I need to lose more fat! Less love on the handles.

[zebano]

Originally posted by: Safeway
Further, I highly doubt my burned calories are as high as FitDay suggests. FitDay suggests that my basal at around 2200 calories and lifestyle around 1400 calories. I am 6'2" and (was) 218 pounds when I started. I am now 213 pounds, but most of that loss is water weight from lack of carbohydrates.

That could be reasonable, though, since I was holding my weight constant and eating 3000+ calories/day.

I quite agree with you. I simply do not trust fitdays exercise time => calories spent conversions. So I simply use them as a calorie counter and enter my exercises only so I have a record of what I did. Also, if entering what I ate requires any guesstimation, I always estimate high. Then when I stop at 2000 calories per day, I know I actually ate a little less than that, and when you add in my 45 minute workout I am at a caloric deficit for the day.

 

[jiggahertz]

Originally posted by: Safeway
Further, I highly doubt my burned calories are as high as FitDay suggests. FitDay suggests that my basal at around 2200 calories and lifestyle around 1400 calories. I am 6'2" and (was) 218 pounds when I started. I am now 213 pounds, but most of that loss is water weight from lack of carbohydrates.

That could be reasonable, though, since I was holding my weight constant and eating 3000+ calories/day.

Yeah, that was my point in the previous post. Good to hear you are weighing your food and counting carefully.

 

[Safeway]

PSMF diet with KoolDrew's help.

 

[jiggahertz]

Originally posted by: Safeway
PSMF diet with KoolDrew's help.

I'd recommend buying Lyle's PSMF book, if you haven't already. And good luck with the PSMF.

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: jiggahertz

Originally posted by: Safeway
PSMF diet with KoolDrew's help.

I'd recommend buying Lyle's PSMF book, if you haven't already. And good luck with the PSMF.

Already ordered!

 

[KoolDrew]

After these two weeks are up, I will restore a normal calorie deficit, consuming 2000 to 2250 calories per day, but attempting to maintain high protein intake and low overall carbohydrate and fat intake.

I'd actually suggest taking a good 2 week break eating at maintenance, making sure carb and protein intake is sufficient. Refeeds can only do so much, eventually a full diet break is needed. Then after that 2 week break you should move to a more moderate diet.

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

After these two weeks are up, I will restore a normal calorie deficit, consuming 2000 to 2250 calories per day, but attempting to maintain high protein intake and low overall carbohydrate and fat intake.

I'd actually suggest taking a good 2 week break eating at maintenance, making sure carb and protein intake is sufficient. Refeeds can only do so much, eventually a full diet break is needed. Then after that 2 week break you should move to a more moderate diet.

Some magic maintenance number? Maybe 2500 to 2750 calories/day?

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: Safeway

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

After these two weeks are up, I will restore a normal calorie deficit, consuming 2000 to 2250 calories per day, but attempting to maintain high protein intake and low overall carbohydrate and fat intake.

I'd actually suggest taking a good 2 week break eating at maintenance, making sure carb and protein intake is sufficient. Refeeds can only do so much, eventually a full diet break is needed. Then after that 2 week break you should move to a more moderate diet.

Some magic maintenance number? Maybe 2500 to 2750 calories/day?

Lyle has almost half the book covering just the the topic of ending the diet. I'd probably aim for about 14-15 cal/lb though to start with. People with even more activity, would need more to maintain their weight, and less for people with less. There's more to it than just activity levels as well though, so there is no "magic number," just estimates.

 

[jiggahertz]

Update? How did the PSMF go?

 

[Kniteman77]

Originally posted by: Safeway
FitDay puts me at a calorie deficit of 2,000 to 2,500 calories per day.

I am eating ~1,500 calories, 80% from protein. Burning ~4,000 calories.

Dude you need to eat WAY more than that, I'd say probably close to double.

http://stronglifts.com/how-to-lose-fat-fast/

Please read that man, you're actually hurting yourself by eating that little.

Losing weight properly is a bit more than just a simple 'burn more calories than you expend' inequality.

All you're training your body to do is hold on to whatever it has in storage(fat) because it's so used to getting starved. To quote the article above "Fat is emergency storage. Your body will hold fat & burn muscle when you don?t eat. Don?t starve yourself, eat every 3 hours."

I'll keep an eye on this thread, but read that and give me your thoughts.

 

[KoolDrew]

Dude you need to eat WAY more than that, I'd say probably close to double.

Keep in mind he's only doing this for like two weeks, and is getting about 1.25g of protein per pound of LBM. He'll see fast weight/fat loss without losing LBM and then will take a two week break at maintenance and move into a more moderate deficit.

And the whole eating every 3 hours for metabolism is false.

 

[Kniteman77]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Dude you need to eat WAY more than that, I'd say probably close to double.

And the whole eating every 3 hours for metabolism is false.

Can you link me to stuff on that man ?

Not to sound pretentious or anything, I just don't really know and I'm trying to learn.

And it's been my understanding that it's more or less eat SOMETHING every three hours, not a full meal or anything. More to keep yourself from falling into the trap of being hungry and just chowing down on whatever is there. If you plan to eat good food on a regular basis it makes it easier to avoid bad food.

 

[KoolDrew]

What the OP is following is a PSMF by Lyle McDonald. The book outlining the diet is here...
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/rapidfatloss.html

It's a great way to lose fat at a very fast rate with minimal to no LBM loss, but since metabolic slowdown can become an issue, it's only for short periods of time. Unless you're bodyfat percentage is very high to start with, in which case metabolic slowdown is much less of an issue, as well as LBM loss. Also, it's very important you don't go back to your old eating habits after the short dieting period, which is why Lyle dedicates nearly half the book just on this topic.

I did two 12-day PSMF cycles and am currently taking a two week break eating at maintenance until I start dieting again to get down to 7-8%. Currently at around 10% I'd say, but that's with my crappy digital caliper.
http://img120.imageshack.us/im...799b9f6ada744e1lf7.jpg

And it's been my understanding that it's more or less eat SOMETHING every three hours, not a full meal or anything. More to keep yourself from falling into the trap of being hungry and just chowing down on whatever is there. If you plan to eat good food on a regular basis it makes it easier to avoid bad food.

If eating every few hours helps hunger stay at a respectable level, then definitely do it. Some people just fall into the trap thinking that they have to eat every 3-4 hours to help metabolism, which is complete crap.

EDIT - Oh, I see you quoted the metabolism part of my post, not the other part. So I'll expand on that further...

A search on PubMEd brought this up...

To a group of 8 healthy persons a slightly hypocaloric diet with protein (13% of energy), carbohydrates (46% of energy) and fat (41% of energy) was given as one meal or as five meals in a change-over trial. Each person was 2 weeks on each regimen. Under the conditions of slight undernutrition and neutral temperature the balances of nitrogen, carbon and energy were assessed in 7-day collection periods, and according to 48-hour measurements of gaseous exchange (carbon-nitrogen balance method) by the procedures of indirect calorimetry. Changes of body weight were statistically not significant. At isocaloric supply of metabolizable energy with exactly the same foods in different meal frequencies no differences were found in the retention of carbon and energy. Urinary nitrogen excretion was slightly greater with a single daily meal, indicating influences on protein metabolism. The protein-derived energy was compensated by a decrease in the fat oxidation. The heat production calculated by indirect calorimetry was not significantly different with either meal frequency. Water, sodium and potassium balances were not different. The plasma concentrations of cholesterol and uric acid were not influenced by meal frequency, glucose and triglycerides showed typical behaviour depending on the time interval to the last meal. The results demonstrate that the meal frequency did not influence the energy balance.

- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/si...=3592618&dopt=Abstract

More reading...

The results of the present study fail to support the hypothesis that participants with high daily meal frequency have significantly higher resting metabolic rates as compared to participants with a low daily meal frequency. Meal frequency does not appear to effect metabolic rate.

- http://www.uwlax.edu/urc/JUR-o...odman-larson-et-al.pdf

Alan Aragon covered it in detail here as well...
http://www.alanaragon.com/an-o...ermittent-fasting.html

§ A haphazard/randomly variable meal frequency, not necessarily a lower frequency, negatively impacts thermogenesis, blood lipids, and insulin sensitivity.

§ Within a day, a higher frequency has no thermodynamic advantage over a lower frequency under controlled conditions.

§ The majority of controlled intervention trials show no improvement in body composition with a higher meal frequency.

§ Studies indicating the disappearance or lack of hunger in dieters occur in either complete starvation, or very low calorie VLCD regimes (800 kcal/day or less).

§ Hunger is a persistent problem with reduced meal frequency in non-starvation and other protocols with calories above VLCD levels.

§ For controlling appetite, the majority of research indicates the superiority of a higher meal frequency.

§ The body appears to be "metabolically primed" to receive calories and nutrients after an overnight fast. Breakfast is a particularly beneficial time to have dietary protein, since muscle protein synthethis rates are typically lowest at this time.

§ Overall, both experimental and observational research points to breakfast improving memory, test grades, school attendance, nutrient status, weight control, and muscle protein synthesis.

Also, here's a topic I found with answers by Lyle McDonald and other studies, which I highly recommend reading.
http://www.clutchfitness.com/f....php?p=47655#post47655

Hope that helped

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Dude you need to eat WAY more than that, I'd say probably close to double.

Keep in mind he's only doing this for like two weeks, and is getting about 1.25g of protein per pound of LBM. He'll see fast weight/fat loss without losing LBM and then will take a two week break at maintenance and move into a more moderate deficit.

And the whole eating every 3 hours for metabolism is false.

But the eating every 3 hours to give you body a constant supply of protein is not. I agree that metabolism doesn't rely on frequency of eating, but you always want to give your body protein when changing weights whether it's up or down.

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: Kniteman77

And it's been my understanding that it's more or less eat SOMETHING every three hours, not a full meal or anything. More to keep yourself from falling into the trap of being hungry and just chowing down on whatever is there. If you plan to eat good food on a regular basis it makes it easier to avoid bad food.

I think that this is the real beauty in eating constantly

 

[KoolDrew]

But the eating every 3 hours to give you body a constant supply of protein is not.

Also a myth. Whether you give your body 6 smaller "meals" consisting of protein or 3 larger ones doesn't matter. The only time meal frequency will have any effect is if total calories are effected (due to overeating from being hungry) or when it comes to nutrition post-workout.

 

[Kniteman77]

KoolDrew you gave me far too much reading for a tired night tonight . . . . I'll get back to it in the AM.

 

[Java Cafe]

Originally posted by: GenHoth

Originally posted by: Kniteman77

And it's been my understanding that it's more or less eat SOMETHING every three hours, not a full meal or anything. More to keep yourself from falling into the trap of being hungry and just chowing down on whatever is there. If you plan to eat good food on a regular basis it makes it easier to avoid bad food.

I think that this is the real beauty in eating constantly

But couldn't this vary from individual to individual? Throughout my life, I have observed that if I skip breakfast, and carry on with with day (drinking plenty of water throughout), my hunger simply "goes away" after a while. A light meal, after a couple of glasses of wine in the evening, has been taking care of my nutrition.

If I were to eat anything for either breakfast or lunch, however small or big the meal may be, about four hours later I start feeling the gnawing pangs of hunger. It becomes a really difficult (almost impossible) thing to handle. That is when I overeat!

Am I weird or delusional?

 

[KoolDrew]

But couldn't this vary from individual to individual?

Yes.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Java Cafe
But couldn't this vary from individual to individual? Throughout my life, I have observed that if I skip breakfast, and carry on with with day (drinking plenty of water throughout), my hunger simply "goes away" after a while. A light meal, after a couple of glasses of wine in the evening, has been taking care of my nutrition.

If I were to eat anything for either breakfast or lunch, however small or big the meal may be, about four hours later I start feeling the gnawing pangs of hunger. It becomes a really difficult (almost impossible) thing to handle. That is when I overeat!

Am I weird or delusional?

2lbs in one hand, 32 ounces in the other. When you eat early, you overeat, when you don't, you starve and artificially push your metabolism even lower. Neither is the right choice, the right choice is to eat and eat proper portions. The earlier you eat, the better because it puts your body back in a normal metabolism mode.

 

[Java Cafe]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Java Cafe
But couldn't this vary from individual to individual? Throughout my life, I have observed that if I skip breakfast, and carry on with with day (drinking plenty of water throughout), my hunger simply "goes away" after a while. A light meal, after a couple of glasses of wine in the evening, has been taking care of my nutrition.

If I were to eat anything for either breakfast or lunch, however small or big the meal may be, about four hours later I start feeling the gnawing pangs of hunger. It becomes a really difficult (almost impossible) thing to handle. That is when I overeat!

Am I weird or delusional?

2lbs in one hand, 32 ounces in the other. When you eat early, you overeat, when you don't, you starve and artificially push your metabolism even lower. Neither is the right choice, the right choice is to eat and eat proper portions. The earlier you eat, the better because it puts your body back in a normal metabolism mode.

There we go again! Without being disrespectful, let me say two things: (1) I really do NOT overeat when I eat the one time in the evening, and (2) this notion of the metabolism slowing down, unless you eat frequent is so controversial, that some would say it is even false!

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: Java Cafe

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: Java Cafe
But couldn't this vary from individual to individual? Throughout my life, I have observed that if I skip breakfast, and carry on with with day (drinking plenty of water throughout), my hunger simply "goes away" after a while. A light meal, after a couple of glasses of wine in the evening, has been taking care of my nutrition.

If I were to eat anything for either breakfast or lunch, however small or big the meal may be, about four hours later I start feeling the gnawing pangs of hunger. It becomes a really difficult (almost impossible) thing to handle. That is when I overeat!

Am I weird or delusional?

2lbs in one hand, 32 ounces in the other. When you eat early, you overeat, when you don't, you starve and artificially push your metabolism even lower. Neither is the right choice, the right choice is to eat and eat proper portions. The earlier you eat, the better because it puts your body back in a normal metabolism mode.

There we go again! Without being disrespectful, let me say two things: (1) I really do NOT overeat when I eat the one time in the evening, and (2) this notion of the metabolism slowing down, unless you eat frequent is so controversial, that some would say it is even false!

You seem to misunderstand what I was replying to. I've bolded the part. See how you misreplied? I wasn't referring to your 1 meal in the evening, I was referring to how you yourself stated that when you do eat early you tend to overeat.

I'm not going to argue whether 1 meal a day is affecting your metabolism or whether your body is burning muscle for several hours each day.

 

[Java Cafe]

OK. I see that. But, I was talking about your phrase, "when you don't, you starve and artificially push your metabolism even lower." There are studies that show, given the same number of calorie intake (and the same diet), distributing the food over the course of the day, as opposed to consuming it in one or two meals, has little or no effect on metabolism. Hence, the conjecture that it is a myth.

 

[paulxcook]

How's this going?