[Sp5]

Just cross-posting this thread here, because I thought the graphic was interesting and helpful:

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-42604.html

[Carlos100]

I know there's a lot of good information in this thread on how to reduce belly fat. For the past year I've been about 21% body fat, which means I had a moderate but noticeable paunch. Even though I was an amateur triathlete I wasn't able to get rid of it. The last few weeks I've finally been able to do so.

I increased my daily workout from 2 to 3 hours. I now do almost 2 hours of cardio, then one hour of lifting weights and stretching. On run days I do 10-12 miles and on bike days usually do one and a half hours of hill intervals. Beforehand, I will try to get in 25 minutes of lap swimming. For weights I do the usual one major muscle group a day.

For diet the only major difference I made was cutting down on alcohol consumption. When I do drink alcohol, it's almost always straight hard liquor without mixers. No beer and very little wine. I've lost about 1 1/2 inches from my waist and feel and look much better. I think I probably average about 2500 calories in intake a day. My coworkers and friends have told me they noticed I was losing weight.

Doing three hours of exercise a day may sound like a major pain in the butt. If you enjoy fitness, however, it shouldn't feel like a nuisance. You can break it up over two or three sessions a day. For example, getting up early and hitting the lap pool before work, getting the weights lifted at lunch time, then hitting the pavement after work. Whatever it takes, having a flatter belly is worth the effort. You will feel and look so much better and more confident.

[sammybiker]

Man, great work but holy shit...3hrs a day? I couldn't even imagine.

What about reducing workout to 60-90min and running a caloric deficiency? 1500cals/daily does wonders for most, especially when coupled with physical daily activity.

[Carlos100]

(12-16-2014 11:29 PM)sammybiker Wrote:  

Man, great work but holy shit...3hrs a day? I couldn't even imagine.

What about reducing workout to 60-90min and running a caloric deficiency? 1500cals/daily does wonders for most, especially when coupled with physical daily activity.

I've tried that before but I couldn't stand the horrendous hunger cravings between meals/snacks. I know there are work-arounds for that, but I find it less painful just to work it all off, plus the long cardio sessions give me better endurance.

I think there is a way to make the workouts less time consuming and that is to do more high-energy/intensity workouts like Tabatas, Insanity, burpees, super-setting, etc combined with regular weight lifting. If I wasn't doing triathlon training that's probably the way I would go. Doing it that way I think could burn the same number of calories in 2 hours vs the 3.

What also worked for me in the past was doing 30-45 minutes of cardio and 30 minutes of weightlifting at lunch, then doing an hour of sparring/rolling in karate (full-contact), Judo, and/or BJJ after work. However, I stopped with the martial arts awhile ago because I kept getting hurt.

[JayJuanGee]

(12-17-2014 07:20 AM)Carlos100 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 11:29 PM)sammybiker Wrote:  

Man, great work but holy shit...3hrs a day? I couldn't even imagine.

What about reducing workout to 60-90min and running a caloric deficiency? 1500cals/daily does wonders for most, especially when coupled with physical daily activity.

I've tried that before but I couldn't stand the horrendous hunger cravings between meals/snacks. I know there are work-arounds for that, but I find it less painful just to work it all off, plus the long cardio sessions give me better endurance.

I think there is a way to make the workouts less time consuming and that is to do more high-energy/intensity workouts like Tabatas, Insanity, burpees, super-setting, etc combined with regular weight lifting. If I wasn't doing triathlon training that's probably the way I would go. Doing it that way I think could burn the same number of calories in 2 hours vs the 3.

What also worked for me in the past was doing 30-45 minutes of cardio and 30 minutes of weightlifting at lunch, then doing an hour of sparring/rolling in karate (full-contact), Judo, and/or BJJ after work. However, I stopped with the martial arts awhile ago because I kept getting hurt.

I can understand the probable need for nearly daily exercise to train for an event or to build one's physical endurance for some reason, such as being able to carry groceries or to carry ones girlfriend or being able to feel comfortable in a bar fight; however, if the goal is to lose belly fat, then most likely the key is going to be diet and sleep and exercise need NOT be so central.

Exercising 3 times a week and 30-60 minutes per session should be sufficient for maintenance, for sustainability and regular guys.

Carlos100: Do you want to reduce your belly fat or your percentage of body fat, or are you content with your current status? What's your diet, generally? approximate macro ratios (proteins, fats and carbs)? and then within those specifically what kinds of examples of each are within your weekly eating routine?

[Carlos100]

(12-17-2014 01:44 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 07:20 AM)Carlos100 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 11:29 PM)sammybiker Wrote:  

Man, great work but holy shit...3hrs a day? I couldn't even imagine.

What about reducing workout to 60-90min and running a caloric deficiency? 1500cals/daily does wonders for most, especially when coupled with physical daily activity.

I've tried that before but I couldn't stand the horrendous hunger cravings between meals/snacks. I know there are work-arounds for that, but I find it less painful just to work it all off, plus the long cardio sessions give me better endurance.

I think there is a way to make the workouts less time consuming and that is to do more high-energy/intensity workouts like Tabatas, Insanity, burpees, super-setting, etc combined with regular weight lifting. If I wasn't doing triathlon training that's probably the way I would go. Doing it that way I think could burn the same number of calories in 2 hours vs the 3.

