8 ms·

A Diet and Exercise Plan to Lose Weight and Gain Muscle

34 points by credo 11y ago

brianwawok 11y ago
> Of course, by the end of the month, none of the men wished to continue. This type of extreme calorie cutting combined with intense exercise “is not a sustainable program in the long term,” Dr. Phillips said. “It’s more a kind of boot camp,” he said, manageable in the short term by people who are very committed and generally very healthy. No no no.. don't diet.. change your lifestyle. Drinking a fancy shake for a month is a diet. Never touching Soda again is changing your lifestyle. One works for the long term, one does not.
- MCRed 11y ago
  I've been paying very close attention to the responses of my body to different foods, etc. Drinking water has not produced better weight loss than drinking coke zero. Maybe by "soda" you meant soda with sugar...but for me, the coke zero is well worth the mood improvement, and I've observed no negative effects.
  - billmalarky 11y ago
    Diet soda causes insulin resistance, dental erosion, and I believe acid reflux. Just something to consider when weighing the pros/cons. http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/4/688.full http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/4/688.full http://www.colgate.com/en/us/oc/oral-health/basics/nutrition-and-oral-health/article/sw-281474979359772 http://www.colgate.com/en/us/oc/oral-health/basics/nutrition... A better alternative, though still exacerbates acid reflux I believe, is flavored club soda like la croix. After about a week of drinking it, lime la croix tastes like sprite. Then if you have a real sprite you'll gag. Plus it gives you an excuse to act all fancy. I should probably add that the difference between diet soda and flavored club soda are the flavoring agents. With la croix, "The flavors are derived from the natural essence oils extracted from the named fruit used in each of our LaCroix flavors. There are no sugars or artificial ingredients contained in, nor added to, these extracted flavors." http://www.lacroixwater.com/nutritional-faqs/ http://www.lacroixwater.com/nutritional-faqs/ However I suspect drinking carbonated beverages in general is worse for you than straight water, of course.
    - parenthephobia 11y ago
      The conclusion of the diabetes-related study you linked to is not that diet soda causes insulin resistance, but that diet soda consumption is positively associated with metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. The nature of the link is not established, but the authors speculate that diet soda consumption may lead to increased consumption of high-sugar beverages or food either directly by causing sugar cravings or indirectly by impairing the ability to gauge whether one has eaten enough.
      - tzs 11y ago
        > The nature of the link is not established, but the authors speculate that diet soda consumption may lead to increased consumption of high-sugar beverages or food either directly by causing sugar cravings or indirectly by impairing the ability to gauge whether one has eaten enough. Or it could be the other way around. Suppose you are consuming a high sugar diet, both from consuming high sugar soda and eating high sugar foods. You are fat, and you know you are heading toward diabetes. You want to start taking steps to avert that. The easiest step to take is to replace regular soda with diet soda some or all of the time. For many people that is as simple as inserting the single word "diet" into their order at the fast food place. Thus, I think that you are going to see correlations between diet soda and various bad things because people who have these bad things or are worried about developing these bad things switch to diet soda.
    - matheweis 11y ago
      >> ...for me, the coke zero is well worth the mood improvement, and I've observed no negative effects. > Diet soda causes insulin resistance, dental erosion, and I believe acid reflux Artificial sweeteners have also been implicated in fundamental changes in gut bacteria that can lead to obesity... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeteners-may-change-our-gut-bacteria-in-dangerous-ways/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeten...
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - webkike 11y ago
    I highly doubt its even possible to isolate how one product affects your weight loss considering its not the only thing you will be consuming over several months
  - pboutros 11y ago
    Why would you have expected it to? Calorically, the difference between Coke Zero and water is zero.
    - bkjelden 11y ago
      While diet soda doesn't have any calories, I have noticed that cutting it out of my diet has had a significant effect on my appetite.
  - brianwawok 11y ago
    I think there is also a mental response. Diet soda is sickly sweet. Your train your mind and body that there should be a sickly sweet treat with each meal. Don't drink any soda or juice for a few months, and you may be surprised how sickly sweet it is. I would spit out diet pepsi at this point. Once you get your sense on track for a reasonable diet, I find it helps with making other good choices. Like ice cream... too sweet, easy to pass up. Whereas former fat me would eat it every night.
    - rmtew 11y ago
      I quit drinking coke zero on purpose for months at a time, and come back to it, just to appreciate it again. At no time have I ever thought it tastes sickly sweet. Of course, diet pepsi is another matter.
    - ashark 11y ago
      Can confirm. Now that I'm not used to having soda all the time, when I occasionally indulge my tolerance for the stuff is really low. 3-4 ounces and it's starting to gross me out. Sodas on the sweeter end of the spectrum (Pepsi, my old favorite Dr. Pepper) are entirely unappealing. It's a triumph of marketing that having a big-ass glass of soda (free refills!) with most meals isn't seen as just as indulgent/gross as eating a couple big handfuls of candy or having a bowl of ice cream with every meal, when in fact it's probably _worse_, since at least chocolate & nuts or decent ice cream will have _some_ redeeming qualities (vitamins). Yet no-one's going to buy a tub of Ben & Jerry's every morning to have at their desk at work—they'd be too ashamed (maybe at home, but not among co-workers). A 32+ ounce cup of soda, though? Sure. Very common. To anyone looking to kick the habit: I found that even _unflavored_ sparkling water or club soda just about totally eliminated any immediate desire to have a sugary soda. The carbonation bite was the main thing I craved, turns out, not so much the sweetness. These days I mostly drink plain water, but I went through tons of that stuff when I was quitting, and I think it was a big help.
