Nutrition Diet, Muscle Mass, and Calorie Counting for Weight Loss (was: S&S for weight loss?)

[Kenny Croxdale]

Agreed. I've been tracking with MyFitnessPal for about 3 months and I've learned a lot about the macro content of food, and can easily see the choices that get me into trouble by providing more macros than I would guess. Example: my husband cooked a pack of Conecuh sausage this weekend, and I mindlessly ate a single serving of 2.2 oz which is just a few bites. Plugged it into the app and, yikes, there went 30% of my fat allotment for the day.

Fat Macros

Fat intake isn't much of a issue for most individual.

With most individual it more about two thing, your...

Carbohydrate Macro Intake

Most individual consume more carbohydrate than necessary; especially Insulin Resistant individual.

Second, it come down to your...

Caloric Intake

As the saying goes, "Calories Count". That point was demonstrated with...

The Twinkie Diet

Mark Haub, MS Nutrition demonstrated to his Kansas University Students that losing weight is primarily about calories. Haub lost 27 lb in 3 months consuming a low calorie junk food diet; Twinkies, cookies, Doritos.

Haub said the an unexpected benefit was that his Blood Lipid Profile improved; losing 27 lbs accounted for that.

Haub went on to state, he does not recommend The Twinkie Diet or anything like it.

Take Home Message

1) For most individuals, the amount/percentage of fat you consume isn't an issue.

2) For most individuals, the amount/percentage of carbohydrates is more of an issue.

3) "Calories Count".

Kenny Croxdale

 

[North Coast Miller]

Really just comes down to understanding energy balance and where how your macros fit with your body comp and activity level.

Fats and carbs are both fuel for muscles. The body doesn't normally convert carbs into triglycerides unless glucose storage sites are completely topped off. In an active person, this can take quite a bit of carb surplus, and additional calories are actually consumed in the process.

But...the body will use less fat for energy if carbs are abundant, and any eaten fats will be shuttled almost directly to storage. "The fat you eat is the fat you wear". Most if not all of the fat on an active person's body is there from consumed fats and not from converted carbs.

Any effective weight loss/body comp solution should account for fats and carbs as you need to be in a fuel deficit. Cutting one or the other is not as effective as cutting both. Overall portion control is the easiest way to lose weight if your diet is already reasonably balanced.

 

[Anna C]

Fat Macros

Fat intake isn't much of a issue for most individual.

With most individual it more about two thing, your...

Carbohydrate Macro Intake

Most individual consume more carbohydrate than necessary; especially Insulin Resistant individual.

Second, it come down to your...

Caloric Intake

As the saying goes, "Calories Count".

I agree, it's the calories overall.

My current macros are consistent daily at 155g protein, 240g carbohydrate, and 71g fat. So in total calories that's 43% carb, 29% fat, and 28% protiein; fairly balanced. I've been doing this since October of last year and although not extreme, it's definitely more of a high-carb and low-fat target than my usual habits. So my challenge with this balance is to really watch the fat intake. So far I find it to be supporting my strength training very well, and I'm slowly losing about .5 to 1 lb per week when I hit the numbers. (In the month of December, I did NOT hit the numbers. Holidays...). I also don't have any hint of metabolic problems like insulin resistance or carb dependence. I can fast for most of a day or go without carbs without issues when I need to. And I try to keep the fiber content high which ends up steering me towards complex carbs, veggies, etc., avoiding sugar and processed food. I'm actually glad to be eating oatmeal, bread, and potatoes again. I avoided them for so long. Yes controlling carbs mostly works well too, and when I do that I don't have to watch the fat intake... But, when the carbs are relatively high, the fat must be controlled. High fat and high carb is where most people start piling on the pounds.

 

[Bret S.]

I agree, it's the calories overall.

My current macros are consistent daily at 155g protein, 240g carbohydrate, and 71g fat. So in total calories that's 43% carb, 29% fat, and 28% protiein; fairly balanced. I've been doing this since October of last year and although not extreme, it's definitely more of a high-carb and low-fat target than my usual habits. So my challenge with this balance is to really watch the fat intake. So far I find it to be supporting my strength training very well, and I'm slowly losing about .5 to 1 lb per week when I hit the numbers. (In the month of December, I did NOT hit the numbers. Holidays...). I also don't have any hint of metabolic problems like insulin resistance or carb dependence. I can fast for most of a day or go without carbs without issues when I need to. And I try to keep the fiber content high which ends up steering me towards complex carbs, veggies, etc., avoiding sugar and processed food. I'm actually glad to be eating oatmeal, bread, and potatoes again. I avoided them for so long. Yes controlling carbs mostly works well too, and when I do that I don't have to watch the fat intake... But, when the carbs are relatively high, the fat must be controlled. High fat and high carb is where most people start piling on the pounds.

I'm a recovering carboholic, I used to eat a ton of carbs and didn't gain fat, though I would get blood sugar swings if I ate the wrong thing at the wrong time.
I love carbs but steer clear mostly, oatmeal is a good slow burn choice for me. On weekends I'll eat more carbs, during the week I'm pretty much eating less of them. I really miss spaghetti with meatballs , I know there are other ways to do low carb Italian food but I'm too lazy to go through all the trouble..

 

[Deleted member 5559]

Where did 3 square meals become the standard accepted practice. Seems that many people can eat small amounts many times (gatherer) and many other people eat large amounts infrequently (hunter). Is 3 meals per day (in the middle) better or worse than polar opposite sides of the spectrum? Seems like the middle ground is often not as good as one side or the other for many things.

 

[Neuro-Bob]

Where did 3 square meals become the standard accepted practice. Seems that many people can eat small amounts many times (gatherer) and many other people eat large amounts infrequently (hunter). Is 3 meals per day (in the middle) better or worse than polar opposite sides of the spectrum? Seems like the middle ground is often not as good as one side or the other for many things.

I’ll take a stab at....modernization.

None of this is based in a personal knowledge of anthropology, but some Stuff I’ve Read On The Internet.

We used to eat closer to one meal per day, starting with being hunters. I’m sure gathering went alongside that, which more accurately makes it a snack followed by one meal per day.

In Roman times apparently it was common for a big mid day meal, and a light evening snack. Things weren’t as strictly timed until factories got involved.

Then it was “here’s the lunch bell” and “here’s the dinner bell.”

Breakfast being the most important meal of the day, and a bigger part of life, was part of a cereal advertising campaign sometime before I was born.

In short, 2 meals or a snack and a meal has been around for forever (possibly). Three square meals as a timed and focused effort is relatively recent.

the 5-6 meals per day focus is even more recent, having its genesis in theories of digestion and of course popularized by bodybuilders then fed to the mainstream.

With the knowledge of insulin resistance it seems we as a culture are starting to shift back the other way, possibly.

I have no sources for any of this.

 

[offwidth]

It seems to me that 'everything works'. (Or can...)

 

[Kenny Croxdale]

Where did 3 square meals become the standard accepted practice.

The International Society of Sports Nutrition

Research by Dr John Berardi and other demonstrated three meals a day is more effective than the dogma of 6 meal/snacks a day or constantly eating, for a variety of reason.

One of the main issues of multiple meals/snacks (non-stop eating) is that it maintains elevated insulin levels. Insulin block body fat from being burned/utilized for fuel.

Secondly, consuming multiple meals/snacks per day does not increase you metabolism.

Adding this is Dr Layne Norton's research...

Muscle Protein Synthesis

I've written a small book on this board about it.

1) Approximately, 2.5 to 3.0 plus gram of Leucine are necessary to trigger mTOR, promoting Muscle Protein Synthesis. The amount of Leucine is depended is age related.

2) Around 25 to 30 grams of Quality Protein is required to obtain enough Leucine.

3) Muscle Protein Synthesis is optimal when meals are consumed approximately every 4 - 6 hours.

Kenny Croxdale

 

[krg]

The problem with calorie counting is the data quality.

You can do a pretty reasonable job of measuring what goes in your mouth.

As to how much gets digested and absorbed? - who knows?

And measurements of calorie expenditure are laughably bad - my phone is smart and 'tells' me how many calories I used cycling to work but it doesn't know that I had two laptops instead of one in my rucksack this morning or that my new knobbly tires are a pain in the butt on the road and there was a fierce headwind.

Then you get to work and the skinny guy in the office says something like - 'you can tell when you are eating surplus calories just by feel' (and he takes two teaspoons of sugar in every cup of coffee or tea), and I can feel one of those homicidal rages develop....

Anyway, that's a digression - I think the value in calorie counting is in doing it long term and learning what is maintenance for you on average over time. I'm personally yet to see a spectacular effect of counting macros (but I eat reasonably balanced, fresh food).

I am much less convinced about meal timing / IF except as a means of helping people eat less calories overall (I am a world-class rebound eater so I stay away from fasting). We aren't paleolithic hunter gatherers anymore and those guys lived to about 45 years old anyway.

 

[offwidth]

The problem with calorie counting is the data quality.

You can do a pretty reasonable job of measuring what goes in your mouth.

As to how much gets digested and absorbed? - who knows?

And measurements of calorie expenditure are laughably bad - my phone is smart and 'tells' me how many calories I used cycling to work but it doesn't know that I had two laptops instead of one in my rucksack this morning or that my new knobbly tires are a pain in the butt on the road and there was a fierce headwind.

Then you get to work and the skinny guy in the office says something like - 'you can tell when you are eating surplus calories just by feel' (and he takes two teaspoons of sugar in every cup of coffee or tea), and I can feel one of those homicidal rages develop....

Anyway, that's a digression - I think the value in calorie counting is in doing it long term and learning what is maintenance for you on average over time. I'm personally yet to see a spectacular effect of counting macros (but I eat reasonably balanced, fresh food).

I am much less convinced about meal timing / IF except as a means of helping people eat less calories overall (I am a world-class rebound eater so I stay away from fasting). We aren't paleolithic hunter gatherers anymore and those guys lived to about 45 years old anyway.

Well said...