Doing away with bulking and cutting

  • Thread starter Thread starter imported_drpierredebs
  • Start date Start date
I am seeing a lot of different idea in terms of how many calories per pound of muscle are there. But i will say, for every source that says it is around 5-6, there is about 300 sources that say it is 30-50. The statement about how if it were 50x80=4000 and the guy is fat....he probably wouldn't be fat if he ate nothing that was processed besides supplements. I think unless you are over 30, you should be able to consume at least 3500 natural calories, even though genetics will play a role.

You really do not need to know your BMR anyways because lets face it....the only time you are inactive is when you're sleeping.
 
<div>
(Cova @ Dec. 12 2006,18:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have never even heard the idea that fat mass can consume calories. They either gain, stay the same or lose an amount of energy.</div>
as every living cell in our body it requires energy

for how much just browse thru Lyle's posts (his forum) from few last weeks
biggrin.gif


from cited research

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">skeletal muscle (13 kcal/kg per day) and adipose tissue (4.5 kcal/kg per day)</div>

I think Lyle stated that in newer researches that gap is smaller (at rest) - don't remember the values off hand
 
<div>
(Cova @ Dec. 12 2006,22:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I am seeing a lot of different idea in terms of how many calories per pound of muscle are there. But i will say, for every source that says it is around 5-6, there is about 300 sources that say it is 30-50. The statement about how if it were 50x80=4000 and the guy is fat....he probably wouldn't be fat if he ate nothing that was processed besides supplements. I think unless you are over 30, you should be able to consume at least 3500 natural calories, even though genetics will play a role.

You really do not need to know your BMR anyways because lets face it....the only time you are inactive is when you're sleeping.</div>
Okay, I am gonna be an ass. You are overly ignorant to think that the body is inactive during sleep.

Are you a troll?

You post a lot of nonsense and if you really are only 17, you need more education.
Maybe a physiology class.

You are rather misguided as to how the body works.
 
Misguided? All i meant by inactive was that you arent doing anything that will elivate your metabolism or consume calories. In a nutshell- all sleep does is rejuvenate. Yeah you are being an ass.
 
13 calories per kg = 6 calories per lb.

Cova there are lots of sources for every idea you can think of that doesnt make them correct, the way you learn is by researching to see if the claims being made are actually backed up. Those claiming its 30-50 per lb arent going to be.
I dont get why your back thinking getting fat is down to not eating clean.
If a 25 year old guy burns 2000 calories each day and eats 3500, where do you think these extra calories are going? You yourself are proof that it comes down to calories.

To learn the reality of things you gotta be willing to let go of old false ideas. Your body is always consuming calories it doesnt stop when you sleep.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If a 25 year old guy burns 2000 calories each day and eats 3500, where do you think these extra calories are going? You yourself are proof that it comes down to calories.</div>

Trivial statement... so we have argued about fat mass burning calories and it obviously does and less than muscle, which is another trivial statement. How much is burned is an argument of citing sources, but the 6 cal/lb and 3 cal/lb seems to be the right figure, but that still doesn't make up one's entire BMR.

One may not lose fat during a slow bulk, but THEY WILL lose bodyfat% and become leaner. Unless they take proper measurements (where there is still room for error), it will be an illusion that one actually lost adipose tissue.

Jonny, our disagreement was on the whole 3500 calories loses 1 lb. 4000 calories should gain 1 lb due to the thermal effect of food. I got too defensive earlier, and we are actually both of the same page. Those numbers are statistics and have their own room for error, but they are a good fit for all people. People may find that the amount of calories needed to gain or lose 1 lb may be higher or lower than the averages given by scientific studies.
 
<div>
(the_dark_master @ Dec. 13 2006,08:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Can I join in? - this crap should be in the Diet &amp; Nutrition forum anyway...
rock.gif
</div>
It should be moved as 90% of the thread is diet and nutrition specific now... Dan, Fausto?
 
<div>
(Cova @ Dec. 12 2006,22:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The statement about how if it were 50x80=4000 and the guy is fat....he probably wouldn't be fat if he ate nothing that was processed besides supplements.</div>
I know you are a kid, so maybe we should go easy on you... but why do you think someone would not be fat if they ate clean? If they are overeating, they are going to get fat regardless of where those calories came from. The only way you can change where the calories go is by working out.
 
you can eat more eating pure within reason....of course. Not all calorie sources of each type of macronutrient are created equal when you start thinking about artificial foods. I have seen dozens of people losr weight by eating natural foods yet consuming the same amounts of calories.

