This will be my last thread on the issue.

[haider]

Racist post reported. 

howcome you didn't answer my question seriously?! 

[kyomu]

Give an example of a "special nutritional tip" you personally found helpful.

Will you be "big and shredded without gears" at your next show?

I am eating lots of simple carbs which is quite prohibited generaly and i am making good result now.

I hope and i should. If not, I wont be on stage.

[johnnynoname]

the fact of the matter is that wavelength has it right

good job, wave length
...anything else robin   

[wavelength]

Racist post reported. 

howcome you didn't answer my question seriously?! 

Who, me?

I am eating lots of simple carbs which is quite prohibited generaly and i am making good result now.

I hope and i should. If not, I wont be on stage.

Of course you do, "simple" carbs are completely irrelevant.

the fact of the matter is that wavelength has it right

good job, wave length
...anything else robin   

Hahahaha

[Van_Bilderass]

I am eating lots of simple carbs which is quite prohibited generaly and i am making good result now.

But that's just the thing, that's not going against what Wave said. You are really following what Wave said, lots of protein (though maybe a good bit more than the OP said) and you are in an energy deficit (otherwise you wouldn't be getting leaner and lighter).

[Fatpanda]

While this is reasonable advice in a general sense, it is not absolute. There are other factors to consider... such as ones individual metabolism, and the state of that metabolism over the period of the diet. The more/longer you diet the more your body will try to compensate by lowering your metabolic rate. In some cases it will also blunt the output of your thyroid gland, which negates the effectives of your diet.

I would add to your list, and say that other good tips are to do some cardio first thing on an empty stomach, and if you find yourself in sticking points, rev up the amount of calories you are eating for a couple of days to get your metabolism back in order, then start dropping calories again...

Taking a cyclical approach to dieting is best IMO.

metabolic slowdown is blown waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion. yes is slows down eventually, but it doesn't stop. so either way if you reduce calories again you'll lose more fat.

if it does slow down quickly while dieting you have bigger issues than being overweight - your thyroid is about to pack in 

for example i was dieting on no carbs or fats mon-fri, then lots of carbs and fats sat and sun for 6 months - when i got blood work my thyroid was perfect. despite losing over 50lbs.

what happened to the slow down there ? 

[Topskin69]

metabolic slowdown is blown waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion. yes is slows down eventually, but it doesn't stop. so either way if you reduce calories again you'll lose more fat.

if it does slow down quickly while dieting you have bigger issues than being overweight - your thyroid is about to pack in  

for example i was dieting on no carbs or fats mon-fri, then lots of carbs and fats sat and sun for 6 months - when i got blood work my thyroid was perfect. despite losing over 50lbs.

what happened to the slow down there ?  

Using yourself as a baseline for all mankind is a bit absurd. Also...I don't know about other variables in your habits, (exercise type/frequency, etc), so there may be more to the story.

Also I never meant to imply that metabolic slowdown is a huge spectre of impending doom, about to swallow up any would-be dieter, just that it is a mechanism that the body has in place, and it does have to be factored in. I have found that it is easier for me to lose weight, by eating small amounts constantly, and revving up my cardio. I actually seem to be improving my metabolic rate by increasing my calories as apposed to restricting them.... Why is this... who knows, but suffice to say that the hormonal makeup of an individual plays a great deal into weight loss/gain.

To keep it simple though...It is good advices to suggest that one should run a deficit, either by restricting calories, or by keeping calories steady, but increasing cardio, (which would also put you in a deficit, but IMO is generally a superior approach, as it will keep your metabolic rate up, and would make matters more efficient.)

I remember a while back reading that Jay Cutler would simply keep his calories steady for as long as possible, but increase his cardio output, until he no longer saw results, and would then, and only then, start restricting calories. He said that he felt that he held on to much more muscle this way, and that it made dieting easier....for me its easy to see why this would be a good approach.

Nothing is set in stone however...and the main thing is to again be pragmatic, and make personalized adjustments as needed. As long as you don't make any sudden drastic changes, and are willing to be honest about assessing your progress, or lack thereof, this shouldnt be overly complicated.

Of course when a lot of androgens/insulin/GH/etc are involved in the equation, then that has to be factored in.

[nolotil]

I am eating lots of simple carbs which is quite prohibited generaly and i am making good result now.

I hope and i should. If not, I wont be on stage.

you will loose weight even if your eating lots of simple carbs...if your in a caloric deficit. its no mystery 

but the  question i have is why you are eating lots of simple carbs? they tend to not be as filling as 'slower' carbs..and often less nutritious. also unless you are doing multiple sessions per day or lots of endurance training i see no reason to use simple carbs after workouts...(if that is what you are doing).

[Fatpanda]

Using yourself as a baseline for all mankind is a bit absurd. Also...I don't know about other variables in your habits, (exercise type/frequency, etc), so there may be more to the story.

Also I never meant to imply that metabolic slowdown is a huge spectre of impending doom, about to swallow up any would-be dieter, just that it is a mechanism that the body has in place, and it does have to be factored in. I have found that it is easier for me to lose weight, by eating small amounts constantly, and revving up my cardio. I actually seem to be improving my metabolic rate by increasing my calories as apposed to restricting them.... Why is this... who knows, but suffice to say that the hormonal makeup of an individual plays a great deal into weight loss/gain.

To keep it simple though...yes one should run a deficit, either by restricting calories, or by keeping calories steady, but increasing cardio, (which would also put you in a deficit, but IMO is generally a superior approach, as it will keep your metabolic rate up, and would make matters more efficient.)

I remember a while back reading that Jay Cutler would simply keep his calories steady for as long as possible, but increase his cardio output, until he no longer saw results, and would then, and only then, start restricting calories. He said that he felt that he held on to much more muscle this way, and that it made dieting easier....for me its easy to see why this would be a good approach.

Nothing is set in stone however...and the main thing is to again be pragmatic, and make personalized adjustments as needed. As long as you don't make any sudden drastic changes, and are willing to be honest about assessing your progress, or lack thereof, this should be overly complicated.

Of course when a lot of androgens/insulin/GH/etc are involved in the equation, then that has to be factored in.

where in my post did i state i was using myself as a baseline for all of mankind ? i did the same as you earlier - simply used myself as an example ( an extreme example).

i could have chosen to use science and posted studies that have looked into the phenomenon of metabolic slowdown in metabolic ward conditions while dieting, but whats the point - very few here would even read it.

the jist is basically the slow down comes from a reduced BMR caused by weight loss which leads to less stress on organs/muscles which leads to less calories being burned during daily activities etc etc

it may actually account for all metabolic slowdown in healthy dieters, and as i stated above if there is greater slowdown than can be accounted for by this then the thyroid is about to pack in.

[nolotil]

there will be metabolic slowdown..but when weight loss stalls you simply lower the calories abit more.

food restriction should be the main variable in achieving a caloric deficit. cardio shouldnt be used as the main factor in achieving a caloric deficit,, otherwise you risk overdoing the cardio which increases the  risk of muscle loss and will negatively impact workouts which also increases risk of muscle loss

also drugs increases the margin of error and lets you get away with alot of things that wouldnt be good for naturals. what pros do is pretty irrelevant

[Mr Nobody]

there will be metabolic slowdown..but when weight loss stalls you simply lower the calories abit more.

food restriction should be the main variable in achieving a caloric deficit. cardio shouldnt be used as the main factor in achieving a caloric deficit,, otherwise you risk overdoing the cardio which increases the  risk of muscle loss and will negatively impact workouts which also increases risk of muscle loss

Nice post

[wavelength]

there will be metabolic slowdown..but when weight loss stalls you simply lower the calories abit more.

Funny thing is, most "experts" will tell you to "eat more to start losing" again, or other complicated methods of "breaking through the plateau".

food restriction should be the main variable in achieving a caloric deficit. cardio shouldnt be used as the main factor in achieving a caloric deficit,, otherwise you risk overdoing the cardio which increases the  risk of muscle loss and will negatively impact workouts which also increases risk of muscle loss

also drugs increases the margin of error and lets you get away with alot of things that wouldnt be good for naturals. what pros do is pretty irrelevant

The main problem with cardio IMO is that most people hate it. That's why so many people fail at losing fat, they are told they have to do stuff they hate and stop eating stuff they like.

[kyomu]

you will loose weight even if your eating lots of simple carbs...if your in a caloric deficit. its no mystery 

but the  question i have is why you are eating lots of simple carbs? they tend to not be as filling as 'slower' carbs..and often less nutritious. also unless you are doing multiple sessions per day or lots of endurance training i see no reason to use simple carbs after workouts...(if that is what you are doing).

I dont know. Just Pine fills my muscle very well.
If i sustitute pine to the rice with same amount of calories, i would be very flat.

[affeman]

I dont know. Just Pine fills my muscle very well.
If i sustitute pine to the rice with same amount of calories, i would be very flat.

White rice are simple carbs as well.

[wavelength]

White rice are simple carbs as well.

not by the definition I know

[affeman]

not by the definition I know

Maybe you know a wrong definition. That's probably also the reason why you believe simple or complex carbs are irrelevant.

[wavelength]

Maybe you know a wrong definition. That's probably also the reason why you believe simple or complex carbs are irrelevant.

Refer me to a scientific publication mentioning rice as a simple carbohydrate then.

And I never said it's irrelevant, I said irrelevant for body composition. And this is very well proven through scientific studies. If you think otherwise, please refer scientific studies on body composition.

[affeman]

Refer me to a scientific publication mentioning rice as a simple carbohydrate then.

The glycaemic index of white rice is up to 90 (depends on how long you cook it), white rice is plain sugar. I don't know exactly what scientific publication you wanna see about that fact now lol.

[wavelength]

The glycaemic index of white rice is up to 90 (depends on how long you cook it), white rice is plain sugar. I don't know exactly what scientific publication you wanna see about that fact now lol.

White rice is a high GI complex carb, not a sugar.
Sugars are simple carbs.

That's the definition I know and I'm pretty sure it is correct.

[nolotil]

I dont know. Just Pine fills my muscle very well.
If i sustitute pine to the rice with same amount of calories, i would be very flat.

sorry i dont know what pine is? also i think its much in your head regarding being flat. if you eat alot of sugars of course you will still loose fat (in a caloric deficit) but i see no point making most of your carbs fast sugars..to be honest i would avoid them mostly..not nutritious and like i said unless you workout twice a day for same myuscle group or do alot of endurance training you dont need to use fast sugars to speed up storage of glycogen as you will have atleast 24hours to do so..and 'regular' carbs will do the trick and will be more nutritious and filling

[nolotil]

White rice are simple carbs as well.

absolutely no problem eating white rice during diet. totally ok to use as a source of carbs. i much prefer taste of white rice vs brown rice. doesnt matter which you use. up to you

[affeman]

absolutely no problem eating white rice during diet. totally ok to use as a source of carbs. i much prefer taste of white rice vs brown rice. doesnt matter which you use. up to you

I use brown rice. White rice makes me hypoglycemic and fidgety in a diet. With brown rice no problems.

[nolotil]

GI has no impact on body composition or lipolysis,, but that doesnt meen you should eat only HIGH GI food as for many people low GI foods is good for hunger control which is important aspect during dieting also in general lower GI food are often more nutritious. the point is dont go insane and worry too much abotu GI,, also please dont make extreme interpretations such as that  you should eat candy 24/7...not at all. so dont go basing all of your diet on high GI foods.

Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006) 7:219-26.

The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the
hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation.

[wavelength]

GI has no impact on body composition or lipolysis,, but that doesnt meen you should eat only HIGH GI food as for many people low GI foods is good for hunger control which is important aspect during dieting also in general lower GI food are often more nutritious. the point is dont go insane and worry too much abotu GI,, also please dont make extreme interpretations such as that  you should eat candy 24/7...not at all. so dont go basing all of your diet on high GI foods.

Diaz EO et. al. Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans. Obes Rev. (2006) 7:219-26.

The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the
hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation.

My best poster of the year award goes to nolotil.

Have you been called an Adonis gimmick yet BTW?

[nolotil]

My best poster of the year award goes to nolotil.

Have you been called an Adonis gimmick yet BTW?

no  but i heard someone mention the name i think earlier in this thread  no idea who it is tho,,