Laitetaanpas vastapainoksi Anssin jutulle postaus bodyrecomposition.comista:
"Of course it can't be explained if it hasn't been studied.
But when we have three decades of studies examining the topic in question.
And it all points to one thing. And that one thing is not what Feinman or Berardi or a bunch of bodybuilders/dieters want to believe (which is that calories somehow aren't what matter), well....
Becasue that's the bottom line with respect to this topic.
Studies using ad-lib intakes and relying on food reporting show one result. That is the data set that people love to use. Nevermind that food reporting is notoriously bad. Nevermind that, if we trust the food reporting, the nutrients end up all being different. Typically low-carb ad lib diets result in more protein than high-carb. So bozos like Feinman and Anssi conclude that LOW-CARBS is superior. Err, no, high protein is superior. But in that I set up all diets starting with protein intake (and ensuring that it's adequate), it's irrelevant whether they are carb or fat based from that standpoint.
Studies where calories are stritly controlled and things like protein intake are equated show NO SUCH MAGIC.
Note: studies comparing different protein intakes do support higher protein being better on a fat loss diet. Usually they compare something like the RDA (1 g/kg) to something higher (2 g/kg+). Usually, the latter is superior. In that I don't know of any bodybuilder eating much less than 1 g/lb (2.2 g/kg), I'm not sure how this is relevant. I consider a protein intake of 1 g/kg on a diet to be deficient; I start with 1 g/lb and go up from there.
In any event, which data set do you think I find more credible? The ad lib, food reporting studies which suggest metabolic 'a calorie isn't a calorie magic', or the strictly controlled, minimize the variables studies that don't? Which do you believe? Which ones do the average diet book author foist on the gullible public?
It's kind of like the old phenomenon where people swore up and down that they ate almost nothing and either gained weight or couldn't lose it. 50 years ago, there were two interpretations.
1. There are some people with magic metabolisms
2. People are incorrect about how much they are eating.
The general public continues to believe #1 while three decades worth of research indicate that, in all cases, it is really #2. People routinely understimate their food intake by up to 50% and overestimate their activity by that same 50%. And when you lock them up and control their food intake, they ALL lose weight.
This whole metabolic advantage thing is identical. Feinman (who's papers are mainly theoretical wanking anyhow) and Berardi and the rest carefully select their studies from a bunch of crappy data sets; studies using ad-lib intake (meaning the diets vary in all nutrients) which rely on food reporting.
They carefully ignore the controlled studies where people are locked in metabolic wards and fed exactinlgy controlled amounts of calories and where nutrients are actually kept constant (especially protein). No magic occurs in those second sets of studies. yet they are carefully ignored.
By the way, that's intellectually dishonest.
When you bring up those studies, they say "Well, science doesn't have all the answers and doesn't explain what I see in the real world"
So's that.
Look at Berardi's 'hypothetical', he's comparing a bodybilding diet to the standard Americna diet. Yeah, no shit, the standard american diet is so bad. Note: this is the kind of reductive examples that guys like Berardi always use. "Well, if we have one guy eating nothing but table sugar, and the other guy eating plenty of protein and EFA's, the second will lose less LBM; see, a claorie isn't a calorie." Err, yeah, how about a non-retarded example.
How about this. Say we have two bodybuidlers both eating plenty (and identical amounts of protein) and EFA's, lots of veggies. Then what happens when you mess around with carb/fat ratios or the rest. But that example is too logical (and happens to apply to the audience he's mainly talking to) and would point out the flaws in his argument. So he sticks with retarded shit."
. Oikeasti en usko, että proteiinia ei käytettäisi energiaksi. Ei vakuuta tuo tolone
Mitäs sille käy? No leikitään että se laitetaan takas lihakseen (re-synthesis) ja prosessissa kuluu energiaa. Taas on hukattu kaloreita? Ei vaan tätä kutsutaan kulutukseksi.
