"Eating fat makes you fat"

this annoys me lol

this is simply not the whole truth is it? i think it happened because people twisted the fact the fat contains more calories than carbs and protein that it automatically makes u gain weight.

it's about calories in calories out! or is there more to it? is there something regarding fat being metabolised into fatty tissue easier???

argh... what to think anymore... where's the truth nowadays.

please help, because i'm pretty sure it's mainly about calories in vs calories used that makes you gain weight, but then again i've heard of something saying that eating 3000 calories worth of mars bars and 3000 calories of protein will result in a big difference in body composition

cheers guys

Simon

 

From what I know, and I've done a lot of reading...its pretty much calories in calories out.

Now there are a few things that matter such as eating relatively low on the GI index with exception to the time period around your workouts where you welcome an insuline spike, whey and sugars being ideal.

Eat at least 1g of protein per lb of lean mass.

As far as eating more fats than carbs or more carbs than fats I feel that's up to the individual, but keep things within balance. You don't want to be eating ALL fats or ALL carbs.

 

"Calories in calories out" is what's known as the Positive Caloric Balance hypothesis. It's based on the first law of thermodynamics which states that energy can't be created or lost. But the hypothesis also assumes that all forms of energy we eat have equal caloric value. It also assumes that all forms of energy we eat are processed with equal efficiency. It also assumes that all forms of energy can be used to the same end. These three assumptions make the hypothesis false because it's a violation of the second law of thermodynamics which states that no machine is perfectly efficient.

Carbohydrates, fats and proteins are metabolized differently at different costs. For instance, it costs more to process protein for fuel than fat for fuel. Also, the quantity of fuel available from any form of energy is different. For instance, protein contains the least amount of fuel per weight while fats contain the most amount of fuel per weight. Then there's the effect of these primary forms of energy on metabolism that must be taken into account. For instance, carbohydrates cause an insulin secretion and release for the purpose of nutrient storage in adipose tissue. Over time, this causes insulin resistance, obesity and ultimately diabetes type 2. This process is called Metabolic Syndrome. These are just examples of why the Positive Caloric Balance hypothesis is flawed.

Think of the role of carbohydrate, fat and protein. Carbohydrate can be used for fuel. Fat can be used for fuel, building blocks and for repair and maintenance. Protein can be used for fuel, building blocks and for repair and maintenance. Nothing can replace protein. It's essential. Nothing can replace fat either. It's essential. Carbohydrates are entirely superfluous. Again, these are just examples to show how the PCB hypothesis is flawed.

 

Martin, what would be an optimum PCF ratio in the diet of a weightlifter that wants to bulk (gain lean mass)?

 

<div>
(electric @ Apr. 25 2008,2:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Martin, what would be an optimum PCF ratio in the diet of a weightlifter that wants to bulk (gain lean mass)?</div>
I don't know.

Would you accept a guess? If so, then by calorie P/C/F 20%/0%/80%. By weight that's P/C/F 35%/0%/65%.

 

Are carbohydrates not valuable as a quick energy resource prior to exercise?

 

<div>
(_Simon_ @ Apr. 25 2008,11:13)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">it's about calories in calories out! or is there more to it? is there something regarding fat being metabolised into fatty tissue easier???

but then again i've heard of something saying that eating 3000 calories worth of mars bars and 3000 calories of protein will result in a big difference in body composition



Simon</div>
Ultimately yes, but of course there is a lot more to it.

The biggest problem isn't that it's 3000 Kcals from Mars bars it's that most people do not eat only 3000 Kcals when eating only Mars Bars and secondly what are they doing after eating those Mars Bars.

As an example look up the Spurlock garbage McDonalds diet, the one where he ate nothing but McD's and sat on his arse all day while doing it. Ultimately eating way more than energy balance needs. Then look at Chaz Weaver who did the same but actually exercised and lost body fat. He also improved his lipids and triglycerides.

 

<div>
(Dan Moore @ Apr. 25 2008,6:27)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...
The biggest problem isn't that it's 3000 Kcals from Mars bars it's that most people do not eat only 3000 Kcals when eating only Mars Bars and secondly what are they doing after eating those Mars Bars.

As an example look up the Spurlock garbage McDonalds diet, the one where he ate nothing but McD's and sat on his arse all day while doing it. Ultimately eating way more than energy balance needs. Then look at Chaz Weaver who did the same but actually exercised and lost body fat. He also improved his lipids and triglycerides.</div>
There are major differences between the two &quot;experiments&quot;. One ate over 6k calories per day while he walked a couple miles a day. The other ate about 3k calories per day while he spent, and exercised, over an hour in the gym every day.

There are also major misconceptions about the experiments. In both, fat is considered bad and shown as such. In both, &quot;calories in calories out&quot; is considered the ultimate measure of body composition.


Your first statement seems to imply that activity level or activity quality has some impact on body composition. Perhaps it implies that there is an impact on, or from, lifestyle that we should look at as well. Am I reading this correctly?

The problem with a Mars bar is not the caloric content. It's the carbohydrate content. Were it filled with fat instead of carbs, it would be absolutely nutritious. Now, it's just a hunk of sugar. So is a potatoe, bread, rice and anything made with grains, starch or any form of sugar.

One aspect of cutting carbs out, if one was eating carbs for a while and suffering from insulin resistance to any degree, is to recover a great deal of energy. What this means here is that eating carbohydrate will diminish the available energy and make us sedentary or more sedentary than otherwise. It is thought that our sedentary behavior causes us to become obese. That is incorrect. It's the sugar that makes us lazy. Incidentally, it's also the sugar that makes us fat. Our behavior has nothing to do with our body composition. At least not where adipose tissue is concerned.

Our diet, on the other hand, has everything to do with our body composition. Regardless of our activity level and activity quality.

 

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Our diet, on the other hand, has everything to do with our body composition. Regardless of our activity level and activity quality.</div>

The average professional bicyclist has a diet that is 65-70% carbs, and somewhere around 15% protein, the rest is fat.  On average, their bodyfat percentages are about....what...10%?  8%?

 

Logic wont get you far.

 

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 25 2008,2:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Would you accept a guess? If so, then by calorie P/C/F  20%/0%/80%. By weight that's P/C/F  35%/0%/65%.</div>
Sorry but my english is not so good

What do you mean with by calorie and by weight?

 

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 25 2008,8:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">There are major differences between the two &quot;experiments&quot;. One ate over 6k calories per day while he walked a couple miles a day. The other ate about 3k calories per day while he spent, and exercised, over an hour in the gym every day.</div>
Yes there were and this is my point exactly as it was both of theirs.

Spurlock only tried to walk 5000 steps per day which is the average steps taken by most american. Yes this equates to roughly 2 miles but it is the normal amount and not additional to the normal average.

Spurlock averaged 5000 Kcals per day with no additional exercise above the normal average steps per day.

Chazz averaged 4412 Kcals/day and 64.5 minutes exercise/day above his normal activity. His max was 5710 kcals/day and min was 2620 Kcal/day. THere were 3 days he did not go to the gym at all. His max exercise time was 115 minutes/day and as I've said his min was 0.

I'm not trying to debate anyone or change anyone's views because I simply don't care, I just wanted to set the facts straight.

 

<div>
(il_dottore @ Apr. 26 2008,5:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What do you mean with by calorie and by weight?</div>
Every gram of protein and carb has 4 kcal, every gram of fat has 9 kcal.

 

<div>
(stevejones @ Apr. 26 2008,1:50)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Our diet, on the other hand, has everything to do with our body composition. Regardless of our activity level and activity quality.</div>

The average professional bicyclist has a diet that is 65-70% carbs, and somewhere around 15% protein, the rest is fat. On average, their bodyfat percentages are about....what...10%? 8%?</div>
The average professional cyclist has nothing to do with the average person. Care to elaborate on what else professional cyclists eat, inject or inhale?

 

<div>
(Dan Moore @ Apr. 26 2008,8:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 25 2008,8:38)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">There are major differences between the two &quot;experiments&quot;. One ate over 6k calories per day while he walked a couple miles a day. The other ate about 3k calories per day while he spent, and exercised, over an hour in the gym every day.</div>
Yes there were and this is my point exactly as it was both of theirs.

Spurlock only tried to walk 5000 steps per day which is the average steps taken by most american. Yes this equates to roughly 2 miles but it is the normal amount and not additional to the normal average.

Spurlock averaged 5000 Kcals per day with no additional exercise above the normal average steps per day.

Chazz averaged 4412 Kcals/day and 64.5 minutes exercise/day above his normal activity. His max was 5710 kcals/day and min was 2620 Kcal/day. THere were 3 days he did not go to the gym at all. His max exercise time was 115 minutes/day and as I've said his min was 0.

I'm not trying to debate anyone or change anyone's views because I simply don't care, I just wanted to set the facts straight.</div>
Agreed.

Speaking of facts, the most significant difference between the two experiments is what they drank. Spurlock drank regular Coke sweetened with HFCS. Chaz drank diet coke sweetened with artificial sweetener.

A comparison between the two is difficult if not impossible if only because there is no control. Both the diet and the exercise regimen were changed which means if all we know is the two experiments, it's impossible to know which change resulted in what consequence. This is due to the fact that it is believed that we can change body composition both by diet and by exercise regimen. In order to find out which does what, we'd have needed to isolate the diet and then the exercise regimen. That was not done.

On the other hand, when we have prior knowledge of diet and its effect on metabolism and body composition, we can still glean some information from the comparison. For instance, HFCS is known to cause fatty liver disease due to the fructose it contains. Diet Coke does not contain HFCS and thus can't cause this. Further, HFCS also contains 45% glucose. Glucose is known to cause an insulin secretion and release. This in turn causes fat to be trapped in adipose tissue. Just these two aspects of Spurlock's diet is reason enough to have caused him to grow fat during the 30 days of his experiment. Again, diet Coke does not contain glucose and so does not cause an insulin secretion and release which does not trap fat in adipose tissue.

Had Chaz drank regular Coke instead, he'd have gotten just as fat.

 

<div>
(Dan Moore @ Apr. 26 2008,8:11)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I'm not trying to debate anyone or change anyone's views because I simply don't care, I just wanted to set the facts straight.</div>
And that goes a lo-o-o-o-ong way to explain why we love you...!

 

<div>
(Martin Levac @ Apr. 26 2008,11:10)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">1. For instance, HFCS is known to cause fatty liver disease due to the fructose it contains.

2. Had Chaz drank regular Coke instead, he'd have gotten just as fat.</div>
Oh wtf I feel frisky so I'll bite, even though I know this will get no where fast.


1. It does? Or the amounts which the average American consumes does? There is a distinctive difference between these two scenarios and lumping both together to make a point is misleading.

In fact when subjects consume excess amounts of Sucrose (the chosen sweetener from when I was a lad) versus HFCS, there is virtually no difference in endochrine reponse, satiety or metabolic markers. So even if the sweetener of today was sucrose and not HFCS the obesity epidemic would more than likely still exist. To date there is scant evidence to suggest that HCFS itself is directly causitive of obesity and at best it is merely correlative. What is far more convincing is the amounts that are being consumed which, in many far surpass energy balance needs, as being the culprit.

As far as fatty liver disease again one must consider the amounts before saying HFCS=bad.

#2 -see 1 above

 

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The average professional cyclist has nothing to do with the average person.</div>

The point is that those cyclists consume a large amount of carbohydrate calories and burn the calories off with all their bike riding, which negates your theory that a person's body composition is strictly related to his diet and has nothing to do with his physical activity.  

If you're talking about the average person, perhaps you should leave the word &quot;our&quot; out of your posts.  Many of us expend far more calories per day than the average person, which probably has a lot to do with how I'm able to cut on low calorie diets that are around 35% simple carbs.  I love carbohydrates, so the only reason it's not higher than 35% is because I would go over my calorie limitations (carbs are usually high in calories).

I used to think along similiar lines as you, and thought that I did lose fat easier when carbs made up less than 10% of my diet.  However, after examining my diet more thoroughly, I found that I was just consuming more calories than I thought because carb calories are hard to calculate unless you're eating something with a label that tells you the exact number of cals per serving  (example:  there are 121 calories in a large banana...found out my bananas were 'extra large', which leads to higher calories....same way with oranges, apples, potatoes, etc.)  

 

<div>
(stevejones @ Apr. 26 2008,3:40)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The average professional cyclist has nothing to do with the average person.</div>

The point is that those cyclists consume a large amount of carbohydrate calories and burn the calories off with all their bike riding, which negates your theory that a person's body composition is strictly related to his diet and has nothing to do with his physical activity.

If you're talking about the average person, perhaps you should leave the word &quot;our&quot; out of your posts. Many of us expend far more calories per day than the average person, which probably has a lot to do with how I'm able to cut on low calorie diets that are around 35% simple carbs. I love carbohydrates, so the only reason it's not higher than 35% is because I would go over my calorie limitations (carbs are usually high in calories).
...</div>
And if you're talking about exceptions such as professional cyclists, perhaps you should consider that they don't represent normalcy.

The reason you can cut fat while keeping a high carb ratio like 35% is because your regular diet is much higher in carbs both in total calories and ratio. When you cut calories, you invariably cut carbs which reduces the insulin response and allows fat to be released from adipose tissue.

It's a misconception that carbs are high in calories. It's 4 calories per gram of carbs. 9 calories per gram of fat. But then that means nothing since we don't process food the same way that we measure calories contained in food.

 

never mind