[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Obesity in animals can’t be looked at with the same perspective as in humans. Presuming obesity means “an excess of bodyfat”, there are plenty of fat animals and the majority of the time that fat is necessary. So, it’s a non-issue.[/quote]
While the exact percentages of what qualifies as animal obesity may be different, it is definitely not a non-issue. Animals carry fat yes but animals don’t eat themselves so fat they cannot walk. Without any nutritional knowledge animals don’t develop near the excess body fat or chronic disease humans do. Before you just say they’re more active I’ve seen a lot of lazy animals too. As pointed out animals are doing squats, using periodization, or doing maximal effort work.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
We can. People can absolutely eat fruit as part of an effective fat loss/muscle-building diet. Again, non-issue. Anyone “stuffing their faces” with anything is likely to be cautioned against by nutritionists.[/quote]
Cautioned yes, but I don’t feel the scientific literature warrants any reason to be cautioned against fruit consumption.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Here’s where you might’ve means “herbivorous” instead of “vegetarian.” And Humans absolutely can thrive on a vegetarian diet. It’s been debated tons of times on the forum, but there are plenty of successful vegetarian bodybuilders.[/quote]
Okay I want to address all the herbivore, carnivore, and predator stuff here. Yes I did mean to identify that it’s most predators are carnivorous but you’re absolutely right predator does not equal carnivore. While there are body builders that are vegan it’s only possible due to supplementation. Additionally some people, like me, respond very poorly to vegan diets. As a quantifiable example my HDL drops to 30 - 40, where as my vegan wife who thrives on that diet has a 90+ HDL.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Some omnivorous bodybuilders graze by eating every 2-3 hours. It could be argued that “grazing” is one of the most successful ways to achieve body composition changes.[/quote]
My argument is that eating every 2 - 3 hours is not grazing. Grazers literally spend the entire day eating. Eat a pound of raw spinach every 2 - 3 hours and you’ll get an idea of what grazing really is… If I’m not pushing myself that takes me around an hour.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
A presumption, and something that’s easily varied from person to person and meal to meal.[/quote]
Carbohydrate interference with protein and fat absorption (fat absorption particularly) is incredibly well scientifically established. I’ve got several references if you want, but this is why fiber “reduces” cholesterol.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
If I eat a steak, broccoli, and a baked potato, the meal will be digested faster than if I just ate a steak?[/quote]
Yes. Meals are digested as a whole not as constituent parts. The speed of digestion is why glucose response from carbohydrates slows down with protein and fat consumption and why fiber interferes with fat absorption.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
It’s also a rarity to find a food in nature that has high-quality protein, other than in animals which often prefer not to become food. Perhaps that’s an indication that we shouldn’t be consuming protein, since it requires potentially life-risking effort to obtain? (See what I did there?)[/quote]
Isn’t animals preference not to be eaten the evolutionary drive behind predators?
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Reminiscent of Berardi’s old concept of having separate protein-fat meals and protein-carb meals. No problem. Though I believe, years later, he went on to basically say it didn’t really matter.[/quote]
Yes Berardi has gone anti-nutrient timing and meal composition it seems, but I’d argue that the research wasn’t designed right. Since it takes 6 - 8 hours to move food through the stomach and small intestine you have to wait at least 8 hours before eating another meal to make sure they don’t mix in the digestive process.
I’ve got experiment data, for instance, that supports fiber doesn’t have an active role in cholesterol reduction when separating meals with enough time. If you’re interested PM me because that’s a completely new discussion. Additionally we tend to look at nutrient timing on a 24 hour scale which I don’t think matters either. This pattern is on a 72 hour scale though.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
From my reading, it takes a fraction of that, 11-15 pounds, to get through the day. They’ll gorge when necessary, but it’s not their go-to method of eating.[/quote]
Good, because 6 lbs a day is no where near the body weight equivalent consumption of 75 lbs. Heh…
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Is that an arbitrary fasting period? Wouldn’t it make more “sense” to fast until hungry, however long that takes, and then eat or gorge again?[/quote]
It’s far from arbitrary. It’s a 72 hour cycle that will allow my glycogen levels to go from high to low inducing mild to moderate ketosis at the end.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
I’d disagree with this. The adrenaline dump, and associated physiologic effects, of legitimately running for your life isn’t comparable to a very, very fast treadmill sprint.[/quote]
Which is my exact reason on prescribing a balls-to-the-wall breathing set methodology. As mentioned in early paragraphs I think most people have trained their body they don’t need to adapt to survive - they quit when it gets tough.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
That’s not really why you think a 100-pound chimpanzee is stronger than a 200-pound Csulli, right? There’s a little more to it that that, and the “plateau of man’s evolution” or whatever you’re getting at, is just a small factor.[/quote]
An adult chimp is up to 150 lbs and yes, no offense Csulli, I think a 150 lbs chimp could take him.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Nothing in the weight room will mimic a real world survival situation, period.[/quote]
Doesn’t mean that getting as close as we can won’t be beneficial.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
There’s also no structured schedule, so in sticking with this theory, shouldn’t the training be as randomized as possible? Varying the days off, exercises trained, and between-session rest?[/quote]
Point taken. I tried to implement variation in workouts to help simulate, I’ll have to vary some fasting periods to only 1 day.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Okay so, there’s no evidence that warm-ups are beneficial, but they do help you perform better, but performing better doesn’t mean you’ll get bigger or stronger. What?[/quote]
Does eating less guarantee weight loss? It helps most the time but is far from guarantee. What if less warmup and training to failure produces more results that than total performance? It’s similar to an intensity versus TUT debate. After one breathing set like I’ve described my legs are spent.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Couldn’t the argument be made that stopping after just one set is the easy way out? I mean, you get attacked by a pack of wolves and fight one off, there’s another ready to pounce while you’re still recovering.[/quote]
Sure, but you could also say that it meant you killed all the wolves. My theory is if you’re still alive it represents the latter more.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
I know you said you’re looking at weight loss, but will you track other variables? Strength? Biweekly pics?[/quote]
Normally my experiments are done with DXA scans, blood work, and BMR measurements but so far those haven’t done much for the naysayers of my work. They’ve found ways to dismiss my DXA scan results showing 13.3 lean mass gain in 4 weeks and a 26 lbs lean mass gain in 7 weeks. I’m going to do training logs of the workouts, weekly pics, weight, and some video at least.