T Nation

Isn't This a High Calorie Breakfast?

Threads like theses are why I don’t read anything outside of T-cell, Thib’s Q&A, and some articles here and there … 300andabove, why do you even bother?

[quote]300andabove wrote:
zraw wrote:
300andabove wrote:

1g per lb LEAN body mass of FAT

of which 20% come from oils

[/quote]

had you said that I would’ve stfu… which is what you seemed to want to say.

I take about 12-15g fish oil/day

34g of fish oil vs 34g of oils is not the same thing…

[quote]Rippemanewone wrote:
Really wherever the calories fall so be it?

Im pretty sure a month ago when i asked everyone on here if calories were necessary for muscle growth everyone agreed. Now your telling me that calories pretty much dont matter as long as i get at least 250g of protein in me?

Ever since the people here have been telling me to eat alot of calories with carbs i have been gaining mass. Cause without calories the protein has no way of getting to the muscle. Correct?

And if im not mistaken, Protein Burns Calories[/quote]

I may be starting a massive forumite war here but in MY opinion… calories are NOT a good way of measuring your daily needs.

How do we answer the apparently simple question: How many calories are there in an item of food?

Despite supermarkets’ labels, natural food products can vary widely from item to item. An early season fruit, for example, may be much lower in sugar than one from the peak of the season; a green banana is mostly starch, while an overripe one is mostly sugar. See the problem ?

Secondly how much energy do you use when you do something? If you walk a mile to work you will use less energy than someone else who walks the same distance, but weighs more. If you do it quicker your energy usage will differ from someone doing it slowly. The problem with this approach is that you cannot know how much energy to take in. Neither can you know how much you are using.

If you take the a calorie is a calorie is a calorie no matter where it comes from, this means that if you eat X number of calories more than you use up, you will put on Y amount of weight, wherever those calories come from. However, as has been demonstrated over and over again from many studies looking at diets with equal calorie content, but different constituents, this is far from true. Dieters on fat-based diets consistently lost much more weight than dieters on carb-based diets, even though both diets had exactly the same number of calories. I mean try diet down with high carb, low fat and get back to me lol. A carbohydrate calorie is obviously much more fattening than a fat calorie. So obviously some calories don’t count as much as others.

Where all the calorie business started and i have studied this for so long my brain hurts is that the answer seems to lie in the nutritionists and regulatorys bodies implicit belief in the First Law of Thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely changed.

Around the end of the nineteenth century, doctors devised a simple concept based on the First Law of Thermodynamics. They likened the body to a tank, into one end of which energy is poured in the form of food. This, they said was then either used up or stored. If you used up more than you poured in, you got thinner and if you poured in more than you used, you got fatter. The theory was easy to understand, made sense, obeyed the laws of physics, and for a while it seemed satisfactory. Dieticians could now say, apparently with scientific backing, that fat people must either be eating too much or working too little.

By the start of the 1914-18 war, however, doubts were creeping in. For instance, diabetes is a defect of carbohydrate metabolism and the treatment for diabetics at that time involved completely depriving them of carbohydrate. In this case, scientists found that the energy input/energy output sums simply did not add up.

In the 1950s, isotope techniques were developed which allowed more accurate measurement of body fat turnover. In addition, it was demonstrated that different foods could alter the amounts of body fat; and that body fat could also be affected by certain responsive glands ? the adrenal, thyroid and pituitary glands ? even when energy intake was constant.

The fact that high-energy diets are more effective for reducing weight has proved very difficult for dieticians and doctors to accept, because of what looks like a challenge to the laws of thermodynamics. If you read Mr. Berardis G-Flux article that will give you a clue to where this leads.

The calorie is a unit of heat. The way the energy content of a food is determined is by burning it in a device called a ‘bomb calorimeter’ and measuring the amount of heat it gives off.

One gram of carbohydrate, burnt in this way gives an energy value of 4.2 calories, or more correctly kilocalories (kcals). A gram of protein gives 5.25 kcals. This time, however, one calorie is deducted because a gram of protein does not oxidise readily, it gives rise to urea and other products which must be subtracted. That gives a final figure for protein of 4.25 kcals. Burning a gram of fat in the bomb calorimeter gives 9.2 kcals.

These figures are then rounded to the nearest whole number ? 4, 4 and 9 respectively ? see where this is going yet ?

