Joined a gym for a month

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bigmickpick said:
Totally agree just saying for losing weight it is best to eat carbs immediately after you have trained whether this be midnight or midday. This is when your muscles use the energy to restore instead of sitting unused
Click to expand...

It really is just a factor of personal preference, there would be no difference in regards to body composition if you tried both protocols over a long period of time, as overall energy balance is what dictates weight gain/loss/maintenance.

Lewberry pie said:
so what about eating little and often vs, 3 big meals
Click to expand...

Personal preference, unless you're an athlete or somebody that trains significantly several times a day, then it starts to become more important.
 


Weight Loss Vs. Fat Loss

Jade Teta ND, CSCS and Keoni Teta ND, CSCS

Why is body change so hard? If you are in shape and never had to wrestle with weight issues you may feel it is simply a matter of work ethic. Maybe you feel some people are just plain lazy. If this is how you feel, you are not alone. Most people believe that weight loss is a simple matter of mathematics. Eat less and exercise more is usually the only formula people consider in matters of body change. But, if you are someone who has always struggled to transform their body your feelings maybe completely different. You have probably been trying to explain to people your whole life that your weight issues are about more than calories. You have known all along that the calorie theory just simply does not work with you. Yet, the whole world has been telling you different. Allow us to come to your defense and say it loud and clear: body change is about more than calories. Much more.

How many calories does stress have? How about sleep or dehydration? These questions present a dilemma don't they? That is because they demonstrate so clearly how simplistic models break down so quickly in the real world. These things are not directly related to calories at all, yet they affect human metabolism profoundly. The human body is the most complicated piece of machinery in the world yet we insist on acting as if it were a simple furnace. Even a car engine, which is not nearly as complicated as a human, is impacted by more than the amount of fuel you put in the tank. The fuel grade, your last oil change, tire pressure, and the way you drive all dramatically influence not only your car's performance, but also the health and longevity of the engine. It is ridiculous to assume the human body is any less complicated.

Fat Loss Vs. Weight Loss

Weight loss does NOT equal fat loss. You may be burning calories or losing weight, but that weight and those calories may or may not be coming from fat. If you follow the standard low-calorie-aerobic-exercise-model, you are likely burning muscle not fat. And a loss of muscle means a less efficient metabolism. This is the missing link when personal trainers and fitness enthusiasts embark on helping others and themselves create new bodies.

When personal trainers or exercise enthusiasts focus on weight loss, they are doing a grave disservice to their clients and/or themselves. It has been known for quite sometime that the low calorie aerobic exercise model creates a much less efficient metabolism in the long run. A study published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition in April 1999 showed just how damaging the weight loss model can be on metabolic efficiency. This study looked at a group of obese individuals who were put on a very low calorie diet and assigned to one of two exercise regimes. One group did aerobic exercise (walking, biking, or jogging four times per week) while the second group did resistance training three times per week and no aerobic exercise.

At the end of the twelve-week study, both groups lost weight but the difference in muscle vs. fat loss was striking. The aerobic group lost 37 pounds over the course of the study. The resistance-training group lost 32 pounds. A focus on weight loss would lead us to the conclusion that aerobic exercise is best. However, when looking at the type of weight lost it was shown that the aerobic group lost almost 10 pounds of muscle on average while the resistance training group lost fat exclusively and maintained their muscle mass. Most important, when the resting metabolic rate of the participants was calculated, the aerobic group was shown to be burning 210 fewer calories at rest per day!! In contrast, the resistance-training group actually increased their metabolism by 63 calories per day.

Basal Metabolic Rate

The above study shows just how detrimental a loss of muscle mass can be. A recent review published in the January 2007 issue of Sports Medicine (vol. 37 # 1) highlights some very important reminders to personal trainers and exercise enthusiasts. First, basal metabolic rate (BMR) accounts for over two thirds of the calories burned at rest and more than half of BMR can be accounted for by the amount of fat free mass (FFM) a person has. FFM is just a fancy term for how much muscle and organ tissue someone has. So, the most reliable way to enhance or maintain the metabolic rate is through the development or maintenance of muscle tissue.

By employing a low calorie diet and aerobic exercise regime we may be making things worse not better. The above study highlights research that shows dietary restriction decreases the BMR by 10-20%. Adding aerobic exercise to the mix does absolutely nothing to stop this and may actually enhance the loss of metabolism through wasting of muscle tissue. It was shown as far back as 1988 in the February issues of the New England Journal of medicine that a slowed BMR is a predictor of fat gain over the course of a 2-year period. In this study those with the slowest metabolic rate had a 4-fold increase in gaining 15 or more pounds over the next 2 years.

Focusing on resistance training over aerobic exercise has been shown to do the exact opposite from aerobic exercise. Resistance training actually increases BMR. The May 2008 Issue of Obesity makes the point nicely. In this study a direct comparison between aerobic exercise and resistance training revealed a similar loss in weight, but the aerobic group actually lost 2 pounds of muscle while the resistance training group gained a pound of muscle. The BMR of the resistance-training group was higher at the end of the study compared with the aerobic trained group.
 
Exercise for Fat Loss

Exercise for fat loss is different than exercise for weight loss. It is not just what happens during exercise that matters, but what happens after. Intense weight training and aerobic exercise done in short all-out bursts followed by rest is able to generate a hormonal response that allows you to enjoy an "after-burn" effect for 24-48 hours beyond the actual workout. The traditional aerobic exercise program where slower paced running is done for long periods burns fat during exercise, but has a hormonal effect that will reduce valuable muscle. This approach is not ideal for fat loss since muscle is a major driver of your fat burning metabolism. In order to take advantage of hormonal fat burning, exercise sessions should be short and intense and combine elements of weight and cardiovascular training within the same workout.

A recent study published in the International Journal of Obesity (vol. 32, 2008) looked at intense intermittent exercise (intense bursts of exercise followed by short rests) compared to steady state exercise (like jogging or running). Forty-five healthy women between the ages of 18 and 30 were recruited for the study, divided into three groups, and studied for 15 weeks. One group did high intensity interval type training where they sprinted on a bike for 8s followed by a 12s rest. This was repeated for 20 minutes. Another group did moderately intense peddling that was sustained for 40 minutes. The final group did no exercise.

At the end of the 15 weeks, the high intensity group lost 2.5 pounds of fat while the steady state aerobic group actually gained .6 pounds of fat. A measure of the fat related hormones leptin and insulin were also positively impacted in the high intensity group compared to the aerobic group. This was accomplished with a workout that was half as long (20 minutes vs. 40 minutes) as the steady state group. This study shows that it is not just the amount of exercise that matters, but the quality of exercise that counts most. Short intense exercise changes hormones allowing you to exercise for less time and get better results

Nutrition For Fat Loss

Nutrition for fat loss is similar. A high carbohydrate low fat diet is the equivalent of aerobic exercise in the exercise world, while a high protein low carbohydrate diet is the equivalent of resistance training. High carbohydrate low fat diets may help you lose weight, but they are miserable for fat loss. Physicians, nutritionists, and personal trainers are still confused on this matter, but the science is beginning to become overwhelming in favor of high protein diets. Just about every major study comparing a high protein diet to a high carb/low fat diet comes out in favor of the high protein diet. Several recent studies seem to show conclusively that a lower carbohydrate and higher protein approach is far better than other alternatives for both weight loss and fat loss.

First a meta-analysis, which is a study that combines all the data from many studies on one subject, looked at over 150 studies related to low carbohydrate higher protein diets. The study was published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in Feb 2006 (vol. 166). It found the low carbohydrate diets performed as well or better than the traditional approach to weight loss and resulted in quicker weight loss and better improvements in cholesterol ratios. Another study, this time published in JAMA, the king of all medical journals, compared all commercial programs including Ornish, Zone, Atkins, and others and found the low carbohydrate higher protein diets outperformed all the other diets at 1 year. This study was published in March 2007 issue of JAMA.

But that is not the end of it. For anyone who still had doubts about a low carbohydrate and higher protein approach to body change, the July 17th issue of the New England Journal of Medicine in 2008 should have put the controversy to rest. This study followed 322 participants of a period of two years who were assigned a low carbohydrate high protein diet, a Mediterranean style diet, or a low fat high carb diet. At the end of the two years, the low carb higher protein diet performed better at weight loss, fat loss, and produced the most favorable changes in cholesterol levels. This study is widely regarded as the highest quality study on the low carbohydrate higher protein diet due to the very long length (2 years), and a very high rate of adherence (85%). This along with other studies, like the 2004 study in the Sports Nutrition Reviews (volume 1 #1), showing no evidence at all of purported negative effects of higher protein diets on kidney, liver, bone, or cardiovascular risk factors should put the controversy to rest. It appears a higher protein low carbohydrate approach outperforms all other diets when it comes to weight loss and fat loss without any of the "mythical" negative effects many people claim.

Final Thoughts

It is time for a shift in our language from weight loss centered ideas to fat loss centered phrasing. For personal trainers and fitness enthusiasts looking to change the look, feel, and function of their clients body's or their own, the single minded and simplistic approach of low calorie diets, and aerobically dominated exercises programs is not as beneficial. To maintain muscle and metabolic rate the focus should instead be on the type of food consumed and the type of exercise done. Where weight loss is about quantity of food eaten and time exercise is done, fat loss is about the quality of food and the type of exercise. A focus on resistance training and lower carbohydrate and higher protein diets is key. These programs not only provide better results but better health as well. This is a strategy physique athletes have been using for decades. It is ironic that science is just now proving they were right all along.
 
Can you highlight the part where scientific studies relating to nutrient intake timing are discussed?
 
Nutrient timing is a highly effective approach to dieting. By only eating carbohydrates at certain times, you can maximize your fat loss.

WhyNutrient TimingWorks

Nutrient timing is effective because it works in conjunction with your body's natural hormones. At certain times during the day your muscles are more receptive at absorbing carbohydrates. During these time periods, your insulin sensitivity is at its highest. This means that it will take less insulin to store the glucose that is produced from carbohydrates. How does this help you lose fat?

When your insulin is elevated, your body is unable to mobilize fatty acids. Insulin is a very powerful storage hormone. It takes the glucose in your bloodstream and shuttles it to the cells that need it. If your muscles and liver are full of glycogen, they will not be able to store any additional glucose. During this scenario, insulin takes this glucose, converts it to fat, and stores it in various places on your body so that it can be used later.

If our goal is to keep insulin low throughout the day, we want to be very mindful of when we eat our carbohydrates. Carbohydrates have the biggest influence on your insulin levels, followed by protein, and then by fats - which have very little effect on insulin levels. It makes sense to focus on carbohydrate intake for nutrient timing.

Carbohydrate Nutrient Timing

If you can limit your carbohydrates so that you are only eating them during the time periods when your insulin sensitivity is at its highest, you will make your goal of losing fat a whole lot easier. When are these time periods?

Your first meal of the day - After a night of not eating, your insulin sensitivity is higher than normal. This is because your body has been using the glucose in your blood and the glycogen stored in your liver to maintain body functions throughout the night. Upon waking, your body's stores of glycogen are lower - resulting in a lower amount of insulin needed to store the carbohydrates you're about to eat.

Your pre-workout meal - Most people don't think of insulin sensitivity being high just before your workout. And really, it isn't. However, during exercise, your insulin response is muted. Your pre-workout meal is a great time to get in some carbohydrates and some much needed energy for your workout.

Your post-workout meal - Your post-workout meal is the time when your insulin sensitivity is at its highest, and it's a great time to implement nutrient timing principles. While you work out, your muscles use glycogen to fuel your exercise. So much so, that after your workout, your muscles just soak up the glucose in your blood. Your muscles are so starved for glucose that they are able to take the carbohydrates you eat and convert it into glycogen without any real need for insulin.

Knowing that these 3 time periods are preferred for carbohydrate intake, we can then start to formulate a diet plan. Depending on your carbohydrate demand and your goals, I would prioritize my carbohydrate intake like this:

Carbs post-workout only

Carbs post-workout and first meal of the day

Carbs pre and post-workout, and the first meal of the day

Eat the majority of your carbohydrates post workout. This meal should consist of protein and carbohydrates and very little fat. The remaining carb-less meals should consist of protein and healthy fats. Planning your meals this way enables you to get all the benefits from the 3 macronutrients (fat, carbs, and protein). It also puts you in a prime metabolic state to mobilize fatty acids. Nutrient timing is your answer to successful fat loss. By eating your carbohydrates at specific times of the day, you enable your body to remain in a fat burning state for a longer period of time.
 
Are you going to post any actual scientific peer-reviewed studies or just articles that anybody could write?
 
Bigmickpick said:
And are you?
Click to expand...

I believe the burdon should be on the person that makes the initial statement. If you can find any peer-reviewed studies that prove that somebody taking in a majority of their carbohydrates prior to bed will reap 'better' results in regards to body composition than if they were to spread their intake out over the course of the day, I'll be happy to post some.
 
All I simply said in the beginning that it was better for fat loss to eat carbs after training when your metabolism is flying
 
Bigmickpick said:
All I simply said in the beginning that it was better for fat loss to eat carbs after training when your metabolism is flying
Click to expand...

& called me a dumb bitch for saying any difference in regards to body composition would be miniscule, which you haven't disproven, because ultimately it comes down to overall macronutrient intake, with nutrient timing being WAYYYYYYYYYYY further down the hierarchy of importance.
 
Hammer said:
:lol:

This is exactly the kind of argument I wanted to see more of when they made this forum. When they do calm down I might go back to the beginning and ask some questions about antioxidants.
Click to expand...

Antioxidants, ANTIFUCKINGOXIDANTS!?!?!?! :lol:
 
scotch said:
Just done 1 hour, knackered lol
Click to expand...

how many calories did the machine say you burned?

I would alternate that with interval training on a 2 rest 1 sprint ratio.

or if you've got very little time 20 second sprints 10 second rest for 4 minutes, if you think that sounds easy go on YouTube for tabata LOL.

its a very efficient exercise
 
WheyHey said:
:lol:

Has someone been having too many Naps
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for him to present a compelling argument based on actual research or scientific study that substantiates his claim, which I really don't believe he is able to do. Therefor I'll continue to advise the average gym go-er to disregard all common beliefs about nutrient intake frequency and timing and just eat several times a day, finding something that 'works' for them in regards to how they feel and perform in the gym.

Look at Matt Ogus, he recently shared a video of himself eating 4 Pop-Tarts and a protein shake with 150g+ of protein, at 6 in the morning after staying up all night. I don't think anybody can tell him he needs to be eating brown rice + chicken 8x per day. Also, he's not on the Celltech.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Titus said:
I'm still waiting for him to present a compelling argument based on actual research or scientific.....
Click to expand...

There is some shite spouted by so called nutritionalists.
I started training 30 months ago. I'd been through a bad, bad time and was down to 8 stone (not good at 6'). It was hard for me to push protien because I was skint. Just ramped up what I could and counted calories. Wasn't happy unless I did 6000 a day. Made sure I always had breaky and that I had at least two more meals a day.

2 and a bit years and 3 stone later. Strength is up nearly 280% on some excercises. Hard graft and sensible eating is what its about.

Wish I could get some of these pills the young-uns keep going on about on the SMB where you pop a couple a day and in three weeks your doorman material.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top