The TFP Health Club

As in if you were 300 lbs but were 50% body fat, you would use the 150 lbs * .8. When you get lean a lot of people go just per pound as in if they are 180 pounds they eat that *.8 in protein a day, but that doesn't make sense if you are overweight. Knowing your body fat is another issue, and never use a body fat scale, they are useless, but get a caliper measure at the gym. This is a good ballpark guide too..


Its not perfect (20-25% for men is off a bit), but get a ok ballpark.

All dieting to lose weight is by definition starvation. Technically if you ate exactly 1 calorie less then you needed to live every day, sooner or later you would starve to death (though it would take many years). Losing weight, by definition, requires you eat less than you need to live. Otherwise there is no reason for you body to use its fat stores, fat stores come second to free energy. Losing weight is very easy in the early stages since your body has so much fat. I started at about 25% bf and was rarely very hungry, but now that I'm about 14% that same diet is a LOT harder. Also the fatter you are the more you can eat and still lose weight because fat does require some energy to maintain. Its why people don't get infinitely fat unless they REALLY work at it.

 

No I'm speaking literally. Calorie deficit is starvation. You will starve to death if you maintain a calorie deficit indefinitely. What people call a "starvation diet" is really just a more severe form of calorie deficit.

If I need 2500 calories to live, and eat nothing for a period of time, I will die, but if I need 2500 calories to live, eat 500 less then I need to live, I will also die, it will just take longer.

Of course there is more too it, (metabolism will slow down, over all daily energy requirements will go down) but eventually I will starve to death if I maintain that deficit.

 

This. This.

 

Whoa, old boy just put the die in diet. What the fuck am I reading? America is dying of heart disease. We are so far on the other end of the bell curve that to suggest otherwise is a war crime.

This technically/literally stuff is way confusing since it is neither as far as it practically applies to, say, obese people trying to avoid diabetes or a woman trying to lose her pregnancy weight.

If your diet and stored body fat are trying to kill you, you aren't really dying if you're cutting calories to lose that weight, are you? I would argue a fat-fatty-fat person is never really starving.

Using this logic--and given the frequency of my masturbation--you might suggest that I'm just suffering from one long, extended orgasm.

Relevant:

 

Hell, I know about Burundi. It's the other place where they store the skeletons that hold their hands out (first place was Somalia). Don't you--First World Citizen--ever use it in jokes to describe how you're dying from hunger?

 

I would have also accepted: Burundies - What happens when you drop a size in boxer briefs.

 

Was just looking for a clarification on the units since you just said lean body mass, and not mass (or weight) units. Some people base their protein on kg, and some on lb. Since a kg is over twice the lb number you get people thinking that they need 2 gm protein per lb lean body mass... (not that it hurts in the long run, but it's not necessarily required)

I've also been told, by a doctor, that no matter what your physical makeup (lean and studly or a great big fatty), you should base your calorie profile to be the same. Basically the percentages of macro-nutrients would not change. That would have a body builder and a couch potato of the same weight ( adjusted for activity levels ) with the same diet, based on maintenance calories. I'm not sure how that's true, but I'll take the word of someone who has studied nutrition at that level. He said as your caloric needs move upward, you don't just need more carbs, but equally the building blocks such as fat and protein.

Also if you ask a doctor, a mere calorie deficit is not starvation. You would have to be sub-minimum healthy weight for this to be true. Your body might go into 'starvation mode' with a severe deficit, but that's temporary.

Note that there's an 'and' in the definition of starvation: Starvation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you eat a diet based on some ideal BMI (which is most likely BS) then you are not starving, regardless of whether you are currently losing weight.

Herculite, are you a personal trainer? Just curious.

 

I'm not sure why starvation as a word is causing such a problem here. I've spelled it out as basically as I can. Starving is a active state, and its not always bad as long as you have the fat stores. Your body is consuming itself. When you are fat, thats a good thing up to a point. It also consumes muscle tissue as well. Its important to limit that as much as possible.

I'd argue thats wrong. You don't know how little MD's get in nutritian training. I took the classes with them, they were a joke. Honestly the worst advice on this comes from MDs. I've gotten laughable information from doctors who even claim to specialize in this stuff. A overweight "obesity" doctor I spoke with had less knowledge on the subject then I did. Percentages is a horrible way to go, as those will change. As a weightlifter you need more protein, and as a weightlifter cutting its vitally important. There are multiple studies to show this. As you get more muscle and less fat, you will need more to maintain.

For an example of showing how little most MD's know about fitness, a few years ago, back when I just started to get in good shape, I'd only been squatting for about 6 months. I was having knee problems that were related to tendonitis but it was BAD and I decided I needed to get an xray and have it checked out to double check. Doctor is doing the knee exam and asked me to not flex, so I made sure I was completely relaxed. He asked me to stop flexing again. I had to tell him I squatted, he just wasn't used to seeing people with any muscle in their quads.

A few months ago I went to my wifes MD and ended up explaining macro nutrition to her. They just don't get this stuff in medschool.

I'd have to disagree obviously here too. The problem is the connotation of "starvation", your body is in a catabolic state while in calorie deficit. This can not be maintained forever.

I should be, and I thought about doing it but I make more money where I'm at. What I did do is research this stuff into insane detail a few years ago and I keep up. I went to the original research, read the papers, read the studies, read the gurus, read the complaints of the gurus by other gurus and used my own backround which includes a masters degree and all that fun stuff. I then applied it to myself.

What I've find interesting is that diet is practically religious in terms of schools of thought, plans etc. Its somewhat insane and only speaks of the poor state of the education system on all things biology. Everyone has their "method" and breaking that is like breaking superstition or committing a sin.

Diets all work the same, and the differences in things like glycemic index, or meal frequency, or ketosis, or whatever are minimal to the big picture. I always tell people do what works for them but understand WHY it works. Knowing this is how you maintain long term and not go nuts stuck to one plan for the rest of your life.

 

Depends on which med-school and what kind of doctor. Some of them are highly trained in the science of nutrition. Most of what is passed on as good nutritional education, especially related to the fitness industry is scientifically laughable. The studies are either meta-studies or are done on such a small sample size and with very little rigor that you can't extrapolate beyond mere correlation.

Just because you might laugh at the information someone gives you doesn't make them wrong, and you right. Your sources of information are probably not better than the people who study the science itself.

As a weightlifter ( or any athlete really ) you need more of everything, not just protein. If you cut your carbs, your primary energy source, your body will go into a chemical state that will break down protein and fat to furnish that energy you just lost, so your net for all your cutting and replacing with protein, is a loss of protein...

What is your master's degree in? Good for you getting one, btw

 

Such is the nature of nutrition studies. The bigger problem is they are usually done on sedentary, obese, uncontrolled, AND small sample size.

Oh I laugh when a obesity doctor doesn't understand the difference between body fat % and total weight and why BMI isn't the best method to determine if one is healthy weight or not. Or when an MD uses a impedance method to determine body fat.

If you are cutting, it goes protein, fat, then carbs. If you are powerlifting, carbs are going to be very important. If you are going for physique not so much. Many even swear by ketosis, which means no carbs, though I think that does make you weaker in terms of endurance but thats just a feeling.

Physiology.

 

Physiology, outstanding. Do you work in your field? I used to be fascinated by biology, but took the tech route in school. I wish I had stuck to the sciences, and not applied physics... live and learn.

By the way, I was asking because it seemed that you knew what you were espousing, or at least had a level of confidence. I have run across too many people with the confidence, but none of the credentials to back them up. It's good to know you have some.

(the number of idiot-experts that are personal trainers comes to mind)

 

My inner grammar nazi is screaming, I can't even read all of the arguments.

I'm just happy I'm down two belt holes, two shirt sizes and one pant size, half a shoe size (I love that part of weight loss) and I need new bras. I'm eating more calories than I have in years and I'm losing weight faster than I ever did. With LESS exercise because of Frankenhand. It's a weight loss and health plan. And it's working for me. Plus, I get to eat meat, not count calories, and feel better. Yup, yup.

 

My feet are the happiest part of me, when I get leaner.

 

When I went from 224 to 127 pounds, I went from a 9/9.5 shoe to a 7.5. It was awesome.