PDA

View Full Version : My 1st day on diet. Hows it look



Par58
09-13-2006, 11:45 PM
Im 18 and about 260.. Trying to lose wieght. Go the the gym for cardio everday 30-40 station bike then I do some heavy compound lifts.. Anyways here it is:
Total: 2363
Fat: 37 331 15%
Sat: 6 55 2%
Poly: 6 54 2%
Mono: 10 92 4%
Carbs: 204 685 31%
Fiber: 33 0 0%
Protein: 302 1208 54%
Alcohol: 0 0 0%

TheGimp
09-13-2006, 11:48 PM
You could do with doubling your fat intake. There's plenty of room to drop protein to compensate.

bL33d
09-14-2006, 09:18 AM
You are doing better then i did when i started :thumbup:

If it was me i would aim for 2000 cal a day but thats just me.

Unreal
09-14-2006, 09:32 AM
Lift before cardio. Double your fats, and drop protein or carbs to conpensate.

Par58
09-14-2006, 10:10 AM
Ok.. Whats a good source of fat? Should i aim for more monos? Also will lifting interfere with the wieght loss?

ddegroff
09-14-2006, 10:13 AM
Extra virgin olive oil, natty peanut butter, most nuts...

No, weightlifting will help.

Al3X
09-14-2006, 11:09 AM
Why would dropping protein benefit him? I understand about the carbs..

TheGimp
09-14-2006, 11:20 AM
Why would dropping protein benefit him?

There is no benefit to him maintaining that level of protein intake. It's certainly not going towards muscle building. It will help him feel sated but so will fats, and increasing fats will definitely be of benefit with regards hormone production.

Some additional fat source suggestions: avocados, fish oil and oily fish, seeds, flax oil

Anthony
09-14-2006, 11:27 AM
At 260, I'm a little surprised that you're eating 2300 calories. How did you come up with that number?

Either way, fat definitely needs to be increased!!

Par58
09-14-2006, 12:54 PM
Well i couldn't get a solid number for my daily maintence it was between 2600-3000ish. If you guys know of a really good method of finding what ya need im open to all suggestions.

Anthony
09-14-2006, 12:58 PM
www.fitday.com ... eat "normally" for at least a week and record it into fitday, take a daily average, and then reduce by 10%.

I know it's a huge pain in the ass to weigh/measure your food like this, then record it into a website, but the info is invaluable. And believe it or not, it gets easy after awhile. :)

Par58
09-14-2006, 08:54 PM
So taking your guy's advice here is are my macros for today.. Sorry for the low calories.. Gotta practice eating more. But percentage wise how does it look? Still good for losing mass wieght..

Total: 2076
Fat: 82 740 37%
Sat: 14 122 6%
Poly: 16 140 7%
Mono: 50 450 22%
Carbs: 142 433 22%
Fiber: 34 0 0%
Protein: 209 835 42%
Alcohol: 0 0 0%

TheGimp
09-14-2006, 11:52 PM
% wise it looks much improved :thumbup:

DoUgL@S
09-15-2006, 12:03 AM
Please do not think in percentages, think in terms of your bodies needs. Once you take care of protein and EFAs you can fill in the rest with whatever you want, and as long as you are in a caloric deficit you will loose weight. If you are lifting heavy you will retain muscle and loose fat.

Al3X
09-15-2006, 08:39 AM
Also - Take into account what your body should be using as in Calories, Protein, Carbs, and Fats. Some advice that I was given was to take 1g of protein for the amount I way (190g protein a day) For Carbs .5 g a day (95-100 carb a day.) For Fats i'm not completely sure, can anyone else chime in this?

Anthony
09-15-2006, 08:43 AM
Also - Take into account what your body should be using as in Calories, Protein, Carbs, and Fats. Some advice that I was given was to take 1g of protein for the amount I way (190g protein a day) For Carbs .5 g a day (95-100 carb a day.) For Fats i'm not completely sure, can anyone else chime in this?

1g protein per pound
0.5g fat per pound

Carbs aren't mandatory, so they don't get a special number. :)

Al3X
09-15-2006, 09:06 AM
Well I don't know about you, but I just can imagine a life without them!

Anyways, best of luck on your diet - Par58.

MagnaSephiroth
09-15-2006, 06:17 PM
You dont need more then 240 grams of protein. I had the same problem as you, your eating too much protein. Like everyone else said, add more fat.

CrazyK
09-15-2006, 07:06 PM
Either way, fat definitely needs to be increased!!
I'd actually say he needs more carbs to support his training. I don't know where this "extra fat is good" craze came from, but it's the most useless out of the 4 Macronutrients besides alcohol at sustaining muscle and fueling your workouts. Which is especially important when cutting.

DoUgL@S
09-16-2006, 09:57 AM
I'd actually say he needs more carbs to support his training. I don't know where this "extra fat is good" craze came from, but it's the most useless out of the 4 Macronutrients besides alcohol at sustaining muscle and fueling your workouts. Which is especially important when cutting.

No one said anything about "extra fat is good," but it has been stated that there is a minimum requirement for fats. An accepted general guideline is, as Anthony already mentioned, 0.5g/lbs of bw (some argue its LBM). On another note, fat is crucial when cutting for some people because it satates them better than carbs and they eat less (calorie wise).

Anthony
09-16-2006, 01:10 PM
I'd actually say he needs more carbs to support his training. I don't know where this "extra fat is good" craze came from, but it's the most useless out of the 4 Macronutrients besides alcohol at sustaining muscle and fueling your workouts. Which is especially important when cutting.

If he was hitting the minimum required for proper hormone production, I wouldn't have much issue with the carbs.

Having said that, there are studies that show fat has potential to be a better fuel source than carbs, depending on your training.

CrazyK
09-16-2006, 02:34 PM
If he was hitting the minimum required for proper hormone production, I wouldn't have much issue with the carbs.

Having said that, there are studies that show fat has potential to be a better fuel source than carbs, depending on your training.Certainly not for bodybuilding or powerlifting purposes. Besides he's getting more than enough saturated fats from the food he eats to support natty test production from steaks, chicken, etc...

And to the guy above Anthony, show me where this "minimum requirement" came from and why. Because I don't buy that at all.

JayTapper
09-16-2006, 04:14 PM
how do you post your fitday on here?

Al3X
09-16-2006, 07:14 PM
JayTapper, you must first make it public. Once you make it public you can copy & paste the url into your post.

DoUgL@S
09-16-2006, 07:51 PM
Certainly not for bodybuilding or powerlifting purposes. Besides he's getting more than enough saturated fats from the food he eats to support natty test production from steaks, chicken, etc...

And to the guy above Anthony, show me where this "minimum requirement" came from and why. Because I don't buy that at all.

The minimum requirement is individual and is the minimum amount of fat that does NOT affect hormone production. Go to pubmed and search the research yourself. I am not here to convince you, you obviously are not willing to do the legwork, but if you do not beleive me eat little to no fat for a while and see how you feel. When you report back you might make me a beleiver. I am trying to help somebody that is not stuck on the "fat makes you fat" ideology, like yourself. There is no carb requirement because you can function without it, try functioning without fat.

CrazyK
09-16-2006, 11:38 PM
The minimum requirement is individual and is the minimum amount of fat that does NOT affect hormone production. Go to pubmed and search the research yourself. I am not here to convince you, you obviously are not willing to do the legwork, but if you do not beleive me eat little to no fat for a while and see how you feel. When you report back you might make me a beleiver. I am trying to help somebody that is not stuck on the "fat makes you fat" ideology, like yourself. There is no carb requirement because you can function without it, try functioning without fat.You have NO CLUE what you are talking about. I don't think "Fat makes you fat" I just don't think it as nearly as important of a macronutrient as carbs and proteins are for maintaining muscle mass during a cut. I've done many-many different styles of cutting from CKD, to the 40/30/30, to the low fat approach. I have to say I've had the best results from the low fat approach,...quicker fat loss,...retained more muscle mass,...had much more energy during workouts,...and I was still getting the same amount of hard on's I was on the other diets lol. Hope you understand now?

Par58
09-17-2006, 07:21 AM
Hmm hard-ons are important.. lol

The diet seems to be going good.. staying between 2000-2400 and doing daily cardio.

Im thinking on monday ill start WBB routine 1.. That sound ok?

On tuesday ill post with the wieght ive lost. Thanks agian guys

JayTapper
09-17-2006, 08:50 AM
al3x One more q. how do you make it public?

CrazyK
09-17-2006, 04:02 PM
Hmm hard-ons are important.. lol

The diet seems to be going good.. staying between 2000-2400 and doing daily cardio.

Im thinking on monday ill start WBB routine 1.. That sound ok?

On tuesday ill post with the wieght ive lost. Thanks agian guysI'd say try to get at least 10x your bodyweight in cals. Cardio keep to 3 days a week, and make sure to do your lifting. That is the most important part, or you just become a smaller fat person basically.

Built
09-17-2006, 04:31 PM
You have NO CLUE what you are talking about. I don't think "Fat makes you fat" I just don't think it as nearly as important of a macronutrient as carbs and proteins are for maintaining muscle mass during a cut. I've done many-many different styles of cutting from CKD, to the 40/30/30, to the low fat approach. I have to say I've had the best results from the low fat approach,...quicker fat loss,...retained more muscle mass,...had much more energy during workouts,...and I was still getting the same amount of hard on's I was on the other diets lol. Hope you understand now?

During a cut, you need to do two things:

1. Drop calories so you drop weight
2. Somehow convince your body to maintain LBM

Dropping calories is a LOT more comfortable with higher fat than it is with lower fat - for a lot of us, particularly us former (or current) fatties, carbs make us hungry, where fats are satiating, keeping insulin levels under control.
Combine this with the fact that protein and fat ARE essential micronutrients, while carbohydrate is not, it's easy to see how basing your diet around minimum targets for protein and fat as LBM-dependent dosings makes a LOT better sense than trying the low-fat route.

That being said, if you yourself are more comfortable cutting on higher carbs, by all means do so.

But this strategy is neither particularly beneficial nor particularly comfortable for many dieters.

CrazyK
09-18-2006, 12:17 AM
During a cut, you need to do two things:

1. Drop calories so you drop weight
2. Somehow convince your body to maintain LBM

Dropping calories is a LOT more comfortable with higher fat than it is with lower fat - for a lot of us, particularly us former (or current) fatties, carbs make us hungry, where fats are satiating, keeping insulin levels under control.
Combine this with the fact that protein and fat ARE essential micronutrients, while carbohydrate is not, it's easy to see how basing your diet around minimum targets for protein and fat as LBM-dependent dosings makes a LOT better sense than trying the low-fat route.

That being said, if you yourself are more comfortable cutting on higher carbs, by all means do so.

But this strategy is neither particularly beneficial nor particularly comfortable for many dieters.I respectfully disagree. Carbohydrates are a much more efficient fuel source than fats during sternuous activities such as weight training, sprints, etc... Given the majority of us here are cutting while weight training I'd say that it would be a very important macro. Satiating your self can be found in an array of salads. A bowl of Salad with some non-fat cottage will keep most dieters satisfied for an extended period of time. Whilst giving room in their diet to keep cals under maintenince, but carbs high around their workouts. Don't only look at the science though (too many studies to count that shows low-fat works), but look at some real life examples. I train in a gym that has two pro bb's, and my trainer himself competed in the Mr. Universe contest. All will tell you this is the way to go.

Built
09-18-2006, 12:46 AM
I respectfully disagree. Carbohydrates are a much more efficient fuel source than fats during sternuous activities such as weight training, sprints, etc... Given the majority of us here are cutting while weight training I'd say that it would be a very important macro. Satiating your self can be found in an array of salads. A bowl of Salad with some non-fat cottage will keep most dieters satisfied for an extended period of time. Whilst giving room in their diet to keep cals under maintenince, but carbs high around their workouts. Don't only look at the science though (too many studies to count that shows low-fat works), but look at some real life examples. I train in a gym that has two pro bb's, and my trainer himself competed in the Mr. Universe contest. All will tell you this is the way to go.

They're all assisted.

Berardi would disagree with you. So would Lyle McDonald.

And if I had to cut on high carbs, I'd want to kill myself.

Bottom line, do what makes you feel comfortable. But higher fats make a lot more sense on a cut than higher carbs, for any of a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that carbs are not essential, while protein and fat are not only essential, but muscle sparing.

CrazyK
09-18-2006, 01:26 AM
Bottom line, do what makes you feel comfortable. But higher fats make a lot more sense on a cut than higher carbs, for any of a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that carbs are not essential, while protein and fat are not only essential, but muscle sparing.I agree with doing what you're comfy with,...but carbs aren't muscle sparing, nor essential? Try taking a math test on low carbs before ketosis. You'll find yourself borderline ******ed. Also keep in mind that you'll be getting enough fat from your diet, you don't need that much to support test production and keep a healthy heart.

Built
09-18-2006, 01:32 AM
I did.

I have a degree in math.

CrazyK
09-18-2006, 01:45 AM
I did.

I have a degree in math.Congrats. I couldn't do it with out my carbs haha :)

Built
09-18-2006, 02:15 AM
You probably tried to do it low fat.

Low fat, low carb is NASTY.

Low carb, moderately high protein and fat is very comfortable. And I'm not saying NO carb - for example, I'm carb cycling right now. "high" and "low" carb days.

114 lbs LBM, currently 133 lbs. Maintenance cals for me are around 2200.

This was today (rest day):
M1: egg whites and yolk, pat of butter
M2: part of chicken, green beans, pb and butter melted and drizzled ove it
M3: tuna mixed with cc, avocado, pepper, salad dressing
M4: steak, broccoli, butter
M5: rest of the chicken, couple slices of cucumber
M6: rest of the cottage cheese, half an apple, walnuts.

1711 calories
80g fat
66g carb
189g protein

_________________________________________________

This was yesterday (training day):
M1: egg whites and yolk, pat of butter, half the sweet potato, apricot jam
<train, sip dextrose and whey>
M2: part of chicken, rest of the sweet potato,
M3: protein waffle, cottage cheese, half peach, half the berries, half the nuts
M4:romaine, avocado, part of chicken, red pepper, salad dressing, cucumber
M5:rest of cottage cheese, rest of the fruit, rest of the nuts
M6: last of the chicken, green beans, peanut butter with a dab of butter, melted and drizzled over beans
1965 calories
79g fat
119g carb
204g protein

_________________________________________________


Low fat, higher carb works great when your insulin sensitivity is good - with AAS, your partitioning is increased, and your endocrine system is injected.

For most folks who have been fat for a while, our insulin sensitivity is compromised. In these cases, lower carbs, higher fats are extremely helpful. Since carbs are better utilized during the post workout window, we target them around this time, leaving them off where they aren't needed so insulin isn't kept high at other times.

CrazyK
09-18-2006, 02:16 PM
I agree with you in some stances. A lot of carbs around your workout being one of them. What I follow is a Low Fat, Moderate Carb, High Protein diet. I was a former fatty, and it has worked very well for me.

Insulin,...keep your carbs low-gi besides post workout and you should be fine. Foods like Oats won't have a high insulin response, and will take you a while to digest. Certainly enough time to keep yourself satisfied for 3-4 hours until your next meal. On your off days, skip the post workout shake and you automatically "carb cycled". Add to that plenty of greens and you have yourself a great low fat diet free from the hunger pains.

On the other hand, you can lose fat on any diet that is high enough in protein, and keeps you below maintenince. All this other stuff is nitpicky.

Unreal
09-18-2006, 02:23 PM
I got an engineering degree while in ketosis. Fun stuff.

I've found everything Built has said to be true. Now that I am leaner, hunger is more of an issue and raising fat works better then ever. Instead of a cup of oats+scoop of protein for breakfast, 1/2 cup oats, 1/2 tbps of olive oil, scoop of whey is far more filling and hunger friendly.

Built
09-18-2006, 02:32 PM
I agree with you in some stances. A lot of carbs around your workout being one of them. What I follow is a Low Fat, Moderate Carb, High Protein diet. I was a former fatty, and it has worked very well for me.

Glad that worked for you.

Great to get it under control.



Insulin,...keep your carbs low-gi besides post workout and you should be fine.



Tried that. I was on "no white anything" and I ended up on Metformin.

Felt like garbage.

Went into ketosis for almost a year, dropped a bunch of weight, and stopped getting migraines. So far, permanently.

Oh, and got off the type II diabetes meds.



Foods like Oats won't have a high insulin response, and will take you a while to digest. Certainly enough time to keep yourself satisfied for 3-4 hours until your next meal. On your off days, skip the post workout shake and you automatically "carb cycled". Add to that plenty of greens and you have yourself a great low fat diet free from the hunger pains.

No - YOU have YOURSELF a low fat diet free from hunger pains. I eat oatmeal and I'm freakishly hungry until I have a fatty, protein-rich meal.




On the other hand, you can lose fat on any diet that is high enough in protein, and keeps you below maintenince. All this other stuff is nitpicky.

It has to work for you.

Something you may not realize is that women are more insulin resistant than men, and this is from before we're born. Many of us may diet better on a lower carb, higher fat paradigm.

CrazyK
09-18-2006, 02:32 PM
I got an engineering degree while in ketosis. Fun stuff.While in ketosis...to get yourself in that you have to go very low carb, about sub 30g...Also no one ever said you can't get lean off of a diet that is moderate/high in fats, it is just what is more efficient at mainitaining muscle mass and fueling your workouts.

Built
09-18-2006, 02:35 PM
While in ketosis...to get yourself in that you have to go very low carb, about sub 30g...Also no one ever said you can't get lean off of a diet that is moderate/high in fats, it is just what is more efficient at mainitaining muscle mass and fueling your workouts.

Have you read any of McDonald's or Berardi's stuff?

And have you seen how much muscle I have on my female, unassisted middle-aged body?

Unreal
09-18-2006, 02:35 PM
While in ketosis...to get yourself in that you have to go very low carb, about sub 30g...Also no one ever said you can't get lean off of a diet that is moderate/high in fats, it is just what is more efficient at mainitaining muscle mass and fueling your workouts.

I was lucky to eat 20g of carbs a day for over a year. Lost 75+lbs, and never had issues at school or thinking.

Built
09-18-2006, 02:40 PM
I was lucky to eat 20g of carbs a day for over a year. Lost 75+lbs, and never had issues at school or thinking.

I had no trouble in deep ketosis either - quite the opposite, in fact. After that initial three days when I was "switching fuel tanks", my thinking was clear, my concentration improved, energy level went and stayed up.

It was a nice change from being hungry all the time, while gaining weight!

DoUgL@S
09-18-2006, 02:45 PM
While in ketosis...to get yourself in that you have to go very low carb, about sub 30g...Also no one ever said you can't get lean off of a diet that is moderate/high in fats, it is just what is more efficient at mainitaining muscle mass and fueling your workouts.

While I agree that carbs around your workout are beneficial to take advantage of the anabolic window (increased favourable partition, and increased nutriens to the muscles), they (carbs) are not better or worse at maintaining muscle mass on a cut. As long as you are getting enough proteins, fats, and calories you can maintain muscle while on a cut with any amount of carbs you choose to use.

Built
09-18-2006, 02:47 PM
While I agree that carbs around your workout are beneficial to take advantage of the anabolic window (increased favourable partition, and increased nutriens to the muscles), they (carbs) are not better or worse at maintaining muscle mass on a cut. As long as you are getting enough proteins, fats, and calories you can maintain muscle while on a cut with any amount of carbs you choose to use.

Yeah - it doesn't sound right to me either, douglas - furthermore, I could SWEAR I've read that ketosis is muscle-sparing provided protein is sufficient. (and I think fat was mentioned too, but I can't remember for sure).

CrazyK
09-18-2006, 03:11 PM
Eek you guys didn't understand what I was saying. Your brain can work fine in ketosis, which is what I was saying. The diet Built posted as a sample will not get you in ketosis. You'll just be low carbing, but not low enough to get in ketosis. This would cause me and a lot of people problems having enough energy to workout. Protein the building block of muscle, and carbs are the man power behind it. Fats will help your heart some and keep hormone levels in line, you don't need a ton of it to complete those goals. Which is the point I've been trying to get across.

PS- Yes I have read Lyle's and Berardi's tips and diet plans. Lyle's is a fancy CKD, which I did actually try. Worked well, but it was hell in the gym and I got the same results over a 12 week span that I did with the fat loss approach I'm taking now....Berardi is a supplement salesman, and that's all I'll say about that lol. Anyone can tell you to eat below maintenince and you'll lose weight.

Built
09-18-2006, 03:14 PM
Eek you guys didn't understand what I was saying. Your brain can work fine in ketosis, which is what I was saying. The diet Built posted as a sample will not get you in ketosis. You'll just be low carbing, but not low enough to get in ketosis. This would cause me and a lot of people problems having enough energy to workout. Protein the building block of muscle, and carbs are the man power behind it. Fats will help your heart some and keep hormone levels in line, you don't need a ton of it to complete those goals. Which is the point I've been trying to get across.

Honey, I was an overweight adult for twenty YEARS.

I lost the weight with Atkins, while lifting.

I put on muscle that first year, most of the time on 30-50g of carb a day.

I no longer live in ketosis. But that first year in on low carb, I was in ketosis most of the time, and it was the first time in my life I ever felt normal.

I don't know WHAT outdated text book you're reading, but you've got some catching up to do.

Built
09-18-2006, 03:33 PM
I see you edited your post ...
Berardi has a PhD in his field, and McDonald is the undisputed grand master of ketogenic dieting. You are basing your opinion on what works for assisted male bodybuilders.
I'd like you to give me some peer-reviewed evidence of what you suggest.
Nobody is suggesting ketosis is ideal for muscle gain - and I wasn't suggesting to the OP that he go into ketosis for that matter. But for muscle RETENTION on a cut, and for hunger control, at least for many of us fatties, a low-fat, high-carb diet is not your friend - for those purposes, protein and fat are the undisputed winners.

Unreal
09-18-2006, 03:34 PM
Honey, I was an overweight adult for twenty YEARS.

I lost the weight with Atkins, while lifting.

I put on muscle that first year, most of the time on 30-50g of carb a day.

I no longer live in ketosis. But that first year in on low carb, I was in ketosis most of the time, and it was the first time in my life I ever felt normal.

I don't know WHAT outdated text book you're reading, but you've got some catching up to do.

Same as her, except for being a fat female. Was overweight fat male for 20+ years. Did a low carb keto diet for a year, lost tons of weight, made good muscle gains, and got the weight off. Now I do notice as I'm leaner and have more muscle it is harder to do low carb. Now I do feel it in my training, but while I was fat I never felt flat working out on low carbs.

CrazyK
09-18-2006, 03:35 PM
You were eating at under maintenince while lifting and keeping your protein high. No wonder you transformed your body, congrats.

No outdated textbooks here, experience, other peoples experience, and science will tell the tale. Which has all pointed to the stance I've came to today.

Built
09-18-2006, 03:37 PM
You were eating at under maintenince while lifting and keeping your protein high. No wonder you transformed your body, congrats.

EXACTLY. And I clearly didn't need a lot of carb to accomplish this.


No outdated textbooks here, experience, other peoples experience, and science will tell the tale. Which has all pointed to the stance I've came to today.

Not science. And only the experience of your assisted male pro athletes.

I'd like you to show me some of the science you keep mentioning.

CrazyK
09-18-2006, 03:49 PM
I'd like you to show me some of the science you keep mentioning.Ok...
Even if people can handle the side effects of the diet, there are no data to show that the initial rapid weight loss on the Atkins Diet can be maintained long term. Many of the studies on the Atkins Diet have lasted only a few days;[212] the longest the Atkins Diet has ever been formally studied is one year.

There have been 4 such yearlong studies and not a single one showed significantly more weight lost at the end of the year on the Atkins Diet than on the control "low fat" diets.[213-215,523] In the yearlong comparison of the Atkins Diet to Ornish's diet, Weight Watchers, and The Zone Diet, the Atkins Diet came in dead last in terms of weight lost at the end of the year. Ornish's vegetarian diet seemed to show the most weight loss.[216] The Atkins website had no comment.[217]

Noting that by the end of the year, half of the Atkins group had dropped out, and those who remained ended up an unimpressive 4% lighter, Fat of The Land author Michael Fumento commented, "do you really think any of them could sell a single book copy, much less as many as 15 million (for Atkins), by admitting to a 50 percent drop-out rate in one year with a mere five percent of weight loss among those left?"[218]

Ornish's vegetarian (near-vegan) diet has been formally tested for years.[219] Even though the diet was not even designed for weight loss, after five years most of the Ornish adherents were able to maintain much of the 24 pounds they lost during the first year "even though they were eating more food, more frequently, than before without hunger or deprivation."[220]

Another of the year-long studies also compared a low fat vegetarian (vegan) diet to the "Atkins Diet."[526] Those who ate as much as they wanted of the vegan diet lost an average of 52 pounds--60% more than those reportedly on the Atkins diet lost.[523] This is consistent with what research we have on vegans themselves. Vegans are vegetarians that exclude all saturated animal fat and cholesterol from their diet.

The biggest study on vegans to date compared over a thousand vegans in Europe to tens of thousands of meateaters and vegetarians. The meateaters, on average, were significantly heavier than the vegetarians, who in turn were significantly heavier than the vegans. Even after controlling for exercise, smoking, and other nondietary factors, vegans came out slimmest in every age group. Less than 2% of vegans were obese.[221]

In a snapshot of the diets of 10,000 Americans, those eating vegetarian were the slimmest, whereas those eating the fewest carbs in the sample weighed the most. Those eating less carbs were on average overweight; those eating vegetarian were not.[222]

Vegetarians may have a higher resting metabolic rate, which researchers chalk up to them eating more carbs than meateaters (or possibly due to enhanced adrenal function).[223] At the same weight, one study showed that vegetarians seem to burn more calories per minute just by sitting around or sleeping than meateaters--almost 200 extra calories a day. Although earlier studies didn't find such an effect,[224] if confirmed, that amounts to the equivalent to an extra pound of fat a month burned off by choosing to eat vegetarian.[225]

The only other two formal yearlong studies found that although the initial drop in weight on Atkins was more rapid, weight loss on the Atkins Diet reversed or stalled after 6 months. The longer people stay on the Atkins Diet, the worse they seemed to do.[226-227] None of the four longest studies on the Atkins Diet showed a significant advantage over just the type of high carbohydrate diets Atkins blamed for making America fat.

[212] Journal of the American Medical Association 289(2003):1837.

[213] Dansinger, M.L., Gleason, J. L., Griffith, J.L., et al., "One Year Effectiveness of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone Diets in Decreasing Body Weight and Heart Disease Risk," Presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions November 12, 2003 in Orlando, Florida.
[214] New England Journal of Medicine 348(2003):2082.
[215] Annals of Internal Medicine 140(2004):778.
[216] Dansinger, M.L., Gleason, J. L., Griffith, J.L., et al., "One Year Effectiveness of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone Diets in Decreasing Body Weight and Heart Disease Risk," Presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions November 12, 2003 in Orlando, Florida.
[217] http://atkins.com/Archive/2003/12/11-933145.html Accessed 1 June 2004.
[218] Scripps Howard News Service 13 November 2003.
[219] Journal of the American Medical Association 280(1998):2001.
[220] Obesity Research 9(2001):1S.
[221] International Journal of Obesity 27(2003):728.
[222] Journal of the American Dietetics Association 1010(2001):411.
[223] Metabolism 43(1994):621.
[224] Nutrition Research 10(1990):39.
[225] Metabolism 43(1994):621.
[226] New England Journal of Medicine 348(2003):2082.
[227] Annals of Internal Medicine 140(2004):778.


That's just some of the evidence that shows you can do just as much with a both types of diets, without having to go through the weight gain/loss ups and downs, and energy losses from low carbing. Write me back if you want more...cause there is plenty.

Nosaj
09-18-2006, 03:58 PM
:lurk: ;)

TheGimp
09-18-2006, 04:02 PM
Why are you showing us studies based on Atkins?

I'm sure I don't need to tell you there is a big difference between low carb diets and ketogenic ones. UD2.0 recommends an intake of 50g of carbs on low carb days specifically to avoid ketosis. Furthermore there's a big difference between Atkins and a CKD or TKD.

CrazyK
09-18-2006, 04:06 PM
Why are you showing us studies based on Atkins?Because she mentioned Atkin's as her gateway to fat loss. Also...a lot of the evidence up there shows that moderate-higher carb diets not only work, but more people stay on them, and keep the fat off after discontinuing. Which has nothing to do with Atkins in and of itself.

Built
09-18-2006, 04:12 PM
:bang:

Honey, no.

That wasn't what I meant at all.

You seem to have a bit of trouble with following a logical train of thought, so let me recap for you:

Many of us suggested increasing fats, since carbs are a non-essential macronutient and the OP is trying to cut.

You suggested the OP instead raise his carbs and leave fats low:

“I'd actually say he needs more carbs to support his training. I don't know where this "extra fat is good" craze came from, but it's the most useless out of the 4 Macronutrients besides alcohol at sustaining muscle and fueling your workouts. Which is especially important when cutting.”

We suggested that while there is a minimum requirement for fat, there IS no minimum requirement for carb. Furthermore, there are studies that support the better use of fat over carb as a fuel source, depending on the type of training.

For example, high-rep training is glycogen dependent, so you most certainly need your carbs! But you should be using low-rep paradigms (ie in the so-called strength range, under 5 reps for most lifts) for cutting anyway, and for this, a high carb diet is NOT required. Ask any powerlifter.

You said you had better success on higher carbs, and it’s true that some people do feel better on higher carbs. Many don’t, and fortunately there’s more information out now on how to diet on lower carbs and higher fats. 20 years ago, it was “low fat or forget it”. I suffered very miserable dieting experiences trying to lose weight this way. It made me very ill, very tired, and excruciatingly hungry. It was unbearable. For some of us, particularly those of us who are insulin resistant, this is a common lament. It wasn’t to you, and it isn’t for the many of self-selected individuals who have managed to diet this way in the past.

You went on to describe how your colleagues, male pro bodybuilders, do it this way. This does not surprise me, and I mentioned how AAS improves partioning. That’s why they do it. Hell, you need to be running a cycle to use insulin as an anabolic because of this very reason – otherwise, it’ll just push your extra calories into fat stores. That’s why type II diabetics on insulin almost ALWAYS get fatter.

You suggested carbs are muscle sparing.

Actually, ketosis is muscle sparing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11569918&dopt=Abstract
“Ketosis, meaning elevation of D-beta-hydroxybutyrate (R-3hydroxybutyrate) and acetoacetate, has been central to starving man's survival by providing nonglucose substrate to his evolutionarily hypertrophied brain, sparing muscle from destruction for glucose synthesis.”

You suggested that the brain doesn’t work well on lower carbs. Several of us told you that we had no trouble at all. And somewhere in this whole mix, we got off the concept of not needing higher carbs, and into ketosis diets. I hadn’t suggested ketosis to the OP, although I wouldn’t discourage it either – it worked great for me, and I’m still down over 35 pounds, five years after starting Atkins.

But then, I’m a bodybuilder, not a “normal person”, which is what the Atkins studies you posted described.

And I no longer live in ketosis.

I wasn’t looking for proof that Atkins or any other low carb diet didn’t work.

I’m looking for you to provide scientific proof that low carb, calorie reduced diets aren’t as muscle-sparing as higher carb calorie reduced diets.

Please and thank you.

TheGimp
09-18-2006, 04:14 PM
a lot of the evidence up there shows that moderate-higher carb diets not only work, but more people stay on them, and keep the fat off after discontinuing.

According to "Comparison of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart disease risk reduction: a randomized trial" that you referenced, less people were able to stick with the high carb low fat Ornish diet than Atkins and there was no correlation between the types of diet and weight loss.

I didn't feel like I needed to read any of your other references after that.

CrazyK
09-18-2006, 04:19 PM
I didn't feel like I needed to read any of your other references after that.And that's why you won't learn.

TheGimp
09-18-2006, 04:21 PM
And that's why you won't learn.

:cool:

Nosaj
09-18-2006, 04:22 PM
And that's why you won't learn.

Uhm, maybe that's why you shouldn't preach. :zipit:

CrazyK
09-18-2006, 04:28 PM
Built- First off, knock it off with the low blows about me not following a logical train of thought. You're a grown woman, with supposendly a degree in mathematics, act your age.

To reply to your post...I think the debate here is what is the minimum requirement for fats? Obviously in your opinion the minimum is higher than mine. I posted studies that said on high carb diets people lost the weight and kept it off, and did so comfortably while improving their health. Obviously they didn't need that much fat to do so.

Rep ranges for cutting...lol I won't even go in to that, but higher rep training does induce more of a gH and metabolic response. Which would improve nutrient partitioning and raise metabolic rate meaning more calories burned. Which means more fat loss. You yourself said you needed carbs for this type of training so that's all there is to be said.

Also if you read the studies, it was cited that high carb dieters had a higher metabolic rate overall, despite training prescription than the low carb dieters. Take it for what it's worth.

CrazyK
09-18-2006, 04:31 PM
Uhm, maybe that's why you shouldn't preach. :zipit:Those studies weren't my gospel haha. Try the new england journal of medicine, and john hopkins university.

Built
09-18-2006, 04:38 PM
Built- First off, knock it off with the low blows about me not following a logical train of thought. You're a grown woman, with supposendly a degree in mathematics, act your age.
Settle down. My tongue was in my cheek there bud.




To reply to your post...I think the debate here is what is the minimum requirement for fats? Obviously in your opinion the minimum is higher than mine. I posted studies that said on high carb diets people lost the weight and kept it off, and did so comfortably while improving their health. Obviously they didn't need that much fat to do so.

You can lose weight on low fat. If you can stick to it.
That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about whether you need to do it this way to conserve muscle. You haven't established this yet.



Rep ranges for cutting...lol I won't even go in to that, but higher rep training does induce more of a gH and metabolic response. Which would improve nutrient partitioning and raise metabolic rate meaning more calories burned. Which means more fat loss. You yourself said you needed carbs for this type of training so that's all there is to be said.

Yes you do. You really do. If you're relying upon "iron cardio" for cutting, you'll need your glycogen.

Problem is, this type of training isn't muscle sparing. For this you need low rep-range training. Use diet for the caloric deficit, heavy lifting to spare muscle. The only other place to drop from this point is fat.

Now, if you're assisted, the rules change. You have AAS to protect your LBM. You don't need the low-rep stuff as much, or in some cases, at all. You can use the "metabolic response" of the higher rep range training to burn more fat. This works if you're significantly overfat and unassisted, too. But once you're fairly lean, you'll chew through LBM. I did my first successful cut last year thanks to Joel Marion's "ripped rugged and dense" articles. As a natural, I have to use the low-rep-range strength training to cut. And this means I don't need a ton of carbs to do it.



Also if you read the studies, it was cited that high carb dieters had a higher metabolic rate overall, despite training prescription than the low carb dieters. Take it for what it's worth.

Not arguing there either. Carbs stimulate thyroid. But then, ALL calorie-reduced diets suppress thyroid. For now, this is a moot point.

The only thing I'm looking at is "does a higher carb diet spare more muscle than a lower carb diet, given a caloric restriction".

Got anything?

CrazyK
09-18-2006, 04:46 PM
The only thing I'm looking at is "does a higher carb diet spare more muscle than a lower carb diet, given a caloric restriction".

Got anything?That's not really what I was arguing....The high rep (8-12) system is fine during a cut, and spares just as much muscle as low reps would, even natural. As long as you have the carbs to support the training, it's fine.

Now is it more muscle sparing? No matter what as a natty, you probably won't be gaining much mass at all during a cut and probably losing some. Now on the other hand,...with out the carbs to fuel your workouts, how are you going to be able to workout effectively? That's where it becomes more muscle sparing, when you're able to push your bodies limits and give it a reason to keep the mass, and maybe even build some. Now you still have to keep in a caloric deficit to lose the weight, so this is where you cut fat intake.

Built
09-18-2006, 04:50 PM
That's not really what I was arguing....The high rep (8-12) system is fine during a cut, and spares just as much muscle as low reps would, even natural. As long as you have the carbs to support the training, it's fine.

Okay, hold on. Where are you getting THIS one from?

CrazyK
09-18-2006, 05:03 PM
I don't have the time to find some of the studies on that now, but I will when I get home. Basically...rep range from 8-12 with about 1-2 minutes rest between sets hits all 3 types of muscle fibers inducing greater mass increases/less mass loss.

Built
09-18-2006, 05:13 PM
I don't have the time to find some of the studies on that now, but I will when I get home. Basically...rep range from 8-12 with about 1-2 minutes rest between sets hits all 3 types of muscle fibers inducing greater mass increases/less mass loss.

On a bulk, with extra calories, yes, the higher rep range training like you suggest does indeed stimulate sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. But it’s the lower rep-range stuff that stimulates the sarcomere – the contractile portion of the muscle.

I usually describe this to people as the sarcomere being the real estate, and the sarcoplasm being the infrastructure. The sarcomere is the part you need to maintain on a cut – not enough energy to spend fixing the potholes; just keep the real estate in place. On a cut, the most important thing you can do is maintain your muscle. You want to harden up, not liquify. If you do nothing but maintain your LBM through the bitter dregs of the end of cut, you will have done well.

On a bulk, with extra food to spare, a mix of low and high rep range work is ideal – you build the highways, you build more land, you build more highways… Read PowerManDL’s Hypertrophy Primer for more on this.

DoUgL@S
09-18-2006, 05:47 PM
I'd actually say he needs more carbs to support his training. I don't know where this "extra fat is good" craze came from, but it's the most useless out of the 4 Macronutrients besides alcohol at sustaining muscle and fueling your workouts. Which is especially important when cutting.

This was your original argument, which you did not really support with any evidence other than it works for my BBing buddies [who are probably assisted]. Please explain your original argument instead of going off on tangents.

Sustaining muscle = keeping muscle on a cut. no? Ketogenic diets are more muscle sparring than low fat diets.

Fueling your workouts = keeping intensity high. I myself have not experienced a loss of intensity while on a ketogenic diet or variation thereof.

I also tried Atkins before I was better educated about dieting, I was maybe 15% bf and got down to 10% and got stronger and lost only 3 lbs of LBM. I had no problems keeping intensity high. All this while I was not eating nearly enough to support lifting, running and hours of competetive sports. If I would have been smarter and kept my calories in check I am sure I would have kept all my LBM (and potentially gained some), unassisted.

Con
09-18-2006, 06:01 PM
After reading about Ancient Greece for an hour, this was a very interesting topic. I learned a lot and just had a few question.

What is the definition of low carb(# of grams)? and when do carbs start becoming excessive?(in terms of grams)

Built
09-18-2006, 06:05 PM
Carbs only get "excessive" when you gain too much weight - IE when your calories are too high.

:)

Built
09-18-2006, 06:06 PM
Oh, and "low" carbs varies in terms of definition. Anything below 100g is usually called "low" carb; ketogenic is as low as you need to go to hit ketosis. For me, this is about 50-60g.

Con
09-18-2006, 06:09 PM
Hmm, so lemme see if i understand:
-fats and protein are muscle sparing.
-Stay out of ketosis.
-Carbs are fine as long as minimums(F, P) are hit and you can keep hunger in check.
-Lift heavy

Built
09-18-2006, 06:13 PM
Nothing wrong with ketosis.

In fact, there may be some very pronounced health benefits to going into ketosis. It settles down epilepsy, it stopped my migraines and has done so for others, it keeps insulin levels low (which is good for fighting inflammation), and it may be of use for various neurologic disorders:

"It (ketosis) has also been shown to decrease cell death in two human neuronal cultures, one a model of Alzheimer's and the other of Parkinson's disease. These observations raise the possibility that a number of neurologic disorders, genetic and acquired, might benefit by ketosis." (link) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11569918&dopt=Abstract)

Con
09-18-2006, 06:17 PM
The human body is not a straight answer....and I HATE IT! I got lots to learn eh built :). Ama read the article and see if i might tweak the diet a bit, thanks again built.

DoUgL@S
09-18-2006, 06:23 PM
Hmm, so lemme see if i understand:
-fats and protein are muscle sparing.
-Stay out of ketosis.
-Carbs are fine as long as minimums(F, P) are hit and you can keep hunger in check.
-Lift heavy

Not to be nitpicky, but in case someone misses it, fats and proteins are only muscle sparring if you lift heavy. Without providing the stimulus to trigger retention of muscle, you can loose muscle and increase bf.


The human body is not a straight answer....and I HATE IT!

If you think in terms of survival it may be more straight forward. We have evolved to be very good at survining not looking good naked. I think it was Lyle who wrote something like "Why your body hates you," so the feeling is mutual. :)

Nosaj
09-18-2006, 10:45 PM
Con, I respect your quest for knowledge. I'm the same way. :thumbup: