Insulin

[Guest guest]

Looks like more low carb propaganda to me.

One query I have is this...

Lets say one has a calorie requirement of 3000cals per day.

If they eat a high carb diet and take in 3000cals per day will they get fat?

If they eat a low carb diet and take in 3000cals per day will they get fat?

If they don't overeat will there be any problems with Insulin? As mentioned

in the article if one eats excess carbohydrates they are stored first in

muscles and liver and then the fat cells.

To my way of thinking the key is to not overeat.

Hamish Ferguson

Christchurch, New Zealand

[Guest guest]

>Mel Siff wrote:

>

>Here is an extensive controversial article on the role and effects of

>insulin in the body.

>Critical comments are invited.

>

>Insulin and Its Metabolic Effects:

>

>http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/14/insulin.htm

>

> Casler writes:

>

>Mel, this is an excellent article and something everyone should read.

>

>SuperTrainers, Mel posts many URLs to articles and studies of interest.

>I, for one, don't have time to read all of them, but I did read

>(actually am reading) this one.

>

>THIS ARTICLE IS A MUST READ BY ALL!!!

I agree, this article is a must. Part 4 has a nice plug for strength training.

Much of the article ties in very nicely with a TV program I saw years

ago about an Indian tribe in Arizona that had a very high rate of

diabetes. Through diet and exercise (a running program, increased

manual labor) the tribe was able to reverse the disease in most

tribal members who participated in the program.

--

Gerald Lafon

******************************************

* Judo America San Diego *

* Email: glafon@... *

* Web: http://www.judoamerica.com *

* Phone: (619) 232-JUDO *

******************************************

[Guest guest]

Firstly, in response to a specific analogy that Hamish pointed out

in " Macronutrient Management for Enhanced Muscle Gain and Fat Loss "

from post " Re: Dolphzine News - Sept. " :

Jay: Once those foods are removed, the body screams out and the

brain begins crying out " I want my carbs! " Your body doesn't want

just any carbs. Noooo! It wants specific carbs and one of those

specific carbohydrates is craves is in a class called GRAINS.

Hamish: Whenever I got down to specifics with people about their

diet they never craved a certain food group it was always a specific

product. There was no way they would eat another brand. Makes me

question these so called cravings.

*** Jay I would love to see some backing for that statement. I don't

remember my brain ever screaming out for GRAINS.

Jay: Grains! When cattle are ready to go to market they are fed a

diet rich in whole grains. Why whole grains? To fatten them up. And

many of these grain-fed bodybuilders fail to figure out why they

can't get cut.

Hamish: Third restatement of the question. If the person eats

3000cals of grains to match the 3000cal daily requirement will they

gain fat. What else do they feed cows anyway. I can't recall the

last time I saw a cow eating steak!

*** Jay, I can't believe you are making a parallel between animal

and human metabolism! " Why whole grains? " -- Animals such as cattle

are able to much more efficiently convert carb sources to fat as

compared to humans, and as such, it would make sense to overfeed

them a cheap carbohydrate source such as grains if such was the

goal. This analogy is inappropriate to humans in that respect. I'm a

grain-fed bodybuilder and I have no problems getting cut when I have

to. Neither do any of my competitive bodybuilder friends.

Jay: By now you are thinking I am a bit crazy.

Hamish: You said it.

*** Agreed.

Jay: Glucose, when it reaches a concentration in the bloodstream,

following a meal high in grains, signals the body to secrete insulin

so your muscles can make use of the extra glucose. Insulin is a

hormone secreted by your pancreas that immediately stops you from

burning fat and actually can help you store fat.

Hamish: Nasty stuff that insulin. But hey isn't it also the stuff

that shoots the glycogen and protein into the muscle cells. Bad boy

turns good?

*** Gosh, how we tend to forget (ignore / conceal?) such ostensibly

imperative qualities of " evil " death hormones. I suppose that wicked

insulin spike in the post-workout period should be avoided at all

costs, huh?

Hamish:

With a 3000kcal/day requirement we are talking about energy

expenditure and I believe the body's maintenance of the set points

of its weight. As you manipulate hypo/hypercaloric diets you will

loose/gain weight accordingly, but with the extreme hypothetical

cases such as getting 100% of the food from a certain specific

macronutrient, and subsequent variations of predominant ratios

thereof, I would suppose that as long as energy expenditure equals

the caloric intake the weight will remain the same but changes will

take place with the lean body mass and bodyfat, and this will go on

until imminent death from dangerous nutrition :-D

Furthermore, there are many different ways to eat a high/low carb

diet. You can eat 3000 calories in 2 meals, or you can eat it in 6.

If you do it in 2 meals, you will store some as fat. A low carb

diet's success also depends on the contents relative contents of fat

and protein. I've seen first hand diets of predominantly protein and

very little fat (mostly from flax seed, salmon, and other EFA

sources) allow people to strip down to 4-5% bodyfat. But I have also

witnessed low carb diets go wrong with a 1:2 protein:fat ratio in

grams that was predominated by saturated fats from meats and such.

So it really depends on a lot of variables as you can see.

Eugene Sanik

Brooklyn, NY

> Looks like more low carb propaganda to me.

>

> One query I have is this...

>

> Lets say one has a calorie requirement of 3000cals per day.

>

> If they eat a high carb diet and take in 3000cals per day will

they get fat?

>

> If they eat a low carb diet and take in 3000cals per day will they

get fat?

>

> If they don't overeat will there be any problems with Insulin? As

mentioned

> in the article if one eats excess carbohydrates they are stored

first in

> muscles and liver and then the fat cells.

>

> To my way of thinking the key is to not overeat.

>

> Hamish Ferguson

> Christchurch, New Zealand

[Guest guest]

Eugene Sanik wrote...

>You can eat 3000 calories in 2 meals, or you can eat it in 6.

>If you do it in 2 meals, you will store some as fat.

Hmmm, is this so? Again if one expends 3000cals a day does it matter how many

meals it takes to eat 3000cals.

I understand the reason bodybuilders eat several smaller meals is to keep a

supply of nutrients going to the muscles at all times. Another factor is that

(if I recall correctly) overeating is, in itself a cause of further overeating.

>A low carb

>diet's success also depends on the contents relative contents of fat

>and protein. I've seen first hand diets of predominantly protein and

>very little fat (mostly from flax seed, salmon, and other EFA

>sources) allow people to strip down to 4-5% bodyfat. But I have also

>witnessed low carb diets go wrong with a 1:2 protein:fat ratio in

>grams that was predominated by saturated fats from meats and such.

So a high protein low carb diet? What sort of calories are we talking, what

types of protein foods and what amounts. I guess if one is building up to a

comp then you could do this for a while, but then I have seen women get to 6-7%

BF on low fat for comps and guys get down to 3%. Endurance cyclists at the

highest

level stay at around 3-4% for a season on a high carb diet but don't expect

much muscle:-)

Hamish Ferguson

Christchurch, New Zealand

[Guest guest]

Regarding Dr. Rosedale's patients which he describes in the

transcript, Hamish Ferguson wrote:

<<Do these people get into this shape because of Syndrome X or

Insulin Resistance or do they develop this because of their shocking

lifestyle habits?>>

**** I don't think you can make a blanket statement as to the

reasons that people become insulin resistant because sometimes this

happens even when a person lives a decent lifestyle. They have a

genetic marker for the condition. However, many people get into the

condition Rosedale describes by poor lifestyle choices, i.e. poor

diet, too much alchohol consumption, heavy smoking, not enough rest,

i.e. trying to burn the candle at both ends for such a long time

that the flame finally meets in the middle.

<<If it was intended for an audience of Medical and Nutritional

professionals I would have thought it would have included full

references for each point and have appeared in a peer review journal

not on a web site intended to draw the punters in.>>

**** Much of the work on Syndrome X has appeared in peer reviewed

journals, however this is simply a transcript of a presentation.

Possibly Mercola attended. From the way this is written, it sounds

like someone set up a tape recorder afterwhich some computer took it

from there. Personally I feel it should have been edited for print

before it was put up on the web site.

As far as Brasco's article, one of the very reasons I liked it was

*because* it was understandable to the lay individual. With the

current state of medical care in the U.S., it pays for people to be

" pro-active " (gosh, I detest that word, but it fits this situation)

and keep up with some of these things.

This is especially true when it comes to possible causes of Type II

diabetes as it is becoming much too prevalent in our modern society.

A great deal has been written about the causes of it lately.

Interestingly, it is pretty much preventable and often reversible

simply by making the necessary dietary changes. You can find quite

a bit of referenced material by doing a Net search for " Syndrome X "

where you will find information from Gerald Reaven, M.D., the

Stanford University doctor who discovered the condition in the first

place. Rosedale is more radical in his approach. Reaven has also

changed his thinking over time as to the intake of certain types of

carbohydrates.

<< . . . Lyle Mc (self proclaimed low carb guru) [states] that

a bodybuilder could get in shape eating sugar as long as they got

their required protein, EFAs and ate below calorie requirements.>>

**** This is probably true, however Lyle is talking about

competitive bodybuilders who have the genetics for this sort of

thing, and that includes their metabolisms. As Dan Duchaine always

stated (with a gleam in his eye), " No one ever said competitive

bodybuilding was healthy. "

<<Please show me how macronutrient choice in terms of calories eaten

has anything to do with physique.>>

**** I think that's been pretty well discussed on this list. I'd

also suggest you read Lyle's books because even though he may have

made the above statement on MFW, his extremely detailed book on

ketogenic diets tells a different story.

<<How does one know [they might have insulin resistance]? Is there a

medically accepted test?

**** Yes. Most doctors will give people the standard glucose

tolerance test for diabetes. According to Rosedale, this doesn't

really tell much. He recommends getting a fasting insulin test

which shows how much insulin is actually in the blood. You can

order one of these yourself through the Life Extension Foundation

(http://www.lef.org). Again, I suggest you read my article on

Syndrome X on Dolfzine at which can be found at

http://www.dolfzine.com/page159.htm

It provides an " Insulin Resistance Checklist " from the book " The

Insulin-Resistance Diet, " (Hart, C.R., M.D. and Grossman, M.K.,

Contemporary Books, 2001), which can be helpful to people in

deciding whether they fit the profile. There are some things

which, as I point out, are extremely subjective. However, there are

others which are not. The recommendation is that if you think you

fit the profile that you head to your doctor's office for some blood

tests.

Rosemary Vernon, Editor

Dolfzine On-Line Fitness, Inc.®

A Not-For-Profit Corporation

www.dolfzine.com

Marina del Rey, CA

IronRoses@...

http://www.chuckietechie.com

[Guest guest]

> Hmmm, is this so? Again if one expends 3000cals a day does it

> matter how many meals it takes to eat 3000cals.

Yes, of course. Purely mathematically, to eat 3000 cals with 2 meals

we are dealing with a meal that is 1500 calories. Assume (just as

example) it is 25% protein 75% carbs (typical meal). 1500 cals =

100g protein + 280g carbs. The liver has a storage capacity of about

90g of carbs, muscle glycogen is several hundred on top of that. I'm

not 100% on exactly what happens on ingestion of 280g of carbs at

any time other than the post-workout period, but I would expect

quite a bit of fat storage, wouldn't you?

As soon as we bump up the calories (characteristic of bulking) we

increase the number of meals to keep fat gain from excessive carbs

to a minimum.

Steroids increase appetite. Frequent meals further improve it (as

I've been told; I've experienced this too but no way to proove it

with other factors involved). They also keep protein levels at

steady high bursts (ie, 2 meals per day = meal every 12 hours = lots

of catabolic activity in between / with frequent meals you stay in

an anabolic state moreso than in a catabolic one).

> So a high protein low carb diet? What sort of calories are we

> talking, what types of protein foods and what amounts. I guess if

> one is building up to a comp then you could do this for a while,

> but then I have seen women get to 6-7% BF on low fat for comps and

> guys get down to 3%. Endurance cyclists at the highest level stay

> at around 3-4% for a season on a high carb diet but don't expect

> much muscle:-)

high protein, low carb, moderate fat (for dieting purposes, of

course) is generally the successful strategy. It's hard to judge the

accuract of bodyfat measurements, I very rarely see accurate ones,

and the lean body mass of endurance athletes isn't really as

reliable. And yes, for some reason the endurance community is -very-

anti-protein. I've read numerous research papers who's sole purpose

was to see whether extra carbs in the postworkout period can replace

protein. Hence, not a lot of muscle to be seen in those sports...

shame.

> Hamish Ferguson

> Christchurch, New Zealand

Eugene Sanik

Brooklyn, NY

[Guest guest]

Interesting comments in a couple of posts about these low body fat

levels, i.e. 3-4%. That's impossible for a competitive athlete.

They wouldn't have enough energy to stand upright. From what I've

been told by a couple of people who know what they're talking about,

the human body needs about 3% fat simply to have enough for nerve

sheaths and to protect the spine and other organs. Before it lets

lose of any less, it will canibalize the muscle.

I remember Connelly, M.D. stating that many people who are

hospitalized and can't eat enough calories, die because their bodies

have used up their muscle mass in an attempt to survive. He was, at

the time, treating burn patients and other severly injured

individuals. This was the reason he first developed MET-Rx because

at the time there was no liquid preparation that provided them with

the nutrients they needed. MET-Rx went mainstream when Bill

marketed to the bodybuilding community.

First of all, body fat testing is inaccurate at best. Secondly,

bodybuilders lie about their bodyfat levels the same way they lie

about their bicep measurements. I love these guys who claim to have

23 " arms (with no fat). Not on your life, bud! My thigh measures

23 " (unfortunately) and there is no way your arm is bigger than my

thigh! The biggest arms I've seen have been on powerlifters; one I

saw last Sunday I would honestly guess at a good 20 " and the guy was

HUGE, not to mention hugely strong as well.

