Biotest

Flatbread Frenzy


#61

[quote]tomkade wrote:

[quote]Chris Shugart wrote:

[quote]tomkade wrote:
Don’t you think 1 cup of almonds a day is a little too much even for a healthy calorie?
Tom
[/quote]

My year-round visible abs say “nope, that’s just fine.”

This is the power of healthy food choices, a zero-junk diet, good supplements, and challenging training. I haven’t had to count a calorie in about 5 years. Why? Controlled carbs, the reduction and then removal of grains, more good fats, high protein, etc, etc.

[/quote]

If counting calories is not important as long as they are “healthy” calories, then why do so many reputable coaches like John Romaniello and Dave Tate still feel it is important to figure out your maintenance daily calories and work from there? Do you think maybe after 5 yrs you have built up a higher daily maintenance caloric level and some of us still need to be careful about eating half of pizza with almond crust?[/quote]

If you’re like me, two slices of the pizza (which was probably less than a fourth of the entire thing) absolutely stuffed me. And I say this as someone who could easily put away an entire batch of almond flour muffins in a day. I’m not sure if it was the toppings, but the almond flour pizza left me packed.


#62

FYI: Some new info on why eating almonds (and therefore almond flour) can help with weight loss:


#63

That would SO make an awesome pizza crust if you skip the splenda!


#64

[quote]Chris Shugart wrote:

Who says saturated fat from natural sources is bad? What is this, the early 1990’s?

The only bad fat is transfat really, though you do want to keep your omega-3 and6 's in balance.

Almond flour fat is the same as almonds - mostly mono-unsaturated.
[/quote]

True, my mistake.
I’m just trying to get some clarification regarding nutritional labels. For example, when a label (not necessarily almond flour) reads something like,

Total Fat: 15g
Sat Fat: 1g
Trans Fat: 1g

What are those remaining 13g of fat? Mono?


#65

[quote]onepanda wrote:

[quote]Chris Shugart wrote:

Who says saturated fat from natural sources is bad? What is this, the early 1990’s?

The only bad fat is transfat really, though you do want to keep your omega-3 and6 's in balance.

Almond flour fat is the same as almonds - mostly mono-unsaturated.
[/quote]

True, my mistake.
I’m just trying to get some clarification regarding nutritional labels. For example, when a label (not necessarily almond flour) reads something like,

Total Fat: 15g
Sat Fat: 1g
Trans Fat: 1g

What are those remaining 13g of fat? Mono?[/quote]

Depends on the food.

Check for some of the older articles at TNation by Dr. Lowery and Dr. Berardi. They should have some dietary fat primers back in the archives.


#66

Pizza! I added the turkey pepperoni a bit late, but it wasn’t as underdone as it looks. Same for the cheese. I didn’t want to burn the crust, so I’ll probably add the toppings before the first 15-minute cooking time elapses.

Making this again tomorrow.


#67

This filled me right up, even though it was my first food intake of the day. Plenty of leftovers.


#68

To zest things up a bit, I didn’t spread the sauce or cheese all the way over, leaving some exposed crust. After I baked it, I spread some minced garlic (jarred) around the crust. Incredible.


#69

Looks great! Just finished another tuna melt on this flatbread myself. Great with added rosemary and powdered mustard.


#70

After some of the discussion concerning the “debate” on whether a calorie is indeed just a calorie on this thread and many others I think that some clarification is in order. The short answer is that there is no debate. It is, unfortunately, a matter of calories…period. Every human trial to date looking at isocaloric diets show the same amount of weight lost or gained regardless of the source (i.e. carbs/fats/proteins). Instead of referencing 50 articles I would refer you to Lyle McDonald’s site only because he has compiled them all.

I’m not necessarily endorsing all of his work before the ad hominums begin. The fact remains that if you eat more calories than you burn in a day, you will gain bodyfat regardless of whether you are ingesting them from almond flour or gummy bears. I went through a phase of not wanting to believe this myself and my physique suffered as a result. I am a competitive bodybuilder and, while always lean in the relative sense, it was not until this concession to the laws of thermodynamics that I was able to maintain 4-5% bodyfat year round at 230lbs. YOU CAN NOT EAT AS MUCH HEALTHY FAT AS YOU WANT AND NOT GAIN BODYFAT. Yes there is research showing that not all of the calories in certain foods are bioavailable (i.e. the almond study) but even granting this nacent research as being true (there isn’t much of it surprisingly), if you are eating 1000 calories from almonds and 200 of them are not utilized, you still just ate 800 calories. We all know how easy it is to overeat nuts and nut butters in this regard. It is imperative to realize that fat is able to assimilate perfectly well without the aid of insulin via lipoprotein lipase and other enzymes specific to the task.

