The myths of nutritional value and weight loss?

Blacktie.

So from reading here I know that for weight loss it's all about a calorie controlled diet of calories in<calories out by about 10% or whatever it's meant to be.

So theoretically does this mean that to maintain muscle during weight loss I eat 2 grams of protein per pound of bodymass and then can eat the rest of my calories in mars bars once the total intake is less than my maintenance, and still maintain weight loss while retaining muscle?

We won't take into account how crap it would make you feel doing this. I can understand how it mostly comes down to that but surly eating "healthy" (no simple carbs, only non processed food etc.) has something to do with weight loss aswell? Be great if someone could correct me on this or shed some light on it for me.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Blacktie. wrote: »

So theoretically does this mean that to maintain muscle during weight loss I eat 2 grams of protein per pound of bodymass and then can eat the rest of my calories in mars bars once the total intake is less than my maintenance, and still maintain weight loss while retaining muscle?

Yup. Someone posted an article about a month ago about a nutritional science professor in the states losing weight while eating a diet of protein shakes, vitamin supplements and twinkies and nothing else, as an experiment.

Mellor

Ashlyn Immense Pulp wrote: »

Yup. Someone posted an article about a month ago about a nutritional science professor in the states losing weight while eating a diet of protein shakes, vitamin supplements and twinkies and nothing else, as an experiment.

Nope.
The experiment had nothing to do with muscle mass it was purely weight loss.

OP keeping protein high with resist mucsle loss, but it won't prevent it if the deficit is very big

Blacktie.

Ok thanks people. So I guess eating healthy is less aimed at losing weight and more aimed towards feeling good and giving you lasting energy etc.

howtomake

Blacktie. wrote: »

Ok thanks people. So I guess eating healthy is less aimed at losing weight and more aimed towards feeling good and giving you lasting energy etc.

Yeah I wouldn't analyse it too much, unless you are writing a paper or something . No use in making it more complicated than it needs to be. Usually a well balanced diet mainly with moderation and some sort of portion control will do the trick in the long term. Oh and wrestling with any food demons one has, or in my case the my wine demon which turns me into a snack-eating-beast that knows no bounds.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Mellor wrote: »

OP keeping protein high with resist mucsle loss, but it won't prevent it if the deficit is very big

This can't be right. Over the last 7 months I've lost plenty of fat (due to calorie deficit) while at the same time gaining muscle mass. Since when does losing fat = losing muscle?

Hanley

Ashlyn Immense Pulp wrote: »

This can't be right. Over the last 7 months I've lost plenty of fat (due to calorie deficit) while at the same time gaining muscle mass. Since when does losing fat = losing muscle?

It doesn't. It's the biggest myth in the world ever.

SpaceCowb0y

Ashlyn Immense Pulp wrote: »

Yup. Someone posted an article about a month ago about a nutritional science professor in the states losing weight while eating a diet of protein shakes, vitamin supplements and twinkies and nothing else, as an experiment.

Have you got a link for that article? Would be interesting to read that!:)

boomtown84

just google the twinkie diet...loads of stuff on it.

Mellor

Ashlyn Immense Pulp wrote: »

This can't be right. Over the last 7 months I've lost plenty of fat (due to calorie deficit) while at the same time gaining muscle mass. Since when does losing fat = losing muscle?

Where did I say losing fat = losing muscle? Because its certainly not something I believe.

I said the twinkie diet had nothing to do with muscle mass. Which was the OPs question, and you suggested the twinkie diet guy maintained muscle. It was purely to show that eating a deficit = weight loss no matter what the food intake is. He had a protein shake daily, but that was about it (so maybe 30g protein a day).
But we have no data on if this was sufficient or not. I imagine it wasn't but we'll never know.

I said protein resists muscle loss. In that if there is enough dietary protein availible, then it doesn't need to eat into your own protein, ie muscle. But I was pointing out that it was not a guarantee. On a huge deficit and/or high activity, it may not be enough to cover repair, new growth and energy needs (body fat can cover energy, but again there's no guarantee it will cover everything. In fact, certain things it is physically impossible to provide energy for)

Is that a bit more clear?