PDA

View Full Version : Diet Critique?



WannaBeMuscley
01-13-2010, 12:39 PM
I am SO sorry if I am spamming this board. I am used to a message board where people would create 10 threads a day. I will be sure to be more deliberate and complete in the future. If you need to delete my other ones, feel free.

Okay, so I'm thinking of eating the following way. My goals are to lose fat and maintain my muscle mass and put some on (I am a beginner, by the way). Do the macros look about right? I'm prepared to follow this 100%. The only thing is, upon occasion, I will eat things I crave. Instead of resorting to emotionally unhealthy things like bulimia or "chew and spit", I've been able to eat one mouthful of whatever I want and be completely - psychologically - satisfied. This won't happen too often and I don't see any one "cheat meal" being possibly more than 300 calories.

Totals
Cals=1,743 Fat=32.2 Carbs=181.1 Protein=194.9

Meal 1
1 Cup of Raisin Bran
Cals=220 F=1.5 C=46.5 P=5.2
2oz of Milk
Cals=30.5 F=1.25 C=2.8 P=2.0

Meal 2
2 Servings of ON Chocolate Casein
Cals=120 F=1.0 C=4.0 P=24.0
2 T of Unsweetened Cocoa
Cals=40 F=1 C=6.0 P=2.0
4oz of Milk
Cals=61 F=2.45 C=5.75 P=4.0

Meal 3
1 Large Apple
Cals=110 F=0.4 C=29.3 P=0.6

Meal 4
2 Servings of ON Chocolate Casein
Cals=120 F=1.0 C=4.0 P=24.0
2 T of Unsweetened Cocoa
Cals=40 F=1 C=6.0 P=2.0
4oz of Milk
Cals=61 F=2.45 C=5.75 P=4.0

Meal 5
2 pieces of 12-grain Bread
Cals=220 F=3.0 C=42.0 P=8.0
3 slices of Turkey
Cals=78 F=2.9 C=0.0 P=12.1
1 piece of Cheese
Cals=86 F=6.8 C=1.2 P=5.0

Meal 6
2 Servings of ON Chocolate Casein
Cals=120 F=1.0 C=4.0 P=24.0
2 T of Unsweetened Cocoa
Cals=40 F=1 C=6.0 P=2.0
4oz of Milk
Cals=61 F=2.45 C=5.75 P=4.0

Thanks for any and all input!

Unreal
01-13-2010, 01:20 PM
Cals and fat are way way low for a male so I will assume your a female. Besides fats being on th the low end, almost no fiber/veggies/greens, and it being mostly liquids, it is ok. Plus your portions could be hard to stick to. I've never seen anyone eat 1 cup of raisin bran with 2oz of milk. Seriously, 2oz? You realize that is almost nothing.

WannaBeMuscley
01-13-2010, 01:27 PM
Man, you're funny! Well, by assuming you made an ass out of you and me - I'm a guy.

For the calories, I am trying to drop a lot of body fat. I've been accustomed to eating even less than that, for quite some time. For the fats, should they be higher? I could certainly add peanut butter to the cocoa balls if I need to get more fat in my diet. As far as fiber goes, I'd actually be getting over 20 a day (12-grain bread=6g per slice, Apple=5g, Raisin Bran=5-7g). But I hear you on the no veggies or greens, but do I really need to? The portions won't be a problem for me, I've been essentially eating along these lines for several months. 1 cup of Raisin Bran did take time getting used to but I've been doing it for awhile. The 2oz of milk is because I am only borrowing the milk, I don't drink it and I always kind of strain it. If anything, I'm probably only consuming 1oz.

RichMcGuire
01-13-2010, 04:08 PM
Man, you're funny! Well, by assuming you made an ass out of you and me - I'm a guy.

