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>
    (quadancer @ Apr. 05 2008,20:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The thought occurs to me that NOT eating is easier than teasing myself with half-meals and nibbling bits and pieces.
    The day has it's rewards. [​IMG]</div>
    Exactly my experience.
     
  2. bluejacket

    bluejacket New Member

    agreed.
    fasting until @ 3pm and then eating a relative decent amount until around 11pm while trying to cut is really not bad. couple that with w/o day (3x a week for me) where i hit maint + 500 or so........all while still cutting fat and seeing progress and its really doesnt feel like a &quot;diet&quot;.

    now bulking with IF is different. non w/o days arent too bad but trying to put the cals away in 8hrs on w/o days (especially low/modest fat) is a real chore. not as much fun as it would seem.
     
  3. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    <div>
    (Martin Levac @ Apr. 06 2008,03:21)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Fiber is no use to us. We can't digest it so we can't use the energy that it contains. It goes right through untouched. The fiber from wheat, bran, consists of the husk of the grain. As a result of our inability to digest it (pretty much no animal can digest it either) it can be eaten by most and then excreted intact elsewhere to increase the grain's chance of survival. After all, it too wants to live. This same mechanism is used by many other seeds as a way to multiply.</div>
    Do you have any idea of gastrointestinal metabolism, or do you just make stuff up as you go?
     
  4. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    Guess I'd better throw out all my trail mix. [​IMG]
     
  5. Avi1985

    Avi1985 New Member

    IF sounds pretty stupid diet. You grow on your no training days, but you eat under maintaince. Normal bulk/cut sounds much better.
     
  6. Aaron_F

    Aaron_F New Member

    Just because its IF, doesnt mean you have to eat under maintenance.
     
  7. Totentanz

    Totentanz Super Moderator Staff Member

    <div>
    (Avi1985 @ Apr. 07 2008,02:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">IF sounds pretty stupid diet. You grow on your no training days, but you eat under maintaince. Normal bulk/cut sounds much better.</div>
    IF is primarily used for cutting. Do you expect to grow while you are on a cut?

    Also, as Aaron pointed out, you do not have to eat under maintenance. If you are bulking, and you concentrate all your calories at and after training instead of just stuffing your face all day long, how is that stupid? It would seem to make more sense to do it this way instead of keeping calories high all the time and risking significant fat gain.
     
  8. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    Not to mention that I can't seem to stay on a normal diet - too many temptations. But with IF, I'm actually less hungry overall. Something happens midmorning and hunger disappears.
     
  9. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    An explanation of the Positive Caloric Balance hypothesis and the flawed conclusions that are invariably drawn from it. While it is not the science itself, it is a good explanation of the application of the science.

    From this link:
    (can't get the full version for some reason)
    http://72.14.205.104/search?....1&amp;gl=ca

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
    &quot;Charles
    Feb 11 2008, 11:39am
    GCBC Chapter 17: Conservation of Energy, pages 292-296.

    Before World War II, our current understanding (the positive caloric balance hypothesis) that overeating and sedentary behavior cause obesity, was one of several competing hypotheses. We know that the positive caloric balance hypothesis became the conventional wisdom. Any attempt to dispute the accepted wisdom was treated, as it still is, as an attempt to absolve the obese and overweight of the necessity to exercise and restrain their appetites.

    The positive caloric balance conviction is based on an incontrovertible implication of the first law of thermodynamics. Anyone who challenges this view is seen as willfully disregarding a scientific truth. In the early 1950s, Columbia University physiologist John Taggart said “Let me state that we have implicit faith in the validity of the first law of thermodynamics. A calorie is a calorie.” “Calories in equals calories out and that’s that.”

    Unfortunately, it isn’t. This faith in the laws of thermodynamics is founded on two misinterpretations of thermodynamic law and not in the law itself. When we correct these misconceptions they alter our perceptions of weight regulation and the forces at work.

    This view also pervades the &quot;low-carb&quot; community as well. We get caught up in well-publicized arguments about whether there is a metabolic advantage or restoration or whatever we want to call it, but it's obvious we still don't understand why cabohydrate restriction doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. Today we will attack the first law and tomorrow the second. You'll understand why I disagree with both Eades and Colpo.

    The first misconception is the assumption that an association implies cause and effect. The law of energy conservation says that energy is neither created nor destroyed and so the calories we consume will be stored, expended, or excreted. This in turn implies that any change in body weight must equal the difference between the calories we consume and the calories we expend, and thus the positive or negative energy balance. The energy balance equation looks like this:

    Change in energy stores = Energy intake – Energy expenditure

    The first law of thermodynamics dictates that weight gain – the increase in energy stored as fat and lean-tissue mass – will be accompanied by or associated with positive energy balance, but it does not say that it is caused by a positive energy balance.

    There is no arrow of causality in the equation. It is equally possible, without violating this fundamental truth, for a change in energy stores, to be the driving force in cause and effect. Some regulatory phenomenon could drive us to gain weight, which would in turn cause a positive energy balance and thus overeating and/or sedentary behavior. Calories in does equal calories out, but what is “cause” in energy stores is “effect” in calories in/calories out.

    All who insist that overeating and or sedentary behavior must be the cause of obesity have done so on the basis of this same fundamental error. They observe correctly that positive energy balance must be associated with weight gain, but then they will assume without justification that positive caloric balance is the cause of weight gain. This simple misconception had led to a century of misguided obesity research.

    Construed properly, either of two possibilities is allowed. It may be true that overeating and/or sedentary behavior can cause overweight and obesity, but the evidence and the observations argue otherwise.

    We eat more and move less and have less energy to expend because we are driven to get fat by metabolism and hormones. In 1940, Hugo Rony discussed this reverse causation problem in a monograph entitled Obesity and Leanness which is easily the most thoughtful analysis ever written in English on weight regulation in humans.

    I told you Rony was my guy. Stay tuned!

    When Rony discussed positive energy balance, he compared the situation with what happens in growing children. “The caloric balance is known to be positive in growing children. But children do not grow because they eat voraciously; rather, they eat voraciously because they are growing. They require the excess calories to satisfy the requirements of growth; the result is positive energy balance. The growth is induced by hormones and, in particular by growth hormone. This is the same path of cause and effect that would be taken by anyone who is driven to put on fat by a metabolic or hormonal disorder. The disorder will cause the excess growth – horizontal, in effect, rather than vertical. For every calorie stored as fat or lean tissue, the body will require that an extra calorie either be consumed or conserved.”

    As a result, anyone driven to put on fat by such a metabolic or hormonal defect would be driven to excessive eating, physical inactivity, or some combination. Hunger and indolence would be side effects of such hormonal defect, merely facilitating the drive to fatten. They would not be the fundamental cause.

    Positive caloric balance would be regarded as the cause of fatness when fatness is artificially produced in a normal person or animal by forced excessive feeding or forced rest, or both. However, obesity develops spontaneously; some intrinsic abnormality seems to induce the body to establish caloric balance leading to fat accumulation. Positive caloric balance would then be a result, rather than a cause of the condition.

    An obvious example is pregnancy when women are driven to fatten by hormonal changes. This drive induces hunger and lethargy as a result. The mother’s weight loss afterwards may be regulated by hormonal changes just as it appears to be in animals.

    What’s very strange is the failure to grasp the fact that both hunger and sedentary behavior can be driven by a metabolic hormonal disposition to grow fat, just as a lack of hunger and the impulse to engage in physical activity can be driven by a metabolic-hormonal disposition to grow fat, just as a lack of hunger and the impulse to engage in physical activity can be driven by a metabolic hormonal disposition to burn calories rather than store them.

    Obesity researchers will acknowledge that growth of the skeletal bones and muscle tissue is determined by genetic inheritance and driven by hormonal regulation, and that this growth will induce the necessary positive caloric balance to fuel it. But they see no reason to believe that a similar process drives the growth of fat tissue.

    Eventually, those driven to fattening achieve energy balance but only at an excessive weight and with an excessive amount of body fat. The essential question is what are the metabolic and hormonal deviations that drive this fattening process? When we have that answer, we will know what causes obesity.

    As we’ve discussed, obesity is associated with all the physiological abnormalities of metabolic syndrome and all the attendant chronic diseases of civilization. For this reason, public-health authorities now assume that obesity causes or exacerbates these conditions. The alternative logic, with the causality reversed, implies a different conclusion. The same metabolic-hormonal disorder that drives us to fatten also causes metabolic syndrome and the attendant chronic diseases of civilization.

    Tune in tomorrow when we’ll tackle the second law of thermodynamics, pages 296-298.&quot;
    </div>


    In other words, correlation does not equal causation. This means that the dietary advice given in the original post is flawed and bound to fail.
     
  10. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    Except that it's been working for many years on thousands of BB'ers.
    Sorry, but I read that article as found it a quite wordy way of saying that he knows nothing. And he said it over and over.
    &quot;Intrinsic abnormality&quot;? Please. God isn't that stupid.
    You keep saying correlation doesn't equal causation. That seems right to me. But correlation does point to causation; it's how we do statistical analysis, no?
     
  11. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    Statistical or epidemiological studies can only show correlation. Those studies can only be used ultimately as a tool to develop hypotheses. Hypotheses which, in turn, must be proven or refuted in the lab. The Positive Caloric Balance hypothesis has never been proven in the lab. It was decreed as immutable law before it even made it to the lab. And since then it's been refuted countless times in the lab and with other epidemiological studies.

    There is one real effect of caloric restriction. By cutting total calories, inevitably, we also cut total carbohydrates. By doing so, we reduce blood glucose which in turn reduces insulin level which in turn allows fat to be released from adipose tissue and subsequently used as fuel. This will go on as long as insulin level is low enough to allow fat to be released. Eventually, a balance will be reached where there will be too much insulin again to allow fat to be released because there is still a significant amount of carbs coming in and insulin hasn't yet reached normal level. It is for this reason, for instance, that people who only cut calories without distinction eventually reach a plateau where no fat (and no weight) is lost anymore.

    The problem here is that this mechanism above is not acknowledged by those who give advice such as that given in the first post of this thread. For them, all that matters is that we cut calories and suffer the hunger. The rest is of no consequence.

    You say he (Charles) looks like he knows nothing. I think he seems to know what he's talking about. I read that book, Good Calories Bad Calories. The author is Gary Taubes. He's a scientific journalist. We can view his cv on wikipedia.
     
  12. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    About intermittent fasting. One aspect of eating no carb, high fat and adequate protein is the lack of hunger. The physiological state that results from this diet is similar to that of fasting or starvation. As we stop eating food altogether, we also stop eating carbs altogether which reduces blood glucose which reduce insulin which allows fat to be released from adipose tissue. This fat in turn is used for fuel. If there's fuel available, cells don't call out for that so hunger is suppressed.

    The problem with IF comes when it's done by eating carbs at re-feeding. Then blood glucose increases, insulin increases and fat is trapped again in adipose tissue. Weight loss stops or slows. Simultaneously, hunger increase dramatically once that happens because fat, the fuel that was used for a while, isn't available any more. On the other hand, if the re-feeding is done with fat and protein but without carbs, this sudden hunger increase does not occur.
     
  13. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    Should I put back the 3 lbs. I've lost? And as I said in another thread, this is the first diet I've experienced that I may be able to stick with for a while because I'm only feeling hungry in the earlier morning hours, then it goes away.
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You say he (Charles) looks like he knows nothing.</div>
    I said nothing of the sort. Read it again.
     
  14. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">1.) it's obvious we still don't understand why cabohydrate restriction doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.
    2.) Construed properly, either of two possibilities is allowed. It may be true that overeating and/or sedentary behavior can cause overweight and obesity, but the evidence and the observations argue otherwise.
    3.) However, obesity develops spontaneously; some intrinsic abnormality seems to induce the body to establish caloric balance leading to fat accumulation
    4.) The essential question is what are the metabolic and hormonal deviations that drive this fattening process? When we have that answer, we will know what causes obesity.</div>
    Okay, so he said it FOUR times. I just couldn't help but notice. While &quot;telling&quot; us what causes obesity. I'm not saying he's entirely wrong either, but we don't have the answers and all this is moot since overeating MAKES US FAT.
     
  15. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    <div>
    (quadancer @ Apr. 08 2008,16:15)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">...overeating MAKES US FAT.</div>
    How does overeating make us fat?
    And what makes us overeat?
    Do we just overeat of our own free will or is there something that drives us to do it?
    66% of US adults can't just have decided to develop a personality disorder that makes them overeat, can they?
    What if they did, what is the disorder?
    If there's a disorder that makes them overeat, what's the cause of this disorder?
    Is it a virus, a bacteria, a fungus?
    If there's a cause to all this, does it apply to everybody or only to some of them?
    If that's the case, what's the cause for the other people who get fat but don't have the disorder and by this logic, don't overeat themselves?
    How much food is overeating?
    2000 calories?
    3000 calories?
    5000 calories?
    If you eat 3000 calories and your neighbour eats 3000 calories but you are lean and he is fat, does he overeat and you don't?
    If that's how you see it then that means he overeats because he's fat, doesn't it?
    And if that's how you see it then that means you don't overeat because you are lean, doesn't it?
    The causes are reversed in that case.
    So what's the cause of him overeating and you not overeating?
    But since you both eat the same amount of calories, that question makes no sense. The question that would make sense in that case is:
    What makes him grow fat but not you?

    Do you know what lipodystrophy is? In short, it's an abnormal distribution of fat on the body. For instance, in that GCBC book (p. 361), there's an illustration of a woman with emaciated upper body but fat lower body.

    Do we blame overeating for her fat butt and undereating for her emaciated torso?

    If your answer is that there is something genetic going on, you're making progress.


    There is no end to the questions because it's based on fiction.
     
  16. Martin Levac

    Martin Levac New Member

    <div>
    (quadancer @ Apr. 08 2008,16:07)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Should I put back the 3 lbs. I've lost? And as I said in another thread, this is the first diet I've experienced that I may be able to stick with for a while because I'm only feeling hungry in the earlier morning hours, then it goes away.
    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You say he (Charles) looks like he knows nothing.</div>
    I said nothing of the sort. Read it again.</div>
    I don't know if you will gain back those pounds. Do you eat a high carb diet? If so, then you will gain them back just as quickly as you lost them. Don't worry too much about it because the first few lbs is water that is needed by the glycogen. It's the same water most people lose when they stop eating carbs.

    You feel hungry in the morning? I don't ever feel hungry since I cut out all carbs.



    post 72. You wrote:
    Quote:
    &quot;Sorry, but I read that article as found it a quite wordy way of saying that he knows nothing.&quot;

    I though your statement to mean you think he looks like he knows nothing. Should I have thought otherwise?
     
  17. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">post 72. You wrote:
    Quote:
    &quot;Sorry, but I read that article as found it a quite wordy way of saying that he knows nothing.&quot;
    I though your statement to mean you think he looks like he knows nothing. Should I have thought otherwise? </div>

    In reference to the article. Not empirically. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
     
  18. XFatMan

    XFatMan New Member

    Martin Levac, at which university did study this topic? Are you even a competent professional in this area? I would really like to see your qualifications because I have worked together (as a patient) with the most renowned people on that topic here in Brazil. The result is that I have managed to reduce my bodyweight from over 256 pounds to currently 155 in 22 months. My body fat percentage went from 42% to under 15%. Your writings discredit these professionals. Who are you to discredit internationally published people with your writings? I have shown your writings to some of these professionals and they just laughed and made comments that I would really not like to repeat here.
     
  19. Avi1985

    Avi1985 New Member

    I dont understand what is the problam with low carb diet?
     
  20. quadancer

    quadancer New Member

    This thread has left the spirit of HST'ers. Name calling next? C'mon guys.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page