Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 76

Thread: My 1st day on diet. Hows it look

  1. #51
    Just watch me ... Built's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,912
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyK
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyK
    No outdated textbooks here, experience, other peoples experience, and science will tell the tale.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.

  2. #52
    Who is John Galt? CrazyK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Built
    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.

  3. #53
    The Body Never Lies Nosaj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Mesa, Arizona
    Posts
    0
    Scars are tatoos with better stories.

  4. #54
    Senior Member TheGimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,156
    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.

  5. #55
    Who is John Galt? CrazyK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGimp
    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.

  6. #56
    Just watch me ... Built's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,912


    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/q...&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.

  7. #57
    Senior Member TheGimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,156
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyK
    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.

  8. #58
    Who is John Galt? CrazyK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGimp
    I didn't feel like I needed to read any of your other references after that.
    And that's why you won't learn.

  9. #59
    Senior Member TheGimp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,156
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyK
    And that's why you won't learn.

  10. #60
    The Body Never Lies Nosaj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Mesa, Arizona
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyK
    And that's why you won't learn.
    Uhm, maybe that's why you shouldn't preach.
    Scars are tatoos with better stories.

  11. #61
    Who is John Galt? CrazyK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    0
    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.

  12. #62
    Who is John Galt? CrazyK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Nosaj
    Uhm, maybe that's why you shouldn't preach.
    Those studies weren't my gospel haha. Try the new england journal of medicine, and john hopkins university.

  13. #63
    Just watch me ... Built's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,912
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyK
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyK

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyK

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyK
    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?

  14. #64
    Who is John Galt? CrazyK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Built
    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.

  15. #65
    Just watch me ... Built's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,912
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyK
    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?

  16. #66
    Who is John Galt? CrazyK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    0
    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.

  17. #67
    Just watch me ... Built's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,912
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyK
    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.

  18. #68
    El Jefe DoUgL@S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,277
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyK
    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.
    Move heavy weight, eat, sleep, repeat.
    Geniuses make complicated scenarios simple, morons take simple concepts and complicate them.

  19. #69
    Learning as I progress
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,669
    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)
    Last edited by Con; 09-18-2006 at 06:01 PM.
    Complication breeds desperation.

  20. #70

  21. #71
    Just watch me ... Built's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,912
    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.

  22. #72
    Learning as I progress
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,669
    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
    Complication breeds desperation.

  23. #73
    Just watch me ... Built's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    9,912
    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)

  24. #74
    Learning as I progress
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,669
    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.
    Complication breeds desperation.

  25. #75
    El Jefe DoUgL@S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Con
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Con
    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.
    Last edited by DoUgL@S; 09-18-2006 at 06:26 PM.
    Move heavy weight, eat, sleep, repeat.
    Geniuses make complicated scenarios simple, morons take simple concepts and complicate them.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •