GUIDE TO CUTTING UP

[DIESEL]

Originally posted by Derek Flint:
I went low-carb (25 grams a day or less) on March 11th of this year.

At the time, I weighed 245 lbs. (mostly fat)

Today, I weigh 180 lbs.

Didn't hit the gym or exercise the entire time, although I plan to start after New Years.

Not only do I have much more energy, but I sleep better, require less sleep, my blood pressure and bad cholesterol levels are down and I feel 1000% better.

we'll see how long it takes you to get back to 245. Once you start eating carbs, it's on big time.

 

[Derek Flint]

Originally posted by DIESEL:
we'll see how long it takes you to get back to 245. Once you start eating carbs, it's on big time.

Why would I want to eat the RDA of carbs again? (about 300+ grams)

They make me feel sluggish, tired and weak.
Not to mention they make me feel like I'm in a mental fog.

I plan on dropping another 10 lbs., then following a low GI diet of under 100 grams of carbs per day to maintain my weight.

 

[DIESEL]

Originally posted by Derek Flint:

Why would I want to eat the RDA of carbs again? (about 300+ grams)

They make me feel sluggish, tired and weak.
Not to mention they make me feel like I'm in a mental fog.

I plan on dropping another 10 lbs., then following a low GI diet of under 100 grams of carbs per day to maintain my weight.

but let me ask you this: DO YOU LOOK GOOD WITH YOUR SHIRT OFF?

You see too many people are obsessed with the number the scale says when they should be more worried about what the mirror is telling them.

D

 

[Derek Flint]

Originally posted by DIESEL:
but let me ask you this: DO YOU LOOK GOOD WITH YOUR SHIRT OFF?

You see too many people are obsessed with the number the scale says when they should be more worried about what the mirror is telling them.

D

Let's put it this way: I look (and feel) a hell of a lot better at 180 than I did at 245

Again, I plan to get back into the gym after the New Year.

 

[DIESEL]

what I am trying to get at is that even though you lost a lot of weight - a ton of the weight lost was muscle not fat - so while the scale says you weigh 180 you still look flabby.

The phenomenon known as "skinny fat" - which is why traditional diets are crap.

Notice how they never show that dork Jared with his shirt off in those Subway commercials.

 

[Eltosian]

Originally posted by Viroid:
HIIT is the way to go. One study found that the HIIT group lost 9 times as much fat as the slow-cardio group!


Please post those that study.

Actually, they lost 3 times as much fat, but for the energy they expended, they lost 9 times as much fat. Oops!

http://www.wsu.edu/~strength/intbfatmetab.htm

IMPACT OF EXERCISE INTENSITY ON BODY FATNESS AND SKELETAL MUSCLE METABOLISM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tremblay et al (1) compared the effects of a 15-week high-intensity, intermittent training (HIIT) protocol and a 20-week endurance-training (ET) protocol on body fat and skeletal muscle enzyme activity. 8 men and 9 women participated in ET, while 5 men and 5 women participated in HIIT. Training was performed on a cycle ergometer. ET involved 30-45 minutes of continuous cycling at 60-85% max HR reserve 4-5 times a week. HIIT involved bouts of short-interval work and long-interval work; short-interval work consisted of 10-15 bouts of 15-30 seconds of cycling at 60% maximum 10-second power output. Long-interval work consisted of 4-5 bouts of 60-90 seconds of cycling at 70% maximum 90-second work output. Recovery between bouts was sufficient to allow HR to return to 120-130 bpm. Intensity was increased in both the short-interval and long-interval protocols by 5% every 3 weeks. Total energy cost of the training sessions was estimated by referring to VO2 max and maximal work-output measurements. Body fat was measured before and after the ET and HIIT protocols by the sum of 6 skinfolds. Enzyme activity of hexokinase (HK), phosphofructokinase (PFK), malate dehydrogenase (MDH), and 3-hydroxyacyl coenzyme A dehydrogenase (HADH) were measured before and after the training protocols using muscle biopsies. VO2 max was measured before and after training using a progressive cycle ergometer test to exhaustion, and maximal cycle work output for 10, 30, and 90 seconds were also measured.

FINDINGS: Mean estimated total energy cost of the ET program was 120.4 MJ, while that of the HIIT program was 57.9 MJ. Despite the lower energy cost of exercise, subjects engaged in HIIT tended to have greater reductions in skinfolds than the ET group. When expressed on a per MJ basis (change in skinfolds divided by energy cost of training program), the HIIT group's reduction in body fat was 9 times higher than the ET group (p < .01).

Both protocols resulted in significant increases in MDH activity, while the HIIT program significantly increased HK activity while the ET program significantly reduced HK activity. The HIIT program also resulted in significant increases in PFK and HADH activity, while the ET program did not significantly change these measures.

Both programs resulted in a significant increase in VO2 max, and the HIIT program resulted in a significant increase in maximal cycle work output for 10, 30, and 90 seconds.

IMPLICATIONS: This study gives more evidence to support the idea that high-intensity interval training is a more optimal program for fat loss than moderate-intensity, continuous endurance exercise. The HIIT group in this study lost nine times more body fat than the ET group for each MJ of energy expended during training, indicating HIIT is much more efficient and effective. More evidence of the effectiveness of the HIIT program is evident in the significant greater increase in HADH activity as compared to the ET program; HADH is a marker of the activity of beta oxidation. Higher HADH activity means more body fat is being used as a fuel source during rest. This shows that the reason why HIIT is so effective in reducing body fat is the increase in fat metabolism during the rest periods between training sessions; basically, you lose more fat while sitting around on the couch.

The increase in VO2 max seen with both protocols indicates that both HIIT and ET can be an effective methods for increasing VO2 max. An increase in VO2 max means the body can consume more oxygen to produce energy and thus perform more work, increasing performance on the track, the road, or other athletic endeavor where oxygen uptake plays a major role in performance.

1. Tremblay, A., J. Simoneau, and C. Bouchard. Impact of Exercise Intensity on Body Fatness and Skeletal Muscle Metabolism. Metabolism. 43(7):814-818. 1994.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington State University Athletics

[This message has been edited by Eltosian (edited 12-07-2002).]

 

[Derek Flint]

Originally posted by DIESEL:
what I am trying to get at is that even though you lost a lot of weight - a ton of the weight lost was muscle not fat - so while the scale says you weigh 180 you still look flabby.

The phenomenon known as "skinny fat" - which is why traditional diets are crap.

Notice how they never show that dork Jared with his shirt off in those Subway commercials.

No, I lost fat, not muscle.

Check out some of the case studies on Low-Carb diets and their muscle sparing effects.

You're right about traditional diets however - greatly reducing calories screws up peoples metabolism and can cause the body to cannibalize muscle if not fed enough.

Unless I lost 65 lbs. of Muscle that I didn't have to begin with, all the weight I dropped was fat as evidenced by the scale and the tape.

Also, if I appear somewhat flabby it's because I still have some weight to drop and I haven't seen the inside of a gym in years.



[This message has been edited by Derek Flint (edited 12-07-2002).]

 

[DIESEL]

Originally posted by Derek Flint:
No, I lost fat, not muscle.

Check out some of the case studies on Low-Carb diets and their muscle sparing effects.

You're right about traditional diets however - greatly reducing calories screws up peoples metabolism and can cause the body to cannibalize muscle if not fed enough.

Unless I lost 65 lbs. of Muscle that I didn't have to begin with, all the weight I dropped was fat as evidenced by the scale and the tape.

If you don't even lift, how could you say all you lost was muscle ?

Look, it isn't even to debate, because it's impossible to know given you never got a body fat test at 245.

I'm willing to bet at least 15 lbs of that fat loss was muscle mass.

the point is, I'm opposed to those kinds of diet.. they work only in the short run.. as soon as you revert to a more normal diet the weight is going to come right back.

 

[semag]

Diesel, you are constantly touting the HIIT on here.... and I've read all the posts in the thread and wanna try some. You (Or others) have any good HIIT excersizes? length, excercise, and times/week would be nice. Thanks

 

[Derek Flint]

Originally posted by DIESEL:
If you don't even lift, how could you say all you lost was muscle ?

Look, it isn't even to debate, because it's impossible to know given you never got a body fat test at 245.

I'm willing to bet at least 15 lbs of that fat loss was muscle mass.

the point is, I'm opposed to those kinds of diet.. they work only in the short run.. as soon as you revert to a more normal diet the weight is going to come right back.

Do some research.

LC diets spare muscle while burning fat.

What is good for your muscles? Protein or Carbs?

Even if you're right about losing 15 lbs. of muscle (which you're not) I would gladly trade 50 lbs. of fat loss for 15 lbs. of muscle loss.

As for the weight coming back on a "normal" diet, that just proves that consuming the USDA recommended amount of carbs does indeed eventually cause weight gain.

Why would I want to return to a diet that makes me feel sluggish, tired, mentally in a fog, drives up my BP and cholesterol levels and weight?

Unless one is running marathons or engaging in similar activety, all those unused carbs get converted to glucose and then fat.

You can talk in theory all you want, but I have real world results to back up my claims by dropping 65 lbs. in 8 months without starving myself and without exercise, which all the so-called "experts" claim is impossible.

 

[semag]

Originally posted by Derek Flint:

You can talk in theory all you want, but I have real world results to back up my claims by dropping 65 lbs. in 8 months without starving myself and without exercise, which all the so-called "experts" claim is impossible.

A lifestyle without exercise is unhealthy anyway. Why try to prove the "experts" wrong and attempt to lose weight that way. Excercise increases the amounts of calories burned by your body, and should be a daily part of everyone's life. Without excersize, of course the USDA amount of carbs will make you gain fat because you have nothing burning off that extra energy.

Look at it in terms of human evolution. In the past, humans began with hunting, gathering, and activities which would use physical activity, thus keeping them in shape. A fat hunter was not going to be able to keep up the activity necessary to get food, and would either lose weight or die. As humans progressed, they created methods of farming etc, that still required activity but allowed one to live at a much more comfortable lifestyle. As the food incresed, so did the amount of obese people, thus drawing a correlation between the physical activity and obesity.

Therefore, the less physical activity you have, the less calories you can consume, in general.

 

[Derek Flint]

Originally posted by semag:
A lifestyle without exercise is unhealthy anyway. Why try to prove the "experts" wrong and attempt to lose weight that way. Excercise increases the amounts of calories burned by your body, and should be a daily part of everyone's life. Without excersize, of course the USDA amount of carbs will make you gain fat because you have nothing burning off that extra energy.

Look at it in terms of human evolution. In the past, humans began with hunting, gathering, and activities which would use physical activity, thus keeping them in shape. A fat hunter was not going to be able to keep up the activity necessary to get food, and would either lose weight or die. As humans progressed, they created methods of farming etc, that still required activity but allowed one to live at a much more comfortable lifestyle. As the food incresed, so did the amount of obese people, thus drawing a correlation between the physical activity and obesity.

Therefore, the less physical activity you have, the less calories you can consume, in general.

I was temporarily disabled which prevented me from engaging in exercise.

 

[Demon]

LOL

Derek is telling DIESEL to "do some research!" That's the ultimate in newbieness.

DIESEL is the most respect and most informed member of this forum that actively posts in regards in health and fitness. In fact, I don't see him posting anywhere else so I wouldn't doubt if he's a personal trainer or a pro-bodybuilder.

 

[semag]

I understand situations like that derek, that's why I added "in general" to the end... hehe

 

[Eltosian]

Originally posted by semag:
Diesel, you are constantly touting the HIIT on here.... and I've read all the posts in the thread and wanna try some. You (Or others) have any good HIIT excersizes? length, excercise, and times/week would be nice. Thanks

I got really ripped in just two or three weeks doing a 4 minute "warm up" jog, followed by six "sets" of 20 seconds of 90% of max effort sprinting and 10 seconds of slow jogging, with a couple minutes for cool down. Total time: around 8-10 minutes. Short, brutal and effective.

 

[semag]

Every day?

 

[Derek Flint]

Originally posted by Demon:
LOL

Derek is telling DIESEL to "do some research!" That's the ultimate in newbieness.

DIESEL is the most respect and most informed member of this forum that actively posts in regards in health and fitness. In fact, I don't see him posting anywhere else so I wouldn't doubt if he's a personal trainer or a pro-bodybuilder.

This may be true, but the comment he made about 15 of the 65 lbs. lost being muscle was ignorant and not based on fact or controlled case studies, and thus my comment about him needing to research that particular issue.

 

[DIESEL]

Originally posted by Derek Flint:

This may be true, but the comment he made about 15 of the 65 lbs. lost being muscle was ignorant and not based on fact or controlled case studies, and thus my comment about him needing to research that particular issue.

Like I said our argument is a moot point.. because you never measured yourself at the outset.

Anyway, I never said LC diets don't work. However, they were originally designed for the morbidly obese, who needed a way to lose weight w/o exercise.. because they were too fukkin fat to exercise. You should exercise, period. I think that's indisputable.

My main beef is the fact that the diet isn't balanced. .. and for one to maintain the long term weight loss is a defacto giving up of carbs.. which I'm not prepared to do.

Also, the Atkins diet has some serious long term health effects because you're not eating any kind of fiber, and are missing a lot of vitamins. Unless you are supplementing w/ a lot of shyt, your body is missing out on many nutrients while on a LC diet.

and it's basically impossible to retain all your muscle mass while dieting, you're going to lose some.

And if you lost all that weight without exercising. trust me, bro, you lost hella muscle mass. But hey, we'll never know will we.

Tell you what, get your body fat tested right now, and you'll see I'm right. We can extrapolate up to what you probably were at 245 and we can get a ballpark of just how much muscle mass you lost.

post your height too.. that's helpful

D

 

[semag]

I saw the ideas for wind sprints as HIIT... anyone else have any ideas? Variation is good... hehe

Also... how many times a week? Everyday?

 

[Derek Flint]

Originally posted by DIESEL:
Like I said our argument is a moot point.. because you never measured yourself at the outset.

Anyway, I never said LC diets don't work. However, they were originally designed for the morbidly obese, who needed a way to lose weight w/o exercise.. because they were too fukkin fat to exercise. You should exercise, period. I think that's indisputable.

My main beef is the fact that the diet isn't balanced. .. and for one to maintain the long term weight loss is a defacto giving up of carbs.. which I'm not prepared to do.

Also, the Atkins diet has some serious long term health effects because you're not eating any kind of fiber, and are missing a lot of vitamins. Unless you are supplementing w/ a lot of shyt, your body is missing out on many nutrients while on a LC diet.

and it's basically impossible to retain all your muscle mass while dieting, you're going to lose some.

And if you lost all that weight without exercising. trust me, bro, you lost hella muscle mass. But hey, we'll never know will we.

Tell you what, get your body fat tested right now, and you'll see I'm right. We can extrapolate up to what you probably were at 245 and we can get a ballpark of just how much muscle mass you lost.

post your height too.. that's helpful

D

Again, do some research - who claims the Atkins diet is devoid of fiber?

Have you read the Atkins book or any support material?
Obviously not if you're making that claim.
Also, taking a multi-viatmin is recommended when on an LC diet, just like it is for any way of eating.

And again, controlled case studies show little to no loss of muscle mass on a LC diet.

Muscle loss occurs when the body is starved and begins to cannabalize muscle, not from cutting down carbs.

At this point, you are merely guessing that people lose muscle on an LC diet since you haven't posted anything to back up your claims of muscle loss or your claim of serious long term health effects.

And this coming from someone who recommends taking an "herbal fat burner" which is far worse for you than reducing carbs.