Author Topic: Fasting Mimicking Diet  (Read 2619 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5328
Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2017, 01:41:35 PM »
Like I said, some folks here advocate LCHF. On this board they are a minority. Two, I think. Maybe three. Among the health professionals I have spoken with, none advocate either low-fat or LCHF. All advocate a middle ground, i.e. a balanced diet. And for weight loss, all advocate a combination of eating less and exercising more.

None of this is relevant, of course. How many LCHF advocates are in these forums; your perception of how many; the number of health professionals you've spoken with are anecdotes of second and third hand evidence.



It's true that the number of LCHF advocates on this forum does not prove anything. But it is telling that among a community of skeptics, so few buy into the notion that all the major health organizations are so completely wrong on such an important matter.

That's true. That might tell us something about the the community of skeptics here.

My opinion (which is just as relevant or irrelevant as yours) is that for the most part, medicine follows the science quite well, and while the scientific standards vary from field to field, for different reasons, for the most part you can rely on medicine to follow science fairly closely and come up with the best understanding/diagnoses/treatment and outcome.

But, nutrition is different. One of the basic tenants of nutrition science for the last 60 years or so (the lipid hypothesis; the diet heart hypothesis) was based on biased, cherry picked and epidemiological studies with no trials or experiments to support it. (7 Countries Study)

From there, a US Senate committee drafted the dietary guidelines (aka: Balanced diet; food pyramid; my plate). Those guidelines were drafted by a non-scientist, following a woo-vegetarian diet (not saying all vegetarian diets are woo, but his was). They were passed by the Senate and implemented over the objections of the government's own scientists, because they hadn't been tested or verified, nor had the underlying science. (and still haven't been to this day).

The result is that the US dietary guidelines are more influenced by political and commercial interests than by science or medicine.

Following the implementation of the USDA guidelines Americans changed their eating habits and consumed significantly more carbohydrates (as per the guidelines and their concept of "balance") and a significantly smaller percentage of calories from fat (as per the guidelines). 

The result of this population wide intervention has been an obesity epidemic. From newborns on up, and an epidemic in T2 Diabetes and metabolic syndrome.

Another result is that the medical and scientific communities, when concerned with diet (which, except for those in the field is best described as "casual") assume that the scientific standards for supporting the recommendations and guidelines are based on solid science, just like other areas of medicine. They're not.

And now nutrition science is a hot mess, and the USDA scientific advisory committee is recommending we ditch advice on macronutrient proportions in the dietary guidelines in favor of diets based on the weakest science (epidemiological studies) to develop healthy eating patterns.

The fact that the majority of skeptics here are skeptical of the current state of mainstream nutrition and science and how we got here tells us more about the majority of skeptics here than it does about the science.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline Alex Simmons

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2017, 11:24:27 PM »

Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5328
Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2017, 11:45:10 PM »
And that's part of the problem.


Your mileage may vary.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline DG

  • The Prophet
  • Global Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2708
Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2017, 01:23:49 AM »
What I don't understand (and I am going to regret this) is how some can argue that calorie deficit is the only necessity but at the same time blame a particular approach to nutrition for the obesity epidemic.

On any nutrition plan, if you eat more than you use - you look like me.

I have some colleagues and family members who have found success with the fasting mimicking diet (including one who has reversed a diabetes diagnosis). I neither endorse or reject this approach.

I have tried various approaches, the things that I find most difficult/impractical, is portion management and dining out (especially when calorie counting). Exercise is the easy bit (Additionally, I suspect, based on short term experiements, my metabolic rate is much lower than expected by calculators in the vicinity of 400cal per day).
"If you don't like the theory of evolution you should probably skip the practical".


Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5328
Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
« Reply #19 on: April 19, 2017, 11:41:30 AM »
What I don't understand (and I am going to regret this)

Why will you regret that question?

Quote
is how some can argue that calorie deficit is the only necessity but at the same time blame a particular approach to nutrition for the obesity epidemic.

Your question has this backwards. I'm not claiming that calorie deficit is the only necessity, and I am blaming a specific approach to nutrition for the obesity epidemic.

It's those who are claiming calorie deficit is the only necessity who are not blaming any specific approach.

Let's say you ate a perfectly energy balanced and nutritionally balanced diet. And suppose someone followed you around and gave you a dose of insulin after every meal, enough to lower your blood sugar by, say 10 points. What do you think would happen?

The extra insulin would force your body to store fat and would prevent your body from using stored fat. You would not have enough fuel to metabolize, so your body would signal you to bring in more energy (hunger) and would decrease your energy output (lethargy). Do that for a few years and, hey presto! obesity.

