is cardio really needed?

[Conciliator]

One more non-retarded study. A comparison of 3 different diets, with identical caloric intake. Note, no difference in fat loss by DEXA. Which is what happens when calories are actually controlled rather than self-reported. LBM losses were higher with the very low-carb group, but almost certainly because of water loss.

***

Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(Suppl):S64. Related Articles, Links

Very low carbohydrate diets for weight loss and cardiovascular risk1.

Noakes M, Foster P, Keogh J, Clifton P.

Clinical Research Unit, CSIRO Health Sciences and Nutrition, Adelaide, Australia.

Background - It is not clear to what extent high saturated fat very low carbohydrate (VLCARB) diets for weight loss affect cardiovascular (CVD) risk. Objective - To compare a VLCARB diet isicalorically to 2 conventional weight loss strategies on a spectrum of cardiovascular risk factors after energy balance was re-established. Design - Sixty seven subjects aged 48+/-8y, total cholesterol 5.9+/-1.0mmol/L, and BMI 33+/-3kg/m2 were randomly allocated to one of 3 isocaloric weight loss dietary interventions which were energy restricted for 8 weeks (6MJ) and in energy balance for 4. The diets were Very Low Fat (VLF) (10% fat, 3% saturated fat), High Unsaturated Fat (HUF) (30% fat, 6% saturated fat) and Very Low Carbohydrate (VLCARB) (61% fat, 20% saturated; 4% carbohydrate). Outcomes - VLCARB resulted in 9.2% weight loss compared to VLF (7.3%) and HUF (7.0%) (P=0.034). DEXA data revealed no difference in percent total fat loss between diets. Lean mass loss was higher on VLCARB and VLF (31-32% of weight loss) compared to HUF (21%) (P<0.05). LDL-C increased 0.18+/-0.18mmol/L on VLCARB but decreased 0.40+/-0.11mmol/L on VLF and 0.34+/-0.14mmol/L on HUF (P=0.009). VLCARB had the greatest triglyceride reduction (-0.73+/-0.12mmol/L) followed by HUF (-0.15+/-0.07mmol/L) and VLF (-0.06+/-0.13mmol/L) (P<0.001). HDL-C increased only on VLCARB (+0.06+/-0.03mmol/L). Plasma homocysteine increased 6.6% on VLCARB, decreased 6.8% on VLF and remained unchanged on HUF (P=0.026 for diet effect). VLCARB lowered fasting insulin by 33% compared to a 19% fall on HUF and no change on VLF (P<0.001). All diets resulted in significant decreases in fasting glucose, blood pressure and CRP with weight loss (P<0.05). Conclusion - Under isocaloric conditions VLCARB results in substantial improvements but also some deterioration in cardiovascular risk factors compared to conventional weight loss patterns.
Reply With Quote

 

[DLMCBBB]

The keto diet will yield better results.
Reason being is insulin will be better controlled and less of the meals will be stored as fat, regardless of energy expelled.
Your fat burning stops in the presence of insulin, so does GH production.
Low fat diets yield low testosterone levels.
Being carbohydrate resistance makes matters even worse.

Ketogenic diets can make a person that is carbohydrate resistant to carbohydrate sensitive.

A calorie is not a calorie, my studies above prove this.
For every 1 study you post I will post 10.
For every 1 article you post I will post 10.
There is no way in hell you will ever convince me otherwise, the evidence is overwhelming in my favor.

In simple terms you got your ass kicked in this little debate

Calculations please, and I said wow me!

 

[DLMCBBB]

The only data Hackskii can trot out are studies using uncontrolle diets and food records which find differences in weight loss. Yet he still keeps on posting them? Strange indeed.

Hackskii also seems unable to understand the difference between diets differing in carbohdyrate content and protein content. He routinely cites studies where protein intake is at least double in the low-carb diet group. He uses this to make a conclusion about the carbohdyrate content of the diet. When PROTEIN is the effector. This is such a mickey mouse point that it should make him ashamed that people have to explain it.

He fails to mention that there is any significant water loss on a low-carb diet, or is he ready to know tell us?

Hackskii care to bring to light the impact of muscle and liver glycogen on body water content, or the impact of ketones on diuresis, or the impact of insulin on water resorption by the kidneys?

He ignores the studies using meticulously controleld caloric intakes that find no difference in weight loss and zero metabolic advatntage. Again he keeps posting them, its his mound of evidence that proves me to be a liar LOL.

He ignores the study by Brehm which directly measured resting metabolic rate under low-carb versus carb based diet conditions and found NO IMPACT of the low-carb diet.

Question for Hackskii that he will ignore again: if this metabolic advantage exists, why can't anybody measure it? If it's too small to measure, why should we care about it? Things that make you go HMMMMM

He continues to throw uncontrolled studies relying on food record as his 'evidence'. He couldn't argue his way out of a paper sack. But wait, everything I post is laughable according to him, and I lost the debate

 

[hackskii]

You've got to be pretty dense to still be posting studies where the low-carb group is consuming more protein. This is not controlling for protein, is it? All you're showing is that a higher protein diet is superior. And guess what, no one disagrees. So stop posting stupid studies acting like they prove some point about low-carb diets per se. The low-carb group in every one you've posted is either lower in caloires or higher in protein. It's funny you claim to be such a lover of the truth in light of your dogmatism.

Actually you just admitted to me that I was right.
On all the low carb diets people make up the diffrence of the calories using the other two macro's.
The largest portions of peoples diet are carbohydrates, why would you assume that all the calories that were lost to carbohydrates are only added as fat?
Low carb diets are always higher in protein.

You say that they do work better because it offers better hunger supression, even if we cant agree that carbs make you fat I think we can agree that they make you hungry.
Regardless of the other mechanisims involved.
Carbohydrate addiction is common actually.

Or this study comparing calories all at 1800 calories with varying carbohydrate restrictions the same calories lower carb lost more bodyfat:
Charlotte Young, professor of clinical nutrition at Cornell University, compared the results of overweight young men placed on three diets, all providing 1800 calories, but with varying degrees of carbohydrate restriction. The regimens contained 30, 60, and 104 grams of carbohydrate, and subjects followed them for nine weeks. Young and her colleagues calculated body fat through a widely accepted technique involving immersion underwater.

Those on the 104 grams of carbs lost slightly better than 2 pounds of fat per week out of 2.73 pounds of total weight loss-not bad for 1800 calories.

Those on 60 grams of carbs lost nearly 2.5 pounds of fat per week out of 3 pounds of actual weight loss-better.

But those on 30 grams of carbs, the only situation that produced lipolysis and the secondary process of ketosis lost 3.73 pounds of fat per week approximately one hundred percent of their total weight loss.

Several other studies have shown that you can consume more calories and lose more weight than on low fat programs.

How do you explain this?

 

[hackskii]

It depends on the individual.

IMO, the carbs you choose determines the way your body looks.
Even Arnold didn't go over 125 grams of carbs a day.

I just clipped some of that, thanks Winger:

He uses protein as the basis for every meal, with fat second and carbohydrates a distant third. The only real restriction at this point is on carbohydrates, which are kept at approximately 125 grams per day from fruits, vegetables and whole grains.

 

[hackskii]

Here's a non-retarded study for you Hackskii. I've included a link to the full text. I hope you read it.

A randomized trial comparing low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets matched for energy and protein.

Segal-Isaacson CJ, Johnson S, Tomuta V, Cowell B, Stein DT.

Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY 10461, USA. isaacson@aecom.yu.edu

Several recent studies have found greater weight loss at 6 months among participants on a very-low-carbohydrate (VLC) weight-loss diet compared with a low-fat (LF) weight-loss diet. Because most of these studies were not matched for calories, it is not clear whether these results are caused by decreased energy intake or increased energy expenditure. It is hypothesized that several energy-consuming metabolic pathways are up-regulated during a VLC diet, leading to increased energy expenditure. The focus of this study was to investigate whether, when protein and energy are held constant, there is a significant difference in fat and weight loss when fat and carbohydrate are dramatically varied in the diet. The preliminary results presented in this paper are for the first four of six postmenopausal overweight or obese participants who followed, in random order, both a VLC and an LF diet for 6 weeks. Other outcome measures were serum lipids, glucose, and insulin, as well as dietary compliance and side effects. Our results showed no significant weight loss, lipid, serum insulin, or glucose differences between the two diets. Lipids were dramatically reduced on both diets, with a trend for greater triglyceride reduction on the VLC diet. Glucose levels were also reduced on both diets, with a trend for insulin reduction on the VLC diet. Compliance was excellent with both diets, and side effects were mild, although participants reported more food cravings and bad breath on the VLC diet and more burping and flatulence on the LF diet.

I like this article alot, thanks for posting it.

This post supports my arguement better than yours.
Snip
Greene et al. (8) also has found a trend toward greater weight loss in a small VLC to LF isoenergetic randomized controlled feeding trial of 21 participants for 12 weeks, where men were provided 1800 kcal/d and women were provided 1500 kcal/d. The weight loss for the VLC group was 23 4.6 lb compared with 17 2.3 lb.

At present, it is not clear whether, on energy-matched diets, VLC diets cause greater resting energy expenditure (REE).

My point exactally, you are making this easy on me
Or this snip.
Because VLC diets are associated with lower ambient insulin and glucose levels (10) (11) and higher free fatty acid levels (11) and because triglyceride cycling is also driven by the available concentration of free fatty acids (12) , the higher free fatty acid levels of VLC diets could hypothetically lead to increased triglyceride turnover with its concomitant energy dissipation.
Oops again, validating my point.

Another snip from the article in support:
Thus, it is possible that, even without considering energy inefficiencies related to protein metabolism, there may be modest but persistent increases in energy expenditure related to fat metabolism on a VLC diet.

Also there was more weight loss with the VLC diet:
Weight Loss
There was no significant difference in weight loss (p = 0.509) between the LF and VLC diets. The average weight loss for the VLC diet was 5.88 1.20 kg and for the LF diet was 4.35 1.32 kg

Several things here.
1. They were using low GI foods for the carbohydrate group.
2. Men respond better to ketogenic diets than women.


Right from your article:
With respect to other randomized trials comparing VLC to LF diets, both Foster et al. (1) and Brehm et al. (2) have found a greater weight loss in the low-carbohydrate diet group at 3 and 6 months.

Thanks for helping me prove my point

 

[hackskii]

The only data Hackskii can trot out are studies using uncontrolle diets and food records which find differences in weight loss. Yet he still keeps on posting them? Strange indeed.
This is because it supports my claim.

Hackskii also seems unable to understand the difference between diets differing in carbohdyrate content and protein content. He routinely cites studies where protein intake is at least double in the low-carb diet group. He uses this to make a conclusion about the carbohdyrate content of the diet. When PROTEIN is the effector. This is such a mickey mouse point that it should make him ashamed that people have to explain it.
Didnt you say a calorie is a calorie?
If you cut 40% of your cals out of the diet, why would anyone use this 40% to add fat?
So what if you add protein, low carb diets work better even in your studies you posted confirms this.

He fails to mention that there is any significant water loss on a low-carb diet, or is he ready to know tell us?
I never mentioned water loss, water loss and fat loss are two diffrent things.

Hackskii care to bring to light the impact of muscle and liver glycogen on body water content, or the impact of ketones on diuresis, or the impact of insulin on water resorption by the kidneys?

He ignores the studies using meticulously controleld caloric intakes that find no difference in weight loss and zero metabolic advatntage. Again he keeps posting them, its his mound of evidence that proves me to be a liar LOL.

He ignores the study by Brehm which directly measured resting metabolic rate under low-carb versus carb based diet conditions and found NO IMPACT of the low-carb diet.
This study you posted said that the low carb folks lost more weight, hardly proves your point and if anything proves mine.
Measuring energy expenditure means nothing when you are storing fat, which is what the high carb people do.
Even if they burn the same amount of calories why store it to burn it later?
Your own study validated my point more than it did yours.
They had to guess why the low carb group lost more due to food not being mentioned.
I think that is funny only the low carb ladies were liers, not to mention the fact that keto diets work better on men that women so this study if done on men would be even greater loss in weight than with women.
Hardly proved your point using your argument.

Question for Hackskii that he will ignore again: if this metabolic advantage exists, why can't anybody measure it? If it's too small to measure, why should we care about it? Things that make you go HMMMMM
Why cares if you cant measure it, if you arent storing fat you wont need to burn it as fuel.
Low carb dieters store less fat than high carb dieters.
Low carb dieters are more insulin sensitive.
High carb dieters have more insulin resistance, this is associated with lower testosterone levels too so you are comparing apples to oranges here.
Low carb diets are more effective in weight loss.

He continues to throw uncontrolled studies relying on food record as his 'evidence'. He couldn't argue his way out of a paper sack. But wait, everything I post is laughable according to him, and I lost the debate

You are losing the debate.
But I have to hand it too you, I am a member on many boards, every time I post something on fats, I get the same static.
I dont mind, I want to learn all I can and need stimulation.
You have more passion on this than anyone I have ever met besides me and I am impressed with your knowledge, tenacity, writing skills, impressive.
The crack I gave about going back to school I apologize for, that was not very nice of me.
Sorry for that, if it was not you then the other guy, which I am impressed with as well.
The last couple of days I have read more studies than I cared to but I did like reading them.
I love to learn new things.

But relating calorie expenditure as the only gauge for whether the diet or diets fail or succeed when there are many other variables that arent addressed.
1. Low carb diets do work better, I dont care if it has anything to do with protein.
2. You dont have to do cardio for fat loss.

I feel better on low carb diets, it is easier for me to lose weight and lose more inches, I also have more energy, with less hunger pangs.
Sounds like a recipe for success to me as far as diets go.

I do appreciate you sticking with me though, it makes things interesting.
I do see your points though and caused me to have some thought, quite enlightening.
I appreciate the stimulation, have not ever had so much in such a short period of time.

Scott

 

[Conciliator]

Actually you just admitted to me that I was right.
On all the low carb diets people make up the diffrence of the calories using the other two macro's.
The largest portions of peoples diet are carbohydrates, why would you assume that all the calories that were lost to carbohydrates are only added as fat?
Low carb diets are always higher in protein.

You say that they do work better because it offers better hunger supression, even if we cant agree that carbs make you fat I think we can agree that they make you hungry.
Regardless of the other mechanisims involved.
Carbohydrate addiction is common actually.

This guy is either really unintelligent, or he's just feigning ignorance to save face. Either way, it sounds like hackskii is coming around. He realizes he's been proved very wrong about carbs, insulin, and fat and so now he's pretending like what we're saying is what he's been saying all along. It's not though. We're saying that a low-carb diet will do nothing magical. We're saying that given equal protein and calories, you'll lose just as much fat on a low-fat diet as on a low-carb diet. This is what the studies show. But this is not what you've been saying, so stop acting like it is and admit you were wrong with your simplistic notions of insulin and fat.

Or this study comparing calories all at 1800 calories with varying carbohydrate restrictions the same calories lower carb lost more bodyfat:
Charlotte Young, professor of clinical nutrition at Cornell University, compared the results of overweight young men placed on three diets, all providing 1800 calories, but with varying degrees of carbohydrate restriction. The regimens contained 30, 60, and 104 grams of carbohydrate, and subjects followed them for nine weeks. Young and her colleagues calculated body fat through a widely accepted technique involving immersion underwater.

Those on the 104 grams of carbs lost slightly better than 2 pounds of fat per week out of 2.73 pounds of total weight loss-not bad for 1800 calories.

Those on 60 grams of carbs lost nearly 2.5 pounds of fat per week out of 3 pounds of actual weight loss-better.

But those on 30 grams of carbs, the only situation that produced lipolysis and the secondary process of ketosis lost 3.73 pounds of fat per week approximately one hundred percent of their total weight loss.

This is an old study from 1971 that had a very small sample size and that did NOT CONTROL FOR ACTIVITY. There were 7 or 8 subjects put into three groups. Do the math for the sample size of each group. The subjects were left off the diet for a week during a school break. The researchers didn't get information on activity levels. Given the low sample size and lack of control for energy expenditure, this study is highly questionable and inconsistent with later work showing no change in REE or TEF.

Several other studies have shown that you can consume more calories and lose more weight than on low fat programs.

They've shown you can consume MORE calories, huh? OK, now you're not even understanding the studies you're posting. When they say that the low-carb diet is unresricted and the low-fat diet is energy resricted, they are not saying that the low-carb dieters were eating more calories. Not at all. They simply mean that the low carb dieters were allowed to eat protein and fat unrestricted (without worring about caloires). It does NOT mean that they consumed more calories. THE FOOD REPORTING STUDIES CLEARLY SHOW THAT THEY CONSUMED FEWER CALORIES THAN MAINTENANCE, DESPITE HAVING NO ENERGY RESTRICTION. Add to that the work by Brehm showing that the low-fat group was eating MORE than them. So once again, you are dead wrong Hackskii. They did not consume more calories and lose more weight. They consumed less calories and lost more weight. ARE YOU TOO SHORT-SIGHTED TO MAKE THE CONNECTIONS HERE? I FEEL LIKE I'M TALKING TO AN 8 YEAR OLD.

 

[Conciliator]

I like this article alot, thanks for posting it.

This post supports my arguement better than yours.
Snip
Greene et al. (8) also has found a trend toward greater weight loss in a small VLC to LF isoenergetic randomized controlled feeding trial of 21 participants for 12 weeks, where men were provided 1800 kcal/d and women were provided 1500 kcal/d. The weight loss for the VLC group was 23 4.6 lb compared with 17 2.3 lb.

My post does NOT support your position, lol. I love how you turn a blind eye to the mounting evidence that is contradicting you. You find a few lines that you don't even understand (or pretend not to understand) and then post them like everything is going your way. Too bad for you, we see right through it. You don't know what you're talking about.

As in any good paper, here the researchers are expounding both sides of the debate. They are not using this quote you posted to support their position. Their position contradicts it. If you want to reference this study, then provide a link to it so we can discuss it. Don't just give us two lines and expect us to go "oh, ok" without looking at it. Did they use food reporting? Did they control for protein and caloires? These are key questions.

At present, it is not clear whether, on energy-matched diets, VLC diets cause greater resting energy expenditure (REE). [/B]

My point exactally, you are making this easy on me

When I read this, I thought that there might not be any hope for you. You really have to be a MORON to post this knowing that the later work by Brehm settled this question: There is no difference in REE and TEF.

Why you would say this is making it easy on you is beyond me. First, all they say is that "it is not clear..." so it is completely up in the air. This doesn't even support your position. Did you not even understand that? Second, and even more telling, it shows how limited your capacity is to interpret these older studies in light of what we already know. This is a great example of Hackskii being proved dead wrong, pulling at staws, and then pretending it supports his position, all the while ignorantly ignoring all the recent evidence, like Brehms study showing no metabolic advantage.

Or this snip.
Because VLC diets are associated with lower ambient insulin and glucose levels (10) (11) and higher free fatty acid levels (11) and because triglyceride cycling is also driven by the available concentration of free fatty acids (12) , the higher free fatty acid levels of VLC diets could hypothetically lead to increased triglyceride turnover with its concomitant energy dissipation.
Oops again, validating my point.

They say VLC diets "could hypothetically". That doesn't validate anyone's point hackskii, lol. Are you really that stupid to think that a "could hypothetically" proves any point at all? Of course it doesn't. Did you not even realize that all this discussion is about how "VLC diets might increase REE." Duh hackskii... Brehm. They don't increase REE. So this "could hypothetically" has later been shown to contradict what you're saying. Ouch.

Another snip from the article in support:
Thus, it is possible that, even without considering energy inefficiencies related to protein metabolism, there may be modest but persistent increases in energy expenditure related to fat metabolism on a VLC diet.

Once again, Hacksii flaunts his ignorance. This is also in the section where they are discussing metabolic pathways that "could hypothetically" increase REE. This quote comes from the section on glyceroneogenesis. Well guess what, there is no increase on REE when it's been measured directly, so there's no need to post what "may" be happening when it's been proven not to happen. Are you getting the picture hackskii?

Also there was more weight loss with the VLC diet:
Weight Loss
There was no significant difference in weight loss (p = 0.509) between the LF and VLC diets. The average weight loss for the VLC diet was 5.88 1.20 kg and for the LF diet was 4.35 1.32 kg

Hacksii, this deserves a big "YOU ARE A MORON." Someone needs to wake you up. You just showed your ignorance of statistics. The difference was not statistically significant. For all intents and purposes, there was no difference. Read what you posted again: There was no significant difference in weight loss. Add to that the fact the low carb group most certainly lost some water weight. That would explain why in absolute numbers, they had lost more WEIGHT (not fat). Even so, there was still NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN WEIGHT LOSS.

Right from your article:
With respect to other randomized trials comparing VLC to LF diets, both Foster et al. (1) and Brehm et al. (2) have found a greater weight loss in the low-carbohydrate diet group at 3 and 6 months.

Thanks for helping me prove my point

Nope, I didn't prove anything. But you most certainly did prove your ignorance. Thanks for some clear cut examples of you misinterpreting informaiton, ignoring later studies, and disregarding the entire findings of the study. Hackskii, WHY WOULD YOU REFERENCE THE FIRST STUDY BY BREHM IF YOU KNEW THAT IN HIS SECOND STUDY HE EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE BY UNDERREPORTING IN THE LOW FAT GROUP? WHY WOULD YOU REFERENCE THE FIRST STUDY BY BREHM IF YOU KNEW THAT IN HIS SECOND STUDY HE FOUND NO METABOLIC ADVANTAGE. This is seriosuly one of the most retarded people I have ever debated with on the internet. It's like he has no long term memory, like he can't put two and two together, like he can't remember blatant explanations like in Brehm's second study.

At this point, I think we've said close to all there is to say. Hackskii will keep putting up his inaccurate food reporting studies, he'll keep pulling things out of context, and he'll keep ignoring the work showing no metabolic advantage and no additional fat loss from low-carb diets. And to top it off, he'll keep saying that every study is making it easy on him, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean when it shows he's dead wrong, lol.

 

[dookie1481]

It fairly obvious English isn't his first language (syntax, etc.), so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and not assume he is a moron. It's just fairly obvious he isn't even addressing the point anyone is bringing up.

My opinion:

Some people may be able to lose fat easily without adding in extra cardiovascular exercise. These are either

a. the genetically blessed

or

b. people with ridculous amounts of self-discipline, who can be anal retentive about their diets.

I am neither, as are the vast majority of people who frequent these sites (if it was easy, they wouldn't be reading here for advice, yada yada yada).

Also, exercise helps improve partitioning, and as was brought up earlier, helps you forget how fucking hungry you are. Why wouldn't you do it?

 

[winger]

Hackskii who ever you are, nice to know you can loose bodyfat without cardio.

I personally think everybody is different. If Hackskii can loose doing no cardio does that make him a bad guy?

Hackskii you have a p.m.

This board seems more like a lynch mob when voicing your opinion.

Funny, I dont know any body builder getting ready for a contest that doesn't restrict carbs! Maybe I am on the wrong thread...........lol.

I have never been on a board with so many insults flying around. Pretty pathetic actually.

 

[DLMCBBB]

Question for Hackskii that he will ignore again: if this metabolic advantage exists, why can't anybody measure it? If it's too small to measure, why should we care about it? Things that make you go HMMMMM

Why cares if you cant measure it, if you arent storing fat you wont need to burn it as fuel.
Low carb dieters store less fat than high carb dieters.
Low carb dieters are more insulin sensitive.
High carb dieters have more insulin resistance, this is associated with lower testosterone levels too so you are comparing apples to oranges here.
Low carb diets are more effective in weight loss.

Who cares if you cant measure it, we are not storing fat you wont need to burn it as fuel? Please bro, you can do better than that. It is not that hard of a question.


Who wants to hear facts when you can have MAGIC? Seriously.

Folks who are going to believe in magic are going to do so no matter how much objective data you throw at them Conciliator.

www.skepdic.com should be required reading for everyone, because you see the same patterns in all aspects of pseudoscience as you see in the nutrition world.

They claim science backs them, until you show science that doesn't, and then fall back on n=1 data and say that science doesn't have all the answers.

Like I said

Step 1: Cite references to support your idea and look like you know what you're talking about
Step 2: When people refute your references go to step 3
Step 3: "Well, I know what I see in the real world, science be damned"

Why even bother with steps 1 and 2, if you're always going to end up at 3. And how come Hacksii (1). can find results that no study can? Oh yeah, him and his buddies say they lost weight so it must be true (2).

At least be honest and tell people that "No matter what research you throw at them, I'm going to ignore it and just fall back on anecdote.

When Conciliator refutes your so called mountain of evidence, your defense is, see list members, he just proved my point LOL. Now this bro, is laughable.

You might get away with this on your other boards, but not on MESO.

 

[hackskii]

Ok, here is my moronic/idiot response.
And thanks for the name calling, I appreciate that.

From MY perspective dieting I find the lower carb easier to lose weight.
Of course I can not prove this but not proving something does not mean it does not exist.
Lower carb diets I feel are better for me with losing body fat because:
1. It keeps my blood sugar more stable.
2. I have more energy.
3. I have less hunger therefore less likely to cheat.
4. I tend to retain water on carbs and a lower carb diet allows me to look or appear less puffy or smooth, for this reason I feel that water loss is not a bad thing.
5. Carbs bloat the hell out of me especially bread, bloating and excess water I can do without.
6. It is an easy diet to follow.

But for the sake of devils advocate, they do constipate, they do make you look flat, strength gains are not really affected but stamina is from what I have noticed. When I run out of gas, I am done.

Other than that from my personal experience low carb dieting works and is working for me better than I expected. I am 46 years old and have a sit down job, the only exercise I get is weights 5 days a week for just less than a half hour a day. The intensity is pretty high and I dont like to waste time in the gym.
So as far as being a genetic anomaly here, I feel if I can do it, anyone can lose weight without cardio.
I do have a lot of muscle from lifting for 28 years and maybe this is the reason why I dont need to do cardio for fat loss.

Now beings I only have 5 to 10 lbs to go I am going to introduce cardio into the mix strictly for health reasons. This is not to say I dont advocate cardio, I like the idea but it is not necessary. Another reason I feel this way (age) is many people I know start off with too high of intensity cardio and get injured. Most fat people that are over 25-30 lbs overweight, this is a heavy burden on the joints to walk or run the extra flab off. Remember these people probably got lazy in the first place and telling someone that you have to do cardio might put them off to the whole idea of weight loss.
The body gets used to cardio and in the end (I could be wrong) the body makes adjustments and cardio could be less productive, this is why I am adding it now.

I probably read some of the studies wrong and just having a high school diploma and not reading a bunch of studies I probably read into them something that was not there.
But correcting me with the intention to help me understand, in contrast to calling me stupid I dont really think that was all that cool.
If I offended anyone I apologize and am sorry. I do think there are many variables that you cant put under the microscope to find the answers.

If someone finds a keto or low carb diet works well then use it, low fat, use it.
I do feel that if you do reduce carbs, this could control insulin and abuse of carbs can result in insulin resistance, I think being more insulin sensitive is more productive in fat loss dieting, even though I have no proof or evidence to support this claim.
Defending my low carb approach does not make me wrong, incorrect or even a bad person.

I do find it ironic though that many people would consider things like DNP before ever considering getting the diet in check first. After all else fails then add the magic stuff.

The body is very smart, 3500 calories equals 1 lb of weight.
So 500 cals in addition to your diet a day should yield 1 lb of weight gain in a week with the same amount of exercise.
But after 5 years of this would you be 260 lbs heavier?
No, the body speeds up metabolism to accommodate the extra calories. Some weight gains will happen but not to the extent you can track.
Lower calorie diets will cause weight loss.
All diets can cause weight loss, choosing a diet that you can stick with and succeed on is a personal choice and the low carb approach is the choice I have chosen. Usually on lower carb diets the subjects tend to eat more protein and this might account of the added fat loss. I eat whole foods and dont have the shakes and bars that most have.

I eat every 2 hours with a combination of protein/fat/carbs with carbs being the lowest, an hour before I eat I drink 20 oz of water, I have 7 meals (small) a day and the rest is just weight loss history.

Again if I offended anyone with my posts or anyone felt I was attacking or picking on them I apologize for that.

Scott

 

[Conciliator]

As I said in my PM, I apologize for getting so heated. I can be abrasive and should watch myself. So, sorry for the insults.

If someone finds a keto or low carb diet works well then use it, low fat, use it.
I do feel that if you do reduce carbs, this could control insulin and abuse of carbs can result in insulin resistance, I think being more insulin sensitive is more productive in fat loss dieting, even though I have no proof or evidence to support this claim.

When you're dieting, you actually want insulin resistance. Think about what happens when fat cells are insulin resistant. It means that insulin can't inhibit lipolysis (fat breakdown). Nor can it activate nutrient storage. This is part of why severely insulin resistannt individuals get increased blood levels of glucose, fatty acids and cholesterol. Insulin is unable to either limit release from the cell or stimulate uptake. This is part of the reason things like clen, EC and GH work. By mobilizing fatty acids at a high rate and making the muscle cells insulin resistant, muscle has to forego glucose for fuel and use the mobilized fatty acids instead.

 

[Grizzly]

OKAY! Finally, you made a good post, Hackskii. It is certainly true that one may lose bodyfat without cardio. I went from 305 to 250lbs without a single second of cardio. Not a single second! However, you said just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Now, perhaps, I misread this, but I'm pretty sure you implied that cardio is counterproductive to fatloss.

Anyhow, I don't know how this thread denigrated as it did. But, since we've completely gone off topic, I, personally, find super-restrictive diets to be counter-productive. How you can manage to cheat less on a low-carbohydrate diet is a mystery to me.

The moral of the story is that cardio is not necessary. However, it is a helpful addition.

 

[hackskii]

OKAY! Finally, you made a good post, Hackskii. It is certainly true that one may lose bodyfat without cardio. I went from 305 to 250lbs without a single second of cardio. Not a single second! However, you said just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Now, perhaps, I misread this, but I'm pretty sure you implied that cardio is counterproductive to fatloss.

Anyhow, I don't know how this thread denigrated as it did. But, since we've completely gone off topic, I, personally, find super-restrictive diets to be counter-productive. How you can manage to cheat less on a low-carbohydrate diet is a mystery to me.

The moral of the story is that cardio is not necessary. However, it is a helpful addition.

I did say that cardio can be counterproductive, you read that right.
If you are nice I will explain, if you are an ass then I will just let you figure it out for yourself.

For me I find the low carb diets easiest for fat loss with the best hunger control, how is this super-restrictive?
I can eat all the protein and fat I want, usually I am not hungry when I prepare my meal.
I take in about 100 grams of carbs a day in the form of fruit and vegetable.
I am taking in probably id say around 1800-2000 cals a day and I have a sit down job.
If the average diet is around 2000 cals then how is this restrictive?

 

[Grizzly]

In many respects. Firstly, 2000 calories is what I'd eat if I turned anorexic. Personally, 3000+ calories is what someone like me eats to lose weight. Secondly, 100 grams of carbohydrates is restrictive. Period! It's two fucking cups of oatmeal. That satisfies a four year old girl.

I'm not arguing that you get good results on a low carbohydrate diet. I don't know why you're so defensive about it. Great. Wonderful. You like keto diets. I think they suck. Technically I'm right because I'm never wrong, but let's just say that you're right for you.

Thirdly, the average diet sure as fuck ain't 2000 calories. Not for "normal" humans and sure as fuck not for bodybuilders. If it was, then the 18 fat bitches in this library wouldn't be 230lbs.

 

[dookie1481]

I did say that cardio can be counterproductive, you read that right.
If you are nice I will explain, if you are an ass then I will just let you figure it out for yourself.

For me I find the low carb diets easiest for fat loss with the best hunger control, how is this super-restrictive?
I can eat all the protein and fat I want, usually I am not hungry when I prepare my meal.
I take in about 100 grams of carbs a day in the form of fruit and vegetable.
I am taking in probably id say around 1800-2000 cals a day and I have a sit down job.
If the average diet is around 2000 cals then how is this restrictive?

I recall you saying that you don't want high levels of catecholamines. As far as I know, you couldn't be more wrong. Catecholamines mobilize fatty acids and boost HSL sensitivity and levels. Sure they catabolize muscle, but thats going to happen on a hypocaloric diet of any kind.

Bottom line: you're going to lose muscle if you are losing fat; what you should try to do is minimize muscle loss, not prevent it. Preventing muscle loss while hypocaloric is a pipe dream at best.

 

[winger]

I recall you saying that you don't want high levels of catecholamines. As far as I know, you couldn't be more wrong. Catecholamines mobilize fatty acids and boost HSL sensitivity and levels. Sure they catabolize muscle, but thats going to happen on a hypocaloric diet of any kind.

Bottom line: you're going to lose muscle if you are losing fat; what you should try to do is minimize muscle loss, not prevent it. Preventing muscle loss while hypocaloric is a pipe dream at best.

I always thought high levels of Catecholamine was associated with stress? Catecholamines cause general physiological changes that prepare the body for physical activity, fight or flight responce and wouldn't cortisol levels be high at this point?
Just asking a question, please dont jump all over me like you would on hackskii......lol.

 

[hackskii]

In many respects. Firstly, 2000 calories is what I'd eat if I turned anorexic. Personally, 3000+ calories is what someone like me eats to lose weight. Secondly, 100 grams of carbohydrates is restrictive. Period! It's two fucking cups of oatmeal. That satisfies a four year old girl.

I'm not arguing that you get good results on a low carbohydrate diet. I don't know why you're so defensive about it. Great. Wonderful. You like keto diets. I think they suck. Technically I'm right because I'm never wrong, but let's just say that you're right for you.

Thirdly, the average diet sure as fuck ain't 2000 calories. Not for "normal" humans and sure as fuck not for bodybuilders. If it was, then the 18 fat bitches in this library wouldn't be 230lbs.

The food pyramid is based on 2000 calories I was just using that as a number.
Grizzley, you were over 100 lbs heavier than me and your requirement for fuel would be higher to sustain more bodyweight than me.
We are all entitled to our own opinions and you have one and so do I.
As far as you never being wrong, proves that you are a liar.....nuf said.
This diet will continue till I hit my target weight in about 4 weeks then I will go on a 40/30/30 carb/protein/fat type diet.

I recall you saying that you don't want high levels of catecholamines. As far as I know, you couldn't be more wrong. Catecholamines mobilize fatty acids and boost HSL sensitivity and levels. Sure they catabolize muscle, but thats going to happen on a hypocaloric diet of any kind.

Bottom line: you're going to lose muscle if you are losing fat; what you should try to do is minimize muscle loss, not prevent it. Preventing muscle loss while hypocaloric is a pipe dream at best.

I never mentioned catecholamines.
I am taking in about 200 grams of protein a day.
As far as muscle loss, I disagree.
In my situation I have lost 1" on my waist for every 4 lbs of weight lost.
6.5" in 25 lbs.
Funny, that is more inches for weight that I have ever seen in anyone else.
I know it is no indicator of muscle loss but I have not lost any strength, in fact my dead lifts went up.
I look much better in the mirror.
I also feel awesome.
If I am failing as you chaps are putting it then I would notice something like extreme hunger, muscle loss, lethargy, strength loss, I dont have any of that, I look much better, feel awesome and actually have more energy.
Not bad for being a failure
All this and I am probably old enough to be your father

If it shows you boys anything it should show you that not everything is what it seems.
No one size shoe fits all.
What works for one might not work for all.