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.

Eat more to reduce body fat? debate

13»

Replies

  • h7463
    h7463 Posts: 626 Member
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    h7463 wrote: »
    magnusthenerd wrote: »
    h7463 wrote: »
    magnusthenerd wrote: »
    h7463 wrote: »
    I'm certainly not a spring chicken anymore, but I can verify the concept of more food leading to better results.
    I have to eat at least at maintenance (for me) to get the energy for training hard enough to push my body into fat loss. Keeping in mind, that fat loss results in lower bodyfat percentage overall, but not necessarily in weigth loss. Well, right now it does..so it's a win-win for me currently.. B)
    If you're losing weight, you're not eating maintenance calories.

    I am indeed eating the number of calories, that are calculated as 'maintenance'. I didn't say that I was eating back any exercise burn. My BMR is around 1300, but I'm eating just over 2000, which leaves me with enough wiggle room to shed fat, but I'm never 'hangry'. Getting rid of some winter padding is just a bonus right now.
    Your maintenance calories are not a calculation, they're the calories that keep you at the same weight. The confusion seems to be that you're using something like MFP's terminology rather than how the term would be used in most nutrition and exercise literature. I don't think there's a conceptional disagreement about the facts.
    I would have phrased it that in order to have the energy to engage in vigorous exercise, you need to be eating calories at least consistent with your NEAT +BMR level. Or that your largest sustainable deficits are ones created from exercise.

    I'm not the least bit confused about what my calories are. I've been training for a few years now, and...see profile pic...I'm fairly sure that what I'm doing works well for me personally, as far as my calorie requirements are concerned. Also, the little weightloss bonus will disappear in the very near future, as I'm getting fitter (in the middle of a fresh lifting program...). For now, I'm enjoying an early start on my bikini shape. Wooo...

    You might not be confused about how many calories you are eating, but you do seem to be confused as to what maintenance is.

    Not at all (bold print...). Must be one of those 'darned if you do, darned if you don't' occurrances on this forum, where I actually underestimated my calorie burn from strength exercises for my activity level and food.... I must be doing better that I thought.
    BTW, I never stated, that I'm on a mission to lose weight. In fact, I think, I made a pretty good point to the OP's original question for eating more.

    Bowing out of this conversation gracefully now....wait....nope...leg day...too sore to bow anything.... :D
  • neldabg
    neldabg Posts: 1,452 Member
    I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?
  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,840 Member
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    I feel like it is almost impossible to debate this topic without actually seeing before and after photos, or seeing the scale weight for proof. Your son says that they are both visibly leaner, but that could simply be his perception. Also, you say they are the exact same weight, but that seems peculiar as well. As someone else pointed out, eliminating carbs would cause an initial drop in water weight and that in itself could make a person look leaner in ways. I would also expect the number on the scale to drop from the water weight loss. A couple weeks is definitely not enough time to show dramatic results from a recomp. The trainers theory on calories alone is enough for me to discredit almost anything else they have to say.

    This - I am dubious about the time frame. Five weeks is just not long enough to create as obvious a difference as you describe.
  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,840 Member
    edited February 2019
    neldabg wrote: »
    I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?

    You're not missing anything, it doesn't make sense. Any theory of eating which cuts all bread but is mainly rice lacks a grounding in reality. Unless the big secret is that these guys were undiagnosed with celiac disease.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    edited February 2019
    neldabg wrote: »
    I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?

    They're more than likely eating a lot less carbs if their only source is rice and veg.
  • neldabg
    neldabg Posts: 1,452 Member
    edited February 2019
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    neldabg wrote: »
    I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?

    You're not missing anything, it doesn't make sense. Any theory of eating which cuts all bread but is mainly rice lacks a grounding in reality. Unless the big secret is that these guys were undiagnosed with celiac disease.
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    neldabg wrote: »
    I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?

    They're more than likely eating a lot less carbs if their only source is rice and veg.
    sijomial wrote: »
    neldabg wrote: »
    I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?

    @neldabg

    It's probably a guess that their carbs have reduced overall as judging by the dreadful bro-science spouted by the PT there's a reasonable chance he wants them to eat the old school "bro diet" which is dreadfully boring, limited food choices, high protein and low carb. Not a lot of plain boiled rice (starchy carbs but small quantity), a lot of plain chicken and green (low carb) veg, no seasoning as clearly suffering produces better results than eating enjoyable food. ;)

    I wouldn't put the order in which they were listed as an indication of relative quantities.

