[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
oh for sure. Im a sorry if I mislead you in my posts that I am claiming that insulin is the sole leader of degradation of sexiness I think its one of the masters but all other hormones: test, estro, cortisol including sleep, shit exercise, thyroid etc etc are all factors. The main thing that got this party started was cal in vs cal out. I think all of the above needs to be placed under the microscope as well.
IYO and this is just a general question because I have never had to do research so indepth as the people I follow - is quoting only pubmed studies a bad thing? I just havent seen much branching out and in this thread in particular I have mainly/only seen those links. Thanks[/quote]
i don’t know why quoting studies would be bad…
I hold personal experimentation/results over any study…but, i still hold studies at a higher standard than random claims made by authors/posters on here(ie john gained 20lbs in 2 months doing XYZ training)…You need to have proof to back up your claims…
whether that is a study or pictures showing visible progress due to your methods…
[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
DPUb: Thanks for clearing that up on the leptin - good info
I dont think it was a straight comparison of hibernating animals to humans (and I understand you didnt watch the lecture - I only wrote the first 1/2 of it out for you guys) but I think its a demonstration in how powerful the insulin resistance/sensitivity (switch) can be in mammals. He did go on to say (I have not looked into this) That there is evidence that in paleo/pre paleo times humans may have hibernated in some fashion and that there is a monkey or ape in (i believe south america - dont quote me) that hibernates.
I think you can even if they just range from slighty different systems to vastly different systems. Not all of the body types are the same (a point he makes in the lecture) but if we are all striving for fat loss and the most leanness possible in either populations of metabolically deranged and not the same mechanisms still are there just their functioning may be completely different.
Taubes, and I dont think Im the only one, made a lot of sense and I think anyone who would write a book that large and in depth would have to “cherry pick” studies. We will see what cherry picking Martin does if he ever writes his book All I see him do is quote pubmed studies. Taubes shined light on faults in nutrition from an academic stand point and governmental stand point.
His info does make sense, its not calories that make you fat its carbs and sugar not a completely untrue statement. In fact if you look at the pharma industry ( i was thinking about this today) most products have herbs-chemicals- to blunt fat storage and promote oxidation via changing IS or IR not really how to consume less cal (unless you think lap band works). So at some stand point “science” is hunting from a similar theory as Taubes states.
I wouldnt say taubes is a picture of unhealthy (im defending him now and will stop) and the people that I too take nutrition advice from have a list of clientele and wonder stories that are very large and amazing. we have a shared one - martin. But what I see most in people as far as body comp change is a change made in quality not quantity. Even if you read Starnes and Hyghts articles of recent all they discuss is changes in hormones and insulin management.
But I do agree with “different strokes for different folks” in that insulin management works best for me and my clients etc where as cal restriction at a certain level could work for others.
[/quote]
So would you think that humans that live in regions where winter is very cold for a long period of time would have lower insulin sensitivity similar to the squirrel and then the sensitivity would return in the summer? Anybody’s thoughts?
[quote]D Public wrote:
I agree completely. leangains for dieting seeems to be very solid.
my only critique of leangains is for bulking…as the amount of protein servings you can achieve on such an approach is limited…Muscle protein synthesis seems to occur in pulsations…If you only eat 3 times a day, you are only getting 3 periods of muscle protein synthesis…and there appears to be a limit to how much protein can be synthesized during each feeding…
pulsing protein or bcaa during the fasting period would correct that problem…but, i don’t know how that affects the fast and its effect on the body…
[/quote]
when i tried bulkin while IF’ing 16/8 i found it really hard gettin 4000 cals in 8 hours so i altered it to 12/12 with some protien only during the 12 hour fastin period . [/quote]
So you cut the fast down to 12 hours and didnt actually fast?
Cool modification bro!
that was only for gaining purposes . i dont really see the benefit of fasting too long when bulking but for fatloss its a different story and for me IF works and makes losing fat very easy .
So would you think that humans that live in regions where winter is very cold for a long period of time would have lower insulin sensitivity similar to the squirrel and then the sensitivity would return in the summer? Anybody’s thoughts?
It seems some what reasonable but you would have to find a clean population of people, where gene mixing hasnt really taken place and an actual location from that probably outside modern food consumption. Rocky will hit the switch and start storing fat anyways despite restriction of cal. Rocky is a super bad ass though and has a very strict diet and the mental fortitude and self control to not hit up a Cinnabun. I think Rockys level of what types of insulin he has encountered would b far different from ours.
This is where I kind of like some of the studies that Taubes discusses in his book because he talks about several situation where you had a “primitive people” unaccustomed to refined carbs and sugar who took those one (carbs and sugar) as their new way of eating and contracted “diseases of western civilization.” Ie Pima indians, Toukamo (SP?) Tride etc and reports of those same tribes eventually going back to the way they ate pre the white man and reversing their diseases.
In personal experimentation I just moved from CA to PA and I dont think I have hit any switch internally - in fact through lean gains approach I believe Im leaning out more. What sucks more, besides the weather here, is that I feel like more BF would help me survive as my REI clothes arent helping me for shitz. Im freezing and people are running around in shorts. But seasonally, or at least states that have seasons, isnt there kind of a natural gain and lean fluxuation? We blame the holidays but thats kind of been the “tradition.” Humans had a growing season (for crops) and then we consumed as much of that as possible to hold us over until the next one. But we didnt get fatter and fatter because there would be a reversal of IS to IR (right?). But now (today) we have made things much more complicated.
03-19-2011, 05:35 PM
Christian Thibaudeau
Contributor
hlss09 wrote:
I have 10 weeks to get shredded. Started off in decent condition, not great but not bad (avi pic is pretty current). I’m doing steady state 5X per week, 30 mins per session. Cals on lift days - 2,800, rest days - 2,250. Plus I pulse with a mag10 similar product. How often do you advise your people to cut cals? Every week? And when you do tell them to cut cals, how many do you cut? I was thinkng maybe 200 a week, but that may be too drastic…I don’t know. I could post my diet if that would help as well.
CT:
That means that in 8 weeks you will be consuming 450 calories on non training days! Hello Auswitz look!
Seriously, there is no need for a constant lowering of calories. The body is not a linear machine. I’ve had guys diet down to contest shape sticking with the same caloric intake over their whole 16 weeks prep. And I’ve had others who had to drop down the calories.
Only drop down calories when you don’t have a choice… the food you ingest gives you fuel to train and the material to keep your muscle mass.
I prefer to increase workload before cutting more food. When you can’t increase workload anymore and your fat loss has halted, drop down food intake a bit.
…just saw this and thought it was an interesting thing to throw into this conversation…
Yes, pretty much.
I thought it was interesting on his take on cals vs training more (in take +out put) also how the math doesnt really add up about adding or cutting cals and to not drop cals unless there is no other choice.
All I see him do is quote pubmed studies. Taubes shined light on faults in nutrition from an academic stand point and governmental stand point.
Hello Auswitz look!