yeah.. they have studied a lot. Fung has actual real life experience in it. people site Dr L. Norton "every calorie is the same" as an expert. yeah OK. your body doesn't know what a calorie is. that is a human term. people with qualifications mean they are good at learning. good for them. clap clap old chum. but the body knows how it will react when you stick in 1000 calories worth of sugar, compared to 1000 calories of fat. i suppose to the 1 calorie is 1 calorie wizards the result would be the same. guess what? it isn't.

this should be clear as day to anyone if they just sit down and think about it. if you really think your body willidentically handle2000 calories of pure sugar every day vs 2000 calories of pure fat every day, you are derp. the body is a massively complex machine and it simply doesnt work that way.

brb a block of firewood has 2000 calories in it so i guess eating it is just like eating 2000 calories of balanced whole foods

derp

A lot of the IF crew rely on stimulants to power through their fasting periods. Back when I tried IF I was using around 1200mg of caffeine per day. Essentially the equivalent of like 14 cups of coffee I think. Yeah I was 30lbs lighter then I am now and lean AF. But I required a ton of supplements to have effective workouts.


Its an effective cutting protocol. And I have no doubt it can have health benifits over long term if you are lighter/leaner/eating less. However I don't buy all the BS they are selling with it.You are probably eating sh!t calories though and a question becomes how much is your body properly absorbing/using as nutrients.


I tried CICO eating crap calories (processed stuff, fast food, etc.) and was putting on fat on 2800- 3K calories. Currently bulking on the vertical diet and I'm on 3800 calories per day and my waistline hasn't expanded in months. Ideally I want to be at 4K calories per day its just hard to physically eat that much 'clean' food. White rice, steak, bison, peppers, etc.


I think CICO matters but I also think quality of food/nutrients matters. The human body doesn't absorb everything the same.

People wanna deny how amazing it is or simply will make excuses because they want to graze on food all day like cows

IF Master Race checking in

are you saying guys like Eric Helms, Norton, etc don't have actual real life experience when it comes to dieting? And you took what he said out of context. When we are talking about weight loss specifically for the normal person, evidence supports that for the most part calories in vs calories part is the most important factor. If you want to talk other extraneous health benefits like for example getting more micro-nutrients from say 30g of protein from fish vs say 30g from a protein shake then which may have small indirect effects on body composition then that is a different conversation.

Also, Layne Norton here doesn't necessarily subscribe to every calorie is the same. He acknowledges protein has a higher TEF but that doesn't invalidate CICO. He also acknowledges the role of insulin but again he says CICO is the most determining factor. Watch from 13 minutes and on.

https://www.biolayne.com/articles/nu...uly-a-calorie/



But nobody here has argued as far as I am aware that you should get all your calories from McDonalds and Taco Bell or just strictly sugar vs eating a variety of foods like meat, fruits, vegetables, grains, etc. Just the fact that if you are in a caloric deficit, you will lose weight unless you have some underlying medical condition.

Your body also doesn't know how much weight you put on the bar but that doesn't invalidate keeping track of weight as a good metric. Much like how counting calories for most people being a good metric. Tell any legit bodybuilder trying to diet down and lose weight not to count calories and fast for 48 hours, and then eat what they fuk they want in the window that they get.

literally, a strawman argument

Cliffs? Is intermittent fasting God-mode or not? I thought it was just an efficient way to consume calories. Has anyone asked Ja-Rule yet? Pls respond.

You are not allowed to discuss nutrition on this site anymore and I am dead serious. Stop.

I used to do it when I woke up at 8am, and worked from 3pm-1:30am and went to bed at 2am. It was easy because I was very busy before work and didnt feel hungry cause I was running my ass off, then my meals were planned out for each break at work. First meal at 5:30pm, then 9pm, then last meal at 11pm.

Now I wake up at 3:30am, work 4:30 until 3pm, then gym 3:30-4:30 then my running my ass off is at night now instead of morning, so I dont have time to eat much, sometimes I dont get home til around my bedtime. my only option would be to eat a small meal at 12 lunch, then a big meal when I get home, but I hate to eat all my food right before I goto bed...

brb starving myself all day then the only time im full is when im asleep and it doesnt matter...

Sucks, I really loved IF too

Mind = blown that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to you

The amount of broscience itt is astounding. Brb every miscer is an expert on diet and training.

My bad what does LBM consist of?