But there are two basic flaws in using these figures to determine the amounts of food we should eat:

  1. The more obvious flaw in the argument is that our bodies do not burn foods in the same way that they are burned in a bomb calorimeter. If they did, we would glow in the dark. Our digestive process is quite inefficient. The chemical process whereby blood sugar is oxidised to provide energy produces carbon dioxide. About half is exhaled as carbon dioxide, the other half is excreted in sweat, urine and faeces as energy-containing molecules, the energy values of which must be deducted from the original food intake. All of these vary. For example, eating a lot of fat forms ketones, which can be found in urine. The value of a gram of ketones derived from fat is roughly four calories. So, in this case, nearly half the energy from the fat is lost.

  2. The second and more important flaw in the argument is that the body does not use all its food to provide energy. The primary function of dietary proteins, for example, is body cell manufacture and repair: making skin, blood, hair and finger- and toe-nails, etc. The amount of protein needed for this purpose is generally accepted to be about one gram per kilogram of lean body weight. As meats contain approximately 23 grams of protein per 100 grams, a person weighing, say, 70 kg (11 stone) needs to eat about 300 g (11 oz) of meat, or its equivalent, every day just to supply his basic protein needs. Even eating this volume of lean chicken would provide some 465 calories. These calories are not used to supply energy, they contribute nothing to the body’s calorie needs and so must be deducted if you are counting calories.

Much of the fat we eat is also used to provide materials used by the body in processes other than the production of energy: the manufacture of bile acids and hormones, the essential fatty acids for the brain and nervous system, and so on. All these must be deducted as well. Thus trying to determine, from food intake and energy expenditure alone, how much excess energy your body will store as fat will give a completely wrong answer. However, these other factors cannot be measured. Therefore, calorie-counting, which is the foundation of practically every modern slimming diet, is a complete waste of time.

Over the last century a spate of dietary studies has shown that, calorie for calorie, low-carbohydrate diets are much better at reducing weight than the traditional low-fat diets. Started by Palumbo/Gironda/Atkins et al.

‘Experts’ have heavily criticised these studies saying that the data could not be right because that would violate the laws of thermodynamics. But they don’t. It is important to realise that there is more than one law of thermodynamics. The narrow view that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ might comply with the First Law, but it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The First Law, as mentioned above, is a conservation law. The Second Law is a dissipation law; it is this Second Law which governs the chemical reactions in our bodies.

To borrow a guys words and he is MILES ahead of where i could ever hope to be. Using his analogy as follows ----

The energy in the petrol that fuels your car makes the car go along, but it also produces heat through friction and noise, which we really don’t need. The Second Law is all about efficiency ? how much of the energy we put in does useful work and how much is wasted. Thus, although all of the energy in the petrol is accounted for and complies with the First Law, the actual moving of the car, if the waste products (heat and noise) are removed from the equation, does not. The Second Law was developed in this context. And it applies equally when we look at the efficiency of our bodies and how different foods affect our bodies. The Second Law says that no machine is completely efficient: Some of the available energy is lost as heat or in the internal rearrangement of chemical compounds and other changes. And as different foods use different metabolic pathways, with different levels of efficiency, variations in efficiency must be expected. For this reason, the dogma that a ‘calorie is a calorie’ violates the second law of thermodynamics as a matter of principle.
he different chemical changes within our bodies. When these a
It is the differences in chemical changes within our bodies that make low-carb diets better than low-fat, calorie-controlled ones easier to lose weight on. What the diet dictocrats fail to take into consideration when considering the laws of thermodynamics are the energy losses incurred in tre taken into consideration, neither law of thermodynamics is violated.

And, if you eat the right foods, you can forget all about counting calories.

Most of this work, is available from Pub Med and other assorted nutritonal sites/notes et al.

So now you see why many frontline new age so to speak nutritionists are moving away from “a calorie is a calorie”

What i outlined above provides:

ALL your essential amino acid needs, obviously the more training cardio/weights etc etc will need more so adjust as you go.

ALL of your essential fatty acid requirments and again adjust due to training.

And carbs are completely up to your metabalism/ energy needs.

[quote]zraw wrote:
300andabove wrote:
zraw wrote:
300andabove wrote:

1g per lb LEAN body mass of FAT

of which 20% come from oils

had you said that I would’ve stfu… which is what you seemed to want to say.

I take about 12-15g fish oil/day

34g of fish oil vs 34g of oils is not the same thing…
[/quote]

Apologies, i have spent most of the day writing and typing and writing my brain gets a little fried come evening time here in the UK.

Sorry for the confusion, its getting a bit hectic in college at the moment i seem to be writing confusing things last few days.

Again apologies about that.

[quote]300andabove wrote:
The other 2 “portions” pale in comparison to protein !!!

Look instead of calories do this:

1.5g/lb of body mass of PROTEIN

1g per lb LEAN body mass of FAT

of which 20% come from fish oil


Carbs are up to how you deal with them.

Wherever the calories fall so be it !!![/quote]

please explain how you came up with that method of determining fat intake.

using the protein and fat numbers you suggested, that works out to fat making up over 50% of maintenance caloric intake (calculated at BWx15) for a 200 lb person at 12% bodyfat (176 lbs lbm).

what possible explanation can you come up with that would justify such a number? that barely leaves room for enough fruits and veggies, not to mention things like rice, oats, sweet potatoes, or anything else.

to the OP: that breakfast is fine, but remember bodies arent build at a single meal.

rather than focusing on what you eat at a single meal, focus on whether you hit your calorie/macro numbers at the end of each day.

[quote]Rippemanewone wrote:
And if im not mistaken, Protein Burns Calories[/quote]

no, protein contains calories. you burn calories.

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
300andabove wrote:
The other 2 “portions” pale in comparison to protein !!!

Look instead of calories do this:

1.5g/lb of body mass of PROTEIN

1g per lb LEAN body mass of FAT

of which 20% come from fish oil


Carbs are up to how you deal with them.

Wherever the calories fall so be it !!!

please explain how you came up with that method of determining fat intake.

using the protein and fat numbers you suggested, that works out to fat making up over 50% of maintenance caloric intake (calculated at BWx15) for a 200 lb person at 12% bodyfat (176 lbs lbm).

what possible explanation can you come up with that would justify such a number? that barely leaves room for enough fruits and veggies, not to mention things like rice, oats, sweet potatoes, or anything else.

to the OP: that breakfast is fine, but remember bodies arent build at a single meal.

rather than focusing on what you eat at a single meal, focus on whether you hit your calorie/macro numbers at the end of each day.[/quote]

And where did you get the BW * 15 from lol ??

[quote]300andabove wrote:

Apologies, i have spent most of the day writing and typing and writing my brain gets a little fried come evening time here in the UK.

Sorry for the confusion, its getting a bit hectic in college at the moment i seem to be writing confusing things last few days.

Again apologies about that.[/quote]

hey no problem !

enjoy your 1st dc training tomorrow

[quote]Rippemanewone wrote:
1 Tall Glass of Milk 2%- 140 Calories
6 Tablespooons of Peanut Butter (Eating out of the jar)- 570 Cal
And 1 bagel- 270 Calories

980 Calories right there for breakfast… and 44g of protein and 71 carbs. :smiley:

WHat you think[/quote]

Not for breakfast for me. I’d be more inclined to have the PB and milk at night (which I’m going to have right now, yum).

My brekkie is kind of like one posted earlier- nice big omelette and a smoothie with low fat natural yoghurt, oats and 3 big portions of fruit all blended together. About 1200 cals and it’s a cinch to make and eat.

[quote]300andabove wrote:
And where did you get the BW * 15 from lol ??
[/quote]

BWx15 is the standard starting point for maintenance caloric intake (assuming one is engaging in intense exercise 3-5 days/week)

and that garbage you posted before about calories should get you banned.

put some eggs and fruit in there for the perfect breakfast

[quote]300andabove wrote:
My breakfast is:

9oz Beef
16 Almonds
Steamed Green Veg

Poliquinism[/quote]

Hey 300, hows the Poliquinism working out for you? I was thinking of trying his protocol (nuts and meat). Does it really live up to his hype?

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
300andabove wrote:
And where did you get the BW * 15 from lol ??

BWx15 is the standard starting point for maintenance caloric intake (assuming one is engaging in intense exercise 3-5 days/week)

and that garbage you posted before about calories should get you banned.[/quote]

Right stay in the dark ages, enjoy it

[quote]Invictica wrote:
300andabove wrote:
My breakfast is:

9oz Beef
16 Almonds
Steamed Green Veg

Poliquinism

Hey 300, hows the Poliquinism working out for you? I was thinking of trying his protocol (nuts and meat). Does it really live up to his hype?

[/quote]

i dont know of the “hype” but as a breakfast for energy its pretty much unbeatable.

[quote]300andabove wrote:
If you take the a calorie is a calorie is a calorie no matter where it comes from, this means that if you eat X number of calories more than you use up, you will put on Y amount of weight, wherever those calories come from.

However, as has been demonstrated over and over again from many studies looking at diets with equal calorie content, but different constituents, this is far from true. Dieters on fat-based diets consistently lost much more weight than dieters on carb-based diets, even though both diets had exactly the same number of calories.

I mean try diet down with high carb, low fat and get back to me lol. A carbohydrate calorie is obviously much more fattening than a fat calorie. So obviously some calories don’t count as much as others.[/quote]

If you had actually reviewed the literature carefully you would know that there is no difference between a caloric deficit from a high carb vs low diet diet where protein intakes are held constant.

[quote]Where all the calorie business started and i have studied this for so long my brain hurts is that the answer seems to lie in the nutritionists and regulatorys bodies implicit belief in the First Law of Thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely changed.

Around the end of the nineteenth century, doctors devised a simple concept based on the First Law of Thermodynamics. They likened the body to a tank, into one end of which energy is poured in the form of food. This, they said was then either used up or stored.

If you used up more than you poured in, you got thinner and if you poured in more than you used, you got fatter. The theory was easy to understand, made sense, obeyed the laws of physics, and for a while it seemed satisfactory.

Dieticians could now say, apparently with scientific backing, that fat people must either be eating too much or working too little.

By the start of the 1914-18 war, however, doubts were creeping in. For instance, diabetes is a defect of carbohydrate metabolism and the treatment for diabetics at that time involved completely depriving them of carbohydrate. In this case, scientists found that the energy input/energy output sums simply did not add up. [/quote]

Right. Let’s generalize on the basis of a particular group of individuals with a metabolic deficiency.

[quote]But there are two basic flaws in determining the amounts of food we should eat:

  1. The more obvious flaw in the argument is that our bodies do not burn foods in the same way that they are burned in a bomb calorimeter. If they did, we would glow in the dark. Our digestive process is quite inefficient.

The chemical process whereby blood sugar is oxidised to provide energy produces carbon dioxide. About half is exhaled as carbon dioxide, the other half is excreted in sweat, urine and faeces as energy-containing molecules, the energy values of which must be deducted from the original food intake.

All of these vary. For example, eating a lot of fat forms ketones, which can be found in urine. The value of a gram of ketones derived from fat is roughly four calories. So, in this case, nearly half the energy from the fat is lost. [/quote]

This is all well and good, but ketosis is a temporary state. The body ain’t that dumb. Where are all the lean low carbers at? I mean, they’re only oxidizing about half their energetic nutrients, right?

[quote]2. The second and more important flaw in the argument is that the body does not use all its food to provide energy. The primary function of dietary proteins, for example, is body cell manufacture and repair: making skin, blood, hair and finger- and toe-nails, etc.

The amount of protein needed for this purpose is generally accepted to be about one gram per kilogram of lean body weight. As meats contain approximately 23 grams of protein per 100 grams, a person weighing, say, 70 kg (11 stone) needs to eat about 300 g (11 oz) of meat, or its equivalent, every day just to supply his basic protein needs.

Even eating this volume of lean chicken would provide some 465 calories. These calories are not used to supply energy, they contribute nothing to the body’s calorie needs and so must be deducted if you are counting calories. [/quote]

Except you can and do oxidize protein. Surprise!

Furthermore, why are you assuming that calorie counting does not take the body’s protein needs in to consideration?

[quote]Much of the fat we eat is also used to provide materials used by the body in processes other than the production of energy: the manufacture of bile acids and hormones, the essential fatty acids for the brain and nervous system, and so on.

All these must be deducted as well. Thus trying to determine, from food intake and energy expenditure alone, how much excess energy your body will store as fat will give a completely wrong answer.

However, these other factors cannot be measured. Therefore, calorie-counting, which is the foundation of practically every modern slimming diet, is a complete waste of time. [/quote]

Again, you assume that calorie counting does not account for these activities. Why?

A spate of dietary studies have also shown that, calorie for calorie, low carbohydrate diets are no better at reducing weight. Find a study that holds protein constant in both groups. Tell me what the results show.

I’m also aware of studies that show more long term weight loss on low fat diets because they are more sustainable.

[quote]‘Experts’ have heavily criticised these studies saying that the data could not be right because that would violate the laws of thermodynamics. But they don’t. It is important to realise that there is more than one law of thermodynamics. The narrow view that ‘a calorie is a calorie’ might comply with the First Law, but it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The First Law, as mentioned above, is a conservation law. The Second Law is a dissipation law; it is this Second Law which governs the chemical reactions in our bodies.

