PDA

View Full Version : Cutting is driving me nuts!



unj
11-30-2007, 03:33 PM
Hey,

I am finding cutting so hard iv been trying to do it for months on end and my weight has dropped by around a kilo and i see some but very little difference in my physique although my waist has dropped by a decent inch! The only thing i can think of is dropping cals...

Diet (roughly):

Meal 1
Xenadrine + water
WORKOUT - (1 serving of Whey Protein post workout)

Meal 2
Fruit

Meal 3
Cheese sandwich + pack of crisps + diet cola or Diet cola + Tuna pasta

Meal 4
2 Chicken breast + rice or bread of some sort

Meal 5
Small snack e.g nuts and milk

My workout is intense hitting all major body parts and i work out 3 times a week and on an empty stomach after my weights session i throw in about 20 mins on the bike for cardio, for some quick HIIT.

Totals - 1900-2000 cals, 80-100g fat, 200g Carbs, 120-150g protein

I weigh about 190lbs and im 6ft 1.... My aim is to lean out as much as possible say sub 12% BF and then the worlds slowest and cleanest bulk... i need suggestions, all i can do is drop cals maybe increase cardio? I mean i only do it twice a week....

markdk86
11-30-2007, 03:52 PM
Clean up your diet. No chips, no cheese sandwich, not so much bread. No soda.

unj
11-30-2007, 03:57 PM
well then ill be so hungry and i ill have SO little cals okay say i eat the tuna pasta and a diet cola scrap the chips and cheese sandwich then im down to about 1600 cals now scrap any wholemeal bread or pita and im down to 1400Cals im 6ft 1 and 190lbs my muscle would go so fast! although at the moment it feels like im on a clean bulk cos my strength is still increasing rrrrrrrrrrrrr!

markdk86
11-30-2007, 04:01 PM
I didn't say get rid of them, replace them with healthier foods.

I see no intake of water of vegetables. Use water and veggies to your advantage. They fill you and are almost calorie-less.

CiteCollegiale
11-30-2007, 04:02 PM
You can replace the cheese sandwich and crisps with healthier foods. Get some food into your body before working out. I don't know how you get the energy on an empty stomach.
What kind of fruit are you eating? I'd suggest bananas, avocados, or berries. Your protein intake is not nearly high enough. And don't forget your veggies!!

Edit: dang mark beat me to it

markdk86
11-30-2007, 04:04 PM
Lol, sorry.

unj
11-30-2007, 04:23 PM
why higher protein, justify it....

um vegies nah i didnt include them in there cos the meal with the chicken breasts has vegies in it normally! Fruit wise its banana or apple or 2 and i drink ALOT of water i just didnt mention it after meal 1 lol ill replace the chips with another piece of fruit! or some nuts... should i increase cardio? nah my workouts are fine without food? i cant tell a difference even though it means im running on food from the day before lol

CiteCollegiale
11-30-2007, 09:03 PM
why higher protein, justify it....

You should aim for about 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight. You weigh 190 lbs and consume 120-150grams of protein. I don't need to justify anything just trying to help. Take it or leave it.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
11-30-2007, 09:43 PM
why higher protein, justify it....Higher protein is especially important on a cut because it helps you hold onto the muscle you worked so hard to gain. If your protein isn't high, your muscles are going to dwindle away on a cut. Also, protein requires more calories to digest than either fat or carbs, so keeping your protein higher as part of your total calories will allow you to burn more calories.

mc wb
12-04-2007, 09:22 AM
Hey,

I am finding cutting so hard iv been trying to do it for months on end and my weight has dropped by around a kilo and i see some but very little difference in my physique although my waist has dropped by a decent inch! The only thing i can think of is dropping cals...

I weigh about 190lbs and im 6ft 1.... My aim is to lean out as much as possible say sub 12% BF and then the worlds slowest and cleanest bulk... i need suggestions, all i can do is drop cals maybe increase cardio? I mean i only do it twice a week....


Could i ask a question? what is your BF% right now?

How long have you planned to sustain a getting ripped diet?

with thanks

dr mc wb

Stumprrp
12-04-2007, 09:32 AM
there is nothing wrong with diet soda, or cheese, or bread for that matter.

i would add some more vegys and a bit more meat, try to get rid of the snack type items.

mc wb
12-04-2007, 10:35 AM
there is nothing wrong with diet soda, or cheese, or bread for that matter.

i would add some more vegys and a bit more meat, try to get rid of the snack type items.


Hi Stumprrp, 18 years old, Member,

I guess it depends what you mean by "wrong" eh?

diet soda - or carbonated beverages do have studies associated with them that show that there are indeed problematic side effects especially in certain young populations when training. Also, a lot of soda has caffeine. While there are some studies that show caffiene being used as a booster of energy and as a very mild for diuretic, longer studies with football teams, for instance, have shown performance and attention are both improved when caffeine is reduced or eliminated.

Cheese is also a very high source of fat, so could be great for a limited bulking phase, but problematic as a regular feature of diet. So low fat cheeses may be a solution - again, fine if they're within your fat ratios for your diet. Most people eat too much of this kind of fat/protein and not enough high fiber carbs

bread likewise is a refined food. The entire glycemic index is based around 1 slice of white bread (being 100). As such, a lot of bread can give you fuel that you can't use and will get converted to fat. If it's also high in sugar and refined, the stuff you put in your mouth will start stealing the nutrients that have been refined out of it in order to break down that stuff into things that are digestable. Thus your nutrient intake is getting compromised.

so, while not innately evil, there are a lot better things you can do for your body and health that don't have the costs associated with them. A steady diet of them would be pretty problematic. As you note, up the veggies! Bodies are super resilient though - especially pre 25. In other words, if someone's eating this stuff and currently getting results, that may be in spite of what they're doing not because of it.

just food for thought,

best

dr mc wb

samadhi_smiles
12-04-2007, 12:49 PM
low fat cheeses taste like ****. There is no need to drop cheese from your diet, which is a healthy source of fats, protein, minerals if taken in moderate quantities.

