# Questions about cardio,



## freshtodeath (Jul 5, 2009)

So after doing some extensive research on the forum, I now know that the key to getting ripped is diet not cardio. I know when you do cardio you risk losing muscle, I'd like to keep up with my cardio but try to retain as much muscle as possible. I've been told swimming is the best for this, is this true?


----------



## Marat (Jul 5, 2009)

What are your goals?


That aside, if it really was the case that swimming was the best form of cardio for 'keeping up cardio to retain as much muscle mass as possible,' for what reason would that be?


----------



## freshtodeath (Jul 6, 2009)

Well the reason why I would like to keep up my cardio is for overall health, but I wouldn't want to lose muscle or size. I know that swimming is great since it has no impact on your joints, but my question is do you burn muscle like if I were to run long distances?


----------



## Built (Jul 6, 2009)

You won't automatically burn off all your muscle if you run - not if you eat enough and avoid overtraining.


----------



## gtbmed (Jul 6, 2009)

Running long distances usually leads to big increases in hunger.  If you're trying to cut keep this in mind.  It also burns a lot of calories and is difficult on the joints.  Make sure your running form is good, you have proper shoes, and you run on soft surfaces semi-regularly.

I would try to stay away from cardio while on a cut for the simple reason that the amount of calories I burn from the cardio usually isn't the same as the amount I take in due to extra hunger.


----------



## Built (Jul 6, 2009)

I'm with you there, bud. Running makes me hungry as hell - and it really doesn't burn that many calories. Not worth it.


----------



## freshtodeath (Jul 6, 2009)

ok, so I've concluded that running might not be the best solution. How about swimming? or is cardio just simply cardio and it all has the same effect?


----------



## Built (Jul 6, 2009)

Well hang on here. What do you want the cardio for - general conditioning? Because if that's the case, just eat enough to compensate.


----------



## freshtodeath (Jul 6, 2009)

I'm doing cardio for stamina, and to aid in calorie reduction.


----------



## Built (Jul 6, 2009)

Use it for stamina, but don't think about the calorie reduction too much. Get that part from your diet.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 8, 2009)

I don't think it's this simple. It can sometimes make a significant enough difference in terms of calories. For me, the difference between not doing any cardio and doing cardio is about an extra pound of fat lost each month. So to me, that is significant enough for me to do it. Maybe it wouldn't be significant enough for other but it is for me.

Here's how that works out. You only want to go so far with your deficit. Say you determine that 25% is as much of a deficit as you are going to do. If you burn 3000 cals in a day on average, that is a reduction of 750 calories. So let's say you then add in cardio and your total calories need (TDEE for short) ends up being 3400 cals per day on average when you factor in the amount of calories burned during the exercise plus the increased metabolism after. Then a 25% reduction of that would be 850 calories. So without increasing your deficit percentage, you are taking out an extra 100 calories per day. After 30 days that is 3000 calories (nearly a pound)!! It adds up.

Also, I think your body is better able to handle a deficit when you are doing cardio so you may be less inclined to enter starvation mode. I'm not sure on that but I could have swore I read that somewhere. Anyone else heard this before?


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 8, 2009)

I haven't heard that about swimming but I suppose that could be true. I have actually switched over to swimming for my cardio (was jogging) and for me, the swimming is better for several reasons:

1) It burns way more calories than my jogging was
2) It's much easier on the joints
3) I am not sweating my ass off anymore
4) It's actually kind of fun
5) Hot chicks in bikinis

If you do decide to do swimming, make sure you know how. I got in the pool all cocky my first day of swimming, thinking well I can run 45 minutes straight no problem so this swimming thing won't be a big deal. After about 5 minutes I was so tired I could barely move my arms! If you can't swim properly you'll waste all your energy right off the bat just flailing around like a mad man. So I'm in swimming lessons now...


----------



## gtbmed (Jul 9, 2009)

The problem with your logic is that increases in appetite often go along with increases in cardiovascular activity.  Often the amount of energy used during the cardiovascular activity is less than the extra energy (calories) consumed because of increased appetite.

If you monitor your intake and can control your appetite while doing cardio, I see no problem with it.  But I know (as a person who enjoys swimming and swims often during the school year) that I'd be miserable doing swimming workouts while running a deficit.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 9, 2009)

Yes, I read the point about appetite above and probably should have addressed that as well. Think about this: If you ate celery for ALL your calories, you would have to eat like 50 pounds of celery and would be so full that you are puking! Some foods fill you up more than other foods. As another example, wheat bread will fill you up much faster than white bread.

If you find yourself hungry all the time, you should alter the food you eat so that you are not hungry. I eat at as much as a 25% deficit, go to the gym nearly every day and don't really ever get that hungry and don't really get cravings either. This is because I eat super clean food and keep insulin levels stable.

Keeping stable insulin levels will keep you from getting cravings and going nuts. That means eat complex carbs like oats, wheat bread, basmati rice, etc. rather than white rice, white bread, etc. Also be careful with fruit. A little fruit is okay but you don't want to go nuts with it since this is a simple carb. Orange juice for instance would be out of the question but an orange would be okay.

So that is how I would get around the problem if it even is a problem. It has not been an issue for me and I have been on a deficit for over half a year now.


----------



## Built (Jul 10, 2009)

See, that works great for you gigaplex, and it's awesome that it does. If I ate this way while trying to cut, I'd be chewing my arm off. You really need to pay attention to your own satiety cues - they can be very individual.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 10, 2009)

Sure, they can be individual but there is a normal range too. I have seen dozens of people do the same/similar nutrition plan as me and none of them has had any major problems with hunger. If there is any problem related to hunger, it has always been the opposite: they have problems eating all the food (even on a deficit, even with cardio). Maybe someone with a strange medical problem would get hungry but the vast majority of the population is going to be fine.

Your point about paying attention to your own hunger is valid - you certainly should. All I'm saying is that hunger can be understood and controlled like many other factors. There's no need to cut cardio out because of hunger. If a person is hungry all the time then there is likely something wrong with their diet.


----------



## gtbmed (Jul 10, 2009)

I disagree with your last point.

From Lyle McD himself:



> Q: WHY is the combination of high intensity and/or long duration activity a mistake when calories are being severely restricted?
> 
> A: Here's a precis on some of what's going on:
> 
> ...



Also read this study on the effects of exercise on leptin expression and serum letpin levels: Voluntary wheel running decreases adipose tissue mass and expression of leptin mRNA in osborne-mendel rats


----------



## Marat (Jul 10, 2009)

^^ yep.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 10, 2009)

The question in the Q&A snippet you posted clearly states that it is about the combination of cardio and a *SEVERE* caloric deficit. Whether you are doing cardio or not, you will lower your metabolism on a severe caloric deficit. So yes, with the cardio it's bad but without the cardio... it's still bad! So figuring out which of these two things is worse seems like a pointless activity. What would it prove either way? Why would you do either one?

Also, this should be obvious but I feel as though I have to say it. If you all of a sudden start doing cardio, you need to then EAT MORE CALORIES. If you keep your calories the same and started doing cardio then you could end up at a deficit that is far greater than before and if it is too much this WOULD decrease your metabolism and you WOULD be worse off. Perhaps this is how people get this strange (and false) idea that doing cardio is a sure fire way to decrease metabolism while on a deficit. It is simply not true.


----------



## Merkaba (Jul 10, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> I don't think it's this simple. It can sometimes make a significant enough difference in terms of calories. For me, the difference between not doing any cardio and doing cardio is about an extra pound of fat lost each month. So to me, that is significant enough for me to do it. Maybe it wouldn't be significant enough for other but it is for me.



How are you determining this is fat per month, and not just weight? i.e. water, muscle....?


----------



## fyredup1286 (Jul 11, 2009)

*Swimming*

Swimming is an amazing cardio workout.  The thing is instead of just doing freestyle for laps, mix it up.  Do a 100 (25 yd pool) of butterfly, then a 100 of backstroke, 100 of breaststroke, and a 100 of freestyle.  If you are not comfortable with these strokes, you can ask for help, or just take it slow.  If you know you cannot do that much, start with a smaller distance.  

Also, if you are not looking to lose muscle but get cardio in, do some circuit training.  For example, perform an exercise like say Med. Ball Slams, then run to another part of the gym, do another exercise, and make sure to keep your heart rate up, that way you are getting your cardio and weight training in as well.  This way you can perform four or five exercises in a circuit, and you can mix it up along the way.  A good basis for this kind of circuit training is to keep an upper/lower, push/pull method.  So you would do a upper body push, lower body pull, upper body pull, and lower body push.  When one circuit is done take a 2-3 minute break, and repeat.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 11, 2009)

Merkaba said:


> How are you determining this is fat per month, and not just weight? i.e. water, muscle....?



I measure bodyfat percentage weekly.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 11, 2009)

After a few more swimming lessons, I plan on doing the following plan to get up to where I can swim a mile:

0to1650

It sounds very doable.


----------



## danzik17 (Jul 11, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> I measure bodyfat percentage weekly.



How?  DEXA?  BodPod?  Calipers?  Crappy electro-scale?


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 11, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> How?  DEXA?  BodPod?  Calipers?  Crappy electro-scale?



At first, I had professionals do it with calipers and they proved unreliable (didn't always get same person) so I started doing it myself. At first I was so fat I had to use the rope and choke method because calipers were just too inaccurate. Then I started getting skinny enough that the rope and choke method was not accurate enough and so I started doing caliper measurements (non-digital accumeasure) in addition and I go by the caliper measurements now.

The measurements are not really used to figure out my exact body fat % but rather to give me a consistent weekly measurement that I can use to make decisions off of the trend of the data (rather than week to week change). As far as my actual body fat % goes though, I think it is in the ball park.


----------



## danzik17 (Jul 11, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> At first, I had professionals do it with calipers and they proved unreliable (didn't always get same person) so I started doing it myself. At first I was so fat I had to use the rope and choke method because calipers were just too inaccurate. Then I started getting skinny enough that the rope and choke method was not accurate enough and so I started doing caliper measurements (non-digital accumeasure) in addition and I go by the caliper measurements now.
> 
> The measurements are not really used to figure out my exact body fat % but rather to give me a consistent weekly measurement that I can use to make decisions off of the trend of the data (rather than week to week change). As far as my actual body fat % goes though, I think it is in the ball park.



Ah see but there's the trick.  Does your diet/training remain consistent?  Do you measure during the same times of the month?

I can tell you that for me, I can have my calipers fluctuate millimeters without changing bodyfat at all.  I can do that by reglycogenating which in turn makes you store more water.  In fact I've gained 12-14 lbs over 1 WEEK (started a bulk, went from 168 --> 180).  Is that all fat/muscle?  No, only maybe 2-3lbs are actual fat or muscle, the rest is all water and glycogen that wasn't there before.  If I measured skinfold right now it would probably be horribly wrong.


----------



## Built (Jul 11, 2009)

^ I'm with the others here - assume you neither gain nor lose lean mass from this point forward and just trust the process. Anything else is an exercise in futility.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 12, 2009)

danzik17 said:


> Ah see but there's the trick.  Does your diet/training remain consistent?  Do you measure during the same times of the month?
> 
> I can tell you that for me, I can have my calipers fluctuate millimeters without changing bodyfat at all.  I can do that by reglycogenating which in turn makes you store more water.  In fact I've gained 12-14 lbs over 1 WEEK (started a bulk, went from 168 --> 180).  Is that all fat/muscle?  No, only maybe 2-3lbs are actual fat or muscle, the rest is all water and glycogen that wasn't there before.  If I measured skinfold right now it would probably be horribly wrong.



Yes, it does remain consistent. I measure myself at the same time on the same day of every week, drink about the same amount of water, even eat the same exact food everyday. I zigzag so one measurement day I might have 500 more cals than another measurement day but this is really the only variance.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 12, 2009)

Built said:


> ^ I'm with the others here - assume you neither gain nor lose lean mass from this point forward and just trust the process. Anything else is an exercise in futility.



Wow, I can't believe I'm hearing this. This is the trademark of all crappy diets. It's a red flag. Throw science to the wind and just BELIEVE. Put your blind faith in something and just hope that it's working. If it's some kind of extreme diet where your water weight is shifting drastically from week to week, measurements really will be futile. And we always have to do the extreme don't we? Let's find the weirdest diet out there with the coolest tagline and then we'll just all believe in it until it comes true. Why is there such a strong tendency to do this?

So what is it? What is the latest fad diet people here are following? There has got to be something warping your mind if your going to sit here and say, don't do measurements, don't use facts and data, just have blind faith. If something goes wrong, how will you know? How will you know how to adjust your diet if you take no measurements. You seem to be advocating guesswork so if that's the situation then the diet's going to work for a few by mere chance and not work for most. That is how the usual fad diet pans out. And everybody failing at the diet will just look to the person who it happened to work for by chance or genetics and think they must be doing something wrong. People eventually get frustrated enough that they switch to a new fad diet and the cycle repeats.

Me, I like facts and data rather than blind faith and I don't fall for fad diets. Since I know what I'm doing and am not on some whacko diet, it is not an exercise in futility for me to use a scientific approach. Just because you don't know how to do something doesn't mean it's impossible. Maybe it means you have a few things to learn.


----------



## Marat (Jul 12, 2009)

^  I laughed.


