- This topic has 11 voices and 37 replies.
-
Posts
-
I love Leigh Peele. I think her science is solid. She has great personality to boot. In her article (link below) she states that basically caloric deficit is the only way to lose fat. Simple math. I understand that with my mind, yet my anecdotal experience proves otherwise.How do I explain the fact that I used that precise method to create deficit in my diet (tried different macros) to lose fat and I was at a stand still. Then I implement Kiefer's CNS protocol (without cutting calories and creating a deficit) and start losing fat like crazy? 4 weeks now and going strong!Any thoughts? My only thought on the subject is that insulin resistant ppl like me don't respond to generic CR approach.....Here's the article by Leigh: http://www.leighpeele.com/the-deficit-how-we-lose-fat
until people understand the human body is not a simple machine then you can see how the idea you can calculate your energy expendature on a simple math formula is an absolute ridiculous concept..so much goes into how you process and use food and it doesn't hold the same for everyone.. certain foods in certain people cause reactions that don't happen in others because of many factors such as hormones, enzymes, genetics.. I will agree somewhere there probably does need to be some kind of deficit.. but how to find that out is not as easy as just plugging numbers into a forumla or starving yourself...Most people who cling to the calories in= calories out rules of losing weight do so because they believe the human body follows the first law of thermodynamics but never get far enough I suppose to see the second law is the one they should pay more attention to...
Always count on Sano to tear on the “calories in-calories out”. I totally agree. Way to many contributing factors to make such a blanket statement. That's not to say that it doesn't work, but it's not some hard rule that it's the only thing that does. Like Sano said, there just has to be a deficit somewhere. I think many here would naturally agree that a massive deficit in carbs (or at least massive compared to the standard American diet) goes a very long way.(oh noes im a taubes-bot)
until people understand the human body is not a simple machine then you can see how the idea you can calculate your energy expendature on a simple math formula is an absolute ridiculous concept..so much goes into how you process and use food and it doesn't hold the same for everyone.. certain foods in certain people cause reactions that don't happen in others because of many factors such as hormones, enzymes, genetics.. I will agree somewhere there probably does need to be some kind of deficit.. but how to find that out is not as easy as just plugging numbers into a forumla or starving yourself...Most people who cling to the calories in= calories out rules of losing weight do so because they believe the human body follows the first law of thermodynamics but never get far enough I suppose to see the second law is the one they should pay more attention to...
You love this topic 🙂
Always count on Sano to tear on the "calories in-calories out". I totally agree. Way to many contributing factors to make such a blanket statement. That's not to say that it doesn't work, but it's not some hard rule that it's the only thing that does. Like Sano said, there just has to be a deficit somewhere. I think many here would naturally agree that a massive deficit in carbs (or at least massive compared to the standard American diet) goes a very long way.(oh noes im a taubes-bot)
This is key, cuz I'd argue from an evolutionary/ancestral standpoint that our bodies aren't made to optimally run on carbohydrate anyway, thus by us eating these ULC diets, we aren't in a deficit at all, merely returning to our evolutionary norm. But that's off topic.On topic -- Sano is right on. It is a ridiculous concept to think our bodies are a math equation. Even when you do consider a simple machine, like a car engine, it doesn't work. Different cars will have different fuel efficiency rates, and within each of those cars you can drive it different ways that make it use more/less fuel. This isn't even taking into account different TYPES of fuel (gasoline, diesel, av-gas, jet fuel, kerosene, etc etc). (^^^ Example of the second law of thermodynamics Sano referenced)So why would something WAY more complex, like our bodies, be controlled by a simple equation like calories-in-calories-out? It's pretty asinine. Caloric deficit CAN create fat loss; in some people; some of the time. It is not REQUIRED for fat loss by nearly anyone. It drives me nuts that these damn celebrity-status trainers continue to perpetuate this unhealthy, and generally temporary, way to lose.
you love this topic 🙂
lol 😛 just the concept makes the head spin and the fact it has become "nutritional common sense" just boggles the mind 🙂
I think that yes a caloric deficit IS the way to lose fat. The truth lies in how that deficit is created and how you view the concept. You can do it by a. lowering calories (traditional option) b. increasing energy expenditure (bad option) or the most healthy way c. increasing metabolic rate. Intermittent fasting works. But it does it by creating a caloric deficit. CNS works. But it does it by creating a caloric deficit. CBL works. But it does it by creating a caloric deficit. How they create that deficit though is what makes the difference IMO. Intermittent fasting works because you are just throwing out meals and dumping calories that way. CNS works because you are abandoning carbs for a less efficient fuel source (fat obviously). CBL works by timing carbs when you are most drained of stored glycogen and are going to waste more energy with thermogenesis and a temporarily supercharged metabolic rate.
the problem is though how do you define a deficit? why is it one person at 150lbs can slam down 3000+ calories not gain a pound sitting on their ass while another eats 1500 calories exercises their ass off and gets fatter or loses nothing? our genetics our metabolisms how we individually process and handle the things we eat all play into thisFor so many people this is the hardest part finding out what is a deficit and how to maintane it with a healthy metabolic rate.. so much goes into this and food choices themselves can be a huge factor as well in some people in others not so much..
Add psychology and stress to the mix:)
which in turn has large effects on our hormones which in turn makes it even harder to figure how to calculate a deficit...here's one example of my good friend growing up.. he was adopted at around 3 years old. The family that adopted him had a son already a couple years older. The family had a history of being very overweight. My friend played very little sports mostly played video games he ate the same foods with his family and ate mostly fast food when he was out. Now by the time they were both in middle school the brother was very overweight for his age yet he played sports all the time and was on the track team, while my friend played none yet my friend was skinny as a twig... If it was all about a simple thing like calories in vs calories out stuff like this wouldn't happen yet it does all the time.
I think that yes a caloric deficit IS the way to lose fat. The truth lies in how that deficit is created and how you view the concept. You can do it by a. lowering calories (traditional option) b. increasing energy expenditure (bad option) or the most healthy way c. increasing metabolic rate.
This just then brings up the problem that there is no way to find exactly what any person's given metabolic rate, or TDEE truly is, so you can't really define a deficit. It boils down to the fact, again, that our bodies are not as simple as a math equation.
Intermittent fasting works. But it does it by creating a caloric deficit. CNS works. But it does it by creating a caloric deficit. CBL works. But it does it by creating a caloric deficit. How they create that deficit though is what makes the difference IMO. Intermittent fasting works because you are just throwing out meals and dumping calories that way. CNS works because you are abandoning carbs for a less efficient fuel source (fat obviously). CBL works by timing carbs when you are most drained of stored glycogen and are going to waste more energy with thermogenesis and a temporarily supercharged metabolic rate.
I would argue that it's not the caloric deficit, but the hormonal manipulation that creates the fat loss, especially in IF. Somewhat the same with CNS, because on a weekly basis you aren't in much of a deficit. And as far as CBL, I don't really think you need to be in a deficit for it to work. But again, it all falls back on we can't really DEFINE what a deficit is because we have no way to know exactly what kind of energy output our bodies are creating. We can get general feels and estimates, but it isn't as simple as "be in a 500 calorie deficit every day and you'll lose 1 pound of fat per week."
Since we are also talking about psychology and stress while dieting, I thought I'd share a really great book on the subject. Many of you might have read it already, but I am in the middle and find it very helpful."Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers" by Sapolsky, Robert
Since we are also talking about psychology and stress while dieting, I thought I'd share a really great book on the subject. Many of you might have read it already, but I am in the middle and find it very helpful."Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers" by Sapolsky, Robert
yea i have read that one good book:)oh also wanted to throw another thing in I forgot to write above.. yet another reason it's so hard to calculate is the huge fluctuations in water people have.. more so in women generally but at any given time you could go up or down 5 or so lbs in a day just due to water.. add that into everything else talked about shows just how hard it is to calculate what a proper healthy deficit is in people
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.