That's exactly what happens on a diet high in carbs, with significant fast simple carbs (sugars; processed flour; pasta). It is exactly the same effect. The response to the blood glucose spice that comes from a high carb diet with significant simple carbs is just like an injection of insulin.

Quote
On any nutrition plan, if you eat more than you use - you look like me.

Or Arnold Schwartzeneggar. Or Kareem Abdul Jabaar. The difference is that some of us store the extra energy in muscle and other lean tissue and some store it in fat.

The worst part of the obesity epidemic, by the way, is the fact that it's now hitting children harder than adults. Young adults, teenagers, pre-teens, grade schoolers, pre-schooler, toddlers, infants, even newborns.

Something has changed in the environment to cause this, and the only plausible answer is diet. The knee-jerk response is "energy surplus" or "calories in, calories out" but children, especially newborns, infants and toddlers, eat when they're hungry stop when they're full and they ate that way throughout human history up to today. 

Quote
I have some colleagues and family members who have found success with the fasting mimicking diet (including one who has reversed a diabetes diagnosis). I neither endorse or reject this approach.

I'm curious are you referring to the patented diet referred to in OP, or are you referring to intermittent fasting or one of the other diets that's been around for some time?

Quote
I have tried various approaches, the things that I find most difficult/impractical, is portion management and dining out (especially when calorie counting).

I'm guessing you haven't tried a LCHF Ketogenic diet. (Saying that, there are some that claim to be LCHF, but don't reduce carbs nearly enough for ketosis and allow too many simple carbs in the food mix.)

One advantage to that form of a weight loss diet is you eat when you're hungry, whenever you're hungry, and keep eating until you're full. You don't worry about portion control.

Quote
Exercise is the easy bit (Additionally, I suspect, based on short term experiements, my metabolic rate is much lower than expected by calculators in the vicinity of 400cal per day).

Right, but exercise doesn't help with weight loss much, if at all. (Though it does have other benefits)

As for your basal metabolic rate, it could well be off by that much. As in most of nutrition, it's not an exact science.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4563
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
« Reply #20 on: April 19, 2017, 03:22:39 PM »
... The worst part of the obesity epidemic, by the way, is the fact that it's now hitting children harder than adults. Young adults, teenagers, pre-teens, grade schoolers, pre-schooler, toddlers, infants, even newborns.

Something has changed in the environment to cause this, and the only plausible answer is diet.

Well, another plausible answer is diet AND exercise. When I was a kid, we used to play outside. Now kids play video games. And on the diet side, perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5328
Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
« Reply #21 on: April 19, 2017, 05:51:46 PM »
... The worst part of the obesity epidemic, by the way, is the fact that it's now hitting children harder than adults. Young adults, teenagers, pre-teens, grade schoolers, pre-schooler, toddlers, infants, even newborns.

Something has changed in the environment to cause this, and the only plausible answer is diet.

Well, another plausible answer is diet AND exercise. When I was a kid, we used to play outside. Now kids play video games. And on the diet side, perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.

I've never seen a toddler or a newborn play a video game.

The food environment is the answer.

Exercise is a good thing, but isn't effective in controlling weight as one would imagine.

Diet works. Diet and exercise works as well, or maybe insignificantly better. Exercise without dietary change doesn't work.

As for adults, I don't think my either of my parents owned a pair of tennis shoes until later in life when they became physically active, and that anecdote is fairly typical for my generation.

Quote
perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.

Is it the lipid phobia makes you suggest it's "far too much fat" but not carbs with the same language?

Problem is blaming the obesity epidemic on "far too much fat" isn't supported by the evidence. Once the country got started on the low-fat fad, it took hold and exploded. Fat as a percentage of calories dropped and carbs, as a percentage of calories soared, especially the consumption of the worst carbs (sugars and refined grain products).

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline DG

  • The Prophet
  • Global Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2708
Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
« Reply #22 on: April 19, 2017, 07:45:16 PM »
(click to show/hide)
Something has changed in the environment to cause this, and the only plausible answer is diet. The knee-jerk response is "energy surplus" or "calories in, calories out" but children, especially newborns, infants and toddlers, eat when they're hungry stop when they're full and they ate that way throughout human history up to today. 
(click to show/hide)
One advantage to that form of a weight loss diet is you eat when you're hungry, whenever you're hungry, and keep eating until you're full. You don't worry about portion control.

(click to show/hide)

This may be a personally anomaly, but I have never had that point. As a baby, living off breast milk alone, I managed to get so fat that I was unable to breathe properly and was placed on a "diet" with measured portions. It caused my parents significant angst that I would constantly try to eat (and cry with hunger) at that age. Growing up, and into adulthood, I have had that same issue. I have never (in my recollection) gotten to the point that I did not desire to eat more food. The idea of "eating until full" is completely alien to me - I would just keep eating until the physical discomfort of the food in my digestive system before ceasing to feel the desire to eat more.

As I have gotten older I am trying to "learn" the difference between the desire for more food and being hungry, but I am really unable to do so. I am trying to convince myself that there is some line (even trying to tell myself that I never feel hungry, it's always just a desire for food). The only thing that worked for me, having tried various supervised and unsupervised dietary programs, was a strict portion and calorie controlled diet (lost some 30kgs). It's hard work and not really practical for long term sustainable eating (hence the issues identified above), but from what appears to be various limitations of my own philology (and perhaps psychology), it's the one that works for me.
"If you don't like the theory of evolution you should probably skip the practical".


Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5328
Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
« Reply #23 on: April 19, 2017, 08:36:09 PM »

This may be a personally anomaly, but I have never had that point. As a baby, living off breast milk alone, I managed to get so fat that I was unable to breathe properly and was placed on a "diet" with measured portions. It caused my parents significant angst that I would constantly try to eat (and cry with hunger) at that age. Growing up, and into adulthood, I have had that same issue. I have never (in my recollection) gotten to the point that I did not desire to eat more food. The idea of "eating until full" is completely alien to me - I would just keep eating until the physical discomfort of the food in my digestive system before ceasing to feel the desire to eat more.

As I have gotten older I am trying to "learn" the difference between the desire for more food and being hungry, but I am really unable to do so. I am trying to convince myself that there is some line (even trying to tell myself that I never feel hungry, it's always just a desire for food). The only thing that worked for me, having tried various supervised and unsupervised dietary programs, was a strict portion and calorie controlled diet (lost some 30kgs). It's hard work and not really practical for long term sustainable eating (hence the issues identified above), but from what appears to be various limitations of my own philology (and perhaps psychology), it's the one that works for me.

Your anecdote is not anomalous. In fact it's fairly typical. Too typical.

Not to go too far into the weeds, but there is a hypothesis for exactly what you described.

It's basically insulin resistance. When your pancreas sees glucose it makes insulin. The insulin is expected to lower blood sugar and then insulin levels drop. It lowers the blood sugar by moving glucose into cells where it is burned or stored as glucagon.

If your body doesn't respond to the insulin by lowering blood sugar, then the pancreas produces more insulin.

And while your muscles and lean tissues may not be responding to the insulin by up taking more glucose, your fat cells are. Insulin causes your body's free fatty acids in circulation to be moved into fat cells and formed into triglycerides, which insulin prevents from breaking up. Triglycerides can't pass through cell membranes, so all the excess fat we store on our bodies is in the form of triglycerides held in cells by insulin.

So, little infant/child/teenager DG's body was confused, because the food environment our bodies evolved in did not equip us to handle this high carb food environment. Your muscles and lean tissue aren't getting enough glucose for fuel; you can't burn ketones or fat because the fat is being stored, so without enough readily available energy, your body tells you to eat more. You do eat more and the cycle continues and gets worse when you eat high carb foods.

It just so happens that most of the overweight and obese children we see today all have insulin resistance. It's a very strong correlation, and it was relatively rare before the obesity epidemic (<5% of the pop).

This is the most workable hypothesis that I've seen that explains everything but the root cause of insulin resistance. And that is a mystery that's being worked on.

I know you say you were born that way, and the insatiable hunger began before you ate your first donut, and you that's absolutely true. This began in utero.  You were directly effected by the high carb food environment your mother lived in. When her blood sugar rose, your blood sugar rose. When her insulin spiked, your insulin spiked. When her body stored more excess fat than it needed to your body stored excess, all in the womb. (And please don't think I'm blaming your mother, I am absolutely not. She was probably following the best mainstream medical advice and probably eating the foods and diets the doctors were telling her to eat. She is as much of a victim of the food environment as you.)

While I've been characterized here as some kind of woo-peddling crank, all of the above is perfectly in sync with the mainstream theories about nutrition and the role of insulin in regulating fat storage and energy transport. Not a spec of woo.

The part the mainstream doesn't agree with is:

Your scenario at every age (pregnancy; infancy; childhood; adolescence; adulthood) is where the LCHF Ketogenic diet does best (to a point). You eat the bare minimum of carbs, moderate protein and all the fat you want. Your blood sugar stays moderate; it never spikes. Your insulin stays low to moderate; low enough for your fat cells to release fat and for your liver to make ketones from fat.

Instead of being fueled nearly exclusively by glucose your body will be fueled by glucose, ketones and FFAs. The excess fat stored on your body will fairly rapidly burn away. You won't be hungry all the time and you'll have great food to eat when you do get hungry. And you can eat as much as you want.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline jt512

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1360
    • jt512
Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2017, 10:32:00 PM »

Diet works. Diet and exercise works as well, or maybe insignificantly better. Exercise without dietary change doesn't work.

Bullshit.
I'm not going to use your pronouns.

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4563
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
« Reply #25 on: April 20, 2017, 09:48:43 AM »
perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.

Is it the lipid phobia makes you suggest it's "far too much fat" but not carbs with the same language?

What in the world are you talking about??? Look at the line you quoted:

"perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs."

I've added emphasis to draw your attention that I blamed both carbs and fat. The real emphasis of my statement, is that it's calories!

The real issue here is this: Who is better able to read the full literature on the subject and draw valid conclusions: A couple of posters on this board who are not medical professionals, or Dr. Novella and the entire medical profession? And note please that nobody outside of a few fringe outliers is still recommending a low-fat diet, so that's a straw man. Kids today are eating a lot more sugar than kids used to, and they are eating a lot more fat than kids used to, and they are getting a lot less exercise than they used to. It is indeed possible to lose weight without exercise, but it's much more difficult to do so. Caveat: There is genetic diversity: some people store fat easily, some burn calories easily. The former do well in times of famine; the latter do well in times of abundance. These people will gain weight, or lose it, respectively, pretty much regardless what they eat. The former will have great difficulty losing weight  in times of abundance; the latter will have great difficulty finding enough to survive in times of famine.

But it's still calories in vs. calories out. In early 21st century America people with high metabolism thrive, and people with low metabolism struggle. People with high metabolism can eat pretty much anything they like, and people with low metabolism need to exercise and apply great self-control in their portion sizes. And the majority somewhere in the middle have some difficulty both in times of famine and in times of abundance, and since we are in a time of abundance right now in North America, most of us need to control our portion sizes and exercise.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5328
Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
« Reply #26 on: April 20, 2017, 03:22:11 PM »

Diet works. Diet and exercise works as well, or maybe insignificantly better. Exercise without dietary change doesn't work.

Bullshit.

Since you didn't elaborate, I assume you're referring to that single review you linked to previously that looked at the results from several studies (none of which found a significant weight loss effect for exercise without dietary restrictions, BTW) and did an analysis using partial results from most (all?) of the studies which showed a modest weightless benefit from exercise. But even then, some (all?) of the studies they included did have dietary restrictions. The dieters were told not to increase calorie intake above baseline. So, even though exercise made them hungry, the dietary restrictions prevented them from behaving the way they would if they weren't being studied.

Also, it's interesting that the only science that actually supports the exercise to lose weight mantra that mainstream nutrition science has been preaching for more than 40 years, comes so late in the game.

What science was that advice based on from the 1970's through the 20-teens?

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5328
Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
« Reply #27 on: April 20, 2017, 03:42:55 PM »
perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.

Is it the lipid phobia makes you suggest it's "far too much fat" but not carbs with the same language?

What in the world are you talking about??? Look at the line you quoted:

"perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs."

I've added emphasis to draw your attention that I blamed both carbs and fat. The real emphasis of my statement, is that it's calories!

Seriously? You don't see a bias in the differences between: "far too much fat," and "as well as carbs"?
Quote

The real issue here is this: Who is better able to read the full literature on the subject and draw valid conclusions: A couple of posters on this board who are not medical professionals, or Dr. Novella and the entire medical profession?

I wouldn't listen to just me either. First, Dr. Novella is not a nutrition expert. That's not his specialty.  It is the specialty of Dr. Eric Westman, who runs the Obesity Clinic at Duke University; Dr. Richard Feinman (not that Feinman) who teaches biology at a New York university; Dr. Rober Lustig, who runs a juvenile obesity clinic and teaches at a San Francisco University; and numerous others.

It's like with climate change, we give more weight to the opinions of climate scientists than scientists in other fields, right? Shouldn't nutrition be the same?



