Powerlifting & Weight Training

"You know you can poop and pee out calories right? Just because you eat something doesn't mean it gets absorbed and used by the body..." - Snowflake

Congrats.  You just discovered both sides of the energy equation are subject to change.

"So in the in-out=accumulation energy balance, 'out' is equal to expenditure + excrement + whatever else. What macronutrients get used for is ENTIRELY dependent on how your hormones allocate them."

That does not change the fact of energy balance, it just changes the variables in equation.  Something dipsticks like Taubes can't get through their frigging heads.

 "But If you want to get really technical, the enthalpy of sweat droplets ought also to be counted."

No, if you want to get really technical you would say: Energy In (corrected for digestion) = (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT) + Change in Body Stores.  BMR/RMR is your base rate, required by body processes.  TEF is the thermal effect of food which varies among macro nutrients and this affects the energy in portion of the equations, TEA is exercise and fairly self explanatory, SPA/NEAT is non-exercise related activity like walking around at work, getting up and down from your chair, etc.  Change in body stores is also self explanatory.  And all these variables are subject to change which changes the sum of the equation in terms of energy in vs energy burned and body stores.  If you eat less and lose weight, your BMR is lower, TEF is lower, and SPA/NEAT will likely be lower via unconsicous compensation.  Hence a 400 calorie defict in diet will only result in only so much weight loss before a new equillibrium is hit and calories will have to be lowered again.  And that equillibrium weight will always be higher or lower than expected for people like Taubes who can't seem to wrap their heads around a dynamic equation like that due to: higher/lower BMR, higher/lower TEF proportionate to calorie intake and macro ratios, higher/lower SPA/NEAT, and water retention/loss.

"You know that Lyle Mcdonald advocates a ketogenic diet for pure weight loss right? From The Ultimate Diet 2.0:"

Yes, because manipulating macro nutrients will allow you to some degree affect what tissues are lost vs maintained.  It will not however let you violate the laws of physics.  I've read all of MacDonald's books and in all of them he is quite clear that all diet strategies can do is favorably alter some of the terms of the energy equation to help preferentially maintain muscle and lose fat during a diet, they do not invalidate the energy equation itself, nor is there something magical about carbs or insulin.

"Taubes isn't like a super diet expert though. He's just enough to get people started on nutritional education. But his emphasis is basically correct for a fat loss diet. He and McDonald agree."

I suppose that's why McDonald has called him a moron and an asshole and other choice words on his website's forums; it's because they agree and he has the highest respect for Taubes.  He has also used the phrase "A steaming pile of horseshit" to refer to Taubes' work before.  Sounds to me like they're in total agreement.  Here's a further quote directly from McDonald on "Metabolic Advantage":

"here's an example that is relevant to this thread: some low-carb studies suggest a metabolic advantage, othes don't. Which are right which are wrong?

"In this case, none of them. Because whne you sit down and divide up the ones that show an advantage vs. those that don't and look at the differences, here's what you find:

"Those that do ALL use self-reporting of dietary intake and/or had drastically differing protein intake (confound: dietary protein makes people eat less)
those that don't ALL use strictly controlled dietary intake."

Or in other words, what Taubes and the like do is cherry pick studies with nice abstracts but poor controls that seem to support the message they want to deliver.  They do this because of the cottage industry of online researchers that have access to PubMed abstracts but not full studies.  The bottom line is when you have a study done where the test subjects are sequestered and their diet and activites subject to strict controls, all the hormonal crap goes out the window and the bottom line is seen: calories in vs calories burned.

"There was a thread on Taubes earlier, and many mises.org members posted they had lost 25+lbs since reading him."

On a site like this where everyone has a logical fallacy probe big as a dump truck up their ass, you'd think you'd spot the problem here.  Eating fewer to no carbs is usually a good diet strategy because:

Protein has a higher thermic effect.

Carbs make up a massive portion of the typical US citizen's diet, so avoiding them means by default a massive calorie deficit which would be hard to compensate.

Protein makes you feel fuller, carbs make you feel hungry, hence you tend to eat more on a moderate to high carb diet when you realize it or not, and less on a high protein/fat low carb diet whether you realize it or not.

Absolutely none of the above invalidates the energy balance equation.

"I just pointed people to Taubes because its correct in its fundamentals, breaks through the AHA nonsense, and really works for a lot of people."

Taubes is entirely wrong in his fundamentals.  Low carb diets are an effective approach to dieting for many, but not for the reasons he is claiming.  You can lose weight just as well eating fewer calories than burned one way as any other way.  But some approaches give an advantage for various reasons, not the least of which is psychological, and none of which are a violation of the laws of physics.

xharx:

No, if you want to get really technical you would say: Energy In (corrected for digestion) = (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT) + Change in Body Stores.  BMR/RMR is your base rate, required by body processes.  TEF is the thermal effect of food which varies among macro nutrients and this affects the energy in portion of the equations, TEA is exercise and fairly self explanatory, SPA/NEAT is non-exercise related activity like walking around at work, getting up and down from your chair, etc.  Change in body stores is also self explanatory.

That's good, but basic transport phenomena has rate in - rate out + net generation = accumulation. I think you're saying energy in = energy out + accumulation. If what you mean by "Change In Body Stores" is the accumulation term, then your energy out term is missing the macronutrients humans excrete.

The reason calorie intake might not matter is that the excess calories could just go straight through the body without being taken up by the body. Hormones play a large role in this. You just kind of throw this out the window in favor of your energy balance discourse. So, I'm not arguing against an energy balance approach, just have a version of it that fits human beings. As I said before, we are not cars. We do not use everything that comes into us.

xharx:

nor is there something magical about carbs or insulin.

The UD2.0 has 4 days of extreme carbohydrate deprivation. 50g/d or less. You're claiming that we could cut out protein/fat instead?

xharx:

I suppose that's why McDonald has called him a moron and an asshole and other choice words on his website's forums; it's because they agree and he has the highest respect for Taubes.  He has also used the phrase "A steaming pile of horseshit" to refer to Taubes' work before.  Sounds to me like they're in total agreement.

McDonalds seems to flame a lot. Even in his books. Regardless of what he thinks about Taubes, the fact remains that they both advocate very low carb, high protein, high fat diets for weight loss. Taubes just doesn't think you have to cut out calories very much because lack on insulin kills your body's ability to store fat.

xharx:

Or in other words, what Taubes and the like do is cherry pick studies with nice abstracts but poor controls that seem to support the message they want to deliver.

Taubes picks studies that don't fit the norm as a way to challenge the mainstream views expounded by the AHA and friends. He's also been quite vocal about wanting better studies done on low carb / ketogenic / paleo diets.

Whatever. Taubes is not my personal jesus. I'd take McDonald's advice over his any day. Its just a lot more detail for essentially similar recomendations for fat loss.

xharx:

On a site like this where everyone has a logical fallacy probe big as a dump truck up their ass, you'd think you'd spot the problem here.  Eating fewer to no carbs is usually a good diet strategy because:

Protein has a higher thermic effect.

Carbs make up a massive portion of the typical US citizen's diet, so avoiding them means by default a massive calorie deficit which would be hard to compensate.

Protein makes you feel fuller, carbs make you feel hungry, hence you tend to eat more on a moderate to high carb diet when you realize it or not, and less on a high protein/fat low carb diet whether you realize it or not.

These are all good reasons too. But they don't preclude anything i've said about the role of hormones. I would say a lot of things like the thermic effect of protein is negligible. Its not mentioned as being a cornerstone of any nutritional program.

xharx:

Absolutely none of the above invalidates the energy balance equation.

Nothing I've said has either. You just flame when I say calories don't matter. Probably because I'm making another overstatement. If you eat 10 calories a day, you will lose weight. But when you start getting into the normal bounds of calories, it matters less and less. Hormones begin to play a larger role in where/if macronutrients are used, stored, or expelled.

xharx:

Taubes is entirely wrong in his fundamentals.  Low carb diets are an effective approach to dieting for many, but not for the reasons he is claiming

Eat low carbs cus insulin blocks fat mobilization? Taubes and McDonald both say it. McDonald is 1000x more sophisticated/thorough in his advice though. This is probably why McDonald hates Taubes; he sees the latter as a dilletante getting all this credit for what fitness gurus have known for years.

Anyway, you still completely fail to explain why some people are thin/fat, even when they have comparable diets/lifestyles. You neeeeeed hormones and that slight modification to the energy balance equation to be able to explain it. This is all.

"Dondolee, my drink of choice is a vodka with a whey protein mixer, unfortunately I've not had the balls to try it yet so I usually go for straight vodka."

 

Vodka(or the homemade variety known as Landi in Iceland) and liquid whey is a seriously awesome combination.  No balls are required, it tastes just great.

Liquid whey is a common and dirt-cheap dairy product in my country - it's called Mysa, and it's the greatest thing ever when it comes to exercise - I use it as a replacement for all sports and energy drinks etc. when I´m training.

  Don't know how vodka would go with powdered whey supplements though.

 

 

Absolutely none of the above invalidates the energy balance equation.

Can you actually cite where Taubes says this? My hunch is you are pulling a Giles.

There's myriad reasons to eat paleo besides being able to lose weight without exercise and hunger.

xharx:

"Your body shuts itself down if you restrict calories." - Snowflake

Your metabolism can slow, your body does not 'shut down'.  When your body shuts down, you die.  When you're alive, your body can not violate the laws of physics, so unless you have a space-time anomaly stashed in your digestive system pumping matter and energy in from another universe, eating less than you burn will let you lose weight.

I'm fairly confident Xharx that you took Snowflake's remark a tad bit too literally. Essentially you attempted to correct Snowflake(I don't know why) by repeating back to him the same thing he was saying. What Snowflake is saying is the body will find ways of conserving energy, if that means slowing of metabolism then yes, thats one way that could happen.

Xharx:

"Raw calories don't matter. Its the hormones that determine if you deposit fat."

This is by far the most ridiculous statement I've yet read on these boards.  Insulin does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, human beings are not magical machines that are immune to the laws of physics.

It's not ridiculous at all. Snowflake's statement is the fundamental reason why diabetics have to take hormones(insulin) to deal with their sugar levels. According to you they're breaking the laws of physics?

"That's good, but basic transport phenomena has rate in - rate out + net generation = accumulation. I think you're saying energy in = energy out + accumulation. If what you mean by "Change In Body Stores" is the accumulation term, then your energy out term is missing the macronutrients humans excrete." - Snowflake

If you've excreted the nutritional content then you haven't added it to the left side of fucking equation.  Simple enough for you?  And McDonald covered this in that short easy to read article I mentioned, which means you haven't read it.

"The UD2.0 has 4 days of extreme carbohydrate deprivation. 50g/d or less. You're claiming that we could cut out protein/fat instead?"

If you wanted to, however how you did it would have to vary.  The whole point of McDonald's article, and point I'm making here, is that Taubes' and others' simplistic view of energy balance isn't correct.  I am not writing about Ultimate Diet 2, nor am I writing about maintaining as much muscle mass as possible while losing primarily fat, I am writing about weight loss.  If you were as learned as you seem to be claiming, you'd know the difference and why recommending UD2 or some other overly complex diet to some random dude on an economics message board probably isn't the best idea when he should just be eating less.

"Regardless of what he thinks about Taubes, the fact remains that they both advocate very low carb, high protein, high fat diets for weight loss. Taubes just doesn't think you have to cut out calories very much because lack on insulin kills your body's ability to store fat."

Which means the equation is altered.  In any event, once Taubes starts using studies with reasonable controls and stops bringing up case studies of people with pathological diseases to prove his case, he may actually have a case.

"Taubes picks studies that don't fit the norm as a way to challenge the mainstream views expounded by the AHA and friends."

Which is what makes him a moron since the entire body of work is what's at issue, and because two seemingly contradictory studies can both be 'correct' because of different models, controls, sample groups, definitions for statistical significance, etc., etc., etc., etc.

"Its just a lot more detail for essentially similar recomendations for fat loss."

I don't see Taubes' advocates saying, "This guy is a dipshit, but his strategies work for reasons he seems oblivious to."  Taubes is peddling bullshit to people who want to hear it, the effectiveness of low carb strategies not withstanding.  If you want to use cars as an analogy, he's claiming Honda Civics get better mileage than Hummers because of little elves that help push the car.  Indeed, Civics do get better mileage, because they weigh less and use fuel more efficiently.  So he'd be right in his recommendation for Civics over Hummers for commuting as a strategy to save gas, but totally fucked in the head as to why.

"These are all good reasons too. But they don't preclude anything i've said about the role of hormones. I would say a lot of things like the thermic effect of protein is negligible. Its not mentioned as being a cornerstone of any nutritional program."

Never said it was.  However it is a portion of the energy balance equation and an advantage of high protein diets, however minimal.  Water loss is also a factor in diets if not in the energy equation in the first week or so, which is one of the reasons why low carb diets always seem to out perform regular calorie restriction in the initial stages of dieting; low carb means water loss, means seemingly more fat lost at least initially on low carb diets when in reality it's more weight lost, that weight comprising water and fat.

"Nothing I've said has either. You just flame when I say calories don't matter."

Because saying calories don't matter is an extremely stupid and incorrect thing to say.  Hormones do not violate the laws of thermodynamics.  If hormones stop the absorption of calorie intake, those calories are by definition NOT A PART OF THE ENERGY BALANCE EQUATION.  Or, put simply, they have not been ingested.  There's more to getting energy into your system than simply shoving it in your mouth.

Both sides of the equation have factors that affect them which people do not account for and which can lead to discrepancies in interpretations of how much and why weight is lost or gained.  Gut flora affect how many calories from food actually get absorbed, etc.  In the end none of it affects the truth of the energy balance equation, it just illustrates that the factors contributing to the energy in and energy burned portions are more complex than most people understand, and they constantly change.

"But when you start getting into the normal bounds of calories, it matters less and less. Hormones begin to play a larger role in where/if macronutrients are used, stored, or expelled."

And this is where the bullshit comes in, because in the end energy can not be created or destroyed, so you are wrong.  There's no 'wiggle room' in that law.

