Good news for people who like eating fat!

tennisdude2004 wrote: »

baconslave wrote: »

Nvm.

Hey, you can't talk to those guys like that.

I mean........do you even lift?

FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

FatFreeFrolicking do you understand if one becomes type 2 diabetic say due to one's diet or other cause and they reverse that diet or change it so they will never need any meds some do refer that to curing their diabetes.

Are you saying it is like being an alcoholic. Once an alcoholic always an alcoholic. If those who never again consume alcohol are at least functioning as non alcoholics. If one is able to eat in a way to require no diabetes meds are they not functionally non diabetic?

To me you are skating on thin ice with the new info out there today. If doctors are using the term non-diabetic to former diabetics your position that they are all wrong gets harder to defend in my view.

Should you accidentally without any intent cause the death of a person does that mean you are labelled a KILLER for all of your life. I say let a diabetic who has been told they are non diabetic by their doctor live in peace.

Given your post history here, anything you say holds little value to me.

In AA and 12-step programs, alcoholics are in fact taught that once they are an alcoholic, they are an alcoholic for life- only difference is they are in recovery. They can go back to abusing alcohol just like a diabetic who is in remission can begin experiencing high blood glucose.

I don't know what kind of doctors you see, but any reputable doctor would never refer to a diabetic patient as "cured" or "non-diabetic" unless they are referring to their A1c and fasting glucose levels as being in non-diabetic range. Diabetes cannot be cured- plain and simple.

I have been told that about the 12 step. Your willingness to be abusive with excited posters who has been told they are diabetes free was what I was addressing but that is more of a 'heart' issue than a dieting issue I guess.

GaleHawkins wrote: »

FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

FatFreeFrolicking do you understand if one becomes type 2 diabetic say due to one's diet or other cause and they reverse that diet or change it so they will never need any meds some do refer that to curing their diabetes.

Are you saying it is like being an alcoholic. Once an alcoholic always an alcoholic. If those who never again consume alcohol are at least functioning as non alcoholics. If one is able to eat in a way to require no diabetes meds are they not functionally non diabetic?

To me you are skating on thin ice with the new info out there today. If doctors are using the term non-diabetic to former diabetics your position that they are all wrong gets harder to defend in my view.

Should you accidentally without any intent cause the death of a person does that mean you are labelled a KILLER for all of your life. I say let a diabetic who has been told they are non diabetic by their doctor live in peace.

Given your post history here, anything you say holds little value to me.

In AA and 12-step programs, alcoholics are in fact taught that once they are an alcoholic, they are an alcoholic for life- only difference is they are in recovery. They can go back to abusing alcohol just like a diabetic who is in remission can begin experiencing high blood glucose.

I don't know what kind of doctors you see, but any reputable doctor would never refer to a diabetic patient as "cured" or "non-diabetic" unless they are referring to their A1c and fasting glucose levels as being in non-diabetic range. Diabetes cannot be cured- plain and simple.

I have been told that about the 12 step. Your willingness to be abusive with excited posters who has been told they are diabetes free was what I was addressing but that is more of a 'heart' issue than a dieting issue I guess.

At least the information I post here is actually accurate, unlike the BS you come up with. I was unaware that telling someone the truth about diabetes is considered "abusive" and "heartless."

FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

FatFreeFrolicking do you understand if one becomes type 2 diabetic say due to one's diet or other cause and they reverse that diet or change it so they will never need any meds some do refer that to curing their diabetes.

Are you saying it is like being an alcoholic. Once an alcoholic always an alcoholic. If those who never again consume alcohol are at least functioning as non alcoholics. If one is able to eat in a way to require no diabetes meds are they not functionally non diabetic?

To me you are skating on thin ice with the new info out there today. If doctors are using the term non-diabetic to former diabetics your position that they are all wrong gets harder to defend in my view.

Should you accidentally without any intent cause the death of a person does that mean you are labelled a KILLER for all of your life. I say let a diabetic who has been told they are non diabetic by their doctor live in peace.

Given your post history here, anything you say holds little value to me.

In AA and 12-step programs, alcoholics are in fact taught that once they are an alcoholic, they are an alcoholic for life- only difference is they are in recovery. They can go back to abusing alcohol just like a diabetic who is in remission can begin experiencing high blood glucose.

I don't know what kind of doctors you see, but any reputable doctor would never refer to a diabetic patient as "cured" or "non-diabetic" unless they are referring to their A1c and fasting glucose levels as being in non-diabetic range. Diabetes cannot be cured- plain and simple.

I have been told that about the 12 step. Your willingness to be abusive with excited posters who has been told they are diabetes free was what I was addressing but that is more of a 'heart' issue than a dieting issue I guess.

At least the information I post here is actually accurate, unlike the BS you come up with. I was unaware that telling someone the truth about diabetes is considered "abusive" and "heartless."

It may not be in some parts. It would not be so bad if you were backed up by common medical advice of today. There is a new thread where a guy is saying he has been cured of diabetes and if I run across it I will send you the link so you can preach to him and get him back on the narrow and straight path.

EatsNotTreats wrote: »

volfan22 wrote: »

LolBroScience wrote: »

Could you please provide some pictures and data regarding your transformation? I would like to see how much quality lbm you have added while in a caloric deficit at age 63.

I'm not 63 - so I assume you were talking to Gale! But - this is what I am seeing - Far left was take June 7th. Top right was August and the bottom right was September.

and THAT is how you debate. Volfan22 rules.

Looks great. However, my debate was with Gale not Volfan. A reduction in fat mass does not indicate an increase in LBM either.

LolBroScience wrote: »

LolBro I am still watching for you to support your wild claims with Science and the use of of some logic instead of photos of your body.

You'll start to notice a trend here I hope....

• http://www.jissn.com/content/11/1/7 - Minimizing loss of LBM while in a calorie deficit
• http://www.jissn.com/content/11/1/20 - Minimizing loss of LBM while in a calorie deficit
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300017 - Loss of LBM while in a calorie deficit
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826 - Focus on the preservation of LBM while in a calorie deficit
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25355188 - Minimizing loss of LBM while in a calorie deficit.
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25355188 - Criteria for fat/weight loss in athletes.
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21660839 - Nutritional recommendations for strength/power athletes.
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3529694/ - Focuses on meal timing mostly, but also gives recommendations regarding macronutrient and caloric intake relative to muscular hypertrophy.
• http://www.researchgate.net/publication/257350851_A_Systematic_Review_of_Dietary_Protein_During_Caloric_Restriction_in_Resistance_Trained_Lean_Athletes_A_Case_for_Higher_Intakes - In this study only two of the individuals maintained or increased LBM while in a deficit 1 lb to 2.2 lbs. Coincidentally, they had the least training experience and highest body fat percentages.

As I already mentioned, with the few exceptions to the rule (overfat/obese, new to training or haven't exhausted newbie gains, or retraining you will not be adding any additional LBM. If you even did, it would not be appreciable amount, nor will it be sustainable in the long-term while in a caloric deficit).

Also keep in mind, that the necessary training variables must be present as well. Meaning, you would need to have a progressive overload component to your resistance training program, and consistently be training at an intensity that is close enough to your 1rm.

I can not get your links to open when I click on them like the ones I post for some reason.

ndj1979 wrote: »

gale - do you even understand basic math and physics? I am curious how you think that you can build muscle when one is an energy deficit?

Still waiting to hear the explanation on this...

GaleHawkins wrote: »

LolBroScience wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

LolBroScience wrote: »

LolBro I am still watching for you to support your wild claims with Science and the use of of some logic instead of photos of your body.

You'll start to notice a trend here I hope....

• http://www.jissn.com/content/11/1/7 - Minimizing loss of LBM while in a calorie deficit
• http://www.jissn.com/content/11/1/20 - Minimizing loss of LBM while in a calorie deficit
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20300017 - Loss of LBM while in a calorie deficit
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10204826 - Focus on the preservation of LBM while in a calorie deficit
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25355188 - Minimizing loss of LBM while in a calorie deficit.
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25355188 - Criteria for fat/weight loss in athletes.
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21660839 - Nutritional recommendations for strength/power athletes.
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3529694/ - Focuses on meal timing mostly, but also gives recommendations regarding macronutrient and caloric intake relative to muscular hypertrophy.
• http://www.researchgate.net/publication/257350851_A_Systematic_Review_of_Dietary_Protein_During_Caloric_Restriction_in_Resistance_Trained_Lean_Athletes_A_Case_for_Higher_Intakes - In this study only two of the individuals maintained or increased LBM while in a deficit 1 lb to 2.2 lbs. Coincidentally, they had the least training experience and highest body fat percentages.

As I already mentioned, with the few exceptions to the rule (overfat/obese, new to training or haven't exhausted newbie gains, or retraining you will not be adding any additional LBM. If you even did, it would not be appreciable amount, nor will it be sustainable in the long-term while in a caloric deficit).

Also keep in mind, that the necessary training variables must be present as well. Meaning, you would need to have a progressive overload component to your resistance training program, and consistently be training at an intensity that is close enough to your 1rm.

I can not get your links to open when I click on them like the ones I post for some reason.

I did not hyperlink them. Copy and paste them. How long have you been using a computer?

Do you understand you in the process of making everyone preaching a calorie is a calorie look Defunct In The Abstract?

Do you even sentence?

A calorie is a calorie just as a gallon is a gallon. The dead horse you're attempting to beat is: a macro is not a macro.

Volfan22

I have seen so many peoples lives improve by removing wheat, starches and sugar. Not just in losing fat weight - but in how they feel and look (skin clears up) - they don't have to carry tums everywhere because heartburn is GONE, diabetics are stable and their numbers are better than they have ever been. I even have my dad starting it because he was diagnosed with melanoma in 2 spots and I have read about the benefits of ketones and cancer. No results for him yet - but I have faith for sure!

I have been one of those constant heart burn kind of people. I have noticed in the couple of days I have been going lower and low carb my indigestion is gone. Just that is enough to give me incentive to stay on the low carb. I was on Atkins about 40 years ago for about 10 years. I did well and not really sure why I drifted off. Well I am back. need to loose weight so badly.

Chris

shadesofidaho wrote: »

Thank you - that's great information! I'll hold off for now - I'm still about 30-35% bg - I have about 35 more lbs to lose before I make any changes. I do know this - I will not go back to eating sugar/wheat. Stevia and Almond flour are my new best friends!

Volfan 22. You are using Stevia. You do not think that is a problem to raise insulin resistance? Please say NO. I am so missing my sweet.

Oh and your photos are fantastic. Way to go.

Thank you Chris

empoweredsustenance.com/is-stevia-bad-for-you/

Chris your post raised some questions and I read the above link. The comments indicated to me there is LITTLE agreement about Stevia today. I got some whey protein with stevia in it at WM a couple weeks ago and it was too sweet to me but I am kind of an all or nothing type. When I decided to stop all added sugar that meant real and no calorie sweeteners as well in my case. Now even the little sugar in almonds make them taste sweet. I did not ditch carbs to lose weight but to manage my arthritic pain avoiding a cancer risk from Enbrel. Going low carb is about staying alive not my looks that is already shot to heck.

Jonathan Bailor states in his The Calorie Myth that he thinks Stevia is OK from his research that I just read.

Again thank your post.

jissn.com/content/11/1/7

LolBroScience here is a hyperlink for your first reference, Metabolic adaptation to weight loss: implications for the athlete. I take it you have not read it since you posted evidence that scientifically explains the typical failure and health risks associated with 'calorie deficient' dieting. While the article is more about jocks than obese type I agree with you that the science applies to both groups. Below are some clips directly from the source you supplied.

The article states in part,

"Results from a number of studies indicate a general endocrine response to hypocaloric diets (calorie deficit) that promotes increased hunger, reduces metabolic rate, and threatens the maintenance of lean mass.

Further, there is evidence to suggest that unfavorable changes in circulating hormone levels persist as subjects attempt to maintain a reduced body weight, even after the cessation of active weight loss.

Adaptive thermogenesis may help to partially explain the increasing difficulty experienced when weight loss plateaus despite low caloric intake, and the common propensity to regain weight after weight loss.

There is evidence to suggest that spontaneous physical activity, a component of NEAT, is decreased in energy restricted subjects, and may remain suppressed for some time after subjects return to ad libitum feeding [29]. Persistent suppression of NEAT may contribute to weight regain in the post-diet period.

In the context of weight loss or maintaining a reduced body weight, this process is complicated by the dynamic nature of energy expenditure. In response to weight loss, reductions in TDEE, BMR, EAT, NEAT, and TEF are observed. Due to adaptive thermogenesis, TDEE is lowered to an extent that exceeds the magnitude predicted by losses in body mass.

Further, research indicates that adaptive thermogenesis and decreased energy expenditure persist after the active weight loss period, even in subjects who have maintained a reduced body weight for over a year [14,48]. These changes serve to minimize the energy deficit, attenuate further loss of body mass, and promote weight regain in weight-reduced subjects.

In the context of energy restriction, the observed changes are likely to make weight loss increasingly challenging and promote weight regain.

In the period shortly after cessation of a restrictive diet, body mass often reverts toward pre-diet values [29,74,75]. This body mass is preferentially gained as fat mass, in a phenomenon known as post-starvation obesity [29].

Therefore, athletes who aggressively diet for a competitive season and rapidly regain weight may find it more challenging to achieve optimal body composition in subsequent seasons.

As these athletes create an energy deficit and achieve lower body fat levels, their weight loss efforts will be counteracted by a number of metabolic adaptations that may persist throughout weight maintenance.

Changes in energy expenditure, mitochondrial efficiency, and circulating hormone concentrations work in concert to attenuate further weight loss and promote the restoration of baseline body mass."

I suggest anyone interested in LolBroScience's above position on "just cut the calories to lose weight and keep it off" may be Defunct In The Abstract to read the full article to understand why we who have repeatedly tried 'Deficient Dieting' plateaued on dropping weight then within a 10 years or even 10 months were just as heavy as before dieting.

SLHysell wrote: »

Eggs were bad and then they were good and then they were bad....etc etc etc. I've learned to not put faith in any single study. We all know what's good for us intuitively. We don't need a study to understand the simple concept of moderation in all things.

true that

I think a bit of butter, olive oil is good but I never trust all these theories as they have gone back and forth on coffee, chocolate etc so many times. I try to do things in moderation and to focus on fruit , vegetable with a bit of meat each day. My Mom grew up on almost no meat and she is in her 90's, very healthy.

GaleHawkins wrote: »

jissn.com/content/11/1/7

LolBroScience here is a hyperlink for your first reference, Metabolic adaptation to weight loss: implications for the athlete. I take it you have not read it since you posted evidence that scientifically explains the typical failure and health risks associated with 'calorie deficient' dieting. While the article is more about jocks than obese type I agree with you that the science applies to both groups. Below are some clips directly from the source you supplied.

The article states in part,

"Results from a number of studies indicate a general endocrine response to hypocaloric diets (calorie deficit) that promotes increased hunger, reduces metabolic rate, and threatens the maintenance of lean mass.

Further, there is evidence to suggest that unfavorable changes in circulating hormone levels persist as subjects attempt to maintain a reduced body weight, even after the cessation of active weight loss.

Adaptive thermogenesis may help to partially explain the increasing difficulty experienced when weight loss plateaus despite low caloric intake, and the common propensity to regain weight after weight loss.

There is evidence to suggest that spontaneous physical activity, a component of NEAT, is decreased in energy restricted subjects, and may remain suppressed for some time after subjects return to ad libitum feeding [29]. Persistent suppression of NEAT may contribute to weight regain in the post-diet period.

In the context of weight loss or maintaining a reduced body weight, this process is complicated by the dynamic nature of energy expenditure. In response to weight loss, reductions in TDEE, BMR, EAT, NEAT, and TEF are observed. Due to adaptive thermogenesis, TDEE is lowered to an extent that exceeds the magnitude predicted by losses in body mass.

Further, research indicates that adaptive thermogenesis and decreased energy expenditure persist after the active weight loss period, even in subjects who have maintained a reduced body weight for over a year [14,48]. These changes serve to minimize the energy deficit, attenuate further loss of body mass, and promote weight regain in weight-reduced subjects.

In the context of energy restriction, the observed changes are likely to make weight loss increasingly challenging and promote weight regain.

In the period shortly after cessation of a restrictive diet, body mass often reverts toward pre-diet values [29,74,75]. This body mass is preferentially gained as fat mass, in a phenomenon known as post-starvation obesity [29].

Therefore, athletes who aggressively diet for a competitive season and rapidly regain weight may find it more challenging to achieve optimal body composition in subsequent seasons.

As these athletes create an energy deficit and achieve lower body fat levels, their weight loss efforts will be counteracted by a number of metabolic adaptations that may persist throughout weight maintenance.

Changes in energy expenditure, mitochondrial efficiency, and circulating hormone concentrations work in concert to attenuate further weight loss and promote the restoration of baseline body mass."

I suggest anyone interested in LolBroScience's above position on "just cut the calories to lose weight and keep it off" may be Defunct In The Abstract to read the full article to understand why we who have repeatedly tried 'Deficient Dieting' plateaued on dropping weight then within a 10 years or even 10 months were just as heavy as before dieting.

Gale, I specifically chose those studies for a common theme. I'm not looking at it from the adaptive thermogensis point of view. Your main argument was the fact that you, and other individuals are able to add substantial lean body mass while in a caloric deficit.

They all focused on the preservation of lean body mass while in a caloric deficit, or made mention to that fact that you would need to be in a hypercaloric state for hypertrophy to occur.

I mean read the first bolded sentence? "Threatens the maintenance of lean mass...".

Do you not think that if these highly trained individuals under the supervision of some of the greatest coaches in the world are able to gain lean body mass while in a caloric deficit... it would not have circulated on a mass scale? These people eat, sleep, and breathe training, nutrition, and recovery.

You're going to sit here and tell me you are not only defying basic science, but you are also smarter than those who are handling the training and nutrition of elite, professional, and Olympic athletes whose sole purpose is based on performance. You are also training at a capacity which is far above the individuals in these studies who were not able to gain LBM while in a deficit? At age 63, with lower hormonal levels, far less dietary adherence, and a lower level of intensity you have defied all of the above?

This content has been removed.