It’s been proven that lifting dumbbells, as apposed to using the machines is better for you.
When you switched two weeks ago, is all that you changed to workout? Your bench press routine?
Also, how many sets/reps do you do?
Well greek I don't use machines at all always free weights (except a few back exercises ofcourse). I switched benching bar to benching dumbells. With the hopes that my body will react to the change in routine & hopefully my bench press will increase when I get back to it..
I occassionally change my routines slightly when I feel Im stagnant & not getting increases in strength. As far as my chest workout, I changed most of it two weeks ago. Instead of decline bench Im doing dips. Also doing push ups now. Stopped using cable crosses & peck deck & now doing dumbell flies.
I usually stretch, do a light warm-up set to just go through the motions, then do 4 to 5 sets depending on time. My reps usually range 15, 10, 8, 5, 10. Start lighter, gradually get heavier, than do a lighter set to finish off.
Thanks to all those who gave up advice and told me to hang in there.
I know part of my problem is that I got caught up in all the hype of this Insanity and just expected the weight to fall off.
But I know it takes time so I will hang in there and continue. Only problem so far is some lower back pain on my right side. Will try to see my Chiropractor on Friday to see what it is.
Thanks again gang, I knew I could check in here for good advice.
Been doing it for about a month now, and my I've lost 2 pounds but seen my body fat percentage drop from 16% to 13.4% and my lifts go up consistently.
Hey Reidy, that was a great read and is a very interesting subject. Honestly, it is a debate that could go on forever and I could argue either side convincingly. The author brings up some great points but I think what the LeanGains fails to take into account is the individual in question. Let me share my two cents.
For starters, not eating late at night doesn't mean you burn fat any faster than if you did eat at night. That is just silly logic. A person's fitness level, genetics, gender, activity level and metabolism will determine how quick a person burns "calories". Also there is no possible way to only JUST burn fat. Your metabolism/body burns calories. It's not selective and you can't select what macro/micro nutrient you want to burn at any given time. The body will burn in order, alcohol, carbs, protein, fat. That's just how the body works. So the argument for or against eating at night to burn more or less FAT is irrelevant.
Moving forward. There are pros and cons for eating late at night versus not eating after 6pm but what it all should really boil down to is the individual and what is best for them and their workout regimen + health and fitness goals and needs.
Case Sample 1: MYSELF. I eat my 3 regular meals + 2 snacks + pre and post workout + additional snack or shake before bed. I will easily consume more than 500 calories after dinner time. I do this and can do this because of my physical stature, my workout routine and my metabolism. My evening snacking consists of a LOT of protein. I do this so that when I sleep my body has the protein needed to help replenish and strengthen my muscles from vigorous and heavy lifting I have done throughout the day. This works for me because my body and metabolism utilize the protein rather than storing the extra calories.
Case Sample 2: PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE. Professional athletes like hockey players would eat a CARB filled massive dinner (often pasta) followed by more complex carbs in the later evening. This is so that the following day come the evening they have PLENTY of energy for game time. These aren't your regular average joe's, these are athletes, built like athletes. Their loaded carb diets will see all their carbohydrate intake used as energy for their given sports and workouts. They need these carbs for optimal physical performance.
Case Sample 3: YOUR AVERAGE JOE. A person new to exercise, who falls in the over-weight or even obese category who has just started to engage in light exercise does NOT need to consume large amount of anything in the evening. These people have much slower metabolism's, higher percentage of body fat and cannot and do not burn off the calories they eat late at night, thus preventing them from losing weight or even cause of weight gain. There best best is to consume their carbs early in the day so they have more energy throughout and eat less at night before their body shuts down for 6-8 hours of sleep because of their slower metabolism and inability to burn off the extra calories in general.
Lastly, the LeanGains approach talks about how massive eating in the morning, followed by moderate eating at lunch and finally light eating at night is BAD and they are totally CORRECT on this one! But not for the reasons they give. Eating in general for the average person should all be in moderation and your meal sizes should be very similar in portions and size throughout the day. Breakfast, lunch and dinner should all be within roughly 100 calories of each other with light snacks falling in between. The body struggles to digest an overload of calories at any given meal and your metabolism will be firing much better and on all cylinders if you eat regularly every couple of hours and your portions are all fairly even.