"Anyway, you still completely fail to explain why some people are thin/fat, even when they have comparable diets/lifestyles."

Because they have different energy requirements.  This is a perfect demonstration of how Taubes and yourself completely misread and misuse the energy balance equation, because it does not say everyone requires the same input and/or uses energy in the same exact ways or with the same efficiencies.  The 'modification' to the equation isn't needed, it's there already.  Hormones are what affect body stores, conscious and unconscious energy expenditure and your willingness/motivation to engage in the former, BMR, etc.

And all which culminates in this: it is up to the likes of you and Taubes and other such numbskulls to prove your case, not the other way around.  You guys are the ones claiming magic exceptions to well known laws of physics which have been documented to Hell and back.  You guys are the ones who only seem to find evidence for your views in studies where the controls are poor to nonexistant.  So have at it.  Do it at McDonald's boards where it's more appropriate.  You'll leave holding your own ass within thirty minutes.

And more to the point of this thread, taking a complex cyclical ketogenic diet approach, a protocol designed for amatuer and pro body builders to help them cut to unmaintainable body fat levels for short to moderate periods of time, and recommending it to someone who has already demonstrated inability to control normal calorie intake by virtue of the fact that they are already fat, is just plain fucking dumb.  It's ridiculous to recommend UD2 to someone who probably can't accurately keep a tally of their calorie intake now, and you want them to start counting grams of macro nutrients to maintain specific maximums/ratios?  Gimme a break.  Lacking an in depth review of his current diet and habits, 'eating less' is the only common sense advice one can give.

"Can you actually cite where Taubes says this? My hunch is you are pulling a Giles."

Yeah, it's called "calories don't matter."  Which will be ground breaking news to modern physics.  And if you go to monkeyisland/lylemcdonald.com and do a search for "Taubes" you'll get a myriad of hits on speeches and articles he's written with quotes that's he's been called out on.  Here's a choice quote of his from a Time article I believe: "After all, doesn't exercise turn fat to muscle, and doesn't muscle process excess calories more efficiently than fat does?"

Turn fat into muscle?  Perhaps he could explain what star trek machine does this, because muscle tissue and fat tissue are two completely different fucking things, and one does not 'turn into' the other.  Or, how about this one, which I think comes from Good Calories, Bad Calories:

"Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter, any more than it causes a child to grow taller. Expending more energy than we consume does not lead to long-term weight loss; it leads to hunger."

You really can't get more fucktarded than that.

Here's another thread from there specifically on the 'paleo' bullshit trend: http://monkeyisland.lylemcdonald.com/showthread.php?t=39516&highlight=fuck+paleo

The truly amazing thing is you guys don't seem to realize how massively, ridiculously stupid Taubes is.

So, can you actually cite where Taubes says this? (I own GCBC.)

Baseless assertions are "massively, ridiculously stupid".

xharx:

If you've excreted the nutritional content then you haven't added it to the left side of fucking equation.  Simple enough for you?

So that destroys the equal sign in the energy balance equation >< Whatever. Regardless of how we rewrite the energy balance, one still has to account for the way the body takes up/uses/stores hormones, or we'll never get good quantitative values for those terms. This is important because we typically count calories we eat.

xharx:

If you were as learned as you seem to be claiming, you'd know the difference and why recommending UD2 or some other overly complex diet to some random dude on an economics message board probably isn't the best idea when he should just be eating less.

I'm actually not recommending the UD2. I'm saying people should do a low carb diet if they want to lose fat.

xharx:

Taubes is peddling bullshit to people who want to hear it, the effectiveness of low carb strategies not withstanding.  If you want to use cars as an analogy, he's claiming Honda Civics get better mileage than Hummers because of little elves that help push the car.  Indeed, Civics do get better mileage, because they weigh less and use fuel more efficiently.

Taubes, while not as detailed as McD, does discuss insulin's role in fat storage. It is very important.

xharx:

Never said it was.  However it is a portion of the energy balance equation and an advantage of high protein diets, however minimal.  Water loss is also a factor in diets if not in the energy equation in the first week or so, which is one of the reasons why low carb diets always seem to out perform regular calorie restriction in the initial stages of dieting; low carb means water loss, means seemingly more fat lost at least initially on low carb diets when in reality it's more weight lost, that weight comprising water and fat.

I'm aware of this.

xharx:

If hormones stop the absorption of calorie intake, those calories are by definition NOT A PART OF THE ENERGY BALANCE EQUATION.  Or, put simply, they have not been ingested.  There's more to getting energy into your system than simply shoving it in your mouth.

That's a big asterisk to have on your energy balance equation. It would be much easier to write it as in - out + generation = accumulation, where in = energy of the food you eat, out = energy expenditures, excrement, generation = energy to break down proteins etc (negative), and accumulation = total energy remaining in the body. This way you can easily see the role of hormones, as well as thermic effects, etc etc in the energy balance.

The way you make it sound, its just eat less, exercise more, and you'll be golden. This is not true if your body changes the way it handles food. Hormonal changes could easily cause you to just absorb a greater % of the food you are eating. We have to be more sophisticated than this.

xharx:

And this is where the bullshit comes in, because in the end energy can not be created or destroyed, so you are wrong.  There's no 'wiggle room' in that law.

I'm not saying energy is destroyed. I'm saying you can expell it as waste. I don't know how to make this more clear.

xharx:

Because they have different energy requirements.  This is a perfect demonstration of how Taubes and yourself completely misread and misuse the energy balance equation, because it does not say everyone requires the same input and/or uses energy in the same exact ways or with the same efficiencies.

This is certainly possible. But then you deny the possibility that two people, the same in every way, including energy expenditures, could be of different weights?

xharx:

You guys are the ones claiming magic exceptions to well known laws of physics which have been documented to Hell and back.  You guys are the ones who only seem to find evidence for your views in studies where the controls are poor to nonexistant.  So have at it.  Do it at McDonald's boards where it's more appropriate.  You'll leave holding your own ass within thirty minutes.

But i like mcdonald... Just because McD hates Taubes doesn't mean he's worthless. I've already outlined how Taubes logic is similar, albeit less rigorous, than McD's. You don't rebut this.

xharx:

And more to the point of this thread, taking a complex cyclical ketogenic diet approach, a protocol designed for amatuer and pro body builders to help them cut to unmaintainable body fat levels for short to moderate periods of time,

A CKD is actually pretty easy to follow. And I actually didn't recommend it as a diet the OP should follow. The first thing I said was that if the GOMAD works for you, keep doing it. Simplicity wins. Maybe you have the right genetics for it. Regardless, it is helpful to know what a C(KD) is, so that you can return to it later if your fitness goals aren't being met.

xharx:

and recommending it to someone who has already demonstrated inability to control normal calorie intake by virtue of the fact that they are already fat, is just plain fucking dumb.

Actually, ketosis blunts the appetite back.

xharx:

It's ridiculous to recommend UD2 to someone who probably can't accurately keep a tally of their calorie intake now, and you want them to start counting grams of macro nutrients to maintain specific maximums/ratios?  Gimme a break.

I didn't mention UD2 till you brought up McDonald's work. I only did so to show the similarities between them. You just seem to hate taubes a lot.

xharx:

Lacking an in depth review of his current diet and habits, 'eating less' is the only common sense advice one can give.

Only if they can maintain all other energy outputs, many of which are beyond conscious control. Cutting carbohydrates down to 30-50g/day is a much better recommendation, even if the overall calorie level stays the same. This has to do with insulin, which you're probably aware of, but never reference.

Anyway, I'm tired of repeating myself. You don't seem to really understand other people's arguments, or address them at their core. No one is contradicting the energy balance. When we say Calories don't matter, we mean that dietary calories don't translate into body-calories. Its taken a very long time just to get you to clarify that in =/= eat. I think you're just ticked off that Taubes might get praised for something he isn't an expert on.

Your original post before editing was 10% of that size, anyhow I still don't see where you are getting that quote. I've only had time to read the beginning of the book, but I want to say that I read that sentence.

I see why it seems wrong, but I am afraid that you are taking an oversimplistic view of nutrition. Read a comment from Dr. Harris' post on weight loss:

For now, a few thoughts.

I can't conceive of how "the role of glucagon" can prevent excess calories from being stored as fat if fat is otherwise beng driven into storage.

Does glucagon generally oppose insulin? Yes, but so what? So does virtually every other hormone.

Briefly, eating excess calories from any source will make you gain weight if hormones are driving fat storage, and won't otherwise. Whether the caloric excess is protein or fat or carbs does not matter if your adipocytes are storing fat under hormonal direction.

I never said excess anything would cause fat gain, only that it could under the right circumstances. Obviously within ranges excess anything can be tolerated without weight gain, even if it is carbs.

You can give a type I diabetic all the carbs you want, and without exogenous insulin they lose weight.

Conversely, if I keep your caloric intake the same with zero carbs and you are not diabetic, and I give you extra insulin, you will start storing fat (stop releasing) and become ravenously hungry. If I don't let you eat more, you will then get lethargic and your metabolic rate will decline. You will now be fatter, slower and eating the exact same calories.

Under the right (or wrong) hormonal milieu, it matters not a whit if the extra calories are fat, carbs or proteins.

Macronutrient ratios mediate weight via hormones. Hormones drive fat storage.

I've seen body builders rage at Dr. Harris for saying that the occasional carb loading (or whatever it is called, and you were mentioning it) is pointless. I could care less about this or what you choose to eat. The parallels between this subject and rabid statism are amazing. I didn't read beyond the first post of the forum you linked but it is amusingly stupid. It sounds a lot like the fallacious attacks I got from various family and friends when I started eating paleo.

Someone caught me in a mood on the other forum. 'm really tempted to write an article for the site called 'Fuck Paleo Man' and put a lot of the below in there.

****
there is some evidence in that respect, yes. Certainly chronic hyperinsulinemia as occurs with teh combination of modern diet + inactivity does bad things. So fine, if you want to talk about the average modern person, perhaps paleo diet would be better than a 64 oz coke every day. No joke.

Of course they also have done no activity since 1992 and the paleo people alwys focus on the diet alone and ignore the OTHER apsects of supposed paleo man's life that contributed. Christ, why am I bothering typing this all up again, I've already discussed this with bitsobrawn and gareth even if they were both too dumb to pay attention.

I thought we were talking about bodybuilders and grains....becuase regular activity affects insulin sensitivity and release. And few athletes eat the kinds of foods endemic to the modern diet.

And grains aren't evil in any case. As dozens and dozens of studies say. But I'm not typing up that again either. Without the development of grains, humanity never would have evolved. Of course it's easy to be paleo man when you can go to Wild oats and buy your food. I want these paleo extremists to do it right: get off the computer (Paleo man didn't have it), toss your glasses (paleo man didn't have it), get rid of your car (paleo man didn't have them). Go live in teh woods and do it right or shut the hell up about it. Dont pick and choose the easy aspects of living a paleo life. Because that's all that any of them are doing.

Of course they won't, they are just a bunch of rich Americans who get to make inane choices about their food intake (like vegetarians) because they live in a world that WOULD NOT EXIST IF MAN HADN'T STOPPED BEING A HUNTER GATHERER AND DOMESTICATED GRAINS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Of course, it's fun to watch the paleo guys quite Cordain and Eaton's SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ARTICLES but choose to ignore the ones on grains because they don't like what they say.

Oh yeah, paleo guys: move out of your house and go build a hut.

No more medicine either, if you get sick good luck with that. Go figure out which herbs are good for certain things.

Quit your gym, paleo man didn't have rotating barbells and weights. Go lift rocks and antelopes for exercise. When you aren't spending 4 hours/day trying to obtain food by hand.

No supplements either. No creatine, no none of that. If you want fish oils, learn to spear hunt.

Oh yeah, and please drop dead at age 40 since that's about average life expectancy for paleo man. Don't rely on the medical technology that wouldn't exist if man hadn't domesticated grains and been able to put energy into more than survival because paleo man didn't get to either.

But stop picking and choosing which bits you do and do not think are valid.

The "paleo diet" is not one particular approach. Dr. Harris says that some people can tolerate up to 40% carbs and that certain steps like dropping sugar and plant oils are more important than not eating rice/potatos/corn.

It also isn't a historic reenactment. Butter is a neolithic food, but a staple of the paleo diet.

xrahx:

[H]e should just be eating less[.]

Which still is addressing only the symptoms, still just hacking at the branches.

Huh?

What I meant was, if you want to lose fat, you have to put on muscle.

Liquid whey is a common and dirt-cheap dairy product in my country - it's called Mysa, and it's the greatest thing ever when it comes to exercise - I use it as a replacement for all sports and energy drinks etc. when I´m training.

  Don't know how vodka would go with powdered whey supplements though

I think he was joking. It would be exceptionally batty to work out drunk / hungover.

I think he was joking. It would be exceptionally batty to work out drunk / hungover

I was actually being dead serious about that!

I'm surprising I haven't seen anyone mention HIT training.  This was once the standard for Objectivists, wasn't it, as the most rational of all weightlifting routines and all that?

hayekianxyz:

What I meant was, if you want to lose fat, you have to put on muscle.

Why do you believe that?

JAlanKatz:

I'm surprising I haven't seen anyone mention HIT training.  This was once the standard for Objectivists, wasn't it, as the most rational of all weightlifting routines and all that?

It was mentioned a few pages above, and several variations of HIT work outs have also been mentioned.

I was actually being dead serious about that!

Alchohol is a diuretic, the hangover is your body dehydrated.  I guess this is what I should expect from a vodka drinker. 

When I was bartending one day I told my friend if he could jog the 12 miles from his house to my bar in less than 1 1/2 hrs in 86 degree weather, he could drink for free that day.  He managed the jog, he "won", but it didn't end well for him.  He was a vodka drinker as well.

JAlanKatz:

I'm surprising I haven't seen anyone mention HIT training.  This was once the standard for Objectivists, wasn't it, as the most rational of all weightlifting routines and all that?

I'm not sure if it was "the standard for Objectivists," but I know that Mike Mentzer was an Objectivist.

I'm not sure if it was "the standard for Objectivists," but I know that Mike Mentzer was an Objectivist.

Bob Clapp is an anarchist/egoist transhumanist who was influenced by Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Max Stirner and Ray Kurzweil. I've met him before, he's an interesting guy.

His book is oddball, but it has some interesting parts.

He wrote a 'white paper' about the misreporting of steroid effects.

Men's Health Power Training and Cardio Strength Training are great books by enviro douche Robert dos Remedios; lots of Olympic lifts.

Foam rolls and AIS rope stretching help with recovery, tightness.

Crossfit seems like it'd cause injuries.

CoolUserName:

Crossfit seems like it'd cause injuries.

What do you mean?

Funnily enough, I've bee strength training for the last six weeks because of the demands of my job (UPS package preloader), especially on the lower back. You'd be surprised how much easier such a job is after doing a few weeks worth of bentover rows even if I'm not at bodybuilding weight levels.

filc:

What do you mean?

Crossfit doesn't appear safe.

krazy kaju:

Kettlebells seem like a GREAT tool for cardio and endurance-strength, but not that good for just gaining slabs of mass (which is my goal for this summer). What do you think of my assessment?

Yes, imo they are unrivaled as a tool for cardio and endurance-strength.  But they can also be used to build size as well.  Most of that is simply about upping your caloric intake.  Mike Mahler has a DVD out called Kettlebell Solution for Size and Strength.  Mike is one of the best that I've come across with regards to kettlebell stuff in general.  There are a few others I could recommend as well. 

That said, if you are simply going for the bodybuilding look, then dumbells and isometric lifts are probably just fine.

Personally, I have very little interest in putting on much mass or bodybuilding, and am far more interested in "functional strength and strength-endurance."  I'd like to keep a high strength-to-weight ratio and increase power.  Kettlebells are perfect for that.  As a side effect, though, simply from increasing general strength my muscle mass has increase to a degree.

When I was in highschool I did lots of breathing squats, which certainly helped expand my chest quite a bit.  I may cycle in a period of those again one of these days.

"So that destroys the equal sign in the energy balance equation" - Snowflake

You can't be that fucking dense.  Or can you?  If the energy never entered the fucking system, how does it 'destroy' the equal sign in the equation?  Does the presence of a 5 or some other number on this page 'destroy' the equal sign in 2+2=4?  This is exactly the kind of numbskull dipshittery that makes anyone with half an active brain cell not listen to Taubes or his followers.

"This is important because we typically count calories we eat."

So because most people typically fuck up the application of the equation, it's no valid?  Let's apply that to the laws of gravity and a few other equations, see how it works.  After all, almost everyone agrees a pound of feathers should weigh less than a pound of lead, therefore instead of actually holding them to reality, let's just fuck reality in the ass in favor of accomodating assininity.

"I'm actually not recommending the UD2. I'm saying people should do a low carb diet if they want to lose fat."

And you would be wrong.  What diet is best for what person to lose fat or gain muscle is entirely dependent on the person.  Some people respond differently to different diets, and while low carb is an effective approach some people end up feeling way too lethargic.  As such, and once more, the only sound advice without a history to associate with his particular would be: eat less.  Recommending a diet approach without first knowing his current physical condition and whether he has any diseases like diabetes, his current eating patterns and calorie intake, his habits vis a vi resistance and cardio training, his schedule and how accomodative it is of training, his environment and what types of food are available, and a shitload more questions one could and should ask before recommending a diet, isn't a good idea.

"Taubes, while not as detailed as McD, does discuss insulin's role in fat storage. It is very important."

Which is completely beside the point.  Once more, there is no magical exception for insulin in the laws of thermodynamics.  If there is, please pull down a standard text on the subject and show it to me.

"I'm aware of this."

Not apparently in any way that makes sense with regard to, like, ya know, sanity and stuff like that.

"That's a big asterisk to have on your energy balance equation. It would be much easier to write it as in - out + generation = accumulation, where in = energy of the food you eat, out = energy expenditures, excrement, generation = energy to break down proteins etc (negative), and accumulation = total energy remaining in the body. This way you can easily see the role of hormones, as well as thermic effects, etc etc in the energy balance."

One, you can write it based on simple intake via eating because despite Taubes' bullshit, the amount of calories that don't enter the system for these reasons isn't that big of a deal and it's nothing that can't be compensated for by... eating less.  If you are one of those people for whome gut flora lead to a serious absorption of calories other people don't get, this is not magic, it is not an exception to the laws of physics.  It means you're shit out of luck and need to eat half as much if not less pizza as other people, plain and simple.

Two, making things 'simpler' at the expense of being 'correct' and accomodating insanity like Taubes' stuff isn't a good idea.

"The way you make it sound, its just eat less, exercise more, and you'll be golden."

And you will be.  How much less is the only issue.

"This is not true if your body changes the way it handles food. Hormonal changes could easily cause you to just absorb a greater % of the food you are eating. We have to be more sophisticated than this."

Which just means you need to eat even less.  This is the ONLY area where macro nutrient manipulation can give a bit of an advantage to some, but it IS NOT a violation of the energy balance equation.  All it is is the body manipulating it's energy stores/usage to accomodate new conditions, but this can only be done to a point, it doesn't allow people to magically gain energy despite a calorie deficit or lose energy despite a calorie surplus.  And no one is going to magically gain or maintain weight even on a high carb diet if you lower calories enough, plain and simple.  There is no way to avoid that because it's not up for debate, it's a well settled law of physics which, if broken, would be so ground breaking as to warrant cover stories on every God damn science journal on the planet.

"I'm not saying energy is destroyed. I'm saying you can expell it as waste. I don't know how to make this more clear."

If you expel it as waste it was never a part of the energy equation except in as much energy as it took to process it as waste.  Hence, calories that pass through your digestive system without being absorbed would not count as intake on the left side of the equation and would add energy expenditure to the right side of the equation in terms of thermic effect of food and BMR.  So unless you have some direct, measured, evidence on a population of normal people with a control group to compare to and calorie intake controlled for that shows that unabsorbed calories can cause either a drop in conscious or unconscious energy expenditure, or some other affect on the right side of the energy equation with the ultimate result of lowering total calories needed to maintain equillibrium, then unabsorbed food would actually add to your calorie deficit because while it added no energy to your system it took energy from other intake or body stores to move it through your system.  So, once more, you're wrong.

"This is certainly possible. But then you deny the possibility that two people, the same in every way, including energy expenditures, could be of different weights?"

It's impossible to measure if they are truly the same in every way, so it's impossible to test.  Even identical twins will show variations in energy expenditure vs stores vs intake.  Only their genetic components of energy expenditure would have a chance of being the same, and environment and specifics can even affect those.  So it is a GIVEN that two seemingly the same people will be of different weights, because they're NOT the same, because your view of the energy balance equation is too damn simple.

"I've already outlined how Taubes logic is similar, albeit less rigorous, than McD's. You don't rebut this."

And you are completely and totally wrong.  If you don't believe me, be my guest, go to McDonald's measage boards and let him know how you love how similar his work and conclusions are to Taubes.

"A CKD is actually pretty easy to follow."

Every diet is hard to follow, that's why most people have trouble losing weight.  A cyclical ketogenic one with refeeds and what not is even more difficult.  And the primary reason people have problem with even garden variety diets is because they eat too God damn much because they vastly underestimate calorie intake.  Which is why 'eating less' is always the first and best advice.

"Actually, ketosis blunts the appetite back."

Not for everyone.  And recommending low carb to someone you don't know is, as stated above, not a good idea.  Carbs are usually replaced with something, which has to be either protein or fat.  What if he has gout or is prone to it?  Sucking down a shitload of protein and fat might be a bad idea there.  How about heart diesease?  Sucking down shitloads of saturate fats, great idea for someone with a ticker that's either blown or about to blow.  Kidney stones?  Etc.  The advice is also belied by the success of other non low carb diets like Mediterranean.  Plenty of plant food and dairy in that diet, and yet magically, people lose weight and lose fat on it.  You know why?  Because olive oil is magic.

Or maybe they're just getting fewer calories relative to their daily energy needs.

"Cutting carbohydrates down to 30-50g/day is a much better recommendation, even if the overall calorie level stays the same. This has to do with insulin, which you're probably aware of, but never reference."

Because it's irrelevant to the discussion.  I could just as easily point out the unconsious ways in which people on low carb diets lower their calorie needs via lethargy, etc.  And in the end, it doesn't matter.  What matters is keeping calories in lower than calories burned, which means you're accessing your body's stores.  Insulin does not change this fact.  It just contributes to making some approaches work better than others for some people.  It's like all of a sudden some fat guy's calorie needs are going to go from 4000kCal a day to 1500kCal because of insulin.  There are limits to the 'adjustments' your body can make.  And if you're obsessing over amounts of kCal within those limits, then you're quite simply dieting wrong, because in terms of chronic application of a deficit it's irrelevant.

"Anyway, I'm tired of repeating myself. You don't seem to really understand other people's arguments, or address them at their core."

I understand your arguments fine.  You're wrong, or batshit crazy.  Insulin does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.  All it does is affect body composition to adjust for nutrition intake and allow the body to make small adjustments to maintain mass over a range of kCal intake.  Those changes are not as significant as you claim, and they do not invalidate the Energy Balance Equation.  The key to losing weight is always burning more energy than you take in, period.  And you can do this with or without carbs.

"You can give a type I diabetic all the carbs you want, and without exogenous insulin they lose weight." - Doctor Whatever via E. R. Olovetto

Did you have to catch this caveat in the Doc's quote, and did you miss the point I made about idiots like Taube generalizing from case studies and diseased samples to normal human beings?  Hey, guess what!  NIH is loaded with shitloads of studies which show burn victims pack on the muscle mass when given IV glutamine!  That MUST mean that crap is anabolic and would help normal people pack on muscle too, right!  No, because guess what; burn victims getting IV amino acids respond differently to lunk heads sucking down powdered versions.  As do diabetics respond differently to carbohydrate intake.  That's why they're called diabetic, ya know?

And, perhaps if you've reviewed the good doc's work, pray tell me, unless you shit it out or turn it into heat, where do all those excess calories go so long as you can stop your hormones from "driving fat storage"?  Do they build muscle?  That'd be kind of strange seeing as how nothing but normal protein turnover should be occurring absent physical labor of some kind.  So where do they go?  And more...

"Conversely, if I keep your caloric intake the same with zero carbs and you are not diabetic, and I give you extra insulin, you will start storing fat (stop releasing) and become ravenously hungry."

All he's talking about is CHANGING THE FUCKING CONDITIONS OF THE EQUATION.  Insulin will drive a change in body composition which would generally lead to more fat and less lean mass respectively, unless you're working out heavily, so the body can maintain mass and energy stores at a bit of a lower calorie level.  This is not magic, it simply means your body has changed its response to food and what was once a deficit is now maintenance, or even a slight surplus, because the variables in the equation have changed.  Taubes and other jackasses act like this is infinitely scalable, it's not.  There are limits to the way a normal human body will respond, and never are we ever able to put on mass without excess energy intake.

"I've seen body builders rage at Dr. Harris for saying that the occasional carb loading (or whatever it is called, and you were mentioning it) is pointless."

They're right.  Carb loading is great... for aesthetics, which is their goal.  Once they diet down a high carb meal leads to glycogen repletion which, for a few short hours to day, would make your muscles look great.  For long term fat loss it's irrelevant.  Maintaining a calorie deficit is what matters, regardless of what your hormones are doing.  All the hormone do is affect to a degree what tissue is being lost or gained in the end.  A low carb diet would likely lead to preferentially burning a bit more fat than otherwise.  However for a normal person who is already over weight this is largely irrelevant and unremarkable.  Their real problem is much more likely to be portion control, which leads to... chronic calorie excess.

"Which still is addressing only the symptoms, still just hacking at the branches." - I. Ryan

Energy excess IS the problem.  It's all the hormonal wanking about insulin and ghrelin and leptin that's the branches.

"What I meant was, if you want to lose fat, you have to put on muscle." - hayekianxyz

Which is impossible unless you're in an adjustment period where your body composition is changing and finding a new equillibrium.  Otherwise, to build muscle, you need a calorie excess.  Saying otherwise means you are claiming to create mass out of nothing.  Welcome to Harry Potterland.  And to lose fat you need to have a calorie deficit.  Which means unless you're really fat to begin with and you have a prolonged adjustment period where you're in a deficit relative to previous intake but still seeing a net energy surplus due to body stores being mobilized, gaining muscle and losing fat are opposing goals with opposite requirements.

"I'm surprising I haven't seen anyone mention HIT training.  This was once the standard for Objectivists, wasn't it, as the most rational of all weightlifting routines and all that?" - JAlanKatz

HIT is just one effective protocol among many.  When it comes to weight lifting there's a myriad of programs out there all claiming to be great.  The bottom line is as long as what you're doing vis a vi weight lifting isn't insanely moronic, it'll probably 'work' to some extent.  For weights, as with cardio, people should pick any non retarded program that fits their needs and just stick with it.  5X5 is classic and my favorite personally.

"Crossfit seems like it'd cause injuries." - CoolUserName

Some of their workouts can, which is generally why a lot of people don't like them.

Kettlebells are great.  The swing is great for cardio, relaxing, and warming up/down.  The Turkish get up is a killer; I have low core strength and one side is weaker than the other so I'm stuck on a 12Kg KB for now.

Xharx I don't think you could possibly be any more antagonistic. It's hard to tell if your interest here is generally to help people learn or to shout down at them and belittle them. Your definately not accomplishing anything positive here with such a tone.  

Lets assume for a second your right, and Snowflake is wrong. How receptive do you think his learning is going to be when you say things like

xahrx:

You can't be that fucking dense.

Imagine if your instructor/professor/ or teacher addressed you like that everytime you were wrong(Or even right but had a disagreement in opinion.

Besides, do you have credentials to backup your heightened level of arrogance?

Amazing that even in a discussion not about politics you cannot be shown to control your emotions. 

filc:

What do you mean?

CoolUserName:

Crossfit doesn't appear safe.

Like what workout specifically? I fail to see how it's any more or any less dangerous then general weight lifting. Crossfit is just a form of HIT, incorporating weight lifting into it. They don't do anything "New" or "different" from anyone else. They just do it really fast.

Incidently  many "dangerous" exercises are actually good for you.  Two examples one the Stiff Legged Deadlift which strengthens and keeps supple the hamstrings and lower back muscles (Erector Spinae) and Two the full squat actually strengthens the knees not damages them.

xharx:

If the energy never entered the fucking system, how does it 'destroy' the equal sign in the equation?

Your reading comprehension skills are very very low. I said that *your* interpretation does not allow the energy balance equation to have an equality sign in it. I then proceeded to correct you so that it could be salvaged.

xharx:

So because most people typically fuck up the application of the equation, it's no valid?

You can't give effective advice if you and your audience have a different understanding of what "energy in" means.

xharx:

What diet is best for what person to lose fat or gain muscle is entirely dependent on the person.

This is simply an intellectual cop-out. There might be some individuals out there who are so hypersensative to insulin that they wouldn't be able to get their carbs low enough, but the majority of people are not in this category. Its a little rich that you rant about everyone else ignoring scientific laws when you can't even discuss insulin. You have no argument.

xharx:

and while low carb is an effective approach some people end up feeling way too lethargic

During the first few days, sure. But once you get into Ketosis the majority of people feel just fine.

xharx:

As such, and once more, the only sound advice without a history to associate with his particular would be: eat less.

I've been over why this isn't good advice.  Again, you are just making baseless assertions. You have no argument.

xharx:

Recommending a diet approach without first knowing his current physical condition and whether he has any diseases like diabetes,

Sorry. Let me clarify to all who are reading that if you have Diabetes, AIDS, or have had an operation to surgically remove your digestive track, a low carb diet may not be a good idea.

xharx:

his current eating patterns and calorie intake, his habits vis a vi resistance and cardio training, his schedule and how accomodative it is of training, his environment and what types of food are available, and a shitload more questions one could and should ask before recommending a diet, isn't a good idea.

These would all help, but the basic advice would stay the same. Low carb.

xharx:

Once more, there is no magical exception for insulin in the laws of thermodynamics.  If there is, please pull down a standard text on the subject and show it to me.

Since your reading comprehension is so poor I will use your awkward energy balance: Insulin is 100% important because it determines the 'in' side of your equation. Insulin determines how many macronutrients go 'in'.

xharx:

Not apparently in any way that makes sense with regard to, like, ya know, sanity and stuff like that.

Flametroll.

xharx:

the system for these reasons isn't that big of a deal and it's nothing that can't be compensated for by... eating less.

I already explained why eating less might not help. Your body could simply increase the % of dietary nutrients it absorbs.

xharx:

Two, making things 'simpler' at the expense of being 'correct' and accomodating insanity like Taubes' stuff isn't a good idea.

Was my energy balance incorrect? I thought it made a lot more sense, because you can see all the dynamics we're talking about in it. As opposed to yours where hormones are entirely hidden. :/

xharx:

And no one is going to magically gain or maintain weight even on a high carb diet if you lower calories enough, plain and simple.

Weren't you the one who complained that a low carb diet might make people feel lethargic, and now you're turning around and saying that you should just eat less untill you lose weight? And if that doesn't work, eat even less?

xharx:

I understand your arguments fine.  You're wrong, or batshit crazy.

No. You just walked into the conversation with all these preconceptions about your relative quality of knowledge on the subject, and are now suffering cognitive dissonance. The only thing you can say about a low carb diet is that people might get tired if they're on it. You don't have to reduce the amount that you eat because the amount 'in' is reduced by virtue of lower insulin. 

You also completely ignore all my conciliatory remarks about how I support GOMAD if it works and etc... indicating that you're just frothing at the mouth.  

Snowflake:

Flametroll.

Indeed.  xharx, cool it, or be temp-banned.

Daniel Muffinburg:

What's good for losing slabs of fat?

I followed the "bullshit" advice of Taubes and lost about 50 pounds of fat in 3 months. I stuffed my face twice a day with big meals. I was and still am a sloth with respect to exercise.

I'm not any stronger or weaker than what I was, but I'm a HELL of a lot healthier. I've followed this as closely as possible. http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/

Over that time, I went from around 240 pounds to 190 pounds and my rest heart rate went from 70 to about 60. At first, I could barely run 200 yards without getting tired. The other week, I tried to see how long I could run, and I almost made 2 miles. I think trying to control the O6's and O3's while staying away from every kind of oil is what really helped with respect to my circulatory system. I stuck with less than 50g of carbs a day, oftentimes getting close to 0g in a day.

So yes. You can sit on your fat ass and watch it shrink if you just eat the right foods. No starvation or exercise necessary.

In defense of Taubes, what he's saying is that cutting down on carb consumption would lower insulin levels, thereby preventing fatty acids from entering your fat cells. That makes sense.

The problem with Taubes, I believe, is that you want insulin if you're trying to mass gain. You want a bigger appetite and insulin is anabolic. Snowflake responded by claiming that greater insulin levels reduces GH and test. The funny thing is that the paper he posted refutes Taubes to a degree:

Insulin resistance and obesity‐25% of the population is insulin resistant, a condition where the
pancreas over secretes insulin to maintain normal blood levels of glucose after a
carbohydrate‐dense meal. This over secretion theoretically causes carbohydrate to be
stored as body fat. While this may be true for sedentary populations, it is not the case
with athletes and other active populations. Exercise makes cells more sensitive to
insulin and insulin triggers receptors to help glucose enter the cell and replenish
glycogen stores. (Kleiner 2007)

Moreover, the paper also has these little tidbits:

Insulin spikes following resistance
training do lead to lower levels of testosterone in the blood but it unclear why. It could be due in part to
increased testosterone uptake in active skeletal muscle. Recent work “Diet and hormonal
responses: potential impact on body composition” has shown that the meal‐induced decrease
in testosterone after resistance exercise corresponds with an increase in skeletal muscle
androgen receptor content. Insulin spikes also lead to increased levels of growth hormone
following resistance training and some studies have shown an increase in IGF‐I during insulin
spikes.
Nutrition supplements that create elevated levels of insulin in the blood, after resistance
training can produce a more favorable anabolic environment during recovery that may be
favorable to muscle growth by stimulating insulin and growth hormone elevations.

Also, this gem:

Carbohydrate‐protein led to an increase in
growth hormone 6 hours post exercise which was greater than protein and control.
Supplements had no effect on insulin‐like growth factor‐I but caused a significant decline in
testosterone. Testosterone levels fell below resting levels 30 minutes postexercise during all
supplement treatments compared to the control. The decline in testosterone was not
associated with a decline in luteinizing hormone, suggesting an increased clearance of
testosterone after supplementation. The results suggest that nutritive supplements after
weight‐training exercise can produce a hormonal environment during recovery that may be
favorable to muscle growth by stimulating insulin and growth hormone elevations.

So... if you want to gain muscle mass, then eat lots of fats, proteins, and yes, even carbs.

filc:

Like what workout specifically? I fail to see how it's any more or any less dangerous then general weight lifting. Crossfit is just a form of HIT, incorporating weight lifting into it. They don't do anything "New" or "different" from anyone else. They just do it really fast.