I love the constructive critism because then I know a lot more correct information...but I already know that calories are burned during sleep...I simply meant inactive as in, you are not in really using any voluntery muscle/groups(generally speaking)...you might be somebody that rolls around in your sleep.
laugh.gif


Wouldn't the only way to accurately messure BMR is if the person was in a motionless state for a long period of time? How do they calculate it? I have seen calculators but they can be as much as 200 different from another.
 
<div>
(Cova @ Dec. 13 2006,16:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">you can eat more eating pure within reason....of course. Not all calorie sources of each type of macronutrient are created equal when you start thinking about artificial foods. I have seen dozens of people losr weight by eating natural foods yet consuming the same amounts of calories.</div>
This is completely wrong!? Are you even aware of what a calorie is??? It is simply a physical measurement. Your statement is as ridiculous as saying not all kilograms are created equal, or not all cubic centimeters are created equal....yes they are, because they are simply equal measurements of the physical world.

If you have seen people eat 'natural' foods, and lose weight...HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY ATE THE SAME CALORIES??? Chances are they ate less calories, since many 'health' foods are lower in calories than typical junk food.

You make very arrogant statements for a 17 year old who isn't very knowledgable on the subject. It is better to open your mind and LEARN, there are many knowledgeable people here who actually understand science.
rock.gif
 
I am not completely wrong. I do not mean that the measurements of a calorie changes, but the way it burns can be different. Like, some artificial foods can slow down your metabolism  and making it harder to burn off these calories where as eating nothing with additives will, for the most part, do absolutely nothing to prevent it from being burned.

I use to eat around 1800 calories on box foods that weren't completely natural. Even though the ingrediants were ok , i was still staying fat.

Now I eat well over 3500 calories as a surplus and barely add on any fat.

I am just saying that the source of the energy can play a big role in what your body burns.
 
Again your are coming to false conclusions...how do you know your metabolism didn't change based on the fact that you were growing, or that you were exercising or simple using more energy throughout the day??
Did you have a team of scientists doing tests on you to prove your hypothesis that you 'natural' diet was accelerating your metabolism and not other factors?
 
I knew you'd ask that....I changed my diet cold turkey to see these changes so unless I hit a growth spurt that boosted my caloric intake overnight to being able to burn off almost 2x the amount i was eating before, doing the same activities, then these statements must have merit.

There is lots of research being done indicating that eating natural foods may significantly boost the performance of your metabolism.
 
I've gotta agree with Carl here. Activity levels being equal I only see 2 possible ways that the same calorie intake from differing food types results in differing body weight.

One is if some foods are more readily digested than others, and thus more of the calories become available to the body. I suspect that large differences here would be due to such things as food allergies and likely quite apparent if they were a factor. The other way is if some food combinations result in a higher base metabolism than others.

Either of these could be possible, but I doubt the impact would be large.

What I'm still open to is the idea that nutrient timing and different composition of calories may influence the body's preference for obtaining calories via burning fat versus burning muscle. But body composition is a completely different thing than total weight gain or loss.
 
Wow, several replies since I started my last post.

<div>
(Cova @ Dec. 13 2006,16:06)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">There is lots of research being done indicating that eating natural foods may significantly boost the performance of your metabolism.</div>
Cite a couple of studies, please (emphasis mine).
 
<div>
(Cova @ Dec. 13 2006,16:33)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I have seen dozens of people losr weight by eating natural foods yet consuming the same amounts of calories.</div>
No. You are making this up or you are mistaken. Were these people counting calories? If so, and they were eating the exact same amount of calories and lost weight, then they were increasing activity. I'm afraid that your statement violates the laws of physics. Your body cannot just spontaneously lose mass, that is a violation of the laws of nature. Matter cannot just disappear into nothingness.
So... unless you have a severe medical condition, then you are not going to start losing weight unless you have created a calorie deficit somewhere.

Most people think they are eating less because &quot;clean&quot; foods tend to make you feel like you have eaten more than &quot;dirty&quot; foods, because of the additional fiber, etc etc.
 
As Sci and Tot point out, it is thermodynamics of physiology. You eat x calories over your maintenace you will gain x/4000 lbs. I have already made my statement of 4000 calories surplus = 1 lb gain. These laws do not change, maybe you were getting false data where people's activity levels and BMR differed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top