Author Topic: Episode #715  (Read 2410 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10665
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #60 on: March 27, 2019, 10:04:03 PM »
Anecdote alert-
I decided to cut back my body fat percentage a few weeks back. I used an app to calculate my calorific needs for my goals based on activity level (I checked other sources too and they gave me pretty much the same answer as Im sure they all use the same formula).
I set my goal as losing fat without losing muscle mass so there is a sweet spot between being under fed and not losing fat.
I have been losing weight at exactly the rate predicted and have another kg to go.
Hey good for you and good luck to you. It sounds like you've got things under control.
 
Quote

Yep.  The equations work.  The nutrient tables are accurate. 

Well they can work, they don't have to be that accurate or that precise. But they can get you within a few percentage points of the actual values.
Quote
Losing weight and simultaneously maintaining (or gaining) muscle mass is tough, but doable.  Protein requirements increase in absolute amount while in caloric deficit, and dietary carbohydrate is muscle-tissue-sparing, whereas dietary fat is not. So you need to increase your protein intake compared to weight-maintenance levels and maintain a high carbohydrate intake.  This means that your entire caloric deficit must come from reduction in your fat intake.  In other words, you must be on a high-carbohydrate, high-protein, low-fat diet.  A protein supplement can be helpful.

That sounds very much like bro-science. I haven't found any peer reviewed articles supporting that claim. Although I've heard it in many places.

The evidence is that weight loss diet eliminating nearly all carbs from the diet, replacing them with fat,  results in an better body fat percentage when compared to an isocaloric calorie restricted diet, with a higher proportion of carbs
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1466
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #61 on: March 27, 2019, 10:33:07 PM »
Anecdote alert-
I decided to cut back my body fat percentage a few weeks back. I used an app to calculate my calorific needs for my goals based on activity level (I checked other sources too and they gave me pretty much the same answer as Im sure they all use the same formula).
I set my goal as losing fat without losing muscle mass so there is a sweet spot between being under fed and not losing fat.
I have been losing weight at exactly the rate predicted and have another kg to go.
Hey good for you and good luck to you. It sounds like you've got things under control.
 
Quote

Yep.  The equations work.  The nutrient tables are accurate. 

Well they can work, they don't have to be that accurate or that precise. But they can get you within a few percentage points of the actual values.
Quote
Losing weight and simultaneously maintaining (or gaining) muscle mass is tough, but doable.  Protein requirements increase in absolute amount while in caloric deficit, and dietary carbohydrate is muscle-tissue-sparing, whereas dietary fat is not. So you need to increase your protein intake compared to weight-maintenance levels and maintain a high carbohydrate intake.  This means that your entire caloric deficit must come from reduction in your fat intake.  In other words, you must be on a high-carbohydrate, high-protein, low-fat diet.  A protein supplement can be helpful.

That sounds very much like bro-science. I haven't found any peer reviewed articles supporting that claim. Although I've heard it in many places.

The evidence is that weight loss diet eliminating nearly all carbs from the diet, replacing them with fat,  results in an better body fat percentage when compared to an isocaloric calorie restricted diet, with a higher proportion of carbs

I concede you ‘might’ be right:  https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131%2815%2900350-2.pdf  albeit it’s a small shortterm study in obese patients.  And the authors conclude that long term, there wouldn’t be any difference in fat loss between low carbohydrate and low fat diets.

Do you have any long term studies showing better (lower) body fat percentage with high fat diets compared to high carbohydrate diets?
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline fuzzyMarmot

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #62 on: March 27, 2019, 11:11:42 PM »
Also worth noting:

Obsessing about calorie counts (which are imprecise but interpreted by the public as precise) can lead to eating disorders. Better to live your life, respond to signals from your body, and just enjoy food.

Well, calorie counts can actually be very precise.  I used to use an App to see what my diet actually stacked up with regard to calorie intake, proportion of macronutrients and adequacy of micronutrient intake.  It calculated calorie intake to the tenth of a kilocalorie.  Input the weight of an ingredient or a proprietary food in grams, and it would calculate the calorie content to a 0.1 kcal precision.  And at the end of the day, it would calculate the total calorie intake to that degree of precision.

But of course, calorie counts aren’t very accurate.  All the commenters so far seem to be confusing ‘precision’ with ‘accuracy.’  You can measure the same item a thousand times, and get exactly the same answer - in which case your measurement is very precise.  But the measured value might be a long way from its true value, in which case it’s not very accurate.

Accuracy depends on the quality of the database being used.  I doubt seriously that manufacturers actually measure the caloric content of their products.  They know what ingredients go into their products, and they can calculate from the database they’re using the calories each ingredient is contributing, and calculate the total number of calories.  Which can be very precise, but not very accurate if the database is inaccurate.

As you note, it’s best to ignore calorie counting.  And use food labels to match your strategy, whether it’s ‘high fat/low carbohydrate’ or ‘low fat/high carbohydrate.’ Or whatever.  And rely on body weight.

