Yes please post, i often find myself wondering the same thing. I think a calorie is just a calorie in terms of weight gain/loss, and as long as the protein is sufficient, where they come from doesn't matter that much. This is straight bodybuilding wise, not health wise. I mean u'll look better eating cleaner, but it won't make much difference in the long run i don't think. For instance, i like to PSMF when i diet. I like to make it quick and brutal, in one week i'm usually happy enough where i'm at to go back to normal eating. It's like a quick fix me up when i've fudged up for a little while eating wise.
But sure i'm getting no carbs or fats, muscles get very depleted and small, fat melts off. Once u get the fat off though, a proper couple days of eating right, refeeding or what not, and u look great.
I've tried dieting with no carbs, some fats though. Like eggs for breakfast, tuna and walnuts for lunch, chicken w/ olive oil for dinner. I cut, get depleted, but once refed i'm good to go.
Only thing i question in the is a calorie just a calorie is when bulking. It seems that everyone says go for the carbs, not the fats. I wonder if u get really depleted still with no carbs on a bulk. I mean you're hyper caloric, so can't the body convert the fat to glucose and store it in the muscles? I know it's not preference, more likely fill up liver then just store fat, but i can let my mind run a bit.
Eating the same calories should lead to the same amount of weight gained/lossed. Only difference would be water weight .. aka carbed up or not. Bulking with carbs at same caloric level vs. bulking without them or low carbs at same caloric level should lead to the same overal weight gain at the end. Once u carb up that is ...
I like to think that it works that way, makes it so simple. I read Lyle's board alot for nutrition, and basically that's what everyone comes down to. Enough protein and then calories. Sure u should have ~25% fats and 1g/lb of protine and etc. etc. But the Ironagers ate meat, milk, eggs, cheese, etc all day. Tons of protein, lower carbs, plenty of fat. They still could gain weight, and they still could get cut. In the 80's everyone was doing high protein, high carb, little to no fat. So unhealthy right? No stability with such low fats, right? Well they still were able to get big, and they still were able to get cut.
Now people recommend a more balanced approach, the knowledge is better, the way to eat may seem more complicated but it's really not. It's just not so close minded. So u have so many options. But again, everyone can still get big, ripped, whatever.
If i can confirm that a calorie is just a calorie for the most part, then i'll be so much better able to put together a diet. All the information makes u think TOO much. I read Dave Draper's material alot and he keeps saying (in my words) don't think, just do it. More or less don't stress out over the details, just do it. Instinctively i think we know what to do, eat right and work out. Ya know? Eat more to get bigger, eat less to get smaller, workout consistently and try to get better (progression).
I like the whole Paleo Diet gig. I just think it does truly sound like the healthiest way to eat. I don't know if i really care or believe too much about potatoes and all that jazz being toxins or what not. Humans have been eating that #### for years now, and even if it is, it's obviously not making THAT big of an impact on us health wise (when it's balanced of course). But i like how simple it is. Meat, fruit, vegetables ... sounds like the basis of any diet. Instinctively, when i think of the most important things to eat for health, i think meat, fruits, vegetables. Nuts are good, eggs are good, fish, olive oil, etc. But then i read up on things, and realize the low carb levels. Only adaption i've made is whey protein + dextrose pre/post WO. But that's only 50g carbs before and after, and the fruits i eat throughout the day dont' add up too much. Probably would hit between 150-200 carbs in a day. Is that enough to replete muscles if the calories are high enough and u get the dextrose pre/post?
I worry about the fruit carbs b/c i know half (fructose) will go mostly to liver, the other half (can't remember, think glucose) can go to muscles. With low carb levels, that's not alot going to ur muscles.
So i thought ironage/paleo style w/ modern healthy fat improvements. Meat, milk, eggs, fruits and veggies.
Milk would add more carbs, more protein, more fat. It does alot, although not a paleo choice, others make this adjustment as well. Carbs are same as fruit though, half galactose and half glucose, galactose does the same general thing fructose does so once again not alot going to the muscles. But atleast some more. = )
And of course bulking wise, where the hell would the calories come from? Without milk, i'd have to rely probably on fats for a hypercaloric diet. Up the nuts, up the eggs (sat. fat increased), up the meats and choose fattier ones (fattier fish instead of tuna, beef instead of chicken). Milk too adds more saturated fats.
Seems like the Ironagers had no problem gaining weight, losing it, carb repleting and etc. eating in a similar manner.
Otherwise i could up the calories by adding more protein, which i think would probably get converted to glucose and would help fill up the muscles, but no very efficiently. And it's not easy eating a shitload of meat, especially if u're a dull cooker. Now some of my dad's cooking, i can eat a 1lb of meat with no problem. Ground beef? I can skillet that #### and eat a whole lb. But 0 fat chicken breasts? I have to swallow big peices barely chewed with a bunch of water to get it down. Same with tuna. Fatty meats are so much easier to eat, taste better, go down easier and smoother and with less water.
Wow i'm outta here, rambling too much. See how bodybuliding can make ones head spin?
If a calorie was a calorie, then everything would be set. I'd eat how i wanted to eat and not fret about anything.
