How to get contest shredded for anyone - discussion

[ukjeff]

Ukjeff is the only person qualified to argue this subject with OTH, as he is a gear user and has backed up his claims, or at least found a good picture to claim.

Just to correct that Im not a gear user, those photos were taken back in 96, I still train but dont "supplement"
Heres a photo from last year, Im 47 in the pic. (thats years old, not kilos)

[Mjolnir]

LMAO, lol hahahah best post of the thread booooooooooom, but take it easy on booty though      lol, she is my home girl 

 

Negative. She is an attention whore who posts innane shit and photo's from 100 years ago.  I'm quite sure she looks nothing like the photo's she posts other than the tupperware tits, hence the ancient shots where she got on stage once and calls herself a 'bodybuilder'.  You're good OTH don't be fooled by this attention whore. 

[arce1988]

 PED

[hangclean]

Essential Amino acid? - check
Essential Fat? - check
Essential Carbohydrate? - Nup

While this is obviously true, there is no debating that the body prefers carbohydrates for fuel during weight training.   What people seem to be missing here is that while this diet plan outlined will obviously work, if you give yourself ample time, you can get just as shredded while eating carbs, as long as you keep them to a reasonable level.  70 or so grams of carbs pre-workout will not hinder fat loss at all (in fact it can help since you will hold onto more muscle and your training will be more efficient) if one is in a calorie defecit.  If someone wants the quickest way out, by all means eat chicken breast all day long....I gaurantee your training is going to suck balls, no matter how much bronkaid you are taking. 

[njflex]

Just to correct that Im not a gear user, those photos were taken back in 96, I still train but dont "supplement"
Heres a photo from last year, Im 47 in the pic. (thats years old, not kilos)

great pic,,look great bro,,,,backing it up,,,,

[Metabolic]

That's not exactly what I said, but we needn't get bogged down by the interpretive element of the conversation.

Certainly, great results can be achieved absent ketosis.

Let's be clear about facts, though:

Lyle's "Fat Loss Handbook" explicitly advocates a ketogenic diet, with Lyle himself describing it as "a ketogenic diet without the dietary fat," one that functions as "the safest and sanest way to lose fat quickly without sacrificing health (or muscle mass)." So the man whose articles you are attempting to cite as evidence against the claim that ketogenic diets are special explicitly advocates a ketogenic diet as the most efficient way to achieve quick fat loss, which is also OTH's claim.

Again, great results can and will be achieved absent ketosis now and in the future. On the issue of Lyle supposedly arguing against ketogenesis as the optimal tool for fat loss, however, you are simply mistaken.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/the-rapid-fat-loss-handbook

Ok, Ive had it with your convenient interpretations of McDonalds high protein diet (which is nothing else but the Ducan Diet).

Weight gain/loss is calorific deficit/surplus only, method doesn't matter
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18173383
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025815
>http://madcow.hostzi.com/Topics/Diet.htm
>http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.html

Don't bother with keto
>http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/5/1055.long
>http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html
>http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/289/14/1837.abstract

I will even post the (weak) contradicting evidence (keto may help)
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16476868
>http://www.ajcn.org/content/24/3/290.abstract

For anybody who cares to be informed

[arce1988]

  This thread should only be one page.

[a_ahmed]

Yeah this is retarded. Man...

Losing WEIGHT is EASY... I did that years ago because I was not informed (I let myself go and destroyed my body by becoming really obese -- truth). I did that and it was dumb. Doctors focus on body mass index bs so they are 'yay' when you drop to that bracket.

However, since I have learned.. what I CARE about is BODY COMPOSITION. That's all down to TRAINING and NUTRITION... hormones matter obviously and thats part of the whole 'plan' with OTH's thread.

That being said if it were as dumbed down as calories down or up well.. how do you think recomps can happen?

Nutrition type, nutrition timing, etc... it is all there, it's not all black and white mr doctor saying oh yeah if you eat less you'll probably lose weight, if you eat more you'll probably gain more weight!

Well duh! But is that what we want?! No! When people ask me now soo are you trying to lose weight I'm like NO, I never want to lose weight, I want to lose FAT! And likewise when trying to gain weight, why the hell would anyone wana gain bloat and fat? Perma bulking style.

Edit: My post was in reference to Metabolic's journal posts. No one gives a damn about pure weight loss, we care about body composition and lean mass... Those examples also represent what? Overeating couch potatoes... well duh they will lose weight if they eat less hmm!

