proper time to eat carbs before bed

[Mprtz]

It's possible to gain weight in a somewhat linear fashion while still having days of being in a deficit. It'll obviously slow total weight gain down but again without having accounted for the calories you cannot definitively say what your intake was one way or the other.

Sorry, but no way was I in a deficit. Not hungry in the slightest and ate everything in sight. Also, even if I did keep track of intake I couldn't establish deficit. By your strict standard neither can anyone else because TDEE is only an estimate.

The other part again is t relevant to our discussion. You were at deficient androgen levels and take a therapeutic dose to maintain normal/healthy/physiologic levels. This change though comes from injecting the testosterone but you're making an ungrounded (IMO erroneous) leap of assumption that the nutrient mediated response of these hormones, nutrient mediated, will amount to the same drastic results when they will not.

Think of it like this: imagine you weren't on TRT and had good endogenous production. What OTC products or lifestyle factors can we use to raise natural test levels? DAA, get good REM sleep of 6-8hrs, don't take pain killers, exercise regularly, etc. Now would you say any of these actions would take you to the same results bc of the increased test levels? It would be a preposterous assumption to think that. The resulting increase in testosterone would be nowhere near enough to account for any significant impact on body composition bc you were healthy to begin with and the increase while possibly statistically significant, lacked any clinical significance or real world results.

You keep trying to move the target by pretending that I have to establish that carbs have the SAME influence as AAS, but I don't.
That is because you repeatedly made the blanket statement that the ONLY thing that matters is caloric balance. Do I need to quote you again?

It's like in mathematics where a single counterexample is sufficient for disproof. We can argue about the degree to which carb intake affects hormones and thus fat metabolism, but first we have to get past the point where you claim that they have no influence AT ALL.

And we go back to square one, Im not arguing about the processes or the if hormonal response exists, I'm arguing that a hormone response in a healthy individual to food/nutrition will not produce the results you'd like to believe they would. It's a leap of faith/assumption that they do, not a scientifically backed fact.

But, in fact, that is precisely what you have been arguing when you repeatedly assert that fat loss is ONLY possible under caloric deficit, and that "at the end of the day" ONLY energy balance controls fat loss/gain!

Than why do ppl have such tremendous luck with extremely high carb diets? Then why does fat gain IN HUMAN STUDIES WHEN COMPARING ISOCALORIC DIETS not differ to any significant degree in diets with high carbs low fat and diets with no/lo carbs with high fats? Why doesn't every person who tries a keto diet have positive results? Keto is a minimal carb diet without the easily digested sugars for the most part like you said yet ppl still can get fat on one. Why is damn near every Atkins or Weight Watcher member still fat when they basically cut out their carb intake? It's bc it's calories are the root and primary factor.

I don't accept your premise that people have tremendous luck with high carb diets.
I don't accept your premise that near every Atkins dieter is still fat and I don't understand why you lump Atkins and Weight Watcher together when they are completely different diet approaches.

I don't know how many off hand but he uses rat studies a good amount. What I'm saying with the rest of my analysis is that there's control errors or design errors, etc. I can't recall the study off hand but in general terms this study came to the conclusion that carbs cause fat gains even in a caloric deficit (basically what you're arguing can happen). They controlled the diets (meaning they gave them the food and measured it out to the gram) BUT a critical factor they forget to realize is that the group that included carbs ended up taking in something like an extra 300calories ABOVE AND BEYOND what the no carb group had. Well no shit an extra 300calories of ANY macro can lead to a positive net storage of fat. Other studies often cited don't have control groups, or the diets are reported by the participants (you have no idea how inaccurate these figures are), or the diets being compared had significantly different total calories (how can you compare a high carb diet to a low carb diet if one had 20% more total calories???), and other errors. The studies that actually took these factors into account show a much more different picture than Taubes would have us believe.

I don't recall any study with such an obvious flaw. It would have stuck out like a sore thumb.

 

[JimiThing]

You cant attribute a model with a clinical hormone deficiency and its results to everyone nor can you say if you take more of said hormones the effect will proportionally increase. The fact is your trt makes you "normal" thats it. If you are really overweight a keto type diet will allow you to eat over maintenance and lose weight FOR A SHORT TIME. Once you are not extremely overweight this all changes. Do I think you can optimize macros for muscle gain or minimizing muscle loss when cutting - to a degree yes but if you are talking strictly weightloss its cals in vs cals out. You cant trick the body..nutrient timing is largely a myth and minute changes in hormonal fluctuations etc make no real world difference. GH not released now will be released later etc. Insulin supposedly causing stored fat is fat that would merely be burned at a later time as u are in a caloric deficit. It all comes out in the wash.

 

[DreDay187]

You cant attribute a model with a clinical hormone deficiency and its results to everyone nor can you say if you take more of said hormones the effect will proportionally increase. The fact is your trt makes you "normal" thats it. If you are really overweight a keto type diet will allow you to eat over maintenance and lose weight FOR A SHORT TIME. Once you are not extremely overweight this all changes. Do I think you can optimize macros for muscle gain or minimizing muscle loss when cutting - to a degree yes but if you are talking strictly weightloss its cals in vs cals out. You cant trick the body..nutrient timing is largely a myth and minute changes in hormonal fluctuations etc make no real world difference. GH not released now will be released later etc. Insulin supposedly causing stored fat is fat that would merely be burned at a later time as u are in a caloric deficit. It all comes out in the wash.

This^^^.

By referencing your results while going on TRT it is like saying we all would see the same lbm increases HIV/AIDS patients and burn victims do when getting on a supplemental steroid regimen. A healthy individual will not have the same results as someone with HIV just like a hypogonadal patient will not have the same results as a eugonadal patient.

 

[DreDay187]

Sorry, but no way was I in a deficit. Not hungry in the slightest and ate everything in sight. Also, even if I did keep track of intake I couldn't establish deficit. By your strict standard neither can anyone else because TDEE is only an estimate.

TDEE is an estimate that's why it takes some trial and error once you've done the calculations and it still can vary by doing different activities during the day or sleeping earlier etc. The point is to weight or fat you'd need to be eating under this number. Fat cannot be synthesized from nothing just like muscle can't be. They are energetically expensive processes that require calories to undergo. If calories didn't matter why don't we just inject ourselves with hormones and go on a permanent fast and call it a day?

Just bc you're hungry means nothing to if you're eating in a deficit or not. Hell if I are 2500cals of lettuce I'd be full as can be but that would still have me in a calorie deficit. You still cannot say one way or the other if you are in a deficit or not bc you did not count or track calories. You are making assumptions based on satiety which is a big reason why the obese are overweight and the skinny jeans ppl can't gain weight...they base intake off satiety which can be over, at, or under your needs.

You keep trying to move the target by pretending that I have to establish that carbs have the SAME influence as AAS, but I don't.
That is because you repeatedly made the blanket statement that the ONLY thing that matters is caloric balance. Do I need to quote you again?

It's like in mathematics where a single counterexample is sufficient for disproof. We can argue about the degree to which carb intake affects hormones and thus fat metabolism, but first we have to get past the point where you claim that they have no influence AT ALL.

I also amended my original statement. You've continuously said calories don't matter at all either, should i quote you and tell you to inject hormones but not eat and we'll see how much muscle you gain? Or tell you to take test but eat 5,000cals on a NO CARB diet and you can show us the fat you'd gain?

But, in fact, that is precisely what you have been arguing when you repeatedly assert that fat loss is ONLY possible under caloric deficit, and that "at the end of the day" ONLY energy balance controls fat loss/gain

At the end of the day calories is what determines everything. Other factors can influence how much but calories is and always will be king. I've also stated numerous times that the macros are important to dictating whether you lose or gain fat or muscle. Not solely calories. And again, you're talking about a deficient population that experiences those results. I'm talking about healthy, non-deficient, non-diabetic, etc individuals.

I don't accept your premise that people have tremendous luck with high carb diets.
I don't accept your premise that near every Atkins dieter is still fat and I don't understand why you lump Atkins and Weight Watcher together when they are completely different diet approaches.

Let's ask 3J for a sample population of his clients that have cut fat while including carbs in their diets shall we? Or if you prefer personal anecdotes, I've tried both keto and high carb diets (while actually tracking calories and macros, the important stuff) and saw absolutely no difference T the end of my cuts and bulks. Total of calorie intake was as close as I could get it and the results were just as close with the carb diet actually being better for me since I was able to keep my I test higher in the gym

I don't recall any study with such an obvious flaw. It would have stuck out like a sore thumb.

Look over his studies and you'll note those flaws. Like I said I'm not sure of the numbers but the it was the same error. Jimi is pretty good at explaining it also where I may not be as clear and concise. The differences you attribute to hormones are only in deficient and/or acute settings. No study to my knowledge has shown carbs to be detrimental to fat loss WHEN COMPARING ISOCALORIC DIETS IN HEALTHY/NON-DEFIEICNT INDIVIDUALS.

 

[DreDay187]

A personal example: I work with a lady who has been on one of those infamous no carb diets. She avoids carbs like they're the plague except from Fiberous or veggie sources. She's been doing this for over a year and has lost a whopping 6-8lbs. Why? Bc she still eats close enough or over her maintenance needs Nd thinks carbs are the devil. She thinks she can eliminate carbs and cut fat but that only accounts for a 6-8lb difference. I've lost more fat in 2months while still eating 250g/day of carbs. Carbs are neither your enemy nor anything to be feared, to think otherwise is silly.

I noticed you didn't mention anything about my keto dieter reference, what about all them no cRb eating dieters who still manage to gain fat? In your theory they should have the best results by eliminating carbs bc of the hormonal response???

 

[casperthefriendly]

Just bc you're hungry means nothing to if you're eating in a deficit or not. Hell if I are 2500cals of lettuce I'd be full as can be but that would still have me in a calorie deficit. You still cannot say one way or the other if you are in a deficit or not bc you did not count or track calories. You are making assumptions based on satiety which is a big reason why the obese are overweight and the skinny jeans ppl can't gain weight...they base intake off satiety which can be over, at, or under your needs.

Despite the typos, this is the answer, lol! Great debate, you two.

 

[Mprtz]

You cant attribute a model with a clinical hormone deficiency and its results to everyone nor can you say if you take more of said hormones the effect will proportionally increase. The fact is your trt makes you "normal" thats it. If you are really overweight a keto type diet will allow you to eat over maintenance and lose weight FOR A SHORT TIME. Once you are not extremely overweight this all changes. Do I think you can optimize macros for muscle gain or minimizing muscle loss when cutting - to a degree yes but if you are talking strictly weightloss its cals in vs cals out. You cant trick the body..nutrient timing is largely a myth and minute changes in hormonal fluctuations etc make no real world difference. GH not released now will be released later etc. Insulin supposedly causing stored fat is fat that would merely be burned at a later time as u are in a caloric deficit. It all comes out in the wash.

If you re-read my last post you will see that I don't claim any quantitative effect. I only need to show a non-zero effect of fat loss/gain from factors other than energy balance to disprove Dre's extreme viewpoint (that energy balance is the only thing that matters).

 

[Mprtz]

Nowhere have I said that calories don't matter at all. That would be a ridiculous claim.
Yes, in the long term, energy balance will have to be satisfied. The problem is that this is being generalized to the point that it is more wrong than right.

Yes, in total, there is a balance between the caloric chemical energy consumed in the form of food, absorbed by radiative heat from the environment, radiated out to the environment, work done by the body on the environment, stored in the combined bonds within the body, and excreted in waste products.

This means little to body composition, and can't even be used to make the kinds of categorical statements that are made about body weight since we CANNOT actually independently control energy intake and expenditure.

 

[DreDay187]

If you re-read my last post you will see that I don't claim any quantitative effect. I only need to show a non-zero effect of fat loss/gain from factors other than energy balance to disprove Dre's extreme viewpoint (that energy balance is the only thing that matters).

But you're basing your non-zero effect on a premise which I've said multiple times here that is outside the scope of our debate. Healthy individuals do not/cannot alter their hormonal profile enough through nutrition alone to warrant any menaingful impact on body composition. I agreed with you that my original statement wasn't worded properly and left me open to your example as a rebuttal but I thought we were past that after I clarified it.

You've yet to cite a study, provide an anecdotal example (of a healthy individual) even though anecdotal examples can be brought into question, shown a reference to any sort of scientific data, etc that nutrient mediated hormonal responses can affect body composition with clinical significance (we're not concerned with statistical here). Our last interaction i believe I linked a video to Dr. Layne Norton explaining how insulin works in HEALTHY people and a nutrient mediated insulin spike does not work like you and many others believe. The differences in hormonal response in healthy individuals stays within normal physiological range regardless of nutrition and by staying within range it does not have the drastic impact you're trying to show it does. I also linked a study showing de novo lipogenesis in lean and obese patients who took in 500g of carbs in one sitting resulted in a net fatty tissue increase of only 4g +/- whatever it was like 1-3g. That's only 7g of fat max that was created with a gigantic insulin spike. Please cite something or reference it and post it in here so we can examine it.

 

[DreDay187]

Will you not please admit that this is an overreach? For this to be true, you would have to either deny that carb intake affects insulin levels, that insulin levels affect fat metabolism, or both.


Also if you can provide any sort of data to back the implication of this quote ^^^that insulin's effects in healthy individuals is anything to be concerned about when in a calorie deficit?

 

[Mprtz]

But you're basing your non-zero effect on a premise which I've said multiple times here that is outside the scope of our debate. Healthy individuals do not/cannot alter their hormonal profile enough through nutrition alone to warrant any menaingful impact on body composition. I agreed with you that my original statement wasn't worded properly and left me open to your example as a rebuttal but I thought we were past that after I clarified it.

You've yet to cite a study, provide an anecdotal example (of a healthy individual) even though anecdotal examples can be brought into question, shown a reference to any sort of scientific data, etc that nutrient mediated hormonal responses can affect body composition with clinical significance (we're not concerned with statistical here). Our last interaction i believe I linked a video to Dr. Layne Norton explaining how insulin works in HEALTHY people and a nutrient mediated insulin spike does not work like you and many others believe. The differences in hormonal response in healthy individuals stays within normal physiological range regardless of nutrition and by staying within range it does not have the drastic impact you're trying to show it does. I also linked a study showing de novo lipogenesis in lean and obese patients who took in 500g of carbs in one sitting resulted in a net fatty tissue increase of only 4g +/- whatever it was like 1-3g. That's only 7g of fat max that was created with a gigantic insulin spike. Please cite something or reference it and post it in here so we can examine it.

On the first point - we just disagree. I think there is ample evidence that the rising incidence of obesity and diabetis is linked to diet via insulin resistance ect. Confining your argument to healthy people is a misdirection - people generally start out healthy. Tautologically, smoking doesn't cause disease in healthy people either.

Similarly, a single episode of overfeeding carbs isn't necessarily going to manifest a problem just as smoking a single cigarette may not cause measurable health effects. I remain skeptical of the ability to measure an increase of a few grams in fatty tissue - I think that would be a challenge even under dissection.

 

[Mprtz]

It actually dates back farther than that. It was one of the founding principles of weightloss. Things have, in a way, come full circle.

Sorry, had to chuckle at this. When was weightloss founded, and by whom? What are some of the other principles these founders of weightloss laid down?

 

[DreDay187]

On the first point - we just disagree. I think there is ample evidence that the rising incidence of obesity and diabetis is linked to diet via insulin resistance ect. Confining your argument to healthy people is a misdirection - people generally start out healthy. Tautologically, smoking doesn't cause disease in healthy people either.

That's hardly proof of anything and there's just as much information saying it's genetics, chronic overrating (not just carbs), sedentary lifestyles, etc. You put too much stock on the nutritional aspect while minimizing the rest. It's not a misdirection as the same principles apply to the lbm increases in HIV patients taking AAS vs a eugonadal patient taking AAS, you're applying your expectations that happen in one sample population to another when there are many other factors involved.

Similarly, a single episode of overfeeding carbs isn't necessarily going to manifest a problem just as smoking a single cigarette may not cause measurable health effects. I remain skeptical of the ability to measure an increase of a few grams in fatty tissue - I think that would be a challenge even under dissection.

Is your skepticism founded in fact or anything concrete? Are you disputing the results measured by the study? If a bodpod or dexa scan tells you you're 10% BF and 90% LBM are you skeptical of those numbers? I'll try and get a copy of the full study so we can see the tools they used to measure it but until proven otherwise I don't see how your skepticism can be warranted.

Have you read this piece by Lyle McDonald?

How We Get Fat | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

 

[Mprtz]

That's hardly proof of anything and there's just as much information saying it's genetics, chronic overrating (not just carbs), sedentary lifestyles, etc. You put too much stock on the nutritional aspect while minimizing the rest. It's not a misdirection as the same principles apply to the lbm increases in HIV patients taking AAS vs a eugonadal patient taking AAS, you're applying your expectations that happen in one sample population to another when there are many other factors involved.



Is your skepticism founded in fact or anything concrete? Are you disputing the results measured by the study? If a bodpod or dexa scan tells you you're 10% BF and 90% LBM are you skeptical of those numbers? I'll try and get a copy of the full study so we can see the tools they used to measure it but until proven otherwise I don't see how your skepticism can be warranted.

Have you read this piece by Lyle McDonald?

How We Get Fat | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

My skepticism is founded on the fact that 4g represents about 0.005% of the weight of an average male. If my dexa scan told me I'm 10% I might not be skeptical, but if it told me I was exactly 11.832% I would be. Body composition analysis techniques don't come close to that kind of precision. I doubt even dissection is nearly that accurate. They must be using some indirect means, calculations based on serum levels, etc.

I read the piece by McDonald, and it strikes me as overly simplistic. It seems to assume a direct link between dietary fat and serum triglycerides, and completely ignores the role of insulin and other hormones. I think the description in Taubes' book is far more detailed.

 

[DreDay187]

My skepticism is founded on the fact that 4g represents about 0.005% of the weight of an average male. If my dexa scan told me I'm 10% I might not be skeptical, but if it told me I was exactly 11.832% I would be. Body composition analysis techniques don't come close to that kind of precision. I doubt even dissection is nearly that accurate. They must be using some indirect means, calculations based on serum levels, etc.

I read the piece by McDonald, and it strikes me as overly simplistic. It seems to assume a direct link between dietary fat and serum triglycerides, and completely ignores the role of insulin and other hormones. I think the description in Taubes' book is far more detailed.

So if the researchers posted the results at 4grams with whatever methodology they used and you find it skeptical, what tolerance would you allow for error? 1%? 2%? Even at 10% variance it still does not amount to much and that's IF it was 10%.

Maybe you find it overly simplistic bc you're trying to make it overly complicated? Maybe it ignores the role of insulin bc as I stated many times before, along with many others, that nutrient mediated hormonal changes don't result in drastic differences like Taubes asserts?

Maybe you, Jimi, and I should have a ménage-á-trois seeing as we're keeping this thread towards the top at all times of the day hahaha

 

[Mprtz]

So if the researchers posted the results at 4grams with whatever methodology they used and you find it skeptical, what tolerance would you allow for error? 1%? 2%? Even at 10% variance it still does not amount to much and that's IF it was 10%.

Maybe you find it overly simplistic bc you're trying to make it overly complicated? Maybe it ignores the role of insulin bc as I stated many times before, along with many others, that nutrient mediated hormonal changes don't result in drastic differences like Taubes asserts?

Maybe you, Jimi, and I should have a ménage-á-trois seeing as we're keeping this thread towards the top at all times of the day hahaha

A 10% error in a process to measure bodyfat would yield a typical result +/- 1600 grams in an 80kg individual at 20% bodyfat - obviously useless to measure a 4 gram change.

I will refrain from comment on your little homoerotic fantasy

 

[JimiThing]

Sorry, had to chuckle at this. When was weightloss founded, and by whom? What are some of the other principles these founders of weightloss laid down?

really smartass? You think they didnt know till 1970 if you ate more calories than you burned you would get fat? No wonder your clinging too your clueless nutritional principles. Also learn how to read .. do you know the diff between an noun, pronoun and a verb and how they are grammatically used (clue: founding was referring to principles..not to weight loss Einstein)?
You keep complicating the shit out of this and ill keep it simple. Both ways seem to suit each of us. Mine is just easier and just as effective.

 

[DreDay187]

A 10% error in a process to measure bodyfat would yield a typical result +/- 1600 grams in an 80kg individual at 20% bodyfat - obviously useless to measure a 4 gram change.

I will refrain from comment on your little homoerotic fantasy

Refrain from comment if you wish but please let your imagination run rampant?

Did you know Taubes' own family doesn't follow his diet advice and eat plenty of carbs? Or what about Taubes himself stating that his claims still "need to be rigorously tested". How does Taubes explain Asian cultures (Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese), southern indians, and the New Guinea highland tribe at Tukisenta (who ate around 94% of their calories from carbs) that eat tremendous amounts of carbs yet don't have the obesity epidemic talking over other parts of the world?

He basically breaks diets down into two groups: Atkins (the good) and everything else (which is bad). Isn't that an oversimplification to you seeing as you commented on lyle's oversimplification?

An excellent critique/rebuttal to many of Taubes' unfounded claims:

Whole Health Source: The Carbohydrate Hypothesis of Obesity: a Critical Examination

 

[Mprtz]

really smartass? You think they didnt know till 1970 if you ate more calories than you burned you would get fat? No wonder your clinging too your clueless nutritional principles. Also learn how to read .. do you know the diff between an noun, pronoun and a verb and how they are grammatically used (clue: founding was referring to principles..not to weight loss Einstein)?
You keep complicating the shit out of this and ill keep it simple. Both ways seem to suit each of us. Mine is just easier and just as effective.

Your wording on the "founding of weightloss" stuck me as humorous, though I understood what you were trying to say. I should have anticipated my post could be taken as a joke at your expense. Sorry for the offense.