Strength Training and Bodyfat Levels

[mikeyfresh]

Go ahead and prove otherwise then.

It's funny because I talk to j all the time and just yesterday he was asking me about a diet book I was reading. Not wanting to count calories, not worrying about whether your diet is truly optimal, does not equate to believing that there is no need for nutritional knowledge.

As far as I'm concerned, knowing that you need to manipulate caloric intake versus caloric expenditure is hardly nutritional knowledge. It is along the same lines as saying that you need to lift progressively heavier weights to get strong amounts to programming knowledge. I guess it's technically true, but these are the mother of all basics. (almost) EVERYONE knows this shit. Just not everyone cares that much for a variety of reasons that have to do with priorities, adherence difficulty, lifestyle, etc. and a million other reasons that I'm sure you could come up with.

Everyone knows the mother of basics yet look down in disdain against those who count calories? There are people in this thread that refute empirical data because they think their anecdotal evidence trumps science. Referring to those who research dieting as "nerding out", claiming that if one has to count calories then they aren't eating "clean" enough, and the likes are clear indications to a disregard for nutritional science. Just because you might not look down on science does not mean others in this forum don't. There is a reason the SS forums are looked at as somewhat dogmatic, it's no secret.

"What works for you might not work for another" in context with this thread is the equivalent of me saying that progressive loading does not work for me.

[Tom Narvaez]

Everyone knows the mother of basics yet look down in disdain against those who count calories?

These people have usually spent their fair share of counting calories themselves. Over time, they've entrenched good eating habits to the point that it is unnecessary for them to count calories. As such, they look at such behavior as unnecessary and obsessive. It isn't a disregard for nutritional science.

There are people in this thread that refute empirical data because they think their anecdotal evidence trumps science. Referring to those who research dieting as "nerding out"

J already explained his stance on that one. You took a colloquialism and ran with it when it wasn't what he intended at all.

claiming that if one has to count calories then they aren't eating "clean" enough

This isn't what was said, but let's not argue semantics. Still, this too, is not necessarily disregarding the nutritional sciences. Just because someone is against counting calories does not mean they believe you don't need to reduce intake to lose weight and increase intake to gain weight (which isn't always true, either).

Just because you might not look down on science does not mean others in this forum don't. There is a reason the SS forums are looked at as somewhat dogmatic, it's no secret.

I feel like you're taking every opportunity to get your agenda across, which really makes you no more or less dogmatic than the people you are criticizing.


The bottom line is that calorie counting ISN'T necessary. John Kiefer, and his carb-backloading program, do not employ the use of calorie counting. He's a nutritional consultant for some of the top lifters in the world including WR holder Brian Carroll. He routinely gets people below 10% with his methods.

So, it is what it is, man. I think you're taking peoples' "disdain" for certain behavioral nuisances and patterns as a disregard for nutritional science. I won't disagree that there are people who will get all huffy over this site when some skinny phaggot decides to count his almonds at Thanksgiving, but, to reiterate, this is not a disdain for nutritional science but a general disdain for their approach to this whole getting big and strong thing. They think these people are missing the forest from the trees. Most of the time, I'd have to agree.

This board does have the whole "if you care about aesthetics, you're a faggot" thing going on, which I, too, hate, but I don't think it is anything to do with nutritional sciences.



edit:

"What works for you might not work for another" in context with this thread is the equivalent of me saying that progressive loading does not work for me.

No. Just no. That's not what he meant at all. He was talking about nutrient timing, macronutrient composition of diets, paleo vs. "clean" eating vs. IIFYM, etc. He was NOT talking about the basics of: getting enough protein, getting your EFAs, and manipulating total calories up or down depending on goals. Read his response to you.

[mikeyfresh]

These people have usually spent their fair share of counting calories themselves. Over time, they've entrenched good eating habits to the point that it is unnecessary for them to count calories. As such, they look at such behavior as unnecessary and obsessive. It isn't a disregard for nutritional science.

