Tips on how to cut

Page 2 of 5 First 1234 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    Insulins primary is to remove excess carbohydrate into storage or to be metabolized. Carbohydrate balance infers that the body utilises glucose almost as rapidly as it receives it and only ever stores it as fat in times of abundance.
    i was under the impression that insulin was to remove excess blood glucose into storage. and that blood sugar could be from any dietary source. it seems like splitting hairs is what i am doing but the point i push for not just fat loss but for a healthy life in the long run as i am part of that camp that believes in metabolic diseases that are caused by chronically high insulin levels.

    i was also under the impression that the body is going to be storing bodyfat after every meal especially first thing in the morning. as it needs to begin its storage for sleep later in the day and that is why we are more sensitive to insulin in the morning. but i could be wrong on this last part.
    you can call me "ozzie" for short.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    I have posted even just recently in other threads and in the pubmed research on the first page, that this is not entirely correct. It sounds good on paper but it doesn't transfer over.
    The law of thermodynamics plays the biggest role in weight loss and whilst it may not apply directly to open and closed systems, it still holds relevant weighting. Consider this study (from previous page) Relatively high-protein or 'low-carb' energy-r... [Physiol Behav. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI : if found that low carb or normal carb and high carb diets yielded the same fat loss results. If you had a high fat intake which met the demands of the body, then you will not lose weight. To lose weight implies a calorie deficit and to gain implies a calorie excess. The macronutrient compostition plays only a minor role in this regard.
    You can see this by the conflicting evidence that low-carb diets are any more effective WRT weight loss than high-carb (again I have more studies) but the health implications are determinable.
    is the person shedding fat with higher percentage of carbs eating less carbs than before he was on the diet? i only ask cause if thats the case doesnt that mean that my statement of cutting carbs still hold true as an effective way to shed fat.

    i am not trying to state that the calories in vs calories out doesnt work. i bring this up as many people throw that out in nutrition debates. and this is rather weak evidence, if you could consider that at all, but havent we all known people to eat much less then before and shed a lot of body fat at first then stop and not be able to shed weight even when they eat less.

    the way i see carbs is to fuel the body for above sedentary activity. in other words if i am sitting at a desk all i dont need carbs. if i am about to workout, carbs would help. and yes, increasing calories to gain mass is what is needed and therefore carbs need to be increased. that is why gaining mass includes lean mass as well as body fat due to the increased carb intake.

    and i am seriously asking these questions as i would like to know more about the topic. not just to nit pick are debate. i do love a good debate but i love to learn even more. there is much crap out there about nutrition. even after being a certified nutritionist most of what i learned seemed like crap and when put all together it contradicted itself.

    it seems the more i learn the intermittent fasting, carb backloading, low carb/high fat diets, are healthier for a lifestyle nutritional choice. so its not just about shedding fat to me but what is good for your health.
    you can call me "ozzie" for short.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by asooneyeonig View Post
    is the person shedding fat with higher percentage of carbs eating less carbs than before he was on the diet? i only ask cause if thats the case doesnt that mean that my statement of cutting carbs still hold true as an effective way to shed fat.

    i am not trying to state that the calories in vs calories out doesnt work. i bring this up as many people throw that out in nutrition debates. and this is rather weak evidence, if you could consider that at all, but havent we all known people to eat much less then before and shed a lot of body fat at first then stop and not be able to shed weight even when they eat less.

    the way i see carbs is to fuel the body for above sedentary activity. in other words if i am sitting at a desk all i dont need carbs. if i am about to workout, carbs would help. and yes, increasing calories to gain mass is what is needed and therefore carbs need to be increased. that is why gaining mass includes lean mass as well as body fat due to the increased carb intake.

    and i am seriously asking these questions as i would like to know more about the topic. not just to nit pick are debate. i do love a good debate but i love to learn even more. there is much crap out there about nutrition. even after being a certified nutritionist most of what i learned seemed like crap and when put all together it contradicted itself.

    it seems the more i learn the intermittent fasting, carb backloading, low carb/high fat diets, are healthier for a lifestyle nutritional choice. so its not just about shedding fat to me but what is good for your health.
    The people studied were seperated into low carb, normal carb type groups. I also have other studies on file that show high carb to be just as effective on weight loss.

    The issue with the body is that, while the laws of thermodynamics holds relevance (but not in every scenario), the body has an ability to adapt to current intakes; consider homeostatis. Most things that rely on energy aside from living organisms do not share this adaptation; hence why there are situations in which it doesn't apply. But when you cause the body to go into a negative caloric balance, the body has to draw energy from somewhere to fuel those activities as activities rely on fuel and thus it must come from somewhere. If you do not feed the body the energy it requires, it simply dips into reserves.

    The issue is, the body adapts quickely and results in the typical plateaus. It is all rather complex.

    I absolutely 100% agree with you that there is a difference between simply losing weight and optimal health; hence why I follow a low-carb diet myself (enough to fuel neurons and RBC's). I'm just distinguishing between weight loss and overall health. The best approach to weight loss is to reprogram the diet and go back to the way in which we 'have adapted to live', which is what you were referring to.

    Especially once we go into things like the effects of high triglycerides on LDL particle size and atherosclerosis. The argument for low-moderate carb just gets better.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by asooneyeonig View Post
    the easiest place to find the largest source of research that can explain things in far more detail than i could is in the books good calories, bad calories and why we get fat. there are thousands of research articles in those books to reference.

    -Books are published to make money and should be realized as such.


    they also eat significantly fewer total calories and therefore have significantly lower insulin levels and therefore have significantly lower metabolic disease occurrence. this is a different line of thinking then the low fat, eat less for health that the media spouts as science. so i can understand the resistance towards it acceptance.

    -eating less so you are in a calorie deficit to lose weight is actual science.

    agreed. whats your point. did i miss something. i thought you were saying my thoughts are incorrect. but i believe this is part of the issue.

    -my point being you commented on another post that said calories in versus calories out for weight loss was basically wrong according to the last half century's research.

    to be even more controversial i do not believe even grains are healthy. the way they have been genetically modified in the last 100 years have made them harmful to our bodies. add in the fact that huge population that is gluten intolerant/allergic and it does make you wonder of their media based health benefits.

    -gluten allergies are extremely over blown. And although I agree genetically modified grains are not necessarily the best thing for our bodies you have to realize that genetically modified grains also have prevented starvation in a huge amount of the worlds population. The "media" likes to latch onto this idea about these types of things being so harmful and absolutely horrible to our health's, when in reality your body has an amazing ability to adapt and be just fine as long as it is in moderation.

    now IMO grains from the past are healthy but those are rare and hard to find nowadays. those existed mostly over 100 years ago.
    -healthy grains still exist today and in more of an abundance than 100 years ago.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by hardwork25 View Post
    -healthy grains still exist today and in more of an abundance than 100 years ago.
    I'll actually disagree; ZiR Red posted a while ago about how grains are genetically modified to more resistant. I'll see if I can dig it up for you.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by hardwork25 View Post

    -healthy grains still exist today and in more of an abundance than 100 years ago.
    Not sure about that. Granted my only source on this is Wheat Belly. But if you've ever driven across America, you may have noticed many abandoned grain silos. These are a thing of the past, as Monsanto and others have patented their non-reproducing grains. Also, there is a difference in the outer layers of 'new' wheat grains that is incredibly inflammatory in our digestive systems.
    That's about all I know at this moment.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post


    Good read thanks for that. I myself have Crohn's disease so controlling inflammation is my primary goal.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by hardwork25 View Post
    Good read thanks for that. I myself have Crohn's disease so controlling inflammation is my primary goal.
    What are your methods to control inflammation? For me, it's no grains, low n6 fats, and lots of n3 supps. But I was wondering what else you may do

  9. Quote Originally Posted by threeFs View Post

    Not sure about that. Granted my only source on this is Wheat Belly. But if you've ever driven across America, you may have noticed many abandoned grain silos. These are a thing of the past, as Monsanto and others have patented their non-reproducing grains. Also, there is a difference in the outer layers of 'new' wheat grains that is incredibly inflammatory in our digestive systems.
    That's about all I know at this moment.


    I will have to Check out wheat belly. And yes being a Nebraska kid I would agree about abandoned grain silos.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by hardwork25 View Post
    Books are published to make money
    does that also apply to the thousands of research articles referenced in the bibliography? Should those be disregarded due to them being in a book.

    I can see ignoring a book with a few references, even a few dozen. But when we can reference thousands of research articles it starts to make me think there is something to be learned. When so many researchers can reproduce the same results to me that is a huge step towards going from theory to law.
    you can call me "ozzie" for short.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by asooneyeonig View Post
    When so many researchers can reproduce the same results to me that is a huge step towards going from theory to law.
    I believe that's called science. But I suppose not all believe. Reminds me of when I was in college in Kansas and the state banned teaching anything related to human evolution in schools. People had bumper stickers that said, "What's next, Gravity?"

  12. Quote Originally Posted by asooneyeonig View Post

    does that also apply to the thousands of research articles referenced in the bibliography? Should those be disregarded due to them being in a book.

    I can see ignoring a book with a few references, even a few dozen. But when we can reference thousands of research articles it starts to make me think there is something to be learned. When so many researchers can reproduce the same results to me that is a huge step towards going from theory to law.

    What I was over stating is that what happens or tends to happen especially in our society is that people will read a book or two and all of a sudden it becomes law. I have not read the book so really I cannot say either way, and i cannot comment about its validity, but it seems as a few of the books points which you have referenced from are being at least challenged by jiigzz research articles on this very thread.

    My only point being that thousands of research articles are published each year proving one thing and then 2 years later another thousand are published proving the exact opposite.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by hardwork25 View Post

    What I was over stating is that what happens or tends to happen especially in our society is that people will read a book or two and all of a sudden it becomes law. I have not read the book so really I cannot say either way, and i cannot comment about its validity, but it seems as a few of the books points which you have referenced from are being at least challenged by jiigzz research articles on this very thread.

    My only point being that thousands of research articles are published each year proving one thing and then 2 years later another thousand are published proving the exact opposite.
    If you can ignore thousands of research articles as next year someone may state something different then how do you ever form any knowledge on anything that is anything other than opinion?

    If science is not enough then there is no reason to continue here with our discussion. I know that I cannot change someones mind. That I can only offer new information that can allow you to form a new opinion. Believe what you want to believe. As Neil Degrasse Tyson once said, the great thing about science is that it does not require your belief.
    you can call me "ozzie" for short.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by asooneyeonig View Post

    If you can ignore thousands of research articles as next year someone may state something different then how do you ever form any knowledge on anything that is anything other than opinion?

    If science is not enough then there is no reason to continue here with our discussion. I know that I cannot change someones mind. That I can only offer new information that can allow you to form a new opinion. Believe what you want to believe. As Neil Degrasse Tyson once said, the great thing about science is that it does not require your belief.


    Im not ignoring the research by any means, but what I'm saying is the science that you believe doesn't mean it's correct and it doesn't necessarily mean it is incorrect. You see thats the thing about science it is always changing.

    Here is an example :

    Consider the story of homocysteine, an amino acid that for several decades appeared to be linked to heart disease. The original paper detecting this association has been cited 1,800 times and has led doctors to prescribe various B vitamins to reduce homocysteine. However, a study published in 2010--involving 12,064 volunteers over seven years--showed that the treatment had no effect on the risk of heart attack or stroke, despite the fact that homocysteine levels were lowered by nearly 30 percent.

    Gum disease was thought to lead to heart disease and was backed up by a ton of scientific research, well come to find out there is not a link between gum disease and heart disease.

    Furthermore Science assumes certain values in order for it to work without being able to prove the validity of these values. Honesty being the chief among these values.

    New technology, sample size, control groups, dependent or independent variables, causation, all play a roll in research and science.

    --My personal belief is that science is enough only when coupled with common sense.

    Just to be clear I agree with a lot of what you say and a lot of the science behind it. I myself eat very little to moderate carbs and do not believe in a high carb diet by any means. Saying that, I believe sometimes we as a people, myself included latch on to an idea or new science or new research and believe it to be fact and want everyone else to believe it that way and the only way when more often than not its just not the case.

    Bottom line is that what works for you might not work for me regardless of what science is behind it and to basically tell someone they are wrong because its not "your" way of doing things and "your" way is backed by a bunch of research articles some of which can and have and will be disproven isn't helpful.

  15. My personal knowledge and opinions come from


    1. Common sense
    2. Trial and error
    3. Asking questions and gaining from other people's experience who are way smarter than I am.
    4. Learned knowledge.
    5. And lastly....failing over and over lol and over and over... Haha

  16. Science doesn't change, the methodologies behind the studies do. One study might forget one variable and thus draw wrong conclusions, or perhaps there are confounders to the situation which skew the results.

    An example just from something I was doing today was the effect of an intra workout CHO supplement. Previously, it was shown that only 30-60g of exogenous CHO per hour could be oxidised; however this is dependant on which glucose transporters are used. The older studies didn't realise this and thus lead to the recommendation of 30-60. It is now shown that by incorporating a GLUT-5 transporter you can increase oxidation up to 80-90g/h.

    You also have to be VERY weary of the conclusions media and scientists draw from the conclusions; i.e. the most misinterpreted studies that I come into contact with are those that assume dietary fat causes obesity when this is not so. That is a product of eating too much. It just so happened that those people they studied ate more on a higher fat diet.

    Little things such as a undetected vitamin defieciency can skew results on an unrelated study.

    When these things are taken into account and a study is planned exactly the same using the same parameters, you will likely replicate the same results each and every time

    If you read a study, you have to be able to pick it apart and understand it and crictically analyse it otherwise you fall victim to misinterpretation.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by Jiigzz View Post
    Science doesn't change, the methodologies behind the studies do. One study might forget one variable and thus draw wrong conclusions, or perhaps there are confounders to the situation which skew the results.

    An example just from something I was doing today was the effect of an intra workout CHO supplement. Previously, it was shown that only 30-60g of exogenous CHO per hour could be oxidised; however this is dependant on which glucose transporters are used. The older studies didn't realise this and thus lead to the recommendation of 30-60. It is now shown that by incorporating a GLUT-5 transporter you can increase oxidation up to 80-90g/h.

    You also have to be VERY weary of the conclusions media and scientists draw from the conclusions; i.e. the most misinterpreted studies that I come into contact with are those that assume dietary fat causes obesity when this is not so. That is a product of eating too much. It just so happened that those people they studied ate more on a higher fat diet.

    Little things such as a undetected vitamin defieciency can skew results on an unrelated study.

    When these things are taken into account and a study is planned exactly the same using the same parameters, you will likely replicate the same results each and every time

    If you read a study, you have to be able to pick it apart and understand it and crictically analyse it otherwise you fall victim to misinterpretation.


    You are correct and I misspoke when I said science when what I meant was the methodology. To your point of being very weary of conclusions that the media, authors, books, and so called experts draw from science to push their own agenda is exactly my point.

    Science is great when and only when logic is used along with it.

  18. Join a gym and do cardio workout. All cardio workouts are best for cutting specially running,jogging and cycling. If you want to get more information then visit our site.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by MarkHerry View Post
    Join a gym and do cardio workout. All cardio workouts are best for cutting specially running,jogging and cycling. If you want to get more information then visit our site.
    Some truly bad advice there.
    My current UNsponsored PES EP cutting log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/234161-adonisbelts-pes-erase.html

  20. Quote Originally Posted by MarkHerry View Post
    Join a gym and do cardio workout. All cardio workouts are best for cutting specially running,jogging and cycling. If you want to get more information then visit our site.
    Wow.. Just wow

  21. Quote Originally Posted by AdonisBelt View Post
    Some truly bad advice there.
    i LOLed at your comment!
    Performax Labs Product Specialist


  22. Quote Originally Posted by MarkHerry View Post
    Join a gym and do cardio workout. All cardio workouts are best for cutting specially running,jogging and cycling. If you want to get more information then visit our site.
    I would like to visit your site for more information. Can you please provide it for us?

  23. Quote Originally Posted by R1balla View Post

    i LOLed at your comment!
    pleasure
    My current UNsponsored PES EP cutting log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/234161-adonisbelts-pes-erase.html

  24. Good Nutrtition+Good Training+Cardio+Recovery= Beast

    1.Good Nutrition
    Look for Carb Cycling use it and if u don't happy with results after CarbCycling try Keto diet and u will see results.

    2.Good Training
    Light Weight>More Sets>More Reps Slit or Whole Body training.

    3.Cardio
    Do after weight training on Treadmil or Eliptical Machines, don't do on statick Bike!
    When u don't training better go out and run or go in gym and do what i said before.

    4.Recovery
    Sleep alot *night sleeping*



    *Suplements*
    If u want u can use Whey protein and something that can boost ur Energy, maybe fat burner.

    This is what i can said and soon I will use this same thing i've said to you. Wish you good luck and cut yourself like beast and F*CK all GIRLS
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Any tips on how to quit Coffee/Caffeine?
    By Elit3 in forum Nutrition / Health
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 06-06-2012, 11:44 AM
  2. Tips on how to eat more
    By newman897 in forum Bulking
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-27-2012, 12:44 PM
  3. Top 10 Tips on How to Be the Best Dad
    By yeahright in forum General Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-19-2006, 05:43 PM
  4. Any tips on how to develop a smaller waiste?
    By Got2bbig in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 11-22-2005, 09:22 AM
  5. need some tips on how to lose the belly fat...
    By cobain67 in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-27-2005, 12:47 PM
Log in
Log in