Well, first of all, you need to understand the difference between a calorie packed helping of McDonalds vs. the PRO/CHO calorie content (4 : 1 gram) of chicken and rice. You could spend an afternoon at McDonalds, take in 3,000 calories, and guess what? You're done for the day as far as calories are concerned. Chicken and rice would be broken down into quite a few meals to equal the same content. BUT, if at the end of the day you burn a deficit, then pick your poison. Honestly, I know it's just an example you set, but I'd be more worried with catabolism from your power hour at Ronald's house vs. a steady supply of chicken and rice totalling 3,000 cals.
Deficit is a deficit. It doesn't matter where it comes from, at the end of the day, you're looking at the sum. And while actual nutrients and timing has small effects, it's still about a deficit.
Did you read the link?
My point is that it matters for dietary ADHERANCE, not because someone "needs" a balanced ratio, keto, ect. If someone told me I could eat only low GI carbs, I usually have dietary breakdowns sprinkled throughout the week whereas keto diets w/ the 60% fat intakes keeps me sustained and full for longer periods of time. Furthermore, the fat emphasis of a keto certainly aids in a much more sustainable calorie deficit given how it make you feel more satisfied.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lyle McDonald (no pun intended!)
There is also a set of studies looking at changes comparing different diets to one another, using self-reported intakes to estimate caloric intake. While such studies frequently show differences in terms of weight loss, it’s generally related to caloric intake: if a given diet causes people to reduce calories more than another (through whatever mechanism), those people lose weight.
|