government replaces food pyramid

[Ironpants]

ironpants, i tried to remain neutral, but you've gone full retard. you keep talking about this idea of "nitrogen balances" and "you lose muscle in a deficit no matter what"

Which was brought up by sweekaters, not me, and wasn't in the intial exchange of posts. And nitrogen balance isn't an "idea" it's an actual bio function in the body involving nitrogen intake from amino acids, go look it up if you don't understand it.

you said this... "Thermodynalmics doesn't canges based on how big or small the deficit is. You simply can't have a positive nitro balance when you are catabolic i.e eating deficit."

Yes I did. Calorie in calorie out. Prehaps you've heard that before?

but in the video i posted, scooby said you can lose fat and gain muscle by being in a small deficit with plenty of protein. here's the crazy part.... you didn't disagree O:

That guy has been proven to be an idiot. This is the same guy that says egg yolks are poison and that you should be eating 6-8 x a day

so how can scooby tell you to eat at a deficit and still get muscle? i thought thermodynamics didn't matter if you were at a 1000 deficit or a 50 deficit, big or small.

Again, he's just another idiot on youtube. I've seen all his videos, almost everything he says in regards to nutrition is brosceince at best. Yes thermodynamic doesn't change based on the number, be it 50 or 1000, if it falls under maintaince then the body has to balance that shortcoming no matter how big or small.


also, i'd like to point out that everything you state, you state as fact that everyone should follow, when in actuality not everything works for everybody. some people can in fact be in a positive nitro balance and gain muscle while on a deficit, others can't. from now on, i want to see you posting your stuff as "this is an idea to consider when following your program, this makes the most sense to me and/or this worked for me but it may not be 100% accurate for you since bodies differ" if you don't, i refuse to take you seriously because then you'd be just another gym meathead who reads muscle magazines and thinks he can get as big as arnold in half a year.

I never once tried to push an agenda or force any kind of recomedation on anyone. The only things I do state as fact are facts, you can't fault someone for doing that even if they don't like what they hear. Stop inventing things that don't exist or were never stated. Everyone is different so they all have indivdual needs/plans/ect. It's when people start trying to discredit me or prove me wrong on FACTs that I have to assert myself and come up with backing proof, then they get angry and start contesting everything. And lol I went to a prep high school and a private university where I graduted in the top of my class so I don't know about the "meathead" statment.

 

[CeleresVerraden]

since this is the only part i really care about, i'm going to ignore the rest of that and only ask this... with a physique like that, how can you claim scooby is an idiot?

 

[mtruitt76]

Bodybuilding.com - Protein Requirements For Bodybuilders: A Need For Re-Evaluation!

This is much better for you argument since it doesn't actually contradict it, but you are drawing inferences which the article does not state. Instead of focusing on all 3 points I will just touch on the third one since that is the main point of contention.

Positive Nitrogen Balance: Protein intake is at a level that encourages weight gain.

Nitrogen Balance: Protein intake is at a level that maintains bodyweight.

Negative Nitrogen Balance: Protein intake is at a level where weight loss occurs OR muscle proteins are at risk of being catabolized to make up the deficit.

On the third point I agree that you would have to be in a calorie deficit for weight loss to occur, but it does not stat that if you are in a calorie deficit that you are necessarily in a negative nitrogen balance. Also it does not state that muscle proteins will necessarily be catabolized merely that they are at a risk of being catabolized. Risk=probability not certainty. You keep drawing more from the articles than what they are saying.

With a large deficit, anything over 500 cal, I would be shocked if a negative nitrogen balance occurred. However, with a reasonable 500 cal or less deficit nothing you have posted would indicate that maintaining a positive nitrogen balance is not possible. Again I can not definitively state that you will maintain a positive nitrogen balance, but none of your sources indicate that it is not possible.

Even if you were in a 3-500 cal deficit your body still needs 3-500 cals that it can't get, so it's gonning to metabolize the protien (since your eating so much to prevent muscle loss) for sustainance thus your in a negative nitrogen balance. Thermodynalmics doesn't canges based on how big or small the deficit is. You simply can't have a positive nitro balance when you are catabolic i.e eating deficit.

Well your body can use fat stores to cover the 3-500 cal deficit and there is ample evidence to suggest it does, like every diet study that shows a decrease in body fat while on a diet. People lose body fat all the time using a 3-500 cal deficit it is ludicrous to suggest that you won't lose body fat while in a deficit. Yes you can also lose LBM while in a deficit and this happens quite often when people diet, but typically more fat is lost than LBM. Also while I tend to think that some degree of LBM will almost always be lost while dieting, nothing you posted indicates that a 3-500 cal deficit will necessarily result in a negative nitrogen balance. Hence nothing you posted proves that one cannot maintain or only lose a small amount of LBM while dieting.


Seems everytime I give information the question standards change all of the sudden.[/QUOTE]

 

[mtruitt76]

How To Achieve A Positive Nitrogen Balance And Why You Care


Here's one more thing if this isn't good enough for you I don't know what is...


Oh shiiiiit, you need to be eating enough calories too?

Well you at least found one that didn't contradict your point and actually supported it. LOL :icon_chee Much better.

We will let the fact that it is an article with no references from an author with no credentials listed in the article slide and just accept it at face value.

I don't think anyone will argue that eating a surplus and a positive nitrogen balance is necessary to gain weight. However, I think you can gain LBM while eating at maintenance based upon the number of body re compositions that occur. This would indicate that a positive nitrogen balance can be achieved at maintenance level calories.

With deficits I don't know that a positive nitrogen balance can be maintained. I would imagine that it would be not be the norm, but again it is not a definitive no. It is unlikely since how many people actually can LBM while cutting after all. Now I see no reason to suspect that a nitrogen balance cannot be achieved while in a deficit since plenty of people are able to cut without affecting LBM to an appreciable degree, but I don't think this is the norm. (the article you posted does support your point, but you have to admit it lacks the standing to prove your point i.e. it is light in the scholarly department no references or credentials listed)