- This topic has 5 voices and 10 replies.
-
Posts
-
In a recent thread, a cited article stated this:
The idea that calorie excess always leads to fat gain and calorie reduction always leads to fat loss is not accurate.
On multiple threads people have consistently said that calories on these diets don't matter. Period. This is utter bullshit. It's misleading and wrong to say that to people struggling to loose a lot of fat. How many of the people on this site can say that calories in an absolute, not relative, sense don't matter have gotten skinny from an obese state eating an unlimited amount of calories without a concurrent amount of physical activity? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say not one. If you think you pulled it off, please read to the end. By definition a calorie excess will always lead to fat gain in the long-term. There's a century of overwhelming evidence behind this. In studies where subjects are forced to overeat — they always gain weight. Always? Yes, always. It's true that catabolizing protein is less efficient than either carbs or fat, but over the course of a day it contribute to an extra 70 to 100 calories burned a day. In the grand scheme of things, that's not gonna make people skinny, and will still cause them to gain fat if they eat in excess of this minor inefficiency. Do these diets create an optimal, accelerated metabolic environment for fat burning? I hope so, otherwise I'm wasting my time. Does that mean that calories magically don't matter? Fuck no! Do they matter less? That's the point of the accelerated metabolism. How much of an accelerated metabolism? Who knows? My wife's past her second CN, and hasn't lost a lb of fat, and she's not going crazy with the food. If the magic is in the famine state with periodic feasts of carbs to induce an increased metabolism, then someone explain to me how that means that it doesn't matter what you eat on ULC days, other than carbs? What the hell does eating excess fat accomplish, other than reducing the body's use of fat stores for energy? If you eat enough fat to make up the difference burn from an increased metabolism will you still lose fat? If you said yes to that question, then I've got a good buddy whose a Nigerian prince with a fantastic investment opportunity for you! Do you burn fat when insulin isn't present? Yes, the fat that your eating to maintain your life and current activity. If you eat enough fat to accomplish these two acts, then you're body doesn't magically burn more fat, it just doesn't burn any stored fat. If it does on this diet, then I seriously want someone to explain to me how. I've got an open mind, but I'd like to know how. I'd like at least one study showing this to happen, even if it's a mystery. I'll grant you that excess calories in the form of carbohydrates will not make you fat on these diets, unless in the presence of excess fat. That has zero to do with calorie intake during ULC periods of the diet. One way or another you'll have to burn that excess fat. Nowhere in either of Kiefer's books does he say that calories don't matter, or that you can eat as much as you want. There simply aren't inefficient enough metabolic processes to be practically meaningful to say otherwise. More to the point, everyone that has said that calories don't matter on this diet, I'm assuming have probably not actually counted their precise calorie intake on either diet, or concurrently tracked their calorie burn in the course of the same weeks. So, unless you've actually done just that over the course of the entire diet, and lost all the weight you wanted while maintaining a consistent calorie excess over the entire time, then please stop talking about how calories don't matter. If, however, you did experience this than you seriously need let a researcher know and get yourself studied. If however you merely think that's what you've done, then I've got this thing called a weegie board I can sell you, that will let you talk to dead people. These differences are mostly because some people subconsciously move more when they overeat to burn off the extra calories (non-exercise activity thermogenesis). People suck at knowing how many calories, or the amount of food they eat if they don't precisely track it. How much to people suck? I'm gonna pull a Keifer now, and direct you to a list of articles to look through if your skeptical concerning just how bad people suck at this. I recently posted a study that showed that kids that ate breakfast burned for calories that day from increased activity if they had the freedom to move around, like the weekend. Does that mean that eating early breakfast is optimal when you have a desk job, on the weekday? Probably not, but weekends might be different. However, this increase in subconscious energy expenditure is never enough to completely offset the increase in calories. In every study thus far — people still gain weight when they are eating more calories than they expend. They never expend enough to completely prevent weight gain when they overeat calories."What about studies that show otherwise?" They all use the honor system and have people either self-report food intake, or take their word that they just ate the food they were give to take home. Basically, I'm saying that if you lost a bunch of weight, and you didn't track your total caloric intake, and you think you ate significantly more calories in than the weight you lost, then I'm saying that you are are the victim of very well observed and recorded unconscious, psychological biases. I'm also saying that you are hurting others chances of losing weight by not letting them benefit from the same biases, by telling them it doesn't matter. You still think calories don't matter?References: 72. Yanetz R, Kipnis V, Carroll RJ, et al. Using biomarker data to adjust estimates of the distribution of usual intakes for misreporting: application to energy intake in the US population. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108(3):455–64– discussion 464. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2007.12.004.73. Millen AE, Tooze JA, Subar AF, Kahle LL, Schatzkin A, Krebs-Smith SM. Differences between food group reports of low-energy reporters and non-low-energy reporters on a food frequency questionnaire. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(7):1194–1203. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2009.04.004.74. Tooze JA, Vitolins MZ, Smith SL, et al. High levels of low energy reporting on 24-hour recalls and three questionnaires in an elderly low-socioeconomic status population. J Nutr. 2007;137(5):1286–1293. Available at: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/137/5/1286.long.75. Lichtman SW, Pisarska K, Berman ER, et al. Discrepancy between self-reported and actual caloric intake and exercise in obese subjects. N Engl J Med. 1992;327(27):1893–1898. doi:10.1056/NEJM199212313272701.76. Price GM, Paul AA, Cole TJ, Wadsworth ME. Characteristics of the low-energy reporters in a longitudinal national dietary survey. Br J Nutr. 1997;77(6):833–851.77. Pryer JA, Vrijheid M, Nichols R, Kiggins M, Elliott P. Who are the “low energy reporters” in the dietary and nutritional survey of British adults? Int J Epidemiol. 1997;26(1):146–154.78. Brehm BJ, Spang SE, Lattin BL, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D’Alessio DA. The role of energy expenditure in the differential weight loss in obese women on low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005;90(3):1475–1482. doi:10.1210/jc.2004-1540.79. Burrows TL, Martin RJ, Collins CE. A systematic review of the validity of dietary assessment methods in children when compared with the method of doubly labeled water. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(10):1501–1510. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2010.07.008.80. Cook A, Pryer J, Shetty P. The problem of accuracy in dietary surveys. Analysis of the over 65 UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000;54(8):611–616.81. Maurer J, Taren DL, Teixeira PJ, et al. The psychosocial and behavioral characteristics related to energy misreporting. Nutr Rev. 2006;64(2 Pt 1):53–66.82. Rennie MJ, Bohe J, Smith K, Wackerhage H, Greenhaff P. Branched-chain amino acids as fuels and anabolic signals in human muscle. J Nutr. 2006;136(1 Suppl):264S–8S. Available at: http://pmid.us/16365095.83. Johansson L, Solvoll K, Bjorneboe GE, Drevon CA. Under- and overreporting of energy intake related to weight status and lifestyle in a nationwide sample. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998;68(2):266–274.84. Poslusna K, Ruprich J, de Vries JHM, Jakubikova M, van’t Veer P. Misreporting of energy and micronutrient intake estimated by food records and 24 hour recalls, control and adjustment methods in practice. Br J Nutr. 2009;101 Suppl 2:S73–85. doi:10.1017/S0007114509990602.85. Livingstone MBE, Black AE. Markers of the validity of reported energy intake. J Nutr. 2003;133 Suppl 3:895S–920S.86. Pietilaninen KH, Korkeila M, Bogl LH, et al. Inaccuracies in food and physical activity diaries of obese subjects: complementary evidence from doubly labeled water and co-twin assessments. International Journal of Obesity (2010). 2010;34:37–445.87. Ferrari P, Slimani N, Ciampi A, et al. Evaluation of under- and overreporting of energy intake in the 24-hour diet recalls in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Public Health Nutr. 2002;5(6B):1329–1345. doi:10.1079/PHN2002409.88. Azizi F, Esmaillzadeh A, Mirmiran P. Correlates of under- and over-reporting of energy intake in Tehranians: body mass index and lifestyle-related factors. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2005;14(1):54–59.89. Buhl KM, Gallagher D, Hoy K, Matthews DE, Heymsfield SB. Unexplained disturbance in body weight regulation: diagnostic outcome assessed by doubly labeled water and body composition analyses in obese patients reporting low energy intakes. J Am Diet Assoc. 1995;95(12):1393–400– quiz 1401–2. doi:10.1016/S0002-8223(95)00367-3.90. Samaras K, Kelly PJ, Campbell LV. Dietary underreporting is prevalent in middle-aged British women and is not related to adiposity (percentage body fat). International Journal of Obesity (2005). 1999;23(8):881–888.91. Lafay L, Mennen L, Basdevant A, et al. Does energy intake underreporting involve all kinds of food or only specific food items? Results from the Fleurbaix Laventie Ville Sante (FLVS) study. International Journal of Obesity (2005). 2000;24(11):1500–1506.92. Lafay L, Basdevant A, Charles MA, et al. Determinants and nature of dietary underreporting in a free-living population: the Fleurbaix Laventie Ville Sante (FLVS) Study. International Journal of Obesity (2005). 1997;21(7):567–573.93. Garriguet D. Under-reporting of energy intake in the Canadian Community Health Survey. Health Rep. 2008;19(4):37–45.94. Shahar DR, Yu B, Houston DK, et al. Misreporting of energy intake in the elderly using doubly labeled water to measure total energy expenditure and weight change. J Am Coll Nutr. 2010;29(1):14–24.95. Krebs-Smith SM, Graubard BI, Kahle LL, Subar AF, Cleveland LE, Ballard-Barbash R. Low energy reporters vs others: a comparison of reported food intakes. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2000;54(4):281–287.96. Bratteby LE, Sandhagen B, Fan H, Enghardt H, Samuelson G. Total energy expenditure and physical activity as assessed by the doubly labeled water method in Swedish adolescents in whom energy intake was underestimated by 7-d diet records. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998;67(5):905–911.97. Tooze JA, Subar AF, Thompson FE, Troiano R, Schatzkin A, Kipnis V. Psychosocial predictors of energy underreporting in a large doubly labeled water study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;79(5):795–804.98. Rennie KL, Siervo M, Jebb SA. Can self-reported dieting and dietary restraint identify underreporters of energy intake in dietary surveys? J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106(10):1667–1672. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2006.07.014.99. Macdiarmid J, Blundell J. Assessing dietary intake: Who, what and why of under-reporting. Nutr Res Rev. 1998;11(2):231–253. doi:10.1079/NRR19980017.100. Bathalon GP, Tucker KL, Hays NP, et al. Psychological measures of eating behavior and the accuracy of 3 common dietary assessment methods in healthy postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;71(3):739–745.101. Ventura AK, Loken E, Mitchell DC, Smiciklas-Wright H, Birch LL. Understanding reporting bias in the dietary recall data of 11-year-old girls. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2006;14(6):1073–1084. doi:10.1038/oby.2006.123.102. Champagne CM, Bray GA, Kurtz AA, et al. Energy intake and energy expenditure: a controlled study comparing dietitians and non-dietitians. J Am Diet Assoc. 2002;102(10):1428–1432.103. Bedard D, Shatenstein B, Nadon S. Underreporting of energy intake from a self-administered food-frequency questionnaire completed by adults in Montreal. Public Health Nutr. 2004;7(5):675–681.104. Hendrickson S, Mattes R. Financial incentive for diet recall accuracy does not affect reported energy intake or number of underreporters in a sample of overweight females. J Am Diet Assoc. 2007;107(1):118–121. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2006.10.003.105. Muhlheim LS, Allison DB, Heshka S, Heymsfield SB. Do unsuccessful dieters intentionally underreport food intake? Int J Eat Disord. 1998;24(3):259–266. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-108X(199811)24:3<259::AID-EAT3>3.0.CO;2-L.106. Black AE, Goldberg GR, Jebb SA, Livingstone MB, Cole TJ, Prentice AM. Critical evaluation of energy intake data using fundamental principles of energy physiology: 2. Evaluating the results of published surveys. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1991;45(12):583–599.107. Singh R, Martin BR, Hickey Y, et al. Comparison of self-reported, measured, metabolizable energy intake with total energy expenditure in overweight teens. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89(6):1744–1750. doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.26752.108. Bingham SA, Day NE. Using biochemical markers to assess the validity of prospective dietary assessment methods and the effect of energy adjustment. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997;65(4 Suppl):1130S–1137S.109. Black AE, Bingham SA, Johansson G, Coward WA. Validation of dietary intakes of protein and energy against 24 hour urinary N and DLW energy expenditure in middle-aged women, retired men and post-obese subjects: comparisons with validation against presumed energy requirements. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1997;51(6):405–413.110. Novotny JA, Rumpler WV, Riddick H, et al. Personality characteristics as predictors of underreporting of energy intake on 24-hour dietary recall interviews. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103(9):1146–1151.111. Heerstrass DW, Ocke MC, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Peeters PH, Seidell JC. Underreporting of energy, protein and potassium intake in relation to body mass index. Int J Epidemiol. 1998;27(2):186–193.112. Zhang J, Temme EH, Sasaki S, Kesteloot H. Under- and overreporting of energy intake using urinary cations as biomarkers: relation to body mass index. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;152(5):453–462.113. Scagliusi FB, Ferriolli E, Pfrimer K, et al. Underreporting of energy intake in Brazilian women varies according to dietary assessment: a cross-sectional study using doubly labeled water. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108(12):2031–2040. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2008.09.012.114. Heitmann BL. The influence of fatness, weight change, slimming history and other lifestyle variables on diet reporting in Danish men and women aged 35-65 years. International Journal of Obesity (2005). 1993;17(6):329–336.115. Scagliusi FB, Polacow VO, Artioli GG, Benatti FB, Lancha AHJ. Selective underreporting of energy intake in women: magnitude, determinants, and effect of training. J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103(10):1306–1313.116. Heitmann BL, Lissner L. Dietary underreporting by obese individuals–is it specific or non-specific? BMJ. 1995;311(7011):986–989. doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7011.986.117. Hebert JR, Peterson KE, Hurley TG, et al. The effect of social desirability trait on self-reported dietary measures among multi-ethnic female health center employees. Ann Epidemiol. 2001;11(6):417–427.118. Johnson RK, Soultanakis RP, Matthews DE. Literacy and body fatness are associated with underreporting of energy intake in US low-income women using the multiple-pass 24-hour recall: a doubly labeled water study. J Am Diet Assoc. 1998;98(10):1136–1140. doi:10.1016/S0002-8223(98)00263-6.119. Taren DL, Tobar M, Hill A, et al. The association of energy intake bias with psychological scores of women. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1999;53(7):570–578.120. Horner NK, Patterson RE, Neuhouser ML, Lampe JW, Beresford SA, Prentice RL. Participant characteristics associated with errors in self-reported energy intake from the Women’s Health Initiative food-frequency questionnaire. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76(4):766–773.121. Voss S, Kroke A, Klipstein-Grobusch K, Boeing H. Is macronutrient composition of dietary intake data affected by underreporting? Results from the EPIC-Potsdam Study. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998;52(2):119–126.
I agree with your post but from my observations of the discussions on this topic, and of course I could be completely wrong here, I think the majority of people are arguing that calories don't matter in the sense that you shouldn't need to track them due to the natural satiety of a high-fat and/or high-protein diet – rather than some scientific phenomenon that defies thermodynamics as we know it. However I also believe that this distinction is not made very clear at all, especially to newbies. I for one do not have this 'switch' which tells me I've now had enough food for my activity level that day, I can just eat and eat and eat some more.I personally started CNS, after reading the book and forums, with the attitude that I could eat as much fat and protein as I wanted and then go pretty bat shit crazy on my CNs. The only time I lost weight was during the reorientation period and after that I got fat and was tired all the time. So one day for shits and giggles I decided to plug my previous night's CN food to My Fitness Pal - turns out I smashed through over 5,000 calories. In one sitting. I'm 5 feet and weigh 120 pounds. Who gives a shit how many carbs I ate when my calories were at that level?!Long story short I now track calories and macros and have approx 150 carbs Mon - Thur. Weekends are anything goes but I watch my portions. Works much better for me.
I agree with your post but from my observations of the discussions on this topic, and of course I could be completely wrong here, I think the majority of people are arguing that calories don't matter in the sense that you shouldn't need to track them due to the natural satiety of a high-fat and/or high-protein diet - rather than some scientific phenomenon that defies thermodynamics as we know it. However I also believe that this distinction is not made very clear at all, especially to newbies. I for one do not have this 'switch' which tells me I've now had enough food for my activity level that day, I can just eat and eat and eat some more.I personally started CNS, after reading the book and forums, with the attitude that I could eat as much fat and protein as I wanted and then go pretty bat shit crazy on my CNs. The only time I lost weight was during the reorientation period and after that I got fat and was tired all the time. So one day for shits and giggles I decided to plug my previous night's CN food to My Fitness Pal - turns out I smashed through over 5,000 calories. In one sitting. I'm 5 feet and weigh 120 pounds. Who gives a shit how many carbs I ate when my calories were at that level?!Long story short I now track calories and macros and have approx 150 carbs Mon - Thur. Weekends are anything goes but I watch my portions. Works much better for me.
This first bold is the main point of the advice not to track/count/be concerned. The second bold is the main drawback and limiting factor of that advice.Your argument is sound RJH and I do not disagree. The best progress I have made is by keeping track of what I eat. I don't count individual cracks/slices of cheese or obsessive crap like that but I bulk cook and weigh my meals out for the day each night which takes about 10 minutes and I know exactly what macros I am taking in. I have consistently increased food several times and continue to lose weight, mind you I lift 6 days a week...my log is linked below my post so you can see exactly what I ate and what exercise I did. Clearly I am in a deficit because I am losing. However, no one knows what their baseline really is unless they have tracked and experimented to find what keeps them at a stable weight. The majority of people on here probably don't do that or can't experiment long enough eating at a certain level to find what keeps them regular because every 5 pound fluxuation makes them think they need to change everything. If you don't know your baseline how can you possibly know what is excess and what is a deficit. Due to this someone could go around eating until they are full, track nothing, lose weight, and say calories don't matter and someone could go around eating until they are full, track nothing, maintain or gain weight, and say wait...calories have to matter. The person claiming calories do not matter got the results they wanted and the person who says they do matter didn't get the results they wanted. The point being that for some people the calories don't matter claim is true they don't need to track and they get results. For some people the calories do matter, they need to track and be mindful of what they eat to get results. Everyone is different and it takes more effort for some people than others.BTW where are the articles you cited from?
Who is this post directed towards? No one on here says there is no such thing as overeating. Well to my knowledge at least. If you say calories do matter, then you have people obsessing over them and not considering other factors that go into a successful diet. Also in my opinion, most people do not need to count calories if they are eating the right foods. If just keep eating and eating, most likely you are eating processed foods or sticks of butter. Either that or something is wrong with you hormonally. If your hunger signals aren't enough to keep you from overeating, then obesity would have been as prevalent in the 50s as it is today.
I think you're taking this to the extreme. To my observance, it's not that “calories don't matter, period.” It's that calories don't matter, AS MUCH as we're led to believe. Other factors should take the driver's seat.To say you can't lose fat without being in a deficit is silly. I'll buy that you can't lose WEIGHT without being in a deficit, but it is certainly possible to lose FAT while NOT in a deficit; as seen in "recomp'ing."Lastly, the amount of calories that your body uses for energy in a day is so incredibly variable, from hour to hour, day to day, person to person, etc that it is unrealistic to say "You need to eat X amount to be in Y amount of a deficit, thus losing Z pounds by next month." We just can't accurately know what an individual is "burning" daily, without having some expensive, and obtrusive, lab equipment hooked up. Anecdotally, you can see that the QUANTITY of calories take a bit of a back seat when compared to the type of calories, or possibly even the timing of calories, when you look at the story Kiefer himself tells about the guy consuming 10,000cal of oil a day and not gaining weight.
I think you're taking this to the extreme. To my observance, it's not that "calories don't matter, period." It's that calories don't matter, AS MUCH as we're led to believe. Other factors should take the driver's seat.To say you can't lose fat without being in a deficit is silly. I'll buy that you can't lose WEIGHT without being in a deficit, but it is certainly possible to lose FAT while NOT in a deficit; as seen in "recomp'ing."Lastly, the amount of calories that your body uses for energy in a day is so incredibly variable, from hour to hour, day to day, person to person, etc that it is unrealistic to say "You need to eat X amount to be in Y amount of a deficit, thus losing Z pounds by next month." We just can't accurately know what an individual is "burning" daily, without having some expensive, and obtrusive, lab equipment hooked up. Anecdotally, you can see that the QUANTITY of calories take a bit of a back seat when compared to the type of calories, or possibly even the timing of calories, when you look at the story Kiefer himself tells about the guy consuming 10,000cal of oil a day and not gaining weight.
This whole thing is just arguing over semantics. The thing is some people will always misinterpret advice. You tell them don't worry about counting calories and some people will overeat and get fatter. If you tell them calories do matter, then they undereat and overexercise causing them to become metabolically damaged.
I think you're taking this to the extreme. To my observance, it's not that "calories don't matter, period." It's that calories don't matter, AS MUCH as we're led to believe. Other factors should take the driver's seat.To say you can't lose fat without being in a deficit is silly. I'll buy that you can't lose WEIGHT without being in a deficit, but it is certainly possible to lose FAT while NOT in a deficit; as seen in "recomp'ing."Lastly, the amount of calories that your body uses for energy in a day is so incredibly variable, from hour to hour, day to day, person to person, etc that it is unrealistic to say "You need to eat X amount to be in Y amount of a deficit, thus losing Z pounds by next month." We just can't accurately know what an individual is "burning" daily, without having some expensive, and obtrusive, lab equipment hooked up. Anecdotally, you can see that the QUANTITY of calories take a bit of a back seat when compared to the type of calories, or possibly even the timing of calories, when you look at the story Kiefer himself tells about the guy consuming 10,000cal of oil a day and not gaining weight.
This whole thing is just arguing over semantics. The thing is some people will always misinterpret advice. You tell them don't worry about counting calories and some people will overeat and get fatter. If you tell them calories do matter, then they undereat and overexercise causing them to become metabolically damaged.
Very, very true. Which is why I prefer the middle ground of saying that calories do, indeed, matter. Just not most of all.
…bulk cook and weigh my meals out for the day each night which takes about 10 minutes and I know exactly what macros I am taking in. I have consistently increased food several times and continue to lose weight, mind you I lift 6 days a week…my log is linked below my post so you can see exactly what I ate and what exercise I did. Clearly I am in a deficit because I am losing. However, no one knows what their baseline really is unless they have tracked and experimented to find what keeps them at a stable weight. The majority of people on here probably don't do that or can't experiment long enough eating at a certain level to find what keeps them regular because every 5 pound fluxuation makes them think they need to change everything. If you don't know your baseline how can you possibly know what is excess and what is a deficit. Due to this someone could go around eating until they are full, track nothing, lose weight, and say calories don't matter and someone could go around eating until they are full, track nothing, maintain or gain weight, and say wait…calories have to matter. The person claiming calories do not matter got the results they wanted and the person who says they do matter didn't get the results they wanted. The point being that for some people the calories don't matter claim is true they don't need to track and they get results. For some people the calories do matter, they need to track and be mindful of what they eat to get results. Everyone is different and it takes more effort for some people than others.
Yup, that's all I'm saying. And, I should preface what I wrote in terms the total energy in/out balance. It's the same thing, but there are so many mitigating factors with the "out" side of that equation that I think it's where people get confused about what experts are referring to when they talk about caloric or energy balance/homeostasis. A good example is that you lift weights 6 days/w. Lifting weights is one of the single best ways to preserve muscle when in an energy deficit for fat loss. Plus, adding food increases the energy in side, allowing you to probably lift more and heavier than otherwise. It's my understanding, and I could be wrong, that CNs allow a person to keep the "out" part of the equation from dropping to meet the new reduction on the "in" side as fast as normal, or possibly even at all, by simulating an energy excess in the balance by a massive introduction of carbs in a metabolic state that can't store them. So, it's all upside. You keep your metabolism from dropping to reach a new lower equilibrium, because you're eating an excess of calories over a 5 day period, but doing it in a way that can't add to the overall energy balance from the reduction during the ULC period of the 5 days. Therefore, it is critical that you maintain an energy deficit during the ULC period to burn fat stores, and keep fat to a minimum during the high carb period. That makes straight-forward sense to me, if in fact that is the case. If that's not the case then either the diet works for some people, because it induces a caloric deficit through higher protein and a change in behavior, and for everyone else it won't work. Again, I could be wrong, and if so I'd like someone to lay out another plausible metabolic process. It could be that the famine/feast dynamic of CN increases the metabolism of energy to states higher than could be achieved normally, and makes people into those rare and hated individuals that somehow eat a lot and stay skinny. They all bitch about being skinny, of course. I unfortunately am build to gain both muscle and fat easily. My wife and I tried to go that route for a couple of CN's, and we lost no fat or weight, at all. That's an n=2, but it's the only n=2 that matters to me. Plus, it sounds like from others, that this probably isn't what CNs actually do. Otherwise, Keifer would say otherwise, which he doesn't. Nor would he have generally agreed to deficit macros for his meal plans. If I don't lose somewhere around 1.5 lbs of mostly fat a week doing CNS, and keeping my macros straight, then I'm calling BS on the whole thing, and going back to the CBL leaning protocol. I prefer to eat most of my calories in the evening since that's when I get crazy hungry, so it works perfectly for me.
BTW where are the articles you cited from?
Sure, I stole those from here: http://evidencemag.com/why-calories-count/
...I think the majority of people are arguing that calories don't matter in the sense that you shouldn't need to track them due to the natural satiety of a high-fat and/or high-protein diet - rather than some scientific phenomenon that defies thermodynamics as we know it.
I think so. That's how I interpreted it when I read the books, since calorie counting isn't sustainable long-term, and unless you know your shifting baseline needs accurately, it can make things worse if you overestimate calorie needs -easy as hell to do. But, I agree that it's extremely misleading to most people who are fat, which is why I started the thread. It happened to my wife, who understands physiology as well as internal combustion engines -not at all. Which is fine, because she's an accountant, and just looking at the tax code causes me to sweat a little, and become irrationally hostile. That said, I also think there are some people who honestly believe that these diets do mean they can eat whatever they want; and, I don't think it's their fault from the vague way Kiefer writes. There are plenty of trained and certified nutritional/fitness professionals that say counting calories is not necessary for consistent fat loss, but the vast majority of them would never say that calories are irrelevant or don't count. Even Gary Taubes doesn't say that, and that dudes battling all kinds of windmills (Don Quixote reference).Speaking of which, I think a lot of the arguments by people saying that calories are irrelevant, are unintentionally arguing with a straw man. I think it's based on the wrong belief that nutritional experts, going back decades, have been saying that weight is a simple, linear relationship between calories in/out. If you cut calories by this much, then you'll loose exactly this much weight, and vica versa. But, that's neither was experts say or believe:
The etiology of obesity is multifactorial and includes genetic, neurohormonal, endocrine, metabolic and life-style-associated factors. Generally, obesity is a result of excess energy resulting from disturbances in the energy intake/expenditure equilibrium.Report From FDA's Sugars Task Force. 1986. p. S14.The causes of obesity are incompletely understood, so that effective treatment is difficult. Obesity is the net result of an excess of energy consumption over expenditure. Factors that must be considered as contributing to causation are: (1) heredity, (2) primary overeating, (3) altered metabolism of adipose tissue, (4) defective or decreased thermogenesis (the process by which calories are converted into heat), (5) decreased physical activity without an appropriate reduction in food intake, and (6) certain prescribed medications. These potential causes can interact with one another. Of the six factors, individuals may have some control of overeating and underactivity.The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health. 1988. p. 290.Positive energy balance can result from increased energy intake, reduced energy expenditure, or both, and over the long term, can lead to obesity and its associated complications... Obesity is enhanced not only by this energy imbalance but also by a genetic predisposition to obesity and altered metabolic efficiency... The specific causes of obesity are not well known, although some obese people clearly consume more energy compared to people of normal weight, whereas others are very sedentary or may have increased metabolic efficiency.1989 National Academy of Sciences Diet and Health report. 1989. p. 10.Maintenance of a normal body weight requires a match of food intake to energy expenditure... Both nutrient intake and energy expenditure are regulated by a complex interaction between the periphery and the central nervous system. Although not all aspects of central-peripheral interactions involved in energy balance are understood, key factors have been identified. For example, leptin from the adipocyte, ghrelin from the stomach, peptide YY from the gut, and insulin from the pancreas are all involved in the central regulation of energy balance. In the brain, more than a dozen peptides have been implicated in appetite and satiety.Article on obesity on Joslin's Diabetes Mellitus. p. 536.
This whole thing is just arguing over semantics. The thing is some people will always misinterpret advice. You tell them don't worry about counting calories and some people will overeat and get fatter. If you tell them calories do matter, then they undereat and overexercise causing them to become metabolically damaged.
So what you're saying is that we only have two options here; the two, extreme opposite ends of the spectrum of possibilities? I'd say that this is why context matters.
To say you can't lose fat without being in a deficit is silly. I'll buy that you can't lose WEIGHT without being in a deficit, but it is certainly possible to lose FAT while NOT in a deficit; as seen in "recomp'ing."
No, you'd still be in a caloric intake deficit, just not an energy deficit. The residual energy would be supplied by ones' fat stores.
Lastly, the amount of calories that your body uses for energy in a day is so incredibly variable, from hour to hour, day to day, person to person, etc that it is unrealistic to say "You need to eat X amount to be in Y amount of a deficit, thus losing Z pounds by next month." We just can't accurately know what an individual is "burning" daily, without having some expensive, and obtrusive, lab equipment hooked up.
This fact is no different than any other phenomenon that's normally distributed. Statistically there's no such thing as truth, but that doesn't mean we can't be more or less wrong.
Anecdotally, you can see that the QUANTITY of calories take a bit of a back seat when compared to the type of calories, or possibly even the timing of calories, when you look at the story Kiefer himself tells about the guy consuming 10,000cal of oil a day and not gaining weight.
"Anecdotal" is the operative word of that story. If I, or the vast majority of folks out there, ate that much we'd get fat.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.