4 ms·

I can't reply to your comment below b/c it is too many deep. I'll do that here and add some comments. Net calories is fine if your only goal is "don't be a fat

I can't reply to your comment below b/c it is too many deep. I'll do that here and add some comments. Net calories is fine if your only goal is "don't be a fatass". If, however, you are an athlete, lift weights or want something more, net calories don't tell you much. There are some easy experiments. ===================================== Let's assume 2000 cals daily is a supposed 300 cal deficit for someone. Let's assume sedentary lifestyle. A. 2000 protein B. 2000 fat C. 2000 simple sugar carbs D. 2000 complex carbs What is going to happen? A and B will loose weight. C will likely gain weight, quite a bit of it fat. D will most likely gain weight as well, but probably less so. D in particular would depend on how "sensitive" they are to insulin spikes. ===================================== Same setup. New items. A. 2000 cals prot+fat B. 2000 cals prot+carbs C. 2000 cals carbs+fat D. 2000 cals prot+fat+carbs (35/25/40%). A will lose/maintain weight. B would be tough. Probably lose/maintain. C would gain weight (carbs and fat together do bad things, particularly in sedentary individuals). D. This is you. Would lose weight, but suboptimally. A would be better for weight lose. ===================================== For some context, I guess. I'm an amateur bodybuilder and powerlifter. I used to play competitive basketball. I have a (rather time consuming hobby) of writing fitness books. When people say "net calories are all that matter" it is clear they don't understand the problem domain nearly enough. Nor do they understand that one must manipulate the macronutrients to achieve certain goals. I hope we one day STOP talking about calories completely and only talk about macronutrient ratios and grams. This is much more important. For instance, I have a photoshoot coming up for a book. I'm cutting bodyfat right now to get as lean as possible. I'm running 6.5 days of near zero carbs, .5g fat/lb of desired bodyweight and 1-2g protein/lb of desired bodyweight (leg day I take in more protein for instance) and a singular non-carb insulin spike after my workout (whey protein, leucine and creatine shake to spike insulin and spare my muscle). On the 7th day, I "carb up", or refeed. I basically go nuts and eat simple carbs (icecream, rice, cereal) to replenish my glycogen stores and, WAY MORE IMPORTANTLY, recalibrate my hormones. When I'm trying to gain muscle, I do this: only protein and fat before a workout. Only carbs and protein after a workout. My macronutrients are about 20/25/55 (fat, protein and carbs). If net calories were the only thing that mattered, I could eat 1000 cals of pure sugar and get ready for my photo shoot. I can't. That is stupid. If net calorie surplus were the only thing that mattered to gain muscle I could eat 5000 cals of pure sugar or 5000 cals of pure fat to put on muscle. I can't. That is stupid. You have to understand what they are doing. However, there are some VERY simple rules. It just isn't nearly as simple as you think. And it is foolish to perpetuate this decades old bunk science. EDITED: tried to fix up the formatting a bit.

MDS100 14y ago
Honestly, you are just burning a bunch of done-to-death straw men. (esp. the common "only thing" vs. "most important") Obviously the effects will be different. But the first and most important (!) factor for body composition and fatness is still caloric balance. As confirmed by a vast amount of experimental data in real humans under controlled conditions. Which is Jacques Point. Macronutrients (as well as micronutrients) do have very significant consequences (Leptin, Insulin blabla.). But that won't help at all if caloric intake/output don't match your goal. It seems you read some of that nonsense Gary Taubes & co perpetuate? Source: I'm a med student & fitness professional, who also writes fitness books. And gets results.
- gtt 14y ago
  >>As confirmed by a vast amount of experimental data in real humans under controlled conditions. Could you please cite an actual studies?
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    The big kahuna was the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. They starved their subjects. For months. Spoiler alert: all subjects lost weight. (bonus lulz, they lost weight on a high-carb diet) Otherwise, have fun reading up on "metabolic wards" and "supervised fasts" on PubMed.
- fingerprinter 14y ago
  Except they aren't strawmen, those are his actual arguments: the only thing that matters is net calories. Overall calories matter as a piece in the puzzle, and if he said that or even said they are the foundation, he would be right. he didn't. He said only thing that matters is net calorie intake. You said 'most important'. Congrats! You aren't building strawmen. And that is KNOWN to not be the case. There are many other elements at play. You as a fitness professional would know this. The type of workout, the type and timing of cardio (if any), the macronutrient ratios inline with your goals. As I said, if the only thing you care about is 'not being a fatass' and the number on the scale is end-all-be-all, calories are probably fine. Though, if you want some size, or definition, or abs, or performance, or any number of other things, calories don't tell the whole story.

MDS100 14y ago

Honestly, you are just burning a bunch of done-to-death straw men. (esp. the common "only thing" vs. "most important") Obviously the effects will be different. But the first and most important (!) factor for body composition and fatness is still caloric balance. As confirmed by a vast amount of experimental data in real humans under controlled conditions. Which is Jacques Point. Macronutrients (as well as micronutrients) do have very significant consequences (Leptin, Insulin blabla.). But that won't help at all if caloric intake/output don't match your goal. It seems you read some of that nonsense Gary Taubes & co perpetuate? Source: I'm a med student & fitness professional, who also writes fitness books. And gets results.

gtt 14y ago
>>As confirmed by a vast amount of experimental data in real humans under controlled conditions. Could you please cite an actual studies?
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  The big kahuna was the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. They starved their subjects. For months. Spoiler alert: all subjects lost weight. (bonus lulz, they lost weight on a high-carb diet) Otherwise, have fun reading up on "metabolic wards" and "supervised fasts" on PubMed.
fingerprinter 14y ago
Except they aren't strawmen, those are his actual arguments: the only thing that matters is net calories. Overall calories matter as a piece in the puzzle, and if he said that or even said they are the foundation, he would be right. he didn't. He said only thing that matters is net calorie intake. You said 'most important'. Congrats! You aren't building strawmen. And that is KNOWN to not be the case. There are many other elements at play. You as a fitness professional would know this. The type of workout, the type and timing of cardio (if any), the macronutrient ratios inline with your goals. As I said, if the only thing you care about is 'not being a fatass' and the number on the scale is end-all-be-all, calories are probably fine. Though, if you want some size, or definition, or abs, or performance, or any number of other things, calories don't tell the whole story.