By SuperTex!:
Broscience? Lots of that floating around the internet and in our gyms. Yes, absolutely, both calories and macros are important. So are micros.........Science always doesn't agree with common sense science deals in data. Gunslinger, YouTube is FULL of BroScience..........Trust me from a REAL SCIENCE view point, a calorie is not a calorie and those who say this is not true have probably not read a page of real science nor would that understand real science.
Again, the LAW of THERMODYNAMICS.....energy is neither created or destroyed. We learned this in high school by turning water to ice, letting it melt and seeing it evaporate. The lesson learned is this water did not just disappear, instead it changed forms. Food/nutrients in the human body do not just disappear when unused. The change forms....stored. For me......taking in 4000 calories per day and I will drop weight, no matter if it is all protein or all donuts. So dropping weight at 4000 calories/d day is very real. We are all quit different huh? That is why most of this Broscience is nonsense.
I was studying the a-bomb reaction that was used on Hiroshima...What I was getting from the study is that in that case when the u (supercritical mass) exploded, the combined mass that was produced did NOT equal the original u mass....It was an net loss when calculated ....If this is so, then the law of , 'conservation of matter' doesn't apply in this circumstance....Same thing with/when they set the h-bomb off....The h-atoms united and formed helium....However, the total mass of the helium that was produced , turned out to be less than the hydrogen....In both of these cases, if the law on 'conservation of matter' is set in stone, shouldn't those two reactions' products have equaled in weight with the original reactants? (No physicists/chemist, just dabble with it)....Or does that just apply to energy?....Curious?....
I agree on the ALL being important!....Here is what gets me...Years ago I read an article on insulin....It claimed that in the presence of insulin (circulating in the blood stream),one couldn't burn fat?...So then, eating fast digesting carbs (simple) would cause an unnecessary spike in insulin levels in the blood, thereby not allowing the individual to burn the fat....The key was to eat slow digesting carbs (really any kind of food) that would not cause an sharp spike of insulin....Supposedly, the slower u digest the food, the less insulin will spike and u will release what is needed to process the food....That's what I read, don't know if it's true or not....However, if u do need the carbs for energy, then it really won't matter if u do eat a fast digesting carb (donuts, etc)...U will not store it as fat...It's all in the timing of your food, not what kind of food...That's what I ascertained from the article anyway....I would like to know the definitive on it tho....
This reminds me of the BIG guy in the gym who when asked how he got so big. tells everyone, I got big like this by eating chicken. Now the little guys are all eating chicken expecting to be big.
Was that Lee Priest by any chance?...Haha!
.
.