Getting lean whilst increasing strength

Good posts here Joshua. I realize now that some of my "hate" against your approach has really been cognitive bias (coming from some form of disdain towards the bodybuilding scene and the meal approach). You make a lot of valid points here.

A lot of info when it comes to nutrition is still based on a lot of speculation though.

If you're going to do IF, do leangains. Don't eat once during the day, that's ridiculous and incredibly harmful.

Agreed. I've been doing Berkhan's LG and still been having 4 meals a day, Sometimes 5.

A lot of people unfortunately "abuse" IF and use it as a way to pig out on a daily basis. This is wrong and probably harmful.

Thanks!

I am all about understanding general principles and using those to understand why certain protocols seem to work and sometimes actually do work. I don't think it matters if you are doing things perfectly, as long as you are getting what you want, understand what you are doing, and are happy with your results.

If any of the IF protocols are actually healthy, it would be leangains and the 4-5 meal approach should work better than the 3 meal approach. I think Martin did that out of practicality and knowing that people are used to 3 meals and usually only get 1 lunch break.

If it makes you feel any better, I had no idea what I would see with a side by side comparison until I ran the numbers and looked at the graphs. It was a good learning experience for me, and I think for many of us.

Pictures are much harder to argue with than abstract ideas, you know? When you can see something right in front of you, it is usually easier to accept than when you are forced to try and understand what I or anyone else tries to put into words alone

I definitely don't think that continuous energy balance is the only way, but I do think that it is the most effective end of the spectrum on the scale of "this is bad for you and won't help you perform at your best" to "this is as healthy as it gets and supports maximal performance."

It may even be that leangains makes it easier to go from 7% to 5%, I have no idea. I certainly had no problem getting to 7% with continuous energy balance... easiest leaning out I have ever done. Because I enjoy eating and I enjoy performance, you won't be seeing me adopt a leangains strategy any time soon, so there won't be a side by side comparison in that regard, and I don't really care about dropping below 7%. If it happens it happens, but I am pretty much setting things up to stay stable at 7-8%, have fun and eat some treats, and keep getting stronger.

At any rate, there is some truth to the speculation comment but research is mounting up and heavily supporting continuous energy balance as the "answer " to the obesity problem as well as certain criminal issues. I know, I know, that sounds weird. I'll share that story later. Sleepytime now.

so if i got things right....

your "secret" is to be in the +/-400kcal frame.

you sip the amount of whey (protein) your body needs (lets say 150gr) spread throughout the day and eat a casein protein before you sleep.

with the right food, if you are between 0kcal and -400kcal you lose bodyfat?

with the right food, if you are between 0kcal and +400kcal you gain lean muscle mass?

dunno why but it makes sense =)

Yes that connection between IF and diabetes was what I was referencing before. Interesting that the insulin sensitivity seems to almost be cancelled out.

itisme said:

so if i got things right....

your "secret" is to be in the +/-400kcal frame.

you sip the amount of whey (protein) your body needs (lets say 150gr) spread throughout the day and eat a casein protein before you sleep.

with the right food, if you are between 0kcal and -400kcal you lose bodyfat?

with the right food, if you are between 0kcal and +400kcal you gain lean muscle mass?

dunno why but it makes sense =)

Basically, yes.

The reason it makes sense is that if you're not eating total garbage, 400-500 kcal meals and 200-250 kcal meals (again, comprised of good foods) don't have anything even remotely close to the insulin-potentiating effects of larger meals. an 800-900 kcal meal has 4-10x the insulin response (depending on the degree of fasting prior), not 2x. Insulin responses are not linear or curvilinear, they are closer to logarithmic. That's bad news for people who want to be lean, and especially bad news for people who are diabetic.

You have to remember how diabetes is acquired...

1) regular, large insulin surges lead to an eventual slow decrease in insulin sensitivity, requiring more insulin to be produced in order to get the same degree of response

2) This eventually leads to actual structural changes (reduced glut4 receptor density) in cells, which further decreases sensitivity to insulin.

4) At some point this reaches a point of clinical significance where we say people have diabetes. This point is reached when the pancreas is no longer able to keep up with the insulin production demands and a) shuts off most production, b) physically loses beta cells and can't make enough insulin anymore, or c) produces some mutant form of insulin that doesn't work properly.

There are a few subtypes of type 2, but most seem to come from similar pathology and one's genes seem to determine what the details of one's conditions will be.

Thanks for your reply Josh. I'd have to spend some time on it which I don't have now.

I'd agree that 50% of cals in one meal is going to put the body into a state where it can't handle

partioning effectively. I'm not a fan of LG and am not defending that in particular, but I will say in its

defence that the big meal occurs after workout when the body is most insulin sensitive and glycogen

replenishment is prioritized. And on diet days, the meal sizes are going to be proportionallly smaller.

My concern is more with surpluses and deficits encountered through normal eating patterns: 3 various sized meals

a day with snacks. More people will be eating this way than with LG or IF.

Certainly excess fat will go to fat in any sceanrio. When it comes to the fate of excess protein and carbs, it's not as clear to me.

Glycogen can be replenished in 24 hours; it's use may drop after 4 hours, but it's still is the predominant

source of glucose (after what's eaten) after eating for 16 hours or so. When stores are below 50% DURING EXERCISE (after 45 minutes) other glucose sources come into play, but would have to see your source that this occurs at rest. On average at rest 2-5% of energy is generated from protein. If you say that protein is used for glucose then you have to say that it will also be used to replenish itself later on after meals. I realise this reduces the availability for MPS however it also reduces the availability for lipogenesis.

