Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:emgpj0$o6q$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Dnia 2006-12-22 Bully napisa³(a):
>> Edna Pearl wrote:
>>> "Hans Huber" <nospam.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:lgvlo25qjd5m2cm7h0cqnb3p07lt791hgt@4ax.com...
>>>>> If your goal is *still* to preserve (and build?)
>>>>
>>>> Definitely not build. I know my calorie expenditure is too high for
>>>> that,
>>>
>>> Maybe. Not necessarily. It depends Don't buy the myth that
>>> you need a calorie surplus to build muscle. Sure, if you are really
>>> burning into the cardio while depriving yourself of calories in your
>>> diet, you can't build, and that's probably where you are, but I do
>>> want to mention that lifting can build muscle on a mild calorie
>>> deficit, especially if you've got some fat.
>>
>> Do you have any hard evidence to support this? I've gained strength in
>> the
>> past when dieting but that shouldn't be confused with building muscle.
>
> OK. Break a leg, get fat due to lack of exercise, take the plaster off
> and see what a shade of your former leg you have, start walking and
> lose fat and rebuild your leg at the same time.
>
> I tried to make it into a science, but somehow nobody wanted to get their
> legs broken just to prove a point.

I'll go for Andrzej's answer on this one -- and in his other post on the
thread. If you have any science to the contrary, I'd be glad to read
it.

Isn't it common sense? Can't some of the caloric deficit from *intake* be
offset by recruiting from body fat (and muscle)? I mean, you can build
muscle on your arms even while you're losing mass somewhere else, and that
can happen while you have a caloric (intake) deficit.

ep
(Oh god, have I crossed the line over to The Dark Side -- arguing with
people at mfw? No, I'm just discussing and asking questions. Right?
Right?)

"Curt" <curtjames.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166738257.885082.41260@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Edna Pearl wrote:
> [...]
>
> re The Abs Diet
>
>> I actually ordered the book on theory that it was probably the latest
>> compilation of general information about good nutritition, and on the
>> assumption that I would be spared the usual diet-writing advice to the
>> effect that I should put more vigor into my housecleaning and play with
>> my
>> children more!
>
> I'd be interested in reading what you think about it, of course. As
> much as I've acted as a cheerleader, it'd be nice to get an unbiased
> opinion.

I read a third of it last night. It's a fun read. As I expected, and you
have at least hinted, the whole "abs" focus is a total gimmick, and the use
of that gimmick weakens the book overall, but who really cares? Like, when
he discusses the research showing correlations between visceral fat and
various health problems, he apparently commits the fallacy of "post/cum hoc
ergo propter hoc" over and over and over and over again, but since the
bottom line is "get that fat off your body before it kills you," who really
cares? He doesn't appear to actually understand ketogenic dieting, but
since the bottom line is "don't do it," who really cares?

Looking at the "power foods" "cheat sheet" and the exercise section, I
expect that a typical person would successfully lose fat and build muscle
with this approach, and could comfortably and beneficially rely on its
basic, idiot-proof principles for the rest of their healthy life. Any
intelligent person could then build on these principles, fine-tune their
understanding, and learn how to tweak these principles around to maximize
results and enjoyment, of course.

And I think it's a must-read for anybody who thinks calorie-counting is the
way to lose weight. Traditional dieters feel really threatened by the
concept reflected in the author's equations:

MORE FOOD = MORE MUSCLE = LESS FLAB
LESS FOOD = LESS MUSCLE = MORE FLAB

but I'm just about ready to have them printed them on a t-shirt. It's about
time somebody just came out and SAID this, backing it up with summaries of
the appropriate research in a popular-market book like this one. The rest
of the book explains that more *good* food (including *good* fat) is the
key, plus exercise, etc., etc., but the basic premise of these equations is
just unassailable, AFAIC, and I'm sick to death of hearing and reading the
near-universal beliefs to contrary among traditional,
calories-in/calories-out dieters.

I feel the same way about the author's statements:

"Exercise is important, but the calories you burn off during exercise are
not important." (YES!!!!!)

"Most diets, in fact, are not long-term fat-loss plans but long-term
muscle-loss plans." (WHAT YOU SAID!!!!)

(Obviously, I'm getting emotional, and I can see why you're such a
cheerleader for the book.)

The stuff about glycogen load and "good" fats are good, readable summaries
that includes some summaries of research I didn't know about. I expect to
learn more as I read on.

And the little side bars explaining high blood pressure, diabetes, etc., are
nice, too.

The "shopping" list had some surprises. Do they actually make a "margarine"
that has no trans-fats? (I think I'll stick with cooking with olive oil and
using flax-seed oil as a butter-spread/topping replacement.) And why in the
name of all that's holy is "Carnation Instant Breakfast" on the shopping
list? Perhaps they have changed the ingredients since the last time I
looked at a box of or tasted that swill?

Sorry to go on and on. You asked.

ep