Rosemary Vernon, Editor

Dolfzine On-Line Fitness, Inc.®

A Not-For-Profit Corporation

www.dolfzine.com

Marina del Rey, CA

IronRoses@...

http://www.chuckietechie.com

[Guest guest]

> > ** I don't think you can make a blanket statement as to the

> > reasons that people become insulin resistant because sometimes this

> > happens even when a person lives a decent lifestyle. They have a

> > genetic marker for the condition. However, many people get into the

> > condition Rosedale describes by poor lifestyle choices, i.e. poor

> > diet, too much alchohol consumption, heavy smoking, not enough rest,

> > i.e. trying to burn the candle at both ends for such a long time

> > that the flame finally meets in the middle.

>

Both sides of the argument are correct. High carbohydrate diets makes some

people hungrier faster than others. Excess energy intake, no matter what the

form, will cause tissue gain.

Simple as that.

Low carbohydrate works for some, not for others. The problem with the

medical profession at the moment is that it has not studied in depth any

alternatives to the food pyramid. And when the studies that they do always

go wrong, they come up with lots of reasons why the studies have failed, not

why the diet was wrong. It is good, if you look through the recent journals

of nutrition, they are starting to change their tune.

Simply said, everyone is an individual. Nutrition without individuality is

like prescribing one therapy to everyone, one training to everyone, it

simply wont work. Why try and be a sprinter if you are genetically

programmed for long distance running? You are shooting yourself in the foot.

> Yes many causes. Not just the intake of carbohydrates.

>

> > ** Much of the work on Syndrome X has appeared in peer reviewed

> > journals, however this is simply a transcript of a presentation.

>

> But has it gained acceptance and have Dr Mercolas perspectives and

> subsequent suggestions gained acceptance by the Medical community?

>

> > As far as Brasco's article, one of the very reasons I liked it was

> > *because* it was understandable to the lay individual.

>

> Doesn't make it right.

Exactly. Saying that you get syndrome X from one cause is shocking. Insulin

at my last count affects 27 different signalling pathways, and any one of

these pathways can be affected in syndrome X. With genotyping, we will find

that there are many versions of type 2, but at the moment they are trying to

keep it simple. Syndrome X is like saying you have cancer. Its just a

general description.

>

> > This is especially true when it comes to possible causes of Type II

> > diabetes as it is becoming much too prevalent in our modern society.

> > A great deal has been written about the causes of it lately.

> > Interestingly, it is pretty much preventable and often reversible

> > simply by making the necessary dietary changes. You can find quite

> > a bit of referenced material by doing a Net search for " Syndrome X "

> > where you will find information from Gerald Reaven, M.D., the

> > Stanford University doctor who discovered the condition in the first

> > place. Rosedale is more radical in his approach. Reaven has also

> > changed his thinking over time as to the intake of certain types of

> > carbohydrates.

>

> Perhaps you care to discuss these studies.

>

> Most of the anti carb arguments so far seem to come from either commercial

> websites or psuedo-science web pages.

>

> > <<Please show me how macronutrient choice in terms of calories eaten

> > has anything to do with physique.>>

> >

> > **** I think that's been pretty well discussed on this list.

>

I know world class athletes that follow a high carbohydrate diet, and are in

amazing condition, both in strength, power, low bodyfat (about 6-7% year

round) and train regularly.

There is no correlation between ONE diet and ONE result. Thats just rubbish.

If there is such a thing of one diet for weightloss, we all would be ripped.

And I know we all aren't.

> But no consensus has been reached.

>

> > also suggest you read Lyle's books because even though he may have

> > made the above statement on MFW, his extremely detailed book on

> > ketogenic diets tells a different story.

>

> Lyle sent me a copy of his book. It's a joke. It's like a first year

university

> essay where he has formed his opinion before writing and simply found

> studies that support his argument.

>

I have not read the book, but read a lot of his internet articles while

completing undergraduate biochemistry, and Hamish is right, it was a joke.

All these people who are writing on the net are making far too many

generalisations (yeah thatys a generalisation too), and have not thoroughly

researched the subject.

Blanket statements like " high carbohydrate diets make you fat, or inhibit

weighloss " are proposed by people who dont go well on high carb. Does that

mean everyone doesn't? And, to top it off, are usually said by people who

have no (or very little) understanding of the biochemistry involved. As I

say to a lot of people, there is a HUGE difference from being able to recite

a pathway, and to understand what is happening, the reaction kinetics, and

what changes in those kinetics or enzyme function will produce on the

evolving phenotype of the subject.

Joe cole

Dunedin, New Zealand

[Guest guest]

Eugene Sanik wrote...

> *** Let me suppose another hypothetical situation (I love

> hypothetical situations):

> We have a 24 hour day that starts at 00:00. I eat my first meal,

> 1500 calories. Day 2, 00:00 I eat 1500kcal.

>

> The question now is, on the first day, did I eat 1500 or 3000

> calories? So far, with your logic, it is safe to assume 1500, simply

> because everythign else false outside the 24 hour period.

Thats being pedantic and doesn't assist the debate. Would you prefer I say

Mon: weights day 2500 burned 2500 cals eaten

Tue: Aerobic day 3000 burned 3000 eaten

Wed Rest day 2000 burned 2000 eaten

Will the person lose, gain or remain constant in terms of body fat.

> You have to realize (which I'm sure you already, but somehow you

> seem to be confused on something very minor and technical)

No, you are making assumptions.

> Hamish: 3000 eaten 3000 burnt, where is the excess?

>

> *** The excess will refer back to the " moment by moment " processes.

> At the moment you consume 1500 calories in 1 meal, you store fat.

> This is avoided by frequent meals.

See above. Cals in Cals out.

But to play along with your smaller meals scenario.

One burns 3000 cals during the day.

During the day they eat 6 meals containing the following cals...

Meal 1: 750 cals

Meal 2: 650 cals

Meal 3: 550 cals

Meal 4: 450 cals

Meal 5: 350 cals

Meal 6: 250 cals

Independant of macronutrient percentages will they gain, lose or maintain

body fat?

>Add everything up at the end of

> the day and there is more fat storage and less fat burned when the

> two groups are compared. I know many powerlifters who eat only twice

> per day, 2 huge meals -- 1 for breakfast and 1 an hour or so after a

> workout (they dont bother with the frequent meals and protein

> shakes -- at least the ones I've talked to and interviews I've read

> about). They make consume similar calories as bodybuilders, but

> notice the physique differences despite some being same weight. With

> proper frequent meals we allow or body to transmogrify favorably

> (fat burnt, muscle built).

Do you understand what is being discussed? You also cannot compare a

bodybuilder with a powerlifter. Totally different goals and totally different

training. The only thing that matters to a Powerlifting is how much weight

they lift in the comp. They really don't care how they look doing it.

To use their example 2 meals a day of 1500 cals and they burn 3000 cals a

day. Say they follow this pattern for six days straight. Will they gain,

lose or maintain bodyfat?

> To believe what I just wrote you have to realize that daily energy

> expenditures are extrapolations (i.e., estimates) of hourly energy

> expenditures... so there CAN NOT be a daily requirements as it is

> sure an estimation of moderate magnitude.

Well of course. You can only estimate.

For my endurance cyclists I could estimate what they required then relate it

to actual food then follow up over the season if they were straying from

optimal body fat levels.

> Hamish: Perhaps you would care to share your thoughts on the often

> reported claim by low carbers that they eat far more calories on low

> carb yet still lose weight.

>

> *** Well, that's an obvious statement. Fewer carbs, fewer

> calories... loose weight.

Did you read what I wrote?

They say they eat more calories.

The claim goes...

High carb they would eat 2000 cals and burn 2500 but not lose weight.

Low carb they could eat 3000 cals and did lose weight.

Hamish Ferguson

Christchurch, New Zealand

[Guest guest]

> ****Yes, many in the medical community definitely understand the

> insulin resistance problem.

I would in fact hope all do seeing the prevalence of diabetes. The question

is what their approach is to it's treament.

>At least those with any interest in

> keeping abreast of what's going on. The West LA VA (which is a

> teaching hospital for UCLA Medical Center) is very well aware of the

> problem. As far as some others, I suppose not. ly, I am tired

> of fussing with HMO's who want to poke their heads in the sand.

Having waded through the research that goes into their approach I would

suggest their heads are very much above the sand line.

> <<Perhaps you care to discuss these studies.>>

>

> **** I'm not going to spoon feed you. Here is the list of

> references from my article. Everything you need to know, other than

> what your doctor can tell you about your personal situation after

> performing the necessary lab tests is here. In addition, go back

> and search the ST archives for Syndrome X.

>

> 1) Syndrome X, The Silent Killer, Reaven, G, M.D., Strom, T.K., Fox,

> B, Simon and Schuster, 2000

>

> 2) " Integrative Diabetes Treatment, " Life Extension Magazine,

> February 2002, page 61, a report from a presentation by Claude

> Lardinois, M.D. at the American College for the Advancement of

> Medicine, Nashville, TN, 2001

>

> 3) The Insulin-Resistance Diet, Hart, C.R., M.D. and Grossman, M.K.,

> Contemporary Books, 2001

>

> 4) Syndrome X, Managing Insulin Resistance, Romaine, D.S. and Marks,

> J.B., M.D., Harper , 2000

>

> 5) Insulin and It's Metabolic Effects, Rosedale, R, M.D., a

> presentation at Designs for Health Institute's BoulderFest, August

> 1999 Seminar, http://www.dfhi.com/interviews/rosedale.html

All second hand information. For someone so passionate about the subject I

would have expected convincing comments on the actual studies that

will support your claim.

> <<Lyle sent me a copy of his book. It's a joke. >>

>

> *** Are we talking about the same book? The 300+ pager that

> discusses CKD's for everyone from epileptic children all the way to

> bodybuilders?

Yes, most of the people in the sports and medical commmunity here think the

same.

> <<It's like a first year university essay where he has formed his

> opinion before writing and simply found studies that support his

> argument.>>

>

> **** Why wouldn't he cite research studies? What else is he

> supposed to use to draw his conclusions?

I real review of the subject would take us through the entire science behind

fat loss research paper by research paper bringing us to what we know today.

That would be our conclusion. Lyle has formed his conclusion and only

referenced material that supports his ideas.

The peer review process usually clears this sort of thing up, but Lyle's

chosen (as witnessed by pre-expulsion comments to ST) to take the low road

publish something that will only impress the uninformed.

Hamish Ferguson

Christchurch, New Zealand

[Guest guest]

Rosemary Vernon " <IronRoses@e...> wrote:

> Interesting comments in a couple of posts about these low body fat

> levels, i.e. 3-4%. That's impossible for a competitive athlete.

> They wouldn't have enough energy to stand upright. From what I've

> been told by a couple of people who know what they're talking about,

> the human body needs about 3% fat simply to have enough for nerve

> sheaths and to protect the spine and other organs.

BB competitors (despite the arguement on what really is the lowest

bf% attainable, whether it be the .5% claimed by Ron or 3-4%

claimed by most) regularly to well choreographed posing routines

that include backflips and other exhausting movements unexplainable

by " impossibilities. "

> I remember Connelly, M.D. stating that many people who are

> hospitalized and can't eat enough calories, die because their bodies

> have used up their muscle mass in an attempt to survive. He was, at

> the time, treating burn patients and other severly injured

> individuals. This was the reason he first developed MET-Rx because

> at the time there was no liquid preparation that provided them with

> the nutrients they needed. MET-Rx went mainstream when Bill

> marketed to the bodybuilding community.

What about intravenous alternatives? That sounds like a very bogus

reason to design protein shakes, especially for patients in hospital

beds who may have unstable internal organ function due to the trama

they've experienced.

> First of all, body fat testing is inaccurate at best. Secondly,

> bodybuilders lie about their bodyfat levels the same way they lie

> about their bicep measurements. I love these guys who claim to have

> 23 " arms (with no fat). Not on your life, bud! My thigh measures

> 23 " (unfortunately) and there is no way your arm is bigger than my

> thigh! The biggest arms I've seen have been on powerlifters; one I

> saw last Sunday I would honestly guess at a good 20 " and the guy was

> HUGE, not to mention hugely strong as well.

So your guess is more accurate than their measurements?

Have you actually tried standing next to some of them, instead of

guessing at it from a distance? I've stood next several competitors

(some competing, some not) at the Night of Champions in NYC and let

me tell you, their arms live upto the hype. I have also been in

Email contact with a pro bodybuilder from Spain who showed me his

arm during contest time with a tape measure around it at 19.75 " , and

believe me, his arms don't even come close to some IFBB pro's.)

Powerlifters are in another league, by comparison to these guys.

People lie about bodyfat, but thats because the machines lie to

them. Those that have competed, however, can safely say they've been

at around 3-4%.

Eugene Sanik

Brooklyn, NY

[Guest guest]

Guess what? The human body is most decidedly NOT a bomb calorimeter! There

are far more complex processes at work here that we know very little about.

[Please provide some details about all of these other possible processes or

reasons

why the current theories about body thermogenesis need revision. Mel Siff]

Matt Haugen

..... City?

* Please sign all letters with full name and city if you wish them to be

published.

[Guest guest]

> Interesting comments in a couple of posts about these low body fat

> levels, i.e. 3-4%. That's impossible for a competitive athlete.

> They wouldn't have enough energy to stand upright.

They don't have to stand, they sit, and ride a bike for 5-7 hours a day.

http://www.active.com/story.cfm?story_id=7908

> Secondly,

> bodybuilders lie about their bodyfat levels the same way they lie

> about their bicep measurements.

In cycling all riders are subject to a full Medical test before starting.

