Losing 30 pounds in 30 Days.....

[Appleh]

Hi, I would prefer to go by my Appleh moniker on here instead of my real name.

I am dating a wonderful guy online right now, he is in the army and is getting shipped to Iraq in March, and is at Ft.Hood, TX at the moment. He is getting 2 weeks of leave before he gets shipped overseas and is coming to see me and meet my family for those 2 weeks starting on the 7th of March. He knows I have a belly, and insists he doesn't care, but I do. I want to look at my best for him. I am wondering what is the quickest weight loss plan for 30 days, to lose pure BELLY fat, because all of my fat that I have gained since I stopped playing softball has gone to my stomach and love handles. I want to tone my butt too, and was told squats would be best for that so I'm going to be doing those as well.

I don't have high endurance, so the exercises will have to be gradual, but I don't mind pushing myself further each day, I will try anything to look my best for Alex.

Can I please get advice from the people here? My friend Russ recommended this site to help me get a plan together, I would really appreciate some real help from other people who have attempted to do anything like this.

[Miranda]

30 pounds in 30 days?

try the POOF diet.

>>> *POOF* <<<

it be gone

seriously, can't lose 30 pounds of fat in such a short time.
what you can do is try to drop water weight.

[Appleh]

It doesn't have to all be gone, but I still want to lose a couple inches.

I just don't want it to sick out so much. I was told about a ketogenic diet, but I don't really know how to make an eating plan for it...

[Miranda]

there's a keto section in the general nutrition forum. you can look there.

mind you, one month is a very short period of time to expect anything drastic.

plus trying to lose fat for someone else is not that good a mindset but that's my opinion.

[JVo]

Generally, unless you're really overweight, it's generally accepted that the fastest safe weight loss you should do is 2 lbs. per week, in addition to maybe a little water weight that you'd lose on top of that.

[Appleh]

It's not for him =P it's for me, he doesn't care that i have a belly, he calls it a cushion LOL

[Cynthia_1979]

30 pounds in 30 days...seems impossible!

[Miranda]

Generally, unless you're really overweight, it's generally accepted that the fastest safe weight loss you should do is 2 lbs. per week, in addition to maybe a little water weight that you'd lose on top of that.

don't underestimate H2O.
women can carry an awful lot of water (like 10 pounds).

but [completely, if ever you could do it] draining yourself isn't very healthy plus you'll gain it back pretty quickly = not good for the morale.

[freebirdmac]

Now that you know 30 pounds is not realistic, it's time for suggestions on getting you on your way. First, diet is the key. Terracotta has a great website to get you started http://www.hotnfit.com. There are links to calculators to help you estimate your current maintenance cals. Getting to 500 cals below that number will get you a loss of 1 pound a week. You can drop more by increasing your activities. Naturally, weight lifting should be the cornerstone of your exercise plan. You need resistance training to help you keep the muscles you have plus build more. You won't build but so much at a deficit, but newbie gains still factor in. More muscle means a higher metabolic rate which gives you more fat burning potential. Weightlifting also burns a decent amout of cals while you're in the gym, and for up to 36 hours later. Next is adding cardio. You can start out with steady state cardio a few times a week. In time you'd like to add a couple HIIT sessions.

But again, diet is the key. And you do not want to make the very common mistake of dropping cals too low. It'll work initially, then work against you.

No matter how much you lose in 30 days, you will look and feel better

[Emma-Leigh]

As above -->> It really isn't healthy... But if you want to do it.... do it right:
1. Set cals based on your EXTRA FAT (this will determine your maximal rate of fat loss)... Why??
-->>> Alpert SS. J Theor Biol. 2005 Mar 7;233(1):1-13

A limit on the maximum energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia is deduced from experimental data of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels and is found to have a value of (290 ? 25) kJ/kg d. A dietary restriction which exceeds the limited capability of the fat store to compensate for the energy deficiency results in an immediate decrease in the fat free mass (FFM). In cases of a less severe dietary deficiency, the FFM will not be depleted.

So -> Work out how much fat you have, work out what you need to maintain your weight, then use that formula to calculate how many calories your fat could provide.

eg: If you THINK you have "30 pounds of fat to lose" then base it on that = 950 cals/ day deficit could be created.

So if you weighed 150 pounds... Maintained at 2200-2400 cals... Then you could get away with 1250-1460 cals/ day for your weight loss.

2. eat a diet high in protein to meet calories as found above... If you are particularly insulin resistant then drop carbs low.... If you like carbs - drop fats lower.... If you want to take maximal advantage of the thermogenic effect of protein then eat ++++ protein and not much in the way of carbs/ fats (I would advise you to include one meal of higher fat protein - eg: salmon -to keep things 'happy'... and still include vegetables too)... But anything with 150-240g protein (depending on your activity/ preference) would be adequate....

3. add a multivitamin and fish oils.... drink lots of water and add a fiber supplement too if required

5. weight train HARD and HEAVY.... I would aim for 3 x a week (more at a very high calorie deficit is stupid).

6. You *could* add a bit of cardio (depending)....But I wouldn't add any REALLY intense formal cardio.... I would just try to walk a lot/ stay active....

7. Have a treat meal or higher carb day about every 10 days (depends on how fat you are)...

8. After the month is over - ensure you get back to a sensible routine so you maintain your results and don't metabolically crash

^^^
..... My suggestions anyway....

[Emma-Leigh]

ps - that'll result in something between 1.5-2 # a week... About 8#... Add in water weight (eg: 6-10 #) and you still will not make 30# a month.... but you'll get about half way....

[kimm4]

Hi, I would prefer to go by my Appleh moniker on here instead of my real name.

I am dating a wonderful guy online right now, he is in the army and is getting shipped to Iraq in March, and is at Ft.Hood, TX at the moment. He is getting 2 weeks of leave before he gets shipped overseas and is coming to see me and meet my family for those 2 weeks starting on the 7th of March. He knows I have a belly, and insists he doesn't care, but I do. I want to look at my best for him. I am wondering what is the quickest weight loss plan for 30 days, to lose pure BELLY fat, because all of my fat that I have gained since I stopped playing softball has gone to my stomach and love handles. I want to tone my butt too, and was told squats would be best for that so I'm going to be doing those as well.

I don't have high endurance, so the exercises will have to be gradual, but I don't mind pushing myself further each day, I will try anything to look my best for Alex.

Can I please get advice from the people here? My friend Russ recommended this site to help me get a plan together, I would really appreciate some real help from other people who have attempted to do anything like this.

There is no quick plan period. If you're real strict with your eating plan...maybe 10/12 lbs at the most...

[ToraAdams]

Emma do you think what you posted is similar training and diet for the contestants on the Biggest Loser TV show?

I'm always amazed at the ten pound or even 2 pound loss every week.

[Emma-Leigh]

No idea.... but this is what I do with some of my 'very overweight' who want to/ need to lose weight quickly. It is also what I do with some of my 'not so overweight' who are wanting to do the same.

With regards to the biggest loser - I am not sure... I don't watch TV... But I have heard about it... And suffice to say that *just about anything* will work in this sort of population.

Why?
1. They are untrained.
2. They are coming from VERY unhealthy diets.
3. Their fat, by the virtue of it's volume, 'protects' them from and aids them in stripping quickly regardless of any stupidities on the part of the trainers...

Thus:
1. take very overweight person
2. give them a lot less food that focuses on proteins/ vegetables and other low calorie alternatives
3. make them exercise (note: try to prevent heart attack)
4. repeat
^^
You'll pretty much = results. And this is why VLCL do work in these populations. [If you use the formula - you can see why they are capable of massive amounts of fat loss].

Take female = 260 # who is of a size where 140# would be appropriate.
Make it simple and say body fat calculated at about 50%
Lean mass = 130 #
Fat mass = 130 #
Daily activity would usually be low - so she would probably only need 3000 cals or so to maintain her weight...

Rate of maximal cal deficiency you can create = massive (about 4000)

Give her a few vit/ minerals + some proteins to meet requirements and you'd still have calories that COULD be spared (her body is going to be capable of meeting her needs + extra.... So that is why they can 'cope' with the exercise that these people are doing).

This IS rather simplified and doesn't take into consideration hormone wacky that does eventually occur after you starve people.... But it is a starting guide...

[pacificgrl]

2. eat a diet high in protein to meet calories as found above... If you are particularly insulin resistant then drop carbs low.... If you like carbs - drop fats lower.... If you want to take maximal advantage of the thermogenic effect of protein then eat ++++ protein and not much in the way of carbs/ fats (I would advise you to include one meal of higher fat protein - eg: salmon -to keep things 'happy'... and still include vegetables too)... But anything with 150-240g protein (depending on your activity/ preference) would be adequate....

hi emma- do you mind explaining a bit more about taking advantage of the "thermogenic effect of protein?" does that mean that for weight loss someone eating say, 45-50% of cals from protein should keep fats low?

[Emma-Leigh]

hi emma- do you mind explaining a bit more about taking advantage of the "thermogenic effect of protein?" does that mean that for weight loss someone eating say, 45-50% of cals from protein should keep fats low?

Hmmm... Not sure what you mean here where you say the higher protein content 'should keep fats low'?? Do you mean bodyfat? Or in the diet?

Just having a higher protein level in your diet doesn't mean you should 'keep fat low' - it is all a matter of calories... So - in a way - if you DO eat more protein, you WILL have to drop fats (or carbs) to a lower level simply because you will be eating more calories from protein and will therefore not need the calories from the fat....

eg: If you were, say, 130 # and 25% bodyfat... then you could do anything that gave you more than 120-130g protein as long as your calories were sufficient.... As calories drop, protein would want to increase because you'll need more to protect your lean mass... Same with if you increase your activity - you should increase protein...

But a number of things would work - eg: any of these then you'd be fine ->
Diet of, say, 45/30/25 at 1600 cals = 180g carbs/ 120g protein/ 44g fat
Diet of, say, 33/33/33 at 1600 cals = 130g carbs/ 130g protein/ 58g fat
Diet of, say, 33/45/22 at 1600 cals = 130g carbs/ 180g protein/ 40g fat
Diet of, say, 25/50/25 at 1600 cals = 100g carbs/ 200g protein/ 44g fat
Diet of, say, 10/50/40 at 1600 cals = 40g carbs/ 200g protein/ 71g fat

^^
All = 1600 cals....
All meet your minimum protein requirements....
And so, at the end of the day, they all are going to work if you stick to them.

But you can see that - as protein INCREASES you have to 'take' calories from somewhere else to make sure your calorie intake stays the same. You could also say it the other way round -eg: as carbs DECREASE you need more protein or fats to fill in the gap.... OR as fat INCEASES you need LESS carbs to meet energy needs....



Anyway - what I was saying is that the conversion of protein to energy for the body to use as an energy source (instead of as a 'building block' for proteins in the body) is a 'process' that involves many steps -- >> And as a concequence it *tends* to 'waste' more energy than when you ingest other macro's (Dietary Induced Thermogenesis / DIT = ~ 20-30%.... so if you ate 300 cals of pure protein you, on average, end up with getting about 225 ish at the end of it).

When the body converts glucose --> energy (which it does most of the time because it doesn't have another function in the body) it usually results in about 10-15% DIT (but this is HIGHLY variable).... So it means you end up with about 260 cals from that 300cals you started with. The good thing about carbs though is that if you overeat them - the process of converting them to actual storage constituents is pretty costly... And they also trigger lots of other mechanisms of 'wastage' (eg: they stimulate the autonomic nervous system). So although they don't result in lots of energy wasting when you BURN them for energy - for them to be STORED as energy (especially stored as FAT) takes +++ energy...

Fats?? They come in at a pathetically low level (in most studies anyway - there is some debate about the different types)... Reason being is that they are basically 'pure energy'.... Liquid gold for your body.... So usually they result in a DIT of only 0-5%... so you are looking at most of those calories being available to be used/stored. And so if you overeat fats - you can pretty much be assured that those fat-cals are going to go straight to your butt.



Hmmm... where was I??? Oh - yes.... Anyway --->>> if more of your diet is made up of protein -->> and you end up using that protein for energy --->> you might end up having to eat MORE to get your required calories (or you might end up losing more weight if you don't eat more cals) -- simply because you tend to waste cals....


Note: There IS also *some* suggestion that this effect deminishes over time (eg: start of a high protein diet --> more thermogenic effect... but as the weeks go on your body adapts and you get less of this energy wastage effect) but the research is all pretty short term...

Note again: in my opinion I don't like 'mega-high protein diets'... They don't allow proper recovery / don't fuel your workouts as well, and are not nearly as rich in 'healthy things' like vits/ minerals/ fiber etc etc.... so they tend to be unsustainable. Thus -->> I am not advocating these at all.... But there are studies looking at people who HAVE followed 'meat only' diets for months/ a year.... so it can be done.

[pacificgrl]

Hmmm... Not sure what you mean here where you say the higher protein content 'should keep fats low'?? Do you mean bodyfat? Or in the diet?

Just having a higher protein level in your diet doesn't mean you should 'keep fat low' - it is all a matter of calories...

As calories drop, protein would want to increase because you'll need more to protect your lean mass... Same with if you increase your activity - you should increase protein...

Anyway - what I was saying is that the conversion of protein to energy for the body to use as an energy source (instead of as a 'building block' for proteins in the body) is a 'process' that involves many steps -- >> And as a concequence it *tends* to 'waste' more energy than when you ingest other macro's (Dietary Induced Thermogenesis / DIT = ~ 20-30%.... so if you ate 300 cals of pure protein you, on average, end up with getting about 225 ish at the end of it).

When the body converts glucose --> energy (which it does most of the time because it doesn't have another function in the body) it usually results in about 10-15% DIT (but this is HIGHLY variable).... So it means you end up with about 260 cals from that 300cals you started with. The good thing about carbs though is that if you overeat them - the process of converting them to actual storage constituents is pretty costly... And they also trigger lots of other mechanisms of 'wastage' (eg: they stimulate the autonomic nervous system). So although they don't result in lots of energy wasting when you BURN them for energy - for them to be STORED as energy (especially stored as FAT) takes +++ energy...

Fats?? They come in at a pathetically low level (in most studies anyway - there is some debate about the different types)... Reason being is that they are basically 'pure energy'.... Liquid gold for your body.... So usually they result in a DIT of only 0-5%... so you are looking at most of those calories being available to be used/stored. And so if you overeat fats - you can pretty much be assured that those fat-cals are going to go straight to your butt.

emma,

thanks for taking the time to post such a thoughtful and intelligent reply.

1) i realized after i wrote my question that i should have been clearer - i guess i was asking if there is a major difference between a high protein/high fat/low carb diet (50/40/10) vs high protein/mod fat/mod carb (50/25/25) bc i'm interested if protein/carbs or protein/fats make better friends in the end for weight loss or gain.

but as you mentioned, cals in vs cals out takes all!

2) totally fascinated by thermogensis! i had no idea about protein being so readily available that you actually might need to eat more. i guess that's what ketogenic diets and "fat adapted" and do? train your body to metabolize the dietary and body fat as fuel?

3) the other thing that struck me is the part about excess fats being "liquid gold" vs carbs which are harder to store... and the note that if you overeat fats it's more likely to lead to fat gain on your body. did i understand that correctly? so, when people say they lose on ketogenic diets to lose weight it's still a cals in/cals out - most of it will be water initially AND you have to be really careful not to overdo your fat intake. but how about when people say "i gain weight really easily eating a high carb diet?" are they simply referring to their insulin resistance and a "triggering" to eat more calories on higher carb food plans?

(sorry i clipped sections of your post above but i wasn't sure how to quote specific sections and reply!)

MAJOR apologies to the OP for stealing this thread but maybe you'll find this interesting too! good luck with your goals.

[Vadim Beliaev]

Hi, I would prefer to go by my Appleh moniker on here instead of my real name.

I am dating a wonderful guy online right now, he is in the army and is getting shipped to Iraq in March, and is at Ft.Hood, TX at the moment. He is getting 2 weeks of leave before he gets shipped overseas and is coming to see me and meet my family for those 2 weeks starting on the 7th of March. He knows I have a belly, and insists he doesn't care, but I do. I want to look at my best for him. I am wondering what is the quickest weight loss plan for 30 days, to lose pure BELLY fat, because all of my fat that I have gained since I stopped playing softball has gone to my stomach and love handles. I want to tone my butt too, and was told squats would be best for that so I'm going to be doing those as well.

I don't have high endurance, so the exercises will have to be gradual, but I don't mind pushing myself further each day, I will try anything to look my best for Alex.

Can I please get advice from the people here? My friend Russ recommended this site to help me get a plan together, I would really appreciate some real help from other people who have attempted to do anything like this.

you'll look worse in the end thats all im gonna tell you...

[Emma-Leigh]

emma,

thanks for taking the time to post such a thoughtful and intelligent reply.

1) i realized after i wrote my question that i should have been clearer - i guess i was asking if there is a major difference between a high protein/high fat/low carb diet (50/40/10) vs high protein/mod fat/mod carb (50/25/25) bc i'm interested if protein/carbs or protein/fats make better friends in the end for weight loss or gain.

but as you mentioned, cals in vs cals out takes all!

^^
Exactly.... Drop CALS and you drop weight. There WILL be differences though -->>
Drop CALS from CARBS and you drop water + weight = often 'looks' like more weight has been lost..... Drop too much/don't allow yourself 'the healthy things' like vegetables/ fiber and you'll end up creating some health issues eventually (eg: nutrient deficiencies)...
Drop CALS from PROTEIN too much --> you'll likely drop more lean mass than the others and you'll simply look like a 'smaller you' (that is - bodyfat will not decrease as much as it should have... so you'll still 'jiggle')
Drop CALS from FATS too much --> you'll likely be hungry, cranky, and sick (as fats are essential for health and satiety).

**note: important to mention there are exceptions... eg: insulin resistant individuals to better on lower carb diets/ moderate protein/ moderate fat diets....
Individuals doing lots of endurance work to better on high carb/ moderate fat/ moderate protein diets. They NEED to be able to replenish glycogen to maintain performance... they also chew through more protein than your average strength trainer....
Individuals doing HEAVY strength training often to better on... well... moderate in all three... They don't NEED lots of carbs as their workouts are not glycogen depleting... but they do need some to help with performance...

^^
Each person reacts slightly differently depending on their own phenotypic picture... thus their diet/ training should reflect this.

2) totally fascinated by thermogensis! i had no idea about protein being so readily available that you actually might need to eat more. i guess that's what ketogenic diets and "fat adapted" and do? train your body to metabolize the dietary and body fat as fuel?

^^ other way round... protein, if needed/used as an energy source, is NOT readily available... thus if you are trying to make up cals in your diet using dietary protein alone, it might be that you end up having to eat more.... But at the end of the day - the difference is not *huge*. eg: if we go back to those sums again -->
45/30/25 at 1600 cals = 180g carbs/ 120g protein/ 44g fat
Thermogenic losses:
85 cals from carbs
120 cals from proteins
10 cals from fats
Total = ~ 215 cals

25/50/25 at 1600 cals = 100g carbs/ 200g protein/ 44g fat
Thermogenic losses:
50 cals from carbs
200 cals from proteins
10 cals from fats
Total = ~ 260 cals

10/50/40 at 1600 cals = 40g carbs/ 200g protein/ 71g fat
Thermogenic losses:
20 cals from carbs
200 cals from proteins
16 cals from fats
Total = ~ 236 cals
^^
So in the above you can see that at these protein/ carb levels you only have a difference of ~ 45 cals... hardly enough to get excited about (yay for being able to have a touch of milk in your tea!!! )...

If, however, we did this:
5/75/20 at 1600 cals = 20g carbs/ 300g protein/ 35g fat
Thermogenic losses:
10 cals from carbs
300 cals from proteins
8 cals from fats
Total = ~ 318 cals

THEN you'd see some differences as it is 100 cals 'extra' that you are 'wasting'.... But you'd also have... ermm... poop issues And you'd likely feel rather ill....

Anyway -->> With 'adaption'.... Keto diets DO 'train' the body to burn ketones/ fats as energy... but only so much in 'changing the enzyme concentrations' in tissues.... so your brain 'switches over' to ketone use (instead of primarily being glucose --> and this is that 'keto brain' people talk about in the first few days - it is as their body up regulates the correct enzymes in the neural tissue).... Most other tissues are more than capable of burning fat at any time --> you just have to create the right environment to do so (enter calorie deficiency).

The other reason why keto works in the general public is because they are more satiating than the 'potato chip' diet most people have... Increase protein.... Tricks them into eating less... Presto -->> weight loss.

3) the other thing that struck me is the part about excess fats being "liquid gold" vs carbs which are harder to store... and the note that if you overeat fats it's more likely to lead to fat gain on your body. did i understand that correctly?

Yes. Over eat fats (so total cal intake is more than you need) and most of those cals plant themselves happily in your fat cells... (where ever these be -> eg: fat tissue, in muscle, in organs, in your abdomen, visceral fat etc etc).

Don't get be wrong --> 'Fat feeding' CAN be useful though... eg: junk loading the night before a competition (fats AND carbs ) can increase intramuscular triglyceride stores => which means lovely 'plump' muscles for stage the next day (GO CHEESECAKE)!

Overeat on carbs and, depending on the person you get a myriad of different things:
- thermogenesis
- increased ANS activity
- increased cellular metabolic processes
- increased spontaneous movement
- glycogen storage
- fat storage (esp in those who are insulin resistant or of a thrifty genotype)
^^
So you can see that there are lots of 'things' that share the energy.... And fat cells miss out much more. Carbs also have the excellent benefit of triggering things that help keep your metabolic clock 'ticking' during a diet --> like leptin/ brain insulin levels etc etc... Which is why strategic carb refeeds help in weight loss diets.

so, when people say they lose on ketogenic diets to lose weight it's still a cals in/cals out - most of it will be water initially AND you have to be really careful not to overdo your fat intake.

Correct. And this is one of the major issues with keto diets... EVENTUALLY people start to eat 'more' than they need (as they adjust to the higher protein content) and the energy density of the fats ==> weight loss stall or gain.

but how about when people say "i gain weight really easily eating a high carb diet?" are they simply referring to their insulin resistance and a "triggering" to eat more calories on higher carb food plans?

Mixture of things... first - they gain water back (which can be a LOT in larger people). Then, as you say, there are those who are insulin resistant (which, I might add, is a short term consequence of low carb dieting as well --> simply because of the alteration in tissue enzymes/ factors/ sensitivities).... And also people who are TRULY insulin resistant/ suffer from other hormonal issues which cause them to respond poorly to carbs....

Basically --> when dieting:
1. cals... cals... cal...
2. hit your minimum protein to prevent lean mass losses
3. maintain your health
4. fit individual needs to determine other macro's

[OWEERAK]

what about the female transition on the homepage-Tiffany I think-it says she lost 70lbs in 3 montths? Is this possible as that would be 25 lbs per month?

^^
Exactly.... Drop CALS and you drop weight. There WILL be differences though -->>
Drop CALS from CARBS and you drop water + weight = often 'looks' like more weight has been lost..... Drop too much/don't allow yourself 'the healthy things' like vegetables/ fiber and you'll end up creating some health issues eventually (eg: nutrient deficiencies)...
Drop CALS from PROTEIN too much --> you'll likely drop more lean mass than the others and you'll simply look like a 'smaller you' (that is - bodyfat will not decrease as much as it should have... so you'll still 'jiggle')
Drop CALS from FATS too much --> you'll likely be hungry, cranky, and sick (as fats are essential for health and satiety).

**note: important to mention there are exceptions... eg: insulin resistant individuals to better on lower carb diets/ moderate protein/ moderate fat diets....
Individuals doing lots of endurance work to better on high carb/ moderate fat/ moderate protein diets. They NEED to be able to replenish glycogen to maintain performance... they also chew through more protein than your average strength trainer....
Individuals doing HEAVY strength training often to better on... well... moderate in all three... They don't NEED lots of carbs as their workouts are not glycogen depleting... but they do need some to help with performance...

^^
Each person reacts slightly differently depending on their own phenotypic picture... thus their diet/ training should reflect this.


^^ other way round... protein, if needed/used as an energy source, is NOT readily available... thus if you are trying to make up cals in your diet using dietary protein alone, it might be that you end up having to eat more.... But at the end of the day - the difference is not *huge*. eg: if we go back to those sums again -->
45/30/25 at 1600 cals = 180g carbs/ 120g protein/ 44g fat
Thermogenic losses:
85 cals from carbs
120 cals from proteins
10 cals from fats
Total = ~ 215 cals

25/50/25 at 1600 cals = 100g carbs/ 200g protein/ 44g fat
Thermogenic losses:
50 cals from carbs
200 cals from proteins
10 cals from fats
Total = ~ 260 cals

10/50/40 at 1600 cals = 40g carbs/ 200g protein/ 71g fat
Thermogenic losses:
20 cals from carbs
200 cals from proteins
16 cals from fats
Total = ~ 236 cals
^^
So in the above you can see that at these protein/ carb levels you only have a difference of ~ 45 cals... hardly enough to get excited about (yay for being able to have a touch of milk in your tea!!! )...

If, however, we did this:
5/75/20 at 1600 cals = 20g carbs/ 300g protein/ 35g fat
Thermogenic losses:
10 cals from carbs
300 cals from proteins
8 cals from fats
Total = ~ 318 cals

THEN you'd see some differences as it is 100 cals 'extra' that you are 'wasting'.... But you'd also have... ermm... poop issues And you'd likely feel rather ill....

Anyway -->> With 'adaption'.... Keto diets DO 'train' the body to burn ketones/ fats as energy... but only so much in 'changing the enzyme concentrations' in tissues.... so your brain 'switches over' to ketone use (instead of primarily being glucose --> and this is that 'keto brain' people talk about in the first few days - it is as their body up regulates the correct enzymes in the neural tissue).... Most other tissues are more than capable of burning fat at any time --> you just have to create the right environment to do so (enter calorie deficiency).

The other reason why keto works in the general public is because they are more satiating than the 'potato chip' diet most people have... Increase protein.... Tricks them into eating less... Presto -->> weight loss.


Yes. Over eat fats (so total cal intake is more than you need) and most of those cals plant themselves happily in your fat cells... (where ever these be -> eg: fat tissue, in muscle, in organs, in your abdomen, visceral fat etc etc).

Don't get be wrong --> 'Fat feeding' CAN be useful though... eg: junk loading the night before a competition (fats AND carbs ) can increase intramuscular triglyceride stores => which means lovely 'plump' muscles for stage the next day (GO CHEESECAKE)!

Overeat on carbs and, depending on the person you get a myriad of different things:
- thermogenesis
- increased ANS activity
- increased cellular metabolic processes
- increased spontaneous movement
- glycogen storage
- fat storage (esp in those who are insulin resistant or of a thrifty genotype)
^^
So you can see that there are lots of 'things' that share the energy.... And fat cells miss out much more. Carbs also have the excellent benefit of triggering things that help keep your metabolic clock 'ticking' during a diet --> like leptin/ brain insulin levels etc etc... Which is why strategic carb refeeds help in weight loss diets.


Correct. And this is one of the major issues with keto diets... EVENTUALLY people start to eat 'more' than they need (as they adjust to the higher protein content) and the energy density of the fats ==> weight loss stall or gain.


Mixture of things... first - they gain water back (which can be a LOT in larger people). Then, as you say, there are those who are insulin resistant (which, I might add, is a short term consequence of low carb dieting as well --> simply because of the alteration in tissue enzymes/ factors/ sensitivities).... And also people who are TRULY insulin resistant/ suffer from other hormonal issues which cause them to respond poorly to carbs....

Basically --> when dieting:
1. cals... cals... cal...
2. hit your minimum protein to prevent lean mass losses
3. maintain your health
4. fit individual needs to determine other macro's

[OWEERAK]

Hi,
I did see on the home page of this site, the female transitions; the girl Tiffany she lost 70 lbs in 3 months.

[Emma-Leigh]

Hi,
I did see on the home page of this site, the female transitions; the girl Tiffany she lost 70 lbs in 3 months.

^^
Yes... and your point being?? I never said it wasn't possible... I just said it wasn't possible with above stats...

But if we look at Tiffany:
1. looking at pics her bodyfat is not 6% now (but that is beside the point)
2. looking at pics her bodyfat was likely more than 39% when she started (which is important)
3. she went into it untrained, and it makes no comment on calorie intake/ makes no comment on cardio output after she started the 'Xtreme Makeover'

BUT with that said:
1. if we guess at 45% BF, and 235 # (starting) - she had ~ 100-110# of fat she could lose... And was therefore capable of making a >3000 cal/ day deficit from her fat stores alone...
2. if we guess - she probably was of 'light' activity before she started, and was eating about 3000-3500 cals to hold her weight steady.
3. So -->> if she were to cut cals to something 'extreme' (eg: 1500 cals) + added cardio/ exercise (to increase her output), then she could probably create a nice 2000-2500 cal deficit a day.... Which would be ~ 4-5 # a week... Over 3 months = 50-60#

Add in a touch of water weight/ depletion for final weigh in...

Presto -->>> 70#.

[gecko...]

just like to say what a bloody informative thread. Cheers Emma

[valby]

I am bumping this because it is a darn good read!

[lucatoth]

Thanks for posting it. I am trying to understand the above posts, going to read it again, and again...

I bumped into a youtube video with Tifany, she said she did cardio, sounded like fairly lot. Did she loose muscle too?

[Emma-Leigh]

Thanks for posting it. I am trying to understand the above posts, going to read it again, and again...

I bumped into a youtube video with Tifany, she said she did cardio, sounded like fairly lot. Did she loose muscle too?

No idea -->> but it is likely she would have lost SOME muscle....

[Livingitup44]

all i can say is crash dieting sucks and I had to learn it myself the hard way. You definitely will end up looking worse in the long run......do it slow, do it right and you won't regret it fat loss requires a lot of patience...

[lucatoth]

all i can say is crash dieting sucks and I had to learn it myself the hard way. You definitely will end up looking worse in the long run......do it slow, do it right and you won't regret it fat loss requires a lot of patience...

It teaches patience. Seeing some success stories, you make a fast counting of how many lbs he/she lost per month. OK, if we look at the net amount of muscle they usually have....well not tempting any more.

[Walk2liv]

That whole Biggest Loser thing... I was watching and trying to pick out what i could on training and food intake...

I believe they train 8 hours a day... with men burning around 800-1300 calories a day or more...

And ONLY taking in 1200 calories.

^^ THIS is why they lose so much weight so quickly and hit a plateau in the second week of being on the show... their bodies think they are going into starvation mode.

[lucatoth]

That whole Biggest Loser thing... I was watching and trying to pick out what i could on training and food intake...

I believe they train 8 hours a day... with men burning around 800-1300 calories a day or more...

And ONLY taking in 1200 calories.

^^ THIS is why they lose so much weight so quickly and hit a plateau in the second week of being on the show... their bodies think they are going into starvation mode.

I have not watched but I read that they train 6 hours + as you are saying. And with their level of fitness I guess they burn easily the double of their 1200-1400 intake. I was also on the as said "potato chips" diet so changing that up - even if you are doing zero exercise - will result in dramatic changes. I would be interested to see a follow-up show, as I am seeing most of them have gained back weight....