Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

DZ <19038.DeleteThis@2235914289.2348825931.6739.2593.22893> wrote:

>The Queen of Cans and Jars <dhrravr.DeleteThis@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote:
>> JMW <jmwilliams_56.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> No, you won't. You listen to people with folksy wisdom who say
>>> funny stuff.
>>
>> That's because she doesn't want to do any of the hard work. She
>> only wants to do stuff that agrees with what she already believes.
>
>But her "proposal" is a harder kind of work than the alternative.
>Whether it would "work" is another matter.
>
>Suppose there are two identical twins. One of them has more fat as
>well as very massive leg muscles developed through resistance
>training, targeting specifically the legs. The second twin has a pair
>of sticks.
>
>Now both go on a calorie and protein restricted diet ...

Why would the twin with stick legs go on a calorie-restricted diet?
That defies reason.
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

DZ <7073.RemoveThis@2054624415.136023474.20589.24950.13825> wrote:
>JMW <jmwilliams.RemoveThis@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>The Queen of Cans and Jars <dhrravr.RemoveThis@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote:
>>>> JMW <jmwilliams_56.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> No, you won't. You listen to people with folksy wisdom who say
>>>>> funny stuff.
>>>>
>>>> That's because she doesn't want to do any of the hard work. She
>>>> only wants to do stuff that agrees with what she already believes.
>>>
>>>But her "proposal" is a harder kind of work than the alternative.
>>>Whether it would "work" is another matter.
>>>
>>>Suppose there are two identical twins. One of them has more fat as
>>>well as very massive leg muscles developed through resistance
>>>training, targeting specifically the legs. The second twin has a pair
>>>of sticks.
>>>
>>>Now both go on a calorie and protein restricted diet ...
>>
>> Why would the twin with stick legs go on a calorie-restricted diet?
>> That defies reason.
>
>They are paid money by some Ivory Tower egghead principal
>investigator.
>
>OTOH, his "why" has to do with the answer to my question. As you know,
>only rich societies can really afford the luxury of science.

I realize that you're being rather opaque about where you're going,
but your thought experiment isn't directly relevant to the issue. Try
this one:

Identical twins, *both* with massive legs and somewhat overfat. (More
consistent with identical genes, anyway, yes?) Both commence an
identical progressive resistance training protocol. One maintains
his/her usual free-feeding diet; the other commences a calorie- and
protein-restricted diet. Who will gain/maintain more muscle? Who
will lose more fat?
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

"Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl DeleteThis @yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote in message
news:XoVih.2975$3v6.482@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> "Curt" <curtjames DeleteThis @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.

Excellent post.
Finish the book, OK?

But just so's I'm clear on your gist:

You say

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

is true. I sort of disagree, but think I understand the bigger point.
But let's assume this is strictly true.
Are you saying

cals in - cals out = weight gain/loss/stability

is false? Irrelevant? Other?

My take:

Your equations may have relevance and bearing, but they cannot contradict
the energy equation itself.
Sort of like thermodynamic vs. kinetic control of chemical reactions, if you
ever came across these. Quite analogous.

The Q is then:
How do you, and this book, "explain" weight loss, if not by cal in/cal out
"dieting"?

Relative contributions of exercise/food:
People who walk 8 hrs/day, or labor equivalently, burn a whopping 2500
cals/day, equivalent to running a marathon. And possibly quite a bit more.
Cutting back 10% on food intake (more difficult than you might imagine, long
term), is about 250 cals/day.
More realistic exercise amounts to an expenditure of 200-600 cals/day,
approx the amount of a mild jog of 20-60 mins.

Clearly, exercise *can* be a significant, if not overwhelming, part of the
energy equation.

But here's the real ticket:
It means *nothing* if one's appetite *keeps up or *exceeds* the demands of
the energy expenditure.
It is documented that some forms of exercise spike appetite so that even
more food is consumed, for net weight gain!

So *how* one goes about the whole calorie thing is as important as the
energy equation itself.
And I subscribe to the school that resistance ex/wt lifting is likely as or
more effective than trad'l aerobics, for many people, for very sound
reasons.
Altho aerobics is still an important component, altho I myself try to
minimize this component.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
>
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

-- "Curt" <curtjames.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1166840363.112154.201500@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> Edna Pearl wrote:
> [...]
>
> re The Abs Diet
>
>> 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.)
>
> (Absolutely. ))
>
>> 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?
>
> Was that rhetorical? Regardless (and of course), I Googled! And, yes,
> apparently so to the trans-fat-free margarine:
>
> http://www.fleischmanns.com/nutrition/transfat_facts.jsp
> http://www.purdue.edu/hr/WorkLife/trans_fat.htm
>
>> (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.
>
> No apology necessary.
>
>> You asked.
>
> I did. And thanks for the reply.

Actually, Curt, he did *your* job!
Compensation is proly due.
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs


>
>> ep
>
> --
> Curt
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

"The Queen of Cans and Jars" <dhrravr.TakeThisOut@ohatzhapu.bet> wrote in message
news:1hqr32g.ma8v0m1hvwdwoN%dhrravr@ohatzhapu.bet...
> JMW <jmwilliams_56.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> No, you won't. You listen to people with folksy wisdom who say funny
>> stuff.
>
> That's because she doesn't want to do any of the hard work. She only
> wants to do stuff that agrees with what she already believes.
>

I see Miss BitchyAss is back
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

DZ <29927 DeleteThis @394215349.73433081.15871.12211.18043> wrote:
>JMW <jmwilliams DeleteThis @enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>>JMW <jmwilliams DeleteThis @enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>>>> DZ wrote:
>>>>>The Queen of Cans and Jars <dhrravr DeleteThis @ohatzhapu.bet> wrote:
>>>>>> JMW <jmwilliams_56 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> No, you won't. You listen to people with folksy wisdom who say
>>>>>>> funny stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's because she doesn't want to do any of the hard work. She
>>>>>> only wants to do stuff that agrees with what she already believes.
>>>>>
>>>>>But her "proposal" is a harder kind of work than the alternative.
>>>>>Whether it would "work" is another matter. Suppose there are two
>>>>>identical twins. One of them has more fat as well as very massive
>>>>>leg muscles developed through resistance training, targeting
>>>>>specifically the legs. The second twin has a pair of sticks. Now
>>>>>both go on a calorie and protein restricted diet ...
>>>>
>>>> Why would the twin with stick legs go on a calorie-restricted diet?
>>>> That defies reason.
>>>
>>>They are paid money by some Ivory Tower egghead principal
>>>investigator.
>>>
>>>OTOH, his "why" has to do with the answer to my question. As you know,
>>>only rich societies can really afford the luxury of science.
>>
>> I realize that you're being rather opaque about where you're going,
>> but your thought experiment isn't directly relevant to the issue. Try
>> this one:
>>
>> Identical twins, *both* with massive legs and somewhat overfat. (More
>> consistent with identical genes, anyway, yes?) Both commence an
>> identical progressive resistance training protocol. One maintains
>> his/her usual free-feeding diet; the other commences a calorie- and
>> protein-restricted diet. Who will gain/maintain more muscle? Who
>> will lose more fat?
>
>I'm not being opaque, and my experiment is directly relevant to the
>issue, which was the following -
>
>EP> "Can't some of the caloric deficit from *intake* be offset by
>EP> recruiting from body fat (and muscle)?
>EP> I mean, you can build muscle on your arms even while you're losing
>EP> mass somewhere else, and that can happen while you have a caloric
>EP> (intake) deficit."
>
>I take the second sentence here as a question (scientific
>question). So, theoretically, could one play some sort of a
>recomposition game? I already acknowledged that whether this is a
>sensible thing to do (given all the other available choices) is
>another matter.

It's a fair point, but looking at it in isolation misses the big
picture. And the real crux of the issue, in your paragraph above, is
simply: How much "choice" is really "available"?

Let's start from the assumption that First Law of Thermodynamics
applies: internal energy = energy in - energy out. The big problem
with newbies is their assumption that internal energy is expressed
totally as fat. As you well know, it's not.

Newbies assume that if you reduce the energy in, the excess energy out
will come totally from body fat. Your body doesn't give you that
choice. Yes, much will come from fat, particularly after the
depletion of glycogen stores, but a substantial amount will come from
catabolism of lean body mass. Therein lies the problem.
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program 

Dnia 2006-12-22 JMW napisa³(a):
> Andrzej Rosa <bakters DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Dnia 2006-12-22 JMW napisa³(a):
>>> Edna Pearl wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > 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.
>>>
>>> No, you won't. You listen to people with folksy wisdom who say funny
>>> stuff.
>>
>>JMW, it's not folksy wisdom.
>
> Nearly everything you cite comes from bodybuilding.com.

What? I went through a strongman section on this site and some
exercise illustrations, but that's it.

>>It's using the simplest model that works,
>>not the most complicated that doesn't work anyway.
>
> You are, by your own admission, a beginner. You really don't know
> what works.

This time around I train for two years. I did train for three years
over a decade ago, and later for more than a year. I was a beginner
three times already.

>>And this approach
>>is a cornerstone of scientific method.
>
> More research and better methods often yield better results.

"Use the simplest model that works" approach often yields better results
too.

>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> What evidence have you of that assertiion? Insufficient energy intake
>>> requires the body to seek energy from endogenous sources. Fat stored
>>> in adipocytes will supply some of that. But your body hedges its bets
>>> and doesn't just seek energy from fat stores. It also increases muscle
>>> protein breakdown, thereby releasing free amino acids which can be
>>> deaminated (mostly in the liver) and the resulting carbon skeletons
>>> converted to glucose or ketone bodies for energy. When that muscle
>>> protein breakdown exceeds muscle protein synthesis, you get negative
>>> muscle protein balance. That means smaller muscles, not bigger ones.
>>
>>You wrote a very good guide to complicating things beyond necessity,
>>and how one can get lost among unimportant details.
>
> You define "unimportant" by your standards. Some folks may have
> higher standards.

You don't get it. All what you have written boils down to the fact,
that faced with calorie restriction a body will bread down tissue to
cover the deficit. It's obvious. It doesn't explain anything of
importance here. It's not necessary to complicate a model with
ketones, myofibriles and adipocytes. It's not science.

>>> If you want the "science" on that one, I won't offer up any current
>>> studies because those facts are quite well established. Try cracking
>>> open just about any anatomy and physiology text.
>>
>>Why should she? She knows that body is able to build and break down
>>tissue somehow. How exactly this happens is not important in this case.
>
> So lipolysis (fat breakdown) and muscle protein breakdown are the
> same, and it doesn't matter what your body uses for fuel? You're a
> fairly good sophist, Andrzej, but you're really starting to stretch.

Of course it does matter what is primarily used. What is not
important, is how exactly it is done. You're a fairly good sophist,
JMW, but you're really starting to stretch.

[...]
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: Need Help Tweaking My Fat Loss Program