It's a risk you take, of course one can try to develop the game in a way which makes it harder, but if someone is intelligent enough they may find a way anyway.
Though I think cheating is a bigger issue in NDS games for instance where the developers didn't expect anyone to be able to change the code and therefor took no protective measures, and therefor for instance let the client decide which blocks comes next in Tetris DS which makes some people play with all long ones... Good work!
Biggest reason for the yoyoeffect is probably people looking for a quick fix, and therefor losing weight so fast they also lose muscle and on the scale a huge part of the supposed "fat" they have lost will be water weight. So then they are happy they start eating again but now they will regain the water weight, have less muscle and therefor lower metabolism, and the metabolism at large may have went down for their previous "starvation" mode.. And back goes the weight, and eventually some more.
Of course you'll have a problem in your current position if you want to be able to eat and live as you did when you moved around a bit more.
Some people manages to squeeze in time for the gym even on a tight schedule, me myself I'm quite lazy so maybe I'd say "I have no time" and skip it.
Anyway, on a tight schedule what I'd do and suggest you to do is to get a bar, a squat rack and a bench if you live in a house or have some place where you can fit it. If you live in a tempered area but don't have place for a "home gym" you could get kettlebells and work out outside, or you search youtube for things like "ghetto workout" and find people doing bench presses with tables, pullups in playgrounds, people throwing stones or sand bags, pushing cars or whatever. Get a pulley and take it for a walk, do tire flips, or something such.
Specifics: * Consume less energy than you burn. * Eat plenty of protein, shoot for 2 gram / kg bodyweight or maybe even more. * Eat fish oil. * More fats seem to be better for weight loss, so eat enough carbohydrates to have energy to train but preferably eat more fat . * Eat clean food for your nutrition, that means fat isn't cream or other milk products or oils, it's things like nuts and avocado or fat fish. Choose vegetables over fruit, fruit over grains, full grains over white flour, white flour over refined sugars. More fibre vs juice/softdrinks to get some stomach fill. * Do weight lifting to limit muscle loss. (And do heavy compound exercises, not isolated arm work in machines and such crap.) * Let it take time to minimise muscle loss and risk of weight gain when you goes of from the diet. * Feel free to use stimulants, for instance caffeine, yohimbine, tyrosine or ephedrine if you live in a country where it's available to lower cravings and raise metabolism. * Do cardio if it makes you feel better / you want to be able to eat more / not limit your food intake as much.
You are right on a few things, but they only apply on maintaining shape. Not *losing* * fat*.
Things like that and "Because he's trying to burn fat" don't say much, if anything say WHY it wouldn't be good.
* Burning it If you workout and your glycogen reserves are low, your body will start burning fat instead, and eventually it will start feeding on muscle (this is why body builders do very little if any cardio) after the readier fat sources are gone (even if you've got plenty of lard rolls). This WILL feel weird during the first weeks, but eventually your body gets used to it and uses your fat more efficiently.
I guess cardio will deplete glycogen reserves more than weight lifting. The reason many "body builders" don't do cardio is probably because: 1) They don't need to have awesome cardio. 2) Intense workouts gives some cardiovascular work. 3) You don't need to do cardio to lose fat.
You are correct that the body may start breaking down muscle protein, however it prioritize to break down fat first and will only start to break down muscle if it's needed to preserve even more vital things such as organs and the brain, and doing weight lifting and keep protein intake high limits this risk even more.
It's speculated that the body may only be able to use around 70 kcal / kg body fat per day (will vary in individuals of course) and if you are on a energy deficiency higher than the amount of fat the body can take from it's storages it will have to use something else. One way would be to create glucose from some aminoacids, if those aren't available from food they will obviously be taken from muscle protein instead, if you go on a low carbohydrate diet for a longer time your body will go into ketosis instead and start to make ketobodies from fats and feed your brain with that instead, I don't remember if those needed some glucose component to form as well or if it was some other molecule made from aminoacids the body needed to make them. In any case you will still be breaking down some protein to form them if I remember correctly. (There is probably plenty of information if you google for ketosis protein breakdown or something like that.)
In any case at a low energy deficiency with enough protein and protein synthese stimuli you're not likely to burn any muscle, but it can happen.
* Avoid storing new fat deposits You do this by lowering or nulling your sat fat intake and by eating very small portions of between your main meals. Your body won't think it's starving so it has no reason to store any fat, and obviously if you're not eating any dodgy fats they cannot accumulate on you either.
It's not as simple as "omg only fat makes me fat", the goal is obviously to burn as much fat as possible compared to how much you consume. If consuming more fat makes you burn even more it may still be better, not worse.
