eating 1g protein/pound lean body mass minimum, have established your actual BMR by tracking weight loss over time, etc. If you have done all that, are successfully losing weight, and want to optimize your diet further, here are the major factors to consider:
Thermic effect of food: Protein is effectively ~3 calories/gram rather than 4 due to this. Eating lots of lean meat will help create an additional caloric deficit. Whole grains are roughly 10% fewer usable calories than refined carbs. You can compensate for this by eating crap and further reducing caloric intake to account for TEF, or just eat healthier. I have tested both, and was unable to tell a difference when I reduced caloric intake by 10% to account for refined carbs (anecdotal I know). Sufficient protein is still required to maintain nitrogen balance and allow for muscle synthesis (which increases BMR).
Carbs: Insulin is necessary for muscle synthesis as well. This is why you (almost) never see a fit/buff low-carber. Some athletes will actually inject pure insulin to increase muscle synthesis (it is considered a performance enhancing drug). It has a bad rep, because if you are lying to yourself about your caloric intake, and eating over TDEE, insulin will also tell your body to store fat. If you are eating under TDEE, carb intake is not relevant to weight beyond aforementioned TEF concerns. Bodybuilders will eat 1500-2000+ calories in carbs on workout days. Marathoners and cyclists may consume 6000+ calories in carbs. Notice none of them look like the typical pudgy Atkins dieter.
Fasting: While in a fasted state, your body will burn body fat almost exclusively for the first 72 hours. Regular 16-24 hour fasts provide a huge boost to fat loss. Women can see substantial fat loss after 14 hours fasted due to higher leptin levels than men, in general (a healthy woman will have somewhere between 2-15x as much leptin as a healthy man, which means weight loss is substantially easier).

70davis

bump

Acg67

okay so we're clear. here is my debate.

1. those studies are BS, as most are. So those aren't valid.
I think some of them even use BIA method to calculate Bodyfat, obviously hydration plays a role in this and we know the effect of low carb diets and hydration.

2. TEF, i claim there is a metabolic advantage to low carb diets assuming calorie consumption is equal. I was slightly confused on joe's comment about this.

3. Insulin, any program that reduces weight will automatically reduce insulin. Don't get sassy with the fat consumption.
If carb reduction didn't have any effect on insulin i'd agree. As I said if you reduce calories, do low carb, paleo, or whatever you do... it will reduce insulin.

ETA: I think a big problem is "theoretical" weight loss and actual weight loss. In theory i can lose 2lbs a week consuming lets say 2,500 calories. If most of my calories come from carbs, it doesn't happen. If most come from protein it does. In theory the carbs would produce the same effect, being calorie per calorie.

Hold protein and cals constant which would have a higher TEF a high cho/low fat or high fat/low cho diet?

And yet even though fasting insulin greatly decreases in low carb, they don't show significantly greater fat loss, holding cals and protein constant. oops

Okay i'll agree with you in this case in terms of TEF. The moderate carb based group would have a higher TEF. Yet weight loss is still the same.

You still haven't answered me, what was your cutting method. I also know you're bulking or where bulking, i know you're not bulking eating lean cuts of meats.

PS, is there any studies of these type of diets on leaner individuals?

I'll have to look for ones on leaner individuals, most I've seen are done on overweight/obese. I've seen some overfeeding trials in lean individuals but that doesn't really apply here

I leaned out on low to moderate carbs and moderate fats, in favor of higher protein.

joejccva71

Joejccva -

Okay, Joe, you're 100% correct. Eat those 14 Twinkies a day. Have some Ring Dings too, okay? I don't know what your goals are, but really - I'm 14% body fat right now. Where are you? Looking at your photo, I'd put you at 22%. Maybe higher.

I don't ask homeless people for financial advice, if you get my meaning.

Sadly you resort to insults.

And if you think my photo here is 22% you havef really no clue how to visually determine bf%'s. I was between 13-15% then. And I do have both short term and long term goals.

Short Term Goals
Cut to 10% bf.
Increase progression in Leg Press to 825x3x8 (where I was last year), Bench Press to 235x3x8, T-Bar Row to 180x3x6, and DB Military Press to 60x3x10 (almost tore my cuff last year).

Long Term Goals
Perform a 5 month bulk (after cutting to 10%), and attempt to gain 12lbs of muscle (24lbs overall). Then cut back down again.
increase all lift progression while training up strength in tendons to support heavier weight.
Be able to start performing full squats again since surgery.

imbanter

A calorie is just a calorie as proven by the K-State professor who lost 27 pounds eating nothing but an 1,800 calorie a day diet of junk food. HOWEVER, I think Wackyfunster completely addressed the issues of such a diet.

earlyxer

Joejccva -

Okay, Joe, you're 100% correct. Eat those 14 Twinkies a day. Have some Ring Dings too, okay? I don't know what your goals are, but really - I'm 14% body fat right now. Where are you? Looking at your photo, I'd put you at 22%. Maybe higher.

I don't ask homeless people for financial advice, if you get my meaning.

Sadly you resort to insults.

And if you think my photo here is 22% you havef really no clue how to visually determine bf%'s. I was between 13-15% then. And I do have both short term and long term goals.

Short Term Goals
Cut to 10% bf.
Increase progression in Leg Press to 825x3x8 (where I was last year), Bench Press to 235x3x8, T-Bar Row to 180x3x6, and DB Military Press to 60x3x10 (almost tore my cuff last year).

