Why counting calories doesn't work well!

[Praetorian]

http://www.dietdoctor.com/overeating-carbs-worse-overeating-lchf-diet


Sam Feltham carried out an experiment a few months ago that caught a lot of attention. For three weeks he pigged out on low-carb LCHF foods, 5,800 calories a day.

According to simplistic calorie counting, Feltham should have gained 16 lbs (7.3 kg). But in reality, he only gained less than 3 lbs (1.3 kg).
Is Overeating Carbs Worse Than Overeating on an LCHF Diet?
Today 16:37 in Calorie Counting, Weight loss stories
The result of 5,800 calories of junk food daily
The result of 5,800 calories of junk food a day
Sam Feltham carried out an experiment a few months ago that caught a lot of attention. For three weeks he pigged out on low-carb LCHF foods, 5,800 calories a day.

According to simplistic calorie counting, Feltham should have gained 16 lbs (7.3 kg). But in reality, he only gained less than 3 lbs (1.3 kg).

Now Feltham has repeated his experiment with exactly the same amount of calories, but from carbohydrate-rich junk food. On the same amount of calories he gained more than five times as much weight: almost 16 lbs (7.1 kg)!

The difference in waist circumference was even more significant: 5,800 calories of LCHF food for three weeks reduced his waist measurement by 1 1/4 inches (3 cm). The same amount of junk food led to a 3 1/2 inch (9.25 cm) increase in his waist. And you can see the difference visually.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

Above are photos from the junk food experiment. Below, the LCHF experiment (with the same amount of calories) as a comparison:

The result of 5,800 calories of LCHF foods daily
The result of 5,800 calories daily on an LCHF diet
Conclusion

A calorie is not a calorie. This has already been proven in study after study, but Feltham provides us with a nice real world illustration.

Here’s his final report: Day 21 Of The 21 Day 5,000 Calorie CARB Challenge

[TT Eric]

Nice! Thanks for posting!

Eric

[steve_d]

Very interesting! I think the actual effect size is much smaller when you take into account even just something as simple as water / bloat / digestive system build up. Example... he gained 13 more on the crap diet (same calories) then the low carb diet. But of that 13 extra, i'd put a decent amount from just bloat, glycogen, and crap stuck in his system. I am sure we can all relate after thanksgiving weekend how easy it is to gain weight quickly. Most of that not being adipose tissue. I would also attribute some of the difference to activity he did on both diets... Surely he was sluggish eating all that crap and probably didn't do as much activity - and more so than that, any activity he did do would be at a much lower 'speed'.


Would be real interesting to see an actual study on this with two groups of people in as controlled of a setting as possible. The problem with nutritional studies though is its next to impossible to control how many calories one burns and quite hard to control dietary intake. I'm involved in a few clinical trials related to this topic... 1 of which was a multi-million dollar grant supported clinical trial. The studies do relate to obesity, exercise, and nutrition, but its one thing I found with actual studies of this nature... Probably one of the hardest things to study without bias. It's also probably one of the reasons why humans are smart enough to put a man on the moon, yet a half a century after the fact we still have so many conflicting opinions about nutrition, in and out of the bodybuilding world.

[Praetorian]

I would agree some good be water of bloat if you want to call it that...but again that would depend on the amount of carbs eaten on te LCHF diet to be accurate and not 16lbs thats for sure. On a 275lb BB you might add 7-8 lbs of water from higher glycogen levels but not 16lbs. As for system build up...if your digestions is normal this wouldn't happen especially taking the duration of the diet into account. I agree you cannot control all variables and it may not be the perfect study but looking at the big picture its not difficult to see tat hormones play a much larger role in weight gain or loss than just calories.

P

[RandyMadsen]

I don't think a sample size of 1 is a very good representation :)

[Praetorian]

Its definitely not a double blind placebo controlled study but in my experience with hundreds of clients I would hazard to guess the results would be very similar if it were.

P

[steve_d]

I think what I was trying to say was more that the difference of 13 pounds was not all fat, and both cases put back on a normal diet at the end of the 3 week period for say another 2 weeks, you'd probably notice perhaps 2-3 pounds. Even with this particular example, even outside the possible bloat, etc, there are still factors that would account for any residual gains (perhaps weighed in heavy at the beginning of the first part and he actually gained 8 pounds. Perhaps he weighed himself at night with clothes on! Who really knows. Again, not doubting the results, just doubting the size difference of the results. I am all for cutting carbs and increasing fats, I think the research proves itself in and outside medical research. The sensationalizing of these ideas is what I am against. Less intelligent people would look at these results as an excuse to eat 5000 calories of mostly fat foods. Trust me, there are many people who fall in that category.

