T-Nation.com | Is it REALLY working for you?

Is it REALLY working for you?

Rating

Game Time
Level 1

Join date: Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 606

aeyogi wrote:

riverhawk23 wrote:

aeyogi wrote:

PublickStews wrote:
The problem isn't that he drinks skim milk. The problem is that his diet contains too many calories. I'm baffled that someone can be considered an "expert" on nutrition while simultaneously regarding white bread and skim milk as having diabolical, black magic-ish properties that somehow cause fat gain even in the presence of a caloric deficit.

Assuming adequate protein intake, if that guy ate 4 slices of white bread and 2 cups of skim milk per day, while simultaneously running a 500 kcal deficit, he would lose fat.

Now watch Chris Shugart respond to me with the same n=1, "it works for me" arguments that he condemns in others.

High GI foods = Insulin = Fat gain.
What part of that do you not understand?

Weird I didn't know that, insulin = fat... Thought Anaconda protocol was used to build muscle not to gain fat. Look, bodybuilders have used insulin to add muscle or drop fat for years now. Do you understand?

You can spike insulin around your exercise period because of the better nutrient partitioning that is available at that time. Try making all your meals high GI for a few months and see what happens to you. This is what would be considered a 'dirty bulk', which is not exactly the meal plan for losing fat or cutting.

Really? In the 70's and 80's BB's commonly used high carb/low fat diets...and they were not fat. No macronutrient will make you fat, excess calories are responsible for that. If you are in a calorie defecit you lose weight; bottom line.

Report Post

EasyRhino
Level 0

Join date: May 2009
Location: California, USA
Posts: 498

I think this discussion misses the important fact that milk is yummy. At least we have confirmation that Suelyn Medeiros (Bryan's avatar) is a total hottie.

oh, and here's teh most relevant part from OG's link to the story about the almonds:

The researchers found that when people were eating the 344 calories worth of almonds every day they were, in total, only taking in an extra 77 calories. This is because the participants naturally compensate for the great majority of the calories in almonds, about 74 percent, as they found them to be satiating, or satisfying.

A further portion of these extra daily 77 calories was offset because the fibre structure of almonds blocked the fat in almonds from being fully absorbed. Although not statistically significant, the researchers also noted an increase in energy expenditure through an increase in resting energy expenditure, the number of calories used while participants were at rest.

Report Post

Chris Shugart
Editor / V-Diet Author

Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 8967

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

Frank.S wrote:

attydeb2005 wrote:
Find me one legitimate nutritionist who recommends you eat white bread....and I'll eat some.

Alan Aragon. Enjoy your bread.

Please pos
the almond study wasn't that hard to find.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

Not the same study. I'll try to find the correct one. I think I got this one of Dr. Bowden's books or newsletters.

Report Post

LazyElemental
Level 0

Join date: Nov 2009
Location:
Posts: 39

I'm sure chemists and physicists the world over hate us for how we butcher their language. You can not create or destroy energy, our bodies follow the law of conservation of energy. Therefore if calories in < calories out, you lose weight. HOWEVER, your body may well react differently to different foods, like orions food allergy. So a calorie is a calorie, how your body processes that calorie depends on your own body.

Sorry for the interruption by my science geek needed a minute.

Report Post

OctoberGirl
Level 4

Join date: Apr 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 11325

Chris Shugart wrote:

OctoberGirl wrote:

the almond study wasn't that hard to find.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.co...

Not the same study. I'll try to find the correct one. I think I got this one of Dr. Bowden's books or newsletters.

Sorry!

There was a bunch of articles about the benefits of almonds.

Report Post

orion
Level 4

Join date: Jun 2005
Location: Austria
Posts: 10456

LazyElemental wrote:
I'm sure chemists and physicists the world over hate us for how we butcher their language. You can not create or destroy energy, our bodies follow the law of conservation of energy. Therefore if calories in < calories out, you lose weight. HOWEVER, your body may well react differently to different foods, like orions food allergy. So a calorie is a calorie, how your body processes that calorie depends on your own body.

Sorry for the interruption by my science geek needed a minute.

Yup, and in my case it is grains which is rather rare, milk however is one of the big 8.

Also, a delayed reaction to food is very hard to detect because nobody links something he ate three days ago to weight gain, mood swings or skin problems.

