Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Article: Energy In = Energy Out?

I thought the second law was to do with the entropy of isolated system remaining constant? I also thought that the thermic effects of different macro nutrients have already been discussed and not found to be material overall.
 
I'm a little confused. Are you saying eat less than 55% carbs and eat more protein so that more of the carbs are wasted?
 
Comparing carbs to protein, yes, carbs are more efficient but not by much. It is interesting that he didnt compare carbs to fats. Fats are very, very efficient and do not burn much fuel at all to be processed.

This is why I've always advocated a low fat diet and a high carb/high protein diet to get ripped. It really works.

TEF or thermic effect of feeding DOES matter. Saturated fats kill the appetite, take very long to break down and use very little energy to process. Replace fats with carbs and protein and your metabolism shoots way up. The more protein, the faster the metabolism.
 
fueledpassion said:
Comparing carbs to protein, yes, carbs are more efficient but not by much. It is interesting that he didnt compare carbs to fats. Fats are very, very efficient and do not burn much fuel at all to be processed.

This is why I've always advocated a low fat diet and a high carb/high protein diet to get ripped. It really works.

TEF or thermic effect of feeding DOES matter. Saturated fats kill the appetite, take very long to break down and use very little energy to process. Replace fats with carbs and protein and your metabolism shoots way up. The more protein, the faster the metabolism.
Click to expand...

In the grand scheme of things it really doesn't!
 
It's really not that hard to figure it out either. Let's say your maintenance level with a 50% fat diet is 1800kcals. That assumes you burn 1800 calories a day and you eat 1800 a day. If you switch that over to 50% protein, 30% carbs and 20% fats, you'll still have 1800kcals a day but you are now burning more than 1800kcals since the foods you eat release more heat in the process and because they require more energy to convert.

MCT's are an example of this which is why it is often known to be "thermogenic". So with this method you can burn fat without cutting calories, which is best since you don't trigger the homeostatic mechanisms in the body causing your BMR to adjust downward. Essentially, you lose no muscle mass in the process of cutting fat.

I tried this before my show a year ago and I started eating a 2000kcals/day diet @ 11.5% BF and ended up eating 2700kcals/day, 12 weeks later and about 8.5% BF and hadn't lost a single pound of weight. So don't give me hog wash that it doesn't work. It just isn't understood by people who are fixated on calories in/calories out bull crap that maintstream wellness industry preaches.
 
fueledpassion said:
It's really not that hard to figure it out either. Let's say your maintenance level with a 50% fat diet is 1800kcals. That assumes you burn 1800 calories a day and you eat 1800 a day. If you switch that over to 50% protein, 30% carbs and 20% fats, you'll still have 1800kcals a day but you are now burning more than 1800kcals since the foods you eat release more heat in the process and because they require more energy to convert.

MCT's are an example of this which is why it is often known to be "thermogenic". So with this method you can burn fat without cutting calories, which is best since you don't trigger the homeostatic mechanisms in the body causing your BMR to adjust downward. Essentially, you lose no muscle mass in the process of cutting fat.

I tried this before my show a year ago and I started eating a 2000kcals/day diet @ 11.5% BF and ended up eating 2700kcals/day, 12 weeks later and about 8.5% BF and hadn't lost a single pound of weight. So don't give me hog wash that it doesn't work. It just isn't understood by people who are fixated on calories in/calories out bull crap that maintstream wellness industry preaches.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that two isocaloric diets composed of different ratios of macronutrients will result in different amounts of weight loss with all else being equal?
 
saggy321 said:
So what you're saying is that two isocaloric diets composed of different ratios of macronutrients will result in different amounts of weight loss with all else being equal?
Click to expand...

Not quite. I'm saying that different macronutrient compositions affect the metabolism by heat discharge & efficiency level. The less efficient the food, the less likely fat storage will occur during digestion of the meal. This isnt about how much weight u lose. Its about what kind of weight u lose. This method can allow u to still eat maintenance level calories while avoiding any sort of fat storage. Performing cardio with such a plan and you have a recipe for fat burning without the lose of muscle or reduction of the metabolism. This article meant well but the author botched it up by not including key points to put the puzzle together. The more calories, the higher the BMR thus more muscle mass. The idea here is to feed the muscle adequate amounts of food while using fat calories to help sustain the remaining activities above ur maintenance level. This diet is an approach to cutting fat without cutting calories to any significant degree. In doing this, your body wont adjust its BMR downward to the caloric intake because u arent cutting any calories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top