Somewhat smarter people will use these results as an excuse to jump onto a high fat diet with relatively restricted calories as well and yes - lose weight, but perhaps not allowing for even healthy things with low-moderate carbs (ex. greek yogurt) - I am not talking about bodybuilders or fitness competitors... Normal people using results of studies, good or bad, inappropriately.

Then even smarter people, might expect MASSIVE differences from keto vs. low carb, or keto vs. low fat for that matter. The differences are subtle at best when following a good plan. I should repeat this experiment for 'fun'. haha

[RandyMadsen]

Based on personal experience, I do believe in counting calories. I'll put that out there, I've had great success with it IMO. In fact I use "flexible dieting" applied this way:
1-2+ veggies per day... 1-2+ fruits per day... 12-15g fiber per 1000kcal intake per day(or more for some ppl), and hit your macros that are geared towards your physique/performance goals. 80-90% foods you'd consider nutritious/whole... 10-20% whatever else that fits.

The main problem I have with this stuff is he went from LOW CARB dieting with certain foods, to HIGH CARB dieting with totally different foods. I think there were too many variables changed to make the two comparable.
I don't think a calorie is a calorie though. We all know the thermal effect of protein, we all know that fibre carbs aren't digested the same as other carbs, and so-on.
I just have an issue with this study, not the hypothesis.
I like that there's a discussion going on about it here.

[steve_d]

Exactly... I forget too, did he mention the time between diets? What was his wash out period. I mean technically this guy probably didn't think he was doing research but just some fun thing to try. I eat lots of carbs now. And I eat less than 5800 calories. Probably 4000 give or take. I'd be willing to bet that if I went low carb and ate 6000 calories I would likely not gain more than a couple pounds. But without an adequate wash our, 6000 calories of junk would quickly bring on some weight gain. However, reverse it. If I added 2000 calories to my diet of junk right now, I'd gain weight, but not nearly as much as if I wasn't used to carbs. Just think post contest how much weight gain can happen in a short period of time.

Either way, I'm with you here - hypothesis is there, and he's probably correct - I just don't like the way he used the study to exaggerate those results. Probably unintentionally though I must admit.

[Praetorian]

It wasn't meant to be a controlled study obviously...just to illustrate a point. There are many studies out that however that do support low carb dieting results in greater fat loss than high carb. I just found this quite interesting...and of course running a diet while maintaining strict calorie count will work that's just common sense...its a calorie deficit. And yes you can skew the results anyway you like by eating low carb for a duration and then adding carbs hence the resulting water etc obviously. I think it just illustrates that there is more to it then calories in and calories out.




P

[steve_d]

way more to it for sure. Just sucks that most people who read that won't realize it was a simple illustration of a point rather than a 'controlled study'. Even worse though is controlled studies themselves are quite often flawed in design and analysis, so even in that setting its hard to believe what you read! The stuff that gets by some reviewers boggles my mind sometimes. Not just nutritional studies, but any study in general.

[RandyMadsen]

PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15113737

Conclusion: “We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another.”

[TT Eric]

Right away this 'a calorie is a calorie' can be destroyed by the fact that your body uses some of the calories to convert the macronutrient into energy!

For example it takes around 3% of the fat calories to convert them into energy. So for 100 calories of fat consumed, you get 97 calories out of them.

For 100 calories of carbohydrates your body uses anywhere from 7 – 20% of carbohydrate’s calories to convert them into energy. So for 100 calories of carbs consumed, you get 80 – 93 calorie out of them.

For 100 calorie of protein it will cost you 30 calorie in processing. So for every 100 calories of protein consumed, you get 70 calorie out of them.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Each of those macronutrients (fats, carbohydrate and protein) has completely different purpose, is managed differently, plus they have a different hormonal response in the body. For example if you eat a diet high in carbs and low in protein/fats, you will create an insulogenic environment, too much insulin will lower (natural) testosterone and GH (might not be a problem for those who take them exogenous), it will eventually produce change in body composition.

And beside the 'thermodynamic point of view', there is many other consequence to eat too much carbs: arterial inflammation, higher LDL, higher triglycerides, lower HDL, getting hungrier, decrease in insulin sensibility, raise cortisol, etc...

Ultimately proteins and fats are essential to human life, if one doesn't get proteins and/or fat for too long, he will die, but if you miss carbs, you will live, no problem. Not saying they cannot be useful, just that carbs are not essential to human survival, this tell a lot.

Eric

[steve_d]

PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15113737

Conclusion: “We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another.”

You might also want to point out this sentence: "The human body, however, is not a perfect engine, and thus the thermodynamics may not be so pure. "

you could also include the last sentence of the abstract:

"Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate."

Or the part where it said:

"Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an approximately equal to 2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment."


So yeah, a calorie is a calorie, but not really in the way people think it is. To each their own. People shouldn't necessarily diet based on what research shows is optimal. I diet in the way that is mentally optimal. Whatever I find easiest on the brain will surely result in the best I can look physically. This of course only relating to contest diet. Aside from that, I just eat whatever makes me feel best.

[RandyMadsen]

I diet in the way that is mentally optimal. Whatever I find easiest on the brain will surely result in the best I can look physically. This of course only relating to contest diet. Aside from that, I just eat whatever makes me feel best.

I'm with you on this one brother!

[steve_d]

I'm with you on this one brother!

More people need to adopt this way of thinking. Especially so with first time competitors, and female competitors. This whole idea of post show rebound has a whole lot more to do with the mind then it does with the body. Sure, putting your body through physical abuse isn't going to help, but as competitors, this is what we do. What you can control is how much deprivation you felt throughout your prep. For some, the mental deprivation comes from restricting carbs, for others, it could be something as simple as a spoonful of sugar filled peanut butter a day, or perhaps cream in their coffee. Sure, they might not be the most physically optimal things to eat, but at the end of the day its how shitty you feel that determines how shitty you'll rebound. Now I know, a lot of the physical influences the mental, and vice versa, but this is why I don't feel anyone should start with a coach who has a cookie cutter diet. EVEN if that cookie cutter diet has proven to be easy to follow for many, it doesn't mean easy to follow for all.

I've been against change in the past, but the way I look at it is how am I going to improve if I am not willing to change. So in the past 5 or so years of competing, I've gone through many different approaches. At the end of the day, all the diets worked, and for me, I'd have to say my best diet was the one where I didn't restrict ANY type of food. Literally eating complete 'no-no' foods (ex. candy, chocolate)... All pre-workout mind you, but it kept me going hard and strong. Some people have the weekly cheat for mental purposes. I think the daily cheat helped (me) in the same way. I haven't dieted like that since 2010, but I can almost guarantee you it will be the way I do things next time.

There are many videos out there that create bodybuilding as such a hardcore sport, he/she who suffers most will prevail, etc. It isn't about that. The sport is supposed to be healthy. Is it worth looking 1% better on showday to look 90% worse the rest of the year? Perhaps for some, and that's totally fine. Personally, I'd rather be somewhat grounded and seem at least a little less 'weird' to people who don't understand the sport. In fact, my last prep, not 1 person at work asked me if I was getting ready for a show. Goes to show you don't need to be an outcast for a few months just to get a trophy (mind you, I didn't get a trophy lol)...

[RandyMadsen]

More people need to adopt this way of thinking. Especially so with first time competitors, and female competitors. This whole idea of post show rebound has a whole lot more to do with the mind then it does with the body. Sure, putting your body through physical abuse isn't going to help, but as competitors, this is what we do. What you can control is how much deprivation you felt throughout your prep. For some, the mental deprivation comes from restricting carbs, for others, it could be something as simple as a spoonful of sugar filled peanut butter a day, or perhaps cream in their coffee. Sure, they might not be the most physically optimal things to eat, but at the end of the day its how shitty you feel that determines how shitty you'll rebound. Now I know, a lot of the physical influences the mental, and vice versa, but this is why I don't feel anyone should start with a coach who has a cookie cutter diet. EVEN if that cookie cutter diet has proven to be easy to follow for many, it doesn't mean easy to follow for all.

I've been against change in the past, but the way I look at it is how am I going to improve if I am not willing to change. So in the past 5 or so years of competing, I've gone through many different approaches. At the end of the day, all the diets worked, and for me, I'd have to say my best diet was the one where I didn't restrict ANY type of food. Literally eating complete 'no-no' foods (ex. candy, chocolate)... All pre-workout mind you, but it kept me going hard and strong. Some people have the weekly cheat for mental purposes. I think the daily cheat helped (me) in the same way. I haven't dieted like that since 2010, but I can almost guarantee you it will be the way I do things next time.

There are many videos out there that create bodybuilding as such a hardcore sport, he/she who suffers most will prevail, etc. It isn't about that. The sport is supposed to be healthy. Is it worth looking 1% better on showday to look 90% worse the rest of the year? Perhaps for some, and that's totally fine. Personally, I'd rather be somewhat grounded and seem at least a little less 'weird' to people who don't understand the sport. In fact, my last prep, not 1 person at work asked me if I was getting ready for a show. Goes to show you don't need to be an outcast for a few months just to get a trophy (mind you, I didn't get a trophy lol)...

This should be stickied

[Praetorian]

You might also want to point out this sentence: "The human body, however, is not a perfect engine, and thus the thermodynamics may not be so pure. "

you could also include the last sentence of the abstract:

"Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate."

Or the part where it said:

"Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an approximately equal to 2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment."


So yeah, a calorie is a calorie, but not really in the way people think it is. To each their own. People shouldn't necessarily diet based on what research shows is optimal. I diet in the way that is mentally optimal. Whatever I find easiest on the brain will surely result in the best I can look physically. This of course only relating to contest diet. Aside from that, I just eat whatever makes me feel best.


The human body is not a machine...it functions as an organism and many of its functions are controlled by hormones. The easiest way to see the difference is to eat 500 calories of carbohydrate compared to 500 calories of protein or 500 calories of fat...if a calorie is a calorie then the hormonal response would be the same. Run blood work after eating these different macros and you will see quite different results.

You can also look at it this way...those with a higher level of insulin resistance will have more trouble getting lean with the same amount of carbohydrate as those with much less insulin resistance, the calorie content being equal.



P

[Praetorian]

Some interesting reading...
P


RCTs showing significantly more weight loss with low carb diets

Shai I, et al. Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate, mediterranean, or low-fat diet. N Engl J Med 2008;359(3);229–41.
Gardner CD, et al. Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and learn Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal Women. The a to z Weight Loss Study: A Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2007;297:969–977.
Brehm BJ, et al. A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:1617–1623.
Samaha FF, et al. A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2074–81.
Sondike SB, et al. Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents. J Pediatr. 2003 Mar;142(3):253–8.
Aude YW, et al. The National Cholesterol Education Program Diet vs a Diet Lower in Carbohydrates and Higher in Protein and Monounsaturated Fat. A Randomized Trial. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2141–2146.
Volek JS, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism 2004, 1:13.
Yancy WS Jr, et al. A Low-Carbohydrate, Ketogenic Diet versus a Low-Fat Diet To Treat Obesity and Hyperlipidemia. A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:769–777.
Nichols-Richardsson SM, et al. Perceived Hunger Is Lower and Weight Loss Is Greater in Overweight Premenopausal Women Consuming a Low-Carbohydrate/High- Protein vs High-Carbohydrate/Low-Fat Diet. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105:1433–1437.
Krebs NF, et al. Efficacy and Safety of a High Protein, Low Carbohydrate Diet for Weight Loss in Severely Obese Adolescents. J Pediatr 2010;157:252-8.
Summer SS, et al. Adiponectin Changes in Relation to the Macronutrient Composition of a Weight-Loss Diet. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011 Mar 31. [Epub ahead of print]
Halyburton AK, et al. Low- and high-carbohydrate weight-loss diets have similar effects on mood but not cognitive performance. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;86:580–7.
Dyson PA, et al. A low-carbohydrate diet is more effective in reducing body weight than healthy eating in both diabetic and non-diabetic subjects. Diabet Med. 2007 Dec;24(12):1430-5.
Keogh JB, et al. Effects of weight loss from a very-low-carbohydrate diet on endothelial function and markers of cardiovascular disease risk in subjects with abdominal obesity. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:567–76.
Volek JS, et al. Carbohydrate Restriction has a More Favorable Impact on the Metabolic Syndrome than a Low Fat Diet. Lipids 2009;44:297–309.
Partsalaki I, et al. Metabolic impact of a ketogenic diet compared to a hypocaloric diet in obese children and adolescents. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2012;25(7-8):697-704.
Daly ME, et al. Short-term effects of severe dietary carbohydrate-restriction advice in Type 2 diabetes–a randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med. 2006 Jan;23(1):15–20.
Westman EC, et al. The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low- glycemic index diet on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nutr. Metab (Lond.)2008 Dec 19;5:36.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lustig-md/sugar-toxic_b_2759564.html

http://www.dietdoctor.com/new-analysis-lchf-best-for-long-term-weight-and-health

[Praetorian]

More people need to adopt this way of thinking. Especially so with first time competitors, and female competitors. This whole idea of post show rebound has a whole lot more to do with the mind then it does with the body. Sure, putting your body through physical abuse isn't going to help, but as competitors, this is what we do. What you can control is how much deprivation you felt throughout your prep. For some, the mental deprivation comes from restricting carbs, for others, it could be something as simple as a spoonful of sugar filled peanut butter a day, or perhaps cream in their coffee. Sure, they might not be the most physically optimal things to eat, but at the end of the day its how shitty you feel that determines how shitty you'll rebound. Now I know, a lot of the physical influences the mental, and vice versa, but this is why I don't feel anyone should start with a coach who has a cookie cutter diet. EVEN if that cookie cutter diet has proven to be easy to follow for many, it doesn't mean easy to follow for all.

I've been against change in the past, but the way I look at it is how am I going to improve if I am not willing to change. So in the past 5 or so years of competing, I've gone through many different approaches. At the end of the day, all the diets worked, and for me, I'd have to say my best diet was the one where I didn't restrict ANY type of food. Literally eating complete 'no-no' foods (ex. candy, chocolate)... All pre-workout mind you, but it kept me going hard and strong. Some people have the weekly cheat for mental purposes. I think the daily cheat helped (me) in the same way. I haven't dieted like that since 2010, but I can almost guarantee you it will be the way I do things next time.

There are many videos out there that create bodybuilding as such a hardcore sport, he/she who suffers most will prevail, etc. It isn't about that. The sport is supposed to be healthy. Is it worth looking 1% better on showday to look 90% worse the rest of the year? Perhaps for some, and that's totally fine. Personally, I'd rather be somewhat grounded and seem at least a little less 'weird' to people who don't understand the sport. In fact, my last prep, not 1 person at work asked me if I was getting ready for a show. Goes to show you don't need to be an outcast for a few months just to get a trophy (mind you, I didn't get a trophy lol)...


I would argue post show rebound has plenty to do with the body..mainly its ability to process an increased level of carbohydrate efficiently. Yes being diligent and not stuffing your face with the fallacy of supercompensation does go a long way but over 17 years of competing has taught me that it takes on average approx 6 weeks after a contest for the body to be able to process carbs as it did prior to dieting.

I do agree with you on that it is much better to diet and train smarter not necessarily harder. Too many competitors deprive themselves as you say of a Tbsp of cream in the coffee etc when the end result of this i not a better physique. When I prepare for a show most people around me would never know. I am not irritable or moody and I continue working an 8 hour day 40 hr week career in engineering as well as running a consulting business on the side and training 5 days per week with cardio etc. Ive learned over the years it is better to be efficient as opposed to killing yourself...especially true when it comes to contest training. This is a time not to be doing crazy shit and balls to the wall nonsense...that time has passed it called off season and it is something many competitors miss out on because they are not goal oriented early enough.

I also advocate staying much leaner off season to reduce insulin resistance, to make lean muscle growth easier, and to make dieting much easier when the time comes. All of my clients are encouraged to do blood work and all have been pleasantly surprised not only with fat loss or muscle gain but a healthier blood profile to boot.

P

[steve_d]

I would argue post show rebound has plenty to do with the body..mainly its ability to process an increased level of carbohydrate efficiently. Yes being diligent and not stuffing your face with the fallacy of supercompensation does go a long way but over 17 years of competing has taught me that it takes on average approx 6 weeks after a contest for the body to be able to process carbs as it did prior to dieting.

I do agree with you on that it is much better to diet and train smarter not necessarily harder. Too many competitors deprive themselves as you say of a Tbsp of cream in the coffee etc when the end result of this i not a better physique. When I prepare for a show most people around me would never know. I am not irritable or moody and I continue working an 8 hour day 40 hr week career in engineering as well as running a consulting business on the side and training 5 days per week with cardio etc. Ive learned over the years it is better to be efficient as opposed to killing yourself...especially true when it comes to contest training. This is a time not to be doing crazy shit and balls to the wall nonsense...that time has passed it called off season and it is something many competitors miss out on because they are not goal oriented early enough.

I also advocate staying much leaner off season to reduce insulin resistance, to make lean muscle growth easier, and to make dieting much easier when the time comes. All of my clients are encouraged to do blood work and all have been pleasantly surprised not only with fat loss or muscle gain but a healthier blood profile to boot.

P


Precisely... Post show, if you've dieted to a point where you're well below your comfortable body weight (most people), its going to take you a while to process carbs efficiently. Like you, its at least 6 weeks before I can feel 'normal' in that sense. And upwards of a few months. First timers aren't used to post show, and get scared to the point where they jump right back onto websites looking for another show to motivate them to begin their diet before they're ready to put in the abuse of yet another improper diet (that's another story altogether). That is why I say it is more mental than physical... We all share similar 'battles' to get our bodies physically back to full strength after a show. Some people rebound harder than others, and I feel the main difference here is almost always mental. Did they diet too hard? Did they needlessly deprive of simple things that wouldn't have made a difference either way. So depriving yourself of something that you perhaps value (ex. coffee cream) you're not helping your physique at all, yet you're just adding to the mental abuse your putting yourself through.

So yes, post show rebound is completely explained by biological processes - but whether or not you experience them depends completely on how your able to handle your own diet pre and post show. What I find really messed up about rebound is some people actually enjoy this!! Really... eating meticulous for months and then thinking you're going to gain 20 pounds of pure muscle in a week by stuffing your face with pizza and donuts? I understand its difficult for some to control - but seriously... I've seen so many people do it on purpose.... if you can't see your knees through that thick coat of edema, that wasn't 20 pounds of muscle.

[Praetorian]

So true Steve...the belief of gaining quick mass post contest is very prevalent nowadays...but its basically just an excuse to lose control.

P

[kindofabigdeal8]

It depends to what extent. If you have fill day of show you have already added 10lbs of glycogen minimum, which is perfectly normal. I agree that binge eating on Mcdonalds and ice cream a couple of days post show is ridiculous. As a mental release it is nice to have those 2-3 days where you can pick up some of the food normal people eat all the time; pasta,cookies,cake or whatever floats your boat. Afterwards I believe it is the best time to eat in a small surplus and clean bulk. I don't believe that this study speaks to low GI vs High GI carbohydrates but if one is to keep blood sugar stable, one can eat a good amount of calories and stay relatively lean post show. in my experience my best gains are always made 1-5 months post show and ironical during periods of intense exercise and caloric deficit i also seem to gain lean mass. I believe the body is just simply more efficient when at a low body fat, say 5-8 %. I have read journals that support this and will do some research once i leave the office.

[Praetorian]

Yes the body is more efficient at building lean mass when at a lower body fat level because it is directly related to insulin resistance. As most people go above 10% BF their level of insulin resistance increases and the amount of carbohydrate converted to triglyceride increases as opposed to being stored as glycogen. That is why bulking is never a good idea. The gains almost every guy makes post contest is much less than they think. Most is water and fat....you cannot force muscle tissue to grow any faster. Guys see they still have vascularity even though they continue to over eat and think its additional muscle...trust me it isn't. By the time their appetite decreases they have deposited too much fat and the result again is an increase in insulin resistance and the off season they think will create a lot more muscle just adds more fat. I have seen this hundreds of times and the proof is tat the following year they are the same weight on stage as the last. The key is to keep body fat levels lower post contest, be patient with muscle gains, and keep your diet in check along with scheduled refeeds.

P

[kindofabigdeal8]

Yes the body is more efficient at building lean mass when at a lower body fat level because it is directly related to insulin resistance. As most people go above 10% BF their level of insulin resistance increases and the amount of carbohydrate converted to triglyceride increases as opposed to being stored as glycogen. That is why bulking is never a good idea. The gains almost every guy makes post contest is much less than they think. Most is water and fat....you cannot force muscle tissue to grow any faster. Guys see they still have vascularity even though they continue to over eat and think its additional muscle...trust me it isn't. By the time their appetite decreases they have deposited too much fat and the result again is an increase in insulin resistance and the off season they think will create a lot more muscle just adds more fat. I have seen this hundreds of times and the proof is tat the following year they are the same weight on stage as the last. The key is to keep body fat levels lower post contest, be patient with muscle gains, and keep your diet in check along with scheduled refeeds.

P

refeeds like all you can eat sushi after Sunday leg day... lol

[Praetorian]

http://www.poliquingroup.com/ArticlesMultimedia/Articles/Article/894/Why_the_Calorie_Approach_to_Weight_Loss_Doesnt_Wor .aspx

P


A calorie-based weight loss system doesn't work for two principle reasons. First, the different macronutrients produce different hormone responses that directly influence the metabolic rate and whether the body is in a fat burning or storing mode.

Second, the amount of calories—known as the thermic effect of food— required for the body to break down different foods varies greatly. For a simple example, your body burns significantly more calories digesting a meal of animal protein and fibrous leafy greens than a meal of carbs such as pasta with tomato sauce. Even fewer calories are required to digest processed foods like cookies, white bread, or potato chips.

Macronutrients Dictate Hormone Responses
The first part of the faulty calorie system of weight loss is that the macronutrient ratios of your diet dictate hormone response. Carbohydrates, particularly those with a higher glycemic index, immediately increase the level of the hormone insulin. When you eat a lot of carbs—as is common in calorie-counting diets in which a person eats low-fat, high carb-foods—you will be consistently driving up insulin. Chronically elevated insulin makes the cells resistant to the insulin, which drives up levels of the stress hormone cortisol, causing cellular aging. The combination produce fat gain and diabetes.

If you were substituting protein and “smart” fats for a portion of those carbs, the protein would be used to restore tissue and build lean mass, while the fats would be used to strengthen cellular lipid layers to improve insulin sensitivity, restore brain health, and build hormones like testosterone. Of course it all goes wrong if you eat trans fats, processed protein or carbs, or foods with additives, dyes, and chemical sweeteners—I address the this below.

Calorie Restriction Alters Hormonal Response
Restricting calories to lose weight over the long term is more detrimental to your metabolism because it will turn your body into a hormone-induced hunger machine. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that after putting overweight individuals on a ten-week calorie-restricted diet of 550 calories a day, they experienced elevated levels of the hormones ghrelin, which stimulates hunger, and gastric inhibitory polypeptide, which promotes fat storage. Leptin, a hormone that suppresses hunger and boosts fat burning, was profoundly reduced after the ten-week diet and stayed that way for the duration of the one-year study.

