Author Topic: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet  (Read 10294 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TheSituation

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
  • Just remember me when I make it shine
  • Respect: +209
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2012, 08:55:43 pm »
0


1. Athlete A will burn more than Athlete B because he's adding exercise into the equation. Also, because athlete B will lose muscle, he will no longer burn 3000 calories because less muscle = less calories burned. That's why he'd put fat on, because he's now eating over maintenance.

...but that's not the situation we're talking about (they both consume and burn 3000cal a day, period). I already wrote down they they are both on caloric maintenance. You can't change a hypothetical situation and THEN defend yourself against THAT one.  ;)


Your situation is impossible, that's why I had to change it.
I don't lift for girls, I lift for guys on the internet



[7:31pm] adarq: ripp, being honest, it's hard for u to beat jcsbck, he's on fire lately
[7:31pm] adarq: he's just
[7:31pm] adarq: wrecking people
[7:31pm] adarq: daily




Say NO to Maroko

And also NO to anyone who associates with him. No Taylor Allan. No Adam Scammenauger. No Kelly Baggett. No Elliot Hulse. No Jtrinsey. NO JUMP USA


Don't PM me asking me training questions. I'm here for the lulz. If you want help, post on the forums and get help from all the members, maybe even me.

TKXII

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
  • Respect: -12
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2012, 01:30:04 am »
0

But yes it is a model. A model that naive consumers are unsuccessfully using to achieve photoshopped physiques on the front of shitty magazines, and destroy their health.



Strange that you blame the fitness industry on calories-in-calories-out model.  It seems it's a little harder to sell diet advice and supplements when you say "Eat less energy and you lose weight".  I'd actually argue that the fitness industry makes a lot of money by getting overweight people to believe that losing weight is a super complicated process for which they need to buy the latest book, or read the latest article or take the new pill or herbal supplement....  



I had not realized that this discussion blew up. I will respond. I suppose T0dday it's a matter of opinion. As a personal trainer, I can attest that most programs invovle caloric reduction. Most gyms also push supplements, so you are right about that. The promotion of a whole foods nutrient rich diet howver, does not exist among mainstream fitness advice. This is my priority however.


About calories in - out -
Let's take a tour into logical theory, because many of the arguments that support caloric restriction for weight loss are based on logical fallacy.

With any given statement, there exists a converse, inverse, and contrapositive. Copied from from: http://www.jimloy.com/logic/converse.htm

statement: if p then q
converse: if q then p
inverse: if not p then not q
contrapositive: if not q then not p

If the statement is true, the contrapositive is true. If the converse is true, so is the inverse.

Our statement is: If calories in < calories out, a living creature* loses fat mass.
converse: If a human being loses fat mass, living entity who follows thermodynamic laws' calories in < calories out
inverse: if calories in ? calories out (or calories in ? calories out), a living entity does not lose fat mass
contrapositive: if a living entity does not lose fat mass, calories in ? calories out (or calories in ? calories out)

*living creature instead of human because we are analysing the laws of thermodynamics in living systems, therefore human vs. rodent should not matter since both should obey the laws of thermodynamics.

On to the twinkie diet:

Human being lost fat via caloric restriction. The only thing this can possibly prove, is the contrapositve. However, the twinkie intervention does not prove the converse, based on logical theory. However, it is commonly cited to prove the converse, to prove that the subject lost fat mass, because calories in was less than calories out. Fallacy #1.

Counter point?: refeeding (I need to study for an exam so I am not going to try to find any links right now). Cheat days. Intermittent fasting and 2000 calorie dinners. japanese people aeting 2700 kcals a day and being slimmer than american people eating less.
Matt Stone's RRARF diet.


-note on the NEJM study. 4kg weight loss after 2 years is unimpressive. THis study also only proves the first statement true and cannot be used to prove the converse true (according to logical theory, which is open to debate).

-more proof disobeying the laws of thermodynamics? hibernating golden-mantled ground squirrel:
Hibernating rodents such as squirrels and marmots typically fatten in the spring, consuming ad libitum, then suddenly cease feeding in the winter. The study cited below found that from Sept. - Feb. these squirrels on a caloric-restriction dietlost fat free mass only
source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11073788

This is just one example of how fat loss can stop on a calorie-reduction diet. We all know this very well.

Inverse: if calories in ? calories out (or calories in ? calories out), a human does not lose fat mass
Counterpoint: refeeding, again, and all the other examples. THe raw food vegan diet (people consume pounds of high sugar fruit and lose weight. ubjects claim to "eat however much they want." Mechanism? AMPK activation I presume. Low protein = more ampk and is why low protein diets produce weight loss as well (as long as we're not talking about processed sugary + poly fat combinations).

contrapositive: if you don't lose fat, you didn't restrict calories.

False also. There is enogh human testimony documenting the stalled fat loss resulting from caloric restriction that I will leave it at that. I've seen it first-hand as well. Eat more, lose more weight. There's a lot more to it. And that's why even as a 'model that isn't perfect' it should not be ever mentioned at all, because of the approach it recommends. It tells people to eat less. this doesn't work.

This doesn't solve the issue of WHY WE EAT LESS. Telling someone to just restrict their calories, is a symtomatic solution. Maybe they ate more because they were stressed out, sleep deprived, have thyroid issues, have other brain issues and messed up feedback signals, poor D2 signaling/receptors, prone to addiction..list goes on. But even if calories in - ot model doesn't solve the "WHY" question, it's wrong for other reasons and is refuted over and over again.

Final conclusions for this lengthy ramble:
Fat loss has interesting biochemistry. Caloric restriction results in some of this magic biochemsitry to occur. One of the more important signals controlling fat loss is AMPK. This can be achieved through exercise, through intermittent fasting, through resveratrol, through quercetin (weakly albeit), and through caloric restrction, and through restriction of certain amino acids.

Therefore, we're talking about specific biochemistry here when discussion fat loss. The refutation of calories in - calories out, will ultimately come from better evidence than I can provide here examining how the biochemistry engendered by caloric restriction promotes fat gain, through a depressed metabolism, reduced leptin/T3/dopamine/catecholamines in the long term.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2012, 01:31:45 am by Avishek »
"Performance during stretch-shortening cycle exercise is influenced by the visco-elastic properties of the muscle-tendon units. During stretching of an activated muscle, mechanical energy is absorbed in the tendon structures (tendon and aponeurosis) and this energy can subsequently be re-utilized if shortening of the muscle immediately follows the stretching. According to Biscotti (2000), 72% of the elastic energy restitution action comes from tendons, 28% - from contractile elements of muscles.

http://www.verkhoshansky.com/Portals/0/Presentations/Shock%20Method%20Plyometrics.pdf

Dreyth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2799
  • Respect: +856
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2012, 11:47:12 pm »
0
Your situation is impossible, that's why I had to change it.

Wait a second... it's impossible for two people to eat the same amount of calories and burn the same amount of calories as each other if only one of them lifts weights?
Again, please explain why the following is impossible:


Athlete A - Eats exactly 3k cals a day. Burns exactly 3k cals a day. Lifts heavy weights 3x a week.

Athlete B - Eats exactly 3k cals a day. Burns exactly 3k cals a day. Stopped lifting.



Now, if you mean it's impossible to get exactly the same calorie count down to x number of decimal places, then I understand you. Otherwise....notsureifsrs
« Last Edit: March 06, 2012, 11:51:21 pm by Dreyth »
I'm LAKERS from The Vertical Summit

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #18 on: March 08, 2012, 02:49:26 pm »
0
Your situation is impossible, that's why I had to change it.

Wait a second... it's impossible for two people to eat the same amount of calories and burn the same amount of calories as each other if only one of them lifts weights?
Again, please explain why the following is impossible:


Athlete A - Eats exactly 3k cals a day. Burns exactly 3k cals a day. Lifts heavy weights 3x a week.

Athlete B - Eats exactly 3k cals a day. Burns exactly 3k cals a day. Stopped lifting.