For the calories, I am trying to drop a lot of body fat. I've been accustomed to eating even less than that, for quite some time. For the fats, should they be higher? I could certainly add peanut butter to the cocoa balls if I need to get more fat in my diet. As far as fiber goes, I'd actually be getting over 20 a day (12-grain bread=6g per slice, Apple=5g, Raisin Bran=5-7g). But I hear you on the no veggies or greens, but do I really need to? The portions won't be a problem for me, I've been essentially eating along these lines for several months. 1 cup of Raisin Bran did take time getting used to but I've been doing it for awhile. The 2oz of milk is because I am only borrowing the milk, I don't drink it and I always kind of strain it. If anything, I'm probably only consuming 1oz.

In my opinion, youre likely to slow your metabolism and thus slow fat loss with that low of kcals. If you dont feel like carb cycling, you could look into something called energy flux. Basically, if you eat MORE and exercise MORE, your metabolism will be higher than that of someone going with the lower kcal approach (assuming the same total kcal deficit).

Unreal
01-14-2010, 10:07 AM
What Rich said. If you have been eating that low or lower for awhile then I would take a 2 week break and eat at maintence and get your metabolism ramped up.

AKMass
01-14-2010, 10:50 AM
The 2oz of milk is because I am only borrowing the milk, I don't drink it and I always kind of strain it. If anything, I'm probably only consuming 1oz.

:confused: What does this mean? I agree with the other posts in this thread.

WannaBeMuscley
01-14-2010, 03:02 PM
I don't know, Rich. As it stands, I burn like 2000-2500 a day through exercise - as it is. Now, if I really should be getting more calories - then I should. My question is, how do you know I need more? If you talk about the thermogenic effect of food, I don't think that would outweigh the calories I'd be taking in. I'm already taking in a ton of protein and eating every three hours and feeling full all day. I don't believe I'd be subjected to the elusive "starvation mode".

Unreal, that makes sense. I know when I've fallen off before, I lose a ton of weight when I get back. But I usually put on a good amount before taking it back off. I kind of feel like it may not be that healthy. And, as I said, why would my metabolism slow?

Ak, I borrow the milk because I tip my spoon to get off the excess milk.

I really appreciate the input, guys. Please have patience with my need for things explained ;)

RichMcGuire
01-14-2010, 08:32 PM
I don't know, Rich. As it stands, I burn like 2000-2500 a day through exercise - as it is. Now, if I really should be getting more calories - then I should. My question is, how do you know I need more? If you talk about the thermogenic effect of food, I don't think that would outweigh the calories I'd be taking in. I'm already taking in a ton of protein and eating every three hours and feeling full all day. I don't believe I'd be subjected to the elusive "starvation mode".

Unreal, that makes sense. I know when I've fallen off before, I lose a ton of weight when I get back. But I usually put on a good amount before taking it back off. I kind of feel like it may not be that healthy. And, as I said, why would my metabolism slow?

Ak, I borrow the milk because I tip my spoon to get off the excess milk.

I really appreciate the input, guys. Please have patience with my need for things explained ;)

I bolded what I wanted to talk about.

So how do you know you burn 2k - 2.5k calories a day? Thats a lot. We are talking about a -757 deficit even BEFORE you start dropping kcals with your diet.

I know you can eat more by changing your diet. 1743 kcals is not a lot at all. Especially to preserve LBM. The idea with the g-flux is that if you eat more and burn more, your metabolism is actually higher than someone that eats less and burns more. Not to mention the LBM sparing effect.

Trust me, there is nothing "elusive" about the starvation mode. When youre burning that many kcals and only getting in such a small amount, your body WILL slow things down to preserve whatever it can.

Youre headed down a bad road if you are really burning that many kcals and eating only 1700 kcals a day.

WannaBeMuscley
01-15-2010, 07:44 AM
Rich, let me start by thanking you for engaging me and asking for your patience - as I am going to question and challenge, so I can actually take in what you say and own it ;)

I don't know that I burn that many, I only know that that's how much I "supposedly" burn. I do Vinyasa Flow Yoga for an hour a day, I do an elliptical on a high setting for 80-90 minutes which says that I am burning 1000 calories and I weight lift for 30-45 mins. I am 280lbs (but I base it off of 270 to be conservative) and I do those things every day. I would say that 1500-2000 would be a conservative estimate.

