- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: PuttaDaForkDown v2.0
Posted on 12/27/16 at 3:45 pm to lsu777
Posted on 12/27/16 at 3:45 pm to lsu777
quote:
And if you consistently eat over the calories you burn off during a day, you will gain weight. Call it maintenance calories or frick me in the arse cals, the principles still apply, Keto or not. Keto might allow for higher cals to maintain weight but that depends on the insulin sensitivity of the person and new studies prove that.
Define it. You cannot call it maintenance calories because it is a moving target depending on type of calories you eat. Your body regulates how much you want to eat with hunger signaling via hormones. If those are shot, then you will get a screwed up system, i.e. overweight. All calories are not alike. Look, everyone loves to talk about the 1st law of thermo but forget about the 2nd law, which applies here. A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics
quote:
A review of simple thermodynamic principles shows that weight change on isocaloric diets is not expected to be independent of path (metabolism of macronutrients) and indeed such a general principle would be a violation of the second law.... We use data in the literature to show that thermogenesis is sufficient to predict metabolic advantage. Whereas homeostasis ensures balance under many conditions, as a general principle, "a calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics....The second law of thermodynamics says that variation of efficiency for different metabolic pathways is to be expected. Thus, ironically the dictum that a "calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics, as a matter of principle....Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start.
Keto does allow that higher cals, zero carb even higher - so why call them maintenance? That is what is wrong. The word play means a set amount, when in reality it is a variable that changes drastically on high carb down to zero carb diets.
Explain how people over-consume their "maintenance calories" by 2 or 2.5 fold and maintain or even lose weight. That right there throws out the caloric counting maintenance nonsense. Their bodies will react to overeating by not gaining, but signaling them to STOP EATING. That is why people who sit down and try to eat 4-5k calories zero carb for 3-4 weeks say it is a monumental effort - their bodies are telling them that is enough. Believe me, I've tried and didn't gain weight myself.
And I am not talking about keto here, I am talking zero carb. You don't need to be counting/supplementing/whatever if you eat zero carb and that is my point. Get down to what the body needs to live, and you will be fine and lose.
Now, you want to modify fast because you want to use the insulin response from a carb to gain muscle? Sure, go ahead and that is correct. But that isn't what I am talking about.
This post was edited on 12/27/16 at 3:54 pm
1
Posted on 12/27/16 at 3:49 pm to Lazy But Talented
quote:
So is my only goal here to hit this protein macro? I'm not sure if I'm following correctly. I don't see what my macros are for carbs/fat or a calorie total.
Yes goal is to hit protein macros. You are allowed up to 20g fat plus the fish oil pills per day. 20g trace carbs from the veggies per day. Essentially you are just eating protein and crazy low cals.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 3:49 pm to Yung_Humma
quote:
Where do the macro/micro nutrients come from? All from the meat?
Did some really quick reading on it and saw the study of the guys living in the artic for years and it seemed like they did better when they also incorporated fish and had super high fat in their diet.
You are correct in that they did better with higher fat. To prevent scurvy, one must eat a high fat content. You don't necessarily need to eat fish for the omega 3's though. Read about what pemmican is and the pemmican trade in early America and how the early trappers lived. My point, they (Indians and trappers) didn't gather and plant crops to survive.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 3:59 pm to lsu777
quote:
20g trace carbs from the veggies per day
Full carb count or net carb?
Posted on 12/27/16 at 4:02 pm to Junky
I don't need to define it, you just did. It's the amount of calories one can eat and maintain their weight over a period of time. I just said Keto allows you to eat more but you still have a limit. Eventually it becomes a point where the body can not burn off the cals no matter how little carbs you eat.
As far as the insulin sensitivity I was speaking about is a new studies that show people who are insulin resistant lost way more weight on no carbs and those that were insulin sensitive lost more on high carbs. Nothing to do with building muscle.
And when I say Keto I mean zero carbs. And I realize you don't need carbs to love, never said that.
I think you are not understanding that no matter the diet maintenance calorie level is just that, maintenance calories. Depending on diet, exercise, metabolism those levels will be different. I am well aware of the study you linked and there are plenty that show at the same calorie level people lose different amount of fat based on the macro breakdown.
But one thing you need to realize that despite what you might want to believe, if it fits your macros works well and has been proven to work by thousands. Just like low fat, low calorie works so long as refeeds are used to reset lepton levels. Keto is not the only way and no matter if one is on Keto or not, their becomes a point where you will get spill over and gain fat. Nothing you say, link or do will change that.
We agree on 95% of things but your insistence on Keto is the only way is wrong. There are other ways. You and I prefer lower carbs but studies show it is not the best diet for every single person and insulin sensitivity is the biggest factor in this.
As far as the insulin sensitivity I was speaking about is a new studies that show people who are insulin resistant lost way more weight on no carbs and those that were insulin sensitive lost more on high carbs. Nothing to do with building muscle.
And when I say Keto I mean zero carbs. And I realize you don't need carbs to love, never said that.
I think you are not understanding that no matter the diet maintenance calorie level is just that, maintenance calories. Depending on diet, exercise, metabolism those levels will be different. I am well aware of the study you linked and there are plenty that show at the same calorie level people lose different amount of fat based on the macro breakdown.
But one thing you need to realize that despite what you might want to believe, if it fits your macros works well and has been proven to work by thousands. Just like low fat, low calorie works so long as refeeds are used to reset lepton levels. Keto is not the only way and no matter if one is on Keto or not, their becomes a point where you will get spill over and gain fat. Nothing you say, link or do will change that.
We agree on 95% of things but your insistence on Keto is the only way is wrong. There are other ways. You and I prefer lower carbs but studies show it is not the best diet for every single person and insulin sensitivity is the biggest factor in this.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 4:03 pm to Lazy But Talented
Net carb is fine. You will need the fiber to poop so eat the shite out of it.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 4:05 pm to lsu777
The book is in your google drive right?
The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook: A Scientific Approach to Crash Dieting
How to lose 4-7 pounds of fat and 10-20 pounds of weight in 2 weeks
by Lyle McDonald
That's the one?
The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook: A Scientific Approach to Crash Dieting
How to lose 4-7 pounds of fat and 10-20 pounds of weight in 2 weeks
by Lyle McDonald
That's the one?
Posted on 12/27/16 at 4:07 pm to Junky
One other thing, realize most in this thread are looking for body transformations not just losing weight. You can only do short burst of 90%+ fat before eventually losing muscle(around 12 days max). Studies done from the late 50s until now verify this.
Same goes for pure protein, can do about 20 days with no refeed before leptin levels get so low it starts down regulating other hormones quickly. Hence a Refeed.
Pure carb diet is by far the worst for body comp and will burn muscle just as fast as fat. Nobody should ever do that.
Same goes for pure protein, can do about 20 days with no refeed before leptin levels get so low it starts down regulating other hormones quickly. Hence a Refeed.
Pure carb diet is by far the worst for body comp and will burn muscle just as fast as fat. Nobody should ever do that.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 4:08 pm to Lazy But Talented
Yep, the second edition is in that folder too, not sure the name though.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 4:10 pm to lsu777
Got it 
Posted on 12/27/16 at 4:45 pm to Lazy But Talented
By the way, I bought the extreme version and it's the exact same thing but based on a study where they had the participants do 8 hours of light exercise a day, you do this for 4 days and expect to lose 4 lbs of pure fat over a 7 day period(4 day diet, 3 day light refeed). He says do hour of walking in the morning, hour at lunch and 2 hours at night for the four days. If you can get away with more do so.
Something maybe to throw in at the end of the normal rapid fatloss handbook diet to finish off the cut. I believe you realize this but most need to realize that the rapid fatloss diet is not a long term solution but is a scientific approach to shed weight as fast as possible with the least amount of lean muscle loss. It's essentially a bodybuilding cut and is very similar to what the Arnold era bodybuilders did with their "seafood diet" where they ate only white seafood until they couldn't stand it anymore where they would binge and start over and do it again. Usually went around 3 weeks between binges(I.e refeed)
Something maybe to throw in at the end of the normal rapid fatloss handbook diet to finish off the cut. I believe you realize this but most need to realize that the rapid fatloss diet is not a long term solution but is a scientific approach to shed weight as fast as possible with the least amount of lean muscle loss. It's essentially a bodybuilding cut and is very similar to what the Arnold era bodybuilders did with their "seafood diet" where they ate only white seafood until they couldn't stand it anymore where they would binge and start over and do it again. Usually went around 3 weeks between binges(I.e refeed)
Posted on 12/27/16 at 4:48 pm to lsu777
In regards to the exercise portion of this program...should I ditch my gym partner for these weeks or do you think it'd be okay continuing my regular training routine and still get similar results.
ETA: Just printed 1/3 of the book to read tonight. Will get into the 2/3 that includes the exercise portion tomorrow.
ETA: Just printed 1/3 of the book to read tonight. Will get into the 2/3 that includes the exercise portion tomorrow.
This post was edited on 12/27/16 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 12/27/16 at 5:11 pm to Lazy But Talented
I would not do lyles routines. Lyle knows diet, he sucks at program design imo and it shows in his physique. I would suggest the following
If schedule is an issue go toa reverse pyramid training program and lift 2 days a week, 30-40 min tops.
Day 1-verticals
Squat- set1-4-6 reps, set 2-8-10
Shoulder press- 2 sets same structure
Weighted chins-2 sets
Body weight dips-2 sets
3 min rest on squats and press, 1-2 on the rest
Day 2-horizontals
Deadlifts-1 all out set
Bench-2 sets, same structure as squats
Heavy rows- pick a variation, seal rows is best, 2 sets all out
Barbell curls-2 sets
Second set is reduced by 10%, if you hit top number of reps, do one extra if possible. No more and add weight the next week1.25 lbs if possible, if not do smallest increment available.
Concentrate on getting stronger, take min of 3 minutes of rest between sets and offline needed up to 8 min, just make sure full recovery is achieved before doing the next set. Push it on these days as much as possible and rest or walk other days.
If schedule is an issue go toa reverse pyramid training program and lift 2 days a week, 30-40 min tops.
Day 1-verticals
Squat- set1-4-6 reps, set 2-8-10
Shoulder press- 2 sets same structure
Weighted chins-2 sets
Body weight dips-2 sets
3 min rest on squats and press, 1-2 on the rest
Day 2-horizontals
Deadlifts-1 all out set
Bench-2 sets, same structure as squats
Heavy rows- pick a variation, seal rows is best, 2 sets all out
Barbell curls-2 sets
Second set is reduced by 10%, if you hit top number of reps, do one extra if possible. No more and add weight the next week1.25 lbs if possible, if not do smallest increment available.
Concentrate on getting stronger, take min of 3 minutes of rest between sets and offline needed up to 8 min, just make sure full recovery is achieved before doing the next set. Push it on these days as much as possible and rest or walk other days.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 5:25 pm to lsu777
So only 2 lifts a week?
That'll be weird since I've been lifting 5 times a week.
That'll be weird since I've been lifting 5 times a week.
This post was edited on 12/27/16 at 5:27 pm
Posted on 12/27/16 at 5:35 pm to Lazy But Talented
Two lifting days yes. Realize you are going to be only getting 1000 kcals or so. Recovery is very important so 2 lift days; 4 exercises per day; 8 sets per day. In and out just trying to maintain/gain strength.
If you don't take a preworkout, I suggest you change that, just make sure it's zero cals. Same goes for bcaa intra workout. I suggest activation tend, 3 scoops intra, 2 post workout. This will help you maintain strength which means you will maintain lean body mass. If you can hold onto your lean mass, then you will look like a different person 6 weeks later as you should be down 12-15 lbs of pure fat. If you are really at 17%, you will have or should have very visible abs after 6 weeks.
Speaking of abs, you can work them with a few sets on rest days. I suggest god/ roman chair situps(vertical sit-ups) and strict hanging leg lifts. I would stay away from things like an rollers as they will put a ton of stress on the whole body hindering recovery.
If you don't take a preworkout, I suggest you change that, just make sure it's zero cals. Same goes for bcaa intra workout. I suggest activation tend, 3 scoops intra, 2 post workout. This will help you maintain strength which means you will maintain lean body mass. If you can hold onto your lean mass, then you will look like a different person 6 weeks later as you should be down 12-15 lbs of pure fat. If you are really at 17%, you will have or should have very visible abs after 6 weeks.
Speaking of abs, you can work them with a few sets on rest days. I suggest god/ roman chair situps(vertical sit-ups) and strict hanging leg lifts. I would stay away from things like an rollers as they will put a ton of stress on the whole body hindering recovery.
Posted on 12/27/16 at 5:48 pm to lsu777
Example of a daily intake on this
Lunch-
6 egg whites
6 oz chicken diced
100g baby Bella mushrooms
Snack-
3 oz fat free deli ham
Serving of fat free cheddar
Dinner-
20oz chicken breast
Asparagus-25 stalks
4oz fat free cream choice
This is what I ate today. Puts me pretty close on macros as all food is measured raw
Lunch-
6 egg whites
6 oz chicken diced
100g baby Bella mushrooms
Snack-
3 oz fat free deli ham
Serving of fat free cheddar
Dinner-
20oz chicken breast
Asparagus-25 stalks
4oz fat free cream choice
This is what I ate today. Puts me pretty close on macros as all food is measured raw
Posted on 12/27/16 at 6:37 pm to Junky
quote:
Will I die if I don't eat vegetables?
So our barometer of a healthy diet is now whether or not one would die if they did idea to eat that way?
You will never convince me that any sort of diet that is completely devoid of vegetables is healthy. I can't answer what important micronutrients would be missing from such a diet, but I have never found a shred of evidence that suggests vegetables are anything but good for you. Especially dark, leafy greens.
I'm not looking to crash diet my way to being a healthy weight. I want to have a healthy relationship with food and crash diets won't get me there.
This post was edited on 12/27/16 at 6:42 pm
Posted on 12/27/16 at 6:43 pm to lsu777
quote:
Eventually it becomes a point where the body can not burn off the cals no matter how little carbs you eat.
So how do these people maintain or even loose weight over the course of 4 weeks? It breaks the caloric theory of an extra 3,500 calories equals one pound model.
quote:Link? And did they do the reverse on diets and people? Is this a zero carb or a some carb diet, there is a difference.
people who are insulin resistant lost way more weight on no carbs and those that were insulin sensitive lost more on high carbs
quote:It was more towards Hulk, but Keto does not mean zero, they are different.
And when I say Keto I mean zero carbs. And I realize you don't need carbs to love, never said that.
quote:
But one thing you need to realize that despite what you might want to believe, if it fits your macros works well and has been proven to work by thousands. Just like low fat, low calorie works so long as refeeds are used to reset lepton levels. Keto is not the only way and no matter if one is on Keto or not, their becomes a point where you will get spill over and gain fat. Nothing you say, link or do will change that.
I linked the most famous overeating just to rile them up. he "gained" but lost 3 cm on his waist. Don't ignore what is going on here, even if it is keto and I am speaking on the basis of zero carb.
Smash the fat
LINK
My issue is this, I know it all works - I linked everything in the OP because ultimately people have a choice. I just proved calorie in calorie out is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Calories don't "spill" over, they are simply lost. The body dumps it. Spilling into fat is an old adage that is incorrect. Hormones tell you to store fat, not excess calories. It is a flawed model. I am showing people that they don't HAVE to count calories, they can do it another way. I do like Keto. I am going for the simplest way though - and that is to not eat carbs at all. Don't count, just eat until you are full. Stop, eat again when you are hungry. drink water to thirst. This is strictly for losing body fat, not putting on muscle.
quote:
One other thing, realize most in this thread are looking for body transformations not just losing weight.
Yes, which is why I link everything requested in the OP
quote:Link? Because other recent studies show the exact opposite. Dom D'Agostino must be lying to everyone. That guy is a beast. I don't think he got that big from keto, but he certainly didn't whither away either.
You can only do short burst of 90%+ fat before eventually losing muscle(around 12 days max). Studies done from the late 50s until now verify this.
Here is one study showing the muscle sparring effects of high fat. Study
quote:
Although more long-term studies are needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn, it appears, from most literature studied, that a VLCARB is, if anything, protective against muscle protein catabolism during energy restriction, provided that it contains adequate amounts of protein.
These guys didn't lose strength. LINK
quote:
Our data suggest that athletes who underwent a VLCKD with adequate protein intake lost weight and improved body composition without any negative changes in strength and power performance.
This whole discussion is about zero carb and not Keto. People have documented trying to gain weight and it being an insurmountable struggle. Which brings me to this - if these people are struggling to gain weight by stuffing themselves, it is quite easy to lose weight effortlessly eating the same way.
I am not claiming it is magic, I am asking for someone to prove it wrong. Sorry to rustle feathers on this, but it is still there anyhow. *an thank you for the discussion!
This post was edited on 12/27/16 at 6:45 pm
Posted on 12/27/16 at 7:14 pm to Hulkklogan
quote:
I can't answer what important micronutrients would be missing from such a diet, but I have never found a shred of evidence that suggests vegetables are anything but good for you. Especially dark, leafy greens.
I really don't know, but there is an idea out there that they are not as pretty and good for you as they seem. Now, I believe the effect they have on us is small. But here are some interesting articles on the subject.
The Risks and Benefits of Eating Plants
Dr. Ede blog on the video
Breeding the Nutrition Out of Our Food
Is broccoli good for you?
quote:
We really don’t know. I was unable to find any convincing clinical evidence to support the health benefits of crucifers, but I did find enough interesting scientific evidence to at least call their health benefits into question. Most humans and their ancestors have been eating vegetables for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years. Therefore, even if broccoli may be potentially harmful to us, we have likely evolved ways to minimize any damage it may cause.
History of Broccoli
quote:
Commercial cultivation of broccoli in the United States can be traced to the D'Arrigo brothers, Stephano and Andrea, immigrants from Messina, Italy, whose company made some tentative plantings in San Jose, California in 1922.
Weston A Price Article "The Surprising, All-Natural Anti-Nutrients and Toxins in Plant Foods"
It was just an idea for ya - going zero carb. It is the simplest diet I know. No excuses, just eat, drink, and sleep.
Gosh - even mentioning going meat only and everyone losses their shite
This post was edited on 12/27/16 at 7:16 pm
Posted on 12/27/16 at 7:29 pm to Junky
Well it is definitely not the norm so a backlash shouldn't be too surprising.
But I appreciate it. Imo, my lack of weight loss is entirely because a) I drink too often b) the drinking causes me to abandon inhibitions and I eat way more than normal c) I eat when I'm not hungry, like when I'm bored or just when it's 'time to' d)I eat too much in general. My portions have always been huge, and I have a huge appetite (carbs or no carbs). Working on this too... And veggies are my secret weapon because they can add so much volume to meals.
Keep in mind that I've never been a normal weight since 4th grade or so. My goal right now isn't to be fit.. It's simply to be a normal size. I want to do it by fixing whatever is wrong in my brain that is like cookie monster.
But I appreciate it. Imo, my lack of weight loss is entirely because a) I drink too often b) the drinking causes me to abandon inhibitions and I eat way more than normal c) I eat when I'm not hungry, like when I'm bored or just when it's 'time to' d)I eat too much in general. My portions have always been huge, and I have a huge appetite (carbs or no carbs). Working on this too... And veggies are my secret weapon because they can add so much volume to meals.
Keep in mind that I've never been a normal weight since 4th grade or so. My goal right now isn't to be fit.. It's simply to be a normal size. I want to do it by fixing whatever is wrong in my brain that is like cookie monster.
This post was edited on 12/27/16 at 7:31 pm
Page 214 of 468
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News