Theoretical question
Akicita
I know that in the long-term, eating nothing but krispy-kremes would cause
muscle loss and metabolic compromization, but let's say we're talking about
a diet which includes enough protein and fat to maintain muscle. If someone
were to eat at 500 calories below maintenance, would it possible to gain
fat? Or does the body cut fat because of the caloric bottom-line more than
because of the types of food being eaten?
--
Friends, Notice: To prevent spam, my reply-to address is deliberately wrong.
To send me email, remove the "x" from my address, akicita3, instead of just
clicking "reply"
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/11/the_mimsies.html
http://www.mp3.com/celldweller
--
Lyle McDonald
>
> Is it possible to gain fat while eating at a caloric deficit?
Under certain pathological circumstances, you can lose muscle while
gaining fat, during a caloric deficit (think about it, that's the only
way it can happen: during a deficit, calories have to come from
somewhere and if it's all coming from muscle, it's conceivable to be
storing fat).
But it's fairly odd under most normal cirucmstances.
> I know that in the long-term, eating nothing but krispy-kremes would cause
> muscle loss and metabolic compromization, but let's say we're talking about
> a diet which includes enough protein and fat to maintain muscle. If someone
> were to eat at 500 calories below maintenance, would it possible to gain
> fat? Or does the body cut fat because of the caloric bottom-line more than
> because of the types of food being eaten?
the body doesn't magically make fat because you eat KK vs. potatoes
despite what most bodybuffers believe.
It's all about calories. Well, 99% of it anyhow. Food quality can have
a marginal effect.
The times that you can be losing muscel and gaining fat are usually
severe pathologies and situations where muscle catabolism is cranked way
up (cancer, shit like that). Sever muscular insulin resistance can make
it happen because calories are shunted away from muscle to fat.
Elzi could comment on this as it happened to her: she has some
congenital insulin resistance, she wasn't able to train because of her
injury and she was losing muscle and getting fat at the same time.
But assuming no underlying pathology, anyone who tells you that food
quality will magically make you gain fat while in a claoric deficit
needs to read a little human physiology. Or hydrolyze themselves for protein.
Lyle
Akicita
were true--I was wondering if there was some "secret knowledge" about food
that I had missed somehow. So assuming that one eats enought protein and fat
to maintain muscle, can someone tell me why low-carb or ketogenic diets are
"the thing"? Heck, I've even DONE them, and now I'm wondering what the
advantage was supposed to be. If muscle can be reasonably maintained through
exercise and protein/fat even during a caloric deficit (I know, I know,
dieting is "by definition catabolic"), then why not go ahead and eat the
rest of your budget with more pleasant foods? If you are still gonna cut fat
because of the deficit, why not go ahead and have a bowl of Golden Grahams
for breakfast, chicken fajitas with cheese and sour cream, KK's, etc. once
in a while?
Keep in mind, I'm being theoretical. Anyone who knows me at all knows that
my diet is something I'm quite strict about, but the question remains: is it
possible to eat junkfoods in a so-called "cutting phase" as long as the
calories are painstakingly considered and kept at a 500-1000 a day deficit?
--
Friends, Notice: To prevent spam, my reply-to address is deliberately wrong.
To send me email, remove the "x" from my address, akicita3, instead of just
clicking "reply"
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/11/the_mimsies.html
http://www.mp3.com/celldweller
--
Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
news:3ABD4D21...@onr.com...
Lyle McDonald
>
> Lyle, those all seem to be the logical considerations that I had thought
> were true--I was wondering if there was some "secret knowledge" about food
> that I had missed somehow.
No, there are no calorie gremlins that control these things.
> So assuming that one eats enought protein and fat
> to maintain muscle, can someone tell me why low-carb or ketogenic diets are
> "the thing"?
They control appetite, they remove diet breaker foods.
In certain individuals (>15 but less than <40% bodyfat) they have
slightly protein sparing effects.
But that is all. They are a fad that works for some, not for others.
That is all.
They have no inherent benefit beyond psychological/appetite issues for
most individuals.
> Heck, I've even DONE them, and now I'm wondering what the
> advantage was supposed to be. If muscle can be reasonably maintained through
> exercise and protein/fat even during a caloric deficit (I know, I know,
> dieting is "by definition catabolic"), then why not go ahead and eat the
> rest of your budget with more pleasant foods?
You haven't been reading anything i've written in the last 4 months have you?
I will contend that, given sufficent protein and EFA's, you can get
ripped on table sugar.
Appetite will be the determining factor.
Because 80% of the variance in what you lose (bodyfat vs. muscle) is NOT
determined by diet, it's determined by your body. Once you meet certain
requirements (protein, EFA, calories, weight training), the rest of your
diet means nothing outside of it's ability to meete appetite and
psychological needs (and exercise prformance).
> If you are still gonna cut fat
> because of the deficit, why not go ahead and have a bowl of Golden Grahams
> for breakfast, chicken fajitas with cheese and sour cream, KK's, etc. once
> in a while?
>
Because it makes it harder to control calories because of appetite issues.
That's it.
> Keep in mind, I'm being theoretical. Anyone who knows me at all knows that
> my diet is something I'm quite strict about, but the question remains: is it
> possible to eat junkfoods in a so-called "cutting phase" as long as the
> calories are painstakingly considered and kept at a 500-1000 a day deficit?
I believe so, as long as appetite can be controlled.
Lyle
Akicita
--
Friends, Notice: To prevent spam, my reply-to address is deliberately wrong.
To send me email, remove the "x" from my address, akicita3, instead of just
clicking "reply"
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/11/the_mimsies.html
http://www.mp3.com/celldweller
--
Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
news:3ABE39A9...@onr.com...
> You haven't been reading anything i've written in the last 4 months have
you?
> I will contend that, given sufficent protein and EFA's, you can get
> ripped on table sugar.
Whenever you or others here post a link to new info, I genuinely try to read
it.
> I believe so, as long as appetite can be controlled.
>
> Lyle
Thanks, Lyle! Controlling myappetite is something I'm GOOD at--I seldom
cheat, unless I choose to allow myself to. So as long as I keep up with
those primary essentials, it's not fatal to my "cutting phase" to include
nontypical foods, is it?
Lyle McDonald
>
> --
> Friends, Notice: To prevent spam, my reply-to address is deliberately wrong.
> To send me email, remove the "x" from my address, akicita3, instead of just
> clicking "reply"
> http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/11/the_mimsies.html
> http://www.mp3.com/celldweller
> --
> Lyle McDonald <lyl...@onr.com> wrote in message
> news:3ABE39A9...@onr.com...
>
> > You haven't been reading anything i've written in the last 4 months have
> you?
> > I will contend that, given sufficent protein and EFA's, you can get
> > ripped on table sugar.
>
> Whenever you or others here post a link to new info, I genuinely try to read
> it.
I've been saying the above for months, although nobody wants to believe
that it's true. It may have gotten lost in the shit about monkeys.
> > I believe so, as long as appetite can be controlled.
> >
> > Lyle
>
> Thanks, Lyle! Controlling myappetite is something I'm GOOD at--I seldom
> cheat, unless I choose to allow myself to. So as long as I keep up with
> those primary essentials, it's not fatal to my "cutting phase" to include
> nontypical foods, is it?
People bitch at me all the time for eating bread and milk on a diet,
because they aren't acceptable bodybuilding diet foods.
What-fucking-ever. I'm not a psychological basket case like most bodybuilders.
I like bread, I like milk, I eat McDonald's hamburgers when I'm dieting
if I want to. If I'm happy with my diet food choices, I am more likely
to stick to it. Eating potatoes and broccoli all day would make it so I
hated my diet and broke it.
Fuck, during my refeed yesterday I combined a Met-Rx bar with Sunny
Delight and a bag of jelly beans. It's just carbs, makes no fucking difference.
As long as calories are controlled, it makes less than a shit's worth of
different (nb: maybe when you get to sub 5% it might) where the calories
come from. Unless choosing different foods makes it tougher to control appetite.
Still hit 7% last year that way, and plan to go lower this year doing
that the entire time.
But most bodybuilding diet information is voodoo bullshit anyhow (take
out milk here, no beans after this point, what-fucking-ever).
I'm going to change that within two year's time. But nobody will listen
because bodybuilders would rather listen to idiot voodoo that fulfills
their psychological deficits than listen to reason.
I should know, I used to be that way too. But I got better.
Lyle
Adam Fahy
> But most bodybuilding diet information is voodoo bullshit anyhow (take
> out milk here, no beans after this point, what-fucking-ever).
>
> I'm going to change that within two year's time. But nobody will listen
> because bodybuilders would rather listen to idiot voodoo that fulfills
> their psychological deficits than listen to reason.
>
> I should know, I used to be that way too. But I got better.
When things are difficult, or if someone is desperate or struggling with
something, people will grasp at anything, especially when the voodoo
they grasp onto is argued from authority.
Yet the real secrets aren't secrets, and when they're revealed, more
often than not no one wants to listen.
But make people feel like they're one of a select few who are special
enough to be clued-into privilaged information, and they will end-up
throwing their brains into the trash bin for the chance.
--
Will design websites for money.
Adam Fahy
af...@earthlink.net
Bob Tokyo
"Adam Fahy" <af...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3ABE6005...@earthlink.net...
> When things are difficult, or if someone is desperate or struggling with
> something, people will grasp at anything, especially when the voodoo
> they grasp onto is argued from authority.
>
> Yet the real secrets aren't secrets, and when they're revealed, more
> often than not no one wants to listen.
>
> But make people feel like they're one of a select few who are special
> enough to be clued-into privilaged information, and they will end-up
> throwing their brains into the trash bin for the chance.
> --
> Will design websites for money.
>
> Adam Fahy
> af...@earthlink.net
>
Nelson Montana
newsgroups (mostly due to idiots like Bill Roberts who used to "own"
this forum) but after seeing Lyle's remarks on calorie consumption, I
felt compelled to respond.
Lyle is absolutely correct. The reason I'm in shock is because I've
been advocating the principle that weight and/or fat loss is a matter of
calorie restriction and my biggest detractors have been proponents of --
ta-da! -- the Ketogenic Diet!
This isn't meant to disparage Lyle. In fact, I commend him for
abandoning what is essentially arcane academia for good old fashioned
reality. The Ketogenic Diet is not only unhealthy, not only virtually
impossible to adhere to, but it will not work if you ingest an excess of
calories. -- it's just that when restricting carbs, food choices are
limited, hence, less overall calorie consumption. I've known
professional bodybuilders who swear by the KD and yet they say they ate
rice. (???) Whatever.
There are only three macronutrients and we need them all. There are no
magical combinations. Even though I'm commissioned to write several
diet articles a month, every article, book, study and research
experiment on weight loss can be summed up in two words: EAT LESS.
And BTW, Lyle is also 100 percent correct in his damnation of
prohormones. Prohormones were dismissed by the pharmaceutical companies
over 30 years ago because they knew they sucked. As Dan Duchaine said:
"Just because the drug companies were wrong about some things, doesn't
mean they were wrong about everything."
First there was Androstenedione, which raised estrogen. If the makers
of this product were so smart, why didn't they know that? (They
probably did and didn't give a shit). Then there was 4-AD which did
nothing. Then we were told they needed to be taken with cyclodextrin.
They still did nothing. Now we're being told to take it transdermally.
Wake up folks. If something sucks, it sucks, and getting more of it in
the bloodstream will make it suck that much more. Prohormones are
equivalent in benefit to about 50 mgs of testosterone a week (which does
nothing) with side effects comparable to 1000 mgs. of testosterone a
week. The "gurus" can spin any kind of pseudo-scientific horseshit they
want, but the truth is the truth. Take it for what it's worth.
Prohormones do nothing except suppress endogenous testosterone
production. I wouldn't call anyone who claims that they made gains on
prohormones a liar. But they are kidding themselves. It may be hard to
accept but it's better to dismiss erroneous information than to continue
believing it.
I've had my say. Now don't get me started on aerobics.
Denise LePage
Nelson Montana <nel...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23575-3AB...@storefull-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>
> This isn't meant to disparage Lyle. In fact, I commend him for
> abandoning what is essentially arcane academia for good old fashioned
> reality. The Ketogenic Diet is not only unhealthy, not only virtually
> impossible to adhere to, but it will not work if you ingest an excess of
> calories. -- it's just that when restricting carbs, food choices are
> limited, hence, less overall calorie consumption. I've known
> professional bodybuilders who swear by the KD and yet they say they ate
> rice. (???) Whatever.
>
> There are only three macronutrients and we need them all. There are no
> magical combinations. Even though I'm commissioned to write several
> diet articles a month, every article, book, study and research
> experiment on weight loss can be summed up in two words: EAT LESS.
>
there, bear with me.
Would that it were so easy, sir. Have you ever been 100lbs overweight?
My first diet was at the age of 8. Low fat, low calorie. It just got worse
from there. I had never been at a 'normal' weight in my life. Just turned
36 btw. Why? Because I was HUNGRY. Why? Try some insulin resistance
research. I had no clue either. So suffering through being hungry for a
year to get the desired fat loss was something I was not willing to do.
Period. Try being starvingly hungry for a year. Hell, just try a few
months. That's all I could ever take.
I'm not hungry on a ketogenic diet. Impossible to stick to? Try the better
part of a year without even thinking about it. And most days I have to TRY
to eat enough, not because I feel sick or because my choices are limited
(bah ha ha ha!) but because that erosive hunger is gone. I just don't think
about eating.
As for healthy, I've never felt MORE healthy in my life and recently started
exercising--weight lifting and cardio! OMG there's no way I could do that
when I was hungry, tired, and lethargic while eating low fat. I had no clue
about feeling good and wanting to move around because I was stuck in the
blood sugar swings. Since I've been restricting carbs, it's like a whole
new world. My labs are all normal too, so please tell me what's so
unhealthy.
No, I don't think that anyone could argue that calories are all that count.
But I CAN argue that reducing calories when your blood sugar is whacked is
near to impossible. And you missed Lyle's comments about IF YOU CAN CONTROL
THE HUNGER. That has been the magic to low-carb dieting for me.