----------



## Built (Jul 12, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> Wow, I can't believe I'm hearing this. This is the trademark of all crappy diets. It's a red flag. Throw science to the wind and just BELIEVE. Put your blind faith in something and just hope that it's working. If it's some kind of extreme diet where your water weight is shifting drastically from week to week, measurements really will be futile. And we always have to do the extreme don't we? Let's find the weirdest diet out there with the coolest tagline and then we'll just all believe in it until it comes true. Why is there such a strong tendency to do this?
> 
> So what is it? What is the latest fad diet people here are following? There has got to be something warping your mind if your going to sit here and say, don't do measurements, don't use facts and data, just have blind faith. If something goes wrong, how will you know? How will you know how to adjust your diet if you take no measurements. You seem to be advocating guesswork so if that's the situation then the diet's going to work for a few by mere chance and not work for most. That is how the usual fad diet pans out. And everybody failing at the diet will just look to the person who it happened to work for by chance or genetics and think they must be doing something wrong. People eventually get frustrated enough that they switch to a new fad diet and the cycle repeats.
> 
> Me, I like facts and data rather than blind faith and I don't fall for fad diets. Since I know what I'm doing and am not on some whacko diet, it is not an exercise in futility for me to use a scientific approach. Just because you don't know how to do something doesn't mean it's impossible. Maybe it means you have a few things to learn.





m11 said:


> ^  I laughed.



So did I, but to be fair, our friend here doesn't know us very well yet. 

gigaplex, I don't blame you for wanting to ensure what you are doing is working. I do too, and to address my own concern, I've had DEXAs taken at three different points in my training - one at the end of a cut where I got down to 14% (my profile pic, just click on my name to see it) - one at the end of a bulk, and one about halfway into a subsequent cut, at what I like to think of as a "maintenance" weight. 

What I learned was that my lean mass is really stable. I've pretty much maxed out my natural potential, and neither gain much when I bulk, nor lose much when I cut. While the "not gaining much while bulking" does not charm me (hooray for getting old LOL!) I'm very much relieved to know that I lose almost no LBM when I cut down to very low levels of bodyfat. 

Because of this, I am unconcerned with the day to day or week to week fluctuations in bodyfat levels. I trust the process and proceed accordingly because I've already tested the process with the most sophisticated bodyfat testing available. The methodology I follow is sound, scientifically-based and empirically substantiated with my own data. 

Since any other method for testing bodyfat fluctuates by several percentage points with varying levels of glycogenation and hydration, should I attempt to employ, say, caliper or BIA testing from this point forward, I would learn nothing that would assist me in reaching my goals. 

I've seen a lot of people place a great deal of cred on these methods, boldly posting how they gained three pounds of muscle and lost two pounds of fat in say a week's time. Anyone involved in physical culture knows this is simply not possible, but don't go arguing with a caliper reading!!! 

I think that's why so many of us here will tell you that the frequent readings you're relying upon for information are really nothing more than mental masturbation. 

Peace.


----------



## gtbmed (Jul 12, 2009)

hmmm... you didn't seem to like facts when I presented them to you earlier about the connection between hunger and cardiovascular activity...


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 13, 2009)

gtbmed said:


> hmmm... you didn't seem to like facts when I presented them to you earlier about the connection between hunger and cardiovascular activity...



I didn't like them or dislike them. I didn't even claim they were false as that was not necessary. You apparently missed my post. If there's something further you actually want to address, you could always speak up and say what it is. Wouldn't that have been more productive than this post?


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 13, 2009)

Built said:


> So did I, but to be fair, our friend here doesn't know us very well yet.
> 
> gigaplex, I don't blame you for wanting to ensure what you are doing is working. I do too, and to address my own concern, I've had DEXAs taken at three different points in my training - one at the end of a cut where I got down to 14% (my profile pic, just click on my name to see it) - one at the end of a bulk, and one about halfway into a subsequent cut, at what I like to think of as a "maintenance" weight.
> 
> ...



If you could have had useful data on bodyfat % weekly while you were doing all this, would you do it? If the data was useful, I believe you would. Why? Because you would have had a better chance of success if you had that additional data. Just because you got along without it does not mean that it is useless to everyone else. Even if you had no data, not even the scale, not even being able to visually see your body or even feel it, it would STILL be possible for you to succeed by mere chance, it's just that your chances of succeeding would be much lower. In short, the more useful data you have, the better. If you can agree with that then maybe we can talk about whether or not this kind of measurement data is useful or not rather than if you specifically were able to succeed without it or not.

Now that that's out of the way, let's look at your straw man claims:

1) People that make a claim based on the difference between one week of data and the next week of data are often wrong because measurements fluctuate to some degree.

TRUE - I have not claimed otherwise. I even specifically said that the data is only useful as a trend, not week to week. Whether you honestly missed that or whether you desperately want me to be wrong so much that you will ignore any information to the contrary, I don't know.

2) Measurements will vary wildly when water levels and glycogenation are varying wildly

TRUE - Again, I have already stated that I take my measurements on the same day of the week and am at about the same level of hydration and glycogenation. I am completely aware of the effect that hydration and glycogenation have on these measurements. Since my hydration and glycogenation is consistent, it isn't something that screws with my measurements. This has already been discussed so again I wonder if you honestly missed it or want me to be wrong so much that you are ignoring any information to the contrary.

3) Personally I get by without the measurements

FINE - Then don't use them. I am not trying to convince you to use them and never said success was impossible without them but am merely arguing the case that they are not useless, they increase the chance of success in many situations and saying that nobody should use them week to week period is bad advice.


Weekly measurements are useful ONLY IF you know how to properly perform the measurements and if you know how to interpret the data. If I did the measurements the way you describe, then yes, they would be useless. If you commonly encounter people that do the measurements the wrong way and misinterpret the data then I am sorry for your pain but don't take it out on me by false insinuations about my methods or conclusions.


----------



## Built (Jul 13, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> If you could have had useful data on bodyfat % weekly while you were doing all this, would you do it? If the data was useful, I believe you would. Why? Because you would have had a better chance of success if you had that additional data. Just because you got along without it does not mean that it is useless to everyone else. Even if you had no data, not even the scale, not even being able to visually see your body or even feel it, it would STILL be possible for you to succeed by mere chance, it's just that your chances of succeeding would be much lower. In short, the more useful data you have, the better. If you can agree with that then maybe we can talk about whether or not this kind of measurement data is useful or not rather than if you specifically were able to succeed without it or not.


No. I actually value my time. 

Seriously, I carb-cycle. The 3-7 lb fluctuation in hydration/glycogen due to this process would render weekly tracking by any method futile. 


gigaplex said:


> Now that that's out of the way, let's look at your straw man claims:


Straw man? Where did I pull a straw man on you. I was TRYING to be nice.


gigaplex said:


> 1) People that make a claim based on the difference between one week of data and the next week of data are often wrong because measurements fluctuate to some degree.
> 
> TRUE - I have not claimed otherwise. I even specifically said that the data is only useful as a trend, not week to week. Whether you honestly missed that or whether you desperately want me to be wrong so much that you will ignore any information to the contrary, I don't know.


Neither. I just don't see the point. Measurement error is going to be huge with this stuff. Why bother? 



gigaplex said:


> 2) Measurements will vary wildly when water levels and glycogenation are varying wildly
> 
> TRUE - Again, I have already stated that I take my measurements on the same day of the week and am at about the same level of hydration and glycogenation. I am completely aware of the effect that hydration and glycogenation have on these measurements. Since my hydration and glycogenation is consistent, it isn't something that screws with my measurements. This has already been discussed so again I wonder if you honestly missed it or want me to be wrong so much that you are ignoring any information to the contrary.


What information? Have YOU paid for three DEXA scans out of your own personal interest in the process? No? 

<sniff> Amateur. 



gigaplex said:


> 3) Personally I get by without the measurements
> 
> FINE - Then don't use them. I am not trying to convince you to use them and never said success was impossible without them but am merely arguing the case that they are not useless, they increase the chance of success in many situations and saying that nobody should use them week to week period is bad advice.


I would like to see evidence that they increase the chance of success. 

How ripped are you?



gigaplex said:


> Weekly measurements are useful ONLY IF you know how to properly perform the measurements and if you know how to interpret the data. If I did the measurements the way you describe, then yes, they would be useless. If you commonly encounter people that do the measurements the wrong way and misinterpret the data then I am sorry for your pain but don't take it out on me by false insinuations about my methods or conclusions.



Pix please.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 13, 2009)

Yes, I think everybody gets it: you carb cycle. As I have said at least two times before this, the measurements will not be of any value if you are drastically changing your glycogen/water all the time. But here's something you may not have thought of.... Not everyone is doing the exact same thing as you. I know it's a strange concept but yes, there are other people out there that are not carb cycling. Wow, i know.

So to this post you will probably respond right back and say yeah but the measurements are useless cuz I carb cycle. lol. Perhaps I need to repeat it 4 times instead of only 3 times? There's your straw man. The ridiculousness gets knocked up a notch even above that because you use the straw man again in this latest post and then in the very next line of the same post act all offended that I'm calling out a straw man.

Insinuating that I am a liar and that I didn't lose a bunch of weight like I say seems pretty desperate to me. Obviously I just joined the forum and so don't have any pics up. Why would I lie about such a thing though? What would be the purpose of all this discussion? Some weird game? I don't get it. But sure, I mean if you really want to, we can put the whole debate on hold until I get some pics up to prove my fat loss. But you would only NEED that if you could not hold your own intellectually. If you could hold your own intellectually then it would not really matter if I posted a pic or not because you would actually be able to have a civilized debate and address all the issues. But that is just not the case, is it?

Honestly, I sense an emotional reaction from you. You do understand that this is just a debate on the internet, right? I'm sure you're a nice person and all and I don't actually even hate you. I just disagree with you. It's really nothing to take personally or get emotional about. Not everyone is going to agree with you all the time. Really, it just makes things interesting.

In any case, I made a new thread totally dedicated to the weekly body fat measurement in case you really are interested in actually debating it (something that stopped a few posts ago). Here's the link:
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/d...weekly-body-fat-measurements.html#post1912825


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 13, 2009)

This thread has degenerated a bit so I am going to attempt to get it back on track.

The whole discussion about these measurements started because I said I lose about a pound of fat extra per month when I do cardio and showed how the math for that worked out.

Now does anyone actually think that it is impossible to maintain muscle while doing cardio? That is key question number one. I can agree that it is harder to maintain muscle if you're doing cardio but I don't believe that it is going to be impossible for everyone to do.

Merkaba asked a good question because if you have no way of being able to tell whether you are losing muscle or not then it might be a bad idea to do steady state cardio, assuming you are wanting to be very careful not to lose muscle. On the other hand, if you have some way of knowing whether you are losing muscle or not, then you don't have to guess. If you see you're not losing muscle or it's an acceptable amount, then you can continue with the cardio and if you see that you are losing muscle, you can look at other options. So key question number two is: If a person has the goal of losing fat and is able to do cardio without losing muscle, should they do cardio (assuming a pound of fat per month is significant to them)? The answer obviously is yes and this is the point I was making before the thread derailed. Does anyone actually disagree with me on this?


----------



## Built (Jul 13, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> Yes, I think everybody gets it: you carb cycle. As I have said at least two times before this, the measurements will not be of any value if you are drastically changing your glycogen/water all the time. But here's something you may not have thought of.... Not everyone is doing the exact same thing as you. I know it's a strange concept but yes, there are other people out there that are not carb cycling. Wow, i know.


There are plenty of other ways to deplete glycogen. Training for example, cardio, dieting... 

There are also plenty of ways to mediate hydration levels. Creatine and salt come to mind. 

My situation involves carb cycling at the moment, but it doesn't always. I don't necessarily carb cycle all year. Still, glycogen levels can change rather dramatically depending upon one's activity. 

I don't know why you're so testy. I wasn't trying to attack you. 


gigaplex said:


> So to this post you will probably respond right back and say yeah but the measurements are useless cuz I carb cycle. lol. Perhaps I need to repeat it 4 times instead of only 3 times? There's your straw man. The ridiculousness gets knocked up a notch even above that because you use the straw man again in this latest post and then in the very next line of the same post act all offended that I'm calling out a straw man.


I'm not acting, and I'm not offended. I just didn't get it. 


gigaplex said:


> Insinuating that I am a liar and that I didn't lose a bunch of weight like I say seems pretty desperate to me.


Okay, where did I do this?


----------



## gtbmed (Jul 13, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> I didn't like them or dislike them. I didn't even claim they were false as that was not necessary. You apparently missed my post. If there's something further you actually want to address, you could always speak up and say what it is. Wouldn't that have been more productive than this post?



You originally stated that "if a person is hungry all the time it is likely due to their diet."  I posted evidence that stated otherwise.  You dismissed it because you said the information I posted talked about "severe caloric deficits" and wasn't relevant to you.  I don't know how you came to such a conclusion.

The Q&A by Lyle McDonald wasn't limited to severe caloric deficits.  You don't think problems with leptin, cortisol, and decreased activity occur with people who do cardio even while on a small deficit or not in a deficit at all?  Those problems still exist regardless of the severity of the deficit.  They have more drastic effects for those on a severe deficit, but their effects still exist without the severe deficit.

Your claim was that activity has little to do with hunger.  I disagree.  There is a lot of evidence supporting the idea that changes in hunger (and changes in results of a caloric deficit, which is more broadly relevant to this thread) are related to aerobic activity.  It's not just as simple as saying, "If I burn 500 Kcals doing cardio, I can eat 500 Kcals more and still get the same results."  There are other factors involved and it rarely works that way.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 13, 2009)

gtbmed said:


> You originally stated that "if a person is hungry all the time it is likely due to their diet."  I posted evidence that stated otherwise.  You dismissed it because you said the information I posted talked about "severe caloric deficits" and wasn't relevant to you.  I don't know how you came to such a conclusion.
> 
> The Q&A by Lyle McDonald wasn't limited to severe caloric deficits.  You don't think problems with leptin, cortisol, and decreased activity occur with people who do cardio even while on a small deficit or not in a deficit at all?  Those problems still exist regardless of the severity of the deficit.  They have more drastic effects for those on a severe deficit, but their effects still exist without the severe deficit.
> 
> Your claim was that activity has little to do with hunger.  I disagree.  There is a lot of evidence supporting the idea that changes in hunger (and changes in results of a caloric deficit, which is more broadly relevant to this thread) are related to aerobic activity.  It's not just as simple as saying, "If I burn 500 Kcals doing cardio, I can eat 500 Kcals more and still get the same results."  There are other factors involved and it rarely works that way.



The guy states that cardio will slow down your metabolism on a severly low cal diet. It is well known and documented that a severly low cal diet will slow down your metabolism. Do you see how this is a problem? If someone is put on a non-crash diet and their metabolism lowers when doing cardio even when adjusting their calories THEN you've got something and that may very well be true. I'm totally open to the idea if you find something like that.

Now my point was not that cardio doesn't affect appetite. My point was that the situation can be handled by diet so it is not an excuse to get rid of cardio.

Now if you're eating at a 50% deficit or something crazy, then you're just screwed. You'll probably be hungry all the time, you'll wreck your metabolism, etc. And is that worse when doing cardio? I don't know, might be. I sure wouldn't want to be doing cardio if I was in that state.

Now I only did a quick google search so correct me if I'm wrong but it appears to me that PSMF is a very low cal diet and is promoted by this guy that you are quoting, right? I heard someone saying you try to survive on like 800 cals?


----------



## Built (Jul 13, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> The guy states that cardio will slow down your metabolism on a severly low cal diet. It is well known and documented that a severly low cal diet will slow down your metabolism. Do you see how this is a problem? If someone is put on a non-crash diet and their metabolism lowers when doing cardio even when adjusting their calories THEN you've got something and that may very well be true. I'm totally open to the idea if you find something like that.


This will happen to 100% of all dieters. As you lower your calories, you lose weight. At a lower weight, your maintenance will be lower. 

Unless I'm misinterpreting your statement. 


gigaplex said:


> Now my point was not that cardio doesn't affect appetite. My point was that the situation can be handled by diet so it is not an excuse to get rid of cardio.


If you LOVE doing cardio, do it. 

It isn't necessary for cutting, it doesn't burn that many calories, it does nothing to speed up metabolism after you're done, and it can - as you lean out - contribute to muscle loss.

A small amount of LISS can assist in suppressing appetite for some though, and it's a very good idea to do some form of modest activity during carbups, to enhance reglycogenation through increased translocation of GLUT4. 

And of course, a little cardio is good for your heart. Just don't count on it for the majority of your caloric deficit - this strategy almost always bites you in the ass. 

I can see from your posts you're only talking about sufficient cardio to burn off about a pound a month though. That's only about a hundred or so calories a day. Perfectly reasonable. 


gigaplex said:


> Now if you're eating at a 50% deficit or something crazy, then you're just screwed. You'll probably be hungry all the time, you'll wreck your metabolism, etc. And is that worse when doing cardio? I don't know, might be. I sure wouldn't want to be doing cardio if I was in that state.


On Lyle's Rapid Fat Loss, dieters typically consume considerably less than 50% of their maintenance calories, and do very little training. 

I've done this several times and I can tell you, I'm less hungry on PSMF than I am on a modest deficit with higher volume training and regular cardio. 



gigaplex said:


> Now I only did a quick google search so correct me if I'm wrong but it appears to me that PSMF is a very low cal diet and is promoted by this guy that you are quoting, right? I heard someone saying you try to survive on like 800 cals?


Basically, yeah. Mostly protein. There are categories depending upon how fat you are, and carbohydrate refeeds to top up leptin and ensure you don't go into "starvation  mode". I use this method to jump-start my cuts. Very satisfying, and of course, at the end of a bulk, most of us are plenty juicy to protect our LBM, even on a short-term scientifically structured crash diet. 

It's a good book. Read it, even if it isn't something you'd choose to do yourself.


----------



## danzik17 (Jul 13, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> The guy states that cardio will slow down your metabolism on a severly low cal diet. It is well known and documented that a severly low cal diet will slow down your metabolism. Do you see how this is a problem? If someone is put on a non-crash diet and their metabolism lowers when doing cardio even when adjusting their calories THEN you've got something and that may very well be true. I'm totally open to the idea if you find something like that.
> 
> Now my point was not that cardio doesn't affect appetite. My point was that the situation can be handled by diet so it is not an excuse to get rid of cardio.
> 
> ...



PSMF (Protein Sparing Modified Fast) or "Protein Simply, Mother Fucker" is just like it sounds....basically between 800-1200 calories of protein with minimal fats and carbs.  You only take in what's essential.

Crashing your metabolism over a short period of time is greatly exaggerated.  You would run this diet for 1-2 weeks (for MY body type, it differs for your BF% level) and then run a refeed where you would take in around 1100g of carbs.  Yes you will get *some* metabolic slowdown, but the refeed normalizes hormone levels and brings it right back up.

You would think you would be starving on that low level of food, but don't underestimate the power of protein satiety along with ketosis.  I was more satisfied on that diet than when I was eating a "normal" diet if around 2000 calories.


----------



## gtbmed (Jul 14, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> The guy states that cardio will slow down your metabolism on a severly low cal diet. It is well known and documented that a severly low cal diet will slow down your metabolism. Do you see how this is a problem? If someone is put on a non-crash diet and their metabolism lowers when doing cardio even when adjusting their calories THEN you've got something and that may very well be true. I'm totally open to the idea if you find something like that.
> 
> Now my point was not that cardio doesn't affect appetite. My point was that the situation can be handled by diet so it is not an excuse to get rid of cardio.
> 
> ...



So you choose to ignore the hormonal aspect (cortisol, leptin, etc.) in that article and in the study I posted?

Also, people can eat at 50% deficits without being hungry all the time.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 14, 2009)

Built said:


> This will happen to 100% of all dieters. As you lower your calories, you lose weight. At a lower weight, your maintenance will be lower.
> 
> Unless I'm misinterpreting your statement.



I can agree with that but I'm saying it even goes beyond that. If you lower your calories too much, then your metabolism will not only adjust to your new composition but will go down beyond that to an unnaturally low level.

So my issue is that he says cardio lowers your metabolism and he has determined this by watching people's metabolism slow down on very low calorie diets. The low calorie diet is already known to lower the metabolism so why would he not think that is the cause? If he was smart, he'd just do the same experiment on someone with a normal diet or a moderate deficit and see if their metabolism decreases too.

But maybe his aim is not to show that metabolism decreases with cardio on a moderate deficit or normal diet, maybe he is just interested in whether the cardio decreases metabolism on a very low calorie diet and so is only testing it with a very low calorie diet because he thinks results on that would be different than a normal diet. But a key factor here would be whether or not the people's calories were adjusted when they started doing cardio. If their calories were not adjusted, then we're back to the same issue: how do you know the decrease in metabolism wasn't because of the increased deficit? He does not mention that their calories were adjusted so there's no way to know if his conclusion is valid (at least not from the text posted).



Built said:


> On Lyle's Rapid Fat Loss, dieters typically consume considerably less than 50% of their maintenance calories, and do very little training.
> 
> I've done this several times and I can tell you, I'm less hungry on PSMF than I am on a modest deficit with higher volume training and regular cardio.



Well that is quite the trick.  I would have guessed you'd be starving even with all the protein! So yeah, I totally see your point and that makes sense.


----------



## Built (Jul 14, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> I can agree with that but I'm saying it even goes beyond that. If you lower your calories too much, then your metabolism will not only adjust to your new composition but will go down beyond that to an unnaturally low level.


After how long?


gigaplex said:


> So my issue is that he says cardio lowers your metabolism and he has determined this by watching people's metabolism slow down on very low calorie diets. The low calorie diet is already known to lower the metabolism so why would he not think that is the cause? If he was smart, he'd just do the same experiment on someone with a normal diet or a moderate deficit and see if their metabolism decreases too.


Yeah, too bad Lyle's not very smart. 

Listen, extended steady-state cardio teaches your body to become efficient, drop muscle and convert transitional fibres to slow-twitch analogues. Marathon runners are a prime case here. I wish I had a dollar for every fat person I've known who took up marathon training to lose weight. Not one of them managed to lean out through this. They lose SOME weight, but not enough, and they can NOT keep it off. 

Maybe you've met someone who has managed to do this. I have not. 

<- former fat 10k runner



gigaplex said:


> But maybe his aim is not to show that metabolism decreases with cardio on a moderate deficit or normal diet, maybe he is just interested in whether the cardio decreases metabolism on a very low calorie diet and so is only testing it with a very low calorie diet because he thinks results on that would be different than a normal diet.


Lyle isn't an experimental scientist. He took advantage of existing research as he built this diet. Just an FYI.


gigaplex said:


> But a key factor here would be whether or not the people's calories were adjusted when they started doing cardio. If their calories were not adjusted, then we're back to the same issue: how do you know the decrease in metabolism wasn't because of the increased deficit? He does not mention that their calories were adjusted so there's no way to know if his conclusion is valid (at least not from the text posted).


Read the book. 

The deal here is that Rapid Fat Loss is how to drop the most fat possible in the shortest amount of time. Cardio burns so few calories for the risk of catabolism and the work, Lyle's point is "why bother"?

I tend to agree. 

Unless you LOVE it (and I really don't, personally), why bother eating in such a way so as to allow you to do more cardio while cutting?


gigaplex said:


> Well that is quite the trick.  I would have guessed you'd be starving even with all the protein! So yeah, I totally see your point and that makes sense.



Satiety is indeed a fascinating area.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 14, 2009)

gtbmed said:


> So you choose to ignore the hormonal aspect (cortisol, leptin, etc.) in that article and in the study I posted?



He then mentions that cardio can increase cortisol levels. Yeah, okay.

I guess I'm not really sure what your trying to prove with the second part.



gtbmed said:


> Also, people can eat at 50% deficits without being hungry all the time.



Funny, everyone was just saying that you can't fix the problem of hunger with diet and now there's been a 180. I kind of wonder if people sometimes disagree just to disagree. But okay man, I believe you. The power to control hunger with diet is more powerful than EVEN I had suspected. And I was already saying that you could go far enough with diet to control hunger on a moderate deficit even while doing cardio so you've just taken it one step further.


----------



## Built (Jul 14, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> He then mentions that cardio can increase cortisol levels. Yeah, okay.
> 
> I guess I'm not really sure what your trying to prove with the second part.


Huh?


gigaplex said:


> Funny, everyone was just saying that you can't fix the problem of hunger with diet and now there's been a 180.


We were?


gigaplex said:


> I kind of wonder if people sometimes disagree just to disagree. But okay man, I believe you. The power to control hunger with diet is more powerful than EVEN I had suspected. And I was already saying that you could go far enough with diet to control hunger on a moderate deficit even while doing cardio so you've just taken it one step further.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 14, 2009)

Built said:


> Huh?
> 
> We were?



You said:
"If I ate this way while trying to cut, I'd be chewing my arm off."

Just before I had said that if cardio affected appetite at all, you should be able to handle any hunger problems with the diet therefore it is just not a good excuse for dropping cardio.

So maybe you meant something different and we were really in agreement the whole time?


----------



## gtbmed (Jul 14, 2009)

Are you saying that you don't believe that cardio can increase cortisol levels?  What about leptin?


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 14, 2009)

gtbmed said:


> Are you saying that you don't believe that cardio can increase cortisol levels?  What about leptin?



No, no. When I said "Yeah, okay", I meant it literally not sarcastically. Yes, cardio can increase cortisol and other things. I never said it didn't and I don't think anyone was confused about that. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.


----------



## gtbmed (Jul 14, 2009)

Well - cortisol has big effects on hunger and also on muscle breakdown.  Aren't those things relevant to the discussion we're having and to the success of a person trying to cut body fat and maintain muscle mass?

Leptin as well...

You stated clearly, "If a person is hungry all the time, it is probably due to their diet."  I've provided you with evidence as to why cardio can have big effects on hunger and affect the results of a person's weight-loss attempts.


----------



## Built (Jul 14, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> Funny, everyone was just saying that you can't fix the problem of hunger with diet and now there's been a 180.


We were?





gigaplex said:


> You said:
> "If I ate this way while trying to cut, I'd be chewing my arm off."
> 
> Just before I had said that if cardio affected appetite at all, you should be able to handle any hunger problems with the diet therefore it is just not a good excuse for dropping cardio.
> ...





gtbmed said:


> Well - cortisol has big effects on hunger and also on muscle breakdown.  Aren't those things relevant to the discussion we're having and to the success of a person trying to cut body fat and maintain muscle mass?
> 
> Leptin as well...
> 
> You stated clearly, "If a person is hungry all the time, it is probably due to their diet."  I've provided you with evidence as to why cardio can have big effects on hunger and affect the results of a person's weight-loss attempts.


Bingo.

Put simply, this:

My maintenance at 140 lbs is 2200 calories per day. 
To drop a pound a week, I could eat 1700 calories per day, or do 500 calories per day of cardio, or any combination of diet and cardio that make up a 500-calorie deficit.

If I do it through diet alone - and I'm careful to avoid eating things like oats and grains, loading up instead on proteins, fats and produce - I'm comfortable.

If I do this on a low-fat diet with whole grains - even if this is at maintenance - with or without cardio, I'm chewing my arm off. 

