Notifications
Clear all
05/12/2021 3:50 am
This is also why, generally speaking, shuffling around fats and carbs has no real impact on things, at least not within an identical calorie intake. As you eat more carbs, you lower fat intake so even though you burn less fat, the difference may be identical to a diet where you're eating less carbs and more fat.
This may be so on paper but in my experience the breakdown and timing has a huge influence on my progress or lack thereof.
Lyle probably doesn't need me to defend his position, but ...
there is a study which shows that, over a short term, you are right (as between keto-like diet and carb based diet), because of other factors, that Lyle mentioned above. The same study also shows, over long term, the diet type doesn't make any much difference, under identical caloric conditions.
Ji-Yong David Chung
05/12/2021 4:16 am
thanks lyle that was indeed an interesting read.
Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad.
If you meet the bodybuilding guru on the information super-highway, kill the bodybuilding guru.
trust != truth
05/12/2021 4:43 am
Agreed...
But now, what I'm trying to understand-- based on what Lyle's just presented and what has already been discussed/covered @ length-- is how this all works out in vivo-- especially in ectos. For example: take myself (endo-meso) and my younger brother(very ecto-meso). Almost all the men on my mom's side of the families are Ectos, and all the men on my dad's side are Endos, so I guess we 'split the difference.' Anyways, my diet probably resembles something along the lines of a 50/35/15 C/P/F; he eats much closer to a 70/10/20. My intake is clean, veggie and whole-foods heavy, and generally low GI, whereas he combines fats and high GI carbs constantly in conjunction with a very low protein intake. We're both very active/athletic, but I've never understood how his body can oxidize (or if it's not oxidizing, it sure is 'effacing') this level of dietary fat intake in lieu of his constant carb-consumption and continually agonized insulin state, wheras I--when I was younger-- ballooned up pretty rapidly with a similar macro-nutrient intake, weight it took me years to lose. Is it an issue of 'good' vs. 'bad' (as Lyle put it) 'blood-flow?' (as in partioning?). I just still fail to see how how certain individuals manage to maintain a 'fat balance' under these types of conditions (and I know we all know the type of person I'm talking about...) when it just doesn't seem like their metabolism could possibly 'handle' all this substrate excess. IMO it seems like there's also a highly individualized and highly intricate process which dietary fat goes through post-digestion, and I still fail to see how total 'calorie-balance' (even when you take into account sleep/fasted times) reconciles some of these discrepancies...
05/12/2021 5:09 am
This is also why, generally speaking, shuffling around fats and carbs has no real impact on things, at least not within an identical calorie intake. As you eat more carbs, you lower fat intake so even though you burn less fat, the difference may be identical to a diet where you're eating less carbs and more fat.
I would agree with that from a diet only perspective at least in the lean. In obese people do you not think the low carb aproach is superior?Particularly for its reduction in leptin and insulin, all while aclimating the brain to use ketones instead of glucose. Reseting the BBB GLUT1 content.
I do think one thing throws a wrench in the works of this proposition even for those who are lean. I agree with all things being equal that diet modification alone in lean people will have little impact (except protein intake, and quality of nutrients). However since we poses the ability through supplementation and drugs to alter various protein and enzyme activity does that not change the rules? I think it does. For example a PPAR-gamma inhibitor. would that not change the rules of shuffling carbs and protein. when utilizing such a tool would that not shift the ideal toward higher carb lower fat? I think it would. Thats just one example of many. For someone not utilizing supplements or drugs I agree with whats said but don't you think the ability to alter such enzymes makes macronutrient selection more important. Like an adipsin inhibitor as another example.
Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad.
If you meet the bodybuilding guru on the information super-highway, kill the bodybuilding guru.
trust != truth
05/12/2021 5:36 am
This is also why, generally speaking, shuffling around fats and carbs has no real impact on things, at least not within an identical calorie intake. As you eat more carbs, you lower fat intake so even though you burn less fat, the difference may be identical to a diet where you're eating less carbs and more fat.
This may be so on paper but in my experience the breakdown and timing has a huge influence on my progress or lack thereof.
How so? That is, what differences are you comparing (macro/timing) and what differences are you seeing? And in what time frame?
Lyle
05/12/2021 6:03 am
Agreed...But now, what I'm trying to understand-- based on what Lyle's just presented and what has already been discussed/covered @ length-- is how this all works out in vivo-- especially in ectos. For example: take myself (endo-meso) and my younger brother(very ecto-meso). Almost all the men on my mom's side of the families are Ectos, and all the men on my dad's side are Endos, so I guess we 'split the difference.' Anyways, my diet probably resembles something along the lines of a 50/35/15 C/P/F; he eats much closer to a 70/10/20. My intake is clean, veggie and whole-foods heavy, and generally low GI, whereas he combines fats and high GI carbs constantly in conjunction with a very low protein intake. We're both very active/athletic, but I've never understood how his body can oxidize (or if it's not oxidizing, it sure is 'effacing') this level of dietary fat intake in lieu of his constant carb-consumption and continually agonized insulin state, wheras I--when I was younger-- ballooned up pretty rapidly with a similar macro-nutrient intake, weight it took me years to lose. Is it an issue of 'good' vs. 'bad' (as Lyle put it) 'blood-flow?' (as in partioning?). I just still fail to see how how certain individuals manage to maintain a 'fat balance' under these types of conditions (and I know we all know the type of person I'm talking about...) when it just doesn't seem like their metabolism could possibly 'handle' all this substrate excess. IMO it seems like there's also a highly individualized and highly intricate process which dietary fat goes through post-digestion, and I still fail to see how total 'calorie-balance' (even when you take into account sleep/fasted times) reconciles some of these discrepancies...
A few things.
Some research (by Blundell) has identified high and low fat phenotypes, taht is people who seem to adapt to fat intakes to a better or worse degree. High fat phenotypes seem to maintain leanness even in the face of a high fat intake. Unfortunately, so far it's only cross sectional, hard to say if it's a diet effect or a gene effect. And the mechanisms are unknown.
A secondary factor might be NEAT (non-exercise adpative thermogenesis). In response to overfeeding, some people increase spontaneous activity to a far greater degree than others. In one study, folks were overfed 1000 cal/day; NEAT and fat gain was measured. Some people increased NEAT by nearly 700 cal/day storing very little fat; others increased it almost not at all, storing nearly the entire excess of calories.
Studies examining metabolic rate adjustment to dieting show similar differences, some people's bodies drop metabolic rate harder and faster than others. ONe study found that the folks who best increased metabolic rate to overfeeding dropped it the least with starvation and vice versa. Basically, some people are genetically more blessed than others.
Basically, there can be differences on the output side of the energy balance (and maybe fat balance equation). But this is a genetic effect (especially NEAT), not subject to dietary modification as far as I can tell. Folks who stay lean easily (even in the face of apparent food consumption):
a. tend to fidget and move around constantly, burning off a metric assload of calories
b. don't eat as much as you think: their appetite tends to downregulate more effectively and they balance out days of relative overfeeding with underfeeding.
These effects are probably interelated (think sensitivity to insulin, leptin, etc at the brain) but they are still genetic. It's also possible that they partition calories differently (or better), more to muscle and less to fat or what have you. That's also genetic, a function of neurochemistry and there are also issues of hormones (testosterone, cortisol), insulin sensitivity, etc.
Basically, when you compare two individuals, it's not uncommon to see differences in how nutrients are utilized: one may increase NEAT or partition calories to muscle better than another, and that can explain the discrepancy (twin studies bear this out, genetic twins gain and lose much more like each other than like other sets of twins).
I guess the issue is whether varying diet compositino is going to affect results in one individual. That is, given a low fat vs. low carb diet (with identical protein intake) will a given individual see drastically superior results. I suppose it's not out of the realm of possibility (esp. considering the high fat phenotype work that's starting to appear) but I don't think the data to support it is very strong.
Body composition cahgnes (partitioning) are controlled to a great degree (something like 75-80%) by internal factors, the primary correlate being bodyfat percentage. That leaves a rather small percentage to be affected by diet or training or what have you (drugs work best).
Lyle
05/12/2021 6:22 am
This is also why, generally speaking, shuffling around fats and carbs has no real impact on things, at least not within an identical calorie intake. As you eat more carbs, you lower fat intake so even though you burn less fat, the difference may be identical to a diet where you're eating less carbs and more fat.
I would agree with that from a diet only perspective at least in the lean. In obese people do you not think the low carb aproach is superior?Particularly for its reduction in leptin and insulin, all while aclimating the brain to use ketones instead of glucose. Reseting the BBB GLUT1 content.
I do think one thing throws a wrench in the works of this proposition even for those who are lean. I agree with all things being equal that diet modification alone in lean people will have little impact (except protein intake, and quality of nutrients). However since we poses the ability through supplementation and drugs to alter various protein and enzyme activity does that not change the rules? I think it does. For example a PPAR-gamma inhibitor. would that not change the rules of shuffling carbs and protein. when utilizing such a tool would that not shift the ideal toward higher carb lower fat? I think it would. Thats just one example of many. For someone not utilizing supplements or drugs I agree with whats said but don't you think the ability to alter such enzymes makes macronutrient selection more important. Like an adipsin inhibitor as another example.
Yes. I was thinking primarily in term of naturals. Of course, drugs alter all of this. But with drugs you're stepping outside of normal metabolism and biochemistry so you'd expect the rules to change.
And of course, implicit in what I wrote (hopefully anyhow) i taht protein intake is adequate. Most of hte studies that folks trot out finding that macro composition drastically affects things are comparing studies of low to high (I'd say adequat to inadequate protein). Of course the higher protein intake is going to be better from a LBM mainteannce standpoint and all the rest. I don't even consider low protein diets in such discussions; they are too retarded to even consider.
Stated a little bit more explicitly, my feeling is that
a. given an identical caloric intake that is neither too low nor too high as this will skew results: excessively low caloric intake will cause greater LBM loss no matter what you do and excessively high intakes cause excessive fat gain
b. adequate protein
c. adequate essential fatty acids
The macro composition of the diet will have a minimal, if any, impact on the rate or composition of what is lost or gained. Again, this assumes naturals, some type of non-retarded training structure and all the rest of it. Drugs or shitty training are going to affect all of the above.
As far as obese and low carb vs. high carb, I'll just note that there may be other reasons (outside of body comp changes) to pick one diet over another (body comp is one rather narrow issue to focus on). Health issues are one (more and more studies are finding that a subset of obese individuals has a worsening of blood lipids and other factors on high-carb diets); decreasing leptin, insulin, TNF-alpha is another potential issue (tho leptin will drop profoundly on any calorically restricted diet, with less of an impact of macro intake). Adherence is yet another (b/c if you can't stick to a diet, for whatever reason, it won't work no matter what theoretical arguments you make for it).
Then again, I think it's a matter of degrees (and your definitino of low-carb). I find most high carb diet interpretations to be fundamentally retarded. A diet of 60/30/10 (c:p:f) is unbalanced, too little dietary fat and few would need that many carbs unless they were involved in massive volumes of high intensity activity, had superior insulin sensitivity and picked carbs fairly low on the GI. Pro athletes with genetic gifts basically.
Studies looking at helath risk are finding that moderate fat (25-35% diets) give better results than either extreme (too low or too high). Studies looking at protein intake find both better LBM maintenance, better hunger blunting and better blood glucose maintenance at 25% compared to lower. So we've already got 25-35% fat and 25% protein. So at most yo'ure looking at maybe 40-50% carbs within that context.
My 'ideal' high-carb/low-fat diet is 25-30% protein, 40-50% carbs and 25-30% fat or so (the numbers are actually based on bodyweight since percentages are meaningless). More than sufficient to sustain all but hte highest intensity activities and even moderately insulin resistant folks should do ok on it. They can probably get away with higher GI crap since carbs are being lowered.
EVen for obese and relatively insulin resistant folks, I think that should work fine. For extremely insulin resistant folks, a further reduction in carbs may be necessary.
Lyle
05/12/2021 6:52 am
(1) It affects both. This means any fat you eat goes to where most of it likes to hang out (i.e., your waistline)
(2) Eating protein before exercise is good. It does not appreciably interfere with fat burning, even though it does cause some insulin response. It is worthwhile taking it for its muscle sparing effect. This point has been discussed at CEM forum.
05/12/2021 8:31 am
(1) It affects both. This means any fat you eat goes to where most of it likes to hang out (i.e., your waistline)
(2) Eating protein before exercise is good. It does not appreciably interfere with fat burning, even though it does cause some insulin response. It is worthwhile taking it for its muscle sparing effect. This point has been discussed at CEM forum.
05/12/2021 8:51 am
Could the success of one type of diet vs. another at all be influenced by what the dieter likes/believes will work better (beyond just being able to "stick to" one diet over another)? Could it be that, with less stress/greater feeling of well being/etc, one might garner varying results (even if those results are small) on different macronutrient ratios?
That's a good point, and IMO I think you're absolutely right on this. Considering that there are so many factors-- activity levels, insulin sensitivity, leptin etc.-- that are essentially 'interrelated' with one's diet and it's effects on health, body comp and what-have-you, there is really no ideal diet. There are better foods-- eating a salmon steak beats scarfing a Whopper calorie-for-calorie and in terms of macronutrient benefits pretty much hands down, but what works for some may not work for others, especially when it comes down to things like overall CHO intake. I mean, I think its obvious that some people are better suited to lower-carb intakes, whereas there are others-- particularly a lot of intense/endurance athletes-- who thrive on high-carb diets.
05/12/2021 9:09 am
Could the success of one type of diet vs. another at all be influenced by what the dieter likes/believes will work better (beyond just being able to "stick to" one diet over another)? Could it be that, with less stress/greater feeling of well being/etc, one might garner varying results (even if those results are small) on different macronutrient ratios?
Based on what mechanism?
I mean yeah, belief in a given approach is good from an adherence standpoint. Face facts, almost any diet works as long as you stick with it. Most diet books spend 50+ pages selling the diet (which cna typically be summed up in 1-2 pages) because belief tends to make people stick to it; as long as it's not fundamentally retarded, it should work.
I don't see how belief is going to affect things outside of that.
Lyle
05/12/2021 9:39 am
Some research (by Blundell) has identified high and low fat phenotypes, taht is people who seem to adapt to fat intakes to a better or worse degree. High fat phenotypes seem to maintain leanness even in the face of a high fat intake. Unfortunately, so far it's only cross sectional, hard to say if it's a diet effect or a gene effect. And the mechanisms are unknown.A secondary factor might be NEAT (non-exercise adpative thermogenesis). In response to overfeeding, some people increase spontaneous activity to a far greater degree than others. In one study, folks were overfed 1000 cal/day; NEAT and fat gain was measured. Some people increased NEAT by nearly 700 cal/day storing very little fat; others increased it almost not at all, storing nearly the entire excess of calories.
Studies examining metabolic rate adjustment to dieting show similar differences, some people's bodies drop metabolic rate harder and faster than others. ONe study found that the folks who best increased metabolic rate to overfeeding dropped it the least with starvation and vice versa. Basically, some people are genetically more blessed than others.
I know we often talk about set-points in regards to cutting, as the 'leanest' our bodies want us to be. But, when looking at phenomena like NEAT, it almost seems like certain individuals have an ingrained 'ceiling'-set-point (for lack of a better description) on their phenotype that keeps them below a certain bf%. I may be completely reaching on this one, but is it possible that leptin or some other physiological process could actually act to 'plateau' bf% in certain lean individuals? I mean, could it potentially work both ways in regards to an individual's tendency to display different forms of adaptive thermogenesis?
could the 'thrifty' gene actually 'fight' fight gain in certain individuals?
05/12/2021 10:02 am
I know we often talk about set-points in regards to cutting, as the 'leanest' our bodies want us to be. But, when looking at phenomena like NEAT, it almost seems like certain individuals have an ingrained 'ceiling'-set-point (for lack of a better description) on their phenotype that keeps them below a certain bf%. I may be completely reaching on this one, but is it possible that leptin or some other physiological process could actually act to 'plateau' bf% in certain lean individuals? I mean, could it potentially work both ways in regards to an individual's tendency to display different forms of adaptive thermogenesis?could the 'thrifty' gene actually 'fight' fight gain in certain individuals?
A recent study is informative in this regards: it looked at metabolic adapation to overfeeding and starvation in the same individuals and compared the response. It found that the people who showed the greatest increase in metabolic rate in response to overfeeding showed the least drop in metabolic rate to starvation. And vice versa. Obviously, the first would tend to resist obesity (and lose weight if they managed to get fat). The second group would have a propensity to get and stay obese (they have a harder time dieting). It's semi analogous to diet resistant and diet induced obesity genotype mice.
The study described such individuals as either being.
spendthrift phenotype (large increase to overfeeding/small drop to underfeeding). These would be your classic ectomorphs who have tons of trouble gaining weight no matter what they do but can lose weight very easily.
thrifty phenotype (small increase to overfeeding/large drop during underfeeding). this would be your classic endomorph who puts on fat readily and has trouble losing it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/quer...9&dopt;=Abstract
The mechanisms at work are still being debated. I suspect leptin sensitivity as being a key aspect. One of the followup NEAT studies found no relationship between leptin levels and the NEAT response but hormone levels and actual brain response (a function of hormone levels and sensitivity) wasn't measured.
So, yes, I think yo'ure correct in principle. I suspect that the thrifty phenotype is the more common one, as it makes the most sense from an evolutionary standpoint. The folks who are/stay naturally lean/skinny are definitely in the minority.
I suppose the more interesting question is:
a. what's the mechanism behind it
b. can we mimic/alter it in any way
As above, I suspect leptin sensitivity (and sensitivity to other hormones, thyroid, insulin, catecholamines, everything involved in the metabolic rate response to food intake) as being the primary mechanism.
At this point, I'm not sure 'b' is in our grasp outside of pharmacological interventions.
Lyle
05/12/2021 10:20 am
It would make sense from an evolutionary standpoint if you could make a connection between the two phenotypes and their genetic history. It would make sense that a people from a more seasonal climate (extremes of plenty and scarcity) would tend to store more energy and those from a more tropical climate (very little change in food supply) would merely expend more energy.
05/12/2021 10:40 am
This is called a distended stomach and is seen in those malnurished children on those TV comercials. There distended stomach is generaly caused by a lack of Vitamin A that potentiates storage in VAT.
Spook -
This may not mean much in the grand scheme of this thread, but I just wanted to throw this out.
The distended stomach is primarily caused by a lack of albumin, which then causes loss of osmotic pressure and leads to severe edema in the stomach. I do not think anyone on this forum will be affected by this, but I just wanted to make that point.
The information on this board continues to blow my mind. Awesome work by everyone here