Calorie Prioritization - Yes, a calorie is a calorie….

psulemon wrote: »

Holy crap, go to a christmas lunch and dumpster fire occurs.

In all honesty, I question how any of this disproves what the OP actually states.

Overall, there should be basic protocol to follow and several areas of concern prior to addressing meal timing. Essentially, meal timing is not going to matter in terms of muscle building if you aren't getting enough calories, your training is not structured in a way that will stimulate muscle breakdown, if your macros do not address your goals, and so much more.


I always felt this was a solid video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAvW6xBZjSk&list=PLcWkawz_rjvoN9VldbChVvykGCy0LYYSm&index=1

robertw486 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

Just because you don't accepted it, doesn't make it not true. There are plenty of diets that will just make you lose weight (twinkie diet, all the MLM's with tons of supplements,etc...). And in many cases they will improve all your blood test and make you healthier, but some come at an expense (loss of muscle from inadequate protein and resistance training) but for some that might be acceptable (ie- if you are 300 lbs, any weight loss will generally help).

Personally, I think you are looking too much into the word plain calories. I believe it was referencing any type of calories, not empty calories or anything of the alike.

stevencloser wrote: »

That. Plain calories means "not caring wheter they're from carbs, fat or protein."

Also even if you were to take that approach, unless you have a very one-sided diet you'll still be in acceptable macros probably, the minimum amount of fats and protein required for a sedentary person isn't so high they need to pay extra attention to it. Usually.

Quoted both due to the same answer.

I'm not trying to split hairs over wording, just saying in my view most decisions should be goal oriented, always seeing the forest despite the trees.

Assume in this case a person already has all the nutritional needs covered, and still has 500 calories in hand to eat for the day. What do you eat? For me, I think short term goal. If I'm still hungry as crap some proteins in the form of some meat, maybe a couple eggs, and if there is room maybe some toast. If I'm stuffed from my other eating, anything calorie dense that doesn't sit in my stomach heavy. If I'm craving some sweets, a big old freaking donut or something.


I also agree that in most diets where people eat a variety, things will often balance out more without trying. But based on the OP, I'd assume that the goal posts were set unique to a specific goal and that there would at least be reason to think that macro partitioning and priorities would come into the picture without always being effortless.





And for the record, I actually think the original post would be as useful or even more useful in the weight loss and maintenance sections. Consideration of macros and body composition goals should always be included with calories IMO. And really a bulking type diet is the easiest to hit, because you have more room to play to get your nutrition in. People at maintenance or in deficit have less room to play, especially the smaller people.

The thought of trying to get a big delicious donut into a 1200-1300 calorie diet is a lot tougher than doing it with twice or more calories to deal with. And they don't sell a 1/2 size everything at the burger joint. Even kids meals would be kinda large at times.

juggernaut1974 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

robertw486 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

Just because you don't accepted it, doesn't make it not true. There are plenty of diets that will just make you lose weight (twinkie diet, all the MLM's with tons of supplements,etc...). And in many cases they will improve all your blood test and make you healthier, but some come at an expense (loss of muscle from inadequate protein and resistance training) but for some that might be acceptable (ie- if you are 300 lbs, any weight loss will generally help).

Personally, I think you are looking too much into the word plain calories. I believe it was referencing any type of calories, not empty calories or anything of the alike.

stevencloser wrote: »

That. Plain calories means "not caring wheter they're from carbs, fat or protein."

Also even if you were to take that approach, unless you have a very one-sided diet you'll still be in acceptable macros probably, the minimum amount of fats and protein required for a sedentary person isn't so high they need to pay extra attention to it. Usually.

Quoted both due to the same answer.

I'm not trying to split hairs over wording, just saying in my view most decisions should be goal oriented, always seeing the forest despite the trees.

Assume in this case a person already has all the nutritional needs covered, and still has 500 calories in hand to eat for the day. What do you eat? For me, I think short term goal. If I'm still hungry as crap some proteins in the form of some meat, maybe a couple eggs, and if there is room maybe some toast. If I'm stuffed from my other eating, anything calorie dense that doesn't sit in my stomach heavy. If I'm craving some sweets, a big old freaking donut or something.


I also agree that in most diets where people eat a variety, things will often balance out more without trying. But based on the OP, I'd assume that the goal posts were set unique to a specific goal and that there would at least be reason to think that macro partitioning and priorities would come into the picture without always being effortless.





And for the record, I actually think the original post would be as useful or even more useful in the weight loss and maintenance sections. Consideration of macros and body composition goals should always be included with calories IMO. And really a bulking type diet is the easiest to hit, because you have more room to play to get your nutrition in. People at maintenance or in deficit have less room to play, especially the smaller people.

The thought of trying to get a big delicious donut into a 1200-1300 calorie diet is a lot tougher than doing it with twice or more calories to deal with. And they don't sell a 1/2 size everything at the burger joint. Even kids meals would be kinda large at times.

No one has ever said that you shouldn't eat towards your goal. The whole purpose of the 1st post was clearly aligned in that manor... eating nutritionally dense foods (which generally means fruits, veggies, dairy, whole grains, lean proteins, fish, etc...), then eating in a manor to address your macronutrient and micronutrient goals and then fill in the rest.

It just floors me that everyone who has tried to debate the merits of the OP misses this, the obvious point of the OP.