I didn't get to read the full article but this is my opinion from the first half I read. =)
PS. Judging by your body fat Reidy, I would say you fall into category one, which is why it's working for you! Congrats by the way 13% body fat is awesome! =)
5lbs in your second week is fantastic. You just need to give it time. Often times when people start exercising for the first time or try something new the body tends to cling to carbohydrates a little more than normal. Your body is in shock from all the new exercise and calorie burn so it likes to hold on to it's energy source (carbs) as a precaution. This can cause you to store a little more water weight than normal. Once your body adapts the weight loss will pick up! =)
Cid; I don't eat a lot of carbs though...I do though drink a lot of water, during my workout I will consume two water bottles each containing about 30 oz of water.
Cid; I don't eat a lot of carbs though...I do though drink a lot of water, during my workout I will consume two water bottles each containing about 30 oz of water.
Could I be drinking to much water ?
Very doubtful! It's almost possible to be drinking too much and if you were you would get very sick.
The more water you drink the better. Water actually helps you LOSE weight. If you aren't drinking enough your body will store water as part of it's survival mode (water retention). If you drink more than you need you just pee it out. So keep drinking plenty of water.
Honestly my friend, it's still early. Just keep at it and keep working hard. Everyone loses weight differently. I once had a client who busted his tail for 2 months and lost virtually nothing! Then in the past 6 months he has gone from 213 to 152. Sometimes it just takes a little longer, especially the older we get.
Enjoy the workouts, have fun and try to make it a lifestyle. Don't stress over the numbers and just worry about how you are feeling. The weight will come off. If at 3 months you are still seeing what you feel is minimal results then it's time we talk about it and see what we can switch up. Give your body a chance to adapt for now.
Thanks for the tips Cid. About one month ago I began to take the diet more seriously. Im drinking tons more water (cut diet pepsi out entirely). Switched from omelets to egg white omelets. Eating less 'carby' foods (no fries, potatoes, bread etc.) Tons of veggies. I've also stopped eating after 9pm, eat my bowl of cheerios @ 830.
From the sounds of it my cardio game lacks. Im certainly not doing an hour a day as you suggested. As far as protein, I drink (2) Isopures a day 40g per drink & have a powerbar before the gym 23g. I get some peanubutter in every morning & I usually eat some meats. Ive been operating under the assumption that I should be taking in one gram of protein per lb. I weigh, which would mean I need 245 grams of protein per day. Im lucky if I get half that in daily. Im a working man & a daddy so it's tough to find time to eat fish every day (unless a can of tuna counts).
Two weeks ago I switched from the bench press bar to dumbell presses (per my 'friends' suggestion). I plan on doing this for a month then switching back to bench press, hopefully my strength increases.
245g of protein is WAY TOO MUCH! The amount of calories you would have to consume just to get that much intake is going to prevent you from losing any weight. That one gram per every pound of body weight works for body builders, heavy lifters and some athletes but not so well for normal people. Aim for about half that if you are working out religiously.
Remember weight loss is all about CALORIES IN vs CALORIES OUT! You need to be burning off more calories through activity and exercise then you are through eating. Eat less, and burn more and you will lose weight. So my suggestion is tone down on the protein consumption and become more aware of overall calorie intake. For your weight you should be in and around 2000 calories a day for weight loss.
Hey Reidy, that was a great read and is a very interesting subject. Honestly, it is a debate that could go on forever and I could argue either side convincingly. The author brings up some great points but I think what the LeanGains fails to take into account is the individual in question. Let me share my two cents.
For starters, not eating late at night doesn't mean you burn fat any faster than if you did eat at night. That is just silly logic. A person's fitness level, genetics, gender, activity level and metabolism will determine how quick a person burns "calories". Also there is no possible way to only JUST burn fat. Your metabolism/body burns calories. It's not selective and you can't select what macro/micro nutrient you want to burn at any given time. The body will burn in order, alcohol, carbs, protein, fat. That's just how the body works. So the argument for or against eating at night to burn more or less FAT is irrelevant.
Moving forward. There are pros and cons for eating late at night versus not eating after 6pm but what it all should really boil down to is the individual and what is best for them and their workout regimen + health and fitness goals and needs.
Case Sample 1: MYSELF. I eat my 3 regular meals + 2 snacks + pre and post workout + additional snack or shake before bed. I will easily consume more than 500 calories after dinner time. I do this and can do this because of my physical stature, my workout routine and my metabolism. My evening snacking consists of a LOT of protein. I do this so that when I sleep my body has the protein needed to help replenish and strengthen my muscles from vigorous and heavy lifting I have done throughout the day. This works for me because my body and metabolism utilize the protein rather than storing the extra calories.
Case Sample 2: PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE. Professional athletes like hockey players would eat a CARB filled massive dinner (often pasta) followed by more complex carbs in the later evening. This is so that the following day come the evening they have PLENTY of energy for game time. These aren't your regular average joe's, these are athletes, built like athletes. Their loaded carb diets will see all their carbohydrate intake used as energy for their given sports and workouts. They need these carbs for optimal physical performance.
Case Sample 3: YOUR AVERAGE JOE. A person new to exercise, who falls in the over-weight or even obese category who has just started to engage in light exercise does NOT need to consume large amount of anything in the evening. These people have much slower metabolism's, higher percentage of body fat and cannot and do not burn off the calories they eat late at night, thus preventing them from losing weight or even cause of weight gain. There best best is to consume their carbs early in the day so they have more energy throughout and eat less at night before their body shuts down for 6-8 hours of sleep because of their slower metabolism and inability to burn off the extra calories in general.
Lastly, the LeanGains approach talks about how massive eating in the morning, followed by moderate eating at lunch and finally light eating at night is BAD and they are totally CORRECT on this one! But not for the reasons they give. Eating in general for the average person should all be in moderation and your meal sizes should be very similar in portions and size throughout the day. Breakfast, lunch and dinner should all be within roughly 100 calories of each other with light snacks falling in between. The body struggles to digest an overload of calories at any given meal and your metabolism will be firing much better and on all cylinders if you eat regularly every couple of hours and your portions are all fairly even.
I didn't get to read the full article but this is my opinion from the first half I read. =)
PS. Judging by your body fat Reidy, I would say you fall into category one, which is why it's working for you! Congrats by the way 13% body fat is awesome! =)
Interesting take, as always. I actually should have specified though, as I was actually referring to the Lean Gains diet, which can be found here:
The gist of it is following a 16/8 fast/feeding schedule, where you fast for 16 hours and eat for 8 (similar to the Warrior Diet, et al, which advocate 24 hours (or more) fasting periods). The guy behind it, Martin Berkham, has seen some incredible results for both him and his clients, and the concept of Intermittent Fasting (IF) has really taken off in some fitness circles.
Basically it's an awesome way to meet your caloric needs without worrying about spacing out your meals. Personally, I really, really enjoy eating, and the idea of eating 6 small meals a day wasn't always my favorite. I was always hungry. With Lean Gains, you meet your daily caloric intake within an 8 hour time frame, any time of the day (so long as you've fasted prior to that window). This allows you to basically enjoy your meals and eat big. For instance, I just ate ~1,100 calories after my workout, something that, unless I was a 250 lb body builder (I'm not), I probably wouldn't be able to do otherwise.
It's a really interesting concept, and there is growing evidence to support it's validity. The really interesting aspect of it to me, though, is how it flies in the face of contemporary nutritional guidelines.
In other nutrition news, I just finished reading a really interesting piece by Alan Aragon, a nutritionist who is greatly respected in the fitness/bodybuilding community (and a guy whose opinion re: nutrition I hold above any one else's).
It's titled "The Dirt on Clean Eating," and it's a really well-researched and thoughtful take on the current concept of "clean eating."
In 1997, a general physician named Steven Bratman coined the term orthorexia nervosa [21], which he defines as, “an unhealthy obsession with eating healthy food.” It reminds me of the counterproductive dietary perfectionism I’ve seen among many athletes, trainers, and coaches. One of the fundamental pitfalls of dichotomizing foods as good or bad, or clean or dirty, is that it can form a destructive relationship with food. This isn’t just an empty claim; it’s been seen in research. Smith and colleagues found that flexible dieting was associated with the absence of overeating, lower bodyweight, and the absence of depression and anxiety [22]. They also found that a strict all-or-nothing approach to dieting was associated with overeating and increased bodyweight. Similarly, Stewart and colleagues found that rigid dieting was associated with symptoms of an eating disorder, mood disturbances, and anxiety [23]. Flexible dieting was not highly correlated with these qualities. Although these are observational study designs with self-reported data, anyone who spends enough time among fitness buffs knows that these findings are not off the mark.
Applying Moderation: The 10-20% Guideline
For those hoping that I’ll tell you to have fun eating whatever you want, you’re in luck. But, like everything in life, you’ll have to moderate your indulgence, and the 10-20% guideline is the best way I’ve found to do this. There currently is no compelling evidence suggesting that a diet whose calories are 80-90% from whole & minimally processed foods is not prudent enough for maximizing health, longevity, body composition, or training performance. As a matter of fact, research I just discussed points to the possibility that it’s more psychologically sound to allow a certain amount of flexibility for indulgences rather than none at all. And just to reiterate, processed does not always mean devoid of nutritional value. Whey and whey/casein blends are prime examples of nutritional powerhouses that happen to be removed from their original food matrix.
The article kind of extrapolates on a concept that I've been adhering to more and more over the years. It's come to be known colloquially as IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros), and it basically argues that so long as you meet your daily macronutrient needs at the end of the day, it doesn't matter where those calories come from. For example, I try to shoot for 1 gram protein/lb of bodyweight per day, and I cycle my carbs on training and non-training days (higher carb/lower fat on training days, low carb/higher fat on non-training days). How ever I get there doesn't really matter, and thus far I've seen excellent gains with this approach.
To top it off there's a lot of peer-reviewed literature on this topic as well, much of it supporting the IIFYM approach.
Thanks to all those who gave up advice and told me to hang in there.
I know part of my problem is that I got caught up in all the hype of this Insanity and just expected the weight to fall off.
But I know it takes time so I will hang in there and continue. Only problem so far is some lower back pain on my right side. Will try to see my Chiropractor on Friday to see what it is.
Thanks again gang, I knew I could check in here for good advice.
You must be my long lost cousin.
I go to a chiropractor and my biggest issue is lower back pain on the right side as well. Of course this prevents me from being as active as I'd like and the pain runs down my leg but it has improved dramatically with adjustments and stretching.
The gist of it is following a 16/8 fast/feeding schedule, where you fast for 16 hours and eat for 8 (similar to the Warrior Diet, et al, which advocate 24 hours (or more) fasting periods). The guy behind it, Martin Berkham, has seen some incredible results for both him and his clients, and the concept of Intermittent Fasting (IF) has really taken off in some fitness circles.
Basically it's an awesome way to meet your caloric needs without worrying about spacing out your meals. Personally, I really, really enjoy eating, and the idea of eating 6 small meals a day wasn't always my favorite. I was always hungry. With Lean Gains, you meet your daily caloric intake within an 8 hour time frame, any time of the day (so long as you've fasted prior to that window). This allows you to basically enjoy your meals and eat big. For instance, I just ate ~1,100 calories after my workout, something that, unless I was a 250 lb body builder (I'm not), I probably wouldn't be able to do otherwise.
It's a really interesting concept, and there is growing evidence to support it's validity. The really interesting aspect of it to me, though, is how it flies in the face of contemporary nutritional guidelines.
Very interesting concept. First thing that comes to my head though is that I personally would struggle immensely with this type of diet. I am up at 6am, and eat first meal by 6:30am. That would mean I'd be done eating by mid afternoon. Considering my work schedule, the hours and the fact that I get my workouts in during the evening there is no way I'd be able to do such a diet.
If it's working for you though, then that is all that matters. There are so many different diets and ways to exercise out there, and their value and whether they work or not is all in the eye of the beholder.
With that being said, it really isn't that much different of a concept from what I would prescribe a client. Breakfast/Snack/Lunch/Snack/Dinner all 2 hours apart would be 10 hours of eating followed by a fast of 14 hours. So 2 hours difference is all.
I'm gonna read up on it and educate myself a little more. It's a cool concept, but again,I think it all boils down to lifestyle and how active you are during the hours you are awake.
Kinda reminds me of when I first started driving. I'd love to fill my gas tank and then drive the car to below the gas light and see how far I could go on a single tank of gas, even driving in cruise control if I had to. Risky and you may run out and be stranded but I loved pushing it for whatever reason, especially when going on long road trips. Don't think I'd do that with my body. That's kinda what this reminds me of lol.
Keep me posted on your results though, I am curious to see if you can maintain this diet or if you will eventually have to taper off. Cheers!
Very interesting concept. First thing that comes to my head though is that I personally would struggle immensely with this type of diet. I am up at 6am, and eat first meal by 6:30am. That would mean I'd be done eating by mid afternoon. Considering my work schedule, the hours and the fact that I get my workouts in during the evening there is no way I'd be able to do such a diet.
If it's working for you though, then that is all that matters. There are so many different diets and ways to exercise out there, and their value and whether they work or not is all in the eye of the beholder.
With that being said, it really isn't that much different of a concept from what I would prescribe a client. Breakfast/Snack/Lunch/Snack/Dinner all 2 hours apart would be 10 hours of eating followed by a fast of 14 hours. So 2 hours difference is all.
I'm gonna read up on it and educate myself a little more. It's a cool concept, but again,I think it all boils down to lifestyle and how active you are during the hours you are awake.
Kinda reminds me of when I first started driving. I'd love to fill my gas tank and then drive the car to below the gas light and see how far I could go on a single tank of gas, even driving in cruise control if I had to. Risky and you may run out and be stranded but I loved pushing it for whatever reason, especially when going on long road trips. Don't think I'd do that with my body. That's kinda what this reminds me of lol.
Keep me posted on your results though, I am curious to see if you can maintain this diet or if you will eventually have to taper off. Cheers!
That's the thing: most people assume you get hungry due to the fasting window, but oddly enough, it's a non-issue. The science (at least as they claim) is your hormones adjust over a short period of time to feel satiated during the fasting window, and although at first I'd get hungry close to the end of the 16 hours, now I don't even feel hungry at all.
The best part is that I get to literally gorge 1-2 times a day and still eat at maintenance or a deficit, which when you think about it, is pretty awesome.
That's the thing: most people assume you get hungry due to the fasting window, but oddly enough, it's a non-issue. The science (at least as they claim) is your hormones adjust over a short period of time to feel satiated during the fasting window, and although at first I'd get hungry close to the end of the 16 hours, now I don't even feel hungry at all.
The best part is that I get to literally gorge 1-2 times a day and still eat at maintenance or a deficit, which when you think about it, is pretty awesome.
I can verify getting used to it. In college I could only afford one meal a day at the dining hall, and would just absolutely fill up on tons of food. Despite only eating once a day I was never too hungry or miserable, as long as I got that one meal.
Very doubtful! It's almost possible to be drinking too much and if you were you would get very sick.
The more water you drink the better. Water actually helps you LOSE weight. If you aren't drinking enough your body will store water as part of it's survival mode (water retention). If you drink more than you need you just pee it out. So keep drinking plenty of water.
Honestly my friend, it's still early. Just keep at it and keep working hard. Everyone loses weight differently. I once had a client who busted his tail for 2 months and lost virtually nothing! Then in the past 6 months he has gone from 213 to 152. Sometimes it just takes a little longer, especially the older we get.
Enjoy the workouts, have fun and try to make it a lifestyle. Don't stress over the numbers and just worry about how you are feeling. The weight will come off. If at 3 months you are still seeing what you feel is minimal results then it's time we talk about it and see what we can switch up. Give your body a chance to adapt for now.
I half to say I am enjoying the workouts very much. It's a nice change from my stepper, but I plan on getting back on that once I'm finished the Insanity. There are two video's I've yet to accomplish and I'll be damned if I let them beat me...
I think I got caught up in all the hype of this Insanity and P90X and just figured the weight would just fall off; much like it did when I did my step.
You were chatting with someone else about the amount of protein they should take in. How can I go about figuring out what I should take it, I don't want to take in to much because my goal is to drop weight, but I want to refuel the muscles.
I weighed in yesterday at 214 lbs.
Cid, I also want to say thank you very much for lending your advice and I want you to know it's very much appreciated...
I half to say I am enjoying the workouts very much. It's a nice change from my stepper, but I plan on getting back on that once I'm finished the Insanity. There are two video's I've yet to accomplish and I'll be damned if I let them beat me...
I think I got caught up in all the hype of this Insanity and P90X and just figured the weight would just fall off; much like it did when I did my step.
You were chatting with someone else about the amount of protein they should take in. How can I go about figuring out what I should take it, I don't want to take in to much because my goal is to drop weight, but I want to refuel the muscles.
I weighed in yesterday at 214 lbs.
Cid, I also want to say thank you very much for lending your advice and I want you to know it's very much appreciated...
No problem, TGF. Glad I can be of help. Remember, everything I am saying isn't necessarily right nor is it wrong. In this industry everyone has a different opinion. However I am educated in the field and do this for a living so most of what I am saying is based on the success stories of my clients and things I've tried and have worked.
With regards to your weight, the fact you are doing Insanity workouts I would suggest a 2000 calorie diet for weight loss and would group you into what's called the Zone Diet. The break down for this is 40-30-30. 40% carbs, 30% protein and 30% fat. To answer your question that would equal 150g of protein per day.
This is very achievable. For instance you could consume 4-6 ounces of a lean white meat such as grilled chicken or fish with every lunch and dinner. For snacks the following are very good sources of protein. Natural peanut butter, Greek yogurt, Cottage Cheese, Almonds, Low Sodium Jerky. Then possibly supplementing with 1-2 protein shakes a day. I'd suggest a fruit smoothie in the morning with a scoop of Whey ISO protein. (Iso because it's lower in calories) and another protein shake (2 scoops this time) after your workout. This will be plenty of protein for your day.
Workouts like insanity, rush-fit, p90x are all more geared around body weight resistance exercises. These types of workouts cause more muscle fatigue than anything else. When people say you need to consume 1gram of protein per 1lb body weight, I'd say that's more the case if you are a serious weight lifter or body builder. These types of people through lifting heavy break down muscle fiber a lot more than others so the added protein is needed for repair. Their diets also consist of less fat. 150 grams is MORE than enough for you.
Remember this right here!!!! Protein often comes from animal products which can be VERY high in the BAD fats (saturated and trans) and also can be very high in calories. If you eat too much of it your calorie count for the day can go through the roof, thus causing you to gain weight. So it's very important to track or know your overall amount of calories consumed. Aim for 2000 and no more.
Hope some of this helps! Any questions let me know! =)
ADDED: If you find that the weight is still coming off slower than you would like, you can play with the calories per day and try dropping it to 1600-1700. That's almost 3,000 calories less in a week which does equal 1lb of body weight. However with a workout like insanity and for someone 214 lbs in decent shape, that amount of calories per day is rather low. So I would only suggest dropping it to that if the problem persists and then test it out for a couple weeks to see if you notice a difference.
Last edited by Cid: 08-17-2011 at 08:45 AM.
Reason: Calorie Suggesting for Future
Thanks again Cid. I'll try counting my calorie intake & step up my cardio. From the sound of it I think im pretty safe with the Isopure shakes, 40g whey protein, 160 calories. 2,000 calories a day will be tough but I'll try it.
Thanks again Cid. I'll try counting my calorie intake & step up my cardio. From the sound of it I think im pretty safe with the Isopure shakes, 40g whey protein, 160 calories. 2,000 calories a day will be tough but I'll try it.
The nice thing is, that as your fitness level gets higher and you build more lean muscle and lose body fat and get to a healthier weight you can actually start eating more.
For instance I consume about 3,500 calories on average a day and when I am in serious training closer to 5 to 6k. I only weigh 195lbs and am 6ft. I can eat this amount of calories because it's what I need to fuel my body and my metabolism can handle it.
