…It’s STILL calories in vs calories out. I get what you’re trying to say, but either you are not understanding it entirely or you are mis-wording things. You said yourself that your body becomes much more efficient at partitioning and utilizing nutrients due to hormonal changes or w.e. the explanation is. The point is…this is still calories in vs calories, your body just has become much more efficient and can operate at a LOWER level of caloric intake/macronutrient intake. Again…this is still calories in vs calories out. Thermodynamics doesn’t change just because your hormonal profile does…[/quote]
Maybe you misunderstood me. When your hormones are effected as, we all know, the body utilizes nutrients differently and reacts differently to what it is given. Insulin and leptin being perfect examples, which are two hormones that are greatly effected through IF. Gaining muscle and losing fat IS NOT just calories in calories out. The simplest argument that I’ve ever heard to prove this is to go eat 3000 calories a day of carbs or go eat 3000 calories a day of protein and see how your body looks in a few weeks. It is possible for one to gain muscle while eating under maintenance calories and it is also possible for one to lose fat while eating above, so how does that happen if it’s as simple as calories in/calories out. There is something else at work here. How can I take someone and replace all the grains in their diet with healthy fats while keeping their caloric intake exactly the same and they finally begin to lose body fat? Even things like gluten allergies keep people from losing BF, regardless of their calories. If it was just calories in/calories out then why when someone is dieting and they keep dropping their calories further does their weight loss eventually come to a stop. If it was calories in/calories out then weight loss should continue , right?? Doing intermittent fasting really opened my eyes to how wrong I was for so many years thinking that I had to have so many calories to gain, or so many calories to lose or, the worst of all, having to eat every 3 hours or my metabolism would slow and my body would eat itself without ever giving though to how my body was using what I was giving it and the effects the nutrients were having. Think about this, if you take two people and give them the same exact meal containing the same exact amount of calories and nutrient ratios, the only difference is that one person is completely insulin resistant and the other has fantastic insulin sensitivity. Are these calories going to be used the same way in these two people’s body?? No , not at all. So here we have the same amount of calories and nutrients but the only difference is hormonal. [/quote]
I agree with much of what you’re saying. Problems only arise when someone chooses to STRICTLY say calories in vs calories out is EVERYTHING or…that calories in vs calories out means nothing in the presence of manipulated hormones. Hormones undoubtedly play a role in how nutrients are used/stored. Again… hormones are important. I think these concepts are much more clearly examined in the case of legitimate caloric defecit. Here’s what I mean:
If I am in legitimate caloric deficit on a daily basis, I will lose body weight. This could be fat, muscle, water …combination etc…but I will lose bodyweight. Now…the key here is, if I make sure my protein req is in place FIRST…then I adjust my energy macros around this set in stone protein req…as long as I stay in deficit, in the long run it will NOT matter. In other words… As long as I make sure that my protein intake is first spot on…I could eat all fats for the remainder of my caloric intake (while staying in the deficit range) or all carbs or both…it would not mean shit in the long run. The only time it WILL mean something to restrict carbs when ALREADY in deficit is to manipulate water levels, or to reach levels of bodyfat % that a pro would reach on stage. Now…if you ONLY ate fats…or ONLY ate carbs as opposed to ONLY eating protein…well the same logic adds up…when the protein req are not accounted for properly…then things appear to happen much differently. Btw, if all those instances are in deficit, bodyweight will be lost over time…but they will probably look, feel and have health like shit.
In the case of surplus…macronutrients, IMO become much more important. Now that you are in surplus, your body is going to want to store nutrients…in this case hormone manipulation is more of an issue because weight is going to be put on…it’s best to utilize your hormones in order to put quality weight on as opposed to just bodyfat. I have personally noticed little to no difference in regards to deficit and energy macros. As long as my caloric deficit is achieved and my protein requirements are accounted for…I have not noticed any difference in fatloss whether I ate the remainder as carbs, or as fats, or as both. In a surplus…I’m sure that if I ate all my energy macros (after protein is accounted for) by way of carbs all the time…things would be different because insulin will be ALLOWED to work its storage magic due to the surplus.