Proof that a CLEAN DIET works better...

[BuffedWildCat]

THAN AN "UNCLEAN" DIET AND CARDIO!!!

Aug 28, 2006 thru Feb 11, 2007

I lifted 3 days a week and did cardio 3-4 times per week, later increasing it to 4-5 days per week. My cardio consisted of a combination of several hours of roller skating at the local skating rink usually twice a week, hiking the mtns in western NC with my son in the backpack for HOURS (usually all day) at a time, and using my nordic track skier and power rider for 20-30 min each (one session).

My diet was not what I would consider to be clean as far as getting ready for a BB competition goes, nor was it nearly as bad as the typical American eats (like a lot of processed foods, fast food, sweets, etc.) I basically stayed away from processed foods most of the time, white flour, sugary stuff, but I still ate pizza sometimes, still ate very low sugar cereals sometimes, had a cheat like chocolate or ice cream about once every two weeks, basically a diet that I could live on for the rest of my life, not too restrictive but not like a typical American's diet either.

Here are the numbers for that 5 month period:

Average calories = 2217
142g protein
219g carbs
92g fat

Ratio = 26%P/35%C/37%F

I was comfortable on that (as can be anyway, I still always feel like eating more).

My bodyfat at the beginning of that 5 month period AND at the END of that 5 month period was 19%. My bodyfat DID NOT BUDGE during that entire time. That basically tells me that realistically, I cannot live a comfortable life AND be as lean as I want at the same time. I want to be leaner than 19% and discovered that it is not possible for ME without getting more restrictive than is comfortable for me to live day in and day out for the rest of my life.

So #1 PLEASE let that be a lesson to all you women out there who are trying to achieve the practically impossible or at least know that it is NOT PRACTICAL, it is NOT REALISTIC to expect to look like all the fitness and BB competitors you see 24/7. The female body just was NOT MADE to stay that lean.

#2 My second point to all this is coming up...

Feb 18, 2007 thru March 18, 2007

Started preparing for my first bodybuilding competition.

My training consisted of 4 days of weight training (so one more day than the previous 5 months), and just TWO days of cardio. I love roller skating (I actually inline skate) so I was just session skating at the local skating rink twice a week for my cardio. Of course how much time I actually spent skating would vary depending on how many songs they played that I like to skate to and how much I just hung out in the DJ both talking to friends. But basically I toned it down some from the previous 5 months, took it easier, less skating, a bit more talking, plus my legs have been so fatigued from the weight training it's another reason my actual skating time was less. K, so two days of cardio and 4 days of weight training, so less cardio but one added day of weight training, keep that in mind.

I started preparing for my first bodybuilding competition so I put myself on a stricter diet, basically CLEANED it up. I've been eating ONLY the following, ONLY: eggs, egg whites, oatmeal, PB, butter, sweet potatoes, brown rice, spinach, cauliflower, broccoli, Optimum Gold Standard Whey Protein, calcium caseinate, amino acids, vitamins & minerals, about 1 gallon of water a day, green tea sweetened with stevia, 1 tbsp sugar free syrup for my oatmeal, pink salmon, and chicken. So as you can see, there aren't very many foods listed, which means I eliminated A LOT from my diet. Now, here are the numbers.

Average calories = 2241
220g of protein
161g of carbs
81g of fat

Ratio = 39%P/26%C/32%F

AND GUESS WHAT??!!

I LOST 1.05 lbs of fat AND GAINED .55 lbs of muscle!!! Now, I realize that is not a BIG change especially when you look at my bodyfat numbers which went from 19.48% on 17 Feb and is now 18.79%. BUT, progress always IS SLOW when you are BOTH losing fat AND gaining muscle at the same time.

So I have several important points to make:

#1 I WAS EATING SLIGHTLY MORE AND DOING LESS CARDIO AND I MADE PROGRESS UNLIKE THE FIRST 5 MONTHS WHEN I WAS EATING SLIGHTLY LESS AND DOING WAY MORE CARDIO!! I did more weight training and less cardio and I made some progress!

#2 It isn't just the beginners who can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. I have been lifting for about 7 years, living the BB lifestyle.

#3 IT REALLY IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS CALORIES IN VS CALORIES OUT!!

The numbers aren't a big change but if you see the difference in my progress pictures from 16 wks out to my latest 12 wk out pics, you can see a HUGE difference in the way I look (as soon as I actually post them, hehe).

So anyway, this information teaches some very valuable lessons and so I wanted to share. Stay tuned for those progress pics, I'll get them posted when I get a chance.

[Miranda]

AND GUESS WHAT??!!

do tell :)

#3 IT REALLY IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS CALORIES IN VS CALORIES OUT!!

i can see two differences.
first you dropped cardio and added 1 day of weight training.
second, you changed the macros - more protein, less carbs, less fat.

i remember a similar thing happening to me when i first 'saw the light'.
i think my body comp changed in 4-5 months. less flab, more muscle.

the only difference i have with your view is that i think actually eating certain amounts of macronutrients (=more protein for most women) is more important than the sources they come from.

[BuffedWildCat]

Well one of these days I'll have to prove your theory wrong. :p Cause I DO believe that it does indeed have A LOT to do with the kind/type of foods you eat. Each food you eat elicits a different type of response from the body, some foods elicit a fat burning/muscle building response, etc, and others elicit a fat storage response. Just by the very nature of the human body being SO COMPLEX, I mean we don't even know/understand the half of it yet, so it just makes logical sense that the body is going to have different responses for different types of foods. Like high fiber foods and fats for example, slow the digestion process. Sugary foods digest very quickly making blood glucose levels quickly rise and causing an insulin spike. There are different ways that different foods react in the body so it makes total sense to me that certain foods are going to put the body in a fat burning mode and others a fat storage mode. It's definitely a very complex subject which we are only just beginning to understand.

I got an idea, we should have a BB competition just between the two of us. I'll use my theories on nutrition and you use yours and we'll see which one of us attains the most improved body composition in a set amount of time. :D

[Miranda]

Each food you eat elicits a different type of response from the body, some foods elicit a fat burning/muscle building response, etc, and others elicit a fat storage response. Just by the very nature of the human body being SO COMPLEX, I mean we don't even know/understand the half of it yet

which is why you can't say 'clean' diet works :D the body processes protein, carbs and fats. it doesn't process 'cookie dough'. added preservatives and other goo in processed foods are a matter of health, not fat.

BTW, you attribute your results to a 'clean' diet. you can't really state that as your macros were different and you did less cardio. how about an experiment with the 2241 cals [220g of protein - 161g of carbs - 81g of fat] coming from 'unclean' foods for six months and then another six months of oatmeal, tuna and the like? i think you would have trouble getting the grams in check with pizza, ice cream and hamburgers though :p

high fiber foods and fats for example, slow the digestion process. Sugary foods digest very quickly making blood glucose levels quickly rise and causing an insulin spike.

GI doesn't matter much when you combine the carb with fats. as you say, fat slows down digestion.

I got an idea, we should have a BB competition just between the two of us. I'll use my theories on nutrition and you use yours and we'll see which one of us attains the most improved body composition in a set amount of time.

deal :) i'll PM you after i finish my bulk.

[BuffedWildCat]

...
how about an experiment with the 2241 cals [220g of protein - 161g of carbs - 81g of fat] coming from 'unclean' foods for six months and then another six months of oatmeal, tuna and the like? i think you would have trouble getting the grams in check with pizza, ice cream and hamburgers though :p

I would if I actually wanted the body composition that eating junk gives me, been there, done that, I know better now. Been doing this for almost 7 years, in which I've done plenty of experimenting, so I already know the answer. Maybe YOU can get away with that, I already know that *I* can't.

[Miranda]

I would if I actually wanted the body composition that eating junk gives me, been there, done that, I know better now. Been doing this for almost 7 years, in which I've done plenty of experimenting, so I already know the answer.

but for the sake of scientific research . . .

[BuffedWildCat]

Wait a minute, I just realized something...


...
the only difference i have with your view is that i think actually eating certain amounts of macronutrients (=more protein for most women) is more important than the sources they come from.

So then you ADMIT that it's NOT as simple as calories in vs calories out? That you can take the same amount of calories, just change the macronutrients around a bit and viola, you lose fat? And yes, I agree, that IS PART of it.

I know, I know, next you're going to bring out the calculator and say something to the effect that protein and fat burns calories just to be broken down and digested, more so than carbohydrates and that's how you stick to your theory.

Bah, I just need to get my butt to bed, too much thinking and it's WAY past my bedtime.

[BuffedWildCat]

but for the sake of scientific research . . .

Ha ha, not THIS body! I'm WAY too fat phobic!

[Miranda]

So then you ADMIT that it's NOT as simple as calories in vs calories out? That you can take the same amount of calories, just change the macronutrients around a bit and viola, you lose fat? And yes, I agree, that IS PART of it.

adequate protein intake + heavy weight training + positive enrgy balance = more muscle.
muscle is metabolically more active, making you burn more calories.

basically, and this applies to all living organisms - eat above maintenance = store energy. eat under maintenance = use stored energy.

HOW you store the energy depends on training, body composition, genetics and, yes, macronutrient breakdown. it can be difficult to build muscle on twinkies, ice cream and pizza. not because they're 'unclean' but because you don't consume enough protein. how much protein you need the depends - again - on training, body composition and genetics.

an individual who does not weight train can get away with lower protein, higher carb/fat diet as long as he takes in the minimum. and even then the overall calories rule, over a longer period of time. i could eat 5000 cals worth of oatmeal every day for a month. oatmeal has a nice breakdown of protein, carbs and fats. it is 'clean'. i might use more calories breaking the damn stuff down. but it'd make me fatter all the same. an excess is an excess.

really, i don't think that differently from you. i just don't think you necessarily need to eat CLEAN [all the time] to see results. nor do i think CLEAN food (the macros) has any magical properties in how the body handles it. you have your anecdotal evidence to the contrary. i have mine :p

[kitebean]

Excellent arguments on both sides....

Buffy I will be really interested to see what the results are after month 2....I've found in the past that sometimes ANY change can make a difference, and that when things settle back into a normal state, well, things get back to normal.

Thanks again ladies for your passion and commitment to your personal truth!

[BuffedWildCat]

Excellent arguments on both sides....

Buffy I will be really interested to see what the results are after month 2....I've found in the past that sometimes ANY change can make a difference, and that when things settle back into a normal state, well, things get back to normal.

Thanks again ladies for your passion and commitment to your personal truth!

Sounds like experience talking there. Have you done some competitions?

Sounds like maybe you have some good dieting experiences to share. ;)

Oh, and thanks, but even more importantly I hope all the women out there who are not happy with themselves cause they are not as defined/toned as they'd like to be, read this and really understand how difficult it is to acquire a low enough bodyfat level to be nicely defined. I just know that there are too many out there who are too hard on themselves when it really is a very difficult (and unrealistic to maintain) task to lower one's bodyfat below about 18%. Too often we expect too much of ourselves. We are deceived into thinking that looking like all the pics of the fitness models, BB competitors, and the like isn't that difficult to come by or to maintain and nothing could be FURTHER from the TRUTH. We automatically think that these competitors and models look like this 24/7 but the truth is that they DON'T! 99% of the time you are only going to see pics of these people when they are at their BEST, which is NOT 24/7. Plus, there are other tools like airbrushing that can be used to make a lot of these models look even more perfect. I just want others not to set themselves up for disappointment by creating unrealistic goals for themselves. Personally, even for me, someone who has basically been living the bodybuilding lifestyle for 7 years, doing this competition is really opening my eyes to lot of things. And that is precisely one of the big reasons why I decided to do a competition in the first place. I want to see firsthand what it's really like to get lean enough for a competition, I want to see EXACTLY what it takes and what I have to go thru to attain that. And I'd like to share that experience with others out there like me, women who are overly hard on themselves for not being able to get their bodyfat to the level that they see in all the pics.

[Miranda]

I want to see firsthand what it's really like to get lean enough for a competition, I want to see EXACTLY what it takes and what I have to go thru to attain that. And I'd like to share that experience with others out there like me, women who are overly hard on themselves for not being able to get their bodyfat to the level that they see in all the pics.

i did a similar thing last year. i wanted to prove myself i can do it.

i went from 18-19% to 13-14% (with pizza and the like). it IS hard work and it hurts - a lot. i have the genetics to carry a lower BF% but overall i found i am nowhere muscular enough. so back to the kitchen i went :D i have bulked since first week of january and gained 16 pounds. if 5 pounds of it are muscle, i'm in heaven :)

[BuffedWildCat]

The other big, important message I am trying to get out there is that CARDIO IS OVERRATED IN TERMS OF FAT LOSS!!

I went back into my fitday and looked at how many hours per week I was doing cardio during that 5 month period when I lost NO BODYFAT whatsoever and as a matter-of-fact if you want to get real nitpicky (course this could simply be due to human error) I actually GAINED a slight amount of fat during those 5 months from Aug to Feb! I was doing anywhere from 4-9 hours of cardio per week (if I had to guess an average I'd say 6 hours). It varied cause one of my forms of cardio was hiking and of course if the weather wasn't nice then I wouldn't go. It also varied because it depended on how much I actually skated when I went to the local skating rink. I did my best to keep track while I was there then I would input it into fitday when I got home. The other forms of cardio I did was using my nordic track skier and the power rider. So anyway, by the numbers according to fitday, I was burning anywhere from 500 to 1000 calories OVER what I was taking in!! So I should have been losing weight, right? Nope, it just doesn't work that way, my weight didn't budge, the human body is just more complex than cals in vs cals out. So again, I was getting anywhere from 4-9 hours of cardio in a week which equated to 4-5 days a week of cardio.

In contrast, once I started preparing for this BB competition, in addition to cleaning up my diet, I CUT BACK on my cardio. Now, instead of doing 4-5 days of cardio per week totaling anywhere from 4-9 hours, from Feb 12 thru Mar 18 I did cardio only TWICE a week totaling NO MORE than 4 hours, just depending on how much time I actually spent skating. And my results were that I LOST FAT and GAINED muscle!! And my photos speak for themselves! I really want this to sink into the 90% of you who think that you need to do more cardio to lose fat, it simply is NOT TRUE. Cardio sends the wrong signals to your brain, your brain gets the message that your body needs to be LIGHTER, so what happens? You burn muscle and KEEP the doggone fat! Been there done that, seen it happen to my own body. I'm saying this from experience. I didn't learn how to eat or train properly to get toned until I was about 27 years old. Prior to that, since the age of about 18, I was on a quest to get more TONED and I NEVER could. I did cardio out the ying yang for YEARS and even tried to watch my diet but it DIDN'T WORK. Doing a bunch of cardio NEVER got me toned. It was similar with my diet, even tho I THOUGHT I was eating good and not too much and even after tracking it, I didn't lose fat/get toned until I learned how/what/when to eat in order to lose fat. Once I finally learned proper nutritional principles, THEN I lost fat. So DIET combined with HEAVY WEIGHT TRAINING will put you on the road to a more defined body, an improved body composition, less fat, more muscle.

Really want this to hit home: GOOD NUTRITION (altho some won't agree with my "clean" nutritional priniciples) and HEAVY WEIGHT TRAINING NOT A BUNCH OF CARDIO is the KEY to a firm, toned body!!

[kitebean]

Oh, and thanks, but even more importantly I hope all the women out there who are not happy with themselves cause they are not as defined/toned as they'd like to be, read this and really understand how difficult it is to acquire a low enough bodyfat level to be nicely defined. I just know that there are too many out there who are too hard on themselves when it really is a very difficult (and unrealistic to maintain) task to lower one's bodyfat below about 18%. Too often we expect too much of ourselves. We are deceived into thinking that looking like all the pics of the fitness models, BB competitors, and the like isn't that difficult to come by or to maintain and nothing could be FURTHER from the TRUTH. We automatically think that these competitors and models look like this 24/7 but the truth is that they DON'T! 99% of the time you are only going to see pics of these people when they are at their BEST, which is NOT 24/7. Plus, there are other tools like airbrushing that can be used to make a lot of these models look even more perfect. I just want others not to set themselves up for disappointment by creating unrealistic goals for themselves. Personally, even for me, someone who has basically been living the bodybuilding lifestyle for 7 years, doing this competition is really opening my eyes to lot of things. And that is precisely one of the big reasons why I decided to do a competition in the first place. I want to see firsthand what it's really like to get lean enough for a competition, I want to see EXACTLY what it takes and what I have to go thru to attain that. And I'd like to share that experience with others out there like me, women who are overly hard on themselves for not being able to get their bodyfat to the level that they see in all the pics.


Amen Sista!

No, I haven?t competed but the thought that you had that thought made me feel great.

I have been training for many, many years, but nah, I am a normal gal ? I?ve been a clean eater for 6 years from necessity. I have PCOS and after years of being told that there was nothing to do, I met a genius endocrinologist in London who very simply explained that I could control the condition with my diet. How? Well, basically what I later understood to be more or less the bodybuilding protocol.

That?s why I find these discussions about diet and macro composition to be so interesting. For me, it?s a matter of a ?macro? balance of proven methodology/ best practice, common sense, and personal composition.

When you say that your change has proved to yourself that clean eating has made a difference, I absolutely believe you. However, I also absolutely believe Miranda when she says that in her experience it doesn?t matter! I know, for me, that if I eat even minimal amounts of processed food of any kind, or sugar, even if my calories and macros stay the same, 2 things will happen: the first is that I will gain weight, and the second, if it continued for an extended time, my periods would stop.

So?..the human body is a wonderful, complex, UNIQUE and precious thing. I believe that the best thing we can do on this board is share experience, and keep our hearts and minds open to the fact that we are all individuals.

And engage in passionate and vigorous debate!!!

[BuffedWildCat]

Well said.

Thanks for sharing. :)

[vanessa40]

The other big, important message I am trying to get out there is that CARDIO IS OVERRATED IN TERMS OF FAT LOSS!!

I went back into my fitday and looked at how many hours per week I was doing cardio during that 5 month period when I lost NO BODYFAT whatsoever and as a matter-of-fact if you want to get real nitpicky (course this could simply be due to human error) I actually GAINED a slight amount of fat during those 5 months from Aug to Feb! I was doing anywhere from 4-9 hours of cardio per week (if I had to guess an average I'd say 6 hours). It varied cause one of my forms of cardio was hiking and of course if the weather wasn't nice then I wouldn't go. It also varied because it depended on how much I actually skated when I went to the local skating rink. I did my best to keep track while I was there then I would input it into fitday when I got home. The other forms of cardio I did was using my nordic track skier and the power rider. So anyway, by the numbers according to fitday, I was burning anywhere from 500 to 1000 calories OVER what I was taking in!! So I should have been losing weight, right? Nope, it just doesn't work that way, my weight didn't budge, the human body is just more complex than cals in vs cals out. So again, I was getting anywhere from 4-9 hours of cardio in a week which equated to 4-5 days a week of cardio.

In contrast, once I started preparing for this BB competition, in addition to cleaning up my diet, I CUT BACK on my cardio. Now, instead of doing 4-5 days of cardio per week totaling anywhere from 4-9 hours, from Feb 12 thru Mar 18 I did cardio only TWICE a week totaling NO MORE than 4 hours, just depending on how much time I actually spent skating. And my results were that I LOST FAT and GAINED muscle!! And my photos speak for themselves! I really want this to sink into the 90% of you who think that you need to do more cardio to lose fat, it simply is NOT TRUE. Cardio sends the wrong signals to your brain, your brain gets the message that your body needs to be LIGHTER, so what happens? You burn muscle and KEEP the doggone fat! Been there done that, seen it happen to my own body. I'm saying this from experience. I didn't learn how to eat or train properly to get toned until I was about 27 years old. Prior to that, since the age of about 18, I was on a quest to get more TONED and I NEVER could. I did cardio out the ying yang for YEARS and even tried to watch my diet but it DIDN'T WORK. Doing a bunch of cardio NEVER got me toned. It was similar with my diet, even tho I THOUGHT I was eating good and not too much and even after tracking it, I didn't lose fat/get toned until I learned how/what/when to eat in order to lose fat. Once I finally learned proper nutritional principles, THEN I lost fat. So DIET combined with HEAVY WEIGHT TRAINING will put you on the road to a more defined body, an improved body composition, less fat, more muscle.

Really want this to hit home: GOOD NUTRITION (altho some won't agree with my "clean" nutritional priniciples) and HEAVY WEIGHT TRAINING NOT A BUNCH OF CARDIO is the KEY to a firm, toned body!!

Thank you :)
I'm a runner and a lifter...the past 3 months the scale has been moving in the wrong direction. I run about 50 miles a week..about 7-8 miles a day and lift 3 days a week...as of today i'm changing to hiit training and more lifting :)

[Titania]

I have not read every reply here but I just want to say a huge YAY to your realisation Buffed :)

I have not done ANY traditional cardio AT ALL for the past two years or so and I have made the greatest gains in strength and definition I have ever made.

As you mention in your initial post, getting the nutrition right is number one, followed by cutting out the cardio and replacing it with heavy lifting.
I have made many posts about this over the last couple of years and it ALWAYS puts a big :D on my face when somebody else makes the same realisation.
Cardio works for those who use steroids because they have superior recovery abilities but it DOES NOT work for natural athletes when combined with heavy training.

As I have said many times, I actually DO do cardio but it consists of squats, presses, deadlifts, rows, pulls, carries etc ;) :D

Yay to you girl and keep up the great work. Welcome to the world of natural female progress :D

[Starlite]

I am so glad that you ladies take the time to discuss these kinds of issues. When I first joined this site, I was told (and read) that one MUST do at least three days of cardio per week if one expects to lose fat. Even the fitness competitors, when interviewed for an article, often state that they do a lot of cardio per week.

I have not noticed significant losses doing cardio at least three times per week. In a 6 week period, I did cardio almost every day for at least 30 minutes. My diet was clean, but the scale refused to budge. I did experience some losses in the form of inches, but I cannot say for sure that the losses were attributed to fat loss and not because I was hydrating myself properly (thus, retaining less water leading to smaller measurements). My measurements now are close to what they were in December.

I can't say that it isn't frustrating for me to go through this process, but this isn't a quick fix. It will take some time and effort to find what works best for my body type and lifestyle.

[Defiant1]

My .02.


"Calories" are TOTALLY overrated in terms of weight management.

They are about as useful as "IQ" in predicting lifetime income.

A correlation, but not as strong as one would think.

First, a "calorie" is a unit of HEAT energy. Measured, literally, by burning foods.

Ones body does not "combust" foods for energy.

Calories are useful for comparing similar classes of foods, but when it comes to different classes, or categories within classes, the comparison becomes more tenuous.

Some examples:

Anyone who has done a ketogenic diet knows that "a calorie is a calorie" is not correct. I have lost BODYFAT ( <- note I didn't say "weight" ) eating MORE calories on a ketogenic diet. I have also GAINED BODYFAT on a low fat diet with a higher percentage of carbohydrates but lower "calories".

Hormonal response, metabolic "cost", etc all factor into how food is metabolized.

Anecdotally, can one say:

That eating 2500 calories at one sitting will have the same affect as eating 2500 calories spread throughout the day?

That 500 calories of table sugar will have the same metabolic affect as eating 500 calories of protein as 500 calories of fats as 500 calories of a longer chain carbohydrate?

No way, from my experience, and my observation.

[Titania]

Defiant1,

You are spot on. :)
Another thing that most people do not realise is that everyone has a different response to certain foods. A good example is the humble potato. Some would say that to gain definition, potatoes are a big no-no and for some, this may indeed be true. In my case though, I eat around 8 or 9 potatoes PER DAY with around 2 lbs of beef mince (ground beef in USA) and 1/2 a butternut pumpkin. I also eat on average, 6 lean beef hamburgers, three avocados, two to three whole eggs, a skin ON chicken breast and 3 litres of water.
This is an average of my daily nutritional intake and I do NO traditional cardio AT ALL. As I said before, I lift with intensity (ie very heavy) and my workouts are typically around 1/2 an hour.
My newest workout routine is basically the same as what I have been using for the last six months with the addition of light and heavy alternating workouts. I just posted the full details on my forum. Here's a copy of that post -
Based on my experience to date, I have formulated a new workout schedule that I have just started. It is designed for maximum gains in strength and conditioning with the most efficient drug free recovery. I have written it specifically for the way my body responds to lifting but I would be keen to hear how anyone else goes with it too

OK, here it is -

First ten days

1 - Back Heavy
2 - Chest Light
3 - Off
4 - Biceps Heavy
5 - Grip
6 - Legs Light
7 - Off
8 - Shoulders Heavy
9 - Triceps Light
10 - Off

Second ten days

1 - Back Light
2 - Chest Heavy
3 - Off
4 - Biceps Light
5 - Grip
6 - Legs Heavy
7 - Off
8 - Shoulders Light
9 - Triceps Heavy
10 - Off


The idea with the heavy and light alternation is to give my tendons and CNS adequate recovery time. They typically require longer than muscles do.
I do not alternate heavy and light on grip days because at this point, it appears the only way to train grip for maximum strength is low reps and HARD!!

This is simply what is working the best for me. I always encourage people to think outside the square and experiment with everything until they work out their own optimal training for THEIR goals. They are usually VERY surprised to find that it differs significantly to common beliefs :)

[Miranda]

First, a "calorie" is a unit of HEAT energy. Measured, literally, by burning foods.

Ones body does not "combust" foods for energy.

hmm . . . if you burn (oxidize) one gram of ethanol (alcohol) the output is 29kJ (or 7 cals) = heat + carbon dioxide + water. one gram of ethanol metabolized by the body yields 29kJ = heat + carbon dioxide + water. granted, the body uses a dozen different pathways compared to the simple addition of oxygen which is a single pathway. but the starting substrates and results are the same.

[Titania]

hmm . . . if you burn (oxidize) one gram of ethanol (alcohol) the output is 29kJ (or 7 cals) = heat + carbon dioxide + water. one gram of ethanol metabolized by the body yields 29kJ = heat + carbon dioxide + water. granted, the body uses a dozen different pathways compared to the simple addition of oxygen which is a single pathway. but the starting substrates and results are the same.
That is true but, as we all know, the real world results are FAR from being as simple as theoretical calculations for a multitude of reasons, some of which are yet to be understood. Added to that is the fact that everyone responds in a vastly different way to the same foods.

[Miranda]

That is true but, as we all know, the real world results are FAR from being as simple as theoretical calculations for a multitude of reasons, some of which are yet to be understood. Added to that is the fact that everyone responds in a vastly different way to the same foods.

so you would say the human body does not obey the simple laws of physics and chemistry? :confused:

[Defiant1]

hmm . . . if you burn (oxidize) one gram of ethanol (alcohol) the output is 29kJ (or 7 cals) = heat + carbon dioxide + water. one gram of ethanol metabolized by the body yields 29kJ = heat + carbon dioxide + water. granted, the body uses a dozen different pathways compared to the simple addition of oxygen which is a single pathway. but the starting substrates and results are the same.

But the MECHANISM is different. Plus, it is not the substrates that are the key. The key in what you said is METABOLIZED. The metabolism is the difference. Metabolism is not free. In fact, the metabolism is the "energy" we are talking about. You are also not counting the hormonal response which effects NET result-insulin and/or glucagon etc.

Ethanol (alcohol) is a great example though. Alcohol becomes preferentially used for fuel, unlike anything else. So, glycogen calories that normally might be used for energy are now free to either go from workout replenishment to liver glycogen replenishment or to triglycerides if both are complete. Ditto lipid metabolism.

Why alcohol can take someone out of ketosis IMMEDIATELY despite having zero carbohydrate.

[Uriel_da_man]

Defiant1,

You are spot on. :)
Another thing that most people do not realise is that everyone has a different response to certain foods. A good example is the humble potato. Some would say that to gain definition, potatoes are a big no-no and for some, this may indeed be true. In my case though, I eat around 8 or 9 potatoes PER DAY with around 2 lbs of beef mince (ground beef in USA) and 1/2 a butternut pumpkin. I also eat on average, 6 lean beef hamburgers, three avocados, two to three whole eggs, a skin ON chicken breast and 3 litres of water.
This is an average of my daily nutritional intake and I do NO traditional cardio AT ALL. As I said before, I lift with intensity (ie very heavy) and my workouts are typically around 1/2 an hour.
My newest workout routine is basically the same as what I have been using for the last six months with the addition of light and heavy alternating workouts. I just posted the full details on my forum. Here's a copy of that post -


This is simply what is working the best for me. I always encourage people to think outside the square and experiment with everything until they work out their own optimal training for THEIR goals. They are usually VERY surprised to find that it differs significantly to common beliefs :)
A little off topic, but you have a day just for biceps?

Not hating or anything, just surprised you don't get your ass blazed out of the pl/strongmen section :D

And in that note, this is officialy my first post in the female section.

[Defiant1]

A little off topic, but you have a day just for biceps?

Not hating or anything, just surprised you don't get your ass blazed out of the pl/strongmen section :D

And in that note, this is officialy my first post in the female section.


lol.

Uriel, my young Padawan, have you SEEN Titania? Or read her posts?

Lol at her getting "blazed out of the pl/strongman section".

Just like "Blond Amazon" getting blazed out for doing too much volume. Lol.


Edit: plus the fact that she is a moderator. "Blazing her out" would be about as smart as walking into a Mafia hang out and calling everyone "dagos".

[terracotta]

Not hating or anything, just surprised you don't get your ass blazed out of the pl/strongmen section :D
.

I think it has something to do with the fact that she is bigger than most of them and stronger than most of them..

Anyways, I agree with Miranda.

And I MUCH prefer cardio over a calorie restricted diet, sorry..
my heart and lungs appreciate it too.

[Uriel_da_man]

lol.

Uriel, my young Padawan, have you SEEN Titania? Or read her posts?

Lol at her getting "blazed out of the pl/strongman section".

Just like "Blond Amazon" getting blazed out for doing too much volume. Lol.


Edit: plus the fact that she is a moderator. "Blazing her out" would be about as smart as walking into a Mafia hang out and calling everyone "dagos".
Yeah that's exacly what I mean, I know Titania, she has quite a reputation up there in the "strength zone". That's why I was surprised she's as popular as she is even though having a biceps day :D Up there as much as saying you TRAIN biceps is a flame magnet already!

[Defiant1]

Yeah that's exacly what I mean, I know Titania, she has quite a reputation up there in the "strength zone". That's why I was surprised she's as popular as she is even though having a biceps day :D Up there as much as saying you TRAIN biceps is a flame magnet already!


You know better than to listen to that crap young Padawan.


"Train biceps, or train not..there is no try".

By the way, I can come up with a hell of a scientific argument as to why compounds are not the best exercises for building biceps.

[Uriel_da_man]

You know better than to listen to that crap young Padawan.


"Train biceps, or train not..there is no try".

By the way, I can come up with a hell of a scientific argument as to why compounds are not the best exercises for building biceps.
Yeah I know, I am ready to face the trials, master :p

[terracotta]

That said.. I wouldn't recommend more than 3 hours a week of cardio. Clearly, cardio can be overdone.

[darkangel]

Buffed, did you ever try fasted cardio in the morning on an empty stomach? Just curious if that ever factored into your experiments.

[Titania]

ROFL Uriel_da_man and Defiant1 :D Too funny :D
If there is one religion, recognised or not that I am closest to, it is most definitely Jedi :)


Buffed, did you ever try fasted cardio in the morning on an empty stomach? Just curious if that ever factored into your experiments.
If your goal is to gain lean mass naturally, then this is the worst possible thing you can do. You will gain all the disadvantages of adding in cardio to your training PLUS you will burn muscle!!
so you would say the human body does not obey the simple laws of physics and chemistry? :confused:
The human body follows the laws of physics (or, more accurately, quantum physics) and chemistry just as effectively as the rest of the universe but those laws are anything but simple. When combined with the practically infinite permutations of each individual, you can begin to fathom the massive differences in response each person has to certain foods.
A perfect example is soy. I am violently allergic to it while some people tolerate it rather well and others thrive on it! The laws are the same but our bodies are vastly different. :)

[Miranda]

But the MECHANISM is different. Plus, it is not the substrates that are the key. The key in what you said is METABOLIZED. The metabolism is the difference. Metabolism is not free. In fact, the metabolism is the "energy" we are talking about. You are also not counting the hormonal response which effects NET result-insulin and/or glucagon etc.

the mechanism is not actually different. it has more steps but it generates the same result. a truly different mechanism wouldn't produce 29kJ from one gram of ethanol but maybe 25 or 32. 'metabolism' on a molecular level is an algorithmic process, based on the principles of thermodynamics. you know, "In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant" and all that. metabolism is indeed not 'free'; it cannot create heat output if there's no substrate to generate it from. you can't make something out of nothing. you cannot store energy in the body if there's no surplus substrate to store with.

'metabolism' is not energy. it is a set of chemical reactions in the body. it can't function without energy but it in itself is not energy.

i did not count the hormonal responses to different macronutrients. i don't doubt [simple] carbohydrates increase insulin production (as does protein, to a lesser extent). i don't doubt insulin enables fat storage in the body. i am aware a diet high in sugar can lead to insulin resistance and/or diabetes. it is not relevant in this case, because, and it has been said before, it is [energy] balance over a longer period of time that attributes to fat gain/loss, not what you ate in one day. and that was the origin of my little dispute with BWC (or her dispute with me ;)).

[Miranda]

The human body follows the laws of physics (or, more accurately, quantum physics) and chemistry just as effectively as the rest of the universe but those laws are anything but simple. When combined with the practically infinite permutations of each individual, you can begin to fathom the massive differences in response each person has to certain foods.


lol i know i should've written 'basic', not simple :)

i do acknowledge people are different but no-one gets 20kJ out of one gram of alcohol :D that's what i meant.

[Defiant1]

the mechanism is not actually different. it has more steps but it generates the same result. a truly different mechanism wouldn't produce 29kJ from one gram of ethanol but maybe 25 or 32. 'metabolism' on a molecular level is an algorithmic process, based on the principles of thermodynamics. you know, "In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant" and all that. metabolism is indeed not 'free'; it cannot create heat output if there's no substrate to generate it from. you can't make something out of nothing. you cannot store energy in the body if there's no surplus substrate to store with.

'metabolism' is not energy. it is a set of chemical reactions in the body. it can't function without energy but it in itself is not energy.

i did not count the hormonal responses to different macronutrients. i don't doubt [simple] carbohydrates increase insulin production (as does protein, to a lesser extent). i don't doubt insulin enables fat storage in the body. i am aware a diet high in sugar can lead to insulin resistance and/or diabetes. it is not relevant in this case, because, and it has been said before, it is [energy] balance over a longer period of time that attributes to fat gain/loss, not what you ate in one day. and that was the origin of my little dispute with BWC (or her dispute with me ;)).

Isn't "more steps" a different mechanism? The mechanics are different? ;)

Of course I am not saying that "conservation of energy" is violated. But you can have gasoline with a certain amount of potential energy, and vegetable oil with a certain amount of potential energy. Put them both in an internal combustion engine, and the net output is not going to be directly related to their potential energies (this in fact is a problem now with E85).

So the idea of a "calorie is a calorie" is based on COMPLETE transfer of food energy into BIOLOGICALLY USABLE energy for the organism. It also does not count the NET energy produced by the different SOURCES of calories. It ALSO assumes complete digestion. Calories are measured in a state that the food is NOT digested in. Our systems are not closed either. So it is not as simple as applying the laws of thermodynamics.

Easy example: Calories of non-soluble fiber. Not digested completely. So net energy produced much less than the "calories" would indicate.

Another example: Animals given LOWER caloric intake can live longer. If one applies simple ceteris paribus thermodynamics, this is impossible.

I don't disagree that technically that weight loss is a result of net energy loss. But this is really only apparent in retrospect. Because "calories" don't tell the whole picture, and are not comparable 1:1 in their forms as foodstuffs.

[BuffedWildCat]

...
i did not count the hormonal responses to different macronutrients.

But when it comes to burning fat, you HAVE to. That's like saying I can ALWAYS skate 20mph outside on a flat surface, you CANNOT say that, it's not accurate because even if the pavement surface is the same, you didn't factor in the wind conditions cause obviously you can't skate as fast on a windy day as you can on a calm day.


i don't doubt [simple] carbohydrates increase insulin production (as does protein, to a lesser extent). i don't doubt insulin enables fat storage in the body. i am aware a diet high in sugar can lead to insulin resistance and/or diabetes. it is not relevant in this case,

But it IS relevant.

because, and it has been said before, it is [energy] balance over a longer period of time that attributes to fat gain/loss, not what you ate in one day...

Yes, I disagree with this, that is only PART of the process. You are oversimplifying metabolism. As was said before, the human body is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than a simple calories in vs calories out equation. Apparently you do not have the ability to think outside the box, not meant as in insult, just what comes to mind when a person can't seem to stop trying to oversimplify something.

...
And I MUCH prefer cardio over a calorie restricted diet, sorry..
my heart and lungs appreciate it too.

And I prefer to keep the MUSCLE I've worked so hard to build INSTEAD of the FAT. Over the 5 month period I did all that cardio, my weight didn't budge and the caliper measurements actually showed a slight DECREASE in muscle tissue and an INCREASE in fat tissue! My skinfold measurements at the end of the 5 months either stayed the same or actually went UP!! Now I'm by no means saying you should never do cardio, I think it has it's benefits, time, and place, it's just that too many people both overdo it on the cardio (do too much) and give cardio too much credit for fat burning. Now how much is too much is going to depend on the person, some people are going to be able to get away with more cardio without compromising muscle tissue but at the same time EVERYONE benefits if they do NO CARDIO when they are on a mission to GAIN MUSCLE.

Also, the other half of my first response, is that I prefer to lose fat using sound NUTRITION.

Buffed, did you ever try fasted cardio in the morning on an empty stomach? Just curious if that ever factored into your experiments.

Nope, nope, and HELL NO! That's worse than doing cardio with food in your system in terms of burning off muscle tissue. If you for sure want your body to burn off muscle tissue and leave the fat, yeah, do it in the morning when your body is already in a catabolic state. I'm not trying to be mean, just being honest and I do get frustrated as well. Like I've said over and over again, CARDIO, especially when you do too much, do it for long periods of time, and do it in the morning before eating when your body is already in a catabolic state, SENDS THE WRONG SIGNALS TO THE BRAIN, TELLING IT THAT IT NEEDS TO BE LIGHTER so the body responds by burning off muscle tissue and leaving the fat. YOU END UP A SMALLER VERSION OF YOURSELF BY DOING TOO MUCH CARDIO.

And I wish to god that I could just do cardio INSTEAD of having to watch my diet so closely and restrict calories but it just DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. If it did, I'd have had the body I wanted YEARS ago! Cause that's exactly what I did, tried to eat as healthy as I could without having to starve all the time and did cardio out the ying yang, at least 4-5 times a week and sometimes for hours at a time but it did NOTHING for me in terms of my physique.

[Uriel_da_man]

the mechanism is not actually different. it has more steps but it generates the same result. a truly different mechanism wouldn't produce 29kJ from one gram of ethanol but maybe 25 or 32. 'metabolism' on a molecular level is an algorithmic process, based on the principles of thermodynamics. you know, "In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant" and all that. metabolism is indeed not 'free'; it cannot create heat output if there's no substrate to generate it from. you can't make something out of nothing. you cannot store energy in the body if there's no surplus substrate to store with.

'metabolism' is not energy. it is a set of chemical reactions in the body. it can't function without energy but it in itself is not energy.

i did not count the hormonal responses to different macronutrients. i don't doubt [simple] carbohydrates increase insulin production (as does protein, to a lesser extent). i don't doubt insulin enables fat storage in the body. i am aware a diet high in sugar can lead to insulin resistance and/or diabetes. it is not relevant in this case, because, and it has been said before, it is [energy] balance over a longer period of time that attributes to fat gain/loss, not what you ate in one day. and that was the origin of my little dispute with BWC (or her dispute with me ;)).
I dare you to go on a diet high on sugar, moderate protein and fat for a couple months, taking a (proper) body composition test before and after.

Then I'll dare you to go on a diet high on protein and moderate on carbs and fat, but with the exact same total calorie intake, and take the test again.

I'll bet my life on it that you'll gain less fat and more muscle on the latter.

Also, you're forgetting some important metabolic thingies:
1) You don't just shove food down your mouth and it goes into the blood stream. It takes effort from your body to digest it. Fat requires like 1/10 of the calories it provides to digest. Some proteins can require almost half. Glucose requires no digestion, so it delivers 4 full calories per gram. A realy complex starch like on green vegetables requires a ****load of effort to digest (bowel movements, enzyme production), so if you do the math once a gram of that starch hits the blood it may have 4 calories to deliver but it may have taken like 2 calories to be there, so in overall balance it only delivers 2 calories. Just food for thought;
2) You can lose energy in the form of heat, controled by the act of sweating, which itself also requires *drum roll* energy, and some nutrients may be more likely to cause a temperature response than others (many foods naturaly contain stimulants, for example, others may contain thermogenics, etc etc). Also, metabolic processes are not perfect. A fair deal of what enters your bloodstream breaks down and is rendered useless before it can reach its destination, and is washed away, which means energy was spent on its digestion but it never realy delivered any energy, resulting in a negative energy balance (for that particular molecule in relation to your body).

These are petty things, and happen in such a small scale that it's virtualy impossible to calculate. But the fact remains that they do happen, and "healthy food" isn't called "healthy" for nothing.


...Just throwing some more ashes :D

[terracotta]

Easy example: Calories of non-soluble fiber. Not digested completely. So net energy produced much less than the "calories" would indicate.
.

Actually nutridiary takes those calories into account properly.. eg fiber from brocolli = 2 calories per gram.. not a naive 4*carb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BWC -
I also agree that a lot of people do too much cardio, and that the cardio you describe above is excessive. I do moderate intensity cardio, and always take in calories before my cardio.. nothing like what most people do.

And of course, I am not a "bodybuilder" per se, but am more in this for health.

[Defiant1]

Actually nutridiary takes those calories into account properly.. eg fiber from brocolli = 2 calories per gram.. not a naive 4*carb

I also agree that a lot of people do too much cardio, and that the cardio you describe above is excessive. I do moderate intensity cardio, and always take in calories before my cardio.. nothing like what most people do.

And of course, I am not a "bodybuilder" per se, but am more in this for health.

See, technically though, that is "changing the field". Subtracting true food calories to get an ideal. If a calorie is a calorie, you wouldn't need to subtract any, right? ;). Basically, the system tries to compensate for the flaws in the caloric system. This also begs the question, what do you do with food that is HARDER to digest? Do you change the caloric value of food cooked a certain way? Do you increase the caloric value of cheese because it can slow digestion? See where I am going.

I think you are thinking of someone else re: the cardio comment? :)

[terracotta]

Yeah.. I didn't click both quotes :o

[Miranda]

Isn't "more steps" a different mechanism? The mechanics are different?

the combustion of one gram of alcohol generates known amounts of heat, carbon dioxide and water, regardless of combusting it directly with oxygen or with more complicated steps in the human body. it cannot generate anything else.

So the idea of a "calorie is a calorie" is based on COMPLETE transfer of food energy into BIOLOGICALLY USABLE energy for the organism. It also does not count the NET energy produced by the different SOURCES of calories. It ALSO assumes complete digestion. Calories are measured in a state that the food is NOT digested in. Our systems are not closed either. So it is not as simple as applying the laws of thermodynamics.

no food is completely digested. from what i know about 85-90% of daily calories is absorbed into the bloodstream. 10-15% is excreted to release their energy elsewhere. if you won't consume it, someone else will. my puppy is very fond of turds - thermodynamics at their best ;) the human consumer is not the end of any process either. you will release all your stored energy after death. maybe you will push up a daffodil or two if you're lucky :)

i do agree the amount of calories listed on a pack of oatmeal is, at best, arbitrary. it does not correspond directly to any one individual's needs. still, the fact that the numbers in real life are 'off' does not make thermodynamics - or any other calculations - false.

[Miranda]

I dare you to go on a diet high on sugar, moderate protein and fat for a couple months, taking a (proper) body composition test before and after.

Then I'll dare you to go on a diet high on protein and moderate on carbs and fat, but with the exact same total calorie intake, and take the test again.

i can't remember saying macronutrient ratios (grams, not %s) do not matter. they do. but calories reign over macronutrients.

and if it makes you happy, i AM on a pretty high carb, moderate protein/fat diet. i have gained some bodyfat. but then i chronically eat above maintenance. maybe that has something to do with it? hmm, no :cool:

Apparently you do not have the ability to think outside the box

Pot, meet Kettle :)


i would also like to see BWC go on a diet of 'unclean' foods with the same macros to prove her point.

she could've called the thread:

1. PROOF that doing less cardio changes body comp.
2. PROOF that eating more protein changes body comp.
3. PROOF that heavy weight lifting changes body comp.
4. PROOF that eating clean changes body comp.
5. PROOF that a combination of all of the above changes body comp.

but instead she picked only ONE variable and called the thread:

PROOF that eating CLEAN changes body comp.

to tell you the truth, that bothers me.

Also, you're forgetting some important metabolic thingies:
1) You don't just shove food down your mouth and it goes into the blood stream. It takes effort from your body to digest it.[...]Just food for thought;

2) You can lose energy in the form of heat, controled by the act of sweating, which itself also requires *drum roll* energy, and some nutrients may be more likely to cause a temperature response than others[...]resulting in a negative energy balance (for that particular molecule in relation to your body).

it is all about energy balance. about 10-15% of calories eaten is used to digest the stuff. protein, complex carbs, fats. yes. if you STILL are at a positive energy balance over a longer period of time after all that, you WILL gain. no amount of 'clean' eating will keep you from gaining weight (fat and otherwise).

lol perhaps i need to make myself clearer. that's what i've been saying all along :rolleyes:

[Defiant1]

the combustion of one gram of alcohol generates known amounts of heat, carbon dioxide and water, regardless of combusting it directly with oxygen or with more complicated steps in the human body. it cannot generate anything else.

Correct, but the energy produced in order to be 1:1 "caloric" or "energy" transfer has to be used 100% by the body for energy PRODUCTION.

This gets way more complicated as food constituents increase. For instance from alcohol (say Vodka) to "Baileys".

Remember, not a closed system. The gasoline example.


no food is completely digested. from what i know about 85-90% of daily calories is absorbed into the bloodstream. 10-15% is excreted to release their energy elsewhere. if you won't consume it, someone else will. my puppy is very fond of turds - thermodynamics at their best ;) the human consumer is not the end of any process either. you will release all your stored energy after death. maybe you will push up a daffodil or two if you're lucky :)

i do agree the amount of calories listed on a pack of oatmeal is, at best, arbitrary. it does not correspond directly to any one individual's needs. still, the fact that the numbers in real life are 'off' does not make thermodynamics - or any other calculations - false.

Or course again, I'm not saying that the laws of thermodynamics are violated.

When people say "a calorie is a calorie", they mean 500 calories of fat causes the same effect as 500 calories of carbohydrate. Produce the same energy FOR the body.

I WISH they meant what you are saying, but then they wouldn't be saying it.

[terracotta]

I'm thinking Defiant, that you are pretty much in agreement with Miranda, and it is all "semantics".

Miranda, great posts.

About the "85-95%" is actually used. I started taking digestive enzymes with every meal for a while, not realizing I could in fact, increase this percentage a bit. I don't think it was negligible. :p

[Defiant1]

I'm thinking Defiant, that you are pretty much in agreement with Miranda, and it is all "semantics".

Miranda, great posts.

About the "85-95%" is actually used. I started taking digestive enzymes with every meal for a while, not realizing I could in fact, increase this percentage a bit. I don't think it was negligible. :p

Likely.

She seems to be saying that energy is conserved, which is of course correct.

My point is about "calories" the way we eat them, not "energy" in it's basic form.

Something to consider. In the 70s the most training "science" came from Nautilus Sports/Medical Industries. They had a ridiculously reductionist way of viewing things. One of their views which is still parroted is "a calorie is a calorie". And they weren't talking about "a is necessarily equal to a". Their big protege' Mike Mentzer used to brag about eating McDonalds pre-contest. Their view, being reductionist, did not take into account ANYTHING else, hormonal, metabolic cost, incomplete conversion of energy, etc. When someone says "just take in less calories to lose weight" because "a calorie is a calorie" (I'm not saying that anyone hear is INTENTIONALLY saying this) it was born via them largely. And it is wrong.

[BuffedWildCat]

...

i would also like to see BWC go on a diet of 'unclean' foods with the same macros to prove her point.

Told you, already did that. My results were a less favorable body composition on an unclean diet with same calories and macronutrients as compared to a clean diet with the same calories and macronutrients. Been there, done that, I've had almost 7 years of experimenting to find out.

but instead she picked only ONE variable and called the thread:

PROOF that eating CLEAN changes body comp.

Um, no, the title is "Proof that a clean diet works better than..."

And then TWO things, "unclean diet" AND cardio.

I actually should've used different terminology and said "Proof that SOUND NUTRITION works better than..."

[teenyGreen]

Wow, great thread, really interesting. I have to agree with Miranda, simply because I have been there and done that. You can still get great results and eat less desirably. You just have to work harder in the gym. That's still great you have had such success Wildcat. I can't wait to see your pics.

I'm surprized to see all the cardio bashing. I myself have done a ridiculous amount of cardio, being a runner. I know you are right, because since I have been training for my show, I do less cardio, and I am leaner. I just love running so much. It's really hard to resist that temptation to add more cardio, especially since I am so close to my contest, but I have a lot of nasty fat on my butt. Is it acceptable to use extra cardio to burn butt fat when you need to cut it in 4 weeks for a contest, or do I need to just tighten my diet and hit the weights harder?

[BuffedWildCat]

... to add more cardio, especially since I am so close to my contest, but I have a lot of nasty fat on my butt. Is it acceptable to use extra cardio to burn butt fat when you need to cut it in 4 weeks for a contest, or do I need to just tighten my diet and hit the weights harder?

I honestly do not know what to tell you since I have never been in that situation. I just started preparing for MY FIRST BB competition, I'm still 12 weeks out. And also since I do not know your history as far as your diet and exercise, etc, I'd have to evaluate a lot more factors to even give you my educated guess. Hope that makes sense.

Don't you have a trainer who is working with you? That's what he/she is for, he/she should know your history as well as several other factors to be able to tell you what you should do.

[Titania]

Wow! some strong opinions and some great information in this thread!!

The bottom line is that eating clean, significantly reducing cardio, lifting heavy, resting well and experimentation to find out what specifics of this combination work best for YOU is the secret to lean and natural muscle and strength gains. :)

It is not rocket science. ;)

[Miranda]

Um, no, the title is "Proof that a clean diet works better than..."

you're right. my bad :p

I actually should've used different terminology and said "Proof that SOUND NUTRITION works better than..."

perhaps. dividing foods into 'clean' and 'unclean' is a bit much imo. i'd rather see a divide of 'nutritious' (as in vitamins, minerals and other good stuff) and 'less-nutritious'. if you eat enough 'nutritious' foods every day, eating a bit on the 'less-nutritious' side isn't likely to hinder your progress if they fit, *cough* your calories and macros.

you eat 6 meals a day with 2500 calories* with about 40% protein, 25% carbs and 35% fats which is 90% of your maintenance. you do heavy weight training. 5 of the meals are nutritious and sound with most complex carbs strategically eaten around the workouts. and then your 6th meal is ice cream mixed with oats! it is calculated in your daily intake. you eat ice cream 4-5 days a week before bed. what effect does the ice cream have?

hope that makes my point a bit clearer :)

*Bob, in this case you truly use ALL of it for energy production.

[Defiant1]

*Bob, in this case you truly use ALL of it for energy production.


Impossible. That would imply 100% efficiency , which is a physical impossibility. In essense, a perpetual motion machine

lol at your location. One of the former Soviet states?

[The Brotherhood]

Hi peeps.

BuffWildCat, you look incredible.

Id like to chime in.

It is NOT a matter of calories in vs calories out. Protein, fat, and carbs elicit different hormonal responses, and are used differently.

However, I do believe it is all just about the macros. Give it a shot; switch your diet to eating whatever you want but follow the exact same macro plan.

[SC1]

Threads like this are why I love this site. It's been a great read.

This, however, is what I think the key to take away from all of this is:

experimentation to find out what specifics of this combination work best for YOU is the secret to lean and natural muscle and strength gains. :)


During my first competition preparation, I did as little cardio as possible. I'm a cardio hater! :D My diet was not even super clean. I was cheating with regularity and eating foods that would make most competitors cringe. To get below 12% bodyfat I had be very restricted with my calories, but as long as I didn't overdue the carbs I could have a lot of variety. This lead me to two conclusions: 1) To some extent, a calorie is pretty much a calorie. 2) A ton of cardio is overrated. Burn more than you eat... period.

This season I am working with a well known trainer who works with many of the top pros and his methods are the polar opposite of mine. My calories and much higher and my diet is as clean as clean can be. I eat ONLY chicken or fish, lots of veggies, oats, brown rice, and limited healthy fats. I never, ever cheat AND I do insane amounts of cardio. It's been fancinating to compare the way my body reacts mentally and physically to the differences. I am approaching the same bodyfat levels, but am carrying way more muscle this time (of course, I am supplementing out the wazoo this go around too, so that probably accounts for some of that). Since I am feeding my body like crazy, I can handle a much larger workload this season. But the results are the same, so why bother?

Well, for starters, I feel better. I'd venture to guess that all competitors have thier low points near the end, but mine aren't nearly as drastic as they were before. And holy cow, am I fit from all that cardio! That feels really good. Mostly, though, it's the mental game. Cutting all the crap from diet for a sustained period has completely erased my cravings for it. I can watch someone eat a piece of chocolate cake and not freak out. Last year, I wouldn't have even been able to type the word "Cake" without getting the shakes! Maybe eating only non-processes healthy foods and doing cardio hasn't really improved my heart health or lowered my cholesteral THAT much, but I sure feel healthier. And proud of myself. And that's reason enough for me.

So as hard as it is, I'm going to keeping eating a lot good food and doing a lot of good cardio. Is it necessary? Probably not. Ultimately, I still believe that you just gotta burn more than take in. How you go about it depends on what you want to scarifice. Pick your posion! :)

[darkangel]

Nope, nope, and HELL NO! That's worse than doing cardio with food in your system in terms of burning off muscle tissue. If you for sure want your body to burn off muscle tissue and leave the fat, yeah, do it in the morning when your body is already in a catabolic state. I'm not trying to be mean, just being honest and I do get frustrated as well.

Yikes. Well, in my defense, Venuto has the following to say about fasted cardio:


A common concern about doing cardio in the fasted state, especially if it?s done with high intensity, is the possibility of losing muscle. After an overnight fast, glycogen, blood glucose and insulin are all low. As we?ve already concluded, this is an optimum environment for burning fat. Unfortunately, it may also be an optimum environment for burning muscle because carbohydrate fuel sources are low and levels of the catabolic stress hormone cortisol are high. It sounds like morning cardio might be a double-edged sword, but there are ways to avert muscle loss.

All aerobic exercise will have some effect on building muscle, but as long as you don?t overdo it, you shouldn?t worry about losing muscle. It's a fact that muscle proteins are broken down and used for energy during aerobic exercise. But you are constantly breaking down and re-building muscle tissue anyway. This process is called "protein turnover" and it?s a daily fact of life. Your goal is to tip the scales slightly in favor of increasing the anabolic side and reducing the catabolic side just enough so you stay anabolic and you gain or at least maintain muscle.

How do you build up more muscle than you break down? First, avoid excessive cardio. Aceto suggests limiting your cardio on an empty stomach to 30 minutes, and then it would be "highly unlikely that amino acids will be burned as fuel." He also mentions that "a strong cup of coffee should facilitate a shifting to burn more fat and less glycogen. If you can spare glycogen, you?ll ultimately spare protein too."


I sure wouldn't do fasted cardio during a massing phase, but I'm on fat loss at the moment and it seemed appropriate. I'm not a big fan of marathon cardio sessions. If I can do 20-30 minutes of moderate cardio in the a.m. and hit my stubborn abdominal fat, I think the benefits are worth the risk.

[Titania]

Yikes. Well, in my defense, Venuto has the following to say about fasted cardio:



I sure wouldn't do fasted cardio during a massing phase, but I'm on fat loss at the moment and it seemed appropriate. I'm not a big fan of marathon cardio sessions. If I can do 20-30 minutes of moderate cardio in the a.m. and hit my stubborn abdominal fat, I think the benefits are worth the risk.
There are far, far more effective ways to burn fat. Remember that spot reduction does NOT happen.
If you have a small, muscle preserving meal high in protein and then go and do 6 to 8 sets of clean and presses with a barbell for 8 - 10 reps per set, I guarantee you will get MUCH faster and more effective results than any other cardio will give you, especially fasted cardio!!

[Miranda]

After an overnight fast, glycogen, blood glucose and insulin are all low. As we?ve already concluded, this is an optimum environment for burning fat

it is not necessary to concentrate on burning fat during one moment of the day only (=cardio). you burn fat 24 hours a day.

[teenyGreen]

I honestly do not know what to tell you since I have never been in that situation. I just started preparing for MY FIRST BB competition, I'm still 12 weeks out. And also since I do not know your history as far as your diet and exercise, etc, I'd have to evaluate a lot more factors to even give you my educated guess. Hope that makes sense.

Don't you have a trainer who is working with you? That's what he/she is for, he/she should know your history as well as several other factors to be able to tell you what you should do.

Thank you for the comment. I had a meltdown...Yes, I'm working with someone, he's not experienced with figure competitors, so he put me in touch with someone who is...I do have a question actually relating to this post. Why does cardio feel so good, if it's so bad? I know you don't think it's "bad" wildcat. You love roller skating. I love running. I know it's not the best way to burn fat, but doesn't it have a lot of value, because it makes me feel good. You hear all of the ads that the Surgeon General suggests aerobic exercise. Are they just lying to people?

[The Brotherhood]

it is not necessary to concentrate on burning fat during one moment of the day only (=cardio). you burn fat 24 hours a day.

Exactly. Im going to head over to pubmed and fish out the studies that observe that fuel source during cardio-vascular exercise makes minimal difference to sustained fat loss.

Nice, clean thread to debate in. I like :)

[BuffedWildCat]

... and then your 6th meal is ice cream mixed with oats! it is calculated in your daily intake. you eat ice cream 4-5 days a week before bed. what effect does the ice cream have?

And that's where we disagree. I believe you are shooting yourself in the foot if you do that, you are seriously hindering your fat loss goal following a plan such as that. Put it this way, I'm willing to say that at least 4 out of 5 people would be seriously hindering their efforts to lose fat, perhaps YOU are that ONE person who can still get great fat loss results by doing that. But I'd still have to see the proof for myself, i.e. see the difference in the results if you followed my nutritional guidelines and then the results if you followed YOUR nutritional guidelines. I believe there would be significant difference, you are saying there wouldn't be, that's where we disagree (and that's keeping cals and macronutrient ratio exactly the same).

Hi peeps.

BuffWildCat, you look incredible.

Id like to chime in.

It is NOT a matter of calories in vs calories out. Protein, fat, and carbs elicit different hormonal responses, and are used differently.

However, I do believe it is all just about the macros. Give it a shot; switch your diet to eating whatever you want but follow the exact same macro plan.

THANK YOU!!

[BuffedWildCat]

it is not necessary to concentrate on burning fat during one moment of the day only (=cardio). you burn fat 24 hours a day.

Yes, by using sound nutrition. But if you are going to include ice cream in your fat loss diet then NO, you WON'T BE BURNING FAT 24/7, that is what I believe and have experienced. I get much better fat loss results when I eliminate foods such as these.

[BuffedWildCat]

Yikes. Well, in my defense, Venuto has the following to say about fasted cardio:

...

I sure wouldn't do fasted cardio during a massing phase, but I'm on fat loss at the moment and it seemed appropriate. I'm not a big fan of marathon cardio sessions. If I can do 20-30 minutes of moderate cardio in the a.m. and hit my stubborn abdominal fat, I think the benefits are worth the risk.

Good article. Not sure I entirely agree with every sentence but good article nonetheless. Thank you for posting that. :)

[BuffedWildCat]

There are far, far more effective ways to burn fat. Remember that spot reduction does NOT happen.
If you have a small, muscle preserving meal high in protein and then go and do 6 to 8 sets of clean and presses with a barbell for 8 - 10 reps per set, I guarantee you will get MUCH faster and more effective results than any other cardio will give you, especially fasted cardio!!

EXACTLY. I still believe that the right NUTRITION and heavy weight training yields far better results as far as body composition goes.

