Six pack abs question?
jct...@cox.net
able to have six-pack abs if I continue my current routine. I'm hoping
someone here can maybe give me some reasonable estimates? I know this
varies alot between different people with different genes but I'm just
assuming I'm average in that regard.
My current physical stats: 35 y/o, male, 15% body fat, have been on an
exercise/diet routine for almost 4 months although my current diet is
much stricter than it was for the first 2 months.
My current routine:
working abs to a burn for 20 min, 3 days a week
2000 calorie low-fat,moderate carb,high protein diet (20/40/40)
Fat-burn cardio for 45 min, 3 days a week
Taking creatine and glutamine
I had a trainer for the first 3 months so I'm pretty sure I'm doing all
the exercises correctly.
Sooooo.....Any ideas how long it will take me to get that six-pack
showing? I started out at a BF of 20% and have been reducing it by
about 1.5% per month.
Thanks,
John
P.S. My primary purpose for alot this work is to get my core really
strong to help with back problems I have so that I can backpack and
learn to climb mountains. But hey, looking better is always really
nice too.
Lyle McDonald
then the first thing you should do is learn how to train abs properly.
20' of work on abs is about 19' of wasted fucking time. Ok, maybe 17'.
You'd be better off working abs for real (weighted crunches for sets of
6-10 reps lasting about 1' apiece and 2-3 sets twic a week is plenty for
basic core strength) and spending that extra 17' doing something that is
useful. like interval training.
To get a six pack will require 8% bodyfat or lower on average.
ASSuming you continue losing 1.5%/month, well, do that math. Don't
expect to continue losing at a linear rate.
Lyle
Mike Hunt
<jct...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1102650463....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'm trying to determine approxiametly how long it will take me to be
> able to have six-pack abs if I continue my current routine. I'm hoping
> someone here can maybe give me some reasonable estimates? I know this
> varies alot between different people with different genes but I'm just
> assuming I'm average in that regard.
>
> My current physical stats: 35 y/o, male, 15% body fat, have been on an
> exercise/diet routine for almost 4 months although my current diet is
> much stricter than it was for the first 2 months.
>
>
> My current routine:
is fucked up.
> working abs to a burn for 20 min, 3 days a week
> 2000 calorie low-fat,moderate carb,high protein diet (20/40/40)
> Fat-burn cardio for 45 min, 3 days a week
> Taking creatine and glutamine
>
> I had a trainer for the first 3 months so I'm pretty sure I'm doing all
> the exercises correctly.
if your trainer setup that ab routine then your trainer needs fucking up and
should never set foot in a gym again.
> Sooooo.....Any ideas how long it will take me to get that six-pack
> showing? I started out at a BF of 20% and have been reducing it by
> about 1.5% per month.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> P.S. My primary purpose for alot this work is to get my core really
> strong to help with back problems I have so that I can backpack and
> learn to climb mountains. But hey, looking better is always really
> nice too.
>
so you want to increase the STRENGTH of your abs but you are training them
for ENDURANCE.
1 - you can't spot reduce, traing your abs for 20 mins does not "burn" the
fat on your abs.
2 - abs are power muscles, they are predominatly fast twitch, you strengthen
them just like you would any other muscle.
3 - that means low reps between 6 - 10. 3 sets, 2 or 3 times per week. start
with a weight that you can get for 6, add reps each week, when you get to 10
add weight and drop back to 6 reps. progresive tension increase, builds
strength.
4 - core involves obliques as well as abs and back. incorporate reverse
twists (russian twist) and\or twisting crunches. boxers \ kickboxers do lots
of rotation work to increase punching power, they also have some of the the
strongest, best looking six packs of all athletes. plus obliques will help
to flatten the abs, thought the abs are actually not a flat muscle even when
fully developed.
5 - visable abs is about low bodyfat, you will need yo be sub 10%, unless
you are very lucky genetically. chances are you are probably not, 'cos most
people aint.
6 - what the fuck is fat buring cardio? best physiques i have every seen on
athlets (not including bodybuffers) are on sprinters, boxers, lighter
weightclass olympic lifters. they don't do LSD cardio. research high
intensity interval training (HIIT). then do that. it will not burn fat when
you are doing it, it will burn glycogen. but then your body will use more
fat during the rest of the day. and anyway it is not about what you use as
fuel it is about how much energy (calories) you burn. incidentally don't
start with 45 mins of HIIT, you will have a heart attack. build it in slowly
and work up to about 20 - 30 mins 3 times a week. be careful about this
interfering with your leg training.
7 - look at your weight training for other muscles, if you are doing 20 mins
abs, then you are probably doing some toning bullshit for the other stuff.
use the same principle as in 3 above, forget isolation stuff like leg
extension, focus on compound movement, squates, incline bench, rows, etc.
only perform 2 or 3 work sets per exercsie, 2 exercise at most per muscle.
twice or three times a week. you might not need any direct arm stuff as they
will get worked from the compounds. i dropped any arm work and put an inch
on my arms in about 2 months.
8 - i would personally increase fat to about 30%, get some omega 3 (EFA)
from fish oil, about 15% of that 30% should be from saturated fat - good for
testosterone. keep protein where it is, drop carbs to accomadte the fat
increase.
HTH
jct...@cox.net
Mike, how can you say my routine is fucked up? First of all I never
gave any specifics about my ab exercises so how can you make such a
statement as saying I'm working them for endurance instead of strength?
I happen to use a good amount of weights and keep my reps fairly low.
I'm not a complete rookie and I know that spot reduction is not
possible and I never implied that was my goal. By "burning" my abs I
simply meant I work them to exhaustion and can feel them burning (i.e.
I don't just blindly do 100 non-weighted crunches,etc). Secondly, by
fat-burning cardio I mean I typically keep my heart rate around 70%.
Below 70% about 65% of the energy comes from fat and above 70% only
about 45% comes from fat. Actually, I typically do high-intensity
interval training every other time I do cardio. Since my end goal is
backpacking and mountain climbing cardio is important to me. I've been
in fairly good cardio condition for a while and my resting heart rate
is 48. Also I already do work the obliques with twisting exercises.
I realize that low body fat % is the most important element for
six-pack abs. I've been dropping about 1.5% per month but I figured
that would slow down once I got near 10-12% because my body will be
fighting to keep a little fat. I have no problem doing more cardio and
taking long all day hikes to lower my BF. I just wasn't sure if I
should expect a brick wall when I hit 10% or something.
Thanks again for the suggestions.
John
dns...@cs.com
to be bigger as well. I'm sure if you keep working them, you'll see
them sooner or later.
Denis (20 lbs (newbie) gains with some fat in that, of course, but sees
his abs better)
calzone
burning zone".
Lets assume you burn 500 calories in 45 minutes at your current rate.
If 65% of this energy expenditure comes from fat, then you have burned
off 325 fat calories.
Now assume you burn 800 calories in 45 minutes at a higher intensity.
If 45% of this energy expenditure comes from fat, then have burned off
360 fat calories.
Plus, your overall energy expenditure is higher. Couple this with the
increased metabolic rate during recovery and you find yourself not only
with a great potential for weight loss, but with the added benefits of
increased general physical conditioning.
Speaking from experience, when it comes to loosing weight and improving
your overall conditioning. 30 minutes of hard-ass work on the bike
beats the hell out of 45 minutes, or even an hour, in the measly "fat
burning zone".
I would start giving yourself a real ass-kicking on the
bike/treadmill/whatever, even if you have to cut back your time to do
it. You'll reach your goals quicker.
One alternative routine: instead of one hour on the bike in the "fat
burning zone", do two 30 minutes sessions at higher intensity, one in
the morning and one in the evening.
gman99
> I'm trying to determine approxiametly how long it will take me to be
> able to have six-pack abs if I continue my current routine. I'm hoping
> someone here can maybe give me some reasonable estimates? I know this
> varies alot between different people with different genes but I'm just
> assuming I'm average in that regard.
>
I have a washboard stomach...problem is, the dryer is parked in front of
it.
Per Elmsäter
> around 70%. Below 70% about 65% of the energy comes from fat and
> above 70% only about 45% comes from fat. Actually, I typically do
> high-intensity interval training every other time I do cardio.
Don't waste your time with those fat burning zones. It is true that you burn
less than 50% fat when exercising above 70% of your maxHR. However less than
50% is still a whole lot more fat burnt at a high intensity than almost 100%
burnt in a so called fat burning zone, because you don't need much energy
there. Those zones are just hype invented by the gyms so they can assure
normal people that they can really burn off their obesity without even
breaking out a sweat. They can even bring their Sunday paper to the cardio
machines etc etc.
Go as hard as you can for as long as you can and not only will you burn more
fat in the same amount of time but you will also keep burning it for a long
time after your exercise.
--
Perre
I gave up on SPAM and redirected it to hotmail instead.
Per Elmsäter
You got it.
joni
(20/40/40)>>
Altho I agree with the posted comments on your routine - great abs are
made in the kitchen not in the gym ;-) While exercise of course is
important, I think its only 20% of the equation while what you eat -
your daily nutrition - is the key 80% that will help get you the
results you want. Low bodyfat, under 10% in males, is the only way you
will ever see your abs. Altho you are currently seeing a drop in
bodyfat, this may stall due to a few things. The body begins to
recognize how much you are feeding it, and uses it sparingly if it
percieves too much of a daily deficit. My suggestion to you would be to
zigzag your daily calories (consuming the same weekly amount) but
having higher and lower days to keep your metabolism guessing. Changing
what you eat is as important as changing your routine every few months.
What you eat is very important. Altho you stated the ratio, you need to
have a variety of high quality foods in those parameters. Many
bodybuilders in the quest for more muscle/less bodyfat overlook the
importance of fiber while increasing just the protein. Fiber from
vegetables, fruits and wholegrains is quite beneficial to a fatloss
goal. Digestion of these helps to rid your system of bodyfat while
providing important antioxidents and other nutrients your body needs to
be healthy. Recommended, at least 30grams a day of fiber. Also when you
are on a lowfat way of eating, and 20% is considered low, your body
*needs* good fats in place of the 'bad fats' you arent eating. All fats
are not created equal. Supplement your diet with cold water fish like
salmon, some kinds of nuts or go the supplement route and add in some
flax/fish oil or a combo like Udo's - your body will appreciate it.
Once your body gets an incoming of good fats it can readily use it is
more likely to 'let go' of its stored fats as its perception of an
ongoing starvation mode shifts.
As strange as it may seem, you have to eat(but right) to lose bodyfat -
consider that 2000 calories a day may be too little to attain your
bodyfatloss goal. Have a read at this article to explain more about
creating a fuel burning metabolism: http://skwigg.tripod.com/id11.html
<<joni>>
*If we could give every individual the right amount of nourishment and
exercise, not too little and not too much, we would have found the
safest way to health.*- Hippocrates c. 460 - 377 B.C.
jct...@cox.net
week) plus I take fish oil supplements. I mainly started doing this to
help lower my cholesterol. For the same reason I try to make sure I
get about 30g of fiber per day. I enjoyed the article about varying
the number of calories to keep your body guessing and your metabolism
high. So I'm wondering if instead of a constant 2000 calories per day
if I should instead eat 2500 on the 3 days I do weights, and then only
1600 on the days I do cardio thus keeping my weekly calorie consumption
the same as if taking 2000 cal/day? I'm just worried that 1600 on the
cardio days may be a bit low. Maybe 2300 calories on lift days and
1800 cal on cardio days would be better? Any suggestions? Also I
really only plan on keeping my calories this low for maybe another
month or two at the most then I'll increase my daily intake to around
3000 on lift days and 2500 on cardio days depending on my %BF at that
time.
Thanks, John
Blair P. Houghton
>If you continue at the same progress it will take 2-3 months or so
>depending on how you tend to store your fat which is determined by
>genetics. You may have to cut your calories and or increase your
>exercise when you get down to 12% body fat or so in order to lose at
>the same rate since your body will really want to hold on to the fat
>when you get your body fat below a certain point.
I think you've got cart and horse reversed.
Your body will start to hoard fat (and burn muscle) if
you make your calorie deficit too large.
So when it tries to stop losing fat like that, you don't
want to make the deficit larger by cutting calories and
increasing exercise.
You just want to shift the whole curve up.
Increase your daily exercise by 100 calories and increase
your daily diet by 100 calories.
Same deficit, more activity, body goes back to losing fat.
At least that's the theory. I'm around 10-14% now, and
still waiting for something like that to happen. My real
barrier is that it's just too easy to say "what the hell"
once a day and cut my deficit in half.
--Blair
"When you hit about 6000 in, 7000 out,
you'll look like Lance Armstrong."
Blair P. Houghton
>I have a washboard stomach...problem is, the dryer is parked in front of
>it.
"It's behind the boiler."
--Blair
"Why yes, I was the world's only
pregnant man."
Peter Allen
news:41cb8982....@news-server.hawaii.rr.com...
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:06:48 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:
> >Your body will start to hoard fat (and burn muscle) if
> >you make your calorie deficit too large.
>
> too much. Ever see concentration camp victims?? They had their
> calories cut very much. Any idea what their body fat percentage was??
> Hint: Much lower than yours will ever be.
I think possibly Blair wants to come out the other end of a diet with more
muscle than your typical concentration camp victim.
> Sorry. If you have the same deficit you will have the same fat
> burning. If you disagree please cite evidence that says that the same
> deficit will result in increased fat burning.
Same deficit => same amount of energy has to be provided by the body eating
itself. Not the same as same amount of fat burned: some energy comes from
muscle.
n=1 says the same calorie deficit will burn more fat when you're doing a lot
of work and eating a lot of food, and more muscle if you're doing relatively
little work. Would be nice to see a proper study on this, trying to control
for things (like n=1 is not enough, and comparing no work to heavy weights
to hard cardio). But I do not know of any such.
Peter
Lyle McDonald
funny, thinks your email adress is the newsgroup.
pa...@paul.com wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:06:48 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <b@p.h> wrote:
>> Your body will start to hoard fat (and burn muscle) if
>> you make your calorie deficit too large.
>
>
>
> Please cite evidence that the body "hoards" fat when you cut calories
> too much.
Hoarding fat is a poor phrasing. What appears to happen is that
metabolic rate adjusts itself downwards to a greater degree in response
to extreme caloric deficits (compared to more moderate deficits).
For example:
Acta Endocrinol (Copenh). 1983 Jun;103(2):184-7. Related Articles, Links
Maximum calorie (sub-threshold) dieting of the obese and its
hormonal response.
Wilkin TJ, Choquet RC, Schmouker Y, Rouquette N, Baldet L, Vannereau D.
Severe calorie restriction for treating the obese reduces serum
triiodothyronine (T3) and energy expenditure, and may be
counterproductive. In order to avoid severe calorie deficiency, we
measured the individual minimum energy requirements (threshold, T) in 17
obese females and fed each on a sub-threshold diet, comprising the
maximum number of calories commensurate with weight loss (T-200 cals).
Mean T-200 was 1318 ą 96 cals, but the mean weight loss after 16 weeks
on a sub-threshold diet (STD) was identical (17 kg) to that obtained by
22 age-matched female controls on a classical diet of 659 ą 59 cals,
exactly half the intake. Weight loss on the classical diet was initially
rapid but decelerated sharply after 8 weeks, while on the sub-threshold
diet the rate of loss remained constant throughout. In a second study,
thyroid hormone measurements were performed three times weekly in 27
obese females during the 4 week period required to establish T. The mean
weight loss was 4.02 ą 0.3 kg, but T3 levels varied minimally and very
transiently. STD produces short-term results similar to those obtained
by severe calorie deprivation, but is more acceptable to the patient. It
appears not to provoke the fat-saving reflexes provoked by the
classical, low-calorie diet.
My note: intersting that the end result was still identical, the patter
of weight/fat loss was sipmly different. A reaonable compromise might
be to sart with an extreme deficit (to generate rather rapid weight/fat
losses) and then move to a more moderate deficit to continue the diet.
Related papers:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=6407256
Ever see concentration camp victims?? They had their
> calories cut very much. Any idea what their body fat percentage was??
> Hint: Much lower than yours will ever be.
Yeah, and their body also catabolizes all of their muscle mass
Studies (which I can't put my hands on right now) tend to show greater
loss of LBM with extreme caloric deficits tho this can be ameliorated by
jacking protein intake up.
Lyle
Peter Allen
news:41cd460a....@news-server.hawaii.rr.com...
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:07:20 -0000, "Peter Allen"
> <petero...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Same deficit => same amount of energy has to be provided by the body
eating
> >itself. Not the same as same amount of fat burned: some energy comes from
> >muscle.
>
> amount of fat burned.
There are people on this board who have found that one diet works better
than another for them, in the sense of one diet causes them to lose more
muscle and less fat than another.
For a start: if you try one diet where you eat 1500cals of carbs plus
mineral and vitamin supplements every day for a month, then compare it to a
diet where you eat 1500cals of protein plus mineral and vitamin supps,
you'll likely find the former causes you to lose more muscle.
<goes searching pubmed>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Ab
stract&list_uids=15303108
(look at the numbers)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Ab
stract&list_uids=15107010
(if you prefer their 'there is evidence' to my 'i think')
> >n=1 says the same calorie deficit will burn more fat when you're doing a
lot
> >of work and eating a lot of food, and more muscle if you're doing
relatively
> >little work. Would be nice to see a proper study on this, trying to
control
> >for things (like n=1 is not enough, and comparing no work to heavy
weights
> >to hard cardio). But I do not know of any such.
>
> And I doubt that such a study would prove your theory but I remain
> open minded that I may be wrong. I don't think so.
>
> And even your n=1 is flawed unless you meticulously were able to
> measure your intake, output and relative fat and protein loss at
> various diets and activity levels. I also have an n=1 subject to the
> same limitations that says you are wrong.
I'm well aware of the flaws in any n=1 experiment, especially that one.
Which is why I'd like to see a proper study. I'd like a lot of things, most
of which probably won't happen.
And please set your follow-ups to the newsgroup not your email?
Peter
Peter Allen
news:41d17f0d....@news-server.hawaii.rr.com...
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:30:31 -0000, "Peter Allen"
> <petero...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> ><pa...@paul.com> wrote in message
> >news:41cd460a....@news-server.hawaii.rr.com...
> >> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:07:20 -0000, "Peter Allen"
> >> <petero...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Same deficit => same amount of energy has to be provided by the body
> >eating
> >> >itself. Not the same as same amount of fat burned: some energy comes
from
> >> >muscle.
> >>
> >> Please provide evidence that the same deficit will not result in same
> >> amount of fat burned.
> >
> >mineral and vitamin supplements every day for a month, then compare it to
a
> >diet where you eat 1500cals of protein plus mineral and vitamin supps,
> >you'll likely find the former causes you to lose more muscle.
>
> protein or inadequate protein. You are raising strawman arguments.
When you lose muscle mass, your body gets energy from it. That means it
doesn't have to use as much fat that day to stay alive. So you lose less
fat, with the same deficit. Read the abstracts I pointed you at, look at
'related articles'.
Since your body will try to keep you alive as long as possible, if you
appear to be starving to death your body will junk all the muscle you don't
need ASAP (because just keeping the muscle alive takes extra energy, and
evolution has been smart enough to figure this one out). It will tend to
keep fat when possible because fat keeps you warm and doesn't cost as much
energy to keep stored. This is what is meant by hoarding fat. Obviously your
body will not keep all your fat and go munching on your muscles first, it
will do both at the same time, in some proportion depending on what it
thinks you need least (a bodybuilder type will lose a lot of muscle, a fat
bastard will lose a lot of fat, if you keep lifting heavy stuff you lose
less muscle).
And note the heavy weights helps preserve muscle has been studied, is valid.
Lyle's posted links before, google; it's late here.
Peter
Blair P. Houghton
>>>If you continue at the same progress it will take 2-3 months or so
>>>depending on how you tend to store your fat which is determined by
>>>genetics. You may have to cut your calories and or increase your
>>>exercise when you get down to 12% body fat or so in order to lose at
>>>the same rate since your body will really want to hold on to the fat
>>>when you get your body fat below a certain point.
>>
>>I think you've got cart and horse reversed.
>
>>
>>Your body will start to hoard fat (and burn muscle) if
>>you make your calorie deficit too large.
>
>calories cut very much. Any idea what their body fat percentage was??
>Hint: Much lower than yours will ever be.
Okay. Here's how it works:
1. You stop eating.
2. Your body starts burning fat.
3. After a while your body gets that you're really not eating.
4. Your body stops burning fat and starts burning muscle to lower
your metabolism to make your total calorie storage (fat, muscle, carbs)
last as long as possible.
5. When your muscles have been decimated enough, your
body starts burning fat again.
6. You become a walking skeleton.
7. Then you die.
Ever notice in all those pictures you didn't see one person
who'd lost all their fat and none of their muscle? In fact,
you never saw one person with any muscle left to lose. Some
had more or less remaining subcutaneous fat, but nobody was
prison-buff.
Starvation doesn't make you ripped. It makes you flabby,
then it makes you bony, then it makes you dead.
And it starts just a few days after your calorie deficit
goes to 1000 calories and above.
>>So when it tries to stop losing fat like that, you don't
>>want to make the deficit larger by cutting calories and
>>increasing exercise.
>
>You stop losing fat if you calories in exceed calories out. Once you
>create a deficit then the fat will be burned off. As your body fat
>percentage gets lower, your body has a mechanism to hold onto body fat
>which has survival benefit.
You just said it didn't.
If you're holding onto body fat, and you're in a calorie
deficit, you're burning carbs or protein. And your
carb stores amount to a couple of thousand calories.
Two days, max. Your protein stores (muscles) are on the
order of 25,000 calories, and they aren't necessary for
"survival" in a snowed-in environment where there's no
reason to go outside to find food. But they're constantly
using energy in maintenance processes.
>>You just want to shift the whole curve up.
>>
>>Increase your daily exercise by 100 calories and increase
>>your daily diet by 100 calories.
>
>
>>
>>Same deficit, more activity, body goes back to losing fat.
>
>Sorry. If you have the same deficit you will have the same fat
>burning. If you disagree please cite evidence that says that the same
>deficit will result in increased fat burning.
>
>>At least that's the theory.
>
>Whose theory?? Please post the theory and the evidence that supports
>it. It sounds like someone's idea that is flawed. But if you can
>provide evidence to change my mind then I am all ears. Please be
>specific about the evidence.
I'd say "do your own research," but then I couldn't post this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=stryer.section.4355
--Blair
"Come back and ask me what it means."
Lyle McDonald
> <pa...@paul.com> wrote:
>
>>>Your body will start to hoard fat (and burn muscle) if
>>>you make your calorie deficit too large.
>>
>>Please cite evidence that the body "hoards" fat when you cut calories
>>too much. Ever see concentration camp victims?? They had their
>>calories cut very much. Any idea what their body fat percentage was??
>>Hint: Much lower than yours will ever be.
>
>
> Okay. Here's how it works:
>
> 1. You stop eating.
>
> 2. Your body starts burning fat.
>
> 3. After a while your body gets that you're really not eating.
>
> 4. Your body stops burning fat and starts burning muscle to lower
> your metabolism to make your total calorie storage (fat, muscle, carbs)
> last as long as possible.
err, no.
Metabolic slowdown is a multi-component process and loss of LBM/tissue
is only part of it.
For example, metabolism can be lowered by 5% within a few days of
hardcore dieting, due to decreased sympethatic nervous system output;
this has zippo to do with muscle loss.
Now, as folks get leaner, muscle loss tends to increase as well, and
this is the body trying to stretch out survival as long as possible. It
basically looks like the body tries to 'run out' of both msucle and fat
at about the same time as this increases survival time.
>
> 5. When your muscles have been decimated enough, your
> body starts burning fat again.
Err, no.
The body never completly stops burning fat, even in extreme caloric
deficits. What happens is that the proportion of muscle loss increases.
even then it's far more complicated than this, having to do with
genetic propensities and things like starting bodyfat percentage.
>
> 6. You become a walking skeleton.
>
> 7. Then you die.
>
> Ever notice in all those pictures you didn't see one person
> who'd lost all their fat and none of their muscle? In fact,
> you never saw one person with any muscle left to lose.
well, no.
You can only lose about 30% of your total muscle mass before death sets
in. To say that folks starving lose all of their muscle is incorrect.
> If you're holding onto body fat, and you're in a calorie
> deficit, you're burning carbs or protein. And your
> carb stores amount to a couple of thousand calories.
> Two days, max. Your protein stores (muscles) are on the
> order of 25,000 calories, and they aren't necessary for
> "survival" in a snowed-in environment where there's no
> reason to go outside to find food. But they're constantly
> using energy in maintenance processes.
The amount that muscles use is so tiny as to be irrelevant.
The most recent value I've seen is a whopping 6 cal/lb. That's compared
to about 3 cal/lb for fat.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:24:56 -0700, Lyle McDonald
> <lylemcdI...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Hoarding fat is a poor phrasing. What appears to happen is that
metabolic rate adjusts itself downwards to a greater degree in response
to extreme caloric deficits (compared to more moderate deficits).
>
>
>
> I was specifically addressing the assertion that severe caloric
> restriction results in fat sparing and protein burning as was implied.
>
> Both fat and protein will be burned under these conditions.
Yes, but it is the PROPORTION of each that will change: you see an
increased loss of LBM under more extreme deficits (moreso if protein
intake is not increased).
What is so hard to understand about this?
>> Studies (which I can't put my hands on right now) tend to show
greater loss of LBM with extreme caloric deficits tho this can be
ameliorated by jacking protein intake up.
>
>
>
> If you can find the studies I would be interested in the links to
> them.
Sorry, too lazy and will take too much time and I suspect you'll ignore
them anyhow (I noticed your entire snip of the study I posted on
metabolic rate adaptation to excessive deficits).
I'm going to quote from one of the many reviews by Gilbert Forbes on the
matte (he collatd the data on this shit for 30 years).
"Figure 7.8 is a plto of the fraction of the total weight loss due to LM
against initial bodyfat recorded by body comoposition for individuals on
various energy intakes (my note: the intakes plotted range from 0-300
cal/day, 500-900 cal/day, 1100-1400 cal/day, and 1600-1900
cal/day)....For given range of energy intake, the delta LBM/delta
Bodyweight ratio progressive falls (my note: less LBM loss) as initial
bodyfat increases; furthermore, for a given range of bodyfat content,
the delta LBM/Delta BW ratio is inversely related to energy intake
(translation: as caloric intake goes down, and the net deficit goes up,
so does LBM loss)."
Translation: the fatter you are, the less LBM you lose at any caloric
intake. For any given bodyfat, the less caories you eat, the more LBM
you tend to lose. He bases this on data from 19 studies.
Believe the above or not, not my problem.
You want to starve all of your muscle off with inadequate protein on low
calories, more power to you.
I wondered whether one needs to have as high a protein
> consumption when dieting compared to bulking in order to minimize
> muscle loss. When I am dieting I tend to consume only about .6 grams
> of protein per pounds (compared to .8-1 grams when bulking).
Protein intake should be HIGHER when dieting than when bulking as a
greater proportion of protein is being used for energy. That is, as
calories go down, protein intake should go UP, a simple fact that has
been known for about 30 years. 1-1.5 g/lb Lean body mass is a rather
standard recommendation while dieting.
So you have it exactly backwards.
Lyle
Blair P. Houghton
>The body never completly stops burning fat, even in extreme caloric
>deficits. What happens is that the proportion of muscle loss increases.
> even then it's far more complicated than this, having to do with
>genetic propensities and things like starting bodyfat percentage.
I'll buy that. I was overreaching with the start/stop dichotomy
and I kinda knew it.
>> Ever notice in all those pictures you didn't see one person
>> who'd lost all their fat and none of their muscle? In fact,
>> you never saw one person with any muscle left to lose.
>
>well, no.
>You can only lose about 30% of your total muscle mass before death sets
>in. To say that folks starving lose all of their muscle is incorrect.
30%? Got a cite? Because we can refer back to any set of
pictures of your average near-death starvation survivor.
If they're carrying 70% of their starting muscle mass,
it's going to be rather surprising.
>> If you're holding onto body fat, and you're in a calorie
>> deficit, you're burning carbs or protein. And your
>> carb stores amount to a couple of thousand calories.
>> Two days, max. Your protein stores (muscles) are on the
>> order of 25,000 calories, and they aren't necessary for
>> "survival" in a snowed-in environment where there's no
>> reason to go outside to find food. But they're constantly
>> using energy in maintenance processes.
>
>The amount that muscles use is so tiny as to be irrelevant.
>The most recent value I've seen is a whopping 6 cal/lb. That's compared
>to about 3 cal/lb for fat.
So I can save 6 cal/lb/day by burning a pound of muscle,
or 3 cal/lb/day by burning a pound of fat, which also
takes twice as many days to accomplish. So I'll burn 12
calories maintaining the pound of muscle while I'm burning
the pound of fat to save 3 calories. Or I can burn the
pound of muscle, save 6 calories per day from then on, and
use only 3 calories maintaining the fat while I'm doing it.
Guess which way I go when my goal is to save as many
cals/day as possible so I go as many days as possible...
--Blair
"Just long enough for the bananas
to ripen and fall into my grasp."
Sweet Guy
news:fqadnQZYW_T...@comcast.com...
> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>
> well, no.
> You can only lose about 30% of your total muscle mass before death sets
> in. To say that folks starving lose all of their muscle is incorrect.
troo this.
i've lost a ton of 'everything' during my manorexia diet, yet i can still
flex an impressive physique.
trying to reach 120 lbs. by 12/31/01.
i'll keep you (those who are interested) posted.
btw, just ordered a manual treadmill. should receive it within nine days.
Sweet Guy
news:ZTRxd.141802$ye4.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
early monday i weighed in at 131.0.
as of 12/22/04 at (roughly) 1:00 a.m.: 127.6.
larry
">>
>> trying to reach 120 lbs. by 12/31/01.
>>
>> i'll keep you (those who are interested) posted.
>>
>> btw, just ordered a manual treadmill. should receive it within nine
>> days.
>
> early monday i weighed in at 131.0.
>
> as of 12/22/04 at (roughly) 1:00 a.m.: 127.6.
>
shorter and can see a six pack (maybe could lose 5-7 pounds but that's it).
I'm not exactly bursting at the seams with muscles. Perhaps you just have
excess skin not fat around your abs.
When I weighed 120 lbs about 10 years ago I was absolute skin and bones. I
can't fathom how skinny I would have been at that weight yet taller. Maybe
your abs look fine how they are now and you just don't see them the way they
actually are, you still see the heavier you. I know that when I look in the
mirror I sometimes tend to still see the really skinny me even though he is
long gone. Regardless of everything else I hope you get that six pack you
want and are happy...
larry
Sweet Guy
news:cqc5og$mes$0$65.17....@wcoil.com...
>
> ">>
> >> trying to reach 120 lbs. by 12/31/01.
> >>
> >> i'll keep you (those who are interested) posted.
> >>
> >> btw, just ordered a manual treadmill. should receive it within nine
> >> days.
> >
> > early monday i weighed in at 131.0.
> >
> > as of 12/22/04 at (roughly) 1:00 a.m.: 127.6.
> >
> At 70.5 inches tall. you weigh 127.6 lbs. I weigh more than that at 7
inches
> shorter and can see a six pack (maybe could lose 5-7 pounds but that's
it).
i now also can see my sixer, but i had accumulated sooo much abdominal fat
over the past half-dozen years that i actually looked about five months
pregnant.
> I'm not exactly bursting at the seams with muscles. Perhaps you just have
> excess skin not fat around your abs.
beer, junk-foods, fast-foods, quick-foods, pastas. yeah, FAT.
> When I weighed 120 lbs about 10 years ago I was absolute skin and bones. I
> can't fathom how skinny I would have been at that weight yet taller. Maybe
> your abs look fine how they are now and you just don't see them the way
they
> actually are, you still see the heavier you. I know that when I look in
the
> mirror I sometimes tend to still see the really skinny me even though he
is
> long gone. Regardless of everything else I hope you get that six pack you
> want and are happy...
yeah, i sorta resemble a walking concentration camp. (:
my stomach has only basically 'deflated' at this current weight. i must
treadmill to actually eliminate this pouch.
thanks for the good words larry.
125.2 lbs. and counting down.