http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/controlledcarb_bulking_strategy
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
[quote]bluecollarjock wrote:
Feel free to enlighten me gurus (seriously). Or point me to a link you guys have covered this.
[/quote]
Not to mention, dropping carbs from the diet is just another way of reducing calories overall - which of course contributes to fat loss because you’re taking in less energy.[/quote]
Even if you eat zero carbs, you can still overeat and get fat.
(This part seems to get lost on the general masses)
S
[quote]bluecollarjock wrote:
Anytime I go low carb, 15 years ago, or now, without counting calories at all, I lean out. [/quote]
Sure, it works for a lot of people, but it’s not like you found a universal law or anything. For instance, the OP’s problem doesn’t seem to be carbs, but peanut butter.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
[quote]bluecollarjock wrote:
Feel free to enlighten me gurus (seriously). Or point me to a link you guys have covered this.
[/quote]
I hate that word. Guru.
Anyway it’s not that a low-carb approach won’t work - it certainly will. But attaching more importance to a particular macronutrient than overall energy balance is flawed thinking. Not to mention, dropping carbs from the diet is just another way of reducing calories overall - which of course contributes to fat loss because you’re taking in less energy. Even though you increase fat calories (or you should if going low, low carb) - even just ditching starchy carbs “at night” is simply another form of overall calorie control.
You can’t trump thermodynamics - just can’t do it. So that, and a lot of the advice in your post was rather dated and “bro-sciency” - but no doubt there are many different dietary approaches that will work to change body composition - low carb being just one of them. [/quote]
No, its not really flawed thinking. You are making the same mistake many other people make when thinking about this. You completely omit and neglect the role of the endocrine system in this entire process. In fact, it is the endocrine system which drives the entire system of metabolic processes of the body. Where I think the connection is missed is in the fact that the macronutrient content of the diet DRIVES the endocrine response to the meal. In effect, you can think of food as an upstream pharmaceutical agent.
The body isn’t a simple machine, although everyone thinks of it in those terms. It is a biological entity. If you reduce your energy intake by x, your body does not have to lose y amount of weight. It can also reduce the energy OUTPUT and hold onto the fat that you are attempting to lose. Take for instance the ground squirrel, which gains tremendous amounts of bodyfat before the winter hibernation period. If you open up a squirrel during this storing period, they look like a can of crisco. You can take a squirrel like this, sequester it away in a lab before the storing period begins, and feed it only enough daily kcal for it to supposedly survive on. What happens? Does the squirrel not gain the winter weight due to starvation? No. It gains all of the fat it would in the wild anyway. It simply decreases its daily activity level to account for the extra calories the fat needs. It GAINS a ton of weight on a caloric level that is insufficient. The Conservation of Matter and Energy Law still holds true…the energy is still accounted for… but the squirrel is much fatter on a much lower calorie level. Why? Its endocrine system.
[/quote]
But metabolic advantage of low carbohydrate diets has never been demonstrated in a controlled situation when you account for variance in TEF from higher protein intake. You mention food as an “upstream pharmaceutical agent”, but it’s important to note that, unlike pharmaceuticals, the body’s response to macronutrient intake is far less “acute” in nature. I know that’s not really what you’re saying, but I just want to make that point because there are definitely some people who take it that way.
[quote]Rocky2 wrote:
http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/controlledcarb_bulking_strategy[/quote]
Skimmed it, nice article, but I didnt see anything in there I disagree with nor calorie counting debate covered.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
The body isn’t a simple machine, although everyone thinks of it in those terms. It is a biological entity. If you reduce your energy intake by x, your body does not have to lose y amount of weight. It can also reduce the energy OUTPUT and hold onto the fat that you are attempting to lose. [/quote]
Of course - I agree completely.
My point was simply that concentrating on a specific macro over any kind of reduction in overall calories is flawed thinking. I’m well aware of the processes of the endocrine system - in fact, the endocrinology portion of my 2nd half of A&P was probably my favorite subject.
They used to demonize fat - we all know how that turned out. Now it’s carbs that are the devil…
And just to add a point. I dislike when someone takes something I said, and extrapolates from that “ommissions” that seem to indicate I don’t know what I’m talking about.
I “omitted” the role of the endocrine system because I’m making a very simple statement about calories in/calories out. If you want to discuss all the variables, the possible down regulation of thyroid hormones, and other hormonal responses, we can do that. But just because I chose to make a simple, focused statement doesn’t mean I’m “making a mistake”, or that I am unaware of any other possible physiological outcomes…
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
[quote]bluecollarjock wrote:
Feel free to enlighten me gurus (seriously). Or point me to a link you guys have covered this.
[/quote]
I hate that word. Guru.
Anyway it’s not that a low-carb approach won’t work - it certainly will. But attaching more importance to a particular macronutrient than overall energy balance is flawed thinking. Not to mention, dropping carbs from the diet is just another way of reducing calories overall - which of course contributes to fat loss because you’re taking in less energy. Even though you increase fat calories (or you should if going low, low carb) - even just ditching starchy carbs “at night” is simply another form of overall calorie control.
You can’t trump thermodynamics - just can’t do it. So that, and a lot of the advice in your post was rather dated and “bro-sciency” - but no doubt there are many different dietary approaches that will work to change body composition - low carb being just one of them. [/quote]
No, its not really flawed thinking. You are making the same mistake many other people make when thinking about this. You completely omit and neglect the role of the endocrine system in this entire process. In fact, it is the endocrine system which drives the entire system of metabolic processes of the body. Where I think the connection is missed is in the fact that the macronutrient content of the diet DRIVES the endocrine response to the meal. In effect, you can think of food as an upstream pharmaceutical agent.
The body isn’t a simple machine, although everyone thinks of it in those terms. It is a biological entity. If you reduce your energy intake by x, your body does not have to lose y amount of weight. It can also reduce the energy OUTPUT and hold onto the fat that you are attempting to lose. Take for instance the ground squirrel, which gains tremendous amounts of bodyfat before the winter hibernation period. If you open up a squirrel during this storing period, they look like a can of crisco. You can take a squirrel like this, sequester it away in a lab before the storing period begins, and feed it only enough daily kcal for it to supposedly survive on. What happens? Does the squirrel not gain the winter weight due to starvation? No. It gains all of the fat it would in the wild anyway. It simply decreases its daily activity level to account for the extra calories the fat needs. It GAINS a ton of weight on a caloric level that is insufficient. The Conservation of Matter and Energy Law still holds true…the energy is still accounted for… but the squirrel is much fatter on a much lower calorie level. Why? Its endocrine system.
[/quote]
In what way do you feel the information above could be utilized Modok?
What’s up with the carb fears these days?
Like stated in other posts, its about the calories not only the carbs! hehe.
[quote]Kelfkens wrote:
What’s up with the carb fears these days?
Like stated in other posts, its about the calories not only the carbs! hehe.[/quote]
Way to build your post count.
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]Kelfkens wrote:
What’s up with the carb fears these days?
Like stated in other posts, its about the calories not only the carbs! hehe.[/quote]
Way to build your post count.[/quote]
lol - thats what you call throwing your weight into a debate
And all those examples are of people who are in a disease state of some type.
Again, for a normal individual, calories in/calories out IS an important concept.
I never said it was the ONLY concept to be concerned about, but it’s important nonetheless.
Modok - For “normal” individuals, where can your point of the importance of the endocrine system be applied? I obviously agree with you, however, it seems as though you’re simply trying to trump everyone elses point. Could you shed some light on it’s important and applications for most of us?
Well Modok obviously has read the book I did…not sure some of the others on here have, even if they think it is BS, Ive yet to see anyone or that article that was linked address countering as to why the concepts in the book are BS.
Id venture to say most people would have a really hard time getting fat on beef, chicken, fish, and veggies…if you are working out and eating clean without much complex carbs, with possibly a little carbs during workout with BCAAs and a little after in your protein shake, I imagine it would be pretty hard to get fat, or not lose some fat.
No one is scared of carbs…but if you gotta drop weight keto is an easy way to do it and the studies in the book and examples that doctors even 100 years ago using it to treat obesity, didnt have patients count calories and lots of obese folks dropped weight on the diet compared to a veggie diet, balanced diet with restricted calories, and I think a version of the zone…
anyways fellas use what works for you…doesnt bother me…but not a bad book to buy and read, chew on, and play with a low carb diet to see if it works…a heck of a lot easier than counting calories to me. And unless Im a freak of nature, eating just meat and veggies curbs my appetite and cravings, I think Id have a hard time porking out enough to get fat.
