Good cutting diet with minimal muscle loss?

[mm84321]

I'm glad you pointed out the identical nature of fasting and low carbohydrate diets; metabolically speaking, the body can not differentiate if it is getting protein and fat from its own tissue, or from the diet. Makes fasting a more reasonable and considerable form of weight loss for the morbidly obese. We could really dive into this whole gluconeogenesis/glycerolneogenesis argument, and I'll surely read everything you've provided, but for right now I think that a lot of the proof is in the pudding. We may not have a great deal of randomized control trials that look at the efficacy of low carbohydrate diets and their "limitless" calorie qualities, but we do have a great deal of individuals who have seen rapid weight loss and continued success on such a diet. We may not fully understand all the mechanisms at play that make such a diet so effective, but sometimes if something works, knowing exactly how and why it does becomes a moot point. Yes. Facials are quite rejuvenating. (Please spare the jokes!)

 

[indesertum]

what the double post

 

[mm84321]

Originally Posted by indesertum

beneficial levels. studies that showed benefits used 3 to 4g of CLA a day and even in my pasture fed butter at most there is 250mg per tablespoon of butter. that's 16 tablespoons of butter every day which ends up being around 1600 calories just from butter everyday crap. i forget you dont believe calories from fats count.
I'm not saying you should rely on copious amounts of grass-fed butter for any noticeable health benefits, just that it's probably the case that dairy from pastured cows is an overall healthier choice. I think calories from fat "count", but it's the context in which they are in that matters most: High carb, high fat vs low carb, high fat.

 

[BBSLM]

Originally Posted by indesertum

even in observational studies there are no connections between dairy products and weight gain.



i would think an athlete would need the calcium for optimal performance


i dont see why just because only baby cows drink cows milk humans can't drink it. there are a lot of resources in nature where humans arent "supposed" to be a recipient. this doesnt mean we cant utilize them.

there's no reason. the not-milk tards just parrot whatever flawed arguments sound good to them. 'humans are the only species that drink the milk of another.' bullshit, asshole. put a bowl of milk in front of a cat or a dog and i'll bet you a dollar they'll drink it. drinking the milk of another species just happens to be convenient for humans because we can drive to the store to buy it, something no other animal can do.

not to mention the numerous studies showing dairy to be beneficial for weight loss.

ive been trying to figure out who determines what humans are and arent 'supposed' to consume, but i havent found an answer.

ive also yet to see any data (anecdotal or otherwise) showing eating within X hours of bedtime to be detrimental.

 

[indesertum]

Originally Posted by mm84321

I'm glad you pointed out the identical nature of fasting and low carbohydrate diets; metabolically speaking, the body can not differentiate if it is getting protein and fat from its own tissue, or from the diet. Makes fasting a more reasonable and considerable form of weight loss for the morbidly obese. We could really dive into this whole gluconeogenesis/glycerolneogenesis argument, and I'll surely read everything you've provided, but for right now I think that a lot of the proof is in the pudding. We may not have a great deal of randomized control trials that look at the efficacy of low carbohydrate diets and their "limitless" calorie qualities, but we do have a great deal of individuals who have seen rapid weight loss and continued success on such a diet. We may not fully understand all the mechanisms at play that make such a diet so effective, but sometimes if something works, knowing exactly how and why it does becomes a moot point. Yes. Facials are quite rejuvenating. (Please spare the jokes!)
i think we actually do understand why low carb diets work. in metabolic ward studies low carb diets have not been shown to be any different. i remember one study where they shut two twin in a metabolic ward for two weeks. one with low carb, one with low fat and the difference ended up being something like 10 calories. i think the reason why the atkins diet and its derivatives have ended up working is because in free living conditions when you limit carb intake satiety from protein, fat, veggies, and mental tiredness from eating the same type of foods help the dieter to limit their caloric intake subconsciously. its difficult to eat 3, 4000 calories of just fat and protein, but add some energy dense carb/fat foods to the mix most ppl can do this on the daily there's no doubt it works, but not for the reasons atkins says it does. taubes basically took atkins ideas and ran with it, trying to prove it in literature. only he had to use outdated texts and articles to do so.

 

[Jr Mouse]

Carbs are not the devil, for the last time. The reason Atkins worked for people is because when they cut out carbs, they were cutting out a large amount of the calories they consume in a day. Carbs are an easy way to over-consume on calories. Think about the last time you were at a restaurant and they brought out chips or bed. I bet you ended up consuming a good 500 calories or more before the meal even came out. Atkins amounted to nothing more then a calorie restrictive diet being sold under false pretenses.

There were also a lot of reports of people's cholesterol levels going down on Atkins even while they were consuming more fat then they used to. The reason for this is because they lost weight, due to consuming less calories. The weight loss overcompensated for any negative effects the added fat was happening on people's bodies. It had nothing to do with the effect carbs have on our bodies.

Honestly, what is it with people that they have to make these things so complicated in their minds? A calorie is a calorie. All these diets have been successful at is selling a lot of books.

 

[otc]

+1

a calorie is a calorie.

It doesn't mean that what you eat doesn't matter. You might be better off getting a significant portion of your calories from protein (which could in turn lead to large muscles which might tick up your metabolism to burn more resting calories) but at the end of the day, a calorie is a unit of energy and it doesn't matter where it comes from.

 

[mm84321]

Originally Posted by indesertum

i think the reason why the atkins diet and its derivatives have ended up working is because in free living conditions when you limit carb intake satiety from protein, fat, veggies, and mental tiredness from eating the same type of foods help the dieter to limit their caloric intake subconsciously.
I don't quite agree with you here. It's more about the satiety than any mental tiredness. An Atkins, or low carb, diet does not have to be limited to meats, cheese, and eggs. I do agree the caloric intake will be limited subconsciously, but not because you can't eat certain foods but because you have no reason to over eat in the first place.

its difficult to eat 3, 4000 calories of just fat and protein, but add some energy dense carb/fat foods to the mix most ppl can do this on the daily

Why are you trying to eat 3 meals of 4,000 calories in protein and fat? This statement is essentially just proving the diet's effectiveness in controlling hunger and providing the nutrients your cells need for basic metabolic processes, i.e., the whole point of eating and nourishment.

there's no doubt it works, but not for the reasons atkins says it does. taubes basically took atkins ideas and ran with it, trying to prove it in literature. only he had to use outdated texts and articles to do so.

Have you read GCBC? We should just go to Masa this summer. I will get sashimi, you get nigiri. We shall see who ends up more satisfied once the meal is over.

 

[mm84321]

Originally Posted by JMRouse

A calorie is a calorie.
Hormones, dude. Do children grow because they eat food? No. They eat food because they are growing. The idea that our vertical growth is determined by hormones released from the pituitary glands, and yet our horizontal growth is determined by some simplistic notion of calories in/calories out, effectively ignores all we know about endocrinology and the biology of fat regulation. Our bodies are not bomb calorimeters.

 

[Cool The Kid]

The carb is evil debate is so ******* useless.

But if you maintain a high protein diet in a cut, you will do a low carb diet by default.

Cutting will always result in some strength/muscle loss.... here's what I'm doing that seems to have been working... pretty much a modded Leangains protocol:

- carb cycling, maintenance on lift days, -800kcal on rest days
- 1-1.5 g/lb protein per day
- lift 3x/week, 9 total sets, all compound lifts, ~8-10 rep range
- ~1-2hrs of medium intensity cardio (cycling)

Everything kind of falls into place. The cardio seems to make the biggest difference, esp when I hit a rut.

 

[mm84321]

Originally Posted by Cool The Kid

The carb is evil debate is so ******* useless.
I'm not saying all carbs are "evil"; the quality of the carbohydrates certainly has a great deal to do with it as well. Eating starchy vegetables and fruit is certainly better than refined sugar and flour, which can be classified pretty near close as dietary "evils".

 

[indesertum]

Originally Posted by mm84321

I don't quite agree with you here. It's more about the satiety than any mental tiredness. An Atkins, or low carb, diet does not have to be limited to meats, cheese, and eggs. I do agree the caloric intake will be limited subconsciously, but not because you can't eat certain foods but because you have no reason to over eat in the first place.



Why are you trying to eat 3 meals of 4,000 calories in protein and fat? This statement is essentially just proving the diet's effectiveness in controlling hunger and providing the nutrients your cells need for basic metabolic processes, i.e., the whole point of eating and nourishment.



Have you read GCBC?

We should just go to Masa this summer. I will get sashimi, you get nigiri. We shall see who ends up more satisfied once the meal is over.

i'm going to make a trip to nyc and will def eat some sushi.

too poor for masa tho

i mean 3000 to 4000 calories.

i have in fact been reading gcbc. i will say that he's very well written, but the info is deceptively half true. it's like learning about christianity from dan brown. enough truth that it sounds right, but basically mostly fiction.

i'm not sure what you're trying to say about having no reason to overeat. you can have no reason to overeat whether or not you're on a low carb diet. i do think that mental fatigue is a part of satiety.

Originally Posted by mm84321

Hormones, dude.

Do children grow because they eat food? No. They eat food because they are growing. The idea that our vertical growth is determined by hormones released from the pituitary glands, and yet our horizontal growth is determined by some simplistic notion of calories in/calories out, effectively ignores all we know about endocrinology and the biology of fat regulation. Our bodies are not bomb calorimeters.

also children have different hormonal pathways from adults and different nutrition partitioning. for example HGH in childhood increases height, but does not for adults.

i had a friend in elementary school who was too small for her age and doctors gave her hgh shots and she grew to be about average.


our bodies might not be bomb calorimeters, but the food that goes in a calorimeter and in our bodies have the same energy. energy might be converted less efficiently in our bodies, but this says nothing about low carb diets. it just means that the figures we use to estimate caloric intake are not completely accurate. some foods are converted more efficiently than others.

 

[Cool The Kid]

Originally Posted by mm84321

I'm not saying all carbs are "evil"; the quality of the carbohydrates certainly has a great deal to do with it as well. Eating starchy vegetables and fruit is certainly better than refined sugar and flour, which can be classified pretty near close as dietary "evils".
Bro, I'm losing weight and the bulk of my carbs come from **** like pancakes, rice, cookies, candy, potatoes, bread etc. There are a lot of psychological and physiological reasons simple carbs generally lead to people getting fatter faster but there is just too much evidence out there to debunk your theories of simple carbs -------> obesity, w/no considerations caloric surpluses.

 

[mm84321]

Originally Posted by Cool The Kid

Bro, I'm losing weight and the bulk of my carbs come from **** like pancakes, rice, cookies, candy, potatoes, bread etc. There are a lot of psychological and physiological reasons simple carbs generally lead to people getting fatter faster but there is just too much evidence out there to debunk your theories of simple carbs -------> obesity, w/no considerations caloric surpluses.
Yeah bro? What's your point? That dude last year lost weight eating nothing but twinkles and little Debbie snack cakes. It doesn't mean something is healthy for you just because it's possible to lose weight while consuming it.

 

[mm84321]

Originally Posted by indesertum

i'm going to make a trip to nyc and will def eat some sushi.

too poor for masa tho
Okay. What about like Nobu or Le Bernardin?