Comments on: All Diets Work: The Importance of Calories http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories.html Training and Nutrition advice, straight from the monkey's mouth. Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:56:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Marco http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories.html/comment-page-1#comment-5333 Marco Sun, 22 Aug 2010 02:06:31 +0000 http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/blog/2008/06/30/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories/#comment-5333 Hey Lyle, there are so many misconceptions, myths, half-truths, and BS about nutrition and diets that the media create and/or perpetuate, for example stating that there's an epidemic of obesity in the US and that since high carbs low fat foods are available everywhere and that a lot of people eat them, then carbs per se are fattening. However, from reading your articles I understand there are a lot of grey areas and nuance ( and individuality whereby one will thrive on C-P-F 50/30/20 and feel miserable on 20/30/50) and the media are not about nuance. Even Clarence Bass, an author I respect, committed the unpardonable sin of dismissing low carb diets as worthless because he himself felt terrible the one time he tried it. Anyhow, thanks for your work and your relentless quest for the truth. Moreover, you're fun to read. Hey Lyle, there are so many misconceptions, myths, half-truths, and BS about nutrition and diets that the media create and/or perpetuate, for example stating that there’s an epidemic of obesity in the US and that since high carbs low fat foods are available everywhere and that a lot of people eat them, then carbs per se are fattening. However, from reading your articles I understand there are a lot of grey areas and nuance ( and individuality whereby one will thrive on C-P-F 50/30/20 and feel miserable on 20/30/50) and the media are not about nuance. Even Clarence Bass, an author I respect, committed the unpardonable sin of dismissing low carb diets as worthless because he himself felt terrible the one time he tried it. Anyhow, thanks for your work and your relentless quest for the truth. Moreover, you’re fun to read.

]]> By: Drew http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories.html/comment-page-1#comment-3003 Drew Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:26:43 +0000 http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/blog/2008/06/30/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories/#comment-3003 Hi, I have learned so much from these articles, such great stuff. I apologize if my question was addressed in this or some other article or book, but here goes: Would it be better for me, a male at 15% BF who exercises with weights and cardio 5 days a week, to forget dietary caloric restriction for losing weight and just rely on exercise to create a caloric deficit? This would eliminate having to work around the body's adaptation to dietary caloric restriction that occurs after a period of dieting maybe? Maybe the answer for me is in your stubborn fat book, as my main issue is the stubborn fat around my midsection. Hi, I have learned so much from these articles, such great stuff. I apologize if my question was addressed in this or some other article or book, but here goes: Would it be better for me, a male at 15% BF who exercises with weights and cardio 5 days a week, to forget dietary caloric restriction for losing weight and just rely on exercise to create a caloric deficit? This would eliminate having to work around the body’s adaptation to dietary caloric restriction that occurs after a period of dieting maybe?
Maybe the answer for me is in your stubborn fat book, as my main issue is the stubborn fat around my midsection.

]]> By: admin http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories.html/comment-page-1#comment-2617 admin Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:30:46 +0000 http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/blog/2008/06/30/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories/#comment-2617 Rob, I definitely agree with you here. In a couple of my books, I've tried to describe 'non-counting' diets for weight maintenance and it's basically identical to what you wrote above. Lots of lean protein, fruits and vegetables, very moderated amounts of starches, and controlled amounts of dietary fats. Clearly as activity goes up, so do carb requirements and people can get away eating more calorie dense stuff. But for the general person, the calories add up fast and when you combine that with people's poor ability to estimate their caloric intake, avoiding calorie dense stuff tends to work better. Lyle Rob,

I definitely agree with you here. In a couple of my books, I’ve tried to describe ‘non-counting’ diets for weight maintenance and it’s basically identical to what you wrote above. Lots of lean protein, fruits and vegetables, very moderated amounts of starches, and controlled amounts of dietary fats.

Clearly as activity goes up, so do carb requirements and people can get away eating more calorie dense stuff. But for the general person, the calories add up fast and when you combine that with people’s poor ability to estimate their caloric intake, avoiding calorie dense stuff tends to work better.

Lyle

]]> By: Rob Berger http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories.html/comment-page-1#comment-2614 Rob Berger Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:54:02 +0000 http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/blog/2008/06/30/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories/#comment-2614 I think Barbara Rolls has the right idea on how to eat for the general population. Lean protein, lots of vegetables (carbs), fruit (carbs), and a small amount of whole grain (carbs) or other carbs. What she is saying is to eat nutrient rich, calorie sparse foods and you can eat a lot of food, lower your calories and not be hungry. Fresh fruit is almost all simple carbs, but along with the sugars come fiber and water. Not a lot of room for baked goods, breads, candy or high fat foods in this approach. I'm not sure how one would modify this idea for muscle building, but it seems like a reasonable approach for the general population I think Barbara Rolls has the right idea on how to eat for the general population. Lean protein, lots of vegetables (carbs), fruit (carbs), and a small amount of whole grain (carbs) or other carbs. What she is saying is to eat nutrient rich, calorie sparse foods and you can eat a lot of food, lower your calories and not be hungry. Fresh fruit is almost all simple carbs, but along with the sugars come fiber and water. Not a lot of room for baked goods, breads, candy or high fat foods in this approach. I’m not sure how one would modify this idea for muscle building, but it seems like a reasonable approach for the general population

]]> By: why carbohydrate-based diets are a waste of time - Page 2 - Anabolex Forums http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories.html/comment-page-1#comment-416 why carbohydrate-based diets are a waste of time - Page 2 - Anabolex Forums Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:08:43 +0000 http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/blog/2008/06/30/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories/#comment-416 [...] drop the bullshit John Berardi - A New View of Energy Balance No, it's not contentious at all. All Diets Work: The Importance of Calories | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald LMAO, this guy would have gone over every one of my posts in this thread with a microscope, [...] [...] drop the bullshit John Berardi – A New View of Energy Balance No, it’s not contentious at all. All Diets Work: The Importance of Calories | BodyRecomposition – The Home of Lyle McDonald LMAO, this guy would have gone over every one of my posts in this thread with a microscope, [...]

]]> By: rnikoley http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories.html/comment-page-1#comment-108 rnikoley Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:39:35 +0000 http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/blog/2008/06/30/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories/#comment-108 Lyle: Well, here's my anecdote. And here's my latest photo, from yesterday (with links to the last set as well): http://www.honestylog.com/root/2008/07/photo-update.html This one shows what I was like prior to May '07: http://www.honestylog.com/root/2008/02/a-path-in-pictu.html Now, from my perspective, I really don't care whether it's all about cal in/out or not. All I know is that I could never lose weight without extreme carb restriction. Those cals seem more than sufficiently replaced with fat. I eat lots of fat from animal sources. Since I'm getting to within 5-10% BF of my goal of getting down to 10% I decided to try your Rapid Fat Loss, and my wife went along for the ride. The way it worked out for me was about 190 grams per day of protein, coming out around 1100 calories, as I recall. Baseline, according to your methods is about 2500 I think. I consistently had great difficulty eating that much protein, especially from lean meat sources like cans of tuna, grilled chicken, 95% lean ground beef cooked medium well with as much fat squeezed out as I could, and so on. I ended up doing 2-3 scoops of whey per day. I didn't stay on very long (6 days total) because I just missed the fat too much. I posted no weight loss at all. By contrast, my wife dropped from 125 to 120, so about the expected pound a day for her. However, I have been low carb for eight months and she had not. Having gotten set up with how to count calories with your program I proceeded to estimate how many I'd been eating over the months, while loosing weight. It comes out to 3,500 - 4,000 per day. Like I said: lots of fat. During that time, I was losing around 1 pound net per month (while getting much stronger and gaining mass with two 30-minute HIT with trainer per week). When I did the intermittent fasting (x2 per week, 24-30 hours) while still consuming alcohol (spirits, not beer, and I put it away pretty heavy) I maybe did 2 pounds net loss per month. When I'd cut out alcohol, along with the fasting, one pound per week. So, that tends to argue for the other side. But just to stress: lots and lots of fat. I wonder: what about the actual weight of the food we eat, minus the water? I.e., the "freze dried" weight of everything. One argument I've seen in James Carlson's book "Genocide" is that cals don't really mean anything because we digest and metabolize, we don't burn food. But like I said: it all matters little to me. Low carb has changed my life, given the results I want, I eat luxuriously, never really feel hungry (even fasting, very much). I also note that you make allowances for individual differences. Lyle:

Well, here’s my anecdote. And here’s my latest photo, from yesterday (with links to the last set as well):

http://www.honestylog.com/root/2008/07/photo-update.html

This one shows what I was like prior to May ’07:

http://www.honestylog.com/root/2008/02/a-path-in-pictu.html

Now, from my perspective, I really don’t care whether it’s all about cal in/out or not. All I know is that I could never lose weight without extreme carb restriction. Those cals seem more than sufficiently replaced with fat. I eat lots of fat from animal sources.

Since I’m getting to within 5-10% BF of my goal of getting down to 10% I decided to try your Rapid Fat Loss, and my wife went along for the ride. The way it worked out for me was about 190 grams per day of protein, coming out around 1100 calories, as I recall. Baseline, according to your methods is about 2500 I think.

I consistently had great difficulty eating that much protein, especially from lean meat sources like cans of tuna, grilled chicken, 95% lean ground beef cooked medium well with as much fat squeezed out as I could, and so on. I ended up doing 2-3 scoops of whey per day. I didn’t stay on very long (6 days total) because I just missed the fat too much. I posted no weight loss at all. By contrast, my wife dropped from 125 to 120, so about the expected pound a day for her. However, I have been low carb for eight months and she had not.

Having gotten set up with how to count calories with your program I proceeded to estimate how many I’d been eating over the months, while loosing weight. It comes out to 3,500 – 4,000 per day. Like I said: lots of fat. During that time, I was losing around 1 pound net per month (while getting much stronger and gaining mass with two 30-minute HIT with trainer per week). When I did the intermittent fasting (x2 per week, 24-30 hours) while still consuming alcohol (spirits, not beer, and I put it away pretty heavy) I maybe did 2 pounds net loss per month. When I’d cut out alcohol, along with the fasting, one pound per week. So, that tends to argue for the other side. But just to stress: lots and lots of fat.

I wonder: what about the actual weight of the food we eat, minus the water? I.e., the “freze dried” weight of everything. One argument I’ve seen in James Carlson’s book “Genocide” is that cals don’t really mean anything because we digest and metabolize, we don’t burn food.

But like I said: it all matters little to me. Low carb has changed my life, given the results I want, I eat luxuriously, never really feel hungry (even fasting, very much). I also note that you make allowances for individual differences.

]]> By: admin http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories.html/comment-page-1#comment-107 admin Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:28:10 +0000 http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/blog/2008/06/30/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories/#comment-107 Nothing I wrote is in contradiction with that. Different macronutrients can affect satiety, support exericse, etc. differently and this will determine which diet may be optimal for any given individual under any given set of circumstances. You might note that in this blog post specifically I mention the hunger blunting effect of lowcarb diets for SOME people (certainly not all). Articles on my main site address this in far more detail than I could cover in this blog post. Also note that 'too much hunger' is an issue I'll be addressing later in this series as one cause of diet failures. If the lowcarb people want to simply say 'Hey, lowcarb diets work b/c they control hunger and eat less', that's consistent with the research. At least under certain circumstances. Again, I mentioned this explicitly in the blog. I'd note that all absolutes are wrong and simple sugars certainly can have their place in the diet. They are superior, for example, around training. Lyle Nothing I wrote is in contradiction with that. Different macronutrients can affect satiety, support exericse, etc. differently and this will determine which diet may be optimal for any given individual under any given set of circumstances. You might note that in this blog post specifically I mention the hunger blunting effect of lowcarb diets for SOME people (certainly not all).

Articles on my main site address this in far more detail than I could cover in this blog post. Also note that ‘too much hunger’ is an issue I’ll be addressing later in this series as one cause of diet failures.

If the lowcarb people want to simply say ‘Hey, lowcarb diets work b/c they control hunger and eat less’, that’s consistent with the research. At least under certain circumstances. Again, I mentioned this explicitly in the blog.

I’d note that all absolutes are wrong and simple sugars certainly can have their place in the diet. They are superior, for example, around training.

Lyle

]]> By: hugh http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories.html/comment-page-1#comment-106 hugh Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:18:23 +0000 http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/blog/2008/06/30/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories/#comment-106 I'm no expert by any means, but another angle I've heard from the low carb proponents is that carbohydrates (refined ones especially) are poor at relieving hunger and possibly even promote hunger. As an example, the anti-carb book du jour "Good Calories, Bad Calories" references a study where the participants consumed a diet of almost 100% pure carbs and would still go to bed hungry even though they consumed something like 6,000 to 7,000 calories per day. The supposed advantage of the low carb diet approach then is that it consists of foods that are better at curbing appetite and therefore make it easier to maintain a calorie deficit. I personally am a firm believer that refined carbs have absolutely no place in the human diet, but I also believe that the low carbers would gain more respect if they stopped spouting the mantra "eat as much as you want". I’m no expert by any means, but another angle I’ve heard from the low carb proponents is that carbohydrates (refined ones especially) are poor at relieving hunger and possibly even promote hunger. As an example, the anti-carb book du jour “Good Calories, Bad Calories” references a study where the participants consumed a diet of almost 100% pure carbs and would still go to bed hungry even though they consumed something like 6,000 to 7,000 calories per day. The supposed advantage of the low carb diet approach then is that it consists of foods that are better at curbing appetite and therefore make it easier to maintain a calorie deficit.

I personally am a firm believer that refined carbs have absolutely no place in the human diet, but I also believe that the low carbers would gain more respect if they stopped spouting the mantra “eat as much as you want”.

]]> By: For the womenfolk (mostly) « No Magic Pill http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories.html/comment-page-1#comment-105 For the womenfolk (mostly) « No Magic Pill Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:12:26 +0000 http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/blog/2008/06/30/all-diets-work-the-importance-of-calories/#comment-105 [...] calories are calories in the end, but they aren’t the enemy—too many calories is the enemy, and a potentially deadly one at that. Most foods by themselves aren’t the problem; [...] [...] calories are calories in the end, but they aren’t the enemy—too many calories is the enemy, and a potentially deadly one at that. Most foods by themselves aren’t the problem; [...]

]]>