[quote]The Rattler wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. The alleged “success” stories can probably be explained away by a more careful analysis of the energy balance. Just think how error-prone the whole process of calorie estimation is.
Also, remember that talking in terms of calories is too vague. While quite trivial, many people still don’t get the “a calorie is not a calorie” idea. Always talk in terms of macros. That applies to the input AND output side of the energy balance. [/quote]
I agree that there is probably a lot more to the G-Flux theory than simply maintaining the same net calories albeit with higher numbers on both sides of the equation.
A lot of people tend to ignore the fact that the human body expends a lot more calories actually digesting certain macros compared to others. A 3000 calorie diet with a very high ratio of protein to fat will yield a much different physique (all else being equal of course) than a 3000 calorie diet with the opposite ratio, high fat and low protein.
It’s never really about what you ingest, it’s about what you digest.
(Hey, I just made up a rhyme!)
While I’m not saying one way or another that it’s a good idea, I will say that I’ve had success with very little cardio and lower nutrients and I’ve had success with much more cardio and much higher nutrients.
I think we should have a separate thread expelling some broscience myths about metabolism. I think many people confuse things related to it. A good example are the things our local cheeseburger expert mentioned in this very thread.[/quote]
I would be very interested in such a thread if you’d want to make one, InfiniteShore[/quote]
x2. What myth/myths are you referring to? [/quote]
I will make a thread about it when I have some more time available. Not sure when that it is.