Just by limiting carbs (and therefore insulin) you are NOT sidestepping lipogenesis. People can get contest ready on grains and carbs just as easily as they can on low carb/high fat diets. One need not look far for examples of both camps. Why? Because a calorie really is just a calorie and if you limit them from what ever source you will lose weight. The nutrient partitioning effects of protein not withstanding (another topic for another day)

This is NOT to imply that there are not foods that are more solubrious than others. Simply that if body composition is your goal then calories are the determining factor in your success… I wish it weren’t so. I used to be the staunchest advocate of the inequality of calories until I really combed the research and then tried the methods personally. (I had a lot of personal identity wrapped up in the view and felt the resultant cognitive dissonance acutely)

Mr. Shugart is absolutely correct in saying the general enthusiaste wanting to maintain 10% bf or even less, does not need to count calories on a daily basis and/or weigh food. These individuals have been doing this for a long time and know, within a reasonable degree of accuracy, the caloric/macronutrient content of most of the foods they eat. They are able to self regulate very well through experience. Picking natural and unrefined products makes this much easier with out doubt. A very important issue to being able to maintain low bodyfat levels even with higher caloric intake (as Mr. Shugart referred to above) is about having been lean to begin with (or getting lean through prolonged diet) and establishing a set point over time. This point warrants some elaboration but this post is already too long.

It is a fantastic idea to use these recipes as a means of replacing the junk we all crave when we are in a maintenance or bulking phase of training. Shugart is a culinary wizard in this regard and we owe him an enormous debt for his work. In general these substitutions are much less calorie dense and more nutrient dense (not important for body composition but vital for good health) than their “real” counterparts.

I truly apologize for the novel. Please do not misconstrue this as argumentative as it is poorly written and may be taken as such. Thank you for all the work you do.


#71

I made the almond flour flatbread and cookies last weekend…both were good but the cookies were awesome!


#72

[quote]Timothy67 wrote:
I made the almond flour flatbread and cookies last weekend…both were good but the cookies were awesome![/quote]

+1


#73

I’m cutting and have been eating almond flour pizza, muffins, cookies, etc.

Since I’m cutting, I’m eating in a deficit, but am still able to hit my macros each day while eating the aforementioned foods.

I’ll say, if nothing else, these recipes make a cut easier, because you’re still able to eat the foods you would have traditionally needed to cut out when trying to drop body fat. Paired with intermittent fasting, I’ve been able to stick to a healthy caloric deficit while hitting my macros nearly every day for the last seven weeks. The handful of days where this didn’t happen were planned re-feeds.

I’ll leave it at this: even in my caloric deficit, I’ve never looked more muscular. I will definitely be going through a clean bulk once I complete my cut. But I’m dropping inches in the right places and keeping size in the right places. This is through getting my calories, even in a reduced state, from a mixture of quality protein, good fats and ideal carbs.

I have a friend, on the other hand, who is my height and maybe 10 pounds lighter than I am. He probably eats the same amount of calories each day as I do. He looks emaciated. He eats lots of healthy foods, too: whole grain breads, cereal, chicken sandwiches, and crackers.

Take from that what you will.


#74

Tyson- http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-context-of-calories/


#75

Full disclosure, I am Tyson’s brother. I am also a professional natural bodybuilder and strength athlete that has tried every type of dieting you can imagine. Let me tell you from personal experience, and much to my chagrin, a calorie is in fact just a calorie. I wish the law of thermodynamics was different but it is not.

I just won my NGA Pro Card this past summer and achieved a body fat level of 4% with striated glutes to do it. After winning the light heavyweight (189) and overall title I was hell bent on competing in my first pro show this November. 189 is too light of a bodyweight for me to pull off again (I started the diet off at 215-220 but I am normally 230+) so I wanted to do a “clean bulk” to get ready for the next show.

I ate nothing but organic food and absolutely nothing processed. All meat was grass-fed as was the dairy I consumed. Lots of nuts and healthy fats and carbs only around my workouts (one meal before, one meal after). Aside from the occasional cheat meal (not counting my 3 day bender after the show), my diet was extremely “clean”. My diet also had a lot of calories in it given my reduced size (4,000 - 5,000 a day roughly).

Two guesses what happened. In short order I put on probably 6-8% body fat in 8-10 weeks. I was positive this wouldn’t happen as I was working my pants off in the gym and my diet was a Paleolithic man’s wet dream (minus perhaps the dairy which guys like Rob Wolf say are okay on a bulk).

I know this post may not convince everyone that a calorie is just a calorie, but from my experience (not to mention the hordes of scientific data to back it up) the laws of physics are alive and well.

My final rejoinder is to point out that some research is starting to be done on the fact you simply can’t digest all the calories in unrefined food (such as the almond study mentioned) which would explain the perception that a clean diet, even isocalorically, is superior to one that is not.

Ostensibly in studies like the almond one mentioned calories are the same, but the reality is there are fewer effective calories in the one diet. Not a knock on eating healthy foods, but simply points out that studies like this do not refute the argument that a calorie is in fact a calorie.


#76

Wow, you guys are still arguing about calories instead of eating awesome flatbread? That’s just crazy. :wink:

Reminds me of the old riddle: what weighs more, a pound of rocks or a pound of feathers? The answer is of course that they weigh the same. The question becomes, which one do you want dropped on your head? Suddenly, a “pound is not a pound.”

