[oldnemesis]

(02-04-2011 03:52 PM)gringoed Wrote:  

The point of the diet is to ultimately be able to consume less energy than the body needs without having to overthink it. You made a point to consume more energy, so of course you didnt get major results. Did you read the entire chapter? By the way, of course simple calorie reduction works. Where does he say it doesnt?

I doubt there is a single person around here who does not know that if you eat less than your body spends, you'd lose weight. Even the most illiterate ones don't need Tim Ferris for that. So this point alone wouldn't sell, and his point was different - it matters what food you get your calories from, and not how much total calories you eat. See his "Rule #2". This was a typical argument for high-protein low-carb diet based on food low in GI. If you consume less than your body spends, it does not matter what you consume - you can eat Big Macs and still lose weight.

Quote:

Ultimately, that's what successful diets do. Tim talks about how the calorie concept is flawed and that the body metabolizes food differently than an incinerator, but the body still derives energy from food and stores it as fat, and the energy we derive from food is related to calorie count.

To summarize it, calorie concept is not flawed, and has been verified by multiple scientific studies. But if he just followed it, the whole chapter of his book would be thrown away, as "eat less than your body needs" does not take a lot of space, and definitely does not sound ground-breaking.

Quote:

Did you get before and after body composition tests as recommended in the book? I used to be a hydrostatic body fat tester and I've seen this all the time where peoples weight and even measurements stay the same but their fat and lean body mass changes significantly.

I have been routinely exercising during last three years, so I saw no reason to expect any significant muscular gain during this month. Indirect evaluation by measuring the results supported it.

Quote:

Are you seriously concluding this after not getting proper tests, not following the diet correctly, and being the only subject?

Yes, I am pretty confident about it. There was no need for other tests besides measurements, and body fat check on the scales as significant muscle gain would result in me being able to work out with significantly larger weights, and this did not happen. I followed the diet as prescribed, as it did not require you to calculate calories or to eat less calories than before (and if it did, there would be nothing special in this diet). And being the only subject is fine with me - after all, I have no incentive to lie about my results, I am not selling a book about them.

Quote:

In my opinion, this diet is like any other. It works if you can adhere to it and find the urge to eat less. It doesn't work if you don't.

Nobody needs to read a book to understand that.

[Irminsul]

Is it really true that weight loss is simply a function of "calories in, calories out"? I've never gotten really scientific about it, but from personal experience running seems to take the fat off far faster than can be accounted for by the number of calories burned while running. Other people I know can vouch for that, too.

Also, sugar seems to put the fat on more than other foods containing an equal number of calories. There's a lot of evidence that eating a high-sugar diet is unhealthy for reasons unrelated to the number of calories consumed.

[Quasi]

As a biochemist I dont agree that all calories are created equal, there is all but evidence and logic to the contrary, for instance insulin which isn´t bad does have a major role in building fat...(and getting nutrients into muscle cells too). The whole body is working to keep all your levels within a small range something called homeostasis, which basicly means that it makes sure that there is always some kind of fuels available and your brain is the major priority here, since its doesnt burn fat, but only sugar and keto bodies... the major regulators in this marvelous entity of cells is the hormones and what monkey eats (you). So offcourse your diet will affect your fat %... since the level of fatburning and metabolism wont be the same, protein will more be burned and under low carbs circumstances growth hormone will burn fat. Fat in the diet will slow digestion and make insulin response more blunt and therefore make more room for growth hormone responses...

So to keep is simple stupid (KISS) the simple rule is, no or few carbs with lots of fat, so either carbs protein, or protein and fat meals...

When you get really comfortable in knowing your limits you can take this more easy, but if you wanna loose weight it works.

What you should focus on is really understanding the hormonal switches between fat and glucose burning... you can burn tons of fat slow if you just play it a little clever...

and one more thing.. fructose is really a sinner http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/4/895.full its really not speculative but well known biochemistry that does ordinary sucorse , which is a dimer (means two) of two sugars glucose and the fructose... a little is ok especially after training, but other than that its really closer to alcohol in its effects on the body and probably no1 contributer in the diabetese pandemie, the world is experiencing... I would also suggest staying away from rice, orange juice and toast bread for the same reason..unless you are bulking or away from good food sources and need a quick meal..

Personally Im a great fan of milk... love the macronutrienst and love that there is no fructose in the dimer (lactose-glucose). Denmark is a milk & butter country and I can get ridecolous good milk for nothing here... and lots of research on that milk protein is quality protein in muscle building and helping cognitive functions (might be any good protein source that does that)

[oldnemesis]

(02-06-2011 01:28 PM)Quasi Wrote:  

So to keep is simple stupid (KISS) the simple rule is, no or few carbs with lots of fat, so either carbs protein, or protein and fat meals...

True. The main problem is, how long would an average dude be able to maintain this kind of diet while also being productive? Maybe this would work for a lumberjuck, but if you're an engineer, the low carb diet would basically kill your performance completely. I tried it a few times, it is pretty much impossible to do anything which requires attention concentration.

Quote:

What you should focus on is really understanding the hormonal switches between fat and glucose burning... you can burn tons of fat slow if you just play it a little clever...

I've read some research, and basically the trend seem to be that most of new excited findings are found non-working in controlled studies. This happened for GI, for example. Then a lot of effective supplements have pretty nasty long-term side effects. My conclusion so far is that unless you want to risk your health, the old fashioned way of eating slightly less and exercising slightly more is the only way to do.

Quote:

I would also suggest staying away from rice, orange juice and toast bread for the same reason..unless you are bulking or away from good food sources and need a quick meal..

I agree about juice - any juice. Agree with toast bread as well - however we do homemade European breads, as American breads (and sweets) are horrible to my taste. But why rice? I mean, rice is what the whole Asia basically lives on, and they're not really fat there.

Quote:

Personally Im a great fan of milk... love the macronutrienst and love that there is no fructose in the dimer (lactose-glucose).

A lot of adults cannot handle lactose, so milk is an effective laxative. For me it is instead yogurts, buttermilk and cottage cheese (no-salt-added; pretty much all cottage cheese in America has A LOT of salt added, but there are few products which aren't).

Anyway, after reading all those books I understood the benefits of having a nutritionist to set up a diet.

[Kurupt]

My only contribution is this. All things considered, I will never have an issue with Tim's books for the following reason:

Obesity is unhealthy.

His work is sort of un-American in the sense that he advocates cutting down on everything that could be "extra" or "unnecessary" - while this is not a viable solution to nation-wide conspicuous waste and consumption, it would not hurt if people at least took it into consideration. He's not selling drugs, nor is he pistol whipping anyone into buying his books. I have read both the books - I think some of the stuff in the 4 Hour Body is a bit funny - but it certainly is not likely to kill you.

[Quasi]

Regarding the rice, your probably right, I dont like them because they are like any refined product devoid of anything but starch, so I still think that potatoes just washed not peeled, is better overall or some homemade bread with alot of flaxseed, durum etc etc.. also some kinds of pasta is probably good...

Right now I have switched my pasta/potaoes for some carrots, they get really sweet when cooked into the meals and give a lovely fullness

500 g Minched chicken
2 onions
½ garlic
3 carrots minched
some chili sauce
carry/salt/soya sauce
1 can of concentrated tomate pure
some protein rich youghurt..natural 1,5% fat.. like a cup.

Switch onions + garlic chopped in some oil+ nice amount of carry on a pan and throw the chicken on top, fry until chicken isnt red or rose anymore, while continuing to make sure it doesnt burn.. add minched carrots, tomatoe pure and youghurt _( some greek one will do)
squeze of chili sauce and taste it so its right with salt. Well suited for warming again.


I dont really believe in the GI either, and your point with working like that is solid.. but I avoid that by getting 2 liters of milk plus a one or two carbs meals (lightgainer after workout, oatmeal, and the days I eat tenderloin I eat potaoes!)

Im totally for your idea of eating less.. but if you want to loose weight the notion of carbs+ fat = bad is good to keep with you, makes pizza, icecream etc.. obvious bad choices, not that you wouldnt know that they arent super for weight loss.

[oldnemesis]

A diet is only useful if you can follow it. As Alan Aragorn states, the diets which restricts certain foods have a low compliance level; the more foods are restricted, the lower the compliance level. Atkins' diet, for example, in various studies had compliance level around 20%. The diet itself may be gold, but if most people cannot follow it, it has no use at all.

This is the reason why I don't like diets which restricts or prescribe certain foods. This comes to "weight loss camps" as well, which provide the food. For example if the breakfast consists of legumes, salmon and grapefruit juice, I'll skip it every time. I don't eat any seafood, and this includes fish, I don't like grapefruit juice and legumes is not kind of food which makes me exciting at all. That's where a nutritionist is useful - because he can tell you what and how much you can eat according to your target body weight using the foods you are comfortable with.

[Menace]

I guess I should write what's happened to me.

I've gained about 10-11 lbs., but not all of it is muscle. I have seen steady progress in the amounts I lift from week to week. I'm tweaking my diet to be a bit a bit more like the slow carb diet, cutting out carbs when possible. I am not super anal about this however, I just try and maintain it >90% of the time. I'm going to add an exercise or two to improve core strength, where I know I am lacking.

For me, they key to dietary compliance is knowing exactly what I'm going to eat and when I'm going to eat it. All my meals are pre-planned and fast to prepare.