Fortunately there are tests out there now that screen against IgG 4 antibodies.

Of course these tests are once again highly controversial and many doctors deny that they could help detect anything, but there are more and more studies coming out that if they avoid specific foods they have a reaction it can lead to enormous weight loss in obese patients.

So if someone like one poster above has cravings that he cannot resist and a hard time losing weight I would consider to look into this, because even though the tests are not cheap the remedy is simple: just dont eat stuff that does not agree with you.

Also, one could at least speculate whether low carb diets and the V-Diet do work so well for some people because they remove most of the stuff some people have a reaction to from their diet.

edited

Report Post

Kinoz
Level 1

Join date: Oct 2008
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 161

Definitely a good message, but I gotta say, some of the Hammer posts really sound less like a blog about lifting and health and such, and more like Chris just lashing out at tasty things he can no longer eat because he used to be a fat boy. Just a personal observation.

Report Post

[DeVo]
Level 3

Join date: Jun 2006
Location:
Posts: 5

I think that I know the part that is getting missed. Everyone is correct, if calories in < calories out, you lose weight. That is absolutely true. I think what a lot of people are missing, is that food can modify how many "calories out" you have. I'm not an expert in human physiology, but I would assume that the thought is that when you eat high GI foods, the calories tend to get stored, whereas if you were eating low GI foods, you would evacuate more of the calories through things like urination and sweat. Also, I would assume that there is thought that high GI foods have a longer lasting affect on the body where they tend to decrease the basal metabolic rate.

And for those saying that "science has been wrong" for the past few years. Back that train up a bit. You don't hear "science" on a day to day basis. You hear the federal government telling you what to eat (old food triangle), which is heavily impacted by big food lobbyists. The other groups that you hear a lot from are groups like the American Dietetic Association, who seem to cling to their 1970's science for some reason.

Feel free to correct me if you have any better information.

Report Post

JonEightPackGuy
Level 1

Join date: Dec 2006
Location:
Posts: 1405

Interesting article.

I have used milk to gain mass and add alot more calories to my daily intake seeing as I am trying to gain 60lbs.

I haven't noticed getting fatter per say but bloating, possibly. I have 4 gallons currently in my fridge, left for this week. I'll finish them and then be off drinking milk for a few weeks and take careful note if "bloating" seems to go away or if it's just in my head. I do think I have gotten thicker since I started drinking close to a gallon a day. Of course I have heard everywhere the bodybuilding benefits to it but I am going to go off now for a bit and see if I can notice a mental and physical difference.

Report Post

jtrinsey
Level 3

Join date: Nov 2005
Location:
Posts: 2734

I think the responses have been a little ironic considering the topic of the thread.

If you drink milk, eat white bread, say a calorie is a calorie, etc., and it's REALLY working for you, then more power to you. If your training is at a plateau, then maybe something needs to change. Ditto for people of the opposing viewpoint.

It's funny how a concept of, "look critically at what you're doing and the results it is producing" has turned into a debate on thermodynamics. The heart of the scientific method is hypothesize --> experiment --> analyze. I think that most people who have made successful physique transformations follow that process, either consciously or intuitively.

Or maybe some people would rather be "right" than be healthy and lean?

Report Post

TRU76
Level 4

Join date: Jan 2007
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 41

It's not as simple as calories in calories out.

Report Post

jehovasfitness
Level 4

Join date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 8542

wward wrote:

PublickStews wrote:
There's more to losing fat than just caloric deficit in many people.

no there isn't. The foods you eat might have an affect on your energy expenditure, but at the end of the day if calories in<calories out then you will lose weight one way or another, and some of it will be fat.

You would think wouldn't you.

I can give you countless examples of people undereating and exercising but not losing weight.

Perfect example. My wife eats around 1500 cals/day sometimes less, sometimes more depending on where I set it for her.
She lifts 3-4x wk, does cardio 4-5x wk.

She struggles to lose weight, though she has lost a good amount of body fat (taken a very long time though 2 yrs).

It's nice to say it all comes down to cals in/cals out and I catch myself doing that sometimes, but it's nto always that simple.

Report Post

Administrators Online: Mod Brian, LowfatMatt, Mod Starr