The number one rule for staying safe dieting is no extreme changes.

Bread is a wonderful food, also. Homemade wheat bread is very healthy and tastes delicious warm out of the oven with butter! :)

Don't kick yourself too hard you may bruise your brain ;)

BFGUITAR
12-04-2007, 01:44 PM
Try ripping instead of cutting.

ZenMonkey
12-04-2007, 03:23 PM
im on a shredding diet.

jdeity
12-05-2007, 04:21 PM
diet soda - or carbonated beverages do have studies associated with them that show that there are indeed problematic side effects especially in certain young populations when training.

is this an aspartame attack? Do we really need another aspartame myth crushing session again? :D

BFGUITAR
12-05-2007, 05:32 PM
Hi Stumprrp, 18 years old, Member,

I guess it depends what you mean by "wrong" eh?

diet soda - or carbonated beverages do have studies associated with them that show that there are indeed problematic side effects especially in certain young populations when training. Also, a lot of soda has caffeine. While there are some studies that show caffiene being used as a booster of energy and as a very mild for diuretic, longer studies with football teams, for instance, have shown performance and attention are both improved when caffeine is reduced or eliminated.

Cheese is also a very high source of fat, so could be great for a limited bulking phase, but problematic as a regular feature of diet. So low fat cheeses may be a solution - again, fine if they're within your fat ratios for your diet. Most people eat too much of this kind of fat/protein and not enough high fiber carbs

bread likewise is a refined food. The entire glycemic index is based around 1 slice of white bread (being 100). As such, a lot of bread can give you fuel that you can't use and will get converted to fat. If it's also high in sugar and refined, the stuff you put in your mouth will start stealing the nutrients that have been refined out of it in order to break down that stuff into things that are digestable. Thus your nutrient intake is getting compromised.

so, while not innately evil, there are a lot better things you can do for your body and health that don't have the costs associated with them. A steady diet of them would be pretty problematic. As you note, up the veggies! Bodies are super resilient though - especially pre 25. In other words, if someone's eating this stuff and currently getting results, that may be in spite of what they're doing not because of it.

just food for thought,

best

dr mc wb

WTF? How do carbonated beverages hurt young people? Its just carbondioxide in water!!!

Holto
12-05-2007, 06:15 PM
WTF? How do carbonated beverages hurt young people? Its just carbondioxide in water!!!

I'd bet my life that the 'dr' posts here under a different name...

mc wb
12-06-2007, 02:09 AM
WTF? How do carbonated beverages hurt young people? Its just carbondioxide in water!!!

Hi - i know it sounds odd. But there have been studies in young female athletes that have shown problems in bone fractures related to carbonated beverages. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=2908917&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google)

You'll also find studies on the deleterious effects of carbonated drinks on performance (http://www.pponline.co.uk/forum/talk-performance/any-studies-of-carbonated-beverages-amp-performance). Other discussions talk about (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/pierce7gg.htm)why these are NG with resistance training.

best
mc

mc wb
12-06-2007, 02:10 AM
I'd bet my life that the 'dr' posts here under a different name...

don't kill yourself - no i'm new here. have i said something that's a problem?

best

mc
wb
phd

mc wb
12-06-2007, 02:22 AM
low fat cheeses taste like ****. There is no need to drop cheese from your diet, which is a healthy source of fats, protein, minerals if taken in moderate quantities.

The number one rule for staying safe dieting is no extreme changes.

Bread is a wonderful food, also. Homemade wheat bread is very healthy and tastes delicious warm out of the oven with butter! :)

Don't kick yourself too hard you may bruise your brain ;)

yup homemade wheat bread is grand. with butter, great source of some kinds of fats. But WHEN and HOW OFTEN to have this stuff is the question, right?
i get the feeling you guys don't seem to want to hear approaches that may different than your current chosen practice, and maybe aren't hearing the whole of what's been said: for instance, no one has said that bread or cheese are evil, or should be done away with. But there's a balance, right? where do they fit into that balance? that's the point.

I'm also not sure what lower fat cheeses you've tried, but there are so many varieties there are great tastes available - not everyone is going to have the same fat needs and may enjoy cheese and not be able to tolerate the high fat without getting more fat than they need. This makes sense right? So alternatives are reasonable?

Not sure about the number one rule staying safe dieting is to avoid change. If your diet is unhealthy because it's incomplete, how does that "don't change" approach make sense? The biggest thing proposed here is to add some greens/ruffage into the diet to make sure all the fiber/nutrients are necessary for health are added to the diet.

So that's all. is that ok?

mc

AKMass
12-06-2007, 06:08 AM
I'd bet my life that the 'dr' posts here under a different name...

I was thinking the same thing. By the way, "DR," aren't you 18? Guess we should call you Doogie Howser?

markdk86
12-06-2007, 07:39 AM
Doogie stole my Corolla.

jdeity
12-06-2007, 09:17 AM
nph wouldn't do that.

Holto
12-06-2007, 12:20 PM
don't kill yourself - no i'm new here. have i said something that's a problem?

best

mc
wb
phd

LOL...

Welcome bro, I do object to your missing/dodging direct questions and pretending you're a dr, but other than that, welcome aboard.

mc wb
12-07-2007, 02:54 AM
LOL...

