HA literally read this an hour ago - you're right, good article.
It is a great article, but I think people get carried away with dissing "calories in vs calories out".
It should be clear to anyone that that's only PART of the equation, but it certainly can't be dismissed as not mattering AT ALL.
Very good piece though....
I was just about to post this too. I really like reading Kiefer's articles.
totally unrelated to this thread, but ive been trying to find that DAA thread where i read your post and i cant find it. anyway, im 1 week into the stack you were on, DAA, DS AX and TZ. omg what an insane stack lol.
Please detail that stack?
Yes, a calorie is not a calorie, but it's the end result in vs out that most people refer to.
I see his logic and don't disagree, but I think he's missing the final piece in the end they all agree.
Not sure if that makes sense, lol.
Great article but he didn't have to be so douchey.
Average article but it argues against what is mostly a strawman (AKA a common misunderstanding of what Energy Balance implies).
A MUCH, MUCH better article is Lyle Mcdonald's article on the Energy Balance equation as related to humans and what it means and what it doesn't.
Another good article that people should read is this:
It clarifies how caloric values are calculated for food right now and several other systems of calculating useable food energy that aren't being currently used (but are possibly better estimates).
Lyle McDonalds article is hardly great, and Kiefer is drawing far more logical conclusions both in his article and in their argument in the comments.
Then again I haven't seen any convincing arguments from Lyle about Energy Balance, his shots at Gary Taubes' work have been equally weak.
Honestly, they both have points. As usual, the truth of the matter lies somewhere between the two extremes, and for purely academic purposes it's a very interesting article/discussion.
Thing is a lot of the minutia isn't going to really matter when it comes to dropping fat. It does not need to be that complicated. As a discussion about the science of your bodies utilization of macronutrients it's great though. I'm enjoying it....
Thanks for posting the link IC. : )
Lyle is incredibly smart..but, this sentiment is not shared much on this particular board.
It is by me. I like Lyle's work a lot. I think anyone that has a passion for nutrition science is missing out by not reading his stuff. Is Lyle cantankerous? Fuck yea, but he's no dummy.
Yeah, although I haven't read it in a while, I seem to remember Lyles article being more thorough.
Ironically, if you have a good understanding of the topics they are talking about, they are mostly in agreement.
True - it's really just Kiefer placing greater importance on thermic effects....
The big difference I see between their two perspectives (they are both mentioning many of the same concepts) is that Lyle is trying to argue that Energy Balance still applies, that the calculation is just far more complex than what you typically see whereas Kiefer seems to be pretty much saying that thinking Energy In = Energy Out effectively is useless.
I have to wonder, how anyone could realistically apply an equation like
to achieve desired results... Even with all the resources and closest monitoring possible, you'd still be mostly guessing on a lot of these numbers, the average person certainly would have absolutely no use for a calculation like this when it comes to losing fat.
The equation becomes useless, even for the most controlled, monitored athlete, nobody could ever apply it and I personally don't think anyone needs to give it a huge amount of consideration when they want to lose body fat. There are more important factors, macronutrient ratios make the biggest difference for me when it comes to how much body fat I'm carrying, not the sheer number of calories ingested.
3000 calories from Protein and Fat are metabolized very differently from 3000 calories of sugar, or even 2000 calories of Protein/Fat and 1000 calories of sugar.
Started at 6g DAA a day (3g in the AM, 3g in the PM) 6 AX a day spread out into three doses along with 4 LX a day spread out as well. Two weeks in I started running he TZ at 6 a day. Yes it is a great stack. I would stagger the AX, LX and TZ to where after four weeks your are off the AX and LX for two weeks but still running the TZ. By the time you come off the TZ your are back on the AX and LX. Basically repeat for 12 weeks then come off a while. The first time I just ran the DAA for the four weeks on the AX and LX, but I'm doing it again this time staying on the DAA the whole time. Hope that helps.
NOt to sound like a retart, but can you tell me what the initials stand for?
I know what DAA is.