Discussion in 'Diet & Nutrition' started by Zog, Jul 19, 2005.
I think he saw your sig and thought it was referring to him.
There are 3 things I am sure of in life:
My dog loves me.
The world is NOT flat.
A calorie is NOT a calorie in terms of body composition. It IS equal to any other calorie in terms of work potential.
didnt say he did need to dry out
said drying out was significatnt in terms of physique enhancement
type of calories doesnt matter, how about we eat twinkies in place of tuna then. This is very unsound advice
here is another study in regards to subsituting poly and mono as compared to saturated
Dietary fat, insulin sensitivity and the metabolic syndrome.
Riccardi G, Giacco R, Rivellese AA.
Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, "FedericoII" University, Medical School, Via S Pansini 5, 80131, Napoli, Italy. [email protected]
Insulin resistance is the pathogenetic link underlying the different metabolic abnormalities clustering in the metabolic syndrome. It can be induced by different environmental factors, including dietary habits. Consumption of energy-dense/high fat diets is strongly and positively associated with overweight that, in turn, deteriorates insulin sensitivity, particularly when the excess of body fat is located in abdominal region. Nevertheless the link between fat intake and overweight is not limited to the high-energy content of fatty foods; the ability to oxidize dietary fat is impaired in some individuals genetically predisposed to obesity. Insulin sensitivity is also affected by the quality of dietary fat, independently of its effects on body weight. Epidemiological evidence and intervention studies clearly show that in humans saturated fat significantly worsen insulin-resistance, while monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids improve it through modifications in the composition of cell membranes which reflect at least in part dietary fat composition. A recent multicenter study (KANWU) has shown that shifting from a diet rich in saturated fatty acids to one rich in monounsaturated fat improves insulin sensitivity in healthy people while a moderate alpha-3 fatty acids supplementation does not affect insulin sensitivity. There are also other features of the metabolic syndrome that are influenced by different types of fat, particularly blood pressure and plasma lipid levels. Most studies show that alpha-3 fatty acids reduce blood pressure in hypertensive but not in normotensive subjects while shifting from saturated to monounsaturated fat intake reduces diastolic blood pressure. In relation to lipid abnormalities alpha-3 fatty acids reduce plasma triglyceride levels but in parallel, increase LDL cholesterol. Substitution of unsaturated fat for saturated fat not only reduces LDL cholesterol but contributes also to reduce plasma triglycerides in insulin resistant individuals. In conclusion, there is evidence available in humans indicating that dietary fat quality influences insulin sensitivity and associated metabolic abnormalities. Therefore, prevention of the metabolic syndrome has to be targeted: (1) to correct overweight by reducing the energy density of the habitual diet (i.e., fat intake) and (2) to improve insulin sensitivity and associated metabolic abnormalities through a reduction of dietary saturated fat, partially replaced, when appropriate, by monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. Copyright 2004 Elsevier Ltd.
go ahead, if you are eating below maintenance you'll still lose weight. do some decent weight training and get adequate protein, and most of what you lose will be fat, especially in people who are at higher bodyfat levels.
and that study was pretty much irrelevant, since we are talking about replacing carbs with fat
If you take two identical twins, they both train and live the same and both consume the same amount of calories except one eats simple carbs only and the other eats protein and good fats only, are you saying that they will look the same next year? Of course not. One is going to look like the Pillsbury Dough Boy no matter what his weight is and the other is going to look like he works out and takes care of himself. Calories DO count in determining body composition. If they didn't, I would eat only Hostess Cupcakes. Who need protein anyway?
Maybe you should actually listen to lyle when getting information from him for your book?
whats the point of posting useless papers. You notice the difference areas to be targetted 1 correct overweight by reducing energy density of the diet. and then seperately, improve insulin sensitivity. Once on a diet, whether high saturate or not, insulin sensitivity will be improved by weight loss. changing towards a higher PUFA diet can improve insulin sensitivity more, but once again, what effect does improving IS have on bodycomposition (not diabetes, cvd risk etc)
maybe you should spend time actually looking at teh research rather than relying on old bodybuilding mythology. As long as there is adequate protein, you can eat table sugar (wont supply other nutrients tho) and achieve low bodyfat. Maintaining low energy consumption would be harder with pure table sugar.
Most people who go down the clean food line of though always want to remove essential items from the menu... protein is ESSENTIAL. you DIE without it. Outside of essential items, you have energy supplied to the cell, energy is energy. Next you will be telling me that insulin makes you fat.
Whatever. I don't argue with chronicly negative people and proponents of childish sarcasm as a debating technique. The lack of people like that was what made this site so great. I'll just crawl back into my cave and leave you "enlightened few" to your own ways and find some where else to espouse my blasphemy.