> I love these guys who claim to have

> 23 " arms (with no fat). Not on your life, bud! My thigh measures

> 23 " (unfortunately) and there is no way your arm is bigger than my

> thigh! The biggest arms I've seen have been on powerlifters; one I

> saw last Sunday I would honestly guess at a good 20 " and the guy was

> HUGE, not to mention hugely strong as well.

Don't be so sure. When Sonny Schmidt was in Christchurch as a guest poser at

a Bodybuilding comp he sat next to me in cafe after the event. Wearing only

a tee shirt I swear his arms were the same size as my (quite well developed)

thighs.

Hamish Ferguson

Christchurch, New Zealand

[Guest guest]

Ok One more time I have to ask whether this is subcutaneous fat OR overall

bodyfat measurement, meaning the entire composition, including visceral fat

cushioning organs....and what method used, etc.....margins of error and

usage of these methods being what they are...

Plus what about that triglyceride deposit issue where some very famous bb

had layers of fat actually adding to the girth of their muscles - is that

included? or excluded from that 3-4% alleged.. making them more in the range

of 6-8% according to reports.

I think it's possible to have a very low and hardly measurable subcutaneous

fat number, and yet have more than 3% OVERALL bodyfat. Measurement methods

are also notoriously inaccurate, it having been pointed out previouisly on

this forum in other threads that the ONLY completely accurate method is

AUTOPSY.....

So arguing a bodyfat number is not really valid in most applications any

more than using that BMI to decide someone is fat, solely on THAT number.

Until there is a readily available and inexpensive GOLD standard of BF

measurement, it's best to take ALL these numbers wiht a MAJOR bag of salt, a

grain is insufficient IMO!

The panic to new lifters and others trying to get into shape by numbers that

can vary due to the age formula, expertise of the person using the method,

hydration, time of day, ETC is out of control. Arguing an alleged very low

BF number only adds to the frustration of people trying to attain an

impossible standard, regardless of how it's measured and presented.

I no longer believe bb or others portraying X percentage, since it's not the

percentage that counts, but the APPEARANCE (in a BB) or the PERFORMANCE (in

other athletes) that is the TRUE MEASUREMENT.

The Phantom

aka Schaefer, CMT, CSCS, competing powerlifter

Denver, Colorado, USA

>Rosemary Vernon " <IronRoses@e...> wrote:

>

>> Interesting comments in a couple of posts about these low body fat

>> levels, i.e. 3-4%. That's impossible for a competitive athlete.

>> They wouldn't have enough energy to stand upright. From what I've

>> been told by a couple of people who know what they're talking about,

>> the human body needs about 3% fat simply to have enough for nerve

>> sheaths and to protect the spine and other organs.

>

>BB competitors (despite the arguement on what really is the lowest

>bf% attainable, whether it be the .5% claimed by Ron or 3-4%

>claimed by most) regularly to well choreographed posing routines

>that include backflips and other exhausting movements unexplainable

>by " impossibilities. "

>

>> First of all, body fat testing is inaccurate at best. Secondly,

>> bodybuilders lie about their bodyfat levels the same way they lie

>> about their bicep measurements. I love these guys who claim to have

>> 23 " arms (with no fat). Not on your life, bud! My thigh measures

>> 23 " (unfortunately) and there is no way your arm is bigger than my

>> thigh! The biggest arms I've seen have been on powerlifters; one I

>> saw last Sunday I would honestly guess at a good 20 " and the guy was

>> HUGE, not to mention hugely strong as well.

>

>So your guess is more accurate than their measurements?

>

>Have you actually tried standing next to some of them, instead of

>guessing at it from a distance? I've stood next several competitors

>(some competing, some not) at the Night of Champions in NYC and let

>me tell you, their arms live upto the hype. I have also been in

>Email contact with a pro bodybuilder from Spain who showed me his

>arm during contest time with a tape measure around it at 19.75 " , and

>believe me, his arms don't even come close to some IFBB pro's.)

>Powerlifters are in another league, by comparison to these guys.

>

>People lie about bodyfat, but thats because the machines lie to

>them. Those that have competed, however, can safely say they've been

>at around 3-4%.

>

>Eugene Sanik

>Brooklyn, NY

>

>

>

>

>Modify or cancel your subscription here:

>

>http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups

>

>Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city of residence if

you

>wish them to be published!

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Guess what? The human body is most decidedly NOT a bomb calorimeter!

There > are far more complex processes at work here that we know very little

about.

Why does everyone evade the question? Cals in cals burnt. Eat more you gain,

eat less you lose, eat same you stay the same. Where does macronutrients

come into this equation???

In my many discussions with Lyle Mc the best he could come up with was

that a low carb diet was psychologically easier for him to lose body fat

on.

Hamish Ferguson

Christchurch, New Zealand

[Guest guest]

> Both sides of the argument are correct. High carbohydrate diets makes some

> people hungrier faster than others.

Would this be a good case for applying guidelines like the Glycaemic Index

and several small meals?

> Low carbohydrate works for some, not for others.

Knowing your background in Biochemistry Joe, would you care to discuss your

thoughts for some peoples success?

> The problem with the

> medical profession at the moment is that it has not studied in depth any

> alternatives to the food pyramid.

To me the problem with the food pyramid is that Dietitians need an easy way

to get the sensible nutrition message out to people. The food pyramid has

not done this well. Same with most food guidelines.

Funny eat a low fat diet has been turned into eat a " no fat " diet or eat

anything (junk, sugar, soft drinks etc) as long as it's low fat.

> Simply said, everyone is an individual. Nutrition without individuality is

> like prescribing one therapy to everyone, one training to everyone, it

> simply wont work. Why try and be a sprinter if you are genetically

> programmed for long distance running? You are shooting yourself in the

foot.

Or go from Endurance cycling to Gymnastics:-)

> Blanket statements like " high carbohydrate diets make you fat, or inhibit

> weighloss " are proposed by people who dont go well on high carb.

Or who have a commercial interest.

Hamish Ferguson

Christchurch, New Zealand

[Guest guest]

[Please provide some details about all of these other possible processes or

reasons

why the current theories about body thermogenesis need revision. Mel Siff]

Futile cycles.

Mitochondrial membrane decoupling through specifically expressed decoupling

proteins in the membrane.

Leptin, neuropeptide Y pathways for controlling fat metabolism.

Elementary flux mode changes between individuals.

Dietary stimulation of uncoupling proteins through fat intake (yes, certain fats

selectively increase uncoupling

protein expression).

These are ones off the top of my head, there are lots more.

Joe Cole,

Dunedin, New Zealand

------------------

From: matt haugen

To: Supertraining

Cc: mralan2950@...

Guess what? The human body is most decidedly NOT a bomb calorimeter! There

are far more complex processes at work here that we know very little about.

[Please provide some details about all of these other possible processes or

reasons

why the current theories about body thermogenesis need revision. Mel Siff]

Matt Haugen

.... City?

* Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city of residence if you

wish them to be published!

