Latest posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
25,266
Posts
494,916
Members
27,693
Latest Member
gkr_bb
What's New?

Wrong about diets

C

C T J

Crossfit VIP
Jan 24, 2013
2,414
674
And I'm telling you that I went from 2,500 calories to over 4,000 and lost 71 pounds. I'm not alone in this either.
Right...and I replied about up-regulating and how it is possible to lose weight with increased calories in certain circumstances (until your system catches up). I've never heard of anyone losing 71lbs during an upregulation though! That's impressive. That body is insanely complex and we still don't understand everything about it. For most situations cals in vs cals out is going to be your go-to diet protocol for general weight loss. The next level above that would be counting your protein intake and shooting for 1g protein per 1kg bw (body builders may want to go up to 3g per kg bw if it fits into their total calories).
 
testboner

testboner

VIP Member
Oct 10, 2010
617
455
Again, we're are talking about weight loss (not body comp). If you maintain at 3500 cals and you eat 3000 cals of whatever, you will lose approximately 1lb per week. You will lose more muscle if you're not getting at least 1g of protein per 1kg of bw but none the less you will lose approx 1lb per week if you eat 500 calories less regardless of what you eat. That's what was said at the beginning of the conversation and here we are still not acknowledging this fact.
It’s not as simple as it seems, and how most all of us were taught (very elementary) and believed as gospel.
What can and does happen (to varying degrees); when a calorie counter embarks on the 3500cal = 1lb idea, and they lower their daily intake by 500cals to “gradually and healthfully lose weight,” metabolism gets down-regulated (it slows),as the body tries to adapt to preserving calories. So…. weight loss can entirely stop even though cals are reduced. Then the subject becomes more sluggish and lazy.
Fasting is the most optimal means of desired weight loss, and in fact increases metabolism by way of increasing noradrenaline. Here’s a simply described example from a nephrologist (kidney/renal MD),so he works daily with metabolic issues.
1st:
2nd:
 
C

C T J

Crossfit VIP
Jan 24, 2013
2,414
674
It’s not as simple as it seems, and how most all of us were taught (very elementary) and believed as gospel.
What can and does happen (to varying degrees); when a calorie counter embarks on the 3500cal = 1lb idea, and they lower their daily intake by 500cals to “gradually and healthfully lose weight,” metabolism gets down-regulated (it slows),as the body tries to adapt to preserving calories. So…. weight loss can entirely stop even though cals are reduced. Then the subject becomes more sluggish and lazy.
Fasting is the most optimal means of desired weight loss, and in fact increases metabolism by way of increasing noradrenaline. Here’s a simply described example from a nephrologist (kidney/renal MD),so he works daily with metabolic issues.
Love it! Question though with fasting are they still eating less than their body burns on average over time?
 
testboner

testboner

VIP Member
Oct 10, 2010
617
455
Love it! Question though with fasting are they still eating less than their body burns on average over time?
Of course — fasting is refraining from food, obviously. The point is, a calorie “reduced” (not eliminated / fasting) diet can and routinely does keep a fatty fat.
There are complex dynamics involved for all who adopt the “a calorie is a calorie…. 3500cals = 1lb” believers and preachers.

This isn’t so much an example of specific elements of the thread’s dialogue and debates, but it’s worth posting in relation to the dogma that ALLLLLLL believe in; that “3500 calories = 1lb” as though it’s a 10 Commandment from God to Moses or something!
Cole Robinson is an acquired taste, LOL, but he has in fact worked with helping a shit ton of overweight and morbidly obese lose massive amounts of fat.
 
CJ Smalls

CJ Smalls

Member
Aug 15, 2020
41
36
You are misguided about 3500 Cals equalling a pound.

3500 Cals is approximately a pound of FAT, not of muscle. Does a pound of lean chicken breast have 3500 Cals? No, it does not. It has about 500 cals. Don't believe me, look at a nutrition label at the grocery store

That's why most diet plans like weight watchers don't stress exercise. Because to replace a 3500 Cal deficit, the body can either pull from 1 lb of fat, or approximately 7-10 lbs of muscle(there is an energy cost of deriving energy from lean muscle while body fat stores are ready to go). It looks better for WW if you lose more weight, they don't care where it comes from.

