Tips on how to cut

[FromAus]

I was looking for tips on how to cut BF and loose the minimal amount of muscle. I am currently 23% BF and looking to drop some percentages to look a little more defined, i know th whole "Cut your calories and exercise more" but was wondering how to structure it. On how much calories to drop and what to drop the most out of, either carbs, protein or fats.

 

[jerrysiii]

At higher bf its actually much easier to lose fat. Once you get to about 12-13% it gets more difficult. I assume your using an impedance scale to get your bf reading? If so this should be fine for your goal, just keep in mind they can be a little erratic.

Set a short term goal (say 18%). This way you having something concrete to shoot for. Start slow and just do some basic things. For example, eliminate sugar and anything made with white flour. Strength train three times per week using a whole body routine. Do 10 minutes or so of cardio 3 or 4 times a week.

If you do just this, it should be enough to get you to 18%. Keep learning and stay motivated. The most important thing at this point is do build consistency. There are many things you could do that are "better" than what I outlined, but doing something you can stick with is much more important at this point. GL.

 

[asooneyeonig]

cut out carbs except for post workout. eat more fat. do hill sprints, lift heavy, and push a sled.

thats the high level simplified view.

 

[R1balla]

Look into a HIIT program

 

[Nooshefx]

Look into a HIIT program

I agree! Maybe you could find a male bootcamp to join? Keep the carbs down at dinner and try not to grub before bed.

 

[FromAus]

Good idea! they should have one at the gym!

 

[FromAus]

Thank you both!

Big help

 

[R1balla]

I agree! Maybe you could find a male bootcamp to join? Keep the carbs down at dinner and try not to grub before bed.

personally, i dont like bootcamps. for some its great. for me, i can learn what to do on my own and pump some music and do it without paying extra money. now if its free, why not.

 

[Torobestia]

cut out carbs except for post workout. eat more fat. do hill sprints, lift heavy, and push a sled.

thats the high level simplified view.

This would be my recommendation.

 

[bono1132]

Circuit training! Craziest one I do is
Deadliftx8
Romanian deadx8
Bent over rowx8
Power cleanx8
Front squatx8
Push pressx8
Squatx8
Good morningx8
Grab a bar with light weight do the entire circuit 4x as little rest between lifts as possible and a few min rest before hitting the circuit again then hate me the next day

 

[Epolis13]

Cutting out carbs isn't necessary - fat loss is a result of being in an overall caloric deficit. When you get to lower body fat percentages, that's when nutrient manipulation may work for you. However, I'd caution anyone against eliminating an entire macronutrient group thinking that's the best way to lose fat. The best way to lose fat is to decrease your overall calories and move your a$$ more. Also, the not eating before bed thing is not true, either. You can eat 5 mins before bed and be fine (in fact, I do every night). Again, overall calories is what will determine fat loss/gain. Keep it simple, OP. No need for anything drastic.

 

[asooneyeonig]

Cutting out carbs isn't necessary - fat loss is a result of being in an overall caloric deficit. When you get to lower body fat percentages, that's when nutrient manipulation may work for you. However, I'd caution anyone against eliminating an entire macronutrient group thinking that's the best way to lose fat. The best way to lose fat is to decrease your overall calories and move your a$$ more.

You may want to read up on the science that has been coming out for the last century. It disagrees with you.

There are also documented areas in the world where a diet has no fruits or vegetables and is mostly meat, especially organs of animals. There are other cultures that eat as much as 70% of their calories from fat. those cultures are also healthier and less obese than americans.

Now I am not stating eating less and moving doesn't work for anybody. It is just extremely inefficient at doing so and with america being so gung ho on quick fixes it seems silly to go the hard route with a high failure rate.

To respond to the idea that you have to have a micronutrient just cause, I point you towards essential amino acids and essential fatty acids. They come from fat and protein intake. By definition being essential the body has to take it in via diet. There are no essential carbs or sugars. So you do not have to have them. Your body can produce them from other food sources.

There is also decades of research showing that chronic high amounts of carbs leads to various metabolic diseases like diabetes, gout, cancer, hypertension, and obesity.

 

[hardwork25]

You may want to read up on the science that has been coming out for the last century. It disagrees with you.

There are also documented areas in the world where a diet has no fruits or vegetables and is mostly meat, especially organs of animals. There are other cultures that eat as much as 70% of their calories from fat. those cultures are also healthier and less obese than americans.

Now I am not stating eating less and moving doesn't work for anybody. It is just extremely inefficient at doing so and with america being so gung ho on quick fixes it seems silly to go the hard route with a high failure rate.

To respond to the idea that you have to have a micronutrient just cause, I point you towards essential amino acids and essential fatty acids. They come from fat and protein intake. By definition being essential the body has to take it in via diet. There are no essential carbs or sugars. So you do not have to have them. Your body can produce them from other food sources.

There is also decades of research showing that chronic high amounts of carbs leads to various metabolic diseases like diabetes, gout, cancer, hypertension, and obesity.

Lol what research are you reading?

Refined carb's are bad, but this idea that everyone has about carbs being evil is crazy. Even though carbs aren't "essential" nutrients our brain for example requires glucose, as neurons cannot burn fat. Countries like china, brazil, and mexico up until a few years ago were mostly high carb diets and were some of the healthiest people on earth. The Mediterranean diet of Greece is on the whole mostly carbs and animal protein and they have significantly lower health issues.

The problems are from refined carbs and fluctuating insulin spikes and blood glucose levels. Those cause long term health and weight issues. Carbs from whole grains, fruits, vegetables, etc for example enter the blood a lot slower and don't cause a huge spike. Also eating a carb with a protein, fat, or fiber source slows down the rate of absorption as well.


Fat people eat refined sugar and processed carbs and become fat.

Healthy people especially ones that have goals of being strong in the gym or having a lot of muscle eat good carbs like oatmeal, fruit, vegetables, and grains.

 

[hardwork25]

Cutting out carbs isn't necessary - fat loss is a result of being in an overall caloric deficit. When you get to lower body fat percentages, that's when nutrient manipulation may work for you. However, I'd caution anyone against eliminating an entire macronutrient group thinking that's the best way to lose fat. The best way to lose fat is to decrease your overall calories and move your a$$ more. Also, the not eating before bed thing is not true, either. You can eat 5 mins before bed and be fine (in fact, I do every night). Again, overall calories is what will determine fat loss/gain. Keep it simple, OP. No need for anything drastic.

^^* this is actually correct.

 

[Jiigzz]

Fat loss and being healthy are different. A thing to remember that we produce alpha-amylase for a reason and therefore the body has created an adaptation for it. Removing starches from the diet will result in down regulation of alpha-amylase and thus if you reintroduce carbs later on, you might be in for digestive problems.

Also, as was pointed out to me recently, limiting carb intake raises insulin resistance as the body adapts to moving any glucose you do manufacture straight to the liver (to avoid being 'wasted' in other cells) to refuel glycogen stores and fuel for neurons.

High carb diets and high fat diets work virtually WRT weight loss so long as the protein content remains constant: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22935440

 

[Jiigzz]

As an off note, glucose is produced as a consequence of the metabolism of fats; i.e. a triglyceride is made up of 3 fatty acids and a glycerol backbone. When fatty acids are released into the blood stream, the glycerol molecule is also released and two glycerols make one glucose.

A high fat diet @ 65% of a 2400kcal diet can produce 200kcals from glucose alone this way.

 

[ntornado]

As an off note, glucose is produced as a consequence of the metabolism of fats; i.e. a triglyceride is made up of 3 fatty acids and a glycerol backbone. When fatty acids are released into the blood stream, the glycerol molecule is also released and two glycerols make one glucose.

A high fat diet @ 65% of a 2400kcal diet can produce 200kcals from glucose alone this way.

And a huge benefit is that it is satiating. Without a high amount of healthy fats when cutting, hunger can be quite tough to overcome for most.

 

[JDog479]

At 23% I would simply focus on being in a calorie deficit for now. Don't worry about whether or not you're eating too many carbs or fat. Just eat healthy on a consistent basis, lift heavy, and throw in a steady level of cardio.

Keep it simple at first. And start working these methods into your routine as you progress. Too much too fast may wear on you or overwhelm you.

Again, clean up your diet first, and get into the mindset of a lifestyle change rather than a quick fix. The results should follow.

 

[hardwork25]

copy and pasted as this explains my thoughts better than i can.

--insulin and glucagon help maintain regular levels of blood glucose for our cells, especially our brain cells. Insulin brings excess blood glucose levels down, while glucagon brings levels back up when they are too low. If blood glucose levels are rising too rapidly and too often the cells can eventually become faulty and not respond properly to insulin's "absorb blood energy and store" instruction; over time they require a higher level of insulin to react - we call this insulin resistance. Eventually, the beta cells in the pancreas wear out - because they have had to produce lots of insulin for many years - insulin production drops and eventually packs in altogether. Insulin resistance leads to hypertension (high blood pressure), high blood fat levels (triglycerides), low levels of good cholesterol (HDL), weight gain and other diseases. All these illnesses, together with insulin resistance, is called metabolic syndrome. Metabolic syndrome leads to type 2 diabetes.

 

[asooneyeonig]

Lol what research are you reading?

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.

Refined carb's are bad, but this idea that everyone has about carbs being evil is crazy. Even though carbs aren't "essential" nutrients our brain for example requires glucose, as neurons cannot burn fat.

did you know that dietary fat, body fat, and dietary protein can be turned into blood glucose? IMO this is a major fault in the thinking that carbs are essential. essential in this context is something the body cannot produce on its own. my above example shows again that carbs are not essential. now are they evil? IMO like alcohol, in which some is great but too much can kill you slowly, carbs can be good but only in moderation.

Countries like china, brazil, and mexico up until a few years ago were mostly high carb diets and were some of the healthiest people on earth. The Mediterranean diet of Greece is on the whole mostly carbs and animal protein and they have significantly lower health issues.

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.

The problems are from refined carbs and fluctuating insulin spikes and blood glucose levels. Those cause long term health and weight issues. Carbs from whole grains, fruits, vegetables, etc for example enter the blood a lot slower and don't cause a huge spike. Also eating a carb with a protein, fat, or fiber source slows down the rate of absorption as well.

this coincides with the insulin response i barely touched on above.

Fat people eat refined sugar and processed carbs and become fat.

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.

Healthy people especially ones that have goals of being strong in the gym or having a lot of muscle eat good carbs like oatmeal, fruit, vegetables, and grains.

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.

now IMO grains from the past are healthy but those are rare and hard to find nowadays. those existed mostly over 100 years ago.

 

[asooneyeonig]

copy and pasted as this explains my thoughts better than i can.

--insulin and glucagon help maintain regular levels of blood glucose for our cells, especially our brain cells. Insulin brings excess blood glucose levels down, while glucagon brings levels back up when they are too low. If blood glucose levels are rising too rapidly and too often the cells can eventually become faulty and not respond properly to insulin's "absorb blood energy and store" instruction; over time they require a higher level of insulin to react - we call this insulin resistance. Eventually, the beta cells in the pancreas wear out - because they have had to produce lots of insulin for many years - insulin production drops and eventually packs in altogether. Insulin resistance leads to hypertension (high blood pressure), high blood fat levels (triglycerides), low levels of good cholesterol (HDL), weight gain and other diseases. All these illnesses, together with insulin resistance, is called metabolic syndrome. Metabolic syndrome leads to type 2 diabetes.

what you are saying here supports my claim that low carb is a great way to shed bodyfat. i also state that claim as i believe in our high calorie lifestyle in america it is a healthier diet.

now i do believe that diets that are mostly carbs (50+%) can be healthy, but at much lower total calories than what we what we eat in america. to me this is similar to why intermittent fasting is successful. we may eat a lot of carbs in one meal but the total calories over the span of a week, for example, make a difference as well as the macronutrient totals.

 

[asooneyeonig]

here is a great point for all the sides of what to do in a dietary fashion to shed fat. you can either cut carbs or cut calories. both have you cutting carbs. which is a key point as dietary sugars (of near any type) increase blood sugar the fastest and can therefore cause the greatest insulin response.

another point is that when insulin is present the body is going to be storing body fat only, as it is a one way path. so when storing, you cannot be using bodyfat as a fuel source. so think of it this way, eat lots of carbs (50+%) and eat several small meals a day, 5-8 for example, you can see how blood sugar will constantly be raised in a quick manner therefore not allowing for much usage of body fat for fuel.

im sure some may point as some have already that some cultures eat mostly carbs but they also eat fewer meals and fewer total calories. therefore they will not be causing the insulin response that we do in america with high frequency meals and especially with highly processed carbs.

seeing as how we in america usually want the quick fix and do not want to work for it i like to default to recommendations that allow for maximal usage of body fat as fuel which requires very low carbs.

 

[Jiigzz]

here is a great point for all the sides of what to do in a dietary fashion to shed fat. you can either cut carbs or cut calories. both have you cutting carbs. which is a key point as dietary sugars (of near any type) increase blood sugar the fastest and can therefore cause the greatest insulin response.

another point is that when insulin is present the body is going to be storing body fat only, as it is a one way path. so when storing, you cannot be using bodyfat as a fuel source. so think of it this way, eat lots of carbs (50+%) and eat several small meals a day, 5-8 for example, you can see how blood sugar will constantly be raised in a quick manner therefore not allowing for much usage of body fat for fuel.

im sure some may point as some have already that some cultures eat mostly carbs but they also eat fewer meals and fewer total calories. therefore they will not be causing the insulin response that we do in america with high frequency meals and especially with highly processed carbs.

seeing as how we in america usually want the quick fix and do not want to work for it i like to default to recommendations that allow for maximal usage of body fat as fuel which requires very low carbs.

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.

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.

 

[Jiigzz]

Heres the link to the other low fat, high carb argument I had just recently: http://anabolicminds.com/forum/weight-loss/228830-how-much-cardio-2.html#post3979387

Again, I do not support high carb, but it has the same implications for weight loss as does a low carb diet.

 

[threeFs]

Heres the link to the other low fat, high carb argument I had just recently: http://anabolicminds.com/forum/weight-loss/228830-how-much-cardio-2.html#post3979387

Again, I do not support high carb, but it has the same implications for weight loss as does a low carb diet.

We always run into each other in the strangest places

 

[asooneyeonig]

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.

 

[asooneyeonig]

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.

 

[Jiigzz]

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.

 

[hardwork25]

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.

 

[Jiigzz]

-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.

 

[Jiigzz]

http://jasoncholewa.com/2013/02/08/early-humans-wheat-cultivation-and-your-health/

Its a great read.

 

[threeFs]

-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.

 

[hardwork25]

http://jasoncholewa.com/2013/02/08/early-humans-wheat-cultivation-and-your-health/

Its a great read.

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

 

[threeFs]

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

 

[hardwork25]

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.

 

[asooneyeonig]

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.

 

[threeFs]

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?"

 

[hardwork25]

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.

 

[asooneyeonig]

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.

 

[hardwork25]

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.

 

[hardwork25]

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

 

[Jiigzz]

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.

 

[hardwork25]

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.

 

[MarkHerry]

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.

 

[AdonisBelt]

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.

 

[machorox123]

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

 

[R1balla]

Some truly bad advice there.

i LOLed at your comment!

 

[threeFs]

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?

 

[AdonisBelt]

i LOLed at your comment!

pleasure

 

[Lord_Of_Iron]

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