- This topic has 6 voices and 15 replies.
-
Posts
-
http://www.stonehearthnewsletters.com/is-the-nutrition-advice-industry-one-big-scam/nutrition/Let the discussion begin! I was linked to this by respected sports dietitian Nancy Clark.
They only tried 35% and 65% carb?It also says very little about lean mass, except for mean value. I guess the abstract isn't enough..
“At 6 mo, participants lost a mean (±SEM) of 4.2 ± 0.3 kg (12.4%) fat and 2.1 ± 0.3 kg (3.5%) lean mass”Great, they just showed (again) that restricting calories results in a ridiculously high level of muscle loss. Useful study, but not for the lame reasons this blog thinks.
Its like the 800 liquid VLCD study that shows the participants ate a balanced diet with extremely low cals and lost NO muscle mass. It cites this is due to the fact that the subjects performed resistance training vs aerobic training.However, as usual, if you read more than the abstract you'll find out that the study was done on individuals with approx 45% body fat to start. Well no shit if you're obese that your body is going to devour the flubber first. The hypothesis of aerobic vs resistance is strong, but tacking on the VLCD has allowed for sub-optimal conclusions to be drawn by a population very different from the subjects tested.It has been cited on more than one BB forum to illustrate that your LBM won't be eated up on a VLCD cut.Not really sure what my point was but here's the study:http://www.jacn.org/content/18/2/115.full
I did 2 weeks of a vlcd diet to get to my initial goal of 10% bodyfat and lost about 20% of my leg press strength and about the same on my bench press so it sucked. It was at that point that I wised up and said it was not worth it so I took 1 mth off cutting cals period. I did end up gaining back some fat but long story short I got smart and got on board with DH and Kiefer results speak for themselves, I have shed more fat in 1 mth on carb nite than 2 mths of cal cutting and increased strength while doing so, enough said in my opinion.
I did 2 weeks of a vlcd diet to get to my initial goal of 10% bodyfat and lost about 20% of my leg press strength and about the same on my bench press so it sucked. It was at that point that I wised up and said it was not worth it so I took 1 mth off cutting cals period. I did end up gaining back some fat but long story short I got smart and got on board with DH and Kiefer results speak for themselves, I have shed more fat in 1 mth on carb nite than 2 mths of cal cutting and increased strength while doing so, enough said in my opinion.
A VLCD is a very powerful tool if used at the right times, I myself have stayed on one too long and suffered similar consequences.
We should be careful here. A lot of the studies Kiefer uses to back up CBL and CNS are of elderly men, the obese or pregnant women. On the surface, not really useful to us but obviously Kiefer sees something we don't. So maybe we can't just disregard a study because it was done on the obese , et.
Disregard no however it should be noted that what happens diet wise or body wise differ greatly from those whom are leaner, this is not to take away from the merit of any one study however as we shed fat the body makes changes across the board so things change I found this out when I went from obese to leaner, when I was obese fat loss was simple and easy, the leaner I got the harder it got. So in my opinion what works from me is what I am going to continue to do, however when someone is obese any change is going to be a positive one.
We should be careful here. A lot of the studies Kiefer uses to back up CBL and CNS are of elderly men, the obese or pregnant women. On the surface, not really useful to us but obviously Kiefer sees something we don't. So maybe we can't just disregard a study because it was done on the obese , et.
Interested to see Kiefer or Naomi's response to this.....
My whole point is that , when we ( I , you, us , them, whoever ) read studies , we see- obese , elderly men or diabetic and think that the studies then don't apply to us. I am guilty of this . However , Kiefer knows how to decipher and compile the “data” far better than I do. So the next time I see one done on previously mentioned groups I won't automatically disregard it. Not a slam on him, he knows what he's doing – I don't.
My whole point is that , when we ( I , you, us , them, whoever ) read studies , we see- obese , elderly men or diabetic and think that the studies then don't apply to us. I am guilty of this . However , Kiefer knows how to decipher and compile the "data" far better than I do. So the next time I see one done on previously mentioned groups I won't automatically disregard it. Not a slam on him, he knows what he's doing - I don't.
That's a good point.ADTS in this case made a valid point about the study being conducted on very obese individuals. At that level of obesity, they have very little muscle and a ton of fat to lose. The question is whether you can apply these conclusions to people of lower body fat %s. The answer would basically be "no", you can't claim, based on what happens to extremely obese people, that relatively lean individuals would lose fat but not muscle when cutting calories.So you're right: you have to understand the context of the study to see what can be successfully concluded from it.I haven't read even half of the studies that Kiefer quotes, but the ones I do read often only make sense in the context of OTHER studies. This is why Kiefer's references come in clumps, e.g. "Reference 1" in Chapter 8 contains 10 articles.
Naomi , thanks , I guess we tend to read a study……disregard it…….read another…..disregard it…..and so on. Because each piece of research has something that doesn't apply to us ( obesity , diabetes , elderly , etc ) we throw them out one by one. But when looked at together or in clumps , it does show commonalities that can be applied .
Info is always useful, even if it does not completely apply to us, I learned over the course of the last 2 years shedding weight, building muscle, and trying to lean out that there are many tools which can be used to get us to the goal. What it boils down to is what works for the individual which is why I like this method better. I have tried cal cutting, caloric cycling, and carb cycling but what they all had in common was that my strength either stayed static or it dropped (particularly on just plain caloric cutting) so I was spinning my wheels so to speak. I even tried a few different muscle building programs and sure I got stronger but I ended up getting fat. I was a devout reader of Tom venuto and used his methods to lean out as much as I did but ultimately I was losing muscle with caloric cutting. This is the first program I have tried where I managed to lean out and get stronger so I am happy to stick with it.
Info is always useful, even if it does not completely apply to us, I learned over the course of the last 2 years shedding weight, building muscle, and trying to lean out that there are many tools which can be used to get us to the goal. What it boils down to is what works for the individual which is why I like this method better. I have tried cal cutting, caloric cycling, and carb cycling but what they all had in common was that my strength either stayed static or it dropped (particularly on just plain caloric cutting) so I was spinning my wheels so to speak. I even tried a few different muscle building programs and sure I got stronger but I ended up getting fat. I was a devout reader of Tom venuto and used his methods to lean out as much as I did but ultimately I was losing muscle with caloric cutting. This is the first program I have tried where I managed to lean out and get stronger so I am happy to stick with it.
Oh that's interesting. You're the first person I've encountered who's directly used a Tom Venuto program. His whole spiel is "Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle"...
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.