How Does this Effect Body Fat and Weight?

[Smashingweights]

If we are talking about dieting to losing bodyfat then the lifter who is able to eat/burn the 800 extra calories will be in a better position than the 400 calorie lifter.

The focus SHOULD be on eating as many calories as possible while continuing to drop fat.
If both lifters hypothetical maintenance level caloric intake is 2,800 the. Lifter A will have more wiggle room with his 3,600 calories than lifter B will have with his 3,200 calories.

Also, doing more work (overtraining BS aside) is not a bad thing as long as you are consuming the calories to support it (which is happening in this hypothetical scenario)

[Smashingweights]

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand it.

[infinite_shore]

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand it.[/quote]

Ok, then please explain to me what the physical (not psychological) pathway of G-flux is that cannot simply be explained by the application of the energy balance model. Because if the energy balance model applies and we properly formulate the idea behind the original thought experiment, then I don’t see how there should be a difference between the two.

[Smashingweights]

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand it.[/quote]

Ok, then please explain to me what the physical (not psychological) pathway of G-flux is that cannot simply be explained by the application of the energy balance model. Because if the energy balance model applies and we properly formulate the idea behind the original thought experiment, then I don’t see how there should be a difference between the two.[/quote]
If you don’t see how training more is better than training less then there isn’t much to say.

[ryanbCXG]

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand it.[/quote]

Ok, then please explain to me what the physical (not psychological) pathway of G-flux is that cannot simply be explained by the application of the energy balance model. Because if the energy balance model applies and we properly formulate the idea behind the original thought experiment, then I don’t see how there should be a difference between the two.[/quote]

Energy balance when applied to body is completely faulty

[ryanbCXG]

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand it.[/quote]

Ok, then please explain to me what the physical (not psychological) pathway of G-flux is that cannot simply be explained by the application of the energy balance model. Because if the energy balance model applies and we properly formulate the idea behind the original thought experiment, then I don’t see how there should be a difference between the two.[/quote]
If you don’t see how training more is better than training less then there isn’t much to say.[/quote]

X2

[infinite_shore]

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand it.[/quote]

Ok, then please explain to me what the physical (not psychological) pathway of G-flux is that cannot simply be explained by the application of the energy balance model. Because if the energy balance model applies and we properly formulate the idea behind the original thought experiment, then I don’t see how there should be a difference between the two.[/quote]

Energy balance when applied to body is completely faulty
[/quote]

What evidence suggests that? Perhaps you don’t understand the model fully.

[infinite_shore]

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand it.[/quote]

Ok, then please explain to me what the physical (not psychological) pathway of G-flux is that cannot simply be explained by the application of the energy balance model. Because if the energy balance model applies and we properly formulate the idea behind the original thought experiment, then I don’t see how there should be a difference between the two.[/quote]

If you don’t see how training more is better than training less then there isn’t much to say.[/quote]

Huh? I think we are not on the same page here, but if don’t care (or can’t) answer my question, then so be it.

[chillain]

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.

On a most basic level, a muscle develops in proportion to the calories that it burns through. Enter frequency, progressive overload to continue development and so on.

Extrapolate that to the whole body and there’s simply no way that ‘taking in less + doing less’ is even remotely comparable.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it. Your explanation, however, doesn’t help me. Firstly, I don’t agree with your statement “muscle develops in proportion to the calories that it burns through”. If true, wouldn’t it imply that long-distance cycling would give me better leg hypertrophy than squatting heavy, since I would certainly burn a shitload more calories in my quads. Secondly, even if true I don’t immediately see the big implications - seems like “handwaving”.
[/quote]

Its a good point and so that earlier claim should be more specific: kcals burned through (progressively increasing) training against resistance, something like that.

This is the only way in which muscle density, muscle maturity is achieved. (ie. as a fxn of high-intensity expenditure)

And this is why long-distance/endurance-type training that you brought up isn’t a legit counterexample.

[chillain]

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Energy balance when applied to body is completely faulty
[/quote]

And there’s also this.

Though I’d prob call it ‘vastly oversimplified’ which can lead to faulty conclusions, rather than faulty all on its own.