Look at a guy like Michael Phelps. He is an animal when training. He consumes 3,500 calories for breakfast alone in pancakes. He consumes about 10,000 calories a day total which is just 2,000 shy of the maximum the human body can consume in one day. And he is what? under 10% body fat! The guy is a beast, but his metabolism is so high and he needs those calories to compete in his sport.
2,000 calories doesn't seem like a lot but for most people (males 200-250lbs looking to lose weight)it's more than enough. Your stomach will shrink and after a few weeks it will get use to it. =)
Read a really interesting study by Stephen Guyanet today on the effects of insulin and carbohydrates as they pertain to the human body. Guyanet has a PhD in neurobiology and is considered a leading expert on body fat regulation, and I encourage anyone who has questions regarding carbs and insulin levels to check it out.
Some interesting excerpts:
Quote:
Therefore, if insulin doesn't increase energy intake (if anything, the combination of insulin and amylin that the pancreas releases in response to carbohydrate decreases it), and doesn't decrease energy expenditure (if anything, it increases it), then how exactly is it supposed to cause energy accumulation in the body as fat? There is no energy fairy. Obese people are obese despite having higher fasting insulin, not because of it. The fact is, insulin spikes after meals temporarily decrease fat release from fat cells, but if you look at total 24 hour energy balance, insulin spikes do not cause fat accumulation. This is exactly how you would expect the system to work if it were designed to constructively handle a wide variety of macronutrient ratios, which it is. Just as cholesterol did not evolve to give us heart attacks, insulin did not evolve to make us fat. Hypothesis falsified (#1).
This brings us to a core concept that Taubes fails to incorporate in his thinking: the idea that insulin signaling in fat tissue depends both on the concentration of insulin around, and on the sensitivity of cells to that insulin. In obesity, fat tissue is insulin resistant. How do I know? Because the fat tissue of obese people doesn't suppress fatty acid release in response to experimentally elevated insulin or mixed meals as effectively as the fat tissue of a lean individual (18, 19). In fact, obese people release an equal or larger amount of fatty acids from their fat tissue than lean people under basal conditions as well (20, 21). If this is true, then why do they remain obese? It's simple: the long-term rate of fat entering the fat cells is equal to the rate exiting, or higher. There is no defect in the ability of fat cells to release fat in obesity, the problem is that the fat that is released is not being oxidized (burned) at a rate that exceeds what is coming in from the diet, therefore it all ends up back in the fat tissue. Hypothesis falsified (#2).
Quote:
Let's also address the claim that obese people don't necessarily eat more than lean people. Food records are notoriously inaccurate, however there is at least one way to measure total energy intake in a precise and unbiased manner. It is called the "doubly labeled water method" (DLW). DLW studies have shown that after controlling for confounding factors, obese people almost invariably expend more, and consume more calories than lean people (24, 25). Weight stable obese people have a higher energy flux out of fat cells, and a higher metabolic rate, but it is not enough to overcome the higher calorie intake that is also observed (26, 27). That has been repeatedly confirmed and it is simply a fact at this point.
Quote:
Therefore, the insulin hypothesis is not consistent with basic thermodynamics, and it's not consistent with research on the biological functions of insulin. Obese people do not have a defect in the ability to release fat from fat cells and burn it, to the contrary. They release more fat from fat cells than lean people, and burn more of it. However, this is compensated for by a higher energy intake, and a higher rate of fat incorporation into fat cells that counterbalances the increased expenditure. The fat cells of obese people do not suffer from excessive insulin signaling, to the contrary, the evidence suggests that their fat cells are insulin resistant and therefore insulin signaling is reduced. This shows that insulin does not cause obesity by acting directly on fat cells to cause fat storage. To understand obesity, we have to understand what causes increased food intake, and that factor is not insulin.
Quote:
Another problem with the hypothesis is a thing called the insulinogenic index (II). The II is simply a measure of how much eating a food increases insulin, per unit calorie (28). It turns out, it doesn't correspond with the carbohydrate content of the food very well. In particular, protein-rich foods such as beef can increase insulin secretion as much as certain starch foods such as pasta, or more. High-protein diets, as many of you know, aid with weight loss. The other problem is that refined and unrefined carbohydrates often have a similar II. Pasta made from white and whole-grain wheat have the same II, and the same goes for white and whole-grain bread (29). Doughnuts and cookies are on par with whole grain bread. So post-meal insulin is not a compelling explanation for the potentially different effects of protein, unrefined carbohydrate, refined carbohydrate and sugar on body fatness.
Quote:
But let's forget about insulin for a minute. Without worrying about the mechanism, let's simply consider the hypothesis that carbohydrate consumption per se causes body fat accumulation. At this point, I know some people will be insisting that Taubes is talking specifically about refined carbohydrate, not carbohydrate in general. Taubes does repeatedly suggest in both of his books that all carbohydrate is fattening, but he also suggests that refined carbohydrate and sugar are more fattening.
To address this hypothesis, first let's find some cultures that have a very high carbohydrate intake and see how fat they are. Let's start with a culture that eats more carbohydrate than any other I know: the New Guinea highland tribe at Tukisenta that was studied extensively in the 1960s and 70s. They ate 94.6% of their energy intake as carbohydrate, mostly from sweet potatoes, for a total calorie intake of 2,300 kcal/day in men and 1,770 kcal/day in women. Investigators found them to be fit, lean and muscular, with no sign of protein deficiency (Trowell and Burkitt. Western Diseases. 1981).
Quote:
Kitava, 1990s. Dr. Staffan Lindeberg showed that the Kitavan diet is 69% carbohydrate, mostly from taro, breadfruit, sweet potatoes and cassava (32). Thus, their diet would have had a high glycemic load and high II. They also obtain 50 g/day of carbohydrate from fruit, most of which would presumably been sugar (unrefined). Yet there was no obesity on the island, and only a few individuals that were slightly overweight (33). Fasting serum insulin was low, consistent with other high-carbohydrate cultures. Dietary carbohydrate does not cause insulin resistance.
Yes, it's all very scientific and nerdy, but it's really interesting stuff, at least IMO.
It's a long read but if you've got some time, I advise you to check it out:
I have pulled or strained my hip girdle....right side
So I'm told to rest a couple of days and then get back at it. Being I used yesterday as my rest day I was told to try again tomorrow.
Oh and I was told in a nice way that because of my age (47) I have to remember I'm not 20 anymore and be careful...
No ****
So far, my big restriction is that I CAN'T run on the treadmill. Not with the way my knee is. I took the wife this morning to work out with me. I'm working from home now and she's sound asleep.
Just finished the first week of p90x....love it. Down 3 1/2 lbs, and have pains in muscles I never worked at the gym. A guy and I at work are doing it (seperately) and we committed to 36 weeks straight of it....Only 35 more to go LOL
Just finished the first week of p90x....love it. Down 3 1/2 lbs, and have pains in muscles I never worked at the gym. A guy and I at work are doing it (seperately) and we committed to 36 weeks straight of it....Only 35 more to go LOL
You will become a chinup/pullup machine, just like Tony Horton! =)
Just finished the first week of p90x....love it. Down 3 1/2 lbs, and have pains in muscles I never worked at the gym. A guy and I at work are doing it (seperately) and we committed to 36 weeks straight of it....Only 35 more to go LOL
Good for you Lou...keep it up.
Another set back for me, I'm wondering if I took on a little to much.
Hey all, you seem to know what you are talking about, so I would appreciate any comments on the following...I am 36 and stand about 6' and weigh in at around 190. About ten days ago I started exercising to see if I could get back down to around 170 eventually. I am eating much better then I used to, but my question is around my workout regimen. I am currently starting by doing 25 situps and then move to 25 push ups. I then continue with 12 lb dumbbell work with curls/shoulder stuff, after which I jump on the treadmill. When I first started I could barely walk/run a mile, but after 10 days I can now do 2 miles, some walking but much of it running. I then try and do another 10 situps and 10 pushups. Anyway, I am not trying to look like the hulk, I am just trying to get in better shape so that in 5 years when my 6 yr old son wants to do some activity, I am not on the verge of a heart attack. Long way of around, but my question is, can I just do this same type of workout (adding weight and distance as my body adjusts) or should I really be doing weight stuff one day and cardio another. Again any comments would be much appreciated
