Speeding Up Metabolism Question

[smw356]

Originally Posted by greg_atlanta

At 100 lbs overweight he's not at risk of a "Castaway" look anytime soon..... and that extra weight limits his exercise options. He can't just go run 2-3 miles a day 5 times a week. Plus, too much exercise will just make him hungry.

His exercise options aren't really that limited. There is no reason he cannot jog or use a treadmill or elliptical or add some sled dragging etc etc etc. The human body is not that fragile. He's better off burning an additional 1000 calories a week and eating an additional 1000 calories a week (while still maintaining a deficit of course) than he is not doing the additional exercise.

 

[Suits You Sir!]

Originally Posted by greg_atlanta

He's 100 lbs+ overweight. He doesn't need another excuse to eat all he wants. He needs to consume fewer calories to lose weight, not load up on protein so he can get pumped at the gym. Your advice is better suited to someone 15-20 lbs overweight. Cutting alcohol from 2 drinks a day to 2 drinks a week made the biggest difference for me.
What a load of rubbish! High protein low carb lifestyle works for anyone with excess weight looking to lose it, no matter how much or how little they carry. I didn't say eat all he wants.

I said eat 5/6 times a day, plenty of protein, low carb, fist-sized portions, and clean. EG fruit, low GI veggies, cottage cheese, chicken, tuna, salads and a few good oils; flax & olive oil, which helps stave off hunger as well as providing omega 3's. Where most dieters fail is because they go from eating in excess to starving themselves. They last a certain time, then go back to eating. Unsurprisingly, their weight yo-yo's. Not only does eating less (ie going hungry) waste muscle-mass (and I'm not talking hefty, built-up muscle) and keep hold of the fat (muscle is easier for the body to break down in starvation mode in order to get energy than by trying to breakdown fat cells), but it makes you forever hungry, miserable and too preoccupied with cravings. Eating CLEAN 3 hours apart serves more than one purpose. First, it keeps your body working it's metabolism at a premium. Eating with long durations between meals serves not only to make you hungry but to kick your body into an anabolic state, not good at all for weight loss, so long as you wish to waste any muscle you may have but retain all your blubber. Second, there is not really long enough between meals for you to feel hungry, so cravings are reduced, if not eradicated. Hence eating often. You can easily eat 5/6 times a day within a recommended calorie limit if you choose wisely and control portion size. You just eat well and not consume chocolates, donuts and beers. Yes, to lose weight you need to control calories and eat less calories than when you were getting fat. Yes, you need to eat a slight defecit in recommended daily calories to lose weight. But no, eating less - especially less often - is futile and will not strip your body of fat, just muscle. Also remember that exercise chews through calories, and these burnt calories need to be factored into your daily intake. Too great a defecit in calories, along with over-exercising is ridiculous as you cannot maintain energy to function properly and end up failing to maintain this new lifestyle. And just for the record, no, high protein low carb diets that have you eating many times a day is not just used for people wanting to build muscle. It is also a very effective weight loss technique, and a great way to repair a very slow, screwed-up metabolism. It's been done time and time again, with great results. Just remember to drink lots of water each day.

 

[why]

Originally Posted by Suits You Sir!

Not only does eating less (ie going hungry) waste muscle-mass (and I'm not talking hefty, built-up muscle) and keep hold of the fat (muscle is easier for the body to break down in starvation mode in order to get energy than by trying to breakdown fat cells), but it makes you forever hungry, miserable and too preoccupied with cravings.
Ummm....no. Not even close.

Eating CLEAN 3 hours apart serves more than one purpose. First, it keeps your body working it's metabolism at a premium. Eating with long durations between meals serves not only to make you hungry but to kick your body into an anabolic state, not good at all for weight loss, so long as you wish to waste any muscle you may have but retain all your blubber. Second, there is not really long enough between meals for you to feel hungry, so cravings are reduced, if not eradicated.

Totally and absolutely untrue. What the **** is with these Chinese whispers-esque science that gets spewed around here? Long durations between meals wastes muscle because it puts you in an anabolic state? What the ****?

 

[lance konami]

Originally Posted by why

Anecdotal evidence is amazing stuff.
It's always worth looking into, at the very least. If we waited for pristine scientific evidence for every aspect of diet and exercise out there, we'd be waiting for a very long time. Remember that for years science said that there was no "evidence" that exercising the muscles in the body had any noticeable benefits. We all know how amazing science was in the field of physical fitness for many years. On the subject of green tea supplements, I've yet to try them. What's the point? Just make the tea. Green tea is awesome.

 

[why]

Originally Posted by lance konami

It's always worth looking into, at the very least.

That's entirely different from an affirmation by anecdote.

I never said it's not true, I'm just saying that anecdotal evidence is damn near worthless.

Remember that for years science said that there was no "evidence" that exercising the muscles in the body had any noticeable benefits

I'll have to quote myself on this: 'what the ****?'

 

[retronotmetro]

Originally Posted by lance konami

On the subject of green tea supplements, I've yet to try them. What's the point? Just make the tea. Green tea is awesome.

I think the idea of the supplements is to flood you with more of the active ingredients than you'd get from drinking even a shitload of tea.

if small quantities of green tea did the trick, matcha ice cream would be calorically self-neutralizing. That would rock.

 

[datasupa]

if you turn to a fashion forum for health advice, misinformation is what you deserve to get.

 

[lefty]

All the guys here fast for 16 hours each day leaving them only 8 hours for nutrition. They don't seem to be suffering muscle loss.

There are also plenty of obese guys who follow a PSMF--which is essentially protein, EFA and no appreciable carbs at all--who lose fat and retain muscle.

And there are people who count cals, eat clean and lose fat.

Lot of ways to skin this cat.

Personally, I have problems with eating "clean" and all the bullshit that goes along with it. Set your kcal goal - set your protein - get your EFAs - get an effective amount of fibre - eat some bloody vegetables - and you can more or less have a party with the rest of your food.

I would quickly kill someone if all I had to eat was chicken breast, tuna, oatmeal, broccoli and flax oil. If my nutrient needs are being met with the majority of my food intake, it just doesn't matter where the remaining 20-30% is coming from. And it's easier for me to stay sane if my pre and post WO nutrition is a couple of bowls of ****** kid's cereal, a few bagels or FF Ice Cream.

Non-insane calories in; non-insane calories out. The rest is more or less bullshit.

lefty

 

[aaronxxx]

Originally Posted by lefty

All the guys here fast for 16 hours each day leaving them only 8 hours for nutrition. They don't seem to be suffering muscle loss.

There are also plenty of obese guys who follow a PSMF--which is essentially protein, EFA and no appreciable carbs at all--who lose fat and retain muscle.

And there are people who count cals, eat clean and lose fat.

Lot of ways to skin this cat.

Personally, I have problems with eating "clean" and all the bullshit that goes along with it. Set your kcal goal - set your protein - get your EFAs - get an effective amount of fibre - eat some bloody vegetables - and you can more or less have a party with the rest of your food.

I would quickly kill someone if all I had to eat was chicken breast, tuna, oatmeal, broccoli and flax oil. If my nutrient needs are being met with the majority of my food intake, it just doesn't matter where the remaining 20-30% is coming from. And it's easier for me to stay sane if my pre and post WO nutrition is a couple of bowls of ****** kid's cereal, a few bagels or FF Ice Cream.

Non-insane calories in; non-insane calories out. The rest is more or less bullshit.

lefty

+1. mike mentzer believed basically the same thing, and how are you going to argue with him?

 

[lance konami]

Originally Posted by why

That's entirely different from an affirmation by anecdote.

I never said it's not true, I'm just saying that anecdotal evidence is damn near worthless.

It's absolutely not worthless at all when it comes to this topic.

I'll have to quote myself on this: 'what the ****?'

Are you really not aware of some of the bizarre claims made by the scientific community back then? Are you serious?

Even Jack La lanne (a fitness guru from the 50's) said "I was 40 years ahead of my time," he said, "but by then I knew more about the workings of the muscles in my body than most doctors. People thought I was a charlatan and a nut," Jack says, "The doctors were against me - they said that working out with weights would give people heart attacks and they would lose their sex drive. Women would look like men and even varsity coaches predicted that their athletes would get muscle bound and banned them from lifting weights."

Doctors ridiculed him and told him there was no scientific evidence that exercising the muscles of the body really worked.

And even today within the scientific community, for every study showing how something doesn't work, there's another study showing how it does. How do you determine what's really "scientific?" And is it even all that important?

I'll take anecdotal evidence any day if I learn something that gives me results.

 

[greg_atlanta]

Originally Posted by lefty

Non-insane calories in; non-insane calories out. The rest is more or less bullshit.
+100 Micromanagement of nutrients and food groups and supplements is a waste of time. Just eat less!

 

[lefty]

Jack LaLanne can kick all our asses.

lefty

 

[lefty]

Originally Posted by greg_atlanta

+100

Micromanagement of nutrients and food groups and supplements is a waste of time. Just eat less!

Greg, I'm not saying I don't manage my nutrients. I track everything, which drives most people around me a little crazy.

However, once I set my kcal goals I have a lot of room to play.

lefty

 

[why]

Originally Posted by lance konami

It's absolutely not worthless at all when it comes to this topic.
It's worthless no matter what topic it covers.

Are you really not aware of some of the bizarre claims made by the scientific community back then? Are you serious?

I'm not aware of the claims you made. Steve Reeves and other actors knew a shitload about working out. Just because 50 years ago dolts followed common myths and urban legends doesn't change the fact that they were common myths and urban legends. You said 'remember that for years science said there was no benefit to exercising muscles in the body' and your proof of this is Jack Lalanne's hearsay?

How do you determine what's really "scientific?"

Is this a rhetorical question?

I'll take anecdotal evidence any day if I learn something that gives me results.

I'm sure most would. Just look at the flipside as well.

 

[lance konami]

Why - I can see that this discussion with you is going to go nowhere. You say that anecdotal evidence is worthless no matter what topic, yet you then agree that you would take it if it gives you results. Yet somehow, it's still worthless to you. You aren't making any sense whatsoever.

I posted the Jack Lalanne story to illustrate what the general scientific and medical consensus was back then about bodybuilding. Sorry that wasn't clear.

The question about science refers to what I wrote about different scientific studies that contradict each other. One "scientific" study might say that eating 7 times per day and exercising will speed up metabolism, and another "scientific" study might say that eating 7 times per day and exercising makes no difference in metabolic rates. This is where looking at anecdotal evidence comes in so you can learn how other people achieve actual, real world results. If enough people are getting outstanding results using certain techniques, then obviously there's something to it even though it's still anecdotal evidence.