safely reduce body fat

Bruno26

Zillah wrote: »

Against the laws of physics, apparently.

http://time.com/2988142/you-asked-are-all-calories-created-equal/

What do you make of this article?

Are you going to reply?

When I posted this before all the calories in calories out people went into hiding!

Theresalwaysone

Bruno26 wrote: »

Fat adapted. See Sam Feltham on YouTube or watch cereal killers. You'll be shocked.

Fat adapted. Ok.

So I can eat that previous diet, including the improvements you suggested (macademias, cheese, cream, no whey etc) totalling 3500 calories and not put on any extra fat tissue.

If I increase my portion sizes, to say, 4500 total calories will I get fat?
What about 6000?
8000?
At what stage of total calorie intake will I start getting fat? or will I keep adapting, and so, continuously be able to increase my calorie intake without getting fatter?

You realise the logical conclusion of your argument is that I could theoretically eat for every single waking moment of the day and not get fat.

Does that not sound a bit ridiculous to you?

Another thing:

Why do we get fat? What is the evolutionary reason for us storing fat tissue?

Bruno26

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Fat adapted. Ok.

So I can eat that previous diet, including the improvements you suggested (macademias, cheese, cream, no whey etc) totalling 3500 calories and not put on any extra fat tissue.

If I increase my portion sizes, to say, 4500 total calories will I get fat?
What about 6000?
8000?
At what stage of total calorie intake will I start getting fat? or will I keep adapting, and so, continuously be able to increase my calorie intake without getting fatter?

You realise the logical conclusion of your argument is that I could theoretically eat for every single waking moment of the day and not get fat.

Does that not sound a bit ridiculous to you?

Another thing:

Why do we get fat? What is the evolutionary reason for us storing fat tissue?

Pretty much yes. Also if you've fat to lose you will lose it .

You're the one creating ridiculous scenarios. It's just about eating until you're satisfied. If this means 3,500, 4000 so be it. Eat when hungry- stop when satisfied.


I'm eating around 4000 calories a day. Some days more some days less. I've lost over 8% bf since doing so.

Have you read or listened to any of Gary Taubes books? The title of one of his books is the question you posed. The answers are all in there.

Theresalwaysone

Bruno26 wrote: »

Pretty much yes. Also if you've fat to lose you will lose it .

You're the one creating ridiculous scenarios. It's just about eating until you're satisfied. If this means 3,500, 4000 so be it. Eat when hungry- stop when satisfied.


I'm eating around 4000 calories a day. Some days more some days less. I've lost over 8% bf since doing so.

Have you read or listened to any of Gary Taubes books? The title of one of his books is the question you posed. The answers are all in there.

What is your typical daily diet and activity level?

Zillah

Bruno26 wrote: »

http://time.com/2988142/you-asked-are-all-calories-created-equal/

What do you make of this article?

Are you going to reply?

When I posted this before all the calories in calories out people went into hiding!

I agree that not all calories are equal. Processed carbs and other sugars are a bad source of energy and cause horrible appetite feedback. High sugar diets are the primary cause of the modern obesity epidemic. This article is just touching on what is becoming common knowledge that the "low-fat" debacle of the last thirty years was a false solution and has caused more harm than good. Fat has a great role in a healthy diet.

It doesn't, however, support your bizarre claim that no one will get fat eating fat. If I eat 5000 calories of cheese per day I'm getting fat no matter how few carbs I eat.

Bruno26

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

What is your typical daily diet and activity level?

Average day would be something like this.

Omelette 3/4 eggs, creme fraiche, cheese, spinach or kale mushroom and onion, 3 slices bacon, olive oil and butter

Or Greek Yogurt. (3/4 glenisk tub) with berries and cinnamon.

Lunch / dinner. Chicken Korma/Tikka Masala, steak, fish all served with lots of veg and butter

Snacks or with meals: macadamia nuts. (125 grams), Greek yogurt , dark chocolate, cheese.

Coffee with cream or butter and coconut oil (usually 3 of these daily)

Bruno26

Zillah wrote: »

I agree that not all calories are equal. Processed carbs and other sugars are a bad source of energy and cause horrible appetite feedback. High sugar diets are the primary cause of the modern obesity epidemic. This article is just touching on what is becoming common knowledge that the "low-fat" debacle of the last thirty years was a false solution and has caused more harm than good. Fat has a great role in a healthy diet.

It doesn't, however, support your bizarre claim that no one will get fat eating fat. If I eat 5000 calories of cheese per day I'm getting fat no matter how few carbs I eat.

I seriously doubt you'd get fat eating that but nobody ever would eat that so it's a ridiculous scenario. Seriously go watch Sam Feltham on YouTube or cereal killers documentary.

Tigger99

Bruno why are you mentioning that the nuts have 125 cals if cals don't count on a high fat diet?

Zillah

Bruno26 wrote: »

I seriously doubt you'd get fat eating that but nobody ever would eat that so it's a ridiculous scenario. Seriously go watch Sam Feltham on YouTube or cereal killers documentary.

No. You don't just get to go "Go read such and such a book" or "Watch this video" instead of actually making an argument yourself. It's lazy and pointless and none of us are going to do an assigned reading list.

You're the one making the absurd claim that people can eat thousands of calories over maintenance as long as its fat and not gain weight. We know that is not how the body works - ambiguous claims of the body "adapting" are not reasonable. What is it doing with 2000 more calories than it needs, beaming them into space?

Bruno26

Tigger99 wrote: »

Bruno why are you mentioning that the nuts have 125 cals if cals don't count on a high fat diet?

125 grams

Tigger99

Ok but my point remains, why measure them?

Bruno26

Zillah wrote: »

No. You don't just get to go "Go read such and such a book" or "Watch this video" instead of actually making an argument yourself. It's lazy and pointless and none of us are going to do an assigned reading list.

You're the one making the absurd claim that people can eat thousands of calories over maintenance as long as its fat and not gain weight. We know that is not how the body works - ambiguous claims of the body "adapting" are not reasonable. What is it doing with 2000 more calories than it needs, beaming them into space?

http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/

Bruno26

Tigger99 wrote: »

Ok but my point remains, why measure them?

I eat about half a packet of macadamia nuts daily = 125 grams of nuts . I don't count how many I eat. I just put it up as the calorie counters like to workout calories.

Zillah

Bruno26 wrote: »

http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/

You really seem to like getting other people to talk for you.

An experiment with a sample group of one, where the subject is also the tester, is completely irrelevant. There are reasons that real studies need large numbers of subjects and have protocols in place to ensure the testers maintain objectivity.

MaceFace

Bruno26 wrote: »

http://time.com/2988142/you-asked-are-all-calories-created-equal/

What do you make of this article?

Are you going to reply?

When I posted this before all the calories in calories out people went into hiding!

I for one did not get into hiding, just got bored of your wrong assertion that as long as you eat <150g carbs/day, you can literally eat as much protein and fats and not put on any fat.
Oh, and it is idea to eat <100g carbs/day if you are overweight, as you will lose fat.
Of, but if you eat <50g carbs/day and are overweight, it is a better than ideal way to lose fat

Your problem is you are avoiding all the questions that expose the flaws in this hypothesis. You simply avoid answering.

Bruno26 wrote: »

I seriously doubt you'd get fat eating that but nobody ever would eat that so it's a ridiculous scenario. Seriously go watch Sam Feltham on YouTube or cereal killers documentary.

Erh, what?
I thought you said you will not get fat no matter how much protein or fat you eat as long as you carb intake was less than 150g day? Are you saying now that you "seriously doubt" as opposed to you absolutely will not?

Why is the idea of eating 5000 calories on a very low carb diet ridiculous? Do you think that it is impossible or unlikely?
If not impossible, then what happens if one was to do it?

BTW: I previously posted what I ate in 1 day from my keto diet which was 3500 calories. I explained how I could have easily consumed another 1000 calories.

rocky

Bruno26 wrote: »

http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/

http://carbsanity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/that-5000-calorie-jokesperiment.html

Mellor

Bruno26 wrote: »

http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/

Have you read that carefully?
That article pretty much shoots your point down. Thanks for posting though.

If a calorie is just a calorie when it comes to eating food, over the 21 days I should have put on 7.3kg ending up at 92.9kg from my starting weight of 85.6kg. However, after a 56,654 calorie surplus over the 21 days I ended up putting on 1.3kg ending up at 86.9kg

So first things first, over the 3 weeks he put on 1.3 kilos. (less than the predicted 7.3kg - I'll come back to that in a minute.) So there you have it, clear as day, in an article you provided, he was over-eating on a HFLC diet and he put on weight. So you've now proved that your idea that you "can't gain weight" on a high fat diet is incorrect. There was unstoppable no fat adaption, he actually put on weight.

So, even if your underlying point is shown to be wrong - we shouldn't ignore the discrepancy between the predicted and the actual gain (7.3kg verses 1.3kg). If this were as simple as an 80% fat fain reduction, it'd still be a good result. Unfortunately, its not that simple. His method lets him down an lot here.

He is weighing his entire body and using that to assume changes in fat mass. This is flawed. Bodyweight is a factor of more than just body-fat. As I'm sure you know Bruno. Anybody who's tracked their weight in relation to their diet knows that, they'll see how much weight can fluctuate in a short period - this is obviously non fat related weight change.

From the article;

when we store carbohydrates we can store approximately 2,000 calories or 500g worth on the average person

That is correct.
This is your glycogen stores. And for every gram of carbohydrate stored, your body also stores 3g of water.
This is why when people switch to low carb diet they have an initial large sudden drop in weight. The guy in the article ignored this.
500g is just a rough number, it’s dependant on muscle mass. Actual storage is c. 15g/kg, which can add up a good bit more in larger/leaner individuals. But I’ll use his figure of 500g of glycogen, that’s worth c.2kg of weight on the scales. So 1.3kg, could be more like a 3.3kg fat gain.
This theory is reinforced by the non-linear weight gain he had. The gained 0.1kg in the first half and 1.2kg in the second*. His weight slightly dipped in the first few days which also backs up the glycogen depletion theory. If he kept putting on weight at the rate of the second half, it’d be a gain of 40kg per year.

His intake was also flawed. Over half his energy came from nuts (450g/3084calories per day). There is a well documented mal-absorption of nutrients associated with eating high quantities of nuts. Which basically means if you eat a lot of nuts, you may not absorb all the nutrients (including energy). It makes sense really, if partial nuts are coming out the other end, then how could your body have that energy. This reduced absorption is thought be about 20% for almonds and other nuts (peanuts are about 10-15%).

If we apply a 20% reduction to the calories he ate from nuts. That’s almost 13,000 calories off his intake over 3 weeks. Or 1.7kg less predicted fat gain.

Bruno26

Mellor wrote: »

Have you read that carefully?
That article pretty much shoots your point down. Thanks for posting though.



So first things first, over the 3 weeks he put on 1.3 kilos. (less than the predicted 7.3kg - I'll come back to that in a minute.) So there you have it, clear as day, in an article you provided, he was over-eating on a HFLC diet and he put on weight. So you've now proved that your idea that you "can't gain weight" on a high fat diet is incorrect. There was unstoppable no fat adaption, he actually put on weight.

So, even if your underlying point is shown to be wrong - we shouldn't ignore the discrepancy between the predicted and the actual gain (7.3kg verses 1.3kg). If this were as simple as an 80% fat fain reduction, it'd still be a good result. Unfortunately, its not that simple. His method lets him down an lot here.

He is weighing his entire body and using that to assume changes in fat mass. This is flawed. Bodyweight is a factor of more than just body-fat. As I'm sure you know Bruno. Anybody who's tracked their weight in relation to their diet knows that, they'll see how much weight can fluctuate in a short period - this is obviously non fat related weight change.

From the article;

That is correct.
This is your glycogen stores. And for every gram of carbohydrate stored, your body also stores 3g of water.
This is why when people switch to low carb diet they have an initial large sudden drop in weight. The guy in the article ignored this.
500g is just a rough number, it’s dependant on muscle mass. Actual storage is c. 15g/kg, which can add up a good bit more in larger/leaner individuals. But I’ll use his figure of 500g of glycogen, that’s worth c.2kg of weight on the scales. So 1.3kg, could be more like a 3.3kg fat gain.
This theory is reinforced by the non-linear weight gain he had. The gained 0.1kg in the first half and 1.2kg in the second*. His weight slightly dipped in the first few days which also backs up the glycogen depletion theory. If he kept putting on weight at the rate of the second half, it’d be a gain of 40kg per year.

His intake was also flawed. Over half his energy came from nuts (450g/3084calories per day). There is a well documented mal-absorption of nutrients associated with eating high quantities of nuts. Which basically means if you eat a lot of nuts, you may not absorb all the nutrients (including energy). It makes sense really, if partial nuts are coming out the other end, then how could your body have that energy. This reduced absorption is thought be about 20% for almonds and other nuts (peanuts are about 10-15%).

If we apply a 20% reduction to the calories he ate from nuts. That’s almost 13,000 calories off his intake over 3 weeks. Or 1.7kg less predicted fat gain.

Where did you copy that from?

He didn't get fat. He had nothing to lose so of course he put on a small amount of weight. It proves the most important thing is where the calories come from. I've said if you've nothing to lose you'll either stay the same or put on a small amount of weight.

Zillah

Bruno26 wrote: »

Where did you copy that from?

He didn't get fat. He had nothing to lose so of course he put on a small amount of weight. It proves the most important thing is where the calories come from. I've said if you've nothing to lose you'll either stay the same or put on a small amount of weight.

There is absolutely no point having a discussion with you, you're like a religious convert.

Alf Veedersane

Zillah wrote: »

There is absolutely no point having a discussion with you, you're like a religious convert.

Struggled the whole way to Damascus. Had a bulletproof coffee and gambolled the whole way back.

QED.

MaceFace

Zillah wrote: »

There is absolutely no point having a discussion with you, you're like a religious convert.

Yep - same answer for everything with no detail or substance. No science behind what he says. Just like his last post, he ignores the questions and points that prove him wrong.

Only detail I ever heard from this chap is eat
<150g carbs/day to maintain weight
<100g carbs/day to lose weight in an ideal way
<50g carbs/day to lose weight better
Do that and nothing else matters.

BTW Bruno, I watched Cereal Killers last night out of interest. Absolutely nothing in there back up your argument that you can eat as much fat and protein as you want. The entire documentary is about the fact that fat is not this evil thing that it has been made out to be, and that sugar is infact the real issue.
If you were to say the above, I don't think you would have anyone disagree with you.

Out of interest, when you say:

I've said if you've nothing to lose you'll either stay the same or put on a small amount of weight.

What do you mean by "nothing to lose"?
Can you be specific and provide a number as to what this actually means (13% bodyfat? 15%? 17%)?

Bruno26

MaceFace wrote: »

Yep - same answer for everything with no detail or substance. No science behind what he says. Just like his last post, he ignores the questions and points that prove him wrong.

Only detail I ever heard from this chap is eat
<150g carbs/day to maintain weight
<100g carbs/day to lose weight in an ideal way
<50g carbs/day to lose weight better
Do that and nothing else matters.

BTW Bruno, I watched Cereal Killers last night out of interest. Absolutely nothing in there back up your argument that you can eat as much fat and protein as you want. The entire documentary is about the fact that fat is not this evil thing that it has been made out to be, and that sugar is infact the real issue.
If you were to say the above, I don't think you would have anyone disagree with you.

Out of interest, when you say:

What do you mean by "nothing to lose"?
Can you be specific and provide a number as to what this actually means (13% bodyfat? 15%? 17%)?

I think you watched a different documentary then if you missed that point along with others. He ate as much fat as he could.

Animord

Mellor wrote: »

This is your glycogen stores. And for every gram of carbohydrate stored, your body also stores 3g of water.
This is why when people switch to low carb diet they have an initial large sudden drop in weight. The guy in the article ignored this.

Just a small point - I am pretty sure that Sam Feltham eats that way all the time and for his first experiment he just raised the amount he was eating, so he wouldn't have had the water drop.

Essien

Bruno26 wrote: »

I think you watched a different documentary then if you missed that point along with others. He ate as much fat as he could.

I saw it ages ago, and while it did convince me to eat more fat, it didn't make me believe calories don't count.

Eating as much as you want does not equal eating above maintenance and not gaining weight.

Bruno26

Essien wrote: »

I saw it ages ago, and while it did convince me to eat more fat, it didn't make me believe calories don't count.

Eating as much as you want does not equal eating above maintenance and not gaining weight.

He was eating 4,500 to 5,000 a day. After it he ate less as he was trying to prove a point during the filming. It proves where the calories come from is what really matters.

Theresalwaysone

Bruno, if what you say is true, humans probably wouldn't be here, or at least not in their current form.

