Fat burners

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  Guest on Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:53 pm

"Many people ask my opinion on high protein/fat, low carbohydrate diets, which have made a big comeback in recent years. I always refer them to my first book Ripped, where I explained why I gave up that diet in 1978, and returned to a balanced diet of natural foods. I’ve never had the slightest inclination to return to that diet, which the majority of competitive bodybuilders followed then, and which many still follow. To make a long story short, I felt terrible on a low-carb diet. I couldn’t think or train properly; that diet didn’t give my brain the glucose it requires, or restore the glycogen in my muscles. As I wrote in Ripped: "If your body and your brain can’t function properly on a low carbohydrate diet, then the low carbohydrate diet can’t be the best diet for achievement of maximum muscle with minimum fat ." Robbing the body of its preferred fuel is plainly unhealthy. In my opinion, it’s a terrible diet. And now, a review of diet research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a summary of which was released on Jan. 10, shares my view that high protein, high fat, low carb diets are the worst and not recommended.

Faced with a skyrocketing level of obesity – one in four Americans is obese and more than 60 percent of the population is overweight, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – the U.S. Department of Agriculture assembled a panel of experts to review the evidence on diet and weight. The report summary – the full text will be published in the March–April issue of the journal Obesity Research – is straightforward. "Diets that reduce caloric intake result in weight loss," it says. On that basis, all of the popular diets were found to work, at least temporarily. A review of the best-selling diet books found that all of them, including those that promote high-protein, high-fat, low carbohydrate eating, effectively result in consumption of about 1450 calories per day, as compared to 2200 calories in the typical American diet. Again, that’s why they all result in weight loss. "In the absence of physical activity, a diet that contains about 1400–1500 kcal/day, regardless of macronutrient composition, results in weight loss," says the review summary. "Individuals consuming high-fat, low carbohydrate diets may lose weight because the intake of protein and fat is self-limiting and overall caloric intake is decreased." In other words, if you eat the recommended foods you will voluntarily consume fewer calories – and lose weight.

That’s where the similarities between diets ends, however. "It is important to note that weight loss is not the same as weight maintenance," the report summary continues. It’s one thing to lose weight, and quite another to keep it off. "In the short-term, [low carbohydrate] ketogenic diets cause a greater loss of body water than body fat. When these diets end, water weight is regained." Almost half of the weight loss during the early stages of a high protein, low-fat diet is muscle, which is largely made up of water. That results in dehydration and fatigue, which is part of the reason why you feel so badly. The initial loss which so delights those on high protein/fat, low carb diets soon disappears after the almost inevitable resumption of normal eating."

Clarence Bass

I could point to the vast number of successful, standardised case studies presented by Dr Darden in many of his books. I have never seen any other author in our field display such results in number. You?

Wrong? If that's wrong, I don't want to be right.

I'm quickly losing confidence in most of our so called HIT experts. Having quoted "a body of research", one well known HIT authority discussed his "steroid-like gains" using...VITAMIN D. HIT was always the logical, sensible approach. What happened?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  Guest on Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:01 pm

Steve, I'm not relying on wikipedia! Demonstration purposes only! I'm relying on everyday experience with many, many users of different performance enhancing drugs.

A question or two:

You've lost 40lbs. Of that 40lbs how much had you lost without drugs? How do you know the contribution made by the drugs? What percentage of the changes were drug induced and what percentage by simply trying harder, as returns diminished?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Research

Post  Drew Baye on Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:08 pm

You might be interested in viewing some of the videos on diet by Doug McGuff, which explain many of these things very clearly.

While Ell has done a better job of documenting the fat loss results of his programs than most others, consider the people in the books were hand picked from a much larger pool of people following the diet, and he was not conducting studies (with participants randomly assigned to a control group or compared with a low-carb or higher-protein group). Anybody will lose weight on a restricted calorie diet, but the real issue is not weight loss, but a change in body composition.

If you look at it simplistically, calories in vs out, and weight loss, as opposed to looking at the different ways the body uses different macronutrients, their effects on hormones, and changes on body composition as opposed to just numbers on a scale, the importance of things like protein intake and carb vs fat intake (and what types of carbs and fats) becomes more apparent.

The goal isn't to just be lighter or heavier, but to have more muscle, less fat, and be healthier, and quite frankly, the higher carb, grain heavy diet Ell and Clarence recommend is not optimal for that purpose.

You might also find [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] interesting.
avatar
Drew Baye

Posts : 34
Join date : 2010-04-14
Age : 44
Location : Orlando, FL

http://www.baye.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  sgsims1 on Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:12 pm

This could turn into one of those endless debates so I'll just add this before Drew chimes in; whatever technique or eating style that allows someone who is attempting to lose fat and keep it off to adjust their calorie consumption downward for the long haul can be effective. For Glynn, it has been frequent feedings with a reasonable control over carbs, for C. Bass, much the same with a fairly high carb/low protein uniform eating style. For Adnan, it has been a 2 meal per day intermittant fasting style eating in an 8 hour window (which has also kept Martin Berkhan and many of his clients extremely lean.) Craig has his own style, and Landau has another. As our friend Glynn says, "horses for courses" and I would say that those of us who have been successful have tried more than one approach in finding what works for us in the long run, research be damned! Twisted Evil
avatar
sgsims1
Admin

Posts : 154
Join date : 2010-04-14

http://hitinpractice.motionforum.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  Guest on Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:40 pm

Drew Baye wrote:You might be interested in viewing some of the videos on diet by Doug McGuff, which explain many of these things very clearly.

While Ell has done a better job of documenting the fat loss results of his programs than most others, consider the people in the books were hand picked from a much larger pool of people following the diet, and he was not conducting studies (with participants randomly assigned to a control group or compared with a low-carb or higher-protein group). Anybody will lose weight on a restricted calorie diet, but the real issue is not weight loss, but a change in body composition.

If you look at it simplistically, calories in vs out, and weight loss, as opposed to looking at the different ways the body uses different macronutrients, their effects on hormones, and changes on body composition as opposed to just numbers on a scale, the importance of things like protein intake and carb vs fat intake (and what types of carbs and fats) becomes more apparent.

The goal isn't to just be lighter or heavier, but to have more muscle, less fat, and be healthier, and quite frankly, the higher carb, grain heavy diet Ell and Clarence recommend is not optimal for that purpose.

You might also find http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbs-against-cardio interesting.

Like I stated earlier, I've lost confidence in our experts.

The brain cannot function properly when carbohydrates are scarce. Forget everything else because if you want to be successful, that's where it happens.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  sgsims1 on Fri Apr 30, 2010 8:31 pm

James T wrote:Steve, I'm not relying on wikipedia! Demonstration purposes only! I'm relying on everyday experience with many, many users of different performance enhancing drugs.

A question or two:

You've lost 40lbs. Of that 40lbs how much had you lost without drugs? How do you know the contribution made by the drugs? What percentage of the changes were drug induced and what percentage by simply trying harder, as returns diminished?

James, I have no idea. I have used EC off and on to help me get a jumpstart here and there. My fatloss seems to have come in 10lb spurts with long periods of maintenance in between. I DEFINITELY haven't used EC the entire 2 1/2 years. One thing I DO know is that my fatloss has coincided with my ability to reduce calories BELOW maintenance, and that has been a struggle off and on. I've used EC, willpower, and often a change in the macro configuration in order to "get going" again; just many tools in the toolbox. I'm envious as hell of people like Glynn and Landau who can just "dial down" the calories and keep them there. Yes, I am weak, and inconsistent, as most normal humans are when trying to reduce fat. So IMO, all the tools are there and can be a help.

BTW, I hardly considered my EC supplementation to be "drug use", but you've certainly got me feeling like some sort of crackhead! Embarassed cyclops affraid geek lol!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
avatar
sgsims1
Admin

Posts : 154
Join date : 2010-04-14

http://hitinpractice.motionforum.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  Guest on Sat May 01, 2010 3:22 am

Admin wrote:
James T wrote:Steve, I'm not relying on wikipedia! Demonstration purposes only! I'm relying on everyday experience with many, many users of different performance enhancing drugs.

A question or two:

You've lost 40lbs. Of that 40lbs how much had you lost without drugs? How do you know the contribution made by the drugs? What percentage of the changes were drug induced and what percentage by simply trying harder, as returns diminished?

James, I have no idea. I have used EC off and on to help me get a jumpstart here and there. My fatloss seems to have come in 10lb spurts with long periods of maintenance in between. I DEFINITELY haven't used EC the entire 2 1/2 years. One thing I DO know is that my fatloss has coincided with my ability to reduce calories BELOW maintenance, and that has been a struggle off and on. I've used EC, willpower, and often a change in the macro configuration in order to "get going" again; just many tools in the toolbox. I'm envious as hell of people like Glynn and Landau who can just "dial down" the calories and keep them there. Yes, I am weak, and inconsistent, as most normal humans are when trying to reduce fat. So IMO, all the tools are there and can be a help.

BTW, I hardly considered my EC supplementation to be "drug use", but you've certainly got me feeling like some sort of crackhead! Embarassed cyclops affraid geek lol!


Junkie!

Seriously, your losses have come at times you've tried hardest with your diet. That for me is the answer I was looking for. You might have lost even more without EC (though this is speculation) because the drugs AREN'T muscle sparing. Long term, additional muscle would have improved metabolism and helped with further fat loss.

Time to train...pass the cough medicine and vitamin D...I'M A MONSTER!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  thebiggfella on Sat May 01, 2010 9:16 am

Admin wrote:One thing I DO know is that my fatloss has coincided with my ability to reduce calories BELOW maintenance, and that has been a struggle off and on.

That's the key right there, the absolute bottom line when it comes to dropping the fat. You can exercise all you want and take these so called fat burners but if you're not in a calorie deficit, the fat won't come off.

Eating in a calorie defect requires willpower and self discipline and if you're lucky (as I was) eventually you'll see food in a different way. Something will click inside your head and that will be it.

Now, I just see crap food for what it is, crap. Sugar, trans fats, unnecessary calories, clogged arteries, obesity, diabetes, premature death. Look at it how you will, but that's what I see when I see shitty food. I don't even have to try and see it like that, I just do now. Not that I need to exercise any willpower or self discipline when I see these foods, but having these thoughts as well is like belt and braces.

That's why I cringe sometimes when I see folk stuffing themselves with processed high fat, high sugar shittiness. But hey, it's there body and they can say no. Nobody's forcing it down their throats. Cringe? Yes. Worry? No. Then they'll whinge that they can't lose weight.

That said, don't forget to enjoy yourself from time to time. It's easy to go off the other end and become obsessed with your body to the point where it affects other areas of your life. That opens up a whole new can of worms.
avatar
thebiggfella

Posts : 103
Join date : 2010-04-15
Age : 48
Location : Scotland, UK

Back to top Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  sgsims1 on Sat May 01, 2010 9:55 am

Perhaps I haven't been clear, but I've NEVER taken EC for fat-burning effects....soley because it has been an EXCELLENT apetite suppressant and energizer. And that is the main reason I sing its praises. Not because I think I am sitting around burning fat by taking it Rolling Eyes .
avatar
sgsims1
Admin

Posts : 154
Join date : 2010-04-14

http://hitinpractice.motionforum.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  Guest on Sat May 01, 2010 12:54 pm

Admin wrote:[ Yes, I am weak, and inconsistent, as most normal humans are when trying to reduce fat. So IMO, all the tools are there and can be a help.

BTW, I hardly considered my EC supplementation to be "drug use", but you've certainly got me feeling like some sort of crackhead! Embarassed cyclops affraid geek lol!


Hi Steve,

I find the above a strange rationale for using Ephedrine. It isn't very far removed from saying 'I can't build as much muscle as I would like,so I will use tools such as steroids and HGH'
Whilst I am here I will say I find the whole thread disappointing . I was hoping this site would represent and promote the benefits of high intensity training methods used in combination with a sensible diet. However there are a few strange suggestions on this thread to say the least.