[booty]

Negative. She is an attention whore who posts innane shit and photo's from 100 years ago.  I'm quite sure she looks nothing like the photo's she posts other than the tupperware tits, hence the ancient shots where she got on stage once and calls herself a 'bodybuilder'.  You're good OTH don't be fooled by this attention whore. 

I've competed 5 times and yes I am a fat ass...hence the bike pic.

[booty]

While this is obviously true, there is no debating that the body prefers carbohydrates for fuel during weight training.   What people seem to be missing here is that while this diet plan outlined will obviously work, if you give yourself ample time, you can get just as shredded while eating carbs, as long as you keep them to a reasonable level.  70 or so grams of carbs pre-workout will not hinder fat loss at all (in fact it can help since you will hold onto more muscle and your training will be more efficient) if one is in a calorie defecit.  If someone wants the quickest way out, by all means eat chicken breast all day long....I gaurantee your training is going to suck balls, no matter how much bronkaid you are taking. 

^^^  This

[trapz101]

This is getting embarassing.  So far pretty much everyone agrees with OTH (because he's right!!!) EXCEPT Booty who has a "special metabolism" that is different to evryone else on the planet and Bikinislut.  Here's a newsflash for you both, TRY THE FUCKING DIET for one week and le us know what happens, post before and after pictures.  Booty has posted shots on stage and she certainly isn't ripped to shreds and doesn't even looks like she trains in my opinion.  BS needs to STFU and try the diet and THEN come back here and post the results, if she didn't burn some fat in 7 days then I'll personally eat a shit sandwich filled with her shit (and maybe a little Tabasco).  Do it naysayers!

one week only?seriously?

[trapz101]

^x2

some of the strongest guy i know trains in the morning empty stomach..

[Palpatine Q]

Carbs are energy

fat is stored energy

why eat more carbs if you are trying to rid yourself of your stored energy

[syntaxmachine]

Ok, Ive had it with your convenient interpretations of McDonalds high protein diet (which is nothing else but the Ducan Diet).

Lyle himself calls the diet ""a ketogenic diet without the dietary fat," so unless you want to argue with him over whether his diet is ketogenic or not, you're having "had it" with my "interpretations" (read: quoting Lyle himself) is irrelevant. Facts are facts. Why did you double-down on your error instead of just admitting what Lyle himself acknowledges?

Weight gain/loss is calorific deficit/surplus only, method doesn't matter
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18173383
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025815
>http://madcow.hostzi.com/Topics/Diet.htm
>http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.html

1. The first article concludes the research undertaken supports the hypothesis that "most of the recent rise in obesity is attributable to excess caloric intake." This has no bearing on whether ketogenic diets are optimal for fast fat loss or not; the two claims are mutually compatible. The study is more concerned with finding global prescriptions for improving health outcomes, viz., convenient advice to countries to help curb obesity. I hope it's obvious that this level of research is different than anything to do with the relative effectiveness of ketogenic diets vs other types.

2. The second article doesn't compare different diets and measure the relative amount of fat loss, instead comparing a diet only approach to a diet + exercise approach. Ketosis was not induced at any point and thus the study has nothing to say on whether ketosis would have been more effective for the 20 women in question (a very small sample size). For it to have any bearing on our discussion it would need to have found similar results in groups with varying diets (then it would be clear that regardless of diet, caloric deficiency is what matters).

3. Article three is irrelevant because it is discussing the role caloric excess plays in building muscle. We aren't talking about that; we are talking about what diet (if any) is optimal for stripping away bodyfat and maintaining muscle mass at as fast a rate as possible. It's also by some guy named "madcow" who makes numerous spelling/grammatical mistakes, clearly a piece of broscience no better than any opinion posted here. Caloric excess being necessary and sufficient for muscle gain has no obvious connection to the claim that caloric deficiency is necessary and sufficient for optimal fat loss.

4. The Examine articles cites 18 journal articles. Only ONE addresses ketogenic diets, with the rest of the articles defining "low carb" anywhere between 15-40% carbohydrate intake -- obviously not the same sort of diet bodybuilders are referring to. You are claiming that these studies support the notion that "method doesn't matter," yet to the extent that ketogenesis -- a specific method -- is absent in the literature, the former claim is unsubstantiated (how can you claim method doesn't matter when you don't test all the methods?). The single study that does assess a ketogenic diet (Atkins) focuses solely on weight loss, meaning it doesn't take into effect changes in body composition. As such, it is incapable of impacting the claim that ketogenesis leads to more fat loss/muscle retention over the short term.

[syntaxmachine]

Don't bother with keto
>http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/5/1055.long
>http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/ketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-have-no-metabolic-advantage-over-nonketogenic-low-carbohydrate-diets-research-review.html
>http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/289/14/1837.abstract

We saw that the previous studies you posted are irrelevant because they neglect ketogenis diets or changes in body composition over mere weight loss. The above studies, on the other hand, are clearly relevant.

1. The second link you posted includes the content of the first, so I can evaluate them as one. The only weakness I can find here is one that Lyle points out: "BIA [the method this study used to measure bodyfat] has its share of problems and can be thrown off by hydration status, which is affected by the carbohydrate content of the diet." But let's cede the results of this study to you. In your previous post you yourself indicated 2 studies that support the 'ketogenesis is superior for fat loss' hypothesis, meaning us ketofreaks are up 2-1 (since the rest of your articles were irrelevant, either not evaluating keto diets or otherwise not measuring changes in body composition).

2.. The third study concludes that "there is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets," but again, the definition of 'low-carbohydrate' diet is key. The metaanalysis ranges over 107 articles, which themselves study diets with carb intakes ranging from "0-901g/d." 901g a day of carbs is low-carb and thus effects the conclusion of whether low-carb diets are effective? OK.  The study also ignores body composition changes, meaning it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is whether ketosis leads to the fastest fat loss/muscle preservation over the short term.

3. In short, the result of our sparring seems to be that the ketofreaks are winning on the scientific front (2-1). Additionally, we see that the current paradigm (a preference for moderate/high carb consumption) leads researchers to make lazy methodological decisions and still conclude in favor of orthodoxy, neglecting to even evaluate keto diets while still concluding against their efficacy.

But there's a more important point to be made: I can take out my stack of studies done on 20 obese Genoese women laying in gurneys and fight with you over the results of your stack of studies done on 10 obese people, 6 of which are kids, but the fact is that such data is irrelevant to the discussion. The data relevant is the broscientists like OTH serving themselves up as guinea pigs, of which there are thousands.

The scientific study of ketosis' efficacy remains woefully inadequate (I casually poked holes in virtually all the studies you presented) so in the meantime we need to use data collected in the field -- people who have been getting sliced and diced for decades (those 20 Genoese fuckers don't outweigh -- excuse the term -- the opinion of most bodybuilders, which is clearly that ketogenic diets are brutally effective for stripping away fat and preserving muscle in a short amount of time, better than other diets for this purpose).

[ukjeff]

one week only?seriously?

You will lose weight in one week on this diet, although it will be mostly water weight due to the lack of carbs.

[hangclean]

body prefers carbs for training?

sure about that?


im absolutely not sure about that, all record lifts for me done on low or no carbs

Absolutely sure.  Muscles full of glycogen perform better than muscles depleted of glycogen.  there is absolutely no debating this.  You may be able to perform a one rep max glycogen depleted, but for any type of weight training involving volume, you are better off with glycogen in the muscle. All I am saying is that some carbs pre-workout, or fuck....even the night before training are not going to hinder fat loss, as long as protein is high and calories are low.  It is totally asanine to do a crash diet like this, unless you are behind on a contest prep and need to drop fat fast.

[ukjeff]

im sooooo sick of the fat fucks who eat carbs every freaking meal, typicaly rice and chicken breast and never become lean, never.and ask themselves why.

the best are the clowns who do a cheat day on top of the above mentioned.

I used to do all that, except the "fat f*ck" bit.
My cheat days used to consist of anything and everything, in fact the first 4 weeks of my 10 week diet I only dieted Monday to Friday, I took weekends off.
Dieting to hard too long slows your metabolism, the cheat days boost it into overdrive to get rid of the excess food and then its still racing the days you go back on your diet.

[OTHstrong]

Absolutely sure.  Muscles full of glycogen perform better than muscles depleted of glycogen.  there is absolutely no debating this.  You may be able to perform a one rep max glycogen depleted, but for any type of weight training involving volume, you are better off with glycogen in the muscle. All I am saying is that some carbs pre-workout, or fuck....even the night before training are not going to hinder fat loss, as long as protein is high and calories are low.  It is totally asanine to do a crash diet like this, unless you are behind on a contest prep and need to drop fat fast.

My best lifts and craziest workouts have been on low or no carbs, I see NO difference at all training with or without carbs. I maximize my energy each and every time I go to the gym. I will take ECA proficiently to reach a certain state and at this state I am at maximum capacity before I enter the gym, either way I am wired and that is all that counts.

[Metabolic]

Yeah this is retarded. Man...

Losing WEIGHT is EASY... I did that years ago because I was not informed (I let myself go and destroyed my body by becoming really obese -- truth). I did that and it was dumb. Doctors focus on body mass index bs so they are 'yay' when you drop to that bracket.

However, since I have learned.. what I CARE about is BODY COMPOSITION. That's all down to TRAINING and NUTRITION... hormones matter obviously and thats part of the whole 'plan' with OTH's thread.

That being said if it were as dumbed down as calories down or up well.. how do you think recomps can happen?

Nutrition type, nutrition timing, etc... it is all there, it's not all black and white mr doctor saying oh yeah if you eat less you'll probably lose weight, if you eat more you'll probably gain more weight!

Well duh! But is that what we want?! No! When people ask me now soo are you trying to lose weight I'm like NO, I never want to lose weight, I want to lose FAT! And likewise when trying to gain weight, why the hell would anyone wana gain bloat and fat? Perma bulking style.

Edit: My post was in reference to Metabolic's journal posts. No one gives a damn about pure weight loss, we care about body composition and lean mass... Those examples also represent what? Overeating couch potatoes... well duh they will lose weight if they eat less hmm!

Do I really need to explain that the research was done to conclude that in order to gain weight naturally (a mixture of muscle mass and adipose tissue) you need surplus of energy and in order to lose weight naturally (lose adipose tissue and some muscle mass) you need a deficit of energy and not "special" diets?

Of course its about body compositiion, and this studies show how you can change it overtime naturally....incredible youd post such a wall of text on such an obvious matter.

The mixture of fat and muscle you lose/gain depends on the actual caloric intake and protein intake, hence why high protein diets are needad.  If you still cant accept this well, PEDs will alway help you get there.

[Metabolic]

We saw that the previous studies you posted are irrelevant because they neglect ketogenis diets or changes in body composition over mere weight loss. The above studies, on the other hand, are clearly relevant.

1. The second link you posted includes the content of the first, so I can evaluate them as one. The only weakness I can find here is one that Lyle points out: "BIA [the method this study used to measure bodyfat] has its share of problems and can be thrown off by hydration status, which is affected by the carbohydrate content of the diet." But let's cede the results of this study to you. In your previous post you yourself indicated 2 studies that support the 'ketogenesis is superior for fat loss' hypothesis, meaning us ketofreaks are up 2-1 (since the rest of your articles were irrelevant, either not evaluating keto diets or otherwise not measuring changes in body composition).

2.. The third study concludes that "there is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets," but again, the definition of 'low-carbohydrate' diet is key. The metaanalysis ranges over 107 articles, which themselves study diets with carb intakes ranging from "0-901g/d." 901g a day of carbs is low-carb and thus effects the conclusion of whether low-carb diets are effective? OK.  The study also ignores body composition changes, meaning it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is whether ketosis leads to the fastest fat loss/muscle preservation over the short term.

3. In short, the result of our sparring seems to be that the ketofreaks are winning on the scientific front (2-1). Additionally, we see that the current paradigm (a preference for moderate/high carb consumption) leads researchers to make lazy methodological decisions and still conclude in favor of orthodoxy, neglecting to even evaluate keto diets while still concluding against their efficacy.

But there's a more important point to be made: I can take out my stack of studies done on 20 obese Genoese women laying in gurneys and fight with you over the results of your stack of studies done on 10 obese people, 6 of which are kids, but the fact is that such data is irrelevant to the discussion. The data relevant is the broscientists like OTH serving themselves up as guinea pigs, of which there are thousands.

The scientific study of ketosis' efficacy remains woefully inadequate (I casually poked holes in virtually all the studies you presented) so in the meantime we need to use data collected in the field -- people who have been getting sliced and diced for decades (those 20 Genoese fuckers don't outweigh -- excuse the term -- the opinion of most bodybuilders, which is clearly that ketogenic diets are brutally effective for stripping away fat and preserving muscle in a short amount of time, better than other diets for this purpose).

The first studies were posted just to make sure this conversation doesnt deviate from the basics, energy surplus and deficits, as I posted above.

The second group, no, you didnt poke holes, you barely even read the abstract of the study and assume a lot things about them and forwarded some really generic criticism, plus, taking normal (although this should be more strict) people for this kinds of studies is good, you dont want people with altered hormonal levels, such as bodybuilders, because that is not a normal functioning metabolism (I hope we at least can agree on this)?

But yeah, lets take you methodological approach, lets take a PEDs consumer who besides his great dieting strategies takes clen, ephedrine, t3 or whatever drug of choice he has, even hGH maybe.  No offense OTH; you might be one aesthetic and big guy, but it makes no sense to me to listen to the findings of people who are drugged. Also, I am pro steroids so dont think Im condemning you.

"Keto is great, clen is only the finishing 5%"

[Palpatine Q]

Absolutely sure.  Muscles full of glycogen perform better than muscles depleted of glycogen.  there is absolutely no debating this.  You may be able to perform a one rep max glycogen depleted, but for any type of weight training involving volume, you are better off with glycogen in the muscle. All I am saying is that some carbs pre-workout, or fuck....even the night before training are not going to hinder fat loss, as long as protein is high and calories are low.  It is totally asanine to do a crash diet like this, unless you are behind on a contest prep and need to drop fat fast.

It's a matter of opinion and priorities in my mind.

You will have an easier time of it and feel better with a traditional calorie deficit diet that is balanced, but me, if I'm dieting...the goal is to lose the fat, fuck it...get it over with and pay the price. and eating lean beef, veggies and chicken all day isn't all the bad.

for breakfast I'll eat 2 whole eggs with 4 egg whites on top, a few pieces of lean beef and peppers and onions. that is some carbs but negligible, a cup of Peppers and onions has a whopping 7 grams of sugar, that's nothing and I could use a bit of carbs in the AM. and it's delicious...I like eating it.

[jakew300]

When I was younger (13) I would ask this bodybuilder all kinds of questions in gym.  He finally told me if it works for you then it works.  I think the proof is in the egg whites.  No carb and very low fat diets work.  There is no way to choke down enough calories to get fat.  Protein metabolism also raises metabolic rate more than fat and carbs. Now not everyone can handle this kind of diet.  Some it can make sick.  Other it is just too hard for them to stick on it.

[njflex]

GREAT POINTS GUYS,,,,ALL GOOD INFO,,,

[syntaxmachine]

The first studies were posted just to make sure this conversation doesnt deviate from the basics, energy surplus and deficits, as I posted above.

Fair enough.

The second group, no, you didnt poke holes, you barely even read the abstract of the study and assume a lot things about them and forwarded some really generic criticism, plus, taking normal (although this should be more strict) people for this kinds of studies is good, you dont want people with altered hormonal levels, such as bodybuilders, because that is not a normal functioning metabolism (I hope we at least can agree on this)?

1. Whether my criticism was "generic" or not isn't particularly relevant; what's relevant is that it undermines your argument (you presented these studies as evidence that "method doesn't matter," i.e., that you will lose roughly the same amount of weight/fat regardless of diet.)

For example, that 17 of 18 studies cited in the Examine article don't even address ketogenic diets undermines that article as a piece of evidence for your claim, since you cannot make a conclusion about all methods (diets) until you've properly evaluated all of them. And none of these studies properly evaluate ketogenic diets. The one study of the 18 that tries doesn't even bother to measure change in body composition, clearly shoddy research that has no bearing on our discussion. That leaves a single article indicating that ketogenesis isn't any better than other approaches, itself balanced out by contrary research which you yourself graciously posted.

If you think it's relevant, you can point to specific instances of my assuming overmuch and indicate how that affects my counterargument. If not, your claim that that's what I've done doesn't amount to much.

2. Yes, we can agree that PED-enhanced metabolisms shouldn't be the default units of analysis for a ketogenic diet. Or, if we use them as our units, we should limit our conclusions to people on PEDs, not the whole population. I still think this enables us to make conclusions about the general effectiveness of keto because there are plenty of people not on PEDs who utilize such diets -- at least I think so.