Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Bodybuilding Boards => Nutrition, Products & Supplements Info => Topic started by: The True Adonis on March 13, 2007, 05:11:34 PM
-
http://www.essentialnutrition.org/pdf/alert_myths.pdf
-
The Skinny on the Glycemic Index
Although developed to help people with diabetes manage their food intake, the glycemic index has taken on new meaning as a weight loss strategy. In fact, several diet books tout the glycemic index as a foolproof way of identifying foods that raise blood sugar and insulin levels and therefore, can lead to weight gain.
But despite the hype, experts in nutrition and public health see very little practical use for the glycemic index and even the American Diabetes Association does not recommend this system for the prevention or treatment of diabetes. This is because of the many factors that affect the digestion of carbohydrates in the body. In fact, there is no clear evidence that avoiding foods high on the index is even beneficial. The following describes what the glycemic index is and why the public health community does not recommend it in designing an eating plan.
-
The Glycemic Index and Its Limitations
Originally developed in 1981 as a laboratory tool to measure the rate at which carbohydrates are metabolized, the glycemic index is now being used by some as a measure of the degree to which a specific food raises a person's blood sugar, which in turn affects insulin levels in the body. GI is calculated by measuring the effect of 50 grams of carbohydrates from various foods against a "standard" response from 50 grams of glucose. The higher the number, the greater the food's effect on blood sugar.
The reason for all the interest in the index is because it supports the theory of "net carbs," which has facilitated the creation of the low-carb food industry and the launch of thousands of "low-carb" products. The theory is that high-GI foods cause a spike in the glucose level that prompts the body to release a flood of insulin. In turn, insulin drops blood sugar levels so that the person feels hungry again quickly and eats more. In contrast, low-GI foods are said to be digested more slowly and to release glucose more gradually.
But while many popular diet books make it sound as if the glycemic index is an accepted theory, in truth, there are very real problems with this system. First and foremost is the fact that the glycemic index deals with single foods eaten alone, not meals where foods are combined.
At the same time, this system does not take into account the serving size of commonly eaten foods or the fact that there can be major differences even when comparing foods of the same type, such as a relatively green banana compared with a ripe one. Another major limitation of the glycemic index is that it doesn't take into account the many factors that can alter the digestion and absorption of carbohydrates. These factors include the amount of fiber, fat and protein in the food, how refined the ingredients are, whether the food was cooked, and what other foods are eaten at the same time.
Along with these limitations, there is no clear-cut evidence in the scientific literature that associates low-GI foods as either promoting satiety or reducing hunger. Moreover, nutritionists state that eliminating all foods that are high on the glycemic index is unhealthy, since many of these carbohydrates are rich in vitamins and minerals, phytochemicals, antioxidants and dietary fiber that have been associated with a lower risk for certain cancers, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and stroke, among other medical conditions. What is even more troubling is that many foods that have a low GI score, such as chocolate bars, are known to be high in fat and calories, while foods such as carrots with a high GI score are not.
The Implications for People with Diabetes
Because the glycemic index was developed to measure how fast blood sugar rises after a person eats foods containing carbohydrates, it is important to note that the premier organization focusing on the prevention and treatment of diabetes -- the American Diabetes Association -- does not recommend the use of this system. In its January 2002 nutrition recommendations, ADA stated that the available studies where glycemic index was controlled "do not provide convincing evidence of a benefit."1 In addition, ADA's statement said that the research examining the index is very limited and involves only a small number of study groups. Therefore, ADA concluded, "the data reveal no clear trend in outcome benefits."
Rather, the ADA along with all the leading nutrition and public health groups recommend that for optimal health as well as weight loss, people should consume a diet that includes a variety of carbohydrate-containing foods, and especially fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products. Moreover, nutrition authorities are unanimous in stating that for weight loss, calories count, not the glycemic index. Although it may sound old-fashioned, the simple fact is that the key to successful weight loss is a combination of a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity -- nothing more.
-
are you as lean as this Adam ?
-
http://www.essentialnutrition.org/pdf/alert_myths.pdf
Who is the author of that article?
-
The Skinny on the Glycemic Index
Although developed to help people with diabetes manage their food intake, the glycemic index has taken on new meaning as a weight loss strategy. In fact, several diet books tout the glycemic index as a foolproof way of identifying foods that raise blood sugar and insulin levels and therefore, can lead to weight gain.
But despite the hype, experts in nutrition and public health see very little practical use for the glycemic index and even the American Diabetes Association does not recommend this system for the prevention or treatment of diabetes. This is because of the many factors that affect the digestion of carbohydrates in the body. In fact, there is no clear evidence that avoiding foods high on the index is even beneficial.
The following describes what the glycemic index is and why the public health community does not recommend it in designing an eating plan.
The Glycemic Index and Its Limitations
Originally developed in 1981 as a laboratory tool to measure the rate at which carbohydrates are metabolized, the glycemic index is now being used by some as a measure of the degree to which a specific food raises a person's blood sugar, which in turn affects insulin levels in the body. GI is calculated by measuring the effect of 50 grams of carbohydrates from various foods against a "standard" response from 50 grams of glucose. The higher the number, the greater the food's effect on blood sugar.
The reason for all the interest in the index is because it supports the theory of "net carbs," which has facilitated the creation of the low-carb food industry and the launch of thousands of "low-carb" products. The theory is that high-GI foods cause a spike in the glucose level that prompts the body to release a flood of insulin. In turn, insulin drops blood sugar levels so that the person feels hungry again quickly and eats more. In contrast, low-GI foods are said to be digested more slowly and to release glucose more gradually.
But while many popular diet books make it sound as if the glycemic index is an accepted theory, in truth, there are very real problems with this system. First and foremost is the fact that the glycemic index deals with single foods eaten alone, not meals where foods are combined.
At the same time, this system does not take into account the serving size of commonly eaten foods or the fact that there can be major differences even when comparing foods of the same type, such as a relatively green banana compared with a ripe one. Another major limitation of the glycemic index is that it doesn't take into account the many factors that can alter the digestion and absorption of carbohydrates. These factors include the amount of fiber, fat and protein in the food, how refined the ingredients are, whether the food was cooked, and what other foods are eaten at the same time.
Along with these limitations, there is no clear-cut evidence in the scientific literature that associates low-GI foods as either promoting satiety or reducing hunger. Moreover, nutritionists state that eliminating all foods that are high on the glycemic index is unhealthy, since many of these carbohydrates are rich in vitamins and minerals, phytochemicals, antioxidants and dietary fiber that have been associated with a lower risk for certain cancers, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and stroke, among other medical conditions. What is even more troubling is that many foods that have a low GI score, such as chocolate bars, are known to be high in fat and calories, while foods such as carrots with a high GI score are not.
The Implications for People with Diabetes
Because the glycemic index was developed to measure how fast blood sugar rises after a person eats foods containing carbohydrates, it is important to note that the premier organization focusing on the prevention and treatment of diabetes -- the American Diabetes Association -- does not recommend the use of this system. In its January 2002 nutrition recommendations, ADA stated that the available studies where glycemic index was controlled "do not provide convincing evidence of a benefit."1 In addition, ADA's statement said that the research examining the index is very limited and involves only a small number of study groups. Therefore, ADA concluded, "the data reveal no clear trend in outcome benefits."
Rather, the ADA along with all the leading nutrition and public health groups recommend that for optimal health as well as weight loss, people should consume a diet that includes a variety of carbohydrate-containing foods, and especially fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products. Moreover, nutrition authorities are unanimous in stating that for weight loss, calories count, not the glycemic index. Although it may sound old-fashioned, the simple fact is that the key to successful weight loss is a combination of a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity -- nothing more.
-
The Skinny on the Glycemic Index
Although developed to help people with diabetes manage their food intake, the glycemic index has taken on new meaning as a weight loss strategy. In fact, several diet books tout the glycemic index as a foolproof way of identifying foods that raise blood sugar and insulin levels and therefore, can lead to weight gain.
But despite the hype, experts in nutrition and public health see very little practical use for the glycemic index and even the American Diabetes Association does not recommend this system for the prevention or treatment of diabetes. This is because of the many factors that affect the digestion of carbohydrates in the body. In fact, there is no clear evidence that avoiding foods high on the index is even beneficial. The following describes what the glycemic index is and why the public health community does not recommend it in designing an eating plan.
Sociopath:
Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.
Make no mistake............this represents the psychological profile of "Adonis" IMO.
-
The Skinny on the Glycemic Index
Although developed to help people with diabetes manage their food intake, the glycemic index has taken on new meaning as a weight loss strategy. In fact, several diet books tout the glycemic index as a foolproof way of identifying foods that raise blood sugar and insulin levels and therefore, can lead to weight gain.
But despite the hype, experts in nutrition and public health see very little practical use for the glycemic index and even the American Diabetes Association does not recommend this system for the prevention or treatment of diabetes. This is because of the many factors that affect the digestion of carbohydrates in the body. In fact, there is no clear evidence that avoiding foods high on the index is even beneficial.
The following describes what the glycemic index is and why the public health community does not recommend it in designing an eating plan.
The Glycemic Index and Its Limitations
Originally developed in 1981 as a laboratory tool to measure the rate at which carbohydrates are metabolized, the glycemic index is now being used by some as a measure of the degree to which a specific food raises a person's blood sugar, which in turn affects insulin levels in the body. GI is calculated by measuring the effect of 50 grams of carbohydrates from various foods against a "standard" response from 50 grams of glucose. The higher the number, the greater the food's effect on blood sugar.
The reason for all the interest in the index is because it supports the theory of "net carbs," which has facilitated the creation of the low-carb food industry and the launch of thousands of "low-carb" products. The theory is that high-GI foods cause a spike in the glucose level that prompts the body to release a flood of insulin. In turn, insulin drops blood sugar levels so that the person feels hungry again quickly and eats more. In contrast, low-GI foods are said to be digested more slowly and to release glucose more gradually.
But while many popular diet books make it sound as if the glycemic index is an accepted theory, in truth, there are very real problems with this system. First and foremost is the fact that the glycemic index deals with single foods eaten alone, not meals where foods are combined.
At the same time, this system does not take into account the serving size of commonly eaten foods or the fact that there can be major differences even when comparing foods of the same type, such as a relatively green banana compared with a ripe one. Another major limitation of the glycemic index is that it doesn't take into account the many factors that can alter the digestion and absorption of carbohydrates. These factors include the amount of fiber, fat and protein in the food, how refined the ingredients are, whether the food was cooked, and what other foods are eaten at the same time.
Along with these limitations, there is no clear-cut evidence in the scientific literature that associates low-GI foods as either promoting satiety or reducing hunger. Moreover, nutritionists state that eliminating all foods that are high on the glycemic index is unhealthy, since many of these carbohydrates are rich in vitamins and minerals, phytochemicals, antioxidants and dietary fiber that have been associated with a lower risk for certain cancers, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and stroke, among other medical conditions. What is even more troubling is that many foods that have a low GI score, such as chocolate bars, are known to be high in fat and calories, while foods such as carrots with a high GI score are not.
The Implications for People with Diabetes
Because the glycemic index was developed to measure how fast blood sugar rises after a person eats foods containing carbohydrates, it is important to note that the premier organization focusing on the prevention and treatment of diabetes -- the American Diabetes Association -- does not recommend the use of this system. In its January 2002 nutrition recommendations, ADA stated that the available studies where glycemic index was controlled "do not provide convincing evidence of a benefit."1 In addition, ADA's statement said that the research examining the index is very limited and involves only a small number of study groups. Therefore, ADA concluded, "the data reveal no clear trend in outcome benefits."
Rather, the ADA along with all the leading nutrition and public health groups recommend that for optimal health as well as weight loss, people should consume a diet that includes a variety of carbohydrate-containing foods, and especially fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products. Moreover, nutrition authorities are unanimous in stating that for weight loss, calories count, not the glycemic index. Although it may sound old-fashioned, the simple fact is that the key to successful weight loss is a combination of a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity -- nothing more.
Sociopath:
Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.
Make no mistake............this represents the psychological profile of "Adonis" IMO.
-
Rather, the ADA along with all the leading nutrition and public health groups recommend that for optimal health as well as weight loss, people should consume a diet that includes a variety of carbohydrate-containing foods, and especially fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products. Moreover, nutrition authorities are unanimous in stating that for weight loss, calories count, not the glycemic index. Although it may sound old-fashioned, the simple fact is that the key to successful weight loss is a combination of a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity -- nothing more.
Serious question:
Do you read the articles you quote? :-\
You've repeatedly stated that whole grain foods, un-processed carbs et al are bullshit.
Now you post this?
"Rather, the ADA along with all the leading nutrition and public health groups recommend that for optimal health as well as weight loss, people should consume a diet that includes a variety of carbohydrate-containing foods, and especially fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products."
-Hedge
-
You better hurry up and post that video. They are saying you don't have much longer on the discussion broads. Pretty soon you'll just be an opinion!
Apparently the speculation over Adonis’ use of performance enhancing drugs has spread to the drug dealers who allegedly supplied Adonis with his gear. Last night I got a PM from a guy in Atlanta who read my post last week about the drug dealer who alleged he sold Adonis GH and clen. This guy confirmed the allegation stating that he shipped three separate packages to an Adam Abel in the Carolinas. All three shipments have alleged to have been made during a period of time prior to last years Mr. GetBig contest.
I returned his PM and asked why he would come forward and why I should believe him. In his reply this morning, the guy in Atlanta admitted that he is Jewish. Since he joined the MD boards and realized that Adanus is a Nazi and dresses up like Hitler, and is trying to make a name for himself by claiming that he doesn’t use drugs, the guy figured what the fuck? If you can’t turn on a Nazi, who can you turn on?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=134039.0
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=134030.0
-
If he only cares about himself, then why he is helping myself and several other people out by sharing his Adonis Principles with us (for free I may add).
He may help you but he also trashes others who don't share his beliefs.
Does he make you put things like "Adonis Principles for life" & "Team Adonis" in your Personal Text line? ::)
-
I have only seen him trash people who treat him in a disrespectful way.
No I wouldn't exactly say that because he basically trashes anyone who uses, used, or is thinking about using steroids.
-
Well, I really cannot argue with you there because I have not gone through and read all his posts. But getting back to the original point, I simply do not think it is fair to say that he is only concerned about himself; this is the exact opposite impression I have gotten from him. He is always willing to help anyone free of charge who would like to try out his methods.
Fair enough but he seems to scream "look at me! look at me!" with a lot of his posts which gives me the impression he needs & craves a lot of attention. His posts also give the impression that he frowns upon those who think differently then him (i.e. when it comes to dieting, training, etc). However, if he's helping you & it works - good for you. However, it seems like his various "followers" act in a blind manner. I understand you guys agree with him on certain things but I see a lot of just "blindly" defending of him. However, please note that I haven't read all the posts/threads so I may be wrong there. Also note that I really don't care one way or another for Adonis but it gets old seeing him post the same so called theory/principles & posting lame challenges & such to others (i.e. the whole DA thing).
-
Serious question:
Do you read the articles you quote? :-\
You've repeatedly stated that whole grain foods, un-processed carbs et al are bullshit.
Now you post this?
"Rather, the ADA along with all the leading nutrition and public health groups recommend that for optimal health as well as weight loss, people should consume a diet that includes a variety of carbohydrate-containing foods, and especially fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products."
-Hedge
I eat Fruits and Drink Orange Juice everyday.
Hope this helps.
Again. for the 3240958345093853495834-5689346-05689 Time:
I ADVOCATE EATING WHATEVER YOU LIKE!
-
I eat Fruits and Drink Orange Juice everyday.
Hope this helps.
Again. for the 3240958345093853495834-5689346-05689 Time:
I ADVOCATE EATING WHATEVER YOU LIKE!
and yet you continually say you eat fruits, salad, and generally clean food. this may indeed be what you "like", but if what you "like" is also what traditional bodybuilders say is what is best then why do you think you're advocating anything remotely new or interesting?
show me someone who applies these principles, eating nothing but mcdonalds or other shitty food, with NO cardio and a standard 4 day split, that gets ripped. according to you, it should be very, very easy.
-
Great article, I added it my collection of documents...definite good read
-
Great article, I added it my collection of documents...definite good read
go up to GNC, but Macrobolic Nutrition by Gerard Dente and read that, I got mine for 3.00 and it's a great read. Same thing.
-
so would it be better to sip on something like gatorade during, then have a whole food meal 1 hour later?
-
1/2 CUP OATS 5.00 27.00 3.00 150.00
1/2 CUP EGG BEATERS 18.00 - - 225.00
2 EGG WHITES 6.00 1.00 1.00 80.00
1 banana 1.50 30.00 1.40 125.00
2 pcs toast or englis muffin 4.00 21.00 3.00 85.00
34.50 79.00 8.40 665.00
so that is what she would look like:
Not bad......delts today
thoughts:
4 sets standing press
3 sets 10-12 lat raises
3 sets barbell front raises
3 sets rear delts
3 sets seat shrugs
3 sets arnolds to finish
-
and yet you continually say you eat fruits, salad, and generally clean food. this may indeed be what you "like", but if what you "like" is also what traditional bodybuilders say is what is best then why do you think you're advocating anything remotely new or interesting?
show me someone who applies these principles, eating nothing but mcdonalds or other shitty food, with NO cardio and a standard 4 day split, that gets ripped. according to you, it should be very, very easy.
Magoo.....anyone who dines on fastfood chronicly, is sure to die a premature death. Leave Adonis alone. ;)
-
He is always willing to help anyone free of charge who would like to try out his methods.
....never replied to my priv message
-
why do people say to nix bananas and fruit and bread to stay lean? I wanted to incorporate both,once in my first meal of the day with pb, toast eggs and oats the other a few bananas with tosast some whey some tuna and some ww bread within an hour of training.....this is fine, right?
-
why do people say to nix bananas and fruit and bread to stay lean? I wanted to incorporate both,once in my first meal of the day with pb, toast eggs and oats the other a few bananas with tosast some whey some tuna and some ww bread within an hour of training.....this is fine, right?
basically if you're using the glycemic index as I understand it, bread-white bread is frowned upon. I have not read it in awhile but as I understand it the wheat that's used to produce white bread will cause a very quick sudden insulin surge that will increase hunger pangs. If you go by the GI you're better off eating wheat bread as the insulin will be released slowly, burning fat along the way and helping you to avoid hunger pangs. You can eat fruit when you use the GI as your guide but some fruits are better than others, I believe bananas are not recommended.
I have not read this stuff in a couple of years so I might be a little off but that's the basics.
-
its all flawed anyways, but thanks.....once you include fiber and fats the gi index is nixed.....now, eating white bread or a banana as a choice by itself might be another can of worms....
-
its all flawed anyways, but thanks.....once you include fiber and fats the gi index is nixed.....now, eating white bread or a banana as a choice by itself might be another can of worms....
I'm telling you a really good and cheap read is Macrobolic Nutrition by Gerard Dente, it pushes his supplements in some chapters but the information that's there is pretty damn good and very interesting. I got this book for like 3.99 at GNC a few years ago and it was great. I'm gonna reread it in a few weeks. It's basically 45-35-20, carbs-protien-fats stressing "good carbs"....really cool read.
-
I think I am pretty confident in my carb choices and my diet is def. more along that ratio than it ever has been.....
OATS
BANANAS
EZEKIEL WHOLE WHEAT BREAD
"""" PASTA
BROWN RICE
YAMS
SWEET POTS AND VEGGIES...........TIS ALL
-
I think I am pretty confident in my carb choices and my diet is def. more along that ratio than it ever has been.....
OATS
BANANAS
EZEKIEL WHOLE WHEAT BREAD
"""" PASTA
BROWN RICE
YAMS
SWEET POTS AND VEGGIES...........TIS ALL
since this thread was about the GI originally-I just scanned it so I could be wrong, I gotta ask what type of pasta?
-
DEFINATELY Whole wheat.....as much as I love it the good ol grandma white pasta....nuttn but whole wheat.....ezekiel makes a good brand too!
-
DEFINATELY Whole wheat.....as much as I love it the good ol grandma white pasta....nuttn but whole wheat.....ezekiel makes a good brand too!
here's the low glycemic grains form macrobolic nutrition, not the serving size but the actul grains themselves, don't have time to put serving sizes:
amaranth
barley
brown rice
buckwheat
bulgur
corn tortilla
pasta-seminola
pita-whole wheat
pumpernickel bread
rye bread
semolina
wheat tortilla
-
so in other words , high in fibre carbs?
This GI thing is not worth looking to much into if your having fibre,fat,protein in each meal which im guessing most bb'ers are.
Whats got me confused is reading 'burn the fat , feed the muscle' then reading about the Adonis Principles
Completely contradicts.......and ALSO reading the pdf link that is at the top of this topic on Dieting Myths contradicts alot of 'BtF,FtM'
AH!
-
no oats.....wow
-
no oats.....wow
I think oats are under "cereals" in that book, I'll have to double check later. It's a good book but the diet has you eating ALOT of food. I only did it for a little while so I can't really say if it's a good program or not but the Macrobolic Nutrition book is very well put together and very well written IMO.
-
More exciting news about the McDonalds diet should be right around the corner.
Adam check your PM's? ;)
-
gl I believe is mo important bananas are up therre on the low end with apples I believe. Yes, high sugar but high fiber. Slap some pb on em and its urrelevant......check ur pms
-
I've been following the "Warrior Diet" for almost two weeks now and have lost 18 pounds. Cardio 4 times a week for an hour each time. It's mostly fruits and vegetables.
To me it appears that when people seriously start to look in the GI levels is when they start to eat better anyway. So when they begin to lost weight it could be because they are eating better GI levels or because they are finally eating better. It's tough to say and VERY tough to challenge.
I have found out that diet is 80% of what loses weight and most people know that. But to get ripped is a combo of several things.
-
Bingo!!! Cardio is not the key although it helps in the end.....too many say, I'll do cardio everyday........train hard, eat right, and you can get big and ripped or lose fat and stay big without cardio!! It's all diet...
-
why do people say to nix bananas and fruit and bread to stay lean? I wanted to incorporate both,once in my first meal of the day with pb, toast eggs and oats the other a few bananas with tosast some whey some tuna and some ww bread within an hour of training.....this is fine, right?
I have a half of a banana in my protein shake twice a day, everyday, and I'm probably in the single-digit bodyfat levels as a result of cleaning up my diet. Bananas are fine.
My morning shake consists of:
half banana
scoop of raw oats
scoop of protein powder
cup of soy milk
few icecubes
-
good to hear I have 2 a day too.......and ezekiel toast. u eat bread? great carb source. 100 % organic. as good as oats... get some naturl pb and mke a few pb nana whey sandwhiches and forget the shake if u wanna change or try my breakie. 1 half cup oats 1 ezekiel raisen english muffin 100 % while grain. 1 tb natty pb. 1 banana . 1 egg. 1 cup of whites all mixed in my oats. soooooo good. I should make that 2 or 3 times a day. perfect bodybuilding meal keep us ripped too.
what does your daily plan look like meal by meal. bulkin? cardio? stats? sorry so many questions.....first time on a real bulk for me.....hoping hrt is gonna keep me lean at 6'2 165 n prob 8 %......i better get every morsel of 4k down.....think I need to get a lil dirty? u?
-
good to hear I have 2 a day too.......and ezekiel toast. u eat bread? great carb source. 100 % organic. as good as oats... get some naturl pb and mke a few pb nana whey sandwhiches and forget the shake if u wanna change or try my breakie. 1 half cup oats 1 ezekiel raisen english muffin 100 % while grain. 1 tb natty pb. 1 banana . 1 egg. 1 cup of whites all mixed in my oats. soooooo good. I should make that 2 or 3 times a day. perfect bodybuilding meal keep us ripped too.
what does your daily plan look like meal by meal. bulkin? cardio? stats? sorry so many questions.....first time on a real bulk for me.....hoping hrt is gonna keep me lean at 6'2 165 n prob 8 %......i better get every morsel of 4k down.....think I need to get a lil dirty? u?
Lugar, you are the last person that should be handing out ANY dietary advice.
-
I've been following the "Warrior Diet" for almost two weeks now and have lost 18 pounds. Cardio 4 times a week for an hour each time. It's mostly fruits and vegetables.
9 lbs/ week!? Stop immediately! You are losing muscle like there's no tomorrow! Losing any more than 2 lbs/ week is highly suspect imo.
-
very true. same with gaining weight. 3 max. what about on a good cycle? 3 to 4?
-
bump for others with a nana pb n tast fetish....lol
-
9 lbs/ week!? Stop immediately! You are losing muscle like there's no tomorrow! Losing any more than 2 lbs/ week is highly suspect imo.
If he's lost 18lbs in two weeks he is most likely holding a large amount of bodyfat, and the reduction in carbs has caused his body to lose a large amount of water.
-
If he's lost 18lbs in two weeks he is most likely holding a large amount of bodyfat, and the reduction in carbs has caused his body to lose a large amount of water.
I agree, but 18lbs in 2 weeks is too quick. Hopefully he'll rethink his methods.
-
princess I can hold a cabdle to most on nutritiion ......applying it to mysrelf is a different story. but my overall knowledge is top noch.....
-
princess I can hold a cabdle to most on nutritiion ......applying it to mysrelf is a different story. but my overall knowledge is top noch.....
...you're one of those "do as I say not as I do" people. ;)
-
Bingo....or say one thing and do another.........I can teach someone to bulk or cut....but bulking, isnt my forte....