|
jt512
Apr 19, 2007, 4:13 AM
Post #1 of 66
(11178 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Edit: I have deleted this post because DDT has banned me from posting in the Beginners forum. Please do not PM for me copies of this post. I do not have any.
(This post was edited by jt512 on Jan 16, 2008, 6:51 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Apr 19, 2007, 3:06 PM
Post #2 of 66
(11117 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
oh no...not again
|
|
|
|
|
stevej
Apr 19, 2007, 3:22 PM
Post #3 of 66
(11096 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 23, 2003
Posts: 117
|
Jay in your what to eat paragraph, you got some weird suggestions.
Maybe scientifically speaking, those things should work well but from personal experience, and everyone probably has a good deal of variation in that, i'd say those are weird foods. If I eat too much beans, well... k you get that one, it doesn't help with climbing the next day. You suggest to eat white meat poultry, which requires so much cooking you always destroy most of its useful protein content, and cooking it always adds fat (unless you just boil it - in which case forget about any anabolic protein). Why not steak and other red meat which despite its high(ish) fat content can be eaten almost raw and thus have the most useful chemical makeup for actually helping your muscles recover and rebuild?
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Apr 20, 2007, 3:31 PM
Post #4 of 66
(10932 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Thanks for putting this back up, reading it perodically helps with the motivation to do the right thing Jay.
Regards:
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
cwcross
Apr 20, 2007, 5:47 PM
Post #5 of 66
(10882 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2007
Posts: 20
|
This looks like an excellent diet plan. Basically the same I used to lose 40 lbs after being diagnosed w/ type II diabetes 5 years ago.
Because carbs are bad for blood sugar in some cases, I target no more than 250 gms carbs/day and only control saturated fat, not all fat. Mono-unsaturated or polyunsatured fats (like found in nuts), especially omega 3 and 6 fatty acids (like found in fish oil) can have very beneficial effects for triglicerides and cholesterol.
Can you comment above and below Jay?
Although it is probably automatically included if this is strictly followed, I would add something about fibre. Fibre helps to adsorb oils and move them through the system without being fully digested. Also, it helps to move the entire digestive system towards lower retention times leading to many foods not having enough time for complete digestion. This gives a slight bonus to the calorie count and helps one feel more full for longer. I try to target 40gms of fiber every day. However, moving to this level quickly can lead to problems if you are not used to it.
One problem with this sort of "counting" based diet is the bookkeeping. I found it helpful to buy many 1/8 to 1/4 cup measuring cups and put into all the applicable dry foods I eat. This in combo with a small digital scale for meats made it very much easier to manage. After about a month I became calibrated to understand how much I was eating without all the measuring and weighing.
sincerely
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Apr 21, 2007, 12:02 AM
Post #6 of 66
(10814 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
jt512 wrote: The bottom line for losing weight is that you must create a caloric deficit. That means you must consume fewer calories than you burn. You can do this in two ways: consume fewer calories in your diet or increase the amount of exercise you do. The most effective way is to do both simultaneously.
ADDENDUM TO ILLUSTRATE JAY'S THESIS:
Calories in > Calories out = Weight GAIN
Calories in < Calories out = Weight LOSS
Calories in = Calories out = Weight MAINTENANCE
I assure you, dear reader, your body is very unlikely to disobey the laws of thermodynamics in this regard. Even if you still eat mayonnaise, butter, margarine, ice cream, etc.
The old adage is true: everything in moderation. High performance diets can be an exception here, however.
*Oh, yeah, and a little about my background: I have a B.Sc. in exercise science with special interests/emphases in ex phys and biomechanics; I am a Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist; I worked in the fitness/wellness and health promotion field specifically for seven years, including work as a personal trainer for the same amount of time.
*This paragraph is for validity purposes only with regard to my information.
(This post was edited by aerili on Apr 21, 2007, 12:03 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
medicus
Apr 21, 2007, 1:24 AM
Post #7 of 66
(10785 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 727
|
stevej wrote: can be eaten almost raw and thus have the most useful chemical makeup for actually helping your muscles recover and rebuild?
