i`m here again

blackbeard said:
Seems contradictory doesn't it? .... What's your point exactly?
Click to expand...

Actually it is rather obvious. In simple terms (for you), experimenting (or dabbling if-you-will) with different gram levels of Carbohydrates is not the same as attempting Ketogenesis.

For example: a 300 pound male (6FT), has a 3,500 calorie maintenance. He has seen fat loss at 3,000 calories and 300g of carbohydrates, but (hypothetically) fat loss stopped (keeping training equal). At this point he can make some hypothetical choices: Increase activity (intensity, type, etc, etc), Lower deficit, decrease carbohydrates (etc). This hypothetical person chooses to drop Carbohydrates to 200 grams (or -100 manipulation). And, fat loss continues. Is this possible? Absolutely.

Concerning Marko:

1. He is pleased with his fat loss rate (and I suggested to stay the course), but planted the seed below (number 2)

2. It is possible "adjusting the carbohydrate" could bring more fat loss; but, if he decides to stay the course, and at some point fat loss stops, manipulating the carbohydrate (could) bring it back. Like planting a seed of thought in advance. Which was stated in a series of posts back, but in different words.

Considering the above (1 and 2) I do not believe at present, Marko needs to manipulate carbohydrates to the point of: Soliciting Ketogenesis. Why? Because rather basic applications are working.

If Marko has a questions along these lines, I will be more than willing to provide an extensive explanation--more specific for him.


Best wishes

Chillen
 
Last edited:
Thanks Chillen ...i understood your previous post perfectly:)
 
Actually this post gave me the opportunity to glance through some of the stuff I've got :-

- the 30g/100g school of carbs
- the old saying "fat burns in a carbohydrate flame".
- myths such as to "tone" do high reps with a low weight.
 
blackbeard said:
Actually this post gave me the opportunity to glance through some of the stuff I've got :-

- the 30g/100g school of carbs
- the old saying "fat burns in a carbohydrate flame".
- myths such as to "tone" do high reps with a low weight.
Click to expand...

What are you reading that crap for???:confused4:
 
blackbeard said:
Crap? Many would ask why you are cutting from 180 lbs to 154 lbs without the "conventional" approach to fat loss. It depends on which angle you are looking at.
Click to expand...

Running calorie deficits, and controlling/manipulating carbohydrates is rather basic and conventional, IMO.

Additionally, Marko's fitness goals are rather basic and conventional. Originally, I cut down from 190ish to 152/154.

And, the body's ability to burn/use fat or other tissue, is among a "variety" of complex biological mechanisms, and isn't just simply reduced to "fat burns in a carbohydrate flame" [which can be true-->dependent].

For example, if there was ONLY one biological pathway to burn fat, than most persons (assuming non-diabetic, etc) would not burn any fat on ketogenic diets (say with 0 carbohydrate consumption, and this assumes one is in a ketosis, and the trend was long enough to put them in this state). Essentially, (simply put), the body shifts to different pathways/conversions to make its energy sources.

IMO, it is an error, to think that the calorie ALONE is the only partner to produce fat loss. Yes, it is the most important (IMO, no doubt), but not to examine the energy properties that manipulation of macro nutrients can bring, is also an error.

How this is done, depends on the person and personal circumstances.


Best wishes,

Chillen
 
blackbeard said:
Crap? Many would ask why you are cutting from 180 lbs to 154 lbs without the "conventional" approach to fat loss. It depends on which angle you are looking at.
Click to expand...

I guess you never saw the sarcastic smiley.

Also where did you pull 154lbs from???your ass??

I`m cutting down to 170 which is only 10lbs fat loss not 26.

In a very conventional way ie cardio and restricted calorie intake.

I`m asking certain questions on ketogenic diets and carb cycling for future reference when i will be cutting from a higher body weight.It will be nice to have a little knowledge on the subject.

Do you have a problem with me being 170lbs and 5ft 9???
 
marko157 said:
Do you have a problem with me being 170lbs and 5ft 9???
Click to expand...

So what if he does, why should you even care?

Shoot him this::action13:

And, say:

What I do, is for me. What you do is for you.

So whoopie-do, and boo-hoo, if my goal isn't for you.

Oh.......insert the smiley--->:), as I am joking around. :)


Best wishes,

Chillen
 
Here is some guy in this forum, who is losing weight but is concerned he is not losing fat. Not all "cuts" are the same.

Some of the stuff I was reading had pretty specific stuff based on your existing condition, but carry on doing what you are doing :-

Code: 
Body Fat %            Males            Females
Exceptionally Lean   6-10%          10-15%
Very Lean              11-14%          6-19%
Lean                     15-18%          20-25%
Moderate               19-24%          26-29%
Obese                    25%+            30%+
 
First off i have a completly different body composition to that guy,and a lot more muscle mass,also i`m not on some sort of crash diet,i`ve given myself 15 weeks approx to lose my 10lbs.

Maybe you agree with what i`m doing maybe not but i`d like to hear your opinions on what you would do (please just dont say bulk:xmas:)

Critique is always welcome
 
marko157 said:
First off i have a completly different body composition to that guy,and a lot more muscle mass,also i`m not on some sort of crash diet,i`ve given myself 15 weeks approx to lose my 10lbs.
Click to expand...

LOL, most would be shocked at the diet/training perimeters I have to get to get below 10% BF. LOL. Do I care? No, I do not. Bottom line I am healthy, and I am "results" driven plain and simple.

Sometimes with some people, the body isn't adapting favorably inside when BF is low, and it doesn't necessarily play into ones goal path, and you fight back having a "little bit" of understanding of what is going on--applicable to the persons situation. There can be many paths, and simply one chooses one, and other, and so on, until they find one that works--most favorable to them.

When I got lean the second time, I wanted to take my medium frame, and start pounding on people who's articles/e-books I read/talked with, LOL :) (said affectionately, actually). I am still that young man, when a teenager playing football (without pads) on a concrete parking lot, coming home bleeding with cuts and bruises to my mother's dismay.

Anyone who has developed a training regime to completely deplete glucose stores, will KNOW what I am talking about. I am just a tad meaner, than it though. Underneath my niceness on the forum, is a rather mean beast toward diet and training. I do not give a crap if I am 48. It will own up to me. I Am the boss, and Marko's his own boss. He will keep "worken" the numbers within diet and training, and find what works for him.

Marko rocks.


best wishes

Chillen
 
So how are you getting on marko157? Have you lost fat, muscle, water weight or what? What are your macronutrient ratios? This is my diet for the day along with my dietary goals. If i were in your shoes i would eat high fat/high protein to lower my body fat.

Code: 
You Ate 2012 Calories
(Goal is 2109 to 2359 cals)
	
Protein 179.12g of Protein
(Goal is 136 to 234 grams)

Carbs	218.56g of Carbs
(Goal is 178 to 268 grams)

Fat 50.71g of Fat
(Goal is 43 to 74 grams)
 
blackbeard said:
So how are you getting on marko157? Have you lost fat, muscle, water weight or what? What are your macronutrient ratios? This is my diet for the day along with my dietary goals. If i were in your shoes i would eat high fat/high protein to lower my body fat.

Code: 
You Ate 2012 Calories
(Goal is 2109 to 2359 cals)
	
Protein 179.12g of Protein
(Goal is 136 to 234 grams)

Carbs	218.56g of Carbs
(Goal is 178 to 268 grams)

Fat 50.71g of Fat
(Goal is 43 to 74 grams)
Click to expand...

I`m gonna update ..with pics in the second week of April..im weighing in at 178lbs at the moment not much loss i know but i am on course
 
marko157 said:
I`m gonna update ..with pics in the second week of April..im weighing in at 178lbs at the moment not much loss i know but i am on course
Click to expand...

It took me over a year to lose 40+ pounds. Do the loss percentages per week. Slow, is an understatement. This is not even 1 pound per week (52 weeks in a year). This is certainly "below" the healthy average rate of loss.

During this time, it took another 3 months........to figure out how to un-stick this ridiculously stubborn low abdomen/rear back fat. Nonstick spray available? My brain.

Marko, if you are "pleased" with your current rate of weight loss (and "really") do not want it any faster than the rate it is presently going, then there is no reason to change if you are experiencing fat tissue loss. Move by your "choice standards". If you want it faster (or improved), than we could discuss some options relative to your personal particulars.

The move toward high protein/high (er) concentration of fats are "really" only mainly applicable if you are performing a ketogenic diet. Other than this, manipulating your calorie deficits, keeping fat grams (say around 50 grams or so), and manipulating the Carbohydrates would be the area of the diet I would primarily focus on. There are many options within these three areas one can consider.

One example: While I deplete my glucose storage fully, I also know that you can partially drain it (like a battery so-to-speak) and cause a slower discharge, and a full depletion isn't necessary. You do this through calorie deficits and setting appropriate carbohydrate, protein, and fat, grams for your particulars

The carbohydrate ranges can prevent ketosis, and over time, Carbohydrates (are slightly deficient) to fuel your workouts (and slightly deficient) in giving the body (in what it would normally use for brain function, and what not biologically). This way you can have three forces (working different biological functions within) working for you in fat loss: 1. Calorie deficiency, 2. The Carbohydrate, and 3.. Partially Draining Glucose Storage.

Something to consider in the future. Also........have you been reading?:D

My point is that you do not have to go high protein/high fat.

Blackbeard this was my diet Monday/Tuesday: 5,100 calories (both days). 800-900 carbohydrates each day, 20-50 grams of Fat, and about 136-140 (ish) of Protein. :) I had "two" MT-Lines (each day) to consider not one. :)


Best wishes to you Marko.........

Chillen
 
Last edited:
Chillen said:
Something to consider in the future. Also........have you been reading?:D

My point is that you do not have to go high protein/high fat.

Blackbeard this was my diet Monday/Tuesday: 5,100 calories (both days). 800-900 carbohydrates each day, 20-50 grams of Fat, and about 136-140 (ish) of Protein. :) I had "two" MT-Lines (each day) to consider not one. :)


Best wishes to you Marko.........

Chillen
Click to expand...

No one has to go high protein/high fat .... that's a special gear for a special occasion. I'm happy to look like a fridge ATM, but if i wanted to lower my body fat, that approach would still allow me to eat 100g of carbs (close to my workouts). Extremes such as very low carb, and very low fat, are only appropriate for a small section of the population

You can see here your "should" change depending on your workouts and goals at each stage. I say "should" because quite a few people stick to the school of "calorie deficit" or "calorie surplus" without recognising the importance of the macronutrient ratios.
 
blackbeard said:
You can see here your "should" change depending on your workouts and goals at each stage. I say "should" because quite a few people stick to the school of "calorie deficit" or "calorie surplus" without recognising the importance of the macronutrient ratios.
Click to expand...

I agree, Blackbeard. This is what I practice.

Best wishes

Chillen
 
Chillen said:
It took me over a year to lose 40+ pounds. Do the loss percentages per week. Slow, is an understatement. This is not even 1 pound per week (52 weeks in a year). This is certainly "below" the healthy average rate of loss.
Click to expand...

From my experience, people who lose like this usually always keep the fat off. It's the crashed dieting/quick weight loss that always leads to failure.

btw - good luck Marko. Keep consistent and you will succeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top