When I try to maintain a caloric deficit while doing more than minimal cardio, my appetite goes through the roof. I'm less comfortable on 2200 calories and 500 calories' worth of activity than I am on 1700 calories and sitting on my ass. 

That being said, I don't JUST sit on my ass. But I assure you, I keep my activity down to a very dull roar while cutting. I do more cardio at maintenance, or while bulking.


----------



## david100proof (Jul 14, 2009)

*cardio*

just started doing cardio again been going to the gym at 7 in the morning everyday do cardio till 8 in the morning then at 12 in the after noon i do 2 hrs of high and low reps different body part 5 days a week my diet consits of small breakfast after workout then small meal at dinner time ive cut my calories intake down to nothing just about plus doing my supplements before noon work out ive lost 2 inches off my waiste and 10 pounds have not lost any muscle or strength 
super pump 250
whey isolate
slim xtreme
vitamine pack
waxy maize
bcaa
this has proven so far to be the best way for me to do a cut i been needing to do for a long time it works for me


----------



## gtbmed (Jul 14, 2009)

Don't get me wrong, I see the potential benefits of cardio.  You're talking to someone who has trained for 5ks/10ks and triathlons.  I love road cycling and swimming and sometimes I'll drop my weightlifting for a while to get serious about training for these things.

But I believe training should follow from specific goals.  I do things like cycling, swimming, or running when my goals are to get better at those things (if I'm racing or something).  If not, then I don't do it much.  You have to understand the demands of your training, what your training does to your body, and how to plan a diet and workout program together IMO.  Moderately intense cardio will cause higher levels of cortisol, especially for those in a caloric deficit.  Sure, cortisol can be somewhat controlled by the proper diet, but that diet includes lots of carbohydrates, and eating lots of carbohydrates IMO is hard to do on a deficit, because carbohydrates simply don't fill me up much.

If you can do it and have good results, I see no need to change.  But I wouldn't recommend cardio while on a deficit in general.  Then again, it is hard to answer questions about training generally.


----------



## Built (Jul 14, 2009)

^ Indeed. If you love endurance activities, lose the weight, THEN start your training. Don't use it to lose the weight.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 14, 2009)

david100proof said:


> just started doing cardio again been going to the gym at 7 in the morning everyday do cardio till 8 in the morning then at 12 in the after noon i do 2 hrs of high and low reps different body part 5 days a week my diet consits of small breakfast after workout then small meal at dinner time ive cut my calories intake down to nothing just about plus doing my supplements before noon work out ive lost 2 inches off my waiste and 10 pounds have not lost any muscle or strength



The hardest part sometimes is just starting so good job getting started! Now you just got to keep it going and make sure you don't lose any muscle. There are good reasons to do cardio on some cuts but you do have to watch that muscle closely. Good luck and keep us updated


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 14, 2009)

gtbmed said:


> Well - cortisol has big effects on hunger and also on muscle breakdown.  Aren't those things relevant to the discussion we're having and to the success of a person trying to cut body fat and maintain muscle mass?
> 
> Leptin as well...
> 
> You stated clearly, "If a person is hungry all the time, it is probably due to their diet."  I've provided you with evidence as to why cardio can have big effects on hunger and affect the results of a person's weight-loss attempts.



The whole point was not that cardio doesn't affect hunger (notice I never agreed or disagreed with that). I mean excessive masturbation probably affects hunger in some way but you don't tell hungry people, "oh your problem is that you masturbate too much". The issue is whether or not the diet can satisfy the hunger of your activities. If the diet can satisy the hunger then hunger is not in itself a reason to stop the activity.

I have seen my roommate eat unbelievable amounts of food. I have seen him eat 2 large pizzas all in one sitting to himself. I put this guy on a deficit, had him doing cardio with me and guess what? He did not have hunger problems. I don't have hunger problems either. I haven't run into anyone on the BFFM diet that has had these kind of hunger problems and lots of them do cardio. So reality wins here. Maybe you can't think of a diet that would work but other people have.

As an example:

50% carbs, 30% protein, 20% fat
Stick to complex and fibrous carbs
Stay away from sat fats and trans fats
No high fructose corn syrup or other weird crap
Eat 5-6 times a day
Do a moderate deficit like 15-20%
Take a mulitvitamin/mineral

There's more to it like zig zagging and things but that's the basics and would basically get someone started. With a diet like that, most people will not be constantly hungry EVEN if they go do cardio a few times a week.


----------



## Built (Jul 14, 2009)

david100proof said:


> just started doing cardio again been going to the gym at 7 in the morning everyday do cardio till 8 in the morning then at 12 in the after noon i do 2 hrs of high and low reps different body part 5 days a week my diet consits of small breakfast after workout then small meal at dinner time ive cut my calories intake down to nothing just about plus doing my supplements before noon work out ive lost 2 inches off my waiste and 10 pounds have not lost any muscle or strength
> super pump 250
> whey isolate
> slim xtreme
> ...


You're doing an hour of cardio, two hours of high rep training and low calories while CUTTING?

I urge you to reconsider your approach.


----------



## Built (Jul 14, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> The whole point was not that cardio doesn't affect hunger (notice I never agreed or disagreed with that). I mean excessive masturbation probably affects hunger in some way but you don't tell hungry people, "oh your problem is that you masturbate too much". The issue is whether or not the diet can satisfy the hunger of your activities. If the diet can satisy the hunger then hunger is not in itself a reason to stop the activity.
> 
> I have seen my roommate eat unbelievable amounts of food. I have seen him eat 2 large pizzas all in one sitting to himself. I put this guy on a deficit, had him doing cardio with me and guess what? He did not have hunger problems. I don't have hunger problems either. I haven't run into anyone on the BFFM diet that has had these kind of hunger problems and lots of them do cardio. So reality wins here. Maybe you can't think of a diet that would work but other people have.
> 
> ...


I moderate an entire board of people who couldn't diet this way without freakish hunger. The people you have associated with who did this were the ones for whom this approach was comfortable.

You might want to reconsider the "ratio" approach you're following. It's not really meaningful under the paradigm of reduced calories, since it means you will reduce your protein when you reduce your calories - that is to say, at the very time you need it higher, not lower. 

I would also never recommend eating six meals a day to a dieter. Some like this approach, but many of us prefer to eat three or four larger meals over five or six microsnacks. 

Oh, and saturated fats are very healthy for you - they're important for proper endocrine and nerve function. For those on a modest fat intake (ie 0.5g fat per pound LBM), the general recommendation is to get about a third of your fats from saturates.


----------



## danzik17 (Jul 14, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> The whole point was not that cardio doesn't affect hunger (notice I never agreed or disagreed with that). I mean excessive masturbation probably affects hunger in some way but you don't tell hungry people, "oh your problem is that you masturbate too much". The issue is whether or not the diet can satisfy the hunger of your activities. If the diet can satisy the hunger then hunger is not in itself a reason to stop the activity.
> 
> I have seen my roommate eat unbelievable amounts of food. I have seen him eat 2 large pizzas all in one sitting to himself. I put this guy on a deficit, had him doing cardio with me and guess what? He did not have hunger problems. I don't have hunger problems either. I haven't run into anyone on the BFFM diet that has had these kind of hunger problems and lots of them do cardio. So reality wins here. Maybe you can't think of a diet that would work but other people have.
> 
> ...



Why do you feel you need to eat the 5-6 times per day?  How do those percentages stack up or make sense at all?  Why do you feel saturated fats are bad (hint: they're not in reasonable quantities, they boost natural test production)

I would submit that your roomate wouldn't be hungry on a diet based around high protein/high fat/lowish carbs either.

I've also heard (and Built can put this into more sciency technical jargon I'm sure!) that if you were once obese your body chemistry changes.  Males that have been generally lean and not obese seem to glean a lot more satiety from the insulin release due to carbs than one that was previously obese.  I can speak from personal experience here, carbs do NOT fill me up (unless I'm eating 1000g of them on a refeed).


----------



## Built (Jul 14, 2009)

danzik is referring to research I'm doing on satiety. Males and females - in general - have different satiety responses to food, and the obese have different satiety responses than lean, never-fat individuals. 

Very briefly, the archetypal female satiety pattern is "protein and fat, with soluble fibre", where for males it is "protein and volume, with starchy and fibrous carbs". 

The fatter we are, the more "female" our satiety responses are. And in the obese, the satiety due to the insulin response is impaired. Combine this with insulin resistance and hypersecretion of insulin, and you'll find that for many of us current and former fatties, a low-fat, complex "clean" carb diet is so hunger-inducing as to be intolerable. 

Dieted down obese may never share satiety cues with those who are never fat. Many of us who have lost the weight must change our patterns of consumption toward protein and fat in order to maintain the loss.

In my case, for example, to maintain 140lbs (I was 170 and about 40% bodyfat back in 2001) I require about 2200 calories. 

At maintenance, a comfortable diet for me is roughly this:
200-220g protein
80-100g fat
100-160g carb
25+g fibre

Hardly the Canada food guide, but it works for me.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 15, 2009)

The example diet I described in about 6 lines is not meant to be the end all, be all, pinnacle of perfection. It is an example though of what people have commonly used that have not had hunger problems doing cardio. For different people it might be modified.

Now I'm curious, of the people you say you somehow know for sure would be hungry all the time on a diet like this, how many have you seen actually do a diet like this eating 5-6 times a day, doing that macro ratio, and doing all these pieces together at the same time? If you don't normally recommend some of these things then it just seems like most of the people you see would not be doing all these different elements at the same time.

Just to be clear here, part of the rationale for eating 5-6 meals a day is satiety. Insulin levels will be more stable. If a person ever gets hungry, they know that the next meal is only an hour or so away. There are perhaps other reasons as well. Seems like this could only help.

Your research sounds interesting. So by satiety pattern, you are meaning this is the type of thing that you feel satisfies their hunger the best?


----------



## Built (Jul 15, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> The example diet I described in about 6 lines is not meant to be the end all, be all, pinnacle of perfection. It is an example though of what people have commonly used that have not had hunger problems doing cardio. For different people it might be modified.
> 
> Now I'm curious, of the people you say you somehow know for sure would be hungry all the time on a diet like this, how many have you seen actually do a diet like this eating 5-6 times a day, doing that macro ratio, and doing all these pieces together at the same time?


LOTS. I was one of them. 
Gigaplex, you don???t know my background. You parachuted in here because you saw Venuto's book being flogged and thought you had found "family". There are many people for whom this approach does not feel comfortable - but it is the past and current industry standard with regard to physical culture. For many of us, it was so uncomfortable we simply gave up. For those of you for whom the low-fat, six meals a day with cardio cut feels comfortable, this sounds like I just had an alien pop out of my stomach while speaking backwards, but it's true. 



gigaplex said:


> If you don't normally recommend some of these things then it just seems like most of the people you see would not be doing all these different elements at the same time.


Yeah, they would. I was one of 'em, there are plenty of others here who tried it and couldn't stick to it. 



gigaplex said:


> Just to be clear here, part of the rationale for eating 5-6 meals a day is satiety. Insulin levels will be more stable. If a person ever gets hungry, they know that the next meal is only an hour or so away. There are perhaps other reasons as well. Seems like this could only help.


I do better when I avoid breakfast, try to avoid eating as much as possible until later in the day, then cram most of my food into the end of the day, going to bed on a full stomach. 



gigaplex said:


> Your research sounds interesting. So by satiety pattern, you are meaning this is the type of thing that you feel satisfies their hunger the best?


Yes.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 15, 2009)

Built said:


> LOTS. I was one of them.
> Gigaplex, you don???t know my background. You parachuted in here because you saw Venuto's book being flogged and thought you had found "family".



lol. Actually, my initial intent was just to ask a question about HIIT. I wasn't totally set on this forum and rather just thought it looked promising at first glance. I have questions from time to time and was looking for a forum to occasionally ask a question like this and as a matter of exchange help a few other people out if I can. And yes, this forurm caught my eye because Venuto's book was on a sticky. I don't really see anything wrong with that. As to your background, no I don't know it, that is why I was asking about it.

I am sorry you are annoyed with me but I am just not the type of person that will automatically believe without question everything a person says just because they are the moderator or leader or have been doing it longer or are part of the government or wear a special hat. And if I am in a conversation where something is said that I disagree with, I am likely to speak up. I understand there are ego issues with this as a moderator must maintain a certain image and if people disagree with or question the moderator then they may be afraid of how that looks. But if that's really a problem, why not make a rule that no one can disagree with you, especially new people and then kick me and everyone else out that disobeys? You're the one with the ban hammer I assume.

But really, if you're going to deviate from the standard and try and break new ground, you should expect people to be skeptical and ask questions and debate and so on. It's really an essential process. What if new or different ideas were never challenged or questioned or debated? Is that really what you want? I haven't really engaged in an unreasonable line of questioning. Maybe others had similar questions and concerns but were not voicing them because god forbid anyone disagree with the moderator.



Built said:


> There are many people for whom this approach does not feel comfortable - but it is the past and current industry standard with regard to physical culture. For many of us, it was so uncomfortable we simply gave up. For those of you for whom the low-fat, six meals a day with cardio cut feels comfortable, this sounds like I just had an alien pop out of my stomach while speaking backwards, but it's true.
> 
> Yeah, they would. I was one of 'em, there are plenty of others here who tried it and couldn't stick to it.
> 
> ...



I would definitely be interested in seeing a typical menu and list of the training you were doing when you had these hunger problems if you would post it. It's not like I am completely closed off to the idea that someone could have this kind of unsolveable problem with hunger, I just don't think it is so many people and such a big issue as to tell everyone doing a cut to drop cardio - just seems like a wild overreaction.

Regardless, there are clearly people that can solve the hunger problem with diet. There's a reason why that ratio became the industry standard. There's a reason why foods high in water content and/or fiber content typically show up at the top of satiety index lists in studies. Obviously, there is at least a significant portion of the population that can solve this hunger problem with diet. So do you tell those people not to do cardio? How far do you take this anti-cardio view? Because if you tell people that don't have the hunger problem not to do cardio, then you could keep them from losing that extra pound of fat each month. Sure there's also the issue of whether or not they can keep their muscle while doing this but if they are not losing muscle or are losing very little, I don't see the problem.


----------



## Marat (Jul 15, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> I am sorry you are annoyed with me but I am just not the type of person that will automatically believe without question everything a person says just because they are the moderator or leader or have been doing it longer or are part of the government or wear a special hat. And if I am in a conversation where something is said that I disagree with, I am likely to speak up. I understand there are ego issues with this as a moderator must maintain a certain image and if people disagree with or question the moderator then they may be afraid of how that looks. But if that's really a problem, why not make a rule that no one can disagree with you, especially new people and then kick me and everyone else out that disobeys? You're the one with the ban hammer I assume.
> 
> But really, if you're going to deviate from the standard and try and break new ground, you should expect people to be skeptical and ask questions and debate and so on. It's really an essential process. What if new or different ideas were never challenged or questioned or debated? Is that really what you want? I haven't really engaged in an unreasonable line of questioning. Maybe others had similar questions and concerns but were not voicing them because god forbid anyone disagree with the moderator.




Please, enough with the nonsense. Your attacks and rhetorical questions are neither necessary or thought provoking. We are all adults here. 

We do expect new posters to question our recommendations, especially when they are different from what is considered 'common knowledge'. 

We welcome your questions but ask that you welcome our answers and cut out the disrespectful tirades.


----------



## Built (Jul 15, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> lol. Actually, my initial intent was just to ask a question about HIIT. I wasn't totally set on this forum and rather just thought it looked promising at first glance. I have questions from time to time and was looking for a forum to occasionally ask a question like this and as a matter of exchange help a few other people out if I can. And yes, this forurm caught my eye because Venuto's book was on a sticky. I don't really see anything wrong with that. As to your background, no I don't know it, that is why I was asking about it.
> 
> I am sorry you are annoyed with me but I am just not the type of person that will automatically believe without question everything a person says just because they are the moderator or leader or have been doing it longer or are part of the government or wear a special hat. And if I am in a conversation where something is said that I disagree with, I am likely to speak up. I understand there are ego issues with this as a moderator must maintain a certain image and if people disagree with or question the moderator then they may be afraid of how that looks. But if that's really a problem, why not make a rule that no one can disagree with you, especially new people and then kick me and everyone else out that disobeys? You're the one with the ban hammer I assume.



Um, huh?

I was actually being uncharacteristically nice to you because I felt sorry for you; I could see that you were being laughed at and felt the need to try to defend you a bit. You're such a newb to this stuff, and you really think you know a great deal because you've read Venuto's book and paid to belong to the "inner circle", I figured if I let the rest of the board shoot you down you'd just turn around and run, and never learn anything. 

Your saving grace is the fact that you've set about doing something to change your own destiny. That's why I didn't just rip you a new one when you first started mouthing off at me.  



gigaplex said:


> But really, if you're going to deviate from the standard and try and break new ground, you should expect people to be skeptical and ask questions and debate and so on.


Here, on this forum, it is YOU who deviates from the standard. You're stuck in a very old paradigm and clearly have not had benefit of recent (read: stuff we've known since at least '97, such as the "frequent feeding" thing is a myth) information. 

Most of us here (I include myself) began this process with "carbs in the AM, cardio for fat loss, six meals a day, no carbs at night" blah blah blah and managed to do enough additional reading to bring ourselves up to speed.

You will too - you're just not there yet. 

I'm not dissing you, okay? Well, I am a little but I went though this myself when my doctor put me on Atkins. I though he was SATAN for recommending such an "unhealthy" diet, but it was the best piece of advice anyone had ever given me up to that point. It worked - I lost forty pounds, dropped my cholesterol, got off Metformin and felt GOOD for the first time in my life - and it launched me into a whole new way of thinking about diet and training, not to mention health. 



gigaplex said:


> It's really an essential process. What if new or different ideas were never challenged or questioned or debated? Is that really what you want? I haven't really engaged in an unreasonable line of questioning. Maybe others had similar questions and concerns but were not voicing them because god forbid anyone disagree with the moderator.


Read what I wrote above. Then read it again. 



gigaplex said:


> I would definitely be interested in seeing a typical menu and list of the training you were doing when you had these hunger problems if you would post it. It's not like I am completely closed off to the idea that someone could have this kind of unsolveable problem with hunger, I just don't think it is so many people and such a big issue as to tell everyone doing a cut to drop cardio - just seems like a wild overreaction.



I do SOME cardio. Just not much. I go for the odd walk, ride my bike occasionally, go for the odd hike up the Stawamus Chief??? I just don't rely upon it for fat loss. 

I was obese when I ran 10k 3x a week. I ate no white anything, low-fat, high-protein. Whole grains at each of my six daily meals. Eggwhites and multigrain toast with no butter for breakfast. 

Got me to 40% bodyfat. I had to stop running because my feet hurt so much. I had plantar fasciitis, had to wear orthotics. Hips, back, knees all hurt. It was pretty bad. I stuck to this through most of my thirties though. <shudders>

I had tried to diet similarly through other periods of my life, doing cardio classes and weight-training at the gym, just like the other fat ladies. 

Didn't work then either. 

I also tried diet pills on a number of occasions. <rolls eyes>



gigaplex said:


> Regardless, there are clearly people that can solve the hunger problem with diet.


I can't solve it - I'm working on it but I can't. I manage to keep hunger down to a dull roar at best. 


gigaplex said:


> There's a reason why that ratio became the industry standard.


Yep. Skinny eighteen year old men find it easier to overeat on six meals a day than three. They got used to recommending this so it just became standard. Combined with earlier research that showed that the body heats up in response to meals, there was an erroneous assumption that frequent feeding speeds metabolism. 

Sadly, this turned out to be false - when you eat a small meal, you heat up a bit. When you eat a large meal, you heat up a lot. 

Thus, the "six meals a day" paradigm fell flat. Eat that way if you like, it won't hurt you - it just won't help either, not simply because of frequency. 


gigaplex said:


> There's a reason why foods high in water content and/or fiber content typically show up at the top of satiety index lists in studies.


Yep, most research on satiety was initially done on young, male college athletes, and on people who had never been fat. On females, the obese, dieted down obese, or dieting-down overweight people, the results aren't as clear.

They become less clear for women on oral contraceptives, which suppress testosterone (almost completely, in fact), slow thyroid function, induce insulin resistance and can ultimately lead to type II diabetes. This really throughs a wrench in things. Good thing these women were excluded as research subjects, hey? 



gigaplex said:


> Obviously, there is at least a significant portion of the population that can solve this hunger problem with diet. So do you tell those people not to do cardio?


I tell people looking to lose weight to do so through diet. 


gigaplex said:


> How far do you take this anti-cardio view?


Far enough to publish not just one, but TWO articles on cardio. 
How to do cardio if you must | Wannabebig
Daredevils are Shredded


gigaplex said:


> Because if you tell people that don't have the hunger problem not to do cardio, then you could keep them from losing that extra pound of fat each month.


Or they could simply eat a hundred fewer calories per day, right? 


gigaplex said:


> Sure there's also the issue of whether or not they can keep their muscle while doing this but if they are not losing muscle or are losing very little, I don't see the problem.



Put it this way - an overweight person looking to lean out needs to look first at diet, then at lifting, and wayyyy down the list at a little cardio. I actually recommend and perform more cardio for bulking or maintaining than for cutting. Why? Because I eat more carbohydrate then, and modest activity helps translocate GLUT4, which improves muscle insulin sensitivity. Good for reglycogenation - basically helps me fake better genes, since insulin resistance is of course associated with leptin resistance. In obesity, leptin is high but the body fails to recognize it. A little modest activity helps reduce insulin output and improves glucose uptake - so if you're going to go for a walk, do it right after dinner, or perhaps while sipping your post workout dextrose and whey shake.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 15, 2009)

m11 said:


> Please, enough with the nonsense. Your attacks and rhetorical questions are neither necessary or thought provoking. We are all adults here.
> 
> We do expect new posters to question our recommendations, especially when they are different from what is considered 'common knowledge'.
> 
> We welcome your questions but ask that you welcome our answers and cut out the disrespectful tirades.



Well since I'm being mocked/degraded with the whole "parachuted in looking for 'family'" crap I thought it was necessary to point out what I pointed out. You're right though, I probably should have just ignored it.


----------



## Built (Jul 15, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> Well since I'm being mocked/degraded with the whole "parachuted in looking for 'family'" crap ...



I wasn't mocking you. 

You said you used to belong to the Venuto inner circle thing and that you joined here because you saw that his book was featured. I'm sure you came here with the understanding that most bodybuilders eat and train that way. 

They probably do. Just not so much here, not anymore at least.


----------



## danzik17 (Jul 15, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> Well since I'm being mocked/degraded with the whole "parachuted in looking for 'family'" crap I thought it was necessary to point out what I pointed out. You're right though, I probably should have just ignored it.



I have an absurdly simple way of solving this.  Go buy one of Lyle's books and read it.  The ridiculous amount of peer reviewed research and studies that he uses as references should be more than enough to convince you of what we are trying to say if you don't want to take our word for it.


----------



## jmorrison (Jul 15, 2009)

Built said:


> If you LOVE doing cardio, do it.
> 
> It isn't necessary for cutting, it doesn't burn that many calories, it does nothing to speed up metabolism after you're done, and it can - as you lean out - contribute to muscle loss.




Built.  When you say things like that it hurts my feelings.  I HATE cardio, but can't stop doing it because I feel like a worthless fatbody if I don't.

Don't ruin my mental masturbation.

On a lighter note, I did a carb up last night.  Is it wrong to almost be physically aroused by mashed potatoes?  If so...I don't want to be right.


----------



## Built (Jul 15, 2009)

Mashed potatoes are proof of God's love.


----------



## Marat (Jul 15, 2009)

Just dunked my fork into some mashed potatoes with heavy cream and butter and cheddar cheese that I just cooked up. Cheers to it.


----------



## jmorrison (Jul 15, 2009)

Maybe a bit off topic, but a question in regards to HIIT vs SS.  I have gone to doing HIIT twice a week, with SS twice a week.

I can't believe how fast I am leaning out, made a huge difference, but I have one problem.  On my HIIT days I am so hungry that I am almost angry.  Is this normal?  Am I hitting it too hard?  

When I read M11's post about the creamy potatoes my mouth literally started watering.  My stomach feels like an angry midget with a vendetta if you can understand that.

Should I up the calories on HIIT days?


----------



## Built (Jul 15, 2009)

HIIT can and does stimulate appetite for some of us. You may wish to eat a bit more - or differently - on days when you do HIIT.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 15, 2009)

To be fair, I probably did get a little confrontational at the post where I realized you were advocating people go on 50%+ deficits as at that point, I had lost all faith that this forum was anything different than the screwed up forums I had come across previously. Since that post I have come across things you've said that I have found interesting and you certainly don't seem like an idiot even though I do still disagree with you on some things. So I have regained hope (not that anyone would care).

But seriously, what do you expect? I mean we've got this sticky over there praising Venuto's book saying it will be the last book on diet you ever read, which I don't really even agree with but hey I did think it was good. So you've got that and then over here in actual forum conversations basically everything in the book is ignored, disputed or in many cases THE EXACT OPPOSITE is done. I mean seriously, you guys are asking for it. At least update the friggin' sticky. You are lured in by Venuto and then dog-piled instantly by nearly everyone. It's a trap! 

Now another thing I need to clarify. I have been into this stuff for less than two years. I am not an expert. I do not compete professionally. Most of what I know is from the BFFM book. I do not think that I am an expert or that I "know so much". On the contrary, I have TONS to learn and have only really begun. I had thought that all this was totally clear as I did not hide any info about me, my progress and my study. It was not my intention to come off like some kind of know-it-all expert. Still, I don't agree with everything I see in this forum and it doesn't seem likely that I will agree with everything on this forum.

Also, I do not see the BFFM book as the word of God (btw, the sticky calls it the Bible) and do understand that it is starting to get old. Just because something is said in BFFM does not mean and did not ever mean that I could not be convinced otherwise. I do have an open mind. If I didn't, I would have already left. I have not given any other forum this much attention.

As for the whole cardio thing, you just advised someone to eat differently to address their appetite rather than instantly saying drop the cardio so you must agree with me to at least some degree and that is encouraging.

I do have more to say on the subject but I am spending WAY too much time on this forum and want to read your article so I'll have to get to that later.

And one last thing. Is there some kind of thread where the board has collected all the counter arguments to the different elements of BFFM that are in question on this forum? Like something specifically for BFFM people? It would be nice if I could go look at all the arguments in one spot rather than dig for months to find all the various viewpoints or get dog-piled at random occasions. That way I will know what may be a hot-button issue beforehand.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 15, 2009)

One last thing before I'm off. I do not want to give the impression that I am totally stuck on this ratio as you did mention that. Modifying the ratio to address hunger sounds to me like part of the solution. That would be modifying your diet to fix the problem. Even in BFFM they say that you can modify the ratio - perhaps not quite to this degree but if it helps, it is obviously part of the solution to this hunger problem. But again, I will have to come back to this in the near future...


----------



## jmorrison (Jul 15, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> As for the whole cardio thing, you just advised someone to eat differently to address their appetite rather than instantly saying drop the cardio so you must agree with me to at least some degree and that is encouraging.




She just told me that because she knows I am borderline as stubborn as you are lol.  She has been actively telling me to stop running off all my muscle for months, my own dumbass insecurities prevent my listening though.

I don't know what kind of condition you are in or what goals you are trying to accomplish, but I will share something with you.  I used to be a lean mean badass mofo.  Then I got drunk and married.  This is the exact formula for fat by the way.  I was struggling to get back into shape using all the methods that I KNEW were the absolute best ways possible to get my body back.

Built then very politely crushed my dreams and punctured my bubble of what I thought I knew.  Instead of arguing, I followed her advice, and in less than 6 months I have lost well over 50lbs now, dropped 8 waist sizes, can actually see my penis, and am in severe danger of having abs.  An almost 15% reduction in BF in 6 months by listening to her.  In fact, if I had listened to her about the cardio, I may have kept the inch I lost on my chest and arms.

Long story short, she is full of knowledge and win.  I would literally stand on my head in oncoming traffic if she told me it would tone me up a little.

I need a shirt that says "Built's Army".  With all the people she has helped on here just since I have been here, I bet I wouldnt be the only one wearing one.


----------



## Built (Jul 15, 2009)

gigaplex, I see your olive-branch and I accept it. I remember, clearly, believing in everything you walked in here with, and how hard it was for me to accept that I didn't need to eat six meals a day, that I wouldn't catabolize all my lean mass if I starved in the AM and I wouldn't turn into a water buffalo if I stuffed myself at bedtime. 

Unlike you, I also got sucked in to the "metabolic advantage" of the Atkins diet - I mean, it FELT like magic, yanno? I felt STUFFED and the weight FELL off me. At first. Heh. Yeah. Over time, I had to accept that it really was, in fact, the calories. But the satiety aspect has been my next big love. 

Anywhooo... I don't agree with everything I say either. I'm always re-evaluating how these things work. I am always happy to argue facts, with anyone - just so long as they can back up their assertions with research or at least offer that what they have is anecdotal, but perhaps useful. 

jmorrison, that's outstanding progress. Nicely done. And no need to play in traffic, not on my account.


----------



## Built (Jul 15, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> You are lured in by Venuto and then dog-piled instantly by nearly everyone. It's a trap!



This made me laugh! 



gigaplex said:


> And one last thing. Is there some kind of thread where the board has collected all the counter arguments to the different elements of BFFM that are in question on this forum? Like something specifically for BFFM people? It would be nice if I could go look at all the arguments in one spot rather than dig for months to find all the various viewpoints or get dog-piled at random occasions. That way I will know what may be a hot-button issue beforehand.




Try reading the link in my sig on getting started. You'll probably find most of the hot-button items in there. Anything I've written in there is based either on peer-reviewed research that I couldn't be arsed to link but could be coaxed into looking up given suitable motivation, or on "general" BB guidelines such as "at least a gram of protein per pound lean mass" - for which I can find peer-reviewed research with regard to safety. 

With regard to the "ratio" stuff, if you look at how a typical BB diet is constructed at maintenance, you might see something like this for a lean BB:

Calories: 15 x bodyweight
Protein: 1-2 x bodyweight (I'll use 1.5 for this argument)
fat: 0.5 x bodyweight
carb: remaining calories

This turns into 

Calories: 15 x bodyweight
Protein calories: 1.5 x 4 x bodyweight
fat calories: 0.5 x 9 x bodyweight
carb calories: remaining calories

Suppose you use me at 130 lbs:


Calories: 1950 (15 x bodyweight)
protein: 1.5g/lb bodyweight, 195g, 40% of calories
fat: 0.5g/lb bodyweight, 65g, 30% of calories
carb: 1.125g/lb bodyweight, 146.25g, 30% of calories

Kinda interesting, right?

But what if this person is obese? Then the calories will have to come down, right? And so will the protein if you stick to a ratio approach. 

This is, I think, where the "ratio" came in as a paradigm, and why it fails as a model. 

My .02


----------



## VILBAUGH (Jul 15, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> Wow, I can't believe I'm hearing this. This is the trademark of all crappy diets. It's a red flag. Throw science to the wind and just BELIEVE. Put your blind faith in something and just hope that it's working. If it's some kind of extreme diet where your water weight is shifting drastically from week to week, measurements really will be futile. And we always have to do the extreme don't we? Let's find the weirdest diet out there with the coolest tagline and then we'll just all believe in it until it comes true. Why is there such a strong tendency to do this?
> 
> So what is it? What is the latest fad diet people here are following? There has got to be something warping your mind if your going to sit here and say, don't do measurements, don't use facts and data, just have blind faith. If something goes wrong, how will you know? How will you know how to adjust your diet if you take no measurements. You seem to be advocating guesswork so if that's the situation then the diet's going to work for a few by mere chance and not work for most. That is how the usual fad diet pans out. And everybody failing at the diet will just look to the person who it happened to work for by chance or genetics and think they must be doing something wrong. People eventually get frustrated enough that they switch to a new fad diet and the cycle repeats.
> 
> Me, I like facts and data rather than blind faith and I don't fall for fad diets. Since I know what I'm doing and am not on some whacko diet, it is not an exercise in futility for me to use a scientific approach. Just because you don't know how to do something doesn't mean it's impossible. Maybe it means you have a few things to learn.



its the opposite, its people like you that weigh in every week and frig around with calipers counting millimeters, to assure yourself you're progressing. If your calipers are off by a millimeter you freak out. Relax! looking in the mirror, and monitering performance should prevail. get on a scale once a month MAX! too many variables!


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 15, 2009)

jmorrison said:


> She just told me that because she knows I am borderline as stubborn as you are lol.  She has been actively telling me to stop running off all my muscle for months, my own dumbass insecurities prevent my listening though.



lol, well I would listen to her on that then. When loss of LBM enters the picture, that's where I draw the line. But I know what you mean about it being hard to give it up. It is weird not wanting to give up something you hate.



jmorrison said:


> I don't know what kind of condition you are in or what goals you are trying to accomplish, but I will share something with you.  I used to be a lean mean badass mofo.  Then I got drunk and married.  This is the exact formula for fat by the way.  I was struggling to get back into shape using all the methods that I KNEW were the absolute best ways possible to get my body back.



Ha! I have already mastered the drunk part but not the married part. The hardest part of starting my diet was giving up the weekends at the bars with my friends. I'm not the type that can go out all night and just drink one or two beers so I basically had to cut the whole thing out! This health crap is just plain torture sometimes.



jmorrison said:


> Built then very politely crushed my dreams and punctured my bubble of what I thought I knew.  Instead of arguing, I followed her advice, and in less than 6 months I have lost well over 50lbs now, dropped 8 waist sizes, can actually see my penis, and am in severe danger of having abs.  An almost 15% reduction in BF in 6 months by listening to her.  In fact, if I had listened to her about the cardio, I may have kept the inch I lost on my chest and arms.
> 
> Long story short, she is full of knowledge and win.  I would literally stand on my head in oncoming traffic if she told me it would tone me up a little.
> 
> I need a shirt that says "Built's Army".  With all the people she has helped on here just since I have been here, I bet I wouldnt be the only one wearing one.



Wow, that's pretty nice progress. I am in a bit of a different situation I think. I already have a working diet that has been pretty successful and am mostly just improving my plans for what I will do once I get close to my goal body fat %. So I have a little bit of time to argue and debate. And really it is just in my nature to argue/debate/question something down to perhaps ridiculous levels of detail before I dive in. So you are probably just a bit more daring than I am


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 15, 2009)

VILBAUGH said:


> its the opposite, its people like you that weigh in every week and frig around with calipers counting millimeters, to assure yourself you're progressing. If your calipers are off by a millimeter you freak out. Relax! looking in the mirror, and monitering performance should prevail. get on a scale once a month MAX! too many variables!



Yeah, that's exactly what I do. You must spy on me or something


----------



## gtbmed (Jul 15, 2009)

This thread has degenerated into pointless discussion IMO.  You got the idea that this forum would contain a bunch of BFFM disciples based on one sticky that is almost 5 years old?  I don't think I've seen a single post in that forum referring to BFFM during my time here.

I understand the need to question information, but why don't you question Venuto's information?  That information has, in fact, been questioned, and some of it has proven to be incorrect.  I mean, it's OK to question when someone presents you with new, uncomfortable ideas.  But you have to constantly evaluate your current ideas to make sure they're correct and beneficial.

BFFM has worked for you - that's fine.  The main idea of dieting is calories in - calories out, so as long as one follows that rule, he/she will lose weight.  You started out significantly overweight and you have made progress, which is most important.  However, you have to evaluate whether a diet like BFFM will be successful in dropping your body fat now that you don't have an excessive amount of it.  I'd argue that a person who is significantly overweight could choose many different plans to diet down to leanness.  It's much harder for a lean person to diet down to very low levels of body fat, which is where I think information like that in BFFM fails.

Lyle's information is backed by a lot of research at the moment.  You've been offered answers from Lyle McDonald and you've been directed to articles/studies that support the dieting he advocates.  I don't know what kind of information you're looking for, but you've been offered a good amount of it and seem unwilling to change your ideas.  That's fine, but if it's the case, then this discussion seems futile to me.


----------



## Built (Jul 15, 2009)

Okay, let's get back to being nice. We were making progress. 

<Stops car, turns around, yells at the kids>

"Don't make me come back there!"


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 15, 2009)

Uh no.

That sticky was last posted to one month ago. The oldest it gets is two years ago. Still what would be the point of keeping stickies around if they were no longer relevent? Your logic fails.

As for questioning Venuto, I have. If I didn't question Venuto to some degree, I wouldn't even be here.

gtbmed, did you ever think of YOURSELF as a disciple? Because it certainly looks that way to me.

I have gained some interesting info from Built and others but certainly not you.

As to BFFM failing when it gets to lower body fat levels... I HAVE VOICED THIS CONCERN ALREADY. This is one of the big things I'm looking into now. But no, don't believe, write another post telling me how I REALLY think. Great man. Good job.


----------



## Built (Jul 15, 2009)

Enough. That means you too. I'll pare this thread before I put up with it deteriorating. 

Now, where were we - oh yes. Tasteful nudes of well-built young men. 

Wrong thread? I get confused easily...


----------



## jmorrison (Jul 16, 2009)

There is no such thing as a tasteful nude of young men.  

Ever.


----------



## jmorrison (Jul 16, 2009)

There is no such thing as a tasteful nude of young men.  

Ever.





****well this was a double post, but instead of deleting it I decided to leave it for emphasis.****


----------



## gtbmed (Jul 16, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> Uh no.
> 
> That sticky was last posted to one month ago. The oldest it gets is two years ago. Still what would be the point of keeping stickies around if they were no longer relevent? Your logic fails.
> 
> ...



Look, I don't have to defend myself to you.  I'm not a "disciple" of any diet except the "eat what you like when you feel like it" diet.  I do like reading research though.  I've tried to eat fewer carbs and it's worked for me.  I've never done any of Lyle's diets though, so I'd hardly call myself a "disciple".

I've tried giving you advice in this thread, none of which you have liked.  That's OK - like I said, agree to disagree.  But please, stop with the veiled insults.


----------



## Yanick (Jul 16, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> Ha! I have already mastered the drunk part but not the married part. The hardest part of starting my diet was giving up the weekends at the bars with my friends. I'm not the type that can go out all night and just drink one or two beers so I basically had to cut the whole thing out! This health crap is just plain torture sometimes.



See this is what I wanted to know in the other thread but was ignored. There is something you need to know about this health crap. It can get old really fast, believe me (us) we have been there. I'm, personally, not going to argue the scientific intricacies of meal frequency or ratio dieting or whatever. I'm going to let you in on a little secret...If you feel tortured sometimes now, when your results are astounding (because you're new to this) and while the passion is burning deep inside you because this is all new and interesting stuff. Imagine yourself years from now, the results will be be barely noticeable, the novelty will wear off, but the torture will stay. I'm going to tell you something that you probably think you'd never hear on a BB'ing board. Eat 3 square meals a day not because its better or worse...but because it allows you to actually live your life without having to worry where or how your next meal is going to be eaten. Have a cheat meal with your buddies, hit the bar, get drunk, maybe get laid. You'll be much better off in the long run. Take it from someone who's been there, back, there and back again, then around the block a few times, then to some other place and back again...Balance is the key and the neurotic ratios and weekly skin folds and such will get old pretty fast.


----------



## jbish8 (Jul 16, 2009)

gtbmed said:


> I understand the need to question information, but why don't you question Venuto's information?  That information has, in fact, been questioned, and some of it has proven to be incorrect.  I mean, it's OK to question when someone presents you with new, uncomfortable ideas.  But you have to constantly evaluate your current ideas to make sure they're correct and beneficial.
> 
> BFFM has worked for you - that's fine.  The main idea of dieting is calories in - calories out, so as long as one follows that rule, he/she will lose weight.  You started out significantly overweight and you have made progress, which is most important.  However, you have to evaluate whether a diet like BFFM will be successful in dropping your body fat now that you don't have an excessive amount of it.  I'd argue that a person who is significantly overweight could choose many different plans to diet down to leanness.  It's much harder for a lean person to diet down to very low levels of body fat, which is where I think information like that in BFFM fails.



I think there is no dispute that some of BFFM's ideas are somewhat outdated, at least as far as what Tom claimed they did, and for the reasons why they worked. He himself has admitted to some of these (such as the six meals a day thing), which is commendable IMO. As far as BFFM failing to get people to low BF levels, my personal experience says otherwise. His program is exactly what I used to get in the 5% range (and stay close to it for a good year so far I might add). Is there a BETTER way (as I lost some LBM in the process)? I hope so, and am willing to experiment to see, but to say it fails is completely false.

Look....so far from what I've learned here, there's more than one way to skin a cat, and I don't know if you've even read BFFM, but from what I've seen of Lyle's stuff (which hasn't been a whole lot yet: UD2 only) the programs aren't really that much different. One just takes it a little farther, and explains the reasons a bit better (this being Lyle). I may be a little naive and or superficial, but I based my decision on using BFFM on the impressive physique Tom claimed to have gotten from using his own program. Cause of this same attitude, I had some skepticism about Lyle's program, as the dude doesn't really have much a physique to speak of (he works at place I used to frequent), but I know he's a scientist, not a bodybuilder. Since then, I've changed my opinions based on the success people on this forum have had using his programs, and am planning to use his program on my next cut.

Bottom line.....to say that BFFM fails is wrong, however, I believe it isn't for everyone. It obviously works for many, as I know I'm not an anomaly. I also believe Lyle's program works for many, so who cares as long as we all get what we want?


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 16, 2009)

Yanick said:


> See this is what I wanted to know in the other thread but was ignored. There is something you need to know about this health crap. It can get old really fast, believe me (us) we have been there. I'm, personally, not going to argue the scientific intricacies of meal frequency or ratio dieting or whatever. I'm going to let you in on a little secret...If you feel tortured sometimes now, when your results are astounding (because you're new to this) and while the passion is burning deep inside you because this is all new and interesting stuff. Imagine yourself years from now, the results will be be barely noticeable, the novelty will wear off, but the torture will stay. I'm going to tell you something that you probably think you'd never hear on a BB'ing board. Eat 3 square meals a day not because its better or worse...but because it allows you to actually live your life without having to worry where or how your next meal is going to be eaten. Have a cheat meal with your buddies, hit the bar, get drunk, maybe get laid. You'll be much better off in the long run. Take it from someone who's been there, back, there and back again, then around the block a few times, then to some other place and back again...Balance is the key and the neurotic ratios and weekly skin folds and such will get old pretty fast.



It is actually kind of a relief to hear you say that. Alcohol was the first area where I deviated from the strict BFFM diet. It was last year around this time (yes I did this diet before but threw my back out and so stopped). I was going to go on a float ride with my friends and if you've ever been on one of these you know that it involves very large amounts of alcohol. I knew it could set me back a week or two but didn't care because I hadn't drank anything in months and hey I deserved at least one party weekend that summer. So I went to the BFFM forum and started asking how to minimize the damage assuming I am going to put down at least a 12 pack and oh my god you would have thought I said I worship Satan. Very little advice, but lot's of "Shame on you" type talk. It really ticked me off. I ended up going anyway and drinking heavily 

I do think it was a good idea though to stop drinking all together at the beginning. You have to understand I was putting down well over a case every single weekend and sometimes drinking during the week. Quitting all together like that kept me focused. I ended up using my weekends to study this information and perfect my diet and make it easier with spreadsheets and so on. For me, it just seemed like the right path to aim for the perfect diet and make sure that I got it down and am getting good gains THEN start modifying things and seeing what I can get away with. So knowing the relative importance of the different elements seems important so I can slack off strategically  But yeah, now I do go out occasionally and drink with my friends. I am largely over the phase you are talking about although not completely.


----------



## gtbmed (Jul 16, 2009)

True, there are many ways to train and diet.  Venuto himself has stated that diets really need to be tailored to fit individual needs like satiety and lifestyle.  The best rule of dieting, IMO, is that if you can't adhere to it, then it's not an effective diet.  We all differ in the style of diet we can best adhere to.  For me, that diet would not be one with 50% of the calories coming from carbs.  So for me, a diet like that would fail.

I suppose I was speaking more from personal experience and what I said wasn't really extendable to everyone.  I just know that eating a diet with those ratios would leave me hungry.  After restricting my carbs a bit, I found myself much more satiated throughout the day.


----------



## jbish8 (Jul 16, 2009)

gtbmed said:


> True, there are many ways to train and diet.  Venuto himself has stated that diets really need to be tailored to fit individual needs like satiety and lifestyle.  The best rule of dieting, IMO, is that if you can't adhere to it, then it's not an effective diet.  We all differ in the style of diet we can best adhere to.  For me, that diet would not be one with 50% of the calories coming from carbs.  So for me, a diet like that would fail.
> 
> I suppose I was speaking more from personal experience and what I said wasn't really extendable to everyone.  I just know that eating a diet with those ratios would leave me hungry.  After restricting my carbs a bit, I found myself much more satiated throughout the day.



Sounds like we're on the same page, and I do understand that lower carbs are more satiating for some.


----------



## jbish8 (Jul 16, 2009)

Yanick said:


> See this is what I wanted to know in the other thread but was ignored. There is something you need to know about this health crap. It can get old really fast, believe me (us) we have been there. I'm, personally, not going to argue the scientific intricacies of meal frequency or ratio dieting or whatever. I'm going to let you in on a little secret...If you feel tortured sometimes now, when your results are astounding (because you're new to this) and while the passion is burning deep inside you because this is all new and interesting stuff. Imagine yourself years from now, the results will be be barely noticeable, the novelty will wear off, but the torture will stay. I'm going to tell you something that you probably think you'd never hear on a BB'ing board. Eat 3 square meals a day not because its better or worse...but because it allows you to actually live your life without having to worry where or how your next meal is going to be eaten. Have a cheat meal with your buddies, hit the bar, get drunk, maybe get laid. You'll be much better off in the long run. Take it from someone who's been there, back, there and back again, then around the block a few times, then to some other place and back again...Balance is the key and the neurotic ratios and weekly skin folds and such will get old pretty fast.



Yanick, I really like you based on what I've heard from you at this forum. Infact, many of my best friends have your same attidude and they are definetly my favorite guys to hang around. Because of that, I hope you don't take what I say negatively. First of all, you'll have to excuse me if I don't put a whole lot of stock in all your vast "around the block" dieting experinece unless you were logging your breast milk on fitday straight from the womb. Your 23!! I realize you've been a member here for a while, but it's not like everyone else has just been stuffing their faces thinking that it was healthy.
Ok, maybe some people have. Believe it or not, I've been around the block too and I can do it on a 2 wheeler, without training wheels!! Yaaaaaay! I agree with you balance is the key, but you may need to realize different levels of balance work for different people. I've actually tried your "laid back, Matthew Mchonahey" approach. So are the guys I mentioned earlier, (they're all overweight, by the way), and that may work for you, but it certainly doesn't for me. Luckily, I've never experienced this torture you speak of, infact, it is only getting easier as I go. I have never enjoyed life more now that I have the energy to keep with my 4 energetic kids and I never feel hindered by the few minutes a day it takes to maintain the healthy habits I've learned. I don't mind taking away from my beer drinking and barhopping to do so, and I'm getting laid far more than I was previously.
I can also guarantee that when I'm older and skydiving and barefoot skiing in between my visits to my "chill" friends gravesites and resthomes, that I will be glad I stuck to my structure. 

I guess my point is that my level of structure may not be "badass" and I may not be in harmony with the universe, but I am living life fuller by far than when I wasn't.


----------



## Built (Jul 16, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> It is actually kind of a relief to hear you say that. Alcohol was the first area where I deviated from the strict BFFM diet. ...<snip>...
> 
> So I went to the BFFM forum and started asking how to minimize the damage assuming I am going to put down at least a 12 pack and oh my god you would have thought I said I worship Satan. Very little advice, but lot's of "Shame on you" type talk. It really ticked me off. I ended up going anyway and drinking heavily


These kinds of people think very small. They focus on your failures and not on your successes. 

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "THE" PERFECT DIET.

There is no way to diet perfectly. Six meals or one, no carb, low carb, low fat, high fat, ketogenic, cyclic... they're all good for some reasons, not good for others. 

And for the love of GOD, have a donut sometime. Shit. I mean, I didn't get into this lifestyle so I could suffer and eat sawdust for the rest of my days! You wouldn't believe the grief I've taken on some boards for eating butter <gasp!>, or on other boards for using dextrose and white rice as part of my diet. 




gigaplex said:


> I do think it was a good idea though to stop drinking all together at the beginning. You have to understand I was putting down well over a case every single weekend and sometimes drinking during the week. Quitting all together like that kept me focused.


This was wise. I'm not a drinker, but I can see how getting out of "the lifestyle" for a while takes a lot of other bad habits along with it. 


gigaplex said:


> I ended up using my weekends to study this information and perfect my diet and make it easier with spreadsheets and so on. For me, it just seemed like the right path to aim for the perfect diet and make sure that I got it down and am getting good gains THEN start modifying things and seeing what I can get away with.


Having lost a lot of weight many times, and this last time having lost it and kept it off, I think I hear you - by "perfect" you mean "OH MY GOD IT'S ACTUALLY WORKING - NOBODY BREATHE!"

I went through this with Atkins, which was where I started this journey. And I'm sure I was just as irritating with MY diet as you have been with YOUR diet. LOL. I suppose I cringed a bit reading your first posts here. They could have been mine with "Atkins" subbed for "Venuto" and "low carb" subbed for "clean eating". <shudders> Yanno, we grow. 


gigaplex said:


> So knowing the relative importance of the different elements seems important so I can slack off strategically  But yeah, now I do go out occasionally and drink with my friends. I am largely over the phase you are talking about although not completely.



I'll all about the strategic slacking. 

To address Yanick's post, I take this as the sentiment: if you CAN eat and train by feel, *and make it work*, DO SO. 

But to also address jbish, some of us can't really get away with that - not for extended periods of time. I can for a month or two, but I invariably gain weight and have to diet again. The good news is that I know HOW to diet, now, so when I DO relax and go off plan I actually CAN relax and go off plan. I know what to do when it's over, I have an end-date and an exit plan, and I just diet off what I put on during my break. No biggie. 

Peace.


----------



## Yanick (Jul 16, 2009)

jbish8 said:


> Yanick, I really like you based on what I've heard from you at this forum. Infact, many of my best friends have your same attidude and they are definetly my favorite guys to hang around. Because of that, I hope you don't take what I say negatively. First of all, you'll have to excuse me if I don't put a whole lot of stock in all your vast "around the block" dieting experinece unless you were logging your breast milk on fitday straight from the womb. Your 23!! I realize you've been a member here for a while, but it's not like everyone else has just been stuffing their faces thinking that it was healthy.
> Ok, maybe some people have. Believe it or not, I've been around the block too and I can do it on a 2 wheeler, without training wheels!! Yaaaaaay! I agree with you balance is the key, but you may need to realize different levels of balance work for different people. I've actually tried your "laid back, Matthew Mchonahey" approach. So are the guys I mentioned earlier, (they're all overweight, by the way), and that may work for you, but it certainly doesn't for me. Luckily, I've never experienced this torture you speak of, infact, it is only getting easier as I go. I have never enjoyed life more now that I have the energy to keep with my 4 energetic kids and I never feel hindered by the few minutes a day it takes to maintain the healthy habits I've learned. I don't mind taking away from my beer drinking and barhopping to do so, and I'm getting laid far more than I was previously.
> I can also guarantee that when I'm older and skydiving and barefoot skiing in between my visits to my "chill" friends gravesites and resthomes, that I will be glad I stuck to my structure.
> 
> I guess my point is that my level of structure may not be "badass" and I may not be in harmony with the universe, but I am living life fuller by far than when I wasn't.



You misunderstand my point a bit. I sit home all day and read, I weigh all my food, I log onto fitday everyday (sans refeeds), I have journals upon journals of workouts. I'm also probably the oldest 23 y/o you'd ever meet, I'm a goddamn old man. I don't go out anymore, I barely ever drink, I train, read and look for work. I've been around forums and BB'ing for close to 10 years now, seriously logging and tracking and reading for probably 8 or so (I started at 16 and will turn 24 in a few weeks). I haven't and won't try all the different diets out there and I'm not trying to sound as if I have. My there and back comment was based on how I started as a 230lb fat ass 13 y/o, trained and dieted down to 160, trained and dieted up to a muscular 235, then down to 190, then 205 and just recently I came back from a 1 year lay off where I peaked at a fat 242...I'm currently pushing 220. Some of those transformations were with the typical BB'er, 6 meals, calipers every week blah blah blah. It was great for a year or two, then I burnt out on the constant structure and stress of an extra millimeter here or 5 less grams there. Maybe it was youth or my personality but as far as lifestyle goes, its unmaintainable for me because I don't make a living off of it and can't justify spending almost all of my free time preparing foods, doing measurements, planning diets, eating and training. I'm still searching for that perfect mix of healthy, but not neurotic eating which will allow me to maintain myself in the long term. My favorite way of dieting up to this point was carb cycling, I was pretty lean, strong, and big and I drank 3 days out of the week, went out, made out with women and had fun. Not the most optimal way but it was balanced and maintainable. I don't want all that BS anymore and I sit my ass home and weigh out everything that goes in my mouth. When I start working 12 hour shifts and going to school full time you damn well better believe I won't have the time/energy to cook and eat 6 meals, train, read/study etc. Life is dynamic and the word diet should be eliminated and replaced with lifestyle...otherwise you're just kinda spinning your wheels.