[Guest guest]

>> Thats being pedantic and doesn't assist the debate. Would you

prefer I say

Mon: weights day 2500 burned 2500 cals eaten

Tue: Aerobic day 3000 burned 3000 eaten

Wed Rest day 2000 burned 2000 eaten

Will the person lose, gain or remain constant in terms of body fat.

<<

*** Your questions and scenarios seem to be ostensibly based on a

superficial understanding of human metabolism. " A calories burned /

B calories eaten " is a theoretical situation that can't be

determined exactly. You workout for 1 hour, what about the other 23?

How to determine exact caloric energy output during sleep, watching

TV, eating, having sex, running to the bathroom? Regard caloric

input, the foods used, frequency of the meals, and the macronutrient

profile will determine how much bodyfat you gain or loose.

> Hamish: 3000 eaten 3000 burnt, where is the excess?

>

> *** The excess will refer back to the " moment by moment " processes.

> At the moment you consume 1500 calories in 1 meal, you store fat.

> This is avoided by frequent meals.

>> See above. Cals in Cals out.

But to play along with your smaller meals scenario.

One burns 3000 cals during the day.

During the day they eat 6 meals containing the following cals...

Meal 1: 750 cals

Meal 2: 650 cals

Meal 3: 550 cals

Meal 4: 450 cals

Meal 5: 350 cals

Meal 6: 250 cals

Independant of macronutrient percentages will they gain, lose or

maintain body fat? <<

How can you ask that question while disregarding macronutrient

profiles? Bodyfat is very highly dependent on those percentages.

What are they eating?

>Add everything up at the end of

> the day and there is more fat storage and less fat burned when the

> two groups are compared. I know many powerlifters who eat only

twice

> per day, 2 huge meals -- 1 for breakfast and 1 an hour or so after

a

> workout (they dont bother with the frequent meals and protein

> shakes -- at least the ones I've talked to and interviews I've read

> about). They make consume similar calories as bodybuilders, but

> notice the physique differences despite some being same weight.

With

> proper frequent meals we allow or body to transmogrify favorably

> (fat burnt, muscle built).

>>Do you understand what is being discussed? You also cannot

compare a bodybuilder with a powerlifter. Totally different goals

and totally different training. The only thing that matters to a

Powerlifting is how much weight they lift in the comp. They really

don't care how they

look doing it.<<

I have no problems understanding the discussions, only your sketchy,

linear scenarios based on simplistic math of " calories in and

calories out " .

>> To use their example 2 meals a day of 1500 cals and they burn

3000 cals a day. Say they follow this pattern for six days straight.

Will they gain, lose or maintain bodyfat? <<

Based only on that info, I would envision them gaining bodyfat. 2

meals per day leaves 10 hours in between meals during which the body

is in a mode of starvation and will catabolize muscle. This will

reduce LBM and subsequently increase bodyfat.

>>Did you read what I wrote? They say they eat more calories.

The claim goes...

High carb they would eat 2000 cals and burn 2500 but not lose weight.

Low carb they could eat 3000 cals and did lose weight. <<

My mistake on reading the question. The claims are unlikely to be

true. First Law of Thermodynamics - energy cannot be created nor

destroyed, only converted from one form to another. What that means

is that to burn a pound of fat, you have to metabolize as energy

3500 calories more than you take in. How do they manage to do it

with a caloric surplus?

Think of your bodies energy (fuel) levels as a sine wave. Think of

the top area of the sine chart as anabolism and the bottom as

catabolism. The wave is always going up or down, it only crosses

that magic point of homeostasis (think caloric set point) where your

body is doing nothing for a second, then it is on to either storing

fat/building muscle or burning fat/burning muscle. Every time you

introduce more energy, the sine changes directions and heads up

towards anabolism until the energy is used up, high intensity,

calorie burning activities have the opposite effect and turn the

sine down towards catabolism. This is why eating more often,

frequent meals is so advantageous, you kick the wave towards

anabolism more times each day. If building muscle was this simple it

would be nice, but unfortunately it gets more complicated than this.

You also have other " sine waves " that must be paid attention to in

order to build muscle. Protein or nitrogen level is one important

sine wave that has to be in the right place to build muscle. If your

energy levels are in anabolism, but your protein level is below

the `homeostasis' line, you will not build muscle you will store

fat. I think you can follow the logic for the other possibilities

here.

Eugene Sanik

Brooklyn, NY

[Guest guest]

Hamish, it is not as simple as that.

The 'eat less than you need' is still true, but what you need (in terms of

kilojoules a day) can dramatically

change between individuals of the same height, weight and sex.

Once again, if you do not understand the biochemistry, its impossible to get the

diet right.

There is the capability for the body to burn excess energy as heat, through what

are known as futile cycles,

and also as heat through mitochondrial membrane decoupling. There is the

possibility of increasing your energy

expenditure through dietary intake of particularly monounsaturated and

polyunsaturated fatty acids, which

in certain individuals will work well.

Again, it is all individual, and it would take me weeks to put together a

comprehensive review of the area. This

will happen when I get time.

[i am sure that many members will appreciate that! Meanwhile, would you be able

to suggest a short list

of readily available abstracts from Medline and other online sources? Mel Siff]

The dietary guidelines were established from the biochemical basis of: (to my

knowledge, I can't remember

the source)

" Since carbohydrates have less energy than fat, you can eat more carbohydrates

(grams) and have less energy intake " .

Sophisticated no?

There is no such thing as a balanced diet, because what is balanced for one

cannot be for another. We all have a

different metabolism, that's the hardest part about it.

Joe Cole,

Dunedin, New Zealand

-------------

From: Hamish Ferguson (Bikecoach Account)

> Guess what? The human body is most decidedly NOT a bomb calorimeter!

There > are far more complex processes at work here that we know very little

about.

Why does everyone evade the question? Cals in cals burnt. Eat more you gain,

eat less you lose, eat same you stay the same. Where does macronutrients

come into this equation???

In my many discussions with Lyle Mc the best he could come up with was

that a low carb diet was psychologically easier for him to lose body fat

on.

Hamish Ferguson

* Don't forget to sign all letters with full name and city of residence if you

wish them to be published!

[Guest guest]

From: " matt haugen " <mralan2950@h...>

> > Guess what? The human body is most decidedly NOT a bomb calorimeter!

> There > are far more complex processes at work here that we know very little

> about.

Hamish Ferguson <bikecoach@c...> wrote:

> Why does everyone evade the question? Cals in cals burnt. Eat more you gain,

> eat less you lose, eat same you stay the same. Where does macronutrients

> come into this equation???

Science clearly shows that different macronutrients have different

effects on fat gain/loss. This is accomplished through hormonal,

enzymatic and other signaling methods. And it is consistent with the

laws of thermodynamics (by increasing/decreasing the expenditure side

of the equation).

Insulin is the most obvious hormone mediated by macronutrients. It

upregulates fat storing enzymes (fatty acid synthase, lipoprotein

lipase, etc) and downregulates fat burning enzymes (hormone sensitive

lipase, etc). Higher glycemic carbs stimulate greater insulin spikes

which, all other things being equal, increases lipogenesis. OTOH,

glucose has been shown to upregulate leptin which has an impact on

thermogenesis.

There also is the effect of all macronutrients on the thermic effect

of food. Protein has by far the highest TEF, carbs somewhat less and

fat very little. Again, this factors into calories out.

There are even many differences within the same macronutrient.

Saturated fat, for example, has little use in cellular processes so

it tends to preferentially be stored as fat (compared to PUFAs) if

not burned immediately for energy. What's more, it decreases membrane

fluidity which, over time, downregulates signaling including impaired

GLUT4 function. The net effect is insulin resistance leading to

increased fat deposition. PUFAs, on the other hand, have the opposite

effect, especially n-3 fatty acids. n-3 upregulates PPAR-alpha

(through its desaturation products EPA and DHA). PPAR-alpha has been

shown to increase beta-oxidation of fatty acids, expediting

lipolysis. In addition, n-3 upregulates UCP which has direct effects

on thermogenesis. What's more, PUFAs increase membrane fluidity,

improving insulin sensitivity.

This is only scratching the surface in a very complex area. While

from a simplistic standpoint, you are right that calories in/calories

out is the overriding factor in weight management, the process is

undoubtably mediated by the differing effects of nutrient intake.

[Please define all abbreviations whenever they are first used. There are

many readers who may not be familiar with the host of abbreviations that

we could use in every different specialised field... e.g. TEF, PUFA. Mel Siff]

Brad Schoenfeld, CSCS

Scarsdale, NY

[Guest guest]

Eugene Stanick wrote:

<<What about intravenous alternatives? That sounds like a very bogus

reason to design protein shakes, especially for patients in hospital

beds who may have unstable internal organ function due to the trama

they've experienced.>>

**** If I remember correctly (I listened to Connelly's comments back

in 1993), he didn't like the mix in the intravenous solutions. On

top of that, he said that many of these people could ingest liquids

and he felt it was better to send nutrients through their digestive

systems rather than through their blood streams.

<<Have you actually tried standing next to some of them, instead of

guessing at it from a distance? [this in regard to the fact that

many bodybuilders exaggerate the circumference of their biceps]>>

**** You bet! I've attended the Arnold for 8 years, have gone to

the IronMan twice and will be attending the Olympia this year. I

also go to many local NPC shows. On top of that, I belong to

Gold's/Venice, so I'm often using the piece of equipment next to

some of these folks.

Also understand that first and foremost, I am a bodybuilder and a

bodybuilding fan. I'm one of these people who will stick up for the

pro women's right to be huge. I'm also a PL fan and a weightlifting

fan although I don't participate personally.

Bodybuilding is an illusion in many cases. Someone who is ripped

looks larger on a stage than they really are. When you get next to

these people, you are often surprised at how small they are;

extremely muscular, yes, but not like the top amateur levels or the

pros.

When you get up into the top ranks, then, yeah, these folks are big,

but often they're not as big as they would have you believe. Many

of the men also claim to weigh more than they actually do. The

biggest ripped upper arm (bicep) I've seen was on Manfred Hoerbel a

few years ago. Now his bicep at 25 " I would believe, but I'm sorry,

even Kovaks didn't measure up to that. I mean that's almost as big

as my waist! Believe me, I've got a feel for how large my waist is.

As far as the machines lying, Schaeffer makes a very good

point in that the calipers only measure subcutaneous fat. I would

imagine that the formulas take the intramuscualr fat and protective

fat into consideration, but there's no way to really know that other

than to disect the person (as so correctly states). I would

venture a guess that by looking at the guts on the pros that they

have a lot of intramuscular fat in there along with their overgrown

internal organs.

Rosemary Vernon, Editor

Dolfzine On-Line Fitness, Inc.®

A Not-For-Profit Corporation

www.dolfzine.com

Marina del Rey, CA

IronRoses@...

http://www.chuckietechie.com

[Guest guest]

> Eugene Stanick wrote:

::: Interesting way of spelling my last name :-)

While we're on the subject, I realize my name conveys some mystery

with regards to it's origin, but my original last name was:

Sapozhnikov when I became citizen of the US I removed " pozh " and " ov " to

yield " Sanik "

[Pity about that - Sapozhnikov has a unique and very strong ring to it! Mel

Siff]

> <<What about intravenous alternatives? That sounds like a very bogus

> reason to design protein shakes, especially for patients in hospital

> beds who may have unstable internal organ function due to the trama

> they've experienced.>>

>

> ** If I remember correctly (I listened to Connelly's comments back

> in 1993), he didn't like the mix in the intravenous solutions. On

> top of that, he said that many of these people could ingest liquids

> and he felt it was better to send nutrients through their digestive

> systems rather than through their blood streams.

> <<Have you actually tried standing next to some of them, instead of

> guessing at it from a distance? [this in regard to the fact that

> many bodybuilders exaggerate the circumference of their biceps]>>

>

> ** You bet! I've attended the Arnold for 8 years, have gone to

> the IronMan twice and will be attending the Olympia this year. I

> also go to many local NPC shows. On top of that, I belong to

> Gold's/Venice, so I'm often using the piece of equipment next to

> some of these folks.

::: I'm very jealous :-) Have a great time at the Olympia. Myself I

will (hopefully) be watching it on pay per view (if that deal is

confirmed, I'm not sure what has transpired from that), with much

interest as to how it will turn out. I've heard many say that big

ron will take it (politics), but I think if his team doesn't get his

dieting just right, someone in better condition will snatch it away.

I hope the judges to a good job, they screw up way too much -- I

wonder sometimes if they actually look up to see who is posing.

> Also understand that first and foremost, I am a bodybuilder and a

> bodybuilding fan. I'm one of these people who will stick up for the

> pro women's right to be huge. I'm also a PL fan and a weightlifting

> fan although I don't participate personally.

::: It appears we are not much different in our enthusiasm for the

sport of bodybuilding, and its actually a welcome sound to hear

someone support female bodybuilding.

> Bodybuilding is an illusion in many cases. Someone who is ripped

> looks larger on a stage than they really are. When you get next to

> these people, you are often surprised at how small they are;

> extremely muscular, yes, but not like the top amateur levels or the

> pros.

::: I agree. I've been to two bodybuilding shows, the most recent

Night of Champions here in New York City (and got to see the pro's)

and also the NPC Atlantic States (here in NYC also), so I got to

stand next to some good amateurs as well as some IFBB pro's (some

who dieted down, and others who just came along to watch -- like

Flex Wheeler in his tight blue leotard -- I swear he has tree trunks

for arms). I guess it comes down to perception. It's a very

deceptive illusion when you see pro's standing next to each other,

and I think that's the only possible way of imagining them " small " ,

in relative terms (some amateurs also).

> When you get up into the top ranks, then, yeah, these folks are big,

> but often they're not as big as they would have you believe. Many

> of the men also claim to weigh more than they actually do. The

> biggest ripped upper arm (bicep) I've seen was on Manfred Hoerbel a

> few years ago. Now his bicep at 25 " I would believe, but I'm sorry,

> even Kovaks didn't measure up to that. I mean that's almost as big

> as my waist! Believe me, I've got a feel for how large my waist is.

