|
By the time reading the first post of this thread, I really got into the idea to tell how my story went as far as fitness, health and nutrition worked out for me.
Until I was roundabout 17, myself was a really fat guy with way too bad eating habits. I loved chocolate and all those nice stuffs that you can get everywhere anytime. Additionally, I played WoW in those past days, so my weight and condition was pretty bad..
I was like 180 cm all and weight like 95 kg...
But suddenly, something encouraged me to make sports, stop playing WoW ( I really hate this game now ), and especially getting my fat ass up 
All went fine, I ate a lot of fruits, vegetables and meat. The only thing you have to avoid, is carbs :D ! But NO-CARB isnt that nice, its better to eat LOW-CARB in my opinion.
Just stick to this, if you really eager to get a "SportyMcSportsMan" :D
65 % - vegetables or fruits ( i prefer vegetables ;P )
30 % - meat or anything thats protein ( can also be fatty meat as long as you AVOID CARBS )
<5 % - CARBS ( a slice of bread a day at maximum - I know its hard ;x )
If you start to eat like this and do a lot of sports, like 4 times a week, then you will see some first differences pretty soon !
Thats how it worked out of for me :
Before:
~180 cm tall
~95 KG
After:
~185 cm
~78 KG
Good luck, hope it encourages someone to do some sports instead of eSports only
|
On November 22 2010 22:58 insta wrote:By the time reading the first post of this thread, I really got into the idea to tell how my story went as far as fitness, health and nutrition worked out for me. Until I was roundabout 17, myself was a really fat guy with way too bad eating habits. I loved chocolate and all those nice stuffs that you can get everywhere anytime. Additionally, I played WoW in those past days, so my weight and condition was pretty bad.. I was like 180 cm all and weight like 95 kg... But suddenly, something encouraged me to make sports, stop playing WoW ( I really hate this game now ), and especially getting my fat ass up All went fine, I ate a lot of fruits, vegetables and meat. The only thing you have to avoid, is carbs :D ! But NO-CARB isnt that nice, its better to eat LOW-CARB in my opinion. Just stick to this, if you really eager to get a "SportyMcSportsMan" :D 65 % - vegetables or fruits ( i prefer vegetables ;P ) 30 % - meat or anything thats protein ( can also be fatty meat as long as you AVOID CARBS ) <5 % - CARBS ( a slice of bread a day at maximum - I know its hard ;x ) If you start to eat like this and do a lot of sports, like 4 times a week, then you will see some first differences pretty soon ! Thats how it worked out of for me : Before: ~180 cm tall ~95 KG After: ~185 cm ~78 KG Good luck, hope it encourages someone to do some sports instead of eSports only
You do know that vegetables and fruits are ALL carbs, right?
Your diet if you did that is likely still about 40-50% carbs.
If you want to truly go low carb you have to eat only nuts, meats, fish, and cream, and other fats.
Even dairy has its share of carbohydrates.
Low carb is good for fat loss... and what you did is very good for fat loss too. But don't be under the impression you were actually low carb because you weren't.
On November 22 2010 15:41 decafchicken wrote:
Been taking 10k/day for the last 3 days. Hoping my nose wont be so stuffy/runny soon T_T
Also, koagel What does your work out though?
And yes squatting >>>>> leg pressing
If you're sick I'd take 20-30k/day. You out in the sun a lot? Still exercising?
Exercising while still sick tends to divert immune systemt o clean up that damage... so might want to take a rest while recovering. Vitamin D doesnt work as well when sick while exercising b/c it works to boost the immune system.... but if the immune system is off doing something else besides fighting the cold that may be why it's sticking around.
|
You do know that vegetables and fruits are ALL carbs, right?
Your diet if you did that is likely still about 40-50% carbs.
If you want to truly go low carb you have to eat only nuts, meats, fish, and cream, and other fats.
Even dairy has its share of carbohydrates.
Low carb is good for fat loss... and what you did is very good for fat loss too. But don't be under the impression you were actually low carb because you weren't.
But Carb isnt just carb, vegetable and fruit carbs are way different than bread, pasta and all that - also every carb that is inside of fruits and vegetables includes fat-burning carbs and your body uses them completely different...
trust me, I know it
|
Haha trust me eshlow knows that. I think what you're saying is to avoid wheat/gluten which will find little argument here
|
On November 23 2010 00:17 insta wrote:
You do know that vegetables and fruits are ALL carbs, right?
Your diet if you did that is likely still about 40-50% carbs.
If you want to truly go low carb you have to eat only nuts, meats, fish, and cream, and other fats.
Even dairy has its share of carbohydrates.
Low carb is good for fat loss... and what you did is very good for fat loss too. But don't be under the impression you were actually low carb because you weren't.
But Carb isnt just carb, vegetable and fruit carbs are way different than bread, pasta and all that - also every carb that is inside of fruits and vegetables includes fat-burning carbs and your body uses them completely different...
trust me, I know it
Modern fruits have been developed so as to be extremely sweet (because people like sugar), so they're basically candy with antioxidants. Stick to berries as much as possible and really, don't eat too many fruits.
Vegetables are excellent, with green leafy and root varieties being at the top of the list. If you want to be super anal, nightshades (including tomatoes and bell peppers) contain a fair amount of "anti-nutrients" and probably shouldn't be consumed daily if you notice problems with inflammation or other negatives.
|
I'm generally not a fan of diets that are based on cutting just one of the macro nutrients... The weight loss does not correlate with a lesser percentage of carbohydrates, at least not according to this publication: effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic load
But habitual low carb diets do increase the mortality: Low-carbohydrate–high-protein diet and long-term survival in a general population cohort
The most important factor for weight loss is the overall amount of caloric intake, while the composition is mainly important for being healthy.
decaf, I'll edit my workout plan in for you, but I have to look the english names of some of the exercises up first.
EDIT: Chest day (gym): bench press, declined bench press, flies, dips on the machine
Back day (gym): back extensions, two handed row on the machine, one handed row on the machine, cable pull downs, shoulder shrugs
Leg day (gym): sitting calf raises, standing calf raises, leg curls, leg extensions, leg press
Shoulders (home): Mostly supersets (military press, upright row) and kettlebells. Sometimes I do the military press alone before I do the supersets with less weight.
I do isolation exercises for the arms when I feel I can do them and there's enough time for the muscles to recover until I need them (i.e. the chest and back day).
For the abs I mainly do crunches.
I want to add deadlifts and squats in the near future.
|
I looked at both of those studies.
First one doesnt even measure percentages of macronutrient profiels or list the foods that were eaten..... poorly designed. what exactly is "low carb". Lots of studies purported to show that low carb is ineffective have >30% of calories from carbs.
Weight loss is greater with a lower carb diet in general. I don't know where crappy studies like this come from its absurd.
The second one I don't even know what to say. theyd ont even assess dietary fat intake and that's where the majority of kcals are coming from on a true low carb diet.
Quality of food also matters but we dont even get indicates of what people are eating in BOTH studies.
Anyway, this review pretty much debunks everything you just posted:
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/PIIS0899900710002893/fulltext
|
Also, the second study as far as I can tell looks at total mortality, so if someone on (their definition of) a low-carb diet gets run over by a bus, they're counted as a death correlated with low-carb diets. I would imagine that, given enough data about every individual in the study, you could find correlation between increased mortality rate and random things like preferring the color blue to red or having a middle name that contains the letter D.
It's so depressing to see how much taxpayer money the world over is being spent on ridiculous studies that at best will demonstrate some random correlation that may or may not have any causal basis behind it.
|
LG: (40% carb, 30% fat, 30% proteins) HG: (60% carb, 20% fat, 20% proteins) Look under "subject and methods"- study diets
Even if you may not call this low carb, at least a trend should be visible. I'd rather criticise the relatively low amount of participants (just 29 left at the end), but many of these studies suffer from this.
The second one shows the effects of a low carb diet in a very broad population, and quite a range of low carb diets. In the discussion, they pretty clearly say that the results can not be used to develuate every kind of low carb diet, but the broad mass of them.
I need some time to read through your link before I can write something useful on it.
Also, the second study as far as I can tell looks at total mortality, so if someone on (their definition of) a low-carb diet gets run over by a bus, they're counted as a death correlated with low-carb diets.
So you believe that people on low carb diets have a higher chance of getting hit by the bus? Deaths by accidents should not have a significant impact on the results when the population is as big as in this study (over 20k).
|
On November 23 2010 03:39 Koagel wrote:LG: (40% carb, 30% fat, 30% proteins) HG: (60% carb, 20% fat, 20% proteins) Look under "subject and methods"- study diets Even if you may not call this low carb, at least a trend should be visible. I'd rather criticise the relatively low amount of participants (just 29 left at the end), but many of these studies suffer from this. The second one shows the effects of a low carb diet in a very broad population, and quite a range of low carb diets. In the discussion, they pretty clearly say that the results can not be used to develuate every kind of low carb diet, but the broad mass of them. I need some time to read through your link before I can write something useful on it. Show nested quote +Also, the second study as far as I can tell looks at total mortality, so if someone on (their definition of) a low-carb diet gets run over by a bus, they're counted as a death correlated with low-carb diets. So you believe that people on low carb diets have a higher chance of getting hit by the bus? Deaths by accidents should not have a significant impact on the results when the population is as big as in this study (over 20k).
Of course not, but the total number of deaths was only 455.
Also: "In our study population, consumption of carbohydrates, even at the low extreme of the distribution, was higher than that advocated by the prescribed low-carbohydrate diets and few individuals consumed more than 20% of their energy from proteins." As eshlow pointed out and as is common in these studies, "low-carb" typically means "lower carb than the standard extremely high-carb diet." Few people that consider themselves low-carb advocates would advocate the range of macro breakdowns termed "low-carb" by this study.
|
When you;re eating tons of terrible fats (e.g. hydrogenated oils), eating less fats is generally better
GOOD fats in general in high percentage is superior to increase carbohydrates in most cases.
Basically, eat real food.
|
First of all, your link mostly criticises the DGAC for only using data that supports their claims and omitting the ones that oppose them. They don't "debunk" the links I posted. They add a meta-analysis that implies that the weight loss from a low carb diets is higher on short notice, but doesn't differ significantly with time, which, albeit maybe insignificantly (again, low number of participants, small deviations in the curve don't have to mean anything), is shown in a graph in the first study I posted.
The links I posted were taken from a publication by a nutrition physician (or whatever the english word is) that teaches at our university and is respected in his field. Although this does not make the claims true, it can be assumed that he can discriminate crappy designs from good ones. Just because the results of studies differ from your expectations, they don't have to be bad.
The problem with fats is not that they're all bad, but most foods that contain high amounts of fat do contain the ones you don't want. I don't think there are good or bad fats, just those you get too much of and those you don't. Our script on nutrition said that you don't want to deviate too much from the recommendations, because it can lead to misreactions if the ratio is off since the lipids "compete" for the enzymes that build lipid cell membranes and lipoproteins. The ratio given was 14:5:1 (n9:n6:n3).
Btw, holy crap it takes long to participate in these discussions in a foreign language. :-/
Of course not, but the total number of deaths was only 455.
Why exactly do you believe that this is not enough?
EDIT:
I don't defend any of the recommandations by DGAC, how could I, I haven't read it. I'm just very critical about diets that center around cutting just one of the macro nutrients.
The point that evidence that supports a benefit from ketogenic diets is lacking is still valid.
|
On November 23 2010 01:44 Koagel wrote:I'm generally not a fan of diets that are based on cutting just one of the macro nutrients... The weight loss does not correlate with a lesser percentage of carbohydrates, at least not according to this publication: effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic loadBut habitual low carb diets do increase the mortality: Low-carbohydrate–high-protein diet and long-term survival in a general population cohortThe most important factor for weight loss is the overall amount of caloric intake, while the composition is mainly important for being healthy. decaf, I'll edit my workout plan in for you, but I have to look the english names of some of the exercises up first. EDIT: Chest day (gym): bench press, declined bench press, flies, dips on the machine Back day (gym): back extensions, two handed row on the machine, one handed row on the machine, cable pull downs, shoulder shrugs Leg day (gym): sitting calf raises, standing calf raises, leg curls, leg extensions, leg press Shoulders (home): Mostly supersets (military press, upright row) and kettlebells. Sometimes I do the military press alone before I do the supersets with less weight. I do isolation exercises for the arms when I feel I can do them and there's enough time for the muscles to recover until I need them (i.e. the chest and back day). For the abs I mainly do crunches. I want to add deadlifts and squats in the near future.
I would definitely add in deadlifting on your back day and definitely some barbell rows/weighted pullups
And its not a leg day if it doesnt have any squats in it!
Crunches are fairly useless for abs. Try adding in things like weighted sit ups on a bench (weight behind the head), leg raises (hanging/lying down), turkish get ups, planks, etc. Although with a greater focus on core lifts like squats, deadlifts, cleans, overhead press your core will strengthen significantly on its own.
|
On November 23 2010 00:17 insta wrote:
But Carb isnt just carb, vegetable and fruit carbs are way different than bread, pasta and all that - also every carb that is inside of fruits and vegetables includes fat-burning carbs and your body uses them completely different...
trust me, I know it
lol..wow. What is a fat burning carb?
Do you know what insulin is and how the body uses ANY source of carbohydrates as oppose to protein and dietary fats?
|
On November 23 2010 05:35 Koagel wrote:First of all, your link mostly criticises the DGAC for only using data that supports their claims and omitting the ones that oppose them. They don't "debunk" the links I posted. They add a meta-analysis that implies that the weight loss from a low carb diets is higher on short notice, but doesn't differ significantly with time, which, albeit maybe insignificantly (again, low number of participants, small deviations in the curve don't have to mean anything), is shown in a graph in the first study I posted. The links I posted were taken from a publication by a nutrition physician (or whatever the english word is) that teaches at our university and is respected in his field. Although this does not make the claims true, it can be assumed that he can discriminate crappy designs from good ones. Just because the results of studies differ from your expectations, they don't have to be bad. The problem with fats is not that they're all bad, but most foods that contain high amounts of fat do contain the ones you don't want. I don't think there are good or bad fats, just those you get too much of and those you don't. Our script on nutrition said that you don't want to deviate too much from the recommendations, because it can lead to misreactions if the ratio is off since the lipids "compete" for the enzymes that build lipid cell membranes and lipoproteins. The ratio given was 14:5:1 (n9:n6:n3). Btw, holy crap it takes long to participate in these discussions in a foreign language. :-/ Why exactly do you believe that this is not enough? EDIT: I don't defend any of the recommandations by DGAC, how could I, I haven't read it. I'm just very critical about diets that center around cutting just one of the macro nutrients. The point that evidence that supports a benefit from ketogenic diets is lacking is still valid.
1. The quickest way to lose fat mass and retain lean mass is through a lower carb or ketogenic diet. This isn't really debatable because it's fairly proven.
That was the initial premise I *thought* I was arguing against.
To address the point in your post I have absolutely no clue where you got that from the link I posted. Because I'm quoting this directly out of there:
The NEL contains evidence that is not consistent with this conclusion; several included studies show that a low-carbohydrate diet can produce significantly greater weight loss than a low-fat diet, even when caloric intake is held constant between diets [15], [16], [17], [18]. Figure 2 shows results from a study by Volek et al. [15] demonstrating greater weight loss on a low-carbohydrate diet compared with a low-fat diet, with similar caloric intake. Several studies in the NEL demonstrate equivalent or increased weight loss on low-carbohydrate diets that do not explicitly control calories or impose restrictive eating behaviors [15], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. A full assessment of the science would recognize these departures from the stated conclusion.
This is in addition to a lower attrition rate through the studies.
2. In terms of health, both low carb, and high carb diets can be beneficial but ONLY if there's a lack of any types of processed food in the diet.
If you read through the low fat vs high fat in the link I posted it would've also told you that in terms of HEALTH lower fat diets significantly improved cardiovascular risk factors (in terms of atherosclerosis, heart disease, stroke, etc) MORE significantly than the lower fat diets.
•There were significant differences between the groups for weight, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and systolic blood pressure favoring the low-carbohydrate diet.
•There was a higher attrition rate in the low-fat as compared with the low-carbohydrate groups suggesting a patient preference for a low-carbohydrate/high-protein approach [in contrast to the statement from D1-47 that they are “difficult to adhere to”].
•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 one year.
I'm not sure why you're saying there's no support for my using this link to debunk the studies you cited because there's moer than enough in here to say as such.
In addition, saturated fat is actually healthy for people. We can argue this point if you want too.
Couple studies on that:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.29146v1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
Table 2 presents the effect on cardiovascular risk markers of total and saturated fat [15], [26], [27], [28], [43], [44]. The data, from studies and meta-analyses included in the NEL and elsewhere, show that when participants switched from their habitual diet to a low-carbohydrate diet (<45% of calories), neither total fat nor saturated fat consumption changed significantly, whereas positive changes occurred in cardiovascular risk markers. These findings are inconsistent with concerns regarding fat, specifically saturated fat. A comprehensive assessment of the science would necessarily result in a conclusion that addresses this inconsistency.
Generally, positive cardiovascular risk markers or neutral from intake of saturated fats.
|
On November 21 2010 19:33 RosaParksStoleMySeat wrote:
Also, if anyone wants to place an order at Bodybuilding.com, here's a 10% off coupon:
CBackNov10
It expires on December 19th.
I just may use this It's not a one-time use thing is it? I'd had to steal someone else's savings
|
|
|
Definitely got some mono-pull going on. You need less early arm bend, keep the bar closer to your body when initiating the 2nd pull, and more full hip extension at the top of the pull. It doesn't matter that much if you're just doing it for Rugby, but if you want to continue on to full snatching for oly lifting those things are going to need fixing.
|
It is mostly just for rugby, but if i find myself putting up good numbers i might try my hand at a meet. But regardless i definitely want to refine my form to perfection.
|
decaf, your form is perfection in my eyes 
today i talked with one of my school's coaches and got him to assess my power clean form, apparently before i was pulling straight from the floor, as opposed to smoothly bringing the bar up to the knees and then exploding with my hips from there..it all makes a ton more sense now
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
)