So if you're in a 500 Cal daily deficit, you can either lose 1 lb of fat per week, or 7-10 lbs of muscle at the extremes of the spectrum. Usually it's somewhere in the middle, that's why we stress proper exercise during a diet, give the body a reason to hang onto the hard earned muscle.

It will take about 3500 Cal to BUILD a pound of muscle however, as it's energy intensive to fold and lay down the proteins.
 
DungeonDweller

DungeonDweller

VIP Member
Mar 21, 2017
1,235
964
2,500 calorie per day diet and had to keep a strict count of everything I ate. I got a scale and everything. I did this shit for about 4 months and just got steadily fatter.
2,500 calories a day and got fatter? Either you are a tiny person, have a severe metabolic problem, or your calorie counting sux to high heaven.
 
gunslinger

gunslinger

VIP Member
Sep 19, 2010
1,416
526
2,500 calories a day and got fatter? Either you are a tiny person, have a severe metabolic problem, or your calorie counting sux to high heaven.
Not exactly tiny (5'9" 223 at the time) It is possible I have some metabolic problems. I can count. The problem was those 2,500 calories were mostly from carbs.
 
BackAtIt

BackAtIt

MuscleHead
Oct 3, 2016
1,909
531
It’s not as simple as it seems, and how most all of us were taught (very elementary) and believed as gospel.

If I've grasp anything at all from this thread and the other, it's this comment without a doubt!....

.
 
Bro Bundy

Bro Bundy

VIP Member
Nov 1, 2012
2,145
697
Diets aren’t one size for all ... you need years of experimenting to see what works . And what works today may not work years down the line
 
macgyver

macgyver

TID Board Of Directors
Nov 24, 2011
1,783
1,311
What I'm saying is that 3,000 calories from sugar and carbs are not the same as 3,000 calories from meats and veggies. One can make you a fat fuck and the other make you lean. With zero adjustments in total calories
Ummm no. Actually posted a detailed study where participants were fed I think it was 70% of their carbs from table sugar and the other group only got 11%. Both groups had standardized calories relative to their TDEE.

Weight loss and fat loss where identical between both groups. It didn't matter that you consumed 3/4 of your carbs through pure table sugar. That loss was the same for the given calorie deficit.

Calories from complex carbs made no difference versus calories from pure sugar. (Taking out fiber of course which is non digestible)
 
69nites

69nites

VIP Member
Aug 17, 2011
2,055
634
Ummm no. Actually posted a detailed study where participants were fed I think it was 70% of their carbs from table sugar and the other group only got 11%. Both groups had standardized calories relative to their TDEE.

Weight loss and fat loss where identical between both groups. It didn't matter that you consumed 3/4 of your carbs through pure table sugar. That loss was the same for the given calorie deficit.

Calories from complex carbs made no difference versus calories from pure sugar. (Taking out fiber of course which is non digestible)
For me personally, sugar is a problem because it leads to ravenous hunger.

One of the problems with calorie counting is counting fiber as zero calories. While insoluble fiber has zero caloric value, soluble fiber does but generally isn't represented on the nutritional facts. There's a lot of people not counting those calories and consuming way more calories than they think they are.
 
gunslinger

gunslinger

VIP Member
Sep 19, 2010
1,416
526
Ummm no. Actually posted a detailed study where participants were fed I think it was 70% of their carbs from table sugar and the other group only got 11%. Both groups had standardized calories relative to their TDEE.

Weight loss and fat loss where identical between both groups. It didn't matter that you consumed 3/4 of your carbs through pure table sugar. That loss was the same for the given calorie deficit.

Calories from complex carbs made no difference versus calories from pure sugar. (Taking out fiber of course which is non digestible)
I don't really care about your studies. I'm telling you what I know works for me after 30 years in this. It's the same thing Testboner is telling you works for him. But your "studies" seem to me everything to you. There are many of us who fly in the face of your studies. We can't all be wrong.
 
Top