is cardio really needed?

[winger]

Hackskii, I would like to say, what works for some might not work for others.
Also, those are some good results. You are clean right?

 

[hackskii]

Hackskii, I would like to say, what works for some might not work for others.
Also, those are some good results. You are clean right?

Clean.
No gear to avoid catabolism.
I think that is pretty good for an old man

 

[winger]

Clean.
No gear to avoid catabolism.
I think that is pretty good for an old man

How old are ya old man?

 

[hackskii]

46 but I dont look or feel it.
In fact I have a pretty nice body for my age and I am pretty stong too.
I will have pics in about 4 weeks.
River trip planned memorial day, this is where I will show off my new bod

 

[dookie1481]

No one size shoe fits all.
What works for one might not work for all.

Bingo!!!

Therein lies the problem with saying "you don't need cardio to lose BF."

 

[hackskii]

Bingo!!!

Therein lies the problem with saying "you don't need cardio to lose BF."

Or herein lies the problem with saying "you have to do cardio! to lose BF."

 

[dookie1481]

Or herein lies the problem with saying "you have to do cardio! to lose BF."

Go through my posts and show me where I stated that you had to do cardio to lose BF.

 

[hackskii]

Go through my posts and show me where I stated that you had to do cardio to lose BF.

Show me in my posts where I refered to catecholamines.

 

[hackskii]

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.

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.

Not true.

When dieting insulin restistance is super bad. Because it means you store the extra calories as fat since the muscle tissue can not abosrb the carbs. Fat requires far less insulin to store than muscle, so you want to avoid insulin resistance. Oh by the way low carb high fat dieters who train instense and brief produce far more GH than the other way around (see sears Stanford swim team studies and others).
By the way, fat cells are never insulin resistant its muscle, fat cells can't become insulin resistant. insulin inhibits fat breakdown by more than just restistance it also causes inflamation of tissues.

OK you want everyday samples?... type 2 diabetics produce low GH levels and store massive amounts of blood fat. Also insulin resistance decrease all nutrient uptake (another bad thing), the reason blood sugar goes up as well triglycerides is because it can't be absorbed and is waiting for the liver to convert it to fat which is easily stored hence the increase in fat in the blood stream.
So why does weigh training lower blood glucose?
Not because it is taking in more but because it is able to take in more... it becomes insulin sensitive, so why does a depleted muscle (from glucose fasting take up more glucose than one that is semi full, because it becomes more sensitive to insulin... logic here duh!

The choice of fatty acids or muscle has to do with work load type...
ATP/CP and glyco athletics use glucose or ketones... not fatty acids we call these muscle type 2 duh.
Lyposis comes from endurance style activities and produce small muscle that burn fat... they do not lower blood sugar as well as type2 and to make matters worse... they actually reduce energy expenditre... this is why a sprinter is leaner than an endurance runner. the sprinter is far more insulin senstive and uses glycogen for fuel, the enduance runner preferes fat for fuel and is insulin resistant in comparison. Given 1000 calories of glucose the runner will store it as fat where the sprinter/weightlifter will store it in muscle.
Another arguement for diet over cardio.

Its common sense, its common logic and its stupid to debate.

 

[hackskii]

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

What the truth?

#1 insulin is secreted in response to carbs... so if your meal is eaten high carb low fat you will have several hours where the body has secreted higher levels of insulin and done several times a day you will...#1 burn LESS fat than if you ate a low carb diet and restricted total calories... why? it takes more energy to burn a high protein/fat diet than a high prot/carb diet... why? Because the fats have to be converted to glucose an energy robbing process. Also as well the other hormones which signal fat storage are reduced so none of the carbs/fats eaten are stored as fats, they are burned or pissed out thereby robbing even more calories. So look at that again, if you eat high carb, it stimulates the body to store some of the carbs you eat even on a very low calorie diet, it will then burn them later and when it runs out it will start to burn fat, BUT on a high fat low carb diet it can not store the fat so it secretes it through the waste and you loose those calories, again it means that 1000 calories from the two diets does not react the same way, You can loose fat faster with more calories on a higher fat lower carb diet. As well to keep that insulin low on a low fat high fat ratio diet you have to eat far more often hence the 6 meal a day to loose any weight. Call it stupid if you will but it is.

This is why a controlled diet like the zone/isocaloric has patients lose up to 25% more fat on the same calories and same period as someone on low fat high carb all else being equal.

Or to say it better a calorie is not a calorie or everyone who dieted would maintain muscle and get lean. its all bullshit.

By the way the only organ in the body that prefers or basically NEEDS glucose is the brain. So toss out that preffered glucose as fuel bullshit.


There also is one other little part of the equation here that was never addressed nor mentioned and that is eicosanoid production.
You won’t find it in your studies, it is pretty new, it will be known more in short time.
Diets high in carbs and low in fat will have a positive effect on negative eicosanoid production, whereas diets lower in carbs and higher in good fats EFA’s (especially Omega 3’s) have a positive effect on good eicosanoid production.
Don’t believe me, read it for yourself, there is some literature floating around, it offers superior health, better weight management, lower c-reactive protein levels, lower homocysteine levels, lower blood pressure, higher fat loss, more lean muscle mass and better athletic performance.
Look it up for yourself.

 

[dookie1481]

Show me in my posts where I refered to catecholamines.

Avoidance. A particularly weak-minded tactic.

 

[dookie1481]

Running produces catecholamine hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, these eat muscle for breakfast.

There you go.

 

[hackskii]

There you go.

Thank you for correcting me. I forgot I posted that.
I stand corrected, good job.

 

[Conciliator]

Not true.

When dieting insulin restistance is super bad. Because it means you store the extra calories as fat since the muscle tissue can not abosrb the carbs. Fat requires far less insulin to store than muscle, so you want to avoid insulin resistance. Oh by the way low carb high fat dieters who train instense and brief produce far more GH than the other way around (see sears Stanford swim team studies and others).
By the way, fat cells are never insulin resistant its muscle, fat cells can't become insulin resistant. insulin inhibits fat breakdown by more than just restistance it also causes inflamation of tissues.

OK you want everyday samples?... type 2 diabetics produce low GH levels and store massive amounts of blood fat. Also insulin resistance decrease all nutrient uptake (another bad thing), the reason blood sugar goes up as well triglycerides is because it can't be absorbed and is waiting for the liver to convert it to fat which is easily stored hence the increase in fat in the blood stream.
So why does weigh training lower blood glucose?
Not because it is taking in more but because it is able to take in more... it becomes insulin sensitive, so why does a depleted muscle (from glucose fasting take up more glucose than one that is semi full, because it becomes more sensitive to insulin... logic here duh!

The choice of fatty acids or muscle has to do with work load type...
ATP/CP and glyco athletics use glucose or ketones... not fatty acids we call these muscle type 2 duh.
Lyposis comes from endurance style activities and produce small muscle that burn fat... they do not lower blood sugar as well as type2 and to make matters worse... they actually reduce energy expenditre... this is why a sprinter is leaner than an endurance runner. the sprinter is far more insulin senstive and uses glycogen for fuel, the enduance runner preferes fat for fuel and is insulin resistant in comparison. Given 1000 calories of glucose the runner will store it as fat where the sprinter/weightlifter will store it in muscle.
Another arguement for diet over cardio.

Its common sense, its common logic and its stupid to debate.

Hackskii, insulin resistance is not "super bad" when you're dieting, lol. You say it's bad because "it means you store the extra calories as fat since the muscle tissue can not abosrb the carbs." But first of all, there is no extra calories to store... WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU'RE DIETING, NOT IN A CALORIC SURPLUS. Second of all, yes, you can bring about insulin resistance at both the muscle and the fat cell. You are completely wrong to assert that "fat cells are never insulin resistant." This is precisely what happens with type 2 diabetics... they become compeltely insulin resistant at the muscle and the fat cell. It happens to a lesser extent with everyone, depending on the circumstances. Lyle McDonald has spoken about this:

The thing to realize is what insulin resistance actually implies. Insulin is a storage hormone, stimulating nutrient uptake in many tissues (including liver, muscle, and fat cells). This is especially true for glucose.

So what happens when fat cells are insulin resistant? As I said before, it means that insulin can't inhibit lipolysis (fat breakdown). Nor can it activate nutrient storage. This is part of why severely insulin resistant individuals get increased blood levels of glucose, fatty acids and cholesterol, insulin is unable to either limit release from the cell or stimulate uptake. Since muscle is full (see below), they either get stored in inappropriate places (beta-cells of the liver) or float around in the bloodstream.

What about in muscle? An insulin resistant muscle cell is unable to uptake glucose. Without glucose to use for fuel, the cell has to find an alternative source. In this case, that alternative source is fatty acids.

So when fat cell insulin resistance is high, fatty acids are easier to mobilze. When muscle cell insulin resistance is high, glucose isn't used for fuel and fatty acids are. So in a caloric deficit, this means you use more fat for fuel b/c they are coming out of fat cells more easily and muscle is using them preferentially for fuel.

This is why things like clen, EC and GH work. By mobilizing fatty acids at a high rate, muscle cells become insulin resistant. When this happens, muscle has to forego glucose for fuel and use the mobilized fatty acids instead (note: this also spares protein in a carb insufficient state). A recent study on GH found that the fatty acid mobilizing effect of GH was THE key to its protein sparing effects: block the increase in fatty acids and you get the same amount of protein loss.

On that note, you should realize that studies examining predisoposition to obesity (for example, in the Pima indians) find that insulin sensitivity predicts weight gain and insulin resistance predicts weight loss or stability.

Insulin resistance develops with obesity and can be thought of as a way for the body trying to prevent further weight gain. Note that this is different in growing individuals such as children or pregnant women. More below.

Many people think that insulin resistance is extremely bad in all situations (gaining weight, losing weight, fat guy, skinny guy). It sounds like Hackskii thinks the same thing. But this is not correct.

What you really need to do is differentiate muscle insulin resistance from whole body insulin resistance. In general, the body will develop insulin resistance in this order:

Liver then Muscle then Fat Cell

There are some weird genetic exceptions, but the above would be a typical progression with diet induced insulin resistance. Now, when muscle becomes insulin resistant, this shuttles more calories to the fat cells preferentially. In that sense, localized (muscular) insulin resistance causes more fat to be gained for a given caloric load. It's negative calorie partitioning. Note that this isn't only local, there are central (brain effects) controlling these processes as well.

This makes perfect sense: if the muscle is plenty full of nutrients and there is still a surplus, they should get pushed into storage as effectively as possible. So the msucle stops accepting nutrients and the rest go to the fat cells. The best way to prevent this is not to overeat and to deplete muscular fuel stores with exercise. In modern society, we do both: eat too much and don't exercise often enough. So muscle gets full of nutrients, becomes insulin resistant, and the excess calroeis go to fat cells post haste.

But as fat cells get filled up, problems start. The fat cell starts releasing a lot of hormones such as leptin, TNf-alpha, resistin (may only be relevant in rats) and others that prevent further nutrient storage (you can also get an increase in fat cell number). Now you're developing full body insulin resistance.

Once full body insulin resistance develops (with obesity), this acts to LIMIT further weight gain. Note that insulin resistance also means higher basal levels of insulin (there are also higher levels of leptin as you get this fat). Both insulin and leptin *should* act to signal the brain to make you stop eating, but the system isn't very sensitive to that. Additionally, it serves to push nutrients towards oxidation when you diet for the reasons above.

It's interesting to note that individuals without fat cells (lipodystrophy), which mimicks full body insulin resistance are protected against weight gain. First their muscles and liver fill up with nutrients, then they develop severe hyperglycemia, hypercholesterolemia and all the rest. Individuals with severe genetic insulin resistance have the same effect occur: they don't gain weight. They get a bunch of other health problems if you overfeed them but the severe genetic insulin resistance makes it so nutrients can't be stored in their cells.

Also consider that insulin sensitivity improves as you lose weight. And the single time you are most prone to gain weight is at the end of the diet: when you are most insulin SENSITIVE.

As above, insulin sensitivity predicts weight gain, and insulin resistance (full body) predicts weight/fat loss.

Basically insulin resistance isn't always BAD. Quite in fact, it can be adaptive.

Now, in the context of excess calories/carbs and no activity (i.e. weight gain), insulin resistance is a bad thing to have. If you have muscular insulin resistance, more calories go to fat cells. If you have full body insulin resistance, excess calories either sit in the bloodsream or get stored in the wrong spots, causing cell death.

Actually, if the goal is muscle gain with limited fat gain, it'd be wonderful to have fat cells resistant to nutrient storage and locally increase muscular insulin sensitivity. This would cause preferential nutrient partitioning to muscle. The question is how to do it. For fatter individuals who begin an exercise program, this occurs naturally which is (IMO) one reason they can lose fat and gain muscle at the same time. The exercise preferentially improves muscular insulin sensitivity, the fat cells are releasing fat like nobody's business and you get calorie partitioning until the point that it all starts to balance out.

When you're dieting and not eating enough carbs (by definition, on a diet, carbs are reduced), insulin resistance is adaptive. By making muscle rely on fatty acids for fuel, glucose is spared for the brain and other tissues which require it.

Note that most of the current insulin sensitizing medications (especially the TZD drugs) cause further weight gain. Obesity docs don't care becuse they just want to see blood glucose and the rest levels go down.

As above, whole body insulin resistance develops in an effort to both limit further fat/weight gain and ensure that the body burns the fat off (sparing muscle) when you diet. This would have been adaptive in the context of our evolutionary dieting pattern, it's maladptive in our current environment.

Fish oils are interesting, in rats at least they decrease fat cell insulin sensitivity and improve muscle cell insulin sensitivity. They also improve fat oxidation and a host of other stuff but the net results is nutrient partitioning aways fomr fat cells and towards muscle cells.

 

[Conciliator]

What the truth?

#1 insulin is secreted in response to carbs... so if your meal is eaten high carb low fat you will have several hours where the body has secreted higher levels of insulin and done several times a day you will...#1 burn LESS fat than if you ate a low carb diet and restricted total calories... why? it takes more energy to burn a high protein/fat diet than a high prot/carb diet... why? Because the fats have to be converted to glucose an energy robbing process. Also as well the other hormones which signal fat storage are reduced so none of the carbs/fats eaten are stored as fats, they are burned or pissed out thereby robbing even more calories. So look at that again, if you eat high carb, it stimulates the body to store some of the carbs you eat even on a very low calorie diet, it will then burn them later and when it runs out it will start to burn fat, BUT on a high fat low carb diet it can not store the fat so it secretes it through the waste and you loose those calories, again it means that 1000 calories from the two diets does not react the same way, You can loose fat faster with more calories on a higher fat lower carb diet. As well to keep that insulin low on a low fat high fat ratio diet you have to eat far more often hence the 6 meal a day to loose any weight. Call it stupid if you will but it is.

This is why a controlled diet like the zone/isocaloric has patients lose up to 25% more fat on the same calories and same period as someone on low fat high carb all else being equal.

Or to say it better a calorie is not a calorie or everyone who dieted would maintain muscle and get lean. its all bullshit.

By the way the only organ in the body that prefers or basically NEEDS glucose is the brain. So toss out that preffered glucose as fuel bullshit.

Hackskii, did you not learn a thing from all the discussion we had last week? This post is FULL of misinformation. The issue of insulin does NOT make it so that a low-carb, high-fat diet burns more fat than a low-fat, high-carb diet. We went over this in nauseating detail. Don't tell me you already forgot.

Second, it does NOT take more energy to burn a high protein/fat diet because fat has to be converted to glucose. Fat is NOT converted to glucose. Nearly all the cells in your body can run off of free fatty acids (from fat) in addition to glucose. Even the brain doesn't get its glucose from fat... that's the whole reason proteins are converted to glucose via gluconeogenesis, NOT FAT.

I have no idea what you're talking about with excreting calories through waste on a low-carb diet. My best guess is ketones, but that hardly makes a difference: a couple of percentage points at best. But why you would even say this is beyond me after our long discussion showing that a low-carb diet confers no metabolic advanatge. Seriously, did what we talked about not make sense to you? Because you're posting like it went in one ear and out the other. Why would you say "You can loose fat faster with more calories on a higher fat lower carb diet." Remember hackskii? Remember that the low carb group was eating FEWER calories? Remember that when calories (and protein) are controlled they lose just as much fat as with a low-fat diet? Or did you seriously forget that already?

Geez.

 

[kenneth]

that was a really strange debate.. too bad aside from the 2 main people and grizz there wasn't anything said by the other respected members of this board... looks like they're just the ones who didn't get wheeled in, from the first post this guy was just trying to get people fired up, with his "i am right and you are wrong" crap.. then after that all i saw was a bunch of cut and pasted shit for about 4 pages of.. well .. crap.. what a let down.. i saw 94 responses and thought this had to be good.

 

[Beefy]

that was a really strange debate.. too bad aside from the 2 main people and grizz there wasn't anything said by the other respected members of this board... looks like they're just the ones who didn't get wheeled in, from the first post this guy was just trying to get people fired up, with his "i am right and you are wrong" crap.. then after that all i saw was a bunch of cut and pasted shit for about 4 pages of.. well .. crap.. what a let down.. i saw 94 responses and thought this had to be good.

You just made it good with that post. LMAO!

I'll throw in my two cents and say that I've always dieted by going pretty strict (>2,500 cals/day for a 230 lbs man) for 2-3 days then I go semi-bonkers for a day or day and a half (~4,000 cals/day). It's a slow process, but over time I've added muscle and reduced fat.

I like it better than pure bulking or cutting diets because I get bored quickly with doing the same thing everyday...

I'm actually doing that now, but with test and tren in my veins. They have a remarkable ability to spare muscle despite cardio or horrible calorie deficiencies.

 

[hackskii]

I decided to PM Conciliator.
In light of all the flames I was and am getting and beings that I am not wearing my flame proof suit I thought it would be better in a PM.
I just sent him my thoughts on the above matters.

 

[Conciliator]

First, I have read everything you do post so please dont think this is falling on deaf ears, I appreciate you taking the time to post and I do respect your patience with me.

Good to hear. I'm hoping that what I'm saying makes sense.

The reason I am posting this in a PM is due to the fact that it seems to be getting like a lynch mob and any other posts on the thread will result in hurling insults directed at me. Now granted I am a grown man and the sticks and stone thing is all good but after a while, it gets old and I am somewhat sensitive so this makes me second guess myself. To avoid all the frustration I feel the PM is more appropriate, I cant fight a war on too many fronts.

Fair enough. I would have sent this in a PM, but it wouldn't fit, not even cutting it in half. So I'm posting it here. Guys, be nice to hackskii.

Now back to insulin, it is my impression that elevated insulin for prolonged periods of time is a bad thing, type II, inflammation, cancer, heart disease.

I agree. But you need to distinguish insulin resistance from high insulin. They are two different things that don't always go together. You can get insulin resistant from eating so much food that insulin is always high and calories are always being stuffed away. But you can also be insulin resistant and not have high insulin. An obese individual eating at maintenance or on a diet would often be in this situation.

If one were to eat too many refined carbohydrates very frequently then this would elevate insulin levels. Beings that we have a limited supply of liver and muscle glycogen then it makes sense that what cant be stored as glycogen would then end up being stored as fat.

Remember that on a diet though, there is no net storage. By definition, carbs (all macronutrients) will be reduced below maintenance. So talking about carbs getting stored away makes little sense... there is not going to be a net storage on a diet, but a loss, since you're consuming less carbs (energy) than you're burning.

Bear with me I am predominantly talking about carbohydrates here. Beings that insulin drives down blood sugars, this will leave you with low blood sugar, this will signal the brain to tell the body it is hungry. If high GI or a lot of carbs are eaten and the liver and muscle is full, then you will store that as fat.

Not on a diet... There will be no net gain.

Does it make sense to lower the total carbohydrate to a modest level where there is less chance of storage from increased insulin production from carbohydrates?

No, because on a diet, it doesn't matter. Anything stored will be burned later in the day, precisely because you're dieting... that's what it means to be on a diet, to burn more than you're taking in.

Wouldnt this also allow for the muscles to take in as much as they needed for fuel and not spill over and store the excess as fat?

Even if there is a spill over, IT DOESN'T MATTER. If you're dieting, all that spill over will be burned at the end of the day... you're going to burn more than you're taking in.

I know that you went over this but I think insulin plays a bigger factor than what you think.
Also after one goes off a diet being insulin sensitive is one part of the equation for weight gain, water retention is another reason as well as suppressed T4 production.
I do feel that if the carbohydrates are re-introduced in slowly and moderately, fish oils taken, this just seems like a better picture to me.

It would be a better picture for all the same reasons we already mentioned: you'll probably eat fewer calories and more protein, thus limiting excessive regaining of weight.

I have friends that compete, many of them are on insulin, they did mention that they do get fat but also almost grow before their eyes, fuller, harder, etc.
Beings that insulin is lipogenic, in the presence of insulin fat loss ceases.

But Hackiii, you have to understand this: if you're dieting, you can only take in so many carbs, right? On a diet, there are going to be parts of the day when you're taking in carbs and fat loss ceases. That will balance with times of the day between meals when insulin levels drop and fat loss picks up. IF YOU ARE DIETING, THERE WILL BE MORE FAT LOSS THAN TIMES WHEN FAT LOSS CEASES. This is why you will lose fat on a diet high in carbs as long as you are eating less than you're burning.