Eating any meat almost raw (or under cooked) is pretty poor judgment in my opinion. There are some parasites, while not common in the U.S., could still potentially get in you from beef and other red meats. Some of these, you are stuck with for life, or removing them via surgery is very risky. Like I said, I know it is rare, but there have been cases in the U.S., and those cases usually get traced back to people eating the meat poorly cooked. I would rather destroy a little extra protein and not live with a parasitic cyst the rest of my life, than the other option.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 21, 2007, 2:06 AM
Post #8 of 66
(10772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
cwcross wrote: This looks like an excellent diet plan. Basically the same I used to lose 40 lbs after being diagnosed w/ type II diabetes 5 years ago. Because carbs are bad for blood sugar in some cases, I target no more than 250 gms carbs/day and only control saturated fat, not all fat. Mono-unsaturated or polyunsatured fats (like found in nuts), especially omega 3 and 6 fatty acids (like found in fish oil) can have very beneficial effects for triglicerides and cholesterol.
Your diet is a little lower in carbohydrate and a little higher in fat than I the diet I describe. Your approach might be superior for someone with high triglycerides or Type 2 diabetes. On the other hand, the carbohydrates I recommend are mostly low glycemic index, so the overall diet might be well tolerated.
In reply to: Although it is probably automatically included if this is strictly followed, I would add something about fibre. Fibre helps to adsorb oils and move them through the system without being fully digested.
Fiber does interfere with the absorption of some nutrients, but I haven't seen that claim made for fats. It does inhibit resorption of endogenous cholesterol, which helps lower serum cholesterol.
In reply to: Also, it helps to move the entire digestive system towards lower retention times leading to many foods not having enough time for complete digestion.
Yes, it does lower retention time, but I haven't seen any evidence that that results in reduced digestion.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
maracas
Apr 21, 2007, 2:39 AM
Post #9 of 66
(10754 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 114
|
Plan A
1.- Eat what you want
2.- Throw it up
3.- Exercise
Eat some more
Throw irt up again
Plan B
1.- Don't eat
2.- Exercise
|
|
|
|
|
milominderbinder
Apr 21, 2007, 2:46 AM
Post #10 of 66
(10751 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 4, 2005
Posts: 84
|
jt512 wrote: Fiber does interfere with the absorption of some nutrients, but I haven't seen that claim made for fats. It does inhibit resorption of endogenous cholesterol, which helps lower serum cholesterol.
I'm definitely not on any diet, but I would like to clarify this out of curiosity.
Does that last sentence mean resorption of endogenous cholesterol helps lower serum cholesterol, or that endogenous cholesterol helps lower serum cholesterol (in which case, resorption of endogenous increases serum cholesterol)?
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Apr 23, 2007, 2:22 PM
Post #12 of 66
(10573 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
aerili wrote: ADDENDUM TO ILLUSTRATE JAY'S THESIS: Calories in > Calories out = Weight GAIN Calories in < Calories out = Weight LOSS Calories in = Calories out = Weight MAINTENANCE
Out of curiosity...
Question 1: we obviously don't eat the exact same number of calories every day, but things average out... I won't lose anything noticeable in terms of weight even if I have, let's say, 500 calorie deficit for 2 days in a row and then go back to my regular ~maintenance amount of calories. So how long do you have to accumulate a "calorie deficit" to start losing weight? E.i. if you have 500-calorie-a-day deficit for a week, do you lose that 1-1.5 pound that first week, or does it take some time to ramp up to that amount of weight loss per week?
Question 2: I've heard people talk a lot about "high/fast" metabolism as opposed to "slow metabolism". A friend of mine recently made a claim that "Weight Watchers plan slowed down her metabolism" and a lot of other women (none of them with any background in nurtition, but all of them with a lot of experience in "dieting".... chimed in with talk about high metabolic rate and what not) Is there any validity to that? As in, if you take 2 women of the same weight and same fitness&activity level, is it possible that for one of them the "maintenance" amount of calorie intake will be, say, 2500 and for the other one it will be 2200 b/c one of them has a "higher metabolism"?
|
|
|
|
|
hugin
Apr 23, 2007, 3:15 PM
Post #13 of 66
(10536 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2006
Posts: 240
|
lena: as I understand it, one pound of fat =~ 3500 Cal. So, a 500 Cal daily deficit will lose you one pound of fat a week (assuming you're breaking down only fat and all that, which is the point of the post).
