Low Carb Diet...Not Losing Weight

Nutrition
81

[quote]laroyal wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
ya know, i try and leave this thread be, but you people keep saying stupid shit, so i have to keep coming back and correcting you.

first of all what i said was not “irresponsible”. explain to me how this is irresponsible:

(1) ensure sufficient protein intake (again ~1.5g / lb.)
(2) get sufficient amounts of micronutrients from fruits and/or veggies and (for health reasons)
(3) keep your calories in check so your body is forced to use stored energy (i.e. fat) to cover the deficit
oh yeah and (4) lift heavy things so your body has a reason to keep the muscle (though this isn’t much of a concern at 25% BF anyway)

you said yourself, overweight individuals have “no concept of portion control”. so how does telling them “calories don’t count” help?

portion control = calorie control. fat people don’t do this. the result: they stay fat.

what IS irresponsible is telling someone who is experiencing a weight loss plateau that:
(1) calories don’t count and
(2) making them think they need to buy expensive and worthless supplements (HCL) and/or do wacky things like drink a shake with “orgnic blueberries, 1 whole omega-3 egg, spinach, and 1 tbsp greek yogurt” to lose weight.

So tell me, why is it my roommate who plays rugby and water polo so lean, yet eats frozen pizzas and hot pockets?

I KNOW, he must be taking his HCL and drinking his “organic blueberry omega-3 egg spinach greek yogurt shakes” when i’m not looking? :-/

It is easy to sit there and critique something you don’t understand. I am still waiting for some proof, a picture of you or someone you train or for that matter your “ripped” roomate. If what you do works for you and your clients? then by all means keep doing it.

The system that myself and ksommer uses works for us, our clients and is backed by 26 years of data, The success of Charles on not only an average perosn’s level but with olympians and pro athletes and T-Nation’s own CT. If what you do is so much more efficient and productive I would say you are selling yourself short in the communication’s field. Start contacting some pro teams or celebs and show em what you can do, people pay for results and results keep them comoing back!
[/quote]

I won’t respond to the client request as that is irrelevant to the issue at hand. You know i don’t have any clients, but what difference does it make.

energy balance is the primary determinant of weight loss do you not agree? can you explain through what physiological mechanisms a person can gain weight/fat on a hypo caloric diet? if so, I’d love to hear about it.

oh and by the way, speaking of CT, perhaps you should read over his article “Nutrition for Newbies Part 1” cause it goes over the basics, like how to determine your BMR (aka how many CALORIES you burn at rest) and how to adjust your CALORIES up or down depending on if you want to gain or lose weight/fat.

But I guess he was wrong too, cause calories don’t count…right?

82

Dude…Go ask CT what he thinks about CALORIES. I would love to read his response. p.s I have already read his response to others, and he no longer believes in CALORIES, rather nutrients!!!

The fact that you are not willing to accept anything anyone tells you, is quite funny. We are not hear to argue, but to help the OP and YOU understand a bit more. You do not have ANY clear evidence that your recommendations destroy that of what these guys have told you.

And in response to Charles team simple been saleman, you dont have to use his products exclusively…

GJ

83

Another thing about the whole “energy balance” thing and 3 vs 6 meals, does this energy balance need to take place every day, every week, or every hour?

There are people who think the same way you do as far as energy balance, they skip lunch so they can eat burger king for dinner and it’s ok because of “energy balance” and their total calories for the day are ok, they eat less all week so they can get hammered on friday night but it’s ok because of the “energy balance” and their total calories for the week are ok, these are the same people who binge eat and then get on the treadmill for hours on end to even out their “energy balance” because they ate 2,000 extra calories but they burned 2,000 calories during a cardio session.

Tell me who has the eating disorder, the bodybuilder who eats “cleanly” and doesn’t touch shit food, or the person who binges on junk and alcohol on the weekend and then does hours of cardio on Monday to even out their “energy balance”?

84

Going off of waldo’s binge eating counter example to the “it’s just energy balance” argument, the body HAS to have a capacity of how much it can process/absorb in a sitting.

If you take a 1000 calorie meal and consume it in one sitting vs two, there’s no way you can say the effects on bowel movement are the same.

And, as someone else pointed out, a calorie is not just a calorie. You get calories from junk food, you deal with the byproducts of all that junk when it has to be processed and metabolized.

Clean, whole foods = higher octane fuel

85

[quote]waldo21212 wrote:
Another thing about the whole “energy balance” thing and 3 vs 6 meals, does this energy balance need to take place every day, every week, or every hour?

There are people who think the same way you do as far as energy balance, they skip lunch so they can eat burger king for dinner and it’s ok because of “energy balance” and their total calories for the day are ok, they eat less all week so they can get hammered on friday night but it’s ok because of the “energy balance” and their total calories for the week are ok, these are the same people who binge eat and then get on the treadmill for hours on end to even out their “energy balance” because they ate 2,000 extra calories but they burned 2,000 calories during a cardio session.

Tell me who has the eating disorder, the bodybuilder who eats “cleanly” and doesn’t touch shit food, or the person who binges on junk and alcohol on the weekend and then does hours of cardio on Monday to even out their “energy balance”?[/quote]

who said anything about “binging”, this just goes to show you lack the concept of “moderation”. its either EAT 100% CLEAN!! or BINGE ON JUNK!!! similarly you belive insulin has two states: nonexistant or SPIK3D!1!

how about: some “junk food” in the context of an otherwise aound diet will have no effect of body composition, assuming total calories are controlled and nutrients are sufficient.

also, calorie balance is takes place over time, hour, day, week, it doesn’t matter. Go ahead and read your buddy CT’s article about “control days”. Days where one only eats lean protein and veggies. This is a way of making sure that the total calorie balance over time (in this case a week) is lower. Once again, lower calories = less fat gained.

and with regard to skipping meals to eat more at night, its called Intermittent Fasting, look it up: www.leangains.com

86

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Going off of waldo’s binge eating counter example to the “it’s just energy balance” argument, the body HAS to have a capacity of how much it can process/absorb in a sitting.

If you take a 1000 calorie meal and consume it in one sitting vs two, there’s no way you can say the effects on bowel movement are the same.

And, as someone else pointed out, a calorie is not just a calorie. You get calories from junk food, you deal with the byproducts of all that junk when it has to be processed and metabolized.

Clean, whole foods = higher octane fuel[/quote]

with regards to the bodies ability to absorb a large meal, the gut has a mechanism to slow the transport of food to the intestines, it’s called the ileal brake and the food basically sits in the gut waiting to be digested.

once again, the 6 meal per day dogma fails to hold up to cold hard science. next…

87

[quote]Gymjunkie wrote:
Dude…Go ask CT what he thinks about CALORIES. I would love to read his response. p.s I have already read his response to others, and he no longer believes in CALORIES, rather nutrients!!!

[/quote]

tell me, what’s the difference between these two diets for a 200 lb. individual:

diet 1: set calories to 15x BW, get 1g of protein per lb, at least 25% calories from fat, and the rest from carbs.

diet 2: get 2.2g/kg of protein, .9g/kg of fat, and 4g/kg of carbs

the answer? there is no difference! both diets are exactly the same. counting calories is the same as “nutrients” because (drumroll)…NUTRIENTS CONTAIN CALORIES!!!

so it doesnt matter if you begin with cals and go from there, or begin with nutriens, the results will be the same! how hard is this for you people to get, I’m no math wiz but shit it’s not that difficult…

oh and by the way, whether you count “calories” “portions” or “nutients” the result is still the same: eat to many, you get fat; too few, and you get lean; just right, and you maintain. ITS MAGIC!

oh and all three approaches beat out the oh-so-scientific: “just eat meat and veggies and nuts, Bro, and have a cheat meal every (x) amount of days, Bro. oh and make sure to get a assload of fish oil bro, cause more is always better right Bro?”

that approach works great, until it stops working, the guess what…yep…ya gotta learn how to count. no way around it…Bro.

88

JMoUCF87

You still didn’t respond to my post about the difference in eating 1500Cals of sugar and 1500Cals of protein.

quote Thibs all you want he is going to tell you it’s more than calories.

I could eat a stick of butter and that would be my caloric need for the day.

and when I was 20years old I knew everything also

stop throwing temper tantrums and learn

Nutrition is more important than calories

89

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
Gymjunkie wrote:
Dude…Go ask CT what he thinks about CALORIES. I would love to read his response. p.s I have already read his response to others, and he no longer believes in CALORIES, rather nutrients!!!

tell me, what’s the difference between these two diets for a 200 lb. individual:

diet 1: set calories to 15x BW, get 1g of protein per lb, at least 25% calories from fat, and the rest from carbs.

diet 2: get 2.2g/kg of protein, .9g/kg of fat, and 4g/kg of carbs

the answer? there is no difference! both diets are exactly the same. counting calories is the same as “nutrients” because (drumroll)…NUTRIENTS CONTAIN CALORIES!!!

so it doesnt matter if you begin with cals and go from there, or begin with nutriens, the results will be the same! how hard is this for you people to get, I’m no math wiz but shit it’s not that difficult…

oh and by the way, whether you count “calories” “portions” or “nutients” the result is still the same: eat to many, you get fat; too few, and you get lean; just right, and you maintain. ITS MAGIC!

oh and all three approaches beat out the oh-so-scientific: “just eat meat and veggies and nuts, Bro, and have a cheat meal every (x) amount of days, Bro. oh and make sure to get a assload of fish oil bro, cause more is always better right Bro?”

that approach works great, until it stops working, the guess what…yep…ya gotta learn how to count. no way around it…Bro.[/quote]

Ummm, when I said the nutrients matter over calories…I also ment where they come from! which has nothing to do with your above post. You really to understand the question in order to answer it.

Like I said…it is clear that you have made up your mind, which is cool. I really dont care about what you think you know bla bla bla…

Goodluck with your future endevours. With your attitude, you will need it.

GJ

90

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
Gymjunkie wrote:
Dude…Go ask CT what he thinks about CALORIES. I would love to read his response. p.s I have already read his response to others, and he no longer believes in CALORIES, rather nutrients!!!

tell me, what’s the difference between these two diets for a 200 lb. individual:

diet 1: set calories to 15x BW, get 1g of protein per lb, at least 25% calories from fat, and the rest from carbs.

diet 2: get 2.2g/kg of protein, .9g/kg of fat, and 4g/kg of carbs

the answer? there is no difference! both diets are exactly the same. counting calories is the same as “nutrients” because (drumroll)…NUTRIENTS CONTAIN CALORIES!!!

so it doesnt matter if you begin with cals and go from there, or begin with nutriens, the results will be the same! how hard is this for you people to get, I’m no math wiz but shit it’s not that difficult…

oh and by the way, whether you count “calories” “portions” or “nutients” the result is still the same: eat to many, you get fat; too few, and you get lean; just right, and you maintain. ITS MAGIC!

oh and all three approaches beat out the oh-so-scientific: “just eat meat and veggies and nuts, Bro, and have a cheat meal every (x) amount of days, Bro. oh and make sure to get a assload of fish oil bro, cause more is always better right Bro?”

that approach works great, until it stops working, the guess what…yep…ya gotta learn how to count. no way around it…Bro.[/quote]

Scientists are a funny crowd. They need clearly defined variables to study. Cardio gets all the attention in research field simply because it’s easy to study. The practitioners in the field are always the ones to make the advances - researchers at a university need funding in order to start a study, which usually gets its credibility from practitioners in the first place.

