Author Topic: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet  (Read 9529 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #30 on: March 26, 2012, 11:59:09 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.

First of all nice post.  While I think you still sometimes post zany things and often start off a bit argumentative.... the quality of your posts has improved by leaps and bounds, just like your leaps and bounds.  Sorry, that was bad.  In all seriousness you are definitely a reader and a learner, you would be well served to go to graduate school. 

A few points though... While your post is otherwise cogent it's pretty confusing when you say things like

"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" 

The working definition of maintenance is maintenance calories == the amount of calories required to maintain body-weight. As Dreyth and I have discussed, while this is becomes fuzzy for other tissues, caloric manipulation does approximate pretty accurately whether body-weight as far as fat mass is maintained.  Thus for 99% of the population maintenance calories = same body-weight simply because that is the definition of maintenance.   

However......... When restated your point is excellent, ie.  Other variables (hormonal, neurochemical, etc.) have the ability to so drastically alter both satiety and maintenance such that simply shrugging off the obesity epidemic as the result of eating above maintenance is both incorrect, arrogant and irresponsible.

To what degree we can point to these variables instead of overeating is debatable and I would argue nobody has the exact solution.  Clearly, both are responsible to some point but it's really a philosophical argument as to which is to blame.  For example... Take a drunk who abuses his spouse.   He could simply continue to drink but do a better job of controlling himself (ie. eat under maintenance) or he could attempt to stop drinking which may diminish his capacity for violence (your root cause).   

One last point.  While I agree with what you said you have to consider your audience.  Surely, we are not going to solve obesity by just telling people to eat less.  I have collaborated with a fantastic neuroscience/obesity lab (Shwartz Lab at U Washington) which comes out with a new paper almost monthly showing the brains involvement in obesity.  One of the most important things they have shown is than a brain cannula supplying leptin to an obese diabetic rat will reverse it's diabetes and essentially fix glucose metabolism.  Very interesting stuff.   This type of research is vital in our understanding of the disease and our abilities to contain and keep it below 30%.

However....  The majority audience on this board is a bunch of incredibly fit, super dedicated, incredibly athletic, young and somewhat young men, following almost perfect diets, willing to log every damn bite of food they eat, with a singular focus of jumping high, running fast and being all around amazing athletes (maybe exaggerating a bit).  Such dedication results in a population with will power so great that caloric restriction poses no problems for the members of the group, and as such it remains that for a group of athletes IIFYM remains excellent and simple advice for them to achieve their goals.

T0ddday

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1343
  • Respect: +1114
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #31 on: March 27, 2012, 12:10:47 am »
0

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)

Yes and no.  Counter examples to energy balance always work best when when they involve losing weight.  Anabolism always requires energy so the counterexample isn't as perfect but the point still holds. 

For example.  Imagine that you move to a larger earth like planet.  Provided you don't break your hips first, such a strong stimulus will result in your body adapting through bone hypertrophy.   The energy required for your bones to grow has to come from somewhere (and your body can only make it from a few places), and since fat is a substrate in pretty much all anabolic processes your gonna need some fat. 

So for example maybe you weigh 200 pounds and eat to achieve energy balance.  You move to this huge planet and continue to eat at energy balance.  But since the necessity for bone hypertrophy is so great your body uses bodyfat and possible muscle tissue to provide the substrates and energy necessary to build larger bones.  Maybe you lose 5 pounds in bodyfat/muscle and gain 10 pounds in bone (just an example).  In the end you weigh 205 despite the fact that you ate at energy balance. 

So, the answer is yes even if it's a bit more complicated when the anabolism is involved.  If the situations are correct (which they rarely are for most people) you can certainly gain and lose weight despite being in energy maintenance.

TKXII

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
  • Respect: -12
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2012, 03:52:05 pm »
0
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.


First of all nice post.  While I think you still sometimes post zany things and often start off a bit argumentative.... the quality of your posts has improved by leaps and bounds, just like your leaps and bounds.  Sorry, that was bad.  In all seriousness you are definitely a reader and a learner, you would be well served to go to graduate school.  

A few points though... While your post is otherwise cogent it's pretty confusing when you say things like

"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"  

The working definition of maintenance is maintenance calories == the amount of calories required to maintain body-weight. As Dreyth and I have discussed, while this is becomes fuzzy for other tissues, caloric manipulation does approximate pretty accurately whether body-weight as far as fat mass is maintained.  Thus for 99% of the population maintenance calories = same body-weight simply because that is the definition of maintenance.    

However......... When restated your point is excellent, ie.  Other variables (hormonal, neurochemical, etc.) have the ability to so drastically alter both satiety and maintenance such that simply shrugging off the obesity epidemic as the result of eating above maintenance is both incorrect, arrogant and irresponsible.

To what degree we can point to these variables instead of overeating is debatable and I would argue nobody has the exact solution.  Clearly, both are responsible to some point but it's really a philosophical argument as to which is to blame.  For example... Take a drunk who abuses his spouse.   He could simply continue to drink but do a better job of controlling himself (ie. eat under maintenance) or he could attempt to stop drinking which may diminish his capacity for violence (your root cause).  

One last point.  While I agree with what you said you have to consider your audience.  Surely, we are not going to solve obesity by just telling people to eat less.  I have collaborated with a fantastic neuroscience/obesity lab (Shwartz Lab at U Washington) which comes out with a new paper almost monthly showing the brains involvement in obesity.  One of the most important things they have shown is than a brain cannula supplying leptin to an obese diabetic rat will reverse it's diabetes and essentially fix glucose metabolism.  Very interesting stuff.   This type of research is vital in our understanding of the disease and our abilities to contain and keep it below 30%.

However....  The majority audience on this board is a bunch of incredibly fit, super dedicated, incredibly athletic, young and somewhat young men, following almost perfect diets, willing to log every damn bite of food they eat, with a singular focus of jumping high, running fast and being all around amazing athletes (maybe exaggerating a bit).  Such dedication results in a population with will power so great that caloric restriction poses no problems for the members of the group, and as such it remains that for a group of athletes IIFYM remains excellent and simple advice for them to achieve their goals.



Thanks. The main reason you think it is the good post is because I did not kick your amygdala in the dendrites. But yes I plan to continue my education after ugrad.

I must agree that for the vast majority of people, eating at maintenance calories maintains bodyweight and maybe bodyfat. I don't think this produces optimal health though of course.

I think maintenance calories should be defined differently, it should be defined as the amount of food required to reach satiety. Nutrition science is not there yet (at least to my awareness), but if we could define appropriate food intake by effects of that food intake, such as leptin secretion, or NPY secretion, and for overall health look at hormones, we would have a much better way f looking at body composition. We could look at gut peptides or brain neuropeptides instead of assuming that maintenance calories regardless of micro/macro nutrient composition will produce the same levels of satiety in the brain and gut.

Quote
Clearly, both are responsible to some point but it's really a philosophical argument as to which is to blame.  For example... Take a drunk who abuses his spouse.   He could simply continue to drink but do a better job of controlling himself (ie. eat under maintenance) or he could attempt to stop drinking which may diminish his capacity for violence (your root cause).

The only good solution is the latter one. THis isn't a philosophical argument. It's an argument for what actually yields the best results. Dropping down to 4%body fat for a bodybuilding competition by absolutely destroying your metabolism and causing you to overeat for the next month to achieve homeostasis again in the brain (which as I just mentioned is how "maintenance" should be measured) is not a success story (scott abel has a bunch of stories like that on his blog). That is the philosphical argument, as in are we lookig to achieve short term body fat loss or long term when constructing a diet. The next argument is, do you really need to destroy your metabolism like many bodybuilders do to reach low body fat. I have never achieved competition ready body fat levels, so I cannot say, but the closest I've ever gotten is from periods of deprivation that's for sure. I usually regained the fat the next day. I maintain a visible 6 pack today with no problem, but I eat until satiation or past.

But since most people on this forum are not competitive bodybuilders, it's not that philsoophical of an argument, since eating for health while exercising intensely should get one to athletically acceptable and aesthetically pleasing bf%. I have not seen many people on this forum who actually eat "healthfully" from my nutrition standpoints so I'd like to see some peope completely abandon things like IFFYM which have no basis in real science at all.

And to address your last paragraph, although it seems convincing, that people on this forum are super fit, healthy, etc and won't damage their health from caloric restriction, this is exactly what people are doing. Firstly, being super-fit is not the same as being superhealthy. Many women fitness fanatics with ammenorrhea fall into this category. SUper-low body fat, super fit, and super sterile as SHIT.

Mens' sperm counts are decreasing, and I doubt the people on this forum are true exemplars of health and have the best fertility. Although many are young, the effects of stupid diets will hit them slowly.

As a skinny-fat-roll-man-boob teenager with gyno growing up, I have been into dieting and worrying too much about what I eat for a long time. It got serious about 3 years ago. Although I'm still healthy by normal standards today, I have mild adrenal fatigue most probably, and mild hypothyroidism. Subconsciously, I have alway been trying to eat less, prolonging hunger and stuff liek that that stupid dieters do. It's a low-grade eating disorder that most people on this forum pretty much have. Now I don't worry as much about diet and I am starting ot have some more energy, but I certainly wasn't "thriving" over the past 1.5-2 years from over-exercising and not eating enough. I know when I have ahigh thyroid hormone levels, I can listen to extremely intesne music, workout more intensely, and just have tons of energy. Those days werren't coming as frequently over the past 1.5-2 years. Now they are slowly comig back.

Those "perfect diets" you speak of are the exact diets that lead to failure and weight gain. If you haven't heard ot Matt Stone, he's a chubby (now he's chubby beacue he believes eating refined sugar is going to improve his metabolism.. which he is right about) health reseracher with no degree who has thousands of stories like this. You should look into what he has to say aobut dieting. People diet and exercise and follow perfect diets, only to destroy their health, and create a metabolism which in the long term favors massive weight gain. This happens on paleo diets or vegan diets.

As long as someone on IFFYM can manage cortisol levels they'll be fine. But in terms of IFFYM being based on any substance, well it's not. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of in my entire life. If it fits your macros... bros. Micronutrients are far more important. Macronutrients can go to hell. Eat as much as you fucking want jesus fucking christ. I have no priblems being lean anymore and I eat as much butter and raw milk and honey butter sandwiches as I want to.. no restrition. About to gorge on an easter dinner.

This post probably makes less sense, bt I still hope it makes some sense. We need to get as far away from macronutrient brosicence as possible. It's a solid attempt at losing weight, but it should be abandoned completely.

Edit: got rid of all the quotes
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 08:39:29 pm 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

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 #33 on: April 08, 2012, 07:47:34 pm »
0
Avishek has to be a troll

lol at you trying to use yourself as anecdotal evidence to "prove" your theories. You look like shit. Me, and many others who follow IIFYM completely embarrass you in terms of mass, leanness, and strength. But that doesn't mean anything.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2012, 07:49:56 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.

TKXII

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1255
  • Respect: -12
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Cheat days on a weight/fat loss diet
« Reply #34 on: April 08, 2012, 08:42:30 pm »
0
Avishek has to be a troll

lol at you trying to use yourself as anecdotal evidence to "prove" your theories. You look like shit. Me, and many others who follow IIFYM completely embarrass you in terms of mass, leanness, and strength. But that doesn't mean anything.

Keep cryin little one.

"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