Take note that after the ten-week diet, participants lost 30 pounds, but due to the way they had severely altered their metabolic hormone responses to food by restricting calories, they regained an average of 15 pounds in the next year.

The Thermic Effect of Food: Calories Are Stupid
A number of mainstream media outlets incorrectly (or stupidly) took the results of a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association proclaiming, “It’s the calories, stupid” that dictate body composition and weight gain. A close look at the study clarifies the misinterpretation and tells us exactly the opposite: it’s primarily the macronutrient content of the food you eat that dictates body composition, but if you overeat every day, then you will get fat.

The study compared the effect of overeating on body composition and fat gain from diets with three different protein contents. The thermic effect of the different diets was also measured, which is the amount of calories required to break down food, synthesize enzymes, and perform metabolic processes.

Participants ate either 5, 15, or 25 percent of their diet from protein with a whopping extra 954 calories a day for eight weeks. All the diets consisted of well over 3,000 calories a day and the macronutrient content was as follows:

• a “low” protein diet contained 5 percent protein, 52 percent fat, and 42 percent carbs

• a “normal” protein diet had 15 percent protein, 44 percent fat, and 42 percent carbs

• a “high” protein diet had 25 percent protein, 33 percent fat, and 41 percent carbs

All three groups gained the same amount of fat from the overeating—about 3.5 kg. The normal- and high-protein diet groups actually gained 0.2 kgs less than the low-protein group, but this was not statistically significant. What was most interesting was that the low-protein diet group gained the least total body weight because along with the 3.5 kg of fat gain, they lost almost a kilogram of muscle mass. The lack of amino acid building blocks in the diet put them into a severely catabolic, fat-storing state.

In comparison, the normal-protein diet group gained 2.9 kg of muscle mass and the high-protein diet group gained 3.4 kg of muscle. Therefore, along with the nearly 3.5 kg of fat they gained, the normal- and high-protein diets did produce more weight gain. But, from a body composition viewpoint, the normal- and high-protein diets were better even though participants gained more total weight than the low-protein group because their percentage of body fat went down.

Most significant, this study shows the extreme variation in the amount of calories burned on a daily basis from eating different proportions of macronutrients. The resting metabolic rate (RMR) is the amount of calories burned at rest during the day, and it’s highly influenced by dietary makeup and the thermic effect of food. The group that ate the low-protein diet experienced a 2 percent drop in their metabolic rate, meaning they burned less calories each day just from eating a low-protein diet.

In contrast, the normal- and high-protein diets increased RMR by 11 percent in response to the higher protein intake. This meant that by eating more protein, more of the energy consumed was turned into lean mass, and only about 50 percent of the energy consumed was turned into fat. Researchers estimate that more than 90 percent of the energy consumed in the low-protein group was turned into fat.

Whole and Processed Calories Aren’t the Same Either
A second study shows that the RMR and the thermic effect of eating whole foods is much higher than if you ate the exact same amount of calories from processed foods. This study compared the effect of a whole foods meal with a processed foods meal that contained equal calories and equal macronutrient content.

The thermic effect of the whole food meal was almost double that of the processed food meal. Participants burned 50 percent more calories after eating whole foods! Equally significant is that the participants who ate the processed food meal had their metabolic rates drop below their average RMR during the fourth hour after eating, while the whole food meal group never fell below the RMR. Also the duration of elevated energy expenditure from digestion in the whole food meal group lasted an hour longer than the processed food group.

Still Not Convinced? Check Out What Happened to the Pima Indians
The Pima Indians, natives of Arizona, provide a classic example of how body composition is affected by much more than just the amount of calories ingested each day. The Pima Indians have genotypically evolved eating a low number of calories, primarily from fish, small game, and foods they gathered. As early as 1901, a new “obesity epidemic” was evident among the Pima.

Local scientists who lived in the region were stumped as to why this indigenous group that had previously been “tall and sinewy” were now plagued by widespread obesity. More recent analysis has shown that shortly after the Pima came in contact with white settlers and adopted their foods—both foods that they began to grow such as corn, beans, potatoes, and processed foods like sugar, bread, and eventually soda—obesity became very common as did type 2 diabetes.

Analysis of changes in the Pima diet shows that the Pima were not overeating or ingesting more calories than previously when they adopted the “white man’s” diet of sugar, bread, starchy foods, eggs, and beef rather than fish and small game. Nor was their caloric intake greater than the amount of energy they burned on a daily basis. Rather, the Pima were eating the wrong type of calories for their genotype and it was causing a hormonal response that led to fat gain and diabetes.

For optimal body composition, the solution to any remaining confusion about how to adopt a diet for fat loss is to understand the following:

• A protein calorie is NOT the same as a carbohydrate calorie.

• The thermic effect of different macronutrients varies just as the thermic effect of processed foods is much less than of whole foods.

• Macronutrient ratios will determine hormone response.

• The total amount of calories you eat in a day DO matter for body composition—if you are overeating as in the study that had participants eating an extra 954 calories a day, you will gain weight, but whether that weight results in fat or muscle gain depends on macronutrient ratios.

• If you aren’t overeating, simply altering the macronutrient ratios to manage insulin and the hormone response of food can lead to fat loss and significantly improve body composition.

• Spot reduction works because fat deposits are related to hormone makeup. The hormone receptor sites are located on different spots of your body. This is a primary principle of the Poliquin™ BioSignature Modulation.

[TT Eric]

It pretty nails it!

One thing though that surprise me, he said ''Of course it all goes wrong if you eat trans fats, processed protein or carbs, or foods with additives, dyes, and chemical sweeteners''! If I understand well he then puts whey protein as bad... ?

Eric

[Praetorian]

Processed protein I would assume would be things like deli meats etc not whey.

P

[TT Eric]

Ok make sense! Thanks.

Eric

[steve_d]

The Thermic Effect of Food: Calories Are Stupid
A number of mainstream media outlets incorrectly (or stupidly) took the results of a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association proclaiming, “It’s the calories, stupid” that dictate body composition and weight gain.

I don't understand why people are so quick to jump on the way the media (in this case Time Magazine) reports what was found in this article. Sure, the title itself is a bit misleading, but the article was actually pretty accurate to the findings. For instance, she wrote:

"When researchers looked more closely at how that excess weight was materializing — using whole-body scanners to gauge changes in the participants’ body fat and lean mass — they found that all three groups had gained the same amount of fat, 7.7 lbs. That means that although the low-protein group had gained less weight overall, their gain consisted almost entirely of fat (they also lost about 1.5 lbs. of lean body mass like muscle — which is not a good thing) while the other two groups gained both fat and lean body mass."

she also writes:

“The composition of what you eat isn’t important for determining what happens to your fat stores — only the calories,” says Bray, but “one of the things this study shows is that our handling of protein and our handling of calories can be separated. [Protein] does some very different things than what the total calories do.”

So why is everyone talking down on this? She merely wrote that it was the total calories that dictates the fat storage, which in this case was completely true. The only difference was the the higher protein gained muscle, while the lower protein group had lost on average. So technically speaking, the study DOES say that the calories dictate FAT gain.

I read through the study, was very controlled, although, I am surprised they didn't control it even further and just select men (or women) only, as well as narrowing the age range, or race to only include a single race. While the results are biologically plausible, I still question biases introduced in the study. They do comment on this in the limitations, and suggest the results may be generalizable despite imbalances. Figure 3 supports that conclusion.

High protein group was older, and normal protein group was all black (plus 1 asian), whereas the low protein group were younger and had the highest number of whites of the 3 groups. Also, the low protein group weighed quite a bit less on average at baseline. The study was randomized, so they were hoping for balance here, but it did not happen. Some issues with study design in my opinion, but better than most. They would not have the power to adjust for things like race, or age due to small sample. One could argue that the fact that the low protein group gained a higher proportion of their initial bodyweight as fat - and therefore it was NOT the same in all 3 groups (aside from the fact that they still wouldn't have had the power to show that with this small sample). Because the low protein group weighed less, their maintenance was less, and they ate on average 10% fewer calories at baseline, and throughout. So one would expect their gains to also be smaller in the same proportion. In that case, had they adjusted for baseline intake, the fat gain would look more like 4kg vs. 3.4 vs. 3.4. Which like I said, still not statistically significant due to power limitation, but probably clinically relevant, and all of a sudden the conclusions begin to change.... IE, I would rather have seen % changes rather than absolute. Might have changed some of the interpretations.

[steve_d]

PS: Charles P in this case stretched the truth a bit. Time didn't say that calories dictate body composition. If you read the Time article, it mirrors what was said in the study. Calories dictate fat gain.

Although, as pointed out above, I am not in agreement with the full results of the study, or Times interpretation. Although If anything, that would mean I am in more agreement with the fact that diet effects body composition, since the results of the study underestimates the fat increase and lean tissue loss. The fact that lighter people gained even the same fat, and lost more muscle, that shows the effect is even more likely.

[Praetorian]

[Protein] does some very different things than what the total calories do.”

From the study...the same can be said for carbs. Thus the calories from each are not equal..hence the point a calorie is not a calorie.

I understand that the interpretation of studies is not always accurate hence my view on using them exclusively when other evidence exists. The tendency however to discount the hormonal effect of food is a mistake when it comes to fat loss, muscle gain, or body composition in general.

P