"I know you can eat more by changing your diet. 1743 kcals is not a lot at all. Especially to preserve LBM. The idea with the g-flux is that if you eat more and burn more, your metabolism is actually higher than someone that eats less and burns more. Not to mention the LBM sparing effect."

I know I can definitely eat more and that it isn't a lot of calories, I would just ask why I should eat more. You mention preservation of LBM, but is the amount of calories important to that or is protein consumption? If I'm getting more than 1g/lb of LBM, then aren't I doing enough to preserve my LBM? I'm not familiar with g-flux, but as you state it - I would ask how your metabolism could be higher from eating more. From the thermogenic benefit of food? That may be the case with protein (which I'm already getting enough, I think) but is that general to calories consumed? When we talk about metabolism, my body is my body. Every move takes energy, my body draws from the food consumed, fat stores and possibly muscle. But if I'm getting enough protein, it shouldn't draw from muscle.

As far as one's metabolism slowing down, I just don't understand it. I know I've heard it before, I know I've had results which made it seem that this is true but can you explain the mechanisms that would cause this. The only slowing of a metabolism (which is just saying how much energy is burned) that I can see from one's diet is their diminished digestive processes from eating less. If you are not eating as much, you are not chewing as much and your digestion system isn't working to break down the food. That is the ONLY thing I can see. Again, I know nothing. Please help me understand something that I have never truly bought.

"Trust me, there is nothing "elusive" about the starvation mode. When youre burning that many kcals and only getting in such a small amount, your body WILL slow things down to preserve whatever it can."

My question is this, how can the body get miserly and stop using energy? If my heart beats, it requires energy. My body cannot magically make my heart beat without energy, so how can the body slow things down? If I lift my arm, it takes energy - how can the body cheat using energy if the muscle is moving anyways? I would understand if your body just wouldn't work because there is no energy in your system (like a car shutting down without gas) but no matter what I eat or how much I exercise, my arm will lift and my heart will beat.

And lastly, is the bad road losing muscle, Rich? And if so, like I asked before, can you lose muscle if you are taking in sufficient protein?

Again, I really thank you - man. And I hope, for once, I can finally understand and buy the common knowledge. I just don't, but I am MORE than open to do so ;)

Off Road
01-15-2010, 08:43 AM
My question is this, how can the body get miserly and stop using energy? If my heart beats, it requires energy. My body cannot magically make my heart beat without energy, so how can the body slow things down? If I lift my arm, it takes energy - how can the body cheat using energy if the muscle is moving anyways? I would understand if your body just wouldn't work because there is no energy in your system (like a car shutting down without gas) but no matter what I eat or how much I exercise, my arm will lift and my heart will beat. Your body will start looking for other forms of energy in the form of protien...aka muscle.

WannaBeMuscley
01-15-2010, 09:18 AM
How could it eat my muscle if I'm getting sufficient protein?

VikingWarlord
01-15-2010, 09:29 AM
How could it eat my muscle if I'm getting sufficient protein?

Because it takes more energy to maintain muscle than it does to maintain fat. If you're using the muscles a lot, then your body is going to say "hey, we need this, let's hang onto some of it" but you will still lose some. Dietary protein helps some but isn't going to prevent all catabolism, even with heavy, short, and intense weight training.

The body WILL slow down (and eventually shut down) other systems to conserve energy if it thinks you're starving it. Your body is an awesome conservationist and will do what it thinks it has to in order to keep you alive. The body doesn't understand constant food supply since we haven't evolved that far yet.

ETA: I just saw the thing about the elliptical above. First off, you can't trust what they say you're burning. Those calorie counter things are bull****.

Second, long sessions of steady state cardio will cause release of catabolic hormones that will (very basically) promote the usage of your muscle protein for fuel. That's what catabolism is.

Stop that ****.

Unreal
01-15-2010, 09:41 AM
Your core temp can drop, sex functions slow or shutdown, hair growth slow, skin will become dry. Your body will start to drop muscle because that takes energy to perserve and it needs the protein and calories just for basic life function. Your right, your body can't beat physics.

Like Viking said, calorie counters on machines are a complete joke. An hour of ellpitical realistically burns 400-500 calories if you do it at a moderate pace.

Believe me, I've killed my metabolism before. You get the chills easily, can't get it up, have dry skin, and feel like ****.

It seems I made a mistake thinking your a girl, but if you keep going down this path your on your way to becoming one because if your body metabolism shuts down, testoterone production is one of the first things to go. No need to reproduce or get bigger when your body thinks your just fighting to survive.

WannaBeMuscley
01-15-2010, 11:06 AM
It seems that there is a suppressed premise in the last two posts and that is, the body only gets energy from diet. When a person has so much excess fat, stored energy, wouldn't the body use those stores before slowing down functions - and shutting down some? Why would my body slow hair growth when there is plenty of energy to be used?

As for the calorie counters, I agree. I don't take them as law but, as I said, I do about an hour and a half at a higher resistance and I'm 270lbs. I think it'd be awfully close to that 1000, since you said a normal person would burn 600-750 calories in an hour at a moderate pace. As for it causing a catabolic state, I thought LISS was a great option.

Another thing, how do you know my metabolism is slowing? What is causing it to slow? The lack of calories consumed? Again, wouldn't the body go to the fat stores? I am just not following the logic that the body would slow down functions because of a diminished dietary intake when it has a vast amount of energy that can be utilized. I'd stipulate to everything you're saying for someone who is already at a low body weight but when a person has 350,000 excess calories of energy in their body, I doubt the body would ignore those and impede it's functions.

Are there studies to suggest otherwise? Or is there something about the fat breakdown process that limits how much can be used or how quickly it can be broken down, etc.?

Unreal
01-15-2010, 12:26 PM
There are tons of studies and years knowledge. Your body will burn fat, but it can only burn so fast. The issue is being TOO low on calories. There is only a certain rate at which your body can burn stored fat. What your saying is perfectly accurate for a person at a slight caloric deficit which is what we are all recommending. That is how to lose weight properly. When you go on a huge defecit the body can't handle that and it is where the issues we are talking about happen.

Another thing, how do you know my metabolism is slowing? If you are a 270lb male eating 1700 calories a day then it will happen if not already. Your weightless will stall and the above issues will happen. Even if you lay in bed all day a healthy 270lb male should burn more then 1700 calories.
What is causing it to slow? The lack of calories consumed? Hormonal response to a lack of nutrients, calories, etc.
Again, wouldn't the body go to the fat stores? Only so much, and only at a certain rate. Once it gets in full starvation mode then your body is going to do everything possible to hold onto that fat to keep you alive.

Will you lose weight and fat doing what your doing now? Yes. You have a great recipe for catabolism and weight loss. Long LISS and low low calories are just telling your body to burn through lean tissue.
Are there much much much better ways? YES! That is what we are trying to tell you.

VikingWarlord
01-15-2010, 01:31 PM
It seems that there is a suppressed premise in the last two posts and that is, the body only gets energy from diet. When a person has so much excess fat, stored energy, wouldn't the body use those stores before slowing down functions - and shutting down some? Why would my body slow hair growth when there is plenty of energy to be used?

I've already explained this, but I have a few minutes to waste, so I'll state it again, but differently.

In a word, it's evolution. Like everything else in nature, your body wants to reach an equilibrium. The fact is that survival is not dependent on lots of extra muscle.

Since it takes more energy to maintain lean mass than fat mass, the body will try to dump what is unnecessary first. Once it has gotten rid of as much muscle as possible and used up the dietary calories it's given then it'll switch to shutting things down. Using fat is generally last in the list of energy sources. That is, unless you train to avoid it. If you USE the muscles, the body will be less likely to dump it first, instead opting to slow/stop other systems.

Thousands of years of the hunter/gatherer nature of humans means that there wasn't always enough food available so it had to make sure you had plenty of stored energy to use just in case there was no other option. It took a LONG time for the human body to get wired that way. Having plenty of food is a relatively new development in the course of human history and so we, as a species, haven't adapted to that. We have plenty of food and don't need these survival mechanisms, but our bodies haven't been convinced of that yet.

Of course, this does no good if you don't believe in evolutionary biology. If that's the case, no amount of explanation will convince you of the facts.

RichMcGuire
01-15-2010, 03:01 PM
Rich, let me start by thanking you for engaging me and asking for your patience - as I am going to question and challenge, so I can actually take in what you say and own it ;)

I don't know that I burn that many, I only know that that's how much I "supposedly" burn. I do Vinyasa Flow Yoga for an hour a day, I do an elliptical on a high setting for 80-90 minutes which says that I am burning 1000 calories and I weight lift for 30-45 mins. I am 280lbs (but I base it off of 270 to be conservative) and I do those things every day. I would say that 1500-2000 would be a conservative estimate.

"I know you can eat more by changing your diet. 1743 kcals is not a lot at all. Especially to preserve LBM. The idea with the g-flux is that if you eat more and burn more, your metabolism is actually higher than someone that eats less and burns more. Not to mention the LBM sparing effect."

I know I can definitely eat more and that it isn't a lot of calories, I would just ask why I should eat more. You mention preservation of LBM, but is the amount of calories important to that or is protein consumption? If I'm getting more than 1g/lb of LBM, then aren't I doing enough to preserve my LBM? I'm not familiar with g-flux, but as you state it - I would ask how your metabolism could be higher from eating more. From the thermogenic benefit of food? That may be the case with protein (which I'm already getting enough, I think) but is that general to calories consumed? When we talk about metabolism, my body is my body. Every move takes energy, my body draws from the food consumed, fat stores and possibly muscle. But if I'm getting enough protein, it shouldn't draw from muscle.


The amount of kcals does matter. By eating more, your body isnt as likely to hit a point where it thinks its starving. LBM would therefore be preserved and metabolism would not decrease.

As far as one's metabolism slowing down, I just don't understand it. I know I've heard it before, I know I've had results which made it seem that this is true but can you explain the mechanisms that would cause this. The only slowing of a metabolism (which is just saying how much energy is burned) that I can see from one's diet is their diminished digestive processes from eating less. If you are not eating as much, you are not chewing as much and your digestion system isn't working to break down the food. That is the ONLY thing I can see. Again, I know nothing. Please help me understand something that I have never truly bought.

I believe this was hit on well already. Your metabolism slows down because your body does not know when it will get any more energy. By slowing down its metabolism, your body wont have to consume as much body fat in order to survive. It can then instead go for useless muscle tissue (as your body would see it)

"Trust me, there is nothing "elusive" about the starvation mode. When youre burning that many kcals and only getting in such a small amount, your body WILL slow things down to preserve whatever it can."

My question is this, how can the body get miserly and stop using energy? If my heart beats, it requires energy. My body cannot magically make my heart beat without energy, so how can the body slow things down? If I lift my arm, it takes energy - how can the body cheat using energy if the muscle is moving anyways? I would understand if your body just wouldn't work because there is no energy in your system (like a car shutting down without gas) but no matter what I eat or how much I exercise, my arm will lift and my heart will beat.

Your body wont stop using energy. It will just slow things down so it doesnt require AS MUCH energy to run. Thats why some people who only eat like 1100 kcals simply stop losing weight.

And lastly, is the bad road losing muscle, Rich? And if so, like I asked before, can you lose muscle if you are taking in sufficient protein?

Yes. The road you are down is lost muscle. Youd become a "skinny fat" You can have a lot of protein, but if overall kcals are too low, your body will still think its starving. The last place your body wants energy from is your body fat. It has the most energy per unit and it will need it to survive. Instead, your body will go for muscle mass. It has no need for big biceps.

Again, I really thank you - man. And I hope, for once, I can finally understand and buy the common knowledge. I just don't, but I am MORE than open to do so ;)

Anytime.

Unreal
01-15-2010, 03:10 PM
Chapter 2 of UD2.0 by Lyle McDonald.
"As I'm fond of saying, your body hates you. Actually, that's backwards, your body loves
you. It loves you so much that it will do everything in its power to keep you alive even if that
means keeping you small(er) and fat(ter). Because to your body, that gives you a better chance
of survival. That you want to do something different doesn't matter as far as your body is
concerned."

"From your body's perspective it looks like this: If food becomes unavailable, the more fat
you have, the more likely you are to survive long enough until food becomes available again. In
societies with seasonal food availability, being able to store a lot of fat when food was plentiful
was the only way to get through the times when it wasn't. The extra fat also helped keep folks
warm during the winter. No central heat or Gortex parkas back then."

WannaBeMuscley
01-15-2010, 04:06 PM
Man, there's a lot there. I realize that we are in the theoretical and I won't make the power play to want everything to be empirically supported. I have some questions and challenges to the theories, but I feel I've debated a little too much and I'd like to understand your side - instead of constantly challenging it. Now, if I adopt it, I will voice those challenges so I could be prepared when some jackass wants everything explained to him ;)

So let me - for a moment - stipulate to what you say and ask your advice.

Okay, so let's say I'm a 24 year old, 6'0 270lb man. According to caloriesperhour.com, I burn 2700 calories as a sedentary male (which was calculated by the supposedly more accurate RMR). Now, the elliptical says I burn 1000, I burn 850 from the Vinyasa flow and let's say I burn 200 calories from the weight training.

Now, 3 of those hours - of my day - are spent exercising so 3 hours needs be removed from my RMR (2700-350=2350). So I burn:

2350 (from RMR)
1000 (from Elliptical)
850 (from Vinyasa Flow)
200 (from Weight Training)
4400 calories a day

Now, this isn't taking into account the increased metabolism from exercising. Let's also put an error margin of 20%, since my body composition is unique and because these numbers may not be correct.

So I burn 3520 calories a day (4400-880=3520).

Now, my eating half of my daily caloric expenditure puts me in starvation mode, catabolism and compromises normal body functioning.

How many calories should I eat to stave off these effects?

Off Road
01-15-2010, 04:18 PM
I'm suprised nobody has mentioned the fact that 3 hours a day of intensive workouts is not what you want to do to build muscle. Especially in a caloric deficit.

WannaBeMuscley
01-15-2010, 04:23 PM
"I'm suprised nobody has mentioned the fact that 3 hours a day of intensive workouts is not what you want to do to build muscle. Especially in a caloric deficit."

Gaining muscle is a very small component of my overall goal.

Off Road
01-15-2010, 06:52 PM
Gaining muscle is a very small component of my overall goal.

What about losing muscle?

WannaBeMuscley
01-15-2010, 07:24 PM
Don't want. So, what % of my total expenditure of calories do I need to preserve and then to
gain?

RichMcGuire
01-15-2010, 08:35 PM
Man, there's a lot there. I realize that we are in the theoretical and I won't make the power play to want everything to be empirically supported. I have some questions and challenges to the theories, but I feel I've debated a little too much and I'd like to understand your side - instead of constantly challenging it. Now, if I adopt it, I will voice those challenges so I could be prepared when some jackass wants everything explained to him ;)

So let me - for a moment - stipulate to what you say and ask your advice.

Okay, so let's say I'm a 24 year old, 6'0 270lb man. According to caloriesperhour.com, I burn 2700 calories as a sedentary male (which was calculated by the supposedly more accurate RMR). Now, the elliptical says I burn 1000, I burn 850 from the Vinyasa flow and let's say I burn 200 calories from the weight training.

Now, 3 of those hours - of my day - are spent exercising so 3 hours needs be removed from my RMR (2700-350=2350). So I burn:

2350 (from RMR)
1000 (from Elliptical)
850 (from Vinyasa Flow)
200 (from Weight Training)
4400 calories a day

Now, this isn't taking into account the increased metabolism from exercising. Let's also put an error margin of 20%, since my body composition is unique and because these numbers may not be correct.

So I burn 3520 calories a day (4400-880=3520).

Now, my eating half of my daily caloric expenditure puts me in starvation mode, catabolism and compromises normal body functioning.

How many calories should I eat to stave off these effects?

So with those numbers I bolded, youre burning at least 2k+ from just doing workouts alone. For simplicity, lets just go with that. Thats assuming youre eating 2700 kcals to support your body weight. This is even before you start dropping huge amounts of kcals from not eating enough. So to lower your kcals to 1700, and then burn over 2k would be a mistake. You would likely enter starvation mode and your metabolism would slow down causing your weight loss to halt. A loss in muscle would also occur.

Now using g-flux, lets say you burn the same 2000 kcals from working out but you eat 2800 kcals. You are now looking at a 1100 kcal deficit for the day while eating more. You could even do 2500. Your body is less likely to detect starvation because of the amount of food and thus, your metabolism will not slow down and LBM will be spared. And of course, you would lose weight. (About 2.2 lbs a week)

Unreal
01-15-2010, 09:09 PM
First of all, you need to figure what your actual maintenance is. That is the first step to any weight loss/diet plan. That being said, a 500 calorie a day deficit is what you will hear preached over and over. 500 cals a day leads to 3500 a week which is ~1lb. 1lb of actual fat is a good goal. Now if your very overweight (25%+) then you can run a larger deficit with less risk of the above issues. You could do 1000 cals a day for 2lbs a week and risk some more LBM. It is all trade offs. The slower you go the more LBM you will retain.

Now that is if you just want to do a set deficit. You could do a cyclical diet with planned refeeds/etc. You could do 1700 cals for 3-4 days then a refeed every 4th day or so to keep your metabolism up. There are many ways to do it. You could run -2k a day for 4 days then +1000 over maintenance for 3 days and average -4k over the week for about a lb a week. PM me you email address and I'll send you something interesting to read.

It takes 4-5days of very low cals for you leptin levels to plummet and weird stuff to start. Scheduled refeeds and other diet strategies can be used to work around "starvation mode".

WannaBeMuscley
01-15-2010, 09:31 PM
I'm really glad I put my pride down :)

I'll post in a bit.

WannaBeMuscley
01-15-2010, 09:38 PM
Rich, is g-flux like the zig zag diet?

For figuring out my maintenance, is a site like caloriesperhour.com good or should I go and do a respiration test. I've done a bod pod and I found that I'm about 168lbs of LBM. But that was when I was 302, I'm 280 now and I may have lost a bit of LBM.

VikingWarlord
01-16-2010, 08:54 AM
I'm suprised nobody has mentioned the fact that 3 hours a day of intensive workouts is not what you want to do to build muscle. Especially in a caloric deficit.

I did, more or less.


Man, there's a lot there. I realize that we are in the theoretical and I won't make the power play to want everything to be empirically supported. I have some questions and challenges to the theories, but I feel I've debated a little too much and I'd like to understand your side - instead of constantly challenging it. Now, if I adopt it, I will voice those challenges so I could be prepared when some jackass wants everything explained to him ;)

So, essentially, this says that you asked for information from people that have much more knowledge and experience than yourself and, when you didn't get what you wanted to hear, you decided to argue. We are NOT in the theoretical, as there is plenty of evidence to support our points of view, study after study as well as real world experience. A quick Google search would turn up thousands of pages of information.

The fact is that you have a little bit of information but not enough to know just how small your part of the big picture is. Asking advice and then fighting with the responses, especially when you have multiple people telling you the same thing isn't the way to ingratiate yourself with those who are taking time out of their lives to try to help.

I really think you should start posting over at bodyrecomposition.com. Lyle's a really nice guy.

I'm done.

WannaBeMuscley
01-16-2010, 09:25 AM
Hey, I'll direct you to your own profile picture. Put your pride down. I questioned and challenged, which is absolutely necessary in a domain like fitness where there is a ton of dogma. If you are truly the enlightened, you should understand and appreciate that, more so than any other.

Off Road
01-16-2010, 10:04 AM
You asked for help and recieved it. Continuing to argue for the sake of "keeping an open mind' will take this thread nowhere.