Also is it true the workout group only did 4 sets of bench/squat 3x a week and nothing else? Im actually surprised the exercise group made the gains it did. Mirin +25kg on the natty groups squat in 10 weeks that seems impressive with that routine

Either way id put my money on a natty that actually trains looking better and getting stronger in the long term than someone eating cheetos and doing literally nothing but using the dose in that study. Heck there are even enhanced cheeto eaters that workout and still look and lift like **** lol.

cause its a braindead fad diet, just like all the others

"solid scientific support"- top kek, read some phukking books about basic biochem, you phucking ignorant dumb *******

Except all scientist that have studied/done labs etc... all agree you don’t lose more fat.

Someone else mentioned earlier. Alan Agaron or wtf his name is just posted a 12 month lab. I am pretty sure helms posted one a couple weeks earlier as well.

not healthy for most people. mentally.

That was a great post!

Do you have any source material for the ideas?

nope, and i'm sure he'll ignore all the studies showing that an equal surplus of fat vs carbs shows you gain more fat eating more fat

also not how insulin works, but don't care enough to explain why

serious? If anything the if crowd still thinks they can eat like shyt in their "window"

If you can cut on 6-8 small meals/snacks a day, IF is cake

you are not the boss of me, boyoit's all in the obesity code. get the audio version if you don't like to read.

Fung goes over the history of dieting, fat storage/hunger hormones (why people feel more hungry and over eat, how it isn't their fault - with calorie restriction) and much more, thereal effects of increasing and decreasing calories, the history of all diets, including exercise - and how little a role it actually plays in fighting obesity (yet everyone focuses on this spending hours in the gym). using only meta analysis peer reviewed studies done on humans only, talks about the findings done on the biggest studies on humans carried out on low/high carb, low/high fat, protein, calorie restriction, studies on exercise on controlled groups - including calorie restriction/over eating when exercising. these aren't his studies so he isn't being biased here. talks only about the findings! talks about other cultures and their diets, how their diets (and society) have changed over time and the results of this, he covers everything and explains it using science (as far as we can understand about the human body). and why we are facing an obesity epidemic today.

he'll talk about (and debunk) the laws of thermodynamics (which is a branch of physics by the way) and how it plays little part in the process of the human body since the human body isn't an isolated system (but lots of smaller systems) - and they are changing every hour of every day - nothing remains constant. funny how experts like Norton keep harping on about the "laws of thermodynamics" to prove their point, but he doesn't actually understand it is irrelvant to humans. remember the doctor that ate 5000 calories of fat/protein over 3 weeks and lost inches? yeah ok

talks about how the government has promoted "eat less, move more" for years - how the government has spent millions fighting even child obesity but nothing is working. and why this is

talks about how in the past nobody counted calories - but was slim. was this just a miracle?

he talks about how the food pyramid has changed over years and the effects of it.

talks about the 3 macro nutrients and their part in the body.

he talks about what you should and shouldn't actually eat - to fight obesity. and how to keep the fat off long term.

and much more.

source that pls

Carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity has been falsified in several studies, seehttps://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn2016260

Jason Fung's nonsense debunked:https://www.myoleanfitness.com/evide...c-restriction/

Enjoy.

i dont know why you'd put your money on something directly contradicted by a published study. the roid using non-lifters got stronger and put on more muscle than the natty lifter. i mean the study is right there man. dunno why its so hard to accept. everything is controlled by hormones. exogenous hormones > lifting and eating right

autism speaks

i'll try get it next time i listen to the book - this week.did you really just link a website that sells meal plans and training plans as evidence?

yeah because they didn't write that article to "prove a point -their point" and gain traffic to their website for new customers using Fung's name.

read "weight loss" instead of "fat loss" and stopped right there

It doesn't directly contradict the study because I mentioned long term as in years not 10 weeks and naturals who actual lift unlike the ones in the study.

it would be nice if someone could explain why girls put on more bodyfat during/after puberty then boys. they have similar bodyfat % up until then - and boys generally eat more calories and one might argue they are even more active.. so how is it girls suddenly gain a higher percentage of bodyfat during puberty? - do they suddenly start eating many more calories than boys for this to happen? no - i don't think so. but they get fatter! herp derp - because the human body is developing, well yes obviously but why does the fat gain happen?

well then - it must be hormones! yes, that is it! so why is it so hard for people to believe that hormone levels play a part in controlling fat gain/fat loss. oh yes, because everyone has been "brainwashed" into the cals in vs cals out model for the last X amount of years, and that is the only model we know (until now..)

that is something else Fung goes over

so who is dumber in this situation, the natty who lifts to look good or the enhanced who lifts to look good

the natty has already lost the battle and the enhanced guy is just risking injury when he could be an ifbb pro by just existing
here it is lads, the dumbest thing said in this thread. It's been a tough competition with many contenders but this is without a doubt #1

i srsly dont understand the question here. u wot? its not an intelligence test...

this is a weird question not sure if srs. especially the bold part