Powerlifting & Weight Training

Miscellaneous General
81

“You know you can poop and pee out calories right? Just because you eat something doesn’t mean it gets absorbed and used by the body…” - Snowflake

Congrats. You just discovered both sides of the energy equation are subject to change.

“So in the in-out=accumulation energy balance, ‘out’ is equal to expenditure + excrement + whatever else. What macronutrients get used for is ENTIRELY dependent on how your hormones allocate them.”

That does not change the fact of energy balance, it just changes the variables in equation. Something dipsticks like Taubes can’t get through their frigging heads.

“But If you want to get really technical, the enthalpy of sweat droplets ought also to be counted.”

No, if you want to get really technical you would say: Energy In (corrected for digestion) = (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT) + Change in Body Stores. BMR/RMR is your base rate, required by body processes. TEF is the thermal effect of food which varies among macro nutrients and this affects the energy in portion of the equations, TEA is exercise and fairly self explanatory, SPA/NEAT is non-exercise related activity like walking around at work, getting up and down from your chair, etc. Change in body stores is also self explanatory. And all these variables are subject to change which changes the sum of the equation in terms of energy in vs energy burned and body stores. If you eat less and lose weight, your BMR is lower, TEF is lower, and SPA/NEAT will likely be lower via unconsicous compensation. Hence a 400 calorie defict in diet will only result in only so much weight loss before a new equillibrium is hit and calories will have to be lowered again. And that equillibrium weight will always be higher or lower than expected for people like Taubes who can’t seem to wrap their heads around a dynamic equation like that due to: higher/lower BMR, higher/lower TEF proportionate to calorie intake and macro ratios, higher/lower SPA/NEAT, and water retention/loss.

“You know that Lyle Mcdonald advocates a ketogenic diet for pure weight loss right? From The Ultimate Diet 2.0:”

Yes, because manipulating macro nutrients will allow you to some degree affect what tissues are lost vs maintained. It will not however let you violate the laws of physics. I’ve read all of MacDonald’s books and in all of them he is quite clear that all diet strategies can do is favorably alter some of the terms of the energy equation to help preferentially maintain muscle and lose fat during a diet, they do not invalidate the energy equation itself, nor is there something magical about carbs or insulin.

“Taubes isn’t like a super diet expert though. He’s just enough to get people started on nutritional education. But his emphasis is basically correct for a fat loss diet. He and McDonald agree.”

I suppose that’s why McDonald has called him a moron and an asshole and other choice words on his website’s forums; it’s because they agree and he has the highest respect for Taubes. He has also used the phrase “A steaming pile of horseshit” to refer to Taubes’ work before. Sounds to me like they’re in total agreement. Here’s a further quote directly from McDonald on “Metabolic Advantage”:

"here’s an example that is relevant to this thread: some low-carb studies suggest a metabolic advantage, othes don’t. Which are right which are wrong?

"In this case, none of them. Because whne you sit down and divide up the ones that show an advantage vs. those that don’t and look at the differences, here’s what you find:

"Those that do ALL use self-reporting of dietary intake and/or had drastically differing protein intake (confound: dietary protein makes people eat less)
those that don’t ALL use strictly controlled dietary intake."

Or in other words, what Taubes and the like do is cherry pick studies with nice abstracts but poor controls that seem to support the message they want to deliver. They do this because of the cottage industry of online researchers that have access to PubMed abstracts but not full studies. The bottom line is when you have a study done where the test subjects are sequestered and their diet and activites subject to strict controls, all the hormonal crap goes out the window and the bottom line is seen: calories in vs calories burned.

“There was a thread on Taubes earlier, and many mises.org members posted they had lost 25+lbs since reading him.”

On a site like this where everyone has a logical fallacy probe big as a dump truck up their ass, you’d think you’d spot the problem here. Eating fewer to no carbs is usually a good diet strategy because:

Protein has a higher thermic effect.

Carbs make up a massive portion of the typical US citizen’s diet, so avoiding them means by default a massive calorie deficit which would be hard to compensate.

Protein makes you feel fuller, carbs make you feel hungry, hence you tend to eat more on a moderate to high carb diet when you realize it or not, and less on a high protein/fat low carb diet whether you realize it or not.

Absolutely none of the above invalidates the energy balance equation.

“I just pointed people to Taubes because its correct in its fundamentals, breaks through the AHA nonsense, and really works for a lot of people.”

Taubes is entirely wrong in his fundamentals. Low carb diets are an effective approach to dieting for many, but not for the reasons he is claiming. You can lose weight just as well eating fewer calories than burned one way as any other way. But some approaches give an advantage for various reasons, not the least of which is psychological, and none of which are a violation of the laws of physics.

82

That’s good, but basic transport phenomena has rate in - rate out + net generation = accumulation. I think you’re saying energy in = energy out + accumulation. If what you mean by “Change In Body Stores” is the accumulation term, then your energy out term is missing the macronutrients humans excrete.

The reason calorie intake might not matter is that the excess calories could just go straight through the body without being taken up by the body. Hormones play a large role in this. You just kind of throw this out the window in favor of your energy balance discourse. So, I’m not arguing against an energy balance approach, just have a version of it that fits human beings. As I said before, we are not cars. We do not use everything that comes into us.

The UD2.0 has 4 days of extreme carbohydrate deprivation. 50g/d or less. You’re claiming that we could cut out protein/fat instead?

McDonalds seems to flame a lot. Even in his books. Regardless of what he thinks about Taubes, the fact remains that they both advocate very low carb, high protein, high fat diets for weight loss. Taubes just doesn’t think you have to cut out calories very much because lack on insulin kills your body’s ability to store fat.

Taubes picks studies that don’t fit the norm as a way to challenge the mainstream views expounded by the AHA and friends. He’s also been quite vocal about wanting better studies done on low carb / ketogenic / paleo diets.

Whatever. Taubes is not my personal jesus. I’d take McDonald’s advice over his any day. Its just a lot more detail for essentially similar recomendations for fat loss.

These are all good reasons too. But they don’t preclude anything i’ve said about the role of hormones. I would say a lot of things like the thermic effect of protein is negligible. Its not mentioned as being a cornerstone of any nutritional program.

Nothing I’ve said has either. You just flame when I say calories don’t matter. Probably because I’m making another overstatement. If you eat 10 calories a day, you will lose weight. But when you start getting into the normal bounds of calories, it matters less and less. Hormones begin to play a larger role in where/if macronutrients are used, stored, or expelled.

Eat low carbs cus insulin blocks fat mobilization? Taubes and McDonald both say it. McDonald is 1000x more sophisticated/thorough in his advice though. This is probably why McDonald hates Taubes; he sees the latter as a dilletante getting all this credit for what fitness gurus have known for years.

Anyway, you still completely fail to explain why some people are thin/fat, even when they have comparable diets/lifestyles. You neeeeeed hormones and that slight modification to the energy balance equation to be able to explain it. This is all.

83

“Dondolee, my drink of choice is a vodka with a whey protein mixer, unfortunately I’ve not had the balls to try it yet so I usually go for straight vodka.”

Vodka(or the homemade variety known as Landi in Iceland) and liquid whey is a seriously awesome combination. No balls are required, it tastes just great.

Liquid whey is a common and dirt-cheap dairy product in my country - it’s called Mysa, and it’s the greatest thing ever when it comes to exercise - I use it as a replacement for all sports and energy drinks etc. when I´m training.

Don’t know how vodka would go with powdered whey supplements though.

84

Absolutely none of the above invalidates the energy balance equation.

Can you actually cite where Taubes says this? My hunch is you are pulling a Giles.

There’s myriad reasons to eat paleo besides being able to lose weight without exercise and hunger.

85

I’m fairly confident Xharx that you took Snowflake’s remark a tad bit too literally. Essentially you attempted to correct Snowflake(I don’t know why) by repeating back to him the same thing he was saying. What Snowflake is saying is the body will find ways of conserving energy, if that means slowing of metabolism then yes, thats one way that could happen.

It’s not ridiculous at all. Snowflake’s statement is the fundamental reason why diabetics have to take hormones(insulin) to deal with their sugar levels. According to you they’re breaking the laws of physics?

86

“That’s good, but basic transport phenomena has rate in - rate out + net generation = accumulation. I think you’re saying energy in = energy out + accumulation. If what you mean by “Change In Body Stores” is the accumulation term, then your energy out term is missing the macronutrients humans excrete.” - Snowflake

If you’ve excreted the nutritional content then you haven’t added it to the left side of fucking equation. Simple enough for you? And McDonald covered this in that short easy to read article I mentioned, which means you haven’t read it.

“The UD2.0 has 4 days of extreme carbohydrate deprivation. 50g/d or less. You’re claiming that we could cut out protein/fat instead?”

If you wanted to, however how you did it would have to vary. The whole point of McDonald’s article, and point I’m making here, is that Taubes’ and others’ simplistic view of energy balance isn’t correct. I am not writing about Ultimate Diet 2, nor am I writing about maintaining as much muscle mass as possible while losing primarily fat, I am writing about weight loss. If you were as learned as you seem to be claiming, you’d know the difference and why recommending UD2 or some other overly complex diet to some random dude on an economics message board probably isn’t the best idea when he should just be eating less.

“Regardless of what he thinks about Taubes, the fact remains that they both advocate very low carb, high protein, high fat diets for weight loss. Taubes just doesn’t think you have to cut out calories very much because lack on insulin kills your body’s ability to store fat.”

Which means the equation is altered. In any event, once Taubes starts using studies with reasonable controls and stops bringing up case studies of people with pathological diseases to prove his case, he may actually have a case.

“Taubes picks studies that don’t fit the norm as a way to challenge the mainstream views expounded by the AHA and friends.”

Which is what makes him a moron since the entire body of work is what’s at issue, and because two seemingly contradictory studies can both be ‘correct’ because of different models, controls, sample groups, definitions for statistical significance, etc., etc., etc., etc.

“Its just a lot more detail for essentially similar recomendations for fat loss.”

I don’t see Taubes’ advocates saying, “This guy is a dipshit, but his strategies work for reasons he seems oblivious to.” Taubes is peddling bullshit to people who want to hear it, the effectiveness of low carb strategies not withstanding. If you want to use cars as an analogy, he’s claiming Honda Civics get better mileage than Hummers because of little elves that help push the car. Indeed, Civics do get better mileage, because they weigh less and use fuel more efficiently. So he’d be right in his recommendation for Civics over Hummers for commuting as a strategy to save gas, but totally fucked in the head as to why.

“These are all good reasons too. But they don’t preclude anything i’ve said about the role of hormones. I would say a lot of things like the thermic effect of protein is negligible. Its not mentioned as being a cornerstone of any nutritional program.”

Never said it was. However it is a portion of the energy balance equation and an advantage of high protein diets, however minimal. Water loss is also a factor in diets if not in the energy equation in the first week or so, which is one of the reasons why low carb diets always seem to out perform regular calorie restriction in the initial stages of dieting; low carb means water loss, means seemingly more fat lost at least initially on low carb diets when in reality it’s more weight lost, that weight comprising water and fat.

“Nothing I’ve said has either. You just flame when I say calories don’t matter.”

Because saying calories don’t matter is an extremely stupid and incorrect thing to say. Hormones do not violate the laws of thermodynamics. If hormones stop the absorption of calorie intake, those calories are by definition NOT A PART OF THE ENERGY BALANCE EQUATION. Or, put simply, they have not been ingested. There’s more to getting energy into your system than simply shoving it in your mouth.

Both sides of the equation have factors that affect them which people do not account for and which can lead to discrepancies in interpretations of how much and why weight is lost or gained. Gut flora affect how many calories from food actually get absorbed, etc. In the end none of it affects the truth of the energy balance equation, it just illustrates that the factors contributing to the energy in and energy burned portions are more complex than most people understand, and they constantly change.

“But when you start getting into the normal bounds of calories, it matters less and less. Hormones begin to play a larger role in where/if macronutrients are used, stored, or expelled.”

And this is where the bullshit comes in, because in the end energy can not be created or destroyed, so you are wrong. There’s no ‘wiggle room’ in that law.

“Anyway, you still completely fail to explain why some people are thin/fat, even when they have comparable diets/lifestyles.”

Because they have different energy requirements. This is a perfect demonstration of how Taubes and yourself completely misread and misuse the energy balance equation, because it does not say everyone requires the same input and/or uses energy in the same exact ways or with the same efficiencies. The ‘modification’ to the equation isn’t needed, it’s there already. Hormones are what affect body stores, conscious and unconscious energy expenditure and your willingness/motivation to engage in the former, BMR, etc.

And all which culminates in this: it is up to the likes of you and Taubes and other such numbskulls to prove your case, not the other way around. You guys are the ones claiming magic exceptions to well known laws of physics which have been documented to Hell and back. You guys are the ones who only seem to find evidence for your views in studies where the controls are poor to nonexistant. So have at it. Do it at McDonald’s boards where it’s more appropriate. You’ll leave holding your own ass within thirty minutes.

And more to the point of this thread, taking a complex cyclical ketogenic diet approach, a protocol designed for amatuer and pro body builders to help them cut to unmaintainable body fat levels for short to moderate periods of time, and recommending it to someone who has already demonstrated inability to control normal calorie intake by virtue of the fact that they are already fat, is just plain fucking dumb. It’s ridiculous to recommend UD2 to someone who probably can’t accurately keep a tally of their calorie intake now, and you want them to start counting grams of macro nutrients to maintain specific maximums/ratios? Gimme a break. Lacking an in depth review of his current diet and habits, ‘eating less’ is the only common sense advice one can give.

87

“Can you actually cite where Taubes says this? My hunch is you are pulling a Giles.”

Yeah, it’s called “calories don’t matter.” Which will be ground breaking news to modern physics. And if you go to monkeyisland/lylemcdonald.com and do a search for “Taubes” you’ll get a myriad of hits on speeches and articles he’s written with quotes that’s he’s been called out on. Here’s a choice quote of his from a Time article I believe: “After all, doesn’t exercise turn fat to muscle, and doesn’t muscle process excess calories more efficiently than fat does?”

Turn fat into muscle? Perhaps he could explain what star trek machine does this, because muscle tissue and fat tissue are two completely different fucking things, and one does not ‘turn into’ the other. Or, how about this one, which I think comes from Good Calories, Bad Calories:

“Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter, any more than it causes a child to grow taller. Expending more energy than we consume does not lead to long-term weight loss; it leads to hunger.”

You really can’t get more fucktarded than that.

Here’s another thread from there specifically on the ‘paleo’ bullshit trend: http://monkeyisland.lylemcdonald.com/showthread.php?t=39516&highlight=fuck+paleo

The truly amazing thing is you guys don’t seem to realize how massively, ridiculously stupid Taubes is.

88

So, can you actually cite where Taubes says this? (I own GCBC.)

Baseless assertions are “massively, ridiculously stupid”.

89

So that destroys the equal sign in the energy balance equation >< Whatever. Regardless of how we rewrite the energy balance, one still has to account for the way the body takes up/uses/stores hormones, or we’ll never get good quantitative values for those terms. This is important because we typically count calories we eat.

I’m actually not recommending the UD2. I’m saying people should do a low carb diet if they want to lose fat.

Taubes, while not as detailed as McD, does discuss insulin’s role in fat storage. It is very important.

I’m aware of this.

That’s a big asterisk to have on your energy balance equation. It would be much easier to write it as in - out + generation = accumulation, where in = energy of the food you eat, out = energy expenditures, excrement, generation = energy to break down proteins etc (negative), and accumulation = total energy remaining in the body. This way you can easily see the role of hormones, as well as thermic effects, etc etc in the energy balance.

The way you make it sound, its just eat less, exercise more, and you’ll be golden. This is not true if your body changes the way it handles food. Hormonal changes could easily cause you to just absorb a greater % of the food you are eating. We have to be more sophisticated than this.

I’m not saying energy is destroyed. I’m saying you can expell it as waste. I don’t know how to make this more clear.

This is certainly possible. But then you deny the possibility that two people, the same in every way, including energy expenditures, could be of different weights?

But i like mcdonald… Just because McD hates Taubes doesn’t mean he’s worthless. I’ve already outlined how Taubes logic is similar, albeit less rigorous, than McD’s. You don’t rebut this.

A CKD is actually pretty easy to follow. And I actually didn’t recommend it as a diet the OP should follow. The first thing I said was that if the GOMAD works for you, keep doing it. Simplicity wins. Maybe you have the right genetics for it. Regardless, it is helpful to know what a C(KD) is, so that you can return to it later if your fitness goals aren’t being met.

Actually, ketosis blunts the appetite back.

I didn’t mention UD2 till you brought up McDonald’s work. I only did so to show the similarities between them. You just seem to hate taubes a lot.

Only if they can maintain all other energy outputs, many of which are beyond conscious control. Cutting carbohydrates down to 30-50g/day is a much better recommendation, even if the overall calorie level stays the same. This has to do with insulin, which you’re probably aware of, but never reference.

Anyway, I’m tired of repeating myself. You don’t seem to really understand other people’s arguments, or address them at their core. No one is contradicting the energy balance. When we say Calories don’t matter, we mean that dietary calories don’t translate into body-calories. Its taken a very long time just to get you to clarify that in =/= eat. I think you’re just ticked off that Taubes might get praised for something he isn’t an expert on.

90

Your original post before editing was 10% of that size, anyhow I still don’t see where you are getting that quote. I’ve only had time to read the beginning of the book, but I want to say that I read that sentence.

I see why it seems wrong, but I am afraid that you are taking an oversimplistic view of nutrition. Read a comment from Dr. Harris’ post on weight loss:

For now, a few thoughts.

I can’t conceive of how “the role of glucagon” can prevent excess calories from being stored as fat if fat is otherwise beng driven into storage.

Does glucagon generally oppose insulin? Yes, but so what? So does virtually every other hormone.

Briefly, eating excess calories from any source will make you gain weight if hormones are driving fat storage, and won’t otherwise. Whether the caloric excess is protein or fat or carbs does not matter if your adipocytes are storing fat under hormonal direction.

I never said excess anything would cause fat gain, only that it could under the right circumstances. Obviously within ranges excess anything can be tolerated without weight gain, even if it is carbs.

You can give a type I diabetic all the carbs you want, and without exogenous insulin they lose weight.

Conversely, if I keep your caloric intake the same with zero carbs and you are not diabetic, and I give you extra insulin, you will start storing fat (stop releasing) and become ravenously hungry. If I don’t let you eat more, you will then get lethargic and your metabolic rate will decline. You will now be fatter, slower and eating the exact same calories.

Under the right (or wrong) hormonal milieu, it matters not a whit if the extra calories are fat, carbs or proteins.

Macronutrient ratios mediate weight via hormones. Hormones drive fat storage.

I’ve seen body builders rage at Dr. Harris for saying that the occasional carb loading (or whatever it is called, and you were mentioning it) is pointless. I could care less about this or what you choose to eat. The parallels between this subject and rabid statism are amazing. I didn’t read beyond the first post of the forum you linked but it is amusingly stupid. It sounds a lot like the fallacious attacks I got from various family and friends when I started eating paleo.

Someone caught me in a mood on the other forum. 'm really tempted to write an article for the site called ‘Fuck Paleo Man’ and put a lot of the below in there.

there is some evidence in that respect, yes. Certainly chronic hyperinsulinemia as occurs with teh combination of modern diet + inactivity does bad things. So fine, if you want to talk about the average modern person, perhaps paleo diet would be better than a 64 oz coke every day. No joke.

Of course they also have done no activity since 1992 and the paleo people alwys focus on the diet alone and ignore the OTHER apsects of supposed paleo man’s life that contributed. Christ, why am I bothering typing this all up again, I’ve already discussed this with bitsobrawn and gareth even if they were both too dumb to pay attention.

I thought we were talking about bodybuilders and grains…becuase regular activity affects insulin sensitivity and release. And few athletes eat the kinds of foods endemic to the modern diet.

And grains aren’t evil in any case. As dozens and dozens of studies say. But I’m not typing up that again either. Without the development of grains, humanity never would have evolved. Of course it’s easy to be paleo man when you can go to Wild oats and buy your food. I want these paleo extremists to do it right: get off the computer (Paleo man didn’t have it), toss your glasses (paleo man didn’t have it), get rid of your car (paleo man didn’t have them). Go live in teh woods and do it right or shut the hell up about it. Dont pick and choose the easy aspects of living a paleo life. Because that’s all that any of them are doing.

Of course they won’t, they are just a bunch of rich Americans who get to make inane choices about their food intake (like vegetarians) because they live in a world that WOULD NOT EXIST IF MAN HADN’T STOPPED BEING A HUNTER GATHERER AND DOMESTICATED GRAINS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Of course, it’s fun to watch the paleo guys quite Cordain and Eaton’s SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ARTICLES but choose to ignore the ones on grains because they don’t like what they say.

Oh yeah, paleo guys: move out of your house and go build a hut.

No more medicine either, if you get sick good luck with that. Go figure out which herbs are good for certain things.

Quit your gym, paleo man didn’t have rotating barbells and weights. Go lift rocks and antelopes for exercise. When you aren’t spending 4 hours/day trying to obtain food by hand.

No supplements either. No creatine, no none of that. If you want fish oils, learn to spear hunt.

Oh yeah, and please drop dead at age 40 since that’s about average life expectancy for paleo man. Don’t rely on the medical technology that wouldn’t exist if man hadn’t domesticated grains and been able to put energy into more than survival because paleo man didn’t get to either.

But stop picking and choosing which bits you do and do not think are valid.

The “paleo diet” is not one particular approach. Dr. Harris says that some people can tolerate up to 40% carbs and that certain steps like dropping sugar and plant oils are more important than not eating rice/potatos/corn.

It also isn’t a historic reenactment. Butter is a neolithic food, but a staple of the paleo diet.

91

Which still is addressing only the symptoms, still just hacking at the branches.

92

Huh?

What I meant was, if you want to lose fat, you have to put on muscle.

93

Liquid whey is a common and dirt-cheap dairy product in my country - it’s called Mysa, and it’s the greatest thing ever when it comes to exercise - I use it as a replacement for all sports and energy drinks etc. when I´m .

Don’t know how vodka would go with powdered whey though

I think he was joking. It would be exceptionally batty to work out drunk / hungover.

94

I think he was joking. It would be exceptionally batty to work out drunk / hungover

I was actually being dead serious about that!

95

I’m surprising I haven’t seen anyone mention HIT training. This was once the standard for Objectivists, wasn’t it, as the most rational of all weightlifting routines and all that?

96

Why do you believe that?

97

It was mentioned a few pages above, and several variations of HIT work outs have also been mentioned.

98

I was actually being dead serious about that!

Alchohol is a diuretic, the hangover is your body dehydrated. I guess this is what I should expect from a vodka drinker.

When I was bartending one day I told my friend if he could jog the 12 miles from his house to my bar in less than 1 1/2 hrs in 86 degree weather, he could drink for free that day. He managed the jog, he “won”, but it didn’t end well for him. He was a vodka drinker as well.

99

I’m not sure if it was “the standard for Objectivists,” but I know that Mike Mentzer was an Objectivist.

100

I’m not sure if it was “the standard for Objectivists,” but I know that Mike Mentzer was an Objectivist.

Bob Clapp is an anarchist/egoist transhumanist who was influenced by Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Max Stirner and Ray Kurzweil. I’ve met him before, he’s an interesting guy.

His book is oddball, but it has some interesting parts.

He wrote a ‘white paper’ about the misreporting of steroid effects.