Regards
Mark

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  sgsims1 on Sat May 01, 2010 1:31 pm

Should we just lock the thread then Mark? Nahhhh, we're not that kind of forum either. Wink Don't get too serious on us Mark, we're not trying to turn all the members into drug addicts....I PROMISE What a Face
avatar
sgsims1
Admin

Posts : 154
Join date : 2010-04-14

http://hitinpractice.motionforum.net

Back to top Go down

Carbs

Post  Drew Baye on Sat May 01, 2010 2:07 pm

I think it would help if people defined their terms here, because what one person's idea of "low" is might be different than for another. Just to give a very rough idea of where I'm coming from:

I would consider even proportions of everything (similar to the Zone Diet), along the 30 to 40% range to be moderate. To me, the Zone is moderate fat, protein, and carb.

I would consider something to be low if it was under 20% and I would consider something high if it was over 60%.

I would consider something very low if it was under 10%, and very high if it was over 80%

Also, on a side note, I would hardly consider the USDA to be an objective, unbiased source of nutrition information. I had an uncle who used to work for the USDA who quit after receiving death threats. I can't imagine what kind of dirty politics is influencing their recommendations, but I'm sure the big agriculture lobbies have key people in the USDA firmly in their pockets.
avatar
Drew Baye

Posts : 34
Join date : 2010-04-14
Age : 44
Location : Orlando, FL

http://www.baye.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  Guest on Sun May 02, 2010 6:28 am

Admin wrote:
a calorie may still be a calorie, but the apetite gets HEAVILY suppressed when you up the fat and protein and cut way back on the refined carbs.

The refined carbs alone can stimulate appetite. Just cutting those can reduce appetite without upping fat and protein.

Admin wrote:
No doubt, James, that the JamesT/Landau idea of "just get tough, suck it up, and eat less" can work and may be the simplest way(just ask Glynn!), but for those of us who have to spend a loooong time working on fat loss, it can be brutal. affraid

I had to spend a looooooooooooooooooong time working on fat loss and I did it by eating less energy than I used - the same as everybody else who loses weight. It’s not brutal. Where did you get that idea from?

When I changed my eating habits, I had to buy bigger plates and bowls for my meals. Eating less energy does not have to mean eating less bulk. The bulk of my diet comes from carbohydrate-rich foods. You know, the stuff that the low carb experts tell us make you fat and unhealthy.

I purposely avoided fad diets like low-carb eating. Fad diets have no place in a healthy lifestyle.

Low carb diets are sold on the theory that foods that stimulate insulin production (sugars) are bad. And that sugars are the cause of diabetes. This is bollocks.

You don’t get diabetes from eating sugar, you get it if you have the gene for diabetes and allow the expression of that gene by getting fat. Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger - not carbohydrates.

Contrary to what many self-proclaimed experts tell us, low-carb diets are bad not only for healthy individuals, but for diabetics as well.

Fat loss is responsible for many of the health improvements that the low-carb movement claim, not high levels of dietary fat and protein. As fat comes off, things like blood pressure and cholesterol come down. And fat loss is achieved by eating less energy than you use. When it comes to energy intake, a low carb diet (or any diet that emphasises one food or food group) can be self-limiting because it’s unpalatable to eat lots of meat. The result is a reduction in energy intake.

Effective fat loss - and by that I mean losing excess body fat ONCE and keeping it off for life - is achieved by eating healthily for life. If you feel the need to “cheat” like Drew does, then it’s obvious that what you are doing is not sustainable in the long term.

On a personal note, I don’t like diets that classify ANY type of eating as cheating. It encourages feelings of guilt. Guilt is not appropriate after eating and can lead to problems, not least of which is compulsive exercise.

The truth of the matter is, we all know what makes us fat: Too much beer, sweets, pies, puddings, chocolate, cake or other high-calorie food. Not too much fruit, veg, and wholemeal grains. But when it comes to reversing the situation, instead of simply cutting out the foods that made us fat, many look for a special solution and fall prey to the protein hucksters and supplement salesmen.

Steve, you are no different to anybody else. You don’t have special dietary requirements. You have no more or less willpower than anybody else. The difference, however, is DESIRE. If you don’t have that, then no amount of protein, fat, carbohydrate, Ephedrine, or training will get you to your goal

Best wishes,

Craig

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  sgsims1 on Sun May 02, 2010 1:17 pm

Craig wrote:
Effective fat loss - and by that I mean losing excess body fat ONCE and keeping it off for life - is achieved by eating healthily for life. If you feel the need to “cheat” like Drew does, then it’s obvious that what you are doing is not sustainable in the long term.

Craig

Any intelligent person who has looked at nutrition and fat loss from all angles wouldn't argue with a lot of what you guys have said (other than the above). I find it disheartening though that you guys are so rigid and intolerant of any approach that differs from what has worked for you. I've never even seen a hint of weight regain using many of the techniques and diet habits that you guys so despise. And to label anything other than your own approach as a "fad diet" is a bit limiting, IMO. Lo-carb diets in particular. I think anyone would find this interesting, both from a nutritional as well as historical perspective, regardless of what rigid beliefs one might hold: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
avatar
sgsims1
Admin

Posts : 154
Join date : 2010-04-14

http://hitinpractice.motionforum.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  Guest on Sun May 02, 2010 1:53 pm

Admin wrote:
I find it disheartening though that you guys are so rigid and intolerant of any approach that differs from what has worked for you.

That’s simply not true, Steve. For that to be true, you would need to know my view on each of the thousands of diets out there.

What I am pretty intolerant of though, is the mountain of bullshit put out by the fitness and diet industries.

Admin wrote: And to label anything other than your own approach as a "fad diet" is a bit limiting, IMO.

I gave my opinion of low carb diets, not everything other than my own approach.

I didn’t make the rules about diet and fat loss, Steve. And you don’t have to agree with my opinion. But I speak from experience, and I tell the truth.

http://www.fatguythin.com/2010/03/the-truth.html

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Relevant article from Scientific American

Post  Drew Baye on Sun May 02, 2010 3:23 pm

From a recent article in Scientific American, Carbs against Cardio: More Evidence that Refined Carbohydrates, not Fats, Threaten the Heart:

"In 2008 Stampfer co-authored a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that followed 322 moderately obese individuals for two years as they adopted one of three diets: a low-fat, calorie-restricted diet based on American Heart Association guidelines; a Mediterranean, restricted-calorie diet rich in vegetables and low in red meat; and a low-carbohydrate, nonrestricted-calorie diet. Although the subjects on the low-carb diet ate the most saturated fat, they ended up with the healthiest ratio of HDL to LDL cholesterol and lost twice as much weight as their low-fat-eating counterparts."

"“If you reduce saturated fat and replace it with high glycemic-index carbohydrates, you may not only not get benefits—you might actually produce harm,” Ludwig argues. The next time you eat a piece of buttered toast, he says, consider that “butter is actually the more healthful component.”"

_________________
Drew Baye
High Intensity Training and Nutrition for Bodybuilding, Fitness and Health
avatar
Drew Baye

Posts : 34
Join date : 2010-04-14
Age : 44
Location : Orlando, FL

http://www.baye.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  sgsims1 on Sun May 02, 2010 4:01 pm

Nice avatar Drew! Ripppppppped!!!!!!!
avatar
sgsims1
Admin

Posts : 154
Join date : 2010-04-14

http://hitinpractice.motionforum.net

Back to top Go down

Thanks

Post  Drew Baye on Sun May 02, 2010 4:23 pm

Three-site skinfold, bioelectrical impedance analysis, and Futrex all put me at about 3 to 4%. Did that using the Zone and SuperSlow. Leaning down to around that level again, but this time I'll be around 20 lbs heavier.

_________________
Drew Baye
High Intensity Training and Nutrition for Bodybuilding, Fitness and Health
avatar
Drew Baye

Posts : 34
Join date : 2010-04-14
Age : 44
Location : Orlando, FL

http://www.baye.com

Back to top Go down

More research...

Post  Guest on Sun May 02, 2010 8:05 pm

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/03/22/replacing.saturated.fat.with.polyunsaturated.fat.may.cut.heart.disease.risk

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=which-has-a-greater-influ

http://veggiedietitian.blogspot.com/2009/06/saturated-fats-heart-disease-and-other.html

Oh, what to do?!

“I seldom watch television, but today I happened to see part of a program where they were talking about the supposed “dangers” of using a cellular telephone; some guy is claiming that a mobile phone caused him to have a brain tumour and has filed a law suit against a phone company for supposed damages. And what did the “experts” say? Some said that he did not have a tumour, some said he did, some said such phones were dangerous as hell, some said they were perfectly safe. Take your pick.

As usual, you can find “experts” who will say whatever you want to hear. Whatever you pay them to say. All of which experts, of course, claim that they have no bias on the subject. Sure. Then why are they appearing on the show?”

Arthur Jones

http://arthurjonesexercise.com/Bulletin2/33.PDF

Way ahead of his time.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Arthur

Post  Drew Baye on Sun May 02, 2010 8:28 pm

While Arthur may have been ahead of his time, he was also wrong about quite a few things.

As for carb/fat ratios, if you haven't already done so I recommend reading Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, which is probably the best researched book on the subject.

_________________
Drew Baye
High Intensity Training and Nutrition for Bodybuilding, Fitness and Health
avatar
Drew Baye

Posts : 34
Join date : 2010-04-14
Age : 44
Location : Orlando, FL

http://www.baye.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  sgsims1 on Sun May 02, 2010 9:45 pm

Drew Baye wrote:While Arthur may have been ahead of his time, he was also wrong about quite a few things.

As for carb/fat ratios, if you haven't already done so I recommend reading Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, which is probably the best researched book on the subject.
I'll second that; great book.
avatar
sgsims1
Admin

Posts : 154
Join date : 2010-04-14

http://hitinpractice.motionforum.net

Back to top Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  Guest on Mon May 03, 2010 3:11 am

Drew Baye wrote:From a recent article in Scientific American, Carbs against Cardio: More Evidence that Refined Carbohydrates, not Fats, Threaten the Heart:

"In 2008 Stampfer co-authored a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that followed 322 moderately obese individuals for two years as they adopted one of three diets: a low-fat, calorie-restricted diet based on American Heart Association guidelines; a Mediterranean, restricted-calorie diet rich in vegetables and low in red meat; and a low-carbohydrate, nonrestricted-calorie diet. Although the subjects on the low-carb diet ate the most saturated fat, they ended up with the healthiest ratio of HDL to LDL cholesterol and lost twice as much weight as their low-fat-eating counterparts."

The sentence immediately preceding this quote reads:

“Although saturated fat boosts blood levels of “bad” LDL cholesterol, it also increases “good” HDL cholesterol.”

The piece opens thus:

“Eat less saturated fat: that has been the take-home message from the U.S. government for the past 30 years. But while Americans have dutifully reduced the percentage of daily calories from saturated fat since 1970, the obesity rate during that time has more than doubled, diabetes has tripled, and heart disease is still the country’s biggest killer.”

What I want to know is where are all these Americans (and it’s the same situation here in Britain) who have dutifully reduced their saturated fat intake? Sitting in McDonalds, perhaps? KFC, maybe?

Westerners do not eat a low-fat diet. They eat processed foods high in sugar AND fat. Attempting to make an argument for low carb eating on the basis that Americans have become obese by reducing their fat intake is spurious at best.

The nonsense continues: “Processed carbohydrates, which many Americans eat today in place of fat, “

Americans eat processed carbs IN PLACE of fat? The Colonel must be turning in his grave, Drew. America did not get fat by eating carbs instead of fat now did it?

“In March the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a meta-analysis—which combines data from several studies—that compared the reported daily food intake of nearly 350,000 people against their risk of developing cardiovascular disease over a period of five to 23 years.”

Reported daily food intake? Have you ever tried to get anyone to tell you what they eat for one day let alone FIVE YEARS? It’s like asking a woman her dress size.

In fact, I’d like to meet someone - anyone - who has adhered to a low carb diet for two years. BTW, Drew, what do you eat on your cheat days?

Drew Baye wrote: “If you reduce saturated fat and replace it with high glycemic-index carbohydrates, you may not only not get benefits—you might actually produce harm,”

I don’t doubt this statement. But who is promoting the consumption of high glycemic-index carbohydrates? I certainly am not.