Great point! Thanks for correcting my usage with accuracy and precision. I think both are major problems in food labeling. For example, the article mentions a slice of pizza being labeled as 248 calories. For most foods, random variations in serving size and heterogeneity make any implication of high precision ridiculous. Furthermore, as CarbShark notes, the food energy supplied to individuals given the same food will vary substantially. The numbers on food labels are often imprecise, inaccurate, and misleading (especially if a person interprets it as the amount of energy produced by digestion and metabolism, instead of bomb calorimetry results).

You have no idea what you're talking about, nor does the freelance journalist who wrote the Economist article, or else he's lying.  If you want understand the accuracy and precision of nutrition labels and nutrient tables, then you have to look at the peer review literature.

Whoa, chill, brah. I didn't mean to be so provocative. I'm not questioning the laws of thermodynamics or anything. I'm just saying that there is variability in portion size, food content (how many pepperoni are on a particular slice of pizza), as well as individual metabolism. My main point is that if a person records their intake down to the calorie (e.g., 248 calories per slice), and assumes that is a accurate and precise measure of their energy budget, they are probably wrong. They are probably also stressing a little too much about the whole process and putting themselves at a higher risk for an eating disorder.

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2359
    • jt512
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #63 on: March 27, 2019, 11:59:44 PM »
Yep.  The equations work.  The nutrient tables are accurate. 

Well they can work, they don't have to be that accurate or that precise. But they can get you within a few percentage points of the actual values.

I agree.  Within a few percent.  That would be like 2000 ± 60 kcal/d.  How is that not accurate and precise?
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10665
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #64 on: March 28, 2019, 12:12:41 AM »
More like 200 to 600. Depending on the diet and the person.

How is that accurate or precise?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2359
    • jt512
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #65 on: March 28, 2019, 12:16:28 AM »
More like 200 to 600. Depending on the diet and the person.

How is that accurate or precise?

How is 30% "a few percentage points"? 
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Offline Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 15498
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #66 on: March 28, 2019, 08:22:04 AM »
Anecdote alert-
I decided to cut back my body fat percentage a few weeks back. I used an app to calculate my calorific needs for my goals based on activity level (I checked other sources too and they gave me pretty much the same answer as Im sure they all use the same formula).
I set my goal as losing fat without losing muscle mass so there is a sweet spot between being under fed and not losing fat.
I have been losing weight at exactly the rate predicted and have another kg to go.

Yep.  The equations work.  The nutrient tables are accurate. 

Losing weight and simultaneously maintaining (or gaining) muscle mass is tough, but doable.  Protein requirements increase in absolute amount while in caloric deficit, and dietary carbohydrate is muscle-tissue-sparing, whereas dietary fat is not.  So you need to increase your protein intake compared to weight-maintenance levels and maintain a high carbohydrate intake.  This means that your entire caloric deficit must come from reduction in your fat intake.  In other words, you must be on a high-carbohydrate, high-protein, low-fat diet.  A protein supplement can be helpful.
Thats very helpful, thanks!
And yeah, my main focus has been on balancing the carb/protein portions and reducing fat.
I drink a good bit of soy milk instead of protein shakes because Im not disciplined enough to hold my nose and drink those.

For anyone interested: The app I use is fatsecret which breaks down the percentages in a pie chart for you.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10665
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #67 on: March 28, 2019, 10:19:56 AM »
That seems to the largest error for any food.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1466
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #68 on: March 28, 2019, 03:16:12 PM »
That seems to the largest error for any food.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What is this an answer to?  And do you have any peer reviewed support for your comment? 
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8190
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #69 on: March 28, 2019, 03:48:10 PM »
Common sense, as well as all the major medical organizations, say that a balanced and varied diet is the healthiest. Of course, experts can disagree on the exact percentages, and I don't stress out over exact percentages. Exercise builds muscle and cardiovascular fitness. If calories absorbed matches calories burned, weight will be maintained. Pretty simple, really. The hard part is the motivation. That second helping is awfully tempting and few of us have the self-control to keep our weight under control in an economy where food is cheap and plentiful.
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 jhib

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #70 on: March 31, 2019, 11:18:41 AM »


"I don't want to live without that sugar."

That’s the same shit smokers say, and alcoholics and coke or heroine addicts.


... and fans of bacon.

Offline daniel1948

  • Isn’t a
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8190
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #71 on: March 31, 2019, 04:10:10 PM »


"I don't want to live without that sugar."

That’s the same shit smokers say, and alcoholics and coke or heroine addicts.


... and fans of bacon.


And when they say it, they never mean it literally. What they really mean is that they'd be really unhappy if they had to give up those things.
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 ralfsen

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Episode #715
« Reply #72 on: April 29, 2019, 07:03:38 AM »
Spoiler alert regarding ‘science or fiction:’

(click to show/hide)

And according to the interwebz, bipolar disorder didn't become a diagnosis until the 1980s, replacing manic-depressive. Steve's wording was that he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder as an adult. He died in 1965.