Does the no carb diet work?

[IamRAMBO24]

I'm thinking about shredding some pounds after seeing Lebron, but I can't wrap my head around not eating fruit as a staple of my diet. I love fruit, but apparently it's "bad" if you're on the no carb diet, so is this all a joke or is it serious stuff? How good is it long term?

[Akrazotile]

Just stick to that sausage-only diet youve been on, youll be fine

[IamRAMBO24]

Just stick to that sausage-only diet youve been on, youll be fine

What?

[SupermanOnSteroids]

hard as **** but works.

[riseagainst]

no carb diet is dumb.

it's a simple system to lose/gain weight. Calories in calories out. Eat less calories than your body needs and you will lose weight.

[IamRAMBO24]

no carb diet is dumb.

it's a simple system to lose/gain weight. Calories in calories out. Eat less calories than your body needs and you will lose weight.

I think it's a lot more complex than that.

[IamRAMBO24]

hard as **** but works.

Would you care to tell us about your experience?

[KyleKong]

I think it's a lot more complex than that.

No, not really.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

This professor loss 27 pounds eating nothing but ass junk food, but just made sure he was measuring his calories.

[BigBoss]

Op's fat

[BigBoss]

I think it's a lot more complex than that.

Nope.

3500 calories is a pound.

Figure out what your body needs daily then calorie count your food intake/how much you burn through exercise.

Say your body needs 2200 calories a week. Go on a diet that slashes that by 500 a day. 7 x 500 = 3500 = a pound a week


Its really simple just easier said then done

[riseagainst]

Nope.

3500 calories is a pound.

Figure out what your body needs daily then calorie count your food intake/how much you burn through exercise.

Say your body needs 2200 calories a week. Go on a diet that slashes that by 500 a day. 7 x 500 = 3500 = a pound a week


Its really simple just easier said then done

:eek:

[IamRAMBO24]

Its really simple just easier said then done

Exactly.

[IamRAMBO24]

Op's fat

If I could post a picture, I would, but ISH won't allow me. I'm already the best poster on here. I can't imagine the amount of jealously I would get when ISH finds out how incredibly good looking I am.

[riseagainst]

I think it's a lot more complex than that.

it's really simple. Cut out 500 calories a day out of your diet, in a week you will lose 1 pound of mostly fat, depends on how much fat you have. in a year you will lose 52 pounds, healthily.

Some people just starve and that's bad for their system and it'll kill your metabolism so when you do binge, you will get fat fast. Technically you don't even have to work out. If you just make sure you eat 500 calories less than what you normally eat, you will lose weight.

I don't understand how it's not simple at all. Just east 1 less donut a day and you will lose weight. It literally is as simple as it sounds.

[DeuceWallaces]

Who the **** eats a donut a day.

[robert de niro]

shred your skin every morning like cheddar, not only you will lose weight, you can surprise your family with a delicious fondue

[IamRAMBO24]

it's really simple. Cut out 500 calories a day out of your diet, in a week you will lose 1 pound of mostly fat, depends on how much fat you have. in a year you will lose 52 pounds, healthily.

Some people just starve and that's bad for their system and it'll kill your metabolism so when you do binge, you will get fat fast. Technically you don't even have to work out. If you just make sure you eat 500 calories less than what you normally eat, you will lose weight.

I don't understand how it's not simple at all. Just east 1 less donut a day and you will lose weight. It literally is as simple as it sounds.

If it's so simple, then why do we have so many fata*ses out there? The body is a complex system; when you try to cut calories, it'll work against you and try to maintain your weight. I like the idea of no carbs because it tricks the body to burn the calories faster. You're eating enough to be full and yet you're losing weight faster because your body is kicking out faster.

I think Lebron has proven calories in/out is not the best way to burn off fat.

[IamRAMBO24]

Who the **** eats a donut a day.

This is the funniest and witty sh*t you ever posted. :rockon:

[SupermanOnSteroids]

Would you care to tell us about your experience?
basic premise

carbs = sugar
sugar = glucose
extra glucose in blood gets converted into triglycerides and stored as fat

body uses glucose as fuel to make the real fuel = ATP : basic summary of metabolism

low glucose in blood = low production of insulin
low production of insulin = less glucose in blood being stored as fat

low glucose in blood = body needs more fuel to make ATP
low glucose in blood = body breaks down triglycerides stored in fat cells to replenish the glucose deficit.

therefore, low glucose in blood = more fat burn

[IamRAMBO24]

basic premise

carbs = sugar
sugar = glucose
extra glucose in blood gets converted into triglycerides and stored as fat

body uses glucose as fuel to make the real fuel = ATP : basic summary of metabolism

low glucose in blood = low production of insulin
low production of insulin = less glucose in blood being stored as fat

low glucose in blood = body needs more fuel to make ATP
low glucose in blood = body breaks down triglycerides stored in fat cells to replenish the glucose deficit.

therefore, low glucose in blood = more fat burn

Makes sense.

So how long before I notice a change in my body and does it matter how much calories I can take in just as long as I can avoid the carbs?

Oh yea, what about the sh*tting part? I won't have to pull on my turd from constipation do I?

[SupermanOnSteroids]

Makes sense.

So how long before I notice a change in my body?
depends on the person. i'm not ****ing nostradamus.

[Nanners]

shred your skin every morning like cheddar, not only you will lose weight, you can surprise your family with a delicious fondue

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5JmUs_Ekbo&list=UUZ30YNIcUWuSz8eVJZtLEjw

[KyleKong]

Calories in a gram of protien = 4

Carbs = 4

Fat = 9

Alcohol = 7

Nothing matters except eating less.

Fat ass.

[IamRAMBO24]

depends on the person. i'm not ****ing nostradamus.

That didn't answer my question.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

Makes sense.

So how long before I notice a change in my body and does it matter how much calories I can take in just as long as I can avoid the carbs?

Oh yea, what about the sh*tting part? I won't have to pull on my turd from constipation do I?
i would increase your water consumption and take a fiber supplement unless you're good on incorporating high fiber veges into your low carb diet.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

Calories in a gram of protien = 4

Carbs = 4

Fat = 9

Alcohol = 7

Nothing matters except eating less.

Fat ass.
carbs = 4
protein = 4
fats = 9

wtf is alcohol? oh yeah its carbs, which = 4.

stfu feggot

[masonanddixon]

All these no-carbs supplement takers are going to end up with cancer.

[KyleKong]

carbs = 4
protein = 4
fats = 9

wtf is alcohol? oh yeah its carbs, which = 4.

stfu feggot

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Calories+in+a+gram+of+alcohol

Bitch, are you retarded?

[SupermanOnSteroids]

All these no-carbs supplement takers are going to end up with cancer.
sure thing buddy.

[IamRAMBO24]

Calories in a gram of protien = 4

Carbs = 4

Fat = 9

Alcohol = 7

Nothing matters except eating less.

Fat ass.

Are you reading superman's thread? He's superman for a reason. Eating no carbs help the body burn calories faster thus resulting in faster weight loss.

I run 6 miles a day, do 200 reps of squats, chest, back, and legs. I'm going for the thin athletic look. I want to shred. Far from a fat a*s. Again if I could post a picture, I would.

[DeuceWallaces]

Making a big effort to limit your bread, rice, and pasta intake will go a long ways towards losing weight. I wouldn't be too concerned with fruit unless you're pounding 20-40 oz of juice a day.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Calories+in+a+gram+of+alcohol

Bitch, are you retarded?

alcohol is carbs. one gram of carbs cannot have more than 4 calories. unless your alcohol is a mixture of carbs and fats, it is impossible for a gram of alcohol to have more than 4 cals. leave that bro science behind. enter the adult educated world.

[KyrieTheFuture]

It's amazing how popular diets that aren't good for you are.

[riseagainst]

If it's so simple, then why do we have so many fata*ses out there? The body is a complex system; when you try to cut calories, it'll work against you and try to maintain your weight. I like the idea of no carbs because it tricks the body to burn the calories faster. You're eating enough to be full and yet you're losing weight faster because your body is kicking out faster.

I think Lebron has proven calories in/out is not the best way to burn off fat.

1st bold: did it occur to you that maybe they choose not to do anything about their weight?

2nd bold: Yes. The body does try to fight against it and try to maintain your weight by slowing down your metabolism. That is why cutting down 300-500 calories a day, considered to be very low, is the optimal way to do it. Cutting down only 500 calories a day will only result in a 1 pound weight loss in a week. That's not a fast cut at all. And how does having no carbs trick the body into burning calories faster? I've never heard that.

low carb diets increase muscle breakdown, which in turn also decreases your metabolism. There are downsides of low carb diets, aside from the eating no carb part. But cutting calories is very flexible and you are not restricted to what you eat.

[KyleKong]

alcohol is carbs. one gram of carbs cannot have more than 4 calories. unless your alcohol is a mixture of carbs and fats, it is impossible for a gram of alcohol to have more than 4 cals. leave that bro science behind. enter the adult educated world.

Yep, you are retarded.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

the first low carb diet was atkins diet and that came out around early 2000s. slightly modified and verified, its still the standard on weight loss diets.

[riseagainst]

carbs = 4
protein = 4
fats = 9

wtf is alcohol? oh yeah its carbs, which = 4.

stfu feggot

alcohol is a macro, they turn directly into fat, but they are not considered fat or carbs. It is its own category.

[IamRAMBO24]

It's amazing how popular diets that aren't good for you are.

This is a myth. The no carb diet has a long list of good veggies and protein. I think it sucks I will have to give up a lot of my fruit, but I'm sure I can substitute it with something else. I'm actually impress with the list.

Starting tomorrow:

Morning:

Eggs, Ham

Lunch:

Avocado, salad and salmon

Snack:

String cheese and almonds

Dinner:

Chicken and veggies

That is not bad at all. Totally doable.

[DeuceWallaces]

the first low carb diet was atkins diet and that came out around early 2000s. slightly modified and verified, its still the standard on weight loss diets.

Lol it's from the 70s

[KyleKong]

This is a myth. The no carb diet has a long list of good veggies and protein. I think it sucks I will have to give up a lot of my fruit, but I'm sure I can substitute it with something else. I'm actually impress with the list.

Starting tomorrow:

Morning:

Eggs, Ham

Lunch:

Avocado, salad and salmon

Snack:

String cheese and almonds

Dinner:

Chicken and veggies

That is not bad at all. Totally doable.

You are going to carb crash in 2 days tops. Gain 5 pounds in a week.

[IamRAMBO24]

Here is the list:

Meat: Beef, lamb, pork, chicken and others. Grass-fed is best.

Fish: Salmon, trout, haddock and many others. Wild-caught fish is best.

Eggs: Omega-3 enriched or pastured eggs are best.

Vegetables: Spinach, broccoli, cauliflower, carrots and many others.

Fruits: Apples, oranges, pears, blueberries, strawberries.

Nuts and Seeds: Almonds, walnuts, sunflower seeds, etc.

High-Fat Dairy: Cheese, butter, heavy cream, yogurt.

[riseagainst]

This is a myth. The no carb diet has a long list of good veggies and protein. I think it sucks I will have to give up a lot of my fruit, but I'm sure I can substitute it with something else. I'm actually impress with the list.

Starting tomorrow:

Morning:

Eggs, Ham

Lunch:

Avocado, salad and salmon

Snack:

String cheese and almonds

Dinner:

Chicken and veggies

That is not bad at all. Totally doable.

ofc it's doing and it'll work. But it'll have some side effects you otherwise would not get with just cutting 500 calories.

a while back while i was dieting down, i cut my carbs by half and my strength dropped by more than 30% on every lift. My mental focus was way off and i felt like sh1t half the time. It's just not the way to go.

[IamRAMBO24]

You are going to carb crash in 2 days tops. Gain 5 pounds in a week.

We'll see.

[Meticode]

Just eat a healthy balanced variety of foods and drink only water.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

1st bold: did it occur to you that maybe they choose not to do anything about their weight?

2nd bold: Yes. The body does try to fight against it and try to maintain your weight by slowing down your metabolism. That is why cutting down 300-500 calories a day, considered to be very low, is the optimal way to do it. Cutting down only 500 calories a day will only result in a 1 pound weight loss in a week. That's not a fast cut at all. And how does having no carbs trick the body into burning calories faster? I've never heard that.

low carb diets increase muscle breakdown, which in turn also decreases your metabolism. There are downsides of low carb diets, aside from the eating no carb part. But cutting calories is very flexible and you are not restricted to what you eat.
bold 1: BS. anyone asking you to cut down to 300-500 cals a day should be bitch slapped in the face. never ever go below 1200. and even that is low. you don't want to crash you metabolism on the jewish concentration camp diet.

bold 2: again BS. general rule of thumb is to go into a 3500 cal deficit to lose 1lb of fat. if you are a normal sized man and work out regularly and vigrously and keep your cal intake to 1200-1500 cals a day, its totally possible to lose 2-2.5lbs of fat a week.

bold 3: it is true that when you go on a cut, you are going to lose muscle. that's ineviteble. that's why you should go on bulk/cut cycles regularly. but, the cabolic phase can be maintained by ensuring that you ingest a good amount of protein. typically you want a gram per lb of lbm. a little more if you can do it, but not too much because of nitrogen poisoning. its a fine line, but if maintained, could be well worth it.

[knickballer]

OP, just cut out breads, pastas, sweets, sodas and other junk food and you'll be fine. Basically go on a lenient "gluten free" diet and just focus on eating healthier foods.

[masonanddixon]

sure thing buddy.

If you think you replace natural sources of energy with artificial ones and the body will simply adapt, then you are mistaken. You can't cheat your body.

[IamRAMBO24]

Just eat a healthy balanced variety of foods and drink only water.

Don't you think the list is balanced? I can still eat healthy but get a leg up with no carbs. I don't know, we'll see. I'm starting tomorrow.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Carbs are not a bad thing but I've quickly realized this is a troll thread

[hateraid]

alcohol is carbs. one gram of carbs cannot have more than 4 calories. unless your alcohol is a mixture of carbs and fats, it is impossible for a gram of alcohol to have more than 4 cals. leave that bro science behind. enter the adult educated world.

Alcohol is 7 calories per gram. That comes directly from my University textbook

[SupermanOnSteroids]

If you think you replace natural sources of energy with artificial ones and the body will simply adapt, then you are mistaken. You can't cheat your body.
natural sourse of energy is glucose. lack of glucose can be made up for by fishing for more glucose by breaking down your fat cells. thats not going to give you freaking cancer. cancer is caused by oxidants and mitogenesis.

[Levity]

is a no carb diet the same as/similar to atkins?

[IamRAMBO24]

Carbs are not a bad thing but I've quickly realized this is a troll thread

How so? I'm being honest.

[masonanddixon]

natural sourse of energy is glucose. lack of glucose can be made up for by fishing for more glucose by breaking down your fat cells. thats not going to give you freaking cancer. cancer is caused by oxidants and mitogenesis.

Hahahahahahahaha. Wow.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

is a no carb diet the same as/similar to atkins?
atkins was the first low carb diet. basically it said eat only meats. meats are mostly protein and fats and minimal carbs. atkins has since been manipulated and more nutritious stuff have been incorporated into the diet while still leaving it as low carb. you just gotta manage your macros. that's the main thing.

[riseagainst]

bold 1: BS. anyone asking you to cut down to 300-500 cals a day should be bitch slapped in the face. never ever go below 1200. and even that is low. you don't want to crash you metabolism on the jewish concentration camp diet.

i never said cut to 500. Read it again.

bold 2: again BS. general rule of thumb is to go into a 3500 cal deficit to lose 1lb of fat. if you are a normal sized man and work out regularly and vigrously and keep your cal intake to 1200-1500 cals a day, its totally possible to lose 2-2.5lbs of fat a week.

General rule of thumb is not go to into a 3500 cal deficit to lose 1 pound of fat. It's a fact that 1 pound of fat is equivalent to about 3500 calories. 3555 to be precise.

There is no absolute caloric intake one should stay at to consistently lose fat. It's the deficit of caloric intake that makes you lose fat. You said if you take 1200-1500 a day it's possible to lose 2 pounds a week. Yeah if your daily caloric intake before the cut has been around 2500.

What if someone has been eating 5000 calories? You immediately cut down to 1500? Your body will wither and your metabolism will crash. For the first 1-2weeks you will lose about 15-20 pounds then it will immediately plateau. What then? You still have to cut more weight but you are already eating 1200-1500.

You don't immediately take out 2000 calories you take 500 at a time and maybe increase it by a couple more hundred if you plateau.


bold 3: it is true that when you go on a cut, you are going to lose muscle. that's ineviteble. that's why you should go on bulk/cut cycles regularly. but, the cabolic phase can be maintained by ensuring that you ingest a good amount of protein. typically you want a gram per lb of lbm. a little more if you can do it, but not too much because of nitrogen poisoning. its a fine line, but if maintained, could be well worth it.

Yes you will lose muscle when on a cut, you can control how much you lose. If you cut calories by 1000+ a day you will lose more muscle than if you were to cut by 500. That's why i said cut by 300-500 because that's the best guaranteed way to maintain the most muscle while cutting down.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

Hahahahahahahaha. Wow.
check your facts brah and then laugh.

[masonanddixon]

check your facts brah and then laugh.

Yeah I am only on a radiation oncology program

[SupermanOnSteroids]

Yes you will lose muscle when on a cut, you can control how much you lose. If you cut calories by 1000+ a day you will lose more muscle than if you were to cut by 500. That's why i said cut by 300-500 because that's the best guaranteed way to maintain the most muscle while cutting down.
ok, you meant cutting down BY 300-500 cals a day and I read it as cutting down TO 300-500 cals a day. my mistake.

but you can definitely lose 2-2.5lbs of fat in a healthy way a week if done right.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

Yeah I am only on a radiation oncology program
so you stude about radiation. what does that have to do with going into "carb deficit." does going into a "carb deficit" incur a radiological response within your body?

[KyrieTheFuture]

How so? I'm being honest.
I thought superman started this thread not you, I think you just have some misguided advice. Carbs aren't bad, just like anything too much is bad. Rice is better than bread for carbs as well, so I'd recommend keeping that in the diet. Additionally, a lot of things in your food list are very high in fat which is probably worse for you than too many carbs. If you want to keep muscle mass you can't go no, or even low carbs. Low carbs is fine, no carbs is dangerous

[SupermanOnSteroids]

I thought superman started this thread not you, I think you just have some misguided advice. Carbs aren't bad, just like anything too much is bad. Rice is better than bread for carbs as well, so I'd recommend keeping that in the diet. Additionally, a lot of things in your food list are very high in fat which is probably worse for you than too many carbs. If you want to keep muscle mass you can't go no, or even low carbs. Low carbs is fine, no carbs is dangerous
noob :facepalm

[KyrieTheFuture]

noob :facepalm
You probably take preworkout

[SupermanOnSteroids]

sometimes. when i feel like i need a jolt.

[played0ut]

Yes.

It's called the Ketogenic diet.

http://www.dietdoctor.com/lose-weight-by-achieving-optimal-ketosis




I was on it before. Going on that diet and going to the gym 5x a week, I lost 25 lbs in a month. WHILE GAINING MUSCLE, STAMINA, AND STRENGTH.

It's not easy. But it's doable.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

ketosis is actually ****ing awesome. that was the reason i was so ****ing lean while in the army. we used to do pt every day first thing in the morning while our bodies was still in ketosis and run at least 3-5 miles after 20-30 mins of calesthenics. kept me the leanest i've ever been. of course i'm not 18-20 anymore and work a desk job, but still i try to get my cardio in early mornings before work about 3 times a week (including weekends) before breakfast and then lift after work, but can't keep up with the pace i had while I was in the army. now i stay around 10-15% bf, but in the army i stayed around 7% the whole time.

[embersyc]

No carbs = death.

[played0ut]

No carbs = death.

you're allowed carbs. Just enough so your body doesn't start breaking down your muscles.

i.e, 30-50 grams of carbs before or after a workout.

[Bandito]

ketosis is actually ****ing awesome. that was the reason i was so ****ing lean while in the army. we used to do pt every day first thing in the morning while our bodies was still in ketosis and run at least 3-5 miles after 20-30 mins of calesthenics. kept me the leanest i've ever been. of course i'm not 18-20 anymore and work a desk job, but still i try to get my cardio in early mornings before work about 3 times a week (including weekends) before breakfast and then lift after work, but can't keep up with the pace i had while I was in the army. now i stay around 10-15% bf, but in the army i stayed around 7% the whole time.
I would love to do that but its hard for me to wake up that early.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

I would love to do that but its hard for me to wake up that early.
same thing with me. without the threat of a boot up my ass, i cannot wake up early enough to do this. we all have lives and just cannot fit this into our schedules.

[D-Rose]

My best advice is to just find a healthy, balanced diet rather than one of these extremes. You can eat healthy and still occasionally have a burger or some cake. Every time I try to do some diet, it almost always fails in some way because it's just too strict for me. When I just generally focus on eating healthy, I don't worry freak out about every calorie or fat/carb information.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

dude if you're serious, measure, measure, measure. have a cheat meal once a week, but measure, measure, measure. and be totally obsessed. that is if you wanna get anywhere anytime soon. if you got a couple of years to get to where you want to get to(hoping its not too extreme), by all means, take it easy.

[Meticode]

My best advice is to just find a healthy, balanced diet rather than one of these extremes. You can eat healthy and still occasionally have a burger or some cake. Every time I try to do some diet, it almost always fails in some way because it's just too strict for me. When I just generally focus on eating healthy, I don't worry freak out about every calorie or fat/carb information.
This.

I watched what i ate for almost a year and worked out. I went from 246 to 181. I've gained about 24 pounds since then, but feel really healthy. I have a green smoothie every day for breakfast.

1/2 banana
1/2 apple
handful of blueberries, mango, pineapple, strawberries, spinach/kale
splash of pomegranate juice
1 tablespoon of coconut oil
2 cups of purified ice cold water

delish...

[TheNaturalWR]

It works because almost everything has carbs. You're essentially just losing weight because you can't find anything that doesn't have carbs.

Weight loss = Caloric Deficit, what you eat doesn't matter at all in terms of body composition, healthy is a different story.

Find your maintenance calories and from then depending how desperate you are you lose weight eat at a 500 calorie deficit. If you lift weights and actually have muscle than you might not want to lose weight that fast.

When I decided to shed some fat, I lost 14 pounds and I ate a pint of Haagan Dasz ice cream EVERY ****ING DAY. It's calories in vs calories out.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

i've heard a lot of testimonials about cals in vs cals out therefore cal deficit works, but honestly, its an unexact science. it will work to some extent, don't get me wrong. but its not exactly optimal.

[BrainDead]

I don't know anything about this shit. How do you know how many calories you suppose to eat per day? I just eat, some days I eat a lot, some days I don't eat much at all. How do I cut calories when I don't know how much I consume in the first place? This is confusing. :facepalm

[SupermanOnSteroids]

there are a bunch of calculators out there. imo those aren't accurate. every person is different. hormones play a key role and are more important than just age and weight. so take them for a baseline, but customize based on your body type.

[TheNaturalWR]

i've heard a lot of testimonials about cals in vs cals out therefore cal deficit works, but honestly, its an unexact science. it will work to some extent, don't get me wrong. but its not exactly optimal.

No, it's simple physics. If you're eating less energy(calories) than your body needs to function than you will lose fat as those fat cells will empty. It's not optimal for actual health but if all you care about is body composition than it's all you need to know. Ever heard of the guy who lost a ****ton of weight solely eating McDonalds? The inside of his body is probably a walking heart attack but his body composition is fine.

The best thing to do is eat at a caloric deficit while eating nutrient-filled foods but sometimes you just want to live life and not eat tasteless shit. That's where calories in vs calories out comes into play or in the bodybuilding world IIFYM(If It Fits Your Macros). So yeah it's not optimal for actual health but it's 100% correct when all you care about is body composition.

[TheNaturalWR]

I don't know anything about this shit. How do you know how many calories you suppose to eat per day? I just eat, some days I eat a lot, some days I don't eat much at all. How do I cut calories when I don't know how much I consume in the first place? This is confusing. :facepalm

Use the IIFYM calculator and eat the amount of calories it suggests for you based on your goals and then weight yourself after a week of doing it. If you loss or gained weight than adjust to your specific needs. But usually a male will lose weight on 2000 calories a day even if it was a fat dude who never got off his couch.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

No, it's simple physics. If you're eating less energy(calories) than your body needs to function than you will lose fat as those fat cells will empty. It's not optimal for actual health but if all you care about is body composition than it's all you need to know. Ever heard of the guy who lost a ****ton of weight solely eating McDonalds? The inside of his body is probably a walking heart attack but his body composition is fine.

The best thing to do is eat at a caloric deficit while eating nutrient-filled foods but sometimes you just want to live life and not eat tasteless shit. That's where calories in vs calories out comes into play or in the bodybuilding world IIFYM(If It Fits Your Macros). So yeah it's not optimal for actual health but it's 100% correct when all you care about is body composition.
but who was hormones and their effects on the body. hormones are the variants. cals in cals out is just a baseline. even though it works in theory, its not optimal in practice. you can do more to spice up your metabolism and maximize your losses.

[IamRAMBO24]

No, it's simple physics. If you're eating less energy(calories) than your body needs to function than you will lose fat as those fat cells will empty. It's not optimal for actual health but if all you care about is body composition than it's all you need to know. Ever heard of the guy who lost a ****ton of weight solely eating McDonalds? The inside of his body is probably a walking heart attack but his body composition is fine.

The best thing to do is eat at a caloric deficit while eating nutrient-filled foods but sometimes you just want to live life and not eat tasteless shit. That's where calories in vs calories out comes into play or in the bodybuilding world IIFYM(If It Fits Your Macros). So yeah it's not optimal for actual health but it's 100% correct when all you care about is body composition.

Cal in/out is probably the worst way to lose weight.

[TheNaturalWR]

but who was hormones and their effects on the body. hormones are the variants. cals in cals out is just a baseline. even though it works in theory, its not optimal in practice. you can do more to spice up your metabolism and maximize your losses.

Hormones is only a factor when the person has low testosterone. For any normal person calories in vs calories out will be perfect. I agreed with you that it's not optimal but 99% if the time it will work. You will lose/gain weight simply using that concept. It only gets tricky when you're trying to get to a ridiculously low body fat as the type of foods you eat will come into a play. As for metabolism? You can't do anything to your metabolism. Well you can but the change will be so minor you shouldn't expect anything to come from it.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

Hormones is only a factor when the person has low testosterone. For any normal person calories in vs calories out will be perfect. I agreed with you that it's not optimal but 99% if the time it will work. You will lose/gain weight simply using that concept. It only gets tricky when you're trying to get to a ridiculously low body fat as the type of foods you eat will come into a play. As for metabolism? You can't do anything to your metabolism. Well you can but the change will be so minor you shouldn't expect anything to come from it.
:facepalm

[SupermanOnSteroids]

Hormones is only a factor when the person has low testosterone. For any normal person calories in vs calories out will be perfect. I agreed with you that it's not optimal but 99% if the time it will work. You will lose/gain weight simply using that concept. It only gets tricky when you're trying to get to a ridiculously low body fat as the type of foods you eat will come into a play. As for metabolism? You can't do anything to your metabolism. Well you can but the change will be so minor you shouldn't expect anything to come from it.
but who was insulin
why do drs. check your thyroid levels when you tell them you suddenly gained weight.
who was cortisol
what is testosterone
etc
etc

[TheNaturalWR]

Cal in/out is probably the worst way to lose weight.

It might be the worst way in terms of overall health but you can't deny that it works. People constantly try to argue it but at the end of the day it's all that really matters for the normal person trying to lose weight. You can eat healthy all you want but if you're not at a caloric deficit you're going to stay at your weight.

Both Person A and B's maintenance calories are the same, let's say 2500.

Person A: Fat as **** but has now only been eating 2000 calories a day. Those 2000 calories consist of all processed shit. Ice cream, McDonalds, cupcakes, pizza, you name it. Is completely deprived of nutrients and vitamins.

Person B: Fat as **** as well but has no been eating completely healthy. Chicken breast, vegetables, fruit, oats, whole grains, not one processed food. However, he's still eating at a maintenance of 2500 calories. Those 2500 calories are "clean" foods.

Person A is the person that will lose weight while Person B is going to stay fat. Person B might be healthier in the inside but Person A is going to shed fat.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

It might be the worst way in terms of overall health but you can't deny that it works. People constantly try to argue it but at the end of the day it's all that really matters for the normal person trying to lose weight. You can eat healthy all you want but if you're not at a caloric deficit you're going to stay at your weight.

Both Person A and B's maintenance calories are the same, let's say 2500.

Person A: Fat as **** but has now only been eating 2000 calories a day. Those 2000 calories consist of all processed shit. Ice cream, McDonalds, cupcakes, pizza, you name it. Is completely deprived of nutrients and vitamins.

Person B: Fat as **** as well but has no been eating completely healthy. Chicken breast, vegetables, fruit, oats, whole grains, not one processed food. However, he's still eating at a maintenance of 2500 calories. Those 2500 calories are "clean" foods.

Person A is the person that will lose weight while Person B is going to stay fat. Person B might be healthier in the inside but Person A is going to shed fat.
you can beat and hammer a round peg into fitting in a square hole but you could also find the square peg and get the same job done in a much easier fashion.

[BlkMambaGOAT]

I'm thinking about shredding some pounds after seeing Lebron, but I can't wrap my head around not eating fruit as a staple of my diet. I love fruit, but apparently it's "bad" if you're on the no carb diet, so is this all a joke or is it serious stuff? How good is it long term?
white bread/rice, potatoes = carbs = fat if zero to moderate exercise is done
fruits = sugars which could be healthy if you burn it off



What makes it work is pure veggies all the way. It's not so hard, at least you get to put your shroom collection to good use:pimp: :pimp:
http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110314111540/uncyclopedia/images/5/51/2693xp2hki-shrooms.jpg
Welcome to the good life.

[BlkMambaGOAT]

It might be the worst way in terms of overall health but you can't deny that it works. People constantly try to argue it but at the end of the day it's all that really matters for the normal person trying to lose weight. You can eat healthy all you want but if you're not at a caloric deficit you're going to stay at your weight.

Both Person A and B's maintenance calories are the same, let's say 2500.

Person A: Fat as **** but has now only been eating 2000 calories a day. Those 2000 calories consist of all processed shit. Ice cream, McDonalds, cupcakes, pizza, you name it. Is completely deprived of nutrients and vitamins.

Person B: Fat as **** as well but has no been eating completely healthy. Chicken breast, vegetables, fruit, oats, whole grains, not one processed food. However, he's still eating at a maintenance of 2500 calories. Those 2500 calories are "clean" foods.

Person A is the person that will lose weight while Person B is going to stay fat. Person B might be healthier in the inside but Person A is going to shed fat.
Healthy calories are much easier to burn off than unhealthy, processed calories.

[TheNaturalWR]

but who was insulin
why do drs. check your thyroid levels when you tell them you suddenly gained weight.
who was cortisol
what is testosterone
etc
etc

If someone is low on testosterone then they need to up their fats and see a doctor immediately. For people who are functioning normally then calories in vs calories out is the key. And still a person with low testosterone is still going to have a maintenance. He's not going to gain weight if he's eating at a caloric deficit or lose weight when he's eating at a caloric surplus just because his hormones are ****ed up. The body is still going to process those calories and if they don't match up with the maintenance than you'll see it in your body composition.

[TheNaturalWR]

Healthy calories are much easier to burn off than unhealthy, processed calories.

Myth. You think the body can tell the difference between a calorie from a donut and a calorie from an orange? It can't. A calorie is simply energy for the body.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

Myth. You think the body can tell the difference between a calorie from a donut and a calorie from an orange? It can't. A calorie is simply energy for the body.
correction. its not just about the calorie, its about simple carbs vs complex carbs. google it, learn a thing or two, come back in this thread, apologize for your post.

[TheNaturalWR]

correction. its not just about the calorie, its about simple carbs vs complex carbs. google it, learn a thing or two, come back in this thread, apologize for your post.

It might get burned "faster" but it doesn't matter in terms of body composition. If someone is eating his maintenance it doesn't matter if his food is all healthy. He's not losing weight, period. And that's what he replied to. So nope, not going to apologize. He's implying that if someone ate 2500 healthy calories which was maintenance that someone has a chance to lose weight because the calorie gets burned faster. That's false.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

If someone is low on testosterone then they need to up their fats and see a doctor immediately. For people who are functioning normally then calories in vs calories out is the key. And still a person with low testosterone is still going to have a maintenance. He's not going to gain weight if he's eating at a caloric deficit or lose weight when he's eating at a caloric surplus just because his hormones are ****ed up. The body is still going to process those calories and if they don't match up with the maintenance than you'll see it in your body composition.
everyone is functioning differently. to get the cals burned formula, they just took 50 random people and tested their output and came up with a formula. its not applicable to all. everyone's body is different and everyone burns cals at a different rate. and it ain't all about testerone, there are numerous hormones that are at work affecting your metabolic rate. the machines you use at the gym spitting out calories burned number, not accurate. that's just an estimation. the internet sites where you plug your numbers in and get a number out to calculate your calories burned, not accurate, just an approximation. there are just way too many factors in play to accurately calculate a person's cal in/cal out differential. but we approximate. we assume that all the factors, all the hormones in play, our metabolic rate, all are in line with normalcy. but if you're eating a diet of 15 donughts to get your total caloric input for the day vs you eating a proper healthy diet, you're going to have different results no matter how hard you try limit your cals to the other group.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

It might get burned "faster" but it doesn't matter in terms of body composition. If someone is eating his maintenance it doesn't matter if his food is all healthy. He's not losing weight, period. And that's what he replied to. So nope, not going to apologize. He's implying that if someone ate 2500 healthy calories which was maintenance that someone has a chance to lose weight because the calorie gets burned faster. That's false.
you are clueless. quit talking.

[TheNaturalWR]

you are clueless. quit talking.

Yeah and so are the thousands of other people who follow the IIFYM based approach? A calorie is a ****ing calorie. You're clueless for thinking otherwise.

2000 calories is 2000 calories, the nutrients might be different but it doesn't mean shit for body composition.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

IIFYM not optimal and totally vague. I hope you understand the difference in between ingesting 15 donughts a day an meeting your total caloric input for the day vs eating pure lean meat and veggies and meeting your total caloric input for the day that way.

and If It Fits Your Macros assumes that you have appropriate macros in place. You can't say my macros are total 100% simple carbs and fats and nothing else.

[TheNaturalWR]

everyone is functioning differently. to get the cals burned formula, they just took 50 random people and tested their output and came up with a formula. its not applicable to all. everyone's body is different and everyone burns cals at a different rate. and it ain't all about testerone, there are numerous hormones that are at work affecting your metabolic rate. the machines you use at the gym spitting out calories burned number, not accurate. that's just an estimation. the internet sites where you plug your numbers in and get a number out to calculate your calories burned, not accurate, just an approximation. there are just way too many factors in play to accurately calculate a person's cal in/cal out differential. but we approximate. we assume that all the factors, all the hormones in play, our metabolic rate, all are in line with normalcy. but if you're eating a diet of 15 donughts to get your total caloric input for the day vs you eating a proper healthy diet, you're going to have different results no matter how hard you try limit your cals to the other group.

I'm just going to say this. Let's say someone is ****ed up hormonally and all that like you're saying but then that person found his maintenance by himself. If he eats less, he's going to lose weight. No one uses the internet to find calories burned. We use it to find MAINTENANCE. If a person finds their maintenance they're set. You're essentially talking about people who HAVEN'T found their maintenance.

And by the way if 15 donuts was my maintenance and I ate 15 donuts, the way I look isn't going to change.

[bballnoob1192]

No, not really.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

This professor loss 27 pounds eating nothing but ass junk food, but just made sure he was measuring his calories.
this is true and tons of people usually mistaken weight loss with being healthy.

[TheNaturalWR]

IIFYM not optimal and totally vague. I hope you understand the difference in between ingesting 15 donughts a day an meeting your total caloric input for the day vs eating pure lean meat and veggies and meeting your total caloric input for the day that way.

I understand the pure lean meat and veggies is better nutritionally and for your overall health. But do you understand that doesn't mean shit when all the person cares about is body composition? Take bodybuilders like Matt Ogus and Chris Lavado for example. They ate whatever the **** they wanted, they were living life unlike the people who want to eat healthy 24/7. And yet they still came in at 4-6% body fat, shredded to the ****ing bone. You know what they did? IIFYM, calories in vs calories out. It simply gets RESULTS. I'm not arguing if it's optimal or not. I'm just saying it works if you're ONLY CONCERN is BODY COMPOSITION.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

I'm just going to say this. Let's say someone is ****ed up hormonally and all that like you're saying but then that person found his maintenance by himself. If he eats less, he's going to lose weight. No one uses the internet to find calories burned. We use it to find MAINTENANCE. If a person finds their maintenance they're set. You're essentially talking about people who HAVEN'T found their maintenance.

And by the way if 15 donuts was my maintenance and I ate 15 donuts, the way I look isn't going to change.
how exactly do you find maintenance? what exactly is maintenance? define maintenance while avoiding the words calories burned.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

this is true and tons of people usually mistaken weight loss with being healthy.
weight loss =/= fat loss

[TheNaturalWR]

IIFYM not optimal and totally vague. I hope you understand the difference in between ingesting 15 donughts a day an meeting your total caloric input for the day vs eating pure lean meat and veggies and meeting your total caloric input for the day that way.

and If It Fits Your Macros assumes that you have appropriate macros in place. You can't say my macros are total 100% simple carbs and fats and nothing else.

IIFYM and calories in vs calories out is essentially the same concept but either way there's no "appropriate" macros, it varies from person to person and how they feel. They still have an end caloric goal.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

I understand the pure lean meat and veggies is better nutritionally and for your overall health. But do you understand that doesn't mean shit when all the person cares about is body composition? Take bodybuilders like Matt Ogus and Chris Lavado for example. They ate whatever the **** they wanted, they were living life unlike the people who want to eat healthy 24/7. And yet they still came in at 4-6% body fat, shredded to the ****ing bone. You know what they did? IIFYM, calories in vs calories out. It simply gets RESULTS. I'm not arguing if it's optimal or not. I'm just saying it works if you're ONLY CONCERN is BODY COMPOSITION.
body composition means a relation between body fat and muscle mass. you can not realistically say you would achieve the same muscle mass on a diet of 15 donughts that you would achieve on a diet of lean meat and veggies.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

IIFYM and calories in vs calories out is essentially the same concept but either way there's no "appropriate" macros, it varies from person to person and how they feel. They still have an end caloric goal.
define macros dude. what do you set your macros as when you set a goal to lose weight.

edit: nice ninja edit.

[TheNaturalWR]

how exactly do you find maintenance? what exactly is maintenance? define maintenance while avoiding the words calories burned.

Maintenance is the calories the person needs to maintain his weight. You find it by eating a certain amount of calories for a week and see what it did to your body composition. If you loss weight or gained weight on the scale than you adjust accordingly. Eventually if you're not a complete dumbass, you'll find your maintenance calories(which means you could eat those amount of calories everyday and maintain your body weight). And then all you have to do to lose weight is calories in vs calories out.

[TheNaturalWR]

define macros dude. what do you set your macros as when you set a goal to lose weight.

edit: nice ninja edit.

Didn't edit anything, only edited an "for example" after Matt Ogus and Chris Lavado.

[TheNaturalWR]

body composition means a relation between body fat and muscle mass. you can not realistically say you would achieve the same muscle mass on a diet of 15 donughts that you would achieve on a diet of lean meat and veggies.

Thought we were just talking about people solely focused on losing fat. If we're talking about people who actually have muscle and want to gain muscle than that's a different story. He'll need to hit his protein requirements and from then on he could eat whatever the **** we wanted. My mistake.

I'll change my current stance if muscle is involved. Hit your protein requirements AND THEN EAT WHATEVER THE **** YOU WANT.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

in one sentence, its the same amount of caloric intake as much as the calories you burn. therefore no gains. now you can lose muscle and gain fat on the same amount of cals, you can lose fat and gain muscle on the same amounts of cals, or you can stay the same. just because you're eating at maintenance doesn't mean that you're going to remain the same. the same could be decided on what type of nutrition you intake while working out while maintaining maintenance, or deficit, or excess. high protein = more muscle building. high carb = higher insulin spike and more fat storage and then at the time of fasting more muscle catabolism. do you understand this concept?

[IamRAMBO24]

Myth. You think the body can tell the difference between a calorie from a donut and a calorie from an orange? It can't. A calorie is simply energy for the body.

I don't think it's really that simple. With that reasoning, you can virtually eat anything and still be healthy, which isn't true at all. I'm sure there's a difference between the calories of a can of coke and the calories of a fruit.

[DropStep]

Myth. You think the body can tell the difference between a calorie from a donut and a calorie from an orange? It can't. A calorie is simply energy for the body.


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[SupermanOnSteroids]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
you know my sergeant major always used to say this: the only thing worse than an idiot and an energetic idiot. an idiot would voice his opinion once, and get shut down and shut up. an energetic idiot would keep arguing and drive the whole world insane with his rabble.

i think we just encountered an energetic idiot.

[TheNaturalWR]

in one sentence, its the same amount of caloric intake as much as the calories you burn. therefore no gains. now you can lose muscle and gain fat on the same amount of cals, you can lose fat and gain muscle on the same amounts of cals, or you can stay the same. just because you're eating at maintenance doesn't mean that you're going to remain the same. the same could be decided on what type of nutrition you intake while working out while maintaining maintenance, or deficit, or excess. high protein = more muscle building. high carb = higher insulin spike and more fat storage and then at the time of fasting more muscle catabolism. do you understand this concept?

lol @ gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time....shit is damn near impossible unless we're now going to bring gear into this? Eating at maintenance will make you stay the same weight. I'll admit I'm not sure if someone will lose muscle even if he doesn't get any protein at all. As long as he is still working out and is eating at a maintenance, I don't think his muscles will atrophy. It just won't grow.

Wasn't the insulin spike bullshit myth debunked a long time ago? You're not going to store more fat just because you eat more carbs. If you're over maintenance you're storing fat regardless the amount of carbs isn't relevant. Pretty sure someone at a 40-40-20 macros at a caloric surplus will put on the same amount of fat as someone on a 50-10-40 macro surplus. Muscle catabolism? Pretty sure it was proven that it takes a while before your body turns to burning muscle. You're not going to go catabolic until you go a long ass time without eating food. If muscle catabolism was true, Intermittent Fasting wouldn't be as popular as it is.

[IamRAMBO24]

you know my sergeant major always used to say this: the only thing worse than an idiot and an energetic idiot. an idiot would voice his opinion once, and get shut down and shut up. an energetic idiot would keep arguing and drive the whole world insane with his rabble.

i think we just encountered an energetic idiot.

He's not an idiot. He just has a different perspective on health. I can understand his reasoning, but I think it's more complex than that. From my understanding there are empty calories and good calories and it is all a matter of how the body processes them which is more important than merely cutting back on them. This is why I'm interested in the no carb diet.

[TheNaturalWR]

you know my sergeant major always used to say this: the only thing worse than an idiot and an energetic idiot. an idiot would voice his opinion once, and get shut down and shut up. an energetic idiot would keep arguing and drive the whole world insane with his rabble.

i think we just encountered an energetic idiot.

You still believe in the insulin spike, building muscle and burning fat at the same time, and muscle entering a catabolic state whenever you're fasting and you're calling me an idiot?

[IamRAMBO24]

l

Wasn't the insulin spike bullshit myth debunked a long time ago? You're not going to store more fat just because you eat more carbs.

Look at Lebron dude ..

http://bossip.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/lebron-james-weight-loss.jpg

[IamRAMBO24]

You still believe in the insulin spike, building muscle and burning fat at the same time, and muscle entering a catabolic state whenever you're fasting and you're calling me an idiot?

I think he knows more about health than you do, but don't worry, you know more than I do.

[TheNaturalWR]

He's not an idiot. He just has a different perspective on health. I can understand his reasoning, but I think it's more complex than that. From my understanding there are empty calories and good calories and it is all a matter of how the body processes them which is more important than merely cutting back on them. This is why I'm interested in the no carb diet.

I'm part of the IIFYM, calories in vs calories out group. I NEVER once argued that this way of losing weight was optimal. All I said was that it works. If you're saying it doesn't work, than obviously I'm going to ****ing argue it considering thousands of people do it and get the results they want.

[IamRAMBO24]

I'm part of the IIFYM, calories in vs calories out group. I NEVER once argued that this way of losing weight was optimal. All I said was that it works. If you're saying it doesn't work, than obviously I'm going to ****ing argue it considering thousands of people do it and get the results they want.

Ya but doesn't the body try to maintain your weight if you cut back on the calories? Don't you get hungry as sh*t? If that's the case, then it's not very effective at all in practice. It is simple common sense, maybe a bit too simple.

[TheNaturalWR]

Look at Lebron dude ..

http://bossip.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/lebron-james-weight-loss.jpg

That's a terrible example. Him eating less carbs just meant he put himself in a deficit. And he's already in terrific shape so he essentially just got rid of the water weight/bloat. He's not going to last long with this. He's going to feel like complete shit if he's planning to play 82 games on less than 200g of carbs a day. It's your body's main source of energy and he's essentially depleting himself of it.

[TheNaturalWR]

Ya but doesn't the body try to maintain your weight if you cut back on the calories? Don't you get hungry as sh*t? If that's the case, then it's not very effective at all in practice. It is simple common sense, maybe a bit too simple.

Your body can't maintain your weight if you're not taking in enough calories for it to maintain. If you're not supplying your body with enough calories than your body is going to go burn through your fat storage cells. It's impossible to maintain weight at a deficit, it just goes against physics.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

lol @ gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time....shit is damn near impossible unless we're now going to bring gear into this? Eating at maintenance will make you stay the same weight. I'll admit I'm not sure if someone will lose muscle even if he doesn't get any protein at all. As long as he is still working out and is eating at a maintenance, I don't think his muscles will atrophy. It just won't grow.

Wasn't the insulin spike bullshit myth debunked a long time ago? You're not going to store more fat just because you eat more carbs. If you're over maintenance you're storing fat regardless the amount of carbs isn't relevant. Pretty sure someone at a 40-40-20 macros at a caloric surplus will put on the same amount of fat as someone on a 50-10-40 macro surplus. Muscle catabolism? Pretty sure it was proven that it takes a while before your body turns to burning muscle. You're not going to go catabolic until you go a long ass time without eating food. If muscle catabolism was true, Intermittent Fasting wouldn't be as popular as it is.
bold 1: recomp is possible but not optimal therefore not followed widely, but possible.
bold 2: muscle is a use it or lose it proposition. you keep working out you'll keep it, you quit working out, you'll lose it. catabolism/anabolism is a constant phenomenon and depends on how much you're fasting. you intake enough protein and take BCAAs, it will put a hold on catabolism. You eat just 15 donughts a day, catabolism galore. empty carbs, quickly absorbed. blood sugar spikes and then insulin spikes, insulin pushes all blood sugar into cells, ie fat storage. then glucose balance low and catabolism ensues along with lypolosis. complex carbs, blood sugar doesn't spike as much, insulin doesn't spike as much. glucose is not absorbed into cells as quickly, stays in the blood longer, glucose balance stays positive, less catabolism.

in a similar way, protein balance in the blood holds even more importance.

bold 3: insulin spike is a true phenomenon. this is why you take dextrose right after work out. and prefer complex carbs over simple carbs. where did you hear that insulin spike is bs? please alert me on this. maybe i'm the one that's unaware.

[IamRAMBO24]

That's a terrible example. Him eating less carbs just meant he put himself in a deficit. And he's already in terrific shape so he essentially just got rid of the water weight/bloat. He's not going to last long with this. He's going to feel like complete shit if he's planning to play 82 games on less than 200g of carbs a day. It's your body's main source of energy and he's essentially depleting himself of it.

He's not depleting himself, he's just not eating as much. I don't think he's just losing water, that's some serious weight loss in a short amount of time and that's not the only example of it working.

I think superman is right, without carbs, the body gets rid of calories a lot faster, so even if you eat a lot of calories, your body won't bog down and store it, so I don't believe it is just calories in/out ... it is what your body does to the calories that's just as important.

Again, tomorrow is my first day on this no carb diet .. you might be right because I did lose a lot of weight before just eating fish and rice. I might go back to that. I just like to experiment and see what works best for me.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

dude, i ain't no moron. even though i'm a CPA now, but i majored in biology as an undergrad and worked as a personal trainer while in college. i've been working out since the age of 15 when i started playing organized sports and to this day keep my knowledge fresh. and i know for a fact that you have no idea what the **** you're talking about but you just love to talk.

[TheNaturalWR]

bold 1: recomp is possible but not optimal therefore not followed widely, but possible.
bold 2: muscle is a use it or lose it proposition. you keep working out you'll keep it, you quit working out, you'll lose it. catabolism/anabolism is a constant phenomenon and depends on how much you're fasting. you intake enough protein and take BCAAs, it will put a hold on catabolism. You eat just 15 donughts a day, catabolism galore. empty carbs, quickly absorbed. blood sugar spikes and then insulin spikes, insulin pushes all blood sugar into cells, ie fat storage. then glucose balance low and catabolism ensues along with lypolosis. complex carbs, blood sugar doesn't spike as much, insulin doesn't spike as much. glucose is not absorbed into cells as quickly, stays in the blood longer, glucose balance stays positive, less catabolism.

in a similar way, protein balance in the blood holds even more importance.

bold 3: insulin spike is a true phenomenon. this is why you take dextrose right after work out. and prefer complex carbs over simple carbs. where did you hear that insulin spike is bs? please alert me on this. maybe i'm the one that's unaware.

You don't need any sugar post workout. That's the myth I was talking about. The anabolic window lasts way longer. That's why I always laugh at the idiots that immediately chug down their protein shake after their last rep of their last set.

And catabolism does not occur that fast. If it did, intermittent fasting wouldn't be as popular as it is. The sugar and carbs is not what causes the fat storage, it's simply the calories.

I'm just going to leave it at if you hit your protein requirements, calories in vs calories out is all you need. I don't see why I'm wrong.

[IamRAMBO24]

I'm just going to leave it at if you hit your protein requirements, calories in vs calories out is all you need. I don't see why I'm wrong.

We'll see. At the end of the week, if I don't notice any change, I will personally make a thread saying that you're right.

Superman has the edge as of right now. I think he knows more than you do.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

You don't need any sugar post workout. That's the myth I was talking about. The anabolic window lasts way longer. That's why I always laugh at the idiots that immediately chug down their protein shake after their last rep of their last set.

And catabolism does not occur that fast. If it did, intermittent fasting wouldn't be as popular as it is. The sugar and carbs is not what causes the fat storage, it's simply the calories.

I'm just going to leave it at if you hit your protein requirements, calories in vs calories out is all you need. I don't see why I'm wrong.
again you go off spewing bs. what is glycogen stores and why should you replenish them ASAP and how does it affect your resting metabolic rate? google it. then get back to me.

i'm out dude. you are the biggest mouthed moron i've ever met that said he knew diet and bodybuilding.

[TheNaturalWR]

dude, i ain't no moron. even though i'm a CPA now, but i majored in biology as an undergrad and worked as a personal trainer while in college. i've been working out since the age of 15 when i started playing organized sports and to this day keep my knowledge fresh. and i know for a fact that you have no idea what the **** you're talking about but you just love to talk.

Honestly don't know why you're getting your panties in a bunch. You're acting like the things I'm saying are 100% false. Calories in vs calories out is PROVEN to work. IIFYM is PROVEN to work. Thousands of people go and swear by it and these thousands of people GET THE RESULTS. Hit your protein requirements and then eat whatever you want. That's how I lost weight but hey I don't know what the **** I'm doing so maybe it was just pure luck.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

Honestly don't know why you're getting your panties in a bunch. You're acting like the things I'm saying are 100% false. Calories in vs calories out is PROVEN to work. IIFYM is PROVEN to work. Thousands of people go and swear by it and these thousands of people GET THE RESULTS. Hit your protein requirements and then eat whatever you want. That's how I lost weight but hey I don't know what the **** I'm doing so maybe it was just pure luck.
there's a difference in between doing things the hard way or the right way. you can't tell your head from your ass.

[TheNaturalWR]

again you go off spewing bs. what is glycogen stores and why should you replenish them ASAP and how does it affect your resting metabolic rate? google it. then get back to me

I don't know how many times this shit has been proven to be completely false. Your body doesn't digest food instantly. It's constantly digesting. The shit you ate before your workout might still be digesting and therefore those carbs could go to your muscles. Funny how you say you need sugar but where does that leave the keto people? Keto people still make gains because excess calories is the most important. Are you saying that if I had no carbs post workout but only fats and protein I wouldn't gain muscle even though I was at a caloric surplus?

[SupermanOnSteroids]

I don't know how many times this shit has been proven to be completely false. Your body doesn't digest food instantly. It's constantly digesting. The shit you ate before your workout might still be digesting and therefore those carbs could go to your muscles. Funny how you say you need sugar but where does that leave the keto people? Keto people still make gains because excess calories is the most important. Are you saying that if I had no carbs post workout but only fats and protein I wouldn't gain muscle even though I was at a caloric surplus?
just shut up. even your argument has no basis.

[TheNaturalWR]

there's a difference in between doing things the hard way or the right way. you can't tell your head from your ass.

I don't know how many times I have to say this but I NEVER ONCE SAID IT WAS OPTIMAL. All I said was that it WORKS. The OP wanted to lose weight so I gave him the calories in vs calories out approach. All I want you to answer is yes or no. Does eating complete shit at a 500 calorie deficit help you lose weight? Yes or no. Don't say it's not optimal and shit because I never once said it was.

[IamRAMBO24]

Hey guys, there's really no need to get mad. I appreciate the info.

[TheNaturalWR]

just shut up. even your argument has no basis.

Actually it does but you're apparently stuck in the past with the "OMG I NEED TO SPIKE MY INSULIN POSTWORKOUT OR I WONT GAIN ANY MUSCLE!!!".

Properly done preworkout nutrition EASILY elevates insulin above and beyond the maximal threshold seen to inhibit muscle protein breakdown. This insulin elevation resulting from the preworkout meal can persist long after your resistance training bout is done. Therefore, thinking you need to spike anything is only the result of neglecting your preW nutrition"

Words from Alan Aragon, not me. But hey, feel free to call him an idiot as well.

[IamRAMBO24]

I don't know how many times I have to say this but I NEVER ONCE SAID IT WAS OPTIMAL. All I said was that it WORKS. The OP wanted to lose weight so I gave him the calories in vs calories out approach. All I want you to answer is yes or no. Does eating complete shit at a 500 calorie deficit help you lose weight? Yes or no. Don't say it's not optimal and shit because I never once said it was.

You're both arguing over different premises. I was asking about the efficacy of the no carb diet. I didn't care much for the calories in/out since I kind of learn that in elementary school.

[TheNaturalWR]

Hey guys, there's really no need to get mad. I appreciate the info.

He's the one who started the prick act, not me. I only gave the calories in vs calories out approach because who the hell wants to be miserable. You want to eat and feel like you're not actually dieting. That's the main reason people use this approach. Eating healthy 24/7 is just waiting for yourself to go all out and binge one day.

[IamRAMBO24]

Eating healthy 24/7 is just waiting for yourself to go all out and binge one day.

That is a good point, but also, if you cut back on the calories, doesn't the body automatically eat more to maintain the weight?

[TheNaturalWR]

You're both arguing over different premises. I was asking about the efficacy of the no carb diet. I didn't care much for the calories in/out since I kind of learn that in elementary school.

Yes and it'll work as long as you're on a deficit. You can't just continuing eating at your maintenance and expect to lose weight just because you're not eating any carbs. Caloric deficit is the most important factor for weight loss. But yeah I'm done with this topic. It's lasted way too long.

[TheNaturalWR]

That is a good point, but also, if you cut back on the calories, doesn't the body automatically eat more to maintain the weight?

How does your body automatically eat more? lol

It comes down to your self control. You're the one who controls what you eat. You can eat half healthy and half processed shit to satisfy your cravings or you can eat completely healthy and be miserable. It's up to you. Because at the end of the day caloric deficit is what's going to determine your weight loss.

I lost 14 pounds eating a pint of ice cream as half my calories. The other half was chicken breast, broccoli, whole grains, and all healthy foods. My weight loss would have been the same if I ate completely healthy. The only difference is I would have been miserable and probably would have binged on a weekly basis.

[IamRAMBO24]

Yes and it'll work as long as you're on a deficit. You can't just continuing eating at your maintenance and expect to lose weight just because you're not eating any carbs. Caloric deficit is the most important factor for weight loss. But yeah I'm done with this topic. It's lasted way too long.

If the carbs is what stores the calories, then wouldn't it make sense the lack of it will burn it faster? Seems reasonable to me.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Lets put it this way, cutting carbs will result in weight loss but it won't be healthy. Muscles need carbs. If you're a fat guy trying to cut mass quickly then go ahead. Otherwise I wouldn't recommend it.

[DeuceWallaces]

Lets put it this way, cutting carbs will result in weight loss but it won't be healthy. Muscles need carbs. If you're a fat guy trying to cut mass quickly then go ahead. Otherwise I wouldn't recommend it.

There's nothing unhealthy about cutting down on your bread, rice, and pasta.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

its too ****ing funny how much bro science passes as real facts on this boards. i'll do you a favor, go to bodybuilding .com and surf through their boards and fish for advice. DO NOT and I repeat DO NOT rely on any of the posters here for REAL weight loss advise.

[KyrieTheFuture]

There's nothing unhealthy about cutting down on your bread, rice, and pasta.
Cutting down is absolutely fine. Cutting it out entirely is not. Bodybuilding.com is definitely a better place but they have a lot of bad advice too

[SupermanOnSteroids]

TheNaturalWR, you keep arguing how a cal is a cal is a cal. So just find me one article, just one reputable article that says that eating a snickers bar is the same as having a grilled chicken breast for a meal. just put all your efforts into it. and i promise you, as a straight man, i promise you, if you find anything that says that snickers bar = chicken breast because both equal same calories, i would literally show up at your house, take off your pants, lick your balls, and swallow your dick. i would literally do it. i would. i promise dude, i would show up at your house and give you a better blow job than any porn star has ever given to her male performer. but if you can't find that article, you have to promise me, to never ever, ever ever ever give bad uninformed advise to anyone ever again. just zip up your mouth and learn to shut the **** up. just SHUT THE **** UP! ok? do we have this down? now go.

[oarabbus]

TheNaturalWR, you keep arguing how a cal is a cal is a cal. So just find me one article, just one reputable article that says that eating a snickers bar is the same as having a grilled chicken breast for a meal. just put all your efforts into it. and i promise you, as a straight man, i promise you, if you find anything that says that snickers bar = chicken breast because both equal same calories, i would literally show up at your house, take off your pants, lick your balls, and swallow your dick. i would literally do it. i would. i promise dude, i would show up at your house and give you a better blow job than any porn star has ever given to her male performer. but if you can't find that article, you have to promise me, to never ever, ever ever ever give bad uninformed advise to anyone ever again. just zip up your mouth and learn to shut the **** up. just SHUT THE **** UP! ok? do we have this down? now go.


How fcuking stupid are you that you can't grasp the concept? No one is saying a snickers bar is as healthy has a chicken breast you moron.

Let's say you are a normal sized person who needs 2000 calories a day.
If you eat 3000 calories a day of spinach, kale, broccoli, and grilled chicken, you will gain weight.

If you eat 1500 calories a day of snickers bars a day you will lose weight.

It's not a difficult concept if you aren't a damn imbecile.

[oarabbus]

"WTF, I save and save and save my money, and only spend $50/wk out of my $50k salary but I still manage to overdraft!!!"

"Some people are just born with high interest generating checking accounts and can spend $500 a day and not lose any money"

[Fawker]

it's not a long term diet.

a life long athlete like lebron, metabolism on overdrive, it's nothing.

for you, you will look flabby and spongy underneath being on it. and hunger will come back with a fury.

[TheNaturalWR]

How fcuking stupid are you that you can't grasp the concept? No one is saying a snickers bar is as healthy has a chicken breast you moron.

Let's say you are a normal sized person who needs 2000 calories a day.
If you eat 3000 calories a day of spinach, kale, broccoli, and grilled chicken, you will gain weight.

If you eat 1500 calories a day of snickers bars a day you will lose weight.

It's not a difficult concept if you aren't a damn imbecile.

Seriously. That's all I have been saying. The OP wants to lose weight so I gave him an approach that works. Never have I ****ing said it was a healthy way to go about it but this dude wants to go absolute ape shit over something I never said. Seriously lol @ that previous post. This dude genuinely seems mad. IIFYM and calories in vs calories out works for thousands of people involved in fitness but apparently I'm giving bad advice to the OP.

[TheNaturalWR]

And by the way, you mention the bodybuilding forum? It's ****ing filled with IIFYM, calories in vs calories out people. Not sure why you would even mention it. They're people like you. They go ****ing berserk if you make a mistake or say something they disagree with. OP would get ****ing crucified. That's one thing OP should absolutely not do.

It's common sense that a caloric deficit is the only thing that matters when you want to lose weight. Eating healthy has nothing to do with it. It's a tragedy how millions of people have yet to realize this shit. Eat all the chicken breast and broccoli you want, if you're not in a deficit you're going to stay ****ing fat. Simple as that.

And I should have stated to get adequate protein in my original stance/post. So my final stance is a calorie is a calorie if adequate protein is involved and body composition won't ****ing change if the calories(fat/carbs) are from a snickers bar or broccoli or brown rice. If the OP has very little muscle mass than the protein won't even matter, just eat whatever the **** you want as long as you're in a caloric deficit. You WILL lose weight. And if you disagree, you're disagreeing with simple physics and I have nothing to say.

[LBJ 23]

TheNaturalWR dropping the truth bombs :applause:

I've been saying the same shit for years on here but most posters want to choose that bro-steroid abusers route when it comes to nutrition.

[LBJ 23]

Lets put it this way, cutting carbs will result in weight loss but it won't be healthy. Muscles need carbs. If you're a fat guy trying to cut mass quickly then go ahead. Otherwise I wouldn't recommend it.


Not necessarily. If you compensate the carbs loss with adding more fats your BF% will probably stay the same and your body won't look as ''full'' because of the deficit of the glycogen and water retention.

[GimmeThat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDA_Food_Pyramid.gif

hey, we can all make our own educated decision on what no (____) diet works

[KyrieTheFuture]

Not necessarily. If you compensate the carbs loss with adding more fats your BF% will probably stay the same and your body won't look as ''full'' because of the deficit of the glycogen and water retention.
Which is not healthy

[LBJ 23]

TheNaturalWR, you keep arguing how a cal is a cal is a cal. So just find me one article, just one reputable article that says that eating a snickers bar is the same as having a grilled chicken breast for a meal. just put all your efforts into it. and i promise you, as a straight man, i promise you, if you find anything that says that snickers bar = chicken breast because both equal same calories, i would literally show up at your house, take off your pants, lick your balls, and swallow your dick. i would literally do it. i would. i promise dude, i would show up at your house and give you a better blow job than any porn star has ever given to her male performer. but if you can't find that article, you have to promise me, to never ever, ever ever ever give bad uninformed advise to anyone ever again. just zip up your mouth and learn to shut the **** up. just SHUT THE **** UP! ok? do we have this down? now go.


Like others have said you can't grasp the concept.

Search for nutrition experts such as Alan Aragorn, Layne Norton, Layle Mcdonald, 3DMJ coach Eric Helms,... and listen to their opinion about IIFYM or flexible dieting and a concept of ''calorie is a calorie'' or ''calories in vs calories out''. Those are not some ''bros'' from your home gym who are in most cases on juice and are telling you how you have to eat 6 meals per day of chicken+rice+brocolli, those are people who have PHD's in nutrition and have spent most of their careers researching how a natural body works in corelation with nutrition and weight lifting.

[hateraid]

And by the way, you mention the bodybuilding forum? It's ****ing filled with IIFYM, calories in vs calories out people. Not sure why you would even mention it. They're people like you. They go ****ing berserk if you make a mistake or say something they disagree with. OP would get ****ing crucified. That's one thing OP should absolutely not do.



Great knowledge.
Untortunately there is a lot of those bro-science types that have spilled over on here. Especially the fitness threads. The testosterone puts them in a mode where they go out their way to discredit you, even if you share the same stance. I do this for a living yet bro scientists love to refute. It's why I don't go out my way to lend advice


It's common sense that a caloric deficit is the only thing that matters when you want to lose weight. Eating healthy has nothing to do with it. It's a tragedy how millions of people have yet to realize this shit. Eat all the chicken breast and broccoli you want, if you're not in a deficit you're going to stay ****ing fat. Simple as that.

And I should have stated to get adequate protein in my original stance/post. So my final stance is a calorie is a calorie if adequate protein is involved and body composition won't ****ing change if the calories(fat/carbs) are from a snickers bar or broccoli or brown rice. If the OP has very little muscle mass than the protein won't even matter, just eat whatever the **** you want as long as you're in a caloric deficit. You WILL lose weight. And if you disagree, you're disagreeing with simple physics and I have nothing to say.

There are parts I'll agree with. A calorie deficit will make yo lose weight, regardless what you eat.
However eating more doesn't necessarily mean weight gain or stabilize. If fact some methods of dieting can be accomplished with higher intakes of calories. It all depends on what macros and the intervals you eat at.
If a person has gone from eating certain foods that are not conducive to maintaining muscles, then switched his diet to eating chicken and broccoli in your example weight loss is possible. Building a higher metabolic rate can be increased by the intervals you eat. The same calories but more frequent intervals can ignite and maintain a high metabolic rate. Combine with the fact that protein in itself is a metabolic monster.

Anyways....lot's of great point you are giving. All of you actually

[LBJ 23]

Which is not healthy


I'm not so sure about that. Personally, I would never go that route since I function better on carbs but there are people who will argue that eating just protein and loads of fat and almost no carbs is the healthiest diet possible. It's called Ketogenic and Atkins diet and this kind of diet is actually very popular right now in my country, people are saying that when they reach true ketosis, they have more energy than ever before and that their brain functions better, better memory, they say they are more focused and they can solve complex problems much faster than before etc,...

Their argument is also that Eskimos who eat mostly just protein with fats with limited carbs, are one of the healthiest people in the world with no cardiovascular diseases. They eat mostly foods like salmons, seals,... meats high in protein and high in fats.

[hateraid]

Like others have said you can't grasp the concept.

Search for nutrition experts such as Alan Aragorn, Layne Norton, Layle Mcdonald, 3DMJ coach Eric Helms,... and listen to their opinion about IIFYM or flexible dieting and a concept of ''calorie is a calorie'' or ''calories in vs calories out''. Those are not some ''bros'' from your home gym who are in most cases on juice and are telling you how you have to eat 6 meals per day of chicken+rice+brocolli, those are people who have PHD's in nutrition and have spent most of their careers researching how a natural body works in corelation with nutrition and weight lifting.

I read this after my last post. Kudos on that knowledge

[SupermanOnSteroids]

Just some highlights of the conversation with this bodybuilding genious

It works because almost everything has carbs. You're essentially just losing weight because you can't find anything that doesn't have carbs. (lol no, learn, explore, and you’ll find plenty of foods that are otherwise)

Weight loss = Caloric Deficit, what you eat doesn't matter at all in terms of body composition, healthy is a different story.

Find your maintenance calories and from then depending how desperate you are you lose weight eat at a 500 calorie deficit. If you lift weights and actually have muscle than you might not want to lose weight that fast.

When I decided to shed some fat, I lost 14 pounds and I ate a pint of Haagan Dasz ice cream EVERY ****ING DAY. It's calories in vs calories out.

No, it's simple physics. If you're eating less energy(calories) than your body needs to function than you will lose fat as those fat cells will empty. It's not optimal for actual health but if all you care about is body composition than it's all you need to know. Ever heard of the guy who lost a ****ton of weight solely eating McDonalds?(yeah we should just ignore cholesterol and all the other health mumbo jumbo that dem science magazines report about. Getting skinny is totally not about getting healthy.) The inside of his body is probably a walking heart attack but his body composition is fine.

The best thing to do is eat at a caloric deficit while eating nutrient-filled foods but sometimes you just want to live life and not eat tasteless shit. That's where calories in vs calories out comes into play or in the bodybuilding world IIFYM(If It Fits Your Macros). So yeah it's not optimal for actual health but it's 100% correct when all you care about is body composition.

