|
On December 14 2017 22:05 TerransHill wrote:
Do you guys have any recommendations for training "on the road"? In my job I'm travelling around alot and the gyms in the hotels usually have miserable equipment. I have a nationwide gym membership, but sometimes it is still hard to find a gym close.
Can you recommend stuff like TRX or freeletics?
You could join a gym chain that has tons of locations like anytime fitness. I've almost always been able to find a Crossfit or weightlifting club to drop in no matter where I'm traveling
|
On December 14 2017 22:05 TerransHill wrote:
Do you guys have any recommendations for training "on the road"? In my job I'm travelling around alot and the gyms in the hotels usually have miserable equipment. I have a nationwide gym membership, but sometimes it is still hard to find a gym close.
Can you recommend stuff like TRX or freeletics?
Gymnastic rings > TRX
otherwise u can just use bars/floor and do stuff like pullups, handstand pushups,dips etc
|
Went full breakin the law today since the gym was empty with finals being done. Which is to say deadlifts in bare feet vs my usual crappy shoes.
Uhh Maze Ing. Much more stable and able to feel what going on. Fun gym sessions. Also hit 4x6 weighted pull ups with a 45 for first time.
Pull ups after deadlifts feels soooo good.
|
On December 15 2017 15:54 L_Master wrote:
Went full breakin the law today since the gym was empty with finals being done. Which is to say deadlifts in bare feet vs my usual crappy shoes.
Uhh Maze Ing. Much more stable and able to feel what going on. Fun gym sessions. Also hit 4x6 weighted pull ups with a 45 for first time.
Pull ups after deadlifts feels soooo good.
full wouldve been deadlifting naked, just saying
|
On December 16 2017 03:39 Pulimuli1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 15:54 L_Master wrote:
Went full breakin the law today since the gym was empty with finals being done. Which is to say deadlifts in bare feet vs my usual crappy shoes.
Uhh Maze Ing. Much more stable and able to feel what going on. Fun gym sessions. Also hit 4x6 weighted pull ups with a 45 for first time.
Pull ups after deadlifts feels soooo good. full wouldve been deadlifting naked, just saying
Touche. But da world ain't ready for that video yet.
|
Well youtube isn't at least.
|
Ugh. Filmed my bench today. Did it perpendicular to my body and directly in line with the bar. Not that useful of an angle. ;(
That said, thought I was doing a good job of putting the bar near the bottom of my hand in line with my forearms. Video says otherwise, with the bar being about half an inch to inch behind the vertical plane of my forearms.
Not going to be good for wrists, and probably costing me a few pounds too. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to fix it. I feel as if I go anymore foreword and I'm not going to be able to enclose the bar in my fingers. Perhaps I'm not supposed to...but sure doesn't feel secure.
|
@L_Master have you finished my Proustian PM or are you not interested?
+ Show Spoiler +
So I just did this workout for the 3rd time and my feet started to go numb. It was very quad heavy. Do you think my quads go too tight and stopped bloodflow?
|
I'm going to post here because this is TLHF thread and seems like legitimate conversation for here.
Original Message From Jerubaal:
The mystical process known as "metabolism" that is referred to is largely governed by a single hormone- insulin. The primary function of insulin is to metabolize glucose in the bloodstream. Insulin also signals fat cells to stop releasing and start storing fat. It also plays a large role in hunger and satiety. These "secondary" (but very important roles) make perfect sense in light of insulin's primary role as glucose metabolizer. If there is glucose, and therefore insulin, in the bloodstream, then there is no need to mobilize fat for energy consumption. Conversely, no insulin means no glucose, which signals that the body needs fat to be burned. Likewise, food consumption is a negative feedback loop. If I have no insulin in my bloodstream, I must not have eaten in a while. If this insulin is used up (hi Coca-Cola), then I must have just eaten.
The other phenomenon that's the crux of common metabolic disorders is insulin resistance. I was looking at a few websites and it is just comical how they, especially the official government ones, dance around the cause of insulin resistance. They all start off very reasonably: Insulin resistance is the body's increasing resistance to insulin. The liver responds by making more insulin. All of this comes to a head if the resistance exceeds the liver's ability to produce insulin. This is what's known as Diabetes 2 or Mellitus. Now if you read a lot of the government bollocks, as I said, they are curiously silent as to the cause of Insulin Resistance. They do note that being overweight and a sedentary lifestyle (chicken or egg?) seem to contribute. I mean, whatever could cause resistance? It couldn't be the constant presence of insulin caused by a carbohydrate rich diet, could it? Naaaaah.
