BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > Articles on the Main Site
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 02-16-2010, 09:59 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default Nutrient Intake, Nutrient Storage and Nutrient Oxidation

Article on the main site
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 02-16-2010, 10:19 AM
Overkill's Avatar
Overkill Overkill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 719
Default

Quote:
Even a relatively lean male at 180 lbs and 12% body fat is carrying 21 pounds of fat. Each pound contains maybe 400 grams of actual stored fat and that means about 850 grams of fat stored in the body
8500?

Quote:
This is going to be a bit of technical/unapplied article, I’m going to try to keep it short and to the point and mainly it serves as a background for some topics I want to talk about in the near (future, especially alcohol) so just be forewarned as you start on this.
...near future (especially alcohol)...

Quote:
in This, along with differences in handling (e.g. the fact that fast proteins are absorbed by the gut as discussed in Casein Hydrolysate and Anabolic Hormones and Growth – Research Review) are a big part of why slower digesting proteins invariably lead to better overall protein retention in the body; not only does more make it into the bloodstream but less is burned for fuel.
Quote:
I’m going to ask readers not to read anything into the above paragraph, don’t infer or try to draw conclusions about how alcohol might or mightn’t fit into the diet in terms of anything.
Quote:
I’ll discuss the imlications of this in ana article on alcohol (and it’s rather schizoid effects on body weight and body composition in a later article).

Last edited by Overkill : 02-16-2010 at 10:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 02-16-2010, 10:37 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

'Mightn't' is so a word and I got the rest. I remember thinking to check my math last night and forgot this morning.

thanks
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 02-16-2010, 10:39 AM
Overkill's Avatar
Overkill Overkill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
'Mightn't' is so a word
Ha ha... you're right. I had to look it up cause I've never seen anyone use that before. Sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 02-16-2010, 10:42 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

I refuse to be oppressed by things like a dictionary.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 02-16-2010, 12:40 PM
Mabus Mabus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 28
Default

Quote:
Carbohydrates can be stored as liver or muscle glycogen, under rare circumstances they are converted to and stored as fat.
I've seen this stated elsewhere from you recently and, despite having read a ton of your stuff for a while now, it suprised me. Am I correct that an example of a "rare circumstances" would be if someone maintains a diet similar to your UD2 refeed (but over an extended period of time), with a huge calorie surplus but minimal fat?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 02-16-2010, 12:47 PM
Overkill's Avatar
Overkill Overkill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 719
Default

In general terms, I think you basically need to be consuming a caloric surplus that's greater than the amount of fat calories you're consuming.

I should probably emphasize "I think".
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Unread 02-16-2010, 12:56 PM
Moyer Moyer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 47
Default

On digestive efficiency, I'm willing to bet that very large meals will have a lower digestion rate.

For a while I was eating at maintenance but then gorging myself post-workout. Not to get too descriptive, but I saw lots of strange things in my toilet during that time (kidney beans, gummie bears, etc).

I suppose it's another little bonus for the IF and EOD refeed people.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Unread 02-16-2010, 01:00 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyer View Post
On digestive efficiency, I'm willing to bet that very large meals will have a lower digestion rate.
You would bet wrong. Because, think about it, if it worked that way, every overweight person eating big meal would be absorbing fewer calories and clearly that's not even remotely the case. Bigger meals just take longer to digest but the body's not going to 'waste food' because you ate a big meal.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Unread 02-16-2010, 01:01 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mabus View Post
I've seen this stated elsewhere from you recently and, despite having read a ton of your stuff for a while now, it suprised me. Am I correct that an example of a "rare circumstances" would be if someone maintains a diet similar to your UD2 refeed (but over an extended period of time), with a huge calorie surplus but minimal fat?
A few of the rare situations:
1. Prolonged massive carb overfeeding: talking 3+ days where carbs make up over 100% of your total daily caloric requirements.
2. When dietary fat intake is absurdly low (<10%)
3. There is some evidence of a slight increase in denovolipogenesis in situations of insulin resistance.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.