1.) MD-6. Lets say 2 people with the exact same genetics eat the same diet but one takes MD-6. HOW MUCH MORE FAT WILL HE LOSE? I SAY NONE! WHY? Because MD-6 and other “fat burners” really only work by stopping hunger. If they do “burn more fat” I’d say over 16 weeks it might add up to two pounds! (Remember I said SAME GENETICS & DIET!)
2.) John M. arent you being a little too scientific? I mean If I have 3 carb & 3 no carb meals is it really going to cause more fat loss?! DO I NEED THE FISH OIL? How much can they improve Insulin Sensitivity?!??! AND OR FAT LOSS I’d say less than 10oz in 12 weeks!
FACT: If I eat an Isocaloric diet with carbs in all 6 or 7 of my meals at say 2,300 cals a day at 220lbs I will lose the same amount with John M’s plan for “Increasing Insulin Sensitivity” THE FACT IS CALORIES ARE CALORIES! 2000 in one way or the other will result is equal fat loss! (I am assuming the diet is high in protein) PROVE ME WRONG!
I just think you dieters are OVER analizing all of this!
THERMODYNAMICS THATS ALL FAT LOSS IS! YOU DONT NEED FANCY DIETS OR FAT BURNERS!
Well, I have the feeling that your numbers for what “would happen” in the cases you cite are not from observation. I also however do not have numbers from observation given those exact circumstances. I can say that I don’t think you are correct with regard to MD6, because on the same diet my fat loss is better with MD6 than without. The body is quite variable in how many calories it burns even given the same activity and diet, so I think you are oversimplifying, assuming that calories burned remain the same regardless of hormonal levels in the body, regardless of other chemicals acting to stimulate or antagonize various receptors, and regardless of insulin sensitivity.
Furthermore, with supplementation I can use
fewer calories while keeping LBM losses equal.
So that gives faster fat loss also.
You are correct that excellent fat loss can
be achieved with no supplements, possible
exception being the severe drop in thyroid
level that can occur with prolonged dieting.
However with supplementation LBM preservation
can easily be better. So between the metabolic-rate and body composition concerns,
overall I’d say your conclusion is incorrect.
Hey Bro I think you are dead wrong. No Offense but you sound like one of my close minded nutrition profesors from the university that was brain washed by the american dietetic association, PS I have a masters degree in nutrition. But i still cant spell with a darn. You cannot argue the fact that MD6 or other fat burners alter the bodies hormone levels. They do, big time. If altering the bodies hormonal levels do not create a huge impact than why do steroids work so well? No they are not the same thing or even close but the mechanism of action is changing the biochemistry inside the body. I have lots of personal experience in this field and fat burners do work, big time. You are dead on Bill. Peace
BIGGUNS747 - do the numbers in your name indicate any affiliation with the aircraft (Boeing 747) on your part??? I’m a pilot that’s all, just curious…
Oh, and I think that if you dig a little for info on fat burning supplements you’ll find there’s a little more to them than just simply appetite suppression.
An article in the nutrition science section of May’s Ironman magazine list the result of a study which shows a greater amount of fat loss with a high fat, high protein diet.
“The authors measured 24-hour energy expenditure in special metabolic chambers before the diets began and on day 4. They found that replacing the number of carb calories with either animal- or vegetable-protein resulted in a 3 percent higher 24-hour energy expenditure after four days. The increased energy burning occurred despite a lower caloric intake.”
“The higher-protein diets produce a greater thermogenic effect, or wastage of calories as heat.”
OK whats your take on what I said about dieting? You do a ketogenic diet, I’ll do an isocaloric diet & Brock will do Berardi’s “insulin sensitivity diet” We all hypothetically weigh the same and somehow have the exact same genetics, follow the same training program etc. all of us are on primobalan say 400mg a week-I bet the only difference is the ketogenic diet causes more water eight loss and a little more lbm loss BUT I SAY THE FAT LOSS OVER SAY 8 WEEKS IS EQUAL. Thermodynamics Mr Roberts do you buy the theory or not? Wen I say equal I mean pretty darn close- say in 8 weeks we would all lose 12-18lbs of bodyfat. (Assuming we were 20lbs overweight to begin with.)
The fact is eat a high protein moderate carb diet (I don’t care how you organize your meals) the fat loss will be close to the same if the diet consists of a similar calorie content-TRUE OR FALSE?! I say true thus, the over thinking hypothosis above.
(I know high carb diets dont work as well-which is why I didnt site them in my examples.)
Mr Roberts you say you get better fat loss when on MD-6-are you sure it isn't just less water retention thanks to the caffeine? If so, How much more fat would you "guesstimate" would be lost over 8-16 weeks with it ratherthan without.
For many including me, I can't tolerate the stimulants-including MD-6, so if your answer is "Well you may lose 3lbs of fat in 12 weeks" it isnt worth it for me-I'll just diet another 2 weeks and keep my health-as ANY type of stimulant used longterm (many bodybuilders are using the ECA stack 2/3 ofthe year) will damage the heart. That is fact. (Look up any cardiovascular study with caffiene.)
Anyway-I wrote another book
1.) How much more fat loss do you *think.
2.) And what is your take on my point about thermodynamics and organizing nutrition really not mattering?!
I cannot give you studies, but I can tell you my own experience. Having lost over 70 lbs of fat, and now currently about 13% bf, and being a person that is completely anal about what I eat (counting every calorie, gram, etc) I have no doubt that I lose fat much faster of ketogenic diets than a 40-40-20 type nutitional plan. EVEN with the same calories. I have played with calories, ratios, everything I can think of to play with over the last two years and in the end, ketogenic diets always come out on top for me. I don’t do them often, because I enjoy building muscle too, but every time I do (like right now) my family starts talking about my losing fat. As for fat burners, I do see a change in fat loss when I use MD6. I never had the same reaction on hydroxycut. Still, my experience with fat burners is that it is a minimal difference for me. If I had never used ketogenic diets, had only watched my calories and kept my protein high, I would not be 13%bf right now, probably more like 20% because my fat loss slows tremendously on non-ketogenic low calorie plans. NOTE: I use caliper measuremements to track my fat loss / lean mass gains so I am not talking about scale weight.
I am asking HOW MUCH MORE FAT can one expect to lose on a fat burner.
AND how much more fat will be lost by altering macronutrient profiles with diets.
Please note I NEVER said high protein low carb diets arent best they are-I am argueing the difference between Iso, Berardi, & Ketogenic. ALL ARE HIGH PROTEIN LOW/LOWER CaRB diets.
(I did specifically say “I know low carb diets dont work.”)
I too have a masters in Nutrition & am currently workking on my BS in Pharmacology.
The fact is it aint that hard! Raise T levels, train hard (each body part 1 time per week 6-15 sets)eat a good amount of protein and fat. YOU WILL GET BIG
Reduce carbs-you will get leaner-its pretty damn easy I just think people over analaize.
Please note I am 233lbs at 9%bf year round and I dont have great genetics.
As for degree or title I have none however I do not think that it in anyway establishes credibility in that I have met MD’s with their heads firmly planted. Anyway, to the question. I was in shape however pear was not what I had in mind so I started (dieting) Namely “Body for Life” (I didn’t know any better but it got me started). That taught me to eat decent foods I lost some fat. I was eating 40,40,20 and lowered my calories cause I wanted to drop my body mass. In 6 weeks on that diet at 1300cal I went from 250 to 230. I then did the Fat fast for 2 weeks I lost 20lbs puting me at 210. I proceeded to injur myself and was out of several weeks. I went back on the fat fast after gainin all the previous weight back and this time I did it with MD6 I lost 43 pounds in 6 weeks on that diet. I guess I would have to say that I agreee with you the loss is about the same My body fat % went from 250 36% to currently 207 16% measured by Tanita and caliper. I would have to agree that the main thing is being strict about your calories and general diet. I do not agree with calories are calories statement cause that suggests that donuts and beer will suffice I do not agree with that. I believe in your last post you meant to say “”(I did specifically say “I know high carb diets dont work.”)" Your style of writing is confusing that is why people are mis-interpreting your question.
I don’t really ever post on here but I figured I’d thow in my 2 cents…
Remember that MD6 contains ephedrine. Ephedrine has been shown in studies to preserve more muscle while on a low-calorie diet. So, you’re talking about a supplement that a) slows muscle loss while on a restricted calorie diet, b) increases metabolic activity and helps you burn more fat, and c) suppresses appetite. Even if any one of these factors were insignificant alone, TOGETHER I feel that they’re effective.
As for it being as simple as “calories in, calories out”, I’d have to disagree. You can’t deny that food causes a hormonal response in the body. You also can’t deny that certain macronutrients cause different hormonal responses - carbohydrates elicit a higher insulin response, that’s for sure, and Insulin stops lipolysis. Furthmore, protein requires more energy to “process” than carbohydrates or fat. It’s been shown that there’s a greater thermogenic response on high protein diets than on regular ones, as much as a 3% difference. Couple this with the fact that insulin is regulated, and I’d say a high protein, low carb diet works pretty well (I’m in favor of occasional carb ups, personally).
