User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:41:30 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is very hard to maintain muscle mass while losing weight much less add muscle mass. The way these shows force drastic weight loss a significant portion of that weight is going to come from muscle tissue which is why they don't need as many calories in the end. That and the fact that they aren't carrying around all of that fat with every step. If you lose a lot of weight, especially rapidly, it is a very good idea to focus on strength training during after. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Eat less, move more. Lift things up and put them down. It's not rocket science. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you add muscle, your RMR goes up. I'm curious how much muscle these people gained on the show vs. how much fat they burned. It is very hard to maintain muscle mass while losing weight much less add muscle mass. The way these shows force drastic weight loss a significant portion of that weight is going to come from muscle tissue which is why they don't need as many calories in the end. That and the fact that they aren't carrying around all of that fat with every step. If you lose a lot of weight, especially rapidly, it is a very good idea to focus on strength training during after. I have never watched the show so I don't know what they go through, but recent studies have shown as long as you get adequate protein you can gain significant muscle while losing fat on a diet consisting of 40% of your maintenance intake. This was based on a lifting program consisting of heavy compound lifting and some HIIT thrown in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:42:48 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think you were eating enough fat, and perhaps too many carbs. I ate a god-awful-lot of baked chicken and fish and assumed the fat was zero because I wouldn't weigh portions. I know the assumption was invalid. I'm saying I probably went over 30g. I would eat processed meats but only ones processed to have low fat. I ate frozen and canned veggies because I was too lazy to cook. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:43:27 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cliff notes: Fat people are unsat slobs with zero willpower and dedication. Eta: Burn more than you take in. It really is that simple. Cliff notes FAIL. You completely missed the point. These people are destroying their metabolism by doing what you suggest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:44:57 PM EDT
[#4]
anecdotal pseudo science up in here, galore. Ya'll need to lay off the half science bullshit and quit thinking you even know what you're discussing. Wow.
"Just exercise more" "Add cheat days" "They fat because they lazy" Etc. Holy shit, you all need science in your life. For real. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:45:37 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just because one persons body is more efficient at using calories (and most likely also better at storing excess) doesn't exempt them from thermodynamics. Regardless of the calorie source, if you eat below your TDEE for period of time, you are going to lose weight. However, that doesn't mean you will be healthy while doing it if you ignore micro nutrients and a good macro balance. The difference between someone with a fast metabolism and a slow metabolism in reality is maybe a half hour of cardio worth of calories every day. It can be compensated for with exercise, or by just not consuming that extra glass of full fat chocolate milk. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I know there is such thing as metabolic damage, where your body does adapt and use less calories to survive. It can be triggered by extreme weight loss. Your body just gets better at using less calories. One reason why slow and steady weight loss is so much better than blowing off 50 pounds in a couple months. ETA looks like johnwayne already nailed it. Just because one persons body is more efficient at using calories (and most likely also better at storing excess) doesn't exempt them from thermodynamics. Regardless of the calorie source, if you eat below your TDEE for period of time, you are going to lose weight. However, that doesn't mean you will be healthy while doing it if you ignore micro nutrients and a good macro balance. The difference between someone with a fast metabolism and a slow metabolism in reality is maybe a half hour of cardio worth of calories every day. It can be compensated for with exercise, or by just not consuming that extra glass of full fat chocolate milk. Cardio and skim milk? That's not weight loss, that's a sex change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:45:53 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Know how I know you didn't read the article (or even the excerpt I posted in the OP)? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
id say its got more to do with the fact, that they probably stopped exercising as much, and went back to eating crappy foods. Know how I know you didn't read the article (or even the excerpt I posted in the OP)? Here is the guy's paper at the NIH: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23404767 The intense diet and exercise intervention during The Biggest Loser competition were not sustainable. However, a relatively modest permanent lifestyle intervention of 20% caloric restriction and 20 min/d of vigorous exercise could maintain the massive weight loss. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:46:13 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:46:44 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cliff notes FAIL. You completely missed the point. These people are destroying their metabolism by doing what you suggest. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Cliff notes: Fat people are unsat slobs with zero willpower and dedication. Eta: Burn more than you take in. It really is that simple. Cliff notes FAIL. You completely missed the point. These people are destroying their metabolism by doing what you suggest. Fuck science amirite. But he's 100% certain he's right so good luck trying to change his mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:48:16 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fat people problems. Poor genetics Poor genetics? I figure humans, with our fat ones, are here because the fat ones are a hedge against disaster. I'm serious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:48:32 PM EDT
[#10]
*shrugs*
it's about making permanent, sustainable lifestyle changes. It's why fad diets, or losing a whole bunch of weight all at once and then letting your workouts taper off don't work. You can't just temporarily fix something if it's been long term broken. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:50:30 PM EDT
[#11]
...And I want to thank the women with voluptuous figures who starve themselves to keep 'thin'.
OMG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 12:50:36 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Poor genetics? I figure humans, with our fat ones, are here because the fat ones are a hedge against disaster. I'm serious. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fat people problems. Poor genetics Poor genetics? I figure humans, with our fat ones, are here because the fat ones are a hedge against disaster. I'm serious. Genetics might account for being a large or small person, at least your frame and upper muscular potential. But in reality the small people will likely thrive more post disaster. If your TDEE is 1500 calories vs 2000 for a tall guy, you are going to get more accomplished on less food. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:00:16 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: id say its got more to do with the fact, that they probably stopped exercising as much, and went back to eating crappy foods. Know how I know you didn't read the article (or even the excerpt I posted in the OP)? Here is the guy's paper at the NIH: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23404767 The intense diet and exercise intervention during The Biggest Loser competition were not sustainable. However, a relatively modest permanent lifestyle intervention of 20% caloric restriction and 20 min/d of vigorous exercise could maintain the massive weight loss. Somewhat interesting, but I have some issues with the modeling. I have no issue with using a validated model, but the parameters he used mean he was making assumptions and did not account for the outlier. Of course the NYT article interprets the actual journal article completely skewed. I did find the following part of the modeling to be notable: model simulations suggest that maintenance of the weight loss could be achieved with a more feasible sustained behavior change comprising 20 minutes of daily vigorous activity along with an average energy intake of 3000 kcal/d. and In contrast, exercise alone led to greater body fat loss and a slight increase in lean mass despite the substantial negative energy balance. and Of course, these model predictions could not be corroborated with experimental data in this group Which means the NYT heavily skewed their take on it to fit an, "It is OK to be fat, it isn't your fault" agenda. And the author acknowledges flaws in his modeling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:00:19 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
*shrugs* it's about making permanent, sustainable lifestyle changes. It's why fad diets, or losing a whole bunch of weight all at once and then letting your workouts taper off don't work. You can't just temporarily fix something if it's been long term broken. And even if you "taper off" to something that should be healthy and sustainable, the original "temporary fix" might have damaged your metabolism to the point that you are already set on a path to fatten up again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:04:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And even if you "taper off" to something that should be healthy and sustainable, the original "temporary fix" might have damaged your metabolism to the point that you are already set on a path to fatten up again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
*shrugs* it's about making permanent, sustainable lifestyle changes. It's why fad diets, or losing a whole bunch of weight all at once and then letting your workouts taper off don't work. You can't just temporarily fix something if it's been long term broken. And even if you "taper off" to something that should be healthy and sustainable, the original "temporary fix" might have damaged your metabolism to the point that you are already set on a path to fatten up again. You can't damage yourself beyond thermodynamics though. You can still consume less calories than you burn in a day and not get fatter. Even people who have basically destroyed their insulin sensitivity, you can go keto and be pretty normal. The biggest thing is lack of education about what people are eating, and grazing. Bigger people tend to graze. Sure skinny people might crush 1500 calories worth of food at Five Guys, but what people don't see is that for dinner they might have a glass of milk and call it good, then a light breakfast because they still feel full from the day before. People who pick and graze constantly push their calorie intake much higher than they actually realize. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:06:36 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or don't diet at all. Adopt a new way of eating real food. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cycle your dieting habits. Diet a month, then eat normal a couple weeks, then repeat. Or don't diet at all. Adopt a new way of eating real food. This +1. Before I joined the Army, I was 250 pounds. I lost 50 pounds in 2 and a half weeks to barely make tape to enlist. Subsequently, through Basic and AIT, I got down to 176. After I graduated AIT, I went to Korea, discovered drinking, Korean cuisine, and Filipino cuisine, and attained my current weight which is 195. When I deployed to Iraq for 15 months, I hit the gym for 2 and a half hours a day, 6 days a week, and ate only from the healthy bar in the DFAC. I had a small ice cream on my one day off as a treat. I got down to 180 pounds, with 15% bodyfat. After I got home from Iraq, I got married, and my weight went back up to 200 pounds. At that point, I figured out that radically altering my diet was not going to work. So, the wife and I talked about portion sizes and healthy eating. We do a lot of baked and broiled, a lot of fish and lean meats, a ton of veggies, and some rice. When deployed, I try to stick to the same types of food, and the same portions, that I do at home. I do normal PT with the Army, plus some gym on the side. Admittedly, I am not as stringent with the gym on the side as I should be, as I have other things going on, like college and household stuff. My weight usually stays between 195 and 198, and I pass tape with 19%-23% bodyfat. I turn 40 this year, which give me 2% more allowance for bodyfat. My goal is to not need that extra 2%, and to lose a little more bodyfat percentage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:08:06 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have never watched the show so I don't know what they go through, but recent studies have shown as long as you get adequate protein you can gain significant muscle while losing fat on a diet consisting of 40% of your maintenance intake. This was based on a lifting program consisting of heavy compound lifting and some HIIT thrown in. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Eat less, move more. Lift things up and put them down. It's not rocket science. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you add muscle, your RMR goes up. I'm curious how much muscle these people gained on the show vs. how much fat they burned. It is very hard to maintain muscle mass while losing weight much less add muscle mass. The way these shows force drastic weight loss a significant portion of that weight is going to come from muscle tissue which is why they don't need as many calories in the end. That and the fact that they aren't carrying around all of that fat with every step. If you lose a lot of weight, especially rapidly, it is a very good idea to focus on strength training during after. I have never watched the show so I don't know what they go through, but recent studies have shown as long as you get adequate protein you can gain significant muscle while losing fat on a diet consisting of 40% of your maintenance intake. This was based on a lifting program consisting of heavy compound lifting and some HIIT thrown in. I haven't read those studies but body builders find it difficult to do and almost always lose strength coming off a bulk into a cut signaling muscle loss. They take in far more than adequate protein. Personally, I gained a bit while losing a bunch of weight but that was beginner muscle gain. Toward the end of my weight loss I wasn't really adding weight to the bar any more despite making sure I was taking in over 100g of protein each day and lifting hard 3 days a week. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:12:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I haven't read those studies but body builders find it difficult to do and almost always lose strength coming off a bulk into a cut signaling muscle loss. They take in far more than adequate protein. Personally, I gained a bit while losing a bunch of weight but that was beginner muscle gain. Toward the end of my weight loss I wasn't really adding weight to the bar any more despite making sure I was taking in over 100g of protein each day and lifting hard 3 days a week. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Eat less, move more. Lift things up and put them down. It's not rocket science. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you add muscle, your RMR goes up. I'm curious how much muscle these people gained on the show vs. how much fat they burned. It is very hard to maintain muscle mass while losing weight much less add muscle mass. The way these shows force drastic weight loss a significant portion of that weight is going to come from muscle tissue which is why they don't need as many calories in the end. That and the fact that they aren't carrying around all of that fat with every step. If you lose a lot of weight, especially rapidly, it is a very good idea to focus on strength training during after. I have never watched the show so I don't know what they go through, but recent studies have shown as long as you get adequate protein you can gain significant muscle while losing fat on a diet consisting of 40% of your maintenance intake. This was based on a lifting program consisting of heavy compound lifting and some HIIT thrown in. I haven't read those studies but body builders find it difficult to do and almost always lose strength coming off a bulk into a cut signaling muscle loss. They take in far more than adequate protein. Personally, I gained a bit while losing a bunch of weight but that was beginner muscle gain. Toward the end of my weight loss I wasn't really adding weight to the bar any more despite making sure I was taking in over 100g of protein each day and lifting hard 3 days a week. If you are at genetic max levels of muscle, I'd imagine it would be hard to make large gains while on a cut after bulking. The study was conducted on average male adults who did not weight lift prior. Personal experience is I always lose strength in my OHP. The rest stay the same or go up slightly. The slightly category being deads and squat, but I have attributed that to weight loss=less weight to lift. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:13:01 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And even if you "taper off" to something that should be healthy and sustainable, the original "temporary fix" might have damaged your metabolism to the point that you are already set on a path to fatten up again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
*shrugs* it's about making permanent, sustainable lifestyle changes. It's why fad diets, or losing a whole bunch of weight all at once and then letting your workouts taper off don't work. You can't just temporarily fix something if it's been long term broken. And even if you "taper off" to something that should be healthy and sustainable, the original "temporary fix" might have damaged your metabolism to the point that you are already set on a path to fatten up again. Well, let's hope not. My old routine used to be blow up until I was embarassed to look in a mirror, then hit the gym and eat paleo for a couple months, then get back to the ol' miserable and fat. For a year now i've been steadily losing weight. It's slowed a lot, but I'm not gaining, which is good. I only lost 1 lb last week. 70 days of low carb, no breads or grains except for maybe a weekly treat, strength training 3 times per week. I finally have an ass, for the first time in my life. It has made a world of difference, finding happiness. It's hard to feel good about yourself in general when you're miserable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:14:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I haven't read those studies but body builders find it difficult to do and almost always lose strength coming off a bulk into a cut signaling muscle loss. They take in far more than adequate protein. Personally, I gained a bit while losing a bunch of weight but that was beginner muscle gain. Toward the end of my weight loss I wasn't really adding weight to the bar any more despite making sure I was taking in over 100g of protein each day and lifting hard 3 days a week. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Eat less, move more. Lift things up and put them down. It's not rocket science. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you add muscle, your RMR goes up. I'm curious how much muscle these people gained on the show vs. how much fat they burned. It is very hard to maintain muscle mass while losing weight much less add muscle mass. The way these shows force drastic weight loss a significant portion of that weight is going to come from muscle tissue which is why they don't need as many calories in the end. That and the fact that they aren't carrying around all of that fat with every step. If you lose a lot of weight, especially rapidly, it is a very good idea to focus on strength training during after. I have never watched the show so I don't know what they go through, but recent studies have shown as long as you get adequate protein you can gain significant muscle while losing fat on a diet consisting of 40% of your maintenance intake. This was based on a lifting program consisting of heavy compound lifting and some HIIT thrown in. I haven't read those studies but body builders find it difficult to do and almost always lose strength coming off a bulk into a cut signaling muscle loss. They take in far more than adequate protein. Personally, I gained a bit while losing a bunch of weight but that was beginner muscle gain. Toward the end of my weight loss I wasn't really adding weight to the bar any more despite making sure I was taking in over 100g of protein each day and lifting hard 3 days a week. Most of that lost strength is rapidly regained once they start eating again though, like within a few weeks. There was a study posted on Reddit a few weeks ago about doing a fast cut, and it basically found that even after 4 weeks there was little to no actual muscle lost, indicating that when you are doing a bulk/cut cycle, it seems to be more productive to bulk for a short period of time, then rapidly cut some fat. According to the study that would preserve the most muscle. You have to remember that when you aren't eating at a slight surplus your glycogen stores aren't nearly as full. That transfers to endurance for reps at the gym. Build those stores back up and in a very short time you will be right back where you left off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:14:35 PM EDT
[#21]
I know Big Vinnie, a contestant on Biggest Loser a few years ago. He's still fit as fuck, but that's because he kept on picking up heavy things and putting them down, as well as eating right. Funny how that happens.
In fairness he always had a ton of muscle(even when it was covered in fat) and now he looks like The Hulk, so he's burning more calories than the other former contestants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:15:34 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can't damage yourself beyond thermodynamics though. You can still consume less calories than you burn in a day and not get fatter. Even people who have basically destroyed their insulin sensitivity, you can go keto and be pretty normal. The biggest thing is lack of education about what people are eating, and grazing. Bigger people tend to graze. Sure skinny people might crush 1500 calories worth of food at Five Guys, but what people don't see is that for dinner they might have a glass of milk and call it good, then a light breakfast because they still feel full from the day before. People who pick and graze constantly push their calorie intake much higher than they actually realize. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
*shrugs* it's about making permanent, sustainable lifestyle changes. It's why fad diets, or losing a whole bunch of weight all at once and then letting your workouts taper off don't work. You can't just temporarily fix something if it's been long term broken. And even if you "taper off" to something that should be healthy and sustainable, the original "temporary fix" might have damaged your metabolism to the point that you are already set on a path to fatten up again. You can't damage yourself beyond thermodynamics though. You can still consume less calories than you burn in a day and not get fatter. Even people who have basically destroyed their insulin sensitivity, you can go keto and be pretty normal. The biggest thing is lack of education about what people are eating, and grazing. Bigger people tend to graze. Sure skinny people might crush 1500 calories worth of food at Five Guys, but what people don't see is that for dinner they might have a glass of milk and call it good, then a light breakfast because they still feel full from the day before. People who pick and graze constantly push their calorie intake much higher than they actually realize. That may explain why the wife and I are still skinny (comparatively skinny I'm kind of solid). We usually don't eat a whole lot but every weekend we get fast food. It generally replaces all the days meals and we eat very little the day after. I feel like I'm losing weight actually which kind of sucks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:19:10 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There was a study published a few weeks ago that showed if you can keep the weight off for a year, your body will reset to the new weight. Probably the amount of time it takes for your new maletabolic rate to take hold and your body to shed the fat cells that are depleted. Want to lose weight? Build muscle. Eat healthy, eat enough for your calorie burn and drink lots of water. More muscle means more calorie burn all day long, not just when you are on a treadmill. If you starve yourself, your body will save energy as fat. If you eat enough, it won't. Takes about a year for those things to become normal, but even then.....you can't stop maintaining the healthy calorie intake and muscle mass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:20:57 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know Big Vinnie, a contestant on Biggest Loser a few years ago. He's still fit as fuck, but that's because he kept on picking up heavy things and putting them down, as well as eating right. Funny how that happens. In fairness he always had a ton of muscle(even when it was covered in fat) and now he looks like The Hulk, so he's burning more calories than the other former contestants. The actual journal article says this: model simulations suggest that maintenance of the weight loss could be achieved with a more feasible sustained behavior change comprising 20 minutes of daily vigorous activity along with an average energy intake of 3000 kcal/d. Meaning if you eat a generous diet consisting of 3000 calories and exercise for 20 minutes you won't get fat again. The NYT article wants you to think it is OK to be fat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:22:54 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That may explain why the wife and I are still skinny (comparatively skinny I'm kind of solid). We usually don't eat a whole lot but every weekend we get fast food. It generally replaces all the days meals and we eat very little the day after. I feel like I'm losing weight actually which kind of sucks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
*shrugs* it's about making permanent, sustainable lifestyle changes. It's why fad diets, or losing a whole bunch of weight all at once and then letting your workouts taper off don't work. You can't just temporarily fix something if it's been long term broken. And even if you "taper off" to something that should be healthy and sustainable, the original "temporary fix" might have damaged your metabolism to the point that you are already set on a path to fatten up again. You can't damage yourself beyond thermodynamics though. You can still consume less calories than you burn in a day and not get fatter. Even people who have basically destroyed their insulin sensitivity, you can go keto and be pretty normal. The biggest thing is lack of education about what people are eating, and grazing. Bigger people tend to graze. Sure skinny people might crush 1500 calories worth of food at Five Guys, but what people don't see is that for dinner they might have a glass of milk and call it good, then a light breakfast because they still feel full from the day before. People who pick and graze constantly push their calorie intake much higher than they actually realize. That may explain why the wife and I are still skinny (comparatively skinny I'm kind of solid). We usually don't eat a whole lot but every weekend we get fast food. It generally replaces all the days meals and we eat very little the day after. I feel like I'm losing weight actually which kind of sucks. Take an effort to observe how different people eat and it gets interesting. My wifes brothers family is heavy, we all get together for dinner once a week. Basically this is how my family does it. We show up, and don't really touch any snacks, just wait until dinner is ready, then eat our fill. His family however, will pick at snacks right up until the point dinner is served. Then after dinner, instead of picking something sweet for dessert, they go back to picking. One cookie at a time doesn't help much when you have 2 of each kind and then some chocolate. I am convinced this is almost entirely engineered. We don't really do snacks at our house, we don't buy them, and we don't leave them out. When it's time you eat you eat a meal, doing that for long enough sort of trains you. When I am bulking I actually have a hard time eating enough, since I don't like to eat when I'm not hungry. I am pretty good at it now, but when I first started it was mentally taxing to me, since it was outside of my usual eating habits. I think the opposite of that is why so many people have trouble sticking to a defecit when losing weight. It's very hard to stick to 3 meals a day and maybe two healthy snacks when you are so used to picking at food most of the time you are awake. With them it is probably also mentally taxing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:25:44 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Most of that lost strength is rapidly regained once they start eating again though, like within a few weeks. There was a study posted on Reddit a few weeks ago about doing a fast cut, and it basically found that even after 4 weeks there was little to no actual muscle lost, indicating that when you are doing a bulk/cut cycle, it seems to be more productive to bulk for a short period of time, then rapidly cut some fat. According to the study that would preserve the most muscle. You have to remember that when you aren't eating at a slight surplus your glycogen stores aren't nearly as full. That transfers to endurance for reps at the gym. Build those stores back up and in a very short time you will be right back where you left off. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Eat less, move more. Lift things up and put them down. It's not rocket science. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you add muscle, your RMR goes up. I'm curious how much muscle these people gained on the show vs. how much fat they burned. It is very hard to maintain muscle mass while losing weight much less add muscle mass. The way these shows force drastic weight loss a significant portion of that weight is going to come from muscle tissue which is why they don't need as many calories in the end. That and the fact that they aren't carrying around all of that fat with every step. If you lose a lot of weight, especially rapidly, it is a very good idea to focus on strength training during after. I have never watched the show so I don't know what they go through, but recent studies have shown as long as you get adequate protein you can gain significant muscle while losing fat on a diet consisting of 40% of your maintenance intake. This was based on a lifting program consisting of heavy compound lifting and some HIIT thrown in. I haven't read those studies but body builders find it difficult to do and almost always lose strength coming off a bulk into a cut signaling muscle loss. They take in far more than adequate protein. Personally, I gained a bit while losing a bunch of weight but that was beginner muscle gain. Toward the end of my weight loss I wasn't really adding weight to the bar any more despite making sure I was taking in over 100g of protein each day and lifting hard 3 days a week. Most of that lost strength is rapidly regained once they start eating again though, like within a few weeks. There was a study posted on Reddit a few weeks ago about doing a fast cut, and it basically found that even after 4 weeks there was little to no actual muscle lost, indicating that when you are doing a bulk/cut cycle, it seems to be more productive to bulk for a short period of time, then rapidly cut some fat. According to the study that would preserve the most muscle. You have to remember that when you aren't eating at a slight surplus your glycogen stores aren't nearly as full. That transfers to endurance for reps at the gym. Build those stores back up and in a very short time you will be right back where you left off. It does come back quick. The point was that it is hard to gain muscle mass while losing weight and most will lose. True, glycogen stores are much lower when losing weight which is why you will likely immediately gain a few pounds after cutting as you store some back up and rehydrate muscle tissue. But even people eating a ketogenic diet notice significant strength loss during a cut. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:26:22 PM EDT
[#27]
I didn't make it through all the replies, not sure why there is too much of an argument here. I've never heard of someone getting their stomach stapled and then gaining the weight back when their metabolism slows. That's not science, it's just less food.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:29:02 PM EDT
[#28]
People should at least read the article the OP posted. These contestants were followed since 2009. According to the article, their metabolisms stayed depressed. For example:
Danny Cahill 46, speaker, author, land surveyor and musician, Broken Arrow, Okla. WEIGHT Before show, 430 pounds; at finale, 191 pounds; now, 295 pounds METABOLIC RATE Now burns 800 fewer calories a day than would be expected for a man his size. So, he went back up to 295, but his metabolic rate is less than what a "normal" 295lb person's is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:31:18 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It does come back quick. The point was that it is hard to gain muscle mass while losing weight and most will lose. True, glycogen stores are much lower when losing weight which is why you will likely immediately gain a few pounds after cutting as you store some back up and rehydrate muscle tissue. But even people eating a ketogenic diet notice significant strength loss during a cut. True. Doing body recomp beyond being a totally new person to lifting isn't possible for most people. It seems that most people's bodies want to be either gaining mass or losing mass, not a mix of the two. Some people though have fantastic genetics (and others might have some interesting pharmaceuticals) that allow for it though. It's a basic fuel situation when you are on a defecit, if you dont have the easily burned fuel right in your digestive system then it kicks over into backup mode, and it wears you down since I think most bodies don't really enjoy reaching into the emergency food stores. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:35:48 PM EDT
[#30]
I doubt there were many fat people in the middle ages. Unless they were rich.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:35:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, let's hope not. My old routine used to be blow up until I was embarassed to look in a mirror, then hit the gym and eat paleo for a couple months, then get back to the ol' miserable and fat. For a year now i've been steadily losing weight. It's slowed a lot, but I'm not gaining, which is good. I only lost 1 lb last week. 70 days of low carb, no breads or grains except for maybe a weekly treat, strength training 3 times per week. I finally have an ass, for the first time in my life. It has made a world of difference, finding happiness. It's hard to feel good about yourself in general when you're miserable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
*shrugs* it's about making permanent, sustainable lifestyle changes. It's why fad diets, or losing a whole bunch of weight all at once and then letting your workouts taper off don't work. You can't just temporarily fix something if it's been long term broken. And even if you "taper off" to something that should be healthy and sustainable, the original "temporary fix" might have damaged your metabolism to the point that you are already set on a path to fatten up again. Well, let's hope not. My old routine used to be blow up until I was embarassed to look in a mirror, then hit the gym and eat paleo for a couple months, then get back to the ol' miserable and fat. For a year now i've been steadily losing weight. It's slowed a lot, but I'm not gaining, which is good. I only lost 1 lb last week. 70 days of low carb, no breads or grains except for maybe a weekly treat, strength training 3 times per week. I finally have an ass, for the first time in my life. It has made a world of difference, finding happiness. It's hard to feel good about yourself in general when you're miserable. My progress photos last year inspired you? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:38:36 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Take an effort to observe how different people eat and it gets interesting. My wifes brothers family is heavy, we all get together for dinner once a week. Basically this is how my family does it. We show up, and don't really touch any snacks, just wait until dinner is ready, then eat our fill. His family however, will pick at snacks right up until the point dinner is served. Then after dinner, instead of picking something sweet for dessert, they go back to picking. One cookie at a time doesn't help much when you have 2 of each kind and then some chocolate. I am convinced this is almost entirely engineered. We don't really do snacks at our house, we don't buy them, and we don't leave them out. When it's time you eat you eat a meal, doing that for long enough sort of trains you. When I am bulking I actually have a hard time eating enough, since I don't like to eat when I'm not hungry. I am pretty good at it now, but when I first started it was mentally taxing to me, since it was outside of my usual eating habits. I think the opposite of that is why so many people have trouble sticking to a defecit when losing weight. It's very hard to stick to 3 meals a day and maybe two healthy snacks when you are so used to picking at food most of the time you are awake. With them it is probably also mentally taxing. It gets weird when my kids have friends over. They're almost all used to always having snack/junk food around and they get so confused when there's very little to just grab and eat when they're here. Or they wake up in the morning and start asking for Dr. Pepper. I feel like a dang food Nazi because they're just at the complete other end of the spectrum. I've never been able to stand pickers though. At Thanksgiving or something we're literally about to start fixing plates and there's people around the turkey taking bits and pieces. I think that's more a part of my personality and not due to good eating habits because even when I ate like everyone else I wouldn't so much as grab a French fry out of the bag on the way home and I'd want to slap hands if anyone else tried it. 
It gets exhausting being around people who want to eat all day. I feel like I'm always saying, "But you just ate!" or "But we'll be eating supper in just a few hours!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:38:51 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: People should at least read the article the OP posted. These contestants were followed since 2009. According to the article, their metabolisms stayed depressed. For example: Danny Cahill 46, speaker, author, land surveyor and musician, Broken Arrow, Okla. WEIGHT Before show, 430 pounds; at finale, 191 pounds; now, 295 pounds METABOLIC RATE Now burns 800 fewer calories a day than would be expected for a man his size. So, he went back up to 295, but his metabolic rate is less than what a "normal" 295lb person's is. People should read the actual journal article that the NYT news article is based on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:39:32 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yet a ton of weight lifters do it when cutting. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cycle your dieting habits. Diet a month, then eat normal a couple weeks, then repeat. Or cycle in cheat meals each week. The only problem here is that the day after you do that you get incredibly hungry, or at least I do. It really sucks. That may not be the worst plan ever, but it is definitely high up on the list. Yet a ton of weight lifters do it when cutting. Not the dumbest idea ever, in fact it's one of the best. When you lose weight, at first you lose more fat than muscle. Over time, that gradually flops to losing more muscle as your body adjusts to the fewer calories it has for fuel. It's two weeks and you're losing a lot more muscle than fat. Breaking the fast breaks the starvation cycle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:40:13 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People should read the actual journal article that the NYT news article is based on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
People should at least read the article the OP posted. These contestants were followed since 2009. According to the article, their metabolisms stayed depressed. For example: Danny Cahill 46, speaker, author, land surveyor and musician, Broken Arrow, Okla. WEIGHT Before show, 430 pounds; at finale, 191 pounds; now, 295 pounds METABOLIC RATE Now burns 800 fewer calories a day than would be expected for a man his size. So, he went back up to 295, but his metabolic rate is less than what a "normal" 295lb person's is. People should read the actual journal article that the NYT news article is based on. Heh. That's a given. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:40:23 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My progress photos last year inspired you?
I lost 230 lbs of dead weight and then lost 40 lbs of my own. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:40:47 PM EDT
[#37]
I watched a documentary a while back that showed a clinical study where the patients that lost significant weight did indeed have a lower resting metabolism compared to people of similar weight that had not been previously overweight. It must be very difficult to remain on a calorie restrictive diet in perpetuity.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:43:00 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People should at least read the article the OP posted. These contestants were followed since 2009. According to the article, their metabolisms stayed depressed. For example: Danny Cahill 46, speaker, author, land surveyor and musician, Broken Arrow, Okla. WEIGHT Before show, 430 pounds; at finale, 191 pounds; now, 295 pounds METABOLIC RATE Now burns 800 fewer calories a day than would be expected for a man his size. So, he went back up to 295, but his metabolic rate is less than what a "normal" 295lb person's is. I want to see more numbers though. The average TDEE of a sedentary male at 300 lbs should be about 2,800 calories per day an active person would need even more. Maybe he did trash his metabolism, and perhaps it is lower than normal, but it should be a number that he is able to discover through trial and error. At a certain point you are going to eat the right amount to stop gaining weight, and that's the number you want. It doesn't say a thing about his diet, or calorie intake after the show, it just talks about his metabolism being slow and the weight "creeping" back up. If he wanted to stay at 200 lbs once he got there, he should be doing moderate exercise a few times a week, and experimenting with calorie ranges. If the scale started to go back up, he should cut back, if it stayed even, then good, keep doing that. Or better yet, get into lifting heavy, and watch the scale climb a bit, but know that it's muscle. Having lean body mass is good for you. Basically the poor bastard did a crash diet, that wasn't sustainable mentally, and then got surprised when old habits took over again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:45:32 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Heh. That's a given. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: People should at least read the article the OP posted. These contestants were followed since 2009. According to the article, their metabolisms stayed depressed. For example: Danny Cahill 46, speaker, author, land surveyor and musician, Broken Arrow, Okla. WEIGHT Before show, 430 pounds; at finale, 191 pounds; now, 295 pounds METABOLIC RATE Now burns 800 fewer calories a day than would be expected for a man his size. So, he went back up to 295, but his metabolic rate is less than what a "normal" 295lb person's is. People should read the actual journal article that the NYT news article is based on. Heh. That's a given. It is frustrating reading popular media spins on scientific journal articles. Reading the research article it basically states that if you stop the crash diet, continue to exercise moderately and eat 3000 calories you will maintain your lost weight. The NYT somehow comes to the conclusion you will get fat again regardless of what you do.  The research article also had some interesting modeling on alternate methods of weight loss. It projected losing the weight on a slight caloric deficit would take 4 years to reach 95% of what they achieved while crash dieting and exercising. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:46:38 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
http://nyti.ms/1O9wvTd After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight Contestants lost hundreds of pounds during Season 8, but gained them back. A study of their struggles helps explain why so many people fail to keep off the weight they lose. It has to do with resting metabolism, which determines how many calories a person burns when at rest. When the show began, the contestants, though hugely overweight, had normal metabolisms for their size, meaning they were burning a normal number of calories for people of their weight. When it ended, their metabolisms had slowed radically and their bodies were not burning enough calories to maintain their thinner sizes.
Researchers knew that just about anyone who deliberately loses weight — even if they start at a normal weight or even underweight — will have a slower metabolism when the diet ends. So they were not surprised to see that “The Biggest Loser” contestants had slow metabolisms when the show ended. What shocked the researchers was what happened next: As the years went by and the numbers on the scale climbed, the contestants’ metabolisms did not recover. They became even slower, and the pounds kept piling on. It was as if their bodies were intensifying their effort to pull the contestants back to their original weight. Reverse dieting. Systematically increase calories/carbs following a diet/cut. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:48:17 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It gets weird when my kids have friends over. They're almost all used to always having snack/junk food around and they get so confused when there's very little to just grab and eat when they're here. Or they wake up in the morning and start asking for Dr. Pepper. I feel like a dang food Nazi because they're just at the complete other end of the spectrum. I've never been able to stand pickers though. At Thanksgiving or something we're literally about to start fixing plates and there's people around the turkey taking bits and pieces. I think that's more a part of my personality and not due to good eating habits because even when I ate like everyone else I wouldn't so much as grab a French fry out of the bag on the way home and I'd want to slap hands if anyone else tried it.
It gets exhausting being around people who want to eat all day. I feel like I'm always saying, "But you just ate!" or "But we'll be eating supper in just a few hours!" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Take an effort to observe how different people eat and it gets interesting. My wifes brothers family is heavy, we all get together for dinner once a week. Basically this is how my family does it. We show up, and don't really touch any snacks, just wait until dinner is ready, then eat our fill. His family however, will pick at snacks right up until the point dinner is served. Then after dinner, instead of picking something sweet for dessert, they go back to picking. One cookie at a time doesn't help much when you have 2 of each kind and then some chocolate. I am convinced this is almost entirely engineered. We don't really do snacks at our house, we don't buy them, and we don't leave them out. When it's time you eat you eat a meal, doing that for long enough sort of trains you. When I am bulking I actually have a hard time eating enough, since I don't like to eat when I'm not hungry. I am pretty good at it now, but when I first started it was mentally taxing to me, since it was outside of my usual eating habits. I think the opposite of that is why so many people have trouble sticking to a defecit when losing weight. It's very hard to stick to 3 meals a day and maybe two healthy snacks when you are so used to picking at food most of the time you are awake. With them it is probably also mentally taxing. It gets weird when my kids have friends over. They're almost all used to always having snack/junk food around and they get so confused when there's very little to just grab and eat when they're here. Or they wake up in the morning and start asking for Dr. Pepper. I feel like a dang food Nazi because they're just at the complete other end of the spectrum. I've never been able to stand pickers though. At Thanksgiving or something we're literally about to start fixing plates and there's people around the turkey taking bits and pieces. I think that's more a part of my personality and not due to good eating habits because even when I ate like everyone else I wouldn't so much as grab a French fry out of the bag on the way home and I'd want to slap hands if anyone else tried it.
It gets exhausting being around people who want to eat all day. I feel like I'm always saying, "But you just ate!" or "But we'll be eating supper in just a few hours!" Similar dynamic. I remember our nieces coming over once and just being "starving" constantly. At lunch they could have as much as they wanted, then an afternoon snack, then you have to wait until dinner. It's sad that we are training people that it's bad to feel a bit of hunger, because what it actually does is train them to think that "not full" equal hunger. I remember once while doing something my stomach growled, I was hungry, but it's because I had a very fast breakfast, and it was still an hour until lunch. Like 4 people offered me food on the spot, like I was about to starve to death any second. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 1:49:30 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: id say its got more to do with the fact, that they probably stopped exercising as much, and went back to eating crappy foods. I'm 100% sure if they were still doing PT like a basic trainee and eating like Gandhi, they would still be skinny. You go back to sitting on your ass your gonna get fat. It not always their fault, injury etc, problem I have is perfectly heathy People being obese. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 2:03:04 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Alright then, explain why it is a bad idea. Because putting shit into your body is a bad idea. If you need to cheat, you're eating wrong |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 2:04:22 PM EDT
[#44]
The trick is consistency. It is hard to maintain if you're pushing to lose weight in an unsustainable way. My wife and I meal prep on the weekends all the meals we're going to eat the following week. It's healthy stuff. I also run 3x/week. I lost over 30 pounds in a competition at work. Now that the competition is over, we're continuing on with the meal prepping and running. I mean, why not? If we go back to our previous lifestyle, we go back to our previous weights. Eventually my body will get used to the running and the diet and I'm sure I'll stay right around 172 lbs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 2:05:19 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I ate a god-awful-lot of baked chicken and fish and assumed the fat was zero because I wouldn't weigh portions. I know the assumption was invalid. I'm saying I probably went over 30g. I would eat processed meats but only ones processed to have low fat. I ate frozen and canned veggies because I was too lazy to cook. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't think you were eating enough fat, and perhaps too many carbs. I ate a god-awful-lot of baked chicken and fish and assumed the fat was zero because I wouldn't weigh portions. I know the assumption was invalid. I'm saying I probably went over 30g. I would eat processed meats but only ones processed to have low fat. I ate frozen and canned veggies because I was too lazy to cook. Too much protein converts to glucose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 2:07:32 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because putting shit into your body is a bad idea. If you need to cheat, you're eating wrong Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Alright then, explain why it is a bad idea. Because putting shit into your body is a bad idea. If you need to cheat, you're eating wrong lol, ok then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 2:09:17 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do 20, but yeah. I rarely make it to the gym, and when I do, I don't go nuts. The extra weight falls off Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If they would have changed their way of eating instead of dieting they wouldn't get fat again. Less than 50 carbs per day. It isn't that fucking difficult. That is how I eat. I'm 36. I lost 50 pounds 3 year ago. I weigh what I weighed when I was 17. I sit on my ass all day working from home. Anyone that argues it should try it. 30 days and you will never feel better. https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231343 I do 20, but yeah. I rarely make it to the gym, and when I do, I don't go nuts. The extra weight falls off I do about 20 as well. I said 50 because it gives lazy people leeway, but still incredibly effective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 2:12:22 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is frustrating reading popular media spins on scientific journal articles. Reading the research article it basically states that if you stop the crash diet, continue to exercise moderately and eat 3000 calories you will maintain your lost weight. The NYT somehow comes to the conclusion you will get fat again regardless of what you do.
The research article also had some interesting modeling on alternate methods of weight loss. It projected losing the weight on a slight caloric deficit would take 4 years to reach 95% of what they achieved while crash dieting and exercising. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
People should at least read the article the OP posted. These contestants were followed since 2009. According to the article, their metabolisms stayed depressed. For example: Danny Cahill 46, speaker, author, land surveyor and musician, Broken Arrow, Okla. WEIGHT Before show, 430 pounds; at finale, 191 pounds; now, 295 pounds METABOLIC RATE Now burns 800 fewer calories a day than would be expected for a man his size. So, he went back up to 295, but his metabolic rate is less than what a "normal" 295lb person's is. People should read the actual journal article that the NYT news article is based on. Heh. That's a given.
It is frustrating reading popular media spins on scientific journal articles. Reading the research article it basically states that if you stop the crash diet, continue to exercise moderately and eat 3000 calories you will maintain your lost weight. The NYT somehow comes to the conclusion you will get fat again regardless of what you do.
The research article also had some interesting modeling on alternate methods of weight loss. It projected losing the weight on a slight caloric deficit would take 4 years to reach 95% of what they achieved while crash dieting and exercising. You have to keep in mind that according to the post-doctoral research staff at the NYT, it is not your fault that you went to McDonald's and ordered 1500 kcal of food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. It is their fault because they sold it to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 2:12:48 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I lost 230 lbs of dead weight and then lost 40 lbs of my own. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My progress photos last year inspired you?
I lost 230 lbs of dead weight and then lost 40 lbs of my own. I didn't have the dead weight issue, but it sounds like you did pretty much the same things as I did to burn the other fat and get fit. 
I'm due for another round of cutting. I let discipline slide for the holidays (and during the major move from IA to OK) and then I sort-of ret-conned that into a few months of un-cutting (and accidental bulking), i.e. eating at consistently shrinking deficits until I got back to maintenance levels. I've put some of the fat mass back on--more than I'd like, really--so now that I know my metabolism isn't going to be a complicating factor I'm ready to take another run at further leaning out. The goal is be at 10% body fat by the end of the year, and my strategy is to go with strict calorie deficits for four weeks followed by a week of maintenance eating; lather, rinse, repeat until I hit my target. After that I'll probably try to maintain between 12 and 14% if my body will cooperate. It's been a fun 16 months learning how to do this fitness thing. I never thought I'd enjoy lifting weights, but now it's my favorite way to exercise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2016 2:20:55 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Too much protein converts to glucose. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't think you were eating enough fat, and perhaps too many carbs. I ate a god-awful-lot of baked chicken and fish and assumed the fat was zero because I wouldn't weigh portions. I know the assumption was invalid. I'm saying I probably went over 30g. I would eat processed meats but only ones processed to have low fat. I ate frozen and canned veggies because I was too lazy to cook. Too much protein converts to glucose. It has been awhile since I researched this and I am no expert, but I recall gluconeogenesis was regulated by the body and research had shown that a certain amount can be converted it isn't always converted and no excess was shown on tested animals. This is undoubtedly dated research, what are you basing your statement on? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