I look forward to increasing my insulin sensitivity via losing more fat and
exercising. Maybe then I'll try some sugar or white flour. In the mean
time, no one can tell me that they're a necessary part of one's diet.
Please point me to a study. I eat low glycemic fruits and lots of green
vegetables (plus my lovely red bell peppers). Damn that sounds incredibly
unhealthy, doesn't it?
Just eat less. Yeah, they told me that for years. I finally can do it now.
Denise
Lyle-ite
Lyle McDonald
>
> I'm in shock!!! Anyone who knows me, knows that I never write into
> newsgroups (mostly due to idiots like Bill Roberts who used to "own"
> this forum) but after seeing Lyle's remarks on calorie consumption, I
> felt compelled to respond.
>
> Lyle is absolutely correct. The reason I'm in shock is because I've
> been advocating the principle that weight and/or fat loss is a matter of
> calorie restriction and my biggest detractors have been proponents of --
> ta-da! -- the Ketogenic Diet!
Big deal, Nelson.
YOu still think aerobics burn protein so you're still a fucking moron.
>
> This isn't meant to disparage Lyle. In fact, I commend him for
> abandoning what is essentially arcane academia for good old fashioned
> reality.
Bullshit, Nelson, all my data comes from arcane academia.
Just because you're too stupid to read research.
> The Ketogenic Diet is not only unhealthy, not only virtually
> impossible to adhere to,
Untrue on both counts.
But keep going, this is funny.
> First there was Androstenedione, which raised estrogen. If the makers
> of this product were so smart, why didn't they know that? (They
> probably did and didn't give a shit). Then there was 4-AD which did
> nothing. Then we were told they needed to be taken with cyclodextrin.
> They still did nothing. Now we're being told to take it transdermally.
> Wake up folks. If something sucks, it sucks, and getting more of it in
> the bloodstream will make it suck that much more. Prohormones are
> equivalent in benefit to about 50 mgs of testosterone a week (which does
> nothing) with side effects comparable to 1000 mgs. of testosterone a
> week. The "gurus" can spin any kind of pseudo-scientific horseshit they
> want, but the truth is the truth. Take it for what it's worth.
> Prohormones do nothing except suppress endogenous testosterone
> production. I wouldn't call anyone who claims that they made gains on
> prohormones a liar. But they are kidding themselves. It may be hard to
> accept but it's better to dismiss erroneous information than to continue
> believing it.
>
> I've had my say. Now don't get me started on aerobics.
No, come on, let's go, I want to ream your fuckign ass out here in a
public forum because you're so fucking stupid.
Lyle
Nelson Montana
You obviously missed my point. One: I never said it was easy. Two: Your
situation was more complex than adopting a diet to lose fat .Three:
Vegetables have carbs. Four:...ah, the hell with it. Now I know why I
don't write into forums.
My remarks were not meant to be a rant. I'm also not sure why they
"don't belong" here. I was trying to present the perspective that diet
is the most simple factor to muscle growth and fat loss yet , it's
treated as some esoteric art form. There are men in prison who lift
weights and are ripped -- and they eat slop. Realize, I'm not advocating
eating high carbs and low protein.
At any rate, as someone who has been involved in this field for over 20
years, that's my observation. I know it's correct --NOT because I say
it's correct, but because I've seen thousands of examples of it. That's
all I have to say about it. Flame away.
Nelson Montana
I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt in that you said some
things that made some sense after years of imperious blabbering and
elitist bullying. I can't say I'm surprised, although I am disappointed
that you would choose to respond with infantile name calling and general
low class remarks. Tell ya what Lyle...you're right. I'm wrong.
You're a genius. I'm a fucking moron. You know everything. I know
nothing. Happy? You can have your sandbox back. I'm outta here.
If you want to discuss this one-on-one, I'll be glad to converse with
you via private e-mail.
Adam Fahy
> I'm in shock!!!
Ohmygod! I care!
Gemma & Pat
IOW, you're too much of a wuss to get your butt whipped in public.
ps
Brad Smith
Montana) wrote:
>Lyle is absolutely correct. The reason I'm in shock is because I've
>been advocating the principle that weight and/or fat loss is a matter of
>calorie restriction and my biggest detractors have been proponents of --
>ta-da! -- the Ketogenic Diet!
>
>This isn't meant to disparage Lyle. In fact, I commend him for
>abandoning what is essentially arcane academia for good old fashioned
>reality. The Ketogenic Diet is not only unhealthy, not only virtually
>impossible to adhere to, but it will not work if you ingest an excess of
>calories. -- it's just that when restricting carbs, food choices are
>limited, hence, less overall calorie consumption. I've known
>professional bodybuilders who swear by the KD and yet they say they ate
>rice. (???) Whatever.
blah blah blah.... okay... you agree with lyle...ooh look at the big
brain on nelson!!! Yeah its simple math, calorie expeditue must be
greater than calorie consuption to lose fat but you should really get
a few of your facts straight. Ketogenic diet unhealthy??? yeah
right...that is why my cholesterol levels drop along with my bodyfat
levels when I do a CKD. Impossible to adhere to??? perhaps for you
but there are alot of us that do just fine on a ketogenic diet. True
itis no magic bullet but it works a hell of alot better for me than a
low fat diet. and please read carefully....works better for me. I
know there are plenty of people whos nervous systems are wired so that
at a basic neurochemical level it is more difficult for them to adhere
to a ketogenic diet....genetic or early childhood neuropathway
programming dictates that they have crave carbs more or just cant
function in ketosis. The same can be said for ketogenic diets. I can
limit my calories more effectively on a ketogenic diet because I know
I cant cheat...even a little...so I stick to the diet. On a
traditional diet I know can get away with cheating a little ...then a
little more...then it reaches the point where you arent dieting....so
a traditional diet is more difficult for me to adhere to and really
limit calories....again thats just the way my brain works and I choose
to utilize my personal idiosyncracies rather than fight them. Rice?
well if they were doing a CKD rather than a straight ketogenic diet
then that would be fine for the carb up... otherwise yeah...the
"bodybuilders" were idiots..... and this comes as a surprise
because????
>There are only three macronutrients and we need them all. There are no
>magical combinations.
true but timing and scheduling of total caloric intake and to a
certain extent the combinations of these nutrients can certainly
affect hormone release and the ratio of LBM/Fat lost when dieting
>Even though I'm commissioned to write several
>diet articles a month,
blah blah blah i have a big dick look at me wave it
>every article, book, study and research
>experiment on weight loss can be summed up in two words: EAT LESS.
brilliant...even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then
Brad
D/FW assault crew - Talent Director and Booty Wrangler
Denise LePage
> Denise.
> You obviously missed my point. One: I never said it was easy. Two: Your
> situation was more complex than adopting a diet to lose fat .Three:
> Vegetables have carbs. Four:...ah, the hell with it. Now I know why I
> don't write into forums.
But it is easy on low-carb. And what makes my situation different from any
other overweight insulin-resistant person? That most overweight people
aren't insulin-resistant? Bah.
Green leafy veggies have few carbs, and deduct the fiber. Who said no-carb
diet? Did I miss that somewhere?
> My remarks were not meant to be a rant. I'm also not sure why they
> "don't belong" here.
No, I meant MY rant might not belong here.
> I was trying to present the perspective that diet
> is the most simple factor to muscle growth and fat loss yet , it's
> treated as some esoteric art form. There are men in prison who lift
> weights and are ripped -- and they eat slop. Realize, I'm not advocating
> eating high carbs and low protein.
You didn't say that. You seem to be advocating that any reduction in
calories is all the same. High carb and low protein calories aren't the
same. Not at all. Or I would have been thin before I was this old.
> At any rate, as someone who has been involved in this field for over 20
> years, that's my observation. I know it's correct --NOT because I say
> it's correct, but because I've seen thousands of examples of it. That's
> all I have to say about it. Flame away.
Which is correct? That all calories are the same, and it's just as easy to
lose fat with a 100% carb diet as with a low-carb diet? Sure, lock me in a
cell and feed me only what I should eat, and it would be a blessing, since I
wouldn't be able to concentrate or function as a normal human being with a
high carb low-calorie diet. But that's just me, I'm sure the other
thousands do fine. That's why the statistics for loss and regain are so
wonderful? Heh. Darn, if you could just get it into everyone's heads to
eat less and feel like crap! What wonders it would do! Sorry, you said to
flame.
Denise
Lyle-ite
Akicita
back in the days of T-mag (namely, it may contribute to cardivascular
health, but it's catabolic and isn't very effective for compositional
change). But after soaking up more apochryphal dieting info in a year than
most people at my gym have read in a decade, I've come to one troubling
question: as long as you're eating at a caloric deficit AND eating enough
proteni and EFA to maintain muscle, does the *type* of food really matter in
what makes up the remaining budget? For health reasons, obviously yes. For
fat cutting, apparently not--I'd like to see Lyle or you go to T-mag one
more time and engage them in a query over this notion. Don't assume I'm
actually under the impression that either of you would actually do it, but
it would be damned good reading.
--
Friends, Notice: To prevent spam, my reply-to address is deliberately wrong.
To send me email, remove the "x" from my address, akicita3, instead of just
clicking "reply"
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/11/the_mimsies.html
http://www.mp3.com/celldweller
--
Nelson Montana <nel...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23575-3AB...@storefull-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Akicita
garbage cans' worth of insulin into your veins and load up on pure Krispy
Kremes--you'd still be taking in ONLY and EXACTLY the sum total calories in
the KK's. Let insulin affect it all it wants too--the bottom line is that at
the end of the day, when you've still maintained your 500 cal/day deficit,
your body will be 500 calories shy of any possibility of adding fat.
Ketogenic diets appear to work more because of user preference, not because
of physiological supremacy over other diets. Lyle is now advocating this, as
is Nelson, Thomas Incledon, etc. Will John Berardi follow?
--
Friends, Notice: To prevent spam, my reply-to address is deliberately wrong.
To send me email, remove the "x" from my address, akicita3, instead of just
clicking "reply"
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/11/the_mimsies.html
http://www.mp3.com/celldweller
--
Denise LePage <dlep...@Gearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Vzxv6.11799$ue1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Lyle McDonald
>
> Nelson Montana <nel...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:23575-3AB...@storefull-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> >
> > This isn't meant to disparage Lyle. In fact, I commend him for
> > abandoning what is essentially arcane academia for good old fashioned
> > reality. The Ketogenic Diet is not only unhealthy, not only virtually
> > impossible to adhere to, but it will not work if you ingest an excess of
> > calories. -- it's just that when restricting carbs, food choices are
> > limited, hence, less overall calorie consumption. I've known
> > professional bodybuilders who swear by the KD and yet they say they ate
> > rice. (???) Whatever.
> >
> > There are only three macronutrients and we need them all. There are no
> > magical combinations. Even though I'm commissioned to write several
> > diet articles a month, every article, book, study and research
> > experiment on weight loss can be summed up in two words: EAT LESS.
> >
> The following rant probably doesn't belong on a mfw but since that m is
> there, bear with me.
>
> Would that it were so easy, sir. Have you ever been 100lbs overweight?
It should be pointed out that in the case of severe overweight the rules
do change.
Severe insulin resisance (which accompanies severe overweight most of
the time) does give lowered carb diets a pronounced advantage over 'just
lowering calories'.
Nelson is too dumb to know this. Trust me, he's not worth arguing with:
he's a deliverance kid, he doesn't know any better.
His comments (and most of mine) really apply to the middle of the curve
(not extreme leanness or extreme overweight where the rules do change
becaues of the biology).
I should have clarified this in my original post, and apologize for not.
Don't expect Nelson to understand anything, he's too retarded.
You're dying day by day, Denise.
Don't you realize it?
Yeah, whatever.
> Just eat less. Yeah, they told me that for years. I finally can do it now.
>
> Denise
> Lyle-ite
Man that makes me warm to see. ;)
but I blieve we've agreed upon Lyle-ist for the time being.
But whatever makes you happy is good with me. I'm an easy leader that way.
Just don't refer to the cult compound as "McDonald-land" ($1 to Nina) or
you will be hydrolyzed.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
No, do it here in public.
I'll not call you names or insult your fragile ego and you can
demonstrate your ignorance to all who care to watch.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
>
> But insulin can't simply *create* calories out of thin air. You could pump
> garbage cans' worth of insulin into your veins and load up on pure Krispy
> Kremes--you'd still be taking in ONLY and EXACTLY the sum total calories in
> the KK's. Let insulin affect it all it wants too--the bottom line is that at
> the end of the day, when you've still maintained your 500 cal/day deficit,
> your body will be 500 calories shy of any possibility of adding fat.
But remember what I said originally: in certain pathophysiologies (of
which insulin resistance is very common), the rules DO change and
calories aren't just calories and can be preferentially stored in the
wrong spot.
> Ketogenic diets appear to work more because of user preference, not because
> of physiological supremacy over other diets. Lyle is now advocating this, as
> is Nelson, Thomas Incledon, etc. Will John Berardi follow?
Sure, they're all sheep, and I'm the alpha male.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
>
> Thanks, Nelson. I've long practiced the approach to cardio that you preached
> back in the days of T-mag (namely, it may contribute to cardivascular
> health, but it's catabolic and isn't very effective for compositional
> change). But after soaking up more apochryphal dieting info in a year than
> most people at my gym have read in a decade, I've come to one troubling
> question: as long as you're eating at a caloric deficit AND eating enough
> proteni and EFA to maintain muscle, does the *type* of food really matter in
> what makes up the remaining budget? For health reasons, obviously yes. For
> fat cutting, apparently not--I'd like to see Lyle or you go to T-mag one
> more time and engage them in a query over this notion. Don't assume I'm
> actually under the impression that either of you would actually do it, but
> it would be damned good reading.
I'd do it IFF they'd allow anythihng I wrote without modification or deletion.
But they won't. And we all know it.
Nelson doesn't write for t-mag anymore anyhow, he realized that they
were scumbags, that they played him like a dip, and now he's trying to
pretend it never happened.
Just like when professional actresses do porno and then try to deny it
later on.
Lyle
Lyle McDonald
>
> Thanks, Nelson. I've long practiced the approach to cardio that you preached
> back in the days of T-mag (namely, it may contribute to cardivascular
> health, but it's catabolic and isn't very effective for compositional
> change).
For the public record, I wnat to make sure my stance re: aerobics is clear.
1. i don't disagree that aerobics are both overrated and undereffective
*in most situations* for affecting body composition changes.
2. there are most certainly situations (such as insulin resistance) whre
aerobics are mandatory for optimal changes. Elzi can comment more on
this as she is Queen IRS and I am not.
3. I disagreed not with Nelson's stance so much as his method of
argument which was based on false physiology (aerobics burns protein
directly which is fundamentally incorrect).
OF course, Nelson got his panties in a wad over my criticisms, using
false arguments such as "Science doesn't have all the asnswer" instead
of adressing my actual criticisms. Like most of the nasty emails I sent
to t-mag because they don't know that "Lyle is small" does not
constitute valid argument.
Oh yeah, Nelson, we know how bumblebees and hummingbirds both fly know,
so that argument is weak.
I'm waiting.
Lyle
Elzi Volk
>Akicita wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Nelson. I've long practiced the approach to cardio that you preached
>> back in the days of T-mag (namely, it may contribute to cardivascular
>> health, but it's catabolic and isn't very effective for compositional
>> change).
And he is in error. Aerobics, if performed (i.e. intensity and volume)
is not necessarily catabolic TO MUSCLE TISSUE, and it can be effective
for compositional change.
We have debated this very fucking issue repeatedly on this forum and
the science supports that aerobic activity *can* effectively mobilize
bodyfat in specific depots more than resistance training.
Think about the differences in inherent physiology of specific depots
of adipose tissue:
* abdominal visceral adipose tissue (i.e. the big guts) is more
innervated by the SNS, is more vascularized, has a higher density of
beta-adrenoceptors and even has a different ratio of fatty acids in
the fat cells than most subq depots of adipose tissue.
* the activity that will mobilize fatty acids from this depot is
aerobic activity, not resistance training.
* the gluteofemoral depots of subq adipose tissue on women are poorly
innervated, poorly vascularized, and have a higher density of
alpha2-adrenoceptors than most other areas on the body. Resistance
training is NOT going to mobilize free fatty acids from this area;
aerobic activity (given the optimal intensity to stimulate SNS
activity) will.
This is the only time that such a case can be made for 'spot
reduction.'
I know that all of you hardcore lifters would love nothing more than
affirmation of your hatred for cardio activity; I wish I could not do
it either because I hate it too. But the fact is, it is effective for
certain specific physiological reasons, a few of which I have just
stated.
But thems the facts, and I don't fucking care what Montana says, he's
wrong. The studies using microdialysis support the inherent physiology
of regional differences in fat depots.
>For the public record, I wnat to make sure my stance re: aerobics is clear.
>1. i don't disagree that aerobics are both overrated and undereffective
>*in most situations* for affecting body composition changes.
Aerobics are too often done excessively and incorrectly
(intensity-wise). And if the recent studies are correct (I'm still
debating the authors' conclusions on this, and a prof in pharmacology
was very helpful in confirming my suspicions), I posit that short
bursts of cardio may be more beneficial that long durations. Which
would also support the use of intervals in place of either.
>2. there are most certainly situations (such as insulin resistance) whre
>aerobics are mandatory for optimal changes. Elzi can comment more on
>this as she is Queen IRS and I am not.
There is no doubt that aerobics does increase glucose clearance. I
have a nicely written PhD thesis in my hot hands that supports that
without any contention. So does resistance training. But, when you
compare time and effort of resistance training with aerobic activity,
the latter wins. I'd like to say that resistance training wins, but it
just aint so. Sorry.
The significance of this is that, for those with any issues of glucose
clearance, like me (who has a degree of insulin resistance), aerobic
activity is more efficient than resistance training. Note the term:
'efficient.'
I've discussed this at length with Dr, Ivy here at UT, who has done
quite a bit of research on insulin resistance, glucose clearance and
exercise, and we both agreed: aerobic activity, done judiciously
(because excessive aerobic activity can actually DECREASE glucose
uptake), is more efficient than resistance training.
>3. I disagreed not with Nelson's stance so much as his method of
>argument which was based on false physiology (aerobics burns protein
>directly which is fundamentally incorrect).
Refer him to the relevant studies; there are plenty available that
disprove his claims.
>OF course, Nelson got his panties in a wad over my criticisms, using
>false arguments such as "Science doesn't have all the asnswer" instead
>of adressing my actual criticisms. Like most of the nasty emails I sent
>to t-mag because they don't know that "Lyle is small" does not
>constitute valid argument.
>
>Oh yeah, Nelson, we know how bumblebees and hummingbirds both fly know,
>so that argument is weak.
Nelson's a moron.. When challenged by the science and the facts, he
resorts to such crap like a kid.
Jesus, sometimes I hate this industry.......
Elzi
"I am the Light. I am an Angel of Death. I am Power. This is Freedom."
-WitchBlade
"Life is a banquet and so many people are scared to pick up a fork."
Bryce Lane
ha...@antispam.sandiego.mine.nu
> Think about the differences in inherent physiology of specific depots
> of adipose tissue:
> * abdominal visceral adipose tissue (i.e. the big guts) is more
> innervated by the SNS, is more vascularized, has a higher density of
> beta-adrenoceptors and even has a different ratio of fatty acids in
> the fat cells than most subq depots of adipose tissue.
> * the activity that will mobilize fatty acids from this depot is
> aerobic activity, not resistance training.
Okay, I'll admit my reading comprehension might be lacking but it isn't
clear to me which depot the second bullet applies to.
> * the gluteofemoral depots of subq adipose tissue on women are poorly
> innervated, poorly vascularized, and have a higher density of
> alpha2-adrenoceptors than most other areas on the body. Resistance
> training is NOT going to mobilize free fatty acids from this area;
> aerobic activity (given the optimal intensity to stimulate SNS
> activity) will.
And does this apply to men as well? Some of us have flabby asses, too.
Or are these particular characteristics estrogen dependent?
> Aerobics are too often done excessively and incorrectly
> (intensity-wise). And if the recent studies are correct (I'm still
> debating the authors' conclusions on this, and a prof in pharmacology
> was very helpful in confirming my suspicions), I posit that short
> bursts of cardio may be more beneficial that long durations. Which
> would also support the use of intervals in place of either.
Okay, more reading comprehension problems here. Let me see if I have
this right. "intervals in place of either", with either being short
bursts of non-intense cardio or long durations of low intensity
cardio?
Just trying to make sure I got it...
Hank
Akicita
Lyle states, and I think I agree (incidentally, Lyle, our mutual friend
Alwyn agreed with your answer), that one cannot gain fat while eating at a
caloric deficit, no matter what the ypes of food are--PROVIDED that one has
consumed enough protein and EFA's to maintain muscle. Some people disagree,
and here are their comments:
#1 "Yeah it is possible [to gain fat while eating at a deficit]. Basically,
you will loose some muscle and put on some fat if you eat a lot of fat
calories, even in a calorific deficit. Your body doesn't work from day to
day, it is continuous. when you eat fat calories, the fat travels to the
liver and is processed. If the blood sugar levels(basically..there are other
factors at work too) are low, it is converted to fuel, if they are not, it
is stored. Generally after a meal, the blood sugar levels are not low => fat
is stored.
Now, when the blood sugar levels do lower, you have already stored your
fat...which the body doesn't want to waste for this 'temporary starvation',
so it converts glycogen to replenish the BS levels. If the starvation (you
know what I mean) is prolonged, the body starts to break down muscle as
fuel....and also as it is the most energy demanding tissue and will speed up
the starvation process... Fats are the last thing to be used up. They will
be used but to a much lesser extent. If you are taking in a lot of fat
calories in a day, you will be storing the vast majority of them and over
the space of the day you will not manage to use all this stored fat => you
will put on fat.
To make up the deficit, you will use muscle. In order to prevent using
muscle you really have to get the calories just right...hard as every ones
calorific requirements are different..and you have to reduce the number of
fats (especially sat. fat which has been shown to be stored immediately)."
#2 "I think you could gain fat, if not necessarily weight. The junk foods
could create mood changes, leading to hormonal shifts, which could lead to
fat storage at a time when you're technically in a state of energy deficit.
I'm not a scientist, as you all know, but it seems almost any shift in
exercise or diet can affect body composition, for better or worse."
#3 "Damnit Akicita, you've had my brain working on this all morning!!! Logic
says no way. If your burning more calories than you are consuming, there
aren't any left over to be stored as fat. On the other hand, using the same
logic, you shouldn't be able to add muscle while in a caloric deficit either
but it happens. Why couldn't it go the other way around?
I'm still leaning way toward no, you wouldn't put on fat, but your hormones,
energy levels, and over all well being would be way out of whack. Which I
guess could be catabolic or at least send you metabolism way out to right
field. I could keep going round and round with this in my head, Where's Tom
[Incledon] when you need him? Any volunteers to try the new Akicita weight
loss plan to see if it works? I'm sure he'll sell it to you pretty cheap."
#4 "So does all this mean that we don't have to worry about avoiding carbs
that are high GI? If a calorie is a calorie, then it doesn't make any
difference, right? BTW Akicita, thanks for bringing this up. I have been
killing myself trying to follow a low carb diet and now I may be able to
have a little more fun and still lose fat (that is, if our new found theory
holds true, as I suspect it does)."
Denise LePage
Akicita <xaki...@home.com> wrote in message
news:23bw6.207642$bb.18...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com...
> Some replies from another site, which disagree with Lyle's answer...
> Now, when the blood sugar levels do lower, you have already stored your
> fat...which the body doesn't want to waste for this 'temporary
starvation',
> so it converts glycogen to replenish the BS levels. If the starvation (you
> know what I mean) is prolonged, the body starts to break down muscle as
> fuel....and also as it is the most energy demanding tissue and will speed
up
> the starvation process... Fats are the last thing to be used up. They will
> be used but to a much lesser extent. If you are taking in a lot of fat
> calories in a day, you will be storing the vast majority of them and over
> the space of the day you will not manage to use all this stored fat => you
> will put on fat.
> To make up the deficit, you will use muscle. In order to prevent using
> muscle you really have to get the calories just right...hard as every ones
> calorific requirements are different..and you have to reduce the number of
> fats (especially sat. fat which has been shown to be stored immediately)."
Just an observation here. I have very little muscle. Hey, I'm just
starting out here. ;) I have a lot of fat. I've lost weight eating a lot
of fat. If this was true, wouldn't I be dead from all the muscle loss? :)
> #4 "So does all this mean that we don't have to worry about avoiding carbs
> that are high GI? If a calorie is a calorie, then it doesn't make any
> difference, right? BTW Akicita, thanks for bringing this up. I have been
> killing myself trying to follow a low carb diet and now I may be able to
> have a little more fun and still lose fat (that is, if our new found
theory
> holds true, as I suspect it does)."
You might want to remind this person that people have been losing weight for
centuries on all kinds of diets. Low fat, grapefruit juice, now the great
Krispy Kreme diet, anything. The main difference for me is how I feel. I
can lose weight on low-fat. I'll also feel like crap and be hungry all the
time. :) If I feel like crap and am hungry, I'm far less likely to stick
with it.
Denise
Lyle-ist
Krista-ite
Lyle McDonald
>
> Some replies from another site, which disagree with Lyle's answer...
>
> Lyle states, and I think I agree (incidentally, Lyle, our mutual friend
> Alwyn agreed with your answer), that one cannot gain fat while eating at a
> caloric deficit, no matter what the ypes of food are--PROVIDED that one has
> consumed enough protein and EFA's to maintain muscle. Some people disagree,
> and here are their comments:
>
> #1 "Yeah it is possible [to gain fat while eating at a deficit]. Basically,
> you will loose some muscle and put on some fat if you eat a lot of fat
> calories, even in a calorific deficit.
Assert what you will.
Doesn't make it right.
> Your body doesn't work from day to
> day, it is continuous. when you eat fat calories, the fat travels to the
> liver and is processed.
Actually, no. Any basic digestive physiology book will tell you that
ingested fat is packaged as chylomicrons that are hydrolyzed by LPL on
the fat cell membrane, producing triglycerides which are stored. Only
MCT's go straight tot the liver via the portal vein.
If the blood sugar levels(basically..there are other
> factors at work too) are low, it is converted to fuel, if they are not, it
> is stored. Generally after a meal, the blood sugar levels are not low => fat
> is stored.
That is correct. But it doesn't go through the liver first.
> Now, when the blood sugar levels do lower, you have already stored your
> fat...which the body doesn't want to waste for this 'temporary starvation',
> so it converts glycogen to replenish the BS levels.
Liver glycogen, yes.
Muscel glycogen can't get out of the muscle.
> If the starvation (you
> know what I mean) is prolonged, the body starts to break down muscle as
> fuel....and also as it is the most energy demanding tissue and will speed up
> the starvation process... Fats are the last thing to be used up.
Wrong. Dead wrong.
They will
> be used but to a much lesser extent. If you are taking in a lot of fat
> calories in a day, you will be storing the vast majority of them and over
> the space of the day you will not manage to use all this stored fat => you
> will put on fat.
Nope.
> To make up the deficit, you will use muscle. In order to prevent using
> muscle you really have to get the calories just right...hard as every ones
> calorific requirements are different..and you have to reduce the number of
> fats (especially sat. fat which has been shown to be stored immediately)."
This might be true if you were eating zero protein.
But that'd be stupid.
>
> #2 "I think you could gain fat, if not necessarily weight. The junk foods
> could create mood changes, leading to hormonal shifts, which could lead to
> fat storage at a time when you're technically in a state of energy deficit.
> I'm not a scientist, as you all know, but it seems almost any shift in
> exercise or diet can affect body composition, for better or worse."
Incorrect.
>
> #3 "Damnit Akicita, you've had my brain working on this all morning!!! Logic
> says no way. If your burning more calories than you are consuming, there
> aren't any left over to be stored as fat. On the other hand, using the same
> logic, you shouldn't be able to add muscle while in a caloric deficit either
> but it happens. Why couldn't it go the other way around?
This person is confusing the issue totally.
> I'm still leaning way toward no, you wouldn't put on fat, but your hormones,
> energy levels, and over all well being would be way out of whack. Which I
> guess could be catabolic or at least send you metabolism way out to right
> field. I could keep going round and round with this in my head, Where's Tom
> [Incledon] when you need him? Any volunteers to try the new Akicita weight
> loss plan to see if it works? I'm sure he'll sell it to you pretty cheap."
>
> #4 "So does all this mean that we don't have to worry about avoiding carbs
> that are high GI? If a calorie is a calorie, then it doesn't make any
> difference, right? BTW Akicita, thanks for bringing this up. I have been
> killing myself trying to follow a low carb diet and now I may be able to
> have a little more fun and still lose fat (that is, if our new found theory
> holds true, as I suspect it does)."
It doesn't matter as far as fat gain and such.
It matters as far as appetite (which directly relates to caloric
control) and a lot of otehr factors.
Lyle
Elzi Volk
>Akicita wrote:
>>
>> Some replies from another site, which disagree with Lyle's answer...
Seems like a lot of misinformation is perpetuated there on that site.
:)
>> Lyle states, and I think I agree (incidentally, Lyle, our mutual friend
>> Alwyn agreed with your answer), that one cannot gain fat while eating at a
>> caloric deficit, no matter what the ypes of food are--PROVIDED that one has
>> consumed enough protein and EFA's to maintain muscle. Some people disagree,
>> and here are their comments:
>>
>> #1 "Yeah it is possible [to gain fat while eating at a deficit]. Basically,
>> you will loose some muscle and put on some fat if you eat a lot of fat
>> calories, even in a calorific deficit.
>
>Assert what you will.
>Doesn't make it right.
>
>
>> Your body doesn't work from day to
>> day, it is continuous. when you eat fat calories, the fat travels to the
>> liver and is processed.
>
>Actually, no. Any basic digestive physiology book will tell you that
>ingested fat is packaged as chylomicrons that are hydrolyzed by LPL on
>the fat cell membrane, producing triglycerides which are stored. Only
>MCT's go straight tot the liver via the portal vein.
One associated point I willl add is that the type of fat eaten *can*
ultimately influence the outcome. A high intake of saturated fat can
negatively alter membrane fluidity, etc, reducing insulin sensitivity
in muscle tissue. This can influence glucose disposal and the
endpoint: glucose clearance.
When insulin sensitivity in muscle tissue decreases, the storage depot
for glucose, along with fat, is adipose tissue. One or two studies did
show that rats and human with the same hypocaloric (and eucaloric)
diet, but with varying fat type, the groups with the unsaturated fat
composition lost more weight than those whose diet contained saturated
fats. And guess which type of fat induced the greatest weight loss:
omega-3 (fish oil).
Elzi
"I am the Light. I am an Angel of Death. I am Power. This is Freedom."
-WitchBlade
"Life is a banquet and so many people are scared to pick up a fork."
Bryce Lane
Tommy Bowen
> >
> > Nelson Montana wrote in message
> > > There are only three macronutrients and we need them all. There are
no
> > > magical combinations. Even though I'm commissioned to write several
> > > diet articles a month, every article, book, study and research
> > > experiment on weight loss can be summed up in two words: EAT LESS.
> > >
> > The following rant probably doesn't belong on a mfw but since that m is
> > there, bear with me.
> >
> > Would that it were so easy, sir. Have you ever been 100lbs overweight?
Why does that matter? "EAT LESS" is a pretty good summary of what
someone over 100lbs overweight should do. If a keto diet helps you do that,
that's cool. If low fat is your preference, that's cool too.
- TB
Rohan Gopalani
Tommy Bowen <tbo...@dwntwn.com> wrote in message
news:nyrw6.197$R21....@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> > Denise LePage wrote:
> > >
> > > Nelson Montana wrote in message
> > > > There are only three macronutrients and we need them all. There are
> no
> > > > magical combinations. Even though I'm commissioned to write several
> > > > diet articles a month, every article, book, study and research
> > > > experiment on weight loss can be summed up in two words: EAT LESS.
EAT LESS? Great advice for someone trying to add 50 lbs to their squat or
bench.
Tommy Bowen
"Rohan Gopalani" <rx...@po.cwru.edu> wrote
> Tommy Bowen <tbo...@dwntwn.com> wrote
> > > > Nelson Montana wrote in message
> > > > > Even though I'm commissioned to write several
> > > > > diet articles a month, every article, book, study and research
> > > > > experiment on weight loss can be summed up in two words: EAT
LESS.
>
> EAT LESS? Great advice for someone trying to add 50 lbs to their squat or
> bench.
The question that was presented was relating to someone who was
overweight by at least 100 lbs. And "EAT LESS" is, indeed, great advice for
that person.
- TB
Seth Breidbart
>But most bodybuilding diet information is voodoo bullshit anyhow (take
>out milk here, no beans after this point, what-fucking-ever).
In what way does it differ from most other information?
>I'm going to change that within two year's time. But nobody will listen
>because bodybuilders would rather listen to idiot voodoo that fulfills
>their psychological deficits than listen to reason.
You might want to include a lot of voodoo "for the most advanced
practitioners". Never underestimate the placebo effect.
Seth
--
"There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate" -- Will Brink
Seth Breidbart
Denise LePage <dlep...@Gearthlink.net> wrote:
lots of sensible stuff.
>I look forward to increasing my insulin sensitivity via losing more fat and
She must be right: she knows how to spell "losing".
Seth Breidbart
Akicita <xaki...@home.com> wrote:
>But insulin can't simply *create* calories out of thin air. You could pump
>garbage cans' worth of insulin into your veins and load up on pure Krispy
>Kremes--you'd still be taking in ONLY and EXACTLY the sum total calories in
>the KK's. Let insulin affect it all it wants too--the bottom line is that at
>the end of the day, when you've still maintained your 500 cal/day deficit,
That's the point. For many people, it's psychologically impossible to
maintain that deficit on a high-card diet. (Or, if you don't like the
phrase "psychologically impossible", just accept that they don't do
it. You can say they should, or if they did, or whatever else you
want until your keyboard wears out, the fact is they still just don't
do it.)
>Ketogenic diets appear to work more because of user preference, not because
>of physiological supremacy over other diets.
Some people are concerned with reality: they work better, judging by
results (for some people). Isn't that what matters?
Seth Breidbart
Elzi Volk <no...@none.com> wrote:
I'm having a little trouble understanding this.
>* abdominal visceral adipose tissue (i.e. the big guts) is more
>innervated by the SNS, is more vascularized, has a higher density of
>beta-adrenoceptors and even has a different ratio of fatty acids in
>the fat cells than most subq depots of adipose tissue.
>
>* the activity that will mobilize fatty acids from this depot is
>aerobic activity, not resistance training.
So aerobics is best for removing fat from tissue that's highly
innervated, vascularized, and has lots of beta-adrenoceptors.
>* the gluteofemoral depots of subq adipose tissue on women are poorly
>innervated, poorly vascularized, and have a higher density of
>alpha2-adrenoceptors than most other areas on the body. Resistance
>training is NOT going to mobilize free fatty acids from this area;
>aerobic activity (given the optimal intensity to stimulate SNS
>activity) will.
So aerobics is best for removing fat from tissue that's poorly
innervated, poorly vascularized, and has a higher density of
alpha2-adrenoceptors.
What other kinds of (fatty) tissue are there, and what works to remove
that fat?
Denise LePage
Oh, of course. I'm sorry, I didn't get it the first time. I'm just an
accountant, after all.
Hm, my mother didn't get it either. But she just managed clinical research
for 19 years. What does she know.
My father didn't get it either, but he's just a physicist.
My sister didn't get it either. What do those PhD organic chemists know
anyways?
I'd thank you for opening all of our eyes to this phenomenal mystery, except
that we all actually found out how to DO this a year ago, so you're a little
late and Lyle still gets the thanks. From all of us. :) Besides, I think
you missed the entire point of my post, so, um, nevermind. :)
Oh, I haven't studied up on it, but this really does argue for insulin
resistance being genetic, eh? Obviously stupidity was not the reason we
failed at 'just eat less'.
Denise
Lyle-ist
Krista-ite
Elzi Volk
>Oh, I haven't studied up on it, but this really does argue for insulin
>resistance being genetic, eh? Obviously stupidity was not the reason we
>failed at 'just eat less'.
Not all insulin resistance is due to genetics. It is in many
pathophysiologies, such as PCOS and some diabetes types, but not all.
So it would be incorrect to generalize insulin resistance as being
genetic.
Most insulin resistance today is actually caused by obesity. HOwever,
insulin resistance can also cause obesity. It's not a simple causal
relationship.
Tommy Bowen
"Denise LePage" <dlep...@Gearthlink.net> wrote
> Tommy Bowen <tbo...@dwntwn.com> wrote
> >
> > Why does that matter? "EAT LESS" is a pretty good summary of what
> > someone over 100lbs overweight should do. If a keto diet helps you do
> > that, that's cool. If low fat is your preference, that's cool too.
>
> accountant, after all.
>
> My father didn't get it either
West Virginia, right?
- TB
Scott
> Lyle-ist
> Krista-ite
>
Krista-in?
Denise LePage
Elzi Volk <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:leb5ct4eqdu53cpuu...@4ax.com...
Thanks Elzi. :) Like I said, I haven't studied up on it.
The weird thing is that I also have two adopted brothers (one adopted at 6
weeks, one at 6 years), who grew up with the same habits, ate the same
stuff, who were always lean, look good and are mostly inactive. All
anecdotal for sure but strange.
Off to go browse your new site. :)
Elzi Volk
>>
>> >Oh, I haven't studied up on it, but this really does argue for insulin
>> >resistance being genetic, eh? Obviously stupidity was not the reason we
>> >failed at 'just eat less'.
>>
>> Not all insulin resistance is due to genetics. It is in many
>> pathophysiologies, such as PCOS and some diabetes types, but not all.
>> So it would be incorrect to generalize insulin resistance as being
>> genetic.
>>
>> Most insulin resistance today is actually caused by obesity. HOwever,
>> insulin resistance can also cause obesity. It's not a simple causal
>> relationship.
>>
>> Elzi
>>
>> "I am the Light. I am an Angel of Death. I am Power. This is Freedom."
>> -WitchBlade
>>
>> "Life is a banquet and so many people are scared to pick up a fork."
>> Bryce Lane
>>
>> http://www.moleculegirl.f2s.com/
>
>Thanks Elzi. :) Like I said, I haven't studied up on it.
This is ultimately what I would like to do my PhD thesis on: exercise
induced glucose transport in skeletal muscle tissue (molecular
intracellular mechanisms). The health implications for insulin
resistance are well known.
I am sub-clinical PCOS with some degree of insulin resistance, my
sister is diabetic. I exercise, she doesn't.
>The weird thing is that I also have two adopted brothers (one adopted at 6
>weeks, one at 6 years), who grew up with the same habits, ate the same
>stuff, who were always lean, look good and are mostly inactive. All
>anecdotal for sure but strange.
Yeah, twin studies are ideal for studies on deliniation of genetic and
environmental contributions to specific diseases. And for a very good
reason, as you can surmise. What you related above indicates that the
genetic component has a higher probability for being overweight
(doesn't necessarily mean insulin resistance is the cause). But what
actual contribution genetics has in your blood family can't be
confirmed with adoptive siblings.
>Off to go browse your new site. :)
It's nothing special. I'm stilll learning the program and the details
of website design/development. It was more of a fun project. Let's see
if you can find me in any of those pics. I will have a few for the
Athletes page in a day or so.
The *real* moleculegirl.com site (along with Muffin Research Labs) is
still under construction.
Denise LePage
>Let's see if you can find me in any of those pics.
Do you mean this one? :)
First row from left: Art, Elzi, Audrey, Heather. Back row: Bryce, Theresa,
David, Watson, Johanna, Millard.
http://www.moleculegirl.f2s.com/images/mfw%20mesquite%20crew.jpg
There's a Certified Athletic Trainer (what the heck is that) on a low-carb
BB I frequent. She posted yesterday that women should lift light, and that
lifting heavy causes hypertrophy. Scary. Ahem. I posted links to your
Women and Iron article and Krista's web site, for all the good it will do.
I don't have a nifty title. I do have a link now showing that the women of
MFW look awesome and aren't freakybig(tm?). Great pic!
Denise
Elzi Volk
>
>Elzi Volk <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>news:24f5ct0j3jm0flhin...@4ax.com...
>>Let's see if you can find me in any of those pics.
>
>Do you mean this one? :)
> http://www.moleculegirl.f2s.com/images/mfw%20mesquite%20crew.jpg
Yup. Also I'm one of the Three muskateers of female bodybuilding :)
>There's a Certified Athletic Trainer (what the heck is that) on a low-carb
>BB I frequent. She posted yesterday that women should lift light, and that
>lifting heavy causes hypertrophy.
Careful, my blood pressure rises in the danger zone when I hear and
read that shit. She's a fucking moron and you can tell her I said so.
>I posted links to your
>Women and Iron article and Krista's web site, for all the good it will do.
>I don't have a nifty title. I do have a link now showing that the women of
>MFW look awesome and aren't freakybig(tm?). Great pic!
Welcome to the Dark Side. We will take over the world one of these
days.
Lyle McDonald
> =
> Oh, I haven't studied up on it, but this really does argue for insulin
> resistance being genetic, eh? Obviously stupidity was not the reason we
> failed at 'just eat less'.
Insulin resistance has both genetic and environmental causes, just like
everything else. Among individuals of similar bodyfat, you can see a
genetic 10 fold difference in insulin sensitivity. Obivously, given the
same crappy American diet, some of those folks are more likely to get
fat than others.
Lyle
Seth Breidbart
Sure: they lose 100 lbs of fat, they can squat 100 lbs more iron with
the same muscle.
Seth
--
Of course, common logic fails to hold up here on mfw, as a general rule
of thumb. -- Lyle McDonald