Welcome bro, I do object to your missing/dodging direct questions and pretending you're a dr, but other than that, welcome aboard.

thank you for the welcome. the phd is real, by the way, as is thus the "dr."
i'm not sure what direct question i've dodged? if there's something i've missed, please shout. it's a puzzle to me that someone would see that assertion immediately as fake - which is what you and your fellow posters have assumed, no?

also, you're making a gender assumption, aren't you? maybe that's because for the most part there seem to be only men on this board? as said, new, so not yet familiar enough with the discourse or constituency to know for more certain, but it does seem so far to be mainly young men, sub 25?

anyway, this aside is hijacking this thread, so howdie
and thanks again for the hello.

mc

Jess21
12-07-2007, 07:42 AM
Are you calling everyone here gay?!?!?! I will fight you.

AKMass
12-07-2007, 07:49 AM
<-------"Fellow poster."

P.S. We don't take too KINDLY to folks who don't take too kindly to folks 'round hnaw!

jdeity
12-07-2007, 08:45 AM
haha I bet I'm one of the few who got that!

AKMass
12-07-2007, 09:35 AM
HEY!! PANDA BEAR!
and
HEY!! BEAUTIFUL LADY!

Lol, love that show.

Holto
12-07-2007, 11:10 AM
thank you for the welcome.

Cool. Hope I didn't come off as rude.

</end hijack>

Slim Schaedle
12-07-2007, 12:21 PM
thank you for the welcome. the phd is real, by the way, as is thus the "dr."
i'm not sure what direct question i've dodged? if there's something i've missed, please shout. it's a puzzle to me that someone would see that assertion immediately as fake - which is what you and your fellow posters have assumed, no?

also, you're making a gender assumption, aren't you? maybe that's because for the most part there seem to be only men on this board? as said, new, so not yet familiar enough with the discourse or constituency to know for more certain, but it does seem so far to be mainly young men, sub 25?

anyway, this aside is hijacking this thread, so howdie
and thanks again for the hello.

mc

What field do you specialize in?

Thexile
12-07-2007, 12:41 PM
just curious, you're 6' 1", 190lbs and your cutting on 1600cals? aren't you already lean enough? how long have you been working out? have you had good gains that you want to cut?

you've said that you've been trying to cut for months and have lost 1kilo so far. maybe you should try clean bulking for a bit and then cut? maybe you don't "see" a change in your physique b/c there isn't enough on your relatively big frame, i myself am 5' 10 at 180lbs.

mc wb
12-09-2007, 05:44 AM
T-nation this week posts on a "new" approach to bulking/cutting phases. (http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1835428) focus is on clean foods.

best
mc

VikingWarlord
12-09-2007, 06:20 AM
Hey,

I am finding cutting so hard iv been trying to do it for months on end and my weight has dropped by around a kilo and i see some but very little difference in my physique although my waist has dropped by a decent inch! The only thing i can think of is dropping cals...

Diet (roughly):

Meal 1
Xenadrine + water
WORKOUT - (1 serving of Whey Protein post workout)

Meal 2
Fruit

Meal 3
Cheese sandwich + pack of crisps + diet cola or Diet cola + Tuna pasta

Meal 4
2 Chicken breast + rice or bread of some sort

Meal 5
Small snack e.g nuts and milk

My workout is intense hitting all major body parts and i work out 3 times a week and on an empty stomach after my weights session i throw in about 20 mins on the bike for cardio, for some quick HIIT.

Totals - 1900-2000 cals, 80-100g fat, 200g Carbs, 120-150g protein

I weigh about 190lbs and im 6ft 1.... My aim is to lean out as much as possible say sub 12% BF and then the worlds slowest and cleanest bulk... i need suggestions, all i can do is drop cals maybe increase cardio? I mean i only do it twice a week....

Wow, this diet sucks. You need to do some serious reading before asking for this kind of help. I'm pretty sure your total macros aren't really even close. Without you accurately measuring and tracking, you won't know what you're taking in.

Holto
12-09-2007, 12:23 PM
T-nation this week posts on a "new" approach to bulking/cutting phases. (http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1835428) focus is on clean foods.

best
mc

Hi,

You seem to have missed a direct question two posts above your last. When you do that it undermines your credibility.

-thanks

RNC Holt Mans____

unj
12-10-2007, 10:42 AM
just curious, you're 6' 1", 190lbs and your cutting on 1600cals? aren't you already lean enough? how long have you been working out? have you had good gains that you want to cut?

you've said that you've been trying to cut for months and have lost 1kilo so far. maybe you should try clean bulking for a bit and then cut? maybe you don't "see" a change in your physique b/c there isn't enough on your relatively big frame, i myself am 5' 10 at 180lbs.

nah i gained just about 50lbs lol! so a bit of fat that i need to get rid of BIG time.... dont worry u guys didnt help... thanks anyway

jdeity
12-10-2007, 11:34 AM
didn't help you with what, the psychological difficulty you seem to be having with your cut? You ended your original post with something to the effect of 'what can I do, just diet/exercise?', what did you expect help to be?


(damnit, you got me - I've got help, I have some magic beans that'll do the trick, pm me for my paypal address and we can work something out :evillaugh: )

so_calmaxwell
12-15-2007, 06:13 PM
I think the diet isn't all that bad... The healthy suggestions are good...
For the cheese sandwich try toasting bread and putting lowfat cottage cheese. ( very little fat and almost all protein calories )
---> INCREASE CARDIO..... I don't think the answer to this question is limited to diet only.
I'm positive increase cardio will make better results than just a diet change.

Even if you run 10 miles a day....... run 5 more.

Built
12-15-2007, 06:43 PM
Why all the low fat suggestions? Low fat SUCKS for cutting.

<fondles avocado lovingly>

jdeity
12-15-2007, 06:59 PM
ya F low fat. Why would you want to do that!?