[Smashingweights]

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand it.[/quote]

Ok, then please explain to me what the physical (not psychological) pathway of G-flux is that cannot simply be explained by the application of the energy balance model. Because if the energy balance model applies and we properly formulate the idea behind the original thought experiment, then I don’t see how there should be a difference between the two.[/quote]

If you don’t see how training more is better than training less then there isn’t much to say.[/quote]

Huh? I think we are not on the same page here, but if don’t care (or can’t) answer my question, then so be it. [/quote]
You said that you don’t see a difference between someone who can eat 800 cals over maintenance and burns it via exercise VS someone who eats 400 calories over maintenance and burns it via exercise right?

You don’t see what the benefits of being able to eat more calories and exercise more are?

[infinite_shore]

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand it.[/quote]

Ok, then please explain to me what the physical (not psychological) pathway of G-flux is that cannot simply be explained by the application of the energy balance model. Because if the energy balance model applies and we properly formulate the idea behind the original thought experiment, then I don’t see how there should be a difference between the two.[/quote]

If you don’t see how training more is better than training less then there isn’t much to say.[/quote]

Huh? I think we are not on the same page here, but if don’t care (or can’t) answer my question, then so be it. [/quote]

You said that you don’t see a difference between someone who can eat 800 cals over maintenance and burns it via exercise VS someone who eats 400 calories over maintenance and burns it via exercise right?

You don’t see what the benefits of being able to eat more calories and exercise more are?
[/quote]

Well, I do understand where you are coming from (similar to Chill’s point I suppose), but it rests on a number of assumptions that are not obviously true. Also, it depends on what goal we are talking about here. I was thinking about fat loss and not body composition changes via hypertrophy (relative decrease in bf%). That is why I said my point was valid only IF the original thought experiment was defined more precisely.

[ryanbCXG]

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand it.[/quote]

Ok, then please explain to me what the physical (not psychological) pathway of G-flux is that cannot simply be explained by the application of the energy balance model. Because if the energy balance model applies and we properly formulate the idea behind the original thought experiment, then I don’t see how there should be a difference between the two.[/quote]

Energy balance when applied to body is completely faulty
[/quote]

What evidence suggests that? Perhaps you don’t understand the model fully. [/quote]

Please explain it then and show me I’m wrong

[myself1992]

You’re eating at maintenance in both cases so assuming that weight training remains the same in both scenarios then for bodybuilding purposes I don’t think it’d matter which you do.

[infinite_shore]

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand it.[/quote]

Ok, then please explain to me what the physical (not psychological) pathway of G-flux is that cannot simply be explained by the application of the energy balance model. Because if the energy balance model applies and we properly formulate the idea behind the original thought experiment, then I don’t see how there should be a difference between the two.[/quote]

Energy balance when applied to body is completely faulty
[/quote]

What evidence suggests that? Perhaps you don’t understand the model fully. [/quote]

Please explain it then and show me I’m wrong [/quote]

Haha. Brilliant argumentation tactic. I think it is your turn here. It would be a lot easier for you to point out what the model cannot explain in your opinion, than that I show that the full model does a pretty damn good job.

[ryanbCXG]

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand it.[/quote]

Ok, then please explain to me what the physical (not psychological) pathway of G-flux is that cannot simply be explained by the application of the energy balance model. Because if the energy balance model applies and we properly formulate the idea behind the original thought experiment, then I don’t see how there should be a difference between the two.[/quote]

Energy balance when applied to body is completely faulty
[/quote]

What evidence suggests that? Perhaps you don’t understand the model fully. [/quote]

Please explain it then and show me I’m wrong [/quote]

Haha. Brilliant argumentation tactic. I think it is your turn here. It would be a lot easier for you to point out what the model cannot explain in your opinion, than that I show that the full model does a pretty damn good job.[/quote]

It’s been pointed out by many ppl that you can rearrange macros with no change in energy intake or output and they can progress further in weight loss. Wow that was hard. Thanks for your time. Great discussion. I was hoping you were actually gonna provide some support and maybe I could learn something…guess not

[infinite_shore]

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand it.[/quote]

Ok, then please explain to me what the physical (not psychological) pathway of G-flux is that cannot simply be explained by the application of the energy balance model. Because if the energy balance model applies and we properly formulate the idea behind the original thought experiment, then I don’t see how there should be a difference between the two.[/quote]

Energy balance when applied to body is completely faulty
[/quote]

What evidence suggests that? Perhaps you don’t understand the model fully. [/quote]

Please explain it then and show me I’m wrong [/quote]

Haha. Brilliant argumentation tactic. I think it is your turn here. It would be a lot easier for you to point out what the model cannot explain in your opinion, than that I show that the full model does a pretty damn good job.[/quote]

It’s been pointed out by many ppl that you can rearrange macros with no change in energy intake or output and they can progress further in weight loss. Wow that was hard. Thanks for your time. Great discussion. I was hoping you were actually gonna provide some support and maybe I could learn something…guess not[/quote]

That does not contradict the model at all, only people’s dumbed down interpretation of it. As I suspected, you seem to only have an overly simplified idea of the model in mind. You should read up about it - it’s not a bad model and should certainly not be so easily dismissed.

[ryanbCXG]

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand it.[/quote]

Ok, then please explain to me what the physical (not psychological) pathway of G-flux is that cannot simply be explained by the application of the energy balance model. Because if the energy balance model applies and we properly formulate the idea behind the original thought experiment, then I don’t see how there should be a difference between the two.[/quote]

Energy balance when applied to body is completely faulty
[/quote]

What evidence suggests that? Perhaps you don’t understand the model fully. [/quote]

Please explain it then and show me I’m wrong [/quote]

Haha. Brilliant argumentation tactic. I think it is your turn here. It would be a lot easier for you to point out what the model cannot explain in your opinion, than that I show that the full model does a pretty damn good job.[/quote]

It’s been pointed out by many ppl that you can rearrange macros with no change in energy intake or output and they can progress further in weight loss. Wow that was hard. Thanks for your time. Great discussion. I was hoping you were actually gonna provide some support and maybe I could learn something…guess not[/quote]

That does not contradict the model at all, only people’s dumbed down interpretation of it. As I suspected, you seem to only have an overly simplified idea of the model in mind. You should read up about it - it’s not a bad model and should certainly not be so easily dismissed.[/quote]

Again I will ask nicely plz elaborate

[infinite_shore]

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I don’t believe in the idea behind G-flux. [/quote]

Then you must not understand it.
[/quote]

Perhaps I don’t understand it.
[/quote]

You don’t understand it.[/quote]

Ok, then please explain to me what the physical (not psychological) pathway of G-flux is that cannot simply be explained by the application of the energy balance model. Because if the energy balance model applies and we properly formulate the idea behind the original thought experiment, then I don’t see how there should be a difference between the two.[/quote]

Energy balance when applied to body is completely faulty
[/quote]

What evidence suggests that? Perhaps you don’t understand the model fully. [/quote]

Please explain it then and show me I’m wrong [/quote]

Haha. Brilliant argumentation tactic. I think it is your turn here. It would be a lot easier for you to point out what the model cannot explain in your opinion, than that I show that the full model does a pretty damn good job.[/quote]

It’s been pointed out by many ppl that you can rearrange macros with no change in energy intake or output and they can progress further in weight loss. Wow that was hard. Thanks for your time. Great discussion. I was hoping you were actually gonna provide some support and maybe I could learn something…guess not[/quote]

That does not contradict the model at all, only people’s dumbed down interpretation of it. As I suspected, you seem to only have an overly simplified idea of the model in mind. You should read up about it - it’s not a bad model and should certainly not be so easily dismissed.[/quote]

Again I will ask nicely plz elaborate[/quote]

Well, you can easily formulate the balance equation in terms of macros (IN and OUT) and not simply in terms of calories. As a result, the idea behind the “a calorie isn’t a calorie” proposition is not a problem anymore for the model. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to go into all the nifty details. Too much work + there are probably better sources.

[Airtruth]

There’s a huge difference. Rome wasn’t built in a day, if they tried to they would’ve been tired, made mistakes and ended up with twisted and messed up foundations.