Anyone tried calorie shifting?

No body huh? Must not be a very well known form of dieting....... or maybe it just doesn't work!!

LOL
 
Can you explain the main premise please? I'm surprised I've not heard of this yet. Are you talking about "zig zagging" or something like that?
 
I think this is the one where you eat really low for a few days (like 500 calories) then eat higher one or two days. More like a cycle.

Which seems silly since at the end of the week, it is the same number of calories.
 
Jericho is right it is eating really low cal or a few days and then jacking it up.....you do end up with the same calorie count at the end of the week but it's supposed to jump start your body to burning more caloires when you shock it with a high number after being low for a few days.

I was just wondering if anyone had tried it and what they thought.
 
There's no "jump starting" metabolism unless you have a clinical issue at hand. Metabolic rate is not at all volatile as some folks would have you believe. That said, there are specific dieting protocols (Lyle McDonald's Ultimate Diet 2.0 comes to mind) that have you eat very low calories for a number of days and follow this with higher calorie "refeeds".

It's not so much about calorie deficits in this case, because you're right. The net deficit is still the same. It's more about the underlying physiological adaptations that optimize partitioning (where calories are going and coming from).

I have some experience with that diet... I hated it doing it. But results were impressive - and there are quite a few people who can claim the same. For me though... all the hassle isn't worth it. And it's only applicable to a select group of people who are lean and trying to get leaner.
 
And I should not that refeeds are not what many people are claiming them to be. They're very specific in duration and food type consumed.
 
Steve-
Is that diet almost the same for the shrink wrap effect? Have you heard of that as well?

Just curious about all this stuff
 
Sorry, I'm not in tune with many pre-packaged, gimmicky diets. I read Lyle's work because I think he's one of the greatest minds in the field today. That said, I can't say if it's along the same lines or not.

But to explain the mile high view of the concept...

Your body responds to different energy and food intakes in specific ways. One way is by sensitizing or desensitizing the various tissues to calories. The diet as Lyle presents it sets up the body to store a greater proportion of calories to muscle opposed to fat when you're over-feeding and to use a great proportion of fat opposed to muscle when you're under-feeding.

The net outcome is an optimization of body composition.

Lyle goes through all the physiology involved - he's known for educating folks until he's blue in the face. Even if you're not going to do the diet, I recommend the book simply because of the stuff you'll learn.

I can explain some of the nuts and bolts in a bit if you're interested. I have a client coming that I have to prep for now though.
 
No problem... was just curious.

I don't like following the gimmicky diet stuff either(pills, detoxes....other off the wall stuff like the twinkie diet)

I was just curious if anyone knew more about it just for conversation purposes.
 
Last edited:
Ohhh, I think your original question was worthy as all hell. There's a lot of merit to "shifting calories" in specific contexts. I was simply saying I'm not familiar with a lot of the prepackaged diets out there so when you start asking about how my information or posts relate to particular diets... I'm not likely going to have an answer for you.

Keep asking questions and making conversation. I know you and I are having exchanges on a number of threads right now. I promise I'm not trying to be hard on you or pick on you.

You seem passionate and that's something I respect. It also seems like you've been misled by some things you've read though, which is quite common. The sound, evidence-based information drowns in a sea of gimmicks and bullshit in this industry, unfortunately.

Most people can get results. But they're not straight on why said results occurred. You might not care about the truth behind why they occurred... which is fine. As long as the results were there... so be it.

But my whole point of chatting on forums is to maintain the integrity of information. Which is why you see me speaking up in response to a few of your posts.
 
So what do you believe to be the right information?

I read some of your posts I know you don't like Jillian Michaels or fad diets, gimmicky people or exercises.
You're opinions are very strong which I respect but I'm having a hard time finding information that you think is correct?

I'm trying to figure you out a little bit more, is there a thread you have posted about what you believe works for diet and exercise?
You've said you been doing your work for a long time, I'm interested to hear what you have found out. :)
 
Jenniferag said:
So what do you believe to be the right information?
Click to expand...

I pull my information from peer-reviewed, academic research. I use pub-crawler on pubmed for most of this data but I have other databases I use as well.

I also have a thorough background and understanding of physiology, biology, chemistry (my weakest link) and the subsets of these as they apply to fitness such as biomechanics, anatomy and kinesiology, endocrinology and I'm finding neurophysiology to be very important as well.

I read some of your posts I know you don't like Jillian Michaels or fad diets, gimmicky people or exercises.
Click to expand...

I don't know Jillian. I don't like how she is as a professional in this industry. She's more of a conartist if you ask me. But as a person, I'm sure she's nice.

:)

My main beefs with the industry can be read .

You're opinions are very strong which I respect but I'm having a hard time finding information that you think is correct?
Click to expand...

Oh there's plenty of great information out there.

Look...

There are two tiers of info out there, which I discuss in the article I linked you to. The foundational tier and the extrapolative tier. The foundational tier is the actual science. The extrapolative tier is comprised of people's interpretations and applications of said science.

Lay folks don't have the requisite knowledge to read the actual science. So they're at the mercy of the extrapolative stuff. And that's fine.

The problem is, anyone can claim "guruness" and put out information. And unfortunately, most people in this field are more interested in making money than maintaining integrity and soundness of information.

The big names in the industry, for whatever reason, are the most likely to be pitching nonsense. It's the people that folks on this forum likely haven't heard of who are putting out actual evidence-based advice.

An incomplete list would include Lyle McDonald, Matt Perryman, Jamie Hale, James Krieger, Alan Aragon, Bill Hartman, Mike Robertson, Eric Cressey, Charlie Francis (who recently passed), Dan John, Mel Siff (who passed), Gray Cook, Joel Jamieson, Tom Venuto, Thomas Plummer.

There are many more.

And they all have their own focuses. But the one constant is they don't sling bullshit. They're seasoned pros who actually know how to research. They respect science and research. And when science doesn't answer all the questions, they don't make things up just to make a buck.

I'm trying to figure you out a little bit more, is there a thread you have posted about what you believe works for diet and exercise?
Click to expand...

Many of my posts have become stickies. Just read the stickies. Admittedly some of them are old... I've been here for years. My views may have changed since then.

But I'm an open book. Feel free to ask me anything.

You've said you been doing your work for a long time, I'm interested to hear what you have found out. :)
Click to expand...

Found out in relation to what?

As a fitness consultant, I've learned that most people are grossly misinformed about how/why things work due to the enormous amount of misinformation that's being shoved down their throats from every which way.

I've also learned that most professionals in this industry have no interest in real knowledge and/or continuing education. They're either in it for the money or because it sounds cool.

I've found this out actually training clients for just shy of a decade and consulting with gym owners/managers trying to help them better equip their training staffs with knowledge.
 
Last edited:
I'm with steve on the industry. The horrid advice given by "professionals" in all aspects of TV just appalls me. Biggest loser just makes me seethe. If they really wanted to do that show right, they would make everyone take a hydrostatic test too and only count "fat" lost and not "weight".

I digress. For finding info, I find pub med and actual peer reviewed research to be the best places. When searching online, you get an eye for whats legit and whats bunk. Most blogs will say things like "studies show" and then give some statement of what they think things should be. The anti milk and meat sites are great for this. Yet completely lack any sort of sitation of where they get these results from. Here's an example of a blog where a citation is done. "' Basically this says that in a 24week study, cardio was shown to have 0 impact compared to just diet only. More importantly, they give all the details of the study they reference to make this statement. Allowing you to also google the study and see it in it's entirety for yourself. This is an example of what I would call "credible".

However, one of the things you need to watch out for is misinterpreting or misrepresenting the results to fit a certain ideology. A great example is the 6 meals a day vs 3 boosting your metabolism debate. I'm sure you've heard and read it. Eat more meals a day, and you'll boost your metabolism and burn more fat. right? Well turns out it's false, but also true...

I read study after study, and they all said the same thing. Assuming calories are the same, it doesn't matter how often you eat. your "metabolism" will be the same if you eat 1 or 10 meals a day. I'm sure youve heard that too, prob read it on here. However, there was one gem of a study that I found that didn't look at metabolism and instead looked at fat oxidation. And it was a game changer. Turns out, if you eat protein many times a day, even if calories are the same, your body will be more likely to metabolize fatty acids vs muscle tissue than if you just ate once a day. This means that even though your "metabolism" stayed the same, you lose more fat the more often you eat protein. So yes, your metabolism doens't change, and yes, you lose more fat the more meals a day you eat... crazy..

Voila, a little digging and reading of studies, and you can slowly start to piece together what it all means. It's another reason why I laugh when people say "well every month scientists are saying everything is now changed, what was good is now bad for you". This is honestly the excuse of the ignorant. I find a lot of stuff to be accurate almost always in the specific context the study is done in. Read the study, and not the blogger or news article thats butchering it to fit their own view...
 
Last edited:
Yup, if it's not straight up lies people in this industry are selling you, it's information based on what I like to call soundbite science.
 
I guess my hardest question is how do you choose to believe one study over another? I've heard people discredit people for studies they have done and commend people for others.

What's a good thing to look for to help you know for sure if it's a good study for not?
I want to get the most correct information possible for myself and for giving advice to others.
 
Jenniferag said:
I guess my hardest question is how do you choose to believe one study over another? I've heard people discredit people for studies they have done and commend people for others.
Click to expand...

Generally it's not the study that people commend or condemn. Rather, it's someone's interpretation of it. Granted, studies can and do have flaws - confounding variables, poor statistics, placebo, small sample sizes, human error, etc.

But to someone versed in reading studies, they can generally pick up on these weaknesses and reason what sort of applicability the findings have, if any, irregardless of said weaknesses.

There are many reasons why certain people's interpretations of research get flack. The vast majority of the time it has to do with cherry-picking. In order to fully assess the evidence, you have to look at all the research for or against what you're researching. The neutral stuff too. This is a daunting task when you consider some subjects and the corresponding depth of research. Other subjects are quite easy as the body of evidence isn't very large.

But some folks will look at only the papers that support their claims. They're either too concerned about being right or they have a financial interest in being right.

What's a good thing to look for to help you know for sure if it's a good study for not?
Click to expand...

That's a tough question to answer. Research methodology is taught in university and even then, many people suck at it. My advice would be to avoid reading actual research until you have a solid understanding of the foundational subject matters.

This seems like daunting task for some and in reality, very few are actually going to do it. But I've met a few people who were truly passionate about learning and headed my advice. They went and invested time reading 101 level books in biology, chemistry and physics. Then they read 101 level texts on subsets of these sciences that deal with this stuff - physiology, anatomy and kinesiology, biomechanics, etc.

Without this base level of knowledge, a lot of papers can sound like gibberish. Hell, I've been doing this a long time and some papers sound like gibberish to me.

Put differently, that 101 level stuff is a start but it's certainly not the be all end all.

And even if you do in fact know what you're talking about on the knowledge side of things, you still need to understand research methodology. At its core, research methodology is rooted in critical thinking and the scientific method.

Beyond that, it's a matter of understanding what to look for on a global basis in the research - experimental vs. descriptive research, control methods of confounding variables, statistics and measurement tools, etc.

In all honesty, most folks would do better finding a few experts who interpret research and put it out in easily digestible terms that lay people can understand and use. Granted, you're then relying on the biases of the interpreter... but the good news is there are some good people out there. Some of whom I've mentioned to you above.
 
I typed this long response and accidentally hit back. Ugh. In short, what works for me is alternating between 1250,1500,1750 for six days, 2 for each value mixed up and one "cheat" day of 2000-2200 calories. I've lost about 13 lbs in a week and a half without doing exercise. I plan on starting once I figure out what my options are based on my bummed knee. I'm 5'9" and weigh 381. I would never advocate eating 500 calories because I can only imagine what you can do to your metabolic system and shock it with the idea that food is scarce. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know!

SFL
 
Correlation does not equal causation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top