<built, why did ur 2nd sentence specify cutting? Low fat is a piss poor approach on all fronts>

Built
12-15-2007, 07:38 PM
It's not so bad on a bulk - usually you're getting so many calories you've got your fats covered. Carbs stimulate insulin, good for driving nutrients into your muscles, and besides, lower-fat foods tend to promote appetite, so they make it easier to overeat. But this depends on what you think of as "low fat" I suppose. If you're getting almost no fat while you bulk, what the hell are you eating, yanno? Short story long, I agree with you jdiety.

so_calmaxwell
12-15-2007, 07:44 PM
because fat is the most calorie rich nutrient..
1 gram of fat gram has about 9 calories
1 gram of protien has 4 calories
1 gram of carbohyrdates has 4 calories.

The key is to burn off your daily intake of calories so your body will begin to burn fat that is stored in the body.

If you intake to little you will simplly burn the callories and some fat and end up hurting your muscle tissue.

If you consume too many callories you will simply store the unburned.

Its a balance... and you have to find your spot....

Isually the best thing to to is eat at a level that you know maintains/ slowlly gains your current muscle weight and increase your normal cardio to more cardio.

This shift usually doesn't shock your body into doing anything different to your current muscle mass but since your burning more fuel naturaly your reserves will dwindle.

so_calmaxwell
12-15-2007, 07:45 PM
my opinion of course.... I'm not a doctor.. or a nutritionist. Nor am i saying anyone else is wrong.

Built
12-15-2007, 07:49 PM
because fat is the most calorie rich nutrient..
1 gram of fat gram has about 9 calories
1 gram of protien has 4 calories
1 gram of carbohyrdates has 4 calories.

The key is to burn off your daily intake of calories so your body will begin to burn fat that is stored in the body.

If you intake to little you will simplly burn the callories and some fat and end up hurting your muscle tissue.

If you consume too many callories you will simply store the unburned.

Its a balance... and you have to find your spot....

Isually the best thing to to is eat at a level that you know maintains/ slowlly gains your current muscle weight and increase your normal cardio to more cardio.

This shift usually doesn't shock your body into doing anything different to your current muscle mass but since your burning more fuel naturaly your reserves will dwindle.

I know what the caloric cost of eating fat is, bud. But dieting on low fat feels like ASS - I keep my fats as high as my calories allow when I'm cutting.

Keeps appetite under control.

And I'd hardly suggest increasing cardio for cutting. I WOULD suggest increasing the INTENSITY of your cardio, but not MORE cardio.

jdeity
12-16-2007, 08:05 AM
because fat is the most calorie rich nutrient..
1 gram of fat gram has about 9 calories
1 gram of protien has 4 calories
1 gram of carbohyrdates has 4 calories.

The key is to burn off your daily intake of calories so your body will begin to burn fat that is stored in the body.

If you intake to little you will simplly burn the callories and some fat and end up hurting your muscle tissue.

If you consume too many callories you will simply store the unburned.

Its a balance... and you have to find your spot....

Isually the best thing to to is eat at a level that you know maintains/ slowlly gains your current muscle weight and increase your normal cardio to more cardio.

This shift usually doesn't shock your body into doing anything different to your current muscle mass but since your burning more fuel naturaly your reserves will dwindle.

from bolded sentence, you need to burn off daily intake of calories and then anything after that is fat loss, and past that is muscle loss, presuming you're doing the proper things (still lifting, sufficient protein, etc). Reverse for bulking, you take in more than you can burn off to account for anabolism/muscle growth, anything past that's stored as fat.


The thing is that low fat is just bad - fat is, as you pointed out, more calorie dense than carbs but that does not mean it is wise to swap your fats for carbs. I'm not saying avoid carbs or anything, just that the whole 'don't eat fat cuz you're trying to lose fat' thing is wrong - it's total calorie count, not what % of those calories came from fat. Also keep in mind that fat/protein are essential macronutrients, required for life/health. Carbs are not.

mc wb
12-16-2007, 10:36 AM
And I'd hardly suggest increasing cardio for cutting. I WOULD suggest increasing the INTENSITY of your cardio, but not MORE cardio.

Just for clarification do you mean "time" in terms of increasing cardio - as in you wouldn't do it longer? Intensity is effectively "more" cardio.

Also, more effective than simply upping intensity in cardio is to do intervals. Something like the tabata protocol that takes into account cadence as well as intervals of high heart rate with recovery intervals (20sec at 90rpm at gearing that gets to around 85%max as a measure of VO2 uptake followed by 10sec stop for 8 intervals) is an example of adipose fat burning at play.

This kind of protocol has been shown to get better fat burning of calories than steady state higher intensity due to EPOC - since it's the O2 metabolism that is mainly responsible for fat burning, those recovery intervals are important as is simply using intervals to help increase V02 max, and thus fat burning.

This way, if you get into this regime of doing about 2.5hours of this kind of high intensity interval work, you can actually increase your calories quite substantially and get great fat loss happening to complement resistnance training for lean muscle building.

But you likely meant this anyway, yes?
And likely also know that fat only burns in the presence of carbs - so really important when doing high intensity work to have an appropriate ratio of carbs available to facilitate that oxidative burn cycling.

This approach has been called a lot of things but one version of it is g-flux.

Totally agree on the fat - fat is critical for fat burning. fish oil, cla, all great sources. If you hit green tea in there that will also give a small boost. not big, but every little helps - and it's cheaper than hot rox.

Again, not saying you don't know this: just offering this info up for the community, and as my understanding of the research and helping athletes and couch potatoes train.

best
mc

Slim Schaedle
12-16-2007, 10:40 AM
Just for clarification do you mean "time" in terms of increasing cardio - as in you wouldn't do it longer? Intensity is effectively "more" cardio.

Also, more effective than simply upping intensity in cardio is to do intervals. Something like the tabata protocol that takes into account cadence as well as intervals of high heart rate with recovery intervals (20sec at 90rpm at gearing that gets to around 85%max as a measure of VO2 uptake followed by 10sec stop for 8 intervals) is an example of adipose fat burning at play.

This kind of protocol has been shown to get better fat burning of calories than steady state higher intensity due to EPOC - since it's the O2 metabolism that is mainly responsible for fat burning, those recovery intervals are important as is simply using intervals to help increase V02 max, and thus fat burning.

This way, if you get into this regime of doing about 2.5hours of this kind of high intensity interval work, you can actually increase your calories quite substantially and get great fat loss happening to complement resistnance training for lean muscle building.

But you likely meant this anyway, yes?
And likely also know that fat only burns in the presence of carbs - so really important when doing high intensity work to have an appropriate ratio of carbs available to facilitate that oxidative burn cycling.

This approach has been called a lot of things but one version of it is g-flux.

Totally agree on the fat - fat is critical for fat burning. fish oil, cla, all great sources. If you hit green tea in there that will also give a small boost. not big, but every little helps - and it's cheaper than hot rox.

Again, not saying you don't know this: just offering this info up for the community, and as my understanding of the research and helping athletes and couch potatoes train.

best
mc

What field do you hold your PhD in?

mc wb
12-16-2007, 10:43 AM
The thing is that low fat is just bad - fat is, as you pointed out, more calorie dense than carbs but that does not mean it is wise to swap your fats for carbs. I'm not saying avoid carbs or anything, just that the whole 'don't eat fat cuz you're trying to lose fat' thing is wrong - it's total calorie count, not what % of those calories came from fat. Also keep in mind that fat/protein are essential macronutrients, required for life/health. Carbs are not.

Could you clarify on what you're basing that last sentence - about carbs not being essential for life and health? what is the reference for this claim?

I know you've stated that you're not saying "avoid carbs or anything" but your statements about them suggest that that would be possible and still healthy. Am i mis-hearing you?

For instance, an athlete would not be able to perform without carbs; fat would be the last thing to burn from your system without carbs. The glycolytic metabolism would be hard pressed to function without carbs as an energy source. The fascia starts to dehydrate without carbs as a mechanism for keeping muscles properly hydrated. This is why folks initially lose weight on atkins type diets: they're losing a LOT of water. Which again, for athletes means that muscles cannot function optimally - muscle cross bridges can't work properly.

Now for periods of cutting reduced carbs are understandable - but you're reducing everything in such a cycle, not eliminating any nutrient group tho the ratios will change.

I'd also like to understand why you say total calories are the point, not the rations of calories. From my research/training, it is very much the ratios of fat/protein/carbs that make up total calorie count that are critical for health, and particularly important for tuning nutrient intake for your goals and your body type for your training

So, again, could you provide sources to back up your statement about lack of need for carbohydrates and that nutrient ratios, only total calories are important?

with thanks
mc

jdeity
12-16-2007, 10:47 AM
I was about to reply to your q but realized you dodged the question on your field of specialty twice now, asked by both holto and slim.

mc wb
12-16-2007, 10:51 AM
What field do you hold your PhD in?

It's interdisciplinary, Slim, and i research how technological systems can enhance human performance. However, please note that in my posts i don't said "because i say so" but try to point to existing research or stuff that is easy to confirm with a quick scan of sports, sports nutrition, physiology or kinesiology texts or journal articles. At least i hope so. If there's a question about a source for something where i've missed that i'll be happy to try to point to an online source for easy confirmation/backup if that's needed.

Are we green?

All the best of the season to you, and i wish you great strides for the new year.

best
mc

mc wb
12-16-2007, 10:59 AM
I was about to reply to your q but realized you dodged the question on your field of specialty twice now, asked by both holto and slim.



i replied to Holto privately about this question of my research area, which he has not yet acknowledged to me directly or on the board - that's curious, but it's holto's perogative.

I'm also not sure what the big deal is about my area of research: i'm not speaking ex cathedra; i generally point to places where what i've said is supported. So i'm mainly translating/presenting research here. Anyone can check out those sources and judge for themselves whether i've presented it accurately: that's why i put the links in or point to programs or whatever that inform that perspective.

I hope my posts can therefore be taken on their merits.

best of the season to all
mc

Slim Schaedle
12-16-2007, 11:23 AM
i replied to Holto privately about this question of my research area, which he has not yet acknowledged to me directly or on the board - that's curious, but it's holto's perogative.

I'm also not sure what the big deal is about my area of research: i'm not speaking ex cathedra; i generally point to places where what i've said is supported. So i'm mainly translating/presenting research here. Anyone can check out those sources and judge for themselves whether i've presented it accurately: that's why i put the links in or point to programs or whatever that inform that perspective.

I hope my posts can therefore be taken on their merits.

best of the season to all
mc

I was asking mainly out of curiosity.

This was partly due to you briefly discussing the letters "Dr." in front of your signed user name when replying to posts, that was called into question by user(s).

While many people question eachother and have differing opinions pertaining to researched areas/studies (that often conflict eachother), I feel that if someone throws the letters Dr. in front of their name, they did it for a specific reason, and they should be prepared to answers questions from members of this site pertaining to such (especially after being asked 5 direct times and 1 indirect time).

I was not e-ttacking you, if it was perceived.

Built
12-16-2007, 01:01 PM
Just for clarification do you mean "time" in terms of increasing cardio - as in you wouldn't do it longer? Intensity is effectively "more" cardio.

Also, more effective than simply upping intensity in cardio is to do intervals. Something like the tabata protocol that takes into account cadence as well as intervals of high heart rate with recovery intervals (20sec at 90rpm at gearing that gets to around 85%max as a measure of VO2 uptake followed by 10sec stop for 8 intervals) is an example of adipose fat burning at play.

This kind of protocol has been shown to get better fat burning of calories than steady state higher intensity due to EPOC - since it's the O2 metabolism that is mainly responsible for fat burning, those recovery intervals are important as is simply using intervals to help increase V02 max, and thus fat burning.

This way, if you get into this regime of doing about 2.5hours of this kind of high intensity interval work, you can actually increase your calories quite substantially and get great fat loss happening to complement resistnance training for lean muscle building.

But you likely meant this anyway, yes?
And likely also know that fat only burns in the presence of carbs - so really important when doing high intensity work to have an appropriate ratio of carbs available to facilitate that oxidative burn cycling.

This approach has been called a lot of things but one version of it is g-flux.

Totally agree on the fat - fat is critical for fat burning. fish oil, cla, all great sources. If you hit green tea in there that will also give a small boost. not big, but every little helps - and it's cheaper than hot rox.

Again, not saying you don't know this: just offering this info up for the community, and as my understanding of the research and helping athletes and couch potatoes train.

best
mc

EPOC has been largely overstated - the bigger deal here is mobilizing fat stores and sparing lean mass.

I wrote a little article (http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=292)on this. You may find it helpful.

mc wb
12-17-2007, 12:02 PM
EPOC has been largely overstated - the bigger deal here is mobilizing fat stores and sparing lean mass.

I wrote a little article (http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=292)on this. You may find it helpful.

I'm not sure what point you're making with this statement about EPOC (which you point to a couple times in your article) being overrated? EPOC is a measure that demonstrates an O2 requirement which is directly relevant to the "mobilizing fat stores" you describe. Since mobilizing fat stores is accomplished by getting the oxidative metabolism going, and higher consumption of oxygen, increasing vo2max etc, are all ways of getting more O2 use and consequent fat burning, which the EPOC measure indirectly reflects as a measure of success of getting fat burning happening, i'm not sure why it would be termed "over rated"?

Any references there, much obliged, with thanks.

if i may also offer a clarification, about tabata (http://www.ms-se.com/pt/re/msse/abstract.00005768-199610000-00018.htm;jsessionid=HmFDv5H0cG5nS57Pzx3kmQnDFQ2cmr2K1zTphZWvNlWpZdM12Zhn!1609592453!181195628!8091!-1), which you also mention in your piece: for that *specific* protocol, cadence is critical, which is something that many people miss. It is not only the 20sec on "really brutally hard" and 10sec off for 8 repeats - i'm not saying that that isn't a dam hard interval you've described; it is just not the tabata protocol for improving VO2 max, which just happened to have a side benefit of getting at subcutaneous fat.

While it is possible to do 20hard/10stop of any activity, it would be very difficult to do the tabata on anything other than a bike or perhaps a rowing machine (on treadmills, people can collapse). Indeed, the only way the protocol has been successfully measured is on a bike, because of the use of specific cadence and load as measures.

There has been critique of tabata for VO2 max, and consequently at least one other protocol has been strictly defined to improve on tabata for VO2max work. This one uses kettlebells (http://beachkettlebell.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-is-vo2-kettlebell-training.html) to stimulate VO2max (and have a consequent effect on fat loss): again, cadence (no. of swings per minute) and load (size of kettlebell) are key components.

A side benefit of kettlebell VO2 work is that swings and snatches with KB's have direct cross over benefit for powerlifting/weightlifting.

But i offer this as an aside. The tabata work was not focused on fat loss; it was focused on VO2max improvements and determinng the most efficient intervals for that. The point is intervals are great for helping fat utilization/burning.

It was interesting to read your hill workouts.

A couple of questions: Do you, by the way, have any references that point towards the interval periods of work/rest you recommend? I'm always looking for this kind of reference, and would be much obliged.

I may have missed it, but you don't seem to mention heart rate related to the degree of incline in your intervals. For athletic training, in any case, it's usual to determine either bike or eliptical gearing or treadmill incline or speed based on % of heart rate targeted for that interval. Tabata, for instance, definitely uses %VO2max as a measure for determining gearing and mere mortals without this kind of apparatus use %ofMaxHR. Some more formal presentations on HIIT definitely use HR% as measures (http://www.myfit.ca/archives/viewanarticle.asp?table=fitness&ID=55).

Others just say "go all our for x" rather than gating it at some measurable output or work level. I don't quite understand how this kind of interval work is determined as effective or not, since there's no direct correlation to HR%max either to confirm how you're doing on a given day or to note improvement over time, or to know, more importantly, if a given gearing or incline is either right for you, or pushing into over training/over work. Is there a reason, therefore, you in particular don't use heart rate?

with thanks and
best of the holidays
mc

Built
12-19-2007, 01:17 AM
I'm not sure what point you're making with this statement about EPOC (which you point to a couple times in your article) being overrated? EPOC is a measure that demonstrates an O2 requirement which is directly relevant to the "mobilizing fat stores" you describe.


Not quite. It's relevant to creating a caloric deficit. Catecholamines stimulate lipolysis. What we hope to effect with HIIT is catecholamine release -> free fatty acid release -> steady state cardio to burn them before they reesterify and redeposit on your ass. With the fats mobilized, with any luck you burn them instead of muscle. And you do at least get SOME EPOC from it.




Since mobilizing fat stores is accomplished by getting the oxidative metabolism going, and higher consumption of oxygen, increasing vo2max etc, are all ways of getting more O2 use and consequent fat burning, which the EPOC measure indirectly reflects as a measure of success of getting fat burning happening, i'm not sure why it would be termed "over rated"?

Quantity. Regardless of the substrate burned, you have to look at the deficit created, yanno? It won't be THAT big. You still have to diet if you want to cut effectively.




Any references there, much obliged, with thanks.

There have been some floating around. We had a discussion about this on my other board: http://www.beyondlowcarb.net/index.php?topic=15299.0




if i may also offer a clarification, about tabata (http://www.ms-se.com/pt/re/msse/abstract.00005768-199610000-00018.htm;jsessionid=HmFDv5H0cG5nS57Pzx3kmQnDFQ2cmr2K1zTphZWvNlWpZdM12Zhn!1609592453!181195628!8091!-1), which you also mention in your piece: for that *specific* protocol, cadence is critical, which is something that many people miss. It is not only the 20sec on "really brutally hard" and 10sec off for 8 repeats - i'm not saying that that isn't a dam hard interval you've described; it is just not the tabata protocol for improving VO2 max, which just happened to have a side benefit of getting at subcutaneous fat.

Talk to Anthony. He's the one who suggested that particular protocol to me. I don't do Tabata. It smacks of effort. ;)






While it is possible to do 20hard/10stop of any activity, it would be very difficult to do the tabata on anything other than a bike or perhaps a rowing machine (on treadmills, people can collapse). Indeed, the only way the protocol has been successfully measured is on a bike, because of the use of specific cadence and load as measures.

I've only ever seen it done with squats, actually.






There has been critique of tabata for VO2 max, and consequently at least one other protocol has been strictly defined to improve on tabata for VO2max work. This one uses kettlebells (http://beachkettlebell.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-is-vo2-kettlebell-training.html) to stimulate VO2max (and have a consequent effect on fat loss): again, cadence (no. of swings per minute) and load (size of kettlebell) are key components.

A side benefit of kettlebell VO2 work is that swings and snatches with KB's have direct cross over benefit for powerlifting/weightlifting.

But i offer this as an aside. The tabata work was not focused on fat loss; it was focused on VO2max improvements and determinng the most efficient intervals for that. The point is intervals are great for helping fat utilization/burning.


Yes they are. For small amounts of fat.





It was interesting to read your hill workouts.

A couple of questions: Do you, by the way, have any references that point towards the interval periods of work/rest you recommend? I'm always looking for this kind of reference, and would be much obliged.

There must be a thousand ways to do the work rest intervals for these. I liked this particular protocol because they fit nicely into five minute intervals - makes it easy to build up your endurance.







I may have missed it, but you don't seem to mention heart rate related to the degree of incline in your intervals. For athletic training, in any case, it's usual to determine either bike or eliptical gearing or treadmill incline or speed based on % of heart rate targeted for that interval.

I've never checked my pulse while doing any of my training. I have no intention of starting now. The only reason I do these is to build up VO2 max in a hurry - without having to do so much cardio I lose mass or risk converting too much transitional fibre to slow twitch analogues.


These work like a hot damn in this regard.


Tabata, for instance, definitely uses %VO2max as a measure for determining gearing and mere mortals without this kind of apparatus use %ofMaxHR. Some more formal presentations on HIIT definitely use HR% as measures (http://www.myfit.ca/archives/viewanarticle.asp?table=fitness&ID=55).

Others just say "go all our for x" rather than gating it at some measurable output or work level. I don't quite understand how this kind of interval work is determined as effective or not,

Look in a mirror.

mc wb
12-24-2007, 03:25 AM
I've never checked my pulse while doing any of my training. I have no intention of starting now. The only reason I do these is to build up VO2 max in a hurry - without having to do so much cardio I lose mass or risk converting too much transitional fibre to slow twitch analogues.


With reference to the value of heart rate when doing HIIT, for those who may be interested, fyi

this piece by dr. mark tallon (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/tallon7.htm). You'll notice there's a point of diminishing return in going beyond 75% VO2max rate (approx 85% max heart rate) for the fat burning effect.

best of the season,
mc

mc wb
12-25-2007, 07:54 AM
The above exchange about HIIT - and the rationale proposed by Built for doing it -- "What we hope to effect with HIIT is catecholamine release" -- took me by surprise. My awareness of interval work in terms of research on both improving VO2max and consequent effect in fat burning was different than this model. Indeed, that this stress-induced effect was of less consequence than the long term oxidative metabolism revving.

The following is a meditation to unpack this rationale.
If i'm reflecting Built's position correctly, the main reason for HIIT is to motivate the release of fat to be burned. Catecholamines are definitely one hormone that is invoked naturally when the body is under stress. The release of fat for energy use is one of the consequences.

I haven't been able to find any research that conclusively shows that the kind of stress produced by intervals causes the release of catecholamines. The closest i've found is a reference from Men's Health (http://transform07trainer.menshealth.com/2007/11/best-way-to-bur.html)to very new work that has yet to be peer-reviewed (published) (http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/articles/2007/jan/Fat_exercise.html), where the authors only hypothesize around catecholamines release being a reason for the big fat burn experienced in a VERY SPECIFIC protocol: 8sec sprint; 12 secs low to no work for 20 mins. This sounds remarkably like Tabbata (http://www.ms-se.com/pt/re/msse/abstract.00005768-199610000-00018.htm;jsessionid=HmFDv5H0cG5nS57Pzx3kmQnDFQ2cmr2K1zTphZWvNlWpZdM12Zhn!1609592453!181195628!8091!-1) with the emphasis on fat loss rather VO2max improvement. I'll be interested to see the final full version of this work once it's been through peer review. The reason peer review is so important: experts in the field look at the protocol/methodology of the study, at the stats, to see if the method is reasonable and repeatable for the claims made; that some other factors weren't involved in getting the results etc. But right now, this is all speculation until the paper is either published or else made available for scrutiny.

This doesn't mean that catecholamine release is not happening, it's just that i have seen no work to indicate at what kind of intensity, for instance, catecholamines are released in interval work, or that this particular hormone is responsible etc etc.

But beyond the role or not of catecholamines, there's a lot of science we do have about HIIT. I'll come onto that in a moment.

The subsequent part of Built's presented model, if i'm hearing it right, is that low level cardio following the intervals acts like a hoover to suck up all that loosened off fat "before they [the fat] reesterify and redeposit on your ass".

There's no doubt that low level cardio (sub 60%MHR) burns fat and has a nice effect on the heart. Lots of people lose weight just by walking, after all. A 20min low level cardio session is going to burn maybe 100calories, and every little bit helps, for sure. More on another model for why post hiit light cardio might be useful is presented below.

Before that, the question i have with this model is that it seems to focus more on the activity - the particular fat released and potentially burned in the session - than the whole impact of the activity for the 24-48hours post the interval session - something which science has definitely shown occurs.

Don't misunderstand me: there's obvious value in the interval itself, not just its side effects: intervals certainly cause a lot of energy burning directly during the event. There may also be catecholamines operating. But beyond this speculation, there's good research around a different way of looking at HIIT.

A bit of history: the primary training rationale for intervals over CONSTANT steady state HIGH intensity work is to improve both VO2max and lactate threshold: intervals are more efficient at increasing VO2/lactate threshold performance. The work/break/work/break enables the boundary to be pushed higher/harder. The important bit in here is oxygen uptake. The more efficiently you can utilize oxygen the better you can perform athletically: respiration reflects a bunch of over systems improving - it's a great measure.

Now, a simple side effect of greater O2 uptake is greater oxidation of fat. In high intensity activities, we mobilize phosphagen stores, then glycogen (blood sugar) - these are our anaerobic metabolic systems. They don't work independently of each other; one predominates under certain conditions.

My understanding is that intense activity causes glycogen stores to be effectively maxed out. That means that other energy sources have to be used. That's fat. Fat can only really be burned in the presence of O2. Hence the Aerobic system (aerobic just means with oxygen).

How this ties in with intervals: first EPOC, then life. Excess post exercise oxygen consumption, or oxygen debt (http://www.brianmac.co.uk/oxdebit.htm)developed by exertion - all to do with ATP, lactic acid and getting that acid cleared out of the system. Repaying that 02 debt has your 02 metabolism operating at a higher than normal rate. The 02 metabolism uses fat as its primary energy source. Thus, intervals which drive up o2 debt, keep the 02 metabolism revving to repay that debt. Depending on the intensity and duration, that debt can take 2-3 days to repay. (a few articles cited here (http://www.metaboliceffect.com/me_pages/science.html))


In other words, the biggest benefit of intervals is the upped 02 metabolism, which (a) burns fat and (b) stays revved a long time (as in days) after HIIT

This is not to say that there is no catecholamine release that is related to lipase which is an enzyme that gets the fat out to be used for energy. What i would suggest is that while that is a good thing, that is not the biggest fat-burning benefit of HIIT. We know that this release occurs when lifting HEAVY - or when the whole flight of fight response is triggered.

It may signal that glycogen stores have likely been sapped, and a shot of carbs would actually be a good thing (fat doesn't burn well without carbs present; it's important to restore glycogen availability to the liver/muscles).

Likewise, there are good reasons for cooling down post HIIT with aerobic work. As summarised by eric cressey (http://www.ericcressey.com/maxmus2.html)



Following the bout of HIIT, a brief (i.e. 5-15 minutes) session of low-intensity aerobics might work to enhance fat loss. It appears that inadequate blood flow to adipose tissue during high-intensity exercise is the culprit behind reduced fat oxidation (26). As a result, immediately upon cessation of high-intensity exercise, there is a marked increase in the concentration of plasma free fatty acids (2). By exercising at an intensity that relies primarily on the use of plasma fatty acids (i.e. less than 60% of heart rate reserve), you will maximize adipose tissue lipolysis and fat oxidation.

2. Rasmussen BB, Holmback UC, Volpi E, Morio-Liondore B, Paddon-Jones D, Wolfe RR. Malonyl coenzyme A and the regulation of functional carnitine palmitoyltransferase-1 activity and fat oxidation in human skeletal muscle. J Clin Invest 2002 Dec;110(11):1687-93.

26. Samra JS, et al. Effects of epinephrine infusion on adipose tissue: interactions between blood flow and lipid metabolism. Am J Physiol. 1996 Nov;271(5 Pt 1):E834-9.




Bottom line with respect to fat burning: getting the oxidative metabolism revved up means fat burning. A great way to get the oxidative metabolism revved is HIIT to drive oxygen debt. O2 debt LASTS - so that rev can be burning calories - burning fat - for a looong time post HIIT. Because aerobic exercise (sub 60% intensity) doesn't induce this o2 debt, its effects are more limited to the calories burn during just that particular session.

Forgive me if this entire cycle is known to all folks reading here. It's been helpful for me to think about HIIT and really work through the process in light of established research.

Time to go work out,
Season's Best

mc

ps - if you're interested in sources to walk through intervals, EPOC and the rest, there are a couple of well regarded texts,

The NSCA's Essentials of strength and conditioning (http://www.nsca-cc.org/online_store/detail.html?pi=63&ci=1)
and
Exercise Physiology: Human Bioenergetics and Its Applications (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fgp%2Fproduct%2F0072556420%3Fpf%5Frd%5Fp%3D317711001%26pf%5Frd %5Fs%3Dcenter-41%26pf%5Frd%5Ft%3D201%26pf%5Frd%5Fi%3D1559343656%26pf%5Frd%5Fm%3DATVPDKIKX0DER%26pf%5Frd%5Fr%3D1ZDK 05GGF4QYQP8ZC7D2&tag=nopainnopain-21&linkCode=ur2&camp=1634&creative=6738) Brooks, Fahey and Baldwin - 4th Edition.

There's a lot of articles on the "hierarchy of substrates" used in intervals too - how this is done with rats frequently is rather sad (i prefer human studies).
Checking Pubmed or Medline will bring them up.
There's also a couple year old summary (http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/epocarticle.html) by Kravitz

Holto
01-03-2008, 03:42 PM
Wow. Good read. Thanks. ;)