    Thanks all!
    Funnily enough, I just checked multiple standard entries on the USDA Food Database, and white and wheat bread have less calories and a range of 40-50 g of carbs per 100 g while brown and white rice have more calories and 70-80 g of carbs per 100 g. It really must be the smaller portions and overall decrease in carbs that might have contributed to the initial quick results.
  • ConfidentRaven
    ConfidentRaven Posts: 1,428 Member
    I dated a bodybuilder a long time ago and what you describe sounds a lot like the diet he followed. The idea behind the smaller meals more often is to ensure energy for the burn without making themselves sick, and preserving/building as much muscle mass as possible. At least that was how it was explained to me. In a day they eat far more than you would think, but it’s a ton less sugar, processed food, etc. and yes it is extremely boring sometimes.

    To answer your question of does lifting more often= lower BMI, sort of. There’s a lot of factors at play, but I’m betting that if you followed their diet plan and their lift schedule you would see your BMI drop while possibly even gaining weight.

    Now the eat more or you’ll gain weight, that’s some junk right there. But in lifting not eating enough of the correct foods can lead to muscle loss, which would be a no no, so perhaps that was the intention of the statement.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    neldabg wrote: »
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    neldabg wrote: »
    I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?

    You're not missing anything, it doesn't make sense. Any theory of eating which cuts all bread but is mainly rice lacks a grounding in reality. Unless the big secret is that these guys were undiagnosed with celiac disease.
    TavistockToad wrote: »
    neldabg wrote: »
    I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?

    They're more than likely eating a lot less carbs if their only source is rice and veg.
    sijomial wrote: »
    neldabg wrote: »
    I don't have answers, but something in this thread is bothering me, so I have to comment. OP said that the young men weren't eating bread and sauces, but that they were eating "mostly rice/chicken/fish/eggs veg." Multiple posters offered thoughts that cutting carbs might be one reason behind the ostensible fat loss. Since when were vegetables and (especially) rice not considered carbs? What am I missing here?

    @neldabg

    It's probably a guess that their carbs have reduced overall as judging by the dreadful bro-science spouted by the PT there's a reasonable chance he wants them to eat the old school "bro diet" which is dreadfully boring, limited food choices, high protein and low carb. Not a lot of plain boiled rice (starchy carbs but small quantity), a lot of plain chicken and green (low carb) veg, no seasoning as clearly suffering produces better results than eating enjoyable food. ;)

    I wouldn't put the order in which they were listed as an indication of relative quantities.

    Thanks all!
    Funnily enough, I just checked multiple standard entries on the USDA Food Database, and white and wheat bread have less calories and a range of 40-50 g of carbs per 100 g while brown and white rice have more calories and 70-80 g of carbs per 100 g. It really must be the smaller portions and overall decrease in carbs that might have contributed to the initial quick results.

    There is a good chance that they are doing a better job of portioning out the rice than they did previously with starchy foods... Whoever gave them the 'bro diet' instruction probably specified an amount which they may still be complying with.

    But yes... Portion of rice is so so very small. ;(
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,876 Member
    My guess is that they're not really eating more...as in more calories. They're eating a higher volume of low calorie old school bro diet food so they're actually cutting fat. Their weigh is probably staying roughly the same due to some noob gains and holding onto some water from being relatively new to the training and/or they've actually lost a few pounds and are under reporting that.
  • Johnd2000
    Johnd2000 Posts: 198 Member
    ConfidentRaven wrote: »
    There’s a lot of factors at play, but I’m betting that if you followed their diet plan and their lift schedule you would see your BMI drop while possibly even gaining weight.

    Im a bit of a thicko, but how? By growing taller?
  • ConfidentRaven
    ConfidentRaven Posts: 1,428 Member
    Johnd2000 wrote: »

    Im a bit of a thicko, but how? By growing taller?[/quote]

    I suppose I should have said that the OP could have a lower fat percentage rather than BMI, as most people associate BMI with how much fat a person carries I was referring to that thought. In essence I was answering the question as I took it, to be that a person could be at a low body fat % while being at what would be deemed obese. I hope that clarifies what I meant.
  • wmd1979
    wmd1979 Posts: 469 Member
    ConfidentRaven wrote: »
    Johnd2000 wrote: »

    Im a bit of a thicko, but how? By growing taller?

    I suppose I should have said that the OP could have a lower fat percentage rather than BMI, as most people associate BMI with how much fat a person carries I was referring to that thought. In essence I was answering the question as I took it, to be that a person could be at a low body fat % while being at what would be deemed obese. I hope that clarifies what I meant.
    [/quote]

    BMI is a calculation based on a person's height and weight. If their weight goes up, so will their BMI. BMI is not used to calculate body fat %, nor should it be used to assume body fat %.

Categories