I wanted to chime in with my experiences in dietary management and see what folks had to say about them.
I altered my diet to lose weight a few years ago. I was upward 250 lbs, and incredibly out of shape (and eating like shit). So, I did basically what jt lays out above. I tried to get my intake down to a reasonable maintenance level and then make a deficit by exercise, using a diet similar to his. It worked great, up to a point. For a while I was having trouble with headaches ... kindof like caffeine withdrawal ... and incredibly low energy when I went to run, climb, bike, hike, whatever. It took me a long time to figure out that what I was doing was biasing my calories to the evening, after I actually needed them ... it was much easier to eat small meals during the day, when I was busy and limited in choices, and then have a big dinner. Socially and practically it's an easier way to go. The effect of it, though, was that I wasn't eating enough during the day leading up to my exercise to sustain myself, and it had some pretty drastic effects on how I felt and how I performed. So, I started eating more during the day, and just enough to get to where I need to be at night. I actually found that this change drastically increased my energy levels, and I was bouldering 1-2 levels harder pretty much instantaneously. Funny how that works.
|
|
|
|
|
cwcross
Apr 23, 2007, 4:11 PM
Post #14 of 66
(10505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2007
Posts: 20
|
lena-chita wrote: Question 1: we obviously don't eat the exact same number of calories every day, but things average out... I won't lose anything noticeable in terms of weight even if I have, let's say, 500 calorie deficit for 2 days in a row and then go back to my regular ~maintenance amount of calories. So how long do you have to accumulate a "calorie deficit" to start losing weight? E.i. if you have 500-calorie-a-day deficit for a week, do you lose that 1-1.5 pound that first week, or does it take some time to ramp up to that amount of weight loss per week?
Practical weight loss works on averages, as you suggest, because it takes a long time. If your body expends more energy than you take in, on a day-to-day basis, it will use stored energy to supplement and you will lose fat. If you eat more than you use, in a given timeframe, it will be stored as fat. So in a sense, weight loss/gain is a continuous thing. One thing I noticed when losing weight over the long term was that it was not smooth though. The weight loss came in a series of flat plateaus and rapid losses. I would be flat for like 10-14 days, even though hitting my 500 Cal deposit on a weekly basis. Then, all of a sudden, I would lose like 2-4 lbs in a single week, then go flat again. This whole process went on for the better part of a year over which I lost about 40 lbs.
During this time, I used a Palm PDA with a program called “Balance Log”. This was a very nice program. It first computes your BMR and then you tell it how fast you want to lose weight. I chose 1 lb/week. Then it has huge databases of foods, restaurants exercises etc. Plus you can make custom multi-food entries as well as custom individual foods for those things you eat more frequently. Basically, you record any and all food/exercise you consume/expend. It then keeps a running tally on how many Calories you are ahead of or behind your target. Let me say that this was amazingly accurate. I was diligent in tracking things and I lost weight (on average) at about 1 lb/week. Some days I would go over on Calories and then would make up the next day etc, but on average I hit my targets each week. This program also provided daily/weekly/monthly tallies on nutrients, like protein, fat, carbs, vitamins etc. Also Fiber. It was really nice.
I remember my nutrition professor in college explaining the uneven nature of weight loss. I don’t know how true it is, but tend to believe him. According to him, when your body starts consuming fat cells, they are in a matrix of other fat cells. The cells are not necessarily consumed from the outside in, but can be consumed kind of randomly. When a fat cell is consumed it leaves a “space” in the fat matrix. Water then fills this void which is more dense than fat. Then, when some magic number of fat cells in a given location is gone, the matrix re-organizes/collapses and the water is displaced. Thus a strictly Calorie controlled diet can actually lead to initial measured weight gain due to higher water retention. This sort of behavior leads to very uneven weight loss over short time periods (weeks). I remember many weeks of dieting very hard and getting frustrated by no measured loss. Then the next week, I would relax and eat worse, but lose a couple lbs. The important thing is to maintain that AVERAGE 500 Cal/Day deposit. Over time it all comes out in the wash.
Sincerely..Collin
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Apr 23, 2007, 7:02 PM
Post #15 of 66
(10432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
Collin summed up the basic science of it pretty well, lena. However, the paragraph about water filling in emptying fat cells, matrix collapse and re-organization, et al I have no idea about. I'm not a dietician nor was I a nutrition major, so my classes never covered that kind of thing so comprehensively.