Whomever the first person was to post refuting me, seemed as if they read the book. Good Calories Bad Calories and Why we Get Fat and What to do about it, are hardly “bro science”. Very well written. So if anyone read the books and is refuting his “science” and logic, Id be all ears, and not in a malicious manner as seems folks get their panties in a bunch in this forum hah…Im all about learning, but some of you are responding as if you have no clue about the arguements in the book which is what I first posted about…its a good read, and if you read it and disagree, Id love to hear why.
Carbs were huge in the 80s and 90s in athletics and bodybuilding. Now its back to protein. The general public food pyramid has been all jacked up forever, athough I heard it just changed again. If you read the book, it goes back to doctors playing with diets 100 years ago, as well tracking populations and what the hell happens when sugar and flour get introduced to them…sh$t happens haha…
So if there is a calories in calories out equation that is more complex, and if could help me be lean, I have no issues changing my approach!
what Mo is saying is what interests me in Poliquins whole method on fat displacement/distribution due to hormones in the body. Insulin being a master hormone overrides a massive varitey of other hormones who specific roles are to help the body regulate fat. I recently came across information which stated that the overall amount of fat on an individuals liver will have a positive/negative effect on how much fat they store/burn.
It seems like an easy way to settle this debate would be restrict calories AND lower carbs 
(its a joke).
[quote]EasyRhino wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
I’m going to go with you’re probably eating more than you think you are.[/quote]
i’m liking this idea too. Here are things that seem off:
- Steak and eggs (and ezekial bread?) adding up to only 500-600 cals in the morning.
- Having peanut and almond butter in a diet that adds up to only 2000 cals.
- Being 215-228lbs at 5’9", and only being 15% bf, without seeming to know how to put a diet together…
Bro, you might be totally jacked, but it sounds like you’re probably kind of fat. Just eat less.[/quote]
And, just to chime in and repeat some basics, it takes more of your body’s energy to process and convert meat and veggies in to usable energy. You could shift most of your carb cals to protein and veggies and do nothing different and lose fat. Or stop wandering the gym in between sets and keep your rest periods short. 30 secs, 1 minute, whatever, get your conditioning up to par and jack your metabolism. Or don’t just don’t eat before you go to the gym. Didn’t Poloquin say something like, “You can’t ride two horses with one ass”. Lose the fat or gain the muscle.
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Or don’t just don’t eat before you go to the gym. [/quote]
Before weight training? I wouldn’t suggest that…
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
[quote]strangemeadow wrote:
Or don’t just don’t eat before you go to the gym. [/quote]
Before weight training? I wouldn’t suggest that…[/quote]
It’s really not a problem. Or at least not for me. ANACONDA Protocol or the like. Then when you have your PWO meal it all goes to muscle and not love handles…
Great for losing bodyfat.
OK, here are some excerpts from Jonny Bowden’s books “Living the Low Carb Life” that I’ve been wanting to post on this discussion (which has taken place in many threads) for awhile:
The problem is, the human body doesn’t really behave like a checking account. It behaves more like a chemistry set. What you put in mixes and bubbles and interacts and creates different results depending not just on the amount you put in, but also the ingredients.
“The metabolic advantage” is simply the theory that food has a hormonal effect on the body, and that certain foods are more likely to trigger hormonal and enzymatic responses that lead to fat gain than others. Certain kinds of foods simply take more energy to deal with than others, and “waste” a bunch of calories in the process.
The truth lies somewhere in between. Calories are not the whole picture, but they are still a major player in the weight-loss game.
Dr. Greene studied three groups of dieters. The first group went on a 1,500-calorie-per-day low-fat diet (1,800 for men). The second group went on an 1,800-calorie low-carb diet (2,100 calories for men). If all calories are created equal, the second group - which consumed more calories - should have weighted a bit more at the end of the study than the first group.
They didn’t. Though both groups lost weight, the low-carb (higher-calorie) group actually lost a little bit more, despite the fact that over the 12-week study they ate an average of 25,000 calories more than the low-fat group.
And that, indeed, was the third group in the study. Low-calorie and low-carb. That group lost the most weight of all.
Moral of the story: calories do count - but they’re not the whole story. Low-carb diets may have a metabolic advantage, but it’s not unlimited. In fact, it’s probably pretty small (200-400 calories, suggest Mike Eades). You can’t eat 12,000 calories a day of fat and protein and think you’re going to lose weight just because you’re on a low-carb diet. You still need to pay attention to calories. But you do have a bit - and I do mean a bit - of wiggle room on low-carb.