The most annoying things said...

I think the most annoying thing I often see with gaining weight ( or anything with fitness.) People that state " sugar and sodium amounts do not matter, a calorie is just a calorie." Pretty annoying statements and really bad advice.

To gain or to get gainz? Maybe your question was directed at the wrong person.

I was 30 something weeks pregnant and was asked by a doctor ( not my regular one) if I had any issues with eating disorders.....I had gained 25 lbs at that point. I held it together but wanted to cry then and there, the whole pregnancy had been difficult and this doctor, although well meaning, made me want to crawl in a hole

OP, your Dr may have been a bit more curt than you would have preferred, but really, eating more food is, as far as I know, the only way to gain weight.

When you call customer service on any issue and they say "things look good from here. Are you sure you have an issue?"

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

In 2014 I lost almost 50 pounds (from 174 - 129) and I had very few people comment on my weight loss. Then randomly 8 months into maintenance, I had loads of comments from a bunch of different people asking me if I'd lost weight, or lost more weight. No, I've weighed this since last Christmas, thanks for noticing?

MarziPanda95 wrote: »

JoshLibby wrote: »

I think the most annoying thing I often see with gaining weight ( or anything with fitness.) People that state " sugar and sodium amounts do not matter, a calorie is just a calorie." Pretty annoying statements and really bad advice.

Technically, in terms of gaining weight, that advice is spot on. A calorie is a unit of measurement, so yes, a calorie is a calorie just like an inch is an inch. In terms of weight loss/maintenance/gain, calories are all that matter. In terms of nutrition, macros matter.

1. The energy cost to metabolize fat, carbs and protein is different
The body must use energy to digest, absorb and metabolize the energy in food. And it so happens that the body uses different amounts of energy to process different energy-containing nutrients. Generally, more energy is required to process protein than carbs, and more energy is required to process carbs than fat. What this means effectively is that a 2,500-calories-a-day high-protein diet adds fewer calories to the body than a 2,500-calories-a-day high-carb diet, which in turn adds fewer calories to the body than a 2,500-calories-a-day high-fat diet.

2. The biggest problem with using linear calorie equations for fat loss is that the fewer calories you consume, the fewer calories your body burns. Thus, if, based on the 3,500-calorie rule cited above, you decide to cut your daily energy intake by 500 calories in hopes of losing a pound a week (500 calories/day x 7 days = 3,500 calories), you will probably find that you do indeed lose a pound in the first week but less in each subsequent week. This phenomenon is believed to represent a metabolic adaptation to prevent starvation. Your body literally runs cooler to conserve the reduced number of calories you’re eating, thereby effectively increasing the value of each calorie.

A 2006 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that volunteers who maintained a very low-calorie diet for six months exhibited a significantly greater reduction in metabolic rate than could be explain by weight loss alone. A longer-term study on monkeys revealed that monkeys whose food intake was reduced by 30 percent for 11 years exhibited a 13-percent lower metabolic rate than weight loss alone could account for.

More relevant for our concerns as athletes is evidence that even small calorie deficits within a single day may alter our metabolism in ways that have negative effects on our body composition. A study involving elite female gymnasts and distance runners found a strong inverse relationship between the number and size of energy deficits throughout the day (that is, periods when the body’s calorie needs exceed the calorie supply from foods) and body fat percentage. In other words, the athletes who did the best job of matching their calorie intake with their calorie needs throughout the day were leaner than those who tended to fall behind.

What’s important to note about this study is that the effect of mini calorie deficits was independent of total caloric intake for the day. This means that a woman athlete who requires and consumes X calories a day is likely to have less muscle and more body fat if she does not time her eating well than if she takes in the same total number of calories but distributes them more evenly throughout the day.

3.Timing of eating affects calorie processing
Thermic effect of food (TEF) is a fancy name for the energy used up as a result of digesting and absorbing a meal. A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that TEF is higher in the morning than in the evening. Volunteers were given an identical 544-calorie meal at one of three times. In subjects fed at 9 am, TEF increased by 16 percent; in those fed at 5 pm, TEF increased by 13.5 percent; and in those fed at 1 am, TEF increased by only 11 percent. So it’s clear that we burn more calories in the morning.

The effect of calories on body composition is also influenced by the size and frequency of meals. For example, a Japanese study found that boxers placed on a six-meals-a-day weight-control diet lowered their body fat percentage significantly more than boxers who ate exactly the same number of calories in just two meals.

Generally speaking, food calories are more likely to be stored as fat and less likely to be used immediately for energy, stored as glycogen, or used to synthesize new muscle proteins when they are consumed in excess of short-term needs. This is why six small meals totaling 2,500 calories are not equal to two large meals totaling 2,500 calories.

On the flipside, food calories are more likely to be used immediately for energy or stored as glycogen or used to synthesize muscle proteins when they are consumed at times of energy deficit, such as first thing in the morning after the overnight fast. Another such time is after exercise. Numerous studies have shown that people build more muscle and gain less body fat (or shed more body fat) when they consume adequate calories within two hours after exercise than when they do not, despite consuming the same total number of calories over the course of the day.

To be sure, counting calories has some value. However, for the reasons cited above, you can’t count on calories from any source to affect your body equally in all circumstances.

One time I told my doctor I had some pain when I did some movement - I can't remember what the specific situation was, but yes, he said - don't do that. lol

Sometimes it's annoying when someone gives you what seems like idiotic advice when you are struggling with something. If you were honest with yourself, wouldn't it be obvious that the solution to not gaining weight is to eat more?

The reality is that doctors are really bad at helping people change. Their success rate for getting heart attack patients to change their lifestyles is abyssmal. People don't like someone to tell them what to do. The only way people change is if they make the decision for themselves.

JoshLibby wrote: »

MarziPanda95 wrote: »

JoshLibby wrote: »

I think the most annoying thing I often see with gaining weight ( or anything with fitness.) People that state " sugar and sodium amounts do not matter, a calorie is just a calorie." Pretty annoying statements and really bad advice.

Technically, in terms of gaining weight, that advice is spot on. A calorie is a unit of measurement, so yes, a calorie is a calorie just like an inch is an inch. In terms of weight loss/maintenance/gain, calories are all that matter. In terms of nutrition, macros matter.

1. The energy cost to metabolize fat, carbs and protein is different
The body must use energy to digest, absorb and metabolize the energy in food. And it so happens that the body uses different amounts of energy to process different energy-containing nutrients. Generally, more energy is required to process protein than carbs, and more energy is required to process carbs than fat. What this means effectively is that a 2,500-calories-a-day high-protein diet adds fewer calories to the body than a 2,500-calories-a-day high-carb diet, which in turn adds fewer calories to the body than a 2,500-calories-a-day high-fat diet.

2. The biggest problem with using linear calorie equations for fat loss is that the fewer calories you consume, the fewer calories your body burns. Thus, if, based on the 3,500-calorie rule cited above, you decide to cut your daily energy intake by 500 calories in hopes of losing a pound a week (500 calories/day x 7 days = 3,500 calories), you will probably find that you do indeed lose a pound in the first week but less in each subsequent week. This phenomenon is believed to represent a metabolic adaptation to prevent starvation. Your body literally runs cooler to conserve the reduced number of calories you’re eating, thereby effectively increasing the value of each calorie.

A 2006 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that volunteers who maintained a very low-calorie diet for six months exhibited a significantly greater reduction in metabolic rate than could be explain by weight loss alone. A longer-term study on monkeys revealed that monkeys whose food intake was reduced by 30 percent for 11 years exhibited a 13-percent lower metabolic rate than weight loss alone could account for.

More relevant for our concerns as athletes is evidence that even small calorie deficits within a single day may alter our metabolism in ways that have negative effects on our body composition. A study involving elite female gymnasts and distance runners found a strong inverse relationship between the number and size of energy deficits throughout the day (that is, periods when the body’s calorie needs exceed the calorie supply from foods) and body fat percentage. In other words, the athletes who did the best job of matching their calorie intake with their calorie needs throughout the day were leaner than those who tended to fall behind.

What’s important to note about this study is that the effect of mini calorie deficits was independent of total caloric intake for the day. This means that a woman athlete who requires and consumes X calories a day is likely to have less muscle and more body fat if she does not time her eating well than if she takes in the same total number of calories but distributes them more evenly throughout the day.

3.Timing of eating affects calorie processing
Thermic effect of food (TEF) is a fancy name for the energy used up as a result of digesting and absorbing a meal. A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that TEF is higher in the morning than in the evening. Volunteers were given an identical 544-calorie meal at one of three times. In subjects fed at 9 am, TEF increased by 16 percent; in those fed at 5 pm, TEF increased by 13.5 percent; and in those fed at 1 am, TEF increased by only 11 percent. So it’s clear that we burn more calories in the morning.

The effect of calories on body composition is also influenced by the size and frequency of meals. For example, a Japanese study found that boxers placed on a six-meals-a-day weight-control diet lowered their body fat percentage significantly more than boxers who ate exactly the same number of calories in just two meals.

Generally speaking, food calories are more likely to be stored as fat and less likely to be used immediately for energy, stored as glycogen, or used to synthesize new muscle proteins when they are consumed in excess of short-term needs. This is why six small meals totaling 2,500 calories are not equal to two large meals totaling 2,500 calories.

On the flipside, food calories are more likely to be used immediately for energy or stored as glycogen or used to synthesize muscle proteins when they are consumed at times of energy deficit, such as first thing in the morning after the overnight fast. Another such time is after exercise. Numerous studies have shown that people build more muscle and gain less body fat (or shed more body fat) when they consume adequate calories within two hours after exercise than when they do not, despite consuming the same total number of calories over the course of the day.

To be sure, counting calories has some value. However, for the reasons cited above, you can’t count on calories from any source to affect your body equally in all circumstances.

Nice copy/paste: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie

JoshLibby wrote: »

LolBroScience wrote: »

JoshLibby wrote: »

MarziPanda95 wrote: »

JoshLibby wrote: »

I think the most annoying thing I often see with gaining weight ( or anything with fitness.) People that state " sugar and sodium amounts do not matter, a calorie is just a calorie." Pretty annoying statements and really bad advice.

Technically, in terms of gaining weight, that advice is spot on. A calorie is a unit of measurement, so yes, a calorie is a calorie just like an inch is an inch. In terms of weight loss/maintenance/gain, calories are all that matter. In terms of nutrition, macros matter.

1. The energy cost to metabolize fat, carbs and protein is different
The body must use energy to digest, absorb and metabolize the energy in food. And it so happens that the body uses different amounts of energy to process different energy-containing nutrients. Generally, more energy is required to process protein than carbs, and more energy is required to process carbs than fat. What this means effectively is that a 2,500-calories-a-day high-protein diet adds fewer calories to the body than a 2,500-calories-a-day high-carb diet, which in turn adds fewer calories to the body than a 2,500-calories-a-day high-fat diet.

2. The biggest problem with using linear calorie equations for fat loss is that the fewer calories you consume, the fewer calories your body burns. Thus, if, based on the 3,500-calorie rule cited above, you decide to cut your daily energy intake by 500 calories in hopes of losing a pound a week (500 calories/day x 7 days = 3,500 calories), you will probably find that you do indeed lose a pound in the first week but less in each subsequent week. This phenomenon is believed to represent a metabolic adaptation to prevent starvation. Your body literally runs cooler to conserve the reduced number of calories you’re eating, thereby effectively increasing the value of each calorie.

A 2006 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that volunteers who maintained a very low-calorie diet for six months exhibited a significantly greater reduction in metabolic rate than could be explain by weight loss alone. A longer-term study on monkeys revealed that monkeys whose food intake was reduced by 30 percent for 11 years exhibited a 13-percent lower metabolic rate than weight loss alone could account for.

More relevant for our concerns as athletes is evidence that even small calorie deficits within a single day may alter our metabolism in ways that have negative effects on our body composition. A study involving elite female gymnasts and distance runners found a strong inverse relationship between the number and size of energy deficits throughout the day (that is, periods when the body’s calorie needs exceed the calorie supply from foods) and body fat percentage. In other words, the athletes who did the best job of matching their calorie intake with their calorie needs throughout the day were leaner than those who tended to fall behind.

What’s important to note about this study is that the effect of mini calorie deficits was independent of total caloric intake for the day. This means that a woman athlete who requires and consumes X calories a day is likely to have less muscle and more body fat if she does not time her eating well than if she takes in the same total number of calories but distributes them more evenly throughout the day.

3.Timing of eating affects calorie processing
Thermic effect of food (TEF) is a fancy name for the energy used up as a result of digesting and absorbing a meal. A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that TEF is higher in the morning than in the evening. Volunteers were given an identical 544-calorie meal at one of three times. In subjects fed at 9 am, TEF increased by 16 percent; in those fed at 5 pm, TEF increased by 13.5 percent; and in those fed at 1 am, TEF increased by only 11 percent. So it’s clear that we burn more calories in the morning.

The effect of calories on body composition is also influenced by the size and frequency of meals. For example, a Japanese study found that boxers placed on a six-meals-a-day weight-control diet lowered their body fat percentage significantly more than boxers who ate exactly the same number of calories in just two meals.

Generally speaking, food calories are more likely to be stored as fat and less likely to be used immediately for energy, stored as glycogen, or used to synthesize new muscle proteins when they are consumed in excess of short-term needs. This is why six small meals totaling 2,500 calories are not equal to two large meals totaling 2,500 calories.

On the flipside, food calories are more likely to be used immediately for energy or stored as glycogen or used to synthesize muscle proteins when they are consumed at times of energy deficit, such as first thing in the morning after the overnight fast. Another such time is after exercise. Numerous studies have shown that people build more muscle and gain less body fat (or shed more body fat) when they consume adequate calories within two hours after exercise than when they do not, despite consuming the same total number of calories over the course of the day.

To be sure, counting calories has some value. However, for the reasons cited above, you can’t count on calories from any source to affect your body equally in all circumstances.

Nice copy/paste: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie

Thanks

Not to mention it is all totally irrelevant information considering we're discussing being in a caloric surplus with the intent to actually gain weight, while you go and post information pertaining to caloric deficits. Not one link to any of the studies, so we cannot even examine how they set set them up or anything of the sort?

JoshLibby wrote: »

Yeah, because it can't work in reverse. Eating carbs which is highly recommended on these forums in a bulk or a cut after a work out is real irrelevant information, which is food timing. Or a person can just eat 2k calories worth of Poptarts because a" calorie is just a calorie" and see what happens.

Besides, if you go to my first post, it was about sodium and sugar as well, not just the saying a calorie is a calorie. To get big you have to eat, but not all food is equal as macros like carbs, fats, proteins and what they do, people just cherry picked what I wrote for their own reasons.

Its not equal from a nutritional value standpoint, agreed (already mentioned by the person you had quoted in your irrelevant "rebuttal").

You're just spouting off without any context....

JoshLibby wrote: »

LolBroScience wrote: »

JoshLibby wrote: »

Yeah, because it can't work in reverse. Eating carbs which is highly recommended on these forums in a bulk or a cut after a work out is real irrelevant information, which is food timing. Or a person can just eat 2k calories worth of Poptarts because a" calorie is just a calorie" and see what happens.

Besides, if you go to my first post, it was about sodium and sugar as well, not just the saying a calorie is a calorie. To get big you have to eat, but not all food is equal as macros like carbs, fats, proteins and what they do, people just cherry picked what I wrote for their own reasons.

Its not equal from a nutritional value standpoint, agreed (already mentioned by the person you had quoted in your irrelevant "rebuttal").

You're just spouting off without any context....

It's not just about a nutritional standpoint, protein for a example is a calorie and is burned in the body differently from fats and carbs. Thus, making a "calorie not just a calorie."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calorie

TEF is already taken into consideration with TDEE method. Assuming you're holding calories and macros consistent it's irrelevant.

http://www.webmd.com/diet/20120626/all-calories-not-created-equal-study-suggests


http://authoritynutrition.com/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/