Now on the weight loss front, this insulin resistance causes big problems. Because of the insulin resistance, insulin is in the bloodstream for much longer. This means that for much of the day, the fat cells are switched to "absorb". Only when there is little to no insulin in the blood do the fat cells go from suck to blow. This is the crux of the Insulin Hypothesis and there are many examples of how it explains what is not explained by the CICO model.
This I'm not seeing anything that jumps out at me as seeming illogical or incorrect. My only question would be to ask, if the fat stores are turned off, and the body is in a deficit and needs energy, where does that energy come from?
Some of it is surely going to come from muscle breakdown, which provides a logical starting point for helping to explain the poorer nutrient partitioning we would see with crappy diet, but will actually result in greater weight loss as there are few calories per pound of muscle than fat.
One damning phenomenon is the coexistence of extreme malnutrition and morbid obesity. In some of the worst conditions in the world, like Haiti or Indian reservations in the past, the adults would all be morbidly obese while the children were malnutritioned. Eating a shitty diet of peanut butter and bread would leave the population on the verge of diabetes, unless you think that the adults were gorging themselves while the children starved.
You say here obesity and malnourishment. That's not the same as obesity and starvation. I can 100% imagine a situation where you could be obese and malnourished. If I ate 1000g of sugar a day I'd surely become obese, and given there are no vitamins or minerals in sugar I'd also be malnourished. If a child grows up with a bunch of shitty food they might still have the metabolism not to get fat, but will be stunted with growth, unhealthy, and likely more prone to weight gain as an adult with continued excess intake of poor food.
I don't know that any sort of experiment or example has been observed like that, however, some pretty extreme situations have been observed. In some of the worst conditions of the world, you can observe malnutrition and obesity side by side. In Haiti, old Indian Reservations and other disaster areas, you often find extremely malnourished children side by side obese mothers. Either the mothers are gorging themselves while starving their children or something about the diet is both malnutritive and fat causing.
The bolded is absolutely true, but it's not inherently an indictment of CICO.
With CICO, the important consideration here is not healthiness. It's what's happening with weight. I think everyone is in agreement that eating like shit with a ton of sugar isn't good for you. It's a question of weight loss.
If these children are dropping dead from starvation, that's indeed something. If they are dropping dead from malnourishment...well it's very easy to see how that can co-exist with obesity. We can easily picture any number of very calorically dense, but nutrient devoid diet. Using CICO, you have your obesity + malnourishment.
If these malnourished kids weigh significantly less than other kids at a given height, then we've got something interesting. I've not heard of this though, and certainly never seen it, so if that is indeed the case and you have seen some papers about it, please direct them my way!!
What if you are expending 3k calories a day but only eating 1k of carbs? Surely you must lose fat then! Firstly, I'd say something is fucky if we have to go to starvation level examples.
Absolutely. I don't think starvation levels need to be brought into a discussion of normal, healthy weight loss. But let's say we are expending 3k and eating 2.5k. I never seen someone do that and not weight approximately 25lbs less half a year later.
As for your specific example, the key thing to remember is our independent variables. Your situation really is perfectly reasonable. You said you ate a crap ton of carbs and little protein. You then reduced your "calories" (mostly carbs) and lost weight. That's perfectly in line with what we would expect. You probably could have lost weight faster or at least more healthily/less painfully if you had increased your protein/fat sources at the expense of some more of those carbs.
That's fair.
But let's talk about the other aspect, which is telling people to eat less versus eat less carbohydrates/simple sugar. I'm not sure it makes a huge difference. All else equal, it's much better to inform people correctly and they may make marginally better choices as a result but let's talk about what happened to my diet.
What I did, I feel, is how just about everyone diets. Let's face it, there are very few, if any, people getting fat eating fish, lentils, and salads all day. The people that get fat usually are eating fairly crappy food in larger than needed quantities. I also strongly imagine any fat person that is told "CICO baby! Eat less calories." is going to drop anything other than carbs. If he is already eating low protein, he isn't going to drop his protein lower; because that would just be stupid and I've never known anyone who thinks "Just need to eat less, might as well cut out that fish and vegetables". They either eat less of everything, or cut out junk.
Functionally, that leads to eating less carbohydrate.
Basically, while I don't disagree with what you wrote, it identifies any dieter ever. People that diet, by default, almost always cut out primarily carbs and some fat. Just look at my case. I could have cut out protein, but not much, maybe 2-30g a day netting me 100 kcal. That's not going to move the needle. The ONLY option I had was to cut carbs. That probably described 99.9% of people looking to diet and lose weight.
This scenario says nothing of whether CICO is valid or not, it just suggests that telling someone "keep your protein, eat less calories than you burn" results in the same outcome as saying "reduce your carbs/simple sugars". If we said "eat 1g/lb protein, then watch calories and not eat like shit" you'd be in the right ballpark. Which isn't THAT far from conventional diet ideas.
Really, the main thing and probably the only thing that will get me with CICO is literature finding that people eating consistently less calories than they are burning failing to lose weight. That and a mechanism for how weight would be maintained in a deficit. I haven't heard an explanation there yet either
|
hard to find studies where people are on diets and living normal lives while wearing masks 24/7 so we can accurately measure how many calories they are burning
|
On the exercise front, exercise can push the Resistance Pendulum back a little, but it's not a magic pill. The Insulin Hypothesis also explains why HIIT is more effective at weight loss than steady state. HIIT pushes you to your metabolic limits while steady state does not. It's more about getting to those valleys of insulin so that fat loss can occur. Now you may be saying "but you have to obey physics!".
I agree with the first sentence, everything I've ever read or heard would agree with that. The bolded? Not so much.
Steady state works great. Yes, if you hit some hard repeats at or exceeding (realistically will fall to VO2 output) VO2 max output, you're going to get an extremely large portion of your energy utilized coming from sugars. At the same time, you're going to utilize a shit ton less energy overall, and thus less sugar overall. Compare a grueling session of 1 min ON, 1 min OFF intervals. I could last perhaps 20' doing this, averaging 450w or so ON and recoveing at 150w, yielding an average power of 300w over the 20' period, burning approximately 360kcal in the process. Not bad.
Conversely, a similarly taxing steady equivalent would be perhaps 120' at a steady 300w output, burning approximately 2,150 kcal. If we assume 100% sugar utilization for the hard intervals, and even 50% (this is comically low for a 2hr tempo session as described) would still give over 1000kcal burned from glycogen usage, almost 3x the value for the interval session.
Now, this isn't an attempt to suggest people should go out and do a bunch of steady state cardio (among other things, it's obvious the time commitment is higher), but high intensity work is comically over-hyped to put it mildly.
Then again, perhaps you mean something different by metabolically taxing, but in regards to the diet context I'm assuming you're referring primarily to energy response to exercise.
|
On December 18 2017 15:24 IgnE wrote:
hard to find studies where people are on diets and living normal lives while wearing masks 24/7 so we can accurately measure how many calories they are burning
This is true. But I bet you could could get something passable by strictly controlling diet, then having subjects wear a pedometer of some sort while getting O2 measurements for normal leisure walking, and estimate from there. Exercise would either be disallowed or strictly controlled sessions. You wouldn't nail it down perfectly, but over a large size (then again, that's another huge issue) you'd likely be in the ballpark.
Certainly enough to see a trend assuming a sharp drop of calories coming from non carbohydrate sources.
|
-" if the fat stores are turned off, and the body is in a deficit and needs energy, where does that energy come from? " Blood sugar and glycogen stores. One reason fat people are always eating. Also some muscle loss, probably.
-You really latched onto the "malnutrition" aspect, which was really just word variation. Starvation is malnourishment, or undernourishment.
-"But let's say we are expending 3k and eating 2.5k. I never seen someone do that and not weight approximately 25lbs less half a year later." I don't know how you can begin to measure this. They have literally been trying to prove this CICO hypothesis for going on 50 years and the results are at best "not very convincing". That's why nutritional science is in such a shit state. They are spending all their money trying to prove this hypothesis that they've failed to come up with any evidence for in 50 years.
-I agree that it's about what gets people healthy, but we have different observations. a)I think its important that nutritional education is as expansive as possible because it's impossible to give people set diets and people need to know how to apply their knowledge. For every 10 people you tell to eat more fruits and vegetables, one of them is going to eat 10 bananas a day. It was known pretty much from the outset that dietary cholesterol was not related to serum cholesterol, but nutritionists thought that was too confusing for Joe Schmoe public, so here we are with a myth firmly ingrained.
b) Back to what gets people to eat healthily, our entire weightloss campaign has been oriented around a low fat/high carb with pointless exercise. Everything is marketed as low fat, low cholesterol or low calorie. Never mind if 100% of the calories are refined carbs or sugar. Diets high in "grains" are considered healthy but a high fat diet, even if you're eating exactly the same amount of meat, is "gross" and "a heart attack waiting to happen". I see people eating salads with almost no protein and then wondering why they can't stick to their diets. I see people eating "whole grain" pasta salad and running on the treadmill for hours and wondering why they aren't losing weight. (to be continued.)
|
On December 19 2017 07:33 Jerubaal wrote:
-" if the fat stores are turned off, and the body is in a deficit and needs energy, where does that energy come from? " Blood sugar and glycogen stores. One reason fat people are always eating. Also some muscle loss, probably.
Glycogen stores are like 2000kcal, a few days of a solid 1000kcal deficit would wipe those out. Blood sugar not sure how much. Let's say you stay in a deficit. You'll deplete blood sugar first, then each day after that's gone you'll start depleting glycogen. What happens when glycogen is depleted and you're still in a deficit?
You really latched onto the "malnutrition" aspect, which was really just word variation. Starvation is malnourishment, or undernourishment.
To me starvation is a specific type of malnourishement where you don't have enough calories. You can be malnourished but not starving.
I've truly never heard of fat adults and kids dying of starvation, again if you have some articles or papers about it that you know of, I'd be interested for sure.
"But let's say we are expending 3k and eating 2.5k. I never seen someone do that and not weight approximately 25lbs less half a year later." I don't know how you can begin to measure this. They have literally been trying to prove this CICO hypothesis for going on 50 years and the results are at best "not very convincing". That's why nutritional science is in such a shit state. They are spending all their money trying to prove this hypothesis that they've failed to come up with any evidence for in 50 years.
Not precisely, that's for sure. My experience like this comes from working with myself and others. Track food for a week, see what you're eating, and then use that as an estimate for daily expenditure. From there, track calories and eat 500 less calories per day. When I, or others I've worked with do this, the weight seems to come off pretty regularly. Sure, it might be 23lbs sometimes or 28lbs other times; but I've never seen say 3lbs or 70lbs or any sort of massive variation.
I'm not sure if that's all of why nutritional science is in a shit state. It also, more so than almost any other branch of science I can think of, inundated with heavy corporate funding and interest. This naturally impacts results.
-I agree that it's about what gets people healthy, but we have different observations. a)I think its important that nutritional education is as expansive as possible because it's impossible to give people set diets and people need to know how to apply their knowledge. For every 10 people you tell to eat more fruits and vegetables, one of them is going to eat 10 bananas a day.
Eh. Perhaps.
This is definitely more of a how to teach nutrition question than anything, and while I agree that it should be as expansive as possible...you have to balance that with how motivated and interested the person is. Hit someone that just wants to make their diet a little better with several paragraph dictating how to eat and they will zone out and not retain any of it.
It was known pretty much from the outset that dietary cholesterol was not related to serum cholesterol, but nutritionists thought that was too confusing for Joe Schmoe public, so here we are with a myth firmly ingrained.
Interesting. In all honesty that probably IS too confusing for Joe Schmoe public, but from what I know they taught that cholesterol in general was bad. Probably other ways you could get the point across without going into serum vs dietary cholesterol.
Back to what gets people to eat healthily, our entire weightloss campaign has been oriented around a low fat/high carb with pointless exercise.
Please expand on the bolded. Growing up, the general health advice I remember being taught ad nauseum was to do cardio 3-5 times a week for 30-45 minutes and also 2-3x a week of strength training. I don't think that advice is bad.
Diet wise, what you described is absolutely what I heard, and absolutely agree advocating low fat and/or high carb is stupid, unless you're extremely active. However, very few people in need of diet advice are extremely active anyway.
Everything is marketed as low fat, low cholesterol or low calorie. Never mind if 100% of the calories are refined carbs or sugar. Diets high in "grains" are considered healthy but a high fat diet, even if you're eating exactly the same amount of meat, is "gross" and "a heart attack waiting to happen". I see people eating salads with almost no protein and then wondering why they can't stick to their diets. I see people eating "whole grain" pasta salad and running on the treadmill for hours and wondering why they aren't losing weight.
You do? I don't see too many people running on the treadmill for "hours". I rarely see people hit an hour, and if they do it's usually walking or has lots of breaks and doesn't amount to a large active time. Also, most of those people that I talk to that have that mentality about "do a shit ton of cardio and then I can lose weight" think that their cardio either gives them a license to eat whatever they want, OR they think they are burning far more calories than they think they are. I've talked to a ton of guys and gals who run for 45 minutes and think they burned 1000 calories. Reality, for most, is probably half that.
|
I'll just reiterate the options:
-High fat/low carb- sustainable weight loss
-low fat/low carb- starvation
-low fat/high carb- you might lose some weight if you're extremely obese
|
On December 19 2017 13:52 Jerubaal wrote:
I'll just reiterate the options:
-High fat/low carb- sustainable weight loss
-low fat/low carb- starvation
-low fat/high carb- you might lose some weight if you're extremely obese
I guess I was hoping you'd be able to drill deeper into some of these points, but if you don't have the time or inclination that's understandable.
What I've taken away from the conversation so far is that we are 95% in line with each other on what's the best way to eat (assuming what you mean by low carb isn't like 50g of carbs a day or something), but differ a little on the details, especially at a deficit. I think option #3 you can lose weight doing. I would not advocate it, but it can be done. It's just not going to be as easy, effective, or healthy as option #1.
Saying CICO is a poor/difficult/crappy approach to weight loss and I flat out agree with you. Saying CICO doesn't "work", or that calorie counting doesn't hold....so far I haven't seen anything that challenges that in myself, others I've work with, or elsewhere in studies. So far all I've got are some anecdotes about starving kids with fat parents, I intend to research that and see what I can find, but so far I'm not swayed strongly from my current position. I'm lacking actual research data, and, equally importantly, a mechanistic explanation for why/how energy balance would not hold as expected.
I'm also still uncertain about what you mean by "pointless exercise". I see a lot of people doing stuff at the gym I think is stupid, I'm always curious to hear what other people consider dumb/ineffective training.
|
On December 15 2017 15:54 L_Master wrote:
Went full breakin the law today since the gym was empty with finals being done. Which is to say deadlifts in bare feet vs my usual crappy shoes.
Uhh Maze Ing. Much more stable and able to feel what going on. Fun gym sessions. Also hit 4x6 weighted pull ups with a 45 for first time.
Pull ups after deadlifts feels soooo good.
Every time you post your recent progress I get the sense that we have very similar workouts lol
I dunno if Ive ever managed 4x6 with 45 lbs attached, I will try that next time I lift
|
On December 20 2017 03:51 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2017 15:54 L_Master wrote:
Went full breakin the law today since the gym was empty with finals being done. Which is to say deadlifts in bare feet vs my usual crappy shoes.
Uhh Maze Ing. Much more stable and able to feel what going on. Fun gym sessions. Also hit 4x6 weighted pull ups with a 45 for first time.
Pull ups after deadlifts feels soooo good. Every time you post your recent progress I get the sense that we have very similar workouts lol I dunno if Ive ever managed 4x6 with 45 lbs attached, I will try that next time I lift
Well, to make it clear I'm currently basically doing bench/upper body type day 2x a week, one deadlift day, and one squat day.
Working my way up gonna do one more week of 5s, then three triple weeks, two double weeks, a single week, then test maxes sort of simulating a competition.
This week I'm shooting for 195 bench/170 paused close grip/150 paused incline, 195 row (might drop back here 20-30lbs, I think I'm getting a little sloppy with too much body english/shrugging to force the weight up), 235 deadlift, 175 skwaat (technique hell), 50lbs weighted chins, 100 lbs OHP.
I also do DB Farmer's Walks and barbell hold in single hand on alternating workouts. Just try to bring weight up when I can. 30s for both of those, usually two sets. Working on 110lbs for farmers walk and 125lbs for the hold. Left hand always goes first. Anything else I do is occasional accessory work but I don't care about poundage there too much.
Deadlift will be super easy. So should skwaats in theory. Chins will be hard, bench will be extremely hard. I'll get the first set, I'm not sure about the second. Rows will be....easy but that's a given if I drop back to clean up bad practices before they become habit.
|
If I am eating 3k calories in carbs and I start eating 3k calories in fat, I will probably start losing fat. This is a flat contradiction of CICO.
Maybe a better way to reformulate my last post is that you need low carbs and to replace those carbs with fat. If you reduce carbs enough, you will eventually start lowering your insulin level, but you will almost, by definition, be starving. These diets you see people on are basically starvation diets. You can't lose all that weight instantly and you can't stay in state of starvation for months. Well, you can. But I'd say that's really stupid and harmful. Your fat is not a piggybank that your body can tap into at will.
|
On December 20 2017 04:45 Jerubaal wrote:
If I am eating 3k calories in carbs and I start eating 3k calories in fat, I will probably start losing fat. This is a flat contradiction of CICO.
Maybe a better way to reformulate my last post is that you need low carbs and to replace those carbs with fat. If you reduce carbs enough, you will eventually start lowering your insulin level, but you will almost, by definition, be starving. These diets you see people on are basically starvation diets. You can't lose all that weight instantly and you can't stay in state of starvation for months. Well, you can. But I'd say that's really stupid and harmful. Your fat is not a piggybank that your body can tap into at will.
Will you lose scale weight? If the answer is no, it doesn't necessarily contradict CICO, which says nothing about nutrient partitioning. If the answer is yes, that would be absolutely fascinating
I might try this here at some point, as I definitely do need to start cutting. I'm flabby, and more than anything 80kg is comically heavy to do some bike racing with. It would be interesting to see if I'd notice a significant change doing this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
