Forum Search
Keywords
Which Diet?
In Forum
By Member
Exact Match
1 to 20 of 100
Anyone bulking?
Are you sure you should be eating that many calories? I realize you're trying to bulk, but I think that might be overkill, and you'll put on unwanted fat. www.musclehack.com/how-many-ca... What is your weight and body fat percentage?
by an00bis (submitted 11 months ago)
any toning tips?
[quote=Caterpillar2Butterfly]I... say lift, and lift heavy. Toning is the building of muscle, no matter how you look at it. Women often worry about getting bulky. That is VERY unlikely to happen in women without outside supplements. [/quote] [quote] I use to have what a black girl called a "pancake ass" I was skinny fat about 4 years ago. Now I have a perky round butt that is NOT a pancake... how I did it? LIFTING! I have been lifting consistently close to a year now.. it will be a year this mid July. I lift 3 times a week.. about an hour each time. So yeah...lift lift lift [/quote] Both of these are fantastic advice. Ultimately, abs come with a proper diet which reduces your body fat percentage to a low enough point. It is definitely possible to do it with diet alone, but it's much easier if you do heavy weight lifting. I'm a big fan of musclehack, as he (for the most part) backs everything up with some excellent scientific studies. Here are some interesting articles in regards to cardio vs weight lifting. http://www.musclehack.com/want... http://www.musclehack.com/atte... http://www.musclehack.com/why-... http://www.musclehack.com/1-mo...
by an00bis (submitted a year ago)
CARBS PROTIEN SALT SUGAR
[quote=rabbitjb]Just focus on your calories Set your protein at 0.65 - 0.8g protein per lb bodyweight (at desired bodyweight) at a minimum Set your fats at 0.35g per lb bodyweight at a minimum Eat carbs to taste Eat a wide nutritious diet - lots of brightly coloured vegetables, proteins, wide range of foods If you find there's a food you find it difficult to moderate consider temporary elimination if you don't have blood pressure issues don't worry unduly about salt don't worry about sugar either unless you have specific medical condition - it's the fact that highly tasty foods tend to have high sugar / high fat and hence high calories that is the issue with weight maintenance and not the sugar per se sort your calories and then focus on the minutiae[/quote] These are great starting suggestions for most people. To answer your question on how you know what's "ideal" for you; it depends on a number of factors. Rabbitjb provided some information that's generally accepted as a solid easy-to-follow rule of thumb. You'll likely have great results for a long time if you stick to it. Technically, if you'd like to be more precise, your macro and micro nutrient requirements depend on your lean body mass, activity level, your goals, medical conditions, etc. A highly athletic person that works out often needs more carbohydrates than a person that intends to lose weight without exercising (yes, it's possible). While I don't recommend it, if you wanted to lose weight regardless of where it comes from, you can quickly cut muscle by eating very little protein. In contrast, if you're looking to preserve muscle or even gain some, you'll need a higher amount of protein. Some people prefer ketogenic diets, and in those instances, more fat and less carbs will be key. The general consensus on sodium is >1500 and <2400mg per day, but if you're lifting heavy weights and/or supplementing with something like creatine, more is actually better. Also, consider your lean body mass in comparison to the average person. If it's significantly higher or lower, this range should account for it. Sugar comes in many forms. Carbohydrates are sugar. See my above statements on carbs. Having said all that, I haven't really given you precise numbers. While I'm heavily biased towards certain schools of thought on the right macronutrient ratios (and I can post dozens of papers to back them up), there are just as many resources and people that will disagree with me. As such, my biggest recommendation is for you to do your own research and consider what sources are more reputable and what makes the most sense given your own goals and strategy. There are plenty of faulty studies out there, so you'll have to really do some critical thinking and ignore a lot of "expert advice". You'll find tons of articles that still try to tell you "dietary fat is bad", but you'll just have to learn to ignore them.
by an00bis (submitted a year ago)
Today
What are you basing those macros on?
by an00bis (submitted a year ago)
Do you lift weights
yes, yes I do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
by an00bis (submitted 3 years ago)
I'm going to try this Atkins thing:)
[quote=mummydee]If you choose to do the Atkins approach then please read the book and learn the rules and why you have to do what they say. Induction is very important to get your body into ketosis and the worst thing you can do is have a little 'cheat'. It sets you back to day one and then you feel like the diet isn't working. It does. and it's sustainable for life when you go thru the phases properly. [/quote] This is probably the best advice you could ever give to someone starting Atkins. Seconded.
by an00bis (submitted 3 years ago)
How much to train your stomach vs other muscle groups for a flat belly
[quote=RachK]In terms of fat loss steady state cardio is exactly what NOT to do. Long duration cardio will not give you a defined midsection. Really, diet is key. Exercise wise, focus on high intensity rather than duration. Also, resistance training is important - but not crunches (totally useless!) - think more like squats and deadlifts. They are much more effective at training your core. [/quote] I couldn't agree more.
by an00bis (submitted 4 years ago)
Is my diet wrong?
[quote=JasminEmerald] Especially if you're exercising. Different types of muscles will preferentially utilize certain sources over others, but it's pseudo-scientific to say "you'll burn carbs before fats". [/quote] Speaking of pseudo-scientific... You're right, ATP bonds breaking into ADP provides your actual energy. Where does that ATP come from? Yes, lots of sources. The problem is, they don't really all fire at the same rate. Your available ATP fires first, but that only gives you minute amounts of energy. Then conversion processes such as the creatine cycle kick in to provide even more ATP. Afterward, glycogen is used to provide the next load of ATP for higher energy expenditures. [quote] This is all fine for short, quick, intense bursts of energy. But the significant energy producing mechanisms in the body - those that allow us to use our muscles for longer and more intense periods - require the breakdown of the sugars in our bodies - [b]glucose[/b]. [/quote] source: http://www.nsbri.org/humanphys... The next quickest energy source is your muscles, unfortunately. It's a catabolic affect known as the citric acid (or krebs) cycle. My point is, muscles don't "prefer" sources. There is a set order of sources from which ATP is created, and carbs most definitely come before fats. As you can see in the ordering, glucose is the first, and quickest, food source to be converted to ATP (ignoring creatine supplementation, of course). It's not like my biceps use my ingested protein first while my abs break down dietary fat first. Draglist is right on all counts. If you over-consume carbohydrates, you'll have an overabundance of glucose which the resultant insulin may turn into fat, depending on several other factors. Having said that, he is also very correct in saying that fibrous sources such as fruits and veggies should be kept over high [i]glycemic load[/i] foods such as breads/sweets because the [b]rate[/b] at which insulin is increased due to the fibrous food sources is much lower. In short, the original poster's question is too broad to answer in a single forum post. However, I think Draglist has given a sound starting point in suggestion a reduction of low quality, high carb foods. The high fiber vegetables and fruits are fine, generally speaking.
by an00bis (submitted 4 years ago)
Does bread cause water retention?
It's true. 2.7g of water for every gram of carbohydrates is the average accepted quantity. [quote]carbohydrate-rich foods may increase the water retention in your body. When you stop eating high-carb foods you’ll lose excess water through your kidneys. [/quote] http://www.dietdoctor.com/lchf...
by an00bis (submitted 4 years ago)
What happened?
I actually agree with you. If anyone else does, click the "contact" button on the bottom of the page and let them know. Hopefully they will listen. As it is now, the food diary has the worst user interface of any diet website I've ever seen.
by an00bis (submitted 4 years ago)
THREE WEEKS AND ONLY DOWN 1.6 LBS?????
[quote=Diablo360x]LOL at the books.[/quote] You may as well have said, "LOL AT THE FACTS!" Look, whether or not you're capable of following a low carb diet isn't my business. You don't like it? Fine, do whatever. I'm disagreeing with your "it doesn't matter where the calories come from" idea. Your oh-so-new article doesn't make one mention of various metabolic process that occur as a result of low carbing. So, yes, if overall you have a caloric deficit of X calories, and somehow you're managing to spare all your muscles regardless of the macronutrients, then it'll be the same. I'm saying your deficit (that X variable) is [b]different [/b]as a result of the macronutrients you're eating. Your body expends MORE energy to process a macronutrient supply that is low in carbohydrates. Your body NEEDS carbohydrates, but it can [i]make them[/i] from other macronutrients such as protein (see gluconeogenesis). This expends energy. Thanks for bashing my studies without posting any actual ones of your own. The one from harvard was from 2003. Is that too old as well? Just wikipedia "low carb studies". There's a billion of them from whatever era you want. What's wrong with the 1965 one? Has the way we measure foods/calories changed since then? How about the way we interpret scientific data? Statistics? No. As for your article: I'm sorry, but no matter how well worded an article is, if there's absolutely no sources listed, how can I believe it over something has tested results with P values I can calculate myself? It makes a ton of generalizations like, "even in obese people, the changes were small". Really? Show me the data and I'll decide for myself. Don't get me wrong, I hate snobby "your source sucks" people (ie, you) just as much as the next guy, but in this case, there really is no back up. I may as well write an article that disproves that one, and it'll be just as legitimate.
by an00bis (submitted 6 years ago)
THREE WEEKS AND ONLY DOWN 1.6 LBS?????
Forgot about TEF, I'm talking about metabolic processes. Ever heard of Ketosis? How about Gluconeogenesis? If you disregard those, you throw what little credibility you have. There are dozens of studies showing people eating more calories on low carb diets and losing more fat than people eating fewer calories with higher carbs. http://news.harvard.edu/gazett... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... There are dozens of others (1990 - Brinton, et al., 1965 - Benoit et al.) but I am not going to dig them up if you're just going to ignore the facts anyway. The fact of the matter is, you sound like someone that just stepped into the 'dieting' world. You seem to be spewing out 'conventional wisdow' (i.e. things that every moron and their mom knows), but you're ignoring the cold, hard biology of it all. Yes, your baseline resting metabolic rate is determined by the factors you listed. Is it a set-in-stone number? Hell no. If you go from eating 90% carbs to 20% carbs, that number is going to rise drastically. Not only is a low carbohydrate diet (and therefore, by default, a moderate-to-high protein diet) muscle sparing, but it also invokes the aforementioned metabolic processes which burn [i]more [/i]calories. Muscle is metabolically active, fat is not. This is why "fat percentage" is on your list. Eating high amount of carbohydrates while on a [i]caloric deficit[/i] has a diminished level of lipid oxidation for normal body fat ranges. This in-turn, means catabolism is greater, which leads to an overall lower metabolic rate. Honestly, rather than arguing with people on the internet that actually know what they're talking about, consider [url=http://www.amazon.com/Goo... a book[/url] or [url=http://www.amazon.com/Why... Better yet, why not try it? I challenge you right now to eat at some calorie amount for one week. Monitor your results. Then for a week, just eat low carb with the exact same caloric quantities. The results (body fat readings in conjunction with weight results) will speak for themselves. You brought up "carbs are good for working out" earlier. I agree with this completely. Glycogen is necessary. In that case, just carb-cycle. To quote Hannah Montana: "it's the best of both worlds" (if you work out heavily).
by an00bis (submitted 6 years ago)
THREE WEEKS AND ONLY DOWN 1.6 LBS?????
[quote=Diablo360x][quote=greer... Atkins works long term and there is NOTHING unhealthy about the fats he is eating. 40%carbs will just make for weight gain, not weight loss.[/quote] Do you really believe this?! If those carbs cause her to go over her calorie maintenance she will gain weight. If protein makes her go over calorie maintenance she will gain weight. If the fats she eats causes her to go over calorie maintenance she will gain weight. Getting the picture?[/quote] The "calorie maintenance" isn't the same based on the macronutrients you eat because your body processes them differently; the resulting metabolic response determines the calorie maintenance level. So, even though you're technically right, you're wrong.
by an00bis (submitted 6 years ago)
Any fitness/ exercise advise needed please feel free to ask - Qualified trainer happy to help =o)
Look at the dates in this thread. She hasn't been on fatsecret since March. You're not going to get any responses. Judging by the 'information' in the posts, that's a good thing.
by an00bis (submitted 6 years ago)
What is this it will take me 61 months at the rate I am going?
It's just based on your most recent weigh-in. It's not some miracle algorithm. If you went from 180 to 175 in two weeks, you've lost 2.5 lbs per week (on average). If your goal is to lose 10 more pounds, that's going to take 4 weeks. This assumes that you always lose at the same rate. The figure is worthless for most people, because most people are unaware of how to lose weight consistently.
by an00bis (submitted 6 years ago)
Correlation Does Not Prove Causation
I don't usually start threads here, but I felt like this needed to be said. There have been a lot of posts as of late that are really making me question how many people have actually finished high school. At least half a dozen posts in the last few weeks have started with someone posting a bogus observational study that resulted in massive amounts of members saying things like, "oh ok, I didn't do know that. I guess I'll try X" (where X = one of many moronic notions). Now, while I could systematically disagree with each one of these articles and post long-winded factual evidence to back up my assertions, I don't feel like it would really have as positive of an effect as it should. I'm taking a different approach. What you believe is up to you, and I couldn't care less. It's just frustrating to see people that [i]genuinely[/i] want to believe the truth but can't distinguish an [b]observational study[/b] from a [b]clinical study[/b]. If you've been reading some of the back-and-forth about proper dieting, post-workout nutrition, valid work out advice, etc, and you're confused as to what you should believe, sit down and watch [url=http://www.youtube.com/wa... video[/url]. Despite being a daunting 45 minutes long, it should clear up your confusion once and for all. Fortunately, it's pretty funny too. It may seem a little biased towards low carb dieting, but that's not the point of the video. It discusses distinguishing science from observation, which seems to be the missing link for many people here. Next time you see a fancy article posted here or in your preferred news source, consider the depth of the analysis before you buy into it.
by an00bis (submitted 6 years ago)
Exercise journel
It represents a calorie burn across the whole day. There are 24 hours in a day. You have to fill all of them up because you're always doing something and your body is always burning calories. "resting" is what you should use to fill times when you're not doing anything particularly strenuous. Know that no matter what you enter, it will most likely be a gross overestimation.
by an00bis (submitted 6 years ago)
Protein shakes...to drink or not to drink?
Well this is just a silly post, isn't it? This is turning into a petty debate about who said what, which is just crazy since this is a forum where we can just scroll up to see what each person said. I don't understand why you posted that article. No one is disputing the quality of the macronutrient, but the speed at which it applies to recovery and/or overcompensation. The article itself doesn't even make full sense sometimes! Look: [quote] Another acknowledged benefit of whey protein is its fast absorption rate. Although their is not any evidence that protein supplements digest more efficiently than whole foods. They are definitely digested faster. [/quote] Not only is there a grade-school-level grammatical error ([b]there[/b], not [i]their[/i]), but two consecutive sentences literally contradict. There is no evience that it's more efficient. It definitely is faster. What? That's the same thing. It doesn't matter, I'm not disputing the notion anyway. In fact, you did, which is why I went into rant mode in the first place, man. Look, this is a quote from your earlier post. [quote=Marlboro Man] Real food proteins can be digested just as quickly as whey protein. Those being eggs ... [/quote] Hey look, the article [b]you[/b] posted disagrees with you! Yeah, sure, there are whey products that absorb slower than others, but I guarantee you that no whey product has an uptake rate as low as egg protein (1.3 g/hour). [quote] Whole egg - 45 min. [/quote] There's a difference between protein uptake and 'digestion' as it applies to protein synthesis. Could this be where your confusion is coming from? [quote] yes hydrolyzed whey is faster absorbing, but the 15 minute difference isn't going to [/quote] Where are you getting "15 minute difference" from? The uptake rate can be increased by 50% or more depending on the protein source and percent hydrolyzation. [quote]isn't going to mean two s##ts unless you're training to look like the hulk which im pretty sure natalie isnt [/quote] This is exactly the kind of mentality that gets dieters in trouble, and it's exactly what I discussed in my long post on the previous page. [b]The difference between muscle building and muscle preservation is almost indiscernible.[/b] There is nothing worse on a cut than losing muscle. The longer protein synthesis is delayed, the more muscle is cannibalized by catabolic hormones. Simple as that. Exercise-induced catabolism impacts both those on a caloric surplus and those on a caloric deficit. The difference, however, is that the person on a deficit is in a catabolic state for much longer and therefore cannot force overcompensation as readily. The only option is to prompt recovery. This is the essence of muscle preservation. I've seen it dozens of times: low weight, high body fat percentage. The cause is this absurd, closed-minded mentality that fast-as-possible recovery and protein synthesis only apply to those looking for hypertrophic growth. While I'm at it, I might as well address Natalie's absurd claim. "I haven't noticed that problem, so I won't do anything about it". Yeah, it's kind of hard to notice muscle loss when you're still overweight. Do you take weekly body fat percentage readings? If not, you'll probably notice the problem much later, but then it'll be too late and your metabolism will have slowed as a result of your reduction in metabolically active lean mass. In summation, I really think you agree with most of what I'm saying, you just don't realize it. What you originally said is that eggs and other foods were somehow just as effective post-workout. In terms of quality? Sure, I have always maintained that. In terms of speed? Hell no, not a chance! The article you posted agrees. Most importantly, fast uptake is essential for muscular preservation, which is vital for proper dieting, not just hypertrophic gains.
by an00bis (submitted 6 years ago)
Protein shakes...to drink or not to drink?
[quote=Marlboro Man]Real food proteins can be digested just as quickly as whey protein. Those being eggs and fish; white fish more so than red fish, but both digest quickly. The sole purpose of whey is to be able to get protein to the muscles as soon as possible i.e. as your leavin the gym,[/quote] That is completely, 100%, without a shadow of a doubt, [b]untrue[/b]. Did they just make up the uptake rates out of thin air? [url=http://www.fatsecret.com/... in another post, you yourself mentioned taking casein because it has a slower uptake rate.[/url] So everything has exactly the same uptake rate, except for casein? Nonsense. Even if you completely disagreed with me and thought I was full of BS, you would [i]still[/i] be absolutely wrong for the simple fact that I also discussed hydrolyzed whey proteins. If you've ever taken a basic chemistry course, the percent-hydrolyzation alone would tell you that the uptake rate would be increased. I'm all for disagreeing opinions, but contradicting yourself within 24 hours of making a post is pretty obnoxious.
by an00bis (submitted 6 years ago)
Publicity
It isn't allowed. If you click the "report" button at the bottom of the page, you can report any such spam. The claim usually gets handled within at least a day or two. 99% of the time, these ads come from bots, not actual people.
by an00bis (submitted 6 years ago)
1   2   3   4   5   Next

Latest Posts

Is there a way
Thanks so much for your patience!
by Eanor on 17 Dec 17 09:55 AM
socializing and food
It is so hard to socialize and not munch. I fail many times.
by jan-e333 on 16 Dec 17 11:24 AM
The Bariatric diet
Do you have one? There are those who had weight loss surgery
by Evonne Matthews on 16 Dec 17 01:44 AM
Weight loss
I haven`t been this light since November 2013 :)
by rockyboy on 15 Dec 17 05:52 PM
Happy New You Challenge - Sign up!
I join a lot of challenges here on FS. Only see 2 that aren't in progress yet.
by Fritzy 22 on 15 Dec 17 03:58 PM
New to fatsecret
On the belly fat question, I found this link which might be a place to start reading. http://www.eatthis.com/types-o... So it tells you that the "belly fat" you are probably talking about ...
by rhills on 15 Dec 17 03:30 PM

Member Tip

average member ranking
by member ChuckyD
eat advocoto toaste it seen to work well
27 Nov 16 for diet Weight Watchers