::: One of my training partners is 250 and 20 " arms at 5'11. Not

shredded by any means, but it gives me a frame of reference because

we train together so often and I've become accustomed to comparing

myself with his 20 " pythons. I think the reason we perceive the

pro's to be " not as big " as expected is because of height. We

subconsciously imagine them to be 6'3 when in fact some are half a

foot shorter. But look closely at the density of their muscles and

really really compare yourself to them. I'd imagine the arm sizes of

most top pros on stage to be easily in the low to mid 20's

especially with the Synthol pumped into them and the site injections

most have probably used.

> As far as the machines lying, Schaeffer makes a very good

> point in that the calipers only measure subcutaneous fat. I would

> imagine that the formulas take the intramuscualr fat and protective

> fat into consideration, but there's no way to really know that other

> than to disect the person (as so correctly states). I would

> venture a guess that by looking at the guts on the pros that they

> have a lot of intramuscular fat in there along with their overgrown

> internal organs.

::: Correct. This is how Ronnie was able to publically claim

that he was measured to be 0.5% bodyfat at Mr. Olympia 2001

(subcutaneous fat with calipers). I'm sure if we were to measure his

intramuscular fat and such he'd bounce in at around 8%. It's very

relative, and it does depend on weight to some extent. Not an exact

science by any means, but pretty good as far as estimations go.

Eugene Sanik

Brooklyn, NY

[Guest guest]

> Eugene Sanik wrote...

>

> >Your questions and scenarios seem to be ostensibly based on a

> >superficial understanding of human metabolism.

>

> No, I have a good understanding of human metabolism.

::: If that is really so, forgive my flippancy.

> The problem is that I am offering up a simple heuristic while you

are demanding

> a perfect algorithm. Sorry I can't, too many factors involved.

::: Far from it. I strive to find methods that yield the best and

fastest results, as opposed to searching for the perfect algorithm.

I'm a bodybuilder, first and foremost, I need methods that will

produce results on my body. Some things are best left unquestioned.

> To illustrate, say we take your example of 2 grams of protein per

pound of bodyweight.

> I would say this is a heuristic. If I wanted to be pedantic and

demand an algorithm

> I would question you like this...

>

> How did you determine 2 gr / lb bodyweight?

> Is it exactely 2 gr or is it 1.9gr?

> Is this what you plan to eat or what you actually eat?

> Can you be sure you get this exact amount?

>

> And so on.

::: These are really arbitrary figures that I suggested. I dont

recall ever coming across any hard proven figures, but in this

regard it is better to err on the side of extra protein.

Though, your earlier questions did seem pedantic. You gave exact

caloric figures and are questioning how they will influence

metabolism (weight/fat gain/loss under different conditions). Though

some general trends can be predicted and expected, there will of

course be countless variables that will

> >How can you ask that question while disregarding macronutrient

profiles?

>

> Okay, let's change the question.

>

> Most fat loss guidelines suggest eating 200-500 cals per day less

than their

> " hypothetical " number of calories burned for the day.

>

> In terms of body fat loss does it matter whether they followed a

diet low in

> carbs or high in carbs as long as they hit that 200-500 less

figure.

>

> >Based only on that info, I would envision them gaining bodyfat. 2

> >meals per day leaves 10 hours in between meals during which the

body

> >is in a mode of starvation and will catabolize muscle. This will

> >reduce LBM and subsequently increase bodyfat.

>

> Seeing this was a real life observation on your behalf I thought

you would be

> able to comment on whether they did or did not lose/gain/remain

constant in

> terms of body fat. BTW How do they perform?

I didn't really study them as " research subjects. " I just looked at

their physiques and training and inquired about some of their

general eating trends. Powerlifters generally didn't seem as

concerned about nutrition timing as bodybuilders. When they do eat,

its very high quality meals (high protein, good carbs, etc), but

only 2-4 solid daily meals and thats about it. If they skip a

meal... no worries. Some bodybuilders I know would dump their

girlfriends if otherwise they'd miss a meal.

They perform very well actually, but many that I've talked with are

chemically enhanced so thats an additional variable that must be

considered.

One natural powerlifter that I've conversed with eats twice per day.

One of those meals (after workout) is something along the lines of

30 ounces of steak (and I have witnessed him eat this once from

start to finish) along with a side of some rice or something for

carbs. It's not uncommon to see him consume 2000+ calories in one

sitting. His physique is nothign to look twice at, but his 450+

pound raw bench is nothing to sneeze at.

> But, hey I have no argument with eating several smaller meals over

the day.

Definitely not, this is an area that has received quit a bit of

attention and even the media is advocating (very cautiously) to eat

meals more frequently (the caution comes when they emphasize making

the meals smaller so people don't unintentionally overeat by eating

the same sized meals more frequently).

> Hamish Ferguson

> Christchurch, New Zealand

>

Eugene Sanik

Brooklyn, NY

[Guest guest]

> Its like saying the 20l of 91 octane petrol and 20l of 100 octane petrol

do the same thing in every car. An

> oversimplification.

So there are some foods where calories taken in do not lead to calories

stored (liver, muscle cell, or fat cell) through a complex myriad of

physiological process's.

Can anyone tell me if any calories taken in lead to a greater number of

calories being stored? I think not.

So is the key then to not overeat.

As long as one does not overeat will they encounter problems with Syndrome X

and Obesity?

Hamish Ferguson

Christchurch, New Zealand

[Guest guest]

So there are some foods where calories taken in do not lead to calories stored

(liver,

muscle cell, or fat cell) through a complex myriad of physiological process's.

<< Some foods, in some people, tend to increase thermogenesis, and decrease fat

storage then others. For example, a meal of high glycemic, low protein and high

saturated fat will tend to have less of a thermogenic effect in some than eating

a

high mono/poly and protein, low glycemic carb meal. This means that not all

calories

are equal, as some lend themselves to storage in different people.

Can anyone tell me if any calories taken in lead to a greater number of

calories being stored? I think not.

<<I think so. Give one lot of " calories " a thermogenic effect, give one lot

none. What

is your conclusion? Let one group promote anabolism through hormonal pathways,

and one group promote catabolism. Again, I cannot see your logic.

So is the key then to not overeat.

>>> Don't overeat, but also, to prevent overeating one has to feel full, and not

want

to eat more. If you eat a high glycemic carb meal (or I should say " insulinemic "

to

refer to insulin index), the person, (again depending again on their individual

metabolism ), will feel hungrier more rapidly than another person, with

different

genetics. So overeating is the key, but again, an oversimplification.

As long as one does not overeat will they encounter problems with Syndrome X

and Obesity?

>>>> yes, but the key is to prevent overeating in the first place. You cant do

that

the same for everyone, and the majority of people with type 2 will feel

hungrier,

faster, than those of normal metabolism.

Joe Cole

Dunedin, New Zealand