EDIT; I also just realized I've been at IM for 7 years. Holy shit, I need to get a life.

Just to summarize really quickly, I want to say that when I give advice its geared toward a regular joe. Not the next Mr. O. Regular Joe's have tons of commitments outside of the gym/kitchen and life throws them curveballs left and right that bumps dieting/training down a couple of notches. An appropriate lifestyle needs to factor these things in. What does BFFM (or anyother 'hardcore' BB'er diet) say when you need to work for 12 hours, then take your kid to a soccer game, then take em out for pizza afterward and then maybe get a bit of studying or something else in before you pass out to only get 6 hours of sleep for the night?


----------



## jbish8 (Jul 16, 2009)

Yanick said:


> You misunderstand my point a bit. I sit home all day and read, I weigh all my food, I log onto fitday everyday (sans refeeds), I have journals upon journals of workouts. I'm also probably the oldest 23 y/o you'd ever meet, I'm a goddamn old man. I don't go out anymore, I barely ever drink, I train, read and look for work. I've been around forums and BB'ing for close to 10 years now, seriously logging and tracking and reading for probably 8 or so (I started at 16 and will turn 24 in a few weeks). I haven't and won't try all the different diets out there and I'm not trying to sound as if I have. My there and back comment was based on how I started as a 230lb fat ass 13 y/o, trained and dieted down to 160, trained and dieted up to a muscular 235, then down to 190, then 205 and just recently I came back from a 1 year lay off where I peaked at a fat 242...I'm currently pushing 220. Some of those transformations were with the typical BB'er, 6 meals, calipers every week blah blah blah. It was great for a year or two, then I burnt out on the constant structure and stress of an extra millimeter here or 5 less grams there. Maybe it was youth or my personality but as far as lifestyle goes, its unmaintainable for me because I don't make a living off of it and can't justify spending almost all of my free time preparing foods, doing measurements, planning diets, eating and training. I'm still searching for that perfect mix of healthy, but not neurotic eating which will allow me to maintain myself in the long term. My favorite way of dieting up to this point was carb cycling, I was pretty lean, strong, and big and I drank 3 days out of the week, went out, made out with women and had fun. Not the most optimal way but it was balanced and maintainable. I don't want all that BS anymore and I sit my ass home and weigh out everything that goes in my mouth. When I start working 12 hour shifts and going to school full time you damn well better believe I won't have the time/energy to cook and eat 6 meals, train, read/study etc. Life is dynamic and the word diet should be eliminated and replaced with lifestyle...otherwise you're just kinda spinning your wheels.



Ok Yanick, maybe what I said was a little harsh, or at least the way I said it. I can be a little sarcastic sometimes, so I apologize (for in the future too.....to everyone). As far as being the oldest 23 year old I'd know, I've already met him. It was me.....and every other currently 23 year old in the world. Oops, I did it again. I kid...I kid!! Seriously though, it's possible that I may be a little sensitive to this subject, as I receive crap constantly from the same buddies I mentioned previously. Like I said, I've tried this method of living and honestly it wasn't bad. I never got over 15% (I'm guessing) while living this way and would probly' not be much heavier now had I continued living that way. I was happy and fairly healthy I think. I do think that there are those that can get away with this "lifestyle", but after trying both, I honestly feel much happier and much healthier. I also understand that it can be hard to fit in time wise what it takes to reach and maintain your goals, but I do think it can be done. I too have a job, bills to pay, four demanding kids, 12 brothers and sisters, 33 pets to feed..............You get the point. The trick IMO is finding what works for you, and planning a bit and preparing a bit and even if ya want too...only if ya think it helps....and can spare the extra minute.....pull out the calipers once a week. Arrrrrgggg I said it. Oh yeah, I was being serious. Look, I'm not trying to judge you, cause it does sound like you've been at this a while but all I know is Ya get out what ya put in and some of what you're saying just sounds like excuses to me. Maybe I'm just lucky, as it really is getting easier for me as time goes on. Sure, I'll have some nachos and even a doughnut, but honestly I actually like healthy food at this point. It's so much more satisfiying to me and I love finding creative ways to make it even better. Maybe I'm weird.
Anyways, I read ya and hope ya find what works for you for the long term.
It sounds like you've been through alot. Good luck.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 16, 2009)

Oh man, there is probably nothing that ticks off 23 year olds more than the age card. In fairness, you did pull it out first though, Yanick.

Now in my wise old age of 26, this is what I would always say when people pulled this on me: Take a look around at the world. Now what was this you were saying about your generation being smart? Yeah, exactly. 

As old as you are intellectually or physically, you will get even older and then realize that when you say you are as smart as older people, you're not really giving yourself a compliment. So people just eventually stop saying this. 

The important thing though that I get out of jbish8's post is that while we can make our diet's a little lax so that we can at least have a life to some degree, we can also work on finding more efficient and better ways of doing things so that we can still keep a lot of good things in our diet that would otherwise be too inconvenient.

For example, when I started BFFM, I was cooking for 18 hours to get everything ready for the week. That was my entire weekend. You want to talk about torture? That's torture. Perhaps you are familiar with this kind of torture? Anyway, I kept working on getting more efficient methods down and better meals and now I can get all my food ready (cooking and all) for the whole week in about 2.5 to 3 hours. How ever many of those meals I need portableportable and everything else I just microwave for a few minutes before eating it. That COULD fit into a college schedule without a problem.

So it's perhaps a little bit of both. Make some things efficient enough that you CAN do them and also weed out things that are just far to difficult to fit into your life which don't offer that much benefit.


----------



## Built (Jul 16, 2009)

You spent 18 hours a week cooking lowfat food?

I don't even cook that long for things that taste GOOD!


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 16, 2009)

Built said:


> You spent 18 hours a week cooking lowfat food?
> 
> I don't even cook that long for things that taste GOOD!



I had basically never cooked until I started BFFM. So this was coming from ground zero and initially it was an extreme disaster. I remember the first couple months I would screw things up so bad I could hardly choke the meals down. I mean we are talking some gross stuff - at least the way I cooked it. And I did all my cooking in the most inefficient way possible. Like, I would spend maybe 2 hours peeling the petals off of onions and cutting them individually. Eventually, I did actually learn how to cook. Man am I glad that's all over.


----------



## Built (Jul 16, 2009)

OMG you sound like my husband making chicken and rice.


Boil water
Once the water is boiling, measure out the rice.
Measure out the water because some of it boiled off while you were measuring the rice. 
Add more water
Wait again for it to boil
Add rice
Measure out salt
Add salt
Look for spoon
Stir pot
Look for lid
Put lid on pot
Turn down stove
Set timer
Wait 
<ding!> rice is now cooked. 

Now make chicken???


----------



## jmorrison (Jul 16, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> Oh man, there is probably nothing that ticks off 23 year olds more than the age card.



Which makes no sense.  I am only 29, and I would kill to be 23 again, 21 would be better!

I am trying a new anti-aging program called "sleeping with much younger girls".  It seems to be working, and I feel that I am aging in reverse.

Question:  If lovemaking metaphorically makes two people into one, and I nail a 20 year old, does that make me:

1. 20 along with her
2. 24.5 as an average
3. slightly perverted


----------



## Built (Jul 16, 2009)

1. No
2. Yes
3. More than slightly.


----------



## jmorrison (Jul 16, 2009)

Does it help that she calls me her "personal pedo?" and that this doesn't bother me?

I need to reevaulate my life.

Someday.


----------



## jbish8 (Jul 16, 2009)

Built said:


> OMG you sound like my husband making chicken and rice.
> 
> 
> Boil water
> ...



Thanks. My rice is done.....but where's the instructions for the chicken??


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 16, 2009)

Built said:


> OMG you sound like my husband making chicken and rice.
> 
> 
> Boil water
> ...



Yeah right. There are so many more steps than that! You make it sound overly-simplistic.


----------



## Built (Jul 16, 2009)

Shit. I need to youtube "cooking for meatheads"... damn.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 16, 2009)

When I first started, I actually considered taping my cooking sessions as a comedy show for youtube. I'm telling ya, it would've been a hit.


----------



## gigaplex (Jul 16, 2009)

Built said:


> I went through this with Atkins, which was where I started this journey. And I'm sure I was just as irritating with MY diet as you have been with YOUR diet. LOL. I suppose I cringed a bit reading your first posts here. They could have been mine with "Atkins" subbed for "Venuto" and "low carb" subbed for "clean eating". <shudders> Yanno, we grow.



Although I have decided to give the forum a chance and be a little less confrontational I do still think that cardio is beneficial for many even if just for the caloric advantage. The problem with just taking some extra calories out of a person's diet to get the same effect as the cardio is that in order to do that, the deficit percentage has to increase. So to achieve that same calorie deficit without increasing the deficit percentage, you can add cardio and eat a bit more so you are at the same percentage deficit but yet have more of a calorie deficit. If a person does not have hunger issues when doing cardio and is not losing muscle mass, they can actually get a bigger deficit doing cardio and so cardio would fit with their goals rather nicely. Now for a person in that situation, maybe cardio would be an easy thing for them to drop if they wanted to slack off a bit but as we just talked about, everyone has a different balance.

This is not even to say that the calorie deficit is the only thing that makes cardio fit with a fat loss goal but it is certainly an obvious one in my mind.

Also, I read the "Daredevils are Shredded" article. Interesting, perhaps true. Something that came to mind while reading it is that swimming is one of the best forms of cardio that I know of to increase mitochondria and the original question was about doing swimming as cardio. The reason I bring it up is because if I remember right the article said that it's method works better if you increase your mitochondria or something along those lines?

As far as where I stand with all this, well understand that I see Lyle, this forum, the thousands of new diets out there, and so on as I see a nightly build in the software world. Whereas I see Venuto's work more as a "stable release" in that it is a culmination, a separating of the wheat from the chaff, a filtering, the setting of a standard, getting common principles established. Releases don't come out as often as nightly builds do. You wouldn't want Venuto to come change the whole routine every 5 minutes in response to each bit of data that comes in - that is not the purpose of Venuto. I don't think that the Venuto bashers that bash Venuto just for the sake of bashing Venuto understand this.

There are a lot of people that know more about biochemistry than me, and they have all kinds of different ideas - some good, many bad, some correct, many incorrect, but they all have "good reasons" and many sound convincing and nearly all cite research. So while the cutting edge is new and exciting to many, to me it is the bleeding edge until I actually review the research that backs it all up, am forced to try something different, am convinced enough by anecdotal evidence to give it a quick try or something along these lines.

But with that said, I am at least interested enough to poke around in the forum a bit rather than shrug and walk away like any other forum. I will at least stick around the forum long enough to see what happens with jbish8's cut and if all that goes well maybe I'll buy the book and devote some time to serious study and then MAYBE I'll consider taking a different path. But for right now, my plan is still the BFFM cut even at the lower body fat levels. It doesn't mean my plan can't change and it is nice to see another viewpoint. But if I changed my mind without going to these lengths, it would just seem irresponsible and a possible waste of time. I dont' have enough time to try all the thousands of diets out there in the world so I first pick the well established.


----------



## jbish8 (Jul 16, 2009)

gigaplex said:


> Although I have decided to give the forum a chance and be a little less confrontational I do still think that cardio is beneficial for many even if just for the caloric advantage. The problem with just taking some extra calories out of a person's diet to get the same effect as the cardio is that in order to do that, the deficit percentage has to increase. So to achieve that same calorie deficit without increasing the deficit percentage, you can add cardio and eat a bit more so you are at the same percentage deficit but yet have more of a calorie deficit. If a person does not have hunger issues when doing cardio and is not losing muscle mass, they can actually get a bigger deficit doing cardio and so cardio would fit with their goals rather nicely. Now for a person in that situation, maybe cardio would be an easy thing for them to drop if they wanted to slack off a bit but as we just talked about, everyone has a different balance.
> 
> This is not even to say that the calorie deficit is the only thing that makes cardio fit with a fat loss goal but it is certainly an obvious one in my mind.
> 
> ...


Ok...that's alot of words. I think my brain just exploded...<sniffs>...nevermind. It wasn't my brain. Guess I'm officially a guinea pig <snorts>


----------



## jbish8 (Jul 16, 2009)

I'm actually feeling bad that I've helped hijack the poor guy who started this thread, so I'm gonna save my comments for another place from now on. See ya everyone.


----------



## Built (Jul 17, 2009)

I don't think it's bad to exercise your heart. It's just a poor thing to focus on for fat loss. It simply doesn't burn very much. 

Now, the mitochodrial density is to burn off mobilized FFAs before they re-esterify. You only do stubborn fatloss protocol when you're very lean and looking to get the last little bits off - you're not going to mobilize much fat, but you want to mobilize the fat and not the muscle. SFP allows you to do this, a few grams of fat at a time, and in doing so, you give the mitochondria something other than muscle tissue to chew on. 

Any kind of cardio will build mitochondrial density. So does high rep training. My feeling is that you do this part up front, so you're well conditioned enough to have SFP work well once you're there. 

Put it this way - you do NOT want to be trying to build your endurance base on no food. 


I honestly think there's a bigger place for regular cardio when bulking. That's when you're eating more, eating more carb, gaining a bit of fat. You need the help with your insulin sensitivity at this point. Plus it gets more nutrient flow - improved capillary density etc.


----------



## jbish8 (Jul 17, 2009)

jbish8 said:


> I'm actually feeling bad that I've helped hijack the poor guy who started this thread, so I'm gonna save my comments for another place from now on. See ya everyone.


This is where I made my comments http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/diet-nutrition/101339-what-i-think-what-i-m-gonna-do-about.html#post1913738


----------