I highly doubt that most people in this thread have done this. I'm almost sure that they look at counting calories as obsessive simply because it is foreign to them. Even if someone were to have created good eating habits to the point where they have accurate macro estimations, it does not change the fact that counting calories is still useful and that they themselves had found it useful in the past. I can understand if someone does not wish to count anything, that is fine. However, when someone says counting calories is rubbish, then I'd have to disagree. You don't have to do it but to attack it is ridiculous.

J already explained his stance on that one. You took a colloquialism and ran with it when it wasn't what he intended at all.

I'm sure he meant to use it as an insult and not an informal description.

This isn't what was said, but let's not argue semantics. Still, this too, is not necessarily disregarding the nutritional sciences. Just because someone is against counting calories does not mean they believe you don't need to reduce intake to lose weight and increase intake to gain weight (which isn't always true, either).

It is what was said previous in the thread, it is a direct quote. And that quote is a complete disregard for nutritional science. How does counting calories correlate to not eating "clean" enough? And the whole premise of "clean" eating is broscience.

I feel like you're just taking this opportunity to get your agenda across, which really makes you no more or less dogmatic than the people you are criticizing.

I don't have any agenda. I'm not trying to force counting calories or figuring out optimal macro intake for anyone. I'll suggest it, but I won't force it. I am, however, defending counting calories and the pursuit of nutritional knowledge. In other words, I'm not trying to argue against those that say that counting calories is not necessary, I am addressing those that claim it is somehow stupid.

Listen, this whole thing is getting jumbled up. The point I made when this thread got moved for being "full of bullshit" is this:

The resting metabolic rate for a pound of muscle is approximately 6 cal, which means that muscle mass has an insignificant effect on weight loss compared to your diet. People disregard the empirical data using anecdotal information, thread became a shit storm with people trying to refute what I said without any actual data. I'm addressing (and have always been addressing) issues in context with the original argument. It was also being argued that a 1000 cal deficit was not too drastic. If you know the mother of basics, you'd know there is no need for a 1000 cal deficit except for a particular group of extremely fat people.

[veryhrm]

The problem with the lifting community today is the total lack of respect for the nutritional sciences. Anecdotes can only prove so much. When empirical data states otherwise, that's when you can either choose to believe chemistry/biology or anecdote based logic. It's so frustrating to see people who are well versed in lifting be so ignorant towards their nutrition. This thread alone proves it. And I know people here are going to say, "The science is bullshit", but not for nutrition, no.
...

Stereotyping anyone who wants to be more informed about nutrition as nerds and referring to actually putting in a little bit of time to research what you put in your mouth as "nerding out" is one of many examples of how the people on these forums are extremely biased towards intelligence. I guess if I'm a nerd, you're a meathead.

"What works for one might not work for another" is an intellectual cop out, an alarming excuse to ignore nutritional fundamentals that apply to most everyone.
...

Everyone knows the mother of basics yet look down in disdain against those who count calories? There are people in this thread that refute empirical data because they think their anecdotal evidence trumps science. Referring to those who research dieting as "nerding out", claiming that if one has to count calories then they aren't eating "clean" enough, and the likes are clear indications to a disregard for nutritional science. Just because you might not look down on science does not mean others in this forum don't. There is a reason the SS forums are looked at as somewhat dogmatic, it's no secret.

"What works for you might not work for another" in context with this thread is the equivalent of me saying that progressive loading does not work for me.

Don't get your panties in a bunch... half the people on this forum (in E&P anyway) are nerds of some sort. There's computer nerds, physics nerds, bio nerds, martial arts nerds, a doctor or two and a bunch of lawyers (all but one of which can actually hold a decent argument too). So that whole meathead thing isn't going to play.

After reducing your claim to the fairly benign "1000 cals is too big a deficit for most everyone" you're now back into

"You iz ignoring teh nutrition science !!!!1!!1!" mode. Give it a rest already.

I can't find the studies right now, and the threads were lost in a server crash earlier this year, but on the weight GAIN side, feeding people 1000 calories over (relatively carefully determined maintenance) to non-obese people in a controlled setting resulted in a 3x range of weight gain among different people over a few months. Meaning some people gained 10lbs while other similar people gained 30lbs.

So of course that means some sort of auto regulation was in effect so the "x cals" over/under maintenance is much more complex than you make it out to be. As shown by "science".

[mikeyfresh]

I can't find the studies right now, and the threads were lost in a server crash earlier this year, but on the weight GAIN side, feeding people 1000 calories over (relatively carefully determined maintenance) to non-obese people in a controlled setting resulted in a 3x range of weight gain among different people over a few months. Meaning some people gained 10lbs while other similar people gained 30lbs.

Weight gain and weight loss are drastically different, and the fact that you would use 1000 cal for weight gain to support the benefits of a 1000 deficit just shows your flawed logic. Did the test groups have the same exercise regimen etc. I highly doubt it.

[unclean]

Maybe you guys can help this guy out
http://startingstrength.com/resource...ad.php?t=32076

[veryhrm]

Weight gain and weight loss are drastically different, and the fact that you would use 1000 cal for weight gain to support the benefits of a 1000 deficit just shows your flawed logic. Did the test groups have the same exercise regimen etc. I highly doubt it.

One of the studies was this http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...1#t=articleTop there was no exercise. This was over 100 days.

Physical activity was limited during the entire study; the daily schedule included such activities as reading, playing video games, playing cards, and watching television, as well as an outdoor walk for 30 minutes per day. The men were occasionally taken as a group to a play or a movie. They were carefully supervised at all times during all activities, and as far as we could ascertain their compliance with the regimen of dietary intake and the limitations on their activities was perfect.

The average gain in fat mass was 5.4 kg or about 210 MJ (52,220 kcal), whereas the gain in fat-free mass was 2.7 kg or approximately 11.5 MJ (2754 kcal). On average, about 121 MJ (29,000 kcal) did not appear as weight gain when constants were used to convert tissue gains into energy equivalents,17 and presumably this energy was dissipated in some way. One third of the weight gained by the group as a whole was in the form of fat-free mass, a proportion comparable with that reported previously.4 , 9 The man who gained the most weight (13.3 kg) had no evidence of energy dissipation by any mechanism, whereas in the man who gained the least weight (4.3 kg) only about 40 percent of the extra calories were deposited as body tissues. The men who gained more fat than lean tissue tended to gain more weight and to gain more fat in the truncal—abdominal area.

There was another more recent study that i still can't find that used a more rigorous multi-stage determination of "maintenance" that had similar results.

Also as someone else mentioned recently most people here, including Rip, know that body weight is primarily controlled by diet (i can't see how you'd get anything other than that out of the Clarification article). The place i disagree w/ Rip's sentiment is about how easy he thinks it is to lose weight.

And yes i know that weight gain is different than weight loss, but this doesn't change the fact that you should get off your high horse.

[mikeyfresh]

And yes i know that weight gain is different than weight loss, but this doesn't change the fact that you should get off your high horse.

So I should get off my high horse because you posted a study that does not prove that an excessive deficit is not optimal for most people on a regular diet? Sure, something like Lyle's RFL does it well, but as we know, most people here hate Lyle and the only time that such a huge deficit as 40-50% of a regular man's maintenance calories is used, it is almost always a crash diet. Even with some variation to fat loss for certain individuals, a 1000 cal deficit is still excessive.

Also as someone else mentioned recently most people here, including Rip, know that body weight is primarily controlled by diet (i can't see how you'd get anything other than that out of the Clarification article). The place i disagree w/ Rip's sentiment is about how easy he thinks it is to lose weight.

This thread was moved here after I claimed that resting metabolic rate per pound of muscle had little to do with fat loss in comparison to diet.

[Tom Narvaez]

This has kind of descended into an argument for the sake of arguing, but I will say that I do wish SS had been more detailed and forceful in its diet recommendations. I think the fact that the clarification article was ever necessary spells volumes. I also tend to find that a lot of the nutrition advice given on this board rarely seems to be in concert with the clarification article. Skinny fat 18%ers are advised to bulk fairly consistently.

[mikeyfresh]

This has kind of descended into an argument for the sake of arguing

Admittedly, I agree.