Let's use the "King Kong" vid as an example.  He says his "warmup" is 'snatching 255, cleaning and jerking 355' - way too much, would injure most people.  See those cruches at 0:52 in the video?  Not a good sign.  Too low rep range, too much weight without any rest.  A 10-12 rep range is better for a circuit for most people.  I'm pretty sure those Olympic lifters get plenty of rest between sets in their training and don't get injured much.  Also the pullps with gym rings he did didn't look safe.  Some the the Cultfit stuff I've seen at the gym makes me wonder how safe it is (like some the the stuff they do on pullup bars).  I haven't seen them for a while.  They must've got injured, burnt out, or changed programs.

Warming up is important.  I do a combination of warmups from Core Performance by Mark Verstegen, Funtional Training for Sports by Mike Boyle, dos Remedios's MHPT.  It's 5-10 min., light, uses bodyweight, and gets the blood pumping. 

Then I do the strength workout from MHPT.  It takes 45-90 mins. (higher range with cardio lifting circuits, Tabata's) usually, 4 days.  Some off days I do 15-30 mins. strength cardio (using weight lifting circuits or Tabata Protocal).  No machines, no smith machines, free weights only.  Lifts include power cleans, snatches, deadlifts, good mornings, lunges, push jerks, bench press, pullups, chinups and many more I cycle through.  Core work like bridges - front, side; rotational core work like Kneeling Cable Wood Chops, etc.  No mirror muscles worked like bicep curls, calf raises.  Mostly muscles you can see in mirror like legs, glutes, upper back for better posture, athletism, and long-term health.

Giant_Joe:

You can sit on your fat ass and watch it shrink if you just eat the right foods. No starvation or exercise necessary.

It is true if you eat right you will lose weight regardless of exercise.  The right exercise and diet together will speed the rate of fat loss through the roof.

CoolUserName:

Let's use the "King Kong" vid as an example.

Well I am still not sure what video you are referring to and your argument doesn't tell me specifically what is dangerous about crossfit. All y ou've done is cited an example of someone with poor form. That says nothing about crossfit in general.

In addition youtube video's are a terrible representation of what crossfit(or any exercise) is all about. What your watching are a few show-offs who want everyone watch them do the most extreme types of work outs. Many crossfit workouts are little beyond pullup/situp/pushup/free squatting and standard weight lifting technique's. Most all crossfit exercises are also widely used outside of crossfit. So again I am not sure specifically what you are referring to when you say it's dangerous. Giving me a video of someone with poor form or doing some radical crossfit workout doesn't necessarily say anything about crossfit at all.

In addition, the workout your citing is just one of possibly hundreds of different types of workouts in crossfit, and is not in anyway a representation of crossfit as a whole. 

CoolUserName:

Also the pullps with gym rings he did didn't look safe. 

Those are called muscle-ups, and would you rather him have a helmet on? Again I don't know what video your referring to but as far as I can tell muscle ups are no more dangerous than pull-ups.

What exactly about crossfit, in comparison to other methods of exercising, do you find that is exceedingly dangerous? Please don't site examples of people with bad form. The only criticism I've ever heard of is that people who push themselves too far have gotten rhabdomyolysis. That is not the fault of crossfit, but again a risk of working out in general if you do not moderate your actions. People need to know their limits, the same applies to rock climbing, running, biking, weight lifting, skiing, or anything else under the sun. You can push yourself over the edge on just about everything.

xahrx:

Energy excess IS the problem.  It's all the hormonal wanking about insulin and ghrelin and leptin that's the branches.

No, that is just one of the symptoms. Eat only unprocessed, natural food, and see whether you eat excess amounts of food. Believe me; you will not.

@ filc

I didn't say crossfit was dangerous.  I don't know much about it and don't care to find out.  I say it's injury prone, especially for beginners and Average Joe's.  A workout regimen should have three goals:

1.  Injury prevention.

2.  Ache/Pain/Tightness elimination.

After these two are met then,

3.  Increase strength and stamina or workload capacity.

I've never heard Physical Therapists recommending crossfit.  There are much better routines like those I've mentioned.

krazy kaju:

The problem with Taubes, I believe, is that you want insulin if you're trying to mass gain. You want a bigger appetite and insulin is anabolic. Snowflake responded by claiming that greater insulin levels reduces GH and test. The funny thing is that the paper he posted refutes Taubes to a degree:

Taubes isn't advocating an athlete's diet, he's just exploring how you lose fat. I don't think he talks about insulin's role in augmenting/supressing other hormones.

Anyway, so I'm not really sure about a lot of those studies' conclusions... what you eat pre-workout is arguably much more important, and i've seen some advice which says if you want more GH, don't eat carbs before a workout (recommended for cutting), but if you want more insulin go ahead.

And it really depends on what kind of workout you're doing. If you're doing a glycogen depletion workout (volume, pump) then yes. Your muscles will be set up for glycogen supercompensation after the workout, so insulin is your friend. However, if you a training for strength in a tension/power workout, your glycogen stores are still pretty full and your actual muscle tissues are damaged/stretched, in which case there's no point replenishing glycogen stores, especially if its going to inhibt test, and possibly GH (not IGH-1).

*shrug* A lot of the wisdom that is bantered around is analytically pretty good. It just doesn't seem like any trials are designed to really test it...


Anyway, the point of linking that article was to lend support to the idea that insulin might supress other hormones. Its a mixed bag.

CoolUserName:

I say it's injury prone, especially for beginners and Average Joe's.

That is ofcoarse the same thing as calling it dangerous. And ofcoarse as I stated before, most all forms of physical activities have various risks. Crossfit is not a risk prone exemplar, but is simply a risk prone technique just as marathon running is or olympic style weightlifting or anything else of higher intensity.

Your 3 points are legitimate though, thats why most crossfit gyms enforce the following.

1. Most crossfit gyms I am aware of have their  members do all heavy lifting activities with no weight first to practice form. For example a class may do OHSquats as free weight first, then have people slowly and incrementally raise their weight untill they are comfortable. I've even had one of my coaches force me to lower weight in the middle of the WOD as my form was suffering. He did this as a precaution. You won't get that type of attention in a 24 hour fitness. But t hen again, if your working out alone following your form is up to you and your discipline. This is not a fault of crossfit, but a fault of people not taking care to work out safely. 

2. This ofcoarse is your warm-up period.

3. and ultimately the WOD.

CoolUserName:

I've never heard Physical Therapists recommending crossfit.

Well the same could be said for Olympic style weightlifting, or marathon running. Crossfit is not a system specifically designed as any sort of physical therapy. I don't know where thats coming from. I am wondering if you are making an apples to orange comparison. Not to say your style of working out is incorrect, but that it's not suited for people looking for different results. IE, it's not for everyone. If you want something easier and more forgiving then there are alternatives, like a nice slow jog around the park, or a few laps of swimming in the pool or yoga. Crossfit has a reason and a purpose, just as olympic style weightlifting does. It's definitely no yoga :)

Still the reason why I choose crossfit is because I want superior results at a fraction of the time. The worst injury I've gotten so far is broken skin from doing too many pullups.