Bigguns, sorry about that malfunctioning Caps-Lock key. You should get that fixed. Anyway, there are a large number of published studies on the EC or ECA stack. I don’t want to quote a bunch of them for you, but if you have a genuine interest in this topic, get the book “The New Diet Pills” by Larry Hobbs, available at Amazon. Just glancing at the study summaries, ECA caused 9.9 lbs. of weight loss over 6 months compared to placebo in one group, with the same calories for both groups. Another study showed that each dose of EC caused a thermogenic burn of 30 calories. You’re right, the majority of the weight loss effect is from appetite suppression, but that is not an insignificant side-effect. I’m not aware of any similar studies on norephedrine, but I expect that the results would be similar.
Bigguns, I think I know what you’re saying. Your contention really comes doen to this fundamental question: Is it possible to gain fat while eating at a caloric deficit? Thermodynamics says “no.” Let’s assume that I eat enough protein and EFA’s to spare muscle–does it really matter what the rest of my calories come from, as long as I stay to a 500c/day deficit? I posed this question to guys like Lyle McDonald, Thomas Incledon, Alwyn Cosgrove and others–they ALL agreed, “no, you would not gain fat at a deficit–it’s impossible.” Even if my calories are from Krispy Kreme donuts? sure enough–still “nope.” That fact alone cast doubts on all my low-carb/ketogenic diet history (and remember, Lyle himself is “the ketogenic low-carb guru.”) As they explained it, Bigguns is right: calories are calories, and there is nothing magic about any of them beyond the bottom line. McDonald himself eats at his namessake fast-food chain almost every day while dieting in single-digit bodyfat. Bottom line, then, is that all the fussing about when to eat what, how to do ketosis, and whether to eat low-GI versus high-GI carbs is rather tangential, since caloric deficit is really THE only variable with significant effect.
I’d like to add my experience to this … after applying Mr. Berardi’s principles on eating … (only combining carbs/protein, protein fat, never carbs alone) … I have done nothing but eat like a horse (more than I’ve ever eaten) and my body fat percentage is DROPPING! I rarely do cardio, and my workout routine is, in fact, less intensive than it was before I started the diet. (I’m trying to gain LBM) … I suppose it’s working because although my body weight hasn’t changed one bit over the past three weeks of this diet, my body fat percent has dropped from 13+% to 11.3%. So yes, I believe John Berardi’s meal composition plan is dead on … try it, what can it hurt? Isn’t it all about experimenting and finding out what’s right for you?
The only thing I would like to add to the debate of “a calorie is a calorie” is this: (which isn’t really being debated here since we’re all talking about higher protein diets) Don’t neglect the thermic effect of food, i.e. the amount of energy needed to break down the food ingested. Protein requires much more energy due to the fact that the amino acids need to be deanimated. Therefore not all calories can be counted the same.
BigGunz, How can you continually ask HOW MUCH? Like anyone really knows the answer to that! Even if we go to the research we will find variable results using the same protocol. If you want us to make up a number to placate you we can, but come on now.
Now you do bring up a legit point about thermodynamics. No one will argue that thermodynamics govern fat loss or gain. But NO ONE (not even in a multimillion dollar lab) can predict anyone's thermodynamic situation accurately. So IF one could do this then yes, thermodynamics will explain fat loss or gain. But all sorts of things govern the thermodynamic state of the body (like hormones, insulin and carb tolerance, stress, thermic effect of food). Heck, dieting itself even lowers basal metabolic rate, cost of work, and even the amount of exercise one will do in a day. So when you figure out your cal needs today and start dieting tomorrow the cal needs change. And then a week later they change again. And if you change the diet compostion or calorie intake further, they change again....And so on. So if you can figure out these changes on a daily and weekly basis and adapt calorie intake to follow the rules of thermodynamics you are a better man than I am.
The whole point of differing dietary strategies is to find a way to favorably alter thermodynamics and nutrient partitioning so that you dont have to suffer while dieting as well as so that you can preserve muscle mass. Sure all diets (hypocaloric) will work without supplements. But will they all help you lose a max of fat while preseving a max of muscle? Hell no!
John, when I say “how much” I don’t expect Bill Roberts to say 8.34lbs in 8 weeks and 11.12lbs lost in 12.
I asking for a guestimate-for instance: “I’d guess by adding MD-6 to your 10 week diet you’ll lose at least 5lbs of bodyfat.”