Negative? who is negative, The concept of clean food is negative because it reinforces a basic concept of good and bad, which does not exist. IF you want to continue to be negative, maybe you should crawl back into your cave and stick your fingers in your ears in case anyone challanges you assumptions, that obviously you are unwilling to support.
More sarcasm? Very appropriate!
I've been reading posts on this forum for a few months and have enjoyed doing so, and hopefully I've learned quite a lot. Almost everyone who posts here is polite and there are many people who share their experience and knowledge.
Except Aaron_F. You may be an "HST Expert", but you come off like an arrogant SOB.
This forum was based around scientific knowledge and backing. If by arrogant you mean wanting to maintain those standards against the normal bodybuilding mythology, then yes.
ummm... guys? In case you forgot (or didn't know), it's Aaron's job (profession, does it every day) to read and understand this research. How about instead of focusing on his politeness, we focus on the FACTS. That is, after all, the point.
Misinformation is still misinformation, even if it is conveyed with extreme politeness. I'd rather get the correct information. Let's remember that this site is a resource first, not a group hug.
Moving on, someone who is paid to study the research, the facts, SHOULD have that kind of reaction to mythology. No matter how much you convince yourself that eating "clean" or even "paleo" is somehow just BETTER for your body composition, it isn't. It's still food. Food is food. If eating clean makes you feel better about your diet, then fine, eat clean. But that doesn't mean it actually has a beneficial effect on your body composition.
For selfish reasons, I was hoping you were gonna agree. Cause I sure would like a Hot Fudge Sundae with Nuts from Mccy D's
I totally agree with you O&G. It DOES make a difference where your calories come from.
oh, and BTW, I ahve started taking the AVena Sativa and that women's herb Cactus Anus you suggested. I haven't received the Trib yet, but it should be here today.
I don't have man boobs yet
I feel a little bit of tension growing in this thread. I think a lot of it stems from a minor misunderstanding and perhaps some posturing.
In order to better ferret out the implications of the research presented by coach Hale we must all come to the table with a friendly and tolerant attitude.
The field of metabolism and our knowledge of the impact of various macro- and micronutrients is progressing rapidly with new insights monthly. Each of these insights forces us to re-examin what we previously thought to be the facts. This does not mean that our previous interpretations were bad, it only means they were formulated on incomplete data. Even so, they are seldom far from the mark.
So, I want to make sure everyone knows that I personally love to see people use research to make a point. That is the point of this forum...to use research to sift through all the beliefs and traditions in the BBing/strength-sport/health/fitness cultures.
and in this case, the research largely contradicts popular bodybuilding lore. That doesn't mean that there are no (general health) benefits to eating the way Old and Grey advocates (indeed, there are!
But body-composition-wise, it should be understood that this sort of diet is not necessary.
According to modern bbing lore, nobody should beable to get 'ripped' while eating high glycemic index foods with an ultra low fat diet. Its nice how the lore changes over the years to suit the new crop of bodybuilders comming in and the general public 'lore'
Having seen multiple people eating white rice (GI about the same as or above dextrose) and chicken (all day...:crazy ) and get ripped...
In the 70's ther was a low carb drive (gee same with the general public) in the 80s and early 90s there was a low fat drive (wow, same as general public) in the mid 1990's there was the low carb drive (gee same in the normal public) and then now there is the drive toward a balance of fats and low GI carbs (well, once again, just like the general public)
One thing has been constant over that time. Bodybuilders have gotten ripped. Whether low GI high GI low carb high carb low fat high fat (safa or pufa) the end result is the same.
Whoa... quite surprising how this thread (innocently just a question on calories, which seems harmless enough) became so tense that the boss himself had to drop in.
I wasn't actually here the last few days because my girlfriend "kidnapped" me right during my bday and "released" me only now.
All I have to add here is, it's not really the point of "eating clean" to avoid certain (mostly heavily processed) foods like twinkies or such just because they have "sub-standard" or totally different quality calories (because this really is highly debatable thanks to old and new knowledge). The totality is what we should focus on... let's say it's really about "looking at the big picture". We eat clean because the foods we ought to avoid contan a heck of a lot of other bad stuff, like unholy trans-fats, saturated fats, too much calories due to sugars, too much sugars, etc. So we eat clean so we still get all the good stuff we want (Protein, our target calories, good fats, carbs, fiber, whatever vitamins and minerals, etc), all the while sparing ourselves the bad stuff (trans fats, sat fats, cholesterol, too much sugar, etc).
If they released a verison of brownies that still taste exactly the same (so it's still delicious), but they somehow managed to remove all the saturated fats, trans fats, excess sugar, and instead again somehow loaded it with good fats and a little more protein, then we could eat brownies all day and easily maintain a "clean" diet.
Just to sum up, the point really is the big picture. The entire nutrition information is really what counts when considering "clean" diet.
Hope that helps
Personally, I find it very hard to eat "clean" and still eat enough to gain weight.
Separate names with a comma.