Hormones is only a factor when the person has low testosterone. For any normal person calories in vs calories out will be perfect. (how about all the other hormones in your body? Surely just one can’t determine how you’re going to look overall. How about expanding your horizons and focusing on total body health instead of just whats coming from your nuts. There’s Insulin, Thyroid, etc, etc, but you don’t care, so why should your body? Right?) I agreed with you that it's not optimal but 99% if the time it will work.(eat shit feggot) You will lose/gain weight simply using that concept. It only gets tricky when you're trying to get to a ridiculously low body fat as the type of foods you eat will come into a play. As for metabolism? You can't do anything to your metabolism. Well you can but the change will be so minor you shouldn't expect anything to come from it.

Myth. You think the body can tell the difference between a calorie from a donut and a calorie from an orange? It can't. A calorie is simply energy for the body. actually thats exactly what it CAN do, but you wouldn't wanna know anything about it.

It might get burned "faster" but it doesn't matter in terms of body composition. If someone is eating his maintenance it doesn't matter if his food is all healthy. He's not losing weight, period. And that's what he replied to. So nope, not going to apologize. He's implying that if someone ate 2500 healthy calories which was maintenance that someone has a chance to lose weight because the calorie gets burned faster. That's false. Obviously doesn’t understand the difference between simple carbs and complex carbs or understand the whole concept about the glycemic index. Of course all of that is BS right?

Yeah and so are the thousands of other people who follow the IIFYM based approach? A calorie is a ****ing calorie. You're clueless for thinking otherwise.

2000 calories is 2000 calories, the nutrients might be different but it doesn't mean shit for body composition. Obviously this guy has a PHD in nutrition. “A calorie is a calorie.” Sure thing brotha. How about factoring in the real time environment of the body and thinking about how quickly some “calories” get absorbed and how it takes some some time. And meanwhile, a whole lot of other shit is going down that you have no idea about. So how about realizing that not ALL cals are the same. A carb does not simply equal a cal, it’s a little more complex than just that. Simple carbs = bad cals, complex carbs/protein/even a little bit of fat = good cals. Nutritional values do actually matter

I'm just going to say this. Let's say someone is ****ed up hormonally and all that like you're saying but then that person found his maintenance by himself. If he eats less, he's going to lose weight. No one uses the internet to find calories burned. We use it to find MAINTENANCE. (Every one wants to know how quickly he/she would lose the fat and therefore would want to calculate how much deficit they are in to get some sort of an idea about what type of weight they are losing and how fast. So people actually do look up how many cals burned in various places. Not every thing has a meter like your treadmill at the gym, so people go to other sources too. I’m just sayin this b/c I used to be a personal trainer and used to have clients who wanted to know their stats ASAP. So that was kind of helpful.)If a person finds their maintenance they're set. You're essentially talking about people who HAVEN'T found their maintenance.

And by the way if 15 donuts was my maintenance and I ate 15 donuts, the way I look isn't going to change.

I understand the pure lean meat and veggies is better nutritionally and for your overall health. But do you understand that doesn't mean shit when all the person cares about is body composition? (my definition of body composition tend to include lean body mass and body fat percentage, maybe your’s don’t, but according to my definition, the intake of protein/fat/complex carbs does make a difference in your overall "body composition". I mean I wouldn’t have that ripped chest and a six pack that I do on a healthy diet if I was doing the same thing on a diet of donughts and soda only.) Take bodybuilders like Matt Ogus and Chris Lavado for example. They ate whatever the **** they wanted, they were living life unlike the people who want to eat healthy 24/7. And yet they still came in at 4-6% body fat, shredded to the ****ing bone.(ask them their diet and then get back to me. sure as hell wasn't just donughts. macros means a certain something has to fit in. ie protein. sure they might have eaten lo meain at a chinese restaurant, but i'm sure they drank a protein shake the meal after that) You know what they did? IIFYM, calories in vs calories out. It simply gets RESULTS. I'm not arguing if it's optimal or not. I'm just saying it works if you're ONLY CONCERN is BODY COMPOSITION.

IIFYM and calories in vs calories out is essentially the same concept but either way there's no "appropriate" macros, (so I guess If It Fits Your MACROS means totally disregard your MACROS? The word Macros is there to make sure you allot enough of every nutrient to it. but i guess the real intake of each nutrient doesn't really matter. so **** it. lol. )it varies from person to person and how they feel. They still have an end caloric goal.

Maintenance is the calories the person needs to maintain his weight. You find it by eating a certain amount of calories for a week and see what it did to your body composition. If you loss weight or gained weight on the scale than you adjust accordingly. Eventually if you're not a complete dumbass, you'll find your maintenance calories(which means you could eat those amount of calories everyday and maintain your body weight). And then all you have to do to lose weight is calories in vs calories out.(yeah, if you wanna remain skinny fat. Maybe your idea of getting fit is becoming skinnier fat. Not sure what you want.)

[hateraid]

I'm not so sure about that. Personally, I would never go that rouse since I function better on carbs but there are people who will argue that eating just protein and loads of fat and almost no carbs is the healthiest diet possible. It's called Ketogenic and Atkins diet and this kind of diet is actually very popular right now in my country, people are saying that when they reach true ketosis, they have more energy than ever before and that their brain fucntions better, better memory, they say they are more focused and they can solve complex problems much faster than before etc,...

Their argument is also that Eskimos who eat mostly just protein with fats with limited carbs, are one of the healthiest people in the world with no cardiovascular diseases. They eat mostly food like salmos, seals,... meats high in protein and high in fats.

I think that's more adaptation and having a very organic diet, but I'm not totally against a completely ketogenic diet.
On the flip side the paleo diet is extremely high in carbs and many claim that is the ideal diet due to the proportions of the paleolithic man.
Point being there is no one clear cut science, but everything contributes. My best contribution to this thread is be consistent and stick to a plan. Read the book "The Last Ten Pounds" There is an explanation using phantom limb syndrome that helps you understand that no matter what diet you commit to it takes overall consitency and patience.

But cheers, I like reading your input

[SupermanOnSteroids]

Thought we were just talking about people solely focused on losing fat. If we're talking about people who actually have muscle and want to gain muscle than that's a different story. He'll need to hit his protein requirements and from then on he could eat whatever the **** we wanted. My mistake.

I'll change my current stance if muscle is involved. Hit your protein requirements AND THEN EAT WHATEVER THE **** YOU WANT.(dude, no one in this world wants to put time in the gym to go from skinny fat to skinnier fat. They all want to gain at least a little bit of muscle and strength. That’s basically everyone’s whole point of lifting weights. Not sure if you were aware of this, but then again, I’m not sure what world you are living in, so things could be different. If so, I apologize.)

lol @ gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time....shit is damn near impossible unless we're now going to bring gear into this? Eating at maintenance will make you stay the same weight. I'll admit I'm not sure if someone will lose muscle even if he doesn't get any protein at all. As long as he is still working out and is eating at a maintenance, I don't think his muscles will atrophy. Obviously you’re all about the bulk/cut cycle but don’t know shit about recomp. Expand you horizons and learn that it is actually possible to increase your muscle mass while decreasing your body fat. It’s a really delicate and a bit slow procedure, but doable. Bulk/Cut are the most optimal therefore more popular, but body recomp is still possible even if the noobs don’t know it. The body recomp don’t discriminate between noobs). It just won't grow.

Wasn't the insulin spike bullshit myth debunked a long time ago? You're not going to store more fat just because you eat more carbs. (really? So insulin spike is just bs and it doesn’t do anything? Maybe the science I know and was taught in a 4 year university is just outdated and your brosearch is just that much more advanced. I dunno, I’m kinda scared on this one.) If you're over maintenance you're storing fat regardless the amount of carbs isn't relevant. Pretty sure someone at a 40-40-20 macros at a caloric surplus will put on the same amount of fat as someone on a 50-10-40 macro surplus. Muscle catabolism? Pretty sure it was proven that it takes a while before your body turns to burning muscle. You're not going to go catabolic until you go a long ass time without eating food. If muscle catabolism was true, Intermittent Fasting wouldn't be as popular as it is.

You still believe in the insulin spike, building muscle and burning fat at the same time, and muscle entering a catabolic state whenever you're fasting and you're calling me an idiot? YES!!!

You don't need any sugar post workout. That's the myth I was talking about. (Right. Who the hell cares about replenishing your glycogen stores. What the **** is the resting metabolic rate and why should we even care about that as a result of not replenishing out glycogen stores. )The anabolic window lasts way longer. That's why I always laugh at the idiots that immediately chug down their protein shake after their last rep of their last set.

And catabolism does not occur that fast. If it did, intermittent fasting wouldn't be as popular as it is. The sugar and carbs is not what causes the fat storage, it's simply the calories.

I'm just going to leave it at if you hit your protein requirements, calories in vs calories out is all you need. I don't see why I'm wrong.

I don't know how many times this shit has been proven to be completely false. Your body doesn't digest food instantly. It's constantly digesting. The shit you ate before your workout might still be digesting and therefore those carbs could go to your muscles. Funny how you say you need sugar but where does that leave the keto people? Keto people still make gains because excess calories is the most important. Are you saying that if I had no carbs post workout but only fats and protein I wouldn't gain muscle even though I was at a caloric surplus?This whole post screams of obviousness so loud its unbearable. Really, you’re reiterating common known knowledge so much that it makes me think your knowledge level is very very low and youre just finding newbe facts off the internet and trying to sound smart. If you were a pro, you wouldn’t even have to mention this shit. This shit screams of insecurity feggot.

I don't know how many times I have to say this but I NEVER ONCE SAID IT WAS OPTIMAL. All I said was that it WORKS. The OP wanted to lose weight so I gave him the calories in vs calories out approach. All I want you to answer is yes or no. Does eating complete shit at a 500 calorie deficit help you lose weight? Yes or no. (It would take him from being skinny fat to being a little less skinny fat. That’s about it. But if someone wants to change their body type this is not the advice you give to them. It’s kinda like a psychologist saying “oh you can’t go to sleep, just drink a lot and you’ll fall asleep eventually.” Not exactly the right kinda advise) Don't say it's not optimal and shit because I never once said it was.

Actually it does but you're apparently stuck in the past with the "OMG I NEED TO SPIKE MY INSULIN POSTWORKOUT OR I WONT GAIN ANY MUSCLE!!!"(its not to gain muscle dumbass, its to increase the resting metabolic rate).

Properly done preworkout nutrition EASILY elevates insulin above and beyond the maximal threshold seen to inhibit muscle protein breakdown. This insulin elevation resulting from the preworkout meal can persist long after your resistance training bout is done. Therefore, thinking you need to spike anything is only the result of neglecting your preW nutrition"

Words from Alan Aragon, not me. But hey, feel free to call him an idiot as well.
If all of this doesn’t prove the dumbassedness of this guy, I don’t know what would.

Basically the only thing i got out of his posts is that he did IIFYM and I lost 14lbs. No concern about if it was healthy or optimal or done right. he just ended up losing 14lbs and is now a certifiable expert on the subject of bodybuilding/weightloss. probably could have done better if you followed the right procedure, but just because you lost 14lbs ONCE, it makes you an EXPERT on losing weight. You go boy. I wish I had your confidence when I was starting out as a personal trainer. I wish knowledge and an understanding of basic principles didn't matter so I could be like you and just bull rush my way into TELLING people on how to lose weight without knowing a thing about it. You really take the cake bro. You are the fkin man. Were you ever a certified personal trainer at Bally's Total Fitness? That place always had the best.

[LBJ 23]

I think that's more adaptation and having a very organic diet, but I'm not totally against a completely ketogenic diet.
On the flip side the paleo diet is extremely high in carbs and many claim that is the ideal diet due to the proportions of the paleolithic man.
Point being there is no one clear cut science, but everything contributes. My best contribution to this thread is be consistent and stick to a plan. Read the book "The Last Ten Pounds" There is an explanation using phantom limb syndrome that helps you understand that no matter what diet you commit to it takes overall consitency and patience.

