Cutting for the Six Pack

[Unreal]

Costco - Schiff??® MegaRedâ???¢ Omega-3 Krill Oil

 

[gopro]

gopro, before we get off on the wrong foot here, you are talking to someone who was insulin resistant enough to be on Metformin by age 38. I lost most of the weight-loss I've maintained on the Atkins diet, and moderate a board where many of us were low-carb dieters who had finally dropped weight and who were now weight-lifting - we needed support that was specific to low-carb former fatty bodybuilder wannabes LOL - in short, you don't need to convince me of how much or how little carb we all need.

Okay, disclaimer out of the way, I have been unable to find evidence that there is a metabolic advantage to dieting on low carbs (given protein is sufficient; EFAs, not overtraining blah blah blah...) in fact, Taubes and Atkins have been widely criticized for making this claim.

Are you suggesting that given sufficient protein and fat, and caloric deficit - in other words, all things being otherwise equal - the person on a lower-carb (but equal-calorie) diet will lose more fat?

If you believe for one second that if you put two people (with the same exact genetics) on a diet of say 3000 calories per day and one of them ate 75% of their calories from carbs vs. 75% of their calories from protein that they would end up with the same body composition you would be sadly mistaken.

And, if you believe that bodyfat loss is a simple calorie in/calorie out process then again, you are way behind the times.

I will not even bother to argue either of these points because they are so factual I would not take my valuable time doing so.

 

[Built]

gopro, before we get off on the wrong foot here, you are talking to someone who was insulin resistant enough to be on Metformin by age 38. I lost most of the weight-loss I've maintained on the Atkins diet, and moderate a board where many of us were low-carb dieters who had finally dropped weight and who were now weight-lifting - we needed support that was specific to low-carb former fatty bodybuilder wannabes LOL - in short, you don't need to convince me of how much or how little carb we all need.

Okay, disclaimer out of the way, I have been unable to find evidence that there is a metabolic advantage to dieting on low carbs (given protein is sufficient; EFAs, not overtraining blah blah blah...) in fact, Taubes and Atkins have been widely criticized for making this claim.

Are you suggesting that given sufficient protein and fat, and caloric deficit - in other words, all things being otherwise equal - the person on a lower-carb (but equal-calorie) diet will lose more fat?

If you believe for one second that if you put two people (with the same exact genetics) on a diet of say 3000 calories per day and one of them ate 75% of their calories from carbs vs. 75% of their calories from protein that they would end up with the same body composition you would be sadly mistaken.

And, if you believe that bodyfat loss is a simple calorie in/calorie out process then again, you are way behind the times.

I will not even bother to argue either of these points because they are so factual I would not take my valuable time doing so.

gopro, you'll note that I asked you specifically about the situation where protein was sufficient. In a caloric deficit, increased oxidative stress underlies the importance of sufficient protein to ensure nitrogen-positive status. Your straw-man appears to be suggesting a different scenario - that of a caloric deficit with insufficient protein. If this is how you interpreted my question, I'll re-state with an example:

Identical twins, 100 lbs lean mass on each, both trained and in the same condition, both weigh the same. Maintenance calories the same for both.

Twin A consumes 20% below maintenance, with protein at 1.5g per pound lean mass, fat at 0.5g per pound lean mass, and carbs at 1.5g per pound lean mass. Total calories 1650

Twin B consumes 20% below maintenance, with protein at 1.5g per pound lean mass, fat at 0.94g per pound lean mass, and carbs at 0.5g per pound lean mass. Total calories 1650

(somebody please check my math, I suck at math)

Training etc all equal. In this situation, will the lower-carb twin lose more fat than the higher-carb twin?

If I am in fact, behind the times, I'd like to at least read ONE peer-reviewed source of your information. I'm all about staying current, and I would be delighted to read something new.

 

[gopro]

gopro, you'll note that I asked you specifically about the situation where protein was sufficient. In a caloric deficit, increased oxidative stress underlies the importance of sufficient protein to ensure nitrogen-positive status. Your straw-man appears to be suggesting a different scenario - that of a caloric deficit with insufficient protein. If this is how you interpreted my question, I'll re-state with an example:

Identical twins, 100 lbs lean mass on each, both trained and in the same condition, both weigh the same. Maintenance calories the same for both.

Twin A consumes 20% below maintenance, with protein at 1.5g per pound lean mass, fat at 0.5g per pound lean mass, and carbs at 1.5g per pound lean mass. Total calories 1650

Twin B consumes 20% below maintenance, with protein at 1.5g per pound lean mass, fat at 0.94g per pound lean mass, and carbs at 0.5g per pound lean mass. Total calories 1650

(somebody please check my math, I suck at math)

Training etc all equal. In this situation, will the lower-carb twin lose more fat than the higher-carb twin?

If I am in fact, behind the times, I'd like to at least read ONE peer-reviewed source of your information. I'm all about staying current, and I would be delighted to read something new.

Yes, more than likely that if the lower carb twin took in the majority of his fats from essential sources he would end up with less bodyfat. When insulin is lower and glucagon (and GH) is higher a more efficient fat burning internal environment occurs.

This is why keto diets ARE so effective for fat loss (although I do not think they are the best diets for bodybuilders).

 

[AKIRA]

Well this discussion just got good.

Ive noticed that my calories go above my needed level because of the excess protein I need to consume. However, I restrain because I do NOT want to go over my calories, so I dont consume as many grams of protein.

 

[T_man]

(somebody please check my math, I suck at math)

I thought you were a statistical analyst type person. What good is that job if you suck at maths?

 

[Unreal]

Gopro, post a study or something to back up what your saying. I'm with Built on this one. Given equal caloric defecit and enough protein then there should be no difference. If there is a difference it would be so little I don't think it would be statiscally significant.

 

[T_man]

Well I love Built but....

I'm with Gopro on this one. Not that you will lose less or more, but rather there will be a difference. Different foods affect your bodily systems/hormones differently and changing the makeup of your food will almost definately change the outcome.

 

[danzik17]

I'm somewhere in the middle and not sure exactly what to think. Although I tend to agree that a calorie is a calorie, I'm open to other suggestions.

Per Will Brink, protein has the highest thermogenic value of the 3 major macronutrients. With that in mind, a person eating 64g of protein should theoretically be in a better position than someone eating 64g of carbs who in turn should be in a better position than someone eating 30g of fat (all are equivalent to 270 calories).

 

[danzik17]

A study done comparing two meals of equal caloric content but with differing macronutrients showed that a meal consisting of "high protein" resulted in a higher post meal energy expenditure compared to an "average protein" meal.

Energy expenditure, satiety, and plasma ghrelin, g...[J Nutr. 2008] - PubMed Result

 

[C6zo6]

I agree with Gopro...A calorie is a calorie to an extent...

You mean to tell me that if a person eats 1.5g of protein per body weight, plus their EFA's for the day and the rest of their carbs from sugar, instead of good fiber sources like oatmeal, they will have the same body composition? Go ahead and have your milkshake and see what happens compared to the healthy eater...

You have to factor in trans fat that could be associated with the poor carbs the person is getting...A lot of junk foods have hydrogenated cottonseed oil, which is a trans fat...I highly doubt a calorie is a calorie in this sense...

 

[Built]

Yes, more than likely that if the lower carb twin took in the majority of his fats from essential sources he would end up with less bodyfat. When insulin is lower and glucagon (and GH) is higher a more efficient fat burning internal environment occurs.

This is why keto diets ARE so effective for fat loss (although I do not think they are the best diets for bodybuilders).

See that's interesting - because my personal opinion of keto diets is that they rock - ESPECIALLY for bodybuilders. Protein and fat, in addition to helping preserve lean mass and endocrine function, are satiating.