[BuffedWildCat]

Threads like this are why I love this site. It's been a great read.

This, however, is what I think the key to take away from all of this is:



During my first competition preparation, I did as little cardio as possible. I'm a cardio hater! :D My diet was not even super clean. I was cheating with regularity and eating foods that would make most competitors cringe. To get below 12% bodyfat I had be very restricted with my calories, but as long as I didn't overdue the carbs I could have a lot of variety. This lead me to two conclusions: 1) To some extent, a calorie is pretty much a calorie. 2) A ton of cardio is overrated. Burn more than you eat... period.

This season I am working with a well known trainer who works with many of the top pros and his methods are the polar opposite of mine. My calories and much higher and my diet is as clean as clean can be. I eat ONLY chicken or fish, lots of veggies, oats, brown rice, and limited healthy fats. I never, ever cheat AND I do insane amounts of cardio. It's been fancinating to compare the way my body reacts mentally and physically to the differences. I am approaching the same bodyfat levels, but am carrying way more muscle this time (of course, I am supplementing out the wazoo this go around too, so that probably accounts for some of that). Since I am feeding my body like crazy, I can handle a much larger workload this season. But the results are the same, so why bother?

Well, for starters, I feel better. I'd venture to guess that all competitors have thier low points near the end, but mine aren't nearly as drastic as they were before. And holy cow, am I fit from all that cardio! That feels really good. Mostly, though, it's the mental game. Cutting all the crap from diet for a sustained period has completely erased my cravings for it. I can watch someone eat a piece of chocolate cake and not freak out. Last year, I wouldn't have even been able to type the word "Cake" without getting the shakes! Maybe eating only non-processes healthy foods and doing cardio hasn't really improved my heart health or lowered my cholesteral THAT much, but I sure feel healthier. And proud of myself. And that's reason enough for me.

So as hard as it is, I'm going to keeping eating a lot good food and doing a lot of good cardio. Is it necessary? Probably not. Ultimately, I still believe that you just gotta burn more than take in. How you go about it depends on what you want to scarifice. Pick your posion! :)

Thank you very much for sharing that insightful information! :)

[Miranda]

And that's where we disagree. I believe you are shooting yourself in the foot if you do that, you are seriously hindering your fat loss goal following a plan such as that.

OK, but which mechanism is it?
what makes ice cream in the above situation hinder fat loss?
that's all i want to know.

[BuffedWildCat]

Thank you for the comment. I had a meltdown...Yes, I'm working with someone, he's not experienced with figure competitors, so he put me in touch with someone who is...I do have a question actually relating to this post. Why does cardio feel so good, if it's so bad? I know you don't think it's "bad" wildcat. You love roller skating. I love running. I know it's not the best way to burn fat, but doesn't it have a lot of value, because it makes me feel good. You hear all of the ads that the Surgeon General suggests aerobic exercise. Are they just lying to people?

Ah, but here you see you are talking about two different things, comparing apples to oranges. Yes, I LOVE cardio, I am hating it right now because I LOVE, LOVE to hike in the mountains for HOURS at a time, I LOVE, LOVE inline skating and inline speed skating but I can't do those things right now while peparing for this competition. I will keep doing those things but NOT while I'm preparing for this bodybuilding competition. My goals are different now and I know that for maximum muscle for this bodybuilding competition, that I need to cut out all that cardio and I have. But I will certainly go back to doing all that cardio I love once this competition is over. And yes, cardio is VERY healthy just not in terms of attaining the BEST BODY COMPOSITION for a BODYBUILDING SHOW. Does that make sense?

CARDIO IS NEITHER GOOD OR BAD IN THE SENSE THAT IT DEPENDS ON YOUR GOALS. FOR ATTAINING AN OPTIMAL BODY COMPOSITION ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF A BB COMP, I BELIEVE IT IS "BAD", A POOR CHOICE. I BELIEVE NUTRITION AND HEAVY WEIGHT TRAINING ARE THE BETTER CHOICES.

Sorry if I confused anyone. I hope that clears things up.

[BuffedWildCat]

OK, but which mechanism is it?
what makes ice cream in the above situation hinder fat loss?
that's all i want to know.

I don't profess to understand it completely, don't know for sure if anyone does, (but I do know some people who understand it more thoroughly than I do), but I do know that it has to do with insulin and blood sugar levels. Simply put, eating ice cream takes your body out of its fat burning mode and instead elicits a fat STORAGE response. Honest. I don't know the exact mechanism or at least not well enough to try to explain it. Look up: "cephalic insulin response and reactive hypoglycemia". The info you read about that may serve to help explain what happens when you eat something sweet and why it stops fat burning. Your body can only handle a certain amount of sugar at a time so if you give it too much at once, it has to do something with all of it, not all of it goes into the liver and muscles, so you know where the rest of it goes. Keeping blood sugar and insulin levels low and steady 24/7 keeps your body in a fat burning mode. You eat ice cream and you just threw that nice balance, those low and steady insulin and blood sugar levels out the window, your body goes into an entirely different mode which is NOT fat burning. I think if you read those articles, it may help you see what I'm talking about. :)

Here are two links on the above subjects:

http://www.mechpa.com/hypo2.htm

http://www.dietandbody.com/article1082.html

Some of you may not want to read this, especially the second article, it may freak you out.

[darkangel]

There are far, far more effective ways to burn fat. Remember that spot reduction does NOT happen.
If you have a small, muscle preserving meal high in protein and then go and do 6 to 8 sets of clean and presses with a barbell for 8 - 10 reps per set, I guarantee you will get MUCH faster and more effective results than any other cardio will give you, especially fasted cardio!!

I never said I was trying to spot reduce. We all know there are certain stubborn fat areas that seem to respond slower than other parts of the body. That's all I was referring to.

Along the lines of what you've suggested, I have switched from a three day heavy training split to two full body workouts a week, one exercise for each body part, three sets of 8-12 reps, alternating upper and lower body to move quick enough to get a cardio benefit with the weight training. It seems to be working for me. I'd been on a long break/slack time due to my wedding last fall. I'm an ecto, so I lose ground quickly. On my fatloss program, I am gaining back lost muscle and fat percentage seems to be coming down slightly.

[terracotta]

Here are two links on the above subjects:

http://www.mechpa.com/hypo2.htm

http://www.dietandbody.com/article1082.html

Some of you may not want to read this, especially the second article, it may freak you out.

That assumes you have reactive hypoglycemia.

[Defiant1]

I never said I was trying to spot reduce. We all know there are certain stubborn fat areas that seem to respond slower than otber parts of the body. That's all I was referring to.

Along the lines of what you've suggested, I have switched from a three day heavy training split to two full body workouts a week, one exercise for each body part, three sets of 8-12 reps, alternating upper and lower body to move quick enough to get a cardio benefit with the weight training. It seems to be working for me. I'd been on a long break/slack time due to my wedding last fall. I'm an ecto, so I lose ground quickly. On my fatloss program, I am gaining back lost muscle and fat percentage seems to be coming down slightly.

Heavy duty?

Remind me to smack you if I ever see you (lightly, but smack none-the-less)

lol.

[Titania]

EXACTLY. I still believe that the right NUTRITION and heavy weight training yields far better results as far as body composition goes.
I guess you and I are two examples of living proof of how effective this is, as are many of my clients who have used the same techniques.
Some people would still argue that our methods are not amongst the most effective even if we were standing face to face with them in training attire!!

[BuffedWildCat]

That assumes you have reactive hypoglycemia.

Yes, and the article goes on to explain how they test for it. And I suspect that there are A LOT of us that have it especially since this is relatively new information, I'm guessing that as time goes on, we will find that a majority of people have it or put it this way, at least a mild form of it.

Secondly, there have been quite a few studies done on cephalic insulin response showing that this phenomenon probably affects a good majority of people.

And to try to answer Miranda's question a bit better (thought about it on the way to the gym). When you eat ice cream, it spikes your blood sugar levels to a higher degree than "clean" foods. When this happens, insulin is released to take all that sugar out of the blood (if it doesn't you can die, when the sugar level in the blood is too high, it damages your organs and all kinds of other nasty stuff). Now since foods like ice cream raise your blood sugar level too much, the body goes into a mode to do something with it/about it, it has to put the sugar somewhere. The body basically becomes preoccupied with finding something to do with the excess sugar in your blood so its concern is not going to be fat burning, put it that way! In contrast, when your blood sugar levels are kept low 24/7, then your body is constantly trying to keep your sugar levels from falling TOO LOW, which is also dangerous. In order to do this it triggers lipolysis, or the release of fatty acids from the fat cells, so basically it's breaking down fat to keep your blood sugar level normal and to give you energy. When your blood sugar level gets too high after eating ice cream, then your body is NOT going to be breaking down fat cause it doesn't need to! It's going to be doing the opposite, finding a place for all that sugar! So see, high blood sugar levels caused my foods like ice cream, foods I label as non-conducive to fat-burning, put the BRAKES on FAT LOSS for SEVERAL HOURS until the body gets back to equilibrium again and then the blood sugar levels actually have to start to fall BELOW NORMAL again in order for fat burning to begin again. You keep your blood sugar levels and insulin levels steadily low, then your body KEEPS burning fat 24/7. The more times you eat something that will spike your blood sugar or insulin levels, the more you are shooting yourself in the foot! Obviously the LONGER you can keep your body in a fat burning mode, the MORE FAT you will LOSE in a SHORTER amount of time. I don't know about you, but I rather like the idea of getting rid of my fat sooner rather than later. Also, that is why when people get STUCK at losing fat, many times just making their diet CLEANER will get the fat loss going again. I am living proof of that. I was stuck for 5 months for sure (when I was keeping real careful track, but I know it was actually longer) not able to lose anymore fat until recently when I started getting ready for this competition, I cleaned up my diet, and now I am losing again!

So anyway, I hope that helps you and others understand.

[Miranda]

Your body can only handle a certain amount of sugar at a time so if you give it too much at once, it has to do something with all of it, not all of it goes into the liver and muscles, so you know where the rest of it goes.[...]When you eat ice cream, it spikes your blood sugar levels to a higher degree than "clean" foods.[...]high blood sugar levels caused my foods like ice cream, foods I label as non-conducive to fat-burning[...]The more times you eat something that will spike your blood sugar or insulin levels, the more you are shooting yourself in the foot![...]So anyway, I hope that helps you and others understand.

apparently you didn't read what i posted:

you eat 6 meals a day with 2500 calories* with about 40% protein, 25% carbs and 35% fats which is 90% of your maintenance. you do heavy weight training. 5 of the meals are nutritious and sound with most complex carbs strategically eaten around the workouts. and then your 6th meal is ice cream mixed with oats! it is calculated in your daily intake. you eat ice cream 4-5 days a week before bed. what effect does the ice cream have?

first of all, ice cream is mixed with protein, low GI carbs and fiber (=oatmeal). second, how much 'sugar' is likely to be ingested in the meal? the guy eats 156 grams of carbohydrate daily - the complex and simple ones over 3 meals.
third, there is a constant energy deficit. not over one day but over several days. now, what effect does the ice cream have?

you don't look at the big picture. you concentrate on one little detail.

yes, you are correct in that elevated insulin levels do hinder fat burning (although there are other potent hormones that are not dependent of insulin but that's another story). but are there 'elevated insulin levels' in the above case? if so, how much of it do you 'store' over a longer period of time if you have a constant energy deficit?

i'm sorry but your 'unclean' food bashing is starting to sound like a dogma.

unclean food hinders fat loss because it is unclean and because it is unclean it hinders fat loss. if someone comes with sound, scientifically backed evidence that unclean food does not necessarily hinder fat loss it is the evidence that is thrown out of the window, not unclean food.

now, you might want to say 'scientific' doesn't mean anything and 'we don't know half'. we know a lot and it is the same science that taught us you need to be in a positive nitrogen balance to enable lean mass gains and that insulin enables fat storage.
you can't pick out bits that tickle your fancy and discard the rest.

[BuffedWildCat]

...
you don't look at the big picture. you concentrate on one little detail.

Pot meet kettle.

You're still missing the point.

I still am willing to bet that you'd get better results in your body composition using the nutritional principles I follow. But that's okay, I mean really, why should I concern myself with how you choose to reach your goals anyway, why should I give you my secrets as to why I'd kick your ass in a bodybuilding competition?

Well, simply because I choose to share my knowledge and help people.

And well, I think I'm done here, don't wanna beat the dead horse anymore.

[Miranda]

I still am willing to bet that you'd get better results in your body composition using the nutritional principles I follow. But that's okay, I mean really, why should I concern myself with how you choose to reach your goals anyway, why should I give you my secrets as to why I'd kick your ass in a bodybuilding competition?

you didn't anwer my question about the ice cream did you?

you can bet all your want and believe as you wish. but just because you really, truly, honestly 'believe' something doesn't necessarily make it true.

[Titania]

Why is it so difficult to comprehend that clean foods + heavy training + very little traditional cardio works?!

Theory and scientific studies can be debated until the cows come home. Results cannot be argued!! Personally, I'd rather just get on with training in a way that I KNOW works.

Am I interested in scientific studies and theoretical discussion? Of course I am but I am even more interested in researching why a certain technique works so well so I can develop those techniques further for even greater results.
There is little point in going backwards and getting into something that is, for the most part, a waste of time (traditional cardio).

Sure, if your only goal is cardio vascular endurance, go for it with the treadmills and stair steppers but if your goal is lean gains and lower fat, drop the cardio, train heavy, eat clean (meat, veggies, water, EFA's, whole eggs etc), rest well and make decent progress.
I have said it so many times already but heavy and intense weight training in ANY form IS CARDIO.... VERY EFFECTIVE CARDIO!!.

It is really not that hard to understand.

[darkangel]

Heavy duty?

Remind me to smack you if I ever see you (lightly, but smack none-the-less)

lol.

You've lost me. Why am I going to be smacked?

[terracotta]

Also, the concentrating on ice cream thing..

What if my meal was 100 grams of deli ham (clearly processed!), and 2 slices of 100% whole wheat bread (still processed!!)

Also, you can have processed foods that have the same GI in combination as unprocessed foods.

Using the same GI's OR the same macros is possible with so called "non-clean" foods.

As for the cardio thing. Sure weightlifting is cardio if you are doing all compound and olympic lifts and taking little rest between sets. What about those of us who cannot do high intensity activity?? I have asthma, my choice of exercises reflects this, as well as shoulder issues. If I do not do some moderate intensity activity, I will be in poor cardiovascular health.

To buffedwildcat, you were doing HOURS of cardio at a time. Comparing 12 hours a week of cardio + good diet to zero hours a week of cardio plus superb diet is ridiculous. Of course the 12 hours of cardio is going to hinder your efforts.

How about comparing 3 hours of cardio + good diet to 0 hours of cardio + clean diet and the EXACT SAME calories and macros.

[Defiant1]

You've lost me. Why am I going to be smacked?

I was just kidding, but I HATE heavy duty.

Why? Because I was sucked into it and used to peddle it to others. Nothing worse than a converted anything. I am like an "ex-smoker" about it.

Actually, I need to smack myself again thinking about. :)

*bangs head on desk*

[Defiant1]

Why is it so difficult to comprehend that clean foods + heavy training + very little traditional cardio works?!

Theory and scientific studies can be debated until the cows come home. Results cannot be argued!! Personally, I'd rather just get on with training in a way that I KNOW works.

Am I interested in scientific studies and theoretical discussion? Of course I am but I am even more interested in researching why a certain technique works so well so I can develop those techniques further for even greater results.
There is little point in going backwards and getting into something that is, for the most part, a waste of time (traditional cardio).

Sure, if your only goal is cardio vascular endurance, go for it with the treadmills and stair steppers but if your goal is lean gains and lower fat, drop the cardio, train heavy, eat clean (meat, veggies, water, EFA's, whole eggs etc), rest well and make decent progress.
I have said it so many times already but heavy and intense weight training in ANY form IS CARDIO.... VERY EFFECTIVE CARDIO!!.

It is really not that hard to understand.



Yep. Says it all.

Greater weight loss from low carb diet despite similar caloric intake ( http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/4/1617)

It is important to note, that one can have a perfectly logical argument that is incorrect. If ones premise is false. It happens a lot.

[Miranda]

It is important to note, that one can have a perfectly logical argument that is incorrect. If ones premise is false. It happens a lot.

i guess it depends where you look then?

this is part of what i found on AJCN:

The maintenance of body weight requires a balance between total energy ingested and total energy expended. Increases in body weight and body fat content occur only when energy intake exceeds energy expenditure. The relative importance of a low rate of energy expenditure or a high energy intake in the development of obesity and the extent of individual differences in susceptibility to obesity are controversial. There is little support for the notion that an abnormally low rate of obligatory energy expenditure [resting metabolic rate (RMR) and thermic effect of food (TEF)] is a widespread cause of obesity (8-11). There is more support for the notion that low amounts of physical activity are a risk factor (i2). The question of whether obesity results from high energy intakes is also controversial. It is clear that the regulation of energy intake is a complex process in human subjects and that factors other than hunger contribute to determining consumption. Several epidemiologic studies have examined the relation between total self-reported energy intake and a measure of adiposity . Many such studies fail to find the expected positive relation between total energy intake and BMI (13-16). In contrast, most studies in which energy expenditure is measured find that RMR (17-21) and total free-living energy
expenditure (21, 22) are higher in obese than normal-weight subjects, [u]making it likely that obese subjects consume higher total amounts of energy than do lean subjects. This discrepancy could be in part due to underreporting of food intake by obese subjects (21-23) on to a failure of epidemiologic studies to assess and classify physical activity adequately. These uncentainties and contradictions leave ample room for possible etiologic mechanisms based on differences in diet composition between individuals and populations.

There is strong evidence that the ratio of fat to carbohydrate in the diet affects body-weight regulation and that under some conditions high-fat, high-energy (ie, low-carbohydrate) diets promote obesity. Although many factors other than high fat consumption probably contribute to the high prevalence of obesity in developed countries, a reduction in dietary fat consumption should reduce the prevalence of obesity. There is little evidence that sugars have direct effects on either total energy intake or total energy expenditure in human subjects; such effect would promote body fat accumulation. If making a judgment solely on the basis of obesity, we conclude that there is little substantive evidence to support the view that high consumption of dietary sugars represents a public health problem. However, a potential concern about chronic consumption of diets high in sugar is that a metabolic environment is created that increases the likelihood that other factors, particularly consumption of high amounts of dietary fat, could lead to obesity. For example, chronic consumption of sugar or other high-GI carbohydrates may lead to insulin resistance. This in turn may make overeating and consumption of high amounts of dietary fat more obesity producing than they would have been otherwise, perhaps through a further stimulation of appetite. Alternatively, there may be subtle temporal associations by which a high glycemic response may encourage excessive
postmeal lipid storage after meals combining sugar and fat. The apparent lack of a reciprocal relation between fat and complex carbohydrate consumption represents a challenge for nutrition educators.
We find no reason at present to associate high consumption of sugar with obesity. Thus there is no basis to make necommendations about dietary intakes of sugars with regard to effects on body weight regulation and obesity development. The issue should be reexamined when additional experimental data are available.

true, it doesn't state whether you can lose fat more effectively on a ketogenic diet. but that wasn't the point of the thread anyway. it was EATING CLEAN (=low carb).

[Defiant1]

There were, and are, a ton of studies on different metabolic reactions to proportions of macronutrients.
I didn't post them all, as it convolutes the argument.

It is much easier to prove that something is NOT true, than it IS true.

The bottom line, is what I just said. Counting calories are is not the only answer, the form of the calories has an effect on how the body reacts. What is called commonly a "metabolic advantage".

The human body is not a closed system. Therefore, simply refering to the laws of thermodynamics does not apply.

There really isn't any doubt of this. I'm not sure what the issue is?


Edit: I edited this to be a stand alone. Those interested can take it for what it is. :)

My view: There is overwhelming evidence, and I have personal experience, that different caloric vehicles will cause a different reaction from our bodies, which translates to the same ingested amounts of "calories" having a totally different effect. My experience in fact is that I have LOST BODYFAT while increasing CALORIES. Merely switching macros percentages and totals. Not just weight, not just water, but bodyfat. And no, I didn't increase my cardio or change my workouts.

Works for me.

[darkangel]

At the risk of stating the obvious, there's also the huge variable of the individual body in question. If we're all different body types and compositions, at different levels of fitness, with different health and/or digestive issues, dietary habits/food sensitivities, hereditary limitations... how can we make any kind of emphatic "here's what works for everyone" kind of statement?

[Defiant1]

At the risk of stating the obvious, there's also the huge variable of the individual body in question. If we're all different body types and compositions, at different levels of fitness, with different health and/or digestive issues, dietary habits/food sensitivities, hereditary limitations... how can we make any kind of emphatic "here's what works for everyone" kind of statement?

correct-amundo.

[Miranda]

It is much easier to prove that something is NOT true, than it IS true.

disagree.

how do you prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist?

:p

[Defiant1]

disagree.

how do you prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist?

:p

That actually is the basis of the scientific method, to prove something false, not true. Or, to DISPROVE what is hypothesised. You make a hypothesis, then try to disprove it. As this becomes less and less likely, the hypothesis becomes more and more valid and becomes a theory.

Truth is an absolute. Therefore, if you prove an assertion to be false in any case, it is false and AT LEAST needs to be modified.

In this case, if it is asserted that eating 2500 calories in any form will have the exact same affect on an organism, and this is shown to be false, we know that the assertion is not true in that form, and needs to be modified.

Easy example:

The assertion: "Sue has brown hair". We then observe the hairs on her head. She has say 1000 for example. She has 999 brown, so 999 times we agree. But we then find 1 gray hair. The assertion is now false. It must be modified to say something like "Sue has mostly brown hair" or "Sue has A brown hair" or "Sue has a gray hair".

Notice on the above though, that it only took ONE example to disprove the assertion, despite 999 examples which supported it.

[BuffedWildCat]

you didn't anwer my question about the ice cream did you?

I'm sure I could keep hashing it out with you, but to tell you the truth, I'm tired of it, which is one reason I threw in the kicking your ass at a bodybuilding competition comment, I'd rather just do that and get it over with already! Heh. Seriously, this is just taking up too much of my time, I didn't even spend any time with my son yesterday cause I was too busy either on the computer or doing something pertaining to getting ready for my upcoming BB competition. Heh, first lesson I'm learning, getting ready for a BB competition is A LOT more time consuming than I had ever realized! Heck, I don't have any time left by the time I take care of my son and pay him some attention, get the housework done, and do things I need to do to prepare for this BB competition!

[runlift22]

to all those who have clean bulked without cardio, can you post like a sample day for your diet? I'm curious about your macros, pre/post w/o nutrition, food choices.... that would be great. thank you

[IronMaiden1522]

I LOST 1.05 lbs of fat AND GAINED .55 lbs of muscle!!! Now, I realize that is not a BIG change especially when you look at my bodyfat numbers which went from 19.48% on 17 Feb and is now 18.79%. BUT, progress always IS SLOW when you are BOTH losing fat AND gaining muscle at the same time.

This is what I find the most interesting about your whole post. Your entire "enlightening" we can call it is based on 1lb of fat, oh wait sorry 1.05lbs of fat loss and 0.55lbs of muscle. :confused:

How are you measuring your bodyfat and determining your muscle gain? I know personally my weight can change by a pound or two daily. There are so many things going on in our body to affect measurements like this,especially measurements as small as yours.

I guess what I am getting at is why you felt these miniscule little changes that are surely not 100% accurate lead you to take this whole new approach of how you train and eat? Can you honestly say gaining your 0.55lbs of muscle and losing 1.05lbs of fat is due to cleaning up your diet? I would think if they are in fact true measurements it would be a result of the dropping the cardio, adding some lifting and changing your macros.

Just seems a little far fetched to me, that is all. :)

[Miranda]

The human body is not a closed system. Therefore, simply refering to the laws of thermodynamics does not apply.

In this case, if it is asserted that eating 2500 calories in any form will have the exact same affect on an organism, and this is shown to be false, we know that the assertion is not true in that form, and needs to be modified.


remember, in the above case the person did consume 2500 calories for energy. he isn't an existing organism but a hypothetical one. i am his creator so i can do as i wish and in my parallel universe 'eating 2500 calories' refers to 'net energy input of 2500 calories'. in real life the 'numbers' would be off but not the algorithm.

net energy deficit/surplus determines mass gain/loss.

if you can find a metabolism that ultimately gets 35 kJ out of one gram of ethanol, give me a call.

That actually is the basis of the scientific method, to prove something false, not true. Or, to DISPROVE what is hypothesised. You make a hypothesis, then try to disprove it. As this becomes less and less likely, the hypothesis becomes more and more valid and becomes a theory.

aha. you 'prove' something false but an individual does not believe it is so. is it really 'false'?
a 'belief' in something makes it 'exist' nonetheless - subjective existence.

i would like to think 'truth' absolute and independent of individual views, or scientific research for that matter.

easter bunny dances the menuette with santa claus and the girls from hooters every friday morning on the north sea. highly unlikely.

maybe the chance of it happening is

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000001, not zero.

it is not absolute; it leaves room for human interpretation, which is subjective.

[Miranda]

I'm sure I could keep hashing it out with you, but to tell you the truth, I'm tired of it, which is one reason I threw in the kicking your ass at a bodybuilding competition comment, I'd rather just do that and get it over with already! Heh. Seriously, this is just taking up too much of my time, I didn't even spend any time with my son yesterday cause I was too busy either on the computer or doing something pertaining to getting ready for my upcoming BB competition. Heh, first lesson I'm learning, getting ready for a BB competition is A LOT more time consuming than I had ever realized! Heck, I don't have any time left by the time I take care of my son and pay him some attention, get the housework done, and do things I need to do to prepare for this BB competition!

words aplenty, no answer :)

[Titania]

At the risk of stating the obvious, there's also the huge variable of the individual body in question. If we're all different body types and compositions, at different levels of fitness, with different health and/or digestive issues, dietary habits/food sensitivities, hereditary limitations... how can we make any kind of emphatic "here's what works for everyone" kind of statement?
Another big bump to that :)
I have been pushing this point for ages too. ;)

[Titania]

to all those who have clean bulked without cardio, can you post like a sample day for your diet? I'm curious about your macros, pre/post w/o nutrition, food choices.... that would be great. thank you
HERE'S (http://musclefemme.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4251&highlight=beef+mince#post4251) an example of my nutrition when I was around 180 lbs. My abs were not quite as defined as they have been but I still had a visible six pack with this diet.
My nutrition plan now is similar but higher in carbs from veggies and lower in total calories. I am now focussing on pure strength rather than size so I do not need the same number of calories. I currently consume by volume (ie the amount on my plate) about 50 percent protein, 25 percent fat and 25 percent carbs from veggies.
Keep in mind that I do not use steroids and if I did not experiment to work out the ideal training method and nutrition plan, all I would've achieved with that many calories was gaining a ton of bodyfat. Remember too that my cardio consists entirely of weight training. My point is, much greater things are achievable for drug free women than is believed possible if they would just let go of all the common misconceptions and bull**** commonly sprouted and taken as gospel. ;)

[giuliagoolia]

[url=http://musclefemme.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4251&highlight=beef+mince#post4251] My point is, much greater things are achievable for drug free women than is believed possible if they would just let go of all the common misconceptions and bull**** commonly sprouted and taken as gospel. ;)


Amen to this sister! How VERY true it is. As I was once told when I was a young'n "If you believe you will achieve", kinda corny but so true.

I also totally agree that heavy intense lifting IS also a cardio workout. I got a heartrate monitor a few months back and I was curious to see what my heartrate was after doing a heavy lift set versus cardio and I found that right after a heavy set my HR max (82%-87%) was just about as high as it was right after I did a high intense sprint interval (85%-90%). I really love to run, but it's the very last thing I want to do on a day of heavy lifting.

[Defiant1]

remember, in the above case the person did consume 2500 calories for energy. he isn't an existing organism but a hypothetical one. i am his creator so i can do as i wish and in my parallel universe 'eating 2500 calories' refers to 'net energy input of 2500 calories'. in real life the 'numbers' would be off but not the algorithm.

net energy deficit/surplus determines mass gain/loss.

if you can find a metabolism that ultimately gets 35 kJ out of one gram of ethanol, give me a call.

What you are saying isn't wrong.

But the statement "a calorie is a calorie" really means "an ingested calorie from any source is equal to an ingested calorie from any other source and is processed and results in the same net result"

Nope.


aha. you 'prove' something false but an individual does not believe it is so. is it really 'false'?
a 'belief' in something makes it 'exist' nonetheless - subjective existence.

Since we are talking about "real world results"...it doesn't really matter.

I could claim to be the Reincarnation of Caligula and try to nominate my Border Collie to the House of Representatives. Doesn't mean that people are going to vote for her.



i would like to think 'truth' absolute and independent of individual views, or scientific research for that matter.

But they aren't, and that is not what I am saying. In fact, the step from hyposthesis to theory is gray. Not black and white.


easter bunny dances the menuette with santa claus and the girls from hooters every friday morning on the north sea. highly unlikely.

maybe the chance of it happening is

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000001, not zero.

it is not absolute; it leaves room for human interpretation, which is subjective.

That actually is a good example.

Because, if one Friday they don't, it is false. Easy to disprove. Would likely take one week.

There are LOTS of examples of "science" hypothesising things true, when those who diet or train knew differently.

Examples:

Bodybuilders need no more protein than sedentary people
You can't train "parts" of a muscle (contiguous innervation in humans)
Squats are bad for the knees
Full range exercise on machines is best for size
Variable resistance is best for size
1 set to failure is best
Slow movements are best
Time under tension is what makes one grow
Fat makes you fat


etc etc

[Defiant1]

remember, in the above case the person did consume 2500 calories for energy. he isn't an existing organism but a hypothetical one. i am his creator so i can do as i wish and in my parallel universe 'eating 2500 calories' refers to 'net energy input of 2500 calories'. in real life the 'numbers' would be off but not the algorithm.

net energy deficit/surplus determines mass gain/loss.

if you can find a metabolism that ultimately gets 35 kJ out of one gram of ethanol, give me a call.

What you are saying isn't wrong.

But the statement "a calorie is a calorie" really means "an ingested calorie from any source is equal to an ingested calorie from any other source and is processed and results in the same net result"

Nope.


aha. you 'prove' something false but an individual does not believe it is so. is it really 'false'?
a 'belief' in something makes it 'exist' nonetheless - subjective existence.

Since we are talking about "real world results"...it doesn't really matter.

I could claim to be the Reincarnation of Caligula and try to nominate my Border Collie to the House of Representatives. Doesn't mean that people are going to vote for her.



i would like to think 'truth' absolute and independent of individual views, or scientific research for that matter.

But they aren't, and that is not what I am saying. In fact, the step from hypothesis to theory is gray. Not black and white.


easter bunny dances the menuette with santa claus and the girls from hooters every friday morning on the north sea. highly unlikely.

maybe the chance of it happening is

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000001, not zero.

it is not absolute; it leaves room for human interpretation, which is subjective.

That actually is a good example.

Because, if one Friday they don't, it is false. Easy to disprove. Would likely take one week.

There are LOTS of examples of "science" hypothesising things true, when those who diet or train knew differently.

Examples:

Bodybuilders need no more protein than sedentary people
You can't train "parts" of a muscle (contiguous innervation in humans)
Squats are bad for the knees
Full range exercise on machines is best for size
Variable resistance is best for size
1 set to failure is best
Slow movements are best
Time under tension is what makes one grow
Fat makes you fat


etc etc

[Miranda]

Since we are talking about "real world results"...it doesn't really matter.

so you would say that 'thought' isn't 'real'?
it is the result of evolution, much like metabolism.

given the above example - anything you think can happen one day.

[Defiant1]

so you would say that 'thought' isn't 'real'?
it is the result of evolution, much like metabolism.

given the above example - anything you think can happen one day.


You lost me there.


There is a big difference between statistical probability and proven theory.

[Miranda]

There is a big difference between statistical probability and proven theory.

the difference between 0.0000[...]0001 and 0?

doesn't 0.0000[...]0001 behave like 0 on, say, human scale?

it does and it means it is subjective, not absolute.

[Defiant1]

the difference between 0.0000[...]0001 and 0?

doesn't 0.0000[...]0001 behave like 0 on, say, human scale?

it does and it means it is subjective, not absolute.


Some people play the lottery every day.

But I agree.

[Titania]

Amen to this sister! How VERY true it is. As I was once told when I was a young'n "If you believe you will achieve", kinda corny but so true.

I also totally agree that heavy intense lifting IS also a cardio workout. I got a heartrate monitor a few months back and I was curious to see what my heartrate was after doing a heavy lift set versus cardio and I found that right after a heavy set my HR max (82%-87%) was just about as high as it was right after I did a high intense sprint interval (85%-90%). I really love to run, but it's the very last thing I want to do on a day of heavy lifting.
Two thumbs up for you hon. You are yet another living example of how well this system of training works. Keep up the great work. :D
so you would say that 'thought' isn't 'real'?
it is the result of evolution, much like metabolism.

given the above example - anything you think can happen one day.
Thought is very real. So real in fact, that in my opinion, thought is the very beginning of the formation of matter. Focussed and intense recurring thought leads to the coherent creation of matter and propels the process of evolution. :)
The key is to create NEW thoughts based on experience rather than simply replaying somebody else's already existing thoughts. Only then can uniqueness and discovery be formed.

[SumthinOrNuthin]

I got lost around the bottom of page 1 ;)

Seriously people, all of this scientific debate is very interesting though I confess most of its about 40 miles over my head.

I honestly think the only real factors to weigh in are how *our own* body reacts to something, and absolutely not what worked for someone else. Sure, we can try what they tried but there's no *guarantee* it'll have the same effect because there are too many external factors involved. I think most are agreed that we all have our own reactions to protein, carbs and fat. In addition, some people have a lot of stress in their lives and those that do, deal with it differently - I'm talking the effects of cortisol here. You could add more to this list.

But actually, none of us should be busting a gut and fretting too much about the minute detail of macros, metabolism, percentage this and that, 10 calories here or there and how much energy we burn in the process of digesting a cabbage leaf. Unless you are aiming for a competition - BB, fitness, powerlifting, whatever, there is no need to analyse everything to the Nth degree. Stick with the basics and if you're happy with the way things are going for you, that's a good thing.

Hmmmm, struggling to get this across properly. I'm not intending to flame anyone or knock people for sharing their scientific knowledge and experiences. I suppose I just want us all to chill and just do whatever we find works for us :)

[Titania]

I got lost around the bottom of page 1 ;)

Seriously people, all of this scientific debate is very interesting though I confess most of its about 40 miles over my head.

I honestly think the only real factors to weigh in are how *our own* body reacts to something, and absolutely not what worked for someone else. Sure, we can try what they tried but there's no *guarantee* it'll have the same effect because there are too many external factors involved. I think most are agreed that we all have our own reactions to protein, carbs and fat. In addition, some people have a lot of stress in their lives and those that do, deal with it differently - I'm talking the effects of cortisol here. You could add more to this list.

But actually, none of us should be busting a gut and fretting too much about the minute detail of macros, metabolism, percentage this and that, 10 calories here or there and how much energy we burn in the process of digesting a cabbage leaf. Unless you are aiming for a competition - BB, fitness, powerlifting, whatever, there is no need to analyse everything to the Nth degree. Stick with the basics and if you're happy with the way things are going for you, that's a good thing.

Hmmmm, struggling to get this across properly. I'm not intending to flame anyone or knock people for sharing their scientific knowledge and experiences. I suppose I just want us all to chill and just do whatever we find works for us :)
I wholeheartedly agree with you :)

[hillbilly79]

To the OP and others who have sworn off cardio: Don't you miss the way it made you feel? I know the persuit of lower BF% is foremost for you right now, but I have desk job and couldn't imagine not working up a terrific sweat several times a week on the eliptical. Any regrets in that sense?

[Titania]

To the OP and others who have sworn off cardio: Don't you miss the way it made you feel? I know the persuit of lower BF% is foremost for you right now, but I have desk job and couldn't imagine not working up a terrific sweat several times a week on the eliptical. Any regrets in that sense?
Not even in the slightest. When I did do cardio, I usually used the crosstrainer but it was always a case of, "Jeez, do I have to do this again?!"
It was a huge revelation to come to the realisation that no, I do not need to be doing that at all!! I work up more of a sweat and get my heart rate higher for just as long by lifting really heavy things, AND I get a whole load more benefits and make FAR greater progress. :D