But cheers, I like reading your input


I completely agree with everything you said, especially the bolded is soo true.

Talking about ketogenic diet, on the other hand you have paleo diet which you also mentioned and looking at areas in the world where people reach the longest age span, those areas are mostly in Asia where people eat mostly carbs. Also, low calorie intake in general almost certainly has a lot to do with it. So on one hand you have Eskimos with their ketogenic diet who live pretty disease-free, on the other hand you have Asian nations with areas where people reach the longest age and their nutrition is pretty Paleo oriented and high in carbs. So like you said, there is no clear cut answer and everything contributes.

I like reading your posts a lot too, you're clearly one of the most knowledgeable posters on here when it comes to nutrition and supplements.

[TheNaturalWR]

I'm not saying I was 100% correct on things but god damn you do know a majority of the shit I said is ****ing advocated by Layne Norton, Alan Aragon, and Lyle McDonald right? But wait you probably know better than them too. If OP wants to ****ing lose weight all he has to do is drop his caloric intake. Doesn't ****ing matter what he eats. Seriously don't know why you're arguing this. It's ****ing physics you idiot.

[TheNaturalWR]

Great knowledge.
Untortunately there is a lot of those bro-science types that have spilled over on here. Especially the fitness threads. The testosterone puts them in a mode where they go out their way to discredit you, even if you share the same stance. I do this for a living yet bro scientists love to refute. It's why I don't go out my way to lend advice



There are parts I'll agree with. A calorie deficit will make yo lose weight, regardless what you eat.
However eating more doesn't necessarily mean weight gain or stabilize. If fact some methods of dieting can be accomplished with higher intakes of calories. It all depends on what macros and the intervals you eat at.
If a person has gone from eating certain foods that are not conducive to maintaining muscles, then switched his diet to eating chicken and broccoli in your example weight loss is possible. Building a higher metabolic rate can be increased by the intervals you eat. The same calories but more frequent intervals can ignite and maintain a high metabolic rate. Combine with the fact that protein in itself is a metabolic monster.

Anyways....lot's of great point you are giving. All of you actually

Isn't the change in metabolism(if any) so insignificant that in the end it really woudn't matter? That's what Lyle McDonald says.

[hateraid]

Isn't the change in metabolism(if any) so insignificant that in the end it really woudn't matter? That's what Lyle McDonald says.

What you are changing is ultimately a better goal which is an overall better physique. A lower BF% with more lean muscle tissue. On a scale it may not be significant, but the waist size may be slimmer, the arms may be thicker, an overall better body composition
But most importantly, better health.

[IamRAMBO24]

Today is my first day on the no carb diet.

What I only ate:

Ham, chicken, avocado, cheese, and almonds. I cheated a bit with watermelon. I couldn't resist after a workout. After I ate my last slice, I went through the fridge and threw all the fruits away. I'm dedicated to this diet.

How I am feeling so far:

A huge spike in energy. I don't feel bloated or lazy. I ate a sh*t ton of calories but the complexion of my face seems thinner. I believe carbs hold so much fat that whatever you eat, you look bloated. I haven't lost any weight yet (or gain), but this is the first day, so the full effect won't be seen until at least a week. I am exercising and I have to say, I'm going harder than before with the new kick in energy and protein.

I think superman is onto something.

[joe]

ofc it's doing and it'll work. But it'll have some side effects you otherwise would not get with just cutting 500 calories.

a while back while i was dieting down, i cut my carbs by half and my strength dropped by more than 30% on every lift. My mental focus was way off and i felt like sh1t half the time. It's just not the way to go.

It takes time for your body to adjust. Most Americans run on sugar based energy (grains included). Suddenly cutting that out does not feel great in the beginning. But after a week, a month..etc, you adapt and feel higher energy than before.

Cutting out all carbs is 100% guaranteed to make you lose weight. Unless you start eating meat like a horse, there's no way around it. I lost weight from it and I'm small to begin with. My goal wasn't weight loss, but that's how it goes. Sugar (grains included) is a huge factor in Americas obesity problem. The main factor, actually. Overconsumption of bread, pasta, and added sugar is why we are so fat.

While you're at it Rambo, cut out processed, added sugar. If you do that, you will be fine eating fruits. I eat fruits all the time and I can't gain weight at all. Lol

[IamRAMBO24]

While you're at it Rambo, cut out processed, added sugar. If you do that, you will be fine eating fruits. I eat fruits all the time and I can't gain weight at all. Lol

Are you sure? Fruits have a high amount of carbs.

[KevinNYC]

Today is my first day on the no carb diet.

What I only ate:

Ham, chicken, avocado, cheese, and almonds. I cheated a bit with watermelon. I couldn't resist after a workout. After I ate my last slice, I went through the fridge and threw all the fruits away. I'm dedicated to this diet.

How I am feeling so far:

A huge spike in energy. I don't feel bloated or lazy. I ate a sh*t ton of calories but the complexion of my face seems thinner. I believe carbs hold so much fat that whatever you eat, you look bloated. I haven't lost any weight yet (or gain), but this is the first day, so the full effect won't be seen until at least a week. I am exercising and I have to say, I'm going harder than before with the new kick in energy and protein.

I think superman is onto something.

When they revised the Atkins Diet, they added a lot of vegetables. You probably need to add some salads and other vegetables.

[outbreak]

It takes a certain kind of idiot to actually do a no carb diet when it's been debunked so many times.

[joe]

Are you sure? Fruits have a high amount of carbs.

Depending on how much you eat. I don't hesitate to drink some OJ, eat raisins, have an apple or banana. I have fruit everyday. My main meal is generally some type of meat with sides. But a little fruit shouldn't be a problem from both my experience and others I've heard from who do this diet (they all lost weight).

That's given you cut out processed sugars. The only time I have any added sugar is with 90% dark chocolate. And I do eat white rice, that is the one grain I eat. Mostly because I'm not rich enough to afford to not eat it. White rice is considered less harmful on my diet than other grains, because its so lacking in grain and lectins compared to say, whole grain rice.

[Tarik One]

Are you sure? Fruits have a high amount of carbs.
Depends on the fruits.

Just look up Good and bad fruits. Bananas and pears are some of the worst.

[IamRAMBO24]

Holy sh*t I'm about to hit the gym again. Been working out 6 days straight for 2 hours and this is the first time I'm going back for seconds on the same day.

Wow 1 day of cutting back carbs and my energy level is shooting through the roof.

[IamRAMBO24]

Depends on the fruits.

Just look up Good and bad fruits. Bananas and pears are some of the worst.

I did. Even the lowest ones are about 5 grams. I'm avoiding everything that is 3 or more. I'm going hardcore to see if it works and so far I've already notice a big difference the first day.

[joe]

Holy sh*t I'm about to hit the gym again. Been working out 6 days straight for 2 hours and this is the first time I'm going back for seconds on the same day.

Wow 1 day of cutting back carbs and my energy level is shooting through the roof.

Glad to hear! Let me say this, if your energy does get low, keep in mind that is totally normal. There is an adjustment period for many people. But hopefully you're one of the lucky ones like me who skips that step!

[IamRAMBO24]

Glad to hear! Let me say this, if your energy does get low, keep in mind that is totally normal. There is an adjustment period for many people. But hopefully you're one of the lucky ones like me who skips that step!

I'm beginning to understand how this works and why it is so effective. Since carbs store the fat, it slows your metabolism down. This is why I gain a lot of weight when I used to drink beer 2-3 times a week. Even on low fat diets I didn't have the energy to exercise. Cutting out the carbs, my body is burning the calories as they go in. I can feel it. When I eat, I feel a burst of energy which is pretty insane and not something I had ever experience before since I used to eat carbs that retain the calories.

[joe]

I'm beginning to understand how this works and why it is so effective. Since carbs store the fat, it slows your metabolism down. This is why I gain a lot of weight when I used to drink beer 2-3 times a week. Even on low fat diets I didn't have the energy to exercise. Cutting out the carbs, my body is burning the calories as they go in. I can feel it. When I eat, I feel a burst of energy which is pretty insane and not something I had ever experience before since I used to eat carbs that retain the calories.

Google Sugar-adapted Vs. Fat-adapted people. When you depend on sugar based foods for energy (which grains are, because that's what they become when digested), you have energy highs and lows. The sugar shoots up your energy, is quickly burned, and then you crash. Fat based energy is a 'slow burn,' leaving you with more consistent energy through the day. I used to feel dreary and fatigued from just living life. Not anymore.

[IamRAMBO24]

Google Sugar-adapted Vs. Fat-adapted people. When you depend on sugar based foods for energy (which grains are, because that's what they become when digested), you have energy highs and lows. The sugar shoots up your energy, is quickly burned, and then you crash. Fat based energy is a 'slow burn,' leaving you with more consistent energy through the day. I used to feel dreary and fatigued from just living life. Not anymore.

Cool thanks for the info. Have you read the thread? What are your opinions about the argument between superman and natural?

[joe]

Cool thanks for the info. Have you read the thread? What are your opinions about the argument between superman and natural?

I think lowering calories will in general cause weight loss. That's logical and proven. But calories are not the only issue. The type of foods you eat, specifically excess sugar/grains, cause not only weight gain, but many health problems. I think counting calories and measuring portions is too much tedious effort. I can eat anything I want outside of grains and sugar. Its simple and it works.

I am not an expert on health, but it's important to me and I've read a good amount, especially on the topic of no grains. I do know that grains are not necessary to build muscle, but I am not into building muscle so you'll have to do outside research.

[SupermanOnSteroids]

a cal is a cal is a major oversimplification of things. sure a mile is a mile. a mile doesn't change. but what happens when you want to get across a 500 mile distance. do you drive or do you fly? there's a high performance way of doing this and then there's a lethargic way of doing this. just like how you travel every mile makes a difference, how every cal is metabolized also makes a difference. the type of cal injested determines the body's response to it's injestion. the oversimplification of 'a cal is a cal' is just that, a major over simplification. you could only eat one tub of buttered popcorn a day and still get the same amount of calories in than compared to eating 5 healthy meals a day. your body's response to each is going to be different. there are too many factors at play here. so don't tell me that 'a cal is a cal. you don't need to eat healthy. just limit your caloric intake and the rest will take care of itself.' that is pure bs.

[IamRAMBO24]

I think lowering calories will in general cause weight loss. That's logical and proven. But calories are not the only issue. The type of foods you eat, specifically excess sugar/grains, cause not only weight gain, but many health problems. I think counting calories and measuring portions is too much tedious effort. I can eat anything I want outside of grains and sugar. Its simple and it works.

I am not an expert on health, but it's important to me and I've read a good amount, especially on the topic of no grains. I do know that grains are not necessary to build muscle, but I am not into building muscle so you'll have to do outside research.

What is so bad about grains ?

[joe]

What is so bad about grains ?

This is not all unanimously agreed upon by experts but through my research and findings:

Many people unknowingly have inflammation from grains. Stomach pains, diahrea, bloating. This is proven medically.

Grains shoot up insulin levels leading to weight gain and long term diabetes potential.

The human digestive system has not evolved to eat grains. We have only been eating them for a tiny sliver of our overall existence. This is reflected in the way grains grind against our intestinal linings like sandpaper. It'd be like t-rex incorporating cow milk into its diet. Stomachs and intestines are designed a certain way in nature. What they can and cannot digest properly is not insignificant.

There is nothing in grains you cannot obtain from other sources.

When digested grains break down into sugar (it is more complicated than that statement explains, but that is the bare truth). At a base level they are not a healthy food choice.

More and more scientists and doctors are agreeing with these points. What used to be a radical idea is being shown valid in the eyes of many researchers.