# Gaining Muscle on a Caloric Deficit



## KaeJS

It would appear that with all the misinformation and different opinions on this topic, Google has rendered any search for such information to be completely useless.

I'd like to know your thoughts on whether or not it is possible to gain muscle while on a caloric deficit.

Let's say Joe goes to the gym 4 times a week and lifts heavy weights for one hour each time at the gym. However, Joe only eats 1200 calories per day, yet his maintenance is 2000 calories per day.

This would put Joe at a 5600 calorie deficit per week! (1.6lbs loss).

Muscles are compromised of Amino Acids/Protein. With that being said, Muscles are not compromised of CALORIES, per say, as any excess calories are turned into fat. In this regard, so long as the muscles that are being worked have enough protein to repair, this means that any excess calories or protein would simply turn to fat.

In the situation where a 150lb man (Subject A) who regularly works out eats 1200 calories a day and receives 300 grams of protein, as opposed to a 150lb man (Subject B) who eats 3000 calories per day but only gets 75 grams of protein in their diet, wouldn't Subject A be more likely to build muscle? How can eating SUGAR, CARBS and FAT build muscle? Sugar, Carbs and Fat ain't going to MAKE muscle just because it is "extra" calories. If muscle was made from sugars, I'd be jacked.

In any case, please, I'd love to hear your answers/comments/suggestions/ on the question below:

Question: Is it possible for Joe to GAIN muscle, assuming Joe is not an athlete, gets adequate protein, 8 hours of sleep per night, and has a body fat percentage currently above 13%, if Joe runs an 800 calorie deficit each day?


----------



## MoneyGal

Yes. Take a look at the work of John Berardi. He's arguably the person who has completed the most trials with real-world people on muscle gain while in deficit. http://www.precisionnutrition.com/


----------



## FrugalTrader

+1 for John Berardi, by far my favorite nutritional guru.


----------



## MoneyGal

Internet high five!


----------



## mrPPincer

Yes. 
I'm no kinesiologist, but in my experience, a higher protein diet does result in more mucsle tissue.

The first thing (I think) would be to cut down the sugar intake, second, the starches, and then to look at the kind of fats consumed.
I don't think protein turning into fat is a significant factor.
More muscle tissue equals more calorie burnage, assumiing some physical activity, walking, whatever.

Simply buying some soy protein shake mix might not do it though, because soy produducts seem to contain some kind of estrogen like properties.
If considering a protein suppliment I would suggest going with a whey based product, preferably from Canada because we have restrictions on hormone use in our cattle. Otherwise, homegrown meat, or nuts and seeds, nuitritional yeast, etc for protein.


----------



## KaeJS

I am currently supplementing with IsoFlex Whey Protein, CaseinFX Protein and Creatine.

I am not concerned about the IsoFlex or Casein, as neither are Soy. I try to stay as far away from Soy products as possible. In fact, I have even limited my dairy intake (not completely, but, just restricted it) as there are just way too many estrogen producing hormones in there. I need some testosterone.

I currently weight train 3-4 times per week. I do Cardio every day.

I am down 30lbs, but I need to gain some muscle. At 166lbs, 5ft 11", I need some muscle!

I'm not sure if maybe I've gained muscle but I don't realize it because I've lost 30lbs, or if maybe I am not eating enough to gain muscle (though, I don't think that is the case).

I definitely train with intensity and am consistently increasing weight and reps (staying under 9 reps per set, though).

My diet is mostly clean:

Salmon, Tuna, Chicken, Lean Beef, Cottage Cheese, Strawberries, Grapes, Banana's, Protein Shakes, Vitamin Shakes, Milk, Water.

Maybe I am just impatient.


----------



## mrPPincer

Salmon is good, I'd stay the hell away from tuna, as it's a long lived, large fish that has lots of time to accumuate mercury, dioxins etc, otherwise, sounds like you're doing excellent.


----------



## mrPPincer

One more thing. Plastizers; they are on most receipts these days , so if you buy groceries every day you should just decline accepting the receipt.
It is actually a health risk factor for the people who handle them every day.
It's something to consider because of how many ways we come in contact with them.


----------



## MoneyGal

Check out JB's Scrawny to Brawny program: http://www.scrawnytobrawny.com/


----------



## donald

Id cut out the cardio your doing everyday!!Cardio is not your best friend if your looking for muscle mass(bulking up).Use free wieghts(for the range)Don't know if your using machines or not?Body building is much like personal finance(you won't see results quickly)Your probably abit impatient.Make sure your not doing the same workout cycle on specific body parts(ie:always just doing standard bench press ect on chest days ect) genetics help!Don't know what your natural genetics are with muscle mass ect(they do play a role though and what your body type is,can't rememember the 3)You should contact a personal trianer(if your really serious-they can plan everything for you-diet,workout routines ect)Hang around body building forums 2 for advice ect.


----------



## Helianthus

KaeJS said:


> It would appear that with all the misinformation and different opinions on this topic, Google has rendered any search for such information to be completely useless.
> 
> I'd like to know your thoughts on whether or not it is possible to gain muscle while on a caloric deficit.
> 
> Let's say Joe goes to the gym 4 times a week and lifts heavy weights for one hour each time at the gym. However, Joe only eats 1200 calories per day, yet his maintenance is 2000 calories per day.
> 
> This would put Joe at a 5600 calorie deficit per week! (1.6lbs loss).
> 
> Muscles are compromised of Amino Acids/Protein. With that being said, Muscles are not compromised of CALORIES, per say, as any excess calories are turned into fat. In this regard, so long as the muscles that are being worked have enough protein to repair, this means that any excess calories or protein would simply turn to fat.
> 
> In the situation where a 150lb man (Subject A) who regularly works out eats 1200 calories a day and receives 300 grams of protein, as opposed to a 150lb man (Subject B) who eats 3000 calories per day but only gets 75 grams of protein in their diet, wouldn't Subject A be more likely to build muscle? How can eating SUGAR, CARBS and FAT build muscle? Sugar, Carbs and Fat ain't going to MAKE muscle just because it is "extra" calories. If muscle was made from sugars, I'd be jacked.
> 
> In any case, please, I'd love to hear your answers/comments/suggestions/ on the question below:
> 
> Question: Is it possible for Joe to GAIN muscle, assuming Joe is not an athlete, gets adequate protein, 8 hours of sleep per night, and has a body fat percentage currently above 13%, if Joe runs an 800 calorie deficit each day?


I would not expect Joe to gain muscle at an 800cal per day deficit. If his diet is sufficient in protein, at best, I would expect him to maintain LBM, but more likely than not he would also lose some LBM along with the fat. 

I think in your second example, Subject A and Subject B are equally unlikely to gain muscle. Subject A has insufficient calories, and Subject B has insufficient protein. I would expect Subject A's body composition to be much better. While sugars don't make muscle, carbohydrates are protein sparing, so if you tweaked the macronutrient profile of Subject B to 150g-300g of protein, he would definitely start to see some muscle gain. 

Now, back to your original question, it is possible to gain muscle while at a caloric deficit/maintenance, although the key is to work in cycles. I'd recommend looking in to Lyle McDonald's Ultimate Diet 2.0, if you are hoping to continue leaning out as well as maintain/potentially build muscle simultaneously. 

If your lone goal is the build muscle, I'd recommend that you keep your protein around 1-2g/lb of body weight, count your calories, at shoot for 16-18 calories per lb of body weight. Weigh yourself every Monday. If you begin to stall, up your calories by 500.


----------



## andrewf

>1 hr of exercise per day and a maintenance calorie intake of only 2000 per day? Doesn't add up to me.


----------



## jet powder

I think you do not have to anarobic train as often as most think, aeorbic training is another story & can be done more often because it is far less demanding but it still uses up recovery ability. Since one only has x amount of recovery ability it is best to use wisely

The body becomes stronger to protect it self from the stress of the workout i.e., bigger muscle ( the limited reserve capacity of muscle was threatened) just like the body developes a tan to protect its self from intense sunlight. It takes time to recover from the stress (workout) then time to over componsate (grow muscle) The body does not lose the muscle as soon as it is gained same as for the sun tan. Just juddging by eye it seams to take the same amount of time for the body to start losing a tan from high intensity sun light as it does from being exposed to high intensity anarobic training. 

just like the stress to get a tan must be close to a precise amount not enough the body wont adapt to much & the body will break down skin blister, if stress is strong enough the muscle under the skin would even get exposed to sun light of course the sun tanner is almost always smart enough to not let this happen. Same is true with weight training.

Now everyone is going to think Iam crazy
but I have found that there MIGHT be a direct relationship with the lunnar cycle in regards to timming of when the body will start to lose the muscle from a workout or a tan from sunlight. I know of no studies supporting this, just my own workout journals & counting the number of days that it seams I start losing a tan. It might have to do with the accumalated effects of gravity because it is not screaned i.e., future becomes present becomes past. The body MIGHT need some standard for gauging time & perhaps it is the accumalation of gravity & since gravity is not screaned it is most likely being accumilated.


----------



## MoneyGal

I think you (jet powder) make complicated things simple and simple things complicated. 

That said, I also believe a diversity of views creates stable markets, so please continue.


----------



## KaeJS

Helianthus said:


> I would not expect Joe to gain muscle at an 800cal per day deficit. If his diet is sufficient in protein, at best, I would expect him to maintain LBM, but more likely than not he would also lose some LBM along with the fat.
> 
> While sugars don't make muscle, carbohydrates are protein sparing, so if you tweaked the macronutrient profile of Subject B to 150g-300g of protein, he would definitely start to see some muscle gain.


WHY?

What do you mean "Carbs are protein sparing"? The body is not going to use Amino Acids before it uses fat. It's just not going to. Why would it?

Please explain, as this is the root of all evil and the solution to this question.

Under which circumstances would the body breakdown protein (the lengthiest process that takes the most energy to do) before breaking down fat?

The body should ALWAYS burn fat before proteins unless the body has no fat left (ie, less than 8% body fat). I mean, tell me...

Fat is there for the body to use in an emergency, right? For energy in the event there is no food? (and absorption of vitamins and warmth, organ cushioning, etc. etc.) BUT, let's say there is an emergency. The body is going to burn protein before fat? How is this possible? This is what I don't understand.

How does it make any sense for the body to convert proteins and amino acids into a useable form of energy before burning fat? The heart itself is a muscle, so why would it burn protein? 

Also, you would assume that in order to find food, your body would want to keep as much protein as possible to repair the muscles you may be destroying when: running after chickens, beating apart a buffalo, spearing fish or chasing a wild pig.



andrewf said:


> >1 hr of exercise per day and a maintenance calorie intake of only 2000 per day? Doesn't add up to me.


You missed the point.

It doesn't matter if the maintenance is 2000 or 4000 calories. What matters is that there is a deficit.

Also, it is 100% possible to workout for more than one hour a day and have a maintenance of 2000 calories. I bet a 45 year old woman that is 140lbs and walks for two hours would have about that much (2000) for maintenance.



MoneyGal said:


> I think you (jet powder) make complicated things simple and simple things complicated.


Thank you, MoneyGal, for making that simple.


----------



## Cal

MoneyGal said:


> Internet high five!


LOL. Sounds like a big bang theory episode.


----------



## andrewf

If your body goes into 'starvation mode', it will slow the metabolism to conserve energy, and part of that is muscle wasting. It is erroneous to assume that the body will use fat before muscle. Fat is like money in the bank and muscle is an investment that requires maintenance (calories) so a 'what have you done for me lately' principle comes into play. Muscles that are not necessary get consumed. Of course, we are anthropomorphizing the body.

And an 800 calorie per day deficit is basically starvation mode. Your body is not going to be very happy.


----------



## Spidey

I think it's obvious that people can gain muscle while taking in less calories from some of the amazing transformations I used to see when I went to the gym. I don't think I would concentrate on the calorie side as it often backfires. I would simply concentrate on eating well - lots of various dark colored vegetables and fruits, low volume of processed food (none is best), high fiber, sensible but minimal carbs and lean protein.


----------



## KaeJS

Starvation mode?

Starvation mode is a myth.

Yes, your body will slow it's metabolism, but only temporarily until you start eating again, and it will only slow by a maximum of 30%. On a 2000 calorie maintenance, that is only 600 calories, which means you would still have a 1400 calorie maintenance.

I eat about 800 calories 3 days per week when I don't lift weights and then I try to eat about 1500 calories on days that I do lift weights (about 4 times per week).

Andrew, the point you made with regards to "muscle requires calories" is a true statement. However, fat also requires calories (though not as much) and it costs so much more energy to convert protein into energy, that you might as well just keep the muscle. One pound of muscle costs ~10-20 calories more in maintenance per day.

Also, the body is not going to destroy muscle when the muscle is being put under stress (ie. working out), so how does this fit into your theory? You even said that "muscles that are not necessary get consumed". Which muscles wouldn't be necessary? I need all of my legs for cardio and my entire upper body for working out. I also need my tongue for talking and eating. Esophagus for swallowing. Heart to stay alive, etc. etc.

In addition, how is it that I would be getting stronger, but not weaker, if my body were tearing down muscle?

In the instance of a man who works out and has body fat to spare, I still fail to see how it makes any sense that muscle would be catabolized instead of fat, especially in the presence of amino acids in the body 24/7 (ie. CaseinFX protein, or cottage cheese at regular intervals).

Casein protein releases and digests slowly, leaving a constant stream of amino acids in your body for about 6-7 hours. If I am eating casein protein every 6 hours, at which point are my muscles going to be eaten?


----------



## andrewf

Do you only eat cottage cheese? Four 1 cup servings of cottage cheese gets you most of the way to your 800 calorie per day diet (maybe you can squeeze in an apple).

If you think an 800 calorie per day diet is a good idea, I'm not sure what else to say. Maybe you'd be better off avoiding the Taco Bell binges and not put your body through this stress...


----------



## Helianthus

KaeJS said:


> WHY?
> 
> What do you mean "Carbs are protein sparing"? The body is not going to use Amino Acids before it uses fat. It's just not going to. Why would it?
> 
> Please explain, as this is the root of all evil and the solution to this question.
> 
> Under which circumstances would the body breakdown protein (the lengthiest process that takes the most energy to do) before breaking down fat?
> 
> The body should ALWAYS burn fat before proteins unless the body has no fat left (ie, less than 8% body fat). I mean, tell me...
> 
> Fat is there for the body to use in an emergency, right? For energy in the event there is no food? (and absorption of vitamins and warmth, organ cushioning, etc. etc.) BUT, let's say there is an emergency. The body is going to burn protein before fat? How is this possible? This is what I don't understand.
> 
> How does it make any sense for the body to convert proteins and amino acids into a useable form of energy before burning fat? The heart itself is a muscle, so why would it burn protein?
> 
> Also, you would assume that in order to find food, your body would want to keep as much protein as possible to repair the muscles you may be destroying when: running after chickens, beating apart a buffalo, spearing fish or chasing a wild pig.


To address your point about carbohydrate being protein sparing, the body most prefers carbohydrates as an energy source, followed by protein, then followed by fat. The more carbohydrates you consume, the more your body shifts oxidization of carbohydrates for use as energy. As your body is using primarily carbohydrates for fuel in this scenario, it spares protein. The body prefers to store what it is most efficient at storing, which is fat. Only under rare circumstances does the body store carbohydrates as fat, and the same goes for protein. In any real world scenario, it is only fat that is stored as fat, and that is only when total caloric consumption is in excess of maintenance. 

Your assumption that the body will always burn fat before protein is incorrect. If that were the case, everyone who could put together a reasonable diet, would be in immaculate shape. In periods of stress (dieting), your body releases the hormone cortisol, which signals an increase in protein breakdown to glucose by the liver, and also prevents leucine from stimulating protein synthesis by the body. There is also decreases in testosterone, leptin and IGF1 which all work to decrease fat oxidization by the body. During this period, the body shuts down caloric intensive processes, including protein synthesis, immune response, and reproductive function. It requires less energy for the body to utilize muscle tissue for energy than it does to use fat stores, and as such, the body prefers this for survival. 

As partially referenced in my previous post, look in to Lyle McDonald's work. He has a bevy of free articles on his website (www.bodyrecomposition.com), which will go in to great deal explaining some of the concepts you are having difficulty with.


----------



## KaeJS

andrewf said:


> Do you only eat cottage cheese? Four 1 cup servings of cottage cheese gets you most of the way to your 800 calorie per day diet (maybe you can squeeze in an apple).
> 
> If you think an 800 calorie per day diet is a good idea, I'm not sure what else to say. Maybe you'd be better off avoiding the Taco Bell binges and not put your body through this stress...


Here's what I ate today, in order:

CaseinFX protein shake: 100 calories
Salmon + Rice: 350 calories
Vitamin Shake: 145 calories
Cottage Cheese: 100 calories

So far, that is ~700 calories, of which 352 calories are from protein (88grams) and the rest are from carbs and a small percentage of fat from the salmon.

I don't really think that is unhealthy.

Before I go to bed, I will more than likely have 100 more calories of cottage cheese (16grams of protein, 64 calories), 8 grams of carbs, 32 calories and the other 4 calories will be 0.4 grams of fat. Then, I will also have CaseinFX Protein before bed, which is 100 calories, 25 grams of protein.

That's a 900 calorie total with 129 grams of protein, adequate carbs, and some healthy fats. Not to mention, I got all of my vitamins. What's so bad about this diet?


----------



## Helianthus

How much do you weigh? When overall calories are that low, I wouldn't be having any of my meals in liquid form. 

I don't mind the strategy as a whole; caloric cycling. I think your caloric intake on the low days may be too low, depending on your weight.


----------



## KaeJS

Helianthus said:


> The more carbohydrates you consume, the more your body shifts oxidization of carbohydrates for use as energy. As your body is using primarily carbohydrates for fuel in this scenario, it spares protein. The body prefers to store what it is most efficient at storing, which is fat. Only under rare circumstances does the body store carbohydrates as fat, and the same goes for protein. In any real world scenario, it is only fat that is stored as fat, and that is only when total caloric consumption is in excess of maintenance.


The more carbs I consume, the more protein will be saved. I agree. However, it will also save all of my fat, which is exactly what I'm trying to reduce. Without a reduction in carbs, it is next to impossible to lose fat.

Only under rare circumstances does the body store carbs and protein as fat? The body will store anything as long as there is a surplus. If you eat 3000 calories of pure protein each day, you will get fat.

Are you saying a low fat, higher carb diet is the way to go?

I would think that a low carb diet is more the way to go. Yes, the body uses carbs as it's preferred source. But if it doesn't have carbs, it's going to switch to fat. If it didn't, then everyone would be fat and have zero muscle because the body would burn protein next.

In the situation you described, how would it be possible for people to become lean and ripped if the body burns protein after carbs and before it burns fat?


----------



## KaeJS

Right now I am 165lbs (checked this morning), 5ft 11".

I dropped down from 196lbs in January, but now I seem to have hit some sort of a plateau.

I have been bouncing between 164 and 168 for 2 weeks.


----------



## KaeJS

Helianthus said:


> When overall calories are that low, I wouldn't be having any of my meals in liquid form.


Is there a specific reason for this, or just due to hunger?


----------



## Helianthus

Caloric deficit is the simple key to fat loss, not the restriction of carbohydrates. Many diets are centered around cutting carbohydrates because they are a non-essential maconutrient. The small amounts of glucose the body needs can be synthesized via other means by adaptation. 

Unless you severely restrict fat consumption for extended periods of time, the body will not convert carbohydrates to fat stores. In most circumstances, the body will not store protein as fat either, although the pathways to do so technically exist. The body will store fat if there is a surplus of calories. Proteins are broken down in to amino acids, or oxidized for energy and if there is an excess, they are simply wasted. Some conversion of protein to glucose does occur, but the magnitude of the conversion required to create enough glucose, and then the subsequent, aforementioned de-novo lipogenesis is practically impossible. 

I personally feel even on your low calories days you are eating too little protein.


----------



## Helianthus

KaeJS said:


> Is there a specific reason for this, or just due to hunger?


Mostly for the purpose of satiety, I would choose to eat real food. To each his own, I guess. I would also look in to incorporating some greens in to your diet. Most studies question the efficacy of taking vitamin supplements.


----------



## jet powder

Thanks, moneygal

Often Iam hated @ a lot of sites, Is it wise to simplify the simple ? 
I have herd some of the best market letter guys say they lose a lot of thier clients when they predict important tops & bottoms in the market because noone wants to listen to thier point of view & they get hate mail & phone calls. Then when they are rated high again for catching the top or bottom they get a large inflow of customers only to leave just before they put on a once or twice in a life time oppertunity such as shorting the top in 2007 & buying the bottom in 2009.

Few realize that the good poker player in the market is lonely because noone wants to listen to them & they often want to share thier ideas with others.

Helianthus

I have only herd one person (Mike Mentzer) say this & everyone says the complete opposite but I often wonder who is right.
According to Mentzer he says he trained over 2000 clients & after they gained 20 -30 pounds of muscle each one of them had to start consuming less calories or else they would start to get fat. The only thing he could think of that was causing this was that as a person got bigger thier volume to surface area changed so less energy was needed to keep the body warm. 

Also realize as your muscles get bigger every added pound becomes less efficient then the previous one do to the angle of pull.

If einstein is correct in that time & gravity are connected I wonder if one should be concerned with gaining more muscle mass because would it not cause one to accumilate more gravity over time which perhaps accelerates ageing.


----------



## andrewf

Pretty sure general relativity is really relevant to human health.


----------



## Spudd

Kae if you're 165 lb at 5'11" aren't you thin enough already? Why are you trying to lose more weight?


----------



## steve41

To quote Gary Taubes (and others).... "carbs drive insulin, insulin drives fat storage" This is the essence of the lo-carb diet. Avoid (limit) sugar, starches and grains and choose saturated fat over trans fat. Salt limitation is of no consequence. Exercise is good for a lot of things, but not for weight reduction.


----------



## Berubeland

In my experience, having dated a bodybuilder for a number of years and having heard endless hours of research on the subject...

When people bulk up or make muscle, they are much more interested in finding ways to eat enough, then they are in reducing their calories. There is a limit to how much energy you can eat and digest. Some of these crazy folk do a brutal workout in the morning and another on a body part in the afternoon. If you are reducing calories, your body simply will not bulk up because you are asking it to do two different things simultaneously. 

How you work out should depend on your natural tendency. The leaner you tend to be, the lower the reps and higher the weight. 

Also concentrate on the weakest links. No one likes spending workout after workout improving hand strength and wrist and forearm exercises and calf and lower limb exercises but...the amount you can lift and therefore use to stress your muscles is limited to how much your hand will hold. Yes you can use wrist straps but at that point injuries become more common. 

So what you'll find in bodybuilding circles is that they go through a phase where they put on muscle, then another phase where they refine it and work on lacking specific muscles, then the diet phase and if they go to competition well then there's a whole other level of craziness going on with manipulation of water content and body fat and looking ripped. There's nothing natural about this. 

In any case much of this discussion is moot because you can't work out twice per day and recover if you're not on steroids. You also won't need to eat a grocery bag worth of food for lunch. You just don't get there from here. We are all to a certain extent trapped by our genetics and natural tendencies.

If you are doing effective workouts...you should be sore the day after every workout. If you are not slightly sore, you are doing it wrong. Sore means that stress has been put on the muscles and ligaments and that some cellular death/damage has occurred. This means your body will rebuild those cells with bigger tougher ones. The kind of stress will determine the type of muscle cell that gets the attention. This is why all marathoners for example tend to have very similar musculature. It doesn't take a genius to tell the long distance runner from the bodybuilder. Most young men tend to work out way too much and too often. Rest is as important to growth as the work out. 

The biggest guys seemed to be the ones with the highest pain tolerance, after all it isn't easy to go to the gym and hurt everyday, then do it the next day. Now steroids do allow people to push past those natural boundaries of how fast you can recover from the last workout and how efficiently you convert energy to muscle mass; however it really doesn't change the pain that is felt or how much work is required to bulk up. It's not actually a shortcut it just makes the impossible possible. In real life there is a limit to how big you can get. In any case at 5'11" and 165 lbs you have a long way to go before you hit those limits.


----------



## Berubeland

In my experience, having dated a bodybuilder for a number of years and having heard endless hours of research on the subject...

When people bulk up or make muscle, they are much more interested in finding ways to eat enough, then they are in reducing their calories. There is a limit to how much energy you can eat and digest. Some of these crazy folk do a brutal workout in the morning and another on a body part in the afternoon. If you are reducing calories, your body simply will not bulk up because you are asking it to do two different things simultaneously. 

How you work out should depend on your natural tendency. The leaner you tend to be, the lower the reps and higher the weight. 

Also concentrate on the weakest links. No one likes spending workout after workout improving hand strength and wrist and forearm exercises and calf and lower limb exercises but...the amount you can lift and therefore use to stress your muscles is limited to how much your hand will hold. Yes you can use wrist straps but at that point injuries become more common. 

So what you'll find in bodybuilding circles is that they go through a phase where they put on muscle, then another phase where they refine it and work on lacking specific muscles, then the diet phase and if they go to competition well then there's a whole other level of craziness going on with manipulation of water content and body fat and looking ripped. There's nothing natural about this. 

In any case much of this discussion is moot because you can't work out twice per day and recover if you're not on steroids. You also won't need to eat a grocery bag worth of food for lunch. You just don't get there from here. We are all to a certain extent trapped by our genetics and natural tendencies.

If you are doing effective workouts...you should be sore the day after every workout. If you are not slightly sore, you are doing it wrong. Sore means that stress has been put on the muscles and ligaments and that some cellular death/damage has occurred. This means your body will rebuild those cells with bigger tougher ones. The kind of stress will determine the type of muscle cell that gets the attention. This is why all marathoners for example tend to have very similar musculature. It doesn't take a genius to tell the long distance runner from the bodybuilder. Most young men tend to work out way too much and too often. Rest is as important to growth as the work out. 

The biggest guys seemed to be the ones with the highest pain tolerance, after all it isn't easy to go to the gym and hurt everyday, then do it the next day. Now steroids do allow people to push past those natural boundaries of how fast you can recover from the last workout and how efficiently you convert energy to muscle mass; however it really doesn't change the pain that is felt or how much work is required to bulk up. It's not actually a shortcut it just makes the impossible possible. In real life there is a limit to how big you can get. In any case at 5'11" and 165 lbs you have a long way to go before you hit those limits.


----------



## Helianthus

Berubeland said:


> How you work out should depend on your natural tendency. The leaner you tend to be, the lower the reps and higher the weight.


Different rep ranges stimulate different muscle fibres, therefore, it is optimal to utilize both types of training. 



Berubeland said:


> If you are doing effective workouts...you should be sore the day after every workout. If you are not slightly sore, you are doing it wrong. Sore means that stress has been put on the muscles and ligaments and that some cellular death/damage has occurred. This means your body will rebuild those cells with bigger tougher ones.


Soreness is not an indicator of anything, other than that you are sore. 



Berubeland said:


> The biggest guys seemed to be the ones with the highest pain tolerance, after all it isn't easy to go to the gym and hurt everyday, then do it the next day.


The biggest guys in the gym have the best genetics, eat sufficient calories, train effectively, get sleep and potentially take steroids.


----------



## KaeJS

Spudd said:


> Kae if you're 165 lb at 5'11" aren't you thin enough already? Why are you trying to lose more weight?


Because I was "Skinny-Fat".

Now, I am just Skinny.

And plan to use that in order to "bulk" appropriately to build muscle mass.


----------



## GoldStone

KaeJS, I'm willing to bet you still have some fat left from your "skinny-fat" days.

How I know?

I'm 6'0". I dropped from 180lbs in January to 155lbs now.

So I'm skinnier than you. Yet, I still have "the last 5 pounds" of fat around abdomen. Very hard to get rid of it.


----------



## KaeJS

GoldStone said:


> KaeJS, I'm willing to bet you still have some fat left from your "skinny-fat" days..


I definitely do.

My arms are small and my stomach is still fat. It's something I'm still working on.

When I flex, my arms are huge, but without flexing, they look like noodles....

If I can't get rid of that small bit of fat and increase my arm size, well, then at least I get to give up and eat a shtload of shtty foods.


----------



## m3s

Congrats on the progress, sounds like you're doing great. I can never stick to a routine long myself.. I prefer sports or lifting something for a purpose besides exercise. I think you should be more patient with the muscle gain though. I've seen people bulk up the main muscles as fast as possible, only to lose functionality, agility, flexibility etc etc (and often posture if done wrong) all just for bulky muscle. WWF fighters were more for show imo, just look how much smaller the UFC fighters are. It's all about power-to-weight ratio imo. Even look wise I think the huge bulk a bit ridiculous. You should look up Crossfit, this is more function oriented and you don't need fancy expensive machines either. It's also more forum based free information style and minimalist, not some "expert" trying to sell you some crazy new technique and overly complex equipment.


----------



## Spudd

And Crossfit is really hard core. OK, I'm a 40-year old woman, so I'm not *really* their target audience but I've looked at a few of their workouts and holy crap. If you can do them, you will be in shape big time.


----------



## m3s

Most Crossfit people also believe in just eating raw natural food. I totally believe in this although I could never go to their extreme, I really wish it was easier to source more raw authentic food instead of processed junk and commercial gimmicks. I'm no expert on it, but I'm not a fan of creatine or other commercial supplements. We are always advised against them by our (non commercial) trainers, and most guys enjoy eating real protein foods anyways.. The paleo diet and crossfit seem to be the latest trend in fitness/nutrition anyways. Seems a lot more natural than messing with your bio chem imo. I also totally believe in the "starvation mode" mentioned above and there are many many examples of how your body adjusts to its environment this way.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

I believe Gary Taube has a very important discovery in the role of carbs+insulin to cause fat to be stored readily and released only with difficulty or not at all.

He explains something in my own experience that I could not explain. At different times I went on a diet consisting of fresh fruit, fresh vegetables and small amounts of protein foods (meat, fish, poultry, eggs and cheese) and lost weight very rapidly (3 or 4 pounds a week) without ever going hungry or counting calories. If I cut out the protein foods and ate only fruit veg and salads I lost a pound a day. But any carbs at all spoiled the diet. In other words I would lose a pound a day no matter how much I ate, but if I added 2 slices of bread I lost nothing, if I added 1 slice of bread I lost only half a pound. What the hell is that? 2 slices of bread do not weigh a pound. Carbs are more fattening than equal amounts, or equal calories of protein or vegetable type foods.

Furthermore if I cut down the amount I eat without cutting carbs, I feel starved all the time. This gets back to the role of insulin in fat storage and inhibiting fat release. Without insulin stimulation I had no trouble drawing on my fat reserves, with insulin the fat stayed put and I felt starved.

I don't know how this relates to body building or exercise but it was a real breakthrough for me in my efforts to control my weight.


----------



## steve41

I would recommend his book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" to anyone curious about human nutrition, obesity, diabetes... etc. It is a tough slog, but well worth the effort.


----------



## andrewf

Rusty, I'm kinda skeptical. At the end of the day, the law of conservation of matter takes hold. 2 slices of bread is maybe 250 calories (usually less). If you're losing a pound a day (almost impossible--that's a 3500 calorie a day deficit), 250 calories is not going balance your calorie budget.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

andrewf said:


> Rusty, I'm kinda skeptical. At the end of the day, the law of conservation of matter takes hold. 2 slices of bread is maybe 250 calories (usually less). If you're losing a pound a day (almost impossible--that's a 3500 calorie a day deficit), 250 calories is not going balance your calorie budget.


All I can say is I have done it and it works. I was as surprised as you are. If you are skeptical, go ahead and try it yourself. Eat nothing but fresh fruit, vegetables and salad for a week. Eat all you want, any time you want. Never go hungry. Between meal snacks, be my guest. Just as long as they are fruit, celery, carrot sticks etc. See what happens. It can't hurt you. Remember no coffee, tea, alcohol, pop, salt, sugar, nothing but fruit and vegetables. If you want to be real hard core substitute the vinegar off a jar of hot peppers for salad dressing. Remember on this diet the more you eat the more weight you lose. I am not joking or jesting, I have proven this many times.

Then add other foods one by one. I have done this and was surprised. First, I lost an average of a pound a day. When I added protein foods (meat, fish, eggs, poultry and cheese) the weight loss decreased but I still lost half a pound a day. Adding carbs, even in small amounts, hampered the weight loss much more than eating fat, even bacon. Of course you have to use your common sense. I never sat down and ate a pound of bacon at a sitting, or anything like that. More like a meal of vegetables with a small serving of meat, or some ham, cheese, or sliced boiled egg as a garnish on a salad.

As I said, I have done this experiment on myself more than once and could never understand why carbs seemed to be so much more fattening than meat, fat, olive oil or other fatty or protein rich foods.

Gary Taubes explains it as the result of insulin's role in fat storage and fat use. Of course insulin is used to metabolize sugar and starch so consumption of those foods increases insulin. I am reading his book Why We Get Fat. It explains scientifically what I and others have noticed empirically.

Way back in 1860 something a guy named Banting published his Letter on Corpulence in which he described how he cured a severe obesity problem that had defied every effort for 20 years, by cutting out beer, bread, milk, etc. from his diet and subsisting on meat, fish, vegetables and dry wine. Really up until the 1970s starches and sweets were considered the most fattening foods, and the first that should be eliminated when dieting.

You could also look up a web site called Former Fat Guy who used a similar plan to reduce from 400+ pounds to a muscular 180. He found he not only lost weight rapidly but within a few days or weeks, had a lot more energy than he had when eating a stodgy sugary diet.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

If you try the diet plan I recommend you eat fruit for breakfast, salad for lunch and steamed or boiled vegetables for supper. Do not eat starchy vegetables like potatoes, beans, peas, or corn. So no lima beans lol.

One of my favorites was to saute some sliced onions and mushrooms in a couple of tablespoons of olive oil or bacon or beef dripping. Season with Worcestershire sauce as it cooks. This has a very satisfying meaty taste if you are not eating meat.

Another good one is to saute vegetables like zucchini, onion, green pepper in olive oil then pour on the spaghetti sauce. This makes a tasty Italian style dish with practically no calories. Season with fresh ground pepper. If you are not on a strict diet sprinkle with Parmesan and serve with a glass of wine. Tasty and low in calories.

My policy was to start off as strict as possible and keep it up as long as possible. This I call getting off to a good start. If you start by losing 10, or 15 pounds in as many days it is most encouraging especially if you have a lot of weight to lose.

But it is practically impossible for me to keep this up for very long. So then I would add the protein foods. But as I said, use them as a garnish on your salad, or along side the vegetables at supper. Or have bacon and eggs for breakfast once a week. No toast or pancakes or English muffins just bacon, eggs and fresh squeezed orange juice.

Another thing, I do not recommend canned or bottled fruit juices. They seem to be fattening. Even fresh juice from the juicer is more fattening than the same fruit eaten whole. I put this down to the lack of bulk or fibre which means you get more juice and more sugar. I know what I said about carbs but somehow the sugar in fruit does not seem to be as fattening if you eat the whole fruit.

If you give it a try I would like to know what results you get. I know it worked for me and some of my friends.


----------



## GoldStone

Rusty,

First you said:



> *But any carbs at all spoiled the diet.* In other words I would lose a pound a day no matter how much I ate, but if I added 2 slices of bread I lost nothing, if I added 1 slice of bread I lost only half a pound. What the hell is that? 2 slices of bread do not weigh a pound. *Carbs are more fattening than equal amounts, or equal calories of protein or vegetable type foods.*


Then you said:



> Eat nothing but *fresh fruit*, vegetables and salad for a week. Eat all you want, any time you want. Never go hungry. Between meal snacks, be my guest. Just as long as they are *fruit*, celery, carrot sticks etc.


Do you realize that fruits contain sugar? Some fruits contain tons of sugar, for example banana and grapes. Sugar = carbs. So, at the very least, your messages are rather contradictory.

One can easily gain weight by consuming too much sugar-rich fruit. One can easily lose weight while eating healthy, whole-grain carbs such as oatmeal, brown rice or brown pasta. At the end of the day, it all comes down to how much calories you consume.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

GoldStone said:


> Rusty,
> 
> First you said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you realize that fruits contain sugar? Some fruits contain tons of sugar, for example banana and grapes. Sugar = carbs. So, at the very least, your messages are rather contradictory.
> 
> One can easily gain weight by consuming too much sugar-rich fruit. One can easily lose weight while eating healthy, whole-grain carbs such as oatmeal, brown rice or brown pasta. At the end of the day, it all comes down to how much calories you consume.


This is what makes it so confusing. We have been brought up to believe that all our lives and it's not true.

How many overweight and obese people are there? Millions, right? How many have tried to lose weight? At least 90%. How many know "One can easily lose weight while eating healthy, whole-grain carbs such as oatmeal, brown rice or brown pasta. At the end of the day, it all comes down to how much calories you consume"? Every one of us. How often has that approach resulted in permanent weight loss? Maybe one time in 1000.

This is the conventional approach that I and millions of others have tried and failed at. It turns out we weren't weak or stupid. It turns out our body chemistry works better with certain foods than other foods.

In theory, you are right. But in practice your approach never works. In theory, I am wrong. But in practice my approach works. Now along comes Gary Taubes and points out that the explanation was available all along, that it is scientifically proven and not in the least controversial. Up until now it has been confined to the scientific literature and the laboratory and was not known to the general public. In time this new knowledge will replace the current theories and become conventional in its turn. In the meantime I am happy to know it works. Others have tried the same approach and it worked for them too. In fact I got the idea from some old diet books from the sixties and even the thirties.

It is the low fat, high carb diet that is unorthodox and has only been around for a short time. Before the seventies, anyone could have told you to lose weight by laying off starches.

I can't explain why it is possible to lose weight while eating fruit, even bananas, but I know it is possible because I have done it. I also know it is impossible for me to lose weight while eating oatmeal, pasta and bread, even the whole wheat variety because I have tried that too.


----------



## Helianthus

I'm with Goldstone. For most of the people trying to lose weight, it simply comes down to the number of calories you are eating. Now, if you are trying to get to sub 10% levels as a male, that is where things start getting a little more complicated, and you need to introduce some more radical methods to get trick the body in to doing what it doesn't want to do. 

I apologize for being so blunt, but Rusty, you sound like you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Toronto.gal

I hardly understand anything written on this thread, but a bit off-topic if I may KaeJS - *Food and Olympic Training:*

No 'Hunger Games' for the athletes preparing for the 2012 London Olympics!

This is the daily food intake of a weightlifter Olympic hopeful:










Can you guess [without looking at the answer], how many calories is that? only 3,500!

Olympic hopeful: *"If I had to obtain the calories my body needs through natural foods, I would have to spend all my time eating instead of training."* 

The Michael Phelps Diet: 12,000 calories. :watermelon:

*Breakfast:* Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and mayonnaise. Two cups of coffee. One five-egg omelet. One bowl of grits. Three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar. Three chocolate-chip pancakes.

*Lunch:* One pound of enriched pasta. Two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread. Energy drinks packing 1,000 calories.

*Dinner:* One pound of pasta. An entire pizza. More energy drinks.

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/08/13/the-michael-phelps-diet-dont-try-it-at-home/


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

I find this hilarious. I have actually gone on the diet you recommend, several times, and it never worked for me. I went on the diet I recommend, which was completely orthodox before 1970, and I lost weight almost effortlessly with no sense of hunger or starvation. 

Until you actually try it you are only repeating what you have heard, which is the same weight loss theory everybody knows. Take a look around you. How is that working? How many fat people are there? More than ever before. How many know the same theory you know? All of them. How many have tried it? At least 90%. How many have succeeded in taking off the weight and keeping it off, and how many ended up gaining back all they lost and more?

The present day epidemic of obesity dates back to the seventies when the low fat, high carb diet was first endorsed by government and public health organizations. Coincidence?

The insulin theory, which is perfectly orthodox science and not in the least controversial, explains why the calorie counting, low fat approach doesn't work and in fact makes things worse.


----------



## steve41

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I find this hilarious. I have actually gone on the diet you recommend, several times, and it never worked for me. I went on the diet I recommend, which was completely orthodox before 1970, and I lost weight almost effortlessly with no sense of hunger or starvation.
> 
> Until you actually try it you are only repeating what you have heard, which is the same weight loss theory everybody knows. Take a look around you. How is that working? How many fat people are there? More than ever before. How many know the same theory you know? All of them. How many have tried it? At least 90%. How many have succeeded in taking off the weight and keeping it off, and how many ended up gaining back all they lost and more?
> 
> The present day epidemic of obesity dates back to the seventies when the low fat, high carb diet was first endorsed by government and public health organizations. Coincidence?
> 
> The insulin theory, which is perfectly orthodox science and not in the least controversial, explains why the calorie counting, low fat approach doesn't work and in fact makes things worse.


 I went on the lo-carb diet. I was 226, and in less than a year I was 166. I never felt better in my life.... energy, my GI function... everything. Read Taubes' "GCBC". It will open your mind. Rusty indeed knows what he is talking about. The human body is not a grade 10 physics experiment, it is a complex bio-chemical-metabolic experiment. Calories in = Calories out is slowly being discredited. It is a slow process though. Keep the faith all you lc-ers!


----------



## Helianthus

I never suggested anyone go on a high carb, low fat diet. I also never said that low carb diets don't work. I think they work great, but I also think the general populous that suffers from being overweight could easily lose weight by counting calories, whilst eating moderate amounts of carbohydrates. I will also agree that metabolic function is more complicated than calories in/calories out, but for most people, it doesn't need to be.


----------



## GoldStone

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I can't explain why it is possible to lose weight while eating fruit, even bananas, but I know it is possible because I have done it. I also know it is impossible for me to lose weight while eating oatmeal, pasta and bread, even the whole wheat variety because I have tried that too.


Rusty,

I'm not a dietician and I don't know what exactly you ate, so take this as a guess. I think the key difference is the amount of calories per volume of food.

A bowl of pasta with some lean chicken pieces and some pasta sauce can be as high as 500 calories. People eat meals like that all the time and think nothing of it.

For comparison, you have to gobble two large bananas and two large apples to consume equal amount of calories. No one ever does that.

Portion control comes naturally in a plant-based diet. The diet forces you to eat many small portions spaced throughout the day.

As to carbs, I see a clear distinction between bad carbs and good carbs.

Bad carbs: any foods that contain refined sugar or refined grains such as "enriched" flour. I avoid these at all costs. These foods are stripped of all nutrients that are present in the whole grains.

Good carbs: whole grains. Whole wheat, whole rye, whole oats, barley, buckwheat, whole corn, wild rice, brown rice. These are fine, but you have to watch your portion size. Much more so than with fruits and veggies, because it's so easy to eat excess calories.

Rusty, I'm not advocating high-carb diet. I'm just saying that I think it's wrong to paint all carbs with the same brush.


----------



## KaeJS

I don't think its more complicated than calories in/calories out at all.

That's exactly what it is, in terms of losing weight.

However, you are still going to have a pot belly and small arms if you are living on Smarties and Mr. Noodles.
You will lose the belly and gain muscle if you eat only salmon, chicken, beef, fruit and veg.

It's like 50% Diet, 50% Workout.


----------



## steve41

GoldStone said:


> As to carbs, I see a clear distinction between bad carbs and good carbs.
> Rusty, I'm not advocating high-carb diet. I'm just saying that I think it's wrong to paint all carbs with the same brush.


 Measure blood glucose after eating a slice of white bread, ditto after a slice of whole wheat. I will guarantee you won't notice the difference.


----------



## m3s

Toronto.gal said:


> Can you guess [without looking at the answer], how many calories is that? only 3,500!
> 
> Olympic hopeful: *"If I had to obtain the calories my body needs through natural foods, I would have to spend all my time eating instead of training."*


That doesn't necessarily say anything bad about natural foods though, because Olympic competition is far beyond natural. Half the athletes are doping, so of course you need an extreme diet to compete. For some reason people who train a few hours a week think they need to take supplements like professional athletes training full time. They are working all day to burn those calories. Most supplements/vitamins are literally pissed away by a typical trainer.

Edit: I don't know anything about diet, but I find it interesting looking at the various sizes of people and their diets. Look at asians who don't eat much bread/cheese, vs Europeans who eat less processed foods, vs huge a$$ Americans. I forgot how nasty dripping greasy all the food was here. People will count the calories of a meal before smothering it in some kind of sauce, and then wonder why they're 200 lbs overweight


----------



## Plugging Along

I am no expert as I have quite a few pounds to lose still (I have lost 40+ pounds though  However, I have been working with and being monitored by a whole team of experts that specialize in weight loss, diabetes, etc - drs with nutrition specialties, endocrinologist, dieticitiens, etc. So I have been getting some really great information which I generally believe is better and more accurate than what I may find on the internet.

The ironic thing for me is that financially and most areas in life, I know I have my house in order and am extremely discplined. Weight has been the one and only area that I have struggled with, and I have been really on a journey to get my weight and health in order like the areas. I always found it interesting how some people seemed to make their finances and other things so difficult, but yet were easy for me. Now, I see so many parallels to weight and money. 

Here's some points I have learned:

- Weight is lost by 70-80% diet. My first 40+ lbs have been by making better eating choices. 
- This needs to be a lifestyle change, not a 'diet'. The lifestyle change is slower, but has longer results. It's like 'investing' in some get rich scheme vs real investing. Sure some might get rich, but the majority will come out worst than they are. The biggest change in my mindset, especially when I am impatient is that it took me time to gain this weight, it will take more time to lose it. 
- If it's something that you cannot maintain for the rest of your life, then there is a good chance that you will regain the weight back and then some. 800 cal days are not maintainable especially not eating. This is the one area that is a little different than money. With money once you get to your goal, however you got there, it doesn't matter as much, you can take a totally different strategy, and it can still work. With weight, extreme diets won't last.
- Once you lose it, you must always be thinking about maintaining it. I lost 80+ years ago, and then ended up gaining it back. Same with finances, there are people that make their money through lotteries, one time gains, inheritences,etc, and then lose it all. If you don't have a strategy of how to maintain your weight or money, and keep your bad habits, you will gain all the weight back, or be in debt again. 
- There is a 'Starvation mode'. It's not that you die from starvation if you eat too little as people think of in terms of starving countries. Your metabolism will slow down by quite a bit. Which when you reach your goals, makes it alot harder to maintain. Your body won't slow down in a couple of days, be keep it up for a longer time, it will start to slow, and it does take a while for it to get back to normal, for some if it's bad enough, it's never quite the same. My dr's explained it in terms of when your body gets enough food, it burns though the calories as required. However, if you go too low for a long period of time, then it starts to realize there is not enough to go around in terms of calories, so it starts to become very efficient in terms of how it uses its calories. The most critical functions (like brain and heart, etc) of course get their energy, but other areas start to slow and shut down. This isn't that different than when people need to become more frugal when their income drops or increases. When one makes an adequate income to cover off their spending, people don't generally worry as much about how they are spending, if the income drops, then people (at least responsible people) tend to reevaluate what they spend. When the income comes back, they are a little cautious at first, and tend to ease back into their spending habits. 
- Calories in vs calories out, this is the FIRST part of weight lost. For simplicity sake, if some one was really good at counting their calories (in and out), and have less than what they need, they will lose weight. However this is difficult to be perfectly accurate unless you weight and measure everything you eat, and know all the ingrediants when out, and measure your activities through monitors and hrm. I have my BMR tested frequently at the clinic, and find even with medical equiptment there are fluctations. Money is much easier to measure than calories used and consumed. 
- The other problems with just calorie counting is that if you are not changing your food choices, 1500 calories of junky food might give you one meal, and then you will be hungry the rest of the time. If you are not making healthy food choices that fill you up, then you are physically hungry, which I found takes ALOT of will power to not eat for the whole day because you have consumed your calories. 
- The type of calories you eat is important because it helps with your overall goals. If you just eat carbs, or proteing, or fat, etc, then you will be missing something that your body needs. Think about your portfolio, there are different balances and distributions for a reason. Same with the types of calories, depends on your goals. Right now, I am trying to lose weight as my primary goal, I reduce fat because they are high in calories, I have a lot of protein because protein is known to keep you full, and I keep my carbs to fruits and veggies because they fill me up for the amount calories I get, etc.
- The types of foods you choose will make a difference. Think about it as value for you money. I think about it as value for my calories. This actually has been one of the biggest tips for me, as I tend to always try to get value for my money and am frugal. Now, I have applied frugality to eating. I really like food in good quality AND quantities. Fats are 9 cal per gram, so I find that I can't eat as much when trying to lose weight. A pat of butter or olive oil can be 100 cals for very little. I can have 2.5 cups of veggies. A glass of juice though yummy, will be gone in seconds, and I will feel like I didn't have anything a little while later. Or I can have 3 pieces of fruit. Wine, though I love, I have decided I like food more being I have a limit on my calories. Grains and breads are much denser in calories, so I tend to eat them sparingly, if I can have a chicken breast or lean steak vs two dinner rolls, well, it's the meat for me, which I will feel full. I consider it 'Value eating' instead of value investing.
- The insulin piece is important to me, as that is why I was referred to specialist due to being I am at high risk factors for diabetes. The stuff Rusty said is a little off from dr, but not totally wrong. You can eat a lot more fruits and veggies than bread and grains. Think about 2 pieces of fruits or 3 cups of veggies for every piece of bread you eat. In terms of volumes, you are looking at many times more fruits and veggies. Of course you will lose weight eating only fruits and veggies. To eat 2200 cals of fruits and veggies, which is probably on the low side of what people are eating before they start losing weight, that would be 60 large cucumbers or 6 POUNDS of spinach or 18 bananas, you get the point. It would be 2 cups of pasta alfredo. My dr's tell me when I am hungry and need volume, veggies are my best friend.
- Gaining 1 pound after eating a slice of bread is partially rentention, if you measure you body fat and everything, you didn't gain a pound fat. Part of eating only veggies and fruits is that they tend to go through your body must faster in terms of waste, breads stick around a little longer. Once you go to the toilet, it will balance out.

As you can tell, I could go on forever on this topic, it's become my newest 'learning' in life.


----------



## Plugging Along

steve41 said:


> Measure blood glucose after eating a slice of white bread, ditto after a slice of whole wheat. I will guarantee you won't notice the difference.


Though this is true, this is only one part of the equation. The glucose may be the same, however, how full you stay after a hearty grain bread vs white is different, and you do get many more nutrients. Also the insulin is not as relevant for those that do not have insulin issues. I have measured after both. 

Since I do have to be careful about insulin, my dr's have advised that in order to level out your sugar levels, to always have either a small protein or diary with my carbs. That also applies to my fruits and veggie carbs.


----------



## Plugging Along

KaeJS said:


> I don't think its more complicated than calories in/calories out at all.
> 
> That's exactly what it is, in terms of losing weight.
> 
> However, you are still going to have a pot belly and small arms if you are living on Smarties and Mr. Noodles.
> You will lose the belly and gain muscle if you eat only salmon, chicken, beef, fruit and veg.
> 
> It's like 50% Diet, 50% Workout.



It's more 80% diet, 10% exercise, 10% genetics. 

Food choices will determine how much you lose, exercise will help you burn more, but is more for general health and toning. It will help increase metabolism if you are gaining muscle, and genes, well, we work with what we have. 

Calories in and out are partially true. But there are many range of choices of what you can put it your bodies. Some will keep you healthier, and make it easier to keep to your calories. I track my food every day, and there are some days where I eat very poorly and over my calories, I have been able to correlate this 'binges' with what I have eaten over the last 24-48 hours.


----------



## GoldStone

steve41 said:


> Measure blood glucose after eating a slice of white bread, ditto after a slice of whole wheat. I will guarantee you won't notice the difference.


The result depends on bread's glycemic index and glycemic load. Usually but not always, white wheat breads have a higher GI/GL than whole grain breads. For example, see here:

http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm

You can find examples that both agree and disagree with your point. My personal preference is a thin-sliced rye bread without any fats or sugar added. Rye bread is typically one of the lowest in terms of GI/GL.


----------



## KaeJS

Plugging Along said:


> Calories in and out are partially true. But there are many range of choices of what you can put it your bodies. Some will keep you healthier, and make it easier to keep to your calories. I track my food every day, and there are some days where I eat very poorly and over my calories, I have been able to correlate this 'binges' with what I have eaten over the last 24-48 hours.


This is the impossible part for me. I wish I could just eat chips all day long.

Yesterday, I ate:

Shawarma + Dr. Pepper for lunch.
Korean Food for Dinner
Beer and Pita with Cheese dip for snack.
Waffle with Ice Cream, Banana, Whipped Cream, Fudge and Chocolate Sauce for dessert.
Chocolate Milk for bedtime snack.

^ It was Friday?


----------



## steve41

This is a wonderful read.... From Hufpo


----------



## GoldStone

KaeJS said:


> Yesterday, I ate:
> 
> Shawarma + Dr. Pepper for lunch.
> Korean Food for Dinner
> Beer and Pita with Cheese dip for snack.
> Waffle with Ice Cream, Banana, Whipped Cream, Fudge and Chocolate Sauce for dessert.
> Chocolate Milk for bedtime snack.


And you wonder why you can't lose "the last 10 pounds"??????

ig: ig: ig:


----------



## Spudd

KaeJS said:


> Yesterday, I ate:
> 
> Shawarma + Dr. Pepper for lunch.
> Korean Food for Dinner
> Beer and Pita with Cheese dip for snack.
> Waffle with Ice Cream, Banana, Whipped Cream, Fudge and Chocolate Sauce for dessert.
> Chocolate Milk for bedtime snack.


Wow, that's a good looking 800 calories you got there.


----------



## KaeJS

GoldStone said:


> And you wonder why you can't lose "the last 10 pounds"??????
> 
> ig: ig: ig:





Spudd said:


> Wow, that's a good looking 800 calories you got there.


I love food...


----------



## steve41

Back to the original title of the thread..... Those iconic pictures we all remember from Auschwitz.... the inmates looked pretty muscular to me. Smiling..... not so much. 

Limiting calories (starvation dieting) works, but starvation is starvation.... very difficult to stay on.


----------



## Plugging Along

KaeJS said:


> This is the impossible part for me. I wish I could just eat chips all day long.
> 
> Yesterday, I ate:
> 
> Shawarma + Dr. Pepper for lunch.
> Korean Food for Dinner
> Beer and Pita with Cheese dip for snack.
> Waffle with Ice Cream, Banana, Whipped Cream, Fudge and Chocolate Sauce for dessert.
> Chocolate Milk for bedtime snack.
> 
> ^ It was Friday?


I love food too... I watch the food network all the time, as my food porn, and think about food and all the yummy things. However, I have found that my attitude towards food has really changed over the last 6 months or so. I have decided that I love food too much that I won't eat crappy food like chips and stuff, and will really save my calories for those great moments.

On a seperate note, seeing that you are only eating 800 cals on the other days, I would say that is one of the big problems. You are being quite extreme (I can say that because I can be too). You go into well below the min any adult of 1200 cal, and that's usually reserved for short females, or those with screwed up metabolisms. Then you binge after denying yourself so much. What ends up happening is then you will get back on track, and then if those goes on long enough, you will just go back into mode. This really applies if you really like food, and have an all or nothing personality, or want to see immediate results. 

Can you gain muscle on 800 cals, and the amount of working out, I would say you may for a short while, but then the answer will be no, since you are not taking enough in for your body to repair the muscles and rebuild. I am not expert on this, as I haven't started my toning or building phase yet. Thats based on general info I've read, and what my dr's say.

In terms working our so hard, and not eating much, it's no different than gas in your car. Not enough gas, then things start to no longer go. There is a limit on how much of a deficit you can go.


----------



## Toronto.gal

mode3sour said:


> 1. That doesn't necessarily say anything bad about natural foods though...
> 2. Olympic competition is far beyond natural.
> 3. Look at asians who don't eat much bread/cheese...


1. Of course it doesn't! :rolleyes2:

I had actually posted a bit off-topic to pause the arguments that some were having here, but LOL, only you could twist/turn the meaning of anything I say/post into a negative interpretation. 

I did not interpret the athlete's comment in the least as criticism of 'natural foods'; it was clearly & simply, a comment regarding time, which I found spot-on, albeit humorous!

2. You think?! It goes without saying that professional athletes require additional of everything to endure their brutal training regimens [the athlete in question was specifically referring to ergogenic supplements to be exact]. 
http://www.ergogenicsnutrition.com/

I'll give you credit though, for being the only one who acknowledged my post. :encouragement:

3. True, but they eat white rice for breakfast/lunch/dinner, not to mention that a lot of the food is deep-fried & very salty! I love Chinese food, hence the reason I need to lose 4.5 kgs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1771851...urant-food-unhealthy-study-says/#.T9TLnG-XSKU

*Rusty:* I'll try the fruit/vegetables for a week [if I can last that long], and see if I, too, can lose 1 lb. a day!


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

"Rusty: I'll try the fruit/vegetables for a week [if I can last that long], and see if I, too, can lose 1 lb. a day! "

I hope you do, and I hope it works for you as well as it has for me. The usual day is fruit for breakfast, salad for lunch, vegetables for supper. Avoid the starchy ones like peas, beans, potatoes and corn.

Be sure to eat AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. This is important. You don't want to go hungry, it is easier to stay on the diet if you are not hungry. The more you eat the more you lose. Between meal snacks, fine, just as long as they are fruit or vegetables.

Drink only water. I found even black coffee slowed down the weight loss even though it is supposed to be calorie free.

It is actually an interesting experiment to notice what effect different foods have on your body. 

If you can be totally into the diet you will lose a pound a day. I have lost more than that on some days. But it is practically impossible to stick to it for more than a week or 2. I call this "getting off to a good start". Losing 5, 10 pounds or more in a short time is encouraging, to prove it IS possible to lose weight and it does not have to be a lifetime sentence.

After the first week try adding different foods one by one. Weigh yourself each day and notice what effect each change has. You may be surprised.

Let us know how you make out.


----------



## Helianthus

Rusty, what you are referring to is a result of decreased water retention, not actual fat loss. Without extreme exercise, you can't lose a pound+ per day of fat.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

Helianthus said:


> I never suggested anyone go on a high carb, low fat diet. I also never said that low carb diets don't work. I think they work great, but I also think the general populous that suffers from being overweight could easily lose weight by counting calories, whilst eating moderate amounts of carbohydrates. I will also agree that metabolic function is more complicated than calories in/calories out, but for most people, it doesn't need to be.


That is exactly right except for the counting calories part. Unless you are a professional accountant keeping track of the calories in everything you eat is impossibly tedious and confusing.

The foods I recommend are not free of carbohydrates. They contain starch and sugar in small amounts. What I am saying is, you will give your health and weight loss a big boost if you cut out empty calories from starch and sugar. If you eat only these low carb foods you can eat all you want without guilt and without worrying about your health.


----------



## Helianthus

Rusty, funny you should say that, as I am a professional accountant by trade. The key to counting calories is to plan in advance. I have spreadsheets detailing the macronutrient breakdown and calories of several meals that I eat on a regular basis.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

Plugging Along said:


> I am no expert as I have quite a few pounds to lose still (I have lost 40+ pounds though  However, I have been working with and being monitored by a whole team of experts that specialize in weight loss, diabetes, etc - drs with nutrition specialties, endocrinologist, dieticitiens, etc. So I have been getting some really great information which I generally believe is better and more accurate than what I may find on the internet.
> 
> The ironic thing for me is that financially and most areas in life, I know I have my house in order and am extremely discplined. Weight has been the one and only area that I have struggled with, and I have been really on a journey to get my weight and health in order like the areas. I always found it interesting how some people seemed to make their finances and other things so difficult, but yet were easy for me. Now, I see so many parallels to weight and money.
> 
> Here's some points I have learned:
> 
> - Weight is lost by 70-80% diet. My first 40+ lbs have been by making better eating choices.
> - This needs to be a lifestyle change, not a 'diet'. The lifestyle change is slower, but has longer results. It's like 'investing' in some get rich scheme vs real investing. Sure some might get rich, but the majority will come out worst than they are. The biggest change in my mindset, especially when I am impatient is that it took me time to gain this weight, it will take more time to lose it.
> - If it's something that you cannot maintain for the rest of your life, then there is a good chance that you will regain the weight back and then some. 800 cal days are not maintainable especially not eating. This is the one area that is a little different than money. With money once you get to your goal, however you got there, it doesn't matter as much, you can take a totally different strategy, and it can still work. With weight, extreme diets won't last.
> - Once you lose it, you must always be thinking about maintaining it. I lost 80+ years ago, and then ended up gaining it back. Same with finances, there are people that make their money through lotteries, one time gains, inheritences,etc, and then lose it all. If you don't have a strategy of how to maintain your weight or money, and keep your bad habits, you will gain all the weight back, or be in debt again.
> - There is a 'Starvation mode'. It's not that you die from starvation if you eat too little as people think of in terms of starving countries. Your metabolism will slow down by quite a bit. Which when you reach your goals, makes it alot harder to maintain. Your body won't slow down in a couple of days, be keep it up for a longer time, it will start to slow, and it does take a while for it to get back to normal, for some if it's bad enough, it's never quite the same. My dr's explained it in terms of when your body gets enough food, it burns though the calories as required. However, if you go too low for a long period of time, then it starts to realize there is not enough to go around in terms of calories, so it starts to become very efficient in terms of how it uses its calories. The most critical functions (like brain and heart, etc) of course get their energy, but other areas start to slow and shut down. This isn't that different than when people need to become more frugal when their income drops or increases. When one makes an adequate income to cover off their spending, people don't generally worry as much about how they are spending, if the income drops, then people (at least responsible people) tend to reevaluate what they spend. When the income comes back, they are a little cautious at first, and tend to ease back into their spending habits.
> - Calories in vs calories out, this is the FIRST part of weight lost. For simplicity sake, if some one was really good at counting their calories (in and out), and have less than what they need, they will lose weight. However this is difficult to be perfectly accurate unless you weight and measure everything you eat, and know all the ingrediants when out, and measure your activities through monitors and hrm. I have my BMR tested frequently at the clinic, and find even with medical equiptment there are fluctations. Money is much easier to measure than calories used and consumed.
> - The other problems with just calorie counting is that if you are not changing your food choices, 1500 calories of junky food might give you one meal, and then you will be hungry the rest of the time. If you are not making healthy food choices that fill you up, then you are physically hungry, which I found takes ALOT of will power to not eat for the whole day because you have consumed your calories.
> - The type of calories you eat is important because it helps with your overall goals. If you just eat carbs, or proteing, or fat, etc, then you will be missing something that your body needs. Think about your portfolio, there are different balances and distributions for a reason. Same with the types of calories, depends on your goals. Right now, I am trying to lose weight as my primary goal, I reduce fat because they are high in calories, I have a lot of protein because protein is known to keep you full, and I keep my carbs to fruits and veggies because they fill me up for the amount calories I get, etc.
> - The types of foods you choose will make a difference. Think about it as value for you money. I think about it as value for my calories. This actually has been one of the biggest tips for me, as I tend to always try to get value for my money and am frugal. Now, I have applied frugality to eating. I really like food in good quality AND quantities. Fats are 9 cal per gram, so I find that I can't eat as much when trying to lose weight. A pat of butter or olive oil can be 100 cals for very little. I can have 2.5 cups of veggies. A glass of juice though yummy, will be gone in seconds, and I will feel like I didn't have anything a little while later. Or I can have 3 pieces of fruit. Wine, though I love, I have decided I like food more being I have a limit on my calories. Grains and breads are much denser in calories, so I tend to eat them sparingly, if I can have a chicken breast or lean steak vs two dinner rolls, well, it's the meat for me, which I will feel full. I consider it 'Value eating' instead of value investing.
> - The insulin piece is important to me, as that is why I was referred to specialist due to being I am at high risk factors for diabetes. The stuff Rusty said is a little off from dr, but not totally wrong. You can eat a lot more fruits and veggies than bread and grains. Think about 2 pieces of fruits or 3 cups of veggies for every piece of bread you eat. In terms of volumes, you are looking at many times more fruits and veggies. Of course you will lose weight eating only fruits and veggies. To eat 2200 cals of fruits and veggies, which is probably on the low side of what people are eating before they start losing weight, that would be 60 large cucumbers or 6 POUNDS of spinach or 18 bananas, you get the point. It would be 2 cups of pasta alfredo. My dr's tell me when I am hungry and need volume, veggies are my best friend.
> - Gaining 1 pound after eating a slice of bread is partially rentention, if you measure you body fat and everything, you didn't gain a pound fat. Part of eating only veggies and fruits is that they tend to go through your body must faster in terms of waste, breads stick around a little longer. Once you go to the toilet, it will balance out.
> 
> As you can tell, I could go on forever on this topic, it's become my newest 'learning' in life.


 I should be taking lessons from you. You are right, I do over simplify in hope of getting a message across. There are a lot of angles, and a lot of details to work out.

If I had known when I started out what I know now it could have saved me 30 years of blind alleys and failed experiments. I wish I could save other people from making the same mistakes. Sometimes just a hint will turn you in the right direction to find out what you need to know.

There are alternatives to the old calories in calories out, starvation model that has done so much harm for so long.

One thing I have learned, besides what I have already spoken of is this.

Changing your mind is hard. Changing your body is easy.


----------



## KaeJS

Fruits?

You will lose muscle mass if you only eat fruits. That's where all the weight is being lost from.

You'll have little protein in your diet.

In order to lose fat, you need a high protein, medium carb, low fat diet. And yes, you do need to count calories. And yes, you do need to implement cardio.

And no, there's no way in hell black coffee is going to slow down fat loss.

You can't just eat "as much fruit as you want". You will gain weight that way. One banana has over 100 calories. You can easily eat 20 bananas in a day (if you wanted to). You wouldn't lose anything.


----------



## Helianthus

Agreed...Rusty's advice makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills.


----------



## steve41

> In order to lose fat, you need a high protein, medium carb, low fat diet.


 Well... close. It should really be High Fat, High Protein, Lo-carb. Paleo rulz.


----------



## KaeJS

Why would you have high fat?

That's the worst idea I've ever heard.

Fat has 9 Calories per gram, yet Protein and Carbs have 4 grams. So why would you want a HIGH FAT diet?

Plus, the body doesn't have to do anything to fat to store it as fat. It's already fat. The body at least needs to convert proteins and carbs to fat in order to store it.

I guarantee you that a High Fat diet is not the way to go in order to lose fat.

Eat a bunch of dairy products and nuts and let me know how that works out for you...


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

I guess it all boils down to whether you prefer theories without results, or results that contradict the theories.


----------



## Helianthus

Rusty, I'm glad that you've had results doing what you've been doing, but I think for the average person, the other approaches outlined in this thread will be more effective.


----------



## Plugging Along

Rusty O'Toole said:


> That is exactly right except for the counting calories part. Unless you are a professional accountant keeping track of the calories in everything you eat is impossibly tedious and confusing.
> 
> The foods I recommend are not free of carbohydrates. They contain starch and sugar in small amounts. What I am saying is, you will give your health and weight loss a big boost if you cut out empty calories from starch and sugar. If you eat only these low carb foods you can eat all you want without guilt and without worrying about your health.


Actually, the foods (fruits) you are recommending do contains ALOT of carbohydrates depending on which fruits one chooses. Fruits and veggetables are one of the healthiest things, but too much of anything can cause problems too. Your advice of eating just fruits and veggies for week, would be very bad advice for someone watching their insulin levels, and fruits can often cause spikes by eating them alone. The problems with eating only one food group, you are depriving your body of many nutrients, minerals that it requires.

Also, I have been counting my calories very religious for the last 6 months, and it's not that hard. I can almost do it in my head now, but there are great apps and programs out there to do this. For me, counting my calories is just one part of my equation, I also monitor my macro nutrients, and vitamins and minerals. It requires discipline, not an accounting degree. 



KaeJS said:


> Why would you have high fat?
> 
> That's the worst idea I've ever heard.
> 
> Fat has 9 Calories per gram, yet Protein and Carbs have 4 grams. So why would you want a HIGH FAT diet?
> 
> Plus, the body doesn't have to do anything to fat to store it as fat. It's already fat. The body at least needs to convert proteins and carbs to fat in order to store it.
> 
> I guarantee you that a High Fat diet is not the way to go in order to lose fat.
> 
> Eat a bunch of dairy products and nuts and let me know how that works out for you...


Fat doesn't make you fat. It has more calories, so it's easy to over consume, but it doesn't make you fat. Your body does need some form of fat to function, even if you are over weight. When I had gall bladder problems, I was limited to 25 grams a day, but there is no need to completely eliminate fat out of your diet. 



Rusty O'Toole said:


> I guess it all boils down to whether you prefer theories without results, or results that contradict the theories.


Well, I think I've been getting pretty good results, over 40+lbs lost in 6 months. Mainly eating a balanced diet, lots of protein, lots of veggies, lower fat, and moderate carbs.

That being said, my next read will be Wheat belly, as I do currently find that products with wheat just generally are more concentrated in calories, and I am interested in the science behind it. However, from the except I have read, he is really just repackaging Paleo diet.

The problem with restrictive 'diets' that one cannot maintain indefinately (in your case on two weeks), is yes it may be a kick start, but if one does not learn how to eat properly, as soon as they stop the fad diet, they will gain back all the weight and then some.


----------



## m3s

Toronto.gal said:


> 1. Of course it doesn't! :rolleyes2:
> 
> only you could twist/turn the meaning of anything I say/post into a negative interpretation.


My post wasn't actually negative, but this, ironically, seems to be as usual.



Toronto.gal said:


> 3. True, but they eat white rice for breakfast/lunch/dinner, not to mention that a lot of the food is deep-fried & very salty! I love Chinese food, hence the reason I need to lose 4.5 kgs.
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1771851...urant-food-unhealthy-study-says/#.T9TLnG-XSKU


NA Chinese restaurant food? Really? I'm sure even you are aware that it is nothing like what Asians actually eat, which is entirely different across China let alone Asia. With the introduction of mass produced junk food and McD's, you start to see some chunky Asians. Still no where close to 'mericans yet. Must be genetics though.


----------



## Sampson

mode3sour said:


> With the introduction of mass produced junk food and McD's, you start to see some chunky Asians.


McDs has been in China for decades, but isn't very popular. The chinese much prefer to eat KFC and it's interesting to see the chinese variants introduced. Also, there are lots of Chinese fast food joints that are very popular. Just google the terms

bruce lee fast food china


----------



## andrewf

I call that kind of 'Chinese' food 'American Chinese'. It was developed in America. Also because there are lots of more 'authentic' Chinese restaurants in the GTA, which I don't mind eating at. I'd really rather not eat American Chinese food, as it's usually terrible (Mandarin), though there are some good places.


----------



## uptoolate

On my visits to China it always seemed that McDonald's was pretty jammed. And not mainly with tourists.


----------



## Sampson

But have you ever noticed how many competitors there are.

In North America, McDonald's has more restaurants than their competitors, but certainly not the case in China. If you pour through the financials of MCD vs. YUM, you see a huge difference in their relative exposure in China.

Not saying McDs isn't successful, but they are not the dominant player.

I guess we are getting OT. Although maybe the thread would be more interesting if it was about gaining muscle on a pure McDonald's diet.


----------



## m3s

Sampson said:


> McDs has been in China for decades, but isn't very popular. The chinese much prefer to eat KFC and it's interesting to see the chinese variants introduced. Also, there are lots of Chinese fast food joints that are very popular. Just google the terms
> 
> bruce lee fast food china


Note that I generalized Asians, but many seem to think of Chinese when someone says Asians. A lot of American commerce has set up shop and the younger Asians are getting into the packaged junk food, this is just a perception with my own eyes no media article to quote. The McDs are less common than ours, they still don't seem to eat bread and cheese etc as often as we do. Genetics and/or diet but their junk food lovers are still fairly tame compared to our behemoths


----------



## Sampson

mode3sour said:


> Genetics and/or diet but their junk food lovers are still fairly tame compared to our behemoths


I've always been a little interested in this as it relates to diets and nutrition. Cutting carbs is obviously popular, but a whole whack of the World's population eat's 'empty' carbs in the form of rice and as you mention, waist-lines among asians are still smaller than NA's despite the 'unhealthy' tradition of eating so much rice.


----------



## Toronto.gal

Sampson said:


> unhealthy tradition of eating so much rice.


A Filipino friend of mine told me that, unless she eats rice, she never feels full, so when I invite her for any meal, I have to cook rice, otherwise I would not be a good hostess!


----------



## Plugging Along

I don't think you can just look at the rice in asian diets. Overall, the real asian diets (not the crap in NA), is lower fat, very high in vegetables, and fruits, low in diary and saturated meats, and high in seafood. They don't have as much deep fried junk, and what they do have, they are in much lower quantities. I don't know alot of Asians in Asia that will eat a whole large bag of chips in one sitting, it's usually a family thing.

In terms of exercise, Asians get a lot more exercise than here. They have more activities in schools, and people still walk and ride to alot of places still. I don't think it's a fair comparison to look at just one food group (carbs) and make a ruling if it's good or bad without looking at all the other factors. 

I know my nannies who have come from Asia, and their families have all gained weight while coming Canada. Alot of it has to do with the abundance of crappy food choices that are available here, more 'high tech' options, rather than being force to play outside, and in my case, cold winters that they are not used to which keeps them in and not walking. 

The McD's in China is much crappy in terms of the meat quality than here... yes, that is possible. KFC, the chicken is closer in quality.


----------



## brad

Sampson said:


> Cutting carbs is obviously popular, but a whole whack of the World's population eat's 'empty' carbs in the form of rice and as you mention, waist-lines among asians are still smaller than NA's despite the 'unhealthy' tradition of eating so much rice.


Here's a detailed exploration of this question: http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/...still-consuming-high-amounts-of-carbohydrates

This is just one MD's perspective, of course, and he's solidly in the Gary Taubes camp (he's a close friend of Taubes's), so you have to take that into account. But I think he makes some interesting points.


----------



## Sampson

I totally agree with everything you have written. I think it is just an interesting tidbit for those that believe in carb-free diets.

There are many ways to slay the same beast, but if lots of weight is to be lost, it does amount to altering diet to suit your personal physiology, altering habits, and good healthy exercise.


----------



## steve41

Of course, according to Taubes, exercise is not going to cause you to lose weight.... it simply makes you hungry.


----------



## KaeJS

steve41 said:


> Of course, according to Taubes, exercise is not going to cause you to lose weight.... it simply makes you hungry.


Exercise will cause you to lose weight.

Not having discipline will cause you to gain it by not being able to control your hunger cravings.

Let's be clear.

I burn upwards of 500+ calories on the treadmill almost each day. You don't think I get hungry? Of course I do. I probably get hungry more than most people, as I was used to a diet where eating 2 pizza's and 3 litres of chocolate milk for dinner was normal.

Guess how I solve this issue? I exercise, I drink water, suck it up like a man and refrain from eating too much, and continue about my day.

End result? I lose weight.

If I eat something - I need to burn it off on the treadmill. That means if I feel like eating a banana, I'm walking on the treadmill for 25 minutes or running for 10 minutes. Either way, it's gotta be done or I don't eat the banana.


----------



## MoneyGal

I love these n=1 trials; so informative.


----------



## steve41

> "suck it up like a man"


 Wow.... I just thought of a new title for a weight loss-diet book..."Suck It Up Like a Man" This is bound to sell at least... I dunno... maybe 3 or 4 copies. Get real.


----------



## KaeJS

steve41 said:


> Wow.... I just thought of a new title for a weight loss-diet book..."Suck It Up Like a Man" This is bound to sell at least... I dunno... maybe 3 or 4 copies. Get real.


That's exactly what people need to hear.

They won't get anywhere without some serious discipline and hard work.


----------



## steve41

Good luck with that.


----------



## Plugging Along

Kae - I hate to tell ou it's not just about discipline, in not eating after working out. The reason that you are hungry is that your ody metabolism is going up, which is good, but it also needs to have some refueling. By not refuelling it, you will cause a slow down and it will be harder and harder to maintain. Why you think you had the binge that mentioned earlier.

What you are doing is exactly the opposite of discipline. You are trying to lose weight fast, by going on a crsh diet and asking high risks with our body. This is equivalent to the get right schemes out there. I am surprised that you think you will be able to maintain this for the rest of your life, and do not see the longer term effects.


----------



## steve41

I got it now.... The Auschwitz Diet-'Suck it up like a man'


----------



## Sampson

MoneyGal said:


> I love these n=1 trials; so informative.


You'd be surprised at how often this actually happens in science/research. More often than it should.


----------



## MoneyGal

Yeah, I know it's a real thing; I just don't think it's the best methodology in this case.


----------



## brad

There are lots of "N=way more than 1" studies out there to show that exercise can in fact contribute to weight loss/fat loss, but it's not as effective as a change in diet. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8363201 (Evidence for success of exercise in weight loss and control)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7713045 (Meta-analysis: effect of exercise, with or without dieting, on the body composition of overweight subjects.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19211823 (Effect of exercise intensity on abdominal fat loss during calorie restriction in overweight and obese postmenopausal women: a randomized, controlled trial.)


----------



## MoneyGal

Brad. I know. I was responding to the "suck it up like a man" argument. My initial comment in this thread was referencing Dr. John Berardi, who is one of the leading exercise PhD's in NA. :chuncky:


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

Re: exercise for weight loss. I am a believer in exercise as part of a weight loss program even though I don't believe in exercise to burn calories.

Let me explain. I find that modest amounts of exercise help me feel better, stay on a diet, and lose weight faster even though I do not exercise hard enough to "burn" very many calories. I put it down to improved muscle tone, improved circulation, and all around feeling better. Sitting around watching TV =>> eating fattening snacks. Going for a walk =>> feeling energized without the snacks.

Your mileage may vary. 

By the way my favorite exercise plan is the old 5BX plan or Canadian Air Force exercises from the sixties. Nothing else I have tried gives as much benefit for so little effort and expense.

While we are at it I don't recommend any fad diets or nutty diets. What has worked best for me is what I spoke of before, make a change that is more or less radical to shake up my daily routine. Slight changes don't work for me, I get bored in a few days and go back to my old way of eating.

What works is to revise my whole way of eating, to fruit for breakfast, salad for lunch, vegetables for supper. No limit on amounts, no limits on snacks as long as they are fruits and veg.

I call this "getting off to a good start". It shakes up my old habits and plants the seeds of new habits and I usually lose weight rapidly.

I can't stand the pace for more than a week or 2. The I start adding protein foods like meat, fish, eggs, cheese and poultry.

If you try this, add whatever foods you want. But only add one food in a day. You may find, as I did, that some foods agree with you , while others have very bad effects. Either adding weight out of all proportion, or making you feel like crap, or both. Don't be afraid to try different foods but NOTICE what effect they have.

In the past I have done this and stuck to it for a year or more. In the process lost as much as 80 pounds. The weight loss was rapid at first, a pound a day or more, tapering off to 2 or 3 pounds a week. Some weeks I lost little or nothing, even gained a little if I was a naughty boy. But it was not too hard to stick with it, once the new habits were in place. Until the good habits were broken by extreme emotional stress or physical injury unrelated to the new mode of life.

Develop your own best eating plan and best mode of living. Don't listen to me. I don't want you to listen to me. Go ahead and prove for yourself if I am right or wrong. I might be right for me and wrong for you. All I am doing is offering some new ideas.

I also think it's a riot that some people believe eating fresh fruit and vegetables is dangerous to your health. I picture them chomping down on a Big Mac and fries while telling me fruit is unhealthy ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.


----------



## KaeJS

Plugging Along said:


> Kae - I hate to tell ou it's not just about discipline, in not eating after working out. The reason that you are hungry is that your ody metabolism is going up, which is good, but it also needs to have some refueling. By not refuelling it, you will cause a slow down and it will be harder and harder to maintain. Why you think you had the binge that mentioned earlier.
> 
> What you are doing is exactly the opposite of discipline. You are trying to lose weight fast, by going on a crsh diet and asking high risks with our body. This is equivalent to the get right schemes out there. I am surprised that you think you will be able to maintain this for the rest of your life, and do not see the longer term effects.


You need to refuel, but you need to refuel with only the amount you have burned or less. 

In regards to my "crash diet", I am on my 4th month. I wouldn't call it crash dieting, but an effective way to try and gain muscle while losing fat.

Basically, it's like carb-cycling. But, I'm calorie-cycling.

Rusty, your whole idea of "no limit" and a low protein diet is completely out of whack. You need to have a "limit". If you don't, you will get fat. Also, fruit spikes your insulin, which helps you to store fat. Both diet and exercise need to be implemented in order to achieve results, and you should always believe in exercise for burning calories.

The body is resilient. It adapts. Eating 1000 calories for a few days in a row isn't going to do any harm to anybody.


----------



## Helianthus

KaeJS said:


> The body is resilient. It adapts. Eating 1000 calories for a few days in a row isn't going to do any harm to anybody.


Agreed, even in flat out fasting, the earliest report of any negative metabolic effects occur after 60 hours. Other studies suggest that these negative effects begin to occur in the 72-96 hour range. Prior to that, there is actually a metabolic increase from 3%-10%. 



Rusty Tool said:


> While we are at it I don't recommend any fad diets or nutty diets.


Eating only vegetables and fruit is not a fad/nutty diet? It is one of the most ridiculous recommendations I've ever heard, especially in this case, where the OP frequently exercises, including weight training.


----------



## KaeJS

Helianthus, I applaud you.

I thought I was going to lose my mind in this thread for a second. 

Thank you.

All I have to say is that whatever "we" are doing (and by "we", I mean the general population) is horrible for our body composition.

I guarantee if someone were to take up the Caveman Diet (basically, all you eat is chicken, fish, beef, vegetable and fruit. No grains or processed foods) with regular hard exercise, you would all transform your body within 12 months from a fat desk job slob to a bulletproof machine.

Even since I have started training, I could not run for more than 2 minutes without gasping for air. Now, I can run for 10 minutes straight -- while keeping a regular conversation. After those 10 minutes? I could run another 10 before sweat even starts to be released from my pores.

*Rusty*, here's another fact you should take into consideration..

A human that has higher stamina (is in better shape) actually burns a higher percentage of fat both during exercise and at rest. Why? Because the body becomes more efficient at burning and supplying energy. The body will become more productive with regards to fat oxidation.

Someone that is out of shape may burn 75% carbs, 25% fat while working out. However, a person that is in shape may burn 40% fat and 60% carbs, as the bodily is actually able to readily use fat just as well as it can use carbs.

Take for instance, marathon runners. Why are they all skinny?

Is it because they watch their diet? Well... I'm sure they do. But do you think they're watching their calories, or just their nutrition?

Marathon runners are so fit and slim because of their body's ability to process fat and turn it back into a usable energy source via beta oxidation. These runners basically burn fat during their sleep. As such, they are always "toned" looking.

As you can see, it's a double-whammy!

People who sit around and do flock-all 24 hours a day don't burn calories through exercise, nor are their bodies efficient in the process of fat oxidation.
People who work out regularly get the benefit of burning calories through movement, but also get the benefit of increased metabolic rate and the ability to perform fat oxidation at an increased rate.

This is why people who sit get fat and people who move stay slim.

All in all, you do need to exercise. To say you don't believe in exercise to burn calories is like saying astrology can guide you to riches through way of the stock market.


----------



## MoneyGal

It's really different from person to person and between men and women - that's really the only argument I'm actually putting forward. All the stuff on intermittent fasting, for example, and metabolic stress in general - virtually none of those studies have been done on women, so a lot of the generalizations about IF are about men and IF, not "people" and IF. 

FWIW, John Berardi is just releasing the potential winners from his year-long "Lean Eating" program -- here are the male top candidates:

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/finalists-men-july-2011

and here are the female top candidates: 

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/finalists-women-july-2011

If you ask him, or the people who coach for him (several of whom I've trained with, off and on, for years now -- specifically Krista Scott-Dixon, who designs the Precision Nutrition program, and Krista Schaus), they will tell you that body transformation is about 80% diet and 20% exercise. Both are important, but exercise alone will not produce the kinds of results these finalists show: John has (something like) 100,000 people (those who have participated in his programs) to draw on in making those claims.


----------



## KaeJS

The Male Finalist #1 did the best job.

The Female Finalist #1 is now very attractive. :tongue-new:

What bothers me is that some of those people lost only like 35lbs in 12 months.

I have lost 33lbs in 4 months. They are not working hard enough.


----------



## MoneyGal

Kae. A lot of them will have gained muscle. You should either do caliper measurements or do plain old tape measurements -- this will give you a better idea of your total shape transformation than just one measure (the scale). There's no point in "losing weight" if you are losing muscle instead of fat.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

"I guarantee if someone were to take up the Caveman Diet (basically, all you eat is chicken, fish, beef, vegetable and fruit. No grains or processed foods) with regular hard exercise, you would all transform your body within 12 months from a fat desk job slob to a bulletproof machine"

But that is exactly what I said. Except for the "hard exercise" part. I agree, some exercise is beneficial but you don't have to train like a professional athlete to lose weight and improve your fitness level.


----------



## andrewf

I'd be curious to know heights. A weight of 130 something for a guy must mean he's pretty short, no?


----------



## Plugging Along

KaeJS said:


> You need to refuel, but you need to refuel with only the amount you have burned or less.
> 
> In regards to my "crash diet", I am on my 4th month. I wouldn't call it crash dieting, but an effective way to try and gain muscle while losing fat.
> 
> Basically, it's like carb-cycling. But, I'm calorie-cycling.
> 
> Rusty, your whole idea of "no limit" and a low protein diet is completely out of whack. You need to have a "limit". If you don't, you will get fat. Also, fruit spikes your insulin, which helps you to store fat. Both diet and exercise need to be implemented in order to achieve results, and you should always believe in exercise for burning calories.
> 
> The body is resilient. It adapts. Eating 1000 calories for a few days in a row isn't going to do any harm to anybody.


I may have misread. I thought that you tried to exercise all the calories off that you ate, didn't eat back anything that you worked off and addition to only eating 800 cal. I thought in your earlier posts, you said you were on a strict 800 cal day diet, plus your exercise. That is waaay too long for more than a few (like maybe 3) days. As I said I am being followed and monitored by a team of specialist and nutritionist, and I have been told that the min for anyone is 1200 cal a day, even for me, (I'm 5-2 and a female, who is older than you), I have been advised to eat no less than 1400 a day, with a target of about 1600, and try to never hit below 1200, unless I am sick. So I just think for a male , 22, 5-11, 800 or even 1000 is low. That's why I called it a crash diet, you are not doing in a healthy sustainable way. I guess if you are only going low one and a while, it's not a big deal, but I can't imagine, 'crashing' and then binging to the extremes that you have mentioned a very good thing. I did a rough calculation of your bmr, and based on how much you are eating and excercising, you should be losing up to 4lbs of FAT a week. Since that isn't the case, I am guessing your metabolism is slowing down. You can also have that tested to see if any of it's true. I know everyone is different. 

I also do 'calorie-cycling' too, not intentionally, but usually that's how my life is. I usually target 1600 cals, but go anywhere between 1400 and up to 1800, and sometimes more, but's more because of a binge. 
I have lost over 40lbs in 6 months, and that includes some time I intentially took off at Christmas



KaeJS said:


> What bothers me is that some of those people lost only like 35lbs in 12 months.
> 
> I have lost 33lbs in 4 months. They are not working hard enough.


I think that you may be getting hung up on the numbers. My understanding is that if you are gaining muscle and losing body fat, then you will not necessarily lose as much weight.

Healthy weight lost is considered MAX 2 lbs/per week if you have >50 lbs to lose. If you only have 30 pounds to loses, it's closer to a pound a week.


----------



## brad

Plugging Along said:


> Healthy weight lost is considered MAX 2 lbs/per week if you have >50 lbs to lose. If you only have 30 pounds to loses, it's closer to a pound a week.


I agree. In general, the faster the pounds go off, the higher the chances that you'll regain all that weight and then some.

Anyone can lose weight quickly. What's more challenging and harder work is to maintain your weight once you've reached your goal. To do that, you have to shift to a diet and exercise regime that you can maintain for the rest of your life. That means building new habits, and it generally takes months to build habits to the point that going back to your old patterns doesn't feel good anymore. 

The problem with quick weight loss is that you don't have time to develop your new habits -- you're only breaking your old habits temporarily. The statistics on this are very powerful: by far the majority of people who lose large quantities of weight over a relatively short time end up abandoning their program, regaining that weight, and adding even more. 

It's also worth noting that the field of exercise and diet is plagued with mythology and snake-oil salespeople. There's no truth to many of the most widely accepted myths about exercise (e.g., the "fat burning zone," which doesn't exist). A good book to read on this topic is Gina Kolata's book "Ultimate Fitness: The Quest for Truth about Health and Exercise." Another good book to read for science-based information on diet and exercise is "Why Calories Count," by Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim.


----------



## gtprince

I'm gonna admit i did not read the last 11 pages of post. But this is fact not fiction. You body has technially 3 stages. Weight loss, maintenance, bulking. In weight loss, basing on an extreme case of 1000-1200 calories per day you are losing muscle, and just trying to keep w.e. little you do have. if your weight loss is not extreme and you dont mind it taking longer and u have a calorie intake of 1400-1800 u can lose weight while gaining muscle. And the bulking is realistically not the topic so why go into it. The post above is partially correct in some cases. The first 3-5lbs u lose will be mostly water, and if u go from one extreme to another, heavy weight loss to maintenance, you will gain back this 'water weight' extremely fast. However you will not gain all of it back. If you do a proper maintenance diet. maintenance does not mean you can pig out even though ur eating whole grains/healthy fats etc. Once you start pigging out, your body creates more fat cells to store this exccess food. This is the fat cells you were getting rid of in your weight loss phase. Lastly if you want to gain muscle and have a nice body fat% say around 10, you need to look into the phases. Where you bulk, cut, bulk. 

This may just be rambling on, but since my diet the things that have benefited me the most is consuming 3 protein shakes a day each shake is about 100-120 cals. 2 salads of baby spinach and lean protein source, chicken/turkey or seafood. Can consume red meat occasionaly but not often. Baby spinach has i think 30 cals for 1/2 a cup or something of that sort. 

I personally do not have the bodybuilder physique because of genetics. But i'm the only one in my family that doesnt have a gut. I am willing to help in whatever you need as well.


----------



## KaeJS

gtprince,

I have a really hard time understanding how someone is going to lose muscle by eating 1000 calories for 3 days. It really does not make sense in my mind.

If a person has fat on their body, lifts weights regularly and consumes a protein rich diet, why would the body destroy muscle that has been already made when it can simply just burn fat?

I am not getting it. It does not make sense to me.


----------



## KaeJS

The body stores fat in case food is not readily available in order to provide energy.

In such cases, (for example, eating 1000 calories for 3 days) the body will burn the fat it has stored.

If the body burned muscle, then everyone would be fat and have no muscle.

I highly doubt the amount of your calorie deficiency makes a difference. It shouldn't matter if you're 2000 deficient one day, or if you're 300 calories deficient over 7 days. If you're at a deficit, you're at a deficit, and you _will_ burn fat.


----------



## brad

Calorie deprivation is one area where we have lots of solid data, because scientists have extensively studied the effect of calorie restriction in humans.

In one of these studies (from 1944), scientists recruited 32 young, lean, and healthy men and put them on a diet of 1,600 calories per day for six months. They lost at least 25% of their initial body weight over the course of the six months. Body fat declined, but so did the size of all muscles and body organs. Their metabolic rates declined by about 25%. Their skin became cold and pallid. Their muscles became weaker and their endurance declined; they became lethargic and depressed.

Under calorie deprivation, providing energy (glucose) to the hungry cells in your brain is the top priority. Your brain needs about 100 grams of glucose per day, most of which is provided by carbohydrates in the diet. If there's not enough carbohydrate, the body releases hormones that shift the supply of glucose to body stores of carbohydrate in the glycogen in your liver and muscles, from protein in your muscles, and from fat. 

Your liver is the first source of glycogen. But then you start burning muscle. After a few days, fats start to break down to produce amino acids and glycerol to make glucose. Eventually ketones replace glucose as fuel for the brain, because otherwise you'd lose all your muscle and body organ tissues in order to keep making glucose.

All of this is summarized and paraphrased from "Why Calories Count," by Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim. It's based on lots of studies of calorie-restricted diets, fasting experiments, and data taken on people who were starving.


----------



## andrewf

The body is a complex system. Saying that it 'should' only use fat to make up the calorie deficit is not very useful. You need empirical evidence.


----------



## Sampson

I would also say KaeJ, your are neither a scientist, human physiologist, nor a dietician/nutritionist. To make claims of what you think is going on is pretty empty.

@ brad. you forgot to include the most important aspect of calorie deprivation - longevity. Aside from all you describe, it is very well documented in rodents and humans (based on some low calorie diets like those of people living on Okinawa) that reduced calorie diets are highly correlated with increased life span.


----------



## brad

Sampson said:


> @ brad. you forgot to include the most important aspect of calorie deprivation - longevity.


There's a whole chapter on this in "Why Calories Count," and the upshot is that "it's not at all certain that this level of calorie restriction will extend human life." There are lots of studies underway, and a few short-term studies have been completed, but we'll have to wait another 75 years or so to see if the people who've voluntarily reduced their calorie consumption really will live longer. The problem with Okinawa as an example is that it's observational rather than experimental, and there could be many other factors besides calorie restriction that contribute to the longevity of Okinawans.


----------



## KaeJS

brad said:


> In one of these studies (from 1944), scientists recruited 32 young, lean, and healthy men and put them on a diet of 1,600 calories per day for six months. They lost at least 25% of their initial body weight over the course of the six months. Body fat declined, but so did the size of all muscles and body organs. Their metabolic rates declined by about 25%. Their skin became cold and pallid. Their muscles became weaker and their endurance declined; they became lethargic and depressed.
> 
> After a few days, fats start to break down to produce amino acids and glycerol to make glucose.


But were these men working out during this study, or just reducing their calories?

Also, fats do not break down to produce amino acids.

Amino Acids come from protein. Fat is Fat and it does not produce amino acids, otherwise, there would be no need for protein in our diets. We could just eat fat.


----------



## steve41

You should really read Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" or his second book "Why we get Fat", which is a little friendlier read. GCBC is pretty tough slogging, but well worth the effort. His premise is that calories don't count, it is the type of calories which make the difference. His method is not to blow his own horn, rather he has meticulously gathered research back for over a century to lay out the case against excessive carbohydrates in the modern diet. Along the way he undemonizes saturated fat and discounts exercise for weight loss. One quote I love.... _"A slice of dry bread has the equivalent of climbing 16 flights of stairs. Why not lose the slice of bread and skip the stair climb?"_ He himself keeps very active running, but he does it to feel better, not lose weight.


----------



## Sampson

KaeJS said:


> Also, fats do not break down to produce amino acids.
> 
> Amino Acids come from protein. Fat is Fat and it does not produce amino acids, otherwise, there would be no need for protein in our diets.


Nothing in the human body exists as a single pure macromolecule type - i.e. the body will not only use fat, adipose tissue will be broken down, and the fat broken down along with protein and carbohydrates. The point from brads' quote is that there is evidence that multiple 'energy' stores are consumed in human subjects performing caloric restriction.


----------



## brad

KaeJS said:


> Also, fats do not break down to produce amino acids.


Sorry, I was rushing as we were heading out to the market...here's what the book says:

Overnight or during the first day [of calorie restriction]: Depletion of liver and muscle glycogen. Once liver glycogen is well on its way to depletion, the regulatory system goes into action and the balance of hormones shifts to promote disassembly of the glycogen in muscles. Body proteins and fats break down to amino acids and fatty acids to be used for energy. This process also release the parts of amino acids and the glycerol part of fat that can be used to make glucose. Because glycogen binds up to four times its weight in water, its breakdown releases that water. On average, people store a pound or more of glycogen in muscles and liver. The immediate weight loss that occurs with brief periods of fasting can be accounted for by the loss of glycogen and its associated bound water.


----------



## GoldStone

KaeJS said:


> But were these men working out during this study, or just reducing their calories?


Here's a very recent study, April 2012.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/early/2012/04/24/jc.2012-1444.abstract

Participants were severely obese. They engaged in a weight loss program consisting of diet restriction and vigorous exercise. After 30 weeks, they lost more than one third of initial body weight.

Weight loss breakdown:

83% from fat
17% from fat-free mass

Remember, these were severely obese people. So they clearly had plenty more of fat to lose. Yet, their bodies "chose" to lose some fat-free mass.

The study also found that their resting metabolic rate (RMR) slowed dramatically, despite vigorous exercise. Their bodies slowed down metabolic rate to adapt to the diet restrictions.


----------



## mrPPincer

So they lost mostly fat 83% +/- 8% and 17% +/- 8% fat free mass.
I would guess most of the FFM was water and the muscle and bone density possibly went up.
The full text PDF of the study would have been interesting to read but it isn't free too view.
It would be interesting to see the results of a similar study but with reduced carb intake only and no restrictions on protein, or protein and fatty foods.


----------



## steve41

Here's a simple 10 minute read.... Gary Taubes on Exercise and Weight Loss...
Exercise and weight loss


----------



## brad

KaeJS said:


> But were these men working out during this study, or just reducing their calories?


These men weren't working out, but there are other studies and records of people who effectively did: there's a large body of evidence from people in concentration camps, most of whom had to do hard manual labour while on calorie-deficient diets. Over the long term they showed the same effects. A number of doctors in concentration camps during WWII kept records on themselves.

I don't think anyone's disputing that you can build muscle on a calorie-restricted diet while working out, but it's clear that you can't maintain a severely calorie-restricted diet for years (or even six months) without undesirable side effects. The Calorie Restriction Society (the people who voluntarily live on meager diets in hopes of prolonging their lives) warns prospective participants of these effects, which include menstrual irregularities in women and reduced testosterone and sex drive in men, lethargy, depression or irritability, etc.

Unless you have to lose weight rapidly for medical reasons, you're going to be much better off in the long run by setting a modest goal, like losing 1-2 pounds per week, and gradually adjusting your diet and exercise regime to something you can maintain for the rest of your life. I remember seeing studies showing evidence that yo-yo dieting can be dangerous for your health over the long term.


----------



## mrPPincer

steve41 said:


> Here's a simple 10 minute read.... Gary Taubes on Exercise and Weight Loss...
> Exercise and weight loss


Interesting read, it helped put some pieces together for me, particularly the part about the role of insulin and what triggers it.

some quotes:

"...'Fat is mobilised [from fat tissue] when insulin secretion diminishes,' the American Medical Association Council on Foods and Nutrition explained back in 1974..."

"...As it turns out, it's carbohydrates - particularly easily digestible carbohydrates and sugars - that primarily stimulate insulin secretion. 'Carbohydrates is driving insulin is driving fat,' ..."

The history lesson of how our present views in regards to the role of exercise in weight loss evolved doesn't surprise me at all.
The popular media can have a lot stronger pull on public perception than any piddling replicated scientific studies.


----------



## brad

It's worth pointing out that a lot of experts disagree with Gary Taubes on the insulin hypothesis. There's an entire chapter in "Why Calories Count" (Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim) devoted to debunking Taubes and providing counter-evidence that calls the theory into question. Nobody disputes that carbs provoke an insulin response; it's the insulin-to-fat connection that is controversial. They also call Taubes to task for oversimplifying the causes of obesity, which are many and can't be boiled down simply to carbohydrates. Nestle and Nesheim have exactly the same criticisms of observational studies (e.g. the China study, the Havard nurses' study) that Taubes does, and they've studied his arguments. They aren't stuck in the past or blindly following the scientific consensus without questioning it. 

Stephan Guyenet, an obesity researcher, has a very detailed post here explaining some of the biggest holes in the insulin hypothesis: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2011/09/fat-tissue-insulin-sensitivity-and.html.

I don't claim to know who's right, but it's clear that the jury is still out.


----------



## steve41

One of the interesting points he makes is that the Germans and Austrians were the acknowledged experts in obesity science in the early 20s and 30s. There was a huge body of research which was completely deep-sixed after the war. Remember Taubes isn't the researcher, he is collating what hundreds of scientists and research studies have developed over the years. I lost 60 pounds lo-carbing, so my own particular research (population 1) has caused me to enthusiastically embrace the lo-carb methodology.


----------



## mrPPincer

Interesting to learn that enlarged fat cells have less sensitivity to insulin and that they regain a more normal response as they decrease in size.

Seems to me that this could be part of the reason previously obese people have trouble keeping the pounds off after they've lost a lot of weight.

I imagine if a body is used to dieseling it's way through life, with easy access to the energy contained in the body's fat cells regardless, and then after the weight is lost, every time insulin levels spike, that access to the body's fat energy is restricted, where it wasn't before. 

I don't doubt that the complex role of brain chemistry and it's part in hunger are an important part of the whole picture as well, but I'm not convinced that all these ideas are necessarily contradictory. I should make a trip to the library soon and check out those books.


----------



## brad

Yes, but nobody has questioned whether a low-carb diet is effective for losing weight: it's clear that it works, and at least some comparative studies show that it achieves faster weight loss than most other diets. What's not clear is the other side of the equation: whether consuming carbohydrates (as opposed to eating an excess of calories regardless of their source) causes the body to preferentially create more fat. This is where the controversy lies. According to Stephan Guyenet, "almost all researchers who actually study insulin biology, and the large majority of those who study obesity as well" reject the insulin hypothesis.


----------



## GoldStone

I'm too lazy to review all 14 pages, so not sure if this was posted before.

How to Lose Fat and Gain Muscle At the Same Time


----------



## gtprince

http://www.aworkoutroutine.com/how-to-lose-fat-without-losing-muscle/


----------



## KaeJS

I am going to _*neg*_ this entire thread.

1. You can build muscle while losing fat.

2. When you run a calorie deficit, you will not lose muscle if you have a constant flow of amino acids/protein.

3. So long as you eat whole, natural foods with a multivitamin each day, you will not be nutrient deficient.

/ case closed.

My diet yesterday was:

Breakfast, 8:45am:
Casein Protein: 100 calories, 25grams of protein.
Watermelon: 50 calories, mostly carbs/sugar (for brain function and protein sparing)

Lunch 5:15pm:
Banana: 100 calories, mostly carbs/sugar (for brain function and protein sparing + absorption of vitamin)
Egg: 70 calories, 7 grams of protein + healthy fats.
1/2 of a Daily Multivitamin

Then I did a 1 hour workout, lifting extremely heavy weights (Chest, Triceps, Shoulders)

Dinner 7:00pm:
Whey Protein: 110 calories, 27 grams of protein

Then I walked on the treadmill for 45 minutes and burned 225 calories

Dinner 2 8:45pm:
Chicken breast: 200 calories, 40ish grams of protein.
Watermelon: 50 calories, mostly carbs/sugar (for brain function and protein sparing + absorption of vitamin)
1/2 of a Daily Multivitamin

Bedtime, 10:45pm:
Casein Protein, 100 calories, 25 grams of protein.

As you can see, that's a daily caloric intake of 780 calories, with 225 calories burned during cardio (walking) + my weight lifting routine. Of these calories, there is over 125 grams of protein. This protein is spread out between the day. Using the Casein in the morning and nights, I am able to effectively inject tons of essential amino acids into my diet that digest slowly at a relatively low calorie cost.

I woke up at 8am feeling refreshed and 3.2lbs lighter. (this is pure fat, as my glycogen stores had already been exhausted as I have been doing this for a few days now). Muscle was not burned. Why? Because I had a constant flow of amino acids. Muscle was saved, and most probably built/repaired due to strenuous activity and more than enough protein in my diet. (about 3x as much just for regular maintenance).

With that said, my diet looks the same today, except I substituted an apple for the banana and salmon for the chicken. And because I lifted weights yesterday and am currently experiencing DOMS (Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness), I will be burning 300 calories on the treadmill by walking.

And yes..... my heart is still working, brain still functioning, and my arms/chest don't look any smaller.

Will post pics in the months ahead when I'm lean and ripped.

/end thread.


----------



## andrewf

How hungry are you throughout the day? 

You are probably burning more than 225 cals during 1 hr high intensity strength training. 

Ask your doctor if he/she advises you to go on a severe calorie restricted diet. This sounds like anorexia to me.


----------



## KaeJS

Depends on which part of the day. Around 11am-12pm, I am starving. Then it subsides until around 5pm when I eat, then I'm usually hungry non-stop until bedtime.

I'd hardly call it anorexia. People who are anorexic are afraid of gaining weight and think they are fat when they are not. I simply want to reduce my body fat levels while maintaining/building muscle so that I can "bulk" up in order to build more muscle (which will naturally put on fat).

I am simply trying to reduce fat levels, probably only for another 10lbs, at which point I will continue eating healthy but reverse the process to eat a surplus of calories each day.

Keep in mind that I _do_ have a couple days per week where I eat a surplus of calories.


----------



## GoldStone

What's the point of starving yourself between 8:45AM breakfast and 5:15PM lunch??? I don't get it. Why not spread the same caloric intake more evenly throughout the day?


----------



## KaeJS

I'm at work during that time. It's extremely hard to work when you're hungry, and the time goes by slowwwwwwwwly.

It's better if I just don't eat. If I eat at 12pm, I will start the hunger process all over again and will be dying by 2pm.


----------



## Sampson

I really don't know how you can 'close the case'. Essentially you are self-proclaiming yourself an expert in both exercise physiology and nutrition.

No need to actually go to school for these fields - heck, you might as well change fields and earn a killing teaching people how to gain muscle on a caloric deficit, while dolling out medical advice. No need for Med school either.


----------



## brad

Imagine you had come to the forum with the hypothesis that a diversified investment portfolio is unnecessary, and then set out to demonstrate it by pouring your life savings into one stock, Acme Inc. And you kept showing us that Acme's stock was growing faster than the market, you were beating all the indices, and getting very rich very fast. Everyone on the forum warned you that you were living dangrously and taking a very big risk. But your numbers were proving them wrong. You took out a HELOC and used it to buy more Acme, and you sold most of your belongings to buy more stock as its value climbed ever higher. And then one day Acme's main competitor came out with a much better product and suddenly everyone was selling. Acme's management was caught like a deer in the headlights, made some bad choices, and the value of your investments dropped by 85%.

Right now it's like you're in the glory days of Acme. Your self-designed diet and muscle-building regime seems to be working and you're feeling great. Will you still feel great two months from now if you keep living like this? All the evidence says no. You're basically putting yourself on a starvation diet, and a very unbalanced one at that, and there are literally thousands of data points to show the trajectory your body will follow over the next six months if you keep it up.

Maybe you're not planning to keep it up for six months, only a few weeks until you get your weight down to a target level. That's fine, but what's your plan once you reach that point?

There are plenty of other ways you could approach this that are less extreme, more sustainable, and frankly less dangerous for your health. Take a look at this guy's story: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/a-primal-comeback/#a -- he achieved pretty amazing results in just five months, and truly impressive results after 17 months (see the before and after photos). I'm not an advocate of paleo diets, but even that's more sustainable than what you're doing, and he's managed to stay on track since this story was posted.


----------



## brad

Here's another example you could follow that's still pretty extreme but more sustainable: the diet of Jack LaLanne, the bodybuilder and fitness guru, who died at age 96. He maintained muscle and kept fat at bay with this diet for decades.

An excerpt from his obituary in the New York Times:

"At 60 he swam from Alcatraz Island to Fisherman’s Wharf handcuffed, shackled and towing a 1,000-pound boat. At 70, handcuffed and shackled again, he towed 70 boats, carrying a total of 70 people, a mile and a half through Long Beach Harbor.

He ate two meals a day and shunned snacks.

Breakfast, following his morning workout, usually included several hard-boiled egg whites, a cup of broth, oatmeal with soy milk and seasonal fruit. For dinner he took his wife, Elaine, to restaurants that knew what he wanted: a salad with raw vegetables and egg whites along with fish — often salmon — and a mixture of red and white wine. He sometimes allowed himself a roast turkey sandwich, but never a cup of coffee."


----------



## GoldStone

KaeJS said:


> It's extremely hard to work when you're hungry <snip> It's better if I just don't eat


Sorry but that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Like you, I follow a calorie restricted diet. Like you, I'm at work all day. I eat two meals while at work. My lunch is typically a bowl of salad at 1PM. 200 calories. It fills me up for about 3 hours. My second meal is a bowl of plain, instant oatmeal around 4PM. 120 calories. The nice thing about that second meal at work: I don't feel as hungry when I get back home. So I have less temptation to overeat at dinner.

I lost almost 30 pounds since January (and I wasn't particularly overweight to begin with). I dropped my pants size from 36 to 32. All without going to the same extremes as you do.


----------



## Four Pillars

This is a good thread. Brad - I'm quite impressed with your reading on this topic and your ability to reference different articles.

Unfortunately, Kae chooses not to listen to a word anyone says in here, but I'm listening.


----------



## MoneyGal

It's amazing how he can exhibit such (over)confidence in one area of life while being "terrified" (or possibly some other extreme word, I know he's thrown around quite a few) of moving out of his mom's house. Or perhaps these two traits - extreme underconfidence and extreme overconfidence - are actually correlated; that's probably more likely.


----------



## andrewf

What I don't get is that he subjects himself to this experience, and then goes and binges on junk food for a few months. I wonder what owning a hot dog cart would do to his diet .


----------



## KaeJS

andrewf said:


> What I don't get is that he subjects himself to this experience, and then goes and binges on junk food for a few months. I wonder what owning a hot dog cart would do to his diet .


:biggrin:

It's because I believe the body is adaptable and capable.

Also, I've done a lot of research on this subject and believe what I'm doing is actually healthy.

Take, for example, all those people who eat KFC, McDonalds, etc etc on the regular. I guarantee my natural diet consisting of nutrient dense foods with little processing, such as kiwi, apples, bananas, chicken, salmon, nuts, etc. is a lot healthier than someone who eats crap. I probably receive more nutrients on my calorie restricted diet than someone who eats 3000 calories of garbage each day. Add in the fact that most people don't even consider taking multivitamins, and I believe I am healthier than those people.

It's just my opinion and my experiment. Nobody needs to agree with it except for me.

However, with all the research I have done (months worth), I have finally formed my opinion/decision on the matter.


----------



## mrPPincer

Four Pillars said:


> I'm listening.


ditto
I just checked out Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories from the library today, but at over 600 pages it will take me a while.
I'm starting instead with what looks like a much easier read, Living the Low Carb Life, by Jonny Bowden.
Interestingly, both books begin in the 1860's with the story of William Banting.


----------



## Spudd

You mean Frederick Banting?


----------



## steve41

Spudd said:


> You mean Frederick Banting?


Different guy. He 'discovered' the magic of lo-carb dieting.... I think he was a doctor. It caught on so well, that the verb "Banting" was used instead of dieting.


----------



## mrPPincer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting


----------



## brad

KaeJS said:


> :biggrin:
> 
> It's because I believe the body is adaptable and capable..


It is, but only to a point.

Your body needs a certain number of calories just to maintain your basal metabolism. You can get an estimate of your daily caloric requirement by looking at the readily available tables online, which are based on your height, current weight, and general activity level. If you want to lose weight, just aim for something under that amount. For example, I can lose a pound per week on a diet of 2,200 calories per day, because I'm 6'4," weigh around 180 pounds (normally a little less but I just got back from a binge-fest in France), and exercise regularly. If I were shorter and/or lighter, I'd have to restrict myself to a lower level of calories. But it would still be considerably higher than what you're allowing yourself.

Unless you're extremely short and lean, the level of caloric restriction you're imposing on yourself amounts to semistarvation, and it doesn't matter how nutritious the calories are that you're consuming: you're still in for trouble. After several weeks of semistarvation your basal metabolic rate starts to slow down, and after several months (depending on how much fat was stored in your body to begin with) your body fat stores will be depleted. Once you get to that stage your body systems start to collapse.

People who go on long-term fasts, such as hunger strikers, live an average of two months after they stop eating.

You're still eating, but you're in semi-starvation mode, which means you're on the same trajectory, it'll just take you longer to get there.


----------



## Four Pillars

Brad, how do you define the difference between dieting and semi-starvation?

Both entail consuming less calories that you need to maintain your current weight, so where do you draw the line?


----------



## brad

Four Pillars said:


> Brad, how do you define the difference between dieting and semi-starvation?


I don't know if there's an official definition, but when you consider that even by age 9 most boys and girls expend nearly 2,000 calories per day, a diet that's under 1,000 calories is not going to come close to meeting the daily needs of the average adult.

The CALERIE study that looks at the effect of calorie restriction on human longevity restricted caloric intake to just 25% below a person's daily requirement. From "Why Calories Count," by Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim: "Extreme calorie restriction is demonstrably life threatening. Milder semistarvation--even with nutritional supplements--seems unlikely to promote long-term physical or mental health in human populations. Most compellingly, large-scale studies of the relationship of body weight to mortality invariably find notably higher death rates among people whose body weights are below ranges considered normal."

I think the key point is that calories are not just a delivery mechanism for nutrients: we need calories to provide energy for our bodies. If you stop consuming calories but find a way to ingest nutrients without ingesting any calories, you still end up dead in a few months -- we need BOTH nutrients and calories in order to survive.


----------



## andrewf

And to do it out of sheer impatience is senseless.


----------



## KaeJS

brad,

In regards to your last two posts, I disagree with what you have said.

Here's why (and FP made a good point):

The body uses calories for energy. When you have a caloric deficit, your body pulls this energy from fat (that's why it's there). In your first post, you confirmed this. However, you also said "your body fat stores will be depleted. Once you get to that stage your body systems start to collapse."

... What?

This is the difference. I am not going to kill myself, here. I am simply reducing my fat.

I don't think a 37lb reduction in body weight over 4 months is absurd. I still have fat and muscle on me. Also, as far as I can tell, my brain is functioning appropriately (whether some of you may think so or not :biggrin and my body is functioning appropriately as well. I have lots of energy. I can run, keep my balance, have regular urination and bowel movements, I can problem solve, sleep, and continue to eat without throwing up, etc. etc.

I feel like I normally do.

Eating 800 calories a day with nutrient dense foods and a multivitamin is not going to subject anybody to a life threatening situation, provided they still have fat and muscle on their bodies (which I do). Also, keep in mind that I do break this fast two times a week and eat a caloric surplus.

I also stand by my case that I'm sure I have a healthier intake than someone who eats McDonalds for lunch and Pizza for dinner while skipping the multivitamin.

I mean..... there are a lot of people that eat out every single day. What nutrients are they really getting? The 2 slices of tomatoes in their hamburger?

As I said, my diet is clean. Chicken, salmon, kiwi, peach, apple, banana, milk, water, salmon, eggs, cottage cheese, grapes, cucumber, strawberry, watermelon, etc.

How can anyone say that eating a diet with the above mentioned foods along with a multivitamin is any more harmful than eating food from fast food restaurants all the time?

The foods I am eating are nutrient dense. Not calorie dense. Nutrient dense.

I haven't read the book, but I'm sure Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories book will touch on this.


----------



## GoldStone

KaeJS said:


> As I said, my diet is clean.


This is what you ate a few days ago:



KaeJS said:


> Yesterday, I ate:
> 
> Shawarma + Dr. Pepper for lunch.
> Korean Food for Dinner
> Beer and Pita with Cheese dip for snack.
> Waffle with Ice Cream, Banana, Whipped Cream, Fudge and Chocolate Sauce for dessert.
> Chocolate Milk for bedtime snack.


You call this clean???

In that one day you gobbled more sugar and fat than I eat in week. That's the problem with starving yourself every day. Sooner or later you go on a wild binge.


----------



## KaeJS

GoldStone said:


> This is what you ate a few days ago:
> 
> 
> 
> You call this clean???
> 
> In that one day you gobbled more sugar and fat than I eat in week. That's the problem with starving yourself every day. Sooner or later you go on a wild binge.


But I'm consuming calories. So that should make my diet healthy, right? :rolleyes2:

And yes, I did consume that. And no, that was not a clean day.

Eating on a rampage like that every now and again is good, though. It lets you treat yourself and kicks your metabolism for a while.

I would just like to add that the diet is not responsible for that type of "binging".

If I didn't care about my weight, that would be my regular diet. Every. Single. Day. Just as it was a little more than 5 months ago.


----------



## andrewf

Multivitamins are of dubious value. There is little evidence to support using a multivitamin to replace dietary sources of most nutrients.


----------



## brad

KaeJS said:


> Eating 800 calories a day with nutrient dense foods and a multivitamin is not going to subject anybody to a life threatening situation, provided they still have fat and muscle on their bodies (which I do). Also, keep in mind that I do break this fast two times a week and eat a caloric surplus.


Breaking the fast is probably what's making this possible. Keep in mind that the volunteers in the Minnesota semi-starvation experiment were given almost double the daily number of calories you're allowing yourself. Over the course of the six months they were on that diet, they experienced severe emotional distress and depression. True, they weren't eating a very balanced diet (mostly potatoes, turnips, and macaroni), but they didn't show any signs of nutritional deficiency. It was the effect of six months of drastic calorie restriction (about a 40% reduction from their daily caloric needs).

The statement I made about your body fat being depleted comes toward the end of a long period of calorie restriction. Once you have no more fat to burn, your body systems fail and you start to die. This has been observed in hunger strikers, concentration camp prisoners, etc.

You can eat as cleanly as you like, but you need a combination of nutrients and adequate calories to keep your body working. Unless you're 3 feet tall and weigh 25 pounds I don't think 800 calories is enough to prevent dangerous impacts to your health over time. But since you're breaking your fast every few days you might be okay.


----------



## KaeJS

brad said:


> Over the course of the six months they were on that diet, they experienced severe emotional distress and depression. True, they weren't eating a very balanced diet (mostly potatoes, turnips, and macaroni), but they didn't show any signs of nutritional deficiency. It was the effect of six months of drastic calorie restriction (about a 40% reduction from their daily caloric needs).
> 
> The statement I made about your body fat being depleted comes toward the end of a long period of calorie restriction. Once you have no more fat to burn, your body systems fail and you start to die. This has been observed in hunger strikers, concentration camp prisoners, etc.


I don't have any emotional/mental distress, as of yet. However, I also have not been doing this for 6 months, nor do I plan to continue this for that length of time.

I understand the body fat depletion and the body beginning to die. I will not be reaching anywhere near this point, though. I am not even in the single digit body fat % yet.

According to this website, the healthy range for males is 8-19% body fat:

http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/library/blbodyfatcharts.htm

I would say I'm probably about 14% body fat, at the moment. Though, I have no real way to measure this (no calipers) just going by what I look/feel like.


----------



## KaeJS

Also, according to this article from WebMD, vitamins are absorbed and do make a difference when taken in pill form:

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/vitamins-fact-from-fiction

As some people say: "It doesn't matter if it comes from an animal, plant, or it's manufactured in a lab. If it's in you, you'll absorb it and put it to use."


----------



## KaeJS

andrewf said:


> Multivitamins are of dubious value. There is little evidence to support using a multivitamin to replace dietary sources of most nutrients.


Multivitamins do not "replace" dietary sources of nutrients. 

They "supplement".


----------



## Sampson

This thread is so bizarre.

Why may I ask did you even start it? If you had all the answers, or developed them while reading data and opinions presented by others which you do not accept, then what is its purpose?

What bugs me most is that you presume everything. You guess 14% body fat. Where is that number derived from?


----------



## KaeJS

The reason I started the thread was because of all the misinformation that was out there. Initially, I didn't have any answers. I even stated in my first post that there was a ton of misinformation on this subject with varying opinions.

I started the thread over 2 weeks ago, in which time I have done a lot of research and even some of my own experiments with diet/exercise and from that, I formed my own opinion.

I can only presume my body fat percentage because I don't have calipers. I looked online at body fat percentage pictures to measure my size/build with someone that looks like my structure to come to the approximation of 14%. I know damn well it's not a single digit, and I know that 20% is way too high. I'm certain I am not too far off with an assumption of ~14%.


----------



## Sampson

But KaeJ, you haven't presented any evidence at all. If the data to support your conclusions exists (outside of your personal experience), since it is only 4 weeks in duration, and a single subject, it would be great for you to link to some.

I personally don't know much about caloric restriction other than the longevity data.

I see this thread as "why would' you even do this? You keep comparing your 'healthy' low-calorie diet with a McDonald's or eating out diet. That's not the only alternative. Go to the 'cooking' thread and you'll see plenty of healthy, regular calorie options for a good diet.

One of the joys of life is eating. Why not just eat a normal, weight sustaining, healthy diet? Obviously you had originally wanted to lose weight, which you have achieved quite remarkably, but what is the benefit of extending this pattern?


----------



## Ziggy

KaeJ, it looks like you are heading towards a bodybuilder's diet. These are definitely outside the realm of normal dieting. Personally, I think some of these are extreme and unnatural but on the flip side, the bodybuilding community understands the relationship between proteins, amino acids and building muscle mass better than most.


----------



## MoneyGal

No lifter would ever EVER try to lift on that diet. Most serious lifters struggle to eat enough calories in a day. The only exception would be during a "peak week" preparation for a competition or photo shoot, when lifters and builders are doing all kinds of weird and scary things in order to achieve a certain look, like deliberately dehydrating themselves.

Source: two years of weight training with this woman as my coach (here she is in contest prep mode, at 8% bodyfat)


----------



## brad

KaeJS said:


> Also, according to this article from WebMD, vitamins are absorbed and do make a difference when taken in pill form


Yes, but you have to understand that even if you lived on a diet of vitamin pills that provided all of your daily requirements and nutrients, you'd still die in two months if that's all you ate.

What you're missing is an adequate source of energy. Calories are units of energy. Good calories, bad calories, it doesn't matter: your body uses energy every day and you have to ingest calories to replace the energy lost. Most adults burn about 1,300 to 1,700 calories per day just for basal metabolism, and total energy expenditures per day (which include basal metabolism plus the heat effects of food and the energy expended in physical activity) generally run 2,400 in women to 3,020 in men. 

You're losing weight fast because you're not coming anywhere close to replacing the number of calories you burn every day, so your body is burning fat (and muscle, even though you're also building muscle through your weight training, you're still losing muscle because the body doesn't start metabolizing fat right away). Although what you're doing is more like periodic fasting because you have a day or two per week where you don't follow your diet.

You still haven't answered the question of what you plan to do when you reach your weight goal. Are you planning to try to maintain that weight, and are you planning to maintain a healthy diet? I'm curious about your ultimate goal -- whether you just want to lose weight for the summer or if you want to change your eating and exercise habits long term.


----------



## m3s

The reason you get so many opinions and beliefs is that everyone seems to have a different goal. Your goal seems to be losing weight and gaining muscle in the shortest term at the expense of health. The bodybuilders goal is to look as big and good oily shiny as possible, at the expense of function and even health. I akin the 2 to a bulimic teenage girl, or an investor hyped up on HGTV buying as many rental properties as they can. It's a kind of obsession that is blind to anything but what the scale and measuring tape can show you short term. Like the RE investor oblivious to the long term risks or costs.

I'm sure drastic measures were needed to get rid of the initial weight, just like drastic measures would be needed to get out of crazy bad debt. You've done the hardest part imo. Once you are a reasonable weight why not just take your time and build a sustainable routine and reasonable diet for the long run. Remember you always have to maintain what you build and if you build it impatiently you can probably run into even more health risks or reverse progress just as fast. It's not like you can take a vacation once you get there, so why rush? This whole thread reminds me of the people wanting to invest in venture stocks before paying off their debts.


----------



## KaeJS

brad said:


> You still haven't answered the question of what you plan to do when you reach your weight goal. Are you planning to try to maintain that weight, and are you planning to maintain a healthy diet? I'm curious about your ultimate goal -- whether you just want to lose weight for the summer or if you want to change your eating and exercise habits long term.


I want to lose weight until I feel like enough is enough (which will be soon), and then I will eat and weight train in order to gain muscle.

With regards to eating - I will still be healthy, but not as healthy. Example, I will start eating chips, chocolate milk, pizza, etc again, just keep my portions in check.


----------



## Dopplegangerr

Well I decided to tackle reading this thread and start from the beginning and go threw everything. Its taken me quite a bit of time but I have to say there is a lot of good information here as well as a lot of crazy things.

Kae I really believe you are going about this in a very very poor manor. The things you are doing, or saying you are doing, that is not safe. a 700 calorie diet is for sure starvation. There is absutly no possible way your body is building muscle tissue on such a large caloric deficit.

In a much earlier post you stated you ate 129 g a day of protein. This is not even close to a high protein diet, this is less than 1 g per pound of body weight. And will not support heavy training. You claim to be building muscle, do you use a tape measure, do you check your body fat percentage, do you have before and after pictures?

There are so many ways to be healthy and having a crash diet over a few months and losing weight (weight does not mean fat) at such a rate is not it. You should focus on healthy balanced lifestyle, something you can maintain for the rest of your life. Not this yo-yo dieting. And really that is what you are doing. You said you did lots of research, how you came up with this being the best way to proceed is beyond me.

Also why o why would you want to be skinny, I like looking athletic. I have never understood why some one would want to be skinny, skinny people look sick. 
You talked about marathon runners, I would never ever want to look like one of them, I would want to look like a sprinter, those gentlemen are not skinny, they are strong and have explosive power. I promise you they are not on any 700-900 calorie a day diets. 
(btw I am not saying marathon runners are not athletes, I am just saying I do not think there physic is something you should aim for) 


*Here is a normal day of eating for me when I am not over seas:*
8am:
2 eggs friend in olive oil, 2 pieces multi grain toast with lots of butter, half a tin of baked beans, cup of green tea

930am: 2 cups of **** milk, piece of fruit

12pm: grilled chicken breast, rice, green veg like spinach broccoli of peas with olive oil, cup of green tea

1pm: work out doing heavy compound exercises, no treadmill or anything like that. 

2pm: 2 scoops whey protein powder

230pm: grilled chicken breast, rice, green veg like spinach broccoli of peas with olive oil, cup of green tea (I always make at least double of what ever I cook) 

4pm: 2 cups of **** milk, 1/2 - 1 cup of mixed raw nuts

6pm: Usually pasta with meat sauce or if I am lazy more chicken and rice

9pm: 250 g of steak, green veg with olive oil, 2 cups **** milk

11pm: 2 boiled eggs, glass of **** milk hand full of nuts, 2-4 g salmon oil supplements 


Thats a solid 5 meals a day with usually 4 snacks or so in between. Heaps of protein. TONS of fat and a moderate amount of carbs that I tailor down as the day goes on but I am not overly concerned. I eat right before bed otherwise I wake in the night starving and have to get up to have some more food before I can sleep again. I keep caffeine to before mid day. Usually no multi vitamin, very light on the supplements as a whole. 


My body is nice and toned, 11 % body fat (I actually have my doctor measure for me) I am 5"7, 145 pounds and very strong. I am almost 30 years old. My body knows it never needs to store excess calories because it will always get more every 2-3 hours, my metabolism fires very high because I train it that way. I am always trying to gain more weight, I know the more I eat the more muscle I can build and the stronger I can be. I used to count calories with fitday. com but it just takes to much time. I used to eat between 4-5k cal a day and this was a good amount for me to make sure I was building muscle, at the moment I am unsure what my daily calorie intake is, but I am sure it is pretty substantial. 
I can easily go past this if I replace the green tea for more milk. With out trying I drink 2L a day easily, that's 1.5 times as many calories I get from milk as you get from your total diet. At times I have drank 4 L of milk a day on top of 5 meals. That's 2400 calories from milk alone. 
I have been doing this for years and years mate.

You are taller then me but eat a fraction of what I eat Kae. But I never binge on dr. pepper, or chips because i think that stuff is terrible, I know it is poison for my body so the thought makes me lose my apatight. I like clean eating and always have.

You are on a calorie restricted diet and say you are skinny, I am on a heavy calorie diet and I am athletic. Eat like an athlete bro not a prisoner of war


----------



## Dopplegangerr

BTW Moneygal your trainer looks amazing! Good for her, dedication like that is incredible


----------



## Helianthus

There is nothing wrong with cyclical dieting, but your protein levels on your low cal days are too low to maintain muscle mass. What is your diet like on your caloric surplus days?

I must also say that I find your attitude lately in this thread a little off putting. Please stop acting like you've mastered the subject within a few short weeks. Even people who have studied diet, nutrition and exercise their whole lives are constantly learning. The human body is incredibly complex, and there are still so much that we can't explain, or don't understand.


----------



## andrewf

Doppleganger, you must get tired of eating. Sounds like a lot of work!


----------



## Dopplegangerr

Andrewf, If you plan ahead and make big batches its ok. Usually its just walking to the kitchen and microwaving food I made previous. Like for chicken for example. I cook of maybe 3 kg of chicken breast, cool it completely, then slice it up, freeze in on cookie sheets and when its frozen solid I bag it. So that when I need chicken I just take out 200 g and microwave it and its lose and doesnt stick together. 

Once you get used to eating many small meals in day its ok, but it does take getting used to. 

Failure to plan is planning to fail.


----------



## Plugging Along

Dopple - I agree with almost everything you've said about eating lots, and frequently. I am curious about the 4 L of milk. I was told to limit milk even for my kids, as too much could cause kidney issues. Just curious if you have heard of any concerns such as this.


----------



## Plugging Along

KaeJS said:


> I want to lose weight until I feel like enough is enough (which will be soon), and then I will eat and weight train in order to gain muscle.
> 
> With regards to eating - I will still be healthy, but not as healthy. Example, I will start eating chips, chocolate milk, pizza, etc again, just keep my portions in check.



My 3 foot, 3 year old daughter is supposed to consume at least 1000 calories a day, and that's just so she doesn't lose weight. I cant imagine you are getting enough fuel for your body. The fact that you are hungry and literally starving during the day, also indicates you are not getting enough. I work with specialists including dr's, nutritionists, etc for both myself, and my kids, and much of what you are saying just doesn't match with they are saying. You are just guessing at your health, you haven't measure your % body fat nor, your metobolism. I just don't understand why not eat healthy amounts (which is a lot more than you have now), and then put in your diet in moderation the less healthy foods that you mentioned. I don't think it needs to be one or the other. You seem to take things to extremes. I would think that this is not sustainable, and that since you are not learning how to eat properly, that as soon as you stop, you will slowly, or maybe quickly regain the weight.

I know lost 80+ lbs before, and even though I did it a healthy way by cutting out all the crap, and just eating clean foods. I didn't learn to ensure this would be a part of my lifestyle forever and didn't figure out how to incorporate the things I loved. Once I got to my goal weight, I thought I could just go back to eating the foods I missed, just in a smaller portions and here and there. Well, I gained much of the weight back.

Now, I am losing again (lost 40+ lbs) so far, and it's not as quick as the last time, but I am making sure that I eating well, but still making it a lifestyle I can keep forever. I had chips this weekend, jelly beans this morning, a prime rib, and cupcake this weekend. All were small portions, and just enough that I didn't feel that I missed it. Still lost a pound this week.


----------



## Helianthus

PA, I do not think there is anything wrong with the methodology that KaeJS is following, however, I think his execution is poor. Extreme calorie deficits on a cyclical basis are not harmful, and can be very beneficial in shedding weight quickly. I do agree with those who say that this is not a good long-term plan. If he follows a modified cyclical PSMF, such as the RFL diet by Lyle McDonald, he should accomplish the weight loss goals he is trying to achieve with relative ease. The draw back is that such a diet should only be followed for short time periods (4-8 weeks), and does very little to benefit the dieter after the diet, in terms of ingraining sustainable eating habits.


----------



## KaeJS

Well, I just came back from a one week vacation. Calorie intake was limitless.

I gained 9 pounds (though, I believe 3lbs of this would be restored glycogen and water weight, as I would have burned up all of my glycogen after eating only 800 calories each day for 6 days previously). I brush it up to say I gained almost 1 pound per day of fat.

My diet was insane, though. I consumed 50 beers, chocolate, pancakes, burgers, hot dogs, chicken, sausages, chips, redbull, etc. As I said, there were no limits - and it felt fantastic.

Now that I've broken the cycle, it's time to jump back on the caloric restriction and start working out again.

Dopple, your expenditure/metabolism must be a lot better than mine. If I ate what you ate, I would get fat.

Helianthus, as I've said multiple times, I don't think I'm an expert. What I said is that I found information on this subject to be useless as there is no solid evidence. Different studies/experts all say different things. That's why my consensus is that the body can lose substantial amounts of fat without losing muscle with the possibility of even gaining muscle.

I don't expect anyone to believe in me, as what I am doing is quite extreme. As I said, though, I will post pictures in the months to come.


----------



## Sampson

How can this be healthy?

You are essentially binging. Both in the restriction and over eating phases. Why not just have a balanced lifestyle you can maintain everyday?


----------



## KaeJS

Sampson said:


> How can this be healthy?
> 
> You are essentially binging. Both in the restriction and over eating phases. Why not just have a balanced lifestyle you can maintain everyday?


Because that takes way too long. I don't want to wait forever to achieve my goals.

What's not healthy about it? Our ancestors lived like that for years. 

Where is the evidence that says it is unhealthy?


----------



## steve41

KaeJS said:


> Because that takes way too long. I don't want to wait forever to achieve my goals.
> 
> What's not healthy about it? Our ancestors lived like that for years.
> 
> Where is the evidence that says it is unhealthy?


 ...and their life expectancy was what?.... 1/4 of our current lifespan.


----------



## Sampson

I don't think our ancestors binged on 
"50 beers, chocolate, pancakes, burgers, hot dogs, chicken, sausages, chips, redbull"

It's been very clear that you believe your own body and have little patience for what others do. To each their own, hopefully it works out positively for you.

Keeping the diet and health out of it, it can't be psychologically healthy to live so extremely, but I'm not psychiatrist either.


----------



## mrPPincer

I don't think our ancestors consumed anything close to the amount of refined sugars and starches that are so prevalent in our diets today.
One can cut way back on those and still have a healthy yet satisfying day to day diet imo.

For example, if you like choclate milk you can add cocoa powder without the sugar, and if you feel you need more sweetness you can add stevia, a natural plant extract.
Redbull and pop and even fruit juice (not whole fruit quite so much) is pretty much just pure sugar, pancakes and white bread buns, pizza crust pretty much pure starch, chips high in starch too.

I've been increasingly trying to avoid those types of foods, along with beer, preferring some dry homemade wine mixed with water, whey protein isolate, some dry ginger powder and chilled. Also've been coming up with some great high protein low carb snack foods.
Have not seen any weight loss yet, but my belt size went back down a notch so far.


----------



## KaeJS

Their life expectancy was lower because they were less knowledgeable and didn't have access to the medication and healthcare we have today, not because they would binge. 

As I said, I'll post pictures in a few months when I'm still alive, in good health and am (hopefully) ripped.


----------

