Diet optimization guide

Discussion in 'Diet & Nutrition' started by il_dottore, Mar 29, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Totentanz

    Totentanz Super Moderator Staff Member

    <div>
    (il_dottore @ Apr. 02 2008,08:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That's not my advise, is a general guide from Tom Venuto's book.
    I think it's better than nothing....
    Using it me and other beginners can adjust the diet in someway....I think it's better than go with no idea and make changes that have no sense
    If you have more or better info on how to adjust the diet to have better and faster results, you're welcome...please share them with us</div>
    Well, if you really do want to see what Martin would recommend for dieting, just check out the Muscle Glycogen and Growth thread in this same sub forum. Basically, you will eat no carbs. Ever. You can read the thread and decide for yourself what you think, I won't tell you my opinion of it so as to avoid influencing your opinion somehow.
     
  2. TunnelRat

    TunnelRat Active Member

    <div>
    (Totentanz @ Apr. 02 2008,13:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You can read the thread and decide for yourself what you think, I won't tell you my opinion of it so as to avoid influencing your opinion somehow.</div>
    Totz, you shouldn't roll your eyes so much when you say that... [​IMG]
     
  3. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    <div>
    (il_dottore @ Apr. 02 2008,08:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">That's not my advise, is a general guide from Tom Venuto's book.
    I think it's better than nothing....
    Using it me and other beginners can adjust the diet in someway....I think it's better than go with no idea and make changes that have no sense
    If you have more or better info on how to adjust the diet to have better and faster results, you're welcome...please share them with us</div>
    I wanted to point out the flaws in the advice. It doesn't seem to be based on actual knowledge of diet or metabolism. It seems to be based on a hypothesis. The hypothesis it's based on is the Positive Caloric Balance hypothesis. It goes like this:

    Eat more or do less to bulk
    Eat less or do more to cut


    The problem with this hypothesis is that is has never been proven. The human body is not a machine that simply puts away extra energy when there's a surplus and takes it out of storage when there's a deficit. Our fuel system is regulated by hormones which in turn is regulated by fuel quality and quantity. Further, the rate we spend fuel (BMR) is also regulated by hormones which in turn is regulated by fuel quality and quantity. BMR is also regulated by our activity level and by doing so our activity level also regulates our fuel intake to compensate.


    The hypothesis considers output and intake independent variables. For instance, it's believed that if we eat less, we'll spend more energy and lose weight. The problem here is that as we eat less, BMR drops and we spend less energy too. The same is true when we just spend more energy. We spend more energy and supposedly we're going to lose weight. The problem here is that by spending more energy, hunger increases to compensate the extra fuel expenditure so we eat more.


    What has been proven is how carbohydrate affect hormones which in turn affect fat accumulation. Specifically, insulin. Insulin is the primary regulator of adipose tissue. In turn, carbohydrate is the primary regulator of insulin. Insulin works to inhibit or allow fat to be released in the blood to be used by cells as fuel. It does so simply by how much insulin is in the blood. The more insulin in the blood, the more fat is trapped in adipose tissue. Conversely, the less insulin in the blood, the easier fat is released in the blood. As we eat carbs, insulin is secreted and released in the blood. You ask that I share info on this subject? Here it is:


    Eat carbs to grow fat
    Don't eat carbs to cut fat


    It's more simple than the guidelines of your first post. It's so much easier to apply. But above all, it's based on how the human body actually works. Now apply this rule to any diet problem you can imagine. It doesn't take weeks to see the effect. It takes two days. It takes two days whether you're old, young, fat, lean, experienced, beginner, working out, sitting on your couch.


    There's another thing that must be said about cutting fat. We need new fat to get rid of old fat. Just like we need new water to be able to piss the old water. Maybe it's a mechanism of conservation where if there's no new fat coming in, the old one will be retained as much as possible to avoid waste. I don't know but that's how it works for us.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....VDocSum
    (if you can find another study on that but with human subjects, it's be even better)

    This last detail changes the rule to this

    In order to cut fat:
    1. Don't eat carbs
    2. Eat fat


    So, if anybody can't cut fat, it's either because they eat too much carbs or not enough fat. Incidentally, if anybody is growing fat it's also because they eat too much carbs or not enough fat. The problem is the same so the solution is the same.
     
  4. il_dottore

    il_dottore New Member

    Hi Martin,
    I'm a low carb fans, I eat &quot;metabolic style or low carb&quot; from few years and agree with you about carbs, but not totally
    We're all similar but not equal. I know (on other forums) persons who are not carb sensitive and lose fat with 600+ g of carbs/day
    Also your theory is not so simple
     
  5. il_dottore

    il_dottore New Member

    <div>
    (XFatMan @ Apr. 02 2008,12:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">il_dottore (does il_dottore mean The Doctor?)</div>
    Yes,
    you're right but I'm not a doctor it's only my nickname...and it has nothing to do with Valentino Rossi, my friends called me il dottore before Valentino borned [​IMG]
     
  6. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    <div>
    (il_dottore @ Apr. 03 2008,09:02)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Hi Martin,
    I'm a low carb fans, I eat &quot;metabolic style or low carb&quot; from few years and agree with you about carbs, but not totally
    We're all similar but not equal. I know (on other forums) persons who are not carb sensitive and lose fat with 600+ g of carbs/day
    Also your theory is not so simple</div>
    The persons you know that lose fat on that much carbs must be rare indeed. Sumo wrestlers eat that many carbs each day. The macronutrient ratio of their daily diet is about 700/100/300g carb/fat/protein.

    We could point out exceptions all day long but it doesn't change the fact that most of us are not the exception. Two thirds of the population of the US is overweight. One third is obese. This does not mean that the other third is normal weight. The point is that the majority of people living in the US are sensitive to carbs. So, my theory is better suited than the advice in your first post.

    &quot;My&quot; theory is as simple as I wrote it.
     
  7. colby2152

    colby2152 New Member

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">We could point out exceptions all day long but it doesn't change the fact that most of us are not the exception. Two thirds of the population of the US is overweight. One third is obese. This does not mean that the other third is normal weight. The point is that the majority of people living in the US are sensitive to carbs. So, my theory is better suited than the advice in your first post.</div>

    He is Italian, so he doesn't count. [​IMG]

    Seriously though, I think the motive behind what il_dottore was saying is that carbs are not &quot;evil&quot;. You can lose fat while still consuming a good amount of carbs.

    Am I wrong here il_dottore?
     
  8. XFatMan

    XFatMan New Member

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You can lose fat while still consuming a good amount of carbs.</div>
    Exactly. Calories in vs. calories out does the trick. My diet controls just that, and judging from my progress, I think it works just fine.
     
  9. il_dottore

    il_dottore New Member

    I beg your pardon if I can't follow very well your discussions and explain better what I think cause of my poor english.
    For me the main problem with over weight &amp; obese is that they eat a lot of carbs with lot &amp; lot of fats &amp; only few proteins.
    For me, Hi carb+Hi fat+no exercise =  over weight &amp; obese

    Hi carbs+med/low fat+exercise= healty/lean
     
  10. Totentanz

    Totentanz Super Moderator Staff Member

    The only problem with that theory is that it fails to explain the millions of people who are not fat and do not exercise. However, calories in vs calories out successfully explains all of it.
     
  11. XFatMan

    XFatMan New Member

    Well over 60% of my daily calories come from carbohydrates and I wouldn't be surprised if that percentage is much higher. I've continuously lost fat for the last 22 months with that. It's not a miracle diet - it's simple math.
     
  12. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    <div>
    (Totentanz @ Apr. 04 2008,09:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The only problem with that theory is that it fails to explain the millions of people who are not fat and do not exercise. However, calories in vs calories out successfully explains all of it.</div>
    Where's your evidence? Is this it below?

    You wrote
    Quote:
    &quot;I really didn't want to argue this, because it is proven science. In fact, it is based on scientific law. When people doubt that kind of thing, it is straying into the arena of religious and superstitious discussion, and I refuse to become involved in that sort of a debate.

    If you are taking in significantly less energy than the body requires to support itself and it's mass, you will lose weight. There is no way around it. You would have to be getting energy from somewhere to not lose weight.

    But you want evidence? Here you go. I'm going to go ahead and reference wikipedia, but I think this particular page is still trustworthy and will make my point:

    Thermodynamics&quot;
    http://www.hypertrophy-specific.info/cgi-bin....9;st=60



    I posted a link to a paper that shows how the hypothesis violates the second law of themodynamics. Here it is:

    Bottom of page.
    &quot;A calorie is a calorie&quot; violates the second law of thermodynamics&quot;
    http://nmsociety.org/index.p....emid=46


    The laws of themodynamics are proven fact. What is not proven is how the hypothesis obeys those laws. You wrote &quot;it's based on&quot;. That is the proof you must provide. Failing that, you will find yourself in a dilemma: Continue to hold on to the hypothesis or, abandon it. If you hold on to it without proof, it becomes a belief. If you abandon it, you will be out one hypothesis.
     
  13. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    <div>
    (XFatMan @ Apr. 04 2008,12:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Well over 60% of my daily calories come from carbohydrates and I wouldn't be surprised if that percentage is much higher. I've continuously lost fat for the last 22 months with that. It's not a miracle diet - it's simple math.</div>
    You wrote that you take Metformin and other supplements such as chromium. Do you simply discount their effects? It would be difficult to argue that they don't have any effect, otherwise you wouldn't take them. On the other hand, if they have an effect, you must take that into account when you argue either way.


    From wikipedia:

    Quote:
    &quot;The exact mechanism of action of metformin is uncertain, despite its known therapeutic benefits. It appears to act mainly by reducing hepatic gluconeogenesis, but it also decreases absorption of glucose from the gastrointestinal tract and increases insulin sensitivity by increasing peripheral utilization of glucose.&quot;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metformin


    This is quite significant when it comes to carbs utilization, insulin resistance and fat accumulation.


    From wikipedia:

    Quote:
    &quot;Trivalent chromium (Cr(III), or Cr3+) is required in trace amounts for sugar metabolism in humans (Glucose Tolerance Factor) and its deficiency may cause a disease called chromium deficiency.&quot;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium


    You must consider that those supplements skew your observation. To what extent, I don't know. Ask your doctor.
     
  14. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    <div>
    (colby2152 @ Apr. 03 2008,10:12)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">We could point out exceptions all day long but it doesn't change the fact that most of us are not the exception. Two thirds of the population of the US is overweight. One third is obese. This does not mean that the other third is normal weight. The point is that the majority of people living in the US are sensitive to carbs. So, my theory is better suited than the advice in your first post.</div>

    ...
    Seriously though, I think the motive behind what il_dottore was saying is that carbs are not &quot;evil&quot;. You can lose fat while still consuming a good amount of carbs.
    ...</div>
    Certainly. But losing fat while eating a &quot;good amount of carbs&quot; is not the rule. It's the exception. The rule is to gain fat by eating a good amount of carbs. As shown by the current population of the US who is overweight: 2/3. Or 200 million.
     
  15. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">One aspect of these diets that has been especially controversial
    is the so-called metabolic advantage – the idea that more
    weight may be lost calorie for calorie compared with diets
    of higher carbohydrate content.</div>
    The point is moot.
    Lowcarb is a different set of principles, hormonal status, and a hundred odd other factors from lowfat dieting.
    A disagreement over the law of thermodynamics of calories is out of context.
    I've been thinking lately that it's not that there are two camps of science, one wrong and one right, but rather two camps of people who think they are following the only road out there. And some guys right on this forum have done both methods successfully. Billy Graham was quoted as answering the question &quot;Which version of the Bible is the best?&quot; to which he said &quot;The one you read.&quot;
    I think the diet you can follow is the one that's gonna work. 'Nuff said?
     
  16. colby2152

    colby2152 New Member

    Food thermodynamics isn't a perfect one to one relationship, but energy in and energy out and extremely correlated. Genetics, hormones, p-ratio and timing add slight variability to the system.
     
  17. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    <div>
    (quadancer @ Apr. 04 2008,13:36)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">One aspect of these diets that has been especially controversial
    is the so-called metabolic advantage – the idea that more
    weight may be lost calorie for calorie compared with diets
    of higher carbohydrate content.</div>
    The point is moot.
    Lowcarb is a different set of principles, hormonal status, and a hundred odd other factors from lowfat dieting.
    A disagreement over the law of thermodynamics of calories is out of context.
    I've been thinking lately that it's not that there are two camps of science, one wrong and one right, but rather two camps of people who think they are following the only road out there. And some guys right on this forum have done both methods successfully. Billy Graham was quoted as answering the question &quot;Which version of the Bible is the best?&quot; to which he said &quot;The one you read.&quot;
    I think the diet you can follow is the one that's gonna work. 'Nuff said?</div>
    The phenomenon of metabolic advantage is real. It has to do with how expensive it is to metabolize fuel. The most expensive is protein. The least expensive is fat. Paradoxically, eating fat does not make us fat. But then it's not a paradox once we understand how insulin regulates adipose tissue and how dietary fat does not provoke an insulin response.


    Papers on both sides of the fence:

    &quot;Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets.&quot;
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....VDocSum


    &quot;Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet?&quot;
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....VDocSum


    &quot;Thermodynamics and metabolic advantage of weight loss diets.&quot;
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....VDocSum


    &quot;Metabolic advantage of low-carbohydrate diets: a calorie is still not a calorie&quot;
    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/1442


    &quot;Thermodynamics of weight loss diets.&quot;
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....VDocSum



    Also see this link, bottom of page:
    &quot;A calorie is a calorie&quot; violates the second law of thermodynamics&quot;
    http://nmsociety.org/index.p....emid=46
     
  18. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    <div>
    (colby2152 @ Apr. 04 2008,13:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Food thermodynamics isn't a perfect one to one relationship, but energy in and energy out and extremely correlated. Genetics, hormones, p-ratio and timing add slight variability to the system.</div>
    Thermodynamics is one thing. To apply it to food is another. It is a perfect relationship but for it to be seen as perfect, it must be understood. The slight variability you speak of it not so slight. The primary regulator of adipose tissue is insulin. The primary regulator of insulin is carbohydrate. Just these two agents cause more havoc than all other combined.

    Correlation does not equal causation. The most obvious example. Fat people eat too much and that's why they're fat. It's correlated but that's not the actual cause-and-effect. It's the other way around. Fat people overeat because they're fat and have a high insulin resistance. The correlation is still there but the cause is now correctly observed.

    The mechanism is simple. As we eat a high carb meal, we put away a portion of that fuel in adipose tissue. Insulin prevents that fat from getting out as long as we continue to eat carbs. This means that from the total amount of energy we eat in one meal, not all of it is available for immediate use. Or any other time either. It's locked in and will stay there until we stop eating carbs and our insulin level drops. The result of this is we must eat more to compensate this deficit. The more carbs we eat, the more obvious this deficit.

    That's the real paradox. As we eat carbs, we create a caloric deficit that we must fill by eating more. If we eat more carbs, we increase the deficit and must eat even more. Combine this with insulin resistance that prevents glucose from being used by lean tissue and we get a real problem.
     
  19. XFatMan

    XFatMan New Member

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You wrote that you take Metformin</div>
    No, I never wrote that.
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">... other supplements such as chromium</div>
    I took chromium for exactly three weeks. My experience is that it is absolutely useless, so I stopped taking it quite some time ago.

    I have come all the way from slightly over 42% body fat to currently 14.4% body fat with my simple diet in 22 months. During this time, I have used chromium during exactly three weeks, and guaraná powder during four weeks. The rest, which accounts for approximately 20 months, was determination on the verge of obsession caused by the fanatical wish to become healthy. I don’t need any supplement. And frankly speaking, I don’t need any people who try to take away my merit to put science in its place, either. I wouldn't hesitate to bet anything I own that I can get below 10% body fat with my way of dieting. And I can do it at least as fast as other people with their fancy and scientifically backed up diets. [/rant]
     
  20. TunnelRat

    TunnelRat Active Member

    Aw, c'mon, X. Why don't you tell us how you really feel...? [​IMG]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page