What also worked for me in the past was doing 30-45 minutes of cardio and 30 minutes of weightlifting at lunch, then doing an hour of sparring/rolling in karate (full-contact), Judo, and/or BJJ after work. However, I stopped with the martial arts awhile ago because I kept getting hurt.

I can understand the probable need for nearly daily exercise to train for an event or to build one's physical endurance for some reason, such as being able to carry groceries or to carry ones girlfriend or being able to feel comfortable in a bar fight; however, if the goal is to lose belly fat, then most likely the key is going to be diet and sleep and exercise need NOT be so central.

Exercising 3 times a week and 30-60 minutes per session should be sufficient for maintenance, for sustainability and regular guys.

Carlos100: Do you want to reduce your belly fat or your percentage of body fat, or are you content with your current status? What's your diet, generally? approximate macro ratios (proteins, fats and carbs)? and then within those specifically what kinds of examples of each are within your weekly eating routine?

I'm just trying to lose as much belly fat as possible before I end this exercise marathon next month. My weekday diet is: tuna fish sandwich for breakfast and lunch. Banana for between meal snack. 30 oz Vitamix vegetable puree for dinner. Some cheese if I get hungry again before bedtime. Weekends I try to stick to proteins (red meat, cheese, eggs) and more vegetable purees.

Like I said, in about 3 weeks I will probably go back to my 2-hour workouts with the goal of maintaining the fat loss I achieve during this two-month period of extended exercise. I think if I can keep the alcohol consumption low and continue to avoid sweets and junk food, that I can keep it off.

[JayJuanGee]

(12-18-2014 02:37 AM)Carlos100 Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 01:44 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 07:20 AM)Carlos100 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 11:29 PM)sammybiker Wrote:  

Man, great work but holy shit...3hrs a day? I couldn't even imagine.

What about reducing workout to 60-90min and running a caloric deficiency? 1500cals/daily does wonders for most, especially when coupled with physical daily activity.

I've tried that before but I couldn't stand the horrendous hunger cravings between meals/snacks. I know there are work-arounds for that, but I find it less painful just to work it all off, plus the long cardio sessions give me better endurance.

I think there is a way to make the workouts less time consuming and that is to do more high-energy/intensity workouts like Tabatas, Insanity, burpees, super-setting, etc combined with regular weight lifting. If I wasn't doing triathlon training that's probably the way I would go. Doing it that way I think could burn the same number of calories in 2 hours vs the 3.

What also worked for me in the past was doing 30-45 minutes of cardio and 30 minutes of weightlifting at lunch, then doing an hour of sparring/rolling in karate (full-contact), Judo, and/or BJJ after work. However, I stopped with the martial arts awhile ago because I kept getting hurt.

I can understand the probable need for nearly daily exercise to train for an event or to build one's physical endurance for some reason, such as being able to carry groceries or to carry ones girlfriend or being able to feel comfortable in a bar fight; however, if the goal is to lose belly fat, then most likely the key is going to be diet and sleep and exercise need NOT be so central.

Exercising 3 times a week and 30-60 minutes per session should be sufficient for maintenance, for sustainability and regular guys.

Carlos100: Do you want to reduce your belly fat or your percentage of body fat, or are you content with your current status? What's your diet, generally? approximate macro ratios (proteins, fats and carbs)? and then within those specifically what kinds of examples of each are within your weekly eating routine?

I'm just trying to lose as much belly fat as possible before I end this exercise marathon next month. My weekday diet is: tuna fish sandwich for breakfast and lunch. Banana for between meal snack. 30 oz Vitamix vegetable puree for dinner. Some cheese if I get hungry again before bedtime. Weekends I try to stick to proteins (red meat, cheese, eggs) and more vegetable purees.

Like I said, in about 3 weeks I will probably go back to my 2-hour workouts with the goal of maintaining the fat loss I achieve during this two-month period of extended exercise. I think if I can keep the alcohol consumption low and continue to avoid sweets and junk food, that I can keep it off.

Your ideas regarding what you are eating sounds fairly decent - although you have NOT really described your ideas regarding fat? Sure there is some fat in egg yolks and cheese, but what about bacon and do you trim the fat off your meats or eat the fatty cuts. If you noticed any of my earlier posts, I am a proponent of including animal fats and butter and coconut oil as good fats and cutting out the transfats and the various processed fats such as vegetable oils. If you eat good fats, you may be able to cut back somewhat on some of the snacking because you will have been more satiated... for example add bacon or fatty pork or fatty cuts of beef.

By the way, there is a book by Mary Enig called Eat Fat Lose Fat, and one of the thesis of that book is that the eating of dietary fat does NOT make us fat - however, as many of us realize, the eatings of carbs has that tendency.

[Swell]

Bumping & +1 rep Giovonny. Excellent advice.

[Tail Gunner]

I discovered the secret of losing belly fat through improving my health. Losing weight has nothing to do with counting calories and exercise (although that will work for short-term results). For many years, I weighed between 195 and 205 pounds at 6'1" and a medium frame. I never had much of a paunch and no one ever called me fat. Yet I was indeed overweight, but I never realized the extent.

I got to the point in my life where I did not feel very well. With a family history of several siblings with autoimmune disease, I consulted a board certified nutritionist and discovered that I was gluten intolerant and dairy sensitive. I gave up all processed foods, all sugar (except fruit and very dark chocolate), all grains (including bread), and all dairy. I have an occasional alcoholic beverage. Most of my food intake is now organic vegetables with a few ounces of meat. After I made these changes, my health improved dramatically. After performing a candida cleanse, my health improved even more dramatically.

In one year, I went from 205 to between 165-170 pounds. I would never have guessed that I was 40 pounds overweight. I lost all that weight not through counting calories or exercise, but by simply changing what I eat. I am far from perfect and I do treat myself a few times a week, but this is my ideal: organic vegetables, organic meat, organic fruit, organic nuts and seeds, extra-virgin olive oil, organic unprocessed coconut oil for cooking, organic shredded coconut, dark chocolate (at least 85% cacao), occasional whole-grain rice, pure filtered water, and an occasional alcoholic beverage. Good fat is very important.

Let me be very clear: I am NEVER hungry. I stuff myself. The key is to eat foods that are good for you. You can then eat all that you want. Any excess weight that you carry will naturally melt away. It is now nearly two-and-a-half years and I have stayed between between 165-170 pounds.

Lesson: The key is eat a diet of healthy food. Garbage in -- garbage out. Health or eventual disease. Your choice. Good luck.

[RagnarLothbrok]

(04-14-2016 02:48 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

I discovered the secret of losing belly fat through improving my health. Losing weight has nothing to do with counting calories

Not with counting calories but with calories. Eat less calories than your body needs and you will lose weight. It is that easy. Simple science. That's what you did as well when you changed to a healthier diet, you just didn't realise it, probably because you weren't counting the calories.

What you are saying here is wrong:

(04-14-2016 02:48 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

The key is to eat foods that are good for you. You can then eat all that you want. Any excess weight that you carry will naturally melt away.

It all comes down to how many calories you eat, not what you eat. The reason you lost weight is because you cut out all those foods who are high in calories (bread, rice, dairy) and thus automatically didn't eat too many calories. There is a difference between eating a lot of food and eating a lot of calories. You can do the first without gaining weight if you don't do the latter.

If I want to lose weight, I do the following:

- eat high protein, low fat, low carbs and thus be in a caloric deficit

- remove everything from my diet that contains sugar. This includes fruits. I take multivitamin pills instead. If I crave chocolate or something sweet, I drink a protein shake. Or I eat one piece of those dark 85% chocolate that contain less sugar.

- replace all soft drinks with water, tea or diet soda (coke zero, coke light). Diet soda is not healthy due to it containing aspartame, but it hardly contains any calories. This alone will save you 100-300kcal a day, depending on your usual intake of soft drinks

- replace milk with water when I am drinking a protein shake

- cut out rice, bread and pasta from my meals to stay low carb.

- instead I eat shitloads of vegetables that contain only few calories. This will make me feel full even though I didn't eat that many calories.

- skip breakfast (Intermittent Fasting) to control the hunger. Your body will get used to it very quickly. This way you can save 300-500kcal per day. Depending on what you usually eat for breakfast, you will also automatically reduce your intake of dairy products this way.

- reduce fatty foods (I also do this when I am trying to gain weight and build muscle). My only fat sources are cooking oil, avocados, nuts and fish. My protein sources are all lean (chicken, prawns, egg-whites, protein powder).

- hit the gym to maintain muscle mass

Now, this is a very practical approach. It is not the healthiest diet (diet soda, no fruits, not many fats) but it works. I usually do this for 2 months maximum with a caloric deficit of 800-1000kcal. This way I am able to lose about 3-4kg of body weight per month. To burn 1kg of body fat you have to eat 7,000kcal less than your body needs. With a deficit of 1000kcal per day and 1 refeed day per week you will have a deficit of 25,000kcal per month. That's a total deficit of 50,000kcal in 2 months or 7kg of bodyweight.

[Tail Gunner]

(04-14-2016 03:30 PM)RagnarLothbrok Wrote:  

[quote] (04-14-2016 02:48 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

What you are saying here is wrong:

The key is to eat foods that are good for you. You can then eat all that you want. Any excess weight that you carry will naturally melt away.

While I agree with much of what you said in your post, nothing that I stated in the quotation that you highlighted above is wrong. If you eat natural unrefined foods as nature intended, you can literally eat as much as you want -- and you will lose weight.

I agree that it is mostly because natural foods are less calorie-dense.

[RagnarLothbrok]

(04-14-2016 06:15 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 03:30 PM)RagnarLothbrok Wrote:  

[quote] (04-14-2016 02:48 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

What you are saying here is wrong:

The key is to eat foods that are good for you. You can then eat all that you want. Any excess weight that you carry will naturally melt away.

While I agree with much of what you said in your post, nothing that I stated in the quotation that you highlighted above is wrong. If you eat natural unrefined foods as nature intended, you can literally eat as much as you want -- and you will lose weight.

I agree that it is mostly because natural foods are less calorie-dense.

Technically, it is wrong. If you ate double the amount of what you eat now (especially nuts, fruits and whole grain rice you mentioned), chances are you would not lose weight.

[Tail Gunner]

(04-15-2016 01:21 AM)RagnarLothbrok Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 06:15 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 03:30 PM)RagnarLothbrok Wrote:  

[quote] (04-14-2016 02:48 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

What you are saying here is wrong:

The key is to eat foods that are good for you. You can then eat all that you want. Any excess weight that you carry will naturally melt away.

While I agree with much of what you said in your post, nothing that I stated in the quotation that you highlighted above is wrong. If you eat natural unrefined foods as nature intended, you can literally eat as much as you want -- and you will lose weight.

I agree that it is mostly because natural foods are less calorie-dense.

Technically, it is wrong. If you ate double the amount of what you eat now (especially nuts, fruits and whole grain rice you mentioned), chances are you would not lose weight.

I am not sure why you are incapable of understanding simple English. What did I say in my first post? I will provide my exact quotation: "Let me be very clear: I am NEVER hungry. I stuff myself."

I went out of my way to emphasize this point. I literally stuff myself. I am fully satiated. I have a full meal, then I have a piece of fruit, then some nuts, then a single square of dark chocolate. I literally cannot eat anything more.

So, let me be absolutely crystal clear. It would be physically impossible for me to eat ten percent more than I do, let alone "double the amount." That is why I emphasized that there is no need to count calories if you eat a healthy diet.

Summary: If you eat a healthy diet of mostly organic fruits and vegetables with about ten percent meat by volume, you can literally eat as much as you want (literally gorge yourself) and any excess weight that you carry will naturally melt away. This is not theory. I have done it. I lost nearly forty pounds doing so. Can I possibly be more clear?

[RagnarLothbrok]

I am understanding your point, even though English is not my first language

I think you don't understand what I meant. From a scientific point of view, your statement that "you can eat all you want if you eat foods that are good for you" is simply wrong. It is great for you that you can't eat more than you are already eating but I meant hypothetically you would not lose weight if you ate double the amount of food. This is science. If food is healthy or unhealthy has no direct impact on your weight, only an indirect impact since healthy foods tend to have less calories. You can lose weight eating McDonald's everyday just as you can gain weight eating only healthy things. In the end it is all about calories and of course, if you eat extremely healthy you are more likely to lose weight but it is not a sure thing. If you eat too much fruits and nuts (in addition to your other 2-3 meals) for example, you can easily hit maintenance calories although you are still eating healthy. It also depends on how many calories your body needs to maintain weight. You started with 205 pounds of body weight, so of course it was almost impossible for you to hit maintenance calories with healthy food and thus you lost weight. But somebody who weighs less, has a slower metabolism and burns less calories during the day might already stop losing weight if he hits 1900-2200kcal.

I like your approach of a diet though and think that more people should do it like you.

[Captain Gh]

TL;DR: We have a choice to make between High Carbs- Low Fat and Low Carb High Fat diets. The more High Carbs and High Fat are blended in, the chubbier you'll be Keto is better for most people.

↑↑ You guys are pretty much saying the same thing, but using different ways of saying it. By eating healthy, you can pretty much stuff yourself, and your body will let you know automatically when it's full. By doing so, your metabolism will kick start itself, and then the weight will fall off. The big problem that most people in Western society have is what is healthy. Vegan? Paleo? Keto?

I personally believe that an extremely low fat diet is the best for me, but I know the science behind the Keto diet, and I know it definitely works. I'd rather have our fat nation that's addicted to fatty food adopt a keto diet because they'll still lose weight, and be better than they were before.It takes a lot of discipline to effectively be on a keto diet for a long time and see results, but most newbie will loose the initial weight and be motivated by it.

For a naturally big dude like myself, the easiest way to remain lean is to keep my diet low in fat (around 10-20 Grams, and sometimes go crazy on a cheat day), and I can literally stay lean and eat a protein bar or Mcflurry everyday and stay lean & ripped.
The way I see it, we all have a choice to make on our regular dieting (and for me regular dieting is 2 cheat days/week).

If you're willing to eat low fat ( and sacrifice a bit on fried chicken, french fries, beef, scrambled eggs, and all that good stuff), then you can afford to get a little "bad" sugar in like Ice cream, chocolate, Asian Rice( and see some A4 bitches ) because the only difference between complex carbs and sugar is the Ice cream sugar will disrupt the glucose usage from your muscle, and that disrupt will cause your crash. The complex carbs takes longer to be used as energy, so it doesn't fuck you up like Coca Cola and Ice cream. You obviously want complex carbs, but once broken down that shit is the same.

The reason that we're so fucked is that people eat a lot of fat while the body is disrupted from all the simple "bad" sugar, and the fat the body gets during that disruption goes straight in the fat stores as reserves. Even if you eat clean, eating High carbs and High fat and remaining lean can be done, but damn that's hard to balance out, and way beyond the level of anyone who doesn't study this thoroughly.

If you want to keep the fried chicken, olive oil, nuts and butter in without having to count your macros, then the way I see it you have to go in and adopt the Keto lifestyle so that your body gets adapted to create some ketones from all that fat to feed your brain, and your body to function. But with this you gotta sacrifice the ice cream, potatoes, rice, pastas and all. Pick your venom! The more you blend it the 2, the chubbier you'll get unless you have fantastic genetics and/or workout like crazy.

I made the low fat choice, but damn I do miss frying my chicken, eggs and beef on a regular basis!! This shit ain't easy, and that's why we're so fat! Once the food is in your crib, moderation doesn't exist. If I'm craving something fried, I'm getting it out of my crib, while seeing some A4 eye candies!

[RagnarLothbrok]

I am doing high carb, low fat when I am on a caloric surplus, i.e. trying to gain weight by building muscle. I feel like this way I can bulk "leaner". I am not going as low as CaptainGh though. 10-20g of Fats are extremely low in my opinion. I am eating 40-50 grams of fats while bulking. @Captain: Do you have any negative side effects from your low fat intake? I heard of people complaining about a very low sexdrive when they go that low with fats.

When on a cut, I am doing low fat and low carb. Right now I am eating around 1500kcal per day (60g carbs, 200g proteins, 50g fats). I don't count them anymore because after 1 year of counting calories I pretty much developed a good feeling for how many calories my foods have. I only track my protein intake and try to avoid carbs and fats as much as I can. Actually, it is easier for me to execute my diet when I am cutting than when I am bulking. Intermittent Fasting helps a lot here. The only downside is that it is hard to make progress in the gym when you are on a 1000kcal deficit.

[Captain Gh]

(04-15-2016 11:14 AM)RagnarLothbrok Wrote:  

I am doing high carb, low fat when I am on a caloric surplus, i.e. trying to gain weight by building muscle. I feel like this way I can bulk "leaner". I am not going as low as CaptainGh though. 10-20g of Fats are extremely low in my opinion. I am eating 40-50 grams of fats while bulking. @Captain: Do you have any negative side effects from your low fat intake? I heard of people complaining about a very low sexdrive when they go that low with fats.

When on a cut, I am doing low fat and low carb. Right now I am eating around 1500kcal per day (60g carbs, 200g proteins, 50g fats). I don't count them anymore because after 1 year of counting calories I pretty much developed a good feeling for how many calories my foods have. I only track my protein intake and try to avoid carbs and fats as much as I can. Actually, it is easier for me to execute my diet when I am cutting than when I am bulking. Intermittent Fasting helps a lot here. The only downside is that it is hard to make progress in the gym when you are on a 1000kcal deficit.

That's a good point that you brought up. As long as I make sure to get my chicken Breast in, I'm always good to go even when my fats are that low. My only concern is to always remain lean as I'm naturally a big dude. Eating more fats makes me look super fluffy, so I stay away from that. I'm sure if I was smaller, that I would eat more fat without a concern. Without my chicken breast, my dick stays at the same size, but way softer than usual. Chicken Breast is the key that holds everything together for me.

[JayJuanGee]

(04-15-2016 09:44 AM)RagnarLothbrok Wrote:  

I am understanding your point, even though English is not my first language

I think you don't understand what I meant. From a scientific point of view, your statement that "you can eat all you want if you eat foods that are good for you" is simply wrong. It is great for you that you can't eat more than you are already eating but I meant hypothetically you would not lose weight if you ate double the amount of food. This is science. If food is healthy or unhealthy has no direct impact on your weight, only an indirect impact since healthy foods tend to have less calories.

What you are saying here is spewing the mainstream dogma, and is absolute nonsense.. and you are trying to argue it as if it were science and black and white regarding calorie counting, and it appears that you are trying to argue the laws of thermo dynamics in respect to food.

You made some very similar nonsense points in your earlier post, and I did not see them until today. I can comment on your earlier points if you want, but it seems like it could be a waste of time since you are spewing out a lot of nonsense, and that is likely a large part of the reason for your disagreement with Tailgunner.

I don't agree with all of Tailgunners points, but I do agree with his points that if he cuts out some of the bad foods, such as the carbs and the processed foods and even the bad oils (which are also processed), and thereafter, he can eat as much as he wants of the good foods. When he is eating good foods, his body absorbs the nutrients and becomes satiated by the nutrients, and he no longer feels any desire to eat more.

(04-15-2016 09:44 AM)RagnarLothbrok Wrote:  

You can lose weight eating McDonald's everyday just as you can gain weight eating only healthy things.

You can lose weight on lot of diets, including eating twinkies every day, but that does not mean that it is good for you.

(04-15-2016 09:44 AM)RagnarLothbrok Wrote:  

In the end it is all about calories and of course,

nonsense.

(04-15-2016 09:44 AM)RagnarLothbrok Wrote:  

if you eat extremely healthy you are more likely to lose weight but it is not a sure thing. If you eat too much fruits and nuts (in addition to your other 2-3 meals) for example, you can easily hit maintenance calories although you are still eating healthy.

just calling a food "healthy" does not make it "healthy", so there is a lot of misinformation regarding which foods cause people to be fat... generally eating fruit all the time is not a good thing, even though there are people who claim to be fruitarians. lots of fructose, glucose in fruit and your body may be fine for a while, but not likely going to be a healthy way to go.. fruit and vegetables are not in the same category by the way, even though they may be referred to in the same category by some folks who may be confused, including yourself.

(04-15-2016 09:44 AM)RagnarLothbrok Wrote:  

It also depends on how many calories your body needs to maintain weight. You started with 205 pounds of body weight, so of course it was almost impossible for you to hit maintenance calories with healthy food and thus you lost weight. But somebody who weighs less, has a slower metabolism and burns less calories during the day might already stop losing weight if he hits 1900-2200kcal.

more nonsense regarding thermodynamic theories about calories in and calories out... Have you read Gary Taubes 1) good calories bad calories and 2) why we get fat and what to do about it? He pretty much discredits those thermodynamic theories that you seem to rely upon so much.

(04-15-2016 09:44 AM)RagnarLothbrok Wrote:  

I like your approach of a diet though and think that more people should do it like you.

O.k., maybe you like some of Tailgunner's approach that is not controversial, which is eating natural foods, but in the end, you don't really agree with tailgunner's analysis because you are attempting to re-spin what happened with him as if it were that he was eating fewer calories and that is what caused him to lose weight. You also probably believe that fat is worse than carbs because fat have more calories per gram of weight than carbs, but I doubt that tailgunner believes that (I hate to speak for him, because he is well able to speak for himself, and he largely has in his earlier descriptive post about what he did and why he believes that it worked).

[JayJuanGee]

(04-15-2016 10:56 AM)Captain Gh Wrote:  

TL;DR: We have a choice to make between High Carbs- Low Fat and Low Carb High Fat diets. The more High Carbs and High Fat are blended in, the chubbier you'll be Keto is better for most people.

You have a lot of decent ideas, especially when you are talking about keto and everything, but you seem to be mixing up some context, especially when it comes to your ideas about what is fat, and you seem to think that low fat is good when in fact, fat is not the problem, except to the extent that you may be talking about various kinds of processed fats, inferior fats or fats that are mixed with carbs (and in that case the carbs is the more likely problem)

(04-15-2016 10:56 AM)Captain Gh Wrote:  

↑↑ You guys are pretty much saying the same thing, but using different ways of saying it. By eating healthy, you can pretty much stuff yourself, and your body will let you know automatically when it's full. By doing so, your metabolism will kick start itself, and then the weight will fall off. The big problem that most people in Western society have is what is healthy. Vegan? Paleo? Keto?

Actually, they are not really saying the same thing. Tailgunner is suggesting that whole foods is good, and he can eat as much as he likes as long as he eats whole foods and cuts out the carbs and the processed.

RagnarLothbrok is saying that all that matters is calories.


Tailgunner is much closer to the truth of the matter, especially in that he does not seem to be demonizing fat, either, which sometimes can be confusing for a lot of people because there is a lot of disinformation out there in the media regarding fat and including with health and dietary specialists and even infiltrating the Food and Drug Administration.. or whoever it is that does the dietary guidelines that is currently the food plate with its ongoing demonization of fat by failing to properly identify it nor to rely on actual science.

[JayJuanGee]

(04-15-2016 11:14 AM)RagnarLothbrok Wrote:  

I am doing high carb, low fat when I am on a caloric surplus, i.e. trying to gain weight by building muscle. I feel like this way I can bulk "leaner". I am not going as low as CaptainGh though. 10-20g of Fats are extremely low in my opinion. I am eating 40-50 grams of fats while bulking. @Captain: Do you have any negative side effects from your low fat intake? I heard of people complaining about a very low sexdrive when they go that low with fats.

Well there is some room and recognition that you can be saved. hahahahaha

Yes, your body needs fats for the production of testosterone, and a lot of other manly functions, so this should be a pretty decent hint about the importance of fat in the diet.

Dietary fat is important for the sexual functions of both men and women, especially if you are eating good fat rather than processed fat and some of the unnatural fats that contain hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated oils.

[JayJuanGee]

(04-15-2016 11:58 AM)Captain Gh Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 11:14 AM)RagnarLothbrok Wrote:  

I am doing high carb, low fat when I am on a caloric surplus, i.e. trying to gain weight by building muscle. I feel like this way I can bulk "leaner". I am not going as low as CaptainGh though. 10-20g of Fats are extremely low in my opinion. I am eating 40-50 grams of fats while bulking. @Captain: Do you have any negative side effects from your low fat intake? I heard of people complaining about a very low sexdrive when they go that low with fats.

When on a cut, I am doing low fat and low carb. Right now I am eating around 1500kcal per day (60g carbs, 200g proteins, 50g fats). I don't count them anymore because after 1 year of counting calories I pretty much developed a good feeling for how many calories my foods have. I only track my protein intake and try to avoid carbs and fats as much as I can. Actually, it is easier for me to execute my diet when I am cutting than when I am bulking. Intermittent Fasting helps a lot here. The only downside is that it is hard to make progress in the gym when you are on a 1000kcal deficit.

That's a good point that you brought up. As long as I make sure to get my chicken Breast in, I'm always good to go even when my fats are that low. My only concern is to always remain lean as I'm naturally a big dude. Eating more fats makes me look super fluffy, so I stay away from that. I'm sure if I was smaller, that I would eat more fat without a concern. Without my chicken breast, my dick stays at the same size, but way softer than usual. Chicken Breast is the key that holds everything together for me.

I don't know your age Captain Gh, but you can get away with abusing your body for many years, and then it starts to catch up with you, and chicken fat may not be sufficient in order to give you proper nutrition. Probably, it is better than nothing, but you may want to consider incorporating bacon and eggs into your diet, high fat cuts of meat, coconut oil and avocado and sardines and maybe other fatty fish... and cut the carbs and the sweets, and after you take those kinds of measures, you probably won't be able to stop your dick from wanting to perform at a magnitude quite higher than its current performance (whatever that may be as you suggested possibly less than preferable at the moment).

[Tail Gunner]

(07-22-2016 02:23 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 10:56 AM)Captain Gh Wrote:  

TL;DR: We have a choice to make between High Carbs- Low Fat and Low Carb High Fat diets. The more High Carbs and High Fat are blended in, the chubbier you'll be Keto is better for most people.

You have a lot of decent ideas, especially when you are talking about keto and everything, but you seem to be mixing up some context, especially when it comes to your ideas about what is fat, and you seem to think that low fat is good when in fact, fat is not the problem, except to the extent that you may be talking about various kinds of processed fats, inferior fats or fats that are mixed with carbs (and in that case the carbs is the more likely problem)

I agree with almost everything that you stated in your four posts, except about eating bacon (unless you meant 100% natural bacon instead of processed bacon).

Because you know so much about fats, I do have a question for you. Dr. Mercola, whose knowledge base I respect immensely, claims that "most people actually need upwards of 50-70 percent healthful fats in their diet for optimal health! My personal diet is about 60-70 percent healthy fat." Here is a sample article just so other members know what I mean.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...heart.aspx

Dr. Mercola regularly makes this claim, yet he never provides an example of how to accomplish this goal (or at least not one that I have seen). I assume that he means 50-70 percent by calorie count rather than weight or volume because fat is far more calorie dense: carbohydrate provides 4 calories per gram, protein provides 4 calories per gram, and fat provides 9 calories per gram.

Yet, even by calorie count I find it hard to envision a daily healthy diet that is 60-70 percent healthy fat. Leaving aside the common sense items such as coconut oil, olive oil, and butter, you would need to eat the per meal equivalent of a grass fed steak that is half fat -- and then drink all that fat after you cook it. I suppose eating a ton of free range eggs (almost half fat) and coconut milk might do it.

I must be missing something rather elemental. Any idea what such a realistic healthy diet might look like?

[Balkan]

(07-22-2016 10:23 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 02:23 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(04-15-2016 10:56 AM)Captain Gh Wrote:  

TL;DR: We have a choice to make between High Carbs- Low Fat and Low Carb High Fat diets. The more High Carbs and High Fat are blended in, the chubbier you'll be Keto is better for most people.

You have a lot of decent ideas, especially when you are talking about keto and everything, but you seem to be mixing up some context, especially when it comes to your ideas about what is fat, and you seem to think that low fat is good when in fact, fat is not the problem, except to the extent that you may be talking about various kinds of processed fats, inferior fats or fats that are mixed with carbs (and in that case the carbs is the more likely problem)

I agree with almost everything that you stated in your four posts, except about eating bacon (unless you meant 100% natural bacon instead of processed bacon).

Because you know so much about fats, I do have a question for you. Dr. Mercola, whose knowledge base I respect immensely, claims that "most people actually need upwards of 50-70 percent healthful fats in their diet for optimal health! My personal diet is about 60-70 percent healthy fat." Here is a sample article just so other members know what I mean.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...heart.aspx

Dr. Mercola regularly makes this claim, yet he never provides an example of how to accomplish this goal (or at least not one that I have seen). I assume that he means 50-70 percent by calorie count rather than weight or volume because fat is far more calorie dense: carbohydrate provides 4 calories per gram, protein provides 4 calories per gram, and fat provides 9 calories per gram.

Yet, even by calorie count I find it hard to envision a daily healthy diet that is 60-70 percent healthy fat. Leaving aside the common sense items such as coconut oil, olive oil, and butter, you would need to eat the per meal equivalent of a grass fed steak that is half fat -- and then drink all that fat after you cook it. I suppose eating a ton of free range eggs (almost half fat) and coconut milk might do it.

I must be missing something rather elemental. Any idea what such a realistic healthy diet might look like?

I've gone ketogenic several times, which by default is at least 70%+ calories from fat.

Some foods that you didn't mention that might help. Avocado's are huge. When I was in the height of low-carb dieting I would have 2 avocado's every day with lemon & pink himalayan sea salt. A big issue with eating high fat/low carb is getting adequate electrolytes as low carb dieting, upregulates your kidney's excretion of water and with it electrolytes (potassium, sodium, magnesium). 2 avocado's will surpass your daily need for potassium. The next is nuts. I usually have a handful or brazil nuts every day. Then, will snack on pecans or almonds whenever I want a snack. I used to take 4 tablespoons of Udo's 3-6-9 oil every morning, which is ~500 calories of fat. LOZ turned me on to it and it's a great supplement albeit a bit pricey. I also ate a fuck ton of cheese and smoothered vegetables (usually green beans/brocolli) with parmesan cheese and butter.

I get where you're coming from. Eating a significant amount of calories from fat easily gets repetitive. I found a system that works for me but I'd be lying if I said it didn't get boring.

Edit: hummus with veggies was also a stable

[Tail Gunner]

(07-22-2016 10:49 AM)Balkan Wrote:  

I get where you're coming from. Eating a significant amount of calories from fat easily gets repetitive. I found a system that works for me but I'd be lying if I said it didn't get boring.

Yes, that is exactly my point (just stated another way). I would have no problem constructing a temporary ketogenic diet (for a few weeks or even a few months) to meet short-term goals. For example, for a few months (for therapeutic brain health) I ate 17 ounces of coconut cream per day, which provided me with about 100 grams of healthy fat per day (and, unfortunately, about 1,000 extra calories).

But Dr. Mercola obviously means this as a permanent long-term healthy diet: "most people actually need upwards of 50-70 percent healthful fats in their diet for optimal health! My personal diet is about 60-70 percent healthy fat." I just do not see how such a diet is maintained on a long-term basis.

[JayJuanGee]

(07-22-2016 10:23 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(07-22-2016 02:23 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

[edit out]

I agree with almost everything that you stated in your four posts, except about eating bacon (unless you meant 100% natural bacon instead of processed bacon).

Yeah, I did probably go on a bit of a tear in posting 4 times in a row and ending up having some repetition in those posts, maybe a bit of dogma and possibly an afterwards feeling that I may have gone too much on the attack. Anyhow, I just posted my responses as I read each of the posts, and sometimes I get a bit irritated when I see mainstream dogma's spouted out at science.. and sometimes even if there may be some good intention there.

Regarding a lot of my eating and philosophies regarding food including bacon, I consider my practices to be an attempt to balance healthy with practical, and maybe I may be going overboard with the emphasis of the healthiness of bacon.

Bacon gets a bad rap, and I really question whether it is merited. I do agree with you that if one finds ways to process bacon without sugars and nitrates, then probably the bacon would be better, and probably even eating pork bellies would be better to eating bacon.

I think that my philosophy regarding bacon is similar to some of the other industrialized foods that we find, and I think about it like this: I think that it is a lot better to incorporate various industrialized meats with the fat and even heavy whipping cream (pasteurized for dairy) and whole milk cheese (still processed), than to eat carbs and other processed foods.

I eat industrial meat all of the time with the fat. I find it really difficult to find affordable raw dairy of any kind, so I eat the ones with the most fat that I can find. I eat cheese in moderation, but I tend to be fairly liberal with the heavy whipping cream in my coffee and mixed with other items if appropriate, and I am really liberal with my butter, even though the butter that I eat is usually not organic but instead pasteurized and homogenized. I wished more raw dairy was readily available. I also wished that natural raised beef was readily available too, and free range pigs, but it just does not seem that practical for me to attempt to search out those sources.

I just try to find decent variations and economical alternatives, and I consider bacon to be a good source of fat and practical for me. I buy the three pounds of ends and pieces, usually around $5 for the pack, and I cook 1 or 2 packs a week and eat at various times and snacks and mix in with other foods to the extent they may go together.

(07-22-2016 10:23 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

Because you know so much about fats, I do have a question for you. Dr. Mercola, whose knowledge base I respect immensely, claims that "most people actually need upwards of 50-70 percent healthful fats in their diet for optimal health! My personal diet is about 60-70 percent healthy fat." Here is a sample article just so other members know what I mean.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...heart.aspx

I don't recall ever seeing that particular Mercola article, and sure it sums up a lot of the concerns about fat, in one place.

Mercola certainly is not alone in his discussion of good and bad fats, and possibly
Mary Enig was one of the pioneers in this regard with her seminal book Know your fats around 2000 in which she broke down and discussed fats, and a lot of researchers built off of her work.

(07-22-2016 10:23 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

Dr. Mercola regularly makes this claim, yet he never provides an example of how to accomplish this goal (or at least not one that I have seen). I assume that he means 50-70 percent by calorie count rather than weight or volume because fat is far more calorie dense: carbohydrate provides 4 calories per gram, protein provides 4 calories per gram, and fat provides 9 calories per gram.

I really doubt that Mercola is framing his recommendations in terms of calorie counting or even using calories as accurate ways to measure your intake of food.

Most of the researchers who know what they are talking about have really dismissed these ideas of calories, and they likely measure from the total volume or weight of the food that you are eating and even ballpark the percentages in order to get ideas regarding approximately what percentage of each of the macros are going into their daily or weekly eating.

(07-22-2016 10:23 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

Yet, even by calorie count I find it hard to envision a daily healthy diet that is 60-70 percent healthy fat. Leaving aside the common sense items such as coconut oil, olive oil, and butter, you would need to eat the per meal equivalent of a grass fed steak that is half fat -- and then drink all that fat after you cook it. I suppose eating a ton of free range eggs (almost half fat) and coconut milk might do it.

I must be missing something rather elemental. Any idea what such a realistic healthy diet might look like?

I think that I understand what you are getting at regarding the sheer quantity of fat that seems to be required in order to accomplish these various objectives, an I certainly ball park my percentages, and I just try to eat everything with a lot of fat, whether that is cuts of meat or including butter and coconut oil or adding some lard to the mix of my food. Eggs are pretty high in fat, too. If I were to eat more nuts, then probably, I would consider nuts with more fats, but I am not much of a nut eater, though sometimes i will eat some variations or buy some nuts (walnuts and almonds were the most recent that I bought). I know that Atkins used to praise macademia nuts, but I have also seen some criticisms regarding too many nuts is too high of a ratio of omega 6, and we should be considering ways to increase our omega 3 fats, which are in fish or in free range beef.


I personally try not to get caught up on the matter too much, and I just try to emphasize fats whenever I can, so for example, about once a week, my GF and I go to eat all you can eat Korean bbq, and I always try to emphasize getting the cuts of meat with the most fat, such as beef and pork bellies and some of the cuts of meat that the serve have more fat than others, and each place prepares and cut the meat a bit different. We usually tend to emphasize the beef because it is the best bang for the buck, since we are paying a flat price. We also barely cook the food because we think it is more nutritious, but she tends to cook her portions more than I do... but anyhow, I sometimes get a little irritated if she ends up ordering a couple of dishes that do not seem to be very high fat, but I will eat them anyhow, even though I start to think that the lower fat content will probably result in gluconeogenesis, but sometimes I will just find and add some butter, to make myself feel better - even though I have no real idea what is happening in my body with these various portions and whether I am only eating 40% fat rather than 60%, which I agree higher would be preferable, of course.

I tend to listen to a lot of Jimmy Moore podcasts (including living la vida low carb), and he claims to really be able to get into the 80% and higher levels of fat content in his diet. I am really not sure how he claims to do it, or if he has some decent examples or discussion regarding how to do it. Nonetheless, he asserts that he is currently working on a cookbook, which will likely result in some discussion about how to achieve higher fat content in your daily (or weekly as I like to say) diet.