Tips on how to cut
- 05-21-2013, 01:54 PM
For straight weight loss with no regard for other performance, that's fine.
What about a recomp? What if I want to ADD muscle while losing fat? Are we talking straight weight loss or fat loss? That, IMO, is the caveat to all of this.Don't worry, man, someday I'ma be nobody too.
- 05-21-2013, 01:54 PM
- 05-21-2013, 01:56 PM
05-21-2013, 03:16 PM
I agree 100% and I understand there are a lot of variables but what I was simply saying is that if a person wants to lose weight they need to expend more than they consume. Simple as that. It's not more difficult than that, it's just not, no matter how many people try to talk about carbs, or fat, or any other macro nutrient.
Now in regards to a recomp, or Pre-contest, or some of the other examples you said you are correct. There's more than one way to skin a cat I was just using the KISS theory.
05-21-2013, 04:24 PM
05-21-2013, 04:33 PM
Here are some thoughts while trying to keep it simple.
One of the jobs of insulin is to transport excessive blood sugar into adipose tissue. while this mechanism is working you cannot pullout energy from adipose tissue, meaning its a one way street. This, imo is the big reasoning of low carb enthusiasts. Seeing as how carbs, especially refined sugars, increase blood sugar the fastest.
Here is where there can be a potential flaw in the calories on vs calories out theory, or the law of thermal dynamics. Blood sugar has to stay in a very tight range or bad things happen. Simply, nearly every time you eat you are going to increase blood sugar to a point that insulin is increased. If you are eating every few hours you are constantly causing high levels of insulin, therefore preventing the usage of adipose tissue as fuel. This is nearly irrelevant of energy expenditure. So you are storing much more than you expend. This imo is the reason why toouxh cardio can eat away at muscle and make you skinny fat.
So yes. Cal in vs cal out makes sense on a week to week scale and even over a few days but falls apart as you shorten the time frame.
I also believe this is the part of the mechanism behind why intermittent fasting works as well as carb cycling, carb back loading, etc.
you can call me "ozzie" for short.
05-21-2013, 04:55 PM
I don't disagree with carb cycling, back loading, keto, IF, or anything really that works to help someone get to their goals.
05-21-2013, 04:59 PM
05-21-2013, 05:06 PM
I don't respond to anyone under 5'10especially ones without common sense and feel the need to call someone an idiot on the Internet. Lol.
By the way people have lost weight wasting crap junk food. ie; the woman who lost weight on the Taco Bell diet. Yeah she lost weight eating nothing but Taco Bell. Do you know how? Because she took in less than she expended.
I'm looking forward to your response and anything else you can try to personally attack me on without knowing me.
05-21-2013, 05:22 PM
05-21-2013, 05:28 PM
Who's talking about beating someone's a$$?? Lol. Never did I say anything that correlated height to toughness. Lol furthermore there is always someone out there that's a bigger bada$$ than you or me.
And you're response about not being a cookie cutter approach and that you should eat less than you take in is exactly that point I was making and being called an idiot for.
So thanks for proving my point.
05-21-2013, 05:34 PM
You said "I don't respond to anyone under 5'10" especially ones without common sense and call someone an idiot on the idiot...". Why does it matter that he is 5'10"? Does he not deserve the respect to get a proper response so you could possibly teach him something or, god forbid, you might be wrong and he could teach you something? Afterall, we are all here for discussion and to teach and learn from eachother are we not?
05-21-2013, 05:40 PM
Well, this got heated awefully quick since I last stopped in. But to the guy saying the law of thermodynamics is a theory.... Erm... Isn't it called the LAW not the Theory of thermodynamics? I'm fairly certain they make distinctions like that on purpose.
Regardless. The forums are meant to serve as a virtual community. It is meant to help people communicate and engage in discussions about topics, to educate and make others succeed in their goals better. To the man suggesting that he just looks for information, then this community isn't for you! We are here to help each other weed through bull**** not put down people for asking questions!
My current UNsponsored PES EP cutting log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/234161-adonisbelts-pes-erase.html
05-21-2013, 05:42 PM
05-21-2013, 05:43 PM
05-21-2013, 05:56 PM
And I'm absolutely not wrong about calories in versus calories out to lose weight. And if anyone can show me science saying if you consume 1000 calories but expend 1500 calories and gain weight i will shut the frack up.
05-21-2013, 06:42 PM
I don't eat bread really as I don't subscribe to a high carb diet, and if instead of skimming through a few of my posts you might actually try and read them. Also after learning from other guys on here about wheat and gluten sensitivity I've changed a few of the things I choose to eat.
You see that's how it is supposed to work. Instead of calling those guys idiots they shared their knowledge and I learned something.
Anyways enough of that. Good luck on your journey man and your goals. No sarcasm either.
05-21-2013, 06:45 PM
My bad, go ahead and lose pounds big fella. Bulk than cut. Burn more than you eat, no matter what it is. You won the Internet today boss. Be proud.
05-21-2013, 07:15 PM
Hit me up with any questions any time.
05-21-2013, 11:46 PM
Are you the OP of this thread? Weird cuz if you were I could understand how what you were personally concerned with would matter.
And my "theory" is not a theory or bunk but again common sense and logic seemed to have escaped you and therefore I don't expect you to understand.
Saying I won the Internet battle, calling me boss, and telling me to be proud is cute but it still doesn't hide the fact that what I stated is not "lies" and not idiotic but relevant to the ORIGINAL OP....
Don't worry I'll high five myself or have one of the beautiful women I sleep with pat me on the ass.
05-22-2013, 01:42 AM
Wait can't you just flatten your food to reduce the calories?
Cus, you know, if you compress your food, like waffles, it makes the simple carbs more complex and then you can just not count the fiber as calories. That's why pancakes are so much better for you.
I ate nothing but pancakes for 2 weeks and list 10 pounds!
My current UNsponsored PES EP cutting log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/234161-adonisbelts-pes-erase.html
05-22-2013, 06:55 AM
05-22-2013, 07:57 AM
05-23-2013, 03:39 PM
i think i have not expressed my opinion on this accurately.
yes, i believe that the type of calories is very important. carbs especially, and not just for shedding body fat, and i mean body fat and not just shedding any mass. i also believe it is a superior choice for a healthy life overall. so when i post the cut carbs thing, its not just about losing weight, but shedding excessive fat and for long term health. it is a different viewpoint IMO and can cause confusion.
yes, i believe that being able to use body fat as fuel is crucial, which is commonly seen as the cal in vs cal out idea. by cutting carbs you are likely cutting cals so this idea is not exclusive to my previous paragraph IMO. i also believe that cutting cals without cutting carbs is not near as helpful for overall health as well as cutting excessive body fat.
i came to a realization recently. arguing over which is best is like arguing over whether deads or squats are better. to put it simply, you would be stupid to not do both. and here is some opinion. i will use westside as an example. those guys mostly squat and hardly deadlift and they have some monster deadlifters. i would put the cutting carbs thing as the same as squats and cutting calories as deadlifts. they both make you better so do them both.
you can call me "ozzie" for short.
05-28-2013, 12:24 AM
Overweight and obese men and women (24–61 yr of age) were recruited into a randomized trial to compare the effects of a low-fat (LF) vs. a low-carbohydrate (LC) diet on weight loss. Thirty-one subjects completed all 10 wk of the diet intervention (retention, 78%). Subjects on the LF diet consumed an average of 17.8% of energy from fat, compared with their habitual intake of 36.4%, and had a resulting energy restriction of 2540 kJ/d. Subjects on the LC diet consumed an average of 15.4% carbohydrate, compared with habitual intakes of about 50% carbohydrate, and had a resulting energy restriction of 3195 kJ/d. Both groups of subjects had significant weight loss over the 10 wk of diet intervention and nearly identical improvements in body weight and fat mass. LF subjects lost an average of 6.8 kg and had a decrease in body mass index of 2.2 kg/m2, compared with a loss of 7.0 kg and decrease in body mass index of 2.1 kg/m2 in the LC subjects. The LF group better preserved lean body mass when compared with the LC group; however, only the LC group had a significant decrease in circulating insulin concentrations. Group results indicated that the diets were equally effective in reducing systolic blood pressure by about 10 mm Hg and diastolic pressure by 5 mm Hg and decreasing plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 bioactivity. Blood β-hydroxybutyrate concentrations were increased in the LC only, at the 2- and 4-wk time points. These data suggest that energy restriction achieved by a very LC diet is equally effective as a LF diet strategy for weight loss and decreasing body fat in overweight and obese adult
05-28-2013, 12:33 AM
05-28-2013, 12:58 AM
Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance
Cara B. Ebbeling, PhD; Janis F. Swain, MS, RD; Henry A. Feldman, PhD; William W. Wong, PhD; David L. Hachey, PhD; Erica Garcia-Lago, BA; David S. Ludwig, MD, PhD
JAMA. 2012;307(24):2627-2634. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.6607
Reduced energy expenditure following weight loss is thought to contribute to weight gain. However, the effect of dietary composition on energy expenditure during weight-loss maintenance has not been studied.
To examine the effects of 3 diets differing widely in macronutrient composition and glycemic load on energy expenditure following weight loss.
Design, Setting, and Participants
A controlled 3-way crossover design involving 21 overweight and obese young adults conducted at Children's Hospital Boston and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, between June 16, 2006, and June 21, 2010, with recruitment by newspaper advertisements and postings.
After achieving 10% to 15% weight loss while consuming a run-in diet, participants consumed an isocaloric low-fat diet (60% of energy from carbohydrate, 20% from fat, 20% from protein; high glycemic load), low–glycemic index diet (40% from carbohydrate, 40% from fat, and 20% from protein; moderate glycemic load), and very low-carbohydrate diet (10% from carbohydrate, 60% from fat, and 30% from protein; low glycemic load) in random order, each for 4 weeks.
Main Outcome Measures
Primary outcome was resting energy expenditure (REE), with secondary outcomes of total energy expenditure (TEE), hormone levels, and metabolic syndrome components.
Compared with the pre–weight-loss baseline, the decrease in REE was greatest with the low-fat diet (mean [95% CI], –205 [–265 to –144] kcal/d), intermediate with the low–glycemic index diet (–166 [–227 to –106] kcal/d), and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet (−138 [–198 to –77] kcal/d; overall P = .03; P for trend by glycemic load = .009). The decrease in TEE showed a similar pattern (mean [95% CI], −423 [–606 to –239] kcal/d; −297 [–479 to –115] kcal/d; and −97 [–281 to 86] kcal/d, respectively; overall P = .003; P for trend by glycemic load < .001). Hormone levels and metabolic syndrome components also varied during weight maintenance by diet (leptin, P < .001; 24-hour urinary cortisol, P = .005; indexes of peripheral [P = .02] and hepatic [P = .03] insulin sensitivity; high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol, P < .001; non-HDL cholesterol, P < .001; triglycerides, P < .001; plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, P for trend = .04; and C-reactive protein, P for trend = .05), but no consistent favorable pattern emerged.
Among overweight and obese young adults compared with pre–weight-loss energy expenditure, isocaloric feeding following 10% to 15% weight loss resulted in decreases in REE and TEE that were greatest with the low-fat diet, intermediate with the low–glycemic index diet, and least with the very low-carbohydrate diet.
Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00315354
05-28-2013, 01:01 AM
Dietary Fat, Sugar and Obesity...huh?
Int J Food Sci Nutr. 1996 Sep;47(5):405-15.
Are high-fat, high-sugar foods and diets conducive to obesity?
Restriction of both dietary fat and extrinsic sugars is standard advice for weight reduction. It has been suggested that foods, and diets, that combine high levels of sugars and fat particularly contribute to overconsumption. Weighed dietary data on 1087 men and 1110 women aged 16-64 who took part in the Dietary and Nutritional Survey of British Adults were examined for evidence of this hypothesis. Consumption of the main sugary fatty foods (cakes, biscuits, confectionery and puddings) averaged 12% of energy for men, 14.9% for women. Intake of these foods (as a proportion of total energy) was inversely related to BMI (adjusted for age and smoking). After exclusion of the substantial number who were dieting or unwell or who may have under-reported their intakes, the association remained significant only in men. Consumption of sugary fatty foods showed a positive association with intakes of fibre, a negative association with vegetables and no relationship with percentage of energy from fat. For the investigation of diet composition, men and women were divided into four groups, high or low in extrinsic sugars energy (cut point 15%) and fat energy (cut point 40%). For men consuming high fat diets (> 40% energy) mean BMI was higher in the low sugar group. After exclusion of dieters and unwell, men with low sugar intakes still had a higher mean BMI than men with high sugar intakes. BMI and extrinsic sugars energy were still negatively but weakly correlated (r = -0.10; P < 0.05) after adjusting for age, smoking, energy, fat intake, and dieting/under-reporting. In conclusion, there is little evidence in this cross-sectional survey that either sugary fatty foods, or diets high in sugars, are associated with obesity. Rather, sugars appear to have a weak negative association with BMI that is not totally explained by confounders such as dieting, under-reporting or the inverse correlation between energy from sugars and fat.
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998 Nov;22(11):1053-61.
The sugar-fat relationship revisited: differences in consumption between men and women of varying BMI.
Macdiarmid JI, Vail A, Cade JE, Blundell JE.
School of Psychology, University of Leeds, UK.
To assess the relationship of dietary fat and sugar consumption in men and women with different body mass indices (BMI). To determine the actual food sources for sugar intake, comparing differences between men and women across BMI groups. The effect of excluding individuals with low energy intakes (that is, invalid data) on these relationships was also incorporated in the analysis.
Subjects for this analysis were those individuals who participated in the 1986-1987 Dietary and Nutrition Survey of British Adults (DNSBA).
In the DNSBA, dietary intake was assessed using seven-day weighed food records, providing estimates of dietary fat and sugar intake. From the DNSBA database food records, sources of sugar intake were classified into five sugar containing food groups (high fat sweet products, fruits, dairy products, sugar products (excluding soft drinks) and sugar products (including soft drinks)). BMI was calculated from the measurement of height and body weight.
A positive relationship between BMI and dietary fat intake was found for men, both when fat was expressed as a percentage of energy and in absolute terms (g/d). This relationship was only replicated for women when intake was expressed in absolute terms. A negative relationship was found between sugar intake (as a percentage of energy) and BMI in men, but not women. Expressing sugar consumption in absolute terms did not produce a statistically significant relationship with BMI for either men or women. In women the only sugar source associated with BMI was high fat sweet products (for example, cakes, biscuits, chocolate), where higher intakes were related to higher BMIs. The reverse relationship was found for men. In men, BMI was also negatively related to the intake of sugar products (for example, table sugar, preserves, sugar confectionery), both when soft drinks were included and excluded. The inclusion of low energy reporters (LER) in the analysis altered the relationships between nutrients and BMI, particularly among women. The association between overall fat intake (g/d) and BMI was weakened, while the negative relationship with sugar intake was strengthened. In the case of women, the inclusion of LER completely reversed the relationship between consumption of high fat sweet foods (cakes, biscuits, chocolate) and BMI (due to the reduced reporting of these products by obese women). Fewer alterations in the relationships between BMI and the sources of sugar consumed were observed in men than in women when LER were included in the analysis.
The relationships between dietary fat, sugar and BMI are different in men and women, and are dependent on the inclusion of LER, particularly in women. The results suggest that among women the consumption of high fat sweet products may be a factor in understanding obesity. Furthermore, the observation of high consumption of these foods among obese women is consistent with measured preferences for these high fat sweet foods. The altered representation of the data created by LER appears to distort the relationship between sugar, fat and the degree of obesity in men and women.
05-28-2013, 01:04 AM
No difference in body weight decrease between a low-glycemic-index and a high-glycemic-index diet but reduced LDL cholesterol after 10-wk ad libitum intake of the low-glycemic-index diet.
The role of glycemic index (GI) in appetite and body-weight regulation is still not clear.
The objective of the study was to investigate the long-term effects of a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet with either low glycemic index (LGI) or high glycemic index (HGI) on ad libitum energy intake, body weight, and composition, as well as on risk factors for type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease in overweight healthy subjects.
The study was a 10-wk parallel, randomized, intervention trial with 2 matched groups. The LGI or HGI test foods, given as replacements for the subjects' usual carbohydrate-rich foods, were equal in total energy, energy density, dietary fiber, and macronutrient composition. Subjects were 45 (LGI diet: n = 23; HGI diet: n = 22) healthy overweight [body mass index (in kg/m(2)): 27.6 +/- 0.2] women aged 20-40 y.
Energy intake, mean (+/- SEM) body weight (LGI diet: -1.9 +/- 0.5 kg; HGI diet: -1.3 +/- 0.3 kg), and fat mass (LGI diet: -1.0 +/- 0.4 kg; HGI diet: -0.4 +/- 0.3 kg) decreased over time, but the differences between groups were not significant. No significant differences were observed between groups in fasting serum insulin, homeostasis model assessment for relative insulin resistance, homeostasis model assessment for beta cell function, triacylglycerol, nonesterified fatty acids, or HDL cholesterol. However, a 10% decrease in LDL cholesterol (P < 0.05) and a tendency to a larger decrease in total cholesterol (P = 0.06) were observed with consumption of the LGI diet as compared with the HGI diet.
This study does not support the contention that low-fat LGI diets are more beneficial than HGI diets with regard to appetite or body-weight regulation as evaluated over 10 wk. However, it confirms previous findings of a beneficial effect of LGI diets on risk factors for ischemic heart disease
Randomized controlled trial of changes in dietary carbohydrate/fat ratio and simple vs complex carbohydrates on body weight and blood lipids: the CARMEN study. The Carbohydrate Ratio Management in European National diets.
05-28-2013, 12:38 PM
05-28-2013, 02:07 PM
05-28-2013, 10:04 PM
These are just on weight loss and not the impacts on health; there are studies that show that low vs. high carb diets impact blood markers quite differently with low carb diets have the most beneficial effect.
Low carb diets should be used for overall health as the argument that they are better for weight loss doesn't hold much weighting.
Similar Forum Threads
- By Elit3 in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 31Last Post: 06-06-2012, 10:44 AM
- By newman897 in forum BulkingReplies: 12Last Post: 05-27-2012, 11:44 AM
- By yeahright in forum General ChatReplies: 6Last Post: 06-19-2006, 04:43 PM
- By Got2bbig in forum Exercise ScienceReplies: 54Last Post: 11-22-2005, 08:22 AM
- By cobain67 in forum Weight LossReplies: 26Last Post: 04-27-2005, 11:47 AM