Low Carb Friends  
Netrition.com - Tools - Reviews - Faces - Recipes - Home


Go Back   Low Carb Friends > Main Lowcarb Lobby
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-07-2013, 04:24 PM   #31
Major LCF Poster!
 
synger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,412
Gallery: synger
Stats: Start: 310 Current: 259
WOE: Calorie and carb counting, IR Diet framework
Start Date: IR/PCOS: Dx pre-diabetic 3/2010
I've always agreed with the adage, "you lose weight in the kitchen, you get fit in the gym." I don't NEED to exercise to lose weight. But if I want to maintain or improve my flexibility, strength, and endurance, and stave off the mobility issues I have with my arthritic knees... then I exercise.

So I walk at work, and try to do more and more stairs (to strengthen my knees), and garden, and hike, and when the weather gets better I hope to try biking again (I couldn't do it last year because of my knee).
__________________
"Let's fight heart disease and obesity with bacon and butter!"
synger is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 04-07-2013, 07:43 PM   #32
Junior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 29
Gallery: Indigodreamz
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiamondDeb View Post
If all you care about is the number on the scale then definitely do not exercise.

Personally, I don't care about numbers. I'm interested in how I look and feel. I workout regularly.

For those people who have massive amounts of weight to lose and escalating/accumalating health issues, the immediate danger is the number on the scale (according to the doc). Once that number has been lowered are they then able to focus on how they feel and how they look, if the latter is even of any importance to them at all.
Indigodreamz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 08:55 PM   #33
Fat Burning Machine Extraordinaire!
 
DiamondDeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 74,855
Gallery: DiamondDeb
Stats: 125+ lbs lost
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indigodreamz View Post
For those people who have massive amounts of weight to lose and escalating/accumalating health issues, the immediate danger is the number on the scale (according to the doc). Once that number has been lowered are they then able to focus on how they feel and how they look, if the latter is even of any importance to them at all.
I agree that in medical emergencies exercise is not a priority.

I disagree that it is a bad idea for extremely overweight persons to exercise. Of course, it is important to start slowly in those cases. - FYI, I've been there & done that so I speak with personal experience having benefited from exercise even when very heavy.

Bottom line is it is each person's personal choice. There is no single "best" way.

Last edited by DiamondDeb; 04-07-2013 at 08:56 PM..
DiamondDeb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 10:06 PM   #34
CTH
Senior LCF Member
 
CTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 138
Gallery: CTH
Stats: 267/212/190
WOE: Atkins
Start Date: February 2013
You cannot lose the weight they do on biggest loser without their simple formula: cut the calories and increase the exercise. Look at the Wikipedia data from each season... These people are dropping over 2 lbs per day (men) some weeks. A friend of mine went to the ranch for 3 weeks and dropped almost 50 lbs..... (and $15k )

They make you exercise 7 hours per day... Now that's not high intensity all the time.... a lot of it is long hikes.... but they keep you moving all the time.

Is it sustainable? Is it healthy? Is it applicable to those of us with "lives?" Not gonna go there but does it make you drop the weight? Yes.
CTH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2013, 10:12 PM   #35
Senior LCF Member
 
kiwistars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: new zealand.
Posts: 462
Gallery: kiwistars
Stats: 205/192.5/150 (6 foot tall)
WOE: atkins 1972
Start Date: 1st march
Reality shows have nothing to do with reality.

I lost 4 or 5 lbs a week just Atkins NDR ,no exercise in '04.This time around I am older and slip off the wagon more but still 2lb a week.The smaller women on that show only lost 3 pounds most weeks anyway.
kiwistars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:44 AM   #36
Major LCF Poster!
 
Trillex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,200
Gallery: Trillex
Stats: 235/135/135
WOE: Atkins
Start Date: 11 May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeelover View Post
My main reason for the heavy weight training and overall exercising was to try to prevent as much loose skin as possible. Not sure now if it's worth it.
I've seen a few people say that they are working out as a way to prevent loose skin, but I don't think working out is a solution to potential loose skin problems. If you lose a lot of size, and your skin isn't particularly elastic, you're going to have some loose skin even if you workout like a total fiend. There was a video posted here in the Main Lobby a few weeks ago of a guy who lost (I think) about 175 pounds and he did it over a period of several years, with an intense weight-lifting regime. But since he lost so much body size, of course, he had a ton of loose skin. When he flexed, you could see his beautiful muscle shape underneath the excess skin but he'd lost all of the fat padding that had filled out his skin and his muscle gains weren't enough to compensate for the significant loss of size.

I am also 5'4" tall and I started at 235 pounds. So I'm like your *sister* size! I've lost just over 75 pounds so far, which (on my body type) means I've lost more than 8 inches from my waist and 7 inches from my hips and more than 4 inches from each thigh, etc. So going from 235 to your goal weight of 120 pounds will mean SUBSTANTIAL size loss. I haven't had loose skin problems and, to be honest with you, I have been working out with a trainer 5 days per week but I'm pretty sure my skin situation is a result of my genetics and ethnicity (and age and luck), rather than the exercise. I may be mistaken, but I don't think there's a mechanism through which exercise will tighten skin.

With regard to fat loss and exercise, I've learned from bodybuilders that "cutting" fat shows muscle definition. No matter how much awesome muscle "hypertrophy" a bodybuilder has, they aren't "ripped" until they're lean. Frequently, guys who have a slender build but are "skinny fat," in the sense that their weight and size are normal but they have too much bodyfat to show muscle definition, can just cut additional bodyfat and get a ripped look without putting on much (if any) additional muscle mass. A lot of "skinny fat" folks, feel like they're putting on all kinds of muscle when they start to see and feel definition but a lot (possibly most) of the time, they've actually just cut bodyfat without bulking up their actual muscle mass. Putting on muscle isn't what makes bodybuilders *look* muscular, cutting fat does.

Obviously, muscle size matters in competition but "cutting" bodyfat is what makes a champion. In the bodybuilding culture, they often make fun of "gym bodies" on guys who lift a lot but who don't compete. Basically, "gym bodies" (which is not at all a compliment), get big and bulk up some good muscle size but they don't cut the fat like competitive bodybuilders do to show good definition. So what we, outside the bodybuilding world, perceive as "muscularity" is actually "muscle definition" and that comes from cutting bodyfat and, even in bodybuilders, that comes primarily from careful dieting.

With that said, though, if you enjoy working out and your main concern is that you see better scale results when you don't work out versus when you do work out, my question for you is: Do you believe you're losing less fat as a result of working out? Honestly, it is very rare in people who are in the "overweight" or "obese" category to suffer serious metabolic down-regulation as a result of moderate, regular exercise but it does happen in some cases. So if you believe the exercise you're doing is down-regulating your metabolic burn rate, then that is a serious problem. Other than that possibility, the scale may not be your best gauge of fat loss when it comes to exercise.

Low dietary carbohydrate intake messes with the body's water balance. When the body loses muscle glycogen during a period of carbohydrate restriction, it also loses the primary source of hydration in muscle tissue. Exercise, especially weight training, also messes with the body's water balance. The water that is lost with glycogen depletion means that muscle tissue has to re-hydrate after it is stressed by a workout in order to repair and rebuild the muscle tissue, particularly after weight training. When the body drops its glycogen stores on a low carb diet, some fluid also gets leeched out of the joints and so the joints draw in more fluid any time you exercise during a period of glycogen depletion, including low intensity aerobic exercise. So exercise and/or low-carb dieting can make the scale do crazy things that have nothing to do with fat loss. If your primary goal is to change the number on the scale, exercise can interfere with that goal.
Trillex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 06:43 AM   #37
Junior LCF Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 51
Gallery: nera
Stats: 260/158/135
WOE: Atkins girl all the way!
Start Date: March 2006
I lost 110 pounds in 10 months and did absolutely No excersise. Too embarrassed to try. Only when I hit goal did I start doing floor excersises and walking.
nera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 07:31 AM   #38
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 17,265
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
Excess exercise can cause 'adrenal fatigue' and have a contrary effect on weight loss. I believe the definition of 'excess' is anything more than 1 hour per day.
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 01:07 PM   #39
Junior LCF Member
 
iluvbacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Usually out walking!
Posts: 53
Gallery: iluvbacon
Stats: 272/210/150
WOE: Low Carb my way
Quote:
Originally Posted by nera View Post
I lost 110 pounds in 10 months and did absolutely No excersise. Too embarrassed to try. Only when I hit goal did I start doing floor excersises and walking.
Congratulations on your outstanding weight loss!
iluvbacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 02:02 PM   #40
happy girlie girl!
 
Amy Lynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: VA
Posts: 7,106
Gallery: Amy Lynn
i lost about 110 lbs. a while back without exercising because i got hung up on the scale number & didn't do well with the water weight gains from working out. after i reached goal, i started exercising regularly with T-tapp and loved how it made me felt. toned felt so much better than flabby skinny. it made me regret not having started exercising sooner.
Amy Lynn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 02:22 PM   #41
Blabbermouth!!!
 
reddarin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,452
Gallery: reddarin
Stats: 6' 47y/o 265/193/170
WOE: NK
Start Date: Aug 13, 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amy Lynn View Post
didn't do well with the water weight gains from working out. ... it made me regret not having started exercising sooner.
Ah, but the question is, could you have stuck with it if you continued exercising with the scale bouncing all over the place?

I see a lot of those sort of frustrated posts around here where someone is exercising conscientiously and bouncing or gaining or stalled. Stuff like that puts you in a bad mental place fraught with rationalizing and justificationizing for eating off plan.

Of course the obvious answer is to not do weigh-ins of any sort - daily, weekly, monthly or whatever. But then you get back to the primary reason for dieting in the first place - to lose weight - and the go to device to see progress, for better or worse, is the bathroom scale.

I was watching a youtube with McGuff and he pointed out that results from exercise are 100% individual. That is, the bodily results of exercise are unique to each individual. That is pretty annoying. Presumably, no matter how noble the intention, you want results that look like someone else's results.

Interesting stuff

Last edited by reddarin; 04-08-2013 at 02:23 PM.. Reason: typo
reddarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 03:06 PM   #42
happy girlie girl!
 
Amy Lynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: VA
Posts: 7,106
Gallery: Amy Lynn
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddarin View Post
Ah, but the question is, could you have stuck with it if you continued exercising with the scale bouncing all over the place?

I see a lot of those sort of frustrated posts around here where someone is exercising conscientiously and bouncing or gaining or stalled. Stuff like that puts you in a bad mental place fraught with rationalizing and justificationizing for eating off plan.

Of course the obvious answer is to not do weigh-ins of any sort - daily, weekly, monthly or whatever. But then you get back to the primary reason for dieting in the first place - to lose weight - and the go to device to see progress, for better or worse, is the bathroom scale.

I was watching a youtube with McGuff and he pointed out that results from exercise are 100% individual. That is, the bodily results of exercise are unique to each individual. That is pretty annoying. Presumably, no matter how noble the intention, you want results that look like someone else's results.

Interesting stuff
of course i couldn't say what it would have been like back then. but knowing what i know now...if i had to do it all over again, i would monitor body fat % progress instead of just going by the number on the scale. seeing how many lbs. of actual fat loss is much more motivating to me than just seeing the total weight number on the scale that includes the water weight.
Amy Lynn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 05:17 PM   #43
Blabbermouth!!!
 
reddarin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,452
Gallery: reddarin
Stats: 6' 47y/o 265/193/170
WOE: NK
Start Date: Aug 13, 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trillex View Post
I've seen a few people
Since this is exercise related...

Trillex, what are the results of over training? I mean, what is the impact on the muscle tissue and other tissue if there is any? Leaving aside obvious injury like torn ligaments and what not.

McGuff said that it takes 7 days to recover? Or at least he advocates a short intense workout and then abstaining for 6 days to keep from over training.
reddarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 12:37 AM   #44
Major LCF Poster!
 
Trillex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 1,200
Gallery: Trillex
Stats: 235/135/135
WOE: Atkins
Start Date: 11 May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddarin View Post
Since this is exercise related...

Trillex, what are the results of over training? I mean, what is the impact on the muscle tissue and other tissue if there is any? Leaving aside obvious injury like torn ligaments and what not.

McGuff said that it takes 7 days to recover? Or at least he advocates a short intense workout and then abstaining for 6 days to keep from over training.
Overtraining is kind of a complicated issue because there's really no expert consensus on what it actually is or what it really means to today's bodybuilders.

Until the last decade or so, overtraining was talked about a lot and it was a big concern in the bodybuilding community because the "natural" bodybuilders of the 1980s and 1990s grew up following the tradition of the heavily-drugged bodybuilders of the 1960s and 1970s, so they tried to manage the intense training loads that the previous generation of champions used but, without drugs, the loads were impossible to manage and this situation led to a lot of injuries, surgeries, and a general lack of strength gains and muscle growth. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding is absolutely fascinating to read in the contemporary context because the routines those guys did back in the 1970s would terminate (HaHa!) anyone who tried to do that level of training today. A "natural" body can't physically do what a 'roided up body can do, without completely breaking down.

In the previous era, "overtraining" was a warning to "know and respect your physical limitations." The concept wasn't tied in with concerns about catabolism or metabolic down-regulation the way it is in today's bodybuilding culture, in which many -- a LOT of -- bodybuilders believe there is a point where working a muscle "too often" leads to muscle catabolism and decreases in mass. So there's a popular belief that no one should work a muscle more than twice per week. But there is actually NO research data to support this theory.

I think some of this belief comes from the fear of glycogen depletion -- some guys are afraid that they will deplete the glycogen store in the muscle they're working and that the body will convert muscle tissue into glucose, via gluconeogenesis, to fuel the rest of the training session and that this will result in the net loss of muscle tissue. There's no evidence that this happens -- or that this has ever happened to anyone -- but bodybuilders read a lot of physiology literature and sometimes really strong, really popular beliefs form around some rather unlikely scenarios.

There's also a residual terror of elevated cortisol in the bodybuilding community, mostly based on research from the 1990s, and many bodybuilders don't differentiate weight-training-induced bursts of cortisol (which support training) from stress-induced chronically-elevated levels of cortisol (which have long-term catabolic effects). So they're afraid to overtrain because they're afraid they'll systemically raise their levels of cortisol. The research actually suggests that weight training helps the body better manage and regulate the release of hormones like cortisol but the stress studies, which were not related to weight training, have convinced a lot of bodybuilders that excessive weight training can cause cortisol to limit their muscle gains.

Limiting muscle work to only twice per week is good advice because growth doesn't actually happen in training, it happens during the tissue repair process that happens between training sessions. So there's a good reason for imposing these limitations, it's just that the reasons have nothing to do with the danger of catabolism.

And decades of research don't actually show exercise-induced metabolic slowdown in cases when calories are high and/or when the level of bodyfat isn't EXTREMELY low. Thyroid function and sympathetic nervous system function dramatically decrease as bodybuilders lose significant percentages of bodyfat, and/or when they drastically cut calories. But when they raise calories to (or above) maintenance level and/or they raise their level of bodyfat above competition level, all of the metabolic functions dramatically increase to normal and often beyond-normal levels -- without any changes to the training routine. So it appears that nutrition, not excessive training, induces the metabolic down-regulation. Research also shows that bodyfat operates as a significant endocrine engine in the human body so the level of stored fat is also a controlling factor in metabolic down-regulation, not excessive training levels.

So today's bodybuilding gurus (generally) have a somewhat different concept of overtraining. Most believe that a "lack of progress" in high-volume training or "signs of fatigue" -- which were called "overtraining" in the past -- just mean that it's time to change the routine and move to a different process. Layne Norton -- who is a biochemist, champion bodybuilder, powerlifter, and bodybuilding trainer -- flat-out says that "overtraining is not necessarily a bad thing." Norton says that gains are made by working the muscles more, and the more training a body can do is directly related to the amount of growth and progress that can be achieved. Of course, he recommends sufficient recovery periods and "active recovery" changes in routines but, at the end of the day, he says that squatting every day (for example) will give you better strength and progress than squatting once per week because it's teaching the body a skill, it's a way of teaching the body to get stronger.

Norton's position is not a universal opinion, though. Influential bodybuilding consultants, Lyle McDonald and Stuart McRobert, carefully distinguish between what they call "overtraining" and "overreaching" and, although they do consider the *usual* talk of overtraining to be a bit alarmist and unnecessary, they do acknowledge that excessive approaches to volume and/or frequency can cause problems. "Overtraining" would be a problematic situation in which the volume of weight training is so heavy and/or so frequent that the individual doesn't have sufficient intensity to progress to higher loads -- they don't grow, they don't lift heavier, they stagnate -- OR they actually experience decreases in strength and gym performance. "Overreaching" would be a situation in which the individual moves up to a higher weight training volume but they can't effectively manage the load -- their connective tissues can't handle the weight, they suffer/risk injuries, they can't lift with enough power and/or intensity to make appropriate gains.

McDonald and McRobert are addressing the obsessive culture of competitive bodybuilding, in which bodybuilders always think "more" is the same thing as "better." McDonald and McRobert are saying that "overtraining" is a problem when it limits progress, when it has the potential to cause setbacks like strains or fatigue, and when it damages the mental ability to push harder. McDonald says, quite frankly, that feeling "tired" or being "sore" when going into the gym isn't overtraining and isn't a genuine concern -- he says to work through it and you'll be better off in the end. However, McDonald and McRobert both warn that consistently working at a level in which you're "tired" every time you go into the gym means that you're working at a level that your body (or psyche) can't really handle and that won't allow you to make gains.

Unfortunately, dealing with bodybuilders *usually* isn't a situation in which you're dealing with reasonable people who easily acknowledge their limitations. It has been established, since the 1980s -- through research and practical results -- that pre-contest "natural" bodybuilders won't maximize fat loss unless they cut back on their level of training while they're eating at a low-calorie level. The metabolic processes are extremely sensitive to changes in energy intake and output when the body is at a single-digit level of bodyfat. But it is almost impossible to get bodybuilders to cut back on their training, even when they know that cutting back will produce better results. There's an ingrained psychology of wanting to be more extreme than they've been before. So I think the "overtraining" that coaches and gurus address today are more about psychology than physiology. They have to *convince* bodybuilders to work at the level that will increase their gains in strength and size, rather than working at the level that will increase their egos.

On a separate but related note, my trainer -- who is a bodybuilding coach -- has me work each muscle group only once per week because I'm lifting in a glycogen-depleted state. Water balance and potassium levels are a bit trickier while glycogen-depleted, so he believes I need a full week for recovery to allow for sufficient muscle repair. Plus, most bodybuilders feed a combination of insulin-spiking carbohydrates and amino acids in the period immediately following the workout to take advantage of increased insulin-sensitivity in muscle tissue, which aids the recovery process in a way that I can't do on a low-carb diet. My trainer doesn't limit training to only one day per week for any of his bodybuilding clients. When they're on ketogenic diets, they re-feed glycogen before weight training and he has them do full-body depletion workouts twice per week. When they're on more carb-heavy diets, he might have them go 3-4 times per week, typically in splits, depending on the cycle.

Bodybuilding training is more about size than strength, so "HST" (hypertrophy specific training) is really popular right now and that typically involves several training days per week. "HIT" (high intensity training) kind of makes a comeback every few years -- some guys switch from high volume training routines to lower-volume HIT to give the muscles a different challenge but, over time, most go back to higher-volume routines because they want to lift more weight every week -- it's the aforementioned psychology of wanting to do "more." Doing more sets at a lower weight generally adds up to lifting a larger total volume of weight because the body is able to do more sets (with rest breaks) while lifting less weight than the body can lift while working to failure with the heaviest weight. There's actually a surprising amount of math involved in bodybuilding...
Trillex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:02 AM   #45
Senior LCF Member
 
canadiangirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Barrie, Ontario Canada
Posts: 463
Gallery: canadiangirl
Stats: 162/125/125
WOE: Low Carb/ ReducedCalorie
Start Date: June 12, 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by astribling View Post
I actually have a thread going about that myself this week. I lost the majority of my weight with very little exercise. So now that I'm so close to goal I decided to add in some more strenuous workouts, and was driving myself a little crazy with the fluctuations on the scale. Check the thread titled "Having a minor freakout"

One positive thing is that even though the scale is going up and down, I measured today and have lost some more inches.
This is like me! I have (was) 10-15 pounds from goal when I decided to start working out and training my body to run. I gained 5 pounds right away without changing my eating pattern and I am now up 7 pounds. I know if I cut my calories I would likely lose but those extra calories help me get through my workouts and not only that I love the freedom of this woe soI just keep going and staying strong. I have not lost a pound since November but I feel fantastic and I have never been so toned in my life.

Heres an idea: why not start a thread/challenge for all the folks that seem to have hit a plateau? We could call it "back to basics" and support each other for 1 week and see if there is a high success rate? Eat strictly induction foods and cut back on calories, I can do anything for 1 week.
__________________
Cheers,
Vanessa
canadiangirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:20 AM   #46
Senior LCF Member
 
healthy for life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 289
Gallery: healthy for life
Stats: 165/156/130 height 5'5"
WOE: Stillmans
Start Date: January 3, 2014
Hi guys,
I have been running consistently for 3-4 days a week 3-5 miles at a time and also doing about 60 minutes of full body strength training 3 times a week. I have been doing this religiously for about 2 months and NOT eating strict low carb at all. I have not gained a single pound and in fact I know I have added muscle and lost fat based on how my clothes are fitting. Easily slipping into size 6 now whereas before I was in a snug size 8.

Canadian girl- I would love to do a challenge and get back to a bit stricter low carb diet to see if I can get these last 10-15 pounds off but still keep up my working out.

I would like to encourage anybody who is starting on the path to fitness to get off the scale and just keep going. You will retain water in the muscles in the beginning but ignore that, you are getting stronger!! You won't see changes overnight but I promise your body will feel so much tighter, toned and stronger by the 8 week mark for sure. I am just now really seeing the muscle definition in my legs and arms starting to come out. Not to mention the mental benefits, stress reduction, high you get from natural endorphins after a good run. Plus all the physical benefits from increased cardiovascular function and long term health gains. I truly believe you can also get away with eating a few extras whether it be some extra carbs, a glass of wine, whatever your idea of treat might be when you excercise consistently.

Hope that helps
healthy for life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:25 AM   #47
Blabbermouth!!!
 
reddarin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,452
Gallery: reddarin
Stats: 6' 47y/o 265/193/170
WOE: NK
Start Date: Aug 13, 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthy for life View Post
NOT eating strict low carb at all.
I am genuinely curious as to how are you not strict LC but your woe is NK?
reddarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:37 AM   #48
Major LCF Poster!
 
Knittering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,709
Gallery: Knittering
Stats: (250) 236/172/150 5'8
WOE: LC
Start Date: Restart: 2/18/13
Quote:
I was watching a youtube with McGuff and he pointed out that results from exercise are 100% individual. That is, the bodily results of exercise are unique to each individual.
This explains a lot of frustrating things.
Knittering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:40 AM   #49
Junior LCF Member
 
Istillhatepeas's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 51
Gallery: Istillhatepeas
Stats: 5'9 295/267/1st goal 250
WOE: Low carb
Start Date: Restart 2/18/13
I've lost 20 pounds since Feb 18 with zero exercise. This week I've signed up for an almost mandatory health improvement program for 12 weeks through my employer. I've commited to walk at least three times per week--no distance or length requirement, just three times per week. I'm interested to see how this impacts my weight loss. On one hand, I abhor exercising (so boring), but I feel SO much better when I do. Anyway, I can't imagine that walking will have a huge effect as I don't plan on walking longer than 1.5 miles at a time. That seems to be the happy place for my feet. We shall see!
Istillhatepeas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:46 AM   #50
Senior LCF Member
 
healthy for life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 289
Gallery: healthy for life
Stats: 165/156/130 height 5'5"
WOE: Stillmans
Start Date: January 3, 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddarin View Post
I am genuinely curious as to how are you not strict LC but your woe is NK?
I just changed my WOE on my profile as I hadn't updated it in a while. I did give NK a try (multiple times) and it's just not for me. I enjoy fruit, wine on the weekends, some sweet potatoes, etc...
I think NK is great if you are 100% dedicated to that but as you know you have to stick to it fully to reap the full benefits including a minimum 2 week adaptation period. Life is too short for me to stick that so strictly and since I don't have a lot of weight to lose it just wasn't for me. But I do think it's great if you can do it!
healthy for life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:49 AM   #51
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
drjlocarb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,308
Gallery: drjlocarb
Stats: 274 /219/190
WOE: vlc/NK
Start Date: LC-1999,jan2010 274 NK 1-1-13 at 244
Trillex, can you tell me how much muscle one can gain in a month? It seems as if gaining several pounds in a week from working out would not happen. I realize the first month would be different that the next several months.
drjlocarb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:50 AM   #52
Blabbermouth!!!
 
LadyKT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 5,302
Gallery: LadyKT
Stats: 159/153/125 - 5'3"
WOE: Ah Ah Ah Ah Stayin' Alive, Stayin' Alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amy Lynn View Post
of course i couldn't say what it would have been like back then. but knowing what i know now...if i had to do it all over again, i would monitor body fat % progress instead of just going by the number on the scale. seeing how many lbs. of actual fat loss is much more motivating to me than just seeing the total weight number on the scale that includes the water weight.
This. Ask yourself - do you want to be a skinny flabby mess in 'skinny jeans' or a toned, fit and happy person in a bikini on the beach?

Keep sedentary if you are 'okay with hiding it'. Lift heavy if you want to show it off. (notice how i said heavy? Those 3lb weights won't do anything for you).
LadyKT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:50 AM   #53
Major LCF Poster!
 
avid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: treasure coast
Posts: 1,129
Gallery: avid
Stats: 180/134/131...
WOE: Lotsa veggies and LC
This comes up alot here at LCF.
I know Gary Taubes has made it very clear why exercise can be counter productive to weight loss. He said something to the effect of " eating less and exercising more is exactly what you would tell someone to do to INCREASE their appetite."
I chuckled when I read that in "why we get fat" because it has the ring of truth to it and so tidely refutes the "calories in/calories out paradigm of weight loss.
But my personal experience is different. I have been exercising regularly the entire time I have been on LC and I have lost weight and fat steadily. I find absolutely no correlation between my exercise routine and my weight loss. NONE.
So for me the fitness and quality of life gains I get from exercise are a welcome addition to the health and appearance gains I get from LC'ing.
For me it's WIN WIN
__________________
Health conscious sixty something since September '12
avid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 08:14 AM   #54
Junior LCF Member
 
SweetShelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
Gallery: SweetShelly
Stats: 170/164/140
WOE: Atkins
Start Date: April 2013
This thread is making me feel a lot better about my excercise habits!

I try to walk as much as possible, anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours a day. Which is a decent light workout i think But I always felt I wasn't doing enough, like I should spend hours at the gym alternating between weights and cardio. So these excercise theories make me feel better.
SweetShelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 08:19 AM   #55
Blabbermouth!!!
 
reddarin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,452
Gallery: reddarin
Stats: 6' 47y/o 265/193/170
WOE: NK
Start Date: Aug 13, 2011
Thank you Trillex!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trillex View Post
and that the body will convert muscle tissue into glucose, via gluconeogenesis, to fuel the rest of the training session
Really? Wouldn't the extra protein most people training eat be a more abundant source of glucose? Or I guess the better question is, doesn't the body begin producing glucose from excess protein as soon as glycogen levels drop below x amount? And even if the muscle tissue at hand gets catabolized because it is in the wrong place at the wrong time, wouldn't the high protein intake replace that and build more in the anabolic state following the workout?

Does the body switch from catabolic to anabolic immediately after a workout like a light switch?

Quote:
And decades of research don't actually show exercise-induced metabolic slowdown in cases when calories are high and/or when the level of bodyfat isn't EXTREMELY low
Interesting. And training with calorie restriction *and* moderate to high body fat? I know that Phinney did a clinical trial that showed a marked reduction in resting metabolism with those conditions present. The issue, of course, is to define 'calorie restriction'. My thinking is that the casual definition is far lower than is healthy or prudent. And it is intriguing that body builders fear an untoward cortisol response - which will happen with too much of a calorie deficit according to Matt LaLonde et. al.

Quote:
Thyroid function and sympathetic nervous system function dramatically decrease as bodybuilders lose significant percentages of bodyfat, and/or when they drastically cut calories
A sad truth that is unpopular to talk about.

Quote:
he says that squatting every day (for example) will give you better strength and progress than squatting once per week because it's teaching the body a skill, it's a way of teaching the body to get stronger.
McGuff distinguished between strength(?) training and skills training. From what he said in the video I watched, I don't think he agrees with how Norton is stating the issue. If I understood him correctly, you won't maximize strength gains by doing skills training you maximize it, or maybe optimize is a better word?, by doing very short but very high intensity training followed by several days of recuperation during which you can do skills training.

Have you read his Body by Science book? I hadn't given it a second thought but after watching his talk with the 21ish year olds I am interested now. Well, frankly, the idea of a 12 minute a week workout is appealing.

Quote:
OR they actually experience decreases in strength and gym performance
Hmmm. Isn't that impossible without actual muscle mass being less from over training? No. It is a hormonal issue, right? The tissue is still there, maybe even an increase in tissue, but the rest of the system is zapped and cannot use the tissue to its fullest potential.

Quote:
On a separate but related note, my trainer
May I ask how much potassium you take as a supplement? Do you eat a particular before or after workout meal?

Quote:
There's actually a surprising amount of math involved in bodybuilding...
Really? So the total weight is tracked for each session and a running total is kept for the week, month and year to gauge performance gains? That makes sense but I always thought it was relative weight increases and relative increases in repetitions.
reddarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 08:27 AM   #56
Blabbermouth!!!
 
reddarin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,452
Gallery: reddarin
Stats: 6' 47y/o 265/193/170
WOE: NK
Start Date: Aug 13, 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by healthy for life View Post
I just changed my WOE on my profile as I hadn't updated it in a while. I did give NK a try (multiple times) and it's just not for me. I enjoy fruit, wine on the weekends, some sweet potatoes, etc...
I think NK is great if you are 100% dedicated to that but as you know you have to stick to it fully to reap the full benefits including a minimum 2 week adaptation period. Life is too short for me to stick that so strictly and since I don't have a lot of weight to lose it just wasn't for me. But I do think it's great if you can do it!
*That* is something I've been pondering for quite some time. NK will never be, I think, mainstream for LC if you have to be OCD about it to be successful. It is possible to do it because Phinney himself does it without, apparently, a lot of attention to detail. But it is his and Volek's creation and he is a nutritional scientist with many years of OTJ education.

One of the greatest strengths of Atkins is the loose nature of the plan. It is very easy to follow Atkins with minimal effort if you put a sufficient amount of time in learning how to eat LC at the beginning. The sad thing is that the loose nature also creates a condition ripe for backsliding and ruin.

Last edited by reddarin; 04-09-2013 at 08:28 AM.. Reason: highlighting
reddarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 08:33 AM   #57
Blabbermouth!!!
 
reddarin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,452
Gallery: reddarin
Stats: 6' 47y/o 265/193/170
WOE: NK
Start Date: Aug 13, 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by avid View Post
But my personal experience is different. I have been exercising regularly the entire time I have been on LC and I have lost weight and fat steadily. I find absolutely no correlation between my exercise routine and my weight loss. NONE.
This is an area where guys have a clear advantage over the girls. We start off with more muscle mass and far fewer hormonal issues and far less body image issues (and, therefore, less mental blocks to successfully integrating exercise and weight loss).
reddarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 10:09 AM   #58
Senior LCF Member
 
healthy for life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 289
Gallery: healthy for life
Stats: 165/156/130 height 5'5"
WOE: Stillmans
Start Date: January 3, 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddarin View Post
*That* is something I've been pondering for quite some time. NK will never be, I think, mainstream for LC if you have to be OCD about it to be successful. It is possible to do it because Phinney himself does it without, apparently, a lot of attention to detail. But it is his and Volek's creation and he is a nutritional scientist with many years of OTJ education.

One of the greatest strengths of Atkins is the loose nature of the plan. It is very easy to follow Atkins with minimal effort if you put a sufficient amount of time in learning how to eat LC at the beginning. The sad thing is that the loose nature also creates a condition ripe for backsliding and ruin.
I agree with everything you said. i am someone who has been doing low carb since 2002 off and on and know a lot about all of the plans and have done a ton of research. I have formulated my own plan that works for me and I know if I get strict for a few weeks I can easily drop my weight even more. I think I have learned to maintain around 145 which for me is a good weight. the vanity part of me would like to be 130 but I know with minimal effort and being able to enjoy fruit daily, more carbs on the weekend, wine with dinner, etc...that I can maintain where I am. I also excercise which goes back to the original question in the post.

I agree with you said about NK too- I think it's a great WOE and produces amazing results but I think the dedication it requires to staying within that sweet spot of ketones- for many it's like a never ending induction phase. For me, weight loss and more importantly maintenance is about finding a lifestyle you can stick to and doesn't consume your life. I don't want to stress over eating some strawberries in my salad or enjoying a pancake breakfast with my kids occasionally on a sunday morning. It's all about balance for me and enjoying life. But I will say that eating low carb for the most part, especially monday-Friday allows me to splurge a bit on the weekend and not gain. It has taken me a long time to find this good balance though.
healthy for life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 10:11 AM   #59
Senior LCF Member
 
healthy for life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 289
Gallery: healthy for life
Stats: 165/156/130 height 5'5"
WOE: Stillmans
Start Date: January 3, 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by avid View Post
This comes up alot here at LCF.
ISo for me the fitness and quality of life gains I get from exercise are a welcome addition to the health and appearance gains I get from LC'ing.
For me it's WIN WIN

Love this statement, couldn't agree more!!
healthy for life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 10:23 AM   #60
Way too much time on my hands!
 
Pompom2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: In a handbasket
Posts: 12,051
Gallery: Pompom2
Stats: 5'2" 120
WOE: Lower Carb
I lost 30lbs quick while lowcarbing and no exercise. Also lost tons of muscle. Now I exercise. Aside from the happy/healthy benefits I get, I have dropped 3 sizes and toned up well. Now I eat more calories and carbs a day because Im burning them off. win win all around for me but again ymmv.
Pompom2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:13 AM.


Copyright ©1999-2014 Friends Forums LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
LowCarbFriends® is a registered mark of Friends Forums, LLC.