Help on losing Body fat percentage

FunkyTobias

The renal study shows you can gain LBM on very low amounts of protein. So once again "you don't need that much protein to put on LBM." The gained 5lbs of LBM I believe, that is average result results. Eating more protein won't produce greater results.

The bolded statement is false and merely a product of your own speculation.

Okay, so if you want to sit there stuffing your face with protein
thinking you'll get huge, be my guest.

The first study I posted on steroids shows that you can build muscle mass with 120g of protein, you can build up to 14lbs. That study was about low amount of protein and large gains in muscle, proving that we don't need as much protein as we think.

Steroids change everything. Unless you're advocating drug use, this has no relevance to the topic at hand.

It has great relevance. If protein built muscle, then the guys taking steroids wouldn't have put on that much mass. They did because it's "NOT" about protein. They all consumed 120g of protein. The protein would have been the limiting factor if it was about protein, it's not.

Think about your claim, "the benefit of eating more protein." Does it even make any sense? If I sat here eating 500g of protein, you think I'll be growing muscle? What if I was eating 500g of protein and weight training, would i grow muscle(if in a calorie deficit)? So if you think "protein" builds muscle, think again. Muscle growth requires a "CALORIE" surplus and a stimuli(weight lifting).

Strawman again. Nobody sad that protein builds muscle in the absence of training. Look up the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" condition.

A caloric surplus is a "necessary" condition.

Adequate protein is a "necessary" condition.

Resistance training is a "necessary condition.

None are sufficient.

You're right, now the question is what is sufficient? The guys with the renal disease consuming around 50g of protein put on 5lbs of LBM which is average results. Their results weren't deficiant in anyway.


You haven't posted one study that directly measures protein synthesis. Let me see it.

First link, meta analysis.

Try reading it this time. (Hint: It has nothing to do with HIV patients).

Jen800

U NEED TO BEING DOING CARDIO EVRYDAY THATS WHAT MAKES U LOSE WEIGHT
LIFTING IS STRENGTH TRAINING AND DOESNT HELP U LOSE WEIGHT ONLY TONES
I HAVE LOST 10 PERCENT OF MY BODY WEIGHT - IT TOOK FOR MONTHS- 60 MINUTES OF CARDIO A DAY AND 1800 CALORIESS OR LESS....... STICK TO THE CALORIES THAT U ARE SUPPOSED TO

No. Please don't listen to this.

You already know it's not the best advice when it's written in all caps...!


I think this person is just really confused. Sure, cardio will make you lose *weight* because it creates a larger deficit. Body strength training, lifting weights, any type of strength training helps create that "sculpted" look that people are going for. It burns fat off your body and replaces it with muscle, which takes up less space. That is why people can weigh more but look smaller when they strength train. Not saying cardio is bad because I love my cardio, just that you should at least put some body strength training into your workout.

FunkyTobias

The fluid in the muscle in the muscle is what makes it bigger. No where in this entire process protein is mentioned.

You may want to pick up a human physiology text while you're at it, and look up myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

Or, at the very least, read your wiki link more closely.

"In the bodybuilding and fitness community and even in some academic books skeletal muscle hypertrophy is described as being in one of two types: Sarcoplasmic or myofibrillar. According to this theory, during sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, the volume of sarcoplasmic fluid in the muscle cell increases with no accompanying increase in muscular strength, whereas during myofibrillar hypertrophy, actin and myosin contractile proteins increase in number and add to muscular strength as well as a small increase in the size of the muscle. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is characteristic of the muscles of certain bodybuilders while myofibrillar hypertrophy is characteristic of Olympic weightlifters.[15] These two forms of adaptations rarely occur completely independently of one another; one can experience a large increase in fluid with a slight increase in proteins, a large increase in proteins with a small increase in fluid, or a relatively balanced combination of the two."


"The sarcoplasm of a muscle fiber is comparable to the cytoplasm of other cells, but it houses unusually large amounts of glycosomes (granules of stored glycogen) and significant amounts of myoglobin, an oxygen binding protein."

goodtimezzzz

take in 30 to 50 grams of protein everyday..and that is pretty high...but increase carbs and fats and u will be golden!!
you are gonna be awesome!

FunkyTobias

The renal study shows you can gain LBM on very low amounts of protein. So once again "you don't need that much protein to put on LBM." The gained 5lbs of LBM I believe, that is average result results. Eating more protein won't produce greater results.

The bolded statement is false and merely a product of your own speculation.

Okay, so if you want to sit there stuffing your face with protein
thinking you'll get huge, be my guest.

The first study I posted on steroids shows that you can build muscle mass with 120g of protein, you can build up to 14lbs. That study was about low amount of protein and large gains in muscle, proving that we don't need as much protein as we think.

Steroids change everything. Unless you're advocating drug use, this has no relevance to the topic at hand.

It has great relevance. If protein built muscle, then the guys taking steroids wouldn't have put on that much mass. They did because it's "NOT" about protein. They all consumed 120g of protein. The protein would have been the limiting factor if it was about protein, it's not.

Think about your claim, "the benefit of eating more protein." Does it even make any sense? If I sat here eating 500g of protein, you think I'll be growing muscle? What if I was eating 500g of protein and weight training, would i grow muscle(if in a calorie deficit)? So if you think "protein" builds muscle, think again. Muscle growth requires a "CALORIE" surplus and a stimuli(weight lifting).

Strawman again. Nobody sad that protein builds muscle in the absence of training. Look up the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" condition.

A caloric surplus is a "necessary" condition.

Adequate protein is a "necessary" condition.

Resistance training is a "necessary condition.

None are sufficient.

You're right, now the question is what is sufficient? The guys with the renal disease consuming around 50g of protein put on 5lbs of LBM which is average results. Their results weren't deficiant in anyway.


You haven't posted one study that directly measures protein synthesis. Let me see it.

First link, meta analysis.

Try reading it this time. (Hint: It has nothing to do with HIV patients).

Here's a hint, read between the lines in the things you post. You obviously haven't read it. What you posted is below.

"The role of dietary protein intake on protein turnover has been well established. As discussed previously the adequate requirement of essential amino acids is of paramount importance to reaching a net positive protein turnover. It is also clear that the ramification of restricted dietary protein intake is muscle wasting [27]"

Go read reference 27, I already did, it's a pointless correlation at best. It talks about people with diseases and muscle loss. I already mentioned that a long time ago.

Hilarious, of the numerous references, you pick out a single one and claim that makes the entire paper irrelevant, yet you point to renal patients and steroid studies as valid support for you (aka Pilon's) ridiculous claims.

It's like the Cirque du Soleil of logical acrobatics.

FunkyTobias

The fluid in the muscle in the muscle is what makes it bigger. No where in this entire process protein is mentioned.

You may want to pick up a human physiology text while you're at it, and look up myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy.

Or, at the very least, read your wiki link more closely.

"In the bodybuilding and fitness community and even in some academic books skeletal muscle hypertrophy is described as being in one of two types: Sarcoplasmic or myofibrillar. According to this theory, during sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, the volume of sarcoplasmic fluid in the muscle cell increases with no accompanying increase in muscular strength, whereas during myofibrillar hypertrophy, actin and myosin contractile proteins increase in number and add to muscular strength as well as a small increase in the size of the muscle. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is characteristic of the muscles of certain bodybuilders while myofibrillar hypertrophy is characteristic of Olympic weightlifters.[15] These two forms of adaptations rarely occur completely independently of one another; one can experience a large increase in fluid with a slight increase in proteins, a large increase in proteins with a small increase in fluid, or a relatively balanced combination of the two."


"The sarcoplasm of a muscle fiber is comparable to the cytoplasm of other cells, but it houses unusually large amounts of glycosomes (granules of stored glycogen) and significant amounts of myoglobin, an oxygen binding protein."

I don't need to pick those books up, we learned that stuff in NASM. Not once have i said "protein isn't necessary." I said it's over rated. In the above processes, the amount of amino acids is a lot smaller than you think. Protein is important, but it's over rated. As i said, we don't need as much as you think...

Repeating the same false claim over and over doesn't make it true.


Still waiting for you to produce a study that varies baseline protein intake.

FunkyTobias

Here's one that is directly related to much the target audience here:

Isocaloric, weight loss diets with varied levels of CHO/PRO. Guess which one resulted in better weight loss and lean mass retention?



A Reduced Ratio of Dietary Carbohydrate to Protein Improves Body Composition and Blood Lipid Profiles during Weight Loss in Adult Women1,2

Donald K. Layman*,†,3,
Richard A. Boileau†,**,
Donna J. Erickson*,
James E. Painter*,†,
Harn Shiue†,
Carl Sather†, and
Demtra D. Christou**

+ Author Affiliations

*Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition,
†Division of Nutritional Sciences and
**Department of Kinesiology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801

↵3To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: d-layman@uiuc.edu.

Abstract

Claims about the merits or risks of carbohydrate (CHO) vs. protein for weight loss diets are extensive, yet the ideal ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein for adult health and weight management remains unknown. This study examined the efficacy of two weight loss diets with modified CHO/protein ratios to change body composition and blood lipids in adult women. Women (n = 24; 45 to 56 y old) with body mass indices >26 kg/m2 were assigned to either a CHO Group consuming a diet with a CHO/protein ratio of 3.5 (68 g protein/d) or a Protein Group with a ratio of 1.4 (125 g protein/d). Diets were isoenergetic, providing 7100 kJ/d, and similar amounts of fat (∼50 g/d). After consuming the diets for 10 wk, the CHO Group lost 6.96 ± 1.36 kg body weight and the Protein Group lost 7.53 ± 1.44 kg. Weight loss in the Protein Group was partitioned to a significantly higher loss of fat/lean (6.3 ± 1.2 g/g) compared with the CHO Group (3.8 ± 0.9). Both groups had significant reductions in serum cholesterol (∼10%), whereas the Protein Group also had significant reductions in triacylglycerols (TAG) (21%) and the ratio of TAG/HDL cholesterol (23%). Women in the CHO Group had higher insulin responses to meals and postprandial hypoglycemia, whereas women in the Protein Group reported greater satiety. This study demonstrates that increasing the proportion of protein to carbohydrate in the diet of adult women has positive effects on body composition, blood lipids, glucose homeostasis and satiety during weight loss.

Sarauk2sf

It is true actually. To reduce body fat you need to be doing cardio. Strength training is can help increase muscle size but if the fat is covering it, doesnt do much good does it? Yes, you burn more when you have more muscle, but thats the longer route.

IMO a combination of cardio and strength training is the best possible solution

U NEED TO BEING DOING CARDIO EVRYDAY THATS WHAT MAKES U LOSE WEIGHT
LIFTING IS STRENGTH TRAINING AND DOESNT HELP U LOSE WEIGHT ONLY TONES
I HAVE LOST 10 PERCENT OF MY BODY WEIGHT - IT TOOK FOR MONTHS- 60 MINUTES OF CARDIO A DAY AND 1800 CALORIESS OR LESS....... STICK TO THE CALORIES THAT U ARE SUPPOSED TO

No. Please don't listen to this.

You need a caloric deficit to lose weight. How you get that deficit is up to the individual.You do not need cardio at all.

DavPul

Wait, we're using steroid users to produce guidelines for non steroid users to follow as a nutrition and make building plan? You've got to be trolling here, right? You do realize that when PEDS get involved, you might as well be providing data from aliens, right? Everything changes. EVERYTHING.

Sarauk2sf

OP: get about 100g of protein, strength train and keep to a reasonable caloric deficit.

Sarauk2sf

take in 30 to 50 grams of protein everyday..and that is pretty high...but increase carbs and fats and u will be golden!!
you are gonna be awesome!

^^that is incredible low...not high at all.

AlongCame_Molly

U NEED TO BEING DOING CARDIO EVRYDAY THATS WHAT MAKES U LOSE WEIGHT
LIFTING IS STRENGTH TRAINING AND DOESNT HELP U LOSE WEIGHT ONLY TONES
I HAVE LOST 10 PERCENT OF MY BODY WEIGHT - IT TOOK FOR MONTHS- 60 MINUTES OF CARDIO A DAY AND 1800 CALORIESS OR LESS....... STICK TO THE CALORIES THAT U ARE SUPPOSED TO

No. Please don't listen to this.

Let me add: please PLEASE don't listen to this!

KansasRider

U NEED TO BEING DOING CARDIO EVRYDAY THATS WHAT MAKES U LOSE WEIGHT
LIFTING IS STRENGTH TRAINING AND DOESNT HELP U LOSE WEIGHT ONLY TONES
I HAVE LOST 10 PERCENT OF MY BODY WEIGHT - IT TOOK FOR MONTHS- 60 MINUTES OF CARDIO A DAY AND 1800 CALORIESS OR LESS....... STICK TO THE CALORIES THAT U ARE SUPPOSED TO

1. please take the caps lock off..
2. strength training/ lifting.. HELPS BURN FAT..
burning fat gets bf% lower. a good balance between cardio and strength is important for overall fitness and decreasing body fat.

mustgetmuscles1

OP: get about 100g of protein, strength train and keep to a reasonable caloric deficit.

This is good advice. Keep it simple, it works.

FunkyTobias

Here's one that is directly related to much the target audience here:

Isocaloric, weight loss diets with varied levels of CHO/PRO. Guess which one resulted in better weight loss and lean mass retention?

A Reduced Ratio of Dietary Carbohydrate to Protein Improves Body Composition and Blood Lipid Profiles during Weight Loss in Adult Women1,2

Donald K. Layman*,†,3,
Richard A. Boileau†,**,
Donna J. Erickson*,
James E. Painter*,†,
Harn Shiue†,
Carl Sather†, and
Demtra D. Christou**

+ Author Affiliations

*Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition,
†Division of Nutritional Sciences and
**Department of Kinesiology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801

↵3To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: d-layman@uiuc.edu.

Abstract

Claims about the merits or risks of carbohydrate (CHO) vs. protein for weight loss diets are extensive, yet the ideal ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein for adult health and weight management remains unknown. This study examined the efficacy of two weight loss diets with modified CHO/protein ratios to change body composition and blood lipids in adult women. Women (n = 24; 45 to 56 y old) with body mass indices >26 kg/m2 were assigned to either a CHO Group consuming a diet with a CHO/protein ratio of 3.5 (68 g protein/d) or a Protein Group with a ratio of 1.4 (125 g protein/d). Diets were isoenergetic, providing 7100 kJ/d, and similar amounts of fat (∼50 g/d). After consuming the diets for 10 wk, the CHO Group lost 6.96 ± 1.36 kg body weight and the Protein Group lost 7.53 ± 1.44 kg. Weight loss in the Protein Group was partitioned to a significantly higher loss of fat/lean (6.3 ± 1.2 g/g) compared with the CHO Group (3.8 ± 0.9). Both groups had significant reductions in serum cholesterol (∼10%), whereas the Protein Group also had significant reductions in triacylglycerols (TAG) (21%) and the ratio of TAG/HDL cholesterol (23%). Women in the CHO Group had higher insulin responses to meals and postprandial hypoglycemia, whereas women in the Protein Group reported greater satiety. This study demonstrates that increasing the proportion of protein to carbohydrate in the diet of adult women has positive effects on body composition, blood lipids, glucose homeostasis and satiety during weight loss.

You do realize that the lack of carbs in a diet will limit water retention? How does that effect body fat measurements? It will appear to low body fat which isn't correct

You have it exactly backward. H20 is fat-free mass, so water retention should tilt the scales in favor of the CHO group as far as FFM retention is concerned. So if the PRO group lost more water, then the ratio of fat/muscle loss is EVEN BETTER.

. How was body fat even measured?

DEXA

About blood work, what fats did they consume??? Fats have more energy as you know. Protein naturally has more fat than carbs. This will effect the blood work being an isocaloric diet.

Fat was held constant between the groups.

We can play this game all day. No point, I don't have much time today anyways...

Yes, you should quit while you're behind.

jofjltncb6

In...

...to learn how muscles do or do not grow.



Oh, and here's another vote for don't listen to the ALL CAPS post.

_SABOTEUR_

In...

...to learn how muscles do or do not grow.



Oh, and here's another vote for don't listen to the ALL CAPS post.

In...

...for the angry sex (that's where this is going, right?)



And to advise OP to disregard the ALL CAPS post as well.

PikaKnight

The renal study shows you can gain LBM on very low amounts of protein. So once again "you don't need that much protein to put on LBM." The gained 5lbs of LBM I believe, that is average result results. Eating more protein won't produce greater results.

The bolded statement is false and merely a product of your own speculation.

Okay, so if you want to sit there stuffing your face with protein
thinking you'll get huge, be my guest.

The first study I posted on steroids shows that you can build muscle mass with 120g of protein, you can build up to 14lbs. That study was about low amount of protein and large gains in muscle, proving that we don't need as much protein as we think.

Steroids change everything. Unless you're advocating drug use, this has no relevance to the topic at hand.

It has great relevance. If protein built muscle, then the guys taking steroids wouldn't have put on that much mass. They did because it's "NOT" about protein. They all consumed 120g of protein. The protein would have been the limiting factor if it was about protein, it's not.

Think about your claim, "the benefit of eating more protein." Does it even make any sense? If I sat here eating 500g of protein, you think I'll be growing muscle? What if I was eating 500g of protein and weight training, would i grow muscle(if in a calorie deficit)? So if you think "protein" builds muscle, think again. Muscle growth requires a "CALORIE" surplus and a stimuli(weight lifting).

Strawman again. Nobody sad that protein builds muscle in the absence of training. Look up the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" condition.

A caloric surplus is a "necessary" condition.

Adequate protein is a "necessary" condition.

Resistance training is a "necessary condition.

None are sufficient.

You're right, now the question is what is sufficient? The guys with the renal disease consuming around 50g of protein put on 5lbs of LBM which is average results. Their results weren't deficiant in anyway.


You haven't posted one study that directly measures protein synthesis. Let me see it.

First link, meta analysis.

Try reading it this time. (Hint: It has nothing to do with HIV patients).

Here's a hint, read between the lines in the things you post. You obviously haven't read it. What you posted is below.

"The role of dietary protein intake on protein turnover has been well established. As discussed previously the adequate requirement of essential amino acids is of paramount importance to reaching a net positive protein turnover. It is also clear that the ramification of restricted dietary protein intake is muscle wasting [27]"

Go read reference 27, I already did, it's a pointless correlation at best. It talks about people with diseases and muscle loss. I already mentioned that a long time ago.

Hilarious, of the numerous references, you pick out a single one and claim that makes the entire paper irrelevant, yet you point to renal patients and steroid studies as valid support for you (aka Pilon's) ridiculous claims.

It's like the Cirque du Soleil of logical acrobatics.

In for the valid research. Oh and P.S..so stealing that Cirque du Soleil line

DavPul

Wait, we're using steroid users to produce guidelines for non steroid users to follow as a nutrition and make building plan? You've got to be trolling here, right? You do realize that when PEDS get involved, you might as well be providing data from aliens, right? Everything changes. EVERYTHING.

The point is about protein intake and muscle building. You can "build" 14lbs of muscle with 120g of protein. I think they gained 14lbs of LBM if i remember correctly. That's the point of the entire study. Yes steroids alter the hormones, I don't deny that, but that's not the point.

A person can gain 14lbs of muscle with 120g of protein. That's the point. You don't need 'MORE" protein. It won't produce "greater" muscle building. 120g of plenty of protein for an avid lifter who doesn't juice.

A metaphor, the claims are you need 1000 bricks to build a house. Lets say there is a machine(advantage aka steroids) that can build a house, and a man who can build a house.

You give them both 500 bricks(below the recommended amount) they don't have enough bricks to build a house. Yet they both build a house and the machine builds a bigger better house... What does that say about the recommendation for bricks?
This means it's not really about bricks so much.

bricks = grams of protein
machine = steroids
1000 bricks = protein recommendations.

Also Bear Sears PhD in biochemistry who has produced many gold medal olympic winners(I think 25), recommends 1g of protein per lbm MAX. People here recommend 1g of protein per lbm as the MINIMUM.

if you don't realized that steroids change the entire equation between muscle building, nutritional intake, training, and rest, you should probably stop talking now.

ps. i'd stop posting pics of that vegetarian lifter who is using steroids as well.

Lisa1971

I think I need a nap after reading all this!:laugh: