[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
What I got from your posts is that you are going to try to get lose weight by doing what’s “natural”, or in other words, what you feel like. [/quote]
Exactly. Instead of saying, “I’m just going to do what I feel like - even if it means I’m a fat fuck,” people dress it up as “evolutionary theory.” LMAO.
You guys seem to have read a couple of lines of my posts and came to an incorrect conclusion about what I’m trying to say. I’ll admit they were a little long, and I’m sure I got more than a few glazed over looks, so let’s just try again with the cliff notes:
-I never said that I’m trying to just do whatever I want. All I’m after is simplification. I don’t want to eliminate or control any macro-nutrients and I don’t want to count calories.
-If you only eat once in twenty four hours, you-will-be-in-a-calorie-deficit; let the weight loss commence.
-I will cycle between an intermittent fasting phase and a metabolism maintenance phase based on my fat loss.
-For those of you who don’t want to try it because of fear of muscle loss; I’ll be your lab rat. If you’re interested in the results have a look at My T-Nation blog. If you want to debate it here, I welcome that.
-A diet should be based on results. If I don’t get any, I’ll go back to the Anabolic Diet and everyone can be satisfied.
After being shown how to properly use fat calipers, I show to be at 25.2% BF. Still overfat? Yes. Regardless I’ll continue to post both readings from the calipers and my old method of measuring the midsection.
Today was strict standing one-armed dumbbell presses.
80X1
75X3
70X3
65X4
60X5
55X6
No warm-ups, no cool-downs, no pre or post-workout nutrition, plenty of energy, no hunger. I’ll eat later this evening.
Doesn’t get much simpler than that.
Well you certainly seem to have all the answers so what the fuck is the problem?
Here is a hint for you, you say you have only been serious about your diet for 6 months. And how many times have you switched diets in this time period?
The bottom line is that it does not matter what you call it or how you dress it up, if you do not have the discipline to stick to it you are just pissing in the wind.
A
[quote]unheatedgarage wrote:
You guys seem to have read a couple of lines of my posts and came to an incorrect conclusion about what I’m trying to say. I’ll admit they were a little long, and I’m sure I got more than a few glazed over looks, so let’s just try again with the cliff notes:
-I never said that I’m trying to just do whatever I want. All I’m after is simplification. I don’t want to eliminate or control any macro-nutrients and I don’t want to count calories.
-If you only eat once in twenty four hours, you-will-be-in-a-calorie-deficit; let the weight loss commence.
-I will cycle between an intermittent fasting phase and a metabolism maintenance phase based on my fat loss.
-For those of you who don’t want to try it because of fear of muscle loss; I’ll be your lab rat. If you’re interested in the results have a look at My T-Nation blog. If you want to debate it here, I welcome that.
-A diet should be based on results. If I don’t get any, I’ll go back to the Anabolic Diet and everyone can be satisfied.
[/quote]
I started the Anabolic Diet early December and stuck it out a little over three months. It never felt right to me even though I had some successes.
I’ll give this program six months.
Hey, there, UHG!!! Long time, no speak. (grin)
I’ve done a bit of thinking about your dietary approach, and there’s some things I want to throw out for your consideration.
There are a number of diets that cycle high and low calories (or high and low carb intake) or that incorporate periodic carb refeeds. Even though the name is a bit irreverent, let’s talk about “Starve & Stuff” as a dietary approach … where it works and where it doesn’t.
Imagine your average sedentary female, middle aged. She really wishes she could lose about 50 pounds. She doesn’t lift. She doesn’t walk. Her job is a desk job with little activity. She’s busy during the day and not that hungry, so she doesn’t eat. That’s the “starve” part of things. By the time she gets home, she’s famished. She does all her eating between 7:00 and 11:00 when she goes to bed. That’s the “stuff” part of things.
The lady above is starving and stuffing. During the day she’s losing muscle (LBM) and slowing her metabolism down even further. And then at night she’s taking in more than her body needs at that precise time, and it’s storing the excess as fat.
One of the cardinal rules of improving body composition (the ratio of lean to fat) is consuming protein every 3 to 4 hours. That’s because if you don’t eat in that period of time, the body will break down small amounts of muscle to make repairs it needs to make in the body. The body will also break down muscle so that it can convert some of it into glucose, the brain’s preferred energy source.
What some people don’t realize is that muscle is a storage depot for amino acids, just like the bones are a storage depot for calcium (and a few other minerals).
If you are eating dietary protein every 3 to 4 hours in the proper amounts, the body doesn’t need to break down muscle.
Let’s talk about another concept, one that you’ll probably understand if you’ve done the Anabolic Diet. If you deprive the body of virtually all carbs, it has to use something else to meet its energy requirements. Possibilities are muscle and fat. If the body depends on carbs for energy and you deprive it of carbs, the body will break down muscle (more than it should, anyway) to meet energy requirements.
If you are “fat adapted” and miss a meal, the body will break down and mobilize STORED body fat to meet a caloric deficit.
So I guess the take-home message is that if your body depends on carbs for fuel and you miss a few meals, you’re going to lose a higher percentage of LBM (Lean Body Mass, aka “muscle”). If your body depends on dietary fat (meaning the fat you eat) for fuel and you miss a few meals, your body is going to break down stored body fat to meet the caloric deficit.
UHG, some people go on a diet and everything works perfectly; they lose weight. But that’s not the case for everyone. Very often plans need to be adjusted and tweaked for things to keep moving forward. If you’re following a plan, you weigh and measure every week. And then you do something called “Outcome Based Decision Making.” If you’re making steady progress towards your goals, you leave things as they are and continue to follow your plan. If youre not making seeing improvements week by week, then changes need to be made.
I know you want to lose weight to improve your health, but if you lose 6 pounds of muscle for every 4 pounds of fat, 100 pounds from now you’ll have a higher body fat percentage than you do now and your health will NOT be improved. Your cardivascular profile (cholesterol and BP and triglycerides and homocysteine levels and C-reactive protein numbers and other markers) will NOT be improved. And that’s the part that really worries me, UHG, because I really care about people’s health more than I do their appearance. The emphasis has to be on losing fat, not losing weight. The emphasis *has to be on protecting LBM as much as possible.
The only way you could get away with not eating during the day is by teaching the body to meet what it thinks is a temporary energy deficit by drawing on stored body fat. If you are not “fat adapted,” then you are losing unacceptable amounts of muscle and slowing down your metabolism even further.
I’ve worked with people who have totally destroyed their metabolism. They’re barely eating … they’re doing hours cardio … they’re playing by all the rules … and they can’t figure out why they continue to gain weight.
The only way to repair/rebuild your metabolism and really rev it up is if you protect the LBM you have and do absolutely positively anything you can to replace what you’ve lost. That’s why resistance training is a part of the equation.
There are two authors whose writings I’d love for you to read. Initially, I’d like for you to read some of John Berardi’s articles. It really doesn’t matter whether he’s talking about cutting or bulking. It’s all good. He explains the science behind how to improve your body composition (the ratio of lean to fat). And whether you’re talking about cutting and want to lose primarily body fat and protect (or add to) LBM, or whether you’re talking about bulking and want to maximize LBM gains with as little fat put on as possible, the game is not that different. All of his writings/articles would be helpful to you and what you’re really wanting to accomplish.
From there, another guy who’s been a huge influence in my life is Lonnie Lowery, L-Train. (grin) He’s just as hardcore as JB is, but with some interesting views/perspectives on health.
Okay those are a few of my thoughts on the subject. Let me know if you have any questions.
Damn, I was really, really hoping to get my two cents in before Terry posted. I just feel inadequate following her post. It’s Golden, and worth re-reading a few times.
For what it’s worth, my thoughts are as follows…you’re doing what you want to do, and you’re self-guinea-pigging, which I’m always in favor of. However, I’m quite sure that at your current bodyfat level, you’d be much better served if you focused on straight fat loss via intelligent nutrition, not alternating bulking phases with modified fasting phases. That sounds like an invite to some kind of chaotic insulin jamboree.
And if I followed what you said correctly, you mentioned that [quote]"I also walk four or five miles, five days a week. Occasionally I’ll throw in a high intensity 9 min. mile, or 3 min. half mile.[/quote] That much aerobic exercise is very inefficient, and it’s falt-out not the best way to train for maximum calorie burning.
Add into this the fact that you said [quote]“I switched it up to German Volume Training. I only practiced my heavy lifts just barely enough to maintain them.”[/quote] and I get the impression that you don’t want to lift hard, you don’t want to do much intense cardio, you don’t want to count calories, you don’t really want to watch what you eat, and you still want to lose fat.
Best of luck, my friend. Best of luck. I will definitely be checking up on your progress, and I sincerely hope you manage to defy the odds and see some results.
I also had to mention…
[quote]unheatedgarage wrote:
…I don’t think I said that fasting is easier than the V-Diet per say, but I do think it’s less extreme. I’m not convinced that a diet based on protein shakes is going to provide all the nutrients one needs. Maybe I just like real food too much.[/quote]
You can’t be serious about that boldened part, can you? Do you expect FASTING to provide the right nutrients? Something like the Velocity Diet is scores more healthful than flat-out not eating during the day. That line sounds like a good bit of denial, with a slight undertone of envy rearing its ugly head.
Anyhow, I’m going to continue to wish you luck. From what I’m seeing so far, the plan you’ve outlined is essentially represented by the above pic. But…prove me wrong. Take some photos for your own records (you don’t ever have to post them - they’re for your own physique history), and document your weekly weight, bodyfat, and strength changes. It’s up to you now, to follow through and get to where you want to be.
Get some fucking will-power already.
You know what to do, we all know what to do.
Eat a healthy diet, full of veggies, lean protein sources, good fats, some wholegrains, eat around 6 times a day. To lose weight eat a slight caloric deficit.
Do a proper fucking workout. You seriously did only 6 sets in of shoulder presses and call it a workout? What about using weight training to rev up your metabolism? you’re going to have to work a bit harder than that…
What seperates those that succeed from those that fail is some are willing to make the sacrifices and do what needs to be done and others can’t be arsed.
Which are you?
Terry, Chris, Stuey,
Thanks for the input. I appreciate your thoughts.
I won’t be able to continue posting due to unforeseen circumstances, however I will continue with this experiment.
In October/November, success or fail, I’ll post the results
Garage.
Stuey, I know yours is a “tough-love” type of post, and there’s some validity to what you say, but there’s really a bit more at play “under the hood” physiologically than you might realize.
Above and beyond our psychological and emotional responses to food which are very powerful in their own right, there are brain chemistry and hormonal issues complicating matters.
Anyone who has been significantly overweight for a while – years? all or most of their life? – has tried diet after diet after diet and met with failure. After a while you’re afraid to try. Or you try again and again knowing/believing you’re not going to succeed.
Try taking anyone (adult or child) and put them in a position where they fail repeatedly and see what you end up with. You’ll see an interesting array of self-defense behaviors and attitudes.
I give UHG credit for continuing to fight and look for solutions to his problem. Part of that process is trying things on for size. Whether it works or not, he hasn’t given up yet!!!
I can’t resist a quick reply:
Note: I don’t mean ANY disrespect to Terry or anyone else who no doubt has a vastly superior knowledge of nutrition than me. This reply should in no way be taken as snide, sarcastic, spiteful, or any other word I can find in my thesaurus.
Isn’t it possible that once the body becomes adapted to a fast, it also becomes fat adapted? I have read elsewhere, can’t remember though, of course, that being in a fast is ketogenic.
But this doesn’t even apply to me. So long as the liver’s glycogen stores aren’t depleted, the body shouldn’t have to turn to protein as a fuel source. I do consume coffee throughout the morning and afternoon, maybe a handful of nuts here or there.
A prolonged fast or any type of extreme caloric restriction for that matter would be detrimental to muscle mass, however, an intermittent fast of 12 to 24 hours MAY not be. There have been multiple studies that show improvement of overall cholesterol, blood pressure and insulin sensitivity when practicing IF.
A single meal consisting of 2000 to 2500 calories, which is definitely feasible for me, provided it is properly structured would no doubt provide the sufficient nutrients necessary to sustain muscle mass and yet still put me in a caloric deficit. We’re not talking about chronic under-eating here. This isn’t anorexia or anything.
Yes, yes, yes, plenty of green veggies; plenty of lean protein; limit simple, high-glycemic index carbs. Got it, got it.
Berardi’s writings are indeed great reads. His system is what I use on my “off” days and when I’m in a bulking cycle.
As far as the workouts go, I do what I’ve found to work. If I can progress on low volume/high intensity/short duration workouts, than I’m not going to fix what isn’t broke. Could they be more efficient? Yeah sure, no doubt about it.
Thanks again for your responses.
[quote]Tampa-Terry wrote:
Stuey, I know yours is a “tough-love” type of post, and there’s some validity to what you say, but there’s really a bit more at play “under the hood” physiologically than you might realize.
Above and beyond our psychological and emotional responses to food which are very powerful in their own right, there are brain chemistry and hormonal issues complicating matters.
Anyone who has been significantly overweight for a while – years? all or most of their life? – has tried diet after diet after diet and met with failure. After a while you’re afraid to try. Or you try again and again knowing/believing you’re not going to succeed.
Try taking anyone (adult or child) and put them in a position where they fail repeatedly and see what you end up with. You’ll see an interesting array of self-defense behaviors and attitudes.
I give UHG credit for continuing to fight and look for solutions to his problem. Part of that process is trying things on for size. Whether it works or not, he hasn’t given up yet!!!
[/quote]
Terry, you have the patience of a saint.
Perhaps I blew up a little. It just gets to me when I see people continuing to try fad diets over and over and never making any progress and then usually the reason is more to do with non-compliance and not making positive life-style changes.
I believe that EVERYONE that follows a good diet, high in protein, veggies and good fats and low in highly refined carbs, who monitors their caloric intake, coupled with an effective exercise program will see positive changes in health and body-composition. Provided of course they exhibit compliance to the diet/lifestyle.
The OP complained about a difficulty sticking to diets, that is not physiological, it is psychological, it is a lack of willpower. A movement toward a “healthy” diet and careful manipulation of calories over an adjustment period would likely be a great step toward remedying underlying physiological issues that may remain from a previously unhealthy lifestyle. The rest is willpower.
Just because the OP doesn’t like going low-carb that doesn’t mean there are no other options. Digging up an 8 year old article that admits in the first few lines that it is based on a previous article that did not work very well just because it allows him to pig out without constraint once a day would not seem to be a sensible option.
There are examples of starve and binge eaters in our society, and most are in or on their way to eating disorder clinics…
Throwing up Cro-Magnon man as an example of why this is a good idea is also ridiculous… Hunter gatherers eat when they can, they did not have access to optimal nutrition like we do. They also had a lot shorter life-expectancy and it is doubtful that they paid much attention to their physique and looking good on the beach.
Low carb or “starve and stuff” are not the only options. You don’t have to carb cycle either.
You want simple, here it is:
Don’t worry, UHG, I didn’t take it that way at all.
If you are fasting during the day and eating hardly any carbs at night (just fat and protein, essentially), yes, you are very likely “fat adapted.” But if you are eating carbs (even “healthy/healthful” carbs), then no, you’re not.
It boils down to the enzymes your body has to make to break down and utilize (or store) the food you eat. If you eat a normal diet or anything approaching isocaloric – 33% fat, 33% carbs, 33% protein – then your body is making enzymes to break down the carbs. The body PREFERS carbs. So if you’re running low on carbs or calories, the body breaks down a little muscle so that it can take ONE of the amino acids (glutamine) and convert it into glucose. That conversion is made in the liver.
If you drop your carb intake very low over a period of a week or more, then the body makes a metabolic shift and starts using fat for energy. It takes a week to two weeks to upregulate the production of enzymes that would utilize fat. And what’s cool is that if you drop your fat intake after having made that metabolic shift, the body will mobilize stored body fat. The same enzymes are used to metabolize stored body fat and dietary fat.
So long as the liver’s glycogen stores aren’t depleted, the body shouldn’t have to turn to protein as a fuel source.
The problem here is that the liver stores only small amounts of glycogen. By the time you wake up in the morning, liver glycogen is pretty well depleted. And that’s with you lying flat on your back. The next morning, you’re up and moving around and requiring something in the range of TWICE the amount of glucose your body required when it was sleeping … depending on activity levels of course.
A prolonged fast or any type of extreme caloric restriction for that matter would be detrimental to muscle mass, however, an intermittent fast of 12 to 24 hours MAY not be.
Since I know you’re wanting to learn how your body responds, what I’d recommend is that you have an “old-time,” experienced bodybuilder take your body fat percentage so that you can do the math to see how much of your body is fat and how much is LBM. That’s the only way you’ll know if you’re losing mostly fat or losing mostly muscle. Try to find someone that’s been doing it for years and who used to compete. Go in once a month to get tested. Find someone that does a 7-point body fat test, which is more accurate. Go back to them once a month. Pay 'em $10 or $20 if you have to. Don’t use one of those little hand-held devices, which are notoriously inaccurate (i.e., you’ll gain or lose 5% of body fat depending on whether you drank a glass of water or just hit the restroom).
Don’t accept studies as gospel. For every study that proves something you want it to prove, there’s another (or more) that disproves it. Some studies are well designed. Others have flaws. Some studies are paid for by special interest groups. I know of at least one study paid for by a pharmaceutical company that proved the use of their prescription med increased bone density. It was enough to make anyone with osteoporosis run to their doc to get a scipt for that med! But what most people didn’t know is that they found that bone density improved up to Year 3 and then started to decline, leaving the person in worse shape than if they had never taken the med in the first place. What the pharmaceutical company had the university do is cut the study off at Year 3, to that the prescription showed increases/improvements in bone density.
Clinical trials and studies should be read with a critical eye, and it wouldn’t hurt to read up on how to properly design a study.
Another interesting read, by the way, is “How to Lie With Statistic.”
Studies are interesting, and sometimes they provide us with some interesting insight. But get hard facts and numbers. Get yourself tested so that you know what’s going on with your body composition (the ratio of lean to fat). Make your decisions based on facts and data, rather than emotion.
Good questions, UHG!!!
Stuey, your and my nutritional values and approaches to dieting are pretty much the same. Believe it or not, crunching numbers is the easy part of what I do. The hard part is talking people into making changes that would be good for 'em and finding solutions to problems and helping them when things break down … when THEY break down.
When I work with someone who’s significantly overweight, there are certain things I’m looking for and questions I ask. One of the first things I look for is brain chemistry (mood) problems. Optimizing fatty acid intake helps with that. The solid part of the brain is about 60% fat, right? Fish oil helps a lot with mood. So does walking out in the sunlight. If you can improve mood and people’s outlook on life, the diet has a much better chance of succeeding.
With women it’s progesterone and men it’s testosterone, but hormones have huge influences on our mood and self esteem. Optimizing and adjusting the amount and type of fat helps with both (meaning both men and women).
Then there are neurotransmitters that are made from amino acids. Amino acids are used therapeutically in the treatment of schizophrenia, ADD/ADHD, depression, to name a few. Whole books have been written on the therapeutic use of amino acids. Not just in mental/emotional/psychological conditions, but in chronic disease as well. Braverman’s done some great work in this area. To get a better idea of what I’m talking about, do the following Google search:
“amino acids” braverman OR pfeiffer
The “OR” needs to be capitalized, by the way.
And where do amino acids come from? From the protein we eat.
Then there’s blood sugar management (or MIS-management) which affects energy levels and serotonin levels and tryptophan. If you’ve got all those things working for you, you sleep well, your mood is great and you feel strong and invincible. If they’re working against you, you approach your diet with dread.
So the bottom line is that there’s some attention that needs to be paid to all 3 macronutrients – fat, protein, carbs.
And then there’s the issue of vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Even though someone is overweight, they’re very likely deficient in a number of vitamins and minerals. If someone’s young, it hasn’t quite caught up with them yet. But as people get older (anything past their 20s), their body is holding on for dear life. Their joints ache. The pancreas is worn out or wearing out. Fat digestion is often impaired. The liver isn’t operating the way it should. The absorption of nutrients isn’t what it should be (contributing to nutrient deficiencies).
There’s just so much more to it than crunching numbers, Stuey. I really wish it were that easy. Nonetheless, I have to say I appreciated the points you were making because I knew where you were coming from.
[quote]unheatedgarage wrote:
Thanks for the comment Phill,
You make a valid point; there’s always a chance this will take me nowhere. But at over 30% body fat, I’m running out of options. It’s getting to the point where I’d be considered morbidly obese, and frankly I’m willing to lose some muscle to get back down to a healthy weight.
I figure I’ll have to be fasting from 2/3 to 3/4 of the time in order to maintain any fat loss. But I don’t see any reason why one couldn’t adjust the program to bulk as well. Maybe just remain hypo caloric for a month or so and fast for a few days or a week to help offset any fat gains but not lose too much muscle.
Everyone’s different, but I’ve had no problems with strength loss when fasting.
[/quote]
Some people, a very few, get an HGH boost from fasting. If they have enough carry over protein and their exercise program matches into the fasting well, then they put on muscle mass and lose fat from an intermittent fasting program.
Something that only works for 5% of the population isn’t exactly something that one can recommend as a general course of activity, but if it works for you, it would be worth reporting on.