Adarq.org

Quote from: TheSituation on January 16, 2012, 03:49:16 pm

1. Athlete A will burn more than Athlete B because he's adding exercise into the equation. Also, because athlete B will lose muscle, he will no longer burn 3000 calories because less muscle = less calories burned. That's why he'd put fat on, because he's now eating over maintenance.

...but that's not the situation we're talking about (they both consume and burn 3000cal a day, period). I already wrote down they they are both on caloric maintenance. You can't change a hypothetical situation and THEN defend yourself against THAT one.  

Your situation is impossible, that's why I had to change it.

Your situation is impossible, that's why I had to change it.

Wait a second... it's impossible for two people to eat the same amount of calories and burn the same amount of calories as each other if only one of them lifts weights?
Again, please explain why the following is impossible:


Athlete A - Eats exactly 3k cals a day. Burns exactly 3k cals a day. Lifts heavy weights 3x a week.

Athlete B - Eats exactly 3k cals a day. Burns exactly 3k cals a day. Stopped lifting.



Now, if you mean it's impossible to get exactly the same calorie count down to x number of decimal places, then I understand you. Otherwise....notsureifsrs

ok I didn't read the above ^^ but what's so hard to understand?

Is it so difficult to realize that two people may ingest/burn the same number of calories a day, and only one of them still  lifts weights?

The point is the guy that still  lifts weights is going to retain more muscle than the guy that stopped. That's it.




I was refuting TheSituation when he posted:

If you eat 3000 calories, and your body uses 3000 calories, you won't store any fat because there's no reason to.

I was saying that if a guy who had been lifting for a long time stopped lifting for a long time, he would lose muscle. But that means weight loss. However, since the caloric balance is at maintenance, he wouldn't lose weight. To make up for the lost muscle, he'd gain fat to make up the weight.

Especially if he screws up his macros and eats a bunch of sugar instead of protein and fat.

A) Situations definition: Maintenance is eating according to energy balance, no positive energy balance, no net fat gain, largely true.

B) Your definition (I think): Maintenance is eating according to maintaining bodyweight.  If a major stimulus is changed (ie. you move to the moon, a bodybuilder stops training, hormonal changes), then eating a bodyweight maintenance will result in a gain of fat tissue as muscle is lost.  Also true.  

uhhhhhhhh...... if you are maintaining according to energy balance, then you are also maintaining your bodyweight... our definitions are identical

only exception: maintaining calories doesn't mean you're maintaining water weight, so if you exclude water weight (which fluctuates daily) from the equation then they are the same.

The important point I am trying to convey to you is the reason the two definitions are often interchanged (ie energy balance == weight maintenance) is because for 99% of people on 99% of diets  they are essentially the same thing.  Unless you have extremely low bodyfat and extremely large amount of muscle or have drastic change in lifestyle (ie get wheelchair bound or move to the moon, or hormones involved) worry about losing appreciable amounts of muscle tissue is not necessary.  Most people on this msg board are not in danger of losing enough muscle to effect energy expenditure if they stop training.  

People often think they have experienced muscle loss for two reasons, both are wrong:

You may lose A LOT of strength but it's not because of losing muscle tissue.  That's why it will take 5 years for someone to build their squat from 225 to 405 but only 8 months to train it back from 225 to 405 after they take a few years off.  

You main gain a lot of fat when you stop lifting and keep eating the same.  But it's not because your energy balance is changed due to lost muscle but rather due to the fact that instead of using energy training you are probably watching TV.  

IMHO those most important takeaways to take from this discussion.  It's largely thought and stated in broscience that you lose muscle tissue which effects metabolism and causes you to gain fat.  While this is possible, it's not what happens to most young men who stop training, especially not in the short term.

There's a lot to ingest there, but basically:

We agree that if two atheletes:
- Both have the same caloric balance
- Both consume and burn the same amount of calories
- Both maintain the same bodyweight
- Only one continues to lift weights, while the other stops

The one that stops lifting weights will, eventually, lose more muscle than the one that continues to lift weights. The amount may very from half pound over the course of a year to 5 pounds in one year, but it will not be zero.

And, in fact, if the athlete that continues lifting is noob enough, he will actually gain muscle over the coruse of a year.



Nobody can deny the above.

more evidence refuting calories in - calories out results in weight loss:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21062378

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/153/2/214.short

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0091305787903406


These studies show that when dopamine receptors are blocked or reduced in number, rats and humans over eat. Caloric restriction in these types of animals does not produce fat loss. Same exact phenomenon as the hibernation study I posted. Caloric restriction during hibernation resulted in lean mass loss, but no fat mass loss.

Thus if someone gains weight due to this reason, or any other reason that controls metabolism, until it is fixed, long term weight loss will not be achieved. Thus the calorie argument becomes useless.

Do you even read your own studies? None of those are relevant. Prevalence of obesity in patients receiving depot antipsychotics? Really? That's a really important study on a website with people trying to build muscle/get more athletic/etc. You can think that's similar to the "hibernation study" you posted, but none of us are hibernating, so there's no relevance.

Here's some anecdotal evidence for you

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html


That's not what we're suggesting though. People who don't understand IIFYM think we're suggesting you eat 10 candy bars a day and you'll get the same results. Sure you'll lose the same amount of weight (not taking thermal effects into effect), but you'll lose a lot of muscle. IIFYM suggests you get the right amount of protein/fats/carbs in, and after that, you can use your extra calories for whatever you want. In every study you post they don't do that, and they don't lift weights, which is also important. You're just trying to be picky and find these irrelevant studies that have no meaning (hence irrelevance) to anyone who lifts weights and follows IIFYM correctly.

A) Situations definition: Maintenance is eating according to energy balance, no positive energy balance, no net fat gain, largely true.

B) Your definition (I think): Maintenance is eating according to maintaining bodyweight.  If a major stimulus is changed (ie. you move to the moon, a bodybuilder stops training, hormonal changes), then eating a bodyweight maintenance will result in a gain of fat tissue as muscle is lost.  Also true.  


uhhhhhhhh...... if you are maintaining according to energy balance, then you are also maintaining your bodyweight... our definitions are identical

only exception: maintaining calories doesn't mean you're maintaining water weight, so if you exclude water weight (which fluctuates daily) from the equation then they are the same.

No! They are not. That's the point I have been trying to hammer home to you!  You seem to think that besides water weight which is regulated largely by sodium/water intake (osmotic balance) all other bodyweight is regulated by energy balance.  That's not true in all cases including (in part) the example you brought up.   Understand, energy balance and bodyweight are very well correlated and for most people on this board essentially one in the same, that's why I have said so many times that calories in calories out is the best way for 99% of people to program their diet to lose/gain bodyweight.

However, that doesn't mean energy balance == bodyweight maintenance.  Say we knew exact pearson correlation coefficients for the level of responsiveness of different tissues to energy balance.  Fat mass would have a very high correlation to energy balance (say, close to 1).  Muscle tissue would be less correlated that fat tissue (especially at the extreme ends at the spectrum) but still well correlated for most individuals.  Other tissues such as bone tissue would be correlated even less.....

However, since 99% of adults do no significant training (as far as addition of muscle mass is concerned) the major changes in weight from about age 20 onward are usually due to gains or losses in fat tissue.  This is the reason why the model is so accurate for the majority of people. 

When other tissues are involved the difference between energy and weight maintenance becomes more pronounced.  Take this example.  Two inactive people begin at the same weight and both begin an exercise program and eat to achieve energy balance.  One exercises by jogging and the other exercises by swimming.  Both exercise a lot and burn an equal amount of calories in their activity.  What will happen? 

Neither will add a significant amount of muscle because neither will be doing intense enough work.  Neither will gain fat because calories in == calories out.  However, the swimmer will lose weight because bone mass is largely dependent on the amount of weight bearing stress on the bones.   After some amount of time, the swimmer will be lighter than the jogger even though both eat at energy maintenance.  Thus energy maintenance != weight maintenance in all cases.   

The same is true say of the retiring Mr. Olympia bodybuilder.  After years of high volume weight training and exogenous hormone use the retiring Mr. Olympia will have a massive amount of muscle.  Eating at energy maintenance will not be sufficient to keep such a large amount of muscle on his frame, and muscle tissue can be lost despite energy maintenance.

Remember, the salient point is that these situations are extreme and don't apply to you!  Being surprised by such situations is akin to being surprised that you can lose weight while in energy balance if you cut off your leg!

There's a lot to ingest there, but basically:

We agree that if two atheletes:
- Both have the same caloric balance
- Both consume and burn the same amount of calories
- Both maintain the same bodyweight
- Only one continues to lift weights, while the other stops

The one that stops lifting weights will, eventually, lose more muscle than the one that continues to lift weights. The amount may very from half pound over the course of a year to 5 pounds in one year, but it will not be zero.

Of course, but then they won't maintain the same bodyweight!  Remember fat storage is MORE correlated to energy balance. So, since they are both in caloric balance fat storage for both athletes is unlikely.  However, some small degree of muscle loss is likely, so after a year the one who stops will weight slightly less than the lifter despite both being in energy balance (This is a counter example to energy balance == weight balance!).  Remember though, unless both athletes began with a large amount of muscle.... This weight loss will be hard to detect as it may be within the noise of water weight.

And, in fact, if the athlete that continues lifting is noob enough, he will actually gain muscle over the coruse of a year.

Not really.  Lifting "noobs" don't necessarily gain a lot of muscle of their first year lifting weights.  Extremely inactive people do but if the noob was active at all (ie. played sports recreationally, walked a lot) you wouldn't expect him to gain much muscle. You would expect him have fuller looking muscle bellies, more muscle tonus and vascularity, weigh more from increased glycogen storage/water retention, and MUCH MUCH more strength due to largely neural effects.  But athletes who begin weight training don't really gain much actual muscle weight for a long time.   Case in point. Some members on this board squat around 225 pounds.  Others more like 450 pounds.  Controlled for height, what's the difference in total body-weight for two individuals who are both lean.  Five, maybe ten pounds.   

The entire population in general does not understand how hard it is to gain muscle.  Women are deathly afraid of touching weights and growing huge muscles when men are confident that a little extra fat, bigger looking muscles and a large increase in strength are the product of packing on muscle mass.  In reality adding an inch to your bicep is harder for most people than adding a hundred pounds to your squat. 

Quote from: T0ddday on March 26, 2012, 03:37:01 pm

No! They are not. That's the point I have been trying to hammer home to you!  You seem to think that besides water weight which is regulated largely by sodium/water intake (osmotic balance) all other bodyweight is regulated by energy balance.

Before I even read the rest of your post, I'm going to have to see some sources for how the human body violates the laws of thermodynamics.

It's quite frustrating spending 4 years studying physics and then another 6 in graduate school to have to remind people over and over again that nutritionists who know absolutely nothing of what they are talking about and couldn't tell a line integral from an apple and bring up thermodynamics for proof of why one diet or exercise plan work know ABSOLUTELY nothing.

You are NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM.  You are not even a planet.  If you eat 10,000 calories today and then you cut off your leg.... You will weigh less.  The first law is not violated because the energy of the closed system (planet, universe, etc) is still there is the form of a leg on the floor... but YOU weigh less.  That's all that matters to you!   Just like if your bones atrophy you will piss out inorganic metals, quite literally matter will flow out of the open system, and you will weigh less. 

Sorry if I come across as an ass for this post but it's really frustrating to here diet gurus bring up energy in the strictest sense (ie. $E=mc^{2}$)  when talking about human metabolism.  Not all catabolic processes even produce energy (usable for humans)!

I stick by Calories In Calories out and the IFFYM approach for body composition but if we are going to have a discussion regarding the peculiarities or exceptions to the model.... Well, broscience for weight training is one thing... but let's not approach bro-physics. 

Quote from: Dreyth on March 26, 2012, 03:51:35 pm

Quote from: T0ddday on March 26, 2012, 03:37:01 pm

No! They are not. That's the point I have been trying to hammer home to you!  You seem to think that besides water weight which is regulated largely by sodium/water intake (osmotic balance) all other bodyweight is regulated by energy balance.

Before I even read the rest of your post, I'm going to have to see some sources for how the human body violates the laws of thermodynamics.

It's quite frustrating spending 4 years studying physics and then another 6 in graduate school to have to remind people over and over again that nutritionists who know absolutely nothing of what they are talking about and couldn't tell a line integral from an apple and bring up thermodynamics for proof of why one diet or exercise plan work know ABSOLUTELY nothing.

You are NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM.  You are not even a planet.  If you eat 10,000 calories today and then you cut off your leg.... You will weigh less.  The first law is not violated because the energy of the closed system (planet, universe, etc) is still there is the form of a leg on the floor... but YOU weigh less.  That's all that matters to you!   Just like if your bones atrophy you will piss out inorganic metals, quite literally matter will flow out of the open system, and you will weigh less. 

Sorry if I come across as an ass for this post but it's really frustrating to here diet gurus bring up energy in the strictest sense (ie. $E=mc^{2}$)  when talking about human metabolism.  Not all catabolic processes even produce energy (usable for humans)!

I stick by Calories In Calories out and the IFFYM approach for body composition but if we are going to have a discussion regarding the peculiarities or exceptions to the model.... Well, broscience for weight training is one thing... but let's not approach bro-physics. 

makes sense to me now.

i can see how u can lose bone mass by maintaining an energy deficit/surplus of 0.

Can you also gain bone mass while still maintaning a zero caloric deficit/surplus? (curious)