  - ldehaan 11y ago
    Anything claiming 0 calories is a chemical wasteland of things you definitely don't want in your body. Want to know how super healthy people die early of cancer? It's sugar replacements. Sugar is bad yes, fake sugar is so much worse. I knew a guy who died of cancer, he was super healthy, no smoking, barely any drinking, used aspartame for everything. Died of cancer, really pissed off, and I would be too, he was super healthy. It may be something else that caused the cancer, but I doubt it.
    - CJefferson 11y ago
      Honestly, your claim is crazy. For anything X, there will be something who consumes no X who dies of cancer, and someone who consumes huge amounts of X who dies of cancer.
    - mhurron 11y ago
      I new a guy who was super healthy, no smoking, no drinking, didn't use aspartame for everything. He went to the doctor feeling a little under the weather one day. Several weeks later he had died of leukemia. Don't know what caused it, but I doubt it was replacing sugar with Aspartame. There is a reason the plural of anecdote isn't data.
    - sgift 11y ago
      > It may be something else that caused the cancer, but I doubt it. Like bad luck with your genes. Which is actually one of the most important factors in getting cancer.
  - Quinner 11y ago
    "I've been paying very close attention to the responses of my body to different foods, etc." Your personal anecdote is not a rigorous scientific study.
    - tzs 11y ago
      Sadly, when it comes to food research a "rigorous scientific study" is often just a collection of personal anecdotes with some correlations identified.
MCRed 11y ago
In both groups %50 of their calories came from carbohydrates. Carbs are quick sugar energy, and the resulting rise in blood sugar tells the body that it has plenty of energy. This would have been much more interesting if one group had low to zero cards, and high fat and high protein. Such a diet has worked well for me to lose a hundred pounds in 8 months... without any exercise. (and I don't think I'm losing muscle.) The question is- can you cut carbs and become fat adapted (Which is what I have done, and the results are dramatic, my bodies response to fat is much different than before)... while still building muscle. This is the next phase for me- the second hundred pounds I want to lose I will do while working out and building muscle. In my case, this change in diet has become a change in lifestyle. I'm perfectly happy eating steak and BBQ and when I get a hankering for a pizza I make it with almond flour and have very little carbs. It's easy and fun and I'm eating better now (and saving money) while feeling much better. Like the people in the study I've also recently started experimenting with a shake. It's called "Keto Chow" and you can find the recipe at diy.soylent.com. The nice thing about this is that I put my daily vitamins in the shake and some supplements so I'm getting better nutrition than I was before. This is taking essentially no effort. Before when I dieted (low fat, high carb standard "diet") it was very difficult because it took a huge amount of willpower. This takes almost none. Of course, exercising will take willpower so I'm finding exercises that I like to do. Dancing is my aerobic approach. Not sure what I will do for muscle building yet, though, because lifting is kinda boring. (but I do have dumbbells next to my chair and I pick them up and exercise a bit when I'm thinking.) I think the whole theory of "calories in < calories out" is BS-- people are different and some people are more sensitive to insulin the others.
- redthrowaway 11y ago
  >I think the whole theory of "calories in < calories out" is BS-- people are different and some people are more sensitive to insulin the others. You think the first law of thermodynamics is bullshit?
  - ajkjk 11y ago
    There's obviously more to it than that. For a hypothetical example, if your diet caused your basal metabolism to increase, or for you to excrete more calories without metabolizing them, then it could induce a change in weight compared to a different diet with the same caloric intake.
pvnick 11y ago
Great article, nice and short, and to the point. This is not news to diet and exercise enthusiasts, however, but it is always nice to see supporting evidence. Strength training, combined with a high-protein diet, is ideal for maintaining or increasing muscle mass even in caloric deficit. Compound exercises, like squats, deadlifts, benchpress, etc, involve greater whole-body muscle recruitment and are more effective than accessory exercises like bicep curls. It is likely, however, that the 3 pounds of muscle gained was attainable because of the relatively untrained status of the participants and their high body fat percentage (article mentions approximately 24% average body fat percentage for the participants). Leaner, more well-trained individuals, have a harder time packing on muscle when in caloric deficit.
NvidiaCUDA 11y ago
The key, of course, is cutting your calories. Don't forget that. As a 5'10", 150# 53-year-old man who's in decent shape (you can see my abs!) I can tell you it it's not hard to have some sort of "physique" 3 hours of weight training/week does it. And to not be fat, just stop eating so much. I spent about 15 hours/week practicing the piano. The gym is a relatively small part of my time each week compared to other things.
lintiness 11y ago
anybody get to the conclusion? "Of course, by the end of the month, none of the men wished to continue."
melted 11y ago
Just ask any competitive bodybuilder how to lose fat without losing much muscle and they will tell you about their "cut" diet, cycling, periodization, etc. Some of them (eg Ben Pakulski) work with scientists in fact, and go to ridiculous lengths in that regard. Except body builders drop carbs significantly and they always eat a ton of protein, cut or bulk. Of course steroids help to achieve and sustain single digit body fat percentages, but even without steroids you should see OK results if you're willing to put in the work in the gym.
NicoJuicy 11y ago
Here some tips after losing weight ( 25 kg = 55 lbs in 6 months) ( healthy way).. It was 1/4th of my weight. - Morning cardio, after a protein shake - Eat every 3 hours ( no sugar please!) - Men are easier at gaining "muscle" ( testosteron), i'm not a woman. But woman would have more effect with more cardio. Men have more effect with doing both - If you eat more then 4 consecutive days too little, your body will cut on the daily energy requirements. Eat 1 cheat meal every 4 days. ( because of a hormone called leptine, it's the reason why you can survive 30 days without food) - Eat every meal ( morning, noon, in between and evening) || 6 meals a day will make you a king - Last (small ) meal = 2 hours before going to sleep - Protein to be lean, drop the carbs closer the evening. In my opinion, you should have the "big meal" in the morning, so you have to whole day to digest it.. - You don't digest things in your sleep, it gets stored as fat ( you're not doing anything, so your body doesn't need it now) - Sleep enough - Weight exercise in the evening, if you want to do cardio. Do it afterwards. - If you suck at running, don't try Start 2 run. Run 1 minute, stretch 20 seconds and repeat for half an hour. Next time. Run 2 minutes and stretch. I ran 10 km in a month ( and i hate running and i was pretty fat :p ) - Don't like running, try rope skipping - Don't like rope skipping, rowing is awesome! - If you have pain, take care and don't overdo it! - 40% is exercise, 60% is better / healthier food - Fish is healthier then every meat - Poultry is the best meat - Repeat exercising every day, except 1 day in the week ( rest day) - Don't expect extreme results after a week, it will become more and more visible as your metabolism will improve - Don't check your weight on a scale daily... Do it monthly or biweekly - Change your exercises regularly, your muscles adapt / become more efficient at what you do the most. You don't want that... - A pure protein diet as in the commercials, will ruin your metabolism... ( Eg. When you eat after the diet, like you ate before the protein diet, you will gain weight faster then you lost it) - If you want your weight to stay off, respect your metabolism. Eat always ( preferably small portions) - Not every fat is bad ( transfats are), not every sugar is bad ( eg. fructose and dextrose) - Probably some controversional theory, but they always say alcohol are empty calories. I also think that alcohol lowers your metabolism You want reading material with more information? Try Tom Ventuo with "Burn the fat, feed the muscle". ( you'll learn more about calorie cycling and much more then what i've said here) You want another good author ( short / good articles), search for anything of Lyle McDonald. Eg. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/ http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/
marklawrutgers 11y ago
I've been following this guide which has a lot of information on better foods and how your body functions: http://ss.fitness/ http://ss.fitness/ Most notably: Cut grains/flour/wheat/sugar/baked goods from your diet completely. Diet accommodates for about 60% of your body while exercise makes up the rest 40%. Give or take 20% depending on your type and metabolism.
prostoalex 11y ago
They reduced calorie consumption, but also mandated that 50% of the diet comes from carbohydrates. Is it possible that for their average experiment participant the weight loss was a result of net reduction of carbohydrates consumed, not variations on a 50-35-15 formula?
mattquiros 11y ago
The study is very misleading. I was excited to read about some scientific breakthrough because I saw the link from Hacker News, but this one crucial fact gave it away: > the McMaster researchers rounded up 40 overweight young men Of course they both lost weight and gained muscle. They were overweight to begin with. Anyone overweight who starts exercising loses a lot of weight and gains muscle simply because their bodies began to have higher caloric expenditures, and their muscles had to adapt to more mechanical stresses. If we're talking about someone whose body fat percentage is already normal, however, we'll go back to choosing between losing weight or gaining muscle, because you can't do both. When you exercise, you burn the carbs first, then the fat, then to a small extent, the protein, though these three are being used simultaneously to produce energy. You hit the fat-burning zone when your carbs can't produce as much energy (fat produces way more energy but requires way more intensity to burn), but since fat also takes some time to burn and you already need to produce energy to continue with the exercise, you use the protein too, which comes from your muscles. This is the reason why bodybuilders have a cutting phase and a gaining phase. They gain muscle or strength for 2-5 months, cut for 1-2 months, then go back to gaining muscle again. How do you gain muscle? You put on weight--meaning, you eat more. The weight that you put on will be about 5 parts fat and 1 part muscle, and that is why the cutting phase is necessary. Muscle is only gained with the fat and continued weight training, so burn the fat once you put on the weight. Whenever you attempt to lose fat, you will always inevitably lose muscle, so if you want to get buff, you can only do so much fat-burning exercises. That means keeping your runs at 10-15km, for example. In summary, you can't do both. You can only gain muscle and lose weight together if you're really fat to begin with. If you're within the average body fat % range, though, you still need to switch between cutting and gaining phases.

34 points by credo 11y ago

> Of course, by the end of the month, none of the men wished to continue. This type of extreme calorie cutting combined with intense exercise “is not a sustainable program in the long term,” Dr. Phillips said. “It’s more a kind of boot camp,” he said, manageable in the short term by people who are very committed and generally very healthy. No no no.. don't diet.. change your lifestyle. Drinking a fancy shake for a month is a diet. Never touching Soda again is changing your lifestyle. One works for the long term, one does not.

MCRed 11y ago
I've been paying very close attention to the responses of my body to different foods, etc. Drinking water has not produced better weight loss than drinking coke zero. Maybe by "soda" you meant soda with sugar...but for me, the coke zero is well worth the mood improvement, and I've observed no negative effects.
- billmalarky 11y ago
  Diet soda causes insulin resistance, dental erosion, and I believe acid reflux. Just something to consider when weighing the pros/cons. http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/4/688.full http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/4/688.full http://www.colgate.com/en/us/oc/oral-health/basics/nutrition-and-oral-health/article/sw-281474979359772 http://www.colgate.com/en/us/oc/oral-health/basics/nutrition... A better alternative, though still exacerbates acid reflux I believe, is flavored club soda like la croix. After about a week of drinking it, lime la croix tastes like sprite. Then if you have a real sprite you'll gag. Plus it gives you an excuse to act all fancy. I should probably add that the difference between diet soda and flavored club soda are the flavoring agents. With la croix, "The flavors are derived from the natural essence oils extracted from the named fruit used in each of our LaCroix flavors. There are no sugars or artificial ingredients contained in, nor added to, these extracted flavors." http://www.lacroixwater.com/nutritional-faqs/ http://www.lacroixwater.com/nutritional-faqs/ However I suspect drinking carbonated beverages in general is worse for you than straight water, of course.
  - parenthephobia 11y ago
    The conclusion of the diabetes-related study you linked to is not that diet soda causes insulin resistance, but that diet soda consumption is positively associated with metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes. The nature of the link is not established, but the authors speculate that diet soda consumption may lead to increased consumption of high-sugar beverages or food either directly by causing sugar cravings or indirectly by impairing the ability to gauge whether one has eaten enough.
    - tzs 11y ago
      > The nature of the link is not established, but the authors speculate that diet soda consumption may lead to increased consumption of high-sugar beverages or food either directly by causing sugar cravings or indirectly by impairing the ability to gauge whether one has eaten enough. Or it could be the other way around. Suppose you are consuming a high sugar diet, both from consuming high sugar soda and eating high sugar foods. You are fat, and you know you are heading toward diabetes. You want to start taking steps to avert that. The easiest step to take is to replace regular soda with diet soda some or all of the time. For many people that is as simple as inserting the single word "diet" into their order at the fast food place. Thus, I think that you are going to see correlations between diet soda and various bad things because people who have these bad things or are worried about developing these bad things switch to diet soda.
  - matheweis 11y ago
    >> ...for me, the coke zero is well worth the mood improvement, and I've observed no negative effects. > Diet soda causes insulin resistance, dental erosion, and I believe acid reflux Artificial sweeteners have also been implicated in fundamental changes in gut bacteria that can lead to obesity... http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeteners-may-change-our-gut-bacteria-in-dangerous-ways/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeten...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- webkike 11y ago
  I highly doubt its even possible to isolate how one product affects your weight loss considering its not the only thing you will be consuming over several months
- pboutros 11y ago
  Why would you have expected it to? Calorically, the difference between Coke Zero and water is zero.
  - bkjelden 11y ago
    While diet soda doesn't have any calories, I have noticed that cutting it out of my diet has had a significant effect on my appetite.
- brianwawok 11y ago
  I think there is also a mental response. Diet soda is sickly sweet. Your train your mind and body that there should be a sickly sweet treat with each meal. Don't drink any soda or juice for a few months, and you may be surprised how sickly sweet it is. I would spit out diet pepsi at this point. Once you get your sense on track for a reasonable diet, I find it helps with making other good choices. Like ice cream... too sweet, easy to pass up. Whereas former fat me would eat it every night.
  - rmtew 11y ago
    I quit drinking coke zero on purpose for months at a time, and come back to it, just to appreciate it again. At no time have I ever thought it tastes sickly sweet. Of course, diet pepsi is another matter.
  - ashark 11y ago
    Can confirm. Now that I'm not used to having soda all the time, when I occasionally indulge my tolerance for the stuff is really low. 3-4 ounces and it's starting to gross me out. Sodas on the sweeter end of the spectrum (Pepsi, my old favorite Dr. Pepper) are entirely unappealing. It's a triumph of marketing that having a big-ass glass of soda (free refills!) with most meals isn't seen as just as indulgent/gross as eating a couple big handfuls of candy or having a bowl of ice cream with every meal, when in fact it's probably _worse_, since at least chocolate & nuts or decent ice cream will have _some_ redeeming qualities (vitamins). Yet no-one's going to buy a tub of Ben & Jerry's every morning to have at their desk at work—they'd be too ashamed (maybe at home, but not among co-workers). A 32+ ounce cup of soda, though? Sure. Very common. To anyone looking to kick the habit: I found that even _unflavored_ sparkling water or club soda just about totally eliminated any immediate desire to have a sugary soda. The carbonation bite was the main thing I craved, turns out, not so much the sweetness. These days I mostly drink plain water, but I went through tons of that stuff when I was quitting, and I think it was a big help.
- ldehaan 11y ago
  Anything claiming 0 calories is a chemical wasteland of things you definitely don't want in your body. Want to know how super healthy people die early of cancer? It's sugar replacements. Sugar is bad yes, fake sugar is so much worse. I knew a guy who died of cancer, he was super healthy, no smoking, barely any drinking, used aspartame for everything. Died of cancer, really pissed off, and I would be too, he was super healthy. It may be something else that caused the cancer, but I doubt it.
  - CJefferson 11y ago
    Honestly, your claim is crazy. For anything X, there will be something who consumes no X who dies of cancer, and someone who consumes huge amounts of X who dies of cancer.
  - mhurron 11y ago
    I new a guy who was super healthy, no smoking, no drinking, didn't use aspartame for everything. He went to the doctor feeling a little under the weather one day. Several weeks later he had died of leukemia. Don't know what caused it, but I doubt it was replacing sugar with Aspartame. There is a reason the plural of anecdote isn't data.
  - sgift 11y ago
    > It may be something else that caused the cancer, but I doubt it. Like bad luck with your genes. Which is actually one of the most important factors in getting cancer.
- Quinner 11y ago
  "I've been paying very close attention to the responses of my body to different foods, etc." Your personal anecdote is not a rigorous scientific study.
  - tzs 11y ago
    Sadly, when it comes to food research a "rigorous scientific study" is often just a collection of personal anecdotes with some correlations identified.

MCRed 11y ago

In both groups %50 of their calories came from carbohydrates. Carbs are quick sugar energy, and the resulting rise in blood sugar tells the body that it has plenty of energy. This would have been much more interesting if one group had low to zero cards, and high fat and high protein. Such a diet has worked well for me to lose a hundred pounds in 8 months... without any exercise. (and I don't think I'm losing muscle.) The question is- can you cut carbs and become fat adapted (Which is what I have done, and the results are dramatic, my bodies response to fat is much different than before)... while still building muscle. This is the next phase for me- the second hundred pounds I want to lose I will do while working out and building muscle. In my case, this change in diet has become a change in lifestyle. I'm perfectly happy eating steak and BBQ and when I get a hankering for a pizza I make it with almond flour and have very little carbs. It's easy and fun and I'm eating better now (and saving money) while feeling much better. Like the people in the study I've also recently started experimenting with a shake. It's called "Keto Chow" and you can find the recipe at diy.soylent.com. The nice thing about this is that I put my daily vitamins in the shake and some supplements so I'm getting better nutrition than I was before. This is taking essentially no effort. Before when I dieted (low fat, high carb standard "diet") it was very difficult because it took a huge amount of willpower. This takes almost none. Of course, exercising will take willpower so I'm finding exercises that I like to do. Dancing is my aerobic approach. Not sure what I will do for muscle building yet, though, because lifting is kinda boring. (but I do have dumbbells next to my chair and I pick them up and exercise a bit when I'm thinking.) I think the whole theory of "calories in < calories out" is BS-- people are different and some people are more sensitive to insulin the others.

redthrowaway 11y ago
>I think the whole theory of "calories in < calories out" is BS-- people are different and some people are more sensitive to insulin the others. You think the first law of thermodynamics is bullshit?
- ajkjk 11y ago
  There's obviously more to it than that. For a hypothetical example, if your diet caused your basal metabolism to increase, or for you to excrete more calories without metabolizing them, then it could induce a change in weight compared to a different diet with the same caloric intake.

pvnick 11y ago

Great article, nice and short, and to the point. This is not news to diet and exercise enthusiasts, however, but it is always nice to see supporting evidence. Strength training, combined with a high-protein diet, is ideal for maintaining or increasing muscle mass even in caloric deficit. Compound exercises, like squats, deadlifts, benchpress, etc, involve greater whole-body muscle recruitment and are more effective than accessory exercises like bicep curls. It is likely, however, that the 3 pounds of muscle gained was attainable because of the relatively untrained status of the participants and their high body fat percentage (article mentions approximately 24% average body fat percentage for the participants). Leaner, more well-trained individuals, have a harder time packing on muscle when in caloric deficit.

NvidiaCUDA 11y ago

The key, of course, is cutting your calories. Don't forget that. As a 5'10", 150# 53-year-old man who's in decent shape (you can see my abs!) I can tell you it it's not hard to have some sort of "physique" 3 hours of weight training/week does it. And to not be fat, just stop eating so much. I spent about 15 hours/week practicing the piano. The gym is a relatively small part of my time each week compared to other things.

lintiness 11y ago

anybody get to the conclusion? "Of course, by the end of the month, none of the men wished to continue."

melted 11y ago

Just ask any competitive bodybuilder how to lose fat without losing much muscle and they will tell you about their "cut" diet, cycling, periodization, etc. Some of them (eg Ben Pakulski) work with scientists in fact, and go to ridiculous lengths in that regard. Except body builders drop carbs significantly and they always eat a ton of protein, cut or bulk. Of course steroids help to achieve and sustain single digit body fat percentages, but even without steroids you should see OK results if you're willing to put in the work in the gym.

NicoJuicy 11y ago

Here some tips after losing weight ( 25 kg = 55 lbs in 6 months) ( healthy way).. It was 1/4th of my weight. - Morning cardio, after a protein shake - Eat every 3 hours ( no sugar please!) - Men are easier at gaining "muscle" ( testosteron), i'm not a woman. But woman would have more effect with more cardio. Men have more effect with doing both - If you eat more then 4 consecutive days too little, your body will cut on the daily energy requirements. Eat 1 cheat meal every 4 days. ( because of a hormone called leptine, it's the reason why you can survive 30 days without food) - Eat every meal ( morning, noon, in between and evening) || 6 meals a day will make you a king - Last (small ) meal = 2 hours before going to sleep - Protein to be lean, drop the carbs closer the evening. In my opinion, you should have the "big meal" in the morning, so you have to whole day to digest it.. - You don't digest things in your sleep, it gets stored as fat ( you're not doing anything, so your body doesn't need it now) - Sleep enough - Weight exercise in the evening, if you want to do cardio. Do it afterwards. - If you suck at running, don't try Start 2 run. Run 1 minute, stretch 20 seconds and repeat for half an hour. Next time. Run 2 minutes and stretch. I ran 10 km in a month ( and i hate running and i was pretty fat :p ) - Don't like running, try rope skipping - Don't like rope skipping, rowing is awesome! - If you have pain, take care and don't overdo it! - 40% is exercise, 60% is better / healthier food - Fish is healthier then every meat - Poultry is the best meat - Repeat exercising every day, except 1 day in the week ( rest day) - Don't expect extreme results after a week, it will become more and more visible as your metabolism will improve - Don't check your weight on a scale daily... Do it monthly or biweekly - Change your exercises regularly, your muscles adapt / become more efficient at what you do the most. You don't want that... - A pure protein diet as in the commercials, will ruin your metabolism... ( Eg. When you eat after the diet, like you ate before the protein diet, you will gain weight faster then you lost it) - If you want your weight to stay off, respect your metabolism. Eat always ( preferably small portions) - Not every fat is bad ( transfats are), not every sugar is bad ( eg. fructose and dextrose) - Probably some controversional theory, but they always say alcohol are empty calories. I also think that alcohol lowers your metabolism You want reading material with more information? Try Tom Ventuo with "Burn the fat, feed the muscle". ( you'll learn more about calorie cycling and much more then what i've said here) You want another good author ( short / good articles), search for anything of Lyle McDonald. Eg. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/ http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/

marklawrutgers 11y ago

I've been following this guide which has a lot of information on better foods and how your body functions: http://ss.fitness/ http://ss.fitness/ Most notably: Cut grains/flour/wheat/sugar/baked goods from your diet completely. Diet accommodates for about 60% of your body while exercise makes up the rest 40%. Give or take 20% depending on your type and metabolism.

prostoalex 11y ago

They reduced calorie consumption, but also mandated that 50% of the diet comes from carbohydrates. Is it possible that for their average experiment participant the weight loss was a result of net reduction of carbohydrates consumed, not variations on a 50-35-15 formula?

mattquiros 11y ago

The study is very misleading. I was excited to read about some scientific breakthrough because I saw the link from Hacker News, but this one crucial fact gave it away: > the McMaster researchers rounded up 40 overweight young men Of course they both lost weight and gained muscle. They were overweight to begin with. Anyone overweight who starts exercising loses a lot of weight and gains muscle simply because their bodies began to have higher caloric expenditures, and their muscles had to adapt to more mechanical stresses. If we're talking about someone whose body fat percentage is already normal, however, we'll go back to choosing between losing weight or gaining muscle, because you can't do both. When you exercise, you burn the carbs first, then the fat, then to a small extent, the protein, though these three are being used simultaneously to produce energy. You hit the fat-burning zone when your carbs can't produce as much energy (fat produces way more energy but requires way more intensity to burn), but since fat also takes some time to burn and you already need to produce energy to continue with the exercise, you use the protein too, which comes from your muscles. This is the reason why bodybuilders have a cutting phase and a gaining phase. They gain muscle or strength for 2-5 months, cut for 1-2 months, then go back to gaining muscle again. How do you gain muscle? You put on weight--meaning, you eat more. The weight that you put on will be about 5 parts fat and 1 part muscle, and that is why the cutting phase is necessary. Muscle is only gained with the fat and continued weight training, so burn the fat once you put on the weight. Whenever you attempt to lose fat, you will always inevitably lose muscle, so if you want to get buff, you can only do so much fat-burning exercises. That means keeping your runs at 10-15km, for example. In summary, you can't do both. You can only gain muscle and lose weight together if you're really fat to begin with. If you're within the average body fat % range, though, you still need to switch between cutting and gaining phases.