Knowledge is power: Answer these 10 and see your results

Archanasatyam

10 yesses!!! @!_@
well.. surprised me.. all that u said..

19kat55

9. You should still lift weights even on a diet as building muscle while loosing fat is the key to having a sculpted appearance.
YES / NO

Your explanation of this said it is not possible to build muscle and lose fat at the same time. However, I go in a BodPod every three months and that is exactly what is happening to me. I work with a sport's nutritionist and what she has me eating is reducing BF and increasing LBM. It is a very slow process, but not impossible.

princesstoadstool82

Question... if it wasn't high saturated fats that gave me high cholesterol how did I get it ?

Your body makes all the cholesterol you need and then some. Why do YOU have high cholesterol?

-Genes
-Excess calories
-Excess adipose tissue
-Hormonal imbalances?
-Prediabetes?

Anybody eating at a deficit will see their lipid profile improve, even if they are eating mostly lard. Even the twinkie guy had better blood work.

^This.

It's a combination of genetics and the OVERALL composition of diet, not just one part of the diet.

Agreed, plus general lifestyle.

So what do I do to get it down??

wamydia

Question... if it wasn't high saturated fats that gave me high cholesterol how did I get it ?

Your body makes all the cholesterol you need and then some. Why do YOU have high cholesterol?

-Genes
-Excess calories
-Excess adipose tissue
-Hormonal imbalances?
-Prediabetes?

Anybody eating at a deficit will see their lipid profile improve, even if they are eating mostly lard. Even the twinkie guy had better blood work.

^This.

It's a combination of genetics and the OVERALL composition of diet, not just one part of the diet.

Agreed, plus general lifestyle.

So what do I do to get it down??

Exercise and good diet are important. I started working on both back when I weighed 316lbs and had borderline high cholesterol. I was eating a lot of crap and not much good stuff. I lost around 100lbs, starting exercising every day, cut back drastically on my eating out and fried foods, and starting making a point to eat more lean meat, fresh fruits and veggies, fish, and olive oil. My good cholesterol numbers and total cholesterol numbers are now quite good, but I still struggle a little with the "bad" cholesterol number being more borderline (which might be a genetic component as coronary artery disease runs in my family). I guess what I'm saying is that i know there is still a lot of debate about the roles of certain types of fats and whatnot in controlling cholesterol levels, but improving my diet to something a lot more sensible, regularly exercising, and losing weight really worked for me. Failing that, you may just have to talk to the doctor about getting on some kind of medication.

JakeBrownVB

Your yes/no questions aren't as black and white as they initially sound.

"1. Eating 1500 calories of clean food will lose you more fat then eating 1500 calories of dirty foods."
Salt and carbs cause water retention which can result in a slower weight loss.

did i say "weight" loss? that is why I said FAT loss, I took into account the higher retention of water through more sodium and therefore was careful to say FAT loss and not WEIGHT loss. The FAT loss will be exactly the same on either diets as both are 1500 calories.

JakeBrownVB

Your yes/no questions aren't as black and white as they initially sound.

"2. Cardio makes you lose weight. "
It can - if you move in excess of your intake.

Cardio CANNOT make you loose weight. Only a calorie deficit. You can do cardio until you are blue in the face, but cardio is not what causes you to loose weight.

Cardio can only AID the achievement of a calorie deficit but it is wrong to then go and say that cardio makes you loose weight. "A cause of a cause is never the root cause", just because cardio caused you to be in a calorie deficit, and a calorie deficit caused you to loose weight, it does not then make cardio the primary cause of why you lost weight.

JakeBrownVB

Your yes/no questions aren't as black and white as they initially sound.

"8. High repetition and low resistance weight training tones the body and low repetition heavy lifting builds bulky muscle. Keeping the reps high and the resistance low will firm the body without creating a overly muscular appearance. "
Define high rep. To me 3x15 reps is high and I understand is best for bulking whilst 3x1 rep is low and best for increasing strength without size. Check out "I'll never be a weightlifter". Also google "German volumetric training" (10x10).

Well made point, Ill have a look

55in13

For number 6, "Starvation Mode," I agree with your overall explanation, but I think it's worth mentioning that there is evidence that people who net less than 1200 calories a day are at risk for metabolic slowdown. Yes, a person does have to be literally starving for a period of time to enter "starvation mode" (and they will actually still lose weight because you can't starve and gain weight at the same tme), however metabolic damage is a real thing that happens as part of the body's response to getting a lower calorie intake than it really needs. It's a sort of border zone, I think. Between eating enough and eating so little that you are starving, there is a narrow area where people can damage their metabolism enough that it slows down, but still eat just enough to not lose any weight. http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage/

Do you realize the people who call themselves doctors on that site are actually "holistic physicians"? Did you notice the lack of references to medical studies? While there are no links to anything supporting their claims, there are plenty of links to products and services in their online store. Sorry, but I am not buying what they are selling. Putting together a theory with charts and lots of medical terminology does not make it accurate.

Anyway, you said there is evidence. Please provide a link to it.

Here is a study with some discussion of the issues of metabolic slowdown. This study was specifically focusing on using exercise to help prevent the eventual metabolic slowdown that occurs in a way that is out of proportion to the individual's weight loss. They found that not only does exercise not even prevent this slowdown, but that the slowdown can persist even after the individual's diet has ended: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22535969. Here is another study (this one is focused on why people who lose weight regain so easily) that includes some discussion of this phenomenon as well: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23911805.

Hollistic medicine is in fact useful for helping some people to heal and be healthy, so I don't automatically dismiss anything just because it comes from a hollistic site. Although I am a scientist myself, I don't dismiss other ways of approaching healing and healthy living simply because science hasn't proven how some of it works yet. Further, the discussion of the metabolic slowdown process is valid. Metabolic slowdown is thought to be the result of hormonal changes that occur in response to stress (in this case, an ongoing reduction of calories and by this I mean reduction below the level what the body really needs to function). Many of these hormonal changes are believed to be partly a result of sympathetic nervous system signalling. For discusson of stress (ie. restrictive eating and over-exercising) triggered hormone changes and weight gain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23898237.

In regards to 1200 calorie diets, the recommendation not to go below 1200 calories has come from the American College of Sports Medicine, which is a pretty well-respected organization. It is based primarily on BMR calculations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate), which is a measure of how much energy your body expends at rest, just to run the vital organ systems. For a woman who is 4'8", 100lbs, and 50yo, her bmr is about 1118, so I imagine she could drop a little below 1200 without any harm. Evidence of metabolsim slow down from very low calorie diets has been known for years and has been born out in more recent studies as well. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1108368. http://stress-free-weight-loss.com/. This second one is an older study, you'll want to focus on the Carnegie study that looked at young men on diet as restricted as 1400 calories/ day (the recommendation for men is 1800 calories/ day).

The first study is odd in saying the slow down "may persist" (their words). In other words, they did not use any data to make that guess as it was not part of the study. And as I said earlier, studies do find that metabolism drops when you restrict calories, but they find no point at which decreasing calories does not increase the caloric deficit. In the first study you cite, they found that the metabolic rate dropped for some of the participants by more than expected just for the lost weight. This reduced the efficiency of restricting calories - at some point reducing another 100 calories might increase the deficit only 75 calories (the numbers are not exact, just conveying the concept) - but once again they found no point at which weight loss stalled because of lowered metabolic rate. VLCD as used in medical study discussions is well below 1000 calories. Just because some other organizations define it differently, you can't use one definition with studies that define it differently. VLCD effects can be wide ranging and there is a reason that they are generally doctor supervised. The 700 calorie diet that a gastric bypass patient is put on is VLCD; an 1100 calorie diet is not. I am not saying anyone should go below 1200, just pointing out it is still well above the medically recognized definition of VLCD.

Having said all that, this issue is one where a very small percentage of people really do have a legitimate problem and they have my sympathy. In studies, about 1% of the population can have a BMR below 1000 calories. The evidence as to why is inconclusive at best. Here on MFP, there seems to be an active sub culture of individuals who believe that it is triggered by eating below 1200 and happens a lot. Neither statement is true, IMO. Neither statement is supported by any studies I have seen, including the ones you just posted. Quite the contrary - the obese people in the study you posted consistently lost weight, lots of it. A few had lower BMR than made sense at the end and the study author guessed it might persist. Could be right, could be wrong. I have seen more evidence that says the guess is incorrect.

darrensurrey

Your yes/no questions aren't as black and white as they initially sound.

"1. Eating 1500 calories of clean food will lose you more fat then eating 1500 calories of dirty foods."
Salt and carbs cause water retention which can result in a slower weight loss.

did i say "weight" loss? that is why I said FAT loss, I took into account the higher retention of water through more sodium and therefore was careful to say FAT loss and not WEIGHT loss. The FAT loss will be exactly the same on either diets as both are 1500 calories.

Fair point but where is water retained? I thought it was retained in the fat cells.

darrensurrey

Your yes/no questions aren't as black and white as they initially sound.

"2. Cardio makes you lose weight. "
It can - if you move in excess of your intake.

Cardio CANNOT make you loose weight. Only a calorie deficit. You can do cardio until you are blue in the face, but cardio is not what causes you to loose weight.

Cardio can only AID the achievement of a calorie deficit but it is wrong to then go and say that cardio makes you loose weight. "A cause of a cause is never the root cause", just because cardio caused you to be in a calorie deficit, and a calorie deficit caused you to loose weight, it does not then make cardio the primary cause of why you lost weight.

But it still helps you to lose weight. For someone who is only moderately eating above their TDEE, if they trained well and changed nothing else, they'd lose weight.

In fact, HIIT will boost your metabolism for a few hours after, apparently, so it is burning extra cals.

JakeBrownVB

Fair point but where is water retained? I thought it was retained in the fat cells.

hmm that is a good question actually, I dont actually know where in the body excess water is retained. Good question

darrensurrey

Fair point but where is water retained? I thought it was retained in the fat cells.

hmm that is a good question actually, I dont actually know where in the body excess water is retained. Good question

It's certainly not the muscle or I'd be eating salt like there's no tomorrow.

wamydia

For number 6, "Starvation Mode," I agree with your overall explanation, but I think it's worth mentioning that there is evidence that people who net less than 1200 calories a day are at risk for metabolic slowdown. Yes, a person does have to be literally starving for a period of time to enter "starvation mode" (and they will actually still lose weight because you can't starve and gain weight at the same tme), however metabolic damage is a real thing that happens as part of the body's response to getting a lower calorie intake than it really needs. It's a sort of border zone, I think. Between eating enough and eating so little that you are starving, there is a narrow area where people can damage their metabolism enough that it slows down, but still eat just enough to not lose any weight. http://www.metaboliceffect.com/metabolic-damage/

Do you realize the people who call themselves doctors on that site are actually "holistic physicians"? Did you notice the lack of references to medical studies? While there are no links to anything supporting their claims, there are plenty of links to products and services in their online store. Sorry, but I am not buying what they are selling. Putting together a theory with charts and lots of medical terminology does not make it accurate.

Anyway, you said there is evidence. Please provide a link to it.

Here is a study with some discussion of the issues of metabolic slowdown. This study was specifically focusing on using exercise to help prevent the eventual metabolic slowdown that occurs in a way that is out of proportion to the individual's weight loss. They found that not only does exercise not even prevent this slowdown, but that the slowdown can persist even after the individual's diet has ended: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22535969. Here is another study (this one is focused on why people who lose weight regain so easily) that includes some discussion of this phenomenon as well: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23911805.

Hollistic medicine is in fact useful for helping some people to heal and be healthy, so I don't automatically dismiss anything just because it comes from a hollistic site. Although I am a scientist myself, I don't dismiss other ways of approaching healing and healthy living simply because science hasn't proven how some of it works yet. Further, the discussion of the metabolic slowdown process is valid. Metabolic slowdown is thought to be the result of hormonal changes that occur in response to stress (in this case, an ongoing reduction of calories and by this I mean reduction below the level what the body really needs to function). Many of these hormonal changes are believed to be partly a result of sympathetic nervous system signalling. For discusson of stress (ie. restrictive eating and over-exercising) triggered hormone changes and weight gain: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23898237.

In regards to 1200 calorie diets, the recommendation not to go below 1200 calories has come from the American College of Sports Medicine, which is a pretty well-respected organization. It is based primarily on BMR calculations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate), which is a measure of how much energy your body expends at rest, just to run the vital organ systems. For a woman who is 4'8", 100lbs, and 50yo, her bmr is about 1118, so I imagine she could drop a little below 1200 without any harm. Evidence of metabolsim slow down from very low calorie diets has been known for years and has been born out in more recent studies as well. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1108368. http://stress-free-weight-loss.com/. This second one is an older study, you'll want to focus on the Carnegie study that looked at young men on diet as restricted as 1400 calories/ day (the recommendation for men is 1800 calories/ day).

The first study is odd in saying the slow down "may persist" (their words). In other words, they did not use any data to make that guess as it was not part of the study. And as I said earlier, studies do find that metabolism drops when you restrict calories, but they find no point at which decreasing calories does not increase the caloric deficit. In the first study you cite, they found that the metabolic rate dropped for some of the participants by more than expected just for the lost weight. This reduced the efficiency of restricting calories - at some point reducing another 100 calories might increase the deficit only 75 calories (the numbers are not exact, just conveying the concept) - but once again they found no point at which weight loss stalled because of lowered metabolic rate. VLCD as used in medical study discussions is well below 1000 calories. Just because some other organizations define it differently, you can't use one definition with studies that define it differently. VLCD effects can be wide ranging and there is a reason that they are generally doctor supervised. The 700 calorie diet that a gastric bypass patient is put on is VLCD; an 1100 calorie diet is not. I am not saying anyone should go below 1200, just pointing out it is still well above the medically recognized definition of VLCD.

Having said all that, this issue is one where a very small percentage of people really do have a legitimate problem and they have my sympathy. In studies, about 1% of the population can have a BMR below 1000 calories. The evidence as to why is inconclusive at best. Here on MFP, there seems to be an active sub culture of individuals who believe that it is triggered by eating below 1200 and happens a lot. Neither statement is true, IMO. Neither statement is supported by any studies I have seen, including the ones you just posted. Quite the contrary - the obese people in the study you posted consistently lost weight, lots of it. A few had lower BMR than made sense at the end and the study author guessed it might persist. Could be right, could be wrong. I have seen more evidence that says the guess is incorrect.

You make the point yourself that VLCD in the literature varies wildly as to actual calorie intake -- I would agree with you. But the fact remains that, if you have a study where an large person is placed on a 1000 calorie diet, they see metabolic slow down and of course they see weight loss. It is simply impossible for a person to not lose weight on that kind of calorie deficit. My point was simply to mention that metabolic slown down is a real phenomenon that can happen when the body is placed under the stress caused by highly restrictive diets. If a person is eating a 1200 calorie diet that is less than what their body needs (enough to stress their body out), it is possible they are creating enough stress on their system to slow their metabolism somewhat, but that they are still eating enough food that they are not seeing a noticeable weight loss either. The idea is that a person starts eating 1200 calories and loses weight for the first several weeks. Then suddenly, they stop losing weight. Why would that happen to an individual when clearly 1200 calories was working before and they haven't changed anything they were doing? If they've lost 10lbs in those several weeks, that would only decrease their daily calorie requirement by about 50 calories. My agrument is that, for some people, their metabolism has also slowed down a little and now they are also using fewer calories to keep their body running. So even though it appears that they are eating at a deficit, the small change in their metabolism has changed their energy equation so that they actually are no longer eating at a deficit. Continuing to lower calories to compensate only exacerbates this and, really, you can only go so low before you are literally starving yourself. I do agree with you that people use this as an excuse too often, for every single weight loss plateau. But I also think it is a real thing that can and does happen to people that are already relatively small and are already eating very close to their own personal minimum calorie requirement for the day. I myself am guilty of recommending that people eat more when I hear that they have been eating less than 1200 calories net/ day. I do it for 2 reasons: a) a person needs to eat more than that to nourish and fuel their body, weight loss or no and b) I tend to assume that a person who is eating only 1200 calories/day is already quite small. I may have to rethink that second assumption in the future.

As for 1200 calories -- I don't know why people keep insisting that this number was meant to be used as a magic setpoint for the entire population and that it is invalid because science hasn't proved that this number is exactly where metabolic slowdown begins. This is a guideline that was put out their by a pretty well-respected agency. The reason it was put out there is because the science has shown that metabolic slowdown does indeed occur in restrictive diets (not necessarily starvation diets) and it seems pretty clear that it occurs in people who are eating below their BMR. If you look at the the very low end of BMR for most adult females, it's going to be around that 1200 calorie mark (if you add even sedentary activity, it's a little higher ever). It also has to do with getting enough nutrition -- we get our vitamins and minerals from food. You have to to eat enough food to get proper nourishment unless you are planning to live off of supplements.

The guideline gets abused all the time, but essentially what it was meant to say is that, in the female adult population, 1200 calories is about as low as even the smallest female should really be going before they start dropping below their BMR requirement for the day and before they are a risk for becoming undernourished. If people were to spend more time seeking out real nutriton experts, they would find that the experts recommend that 1200 calories/ day is really only appropriate for small women who are maintaining their weight or are looking to lose just a few pounds (with exceptions being medically supervised diets that are being carried out for specific reasons). For an average female, 1200 calories/ day is not enough. For a woman my size (217lbs), it's ridiculous. For a woman who is much larger, it gets into crazy train territory.

Anyway, the point being that in a round about way I actually agree wtih you on a lot of your points, but I think we disagree about the interpretation of some things. I agree with you that people use metabolism as an excuse entirely too often (metabolism is extremely misunderstsood), however I think it's a factor more often than some people would like to admit, particularly in people who have used a diet in that 1000-1200 calorie range to lose down close to their ideal weight and then hit a wall. About 1200 calories not being a magic number - I agree with you, however I think that guideline was given for a very good reason and it should be followed. And, from my point of view, the real problem witht the 1200 calorie number is that it has been co-opted by the diet industry and put out there as a safe and good thing for anyone and everyone to do.

55in13

You make the point yourself that VLCD in the literature varies wildly as to actual calorie intake

No, I make the point that I see some variance but as medical terminology it is well below 1000 calories. The wild variance in the information you cited doesn't change what VLCD means to me; it just causes me to have serious doubts about the validity of information from that source.

I agree with you that people use metabolism as an excuse entirely too often

I think one of the reasons for that is people posting sketchy information purporting that it is common when in fact it is quite rare. Some even push it to the point of saying it should be expected if you eat at a high deficit, even if it is well within the range your body can support.

skinnymalinkyscot

BREAKDOWN OF THE QUESTIONS:

1. There is no such thing as clean or dirty foods, a calorie is a calorie and you will loose weight regardless of the quality/type of your foods you eat if you are in a deficit. Individuals have gone as far as to eat nothing but poptarts or mcdonalds to prove you can still lose weight on these foods that are pecieved as dirty. There are however health implications to these diets that should be observed.

2. Cardio does not make you lose weight, a calorie deficit does. You can use cardio as a tool to achieve that calorie deficit but it is not necessary as simply eating less calories would produce the same weight loss results. Cardio does however have certain cardio vascular benefits health benefits as does weight training and most activities.

3. A link between saturated fats and heart disease was debunked completely many years ago. Many ketogenic dieters consume large amounts of saturated fats daily and lead perfectly healthy lifestlyes with no inherant heart problems. No single type of fat is "bad" for you, however moderation in all things is strongly advised.

4. Carbs are certainly not the enemy! however eating a low carb diet has been shown to provide a wide range of benefits and is by no means unhealthy as many believe. This is kind of a double edged sword question and I will let you off if you said yes because carbs are not the enemy .

5. Meal timings and frequencies have no correlation or effect on weight loss, however they can affect your energy and satiety levels through the day. Base when you eat and how much you eat purely on your own personal preference and what keeps you best energized, feeling good and not feeling hungry throughout the day.

6. Starvation mode is a term thrown around too wildly by inexperianced dieters looking to explain why they are not loosing weight on a 1200 calorie diet. Starvation mode is defined as being at least 50% below your BMR, meaning for most this is going to be under 700 calories a day for a very prolonged period of time. A study was held on a group of 20 males eating at 50% below BMR, technically in the "starvation mode" range, and even then, consistant weight loss was achieved by all 20 UNTIL they reached the 5% body fat range. So starvation mode is not the reason you are not loosing weight on a 1200 (or whatever) diet.

7. You can eat whatever you determine as "healthy food" everyday if you like, providing you fit it into your calories and macros you can enjoy your favourite foods every day. Had me 200 calories of toffee icecream every day this week so far! w00t w00t

8. Toning is the developing of muscle to remove the "jiggly" or "soft" appearance to a persons body. This is done via GROWING the muscles, theres is no such thing as making the muscles harder or firmer. Therefore to grow the muscle, an adequate amount of strain must be placed upon the muscles to encourage growth. Traditional high rep weight training provides excellent cardio benefits but far too insignificant a strain upoin muscle to encourage any real growth and in turn, any real "toning".

9. Building muscle is not achievable on a diet (except for rare exceptions in very overweight males), a caloric surplus is required to actually add mucle volume to the body which gives that "sculpted" appearance providing the individuals bf % is low enough. To achieve this, cycles of cutting and bulking are often undertaken, but cannot be achieved through straight weight lifting while dieting. It is however recommended to still resume weight lifting during a diet as this helps muscle preservation and strenght gains can still be made during this process.

10. Noone is able to eat a caloric surplus on a regular basis and not gain weight. It may APPEAR that the individual is eating "whatever they want", but this does not mean they are in a surplus. They may be an individual with a naturally high TDEE but if you are in a constant surplus you WILL gain weight and if you are in a constant deficit you WILL lose weight.


Post your results, ask your questions and feel free to add me. All are welcome to debate or build on any of the points I made, we are here to share knowledge and knowledge helps us achieve our goals

Amen to all of that Jake :::round of applause:::: totally agree with all of it