Well this discussion just got good.

Ive noticed that my calories go above my needed level because of the excess protein I need to consume. However, I restrain because I do NOT want to go over my calories, so I dont consume as many grams of protein.

Me too.

I thought you were a statistical analyst type person. What good is that job if you suck at maths?

Sarchasm - the gap between my joke and you "getting" it.

Gopro, post a study or something to back up what your saying. I'm with Built on this one. Given equal caloric deficit and enough protein then there should be no difference. If there is a difference it would be so little I don't think it would be statistically significant.

See, that's what Lyle said: Is a Calorie a Calorie? | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

Well I love Built but....

I'm with Gopro on this one. Not that you will lose less or more, but rather there will be a difference. Different foods affect your bodily systems/hormones differently and changing the makeup of your food will almost definately change the outcome.

I'm not suggesting malnutrition - I'm suggesting ample protein and healthy fat in both situations.

I'm also not choosing sides here - show me a study that proves the conjecture, and I'll accept it.

I'm somewhere in the middle and not sure exactly what to think. Although I tend to agree that a calorie is a calorie, I'm open to other suggestions.

Per Will Brink, protein has the highest thermogenic value of the 3 major macronutrients. With that in mind, a person eating 64g of protein should theoretically be in a better position than someone eating 64g of carbs who in turn should be in a better position than someone eating 30g of fat (all are equivalent to 270 calories).

Slightly...

A study done comparing two meals of equal caloric content but with differing macronutrients showed that a meal consisting of "high protein" resulted in a higher post meal energy expenditure compared to an "average protein" meal.

Energy expenditure, satiety, and plasma ghrelin, g...[J Nutr. 2008] - PubMed Result

Protein is most certainly more satiating, no question about it. Re higher TEF, well, take a look at how high the difference was - it was something like an extra 8 kilojoules per minute, right? Look up how many kilojoules are in a calories for me.

Edit: found one Converting Kilojoules To Calories
1 Calorie = 4.184 kjs
So you'll burn an extra 2 calories a minute in the postprandial period.

Also, from the bodyrecomp article I cited above:

Studies Varying Protein Intake

Most commonly, when folks want to argue that ‘a calorie is not a calorie’, they will use studies comparing higher and lower protein intakes. With very few exceptions, dietes providing adequate protein intake (for dieters 1.5 g/kg lean body mass or higher would be a minimum) to lower intakes find better results than diets with lower protein intakes. This is especially apparent under dieting conditions with any number of studies support the need for higher protein intake to support muscle growth.

That is, given an identical caloric intake, the group that gets sufficient protein will generally show better muscle mass maintenance than the lower-protein group. As well, since weight losses are typically similar, that means that slightly more fat is lost. Other studies show that protein blunts hunger better (meaning it’s easier to reduce calories) than carbs or fats and a recent study showed better blood glucose maintenance in the diet containing higher protein. Aha, folks say, the source of the calories do matter!

Tangentially, I suspect that folks reporting better results from low-carb diets compared to higher-carb diets is related to this. Because of the reliance on meat, it’s nearly impossible NOT to get sufficient protein intake on a low-carbohydrate diet; folks on high-carbohydrate diets frequently overemphasize carbs to the extent that protein intake gets shorted.

The above is, honestly no surprise. Anyone who has read my books, my other articles or my forum postings knows that after setting calories properly, ‘Getting adequate protein’ is by far and away the single most important factor in setting up a proper diet. There’s just really no argument about this.

But for that reason, I tend to consider studies out of this set to be meaningless. I consider sufficient protein intake (which may be 0.8-1.5 g/lb depending on the specifics) to be assumed in any diet I’m interested in looking at. Arguments about studies comparing the inadequate RDA to what I consider appropriate amounts of protein simply don’t matter to me.

Given that built-in assumption, the question then changes slightly: given adequate protein intake to begin with, does the source of the other calories (carbohydrates versus fat) affect anything or is it simply a calorie in versus calorie out issue. In adressing this, I want to describe two other data sets.

I agree with Gopro...A calorie is a calorie to an extent...

You mean to tell me that if a person eats 1.5g of protein per body weight, plus their EFA's for the day and the rest of their carbs from sugar, instead of good fiber sources like oatmeal, they will have the same body composition?

Yes.The sugar-eater might feel like ASS, but it'll work.

Go ahead and have your milkshake and see what happens compared to the healthy eater...

You have to factor in trans fat that could be associated with the poor carbs the person is getting...A lot of junk foods have hydrogenated cottonseed oil, which is a trans fat...I highly doubt a calorie is a calorie in this sense...

Honestly, crystallized cottonseed oil - that abomination created by P&G as a substitute for tallow and re-marketed as a healthful alternative to lard - CRISCO - isn't really a food, it's a plasticized oil.

Let's keep the discussion germane here - consider healthy choices in adequate amounts, with merely the composition of the hypocaloric diet in question.

 

[jmorrison]

Great conversation. I hope it continues for those of us who are learning!

 

[danzik17]

Protein is most certainly more satiating, no question about it. Re higher TEF, well, take a look at how high the difference was - it was something like an extra 8 kilojoules per minute, right? Look up how many kilojoules are in a calories for me.

Edit: found one Converting Kilojoules To Calories
1 Calorie = 4.184 kjs
So you'll burn an extra 2 calories a minute in the postprandial period.

I'm playing both sides of the fence here

2 calories per minute would seem insignificant at first glance yes, but that all depends on the time period the measurements were taken in. If the measurements were taken 2 hours afterward then that could potentially be a maximum of 240 additional calories burned.

240 calories for free just by changing the foods I eat with no real "reduction" in calorie intake seems like a good deal if in fact it's true. Again it all depends on when they took that specific measurement which I didn't find in the article.

 

[Built]

I didn't either, and I agree, it would be remarkable if it persisted.

I've not seen anything to suggest that it does, but because protein and fat are satiating - and carbohydrate tends to stimulate my appetite - I will continue to eat this way. Remember, I was overweight, AND on Metformin for insulin resistance, you don't need to convince ME that a higher protein and lower carbohydrate diet is by far more comfortable, particularly while dieting at a deficit.

I would love to see strong evidence of a metabolic advantage though. So far, I have not.

 

[gopro]

If a calorie is basically a calorie and the body responded as such thena set of triplets on a 500 calorie from maintenance deficit would look exactly the same and have the same body composition after eating for say 8 weeks:


2000 calories from only proteins
2000 calories from only fats
2000 calories from only carbs

Ridiculous. Each of these types of calories not only have different metabolic ad/disadvantages, so to speak, but also affect the hormonal cascade very differently, which has quite a bit to do with where calories end up.

As far as a keto diet, this is FAR from ideal for bodybuilders...especially drug free ones...as they will cause significant lean tissue loss in the majority over time.

 

[C6zo6]

Yes.The sugar-eater might feel like ASS, but it'll work.
Honestly, crystallized cottonseed oil - that abomination created by P&G as a substitute for tallow and re-marketed as a healthful alternative to lard - CRISCO - isn't really a food, it's a plasticized oil.

Let's keep the discussion germane here - consider healthy choices in adequate amounts, with merely the composition of the hypocaloric diet in question.

This is relevant...Many people don't know they're consuming these plasticized oils when eating a higher number of carbohydrates. Just because a person goes out and buys healthier bread, doesn't mean it doesn't have trans fat in it...Most of the food we buy does have it. Especially when you go out and eat...I guarantee the butter you eat when going out has it as well...Unless you ask for pure 100% butter.

My point is, the more carbs a person chooses to eat, the more likely he/she will consume trans fat, unless they're freak label readers, which is very rare...

So, why should we assume this person eating most of their carbs from sugar is not getting any trans fat? That's very unlikely...Because obviously we're referring to shakes, candy, etc...You claimed they will feel bad, but essentially the outcome would be the same...Highly doubtful since 90% of these foods are found with hydrogenation...Lets get realistic and not "assume" a person is making healthier choices when getting a milkshake...Come on...

 

[Built]

If a calorie is basically a calorie and the body responded as such thena set of triplets on a 500 calorie from maintenance deficit would look exactly the same and have the same body composition after eating for say 8 weeks:


2000 calories from only proteins
2000 calories from only fats
2000 calories from only carbs

Ridiculous. Each of these types of calories not only have different metabolic ad/disadvantages, so to speak, but also affect the hormonal cascade very differently, which has quite a bit to do with where calories end up.

As far as a keto diet, this is FAR from ideal for bodybuilders...especially drug free ones...as they will cause significant lean tissue loss in the majority over time.

Gopro, enough with the straw-man arguments. (You might consider looking up what that means so you don't do it a third time). Once adequate protein and fat are consumed, please show me ONE piece of peer-reviewed research that establishes a metabolic advantage in line with what you claim.

 

[Built]

This is relevant...Many people don't know they're consuming these plasticized oils when eating a higher number of carbohydrates.

Carbohydrate doesn't contain transfat,

Just because a person goes out and buys healthier bread, doesn't mean it doesn't have trans fat in it...Most of the food we buy does have it.

You and I must shop in different stores.

Especially when you go out and eat...I guarantee the butter you eat when going out has it as well...Unless you ask for pure 100% butter.

Actually, butter has transfat. CLA is a healthy transfat. But that's not what you're talking about, and I know that, I'm just being pedantic.

My point is, the more carbs a person chooses to eat, the more likely he/she will consume trans fat, unless they're freak label readers, which is very rare...

I see that you are bringing up the interesting point of food choice, and I actually agree with you - those who eat more processed foods will tend to eat more transfat. I think that's what you're getting at, right? While this is true, it's not what we're discussing. We're discussing metabolic advantage with regard to consuming a lower carb diet while cutting.

So, why should we assume this person eating most of their carbs from sugar is not getting any trans fat?

Because that's the specific question I want answered. I'm not interested in comparing someone eating fake food and transfat to someone eating steak, brown rice and avocados. I'm interested in comparing someone who eats steak, brown rice and avocados to someone who eats steak, brown rice and avocados but in different proportions, and where they are both consuming adequate protein and fat, at sub maintenance calories.

Different question.

That's very unlikely...Because obviously we're referring to shakes, candy, etc...You claimed they will feel bad, but essentially the outcome would be the same...Highly doubtful since 90% of these foods are found with hydrogenation...Lets get realistic and not "assume" a person is making healthier choices when getting a milkshake...Come on...

Get it now? Because so far, nobody has given me any evidence of a different outcome. Not to the question I'm asking. I keep getting answers to questions I'm not asking, though!

 

[Hench]

This is getting very good.

Gopro, why would a keto diet lead to a greater lose of muscle mass than any other diet?

 

[C6zo6]

Carbohydrate doesn't contain transfat,

You and I must shop in different stores.

Actually, butter has transfat. CLA is a healthy transfat. But that's not what you're talking about, and I know that, I'm just being pedantic.

I see that you are bringing up the interesting point of food choice, and I actually agree with you - those who eat more processed foods will tend to eat more transfat. I think that's what you're getting at, right? While this is true, it's not what we're discussing. We're discussing metabolic advantage with regard to consuming a lower carb diet while cutting.


Get it now? Because so far, nobody has given me any evidence of a different outcome. Not to the question I'm asking. I keep getting answers to questions I'm not asking, though!

I understand.

Your obviously way more knowledgeable about this than i am, so I'm just going to take your word for it, lol.

About the carbs...

I guess it wouldn't matter where they come from, as long as protein and fat calories are sufficient...It makes sense...

Now, if we had a person eat 75% carbs this would be a problem...This is why a lot of people are obese, because carbs are in everything. But, we are assuming these people get adequate protein and fats, which completely changes everything...

 

[Built]

This is getting very good.

Gopro, why would a keto diet lead to a greater lose of muscle mass than any other diet?

I'd like to know this one, too. My cursory understanding of ketosis is that it has no particular effect in and of itself for fat-loss, but it is spectacular for appetite-suppression, at least, it is for me. This effect seems to be more pronounced the fatter you are - I seem to recall coming across some research to this effect that I'm too lazy to dig up, but I can tell you from experience when I was very fat, ketosis turned my appetite OFF.

It was glorious.

 

[Built]

I understand.

Your obviously way more knowledgeable about this than i am, so I'm just going to take your word for it, lol.

About the carbs...

I guess it wouldn't matter where they come from, as long as protein and fat calories are sufficient...It makes sense...

Now, if we had a person eat 75% carbs this would be a problem...This is why a lot of people are obese, because carbs are in everything. But, we are assuming these people get adequate protein and fats, which completely changes everything...

Thank you, and yes, that's the particular question I want to address here.

<muah!>

 

[C6zo6]

Thank you, and yes, that's the particular question I want to address here.

<muah!>

 

[danzik17]

This is getting very good.

Gopro, why would a keto diet lead to a greater lose of muscle mass than any other diet?

+1, I'd like to know as well.

Granted I don't have tons of muscle, but I have run several keto diets and have experienced little to no muscle loss. In fact on my current keto hybrid (UD 2.0) my strength is way UP!

 

[AKIRA]

"Protein is most certainly more satiating, no question about it. "

Ive got a question about it..

How come when i consume two grilled chicken breasts, I am full for 30 min then hungry again right away? Oh and these arent the chicken breasts youd get in a McDonalds Grilled sandwich mind you, these are Perdue breasts.

 

[Built]

Probably the bread and the fat overstimulating insulin. If you're at all insulin resistant, excess insulin tends to promote hunger.

I think.

 

[C6zo6]

"Protein is most certainly more satiating, no question about it. "

Ive got a question about it..

How come when i consume two grilled chicken breasts, I am full for 30 min then hungry again right away? Oh and these arent the chicken breasts youd get in a McDonalds Grilled sandwich mind you, these are Perdue breasts.

Maybe because 2 chicken breasts are only about 400 calories, maybe less and you weigh over 200lbs and lift weights?

Have something else with it like broccoli. It should fill you up...If not, maybe your not eating enough throughout the day?

 

[Built]

Oh, are Purdue chicken breasts something else? I was reading this as chicken sandwiches.
C6zo6, good catch.

AKIRA, there are a variety of satiety signals to which we respond. Insulin can promote or suppress satiety depending upon the circumstance. Slowing the rate of gastric emptying can help with satiety, as can the physical feeling of fullness which C6zo6 alluded to - the need to fill up with broccoli in this case. The research suggests males may respond better to "volume" than the stimulation of CCK, where females tend to respond more strongly to CCK, which is induced through the consumption of many proteins and fats. Complicating this is the condition you are in (ie body fatness, dieted-down status) and your activity level.

All of this is interesting, but ultimately, you have to experiment to find your own satiety cues.

 

[snake eater]

hi guys

Hi guys, I'm a new member in this forum and from what i read in this thread, all I can say is,"these are some beneficial posts." The truth is that I have some problems of my own and I'm starting to get sick of it. I started exercising more than 5 months ago. My goal is to get the six pack abs I always dreamt of having, but now I can't really see any difference. I admit that my abs are getting stronger but I really cant see them still. Is there a way or an advice that might help me get these abs? Ya one more thing, I'm not a diet but I'm still watching my calorie intake. Should I start on a diet or should I continue with my regular calorie intake?