Now, if you mean it's impossible to get exactly the same calorie count down to x number of decimal places, then I understand you. Otherwise....notsureifsrs


Your situation is not impossible but it's pretty hard to answer unless we know a little more about the two athletes.

If athlete A and athlete B are both massive bodybuilders (ie both have a lot of muscle on their frame) when this experiment starts then athlete B will detrain because he no longer lifts and lose muscle.  As he loses muscle he will have to exercise more and more to burn exactly 3k calories a day.  If we imagine it's possible that he is able to do this exactly then yes, you have found a situation where it's possible to lose weight without a caloric deficit.   Understand athlete B will have to do an extreme amount of aerobic non-resistance exercise for this situation to be possible and that in reality this is a dangerous game to play because as you lose muscle it's likely that you will miscalculate food intake/cardio a couple days and gain fat mass. 

Now if athlete A and B are not so muscular then you shouldn't expect athlete B to necessarily lose a significant amount of weight.  Some detraining is likely but an intermediate athlete does not actually lose much muscle if he stops lifting for a year or so.  He would lose strength and maybe confuse that with muscle.... but actually losing muscle is harder than most people realize.

****
Anyway, your example provides a good point to the topic of energy balance.  While fat is essentially stored energy and is regulated primarily by energy balance, muscle tissue serves another role and therefore is controlled by traning stimulus as well as energy balance.   The example you brought up is pretty similar to what would happen to you if you went to live on the moon.  If you continued to eat 3k calories and exercised a great deal (somehow) you would still weight a lot less because your bones would be lighter because you spend so much time at much less gravity.   Whats important to understand is that why your situation is not a violation of thermodynamics.  Simply put: Athlete B used the energy in his muscles to fuel his extreme cardio.

  You might say: "But he didn't need to use muscle tissue because he ate 3k and burned 3k so he took in all the energy required to do his exercise"

Unfortunately that's not how it works.  While he would of course lose muscle faster on a caloric deficit.... caloric equilibrium does not guarantee that all energy is received from diet.  Any activity will cause energy to be harvested from fat tissue, sugar in the bloodstream (food you just ate), stored glycogen and muscle tissue.  Weight training and diet can affect the ratios but cannot turn off one of the sources of energy.  That's essentially what detraining muscle loss is.  Even if muscle is used for energy at a very low ratio (say 1%), if there is no stimulus to rebuild muscle it will be lost....



 

Dreyth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2799
  • Respect: +856
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #19 on: March 19, 2012, 11:41:57 am »
+1
ok I didn't read the above ^^ but what's so hard to understand?

Is it so difficult to realize that two people may ingest/burn the same number of calories a day, and only one of them still  lifts weights?

The point is the guy that still  lifts weights is going to retain more muscle than the guy that stopped. That's it.




I was refuting TheSituation when he posted:

If you eat 3000 calories, and your body uses 3000 calories, you won't store any fat because there's no reason to.


I was saying that if a guy who had been lifting for a long time stopped lifting for a long time, he would lose muscle. But that means weight loss. However, since the caloric balance is at maintenance, he wouldn't lose weight. To make up for the lost muscle, he'd gain fat to make up the weight.

Especially if he screws up his macros and eats a bunch of sugar instead of protein and fat.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2012, 11:49:27 am by Dreyth »
I'm LAKERS from The Vertical Summit

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #20 on: March 24, 2012, 01:13:19 pm »
0
ok I didn't read the above ^^ but what's so hard to understand?

Is it so difficult to realize that two people may ingest/burn the same number of calories a day, and only one of them still  lifts weights?

The point is the guy that still  lifts weights is going to retain more muscle than the guy that stopped. That's it.

I was refuting TheSituation when he posted:

Quote from: TheSituation on January 15, 2012, 11:59:39 am
If you eat 3000 calories, and your body uses 3000 calories, you won't store any fat because there's no reason to.


I was saying that if a guy who had been lifting for a long time stopped lifting for a long time, he would lose muscle. But that means weight loss. However, since the caloric balance is at maintenance, he wouldn't lose weight. To make up for the lost muscle, he'd gain fat to make up the weight.

Especially if he screws up his macros and eats a bunch of sugar instead of protein and fat.

It's hard to understand because theSituations points are largely correct and then you make arguments which center largely around the word maintenance.
 
Basically it come's down to how you want to define maintenance.  My point was that maintenance of different tissues is not the same for all situations, no pun intended.

A) Situations definition: Maintenance is eating according to energy balance, no positive energy balance, no net fat gain, largely true.

B) Your definition (I think): Maintenance is eating according to maintaining bodyweight.  If a major stimulus is changed (ie. you move to the moon, a bodybuilder stops training, hormonal changes), then eating a bodyweight maintenance will result in a gain of fat tissue as muscle is lost.  Also true. 

The important point I am trying to convey to you is the reason the two definitions are often interchanged (ie energy balance == weight maintenance) is because for 99% of people on 99% of diets  they are essentially the same thing.  Unless you have extremely low bodyfat and extremely large amount of muscle or have drastic change in lifestyle (ie get wheelchair bound or move to the moon, or hormones involved) worry about losing appreciable amounts of muscle tissue is not necessary.  Most people on this msg board are not in danger of losing enough muscle to effect energy expenditure if they stop training. 

People often think they have experienced muscle loss for two reasons, both are wrong:

You may lose A LOT of strength but it's not because of losing muscle tissue.  That's why it will take 5 years for someone to build their squat from 225 to 405 but only 8 months to train it back from 225 to 405 after they take a few years off. 

You main gain a lot of fat when you stop lifting and keep eating the same.  But it's not because your energy balance is changed due to lost muscle but rather due to the fact that instead of using energy training you are probably watching TV. 

IMHO those most important takeaways to take from this discussion.  It's largely thought and stated in broscience that you lose muscle tissue which effects metabolism and causes you to gain fat.  While this is possible, it's not what happens to most young men who stop training, especially not in the short term.

Dreyth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2799
  • Respect: +856
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #21 on: March 24, 2012, 01:33:19 pm »
0
Quote
A) Situations definition: Maintenance is eating according to energy balance, no positive energy balance, no net fat gain, largely true.

B) Your definition (I think): Maintenance is eating according to maintaining bodyweight.  If a major stimulus is changed (ie. you move to the moon, a bodybuilder stops training, hormonal changes), then eating a bodyweight maintenance will result in a gain of fat tissue as muscle is lost.  Also true.  

uhhhhhhhh...... if you are maintaining according to energy balance, then you are also maintaining your bodyweight... our definitions are identical

only exception: maintaining calories doesn't mean you're maintaining water weight, so if you exclude water weight (which fluctuates daily) from the equation then they are the same.

Quote
The important point I am trying to convey to you is the reason the two definitions are often interchanged (ie energy balance == weight maintenance) is because for 99% of people on 99% of diets  they are essentially the same thing.  Unless you have extremely low bodyfat and extremely large amount of muscle or have drastic change in lifestyle (ie get wheelchair bound or move to the moon, or hormones involved) worry about losing appreciable amounts of muscle tissue is not necessary.  Most people on this msg board are not in danger of losing enough muscle to effect energy expenditure if they stop training.  

People often think they have experienced muscle loss for two reasons, both are wrong:

You may lose A LOT of strength but it's not because of losing muscle tissue.  That's why it will take 5 years for someone to build their squat from 225 to 405 but only 8 months to train it back from 225 to 405 after they take a few years off.  

You main gain a lot of fat when you stop lifting and keep eating the same.  But it's not because your energy balance is changed due to lost muscle but rather due to the fact that instead of using energy training you are probably watching TV.  

IMHO those most important takeaways to take from this discussion.  It's largely thought and stated in broscience that you lose muscle tissue which effects metabolism and causes you to gain fat.  While this is possible, it's not what happens to most young men who stop training, especially not in the short term.

There's a lot to ingest there, but basically:

We agree that if two atheletes:
- Both have the same caloric balance
- Both consume and burn the same amount of calories
- Both maintain the same bodyweight
- Only one continues to lift weights, while the other stops

The one that stops lifting weights will, eventually, lose more muscle than the one that continues to lift weights. The amount may very from half pound over the course of a year to 5 pounds in one year, but it will not be zero.

And, in fact, if the athlete that continues lifting is noob enough, he will actually gain muscle over the coruse of a year.



Nobody can deny the above.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2012, 01:44:47 pm by Dreyth »
I'm LAKERS from The Vertical Summit

TKXII

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
  • Respect: -12
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #22 on: March 25, 2012, 11:12:48 am »
0
more evidence refuting calories in - calories out results in weight loss:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21062378

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/153/2/214.short

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0091305787903406


These studies show that when dopamine receptors are blocked or reduced in number, rats and humans over eat. Caloric restriction in these types of animals does not produce fat loss. Same exact phenomenon as the hibernation study I posted. Caloric restriction during hibernation resulted in lean mass loss, but no fat mass loss.

Thus if someone gains weight due to this reason, or any other reason that controls metabolism, until it is fixed, long term weight loss will not be achieved. Thus the calorie argument becomes useless.
"Performance during stretch-shortening cycle exercise is influenced by the visco-elastic properties of the muscle-tendon units. During stretching of an activated muscle, mechanical energy is absorbed in the tendon structures (tendon and aponeurosis) and this energy can subsequently be re-utilized if shortening of the muscle immediately follows the stretching. According to Biscotti (2000), 72% of the elastic energy restitution action comes from tendons, 28% - from contractile elements of muscles.

http://www.verkhoshansky.com/Portals/0/Presentations/Shock%20Method%20Plyometrics.pdf

TheSituation

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
  • Just remember me when I make it shine
  • Respect: +209
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #23 on: March 25, 2012, 02:21:24 pm »
0
more evidence refuting calories in - calories out results in weight loss:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21062378

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/153/2/214.short

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0091305787903406


These studies show that when dopamine receptors are blocked or reduced in number, rats and humans over eat. Caloric restriction in these types of animals does not produce fat loss. Same exact phenomenon as the hibernation study I posted. Caloric restriction during hibernation resulted in lean mass loss, but no fat mass loss.

Thus if someone gains weight due to this reason, or any other reason that controls metabolism, until it is fixed, long term weight loss will not be achieved. Thus the calorie argument becomes useless.

Do you even read your own studies? None of those are relevant. Prevalence of obesity in patients receiving depot antipsychotics? Really? That's a really important study on a website with people trying to build muscle/get more athletic/etc. You can think that's similar to the "hibernation study" you posted, but none of us are hibernating, so there's no relevance.

Here's some anecdotal evidence for you

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html


That's not what we're suggesting though. People who don't understand IIFYM think we're suggesting you eat 10 candy bars a day and you'll get the same results. Sure you'll lose the same amount of weight (not taking thermal effects into effect), but you'll lose a lot of muscle. IIFYM suggests you get the right amount of protein/fats/carbs in, and after that, you can use your extra calories for whatever you want. In every study you post they don't do that, and they don't lift weights, which is also important. You're just trying to be picky and find these irrelevant studies that have no meaning (hence irrelevance) to anyone who lifts weights and follows IIFYM correctly.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2012, 02:25:17 pm by TheSituation »
I don't lift for girls, I lift for guys on the internet



[7:31pm] adarq: ripp, being honest, it's hard for u to beat jcsbck, he's on fire lately
[7:31pm] adarq: he's just
[7:31pm] adarq: wrecking people
[7:31pm] adarq: daily




Say NO to Maroko

And also NO to anyone who associates with him. No Taylor Allan. No Adam Scammenauger. No Kelly Baggett. No Elliot Hulse. No Jtrinsey. NO JUMP USA


Don't PM me asking me training questions. I'm here for the lulz. If you want help, post on the forums and get help from all the members, maybe even me.

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #24 on: March 26, 2012, 02:54:11 pm »
0

Thus if someone gains weight due to this reason, or any other reason that controls metabolism, until it is fixed, long term weight loss will not be achieved. Thus the calorie argument becomes useless.

I really don't want this argument to get out of hand but.... you realizing what you are saying in this sentence right? 

....If some gains weight due to this reason, or any other reason that controls metabolism (ie. Changes calories out)... the calorie argument becomes useless....

You are trying to make an argument against the calories in/calories out model.  You can't say well if we change the calories out part, then the model doesn't work... That's part of the model!   The counter example brought up by Dreyth might be a little contrived... but at least it's an attempt to argue against the model without changing one of it's parameters! 

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #25 on: March 26, 2012, 03:37:01 pm »
0
A) Situations definition: Maintenance is eating according to energy balance, no positive energy balance, no net fat gain, largely true.

B) Your definition (I think): Maintenance is eating according to maintaining bodyweight.  If a major stimulus is changed (ie. you move to the moon, a bodybuilder stops training, hormonal changes), then eating a bodyweight maintenance will result in a gain of fat tissue as muscle is lost.  Also true.  


uhhhhhhhh...... if you are maintaining according to energy balance, then you are also maintaining your bodyweight... our definitions are identical

only exception: maintaining calories doesn't mean you're maintaining water weight, so if you exclude water weight (which fluctuates daily) from the equation then they are the same.


No! They are not. That's the point I have been trying to hammer home to you!  You seem to think that besides water weight which is regulated largely by sodium/water intake (osmotic balance) all other bodyweight is regulated by energy balance.  That's not true in all cases including (in part) the example you brought up.   Understand, energy balance and bodyweight are very well correlated and for most people on this board essentially one in the same, that's why I have said so many times that calories in calories out is the best way for 99% of people to program their diet to lose/gain bodyweight.

However, that doesn't mean energy balance == bodyweight maintenance.  Say we knew exact pearson correlation coefficients for the level of responsiveness of different tissues to energy balance.  Fat mass would have a very high correlation to energy balance (say, close to 1).  Muscle tissue would be less correlated that fat tissue (especially at the extreme ends at the spectrum) but still well correlated for most individuals.  Other tissues such as bone tissue would be correlated even less.....

However, since 99% of adults do no significant training (as far as addition of muscle mass is concerned) the major changes in weight from about age 20 onward are usually due to gains or losses in fat tissue.  This is the reason why the model is so accurate for the majority of people. 

When other tissues are involved the difference between energy and weight maintenance becomes more pronounced.  Take this example.  Two inactive people begin at the same weight and both begin an exercise program and eat to achieve energy balance.  One exercises by jogging and the other exercises by swimming.  Both exercise a lot and burn an equal amount of calories in their activity.  What will happen? 

Neither will add a significant amount of muscle because neither will be doing intense enough work.  Neither will gain fat because calories in == calories out.  However, the swimmer will lose weight because bone mass is largely dependent on the amount of weight bearing stress on the bones.   After some amount of time, the swimmer will be lighter than the jogger even though both eat at energy maintenance.  Thus energy maintenance != weight maintenance in all cases.   

The same is true say of the retiring Mr. Olympia bodybuilder.  After years of high volume weight training and exogenous hormone use the retiring Mr. Olympia will have a massive amount of muscle.  Eating at energy maintenance will not be sufficient to keep such a large amount of muscle on his frame, and muscle tissue can be lost despite energy maintenance.

Remember, the salient point is that these situations are extreme and don't apply to you!  Being surprised by such situations is akin to being surprised that you can lose weight while in energy balance if you cut off your leg!


There's a lot to ingest there, but basically:

We agree that if two atheletes:
- Both have the same caloric balance
- Both consume and burn the same amount of calories
- Both maintain the same bodyweight
- Only one continues to lift weights, while the other stops

The one that stops lifting weights will, eventually, lose more muscle than the one that continues to lift weights. The amount may very from half pound over the course of a year to 5 pounds in one year, but it will not be zero.

Of course, but then they won't maintain the same bodyweight!  Remember fat storage is MORE correlated to energy balance. So, since they are both in caloric balance fat storage for both athletes is unlikely.  However, some small degree of muscle loss is likely, so after a year the one who stops will weight slightly less than the lifter despite both being in energy balance (This is a counter example to energy balance == weight balance!).  Remember though, unless both athletes began with a large amount of muscle.... This weight loss will be hard to detect as it may be within the noise of water weight.



And, in fact, if the athlete that continues lifting is noob enough, he will actually gain muscle over the coruse of a year.


Not really.  Lifting "noobs" don't necessarily gain a lot of muscle of their first year lifting weights.  Extremely inactive people do but if the noob was active at all (ie. played sports recreationally, walked a lot) you wouldn't expect him to gain much muscle. You would expect him have fuller looking muscle bellies, more muscle tonus and vascularity, weigh more from increased glycogen storage/water retention, and MUCH MUCH more strength due to largely neural effects.  But athletes who begin weight training don't really gain much actual muscle weight for a long time.   Case in point. Some members on this board squat around 225 pounds.  Others more like 450 pounds.  Controlled for height, what's the difference in total body-weight for two individuals who are both lean.  Five, maybe ten pounds.   

The entire population in general does not understand how hard it is to gain muscle.  Women are deathly afraid of touching weights and growing huge muscles when men are confident that a little extra fat, bigger looking muscles and a large increase in strength are the product of packing on muscle mass.  In reality adding an inch to your bicep is harder for most people than adding a hundred pounds to your squat. 





Dreyth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2799
  • Respect: +856
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #26 on: March 26, 2012, 03:51:35 pm »
0
No! They are not. That's the point I have been trying to hammer home to you!  You seem to think that besides water weight which is regulated largely by sodium/water intake (osmotic balance) all other bodyweight is regulated by energy balance.

Before I even read the rest of your post, I'm going to have to see some sources for how the human body violates the laws of thermodynamics.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2012, 03:55:22 pm by Dreyth »
I'm LAKERS from The Vertical Summit

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #27 on: March 26, 2012, 05:20:57 pm »
+1
No! They are not. That's the point I have been trying to hammer home to you!  You seem to think that besides water weight which is regulated largely by sodium/water intake (osmotic balance) all other bodyweight is regulated by energy balance.

Before I even read the rest of your post, I'm going to have to see some sources for how the human body violates the laws of thermodynamics.

It's quite frustrating spending 4 years studying physics and then another 6 in graduate school to have to remind people over and over again that nutritionists who know absolutely nothing of what they are talking about and couldn't tell a line integral from an apple and bring up thermodynamics for proof of why one diet or exercise plan work know ABSOLUTELY nothing.

You are NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM.  You are not even a planet.  If you eat 10,000 calories today and then you cut off your leg.... You will weigh less.  The first law is not violated because the energy of the closed system (planet, universe, etc) is still there is the form of a leg on the floor... but YOU weigh less.  That's all that matters to you!   Just like if your bones atrophy you will piss out inorganic metals, quite literally matter will flow out of the open system, and you will weigh less. 

Sorry if I come across as an ass for this post but it's really frustrating to here diet gurus bring up energy in the strictest sense (ie. $E=mc^{2}$)  when talking about human metabolism.  Not all catabolic processes even produce energy (usable for humans)!

I stick by Calories In Calories out and the IFFYM approach for body composition but if we are going to have a discussion regarding the peculiarities or exceptions to the model.... Well, broscience for weight training is one thing... but let's not approach bro-physics. 

TKXII

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
  • Respect: -12
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #28 on: March 26, 2012, 07:10:57 pm »
0

Thus if someone gains weight due to this reason, or any other reason that controls metabolism, until it is fixed, long term weight loss will not be achieved. Thus the calorie argument becomes useless.

I really don't want this argument to get out of hand but.... you realizing what you are saying in this sentence right? 

....If some gains weight due to this reason, or any other reason that controls metabolism (ie. Changes calories out)... the calorie argument becomes useless....

You are trying to make an argument against the calories in/calories out model.  You can't say well if we change the calories out part, then the model doesn't work... That's part of the model!   The counter example brought up by Dreyth might be a little contrived... but at least it's an attempt to argue against the model without changing one of it's parameters! 

The argument isn't getting out of hand. It's been out of hand for a very long time and people don't agree on it.

The reasons I was including in my list of reasons were things other than the calorie itself, but downstream variables, most notably, hormones, neuropeptides, which are affected by the calories you take in and expend. But they are more important because they control the calories you take in and expend, so it's more important to look at the hormonal processes rather than the effects of them.

I have posted evidence suggesting that body weight can be lost with > maintenance calories, so I would like to make clear again I am against this idea that calories in - calories out = 0 means same bodyweight.

But even if it was true entirely, and the converses, inverses, and contrapositives, the model of course does not suggest why one would be eating more calories. Thus trying to force someone to eat less when their brain is not working properly to regulate hunger and satiety, is missing the whole point.

That's what I mean by downstream and upstream causes. A lot of times science looks at upstream causes right next to the target of interest, right next to the disease. But when people talk about "root causes" they are talking about things that cause the supposed upstream causes. Thus, in the studies I posted, we see that dopamine receptivity is a downstream cause for greater caloric intake. THe cause of weight gain in schizophrenics on antipsychotic medications is not that their calories in are > than calories out, but rather less dopamine basically, so the calories thing is a symptom of this.

A cause for weight gain should be something that has no cause. Thus, if eating extra calories and getting fat has a downstream cause, it is an effect. The effect should not be treated. And the populations I brought up, such as hibernating marmots, and these rats on dopamine altering medications are by no means an exception. Some common hormonal reasons for weight gain include:

1. hypothyroidism (which can be caused by excessive caloric restriction or low-carbing, exercising too much, trying to be healthy especially, but it is growing in prevalence in America)
2. menopause
3. stress

All these things fuck up the regulatory processes that help people stay slim at a young age when hormones are youthful and healthy. Hope that makes some sense.
"Performance during stretch-shortening cycle exercise is influenced by the visco-elastic properties of the muscle-tendon units. During stretching of an activated muscle, mechanical energy is absorbed in the tendon structures (tendon and aponeurosis) and this energy can subsequently be re-utilized if shortening of the muscle immediately follows the stretching. According to Biscotti (2000), 72% of the elastic energy restitution action comes from tendons, 28% - from contractile elements of muscles.

http://www.verkhoshansky.com/Portals/0/Presentations/Shock%20Method%20Plyometrics.pdf

Dreyth

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2799
  • Respect: +856
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #29 on: March 26, 2012, 08:49:00 pm »
0
No! They are not. That's the point I have been trying to hammer home to you!  You seem to think that besides water weight which is regulated largely by sodium/water intake (osmotic balance) all other bodyweight is regulated by energy balance.

Before I even read the rest of your post, I'm going to have to see some sources for how the human body violates the laws of thermodynamics.

It's quite frustrating spending 4 years studying physics and then another 6 in graduate school to have to remind people over and over again that nutritionists who know absolutely nothing of what they are talking about and couldn't tell a line integral from an apple and bring up thermodynamics for proof of why one diet or exercise plan work know ABSOLUTELY nothing.

You are NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM.  You are not even a planet.  If you eat 10,000 calories today and then you cut off your leg.... You will weigh less.  The first law is not violated because the energy of the closed system (planet, universe, etc) is still there is the form of a leg on the floor... but YOU weigh less.  That's all that matters to you!   Just like if your bones atrophy you will piss out inorganic metals, quite literally matter will flow out of the open system, and you will weigh less. 

Sorry if I come across as an ass for this post but it's really frustrating to here diet gurus bring up energy in the strictest sense (ie. $E=mc^{2}$)  when talking about human metabolism.  Not all catabolic processes even produce energy (usable for humans)!

I stick by Calories In Calories out and the IFFYM approach for body composition but if we are going to have a discussion regarding the peculiarities or exceptions to the model.... Well, broscience for weight training is one thing... but let's not approach bro-physics. 


makes sense to me now.

i can see how u can lose bone mass by maintaining an energy deficit/surplus of 0.

Can you also gain bone mass while still maintaning a zero caloric deficit/surplus? (curious)
I'm LAKERS from The Vertical Summit