Are you taking into account reduced burn during sleep and increased rate during wake state?. Using an hourly average skews the line, and increases the surpluses and deficit, as most eating is done while awake

Joshua Naterman said:

itisme said:

so if i got things right....

your "secret" is to be in the +/-400kcal frame.

you sip the amount of whey (protein) your body needs (lets say 150gr) spread throughout the day and eat a casein protein before you sleep.

with the right food, if you are between 0kcal and -400kcal you lose bodyfat?

with the right food, if you are between 0kcal and +400kcal you gain lean muscle mass?

dunno why but it makes sense =)

Basically, yes.

The reason it makes sense is that if you're not eating total garbage, 400-500 kcal meals and 200-250 kcal meals (again, comprised of good foods) don't have anything even remotely close to the insulin-potentiating effects of larger meals. an 800-900 kcal meal has 4-10x the insulin response (depending on the degree of fasting prior), not 2x. Insulin responses are not linear or curvilinear, they are closer to logarithmic. That's bad news for people who want to be lean, and especially bad news for people who are diabetic.

You have to remember how diabetes is acquired...

1) regular, large insulin surges lead to an eventual slow decrease in insulin sensitivity, requiring more insulin to be produced in order to get the same degree of response

2) This eventually leads to actual structural changes (reduced glut4 receptor density) in cells, which further decreases sensitivity to insulin.

4) At some point this reaches a point of clinical significance where we say people have diabetes. This point is reached when the pancreas is no longer able to keep up with the insulin production demands and a) shuts off most production, b) physically loses beta cells and can't make enough insulin anymore, or c) produces some mutant form of insulin that doesn't work properly.

There are a few subtypes of type 2, but most seem to come from similar pathology and one's genes seem to determine what the details of one's conditions will be.

thank you mr. nutrition

really awsome that you share your knowledge here, again thank you

FutureisNow said:

Thanks for your reply Josh. I'd have to spend some time on it which I don't have now.

I'd agree that 50% of cals in one meal is going to put the body into a state where it can't handle

partioning effectively. I'm not a fan of LG and am not defending that in particular, but I will say in its

defence that the big meal occurs after workout when the body is most insulin sensitive and glycogen

replenishment is prioritized. And on diet days, the meal sizes are going to be proportionallly smaller.

My concern is more with surpluses and deficits encountered through normal eating patterns: 3 various sized meals

a day with snacks. More people will be eating this way than with LG or IF.

Certainly excess fat will go to fat in any sceanrio. When it comes to the fate of excess protein and carbs, it's not as clear to me. Isotope tracking would need to be done to tell perhaps, and even that has potential room for error.

Glycogen can be replenished in 24 hours; it's use may drop after 4 hours, but still is the predominant

source of glucose for 16 after eating. When stores are below 50% DURING EXERCISE (after 45 minutes) other glucose sources

come into play, but would have to see your source that this occurs at rest. If you say that protein will be used for glucose then you have to say that it will also be used to replenish itself later on after meals. I realise this reduces the availability for MPS however it also reduces the availability for lipogenesis.

Are you taking into account reduced burn during sleep?. Using an hourly average skews the line, and increases

the surpluses and deficit.

Gotta run!

Sleeping metabolism is taken into account.

When it comes to the fate of excess protein and carbs, the numbers are fairly well understood. Around 40% of excess protein gets turned into glucose (58%) because that's a function of the average amount of glycogenic amino acids in the protein and the energy expended in the GNG process. Another fairly large poriton, around 30%, gets burned directly for energy and 10% or less goes to fat, though the accuracy of the last two numbers depends entirely on the amount consumed and the metabolic requirements of the body at the time.

As for the excess carbs, depending on physiological need something like 40% of them can go to protein synthesis via transamination. The rest go to fat and glycogen, with the maximal amount of 22.7g per hour going to glycogen in a large person like me. That means virtually all the remaining 60% of excess carbs will go to fat with large meals and large insulin spikes.

Liver glygogen stores can drop that low in less than 30 minutes if you're working hard. That's why it's so important to have a pre-workout meal, you want glucose to be releasing from the gut when you are exercising. At very high intensities even muscle glycogen, which is 8-15x more abundant than liver glycogen, only lasts around 80 minutes and that's starting with topped off stores.

As for the glycogen stores in the body and sourcing of blood glucose during a fast, take a good look at this:

Source: PLoS Comput Biol. 2011 December; 7(12): e1002272.

Published online 2011 December 1. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002272

link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... ool=pubmed

Importance of this study: This is a whole body system, not isolated components. Read the study for more details. Freaking cool study. Also, and importantly, very recent. You have to remember that nutrition is a constantly evolving field, and in some cases a study from 3 years ago is completely outdated. In other cases, studies from the 1930's are still being replicated and found perfectly valid.

What you should notice are two things.

1) during the initial 3 hours there is a rise in glucagon, showing that glycogen is being broken down as glucose absorption and blood availability from ingested food tapers off. Starting at the 3.5-3 hour mark, ketones start rising. This signifies that there is an increase in fatty acid oxidation that is supported by the rise in plasma free fatty acids. It also signifies an increase in gluconeogenesis vs baseline. We are now seeing a steady increase up to the 11 hour mark, signifying that less and less glycogen is being used for energy and more and more protein is being used to make up the difference. By the 6 hour mark or so, 50% of the glucose is now coming from non-glycogen sources. This is clearly happening on a sliding scale that starts from the 3 hour mark. This supports every single thing I am saying about how after 3 hours the body starts burning endogenous protein stores for glucose supplementation at an increasing rate as liver glycogen depletes.

2) at the 10-12 hour mark, is the immediate drop in blood glucose and the corresponding rise in glucagon, signifying the rapid, and I mean rapid, acceleration of gluconeogenesis. This is supported by the extraordinarily high, almost vertical, ~10x increase in plasma free fatty acid concentration over a ~2 hour period. This is further supported by the enormous increase in ketone bodies circulating. You should be able to see very clearly that 0% of blood glucose is now coming from glycogen at the 10-12 hour mark. Since fatty acids can't be used to make glucose, please tell me where the fairly steadily maintained blood sugar is coming from. It isn't fat, and it isn't the now-empty glycogen reserves. Exactly like I said, at exactly this moment, you are now running 100% on protein for a glucose source.

What should be concerning to everyone is that this is also the known point of labile protein store utilization shifting from internal organ tissue to skeletal muscle. In reality this is also a sliding scale, and it is at this point that the body is going to use muscle tissue. We don't need it, beyond walking and lifting our arms to eat and drink, so when we finally have to really crank up GNG we have already shifted to a far larger amino acid "pool" that is not necessary for survival. This is when we start destroying muscle tissue in earnest. That leaves 4 hours of lost skeletal muscle protein from hour 12 to 16 of the fast. Even more disturbing, if you think about it for a moment, is this: Fat HAS to burn in a carbohydrate flame. Take a good look at fatty acid concentrations... they are much higher, are they not? Ketone bodies are a product of incomplete fat metabolism and a rise like this represents the body doing everything it possibly can, scrapping as much protein and turning it into glucose as it possibly can in an attempt to burn the fatty acids, and it can't do it fast enough. You are talking about absolute maximal rate of lean tissue destruction.

The body is, of course, primed to regenerate the glycogen when you eat next, but it is going to do so by having an enormous insulin spike that will cause far too much energy substrate to enter cells from the blood in a given period of time, and this leads to excess fat storage because there is a limit to glygogen synthesis. Up to 26% of first-pass glucose, according to the study referenced. This is virtually identical to the rate I quoted above, and since you're going to be hard pressed to eat more than 100-120g of carbs in one sitting unless you're eating half a cake (because whole food carb sources are just too large to eat that much at once) you will usually have a somewhat slow release that allows for a multi-hour processing of the carbs and ensures maximum glycogen synthesis. Of course, this depends on concentration. There appears to be an absolute maximum rate, which makes sense since enzymes are finite in number and do not work instantaneously. If you eat said half a cake, you're going to see a HUGE spike in insulin and a corresponding disproportionate shunting of macronutrients to fat storage.

I am curious to hear thoughts from everyone regarding my last three posts.

In general it's a great idea to promote energy balance for athletes. It's hard to argue with

It removes one a couple of big variables out of the quesiton if someone isn't making progress - whether the

nutrients are available and if someone's eating patterns areundermining their physical efforts.

Unfortunately there isn't a dipstick in our side to check our levels Making sure they don't drop too low or overflow by tracking intake and expenditure is a great idea.

When it comes to the benefits of keeping energy levels stable there are also side bonuses, such

not feeling a drive to stuff oneself after starvation and the stomach "shrinking" from smaller meals

so there is less hunger. I'm sure chemical regulators are involved too. So this can help with fat loss success,

though indirectly. Very few people actually succeed with body recomposition dieting hard and it tends

to create a rebound at a later date. So avoiding heavy dieting is going to be better generally, and help people

in the long run.

I'm not as convinced as you are that there is a danger zone at -400 kkcals. I've seen it more typically

put at 800 kcals on the deficit before protein catabolism may becomes an issue though it varies by

phyiscial makeup and condition. The latest chart from the computer simulation is less than convincing to me. While there is a tiny bump in glucogon at 3 hours there is also a huge spike in FFA utilization later on, and there is no indication of NH4 level. So it doesn't really address protein use, nor that in athletes or are in superior condition and eating higher than typical protein amounts. (ed. Typically glycogen is described as primary for 8-10 hours after meal absorbtion, though there may be exceptions.)

(ed. See http://books.google.ca/books?id=RXSEvMA ... is&f=false page 96 for a discussion of glucose homeostasis. After meals (for 6 hours) it's described as 25% due to glyconeogensis. However, 60% of this is from lactate, 15% amino acids and 11% glycerol - the lactate is a byproduct of glycolosis - used in the cori cycle I believe - mostly released from the skin and RBC.

Also in medical biochemistry http://www.certified-easy.com/aa.php?is ... t_a_Glance

page 54-55 shows the timeline I described which differs radically from Dr. Bernardot's. Glucose from meals is exausted after 3 hours ; glucogon then stimulates glycogen release; after 6 hours gluconeogenisis increases and becomes predominant after 14 hours aprox. Will things change for an exercising body - yes! - though lactate production will also rise from the active muscles. The major role of the cori cycle in preserving exo and endogenous protein is being neglected in your calculation above. )

I we'll have to agree to disagree that "all" calories under/over zero come from fat or go to lean mass but it could be helpful to think that way as an incentive to maintain balance. (ed. I think I've read Dr. Bernardot refer to this occuring under/over the 300/400 mark). If you would say it's "more likely" that fat will be lost or lean mass gained in these conditions I think it is more accurate and less absolute, and the body signals don't operate like a light switch - in effect more like a dimmer.

Would have to go through the posts in more details but these are the main points that I'm feeling.

I'd give you an A+ for effort and enthusiasm though. (ed. A- for info ) Will certainly keep these things in mind more now that you've posted them.

Cheers

Daniel Nowell said:

Is there a post somewhere that succinctly sums up the application of this info that differs from the perfect nutrition sticky? My google fu is lacking this AM.

I.E.

Step 1. Determine RMR

Step 2. Divide caloric needs by 24 to determine hourly caloric needs then figure the 30% carbs and other "requirements"

Step 3. Take note of other individual nutritional needs

etc. etc. etc.

Supplementary 1. Protein/carb sipping on the hour or slow digesting protein every 2.5-3 hrs

Supplementary 2. Nutritional timing as in the sticky or using an app like Nutritiming

Supplementary 3. +/- 400 kcal deficit/surplus

I really need to start pasting some things in outlined notes to keep it all in one place for reference.

Josh, no one nutritional book provides a complete picture but in your opinion what are your top 3-5 resources (textbooks, journals or otherwise) to build a fundamental knowledge (other than eat meat 'n vegetables and you'll be alright) that would carry on to advance athletics and specialized populations.

Joshua Naterman said:

There's only about 1500g of glycogen in the average man, so say 2000g in me. Research shows it takes 72 hours to replenish glycogen from a depleted state (which is when the process is most rapid), so if we do some math that means I can store a MAXIMUM of 27.7g of glycogen per hour

Hi Joshua, can I pick you up on this for the sake of clarity and my own continuing education...

If a liver stores 8-10% glycogen by weight, and a liver weighs between 1.2 and 1.5kg, that would equate to a glycogen weight of between 96 and 150 grams.

If muscles store 1% glycogen by weight, in an example person (i.e. me) of 64kg and 45% (estimated) muscle mass, that would be another 288 grams.

Let's say the total is 400 grams of glycogen which equates roughly to 1600 calories, which in my case is about 16 miles of running, meaning my glycogen would be depleted at 16 miles and I would "hit the wall" and stop running. This seems about right.

Do you mean 1500kcals rather than 1500g? and for a 72 hour replenishment of 1500c = 20kcals per hour or 5g per hour?

I can't equate this to carb-loading. If I eat 10g per kilogram body mass, or 600g of carb in 24 hours, this absorption rate would mean I only store 5g x 24h = 120g. Is muscle glycogenesis faster than the liver, or are you only including the liver in the above numbers?

Nigel said:

Joshua Naterman said:

There's only about 1500g of glycogen in the average man, so say 2000g in me. Research shows it takes 72 hours to replenish glycogen from a depleted state (which is when the process is most rapid), so if we do some math that means I can store a MAXIMUM of 27.7g of glycogen per hour

Hi Joshua, can I pick you up on this for the sake of clarity and my own continuing education...

If a liver stores 8-10% glycogen by weight, and a liver weighs between 1.2 and 1.5kg, that would equate to a glycogen weight of between 96 and 150 grams.

If muscles store 1% glycogen by weight, in an example person (i.e. me) of 64kg and 45% (estimated) muscle mass, that would be another 288 grams.

Let's say the total is 400 grams of glycogen which equates roughly to 1600 calories, which in my case is about 16 miles of running, meaning my glycogen would be depleted at 16 miles and I would "hit the wall" and stop running. This seems about right.

Do you mean 1500kcals rather than 1500g? and for a 72 hour replenishment of 1500c = 20kcals per hour or 5g per hour?

I can't equate this to carb-loading. If I eat 10g per kilogram body mass, or 600g of carb in 24 hours, this absorption rate would mean I only store 5g x 24h = 120g. Is muscle glycogenesis faster than the liver, or are you only including the liver in the above numbers?

I meant calories, not grams! totally distracted by studying for finals, my brain is shot. Got my last one in 2 hours.

Your numbers are pretty spot on, and I don't know what the rate of muscle glycogen replenishment is compared to the liver. As the same enzymes do the job it is almost certainly dependent on the ratio of this enzyme in muscle tissue to the concentration n the liver. This is also heavily mediated by the resting distribution of blood flow in the body, which is only ~20% through muscular tissue, putting it at a substantial disadvantage to the internal organs in terms of glycogen availability. It may be as simple as the differential in nutrient exposure, but based on how long it takes muscular tissue to fully refill based on biopsy comparisons it seems to be close to 72 hours if fully depleted. This isn't linear, either. it is a good bit faster at first, and slows down a bit as the cells get closer to full glycogen stores. I don't have time to find the full numbers right now, will probably do that tomorrow.

Considering that a substantial amount of carbohydrate is used for transamination and other processes in addition to the 30-40% of normal non-exercise metabolism, that number may not be far off. It's a little over 20%, which gives 50-60% of carbs accounted for right there. Considering that it is well established that around 40% of unused carbs go to fat storage, which would be around 240g of carbs or 960 kcal, and considering that 60-70% of non-exercise daily metabolism comes from fat, that would still allow for plenty of net fat loss, something on the order of 691 calories of fat, assuming a daily metabolism of 2300 kcal or so. Of course that will be impacted by protein calories, and at 2g/kg of protein you'd knock that fat loss down to around 200kcal which should give you around 1.75 lbs of fat loss per month. Those are quick estimations but show a somewhat reasonable progression.

Sounds good to me. Thoughts?

FIN: I have a reply in another tab, will finish it tomorrow!

No problem or rush. Save that work!

Actually I realise I probably mistated something. I believe what you're saying is that:

> 400 deficit = largely lean mass loss

0-400 deficit = largely fat loss

0-400 surplus = largely lean mass gain

> 400 surplus = largely fat gain

I may have mis-stated the theory before. Use of the word largely is mine, as there's going to be a curve.

I'm oing to have to look a this app and see how it works with my metabolism.

Thanks for that Joshua. In terms of marathon running, the numbers make sense, in that the body holds enough for 16 miles, carb loading gives another 5 miles, and intake during the race of another 500 calories will get a runner to the finish line in one piece.

> 400 deficit = largely lean mass loss

0-400 deficit = largely fat loss

0-400 surplus = largely lean mass gain

> 400 surplus = largely fat gain

I think this is slightly oversimplified, I weigh 64kg so use +/-300C as my upper and lower bounds, and eat 6 meals of 300C per day + excercise replacement - or at least I try to.

> 300 surplus = fat and muscle gain (with muscle stress)

0-300 surplus = muscle gain (with muscle stress)

0-300 deficit = fat loss

> 300 deficit = muscle loss and fat loss

A bodybuilder will bulk out by overeating and overindulging on protein, then cut (fat) by exercising less and eating less. This method, over the long term, reduces fat and builds muscle, but is not implied from the above numbers. Also, people who have starved or fasted, lose both fat and muscle but ultimately retain more muscle than fat.

This optimal energy balance is also designed for people who have reached athleticism. Those still reaching for a semi-optimal body might do better using other methods. I think when I started out, I benefitted more by losing fat rather than trying to build muscle. Even now, I do not wish to overbuild muscle as I am a rock climber and want to stay light, so I'd rather be in the deficit than surplus range, and probably would be if no-one had invented chocolate and cake :oops:

Nigel said:

Thanks for that Joshua. In terms of marathon running, the numbers make sense, in that the body holds enough for 16 miles, carb loading gives another 5 miles, and intake during the race of another 500 calories will get a runner to the finish line in one piece.

> 400 deficit = largely lean mass loss

0-400 deficit = largely fat loss

0-400 surplus = largely lean mass gain

> 400 surplus = largely fat gain

I think this is slightly oversimplified, I weigh 64kg so use +/-300C as my upper and lower bounds, and eat 6 meals of 300C per day + excercise replacement - or at least I try to.

> 300 surplus = fat and muscle gain (with muscle stress)

0-300 surplus = muscle gain (with muscle stress)

0-300 deficit = fat loss

> 300 deficit = muscle loss and fat loss

A bodybuilder will bulk out by overeating and overindulging on protein, then cut (fat) by exercising less and eating less. This method, over the long term, reduces fat and builds muscle, but is not implied from the above numbers. Also, people who have starved or fasted, lose both fat and muscle but ultimately retain more muscle than fat.

This optimal energy balance is also designed for people who have reached athleticism. Those still reaching for a semi-optimal body might do better using other methods. I think when I started out, I benefitted more by losing fat rather than trying to build muscle. Even now, I do not wish to overbuild muscle as I am a rock climber and want to stay light, so I'd rather be in the deficit than surplus range, and probably would be if no-one had invented chocolate and cake :oops:

There are definitely some errors here, but overall the very basic idea is correct. Optimal energy balance is for people who are alive, regardless of athleticism. You are very incorrect in your last paragraph. Clinical experiences with health professionals using nutritiming is showing you to be completely incorrect, but what you say is still the majority opinion. It won't change until there is 15-20 years of data showing the truth, which is a damn shame. It is wrong for a health professional to stick to what they have been taught even when it flies in the face of their own logic according to knowledge of individual metabolic systems. None of them will argue against the starvation studies, none will argue with glycemic index or insulin-mediated fat storage or the energy requirements of lean tissue. None of them will argue that when your blood sugar is low you need food, because without it you start relying on gluconeogenesis and that this inevitably results in lean mass loss that doesn't get replaced without an exercise stimulus + available nutrients. They won't even argue that the nutrients have to be available around the workout. Yet you start asking a few questions, like "Why do you favor looking at the energy balance averaged over one day instead of one week?" And they don't have a good answer. If they say anything other than "that's not how we do it", they will have to respond with this "because that doesn't give enough detail about when they eat. They might be starving half the time and gorging half the time, and that would be bad." So now they have admitted a time-related aspect to energy balance. This is where you can watch someone become very hostile very quickly as you then ask "so... how is this different from someone eating once a day? Would you recommend that?" They sometimes see where this is going, and are already starting to lower their eyebrows as they say "God no, that would be bad. That just has too much health risk and has been shown not to work" And if they don't, you can just mention the well-known studies regarding single meal eaters, who are known to have the absolute highest risk factors for obesity and other chronic diseases and they will either remember or accept that the 20+ years of non-contradicted research in this area is fairly solid. You then say "How often would you want your weight loss patients to eat? Would 2-3 bigger meals be better than 6 smaller meals" And they inevitably say "As close to 6 times per day as they can, with smaller meals." Now is when you piss them off, if they are still oblivious to the fact that they have basically just said that they want their clients as close to energy balance as possible. "6 meals per day... that would, in theory, keep them much closer to +- 400 calories of continuous energy balance, wouldn't it?" Sometimes they storm off and sometimes they say "yes" and then you say "If I have understood you correctly, and please correct me if I am wrong, you have basically been less supportive of fewer large meals and more supportive of more frequent small meals because of the hormonal responses associated with such large meals. *wait for response for a moment, which will be confirmatory* All right, I mean that's solid reasoning. So, since you become more supportive of a meal plan that is very, very similar to continuous energy balance and shares the same philosophy, why are you fighting tooth and nail against the idea of continuous energy balance and the research that is supporting it?" Boom, steaming ears. This is a problem that only time is going to fix.

Anyhow, regarding the +-400:

Like everything else, there is a sliding scale. That +-400 point is where the rate of change in terms of net fat gain starts to become more rapid, and if you pick an eating pattern that initially has you in the surplus range for most of the day but overall perfect energy balance (no end of day surplus) you will build muscle and lose fat at the same weight until your body has recomposed to the point where your metabolism is actually high enough that you are now losing the muscle at the nearly the same rate you are gaining it, and you tend to see an inability to build more. That's usually when someone hits the 5-7% body fat range as measured by calipers. Because the majority of subcutaneous fat is gone, that measurement is skewed and is not a truly accurate measure, which is why a DEXA scan will show someone measuring 4-5% on calipers at 8-10%. We have what appear to be vital fat reserves that are necessary for proper metabolic function, but don't really understand what the numbers are in that sense. What is apparent is that the body is unwilling to let more than a certain amount go, even in dying anorexics.

The +-400 is really there as a boundary to keep people from going too far off the mark, but there are a lot of hormonal factors that support this boundary in regards to response to food ingested and response to time without eating.

Essentially, what happens is that the energy graph will look the same, but that zero line will rise until the catabolic state is strong enough to balance out the anabolic state. This happens due to lean mass accrual.

You are actually somewhat wrong about fasting, unless you are referring to the leangains method specifically and even then it is not as ideal as continuous energy balance but is most certainly going to work for many normal person schedules. Fasting very quickly results in a more rapid lean mass loss, usually takes 2-3 days for this to hit the bad point. In raw numbers there is a greater absolute loss of fat mass, but the lean tissue loss is so severe that resting metabolism takes an unexpectedly large dive. That's why the vast, vast majority of people who are on very low calorie diets actually end up fatter than they used to be when followed up over a 5 year period. Their weight might be the same, but the fat % is actually higher. Why? Here's what happens. I think this will make sense, and not just because there's a large pile of research on this subject.

You start fasting or severely restricting calories, for example on the 960kcal commonly prescribed medical weight loss diet. You lose a ton of weight. What happened? You lost weight, but way too much of it was metabolically active tissue. When energy consumption drops below what we need, both the short and long term response is to start losing metabolic mass. This is an attempt by the body to restore energy balance so that it can survive. If metabolism stays high, it will run out of energy reserves and eventually shut down because there isn't enough food to sustain current energy requirements. So sure, people often lose 70-120 lbs. The problem? When actually measured, their basal metabolic rates are 20-30% LOWER than estimated. Why? They lost a ton of lean tissue, mostly muscle mass. When they return to eating what SHOULD be the proper food intake for their new weight, they are actually eating 25%(MBR 20% lower)-42.8(BMR 30% lower)% more calories than they need to, resulting in their weight slowly going back up. This is why so many obese people are frustrated. They have tried, and tried, and tried, and most never seem to be able to hang on to their weight loss for more than a year. In fact, the consensus of studies has shown that on average they have to consume 25% less food than a person whose "natural" weight is the same as the formerly obese person's current weight after fasting or a low calorie diet. Crazy, right?

So, to be fair, there are obvious interventions that can help people in this situation.

1) They should be exercising with resistance training and consuming somewhere around 1g/lb of bodyweight of protein spread out through the day to minimize muscle loss when this approach is considered a medical necessity.

2) They need to get an accurate body fat % test, like DEXA or 8 path bio-electrical impedance(more cost effective but a little less cool), calculate metabolism based on lean mass only and then add the known metabolic rate of white adipose tissue adjusted for their fat mass. To be really accurate they could subtract the average known brown fat mass and use that mass to calculate metabolism of brown fat, to give the following:

Brown fat metabolism + white fat metabolism + lean mass metabolism = what they should actually eat.

This should be done because the normal formulas just don't work for them. That much is certain. Of course they could also just use the normal formula value *.75, but I like nitty gritty accuracy. Still, either way should work.

The absolute best thing to to is measure your BMR. You have to be fasted for 12 hours, be laying down for about an hour, and then while still laying down in a calm state with eyes closed, have your metabolism measured via gas exchange. This is within 5% of true value, much better than the +-20% of the formulas.

The energy balance method, while not as rapid of a weight loss, will still get them where they need to go and will do so without the above problems. Obviously exercise + diet is the way to go here, but when people are only going to restrict calories they really, really need to do the energy balance method. It is very important for their long term success. This works much better with CEB because you can fairly rapidly lose fat AND be putting on muscle at the same time. Dropping 10 lbs of fat and gaining 10 lbs of muscle in ~10-12 weeks is 100% doable and is the most dramatic transformation you can perform with 20 lbs. It beats the living hell out of losing 20 lbs of fat. Chad Waterbury actually has a book called the 10-10 transformation. The nutrition isn't as precise, but he did the best he could with what was available and put together an excellent program.

You can easily substitute the upper body work for appropriately scaled GB work.

It would be very surprising to me to find anyone who has been training a while even in the 15-20% bf range

who could lose 10 pounds fat and put on 10 pounds muscle in ten weeks. Doing either alone in 10 weeks

is respectable! Perhaps a newbie in the 30+% bf range could - perhaps. An average daily deficit of 400 cals would take

around 9-10 days on its own to lose a pound of fat. Net still matters and that's been proven through

calorimetry. And then the opportunity to grow will be post-workout during surplus periods only. It's a bit similar to a leangains approach on a daily rather than weekly basis come to think of it.

One's bodyfat level, intake - types and amount of carbs, fat, protein, and alcohol eaten or drinked

one's P ratio (largely genetic), glycogen status, lactate recycling (cori cycle), insulin sensitivity, age, gender, homones,

training status, types and amount of exercise performed are factors besides the deficit/surplus swings in bodyfat loss and mass gain. While I think it's worth being aware of the deficit/surplus swing matter, I don't think should

ignore/override all that is known heretofore.

I do agree it's good to keep as close to balance as possible without getting obsessive about it.

It could help and it won't hurt. I have seen arguments but not convincing proof that it's the main factor though.

Anyway don't mean to be a gadfly ( Look up that word young people!)

Oh, any true newbie can do a 10/10! And honestly, those are the people Chad's book is aiming at. Losing 10 lbs of fat and gaining 5-7 of muscle in 10 weeks is a much more reasonable goal for an intermediate trainee, and 2.5-3 lbs of muscle is all a truly advanced trainee can really gain in lean mass in 10-12 weeks. If they are in the 12-15% range It usually isn't a problem to lose 8-10 lbs of fat in 10-12 weeks. You start talking 8-9% and it's more like 3-4 lbs at the most in 12 weeks, and that will bring those people down to 5.5-7%, if their bodies will even let them get that low. And of course, that's by subcutaneous measures.

Well, person to person there is a wide variation in genetics, but within the same person the energy balance + SOME kind of moderately challenging physical activity is the main factor. You and I might get massively different results both in absolute numbers and percentages, but compared to other methods you will almost certainly get the best results that way (Definitely will if you are active on the level of a good high school or college athlete).

To be fair, if you can't be bothered with energy balance then you'll have to try something else that works for you! In the end, it's all about doing the very best you are willing to do. And, if nothing else quite works, you either have to accept that you aren't willing to do what it takes or you'll just have to change your habits so that you can maintain continuous energy balance!

You, of course, refers to the random person. Not you specifically

Ok here's something I put together for myself after going through these nutrition threads and using Nutritiming to spread it all out. I'm sharing as it might assist some people put together an eating plan for themselves. I'm also waiting for a reply from Nutritiming before I post some nutritional info/graphs based on this plan.

I need to add that I'm a sucker for consistency and detail so I'm happy to deal with the repepetivness or shall we say lack of variety in this. Obviously you can swap food items as long as protein/carb/fat needs are met.

Height: 172cm

Weight: 67kg

Bodyfat: Waiting for calipers to measure but I'm quite lean

Goal: Increase muscle mass and not too concerned if it comes with some fat

8:00am (shake with water):

10g Whey

Banana

Blueberries (handful)

1 tbsp Coconut oil

60g Buckwheat

5000IU D3

8:30am

Coffee

9:00am

Start sipping mix of 40g Whey + 16g Dex every hour between 9am - 5pm

10:00am

1 Boiled Egg + 60g Buckwheat

Veg or 50ml Green drink

20g Nuts

12:00pm

1 Boiled Egg + 60g Buckwheat

Veg or 50ml Green drink

2:00pm

1 Boiled Egg + 60g Buckwheat

Veg or 50ml Green drink

4:00pm

1 Boiled Egg + 60g Buckwheat

Veg or 50ml Green drink

1/2 Avocado

* Workout begins about 5:30 - 6pm

Workout / hour:

10g Whey

10g Dex

PostWO:

10 - 20g Whey

10 - 20g Dex

* Drink 1/2 over 5 min. Wait 15 min then drink rest over 40 min

PWO 15min:

Veg or 50ml green drink

PWO 1h:

Meat / Fish + Veg

100g Sweet potato

PWO 2h:

Meat / Fish + Veg

100g Sweet potato

I try to make the last meal about 10pm.

The green drink I mention is actually bought from a farmers market. It's a mixture of organic blended veg and fruit containing silverbeet, kale, broccoli, grapefruit and orange juice. It contains about 5g of carbs / 50ml.

Quick thanks to Josh and all other contributors for sharing their expertise. Only a few months ago I survived on mars bars and energy drinks with no concept of proper nutrition

Cheers

Hi Bobby, I feel a bit hypocritical posting this, as you're doing exactly what I used to do myself until recently...

If your post workout meat/fish with sweet potato contains 20g of protein, then you are consuming around 160g of protein. At a body weight of 67kg, that is about 2.4g of protein per kilogram of body weight. Most recommendations are quite a bit lower than this, probably averaging out at around 1.5g/kg.

Other than that, good on yer for such a healthy diet.

Joshua Naterman said:

You are very incorrect in your last paragraph.

I think I see what you're getting at, that optimal energy balance and nutritional balance should be the first port of call for all, and it is a point of view I share. It does rely on some quite detailed knowledge, understanding and monitoring though. It also relies on consistent habits and zero cravings.

Only last night I was trying to explain the concept of energy balance to one of my fellow climbing buddies who'd had yoghurt and muesli for breakfast, coffee for lunch and a largeish dinner. He got the concept, but I was soon into the detail of too small a lunch and too big a dinner, and not spread out enough and it wouldn't have been too long before I was onto bananas and the level of potassium and the ratio of glucose to fructose to sucrose and digestion and livers etc etc etc.

Acquiring the knowledge of what to eat and when has been a long path, and it is something I am still learning. Losing the weight I needed to lose to be more athletic took less time by caloric reduction and was something I could understand and achieve despite my less than constant habits and certainly non-zero cravings.

My point is that getting to energy balance is not a one day switch, it is a gradual process of learning and putting into practice and becoming comfortable with the habits required to maintain it.

Nigel said:

If your post workout meat/fish with sweet potato contains 20g of protein, then you are consuming around 160g of protein. At a body weight of 67kg, that is about 2.4g of protein per kilogram of body weight. Most recommendations are quite a bit lower than this, probably averaging out at around 1.5g/kg.

Agreed. It's been something I'm mindful of after reading through this nice write up http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?p=2712

I try to plan around getting a total of 140g protein. The above plan without the meat/fish totals just under 140g so I need to rearrange the protein sipping on meat nights

Thanks for the input

First, Slizz, thank you for your PMs! I thought i had answered them, but for some reason it seems like I had never sent them to you. Probably computer problems on my part. You were definitely helpful, and this thread is even better - you're super

Anyway, this energy balance thing really does make a lot of sense. I am fifteen years old, so should I factor this into my caloric needs? What i mean is, as I'm still in puberty, I can eat more food for my size than a, say, 30 year old guy. is there any specific formula for this, or should I just add something like 500 calories more to the equation?

I'm 188cm and 80kg, by the way. My bodyfat is somewhere about 11-13% - sixpack can be seen somewhat clearly.

Bobby, FYI the max safe estimates for protein consumption are around 2.8g/kg of body weight in adults. This represents the absolute limit of the kidneys' ability to process the nitrogenous waste. Going over 2.0 g/bw doesn't seem to give any better results than the 1.5-2 range, and as athletes have an older training age (meaning how long you have worked out) they are apparently not seeing any additional benefits beyond the 1.5g/kg. In the beginning 2.0 is fine, but within a year there isn't going to be much of any difference between 1.5 and 2.0, so why spend 33% more money for no real extra results?

Uzeeh: There is. Adolescents are known to be able to use well over 2g/kg bw which is part of why they can grow significantly faster and stronger in less time than an adult. Calorie requirements are also higher because of growth. The next three years are the most important of your athletic career, take advantage of them and keep building your body into the best athletic body you can while your hormones are surging! Eat all the food you can eat, bring snacks to school for between classes, and train hard and smart.

I would probably shoot for 2.2-2.5g/kg of bw and maybe more of you are getting that AND enough calories and still feel like your results could be better. It's always worth trying around 0.5g/kg more protein per month and seeing if your results change, and using that to find your ideal amount. Start with 2.2g/kg, that is certainly 100% usable by your body at your age.

I forget the multiplier for teenagers, but it's going to be 10-20% higher that an adult of the same size. Not sure if it's more than that but as long as you are eating good food you should eat all the time. The last thing you should worry about as a teenager is restricting calories in any way. Your body is literally primed to grow right now, so feed it and become awesome! If you feel like you start putting on a little more body fat than you want to, I would make sure you cut out all added sugars and most processed foods and replace them with more veggies and rice + fiber (around a flat teaspoon of psyllium husk per cup of rice, mixed into the already cooked rice as if it is a spice), sweet potatoes, buckwheat, barley, or any other really high quality carbohydrate source.

What really should start happening with those changes is that you should see yourself recompose, becoming leaner and bigger.

The main problem is usually improper energy balance, but these other factors matter a lot as well (food quality). Your body is really bad at making protein unless you have b6, for example, and that primarily comes from animal products. Liver once a week is great, but eating eggs and meat regularly should also give you enough. That is why it is so important to eat as many different color veggies as you can each week! Different colors = different vitamins and minerals. Just don't get five different colors of peppers, that's not going to do. Variety is the key! If anything was going to be a staple it would be broccoli and leafy greens.

I have a question about exercise and diet. Warning: This may be an astoundingly stupid question.

If nutrition is pretty much the number one factor in whether you get lean, does that mean it's as simple as how much you eat, what you eat, and when you eat it?

If so, than regardless of whether you exercise more or less, if you're eating as much or as little as the exercise demands, you can't really speed up the recomposition rate can you? I mean, if the amount of food that you eat is constant with the amount of exercise you do (so you don't fall into too much deficit or excess).

If that's true, I guess that makes sense; however, surely exercise has physiological benefits that would increase the rate of recomp outside of kcal in/kcal out. What are these?

Anyone feel free to pitch in.