A question for Rahf

[rock_10]

Yes, a question, not an argument or suggestion of my own - so take it as it is, which is a question. Your habit of not replying to my questions, aimed at understanding what you actually think or are saying (which usually appears ambiguous to me) makes things quite difficult, so it would be best if you can try to answer this.

My question is about this:

What I am saying is that if you have (within a time frame) an energy deficiency, then the total turnover between protein catabolism/anabolism and fat catabolism /anabolism will be negative. The same applies in the opposite direction.

That is a physiological fact for a standard adult.

In the original thread I asked if that means that each of protein and fat, independantly, must show a negative turnover (i.e. mass is lost from each) during a time frame which includes a calorie deficit. You didn't reply so I will assume that it does mean this (rather than something about them both together).

In that case, how would you account for the following scenario. Muscle is taken here to contain ~2000 calories/kilo, although its probably less in humans, and fat is taken to contain 7000 calories/kilo.

A trainee, over 6 months...
> gains 5kg of muscle = 10,000 extra calories retained as muscle
> gains 3kg of fat = 21,000 extra calories retained as fat

assuming no other tissues changed in mass, then that's +31,000 calories in ~180 days, or +172 cals/day. That was therefore the average daily calorie surplus for that period.

Then the trainee, over 2 months...
> loses 1kg muscle = 2000 calories lost
> loses 5kg of fat (625 g/week) = 35,000 calories lost

assuming no other tissues changed in mass, then that's -37,000 calories in ~60 days, or -617 cals/day. So he was living with an average calorie deficit of 617/day.


So from this, over the full 8 months there was a net loss of 6000 calories from his body. During this time...
> He gained a net 4kg of muscle
> He lost a net 1kg of fat lost


As far as I can see, the numbers are reasonable and attainable (perhaps you'd disagree, though), and any similar examples can be found all over the place if you look at people's real progress. How would you account for the fact that 4kg of muscle was gained during a time frame which left him with 6000 less calories, a time frame which saw a calorie deficit. I've presumably misinterpreted what you meant in the above quote.

[rock_10]

Another hypothetical situation:

lost 20kg of fat = 140,000 cals
lost 5kg of muscle = 10,000 cals
-150,000 cals

Gained 10kg of muscle = 20,000 cals
gained 2kg of fat = 14,000
+ 34,000

Deficit of 116,000 calories but gained 5kg muscle??

[Rahf]

How dependent are you on attention? Why not PM this or the other 3-4 times you've hunted an answer?

The reason why I have not bothered to answer is because this discussion has been up so many times and been answered so many times without any benefit to any other person besides those in your mind. I can't be bothered if nobody really benefits from it.

No Rock_ten, people do not benefit from this conversation so give it a rest.

[rock_10]

PMs are far more easily ignored that posts. If you want to answer by PM then please do.


Perhaps someone else can comment, then, on behalf of Rahf. The hypothetical case studies I gave are incompatable with what is stated in the quote. Where does the error lie?


----

The reason why I have not bothered to answer is because this discussion has been up so many times and been answered so many times without any benefit to any other person besides those in your mind. I can't be bothered if nobody really benefits from it.

I don't recall you ever once answering this question. Do you remember what thread it was in that you did, or any key phrases so I could search for your posts?
Surely many forum members would benefit from the results of this kind of discussion; more consistent advice from the frequent posters.

[Kitosho]

Are you retarded? Without factoring in changes in basal metabolic rate - which can occur by wide margins on a DAILY BASIS, this is an absolutely meaningless discussion.

[anfeyd]

Thank you Kitosho for ending this thread.

[rock_10]

Are you retarded? Without factoring in changes in basal metabolic rate - which can occur by wide margins on a DAILY BASIS, this is an absolutely meaningless discussion.

Can you elaborate?
I'm not sure that's a concern here, because I made no mention of a supposed point of "calorie balance" or of how much the trainee was eating, because its irrelevant. Regardless of the person's metabolic rate, and changes therein, gaining and losing mass of certain tissues defines calorie surplus or deficiency. It doesn't matter what and how he ate or exercised to cause the changes - only the changes themselves are measures of calorie balance here.

[Kitosho]

OOOOOOOHkay. I see what you're saying.

You have to tread carefully here to be distinct about the difference between:

- DIETARY caloric deficit
- SPECIFIC TISSUE caloric deficit (that is - muscle and fat may be in a state of gain or loss at a given time regardless of dietary caloric intake, which I agree with)

That's what I was confused about. My bad.

[rock_10]

OOOOOOOHkay. I see what you're saying.

You have to tread carefully here to be distinct about the difference between:

- DIETARY caloric deficit
- SPECIFIC TISSUE caloric deficit (that is - muscle and fat may be in a state of gain or loss at a given time regardless of dietary caloric intake, which I agree with)

That's what I was confused about. My bad.

while "specific tissue" calorie balance is an easily imagined concept - and can be simply expanded to "whole body" calorie balance by just combining the different tissues, what do we really mean by "dietry" caloric deficit/surplus? Is there such a thing, really?

[Kitosho]

The idea being that the sum of all metabolic activity costs in a given period of time has a certain caloric value and that absorbing a certain number of calories BELOW or ABOVE that cost will lead to a neat gain or loss in calories for the entire body. That is really what i'm referring to when I say "dietary caloric deficit."

[Kitosho]

Keep in mind when I say this that the complex nature of metabolic rate and its near-daily fluctuations make "calculation of daily BMR" a laughable thought. I do not believe in calorie counting; Quality of food intake is far, far more important than quantity.

[rock_10]

The idea being that the sum of all metabolic activity costs in a given period of time has a certain caloric value and that absorbing a certain number of calories BELOW or ABOVE that cost will lead to a neat gain or loss in calories for the entire body. That is really what i'm referring to when I say "dietary caloric deficit."

Yea that's what I calculated in the examples above, the overall whole-body calorie balance, and as far as I can see it highlights a problem with the ideas about what can and can't happen during a period of net calorie deficit or surplus.

[VerdinxJon]

can someone dumb this down for me? I understand some not much of what hes talking about.

[rock_10]

can someone dumb this down for me? I understand some not much of what hes talking about.

What don't you understand? I can't rephrase the whole thing.

[VerdinxJon]

basically what was rahf mentioning on the quote?

[Kitosho]

Yea that's what I calculated in the examples above, the overall whole-body calorie balance, and as far as I can see it highlights a problem with the ideas about what can and can't happen during a period of net calorie deficit or surplus.



I'm not going to lie, the example is making my head spin a little bit. Try running it by Lyle via PM over on the P&B. He will probably be able to clarify it pretty well, better than anyone here at least.

[rock_10]

basically what was rahf mentioning on the quote?

Well I don't know for sure, I was hoping he'd clarify. I assumed that he meant this:

"What I am saying is that if you have (within a time frame) an energy deficiency, then the total turnover between protein catabolism/anabolism will be negative.
And the total turn over between fat catabolism/anabolism will also be negative.
The same applies in the opposite direction."

Or rephrased a bit:

"What I am saying is that if you have (within a time frame) an energy deficiency, then there will be a net loss of protein (or muscle, we're interested in).
And also there will be a net loss of fat.
The same applies in the opposite direction (re: gaining weight)"


Does that make sense?

---

Kitosho - can I rephrase any part of it?

[VerdinxJon]

yeah thanks rock_10

[Kitosho]

Kitosho - can I rephrase any part of it?




No, I just can't think of a good answer to the first example.

[rock_10]

No, I just can't think of a good answer to the first example.

I can't think of anything "wrong" with it, so it (and whatever similar examples) seems to show that its overly simplistic (to the point of not being true) to say something along the lines of the quote of Rahf.