JayJuanGee 
International Playboy
Posts: 5,976
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 75
|
RE: Anyone got a belly that won't go away?
(05-30-2014 08:16 AM)w00t Wrote: Moma first of all I do lift and second what youre saying doesnt make any sense because:
Quote:The whole point I joined the thread was because I want to lose belly (adjust body composition) NOT lose weight.
You cant magically make your belly fat disappear by eating the same amount of calories in healthy food. You need to lose weight! If youre fat and you want to get shredded without losing weight well then good luck with that.
Quote:Calories are treated differently in the body. Some foods are stored as fat, some are made readily available for energy..some are ushered into the tissues for muscle growth.
That doesnt make any sense. If it was true you could eat only "good" calories and would only gain muscle.
You dont have to listen to me but maybe you listen to this guy Here (he trains fitness models btw):
![[Image: tomvenuto_02-247x300.jpg]](http://getfitwithamber.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/tomvenuto_02-247x300.jpg)
And heres what he has to say on the topic:
Quote:Q: In your book, you seem to have taken the opinion that obesity is the result using Caloric Balance Hypothesis (calories in calories out). What is your opinion however on Lipophilia Hypothesis (excess insulin secreation due to the fact of us eating too many carbs in society)?
A: I have plenty of opinions. However, the calorie balance (or energy balance) "hypothesis" of obesity is not an opinion, it's a law of physics. The law of energy balance follows the law of thermodynamics and it applies to the human body and weight loss just as it does in other energy systems.
You can no more avoid the law and it's consequences than you can avoid the law of gravity. Thinking you can consistently consume calories in a surplus without gaining weight (just because you've avoided one so-called "fattening" type of food, ie carbs) is like thinking you can jump off a tall building in New York and not splatter on the pavement below.
Too much of any food (surplus) will get stored as fat. Conversely, if you consistently maintain a negative energy balance (a calorie deficit), 100% of people will lose weight 100% of the time. If they're not losing, they're not in a deficit consistently.
Getting to the Root Cause of Obesity...
All diets can work in the short term if they put you in a deficit. Many of them "trick you" into eating in a deficit just by telling you "eat this, but don't eat that." You could argue that any no-brainer eating plan that helps you eat the appropriate amount of food automatically without thinking is a good thing. The problem is when you're left believing that it was eating the "magical weight loss foods" or "avoiding the evil fat storing foods" that did it. The truth is the "evil" fat storing foods are - to put it most simply - the ones that you overate.
Diet wars are silly - especially the calories in versus calories out debate, or the related high carb versus low carb argument. People should no longer be debating whther a calorie surplus causes obesity because that is already established. They should be discussing what are all the reasons we have a surplus of calories coming in and not enough calories going out in our society today and what are the best ways to deal with it.
Positive calorie balance is the causal factor in weight gain and thus the root cause of obesity. However, dozens, maybe even hundreds of factors - environment, behavior and physiology - can lead to that calorie surplus, so it's terribly over-simplistic to say obesity is nothing but a discussion of calories in versus calories out. The energy surplus problem has to be addressed on two fronts - the ways we have become more sedentary in modern society today (technology replacing labor, cars, TV, computers, etc), thus reducing the calories out, and the ways we have started consuming too many calories (restaurants, fast food, availability of food, social pressure, etc), thus increasing the calories in.
Then, you have the physiological factors that might cause your body to burn less (reduced thermogenesis) or consume more (increased appetite). And to make it even more complex, we have to recognize that energy balance is dynamic, so the amount of calories you burn six months from now, may not be the same as you burn today. What was a calorie deficit last year may not be a calorie deficit this year.
The dynamic - and sometimes confusing - nature of energy balance
It's not that the calories in versus calories out theory is flawed and we need a new theory (insulin hypothesis) to explain weight loss and weight gain, it's that energy balance is not static. Hundreds of factors can not only influence intake and expenditure, there are physiological factors that can change the equation itself. Even very smart people can easily overlook these factors and when combined with looking at their own and other people's weight problem only through the lens of their own biases and beliefs, it's easy to see why people think things like "carbs make you fat" or "insulin is the cause of obesity."
Low carb diet books say it all the time - "carbs drive insulin which makes you fat!" Not in the cause and effect sense, it doesn't. A discussion of insulin could get long and technical but the simple explanation is that insulin is simply the hormonal mechanism of storage it is not the causal factor. This is a simple point, but confusion continues to reign supreme largely because of persuasive sounding arguments put forth by some of the more vocal insulin/carb hypothesis proponents. (NOTE: I'm not going to go into the physiology of insulin in this article. If you want the long and technical explanation about insulin, I'd recommend looking up online an article series by James Krieger called "Insulin an undeserved bad reputation" which contains enough science detail to make the geekiest research hound swoon with delight).
Yes an excess of sugar and refined carbs is one of the reasons for the energy imbalance, so carbs play a major role - but it's the energy surplus, not insulin, that causes the weight gain. Eating excess sugar and refined carbs = eating too many calories. If someone goes on a a diet of 100% sugar or highly insulinogenic foods, but they stay in a deficit (under controlled conditions such as a metabolic research ward), the subjects will still lose weight. These types of studies have already been done both in the lab and in anecdotal situations.
Anecdotally, look no further than the twinkie diet guy... the potato diet guy, etc. Just maintain a calorie deficit and you lose weight even if its all carbs. Sugar doesn't turn into body fat if there's a calorie deficit. If there's an energy shortage, carbs will get burned for energy. Why would they get stored?
Calorie Quality vs Calorie Quantity
Don't read more into this than what is stated here. We are only referring to energy balance. This is not saying that good nutrition is only about calories in versus calories out. Good health is dependent on the quality of those calories. Eating a lot of sugar is not good for your health. Ideal body composition outcomes depend on the quality of the calories as well as the macronutrient distribution. But again, the caloric deficit is the causal condition that has to be there for weight loss to occur.
The fact that so many gurus are still out there pushing the idea that carbs are fattening or insulin is the cause of obesity, independent of caloric surplus is silly. But writers who know how to selectively choose (cherry pick) their sources can spin a persuasive argument that puts diet books on the New York Times Bestseller lists. The more contrarian and anti-establishment the idea, the more controversy is stirred up, the more the books sell (Ergo, I prefer to discuss concepts and not names or books or authors, whenever this is possible).
The carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis of obesity is propagated primarily by those in the low carb world with diet books to sell and or with agendas to push. Some of them mean well, they simply misunderstand the nature of the energy balance law.
Health vs Weight Management
I should mention that when the discussion of low carb diets and insulin comes up, there is more than one hypothesis that is usually discussed. One line of argument is debating whether low carb diets are better for weight loss. The other line of argument is about whether low carb (high fat) diets are healthy or not.
The lipid hypothesis has suggested for years that dietary fat causes heart disease. Therefore, the establishment had condemned diets like Atkins which promoted low carb, high fat intakes. However, evidence has been mounting that is today causing the academic community to re-examine that assumption.
It's crucial to understand that these are two separate arguments. As Yoni Freedhoff said (and I Love this quote), "Health and weight management are two completely separate endeavors." Low carb diet proponents have received some vindication with the recent re-examination of saturated fat and heart disease. But that's the health endeavor. The evidence has continued to pour out supporting the fact that a calorie deficit is the causal factor in weight loss. In fact, much of the most recent research comparing different diets says that the diet you choose doesn't matter nearly as much as your ability to follow it. That means it would behoove us to spend a lot more time on compliance and motivation than arguing about macronutrient ratios.
Low Carb Diets Work, But...
This doesn't mean low carb diets can't be effective. They can work very well. I use and recommend various forms of low carb or moderately reduced carb diets myself. It simply means low carb diets are effective for weight loss for reasons other than some of the low carb gurus believe.
Low carb diets are, for example, an excellent way to control calories since refined sugar and starchy carbs and grains are some of the most calorie dense foods. Reduce carbs and you get automatic calorie control.
There are also different types of low carb diets. Some low carb diets are actually more accurately called high protein diets and those have a thermogenic advantage over lower protein diets and the protein foods are the most satiating and appetite suppresive of the all the macronutrients. (so people automatically eat less) If you go on a diet that makes you automatically eat less, and you end up in a calorie deficit as a result, you lose weight.
On these grounds, if you argued for reduced carb diets with high protein being the ideal fat loss approach, I wouldn't argue against that at all.
On the other hand, I've done a ketogenic low carb diet diet (low carb, high fat, adequate protein) three times in my life and I believe it was far from ideal. On one occasion in the early phase of the diet I did what the guru told me to do - eat "ALL I WANT" but only certain foods that were low carb (that left fat, protein and some limited veggies). I ate HUGE amount of protein and fat (all I wanted!) I did not lose ANY weight at first because I was eating too much (I'd estimate 3500 to 4000 calories). It wasn't until I followed low carb AND calorie deficit that the fat started coming down. The keto low carb method was also not my favorite either because I found the extreme restriction of carbs, even to the point of forbidding fruit, and the mandatory high fat intake, made the program distasteful for me.
Carbohydrates and insulin are not responsible for obesity on the cause and effect level. However, refined carbohydrate consumption is at an all time high and cutting back on sugar calories could help a lot of people. I think the majority of the low carb diet world has come around in a very positive way in recent years. There has been some really intelligent discussion about low carb diets and how to make them healthier and more effective and how to customize them for the individual.
Where the critical thinking low carbers have come around the most is that they are now recognizing that you can't eat low carb and unlimited calories and expect to lose weight. Low carb diets work, but you still need a calorie deficit to lose weight. They're also moving away from the demonization of carbs as a group and realizing that both the quality and quantity of carbs matters and that individual responses can vary.
Important Parting Advice...
If you don't accept that a negative energy balance (calorie deficit) is the root cause of weight loss and that a chronic positive energy balance (calorie surplus) is the root cause of weight gain, then you're doomed. You're not doomed in the sense that you'll never be able to lose weight. You might. But if you do, you won't know how you really did it - you won't be able to connect the dots of cause and effect properly... and thus, you'll never have total control over the process.
In short, if you lose weight, your weight loss will be an "accident." And remember, lots of people have lost weight by accident. I got terrible food poisoning once. I could not eat anything (= negative energy balance). I lost 10 pounds in 48 hours (= negative calorie balance + dehydration). Hmmmm. Since those "calories don't count" books still seem to sell so well, maybe I should publish my new 48 hour diet!
Merely b/c you found a buff guy that is spewing this same thermodynamics baloney does NOT mean that he is correct. A large majority of the guys participating realize that there is a difference between the kinds of calories that we eat. There are some devil in the details b/c we do NOT have agreement regarding some of the specifics - however, a vast majority of guys here are in agreement that eating whole and natural foods is better than eating processed foods and foods with added sugars and added artificial ingredients.
Maybe we can agree to disagree on some of the rest? Certainly, I am of the current thinking that a certain amount of carbs is o.k. in the order to feed our gut flora (serving as probiotics and prebiotics). There is a difference between empty calorie foods like sodas and vegetable juices. They are NOT the same. We can also tolerate a small amount of pure junk without keeling over. Some guys can tolerate more than other guys, and likely if we are in better shape, overall, then we can tolerate more junk for short periods of time.
|
|
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 2 users Like RexImperator's post:
