Milk good for you? [Forum Archive]

Pages: 1

Milk good for you?

(CLICK HERE here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Akash

Hi I have a question. Alot of people have said milk is actually bad for you when cutting. But I read from like 3 magazines that recently they found out that people who drunk milk were more leaner and bones were strong (well the stronger bones I knew about). So what's the verdict on milk? Do you still have milk like skim or 1% not 2% or Homo.

Posted by: Mudge

If you supplement with calcium you wont need the milk. I am using milk right now, but it does have alot of carbs (they add up fast), and supposedly doesnt digest well when used with other foods, I don't seem to have a problem with it so far as I can tell, I've been a heavy milk drinker my whole life. It also contains lactose which is a sugar.

I usually have 1%, sometimes 2%, sometimes non fat, take a look at the rest of your diet and see how it fits in. 4% tastes nasty to me now, even though it was the other way around when low fat was "new".

Posted by: Prince

if you're cutting you would not want the extra sugar (milk contains lactose which is sugar).

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by Akash
Hi I have a question. Alot of people have said milk is actually bad for you when cutting.

It's only bad in the sense that you'll prolly end up eating more calories than you think.

Posted by: Prince

if I were cutting the extra sugar would be my concern.

Posted by: Robboe

I agree.

It'll prolly cause cravings and if you break diet, you'll eat more calories overall.

Other than that, you can drop fat and get to low bf% with milk.

Lyle McDonald got down to 7% bf drinking milk and eating 2 macDonald's happy meals a day last year. Purely because he included them in his daily calorie totals.

(Maybe not everyday, but most days at least, i believe).

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy
Lyle McDonald got down to 7% bf drinking milk and eating 2 macDonald's happy meals a day last year.

LMAO!

now that's a healthy meal!

Posted by: Robboe

Haha, yeah i know.

I don't think that was all he ate, but his diet definately consisted of those items.

I'll do a quick search and see if i can find anything he's written about it.

Posted by: Mudge

I guess he did it for the toys...

Posted by: Robboe

Nothing to think about and I was being serious.

I went to the McDonald's fast food restaurant that is roughly 2 miles
south of my house, got 2 standard hamburgers (260 cal apiece) every day
for a meal while I was dieting last summer to ~7% bodyfat.

Lyle

Posted by: Prince

why would he eat such "food"?

Posted by: Robboe

When I dieted to 7% last year, I ate at McDonalds daily.

Lyle

Nothing to think about and I was being serious.

I went to the McDonald's fast food restaurant that is roughly 2 miles
south of my house, got 2 standard hamburgers (260 cal apiece) every day
for a meal while I was dieting last summer to ~7% bodyfat.

Lyle

> seriously? did you do anything special (e.g. no mayo on the burgers, no
> fries)?

I ate less and exercised a bit more, that's what I did special.

>what else were you eating?

Food. Just like I always do.

Lyle

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince
why would he eat such "food"?

Because he likes them.

Remember, a good diet is one you can stick to.

Posted by: Robboe

Yogurt and cheese are both going to contain lactose (milk sugar) as
well. Not as much as milk and there are other reasons they don't tend
to cause as much stomach upset as other foods (yogurt has active
cultures that help with digestion).

> I have to drop at least 5 lbs.

A function of calories, not whether you're drinking milk or not, despite
what has been written in many amusing bodybuilding books.

When I got to ~7% bodyfat last year, I was drinking milk every day of
the week. Still am.
I like milk, just not as much as I like monkeys.

Lyle

Posted by: Robboe

the body doesn't magically make fat because you eat KK vs. potatoes
despite what most bodybuffers believe.

It's all about calories. Well, 99% of it anyhow. Food quality can have
a marginal effect.

The times that you can be losing muscel and gaining fat are usually
severe pathologies and situations where muscle catabolism is cranked way
up (cancer, shit like that). Sever muscular insulin resistance can make
it happen because calories are shunted away from muscle to fat.

Elzi could comment on this as it happened to her: she has some
congenital insulin resistance, she wasn't able to train because of her
injury and she was losing muscle and getting fat at the same time.

But assuming no underlying pathology, anyone who tells you that food
quality will magically make you gain fat while in a claoric deficit
needs to read a little human physiology. Or hydrolyze themselves for protein.

Lyle

Posted by: Robboe

You haven't been reading anything i've written in the last 4 months have you?
I will contend that, given sufficent protein and EFA's, you can get
ripped on table sugar.

Appetite will be the determining factor.
Because 80% of the variance in what you lose (bodyfat vs. muscle) is NOT
determined by diet, it's determined by your body. Once you meet certain
requirements (protein, EFA, calories, weight training), the rest of your
diet means nothing outside of it's ability to meete appetite and
psychological needs (and exercise prformance).

> If you are still gonna cut fat
> because of the deficit, why not go ahead and have a bowl of Golden Grahams
> for breakfast, chicken fajitas with cheese and sour cream, KK's, etc. once
> in a while?
>
Because it makes it harder to control calories because of appetite issues.
That's it.

> Keep in mind, I'm being theoretical. Anyone who knows me at all knows that
> my diet is something I'm quite strict about, but the question remains: is it
> possible to eat junkfoods in a so-called "cutting phase" as long as the
> calories are painstakingly considered and kept at a 500-1000 a day deficit?

I believe so, as long as appetite can be controlled.

Lyle

Posted by: Robboe

This shit is great:

People bitch at me all the time for eating bread and milk on a diet,
because they aren't acceptable bodybuilding diet foods.

What-fucking-ever. I'm not a psychological basket case like most bodybuilders.
I like bread, I like milk, I eat McDonald's hamburgers when I'm dieting
if I want to. If I'm happy with my diet food choices, I am more likely
to stick to it. Eating potatoes and broccoli all day would make it so I
hated my diet and broke it.

Fuck, during my refeed yesterday I combined a Met-Rx bar with Sunny
Delight and a bag of jelly beans. It's just carbs, makes no fucking difference.

As long as calories are controlled, it makes less than a shit's worth of
different (nb: maybe when you get to sub 5% it might) where the calories
come from. Unless choosing different foods makes it tougher to control appetite.

Still hit 7% last year that way, and plan to go lower this year doing
that the entire time.

But most bodybuilding diet information is voodoo bullshit anyhow (take
out milk here, no beans after this point, what-fucking-ever).

I'm going to change that within two year's time. But nobody will listen
because bodybuilders would rather listen to idiot voodoo that fulfills
their psychological deficits than listen to reason.

I should know, I used to be that way too. But I got better.

Lyle

Posted by: Prince

Has his "diet" worked for anyone besides himself?

Posted by: Robboe

I don't think it's a diet he recommends as such, just a diet that he used with success, and now states to prove a point.

Posted by: Prince

well, if no one else has used this diet with success, then it proves nothing IMO.

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince
well, if no one else has used this diet with success, then it proves nothing IMO.

Given, it's probably not ideal for a bodybuilder who is trying to conserve muscle tissue, and i've no doubt it will result in un-favourable training sessions, and i know for a fact I'd get cravings from hell and back, but i do still think it proves a very valid point.

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy
...but i do still think it proves a very valid point.

what does it prove? that you can eat like shit as long as you remain in a caloric deficient state?

Posted by: Mudge

The Fast Food Diet

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince

what does it prove? that you can eat like shit as long as you remain in a caloric deficient state?

Of course, the diet isn't the healthiest, judging on the partially hydrogenated and trans-fat content of Maccy D's and the sugariness (is that a word?) of the bread used. Or the cow eye balls used to keep the meat moist. Or the old tramp's boot that provides the texture. Or the apple core found in the trash for crunch. Or the tail of the three-fined fish that provides that meaty taste.

But the point is that that calories are the determining factor, no matter how you care to play around with hormones like insulin and hGH.

Albeit, at lower bodyfat levels when you're tinkering below your setpoint, these do play a larger role (when it comes to stubborn fat etc.. insulin can be a bitch), but for the most part, focus on the calories.

I imagine Lyle, during the diet, had already seen to his daily protein and EFA counts and so just fitted the Mc D's and milk in with his remaining calories. If you can control the cravings you can still achieve.

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by Mudge
The Fast Food Diet

Nah, that's when you're drunk in a club and no matter how hard you try, you just can't keep a hold of the women.

~ahem~

I never get that problem though.

~ahem~

*cough cough*

Posted by: w8lifter

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince

what does it prove? that you can eat like shit as long as you remain in a caloric deficient state?

Exactly!

Chicken Baby is starting to sound like a "sugar plum fairy"

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by w8lifter

Exactly!

Chicken Baby is starting to sound like a "sugar plum fairy"

Argh!

I've already told you i don't advocate it and don't think it's healthy or suitable for people trying to cut fat while preserving muscle or for people who find cravings a problem, but it's still a valid method of dieting down.

Just like GVT for some people is a perfectly acceptable method for training, it's just a bit far fetched.

Posted by: w8lifter

And yet you feel the need to put that in your sig....why? ....so the less informed can get ripped on table sugar?

Posted by: Robboe

Haha, nah. I just think lyle is fucking hilarious.

Watch this space. I'm gonna change it soon with a more recent quote. You'll fucking love it.

No, really.

Posted by: Prince

this one:

"Anyone who denies inherent biological and genetic differences between genders and or races has their head so far up their asses as to be laughable. Wipe your nose, it's covered with shit, dumbass." - Lyle McDonald

Posted by: Akash

I also found out from the articles that calcium burns body-fat. It was in Muscle and Fitness and Muscle Media, two very reputable and respected bodybuliding magazines. I understand lactose is sugar, but there's only 13g carbs in milk, with 9 grams of muscle-building protein. Skim milk has pnly 88 calories per 250 mL so if I drink 1 L it's only 360 calories but 36 grams of protein.
Also why is everone afraid of carbs? I eat pasta, bread, brown rice, and I'm lean. Is the no-carb for everone cause even though I eat them, they actually make me leaner.

Posted by: w8lifter

M&F is reputable?

Anyway....that's 13 g of sugar...and that's a shitload of sugar.

Posted by: Mudge

Damn, a little tiny yogurt is like 45g sugar

If your truly skinny I don't think you'd have to be too afraid, if I consume carbs carelessly I gain belly pretty fast.

Posted by: bigss75

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy
Haha, nah. I just think lyle is fucking hilarious.

Does this lyle guy have a website? I wonder what his bulk is if he eats hamburgers during a cut

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by Akash
Also why is everone afraid of carbs? I eat pasta, bread, brown rice, and I'm lean. Is the no-carb for everone cause even though I eat them, they actually make me leaner.

How lean where you before you started training and such?

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by bigss75

Does this lyle guy have a website? I wonder what his bulk is if he eats hamburgers during a cut

He has some pages on ONR, but i can't remmeber the exact likn right now. All they have is a few articles on protein and some shit on computer games, cause apparently he's also a gamer, or something like that.

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince
this one:

"Anyone who denies inherent biological and genetic differences between genders and or races has their head so far up their asses as to be laughable. Wipe your nose, it's covered with shit, dumbass." - Lyle McDonald

Don't you know it baby!

Posted by: Prince

I eat carbs... bread, pasta, rice & potatoes!

Posted by: Robboe

Me too when i come off NHE.

Posted by: Yanick

Great post TCD. I read that thread on MFW, i think its pretty cool and it makes perfect sense. But i can understand where people have problems with it. TCD didn't post the whole thread, because frankly, its huge, but Lyle does admit to the fact that eating lower GI carbs etc is a lot better for most people in practice. It allows you to control cravings much better etc etc.

All he was saying in this post is the THEORY that you can get ripped eating burgers and shit. Like, if you put someone in a room locked the door and only gave the X amount of cals, it doesn't matter where they come from, if said person is in a caloric deficit you will lose weight and with a caloric surplus said person will gain weight.

In that and other threads he does also say that pathologies, like insulin resistance, will change the rules...

Posted by: Prince

A person can lose weight by eating "burgers and shit" if they're caloric deficient state, but I seriously doubt anyone that's natural can get "ripped" on that type of diet.

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by Yanick
In that and other threads he does also say that pathologies, like insulin resistance, will change the rules...

Yeah, and that's where things start becoming more complicated.

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince
A person can lose weight by eating "burgers and shit" if they're caloric deficient state, but I seriously doubt anyone that's natural can get "ripped" on that type of diet.

The balance of in vs. out is called a 'flux'.

Positive flux means more going in and thus gain.

Negative flux means more going out and thus loss.

No matter what hormones are doing, if you're in a negative flux of calories, you body will respond by tapping into it's own stores. (with the exceptions being when you're getting down to real stubborn fat, maybe, and when you're close to 8% and less).

Now, like i said, it's probably not ideal for a bodybuilder, even with adequate protein. Table sugar won't really supply the right kind of fuel for good workouts, you'll probably end up lifting less and thus, your body will have no need for the 'excessive' and more-active-than-fat muscle and will thus, break it down.

A diet of table sugar (given adequate protein/EFA amounts) would most likely result in some deficiencies in minerals and vitamins. There'd be no real phytochemicals or fibre so your intestinal health would deteriorate.

But as Yannick rightly says, eating food like this causes blood sugar swings which will result in the discomfort of cravigns and hunger pangs and thus, you'll prolly end up eating more. If you can control these cravings and live with the pain, then you can still lose weight.

Posted by: Yanick

Exactly,

bottomline, is this table sugar/burger diet...

healthy? Hell no.
optimal, practical? probably not
possible? Yes, assuming your digestive and endocronological(sp?) systems are working properly.

Posted by: Prince

still do not think you (or anyone natural) could get ripped (3-5% bf) with a diet like that.

Posted by: Yanick

I for one definitely could not get ripped on a diet like that for two reasons.

1. I think I am insulin resistant. For reasons that will bore all of you so I won't mention them.

2. I'm not a good dieter. Give me a tiny cheat and i go all out. Which is why I like CKD'ing. I go super strict to the point of eating the exact same thing over and over again for 5-6 days straight, then come carb-up time i feel like i'm cheating, yet it's all working toward fat-loss.

Posted by: w8lifter

So then we're talking about losing w8 and not about losing fat....guess it's back to JennyCraig.com, lol

Posted by: Dr. Pain

Quote:

Originally posted by w8lifter
So then we're talking about losing w8 and not about losing fat....guess it's back to JennyCraig.com, lol

That's fuking Hilarious!

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Pain
That's fuking Hilarious! DP

that's the best post you can come up with?

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by w8lifter
So then we're talking about losing w8 and not about losing fat....guess it's back to JennyCraig.com, lol

Well, if you re-read lyle's post he did say "ripped" and not "ripped and huge", or whatever.

If you're lifting the same weights then you're telling your body to hang onto muscle (which it needs in anticipation of another potential thret from lifting - remember, lifting is traumatic for the body), so providing you're getting in your protein and EFA's and shifting the same weight, the differences in muscle loss will probably be smaller than you think.

Of course, with any calorie deficit diet you stand to lose muscle. There's no two ways about it. Unless of course, it's just a short diet down (say 2-3 weeks), then i'm sure it's possible to hold onto the muscle.

So the body will no doubt tap into fat stores for the required energy.

Posted by: Prince

where does this guy post at?

Posted by: Robboe

mfw mostly.

Although he and Bryan Haycock are doing something together for one of bryan's books on HST, i believe, so he's got a few posts over at the HST forums.

Posted by: Prince

mfw = ?

Posted by: Robboe

Misc.Fitness.Weights

A google group.

Posted by: Prince

ahhh...I see Will Brink posts there too, is that really him?

Posted by: Robboe

Yep.

Pat Arnold does to.

And Elzi Volk.

And Par Deus (sometimes, although not as much lately).

There's some clever heads on that news board. Shame a lot just use it for fucking about.

Posted by: Yanick

MFW is a great resource. Not so much the recent stuff, but if you do some searching its a great source of info.

Posted by: Dr. Pain

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince

that's the best post you can come up with?

No I can do better!

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy

Of course, with any calorie deficit diet you stand to lose muscle. There's no two ways about it. Unless of course, it's just a short diet down (say 2-3 weeks), then i'm sure it's possible to hold onto the muscle.

TCD....I can show you mathematically where that is "not necessarily true"...and I/we have had clients that have proven it!

LBM gain.......with a greater BF loss, will result in a lower BW (the results of a calorie deficit, which wasn't absolutely required)

DP

Posted by: Mudge

Quote:

Originally posted by Akash
I also found out from the articles that calcium burns body-fat.

I'm sure calcium is neccessary, but 'burns body fat' I am going to guess is being missleading. They tell you one thing today, and the next month tell you NO DONT DO THAT YOU STUPID PIG, YOUR GETTING FAT! If you dont drink milk take calcium supplements, I did for awhile - common sense, if you dont drink it then get it another way, male osteoporosis would be lame especially when your placing your body under such load, and if you drink caffeine like coffee/soda, then your draining it from the body.

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Pain

TCD....I can show you mathematically where that is "not necessarily true"...and I/we have had clients that have proven it!

LBM gain.......with a greater BF loss, will result in a lower BW (the results of a calorie deficit, which wasn't absolutely required)

DP

If you're talking about a new lifter or a fat guy then it doesn't count.

I'm refering to someone who has been training for a few years or so, at least. And isn't a big fat guy.

Posted by: Dr. Pain

Keep thinking......"experienced lifters too"

Like the woman at 142 and 22% BF...now at 139 and 17% BF...you do the math

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Pain
Keep thinking......"experienced lifters too"

Like the woman at 142 and 22% BF...now at 139 and 17% BF...you do the math

That would indicate a 4lb muscle gain with 7lb fat lost.

Let me ask you this, over how long a period of time did this occur and how were the fat tests taken?

Posted by: Dr. Pain

One of MANY examples 8-10 weeks, JP-7w (Jackson Pollack woman's 7 site skinfold) confirmed by a 9 site Parrillo (omits age as a factor)

I have personally accomplished LBM gain w/BF loss, as has w8!

(we use Lange and Harpenden calipers)

DP

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Pain
One of MANY examples 8-10 weeks, JP-7w (Jackson Pollack woman's 7 site skinfold) confirmed by a 9 site Parrillo (omits age as a factor)

For a woman, especially an experienced one, to gain 4lbs and drop 7 within 10 weeks is quite unbelievable. So much so, that i don't.

I'm not saying there wasn't a change in body composition cause i'm sure there was, but i reckon there's discrepancies (sp?) between bf testing and water/glycogen weight fluctuations giving mis-readings.

Quote:

I have personally accomplished LBM gain w/BF loss, as has w8!

(we use Lange and Harpenden calipers)

DP

If we go purely by numbers then it's very possible. For example:

200lb male, 180lbs LBM, 10%bf.

His weight goes up by 10lbs from a combination of muscle gain and water weight gain (let's pretend he was quite depleted until this point, hence, such a large weight increase).

The amount of fat on his body doesn't change during this time.

Now he's 210lbs, 190lbs LBM, 9.5%bf.

So although his bf% may go down, he's still holding the same amount of fat.

(And he hasn't really put muscle on [in significant amount], he's just holding water and glycogen. Incidentally, this is how supp companies can say creatine will cause you to increase muscle mass and reduce bf% without being sued for fraudulent claims. Your body fat doesn't actually change, but numbers around it do, causing it to also shift).

Posted by: Dr. Pain

An employee of mine is about to compete in in a regional NPC and then Musclemania (national level)

More math for ya....he started his cut on 7/15 about 16 weeks out at 276 and 12% BF, he is now 270 at 8 weeks out and at approx 7%. (we know this from his ab structure and previous BF tests)

Unfortunately....those that know contest dieting...know the last 3-3.5% are a bicth (think about it, that's 50% of his current BF) and requires half the time and some loss of LBM....water loss alone the last few days accounts for 6-10 pounds. We are hoping he hits the stage at 3.5-3.8% and at least 255 pounds........SHW!

Posted by: Dr. Pain

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy

For a woman, especially an experienced one, to gain 4lbs and drop 7 within 10 weeks is quite unbelievable. So much so, that i don't.

I'm not saying there wasn't a change in body composition cause i'm sure there was, but i reckon there's discrepancies (sp?) between bf testing and water/glycogen weight fluctuations giving mis-readings.

Let's play with numbers for another moment, shall we?

A pound of adipose tissue of course weighs ONE Pound, has approx 3500 calories of energy (heat) in it!

What percentage of that pound is water?

Now Take a pound of Muscle tissue....same questions, calories and water w8??? (I believe it's 600 calories, but will accept your more technical answer)

Now, if LBM accounts for hydration....and it only took 240 calories a week (10 weeks, 4 pounds of LBM) to form the tissue...why is that so hard to believe? You can't excuse the water....

FYI........ LMB includes H20

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Pain

Let's play with numbers for another moment, shall we?

A pound of adipose tissue of course weighs ONE Pound, has approx 3500 calories of energy (heat) in it!

What percentage of that pound is water?

Now Take a pound of Muscle tissue....same questions, calories and water w8??? (I believe it's 600 calories, but will accept your more technical answer)

Now, if LBM accounts for hydration....and it only took 240 calories a week (10 weeks, 4 pounds of LBM) to form the tissue...why is that so hard to believe? You can't excuse the water....

FYI........ LMB includes H20

Even if it was 240kcals a week, that would still dictate being 240kcals OVER maintenance and thus, losing 7lbs of FAT in this state is against the law of thermodynamics and physiology.

Now, before you start of at me here, i more than anyone believe in exceptions to rules, but not to the extent of 7lbs of fat.

Albeit, increasing muscle mass WILL increase metabolic rate, but not to the tune of 7lbs of fat and not with only an increase of 4lbs of muscle (despite being in calorie deficit, no less).

I do have access to the metabolic rates of muscle and fat (yes, fat is metabolically active contrary to popular beliefe, only very, very slightly) on MFW somewhere i will try and find, but 4lbs increase of muscle will not result in 7lbs of fat loss alone without calorie deficit. Adding 4lbs of muscle while in a calorie deficit enough to equate to 7lbs of fat lost naturally is extremly far fetched, if not impossible.

When referring to water weight, i was also referring to any subcutaneously held water. More water water under the skin during the first measurement would have obscured th reading and caused it to be higher. If this water was lost for the second time the test was taken, it would indicate a higher than normal loss.

Posted by: Dr. Pain

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy

Even if it was 240kcals a week, that would still dictate being 240kcals OVER maintenance and thus, losing 7lbs of FAT in this state is against the law of thermodynamics and physiology.

s

No, you are making an incorrect assumption. Those calories are "Spared" calories, and are not required to be OVER maintenance!

Suppose at maintenance, metabolic needs are being met through lipolysis...and some gluconeogenesis, what then happens to the remaining amino peptides??? (you assume these are above maintence, but they can be given off as excess heat, and not stored...hence equalibrium in BW) If metabolically, less calories (below maintenance are ingested, protein can still be spared for new tissue growth)

We know the proverbial "You can't turn fat into muscle and vice versa cliches"...but you are ignoring the bodies recomposition in this scenario. The laws of thermodynamics are firmly in place...the laws of physiology have been erroneously appleid for decades!

Posted by: Dr. Pain

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Pain

If metabolically, less calories (below maintenance are ingested, protein can still be spared for new tissue growth)

I wish to delineate this:

We define maintenance calories as those which maintain body weight. Below maintenance thereby means a deficit in caloric consumption.

With that in mind, imagine an individual with a maintenance requirement of 2400 calories per day. For example, let's give this person 2000 calories per day on an isocaloric diet.The 400 calorie deficit must be made up by catabolization of LBM or oxidation of body fat, either way, resulting in body weight loss. (unless the metabolism compensates and resets lower which is often the case)

Now suppose this discrepancy was not only made up by lipolysis, but an additional 300 calories of amino acids were spared from this "lipolysis." Now the body has "burnt fat" (the desired effect), met matabolic needs....and has a supply oif aminos that were previously detined for energy needs or excess heat. So in effect, if the body choses growth, the building blocks are there, despite the caloric deficit. Weight loss occurs, however LBM is synthesized from BF oxidation sparing protein building blocks.

DP

Posted by: QueenofSquats

Hi, I am a new member, I would suggest unsweetned enrich soya milk, it has the some calcium (as its enriched) has less than 1g sugar, 4gcarbs, 8g protein, 4gfat per cup....now there are different brands, the one I am mentioning is by Natura (I live in Canada), I am sure you will be able to find it or a similiar one...Cheers

Posted by: Yanick

This is interesting stuff, and i would just like to chime in with something i read (from Lyle, none the less).

I'm also not sure if i got a full grasp on this btw, so if i'm off the mark someone correct me and i'll shut up.

Hypothetically, take an IR bodybuilder. But we need to specify which tissue is IR, so say the adipose tissue is IR in this case, and the skeletal muscle is sensitive. Essentially, what the IR is doing in this case (in Lyle's words) is partitioning the calories towards the muscle (after a given meal, at a given level of serum insulin, the muscle will be able to 'absorb' more calories).

So hypothetically speaking, even in a caloric deficit, more cals would be partitioned towards the muscle leaving the adipose tissue calorie deficient and leaving you with a gain of LBM and a loss of BF.

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Pain
No, you are making an incorrect assumption. Those calories are "Spared" calories, and are not required to be OVER maintenance!

Spared eh? That's a new one to me.

You are making the incorrect assumption that all the body wants to do is build muscle and is happy to. Remember that the body only builds muscle in response to the trauma of lifting because it wants to prepare itself for any potential future trauma - ie the next session.

You also forget evolutionary logic: as far as the body is concerned, being under maintenance calories is starvation mode. The body believes there's a famine and so is only concerned with keeping you alive. It is concerned with keeping the brain functioning and keeping the liver going and the heart pumping. Retaining muscle tissue is not a priority. Building upon it is waay further down that list. Only once the body is recieving a positive influx of energy (and so it knows it's priorities are sorted) will it organise building muscle.

When it thinks it's on the road to death (drastically put, but let's face it, the body knows there's potential for this to occur) due to famine, it essentially 'shuts down'. Why would it go about production of a highly metabolically active tissue when it is in fact trying to conserve calories?

Quote:

Suppose at maintenance, metabolic needs are being met through lipolysis...and some gluconeogenesis, what then happens to the remaining amino peptides??? (you assume these are above maintence, but they can be given off as excess heat, and not stored...hence equalibrium in BW) If metabolically, less calories (below maintenance are ingested, protein can still be spared for new tissue growth)

You're forgetting that ALL tissues are being constantly replaced, not just muscle tissue. And other tissues like brain cells, liver cells, cardiac cells, and probably even skin cells (although don't quote me on the latter) have priority for the body over muscle tissue. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, suppose all these tissue needs are met and there's remaining protein for muscle - the calorie deficit has caused a drop in leptin, which in turn, is pulling almost every else down with it, including testosterone.

Because you keep weight training, the body realises that losing muscle would result in problems from this regular 'trauma' and so tries to keep a hold of as much muscle as possible - ie keeping pushing the same weights sends the signal to retain muscle on a cut. It tries it's best to retain what it has, but this drop in incoming energy and subsequent drop in leptin and anabolic hormones makes it almost like a losing battle. Over time this becomes more pronounced with the loss of muscle, as i'm sure you've noticed on a diet down.

The only way to build muscle in calorie deficit is with synthetic aid, and even then the amount built will be minimal since the energy just isn't there to fuel the process.

Quote:

We know the proverbial "You can't turn fat into muscle and vice versa cliches"...but you are ignoring the bodies recomposition in this scenario. The laws of thermodynamics are firmly in place...the laws of physiology have been erroneously appleid for decades!

I can see what you're trying say and why you're thinking that way - hell, i've even thought that way myself. I'd like to think it's true, but at the end of the day it's not.

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Pain

I wish to delineate this:

We define maintenance calories as those which maintain body weight. Below maintenance thereby means a deficit in caloric consumption.

With that in mind, imagine an individual with a maintenance requirement of 2400 calories per day. For example, let's give this person 2000 calories per day on an isocaloric diet.The 400 calorie deficit must be made up by catabolization of LBM or oxidation of body fat, either way, resulting in body weight loss. (unless the metabolism compensates and resets lower which is often the case)

Now suppose this discrepancy was not only made up by lipolysis, but an additional 300 calories of amino acids were spared from this "lipolysis." Now the body has "burnt fat" (the desired effect), met matabolic needs....and has a supply oif aminos that were previously detined for energy needs or excess heat. So in effect, if the body choses growth, the building blocks are there, despite the caloric deficit. Weight loss occurs, however LBM is synthesized from BF oxidation sparing protein building blocks.

DP

Nice idea.

I only wish it was true.

Posted by: Dr. Pain

Quote:

Originally posted by Yanick
This is interesting stuff, and i would just like to chime in with something i read (from Lyle, none the less).

I'm also not sure if i got a full grasp on this btw, so if i'm off the mark someone correct me and i'll shut up.

Hypothetically, take an IR bodybuilder. But we need to specify which tissue is IR, so say the adipose tissue is IR in this case, and the skeletal muscle is sensitive. Essentially, what the IR is doing in this case (in Lyle's words) is partitioning the calories towards the muscle (after a given meal, at a given level of serum insulin, the muscle will be able to 'absorb' more calories).

So hypothetically speaking, even in a caloric deficit, more cals would be partitioned towards the muscle leaving the adipose tissue calorie deficient and leaving you with a gain of LBM and a loss of BF.

Sweet quote Yanick!

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy

Spared eh? That's a new one to me.

You're being 'semantical', you know the concept

You are making the incorrect assumption that all the body wants to do is build muscle and is happy to. Remember that the body only builds muscle in response to the trauma of lifting because it wants to prepare itself for any potential future trauma - ie the next session.

Stress/adaptation, must of us called that "Bodybuilding"

You also forget evolutionary logic: as far as the body is concerned, being under maintenance calories is starvation mode. The body believes there's a famine and so is only concerned with keeping you alive. It is concerned with keeping the brain functioning and keeping the liver going and the heart pumping. Retaining muscle tissue is not a priority. Building upon it is waay further down that list. Only once the body is recieving a positive influx of energy (and so it knows it's priorities are sorted) will it organise building muscle.

first of all, a minor caloric defilcit, which you insist is necessary, I don't, is not not throwing the body into 'starvation mode'. Additionally, you point out the stress/adaptation response signals the body for tissue repair and synthesis

When it thinks it's on the road to death (drastically put, but let's face it, the body knows there's potential for this to occur) due to famine, it essentially 'shuts down'. Why would it go about production of a highly metabolically active tissue when it is in fact trying to conserve calories?

Not the case in our scenario

You're forgetting that ALL tissues are being constantly replaced, not just muscle tissue. And other tissues like brain cells, liver cells, cardiac cells, and probably even skin cells (although don't quote me on the latter) have priority for the body over muscle tissue. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, suppose all these tissue needs are met and there's remaining protein for muscle - the calorie deficit has caused a drop in leptin, which in turn, is pulling almost every else down with it, including testosterone.

...I'm not advocating that kind of deficit

Because you keep weight training, the body realises that losing muscle would result in problems from this regular 'trauma' and so tries to keep a hold of as much muscle as possible - ie keeping pushing the same weights sends the signal to retain muscle on a cut. It tries it's best to retain what it has, but this drop in incoming energy and subsequent drop in leptin and anabolic hormones makes it almost like a losing battle. Over time this becomes more pronounced with the loss of muscle, as i'm sure you've noticed on a diet down.

Yes, I have noticed it, and have ways to 'minimize' it, you''re not hearing me, I'm just pointing out the possibilities

The only way to build muscle in calorie deficit is with synthetic aid, and even then the amount built will be minimal since the energy just isn't there to fuel the process.

That simply is not true, fat is or can oxidized for energy

I can see what you're trying say and why you're thinking that way - hell, i've even thought that way myself. I'd like to think it's true, but at the end of the day it's not.

TCD, neither is the old calories in-calories out rhetoric. What I'm suggesting is very difficult, doesn't happen with most, nor everyday...the fact that you're dismissing it, I doubt it will occur with you.

Trust me, many many people...and it is a slow agonizing process, have lost BF while gainning LBM

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Pain

first of all, a minor caloric defilcit, which you insist is necessary, I don't, is not not throwing the body into 'starvation mode'.

Fat loss diets don't last a few days, they last weeks. Weeks in calorie deficit and your body doesn't know any better. As far as it is concerned, food IS scarce (hence, why it's sending off all those signals either telling you to eat (hunger) or trying to pursuade you to eat (cravings)). It's not sending them fo the hell of it you know.

Quote:

Additionally, you point out the stress/adaptation response signals the body for tissue repair and synthesis

Yes, i did. Repair via synthesis. It wants to build upon it, but realises energy is scarce, so can only maintain it.

Quote:

Not the case in our scenario

If were not the case, then fat would happily come off no problem. Obviously setpoint plays a role in this, but for the most part, fat loss becomes harder the more you go on because it think it's starving to death and tries to hold onto as much as possible.

Quote:

Yes, I have noticed it, and have ways to 'minimize' it, you''re not hearing me, I'm just pointing out the possibilities

Yes, minimize. As in, it's inevitable with low term calorie deficit, the best thing you can do is keep your losses minimum.

Quote:

That simply is not true, fat is or can oxidized for energy

Yes, you're correct. But your body is not going to use the energy for building something that will require more energy merely to maintain. Not while it think it's starving.

TCD, neither is the old calories in-calories out rhetoric. What I'm suggesting is very difficult, doesn't happen with most, nor everyday...the fact that you're dismissing it, I doubt it will occur with you.

What you are suggesting can happen, can only realistically happen in fat people or new lifters.

Quote:

Trust me, many many people...and it is a slow agonizing process, have lost BF while gainning LBM

So then, why don't people spend all of their time doing what you're advocating. A diet where you can continuously add muscle and yet lose fat (or keep fat well below setpoint once you reach a certain bf%) is worth serious bucks and you could be a rich man.

Why do you spend your time switching between bulks and cuts, when you can essentially keep adding muscle and yet keep your fat right down?

Oh yeah, that's right. Cause it doesn't happen.

Posted by: Dr. Pain

You are implying and assuming again my friend. Time criteria and acclimation ARE always a factor, nobody said they were not. Conceptually, even homeostasis changes due to environmental and physiological concerns. What I am stating is:

That for a certain time interval...it is possible to achieve LMB gain and BF loss. The key word being "possible", The corollary of course, and I myself and clients have done this also, is to lose BF while gaining LBM on a bulk. you use words like impossible, never, can't, won't etc....that simply is not the case.

Here is the bottom line...and I know you're going to have the last word, I also know the you have some respect for my knowledge and experience:

Science, physiology and such has many practical applications......Unfortunately 70% was a passing grade for our Professors, Mentors, Physicians.....and it turns out that many are wrong 30% of the time! Knowing how the body is "suppose to work" is dandy......gets you a gold star. Understanding how the body works "in the field"...gets you and keeps you lean, cut, muscular, toned, whatever the goal!

Don't be blinded by information....look past this study or that study...you are an "experiment of one", what works for you, or Lyle, or me, won't necessarily work for the multitudes. I've been able to experiment on many (1000's), and have some tried and true methodology, and a damn good head start!

DP

Posted by: Robboe

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Pain
You are implying and assuming again my friend. Time criteria and acclimation ARE always a factor, nobody said they were not. Conceptually, even homeostasis changes due to environmental and physiological concerns. What I am stating is:

That for a certain time interval...it is possible to achieve LMB gain and BF loss. The key word being "possible", The corollary of course, and I myself and clients have done this also, is to lose BF while gaining LBM on a bulk. you use words like impossible, never, can't, won't etc....that simply is not the case.

I already said before we started this whole thing, that about 2-3 weeks and you can get away with it, since the body hasn't quite realised that food is being restricted. However, it was you that stated that the female achieved those gains over 8-10 weeks, by which time, the body would have definately started metabolic slowdown to conserve energies.

I'm not saying she didn't achieve a great transofmration, cause i'm sure she did, but to achieve those figures as an advanced natural female trainee within such a relatively short space of time tells me that there was different conditons of testing or human errors in the readings.

As a side query, since i'm not a woman i can't answer this personally, but someone advanced, like say Leah - on a gaining phase, how long would it take you to gain 4lbs of muscle?

Quote:

I've already stated that things happen differently for different people, within this thread too - eg insulin resistant, obese & fat people and newer lifters.

Your methodologies, i'm sure, DO work, but they're not the only way, which you seem to fail to see a lot of the time. It's like saying there's only one way to get from NYC to LA. Of course, this ain't true.

By the way, the last word means nothing, it's the presence of the previous volumes that account for the glory. Just because someone draws the final curtain doesn't mean they are the star of the show.

Little bit of profound speaking for you all.

Posted by: Prince

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Pain
Here is the bottom line...and I know you're going to have the last word, I also know the you have some respect for my knowledge and experience:

Science, physiology and such has many practical applications......Unfortunately 70% was a passing grade for our Professors, Mentors, Physicians.....and it turns out that many are wrong 30% of the time! Knowing how the body is "suppose to work" is dandy......gets you a gold star. Understanding how the body works "in the field"...gets you and keeps you lean, cut, muscular, toned, whatever the goal!

Don't be blinded by information....look past this study or that study...you are an "experiment of one", what works for you, or Lyle, or me, won't necessarily work for the multitudes. I've been able to experiment on many (1000's), and have some tried and true methodology, and a damn good head start!

DP

very well said...similar to my sticky thread: http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/sh...p?threadid=437

Posted by: Snake_Eyes

You are making the incorrect assumption that all the body wants to do is build muscle and is happy to. Remember that the body only builds muscle in response to the trauma of lifting because it wants to prepare itself for any potential future trauma - ie the next session.

Stress/adaptation, must of us called that "Bodybuilding"

He's pointing out that the body does have concerns other than growing or even maintaining muscle mass. Especially in someone that has conceivably added quite a bit of muscle to her frame after several years of lifting.

You also forget evolutionary logic: as far as the body is concerned, being under maintenance calories is starvation mode. The body believes there's a famine and so is only concerned with keeping you alive. It is concerned with keeping the brain functioning and keeping the liver going and the heart pumping. Retaining muscle tissue is not a priority. Building upon it is waay further down that list. Only once the body is recieving a positive influx of energy (and so it knows it's priorities are sorted) will it organise building muscle.

first of all, a minor caloric defilcit, which you insist is necessary, I don't, is not not throwing the body into 'starvation mode'. Additionally, you point out the stress/adaptation response signals the body for tissue repair and synthesis

I'll agree that a caloric deficit isn't absolutely necessary for fat loss-- my thinking is along the lines of Lyle's, however. To get good results, you will require a calorie deficit at some point in the process; even if its a locally created one.

When it thinks it's on the road to death (drastically put, but let's face it, the body knows there's potential for this to occur) due to famine, it essentially 'shuts down'. Why would it go about production of a highly metabolically active tissue when it is in fact trying to conserve calories?

Not the case in our scenario

Not the case because you don't drop calories to that degree, or is there another reason?

You're forgetting that ALL tissues are being constantly replaced, not just muscle tissue. And other tissues like brain cells, liver cells, cardiac cells, and probably even skin cells (although don't quote me on the latter) have priority for the body over muscle tissue. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, suppose all these tissue needs are met and there's remaining protein for muscle - the calorie deficit has caused a drop in leptin, which in turn, is pulling almost every else down with it, including testosterone.

...I'm not advocating that kind of deficit

What kind of deficit do you advocate?

Because you keep weight training, the body realises that losing muscle would result in problems from this regular 'trauma' and so tries to keep a hold of as much muscle as possible - ie keeping pushing the same weights sends the signal to retain muscle on a cut. It tries it's best to retain what it has, but this drop in incoming energy and subsequent drop in leptin and anabolic hormones makes it almost like a losing battle. Over time this becomes more pronounced with the loss of muscle, as i'm sure you've noticed on a diet down.

The only way to build muscle in calorie deficit is with synthetic aid, and even then the amount built will be minimal since the energy just isn't there to fuel the process.

That simply is not true, fat is or can oxidized for energy

Fat is the preferred source of energy for resting muscle, this is true. However, to say that free fat can be used to synthesize new tissue? I can't buy it.

Aerobic energy processes (or rather, the stimulation to the body from exercise using oxidative phosphorlyation) don't build muscle. And fat is a no-no for the body in anaerobic processes (with a few exceptions). That's all glycogen fueled. So unless you're somehow thinking that the body is going to A) mobilize fat stored in adipose tissue, then B) convert it to glycogen, and then C) use it for muscle building, which would be very costly from a metabolic viewpoint in and of itself, and all in a caloric deficit, you should seriously re-think what you're trying to say.

I can see what you're trying say and why you're thinking that way - hell, i've even thought that way myself. I'd like to think it's true, but at the end of the day it's not.

TCD, neither is the old calories in-calories out rhetoric. What I'm suggesting is very difficult, doesn't happen with most, nor everyday...the fact that you're dismissing it, I doubt it will occur with you.

Trust me, many many people...and it is a slow agonizing process, have lost BF while gainning LBM

Riding the line that you're talking about is so difficult as to be impossible from a practical standpoint. Determining maintenance calories to the degree you're implying would require determination of the body's calorie intake and usage to a very fine degree.

Even the best calorie calculators are just approximations, and that's not even getting into the logistics of planning and consuming such a diet.

If its such a slow, agonizing process, why not use the quicker, simpler method of "eat less"?

Posted by: Snake_Eyes

bump

(CLICK HERE here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Milk good for you?

Article Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60