Something you also keep forgetting (and something that people keep telling you) is that protein also causes a release in insulin. Even small amounts of insulin like this will cause fat loss to cease. In addition, a meal of just fat will affect HSL and cause fat loss to cease. Insulin is not the only factor. Fat loss will cease after pretty much ANY MEAL. So carbs don't really matter here.

If you could explain to me how insulin would play no part in fat gain would be cool.

It does play a part, but not when you're dieting. We're talking about diets here... and you do not gain fat on a diet.

Lets take it to an extreme here.
If one person took in 2000 calories a day and ate 90% carbohydrate from any carbohydrate group with the rest comprising of protein, and another person took in same calories but swapped fat for carbs, would there be less fat storage in the fat group?

NO! This is what we've been debating from the beginning. The high carb diet would upregulate enzymes that burn carbs, and your cells would use the carbs for fuel. Since you're dieting, all these carbs would be burned (since you are burning more than you're eating: the definition of a diet). You would still need some adiditonal energy, and that would come from fat stores.

The low fat diet would downregulate enzymes that burn carbs. Your body would run off of free fatty acids. You would burn all the fat that you took in and then some additional fat from your fat stores. Again, this is because you're dieting. Either way, you'll lose essentially the same amount of fat.

One more thing.
On your studies you base all your marbles into the thermic effect of food.

No, I also talk about resting energy expenditure (REE). The two, along with energy expenditure from activity, add up to the total number of calories you're burning.

In every study I found that supported, even the one at the end where you said that it was on spring break and they could not use the study.
Why is it every article that you said didnt fit the criteria, shouldnt be used and your article where they did lose more weight it was assumed but not conclusive the low carb people underreported their meals?

Assumed but not conclusive? Why do you say that? What else could describe the differnence? It IS conclusive that REE and TEF did NOT change in the low-carb group. Meaning that at the same number of calories, they burned just as much in both groups. The low-carb group didn't have some metabolic advantage. This led Brehm to conclude that the only thing that could explain it was that the low-fat group underreported what they were eating. He had thought the two groups were eating about the same number of calories, but it turns out the low-fat group was eating more (they underreported).

This brings several things to mind, does only low carb people underreport? In a random situation there is never just one side not doing something.

I can tell you don't understand what's going on here. It was only the low-fat group that underreported. Take a look at Brehms second study for reasons why. They didn't tell the low-carb group to cut calories, only carbs. So they didn't have any caloric goals/restrictions... they could eat at will. The low-fat group, however, was told to cut calories to a certain number. Psychologically, they would feel uneasy eating more than that number (which they did). Accordingly, they underreported, so they didn't look even worse for going over even more. Again, the low carb group didn't even have this issue. They simply cut carbs and ate as much as they wanted with no calorie restriction. They were following all directives doing this. Brehm gives other reasons, but this one is pretty obvious. It explains why only the low-fat group underreported.

Also one last thing, because the study was not significant, does this mean it should not be used due to not being significant? Significant could be varying degrees of success in this situation.

No, that's not what significant means in a study, lol. Not at all! All the time they do huge studies with thousands of subjects, for example, looking at heart disease and antioxidant use. They've found "no significant difference" on heart disease between the group that takes antioxidants and the group that doesn't. This does NOT mean the study should not be used, lol. It means in terms of statistics, the difference was not enough to be anything more than just chance.

If lower carb compared to higher carb folks lost more weight does this not prove that it is actually possible, especially for the fact that muscular dudes like me would elevate the results

hackskii, remember one of the first things I posted was about how on a low carb diet people will lose water weight? Weight loss is not the same thing as fat loss... and people lose water on a low carb diet because glycogen levels drop. But this is not fat loss. This easily explains why the low carb group had more WEIGHT LOSS. Even so, the amount of weight they lost was NOT SIGNIFICANT, meaning that it was small enough to have just been chance between the groups. If it was a larger difference, then that means chance could not explain for it, but it wasn't like that. It wasn't significant.

Could all the books I read and am reading be wrong and you the only one right?
Sorry, this just goes against every thing I have ever learned.

No, I think it agrees with what you've learned, you just need to understand the bigger picture. You're placing way too much emphasis on insulin when there are thousands of other hormones involved. Insulin is only one player in the game.

If you are right then this makes me feel like I am going to give up and just eat anything as nothing really matters. Pizza and beer at night as long as I get my protein?

I'd say, yeah, as long as you can control your calories, protein, and hunger, go for it...

 

[hackskii]

Cool

So to answer the original thread, cardio is not needed as long as there is a calorie deficit?