To borrow a guys words and he is MILES ahead of where i could ever hope to be. Using his analogy as follows ----

The energy in the petrol that fuels your car makes the car go along, but it also produces heat through friction and noise, which we really don’t need. The Second Law is all about efficiency ?

how much of the energy we put in does useful work and how much is wasted. Thus, although all of the energy in the petrol is accounted for and complies with the First Law, the actual moving of the car, if the waste products (heat and noise) are removed from the equation, does not.

The Second Law was developed in this context. And it applies equally when we look at the efficiency of our bodies and how different foods affect our bodies. The Second Law says that no machine is completely efficient:

Some of the available energy is lost as heat or in the internal rearrangement of chemical compounds and other changes. And as different foods use different metabolic pathways, with different levels of efficiency, variations in efficiency must be expected. For this reason, the dogma that a ‘calorie is a calorie’ violates the second law of thermodynamics as a matter of principle.

he different chemical changes within our bodies. When these a
It is the differences in chemical changes within our bodies that make low-carb diets better than low-fat, calorie-controlled ones easier to lose weight on.

What the diet dictocrats fail to take into consideration when considering the laws of thermodynamics are the energy losses incurred in tre taken into consideration, neither law of thermodynamics is violated.

And, if you eat the right foods, you can forget all about counting calories. [/quote]

Guys, there is nothing magical or “metabolically inefficient” about low carb diets. The reason why it works for some people (and I will emphasize some people because it’s way overstated) is that it can blunt hunger, and therefore

…wait for it…

lead to a caloric deficit.

Listen, when you make diets, there are two big criteria:
(1) the diet must be functional, as in… it must serve the body (e.g. micronutrients, sufficient protein, EFA, glycogen needs)
(2) it must be sustainable

Everything else is just so damn unimportant. You are never going to outsmart your body.

i’m not really sure what a good breakfast is…currently I can’t cook anything for breakfast so I just have

30g protein powder in water
20 oz milk
Whole wheat cereal

Comes out to be like 700+change calories and about 50 g protein. The rest is carbs (fiber mostly). little to no fats. i eat this mainly for convenience’s sake…

but my ideal breakfast would be something like:

6 eggs + some olive oil = scrambled eggs
oatmeal
lean meat (turkey, beef…etc)
glass of water

I would just shoot for mostly carb/protein…small amount of fat

How do you guys not go nuts over breakfast?!? It’s the only reason I get up in the morning.

Anyway, here’s mine, just for fun.

6 Slices thick-cut bacon
10 eggs with half a packet of ham and 2 slices cheddar cheese,
A cup of oatmeal made with whole milk and brown sugar
Lots of delicious coffee

1925 calories
155 g protein

Obviously my other meals aren’t that big, but breakfast is kind of a big deal.

[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
How do you guys not go nuts over breakfast?!? It’s the only reason I get up in the morning.

Anyway, here’s mine, just for fun.

6 Slices thick-cut bacon
10 eggs with half a packet of ham and 2 slices cheddar cheese,
A cup of oatmeal made with whole milk and brown sugar
Lots of delicious coffee

1925 calories
155 g protein

Obviously my other meals aren’t that big, but breakfast is kind of a big deal.[/quote]

that sounds delicious…

Wow very impressive ovalpline couldnt agree more.

As we all know everyone is different, but there is no escaping the fact that you need calories to build muscle, no way around it, i read the first sentence of his post and knew that the rest of it was going to be a complete and total waste of time of my life.

As for 300 i have no idea where your getting this crap saying that you dont need calories to build muscle but you really humor me. There is no magic diet/food or anything thats going to make u get bigger, you just gotta live in the “Dark Ages” like you said and train like a man.

Do you even ever watch body builder review videos? Jay Cutler says he eats 6-7000 calories a day just to MAINTAIN what he has. If he wants to grow more hes gonna have to eat more. no matter how much steroids he pumps into his muscles.

And just for the record, Professional Body Builders are the most Lean, Cut, Big People i have seen. And just by looking at them can u not tell that they have a extremley good diet.

When the fuck did eating meat fall out of fashion? I have a 12oz steak, a salad and a protein shake for breakfast. Sometimes a pork chop instead. It cooks on the George Foreman while I’m taking my morning duece and then I get on with my day.

Steak FTW.