Quote

And note please that nobody outside of a few fringe outliers is still recommending a low-fat diet, so that's a straw man.

I think you're misusing the word "outliers." That comes to statistics and refers to a few anomalous results far away from where the bulk of the results are.

Unless you know of some actual statistics on the opinions of Nutrition experts, outlier is the wrong word.

And, while it is true that low-fat weight loss diets have been found lacking, it's far more than a fringe who recommend them. Further, I was not speaking soley of low-fat weight loss diets but of the low-fat orientation of the dietary guidelines and general diet and nutrition advice that has been prevalent in the country since the 1970s.

And that is still going strong.

Quote
Kids today are eating a lot more sugar than kids used to, and they are eating a lot more fat than kids used to, and they are getting a lot less exercise than they used to.

And I'd like to see some actual data that supports those assertions. I agree that kids are consuming significantly more sugar. I do not agree that they are consuming significantly more fat.

Quote
It is indeed possible to lose weight without exercise, but it's much more difficult to do so.

And once again that claim has been studied and been debunked.

Quote
Caveat: There is genetic diversity: some people store fat easily, some burn calories easily. The former do well in times of famine; the latter do well in times of abundance. These people will gain weight, or lose it, respectively, pretty much regardless what they eat. The former will have great difficulty losing weight  in times of abundance; the latter will have great difficulty finding enough to survive in times of famine.

There is diversity, but genetics does not account for all of it, and there is doubt that it accounts for a significant amount of those differences.


Genetics is one of those special pleading that nutrition science uses to say "here be dragons and we can't do anything about it."

I would suggest that the genetic make-up of americans didn't not change between the 1950s and today to the extent that obesity rates went from <5% to over 50% and over-weight rates went from <15% to over 75%.

Quote
But it's still calories in vs. calories out. In early 21st century America people with high metabolism thrive, and people with low metabolism struggle. People with high metabolism can eat pretty much anything they like, and people with low metabolism need to exercise and apply great self-control in their portion sizes. And the majority somewhere in the middle have some difficulty both in times of famine and in times of abundance, and since we are in a time of abundance right now in North America, most of us need to control our portion sizes and exercise.

Yawn.

Caloric balance does not dictate if excess calories will go to stored fat.

And how are we supposed to manage caloric balance with kids? With newborns? With infants and toddlers? They are growing, they need to consume more calories than they burn in order to grow. How does the calories in vs. calories out mantra help us here?

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

Offline daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4563
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
« Reply #28 on: April 20, 2017, 04:18:23 PM »

Seriously? You don't see a bias in the differences between: "far too much fat," and "as well as carbs"?

So you're upset because I put in a comma. Let me clarify: I regard excess carbs and excess fat equally. I admit that perhaps I should have left out the comma. You and I have no disagreement whatsoever concerning the negative health effects of excess carbs.

... Caloric balance does not dictate if excess calories will go to stored fat. ...

There's really no place else excess calories can go. If you don't burn them, you store them as fat.

Building muscle is a process that requires resistance work, and if you do that resistance work, and get enough protein, you'll build muscle, whether your calories came from carbs, fat, or both. But not even Arnie can go on building muscle forever. There comes a point when you have to return to caloric balance if you want to maintain your weight.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline estockly

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5328
Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
« Reply #29 on: April 20, 2017, 05:35:00 PM »

Seriously? You don't see a bias in the differences between: "far too much fat," and "as well as carbs"?

So you're upset because I put in a comma. Let me clarify: I regard excess carbs and excess fat equally. I admit that perhaps I should have left out the comma. You and I have no disagreement whatsoever concerning the negative health effects of excess carbs.

It's not the coma that shows the anti-fat bias it's the words in the context.  I see bias in this language.

Quote
perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.
But if you say it wasn't intentional fine.
Quote
... Caloric balance does not dictate if excess calories will go to stored fat. ...

There's really no place else excess calories can go. If you don't burn them, you store them as fat.

Muscle? Lean tissue?

Quote
Building muscle is a process that requires resistance work, and if you do that resistance work, and get enough protein, you'll build muscle, whether your calories came from carbs, fat, or both. But not even Arnie can go on building muscle forever. There comes a point when you have to return to caloric balance if you want to maintain your weight.

Muscle (and other tissue) are always breaking down. (Looks at Arnold today). You need to constantly store calories as muscle in order to maintain.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 11:18:13 PM by estockly »
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.


"Well, sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't." -- Chief Dan George, "Little Big Man"

 

personate-rain
personate-rain