|
marcoso
Brazil818 Posts
I'll be clearer now: mayo, whole milk and cheese are indeed sources of fat, but there are healthier options, like avocado, nuts, seeds, fish oil, and olive oil. They are rich in unsaturated fat.
And yeah, I know fat in appropriate amount doesn't make you fat. What I meant is that some people might get confused. 
High protein and lower carbs diets are good aesthetically for weight lifters because your muscles end up storing less water, making them more defined (not sure if this is the right expression). In this matter I totally agree with you. But there's also protein that will not contribute to muscle protein synthesis and repair. That excessive protein is not really good for your health and is also more expensive than carbs.
But again, I'm more concerned on the individuals health. Also, recommendations pass on, and what works for one person may not work for another. If you clearly state that some things may not be really healthy, then there's no problem.
if you like quinoa, you might like amaranthus too (if you're not already familiar with)!
|
Well high protein, high fat and low carb is not only good because you store less water. Your body will also choose body fat in a higher degree as fuel when you are low on carbs. Hence the title of this blog was "How to look good naked".
2 g protein/kg really isn't excessive imo. 3 g/kg would definately be. But yeah you can probably build just fine on 1,5 g protein/kg or even lower. I'm not putting down THE truth here, I'm just saying what works for basically anyone. You might get the same result with a high carb diet but many people don't handle carbs all that well, resulting in an increase in body fat. Talking about excessive protein, what about excessive carbs? People in general eat way too much carbs for their needs.
Yeah, I will try amaranthus but it's not as common here :/
|
marcoso
Brazil818 Posts
you use more fat but you also eat more fat. You recommended 100-200 g of fat/day. An individual with daily 2000 kcal requirement needs around 56 g of fat. That's a huge difference even if you prefer a high fat diet... 200 g of fat for my example would be 1800 kcal, or 90% of his total energy demand!! Maybe you miscalculated.
That's for the general population with 2000 kcal/day need. Preferably, the source of this fat should be mainly unsaturated fat (poly or mono). That means most animal products fat should be avoided (fish is different because its rich in polyunsaturated fat).
Like fat, there are different kinds of carbs. Mono and disaccharides is what people need to avoid. Using carbs as energy source is better than fat because it does not produce ketonic bodies. While ketonic bodies are needed in small quantity, its excess is not good. What you need is low GI carbs sources (complex carbs with fiber, whole grains etc.) and to eat more times during the day (5 or 6 times). Diets rich in simple sugars (candies, honey, sweets, colas, juices, jellies etc), even if the total carbohydrate of the day is adequate, will indeed be harmful and fat storage happens quickly. What people need is to change the quality of their diets. The USDA recommends 100% of your carbs be in complex form, with at least half of it whole products. For physical exercises, high GI foods are good after training and you explained well.
|
|
|
I'm interested in starting a diet/exercise routine. I don't have access to a gym and I have a fairly low budget. What are the best non-equipment exercises I can do at home and around the neighborhood?
I'm looking mostly to cut body fat. I have a fair amount of muscle but more body fat than I'd like. I really need some structure in my life and I think exercise might help before I hit rock bottom.
If you wanna lose fat, it pretty much follows that you have to lose weight, and the only way to do that is to eat less than you burn. To lose one pound you have to eat 3500 less calories than you burn. So if you have about a 500 calorie deficiet per day, you will lose around one pound per week. Anything more than a 1,000 cal per day surplus is pushing the limit of healthy weight loss, trying to lose any faster will result in signifcant muscle loss, and can actually cause your metabolism to slow down.
Obviously it helps for losing weight if you're burning some calories from exercise and to that end some form of decent cardiovascular excersise tends to be the best, because of its longer duration. An intense weight lifting session might burn 300 calories if you're really going at it with minimal rests between sets; whereas an hour run of 9 miles can burn anywhere from 900-1200 calories depending on your weight. For some very rough approximations running burns about 120 calories per mile for someone around 160 pounds, biking is around 30-35 per mile assuming a speed of around 10-15 mph.
While you don't have to get super scientific about losing weight, a fair number of people don't lose weight if they try to just eat by what feels right, or what is just a little less than neccesary.
you use more fat but you also eat more fat. You recommended 100-200 g of fat/day. An individual with daily 2000 kcal requirement needs around 56 g of fat. That's a huge difference even if you prefer a high fat diet... 200 g of fat for my example would be 1800 kcal, or 90% of his total energy demand!! Maybe you miscalculated.
That's for the general population with 2000 kcal/day need. Preferably, the source of this fat should be mainly unsaturated fat (poly or mono). That means most animal products fat should be avoided (fish is different because its rich in polyunsaturated fat).
I'd say 100g of fat per day is a but high and 200 is too high for just about anyone. I mean, that would be 1800 calories alone on fat, which is a typical sedentary males BMR on fat calories alone. I like the 45-65% calories from carbs, 10-25% from protein, and the remaining 10-35% from fat. If you're fairly into aerobic excersise higher on the carbs is a good thing, if not the lower end is probably a little better. As an endurance athlete you really need the carbs for your daily runs/bikes/etc.
I'm not a fan at all of the super low carb diets (25-100g [5-20%]carbs/day), they are just not that good for you. On those low levels of carbs, your body pretty much has too turn to the other two energy sources for fuel: fat and protein. Sounds pretty good right, don't eat any carbs and my body will have no choice but to burn the fat. Problem is, fat isn't the preferred choice, the body will actually start breaking down lean muscle before fatty acids which means that if you do lose weight, more of it will be muscle loss than fat loss, which results in a weaker, less healthy you that doesn't neccesarily look that much better when you stop dieting. Addtionally, people that use that method see some seeming amazing wieght loss results in the first week or two, but this is just water weight as the bodies glycogen (generally hydrated) is used up. As soon as you stop the diet, the weight immediately returns. Finally, super low carb diets will certainly put you in a state of ketosis (this means your body is breaking down fats for energy, and as a result a biproduct from accumulation of Acetyl-CoA on the Kreb's cycle is ketone body formation). Ketosis in low levels isn't a huge issue, but if it gets severe it can lead to a very serious, theatening state of ketoacidosis in which your blood pH actually drops below anout 7.2 which is absolutely horrible for your health. Ketosis is also very hard on the liver.
Using carbs as energy source is better than fat because it does not produce ketonic bodies. While ketonic bodies are needed in small quantity, its excess is not good.
I cant say I really agree with that statement as it's a bit misleading. Fatty acid metabolism doesn't neccesarily produce Ketone bodies. This only occurs when the fatty acid chains, broken down to Acetyl-CoA (2 carbon chain used in Kreb's cycle) have no oxaloacetate to bind them (common when on an extremely carb restricted diet, as oxaloacetate its converted to glucose via gluconeogenesis). If you have a reasonable carb intake your not going to be making a noticable amount of ketones, even if you're consuming a significant amount of fat. Everything else marcoso I'd agree with, especially what kinds of carbs/fats/proteins you want to take in. You should try to keep the amount of saturated fat, and even worse, trans fat, relatively low. Also, having more complex carbs is generally good as a bunch of simple carbohydrate/sugar consumption leads to big spikes in blood glucose levels, which isn't conductive to good function throughout the day, nor to dieting since this generally results in bouts of hunger whereas the complex carbs are broken down more slowly and result in a slower realease of sugar that keeps your blood sugar much more even throughout the day.
2 g protein/kg really isn't excessive imo. 3 g/kg would definately be. But yeah you can probably build just fine on 1,5 g protein/kg or even lower.
Strongly agree, unless your downing steroids like theres no tommorrow and working out for 8 hours a day, 2 g protein/kg body weight if going to be enough protein for just about anyone. Honestly for people that aren't weight training seriously and regular 1.2-1.5g/kg of body weight is more than enough. However, betting some protein at each meal is definitely a good thing since protein is helpful in controlling appetite.
|
On March 07 2010 15:06 thedeadhaji wrote:you forgot eggsssssssssssssssss 
True, I did forget eggs. Eggs are awesome everyone; one egg has like 7-8 grams of high quality protein. They are pretty cheap and taste good as well. Win-Win
|
good stuff, finally good around to reading this.
I think you could have mentioned bean sprouts+tofu as decent protein sources too (also soy milk is great if youre lactose-intolerant)
I stopped taking Protein Shakes though because for some reason I seem to get Diarrhoea from them :S
Though I feel like they are not that great for the phase of definition anyways since they do seem to always have quite a lot of energy (slightly more so than meat when I compared the two a few months ago)
|
On March 05 2010 22:03 Foucault wrote:
If you make a super dubious claim like that, please back it up with references. Not that I think you will find any, no offense.
Reference: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080526174140AA7Fifg
+ Show Spoiler +Centrum vitamins are junk. Sorry to tell you that. In fact, people who take multivitamins statistically live shorter lives than those who don't. The actual number is 5% in the study.
There is a very good reason for this. Synthetic vitamins are just chemical activators, not vitamins. In nature, vitamins and minerals are packaged in food with "co-factors" that are integral to the vitamins to make them work in your body. If the food is grown in good fertile soil, it will contain the vitamins with the co-factors. If they are made in a laboratory, they are made as "single elements" that have no cell resonance. A good example of this is the Centrum "B" vitamins are made from the petroleum distillate, Coal Tar. These are dead chemicals that your body will recognize as toxins. It does take the body a short time (a few days to a few weeks) to reject them completely, so they have an effect for a few days, but then damage your DNA of each cell. When the DNA is damaged, it shortens your life; simple as that.
Additionally, ALL pills contain Magnesium Stearate that is a "Trans FAT," immune suppressant, and inhibits the absorption of nutrients into the body by up to 80%. They always put about 5% of the total milligrams in the bottle (you have to add them up). So if you have 1,000 milligrams in the bottle, 50 milligrams will be this trans fat. Additionally, they all use talc to make the pills. This is a carcinogen. There are other excipients they put in that are just as bad for you.
The time to dissolve is important as well. Typically it takes them about 45 minutes to dissolve. That generally means that the bulk of the pill goes into your intestines and does not break up in your stomach. Since you need to have fat in your diet to digest the fat soluable vitamins, most of those fat soluable vitamins do not get digested.
They use ascorbic acid in Centrum and call it vitamin C, but it isn't. Same issue, ascorbic acid is a single element and it ends up extracting the co-factors from your body to make an attempt to complete the complex as found in nature. Ascorbic Acid won't even cure scurvy. It also depletes your body of calcium.
The calcium in that garbage is of very low, poor quality and generally ends up as toxic to the body being dumped into bone spurs, cataracts, or kidney stones.
If you look at about 97.5% of all vitamins, health food stores are no exception, they all contain junk and most are of the poor grade 1 or 2 herbs and many are not mixed properly with the right combination of ingredients and most of the so called natural vitamins are fortified with synthetic chemical activators to boost the potency.
GNC, Centrum, Puritan Pride, are all the same garbage. If you ask them to give you a professional lab test that shows how much of the garbage is digested when you take them, they won't do that and would be ashamed to see how much just does not get into your body.
This is why food is your best source of vitamins and minerals, but only if grown in fertile soil. The chemical fertilizers used on farms and insecticides have reduced the nutrient content by over 25% in the last 25 years and the antioxidant content is down by 50% in the last 25 years.
IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO BE HEALTHY IN AMERICA TODAY.
If you want to see the benefit pills are giving people, just ask your local sewer disposal plant to show you all the pills they find or just take some "B" vitamins and look at your yellow urine to know what your body thinks of them. It's all junk. Medications are no better. They contain the same magnesium stearate, talc, and excipients as vitamins. All this stuff creates lots of free radicals in the body. Quantum Physics experiments done in Germany have photographic proof of what synthetic chemical activators do and how vitamins provided in nature work like they are supposed too.
Just look around at the genetically engineered foods now that are not labeled (thank you FDA) that do not allow you to trace where they came from if you get sick from them, and many people are getting sick. Every other country in the world labels GMO foods and people are rejecting them for good reason.
I have found only one company in my practice that makes and sells supplements that have good cell resonance and NO excipients and grade 10 herbs. By the way, they really do work as well. That can be found at: (800) 370 - 3447 and they will ship to you.
CorelPainterfriedmybra -- sorry, but those vitamins from that company may be only slightly better than the others. If you do QRA testing on them, you will find they have NO cell resonance and your body will not use them well. Try the company I suggested and I think you will see a huge difference. The best way to go is to be tested to find out what vitamins and minerals your body needs specific to you. When you get tested, you will know what will work and how much you need. It takes all the guesswork out of the process. Find a good Certified Nutritional Therapist in your area and they can help you.
Source(s):
CNT, B.A. biology & chemistry
advanced nutritional research
|
On April 11 2010 16:32 frogmelter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2010 22:03 Foucault wrote:
If you make a super dubious claim like that, please back it up with references. Not that I think you will find any, no offense. Reference: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080526174140AA7Fifg+ Show Spoiler +Centrum vitamins are junk. Sorry to tell you that. In fact, people who take multivitamins statistically live shorter lives than those who don't. The actual number is 5% in the study.
There is a very good reason for this. Synthetic vitamins are just chemical activators, not vitamins. In nature, vitamins and minerals are packaged in food with "co-factors" that are integral to the vitamins to make them work in your body. If the food is grown in good fertile soil, it will contain the vitamins with the co-factors. If they are made in a laboratory, they are made as "single elements" that have no cell resonance. A good example of this is the Centrum "B" vitamins are made from the petroleum distillate, Coal Tar. These are dead chemicals that your body will recognize as toxins. It does take the body a short time (a few days to a few weeks) to reject them completely, so they have an effect for a few days, but then damage your DNA of each cell. When the DNA is damaged, it shortens your life; simple as that.
Additionally, ALL pills contain Magnesium Stearate that is a "Trans FAT," immune suppressant, and inhibits the absorption of nutrients into the body by up to 80%. They always put about 5% of the total milligrams in the bottle (you have to add them up). So if you have 1,000 milligrams in the bottle, 50 milligrams will be this trans fat. Additionally, they all use talc to make the pills. This is a carcinogen. There are other excipients they put in that are just as bad for you.
The time to dissolve is important as well. Typically it takes them about 45 minutes to dissolve. That generally means that the bulk of the pill goes into your intestines and does not break up in your stomach. Since you need to have fat in your diet to digest the fat soluable vitamins, most of those fat soluable vitamins do not get digested.
They use ascorbic acid in Centrum and call it vitamin C, but it isn't. Same issue, ascorbic acid is a single element and it ends up extracting the co-factors from your body to make an attempt to complete the complex as found in nature. Ascorbic Acid won't even cure scurvy. It also depletes your body of calcium.
The calcium in that garbage is of very low, poor quality and generally ends up as toxic to the body being dumped into bone spurs, cataracts, or kidney stones.
If you look at about 97.5% of all vitamins, health food stores are no exception, they all contain junk and most are of the poor grade 1 or 2 herbs and many are not mixed properly with the right combination of ingredients and most of the so called natural vitamins are fortified with synthetic chemical activators to boost the potency.
GNC, Centrum, Puritan Pride, are all the same garbage. If you ask them to give you a professional lab test that shows how much of the garbage is digested when you take them, they won't do that and would be ashamed to see how much just does not get into your body.
This is why food is your best source of vitamins and minerals, but only if grown in fertile soil. The chemical fertilizers used on farms and insecticides have reduced the nutrient content by over 25% in the last 25 years and the antioxidant content is down by 50% in the last 25 years.
IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO BE HEALTHY IN AMERICA TODAY.
If you want to see the benefit pills are giving people, just ask your local sewer disposal plant to show you all the pills they find or just take some "B" vitamins and look at your yellow urine to know what your body thinks of them. It's all junk. Medications are no better. They contain the same magnesium stearate, talc, and excipients as vitamins. All this stuff creates lots of free radicals in the body. Quantum Physics experiments done in Germany have photographic proof of what synthetic chemical activators do and how vitamins provided in nature work like they are supposed too.
Just look around at the genetically engineered foods now that are not labeled (thank you FDA) that do not allow you to trace where they came from if you get sick from them, and many people are getting sick. Every other country in the world labels GMO foods and people are rejecting them for good reason.
I have found only one company in my practice that makes and sells supplements that have good cell resonance and NO excipients and grade 10 herbs. By the way, they really do work as well. That can be found at: (800) 370 - 3447 and they will ship to you.
CorelPainterfriedmybra -- sorry, but those vitamins from that company may be only slightly better than the others. If you do QRA testing on them, you will find they have NO cell resonance and your body will not use them well. Try the company I suggested and I think you will see a huge difference. The best way to go is to be tested to find out what vitamins and minerals your body needs specific to you. When you get tested, you will know what will work and how much you need. It takes all the guesswork out of the process. Find a good Certified Nutritional Therapist in your area and they can help you.
Source(s):
CNT, B.A. biology & chemistry
advanced nutritional research
Wow this was interesting. I think it's not entirely accurate though since many new multivitamins contains the active form of the vitamin; i.e pyridoxal 5'-phosphate instead of B6 etc. But yeah, the majority of multivitamins don't contain the active form of the vitamin. However there is a reason the multivits should be taken with food because the food you eat helps to release the vitamins in the multivit pill.
There is a huge difference in biological availability with different brands and different forms of a vitamin, and while I know a bit I'm still not a professional.
The claim that people will live 5% shorter lives due to a multivitamin is quite stupid though, since the lack of vitamins will also shorten your life. If you're deficient in B6, B12, Magnesium, Potassium, Folic acid etc you are at a greater risk for cardio-vascular disease, depression for instance, which may shorten your life even more.
These kinds of statistical claims always confuses people, and alot of times semi-misses the target. It's like looking at something from only one angle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