I see the calorie argument as the same. Break it all down dietician-textbook-style and a calorie is a calorie. But 300 cals of one food source (say, Hershey bars) is going to have a very different impact on the body than 300 calories of something else (say, a protein shake.) That’s all we’re saying here.

300 calories may be 300 calories, but I’ll take 300 cals of casein, omega-3s, and veggies over 300 cals HFCS, transfat and flour any day. And the funny thing is, all those saying “a calorie is a calorie” would too.

Two good articles here that need reposted. Both from Dr. Berardi:


#77

Chris on that point I couldn’t agree more. No doubt 300 calories of spinach is going to have better health ramifications than 300 calories of chocolate and I would of course always recommend the former. It is just important that people who want to lose weight realize that despite the cleanliness of the source you still can’t free eat whatever you want and lose weight.

Counting calories is still critical for long term and drastic success. Similarly free eating clean foods, even with zero carbs, can still make you fat. Many paleo folks and other orthorexic-light types often seem to want to obscure this fact and that is all we are saying.


#78

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
It is just important that people who want to lose weight realize that despite the cleanliness of the source you still can’t free eat whatever you want and lose weight.

. Similarly free eating clean foods, even with zero carbs, can still make you fat. [/quote]

I agree. I’ve said the same thing many times in 11+ years of nutrition writings.

But it’s much, much harder to overeat the healthy stuff. And while it’s technical possible to eat an excess of healthy calories (say, calorically-dense but healthy avocados) it just doesn’t happen all that often in real life. But overeating low-fat carbier foods? Very easy to do, and that in turn causes all sorts of wacky blood sugar/hormone fluctuations, poor thermic effects, low satiation levels, etc. that makes you eat again sooner or overeat later on in the day (second meal effect).

So I see all this from a real-world, big picture, practical point of view, not a microscopic, chemical level, technical point of view. In that sense, you just don’t see anyone getting truly fat if they’re sticking to healthy foods on the lower carb end of the spectrum. Possible? Sure. Does it happen much in real life? Nope. Not many low-carb fatties out there riding electric carts around Wal-Mart, ya know?

To use a ridiculous example, take two people and put them on 3000 calorie per day diets. One eats junk food. One eats the way I generally advise to eat here at V-Life. Only one of them is going to look better, feel better, perform better, and be healthier a year later. In that sense, a calorie is not a calorie. And to say that “a calorie is a calorie” is only encouraging people to make bad food choices since “it doesn’t matter anyway.”

Then there are things like fish oil, that when added to the diet can lead to fat loss. So, adding calories (of pure fat no less) is causing body fat loss. I don’t think anyone would say that adding 100 calories to your diet from white bread is going to be the same as adding 100 calories to your diet from fish oil. So again that’s where I come back to “a calorie is not a calorie.” At least not when it comes to the impact that different calorie sources have on your body.

What about nutrient timing? One guy has 300 extra calories from carbs during and after weight training. Another guy has the same drink but right before bed. I’d bet guy #1 is going to have a better body comp after a year than guy #2.

Anyway, I actually don’t think the two groups on either side of this debate differ all that much. The “calorie is a calorie” folks aren’t sucking down HFCS daily, even if they like to argue that it’s the same thing as sugar and a “cal is a cal.”

(And if it all came down to calories, then dietician school would take about an hour. “Okay, class, tell people not to eat too much. Congrats, you’re a dietitian!” I’m pretty sure it’s more complex than that.)

And the “calorie is NOT a calorie” folks aren’t horking down jar after jar of natural nut butter ever day because nuts are healthy and therefore “free.”

Our diets, assuming we’re all weight trainers or athletes who like to look good and be healthy, are probably pretty close to the same. We just like to wave our dicks around on the internet and debate the details! :wink:


#79

The devil is in the details it would appear. No doubt there are significant body comp differences between calorie sources which is exactly why eating “clean” foods is by far the way to go. The ‘calorie is a calorie’ thing is simply to say if you run a negative calorie deficit you will lose weight. This is an irrefutable fact. Similarly if you run a surplus you will gain weight. Now what the COMPOSITION of that loss/gain is can be substantially effected by the food choice which is where many of the ‘a calorie is NOT a calorie’ folks draw there conclusions.

Calories are the final word on whether a loss or gain will occur. The composition of that loss or gain is where things get muddled and you couldn’t be more right on this point.

Sorry to get into a running debate as I agree with many of your conclusions. We are more talking at cross points it would appear (I was speaking solely to loss/gain irrespective of the composition whereas you and many others here were also referencing the composition). Keep up the good fight, I will put my dick back in my pants now.


#80

kilpaba

11 posts in over 2 years, none in the BB forum.

Claiming to be a pro BB, yet “No Photos Uploaded”

Lets get pics or vids of you up at 4% using your methods, then we’ll start a serious discussion. Otherwise I’m calling bullshit.