Hey, no hard feelings at all! I've just been always told that if you eat poorly. Like the pop tarts and all, you might lose more bone density and muscle mass, as opposed to fat, which you want t o lose.
I'd love to see your research! Sounds like a fascinating read!
Yes it's true that you'll lose more muscle if you eat pop tarts and stuff because you'll be lacking protein. But calories in calories out determines fat loss.
Muscle is a separate thing. You can build muscle in a calorie deficit and you can lose muscle in a calorie surplus. But you CANNOT lose fat in a surplus or gain fat in a deficit.
You sure you would be fascinated by evidence supporting calories in calories out? Even I don't think it's a fascinating read and I'm supposed to know this shit for my career.
That said, here is a meta analysis of 28 controlled studies where they fed people different macro balanced diets between fats and carbs and weight loss was not different between groups when calories were equated. So 80 percent fat diet with 3000 calories does not burn more fat than a 3000 calorie diet of 80 percent carbohydrates if your burning say, 3500 calories a day.
"28 controlled studies where they fed people different macro balanced diets between fats and carbs and weight loss was not different between groups when calories were equated"
Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but my mind is properly boggled by this.
How is it possible that nearly thirty research groups were able to get funding to carry out studies on this?
I know little about biochemistry or physiology on a micro-level, but the equation of 'energy in = energy consumed + energy stored' seems blindingly obvious.
Suggesting that the body treats calories from fats and sugars differently seems very odd to me. It's sort of like claiming that the range of a Tesla is affected by whether it was charged using good electricity generated by solar panels or evil electricity from a coal-fired power station.
Its 28 different studies combined into a meta-analysis, so different funding for different studies, it wasn't the same for all them.
Next, you would be AMAZED at how much misinformation there is on nutrition and so many people bash calories in calories out. People say keto is better or fat is killing us so eat mostly carbs and all this stupid shit. It seems obvious to me to but lots of people still debate it and act like it doesn't exist. So yes, its blindingly obvious, but yes, a lot of the fitness community doesn't agree with it or at least act like it doesn't matter or some stupid shit.
Will I lose weight ?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Hey, no hard feelings at all! I've just been always told that if you eat poorly. Like the pop tarts and all, you might lose more bone density and muscle mass, as opposed to fat, which you want t o lose.
I'd love to see your research! Sounds like a fascinating read!
--
d0esnormalmatter
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes it's true that you'll lose more muscle if you eat pop tarts and stuff because you'll be lacking protein. But calories in calories out determines fat loss.
Muscle is a separate thing. You can build muscle in a calorie deficit and you can lose muscle in a calorie surplus. But you CANNOT lose fat in a surplus or gain fat in a deficit.
You sure you would be fascinated by evidence supporting calories in calories out? Even I don't think it's a fascinating read and I'm supposed to know this shit for my career.
That said, here is a meta analysis of 28 controlled studies where they fed people different macro balanced diets between fats and carbs and weight loss was not different between groups when calories were equated. So 80 percent fat diet with 3000 calories does not burn more fat than a 3000 calorie diet of 80 percent carbohydrates if your burning say, 3500 calories a day.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.stephanguyenet.com/meta-analysis-impact-of-carbohydrate-vs-fat-calories-on-energy-expenditure-and-body-fatness/&ved=2ahUKEwiw0MzAjunmAhWCB50JHTgMCZ0QFjACegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw1gTfO--6jjFrVKmC5TE6LX
--
Boojum
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"28 controlled studies where they fed people different macro balanced diets between fats and carbs and weight loss was not different between groups when calories were equated"
Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick here, but my mind is properly boggled by this.
How is it possible that nearly thirty research groups were able to get funding to carry out studies on this?
I know little about biochemistry or physiology on a micro-level, but the equation of 'energy in = energy consumed + energy stored' seems blindingly obvious.
Suggesting that the body treats calories from fats and sugars differently seems very odd to me. It's sort of like claiming that the range of a Tesla is affected by whether it was charged using good electricity generated by solar panels or evil electricity from a coal-fired power station.
--
d0esnormalmatter
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Its 28 different studies combined into a meta-analysis, so different funding for different studies, it wasn't the same for all them.
Next, you would be AMAZED at how much misinformation there is on nutrition and so many people bash calories in calories out. People say keto is better or fat is killing us so eat mostly carbs and all this stupid shit. It seems obvious to me to but lots of people still debate it and act like it doesn't exist. So yes, its blindingly obvious, but yes, a lot of the fitness community doesn't agree with it or at least act like it doesn't matter or some stupid shit.