| Forum Index > Sports |
|
Incze
Romania2058 Posts
Is this normal because of my very different workout regime (I used to do 80 squats and 30-40 push-ups a day, now the amount of workout I do is more than tenfold that) or is it something else? Also, should I really eat that much? Thanks, I'm really new to all this stuff and I'm worried. | ||
|
Croatodil
Belgium28 Posts
On August 06 2012 18:44 Incze wrote: Since I started working out more seriously (about a week or so ago) it's like I'm unsatiable. No matter how much I eat, I'm hungry again after the last bite. No amount of food does get me full now. Is this normal because of my very different workout regime (I used to do 80 squats and 30-40 push-ups a day, now the amount of workout I do is more than tenfold that) or is it something else? Also, should I really eat that much? Thanks, I'm really new to all this stuff and I'm worried. It is normal that you are very hungry after you do better training. Your muscles needs to feed. However, that does not mean you should eat a lot more. a) If you have extra fat, your brain needs to prevail and you should not eat more then usual, let your muscle eat the fat you got inside. b) if you are skinny or normal, you should eat more Any questions mate?  | ||
|
Croatodil
Belgium28 Posts
| ||
|
Incze
Romania2058 Posts
Also, skipping rope is awesome. I only used to do it as a child, and I was never really good at it, but now I love it. The best part is that I can feel that I'm actively improving both at skipping and my body with it. It's the only leg exercise I don't hate. I'm not sure I do my exercises properly, though, since I just do them all day every day (I have no job atm, so I have all the time in the world) in no particular order, at home. Stuff that I can do without weights, only with my own body weight. I use a 6-pack of 2 liter bottles as a really light weight for some stuff but that's about it. I just squat, push-up, pull-up, skip rope and bicep curls with the aforementioned 6-pack. My goal is to lose fat and gain muscle, especially abs Any help with that? Sorry if I didn't give enough details. edit: Gyms are out of the question. There are only 2 in my town, one is very run-of-the-mill. You just go there and do whatever you want. It's very old with rusty equipment and all, but also really cheap. The second one is incredibly expensive and luxurious, so that's out of the question too, because I'm unemployed. | ||
|
Croatodil
Belgium28 Posts
On August 06 2012 19:30 Incze wrote: Thank you very much for the advice. I now realize that my hunger is a good sign of my training and that I should continue it and I'll try not to eat all the time, as my stomach urges me to (technically it's my brain but whatever). Also, skipping rope is awesome. I only used to do it as a child, and I was never really good at it, but now I love it. The best part is that I can feel that I'm actively improving both at skipping and my body with it. It's the only leg exercise I don't hate. I'm not sure I do my exercises properly, though, since I just do them all day every day (I have no job atm, so I have all the time in the world) in no particular order, at home. Stuff that I can do without weights, only with my own body weight. I use a 6-pack of 2 liter bottles as a really light weight for some stuff but that's about it. I just squat, push-up, pull-up, skip rope and bicep curls with the aforementioned 6-pack. My goal is to lose fat and gain muscle, especially abs Any help with that? Sorry if I didn't give enough details. edit: Gyms are out of the question. There are only 2 in my town, one is very run-of-the-mill. You just go there and do whatever you want. It's very old with rusty equipment and all, but also really cheap. The second one is incredibly expensive and luxurious, so that's out of the question too, because I'm unemployed. Can I know how tall are you and how much weight you got? -Skipping rope is fantastic, even boxers do that. Great for condition. Good for your whole body and to lose weight. But you aint gonna gain muscle mass on that. I still suggest you rope skipping every day, or every second day, what ever you please for losing weight. Also great thing for lose weight can be punching bag. You can find very cheap punching bags, i fought mine for little more then 50€, boxing gloves around 30€. Basicly, in 10 minutes of hitting that plastic bag you will probably we sweat like you just jumped into sea... Great for losing weight. Also if you wanna lose weight normal running is just great. Every second day 10 minutes of running would do the trick. -When you do excercise, lets say biceps, your muscle becomes bigger (lets say 1 mm). It is very important what you will eat after that training and that whole day, coz your musle is hungry, he will eat that also. And you know muscle needs protein. I suggest eggs (white from the egg, orange is fat throw it away or give granny to eat  ), meat (all white meat, also red meat accept pig, pork, how do you call it..), vegetables, fruit and a lot of water. You need to eat 5,6 times a day smaller portions. Eat bread only in the morning.-If you love food like I do, do your habbit for breakfast. Eat everything you like, you will burn it thrue out a day. -Gaining muscle mass. There are a lot of workouts on the internet, youtube, you can do to gain muscle. Important is to push push push more and more every time. Today you made 10 times, tomorow 11 etc... No pain no gain. -Abs are veeery hard to get. I suggest you leave it for last, girls are more attracted to big sholders and big hands then abs. There was time i would done 1000 abs per day. 10 * 100. And I lose those small abs i had very fast, just gain fat and abs are gone, but still your stomach is strong tho, thats important. So, work your chest > arms > sholders > legs > abs I would put it in that order. You will look much stronger like that then someone who has abs.. :D I wrote so much random thoughts here, sry. It's all true and worth to read tho. | ||
|
Incze
Romania2058 Posts
I know these all are relatively small achievements, but to me they're quite something, as when I was younger I used to be really fat. I'll look into punching bags, but I really don't know where I'll be able to hang one, as I live in a small one room apartment. | ||
|
Zafrumi
Switzerland1272 Posts
On August 06 2012 19:59 Croatodil wrote: Can I know how tall are you and how much weight you got? -Skipping rope is fantastic, even boxers do that. Great for condition. Good for your whole body and to lose weight. But you aint gonna gain muscle mass on that. I still suggest you rope skipping every day, or every second day, what ever you please for losing weight. Also great thing for lose weight can be punching bag. You can find very cheap punching bags, i fought mine for little more then 50€, boxing gloves around 30€. Basicly, in 10 minutes of hitting that plastic bag you will probably we sweat like you just jumped into sea... Great for losing weight. Also if you wanna lose weight normal running is just great. Every second day 10 minutes of running would do the trick. -When you do excercise, lets say biceps, your muscle becomes bigger (lets say 1 mm). It is very important what you will eat after that training and that whole day, coz your musle is hungry, he will eat that also. And you know muscle needs protein. I suggest eggs (white from the egg, orange is fat throw it away or give granny to eat ), meat (all white meat, also red meat accept pig, pork, how do you call it..), vegetables, fruit and a lot of water. You need to eat 5,6 times a day smaller portions. Eat bread only in the morning.-If you love food like I do, do your habbit for breakfast. Eat everything you like, you will burn it thrue out a day. -Gaining muscle mass. There are a lot of workouts on the internet, youtube, you can do to gain muscle. Important is to push push push more and more every time. Today you made 10 times, tomorow 11 etc... No pain no gain. -Abs are veeery hard to get. I suggest you leave it for last, girls are more attracted to big sholders and big hands then abs. There was time i would done 1000 abs per day. 10 * 100. And I lose those small abs i had very fast, just gain fat and abs are gone, but still your stomach is strong tho, thats important. So, work your chest > arms > sholders > legs > abs I would put it in that order. You will look much stronger like that then someone who has abs.. :D I wrote so much random thoughts here, sry. It's all true and worth to read tho.a few things i'd like to point out in your post -agree on doing cardio to lose fat and improve cardiovascular health -the orange stuff in the egg is called yolk, and its where most of the nutrients in the egg are. so dont throw that away. it has more protein than the eggwhite and healthy fat -eating 5-6 smaller meals is not necessary. if that's what you like to do or find the most practical, then you can do it. but it doesnt matter if you eat 6 small meals or just 1-2 big meals a day -what do you have against pork? -no carbs before bed (or after 6 pm or whatever) is bro-science too. my advice to you, Incze: since you want to lose fat, you should probably eat around maintenance on workout days and slightly below it on rest days. stay away from processed and refined foods - focus on whole foods (meat, fish, eggs, veggies, fruits etc.). lift heavy weights. I recommend compound exercises (think squats, pull ups, deadlifts, bench, press), but since you dont have access to a gym you should probably look into bodyweight strength training (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=288386). do some cardio at the end of your workout. make sure you keep adding weight to the bar so you get stronger! | ||
|
Incze
Romania2058 Posts
The thread you linked has some interesting sites to check out, so I'll start from there | ||
|
Croatodil
Belgium28 Posts
-the orange stuff in the egg is called yolk, and its where most of the nutrients in the egg are. so dont throw that away. it has more protein than the eggwhite and healthy fat Yolk: Protein: 2.7 g Fat: 4.5 g Cholesterol: 210 mg . . Yolk eating is not cost efficient, there is almost twice as more fat then proteins. And remember, if you're gonna eat egg, you need to eat 3,4 eggs a day (better fresh then cooked, but it can be cooked), and that is to much Yolk for one day, you can get cholesterol illness. 1 egg (coz of yolk) per day is health dose. Read more: Egg Yolk Nutrition | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5445649_egg-yolk-nutrition.html#ixzz22m3ROZyZ -eating 5-6 smaller meals is not necessary. if that's what you like to do or find the most practical, then you can do it. but it doesnt matter if you eat 6 small meals or just 1-2 big meals a day No, it is better to eat 5,6 times then 1,2 big meals same amount. That's fact. You body and muscles absorbs food better and less of it goes fat. Think abou it. Lets say you got 2 trucks vs 5 trucks who needs to deliver same amount of wood somewhere. 5 trucks will do it much better, coz 2 trucks well be to full and will not be able to carrie that much. To much food in human stomack goes to fat. -what do you have against pork? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090217001135AAjxdpW | ||
|
Croatodil
Belgium28 Posts
On August 06 2012 20:16 Incze wrote: I'm pretty short, coming in at 1.67m and I weigh 76 kg. I do have some muscle, my abs can barely be seen underneath the fat, and even more so right after I do abs, and for a few months now, probably due to all those push-ups, I've been able to move my pecs (yay!). Recently I've been starting to see my veins, too, and I can almost follow them from my wrist all the way to my biceps. I know these all are relatively small achievements, but to me they're quite something, as when I was younger I used to be really fat. I'll look into punching bags, but I really don't know where I'll be able to hang one, as I live in a small one room apartment. Less you look at your self more you'll progress. Forget about yourself, make yourself a training program, or find good one on internet concidering tools you got to train with and gogo. no pain no gain. Always do more and more. After 5,6 years of training, and lifting 120 kg bench press (i had around 85kg), i learned the most important and best exercise. :/ If you can do that somewhere.... Abs+this workout will make you very strong. Almost ever muscle in upper body works here. | ||
|
Incze
Romania2058 Posts
I heard people say that you shouldn't exercise every day, or at least not the same muscles every day. What about that? | ||
Daigomi
South Africa4316 Posts
On August 06 2012 23:02 Croatodil wrote: Yolk: Protein: 2.7 g Fat: 4.5 g Cholesterol: 210 mg . . Yolk eating is not cost efficient, there is almost twice as more fat then proteins. And remember, if you're gonna eat egg, you need to eat 3,4 eggs a day (better fresh then cooked, but it can be cooked), and that is to much Yolk for one day, you can get cholesterol illness. 1 egg (coz of yolk) per day is health dose. Read more: Egg Yolk Nutrition | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5445649_egg-yolk-nutrition.html#ixzz22m3ROZyZ No, it is better to eat 5,6 times then 1,2 big meals same amount. That's fact. You body and muscles absorbs food better and less of it goes fat. Think abou it. Lets say you got 2 trucks vs 5 trucks who needs to deliver same amount of wood somewhere. 5 trucks will do it much better, coz 2 trucks well be to full and will not be able to carrie that much. To much food in human stomack goes to fat. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090217001135AAjxdpW 1. No, egg yokes are good for you and you should eat them. They are less calorie efficient than egg whites, but they contain almost all the nutrients of the egg. If you throw away the yoke you might as well just not eat the egg. Also, the cholestrol is not a problem, unless you have some pre-existing condition. Some research: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21427738 association was found between egg consumption and the incidence of CVD [cardiovascular disease] (HR: 1.10, 95% confidence interval: 0.46-2.63) for the highest versus the lowest category of egg consumption after adjusting for age, sex, total energy intake, adherence to the Mediterranean food pattern and other cardiovascular risk factors. Results were robust to different analytical scenarios. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20633314 We did not find a significant positive association between egg consumption and increased risk of mortality from CHD [coronary heart disease] or stroke in the US population. These results corroborate the findings of previous studies. 2. No, meal frequency has no effect on your metabolism or fat gain or anything. There's a correlation between eating multiple meals and low weight, but not causation. That's to say that people who eat lots of meals tend to have a higher metabolism, but the higher metabolism is not caused by the eating of meals. Eating lots of meals won't help you lose weight at all. Here's some research, including a metastudy which looked at all the articles on the topic, saying just that: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494 We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure ... Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985 However, there were NS [no significant] differences between the low- and high-MF [meal frequency] groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study. 3. It depends on your dialy intake. Fat itself isn't bad for you, so if it fits into your diet there's nothing wrong with eating pork. Simply saying that pork shouldn't be eaten is a bit of a generalisation. On August 07 2012 00:23 Incze wrote: I have a bar that I can use for pull-ups behind the building I live in and I usually go there every night when it's dark and do some. 2 months ago I couldn't even do one and now I can do almost 3 at a time. They're pretty fun and I want to improve on that. I heard people say that you shouldn't exercise every day, or at least not the same muscles every day. What about that? Read the general training thread on this forum. Basically, exercising every day is not great if you're a novice and if you're looking to build muscle. But read the training and nutrition stickies, most of the questions you've asked are answered there. | ||
|
Zafrumi
Switzerland1272 Posts
On August 06 2012 23:02 Croatodil wrote: Yolk: Protein: 2.7 g Fat: 4.5 g Cholesterol: 210 mg . . Yolk eating is not cost efficient, there is almost twice as more fat then proteins. And remember, if you're gonna eat egg, you need to eat 3,4 eggs a day (better fresh then cooked, but it can be cooked), and that is to much Yolk for one day, you can get cholesterol illness. 1 egg (coz of yolk) per day is health dose. Read more: Egg Yolk Nutrition | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5445649_egg-yolk-nutrition.html#ixzz22m3ROZyZ did you even read your own article? "However, in recent years studies have shown that the cholesterol in egg yolks is not as harmful as originally thought, and because the yolk contains so many nutrients, the benefits outweigh the harm when eaten in moderation." dietary cholesterol doesnt affect blood cholesterol. On August 06 2012 23:02 Croatodil wrote: No, it is better to eat 5,6 times then 1,2 big meals same amount. That's fact. You body and muscles absorbs food better and less of it goes fat. Think abou it. Lets say you got 2 trucks vs 5 trucks who needs to deliver same amount of wood somewhere. 5 trucks will do it much better, coz 2 trucks well be to full and will not be able to carrie that much. To much food in human stomack goes to fat. nice analogy, but its not the same at all. martin berkhan has done extensive research on this topic and compiled a nice list of scientific proof in this post: http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html also, read this: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html#more-1389 On August 06 2012 23:02 Croatodil wrote: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090217001135AAjxdpW yahoo answers might not be the best source to convince people that they shouldnt eat pork. I agree when you want to lose weight you should maybe keep the fat intake to a minimum (also because lean meat such as turkey or chicken is much more filling and leaves you satiated for quite some time) but the fat in meat isnt that bad. here is why (its a long post, so embrace yourself!): + Show Spoiler + The myths and facts about saturated fats and cholesterol First, forget what you have heard about saturated fats and cholesterol. We will look at some of the actual science and biological processes surrounding these to determine whether they are beneficial or harmful. - Hide Spoiler - One of the most important analysis of dietary guidelines of the past decades came out last year in Nutritional Journal covering a wide range of topics including saturated fats. This analysis specifically looked at the dietary recommendations for Americans even as the obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, etc. rates continue to rise massively in the US and in most industrialized countries. Let's go back to the beginning. There are two main hypotheses to describe the development of cardiovascular disease (among other factors). These are the lipid hypothesis and the chronic endothelial injury hypothesis. Currently, the lipid hypothesis predominates the medical industry; however, as stated in the above analysis of the data there is evidence that may show that it is based, at least partially, on incorrect science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_endothelial_injury_hypothesis One recent movie, Fat head, looked at exploring the origins of why the lipid hypothesis is supposedly based on faulty science. A bit more on that here: + Show Spoiler + Having looked into the science, I personally do not support the lipid hypothesis and I will detail information later regarding saturated fatty acids and cholesterol later with studies to support why it is likely incorrect. Let's take a step back. So what do saturated fats do in the body? What does cholesterol do in the body? Saturated Fat There are multiple sources of dietary fatty acids. Lauric acid (12), Myristic acid (14), Palmitic acid (16), and Stearic acid (18) are some of the most common. The only difference between these fatty acids are how many carbons are in the chain length, but as we shall see each of these have different effects on the body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauric_acid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myristic_acid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmitic_acid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stearic_acid Short chain triglycerides I'm going to briefly mention since we have little control over intake of them (as our gut bacteria produces them). However, if you have had issues with digestive problems, food poisoning, and anti-biotics where your gut flora has been decimated it may be a good idea to invest in some good probiotics. In particular, Butyric acid (4 carbon) saturated fatty acid is produced by several gut flora species and has favorable effects on our metabolism and protects against cancer. Medium chain triglycerides (particular 6-12 carbon fatty acids) of which Lauric acid (12) is an example are extremely beneficial for health. Coconut oil and other coconut products contain a lot of MCTs specifically Lauric acid (66%). MCTs are useful for a variety of reasoning including weight loss -- increases oxidation of fatty acids, increases HDL-cholesterol (e.g. the "good" one), anti-bacterial, anti-oxidant, and is anti-inflammatory. Most types of animal products have some combination of the long chain triglycerides which include the aforementioned Myristic acid, Palmitic acid, and Stearic acid. Each of these have slightly different effects on the body. All excess energy in the body is specifically converted into palmitic acid, which will make up the majority of the "triglycerides" that you see in a blood panel. Fructose sugar in particular, is a toxin in the body. When it enters the body through the digestive tract, the liver must convert it into a usable form of energy. The energy form that it is converted into palmitic acid -- a saturated fatty acid. Cholesterol Cholesterol is a very, very, very important substance in the body. Cholesterol is in every cell of the body and helps to maintain the fluidity of the cell membranes, and regulation of substances passing through them. Additionally, it is intimately involved in nervous system regulation and makes up a large portion of the myelin sheath that speeds up nerve conduction in the body. Additionally, cholesterol is the backbone on which steroid hormones such as testosterone, estrogen, progesterone, etc. are created, and it is also a precursor to vitamin D as sun is required to photo-convert 7-dehydro-cholesterol into proto-vitamin D. Cholesterol is utilized in the adrenal glands to make cortisol and aldolsterone which help regulate fight-or-flight response, and sodium content in the body. Also, cholesterol is converted in the liver into bile salts which the gallbladder emits to help emulsify fatty acids and absorb many of the fat soluble vitamins -- A, E, D, K -- from dietary sources. The transport of... Since cholesterol is a hydrophobic substance, it cannot be transported in the body as it would stick to the vessel walls. Thus, the body creates HDL and LDL which are are lipoproteins (e.g. high density lipoprotein and low density lipoprotein) to transport cholesterol in the blood stream. Lipoproteins are composed of fat and protein. The "fatty" part binds to cholesterol so it can carry it, and the protein portion of it is hydrophilic so it can be dissolved into the blood until it gets to where the body needs it. HDL carries cholesterol back to the liver, LDL carries cholesterol away from the liver to other tissues. Lipid panels So let's talk lipid panels. When you see LDL and HDL in a blood panel it refers to how much LDL there is, and how much HDL there is. -------------------- Total cholesterol level -- total cholesterol is technically a misnomer since it is a summation of all of the components of lipids in the blood sample (e.g. what a typical blood stream of someone looks like it). It isn't just total "cholesterol" which would just be a summation of HDL and LDL. Triglyceride level -- triglycerides represent the amount of fatty acids -- palmitic acid mostly -- that is circulating in your blood stream. Triglycerides are the primary source of energy in the body, especially during aerobic exercise. Glucose is only primarily utilized at anaerobic threshold or above. HDL cholesterol -- represents the amount of HDL in the body. LDL cholesterol -- represents the amount of LDL in the body. There's actually lots of different subclasses of LDL proteins which a typical lipid panel won't show. Specifically, oxidized LDL (oLDL) or specifically Apolipoprotein B (or ApoB for short) is extremely strongly correlated with the development of cardiovascular disease. Apo B is sometimes referred to as small, dense LDL. Therefore, you may have high LDL, but if you have a lot of "fluffier" LDL you are at a relatively low risk for cardiovascular disease. If you have low LDL but a lot of the "small, dense" oLDL / ApoB then you are at high risk for CVD. This is why it is important to get LDL subclasses checked even though most doctor's don't know this.... LDL matters little if you don't know if you have the big, fluffy or the small, dense. There's actually three other classes of lipoproteins that carry fats in the body. Chylomicrons carry triglycerides from the digestive tract into the body. VLDL (very low density lipoprotein) and IDL (intermediate density lipoprotein) also carry fatty acids, but typically these aren't measured. -------------------- Why are these supposed to be bad? HDL, LDL, Cholesterol, triglycerdies, etc are neither "good" or "bad." They are needed in the body for various purposes. Only when they get out of whack does it means something is wrong. According to the lipid hypothesis, high triglycerides and high LDL and low HDL are supposed to contribute towards heart disease. Picture of atherosclerotic development + Show Spoiler + The development of atherosclerotic lesions show increased fatty accumulations including cholesterol filtrates at the site of the lesion. Sounds correct, right? Therefore, if you can prove that if high dietary fat intake -- especially saturated fats -- (1) raises blood lipids and (2) increases rates of atherosclerosis then it would be a cause and effect relationship. Is it cause and effect? Or is it something else. The chronic endothelial dysfunction theory better fits the data, especially in conjunction with nutritional studies regarding low carbohydrate versus low fat diets. It's funny but every time I browse the literature, there are only good results from low carbohydrate (which include "high fat" and "high protein") diets as opposed to low fat diets. For example, this mayoclinic study says: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/78/11/1331.full.pdf Effect of a High Saturated Fat and No-Starch Diet on Serum Lipid Subfractions in Patients With Documented Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease • Results: In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, mean ± SD total body weight (TBW) decreased 5.2%±2.5% (P<.001) as did body fat percentage (P=.02). Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopic analysis of lipids showed decreases in total triglycerides (P<.001), very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) triglycerides (P<.001), VLDL size (P<.001), large VLDL concentration (P<.001), and medium VLDL concentration (P<.001). High-density lipoprotein (HDL) and LDL concentrations were unchanged, but HDL size (P=.01) and LDL size (P=.02) increased. Patients with polycystic ovary syndrome lost 14.3%±20.3% of TBW (P=.008) and patients with reactive hypoglycemia lost 19.9%±8.7% of TBW (P<.001) at 24 and 52 weeks, respectively, without adverse effects on serum lipids. Lipid panels improved on almost every measurable and patients lost weight on a high fat no starch diet. And they had cardiovascular disease. So basically, this diet improved their cardiovascular disease. Take for example, this non-biased search boolean on low carbohydrate vs. low fat: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=low carbohydrate low fat The first study suggests: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637 Severely obese subjects with a high prevalence of diabetes or the metabolic syndrome lost more weight during six months on a carbohydrate-restricted diet than on a calorie- and fat-restricted diet, with a relative improvement in insulin sensitivity and triglyceride levels, even after adjustment for the amount of weight lost. This finding should be interpreted with caution, given the small magnitude of overall and between-group differences in weight loss in these markedly obese subjects and the short duration of the study. Future studies evaluating long-term cardiovascular outcomes are needed before a carbohydrate-restricted diet can be endorsed. Of course, they ended with the cautioning, but there are many other studies. The second study suggests: http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/88/4/1617.full?l=5579341 The very low carbohydrate diet group lost more weight (8.5 ± 1.0 vs. 3.9 ± 1.0 kg; P < 0.001) and more body fat (4.8 ± 0.67 vs. 2.0 ± 0.75 kg; P < 0.01) than the low fat diet group. Mean levels of blood pressure, lipids, fasting glucose, and insulin were within normal ranges in both groups at baseline. Although all of these parameters improved over the course of the study, there were no differences observed between the two diet groups at 3 or 6 months. β- Hydroxybutyrate increased significantly in the very low carbohydrate group at 3 months (P = 0.001). Based on these data, a very low carbohydrate diet is more effective than a low fat diet for short-term weight loss and, over 6 months, is not associated with deleterious effects on important cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. So they are similar.... oh wait, but hey we didn't look at the study's methods. Subjects were randomized to 6 months of either an ad libitum very low carbohydrate diet or a calorie-restricted diet with 30% of the calories as fat. So the low carbohydrate high fat diet did just as well as a calorie restricted lower fat diet. Why didn't they restrict kcals for the high fat diet too? Wouldn't that make a difference as well? The third study suggests: http://www.annals.org/content/140/10/769.short Results: A greater proportion of the low-carbohydrate diet group than the low-fat diet group completed the study (76% vs. 57%; P = 0.02). At 24 weeks, weight loss was greater in the low-carbohydrate diet group than in the low-fat diet group (mean change, −12.9% vs. −6.7%; P < 0.001). Patients in both groups lost substantially more fat mass (change, −9.4 kg with the low-carbohydrate diet vs. −4.8 kg with the low-fat diet) than fat-free mass (change, −3.3 kg vs. −2.4 kg, respectively). Compared with recipients of the low-fat diet, recipients of the low-carbohydrate diet had greater decreases in serum triglyceride levels (change, −0.84 mmol/L vs. −0.31 mmol/L [−74.2 mg/dL vs. −27.9 mg/dL]; P = 0.004) and greater increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (0.14 mmol/L vs. −0.04 mmol/L [5.5 mg/dL vs. −1.6 mg/dL]; P < 0.001). Changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level did not differ statistically (0.04 mmol/L [1.6 mg/dL] with the low-carbohydrate diet and −0.19 mmol/L [−7.4 mg/dL] with the low-fat diet; P = 0.2). Minor adverse effects were more frequent in the low-carbohydrate diet group. So higher retention rate with low carbohydrate. Check. Greater weight loss with low carbohydrate. Check. Low carb decreased serum triglycerides more. Check. Low carb diet increases HDL more. Check. Not sure what the minor adverse effects were, but they sure weren't big enough to have the retention rate go down more than the other group. So I checked to at least 20 of the top results and low carbohydrate is at least equally or more effective than low fat diets (when compared) at both losing weight and on markers of cardiovascular disease risk. Check them out if you don't believe me. Meta studies such at this one show similar findings. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2008.00518.x/full There are few studies comparing the effects of low-carbohydrate/high-protein diets with low-fat/high-carbohydrate diets for obesity and cardiovascular disease risk. This systematic review focuses on randomized controlled trials of low-carbohydrate diets compared with low-fat/low-calorie diets. Studies conducted in adult populations with mean or median body mass index of ≥28 kg m−2 were included. Thirteen electronic databases were searched and randomized controlled trials from January 2000 to March 2007 were evaluated. Trials were included if they lasted at least 6 months and assessed the weight-loss effects of low-carbohydrate diets against low-fat/low-calorie diets. For each study, data were abstracted and checked by two researchers prior to electronic data entry. The computer program Review Manager 4.2.2 was used for the data analysis. Thirteen articles met the inclusion criteria. There were significant differences between the groups for weight, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triacylglycerols and systolic blood pressure, favouring the low-carbohydrate diet. There was a higher attrition rate in the low-fat compared with the low-carbohydrate groups suggesting a patient preference for a low-carbohydrate/high-protein approach as opposed to the Public Health preference of a low-fat/high-carbohydrate diet. Evidence from this systematic review demonstrates that low-carbohydrate/high-protein diets are more effective at 6 months and are as effective, if not more, as low-fat diets in reducing weight and cardiovascular disease risk up to 1 year. More evidence and longer-term studies are needed to assess the long-term cardiovascular benefits from the weight loss achieved using these diets. Honestly, how much data do you need to accumulate to prove that "high fat" diets do not cause cardiovascular disease. Saturated fat, and cholesterol don't cause cardiovascular disease. So going back to specifically something like eggs which have a bunch of cholesterol and fat in them: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22037012 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20683785 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18991244 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21776466 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19369056 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21134328 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15164336 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18991244 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18203890 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17531457 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16340654 The evidence vindicates saturated fats risk on heart disease. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/01/does-dietary-saturated-fat-increase.html http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract http://www.ajcn.org/content/80/5/1175.full.pdf html <-- decreased risk in post menopausal women with increased sat fat intake http://healthydietsandscience.blogspot.com/2011/03/high-saturated-fat-diet-gives.html http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/78/11/1331.full.pdf etc. In the same line this is why whole milk is healthier than skim milk: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/12/dairy-fat-and-diabetes.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16904009 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20372173 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17925824 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11350992 Another interesting article that was ahead of its time: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002934396004561 So I hate to beat the drum on things I've already covered but the lipid hypothesis really does not make sense when you look at the literature. When you find studies that support the role of fats in the development in cardiovascular disease and look at some of the specifics of the diet they ate they usually contain large amounts processed fats such as trans fats (which are notoriously bad for you). This is to say that NORMAL sources of fats and oils such as animal fats, eggs, milk, butter, etc. are good for you. Industrial processed fats such as margarine, deep fried foods, vegetable oils, etc. in general are bad for you. So what actually causes cardiovascular disease if it's not saturated fats and cholesterol? Remember what I said before about lipid profiles? They indicate something is wrong but they don't indicate what is wrong. The lipid hypothesis takes the incorrect step of saying that the lipids themselves cause the problems. So that leaves us with the chronic endothelial injury hypothesis. What likely happens is multifold. 1. Dietary effects of high carbohydrate diets (especially fructose) lead to increases in oxidized LDL. Oxidized LDL can get "stuck" in the endothelial wall which aggravates the tissues. The body sends macrophages to help try to clean up the damage. Inflammation results and the chain reaction continues. 2. Ingestion of large amounts of carbohydrates (especially fructose) lead to increases in advanced glycated end products. Fructose is 9x more likely than glucose to form AGE's by the way. 3. Trans fats. 4. Omega 3 vs Omega 6 fatty acids. Normal ancestral consumption in about 1:1 or 1:2 ratio. Normal consumption now is in 10:1 to 20:1 or higher ratios, especially in fried foods. 5. Dysregulation/dysfunction of the body's systems. Leptin resistance contibutes to obesity. High carbohydrate/sugar intake contributes to metabolic syndrome and weight gain. All of these contribute to insulin resistance. Insulin resistance starts to contribute to dyslipedemia. You get obese, diabetes, high blood pressure, poor lipid panels. Then you get cancer, stroke, heart attack, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Health_effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-alcoholic_fatty_liver_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome If you are obese or have documented cardiovascular disease et al. you should know that some of the disease can be reversed to an extent with a low carbohydrate, ketogenic, or Paleolithic diet. Videos if you don't like reading: So in the end I hope that this was helpful and that you learned something about nutrition. | ||
|
Croatodil
Belgium28 Posts
If anyone needs help with fitness you can PM me for free advice. I am in sport whole my life. Starting as kid few years with handball, after that 6,7 years fitness then kickboks then gym again. User was warned for this post | ||
|
billy5000
United States865 Posts
| ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
On August 07 2012 00:54 Croatodil wrote: Who ever says different has no clue... :/ If anyone needs help with fitness you can PM me for free advice. I am in sport whole my life. Starting as kid few years with handball, after that 6,7 years fitness then kickboks then gym again. User was warned for this post lol, so those studies from the pubmed have no clue. I think I'm going to trust them more than you. | ||
|
Zenbrez
Canada5973 Posts
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/nutrition/a/05_fruit_veggie_5.htm Says I should be consuming 3 servings on fruits and 4 of vegetables a day. Does it matter when I eat them? Does my body care whether it's spread out throughout the day or if I eat 4 servings-worth of vegetables in 1 sitting? Assuming for weight loss, and not just for the sake of obtaining the nutriments, if that makes a difference. | ||
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On August 07 2012 01:52 billy5000 wrote: I just found out that I have a stress fracture on my left femur nearing my hip. Unfortunately, it might take up to three months for it to heal. In the past I've been doing starting strength for about half a year, but I feel clueless at the gym now that I can't do squats, deadlifts or power cleans--the only exercises that can actually tire me out. I'm left with the bench, press, and weighted pull ups which aren't as intense. I'm not quite sure what other exercises I should add in the meantime. Or should I do/add a split workout since I gained a lot of strength over the past six months? Suggestions? I also couldn't do any lower body exercises because of an injury. What I started doing was increase my upper body volume by adding assistance exercises. That's at least been helping me progress my bench to 230x5 so I can't really complain. | ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
On August 09 2012 09:22 Zenbrez wrote: Getting this information from http://pediatrics.about.com/od/nutrition/a/05_fruit_veggie_5.htm Says I should be consuming 3 servings on fruits and 4 of vegetables a day. Does it matter when I eat them? Does my body care whether it's spread out throughout the day or if I eat 4 servings-worth of vegetables in 1 sitting? Assuming for weight loss, and not just for the sake of obtaining the nutriments, if that makes a difference. Makes no difference... but it tends to be better for your poo coming out smoothly if you eat some with every meal | ||
|
NeedsmoreCELLTECH
Netherlands1242 Posts
My question to you is; How should I go about 10 hours of moderate cardio right before bedtime? xoxo, love you all. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Cup
Sparkling Tuna Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Wardi Open
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