91

Yes, whey produces a pretty significant insulin response… there was some studies cited in Nutrient Timing suggesting that a whey shake produces an insulin spike equivalent to 40% of a standard workout shake such as Surge… which is pretty significant. All food produces some insulin response… the slower digesting the food, in general, the lower the insulin response. It’s important to know that this doesn’t correspond to all foods (i.e. milk / lactose products).

Other things to consider are significant amounts of pain and stress can hamper weight loss, so if you have any chronic aches and pains it can be hampering your results!

92

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

JMoUCF87

You still didn’t respond to my post about the difference in eating 1500Cals of sugar and 1500Cals of protein.

quote Thibs all you want he is going to tell you it’s more than calories.

I could eat a stick of butter and that would be my caloric need for the day.

and when I was 20years old I knew everything also

stop throwing temper tantrums and learn

Nutrition is more important than calories

[/quote]

Actually I did, please re-read this section for me:

[quote]nobody is suggesting that anyone eat 3,000 calories of any single macornutrient, as anyone who doesn’t have their head up their ass will tell you that all three should be present in a diet to some degree.
[/quote]

and also this

quote ensure sufficient protein intake (again ~1.5g / lb.)
(2) get sufficient amounts of micronutrients from fruits and/or veggies and (for health reasons)
(3) keep your calories in check so your body is forced to use stored energy (i.e. fat) to cover the deficit
oh yeah and (4) lift heavy things so your body has a reason to keep the muscle (though this isn’t much of a concern at 25% BF anyway)

[/quote]

As you can see, you are playing a game called “exclude the middle” where its either one extreme or another. this is known as an false dilemma (more on that here: False dilemma - Wikipedia )

apparently some of you believe that calories don’t matter as long as you avoid the “evil processed food” well I got news for ya: you can get fat on healthy food.

scary huh? that means that you actually have to take responsibility for what goes in your pie hole (or your boiled chicken and broccoli hole in your case) I love it when I hear some so called “fitness buff” go on and on about the evils of 100 calorie packs, as they wolf down a cup of walnuts followed by a shot of olive oil (hmm…sounds like the OP’s diet, how’d that work out for him I wonder, oh right…)

what’s funny is, I used to be that guy. I believed fat gain was a “hormonal event”. I convinced myself that excess insulin was driving fat into my fat cells (all the while pounding back BCAAs, more insulogenic than pure glucose) I renounced my roommate for eating rice cakes (“dont you know thats just processed JUNK” I would say) I worked out like a fiend and when I was done, would slam back a protein shake mixed with heavy whipping cream (after all that doesnt spike insulin so I’m safe right?) and the results were…massively disappointing. what could it be I wondered…so I read and read and read some more until one day, while reading Tom Venuto’s newsletter it dawned on me…ITS ABOUT THE CALORIES DUMMY!

Just so you all can share in my joy I’ll send the link to the newsletter (it really is freeing to know that no food is “poisonous” and anything can be enjoyed IN MODERATIONand within the context of a balanced diet.)

93

here’s an excerpt from the link I provided that sums things up pretty well:

"So what�??s the bottom line? Is it really necessary to count every calorie to lose weight?

No, it’s not.

But it IS necessary to eat fewer calories then you burn. Whether you count calories and eat less than you burn, or you don�??t count calories (guess) and eat less than you burn, the end result is the same �?? you lose weight.

But which would you rather do: Take a wild guess, cross your fingers and hope for the best, or increase your chance for success with some simple menu planning? I think the right choice is obvious."

/calorie control baby, gotta love it. I hope you all think of me when you’re diagnosed with Orthorexia a few years from now when you suffer from a nervous breakdown after eating half a doughnut in the breakroom :slight_smile:

94

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:

JMoUCF87

You still didn’t respond to my post about the difference in eating 1500Cals of sugar and 1500Cals of protein.

quote Thibs all you want he is going to tell you it’s more than calories.

I could eat a stick of butter and that would be my caloric need for the day.

and when I was 20years old I knew everything also

stop throwing temper tantrums and learn

Nutrition is more important than calories

Actually I did, please re-read this section for me:

nobody is suggesting that anyone eat 3,000 calories of any single macornutrient, as anyone who doesn’t have their head up their ass will tell you that all three should be present in a diet to some degree.

and also this

(1) ensure sufficient protein intake (again ~1.5g / lb.)
(2) get sufficient amounts of micronutrients from fruits and/or veggies and (for health reasons)
(3) keep your calories in check so your body is forced to use stored energy (i.e. fat) to cover the deficit
oh yeah and (4) lift heavy things so your body has a reason to keep the muscle (though this isn’t much of a concern at 25% BF anyway)

As you can see, you are playing a game called “exclude the middle” where its either one extreme or another. this is known as an false dilemma (more on that here: False dilemma - Wikipedia )

apparently some of you believe that calories don’t matter as long as you avoid the “evil processed food” well I got news for ya: you can get fat on healthy food.

scary huh? that means that you actually have to take responsibility for what goes in your pie hole (or your boiled chicken and broccoli hole in your case) I love it when I hear some so called “fitness buff” go on and on about the evils of 100 calorie packs, as they wolf down a cup of walnuts followed by a shot of olive oil (hmm…sounds like the OP’s diet, how’d that work out for him I wonder, oh right…)

what’s funny is, I used to be that guy. I believed fat gain was a “hormonal event”. I convinced myself that excess insulin was driving fat into my fat cells (all the while pounding back BCAAs, more insulogenic than pure glucose) I renounced my roommate for eating rice cakes (“dont you know thats just processed JUNK” I would say) I worked out like a fiend and when I was done, would slam back a protein shake mixed with heavy whipping cream (after all that doesnt spike insulin so I’m safe right?) and the results were…massively disappointing. what could it be I wondered…so I read and read and read some more until one day, while reading Tom Venuto’s newsletter it dawned on me…ITS ABOUT THE CALORIES DUMMY!

Just so you all can share in my joy I’ll send the link to the newsletter (it really is freeing to know that no food is “poisonous” and anything can be enjoyed IN MODERATIONand within the context of a balanced diet.)
Big Fat Lies 5 The Calorie Lie [/quote]

I am not as interested in a link to your pseudoscience newsletter as I am in something tangible like your personal pics (since you don’t have any experience training others). If this were a debate forum I would commend you on your tenacity and clearly your communications major has served you well in that area but it is time to put up or shut up.

Post a pic or quit your belly aching, I have pics under my profile for all to see and many of the people pointing out the shortcomings of your logic as well have pics to show. You continue to support your arguments by an erroneous representation of the law of thermodynamics and newsletters and theroies by people who have gone nowhere in this sport. As I pointed out earlier my guess is you are the skinny fat kid disenchanted with anything you can’t wrap your head around because of your own lack of progress. Ironically if you would take advantage of a great forum like this as an opportunity to exchange ideas and learn you would have a picture by now you were proud to post.

Like I said, if what you do works for you then keep with it, I am a firm believer in not fixing things that aren’t broke. If you are tired of not making progress though and ready to start moving towards your goals the forums are here to help and I will even answer a pm for you, no hard feelings!

95

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
here’s an excerpt from the link I provided that sums things up pretty well:

"So what�??s the bottom line? Is it really necessary to count every calorie to lose weight?

No, it’s not.

But it IS necessary to eat fewer calories then you burn. Whether you count calories and eat less than you burn, or you don�??t count calories (guess) and eat less than you burn, the end result is the same �?? you lose weight.

But which would you rather do: Take a wild guess, cross your fingers and hope for the best, or increase your chance for success with some simple menu planning? I think the right choice is obvious."

/calorie control baby, gotta love it. I hope you all think of me when you’re diagnosed with Orthorexia a few years from now when you suffer from a nervous breakdown after eating half a doughnut in the breakroom :-)[/quote]

Obsessing over kcals will cause you to release cortisol, blunt your insulin sensitivity and thwart your progress, I would rather focus on my protein and rely on my biosig feedback to tell ME what too eat and eat according to how I feel.

96

guess what, you guys are both right.

Calories count and so do macros.
JMoUCF8 is saying that as long as you eat relatively clean but in your calorie zone, you will either lose fat, stay the same, or gain. I rly hope hes not saying that going to McDonald’s and getting 3 bigmacs will be the same as eating veggies and meat for the same caloric amount. I know he brings up white bread and all, but I can see the point he is trying to make about about calories.

But, if he rly thinks that the big mac and the veggies and meat are the same, then it’s simple. You understand calories in vs calories out. Hell, he could write a good paper on it but, then he doesnt understand food itself for the life of him. If you don’t believe that a chicken salad is better then a bigmac, you are saying the food administration is wrong…you are saying there is no such this as “health food”…your saying, eat this hot dog, eat this donut, eat a diet that consists of 50g protein and 400g carbs and 80g fat…doesnt matter its all about what the calories add up to.
But, I dont think he is, he said above that he just wants the OP to eat good foods and not worry about the little things.
But, when we get more specific like

laroyal. Hes right to, he just goes deeper. This is his job and ppl need to know this info to. I personally agree more with laroyal, but its not for everyone. You tell the kid in highschool to count his macros, hes gonna get stressed, thats when you say, “eat clean, eat lean, but basically eat more good food” That kid will read about good foods, tell his parent to “buy a steak for dinner” that will go deeper and he will be more food cautious, once he has trouble putting on weight, he will look at his macros when he knows enough about them.
Both are right, but when something stalls in a diet, or you need a boost, you need to get more specific since something is obviously not working out.

But if you rly think its ONLY…ONLY about calories, for 3 days, eat 2500 cals of nothing but donuts, snickers, soda and mcdonalds…see how you feel throughout the day and how it effects you and the scale. Then get back and tell us how you feel.
Like said before though, I dont think anyone is rly saying this. Both have said, eat more protein, etc. One just insists on eating less and not focusing to hard on what it is and saying “you cant have somthing.”

97

and obsessing over avoiding whey protein shakes when on a diet is OK though, right?

oh and by the way, you actually WANT to be insulin resistant on a diet (that’s how things like ephedrine/clen work btw)

But don’t take my word for it, this is what nutrition author Lyle Mcdonald (of Ultimate Diet 2 fame) has to say about it:

"An insulin resistant muscle cell is unable to uptake glucose. Without glucose to use for fuel, the cell has to find an alternative source. In this case, that alternative source is fatty acids.

So when fat cell insulin resistance is high, fatty acids are easier to mobilze. When muscle cell insulin resistance is high, glucose isn’t used for fuel and fatty acids are. So in a caloric deficit, this means you use more fat for fuel b/c they are coming out of fat cells more easily and muscle is usingg them preferentially for fuel.

this is part of how things like clen, EC and GH work. By mobilizing fatty acids at a high rate and making the muscle cell insulin resistant, muscle has to forego glucose for fuel and use the mobilized fatty acids instead (note: this also spares protein in a carb insufficient state)."

wow, kinda throws a wrench in your whole argument huh?

98

[quote]
But if you rly think its ONLY…ONLY about calories, for 3 days, eat 2500 cals of nothing but donuts, snickers, soda and mcdonalds…see how you feel throughout the day and how it effects you and the scale. [/quote]

LOL are you fucking SERIOUS!? how many times do i have to repeat myself…read this very slowly and carefully:

There is a middle ground between a 100% candy and soda diet and a 100% clean foods only diet

what I am saying is this: when on a diet, you must FIRST create a caloric deficit (though restricting food, increasing activity, or both) THEN you must ensure you are eating enough protein to retain lean body mass (this is generally around 1.5g per lb bodyweight) THEN you must ensure sufficient EFA intake (this is achieved by taking 2-3 tsp of a concentrated liquid fish oil per day) THEN you must ensure a healthy amount of vitamins and minerals (by eating a variety of fruits and / or veggies daily) THEN if you have met all of the above requirements you may fill in the rest of your calorie goals with any foods you like (the best approach is to eat minimally processed foods, as these tend to fill people up better and leave them satisfied longer than “junkier” foods)

HOWEVER just because a diet includes “unclean” of “junk” foods doesnt mean fat loss will come to a screeching halt unless you overshoot your calorie goals. In which case you should reduce the amount of food you eat (but not from protein b/c that helps spare LBM and not from EFA’s b/c they are needed for general health)

This (the preceeding 2 paragraphs) is called setting up a proper diet. Notice I didnt say andything about food combos, timing of certain nutrients, eating of special foods, avoidance of certain foods or anything else. why? because assuming you followed all the guidelines (protein, efa’s, calories under control) then you will continue to lose fat. Once you hit a plateau, simply reduce the “extra” foods (ie not protein, EFAs or veggies as those are essential) until you reach your goal weight.

there. fuck it. im done. if you dont understand what i wrote above go find another fucking hobby, cause bodybuilding aint for you. may i suggest astrology? because thats what some people seems to think causes fat loss…aligning of the stars or some shit…

99

[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:

Obsessing over kcals will cause you to release cortisol, blunt your insulin sensitivity and thwart your progress

and obsessing over avoiding whey protein shakes when on a diet is OK though, right?

oh and by the way, you actually WANT to be insulin resistant on a diet (that’s how things like ephedrine/clen work btw)

But don’t take my word for it, this is what nutrition author Lyle Mcdonald (of Ultimate Diet 2 fame) has to say about it:

"An insulin resistant muscle cell is unable to uptake glucose. Without glucose to use for fuel, the cell has to find an alternative source. In this case, that alternative source is fatty acids.

So when fat cell insulin resistance is high, fatty acids are easier to mobilze. When muscle cell insulin resistance is high, glucose isn’t used for fuel and fatty acids are. So in a caloric deficit, this means you use more fat for fuel b/c they are coming out of fat cells more easily and muscle is usingg them preferentially for fuel.

this is part of how things like clen, EC and GH work. By mobilizing fatty acids at a high rate and making the muscle cell insulin resistant, muscle has to forego glucose for fuel and use the mobilized fatty acids instead (note: this also spares protein in a carb insufficient state)."

wow, kinda throws a wrench in your whole argument huh?[/quote]

Clen and ephedrine work by stimulating beta cells and BAT and they wreak havoc on the adrenals, this is why they are only used for short periods with any type of favorable effect and pros take a miriad of other pharmaceuticals to counter their catabolic effects. As for wanting to be insulin resistant…REALLY did you not know insulin is a storage chemical and if your muscle cells become resistant it will exhibit it’s STORAGE effect in fat cells. C’mon even a comm. major should have to take an intro to biology class. Where is your pic guru? Any one of your before before shots will do.

100

hey, did good ol’ CP not tell you fat cells become insulin resistant too? guess not.

Here’s an excerpt from The Ultimate Diet 2:

“In contrast, when you diet, it�??s actually better to be insulin resistant (note that two of the most effective diet drugs, GH and clenbuterol/ephedrine cause insulin resistance). By limiting the muscle�??s use of glucose for fuel, you not only spare glucose for use by the brain, but you increase the muscles use of fatty acids for fuel.”

Oh and if you want to talk about “adrenal fatigue” gosh I hate to be the one to tell you this, but there’s no such thing. more guru bullshit to sell supplements. go ahead, run a PubMed search, you wont find anything because it’s a made up disorder created by quacks to sell herbal supplements (hmm…sounds familiar).

also, here’s a fact you may not be aware of, EC doesnt need to be cycled. In fact, though the “buzz” wear off with use, the metabolism boosting properties remain indefinitely.

wow, you are just on fire tonight aren’t you? maybe you need to drink another spinach-egg-blueberry shake, you’re getting a little rusty.