I wrote macs, not mac os. Anyway there is multiple versions of Vista but only one of Mac OS, what you get for the money may be different and Microsoft sells a hell of a lot more copies than Apple does which of course generate more money for the developers.
Also with things like OS X server you can have as many clients as you want I believe, with Windows you need to buy a much more expensive version if you have many users.
I still believe that the developers should be given the rights to decide what happens with their software, so in the case of EULAs not being ok I'd like to see some form of written contract or such instead. It's just that I don't like how users think it's ok to do whatever they want with someone else product and not grant their wishes. Even worse if they try to defend their wrong doings.
I know there is laws against for instance stealing someone else strawberries, so I can't say that it's like doing something such vs the one who has grown them, but laws can be changed and I guess it's not hard to change them into a way which grants the developers the right to decide what happens with their software and what rights they have.
While I've wanted to have a mac for convenience and software, I personally believe the hardware to be bad and overpriced, the OS decent but hate things like Safari and most other apps to there they have settled for "ok, it's quite decent now" instead of keep on developing and improving them even more.
Mac fanboy? Not of macintosh computers, of the OS? Maybe a little, but I'd do just as good with FreeBSD and KDE if it had more commercial software (like lightroom, photoshop, imovie or programs with similar functionality AND JUST AS GOOD.)
Photo apps and so on in the free software world is improving, but it's not there yet. (If I was a legal user I'd probably live with open-source apps, but since I'm a pirate I'd prefer to have the pro software.)
I guess macs may be better for creating music to, though it's said that some multiplatform app which also exist for Linux is quite good and it have a nice price to, and Linux sound system works well for music to. Windows not so much, at least not always.
Also things like how fonts are rendered and color management are better in OS X.
At least one use to feel more full of protein dense food, and it was a good idea to eat more protein while losing weight since that will save muscle (or increase chances of building some if one is a beginner.)
My pilates comment was unnecessary, and I won't argue that it's not good for abdominal and lower back work. It is, probably not that good for legs, arms, other parts of back, and so on though. Some mobility work though (and quite "heavy" in the cardio way to.)
I mostly didn't understood what the oxygenating part was supposed to increase. But sure intense weight training will increase cardio/respiration to some extend to. High intensity interval training are probably better for that though. So like 15 times of 60 meters sprints or something like that, or jog for 30 seconds and walk for a short time and run jog and so on.
I'd go with sprints since they put more weight on your legs and the movement pattern is a little different so they will probably build your hamstrings and ass better. But then I care more about strength / mass than cardio.
Screw calories! Cut the carbs! Your body needs some fat and carbs, but unless you are really active the carbs will convert directly to fat. Fiber and protein will not make you fat yet they are counted in the calorie count of food.
Wrong, it's not like you can choose to only overeat protein, if you overeat at all you're very likely to store more body fat than you burn, and if you undereat no matter what you eat you're more likely to burn more fat than you store.
It's true that less carbohydrates and more protein and fat seem to be better for your body composition, but the major difference are made from the energy balance and nothing else.
I have never seen a fat person that didn't consume lots of carbs. Yet I have seen many fat people that eat almost no fat.(but they are still fat)
Look at their energy intake, not what it's made up of. Maybe drink lots of soft drinks or something.
From the age of 20 to 25 I gained 10 pounds per year eating mainly carbs because I couldn't afford to buy meat. Then I started to eat less carbs and started just eating the food I liked.(fruits vegetables, High fiber grains, and meats) I lost 30 pounds in 4 months and have kept it off for 8 years.(not to mention breaking the cycle of gaining 10 pounds per year)
Which in the end was because you went into an energy deficiency instead of surplus on your new diet, also maybe the switch made you more serious and actually TRYING.
I find it very unlikely that part of the equation wasn't you telling yourself "fuck this, I can't keep on increasing weight and will have to lose some, so I'll start to eat more clean and try to shred of some fat", and therefor actually eating less and not fill upp all the time. Correct?
The health benefits are by default, that is, there are no health benefits on eating low GI foods, but there are adverse health defects when eating large amounts of high GI foods.
Feel free to show me ONE study which have came to that conclusion. If it's still this "common sense" bullshit then just stfu.
it is very likely to end up in type 2 diabetes.
Thanks, finally a word which I could use to back up my claims: http://kolozzeum.com/kolozzeum/showpost.php?p=1198473&postcount=1 "We studied the association of digestible carbohydrates, fiber intake, glycemic index, and glycemic load with insulin sensitivity (SI), fasting insulin, acute insulin response (AIR), disposition index, BMI, and waist circumference.
Data on 979 adults with normal (67%) and impaired (33%) glucose tolerance... were analyzed.
No association was observed between glycemic index and SI, fasting insulin, AIR, disposition index, BMI, or waist circumference after adjustment for demographic characteristics or family history of diabetes, energy expenditure, and smoking."Diabetes Care 28:2832-2838, 2005, Dietary Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load, Carbohydrate and Fiber Intake, and Measures of Insulin Sensitivity, Secretion, and Adiposity in the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study
"Reducing the dietary glycemic load and the glycemic index was proposed as a novel approach to weight reduction. A parallel-design, randomized 12-wk controlled feeding trial with a 24-wk follow-up phase was conducted to test the hypothesis that a hypocaloric diet designed to reduce the glycemic load and the glycemic index would result in greater sustained weight loss than other hypocaloric diets.
At 12 wk, weight changes from baseline were significant in all groups but not different among groups (-9.3 +/- 1.3 kg for the HGI diet, -9.9 +/- 1.4 kg for the LGI diet, and -8.4 +/- 1.5 kg for the HF diet). All groups improved in insulin sensitivity at the end of the feeding phase of the study. During the free-living phase, all groups maintained their initial weight loss and their improved insulin sensitivity.
Weight loss and improved insulin sensitivity scores were independent of diet composition.
In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects."J Nutr. 2005 Oct;135(10):2387-91. Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.
"High glycemic index (GI)/load (GL) diets reportedly enhance appetite and promote positive energy balance. Support for this hypothesis stems largely from acute feeding trials and longer-term studies lacking control over the macronutrient composition and palatability of test foods. This study evaluated the effects of consuming high- and low-GI/GL meals, matched on macronutrient composition and palatability, plasma glucose and insulin, appetite, and food intake.
Thirty-nine healthy adults consumed only low- or only high-GI foods ad libitum in the laboratory for 8 days in either high (three foods per meal)- or low (one food per meal)-variety conditions. Glucose and insulin concentrations as well as appetitive sensations were determined before and for 2 h following breakfast and lunch on days 1 and 8. Energy intake was monitored daily.
There were no significant differences in plasma glucose or insulin responses, appetitive ratings, or food intake between treatments.
These data indicate that the differential glycemic response of foods tested in isolation under fixed time are not preserved under conditions of chronic ad libitum consumption of mixed meals."Diabetes Care. 2005 Sep;28(9):2123-9. Influence o
... and I belived in the said benefits of GI like 6 years ago as well but since there are plenty of information how it doesn't matter now I don't care about it.
Eat food with as much nutrition as possible in all cases, less energy to cut weight and more to increase it. Major part of what it is to it.
More protein will to some extend give you more muscle while overeating and help you keep it while undereating.
A higher fat intake at the expense of carbohydrate will give you a better body composition at the same energy intake but carbohydrates are better work your work outs and restoring glycogen.
But glycemic index is useless (except eventually for people with diabetes.)
Sure it tell you how fast blood glucose raises from 50 gram of carbohydrates of said source, but it doesn't mean shit when it comes to kind of any factors on health, weight loss, and so on.
It's just a hype (rather was a hype) but it doesn't matter shit.
I haven't said anything about building muscle? He will have the same problem building muscle on an energy deficiency no matter if he get there thru little food or to much cardio.
If anything I've made plenty of posts in this thread commenting how people will not be able to build muscle on a deficiency.
Is lowering your calorie intake and weight lifting 2 hours a day going to help? Not much.
For losing weight and keeping muscle? Indeed it will.
So they should increase their energy intake slowly. Isn't part of the reasons also that they have lost quite a bit of stored glucogen and water and some muscle so they regain the water weight and have less muscle (since they went down to fast and didn't worked out) and therefor lower metabolism?
You will store kind of all fat you eat, what matters is how much of it you'll burn again... And if the body don't have any energy from food it will have to get it from somewhere else.
GI doesn't affect things, fuck it's hard to find the correct posts with sources:/
I'm too unintrested to find them for retards (not you), google kolozzeum king grub gi and whatever words may help find them and they will find up some time.. But I'm not awesome at english either so I don't know what words I should search for.
I've tried to get him on the right path with GI as well, we'll see if it catch, I doubt it...
Insulin is very anabolic and some proteins raises insulin levels as well. And the insulin will still rise for a low GI food of course but slower / remain longer. In any case there are no proof for kind of any health benefit of eating low GI food.
What you eat in the meal before working out won't affect things so much since it may be to late to refill your glucogen storages anyway. What matters is more all the meals you have made since the last workout. And glucogen storage is more efficient after workout and the muscles don't need insulin to pick up nutrition at this time so it's much better to eat the carbohydrate rich meal after his workout than in the meal before.
While true that more protein increases the chances of keeping muscle and vegetables contain less energy and more nutrition, then why should he eat more carbohydrates on rest days?
Also his recovery will get much worse if he don't get much carbohydrates after his workouts. If anything he'd put the carbohydrate rich food in the meal after workout and the vegetables at all other times.
Because he's trying to burn fat.
But that's just a question about energy intake, not source.
Because he's trying to burn fat.
But your advice is wrong, fat don't make you more fat, more energy makes you more fat. A higher energy intake from fat will get him a BETTER body composition than a low fat diet.
Hopefully you ain't thinking about Omega 3/6 acids because it ain't even proved to be beneficial for your health. You get more than enough of the oils you need when you prepare a salad dressing with, say, olive oil. Other than that, *no* *fats* if you're trying to lose weight.
No I'm not, I didn't mentioned any source. In any case you are wrong there as well. It's true that most people get plenty of omega 6 since most oils are rich of them, olive oil have more mono unsaturated fat acids so less of omega 3 and omega 6 but on the other side it have a pretty good omega 3 to omega 6 ratio.
Of course they are beneficial for your health, without them you die, proof enough.
Most people DON'T get enough omega 3 though, omega 3 only describes how the fat acids looks, there are multiple of them and all vegetable ones will be ALA while fish, seafood and some algae contain EPA and DHA.
EPA and DHA are the fat acids you need, recommendations says at least 650 mg together and at least 200 mg of each. But your omega3 to omega6 ratio should be quite high to and since most people eat plenty of omega6 they need way more omega3.
The problem with vegetarian omega3 (except from algae..) is that since it's all ALA the body have to convert it into EPA and DHA itself, I've seen studies for how efficient that is pointing out 0.2-15%. In one case with flax oil 5% turned into EPA and 0.5% into DHA.
The body can convert between them in each correction, but it's much harder in one way, I think it was from EPA to DHA.
I didn't say he can't. I said to do it occasionally. Not sure if you know anything at all about nutrition to be honest... The glycaemic index of melons is fairly high. That's the wrong type of energy to put into your body. You'll have a sugar rush and be hungry again before you can say "barbosa".
GI have been proven to not affect shit, it's made to see the glucocemic load in people with diabetes, for normal people it doesn't affect anything.
In any case, all of your advices are dead wrong, the only good part of them is the suggestion of low energy concentration energy sources such as vegetables because that way it will be easier to eat less for him. But still, it's not a matter as much of what he eats aslong as he consumes less energy than his body need, so say nuts and melons and some milk products for protein enough would work as well as he don't overfeed on them.
Not sure if you know anything at all about nutrition to be honest.
At least I'm not wrong, and someone who knows their shit may moderate the post accordingly.
I've hanged around lots of forums with at least one guy which have studied nutrition and read lots of studies on the subject and used to write articles for magazines with new information.
I could probably find some study references for most of my claims if I googled around for his answers or the information, but I'm to lazy.
I've probably written like 20.000 posts on www.kolozzeum.com which is swedens biggest training forum, which proofs nothing but shows that chances are I've read something to..
Slashdot Mirror
It's a risk you take, of course one can try to develop the game in a way which makes it harder, but if someone is intelligent enough they may find a way anyway.
Though I think cheating is a bigger issue in NDS games for instance where the developers didn't expect anyone to be able to change the code and therefor took no protective measures, and therefor for instance let the client decide which blocks comes next in Tetris DS which makes some people play with all long ones ... Good work!
Which is why I tagged this story dildo.
Seems like the perfect use for the service :)
Can they do cavities? ;/
Stretch space hoes? Weird oceans? Sounds like THHGTTG already.
I'm not british or from a country where english is the native language. Though it may not be correct it's probably better than your swedish.
All true I guess, in any case I don't think it's the consumers right to decide over the creators product.
Biggest reason for the yoyoeffect is probably people looking for a quick fix, and therefor losing weight so fast they also lose muscle and on the scale a huge part of the supposed "fat" they have lost will be water weight. So then they are happy they start eating again but now they will regain the water weight, have less muscle and therefor lower metabolism, and the metabolism at large may have went down for their previous "starvation" mode.. And back goes the weight, and eventually some more.
Of course you'll have a problem in your current position if you want to be able to eat and live as you did when you moved around a bit more.
Some people manages to squeeze in time for the gym even on a tight schedule, me myself I'm quite lazy so maybe I'd say "I have no time" and skip it.
Anyway, on a tight schedule what I'd do and suggest you to do is to get a bar, a squat rack and a bench if you live in a house or have some place where you can fit it. If you live in a tempered area but don't have place for a "home gym" you could get kettlebells and work out outside, or you search youtube for things like "ghetto workout" and find people doing bench presses with tables, pullups in playgrounds, people throwing stones or sand bags, pushing cars or whatever. Get a pulley and take it for a walk, do tire flips, or something such.
Personally I liked the sandbag exercises from:
http://www.t-nation.com/article/most_recent/third_world_workouts
Specifics:
* Consume less energy than you burn.
* Eat plenty of protein, shoot for 2 gram / kg bodyweight or maybe even more.
* Eat fish oil.
* More fats seem to be better for weight loss, so eat enough carbohydrates to have energy to train but preferably eat more fat .
* Eat clean food for your nutrition, that means fat isn't cream or other milk products or oils, it's things like nuts and avocado or fat fish. Choose vegetables over fruit, fruit over grains, full grains over white flour, white flour over refined sugars. More fibre vs juice/softdrinks to get some stomach fill.
* Do weight lifting to limit muscle loss. (And do heavy compound exercises, not isolated arm work in machines and such crap.)
* Let it take time to minimise muscle loss and risk of weight gain when you goes of from the diet.
* Feel free to use stimulants, for instance caffeine, yohimbine, tyrosine or ephedrine if you live in a country where it's available to lower cravings and raise metabolism.
* Do cardio if it makes you feel better / you want to be able to eat more / not limit your food intake as much.
You are right on a few things, but they only apply on maintaining shape. Not *losing* * fat*.
Things like that and "Because he's trying to burn fat" don't say much, if anything say WHY it wouldn't be good.
* Burning it
If you workout and your glycogen reserves are low, your body will start burning fat instead, and eventually it will start feeding on muscle (this is why body builders do very little if any cardio) after the readier fat sources are gone (even if you've got plenty of lard rolls). This WILL feel weird during the first weeks, but eventually your body gets used to it and uses your fat more efficiently.
I guess cardio will deplete glycogen reserves more than weight lifting. The reason many "body builders" don't do cardio is probably because:
1) They don't need to have awesome cardio.
2) Intense workouts gives some cardiovascular work.
3) You don't need to do cardio to lose fat.
You are correct that the body may start breaking down muscle protein, however it prioritize to break down fat first and will only start to break down muscle if it's needed to preserve even more vital things such as organs and the brain, and doing weight lifting and keep protein intake high limits this risk even more.
It's speculated that the body may only be able to use around 70 kcal / kg body fat per day (will vary in individuals of course) and if you are on a energy deficiency higher than the amount of fat the body can take from it's storages it will have to use something else. One way would be to create glucose from some aminoacids, if those aren't available from food they will obviously be taken from muscle protein instead, if you go on a low carbohydrate diet for a longer time your body will go into ketosis instead and start to make ketobodies from fats and feed your brain with that instead, I don't remember if those needed some glucose component to form as well or if it was some other molecule made from aminoacids the body needed to make them. In any case you will still be breaking down some protein to form them if I remember correctly. (There is probably plenty of information if you google for ketosis protein breakdown or something like that.)
In any case at a low energy deficiency with enough protein and protein synthese stimuli you're not likely to burn any muscle, but it can happen.
* Avoid storing new fat deposits
You do this by lowering or nulling your sat fat intake and by eating very small portions of between your main meals. Your body won't think it's starving so it has no reason to store any fat, and obviously if you're not eating any dodgy fats they cannot accumulate on you either.
Fats are stored all the time, but it's also burned all the time.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: More fat are GOOD for your body composition.
If you google for it you can probably find lots of references for that, here's the two latest study results posted on a forum I'm a member on:
http://www.optimalbody.se/forum/showpost.php?p=55510&postcount=1
http://www.optimalbody.se/forum/showpost.php?p=55433&postcount=1
It's not as simple as "omg only fat makes me fat", the goal is obviously to burn as much fat as possible compared to how much you consume. If consuming more fat makes you burn even more it may still be better, not worse.
How often you eat doesn't matter much either, see:
http://avidityfitness.net/2008/01/12/interview-martin-berkhan/
http://www.elitefts.com/documents/intermittent_fasting.htm
For instance. Eating often and not eating as much fats may be common sense logic but it fails to deliver any proof that it's actually BET
I wrote macs, not mac os. Anyway there is multiple versions of Vista but only one of Mac OS, what you get for the money may be different and Microsoft sells a hell of a lot more copies than Apple does which of course generate more money for the developers.
Also with things like OS X server you can have as many clients as you want I believe, with Windows you need to buy a much more expensive version if you have many users.
Thanks for explaining the difference for me.
I still believe that the developers should be given the rights to decide what happens with their software, so in the case of EULAs not being ok I'd like to see some form of written contract or such instead. It's just that I don't like how users think it's ok to do whatever they want with someone else product and not grant their wishes. Even worse if they try to defend their wrong doings.
I know there is laws against for instance stealing someone else strawberries, so I can't say that it's like doing something such vs the one who has grown them, but laws can be changed and I guess it's not hard to change them into a way which grants the developers the right to decide what happens with their software and what rights they have.
While I've wanted to have a mac for convenience and software, I personally believe the hardware to be bad and overpriced, the OS decent but hate things like Safari and most other apps to there they have settled for "ok, it's quite decent now" instead of keep on developing and improving them even more.
Mac fanboy? Not of macintosh computers, of the OS? Maybe a little, but I'd do just as good with FreeBSD and KDE if it had more commercial software (like lightroom, photoshop, imovie or programs with similar functionality AND JUST AS GOOD.)
Photo apps and so on in the free software world is improving, but it's not there yet. (If I was a legal user I'd probably live with open-source apps, but since I'm a pirate I'd prefer to have the pro software.)
I guess macs may be better for creating music to, though it's said that some multiplatform app which also exist for Linux is quite good and it have a nice price to, and Linux sound system works well for music to. Windows not so much, at least not always.
Also things like how fonts are rendered and color management are better in OS X.
Ah, ok, correct that the crime is probably worse if you distribute without accepting.
At least one use to feel more full of protein dense food, and it was a good idea to eat more protein while losing weight since that will save muscle (or increase chances of building some if one is a beginner.)
My pilates comment was unnecessary, and I won't argue that it's not good for abdominal and lower back work. It is, probably not that good for legs, arms, other parts of back, and so on though. Some mobility work though (and quite "heavy" in the cardio way to.)
I mostly didn't understood what the oxygenating part was supposed to increase. But sure intense weight training will increase cardio/respiration to some extend to. High intensity interval training are probably better for that though. So like 15 times of 60 meters sprints or something like that, or jog for 30 seconds and walk for a short time and run jog and so on.
I'd go with sprints since they put more weight on your legs and the movement pattern is a little different so they will probably build your hamstrings and ass better. But then I care more about strength / mass than cardio.
Of course.
Though if he wants to lose the same amount of weight he or she will keep more muscle and look better if he had lifted weight instead of doing cardio.
And I guess it differs if one prefer to still keep eating much but move around more or if one is lazy not move around a lot but eat less.
Except they aren't comparable.
If you burn 10.000 kcal / day or 2.000 kcal per day doesn't matter aslong as you consume 500 kcal less than your burned.
You'll still lose a similar amount of weight.
Your comment is useless.
Maybe his meal was smaller than yours anyway? I don't know, or maybe he just do lots of cardio and stuff.
Or there may be a slight chance he actually DO have a very high metabolism / thyroid disease / ...
Screw calories! Cut the carbs! Your body needs some fat and carbs, but unless you are really active the carbs will convert directly to fat. Fiber and protein will not make you fat yet they are counted in the calorie count of food.
Wrong, it's not like you can choose to only overeat protein, if you overeat at all you're very likely to store more body fat than you burn, and if you undereat no matter what you eat you're more likely to burn more fat than you store.
It's true that less carbohydrates and more protein and fat seem to be better for your body composition, but the major difference are made from the energy balance and nothing else.
I have never seen a fat person that didn't consume lots of carbs. Yet I have seen many fat people that eat almost no fat.(but they are still fat)
Look at their energy intake, not what it's made up of. Maybe drink lots of soft drinks or something.
From the age of 20 to 25 I gained 10 pounds per year eating mainly carbs because I couldn't afford to buy meat. Then I started to eat less carbs and started just eating the food I liked.(fruits vegetables, High fiber grains, and meats) I lost 30 pounds in 4 months and have kept it off for 8 years.(not to mention breaking the cycle of gaining 10 pounds per year)
Which in the end was because you went into an energy deficiency instead of surplus on your new diet, also maybe the switch made you more serious and actually TRYING.
I find it very unlikely that part of the equation wasn't you telling yourself "fuck this, I can't keep on increasing weight and will have to lose some, so I'll start to eat more clean and try to shred of some fat", and therefor actually eating less and not fill upp all the time. Correct?
The health benefits are by default, that is, there are no health benefits on eating low GI foods, but there are adverse health defects when eating large amounts of high GI foods.
Feel free to show me ONE study which have came to that conclusion.
If it's still this "common sense" bullshit then just stfu.
it is very likely to end up in type 2 diabetes.
Thanks, finally a word which I could use to back up my claims:
http://kolozzeum.com/kolozzeum/showpost.php?p=1198473&postcount=1
"We studied the association of digestible carbohydrates, fiber intake, glycemic index, and glycemic load with insulin sensitivity (SI), fasting insulin, acute insulin response (AIR), disposition index, BMI, and waist circumference.
Data on 979 adults with normal (67%) and impaired (33%) glucose tolerance... were analyzed.
No association was observed between glycemic index and SI, fasting insulin, AIR, disposition index, BMI, or waist circumference after adjustment for demographic characteristics or family history of diabetes, energy expenditure, and smoking." Diabetes Care 28:2832-2838, 2005, Dietary Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load, Carbohydrate and Fiber Intake, and Measures of Insulin Sensitivity, Secretion, and Adiposity in the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study
"Reducing the dietary glycemic load and the glycemic index was proposed as a novel approach to weight reduction. A parallel-design, randomized 12-wk controlled feeding trial with a 24-wk follow-up phase was conducted to test the hypothesis that a hypocaloric diet designed to reduce the glycemic load and the glycemic index would result in greater sustained weight loss than other hypocaloric diets.
At 12 wk, weight changes from baseline were significant in all groups but not different among groups (-9.3 +/- 1.3 kg for the HGI diet, -9.9 +/- 1.4 kg for the LGI diet, and -8.4 +/- 1.5 kg for the HF diet). All groups improved in insulin sensitivity at the end of the feeding phase of the study. During the free-living phase, all groups maintained their initial weight loss and their improved insulin sensitivity.
Weight loss and improved insulin sensitivity scores were independent of diet composition.
In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects." J Nutr. 2005 Oct;135(10):2387-91. Reduced glycemic index and glycemic load diets do not increase the effects of energy restriction on weight loss and insulin sensitivity in obese men and women.
"High glycemic index (GI)/load (GL) diets reportedly enhance appetite and promote positive energy balance. Support for this hypothesis stems largely from acute feeding trials and longer-term studies lacking control over the macronutrient composition and palatability of test foods. This study evaluated the effects of consuming high- and low-GI/GL meals, matched on macronutrient composition and palatability, plasma glucose and insulin, appetite, and food intake.
Thirty-nine healthy adults consumed only low- or only high-GI foods ad libitum in the laboratory for 8 days in either high (three foods per meal)- or low (one food per meal)-variety conditions. Glucose and insulin concentrations as well as appetitive sensations were determined before and for 2 h following breakfast and lunch on days 1 and 8. Energy intake was monitored daily.
There were no significant differences in plasma glucose or insulin responses, appetitive ratings, or food intake between treatments.
These data indicate that the differential glycemic response of foods tested in isolation under fixed time are not preserved under conditions of chronic ad libitum consumption of mixed meals." Diabetes Care. 2005 Sep;28(9):2123-9. Influence o
Got a PL-bar, squat rack, bench and eventually some dumbells.
Use the, done.
The first thread got so high focus on what to eat from retards who have no clue.
... and I belived in the said benefits of GI like 6 years ago as well but since there are plenty of information how it doesn't matter now I don't care about it.
Eat food with as much nutrition as possible in all cases, less energy to cut weight and more to increase it. Major part of what it is to it.
More protein will to some extend give you more muscle while overeating and help you keep it while undereating.
A higher fat intake at the expense of carbohydrate will give you a better body composition at the same energy intake but carbohydrates are better work your work outs and restoring glycogen.
But glycemic index is useless (except eventually for people with diabetes.)
Sure it tell you how fast blood glucose raises from 50 gram of carbohydrates of said source, but it doesn't mean shit when it comes to kind of any factors on health, weight loss, and so on.
It's just a hype (rather was a hype) but it doesn't matter shit.
I haven't said anything about building muscle?
He will have the same problem building muscle on an energy deficiency no matter if he get there thru little food or to much cardio.
If anything I've made plenty of posts in this thread commenting how people will not be able to build muscle on a deficiency.
Is lowering your calorie intake and weight lifting 2 hours a day going to help? Not much.
For losing weight and keeping muscle? Indeed it will.
So they should increase their energy intake slowly. Isn't part of the reasons also that they have lost quite a bit of stored glucogen and water and some muscle so they regain the water weight and have less muscle (since they went down to fast and didn't worked out) and therefor lower metabolism?
Starvation and cutting up isn't the same thing ;(
You will store kind of all fat you eat, what matters is how much of it you'll burn again... And if the body don't have any energy from food it will have to get it from somewhere else.
GI doesn't affect things, fuck it's hard to find the correct posts with sources :/
I'm too unintrested to find them for retards (not you), google kolozzeum king grub gi and whatever words may help find them and they will find up some time .. But I'm not awesome at english either so I don't know what words I should search for.
I've tried to get him on the right path with GI as well, we'll see if it catch, I doubt it...
Insulin is very anabolic and some proteins raises insulin levels as well.
And the insulin will still rise for a low GI food of course but slower / remain longer. In any case there are no proof for kind of any health benefit of eating low GI food.
What you eat in the meal before working out won't affect things so much since it may be to late to refill your glucogen storages anyway. What matters is more all the meals you have made since the last workout. And glucogen storage is more efficient after workout and the muscles don't need insulin to pick up nutrition at this time so it's much better to eat the carbohydrate rich meal after his workout than in the meal before.
Because he's trying to burn fat.
While true that more protein increases the chances of keeping muscle and vegetables contain less energy and more nutrition, then why should he eat more carbohydrates on rest days?
Also his recovery will get much worse if he don't get much carbohydrates after his workouts. If anything he'd put the carbohydrate rich food in the meal after workout and the vegetables at all other times.
Because he's trying to burn fat.
But that's just a question about energy intake, not source.
Because he's trying to burn fat.
But your advice is wrong, fat don't make you more fat, more energy makes you more fat. A higher energy intake from fat will get him a BETTER body composition than a low fat diet.
Hopefully you ain't thinking about Omega 3/6 acids because it ain't even proved to be beneficial for your health. You get more than enough of the oils you need when you prepare a salad dressing with, say, olive oil. Other than that, *no* *fats* if you're trying to lose weight.
No I'm not, I didn't mentioned any source. In any case you are wrong there as well. It's true that most people get plenty of omega 6 since most oils are rich of them, olive oil have more mono unsaturated fat acids so less of omega 3 and omega 6 but on the other side it have a pretty good omega 3 to omega 6 ratio.
Of course they are beneficial for your health, without them you die, proof enough.
Most people DON'T get enough omega 3 though, omega 3 only describes how the fat acids looks, there are multiple of them and all vegetable ones will be ALA while fish, seafood and some algae contain EPA and DHA.
EPA and DHA are the fat acids you need, recommendations says at least 650 mg together and at least 200 mg of each. But your omega3 to omega6 ratio should be quite high to and since most people eat plenty of omega6 they need way more omega3.
The problem with vegetarian omega3 (except from algae..) is that since it's all ALA the body have to convert it into EPA and DHA itself, I've seen studies for how efficient that is pointing out 0.2-15%. In one case with flax oil 5% turned into EPA and 0.5% into DHA.
The body can convert between them in each correction, but it's much harder in one way, I think it was from EPA to DHA.
I didn't say he can't. I said to do it occasionally. Not sure if you know anything at all about nutrition to be honest... The glycaemic index of melons is fairly high. That's the wrong type of energy to put into your body. You'll have a sugar rush and be hungry again before you can say "barbosa".
GI have been proven to not affect shit, it's made to see the glucocemic load in people with diabetes, for normal people it doesn't affect anything.
In any case, all of your advices are dead wrong, the only good part of them is the suggestion of low energy concentration energy sources such as vegetables because that way it will be easier to eat less for him.
But still, it's not a matter as much of what he eats aslong as he consumes less energy than his body need, so say nuts and melons and some milk products for protein enough would work as well as he don't overfeed on them.
Not sure if you know anything at all about nutrition to be honest.
At least I'm not wrong, and someone who knows their shit may moderate the post accordingly.
I've hanged around lots of forums with at least one guy which have studied nutrition and read lots of studies on the subject and used to write articles for magazines with new information.
I could probably find some study references for most of my claims if I googled around for his answers or the information, but I'm to lazy.
I've probably written like 20.000 posts on www.kolozzeum.com which is swedens biggest training forum, which proofs nothing but shows that chances are I've read something to ..