Long Term Goals
Perform a 5 month bulk (after cutting to 10%), and attempt to gain 12lbs of muscle (24lbs overall). Then cut back down again.
increase all lift progression while training up strength in tendons to support heavier weight.
Be able to start performing full squats again since surgery.

I resort to insults Joe? You basically told me to shut up in your first response to my post, or do I need to remind you of this gem: "do more research before commenting". I feel under no obligation to be polite with you. You want a civil debate, then engage in one. And there is no way you were at 15% with zero ab definition.

joejccva71

Fasting: While in a fasted state, your body will burn body fat almost exclusively for the first 72 hours. Regular 16-24 hour fasts provide a huge boost to fat loss. Women can see substantial fat loss after 14 hours fasted due to higher leptin levels than men, in general (a healthy woman will have somewhere between 2-15x as much leptin as a healthy man, which means weight loss is substantially easier).

I question anything past 16 hours, hence the reason Berkhan does NOT recommend going beyond a 16/8 fasting program for fat loss. Anything over 16 hours and 50% of amino acids contribute to glucose maintenance, and almost 100% at 28 hours (when liver glycogen has been depleted).

Again, I'm not questioning whether or not fasting burns fat, but it also will burn muscle after a prolonged fasting session.

MoreBean13

A calorie is a unit of measurement of energy- in that sense a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. The less processed a food is, the more your body has to do to release that calorie.

Depending on your goals, the digestion rate of different foods can help or hinder your progress. Look specifically at whey vs. casein protein. Whey is very fast digesting and easily absorbed, which is great for post workout recovery. Casein is slow digesting and often used by people trying to add mass, and is sometimes used just before going to bed so that you will continue to digest protein throughout the night. For the exact same calorie and macronutrient counts, they behave differently in your body.

I like to think of fiber and vitamin/mineral/antioxidant micronutrients as the "benefits" and the macronutrients as the "salary". If you can get the benefits for free why would I choose the salary without benefits?

joejccva71

Joejccva -

Okay, Joe, you're 100% correct. Eat those 14 Twinkies a day. Have some Ring Dings too, okay? I don't know what your goals are, but really - I'm 14% body fat right now. Where are you? Looking at your photo, I'd put you at 22%. Maybe higher.

I don't ask homeless people for financial advice, if you get my meaning.

Sadly you resort to insults.

And if you think my photo here is 22% you havef really no clue how to visually determine bf%'s. I was between 13-15% then. And I do have both short term and long term goals.

Short Term Goals
Cut to 10% bf.
Increase progression in Leg Press to 825x3x8 (where I was last year), Bench Press to 235x3x8, T-Bar Row to 180x3x6, and DB Military Press to 60x3x10 (almost tore my cuff last year).

Long Term Goals
Perform a 5 month bulk (after cutting to 10%), and attempt to gain 12lbs of muscle (24lbs overall). Then cut back down again.
increase all lift progression while training up strength in tendons to support heavier weight.
Be able to start performing full squats again since surgery.

I resort to insults Joe? You basically told me to shut the hell up in your first response to my post, or do I need to remind you of this gem: "do more research before commenting". I feel under no obligation to be polite with you. You want a civil debate, then engage in one. And there is no way you were at 15% with zero ab definition, you're pudgy.

15% is not ab definition. 11% and lower you get definition.

Explain how "do more research before commenting" is an insult. Are you that sensitive?

earlyxer

I resort to insults Joe? You basically told me to shut the hell up in your first response to my post, or do I need to remind you of this gem: "do more research before commenting". I feel under no obligation to be polite with you. You want a civil debate, then engage in one. And there is no way you were at 15% with zero ab definition, you're pudgy.

15% is not ab definition. 11% and lower you get definition.

Explain how "do more research before commenting" is an insult. Are you that sensitive?

Joe, my photo is 15% body fat. Maybe even 17%, it's a little old. Now look at your abdomen and tell me that you were lower than that. Not remotely possibly, there is no hint of abs. You do need 10% or so for the six-pack to start to pop, but there is not even a hint on you.

And yeah - telling me that I need to do more research before you will allow me to speak is insulting.

Sidesteal

Joejccva -

Okay, Joe, you're 100% correct. Eat those 14 Twinkies a day. Have some Ring Dings too, okay? I don't know what your goals are, but really - I'm 14% body fat right now. Where are you? Looking at your photo, I'd put you at 22%. Maybe higher.

I don't ask homeless people for financial advice, if you get my meaning.

Do you think you're in the position to insult other people's physiques?

EDIT: For the record, I think it's uncalled for regardless of what you, or Joe, look like.

Acg67

I resort to insults Joe? You basically told me to shut the hell up in your first response to my post, or do I need to remind you of this gem: "do more research before commenting". I feel under no obligation to be polite with you. You want a civil debate, then engage in one. And there is no way you were at 15% with zero ab definition, you're pudgy.

15% is not ab definition. 11% and lower you get definition.

Explain how "do more research before commenting" is an insult. Are you that sensitive?

Joe, my photo is 15% body fat. Maybe even 17%, it's a little old. Now look at your abdomen and tell me that you were lower than that. Not remotely. And yeah - telling me that I need to do more research before you will allow me to speak is insulting.

When people run out of legit arguments they resort to physique bashing.

Have you substantiated your assertion that eating certain foods while in a hypocaloric state will make you fatter? Or was that just made up?