MaceFace

Bruno26 wrote: »

I think you watched a different documentary then if you missed that point along with others. He ate as much fat as he could.

Cereal Killers Movie with Donal O'Neil - the Irish chap. Unless there is another Cereal Killers movie?
He did not eat as much anything as he could. He ate a pretty strict diet of very low carbs. He averaged 3500 calories a day (source).

Don't misrepresent this movie to suggest he tried to eat as much as he could - his entire project was about flipping the food pyramid upside down and eating mostly fat. He did not try and consume as much as he could to see if he could get fat from fat. That topic wasn't even discussed.

Personally, I have done 4000 keto diets in the past and tbh I could have ate more. Absolutely. At the start of a bulk, doing 4000 clean eating is hard, but once you get into it, the body adapts to the amount of food and it becomes pretty easy. As I have said before, I could glutten on 100 calories a piece no carb fat bombs.

So, how about you answer the question I asked about how you would define someone who has "nothing to lose"?

Mellor

Bruno26 wrote: »

Where did you copy that from?

Didn't copy any if it tbh. Every word of it is my own. It's simply a topic in pretty familiar with.

He didn't get fat. He had nothing to lose so of course he put on a small amount of weight. It proves the most important thing is where the calories come from. I've said if you've nothing to lose you'll either stay the same or put on a small amount of weight.

And as I pointed out if he continued to put on weight it'd amount to 40kg per year at that rate. And that's without allowing for the glycogen depletion.

Essien

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Bruno, if what you say is true, humans probably wouldn't be here, or at least not in their current form.

I never even thought of that tbh. How long would human beings have lasted without the ability to store an energy surplus? Something we've apparently only developed in the last 30 years or so....according to himself.

rocky

Animord wrote: »

Just a small point - I am pretty sure that Sam Feltham eats that way all the time and for his first experiment he just raised the amount he was eating, so he wouldn't have had the water drop.

Nope, before his jokesperiment, Feltham was eating "Usually about 30% carbs, 40% fat and 30% protein", with a TDEE of 3058 cal/day.

That means 229g carb, 229g protein, and 136g fat

He was in insidious fat gain territory, but was weight stable.

Mellor

Animord wrote: »

Just a small point - I am pretty sure that Sam Feltham eats that way all the time and for his first experiment he just raised the amount he was eating, so he wouldn't have had the water drop.

He advocates eating kind that initially then introducing low GI fruit, pulses, sweet potato etc. ie Good carbs.
So if that's his normal diet, he would have depleted glycogen and water when he eliminated them for the experiment.

Edit: just seen the above. So pretty much as I said.

Bruno26

MaceFace wrote: »

So, how about you answer the question I asked about how you would define someone who has "nothing to lose"?

The body will decide that. Everyone's different.

Soarer

Sorry to put this in here, but I didn't really want to start a new thread.

I've read a few things about keto/HFLC diets, and apparently peanut butter can be eaten. What I'd like to know is, what would you eat it on if not in a sandwich? You'd hardly just eat it from a spoon would you?!

Alf Veedersane

Soarer wrote: »

Sorry to put this in here, but I didn't really want to start a new thread.

I've read a few things about keto/HFLC diets, and apparently peanut butter can be eaten. What I'd like to know is, what would you eat it on if not in a sandwich? You'd hardly just eat it from a spoon would you?!

Why can't you eat it off a spoon?

Eat it off whatever you like. Even your paw.

Tigger99

With apple slices or unsalted rice cakes are my favourite.

I put it in stir fries also

Soarer

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Why can't you eat it off a spoon?

Eat it off whatever you like. Even your paw.

Dunno Just never have. Always in a sandwich or something.

Tigger99 wrote: »

With apple slices or unsalted rice cakes are my favourite.

Aren't apples high in sugar and rice cakes high in carbs?

bluewolf wrote: »

I put it in stir fries also

Weird!;)

Alf Veedersane

Soarer wrote: »

Dunno Just never have. Always in a sandwich or something.



Aren't apples high in sugar and rice cakes high in carbs?

It depends what you mean by 'high'.

And if you're worried about carbs, a rice cake would be better than a slice of bread.

Tigger99

Ah I usually only have a small slice of apple, with a good bit of peanut butter, so very little sugar. There is carbs in the wholegrain ones but we still need carbs in our diet, albeit a low amount.