I can tell you that the body takes and burns fat from wherever it pleases. We have no control over this. Sometimes it's intramuscular stores first (i.e. you usually won't see a visible reduction in how "fat" you look if this is the case) and then subcutaneous stores. Some people have more stores in one location than the other to begin with. Usually you'll find, however, that your "problems areas" will always be your problem areas and fat will be burned from these areas least effectively.
Fat deposited on the abdomen and upper body has been found to respond more favorably to exercise (it's more likely to be utilized as energy) than fat on the hips, butt, legs, etc. Fat stores in these lower areas are found to be more resistant to being burned off, so to speak. Not that it's impossible, of course, esp. if you have a large amount of weight to lose, but it's most likely (considering usually women carry fat stores here) an adaptation for successful child bearing in a time when human beings were a lot more active in general and a lot more likely to suffer hunger.
Regarding fast or slow metabolisms: hmmm, I don't think science has conclusively answered this question. So far, I think research has shown there is little significant difference in metabolism among people (maybe 10%?). People who claim they have slow metabolims aren't really taking a quantitative look at what goes into their current metabolic standing, either. For instance, some research has shown that, if not actually writing everything down in a daily log, the average person UNDERESTIMATES how much they eat and OVERESTIMATES how much they exercise. You don't say....?!
I can also tell you a few other things:
*Yes, if you take 2 women with same weight and fitness/activity levels, of course they could have different maintenance calorie needs. Because they could have different body fat ratios--which would influence their metabolism. They could also be of different ages, which would influence it. The differing composition of their macronutrient intake could also influence it. There is something called an R quotient that varies among people. A high R quotient (believed to be genetically dictated) means a person's body is very effective at burning carbohydrates (R quotient = 1). A low R quotient means a person's body is more effective at burning fat (R quotient = 0.8). The Pima Indians of Arizona and New Mexico are a classic example of this phenomenom. Prior to modern culture and food choices, the Pima Indians had a high carb, high fiber diet with very, very low fat component (and low protein, I think). There was virtually no obesity and no diabetes among the populations. With the shift to a high fat diet (+ too many calories), their population suffered one of the highest rates of obesity and diabetes known in the world. It's now known these particular people have a very high R quotient and their bodies burn fat much less effectively than most other races.
* At least one study has found that people who don't seem to gain weight easily appear to burn the extra calories off by fidgeting a lot more than people who don't. I know this sounds weird, but it's an actual finding. Granted the study was small, but it's another piece in the puzzle, perhaps: http://www.sciencedaily.com/.../01/990119080449.htm
* Research has also shown that formerly-obese people who get down to normal weight do not seem to burn or store fat the same way as their always-normal weight counterparts. With all other variables controlled for, studies have found that when age-, gender-, weight-, and body composition-matched people (half always of normal weight, half formerly morbidly obese) were fed the exact same diet and activity was controlled to be exactly the same, the formerly obese participants' bodies appeared to store more of the fat consumed than people who had never been obese. Kind of like: their bodies were actively trying to make them fat again.
|
|
|
|
|
icedpulleys
Apr 23, 2007, 7:40 PM
Post #16 of 66
(10399 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2007
Posts: 27
|
In reply to: You suggest to eat white meat poultry, which requires so much cooking you always destroy most of its useful protein content, and cooking it always adds fat (unless you just boil it - in which case forget about any anabolic protein). Why not steak and other red meat which despite its high(ish) fat content can be eaten almost raw and thus have the most useful chemical makeup for actually helping your muscles recover and rebuild?
Cooking animal protein reduces the digestion of amino acid content by between 1-6%, depending on the study. Any protein not digested will pass through the GI tract and thus not contribute to caloric intake.
Cooking doesn't "destroy most of its useful protein content" -- it's a common misconception that proteins must be whole in order to build muscle. Contrary to this, proteins must be digested (broken down into component amino acids and absorbed) before being used to build muscle, thus the body "destroys" protein in order to use it. Cooking delays digestion because as animal proteins denature (cook) they become firmer and more dense.
If you're attempting to cut calories in an attempt to lose weight, avoiding fatty animal proteins is the first step. If you're simply building muscle and don't care about calories or cholesterol, then it doesn't matter.
As for eating raw animal protein, consider that most elite professional athletes have their meals professionally prepared for them, and that they consist of reasonable portions of well cooked lean animal-proteins. For whatever reason, the raw protein school of thought is mainly found in the serious recreational athletic community, where sound nutritional and physiological advice and knowledge is often lacking.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Apr 24, 2007, 6:20 PM
Post #17 of 66
(10239 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
Jay,
You should write a book.
(This post was edited by collegekid on Apr 27, 2007, 4:59 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 25, 2007, 4:27 PM
Post #19 of 66
(10086 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
perp wrote: jt512 wrote: The average female at this level of exercise will probably require about 2000 calories/day to maintain her body weight, while the average male will require about 2500 calories. And this from a nutritional expert!! I would recommend eating approximately a thousand times more calories than this  And to all of you, start using J(joules), SI is the way to go.
Joules are for Frenchies and first-year science students. You'll get over it.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bcm3u
Apr 25, 2007, 4:46 PM
Post #20 of 66
(10070 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 2004
Posts: 59
|
Jay,
In your original post, you advocate a high protein, low fat diet. From my study of nutrition, I had always heard that for athletes looking to cut weight without losing muscle, the best way was to lower your carbohydrate intake as much as possible without going into a state of Ketosis, and ramping up protein and mono/poly unsaturated fats. Many bodybuilding-style shredding diets I have seen look much more like 40% proteins, 40% (mono/poly) fats, and 20% low G.I. carbs. I had also heard a general rule for caloric intake for fat loss was to take your lean body mass (LBM) and multiply it by 12. For me (a 165 lb. 5'9 athletic male) that equates to about 1700 calories.
If you can, please comment on the above statements and correct any fallacies in my methods. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
perp
Apr 25, 2007, 5:06 PM
Post #21 of 66
(10059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2004
Posts: 83
|
I'm not so sure I will. Over here (Norway) the energy content written on the label is given in kJ with kcal in parenthesis. My guess is that the kcal eventually will disappear altogether.
On a more serious note: Do you have any advice on how I can loose muscle mass in my thighs/ass. Years of soccer has given me big legs, and even though I've got very little fat, I still weigh in at app 195 pounds and I'm 6' 4" tall. Should I be doing a lot of long-distance running or is it better to drive around in a wheel-chair and atrophy?
For all of you chiming in to say muscular legs are needed to climb, don't even bother. Most of climb-time is spent on steep sport routes, and for this type of climbing big legs are definitely not an advantage
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 25, 2007, 5:57 PM
Post #23 of 66
(10021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
bcm3u wrote: Jay, In your original post, you advocate a high protein, low fat diet. From my study of nutrition, I had always heard that for athletes looking to cut weight without losing muscle, the best way was to lower your carbohydrate intake as much as possible without going into a state of Ketosis, and ramping up protein and mono/poly unsaturated fats.
No. That is incorrect. Carbohydrate intake is important for muscle-sparing. Fat intake is not.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 25, 2007, 6:00 PM
Post #24 of 66
(10018 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
perp wrote: On a more serious note: Do you have any advice on how I can loose muscle mass in my thighs/ass. Years of soccer has given me big legs, and even though I've got very little fat, I still weigh in at app 195 pounds and I'm 6' 4" tall. Should I be doing a lot of long-distance running or is it better to drive around in a wheel-chair and atrophy?
If you stop exercising your legs, their muscle mass should decrease in time. Anecdotally, some people say long-distance running helps. If you decide to run, you should probably keep the pace slow.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Apr 27, 2007, 5:01 AM
Post #25 of 66
(9918 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
jt512 wrote: perp wrote: On a more serious note: Do you have any advice on how I can loose muscle mass in my thighs/ass. Years of soccer has given me big legs, and even though I've got very little fat, I still weigh in at app 195 pounds and I'm 6' 4" tall. Should I be doing a lot of long-distance running or is it better to drive around in a wheel-chair and atrophy? If you stop exercising your legs, their muscle mass should decrease in time. Anecdotally, some people say long-distance running helps. If you decide to run, you should probably keep the pace slow. Jay
Running definitely makes it easier to burn calories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