Drew Baye wrote:Three-site skinfold, bioelectrical impedance analysis, and Futrex all put me at about 3 to 4%. Did that using the Zone and SuperSlow. Leaning down to around that level again, but this time I'll be around 20 lbs heavier.

Yes, you are very lean in that photo, Drew. No doubt about it. What happened?

How come you didn’t keep the fat off?

And why, if the Zone diet and SuperSlow where so effective, are you not using those methods now?

This is the point I am making. Even if low carb eating did have greater fat loss and health benefits than other diets, is it something you can maintain for life? Will you still be eating low carb this time next year, or the year after that? Will you be lean for life?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

fat loss, superslow, etc.

Post  Drew Baye on Mon May 03, 2010 3:36 am

No time for a long response now, still doing other writing.

The SuperSlow thing is a long story. It is hardly the best way to train for muscular size. Had I stuck with Mentzer's HIT or something similar and maintained a higher protein intake while dieting I would have competed as a middleweight instead of a lightweight.

Maintain that level of bodyfat? Are you serious? I maintain at around 12 to 15, which is the low end of average, with my heaviest bodyweight at 15 percent being a little over 200 pounds, at a height of 5'7". Definitely not ripped, but not fat either. While some people can maintain in the high single digits it would be nearly impossible for someone to stay in the mid to low single digit bodyfat percentages year round, drug-free, and also try to gain or maintain a reasonable amount of muscle mass for their frame.

It is not difficult at all to maintain on a low carb diet. You adapt to it relatively quickly, and you can actually eat a very large volume of leafy and fibrous vegetables and berries without consuming many grams of carbs. I add some starchy carbs (yams, or some rice) on workout days, but I don't miss it at all the rest of the time. I don't know why people think this is difficult to maintain. It's not.

_________________
Drew Baye
High Intensity Training and Nutrition for Bodybuilding, Fitness and Health
avatar
Drew Baye

Posts : 34
Join date : 2010-04-14
Age : 44
Location : Orlando, FL

http://www.baye.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  Guest on Mon May 03, 2010 4:17 am

Drew Baye wrote:No time for a long response now, still doing other writing.

Maintain that level of bodyfat? Are you serious?

The point is that you got lean using a diet that was not sustainable. You used the example of your condition as testament to The Zone Diet, but the condition was temporary.

And please don’t take this as a criticism of your condition in the photo, because it’s not.

Drew Baye wrote: It is not difficult at all to maintain on a low carb diet. You adapt to it relatively quickly, and you can actually eat a very large volume of leafy and fibrous vegetables and berries without consuming many grams of carbs.

This I can concur with. The main reason I had to buy bigger plates and bowls is the volume of the the fruit and veg I eat.

Drew Baye wrote: I add some starchy carbs (yams, or some rice) on workout days, but I don't miss it at all the rest of the time. I don't know why people think this is difficult to maintain. It's not.

What does a cheat day look like? Seriously.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Cheat days

Post  Drew Baye on Mon May 03, 2010 4:40 am

"Cheat" days are pretty much the same as the rest of the days, but with the addition of some starchy carbs, mainly for the workouts.

Gotta make this quick, because I'll probably be writing and editing for the rest of the night through noon tomorrow, but for me an average day when not specifically focused on leaning down would be around 2500 to 3000 calories, consisting of around 200 to 250 grams of protein, and the remainder pretty evenly divided between fat and carbs, with most of the fat coming with the meat, eggs, dairy and nuts and the carbs consisting of mainly vegetables and fruit, except on workout days when I'll also have some rice or yams, mashed with butter.

I have to lean down to very low bodyfat levels to get photos for the next book, so I've reduced my calorie intake to around 2000/day (around an 800 cal deficit for me, based on Korr ReeVue metabolic testing) and am keeping my protein intake the same, but have kept the carbs under 100 grams per day, and the balance comes from fat. Still adding some starches on workout days though - the "cheat" days are always planned to coincide with workouts.

_________________
Drew Baye
High Intensity Training and Nutrition for Bodybuilding, Fitness and Health
avatar
Drew Baye

Posts : 34
Join date : 2010-04-14
Age : 44
Location : Orlando, FL

http://www.baye.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Fat burners

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum