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 04-09-2013, 11:06 AM   #61
Established
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,489
Gallery: mom23kids
Stats: Maintenance
WOE: JUDDD for WL/5:2 IF for maintenance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Istillhatepeas View Post
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!
After I hit goal and transitioned into maintenance, I started walking last month. I am not in weight loss mode anymore and holding steady in the 133-135 range, but have definitely noticed a new looseness in my jeans since I started walking (leg area, not waist). Some of this could be my body still changing from weight loss (I've read that your body may continue to change for up to a year after losing weight ), but I can feel/see a difference in my calves since walking. I do 2 miles at a time and do 1 1/2 miles briskly and the last 1/2 at a slower pace to wind down.

I also detest exercise but walking has been great-throw on some music on my smart phone and I get to escape my kids for a bit
mom23kids is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 04-09-2013, 11:08 AM   #62
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 drjlocarb View Post
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.
It doesn't get discussed much but people can actually gain a tremendous amount of lean mass, immediately, when they start a new weight training program. Especially if the person has been sedentary, adding weight bearing exercises will, in most cases, increase bone density in a way that can add several pounds in a fairly short period of time. Age and previous body composition have an impact on the potential for lean mass gains but, generally, people who are the farthest from fitness will make the fastest gains because human skeletal muscle responds very aggressively to crisis situations, like having to manage heavy weights.

Jackie Warner is a "star trainer" who gets actors in shape for movies, and Warner says that people are like "Terminators" -- the body will do anything it has to do to keep the person alive and out of danger. It's sort of like the inverse of fat loss. It can be difficult to cut excess bodyfat because the body has so many systems in place to preserve fat stores for future crisis situations -- the programming of the human body considers fat loss a crisis and a threat to future survival. Weight training creates what the body perceives as a crisis situation that requires additional strength and, just as it has sophisticated systems to protect against the "crisis" of fat loss, the body has intricate and sophisticated systems to protect in situations when additional strength is required. This is one reason that bodybuilders use "progressive" resistance. Once the body is adapted to bearing a certain weight load, the crisis response decreases.

And weight training, even for people who are not on low-carb diets, changes the water balance in muscle tissues and those changes doesn't just add scale weight, the fluid changes also contribute to changes in actual muscle composition and mass. Some bodybuilding approaches specifically work to increase "sarcoplasmic" growth, which partially involves increasing fluid retention in muscle tissue to achieve greater size without necessarily increasing the amount of muscle fibers. On weight-reducing diets, we usually distinguish between "fat weight" and "water weight" but water is such an integral part of muscle composition that it isn't that easy to draw a clear line between water's contribution to muscle composition and the actual protein fibers. They're both vital components in well-formed muscle tissue so "water gains" in muscle tissue can be considered legitimate lean tissue gains. So saying "you've added water weight" when someone is addressing fat loss isn't the same thing as saying "you've added water weight" when someone is addressing muscle development.

So, it's physiologically a lot easier for a sedentary person to gain pounds of lean mass than for a seasoned bodybuilder to gain mass because the human body reacts to newly-imposed physical challenges by growing and adapting the tissues at a much more rapid rate to meet *new* challenges, which it had not previously had to address. I think we read a lot from bodybuilders talking about how difficult it is to gain muscle tissue and it seems that if they have difficulty gaining mass while working extremely hard, then it will be even more difficult for a sedentary person to gain mass while doing a lot less work. But the opposite is actually true. Muscle and skeletal gains level off and become increasingly more difficult to achieve once the body has established a solid amount of survival strength and structure. Convincing the body that it's in a crisis situation becomes more difficult, especially for people who are already lifting very heavy weights, because there's a limit to the amount the body can physically lift before the survival mechanism becomes "just drop the darned weight and run for your life!" A guy who coached my brothers when they were younger used to tell them, whenever they overreached with lifting, "The body evolved to survive the rhino attack, not to lift the rhino."

The good news for a person who is starting a new weight training regime is that there is a LOT of room for significant progress before you reach the point where lifting a rhino is the next necessary stage of physical growth.
Trillex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 11:13 AM   #63
Established
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,489
Gallery: mom23kids
Stats: Maintenance
WOE: JUDDD for WL/5:2 IF for maintenance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trillex View Post
It doesn't get discussed much but people can actually gain a tremendous amount of lean mass, immediately, when they start a new weight training program. Especially if the person has been sedentary, adding weight bearing exercises will, in most cases, increase bone density in a way that can add several pounds in a fairly short period of time. Age and previous body composition have an impact on the potential for lean mass gains but, generally, people who are the farthest from fitness will make the fastest gains because human skeletal muscle responds very aggressively to crisis situations, like having to manage heavy weights.

Jackie Warner is a "star trainer" who gets actors in shape for movies, and Warner says that people are like "Terminators" -- the body will do anything it has to do to keep the person alive and out of danger. It's sort of like the inverse of fat loss. It can be difficult to cut excess bodyfat because the body has so many systems in place to preserve fat stores for future crisis situations -- the programming of the human body considers fat loss a crisis and a threat to future survival. Weight training creates what the body perceives as a crisis situation that requires additional strength and, just as it has sophisticated systems to protect against the "crisis" of fat loss, the body has intricate and sophisticated systems to protect in situations when additional strength is required. This is one reason that bodybuilders use "progressive" resistance. Once the body is adapted to bearing a certain weight load, the crisis response decreases.

And weight training, even for people who are not on low-carb diets, changes the water balance in muscle tissues and those changes doesn't just add scale weight, the fluid changes also contribute to changes in actual muscle composition and mass. Some bodybuilding approaches specifically work to increase "sarcoplasmic" growth, which partially involves increasing fluid retention in muscle tissue to achieve greater size without necessarily increasing the amount of muscle fibers. On weight-reducing diets, we usually distinguish between "fat weight" and "water weight" but water is such an integral part of muscle composition that it isn't that easy to draw a clear line between water's contribution to muscle composition and the actual protein fibers. They're both vital components in well-formed muscle tissue so "water gains" in muscle tissue can be considered legitimate lean tissue gains. So saying "you've added water weight" when someone is addressing fat loss isn't the same thing as saying "you've added water weight" when someone is addressing muscle development.

So, it's physiologically a lot easier for a sedentary person to gain pounds of lean mass than for a seasoned bodybuilder to gain mass because the human body reacts to newly-imposed physical challenges by growing and adapting the tissues at a much more rapid rate to meet *new* challenges, which it had not previously had to address. I think we read a lot from bodybuilders talking about how difficult it is to gain muscle tissue and it seems that if they have difficulty gaining mass while working extremely hard, then it will be even more difficult for a sedentary person to gain mass while doing a lot less work. But the opposite is actually true. Muscle and skeletal gains level off and become increasingly more difficult to achieve once the body has established a solid amount of survival strength and structure. Convincing the body that it's in a crisis situation becomes more difficult, especially for people who are already lifting very heavy weights, because there's a limit to the amount the body can physically lift before the survival mechanism becomes "just drop the darned weight and run for your life!" A guy who coached my brothers when they were younger used to tell them, whenever they overreached with lifting, "The body evolved to survive the rhino attack, not to lift the rhino."

The good news for a person who is starting a new weight training regime is that there is a LOT of room for significant progress before you reach the point where lifting a rhino is the next necessary stage of physical growth.
Small highjack, but is it possible to do a weight training regiment out of your home, or is it something you have to go to a gym to do? I'd love to tone up my arms, but don't even know where to start Can't afford a gym though. I have 5 and 10lb weights and could possibly buy other weights, if that would help?

I reading your posts-you're so knowledgeable!

Last edited by mom23kids; 04-09-2013 at 11:14 AM..
mom23kids is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 12:44 PM   #64
Major LCF Poster!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,065
Gallery: Blue Skies
Stats: 224/174/165 - 5'11"
WOE: LC my way
Start Date: Feb, 2013
Yes, imo, you can absolutely get a GREAT work out at home. When I was into working out on a regular basis I invested in MANY exercise videos. Worked out in front of my TV an hour a day, doing everything from aerobics to weights to kettlebells, elastic bands, exercise balls, pilates, dance---you name it, it's available in a tape you can do at home.

If you want to do some light weight workouts---which you can actually build to heavier as you evolve, check out The Firm's videos. For other ideas and tape selections check out Collage.com
Blue Skies is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 12:57 PM   #65
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
You can do weight training at home without weights or equipment too. Google 'convict workouts'. Also, watch Every Which Way But Loose. But ignore the fact that Clint Eastwood kept insisting on that actress that couldn't act her way out of a wet paper sack. Except for Sudden Impact, which she did do a pretty good job in.
reddarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 01:22 PM   #66
Established
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,489
Gallery: mom23kids
Stats: Maintenance
WOE: JUDDD for WL/5:2 IF for maintenance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Skies View Post
Yes, imo, you can absolutely get a GREAT work out at home. When I was into working out on a regular basis I invested in MANY exercise videos. Worked out in front of my TV an hour a day, doing everything from aerobics to weights to kettlebells, elastic bands, exercise balls, pilates, dance---you name it, it's available in a tape you can do at home.

If you want to do some light weight workouts---which you can actually build to heavier as you evolve, check out The Firm's videos. For other ideas and tape selections check out Collage.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddarin View Post
You can do weight training at home without weights or equipment too. Google 'convict workouts'. Also, watch Every Which Way But Loose. But ignore the fact that Clint Eastwood kept insisting on that actress that couldn't act her way out of a wet paper sack. Except for Sudden Impact, which she did do a pretty good job in.
Thanks!!!
mom23kids is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 02:21 PM   #67
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
This post became embarrassingly long, so I have to break it into two segments...

Quote:
Originally Posted by reddarin View Post
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?
The bulk of performance research has been done on endurance athletes, and this is one of those situations in which the results are not directly applicable to strength athletes. One of the reasons that the glycogen-depletion/gluconeogenesis concern is raised is because bodybuilders have read studies on endurance athletes who have long, sustained periods of anaerobic exertion. Weight training ALWAYS alternates between periods of anaerobic exertion that burn glucose and rest periods that burn fat. Even the most intense, sustained weight training circuits cycle through every level of heart rate and respiration, from rested to near max, during training. So it takes a sustained and intentional effort to deplete muscle glycogen stores through weight training.

Plus, the body "recycles" energy substrates to produce additional glycogen from the metabolic products of weight training. Anaerobic exertion produces the lactate that makes your muscles "burn" when you're lifting heavy weights. Then, that lactate goes through what is called the "Cori Cycle" and produces new glucose, which is used as fuel during the workout. It is actually impossible to *completely* deplete muscle glycogen, partly because the "pyruvate" products of weight training are also recycled into fuel through the "Krebs Cycle" and, after the workout, additional systemic lactate and pyruvate are converted to glucose and then to glycogen and stored in muscle tissue. What bodybuilders call "glycogen depletion" is actually just a period of low systemic glycogen.

So the issue of muscle protein gluconeogenesis, and subsequent muscle catabolism, isn't likely to occur simply as a result of heavy weight training. And as you've pointed out, bodybuilding diets supply more than sufficient dietary protein intake to repair and rebuild the muscle damage that results from training. This is just one of those *weird* fears that comes from knowing a little bit too much about metabolism while not actually looking at the larger picture. It's really common for young guys who are just starting bodybuilding careers to *lecture* seasoned bodybuilders on how the young guy "can't do the gym time" of the seasoned guy because "it will breakdown too much muscle." It's a belief that is reborn in every new generation of bodybuilders. The fear eventually dies out with experience but it takes time and experimentation for young guys to learn that they can go heavy, hard, and sustained without worrying about catabolism.

Bodybuilders on ketogenic diets "deplete" glycogen in order to produce a fat-reducing catabolic state, but the liver is the main instrument of concern in this process. The liver is instrumental in determining whether the body is in a primary state of fat-burning or sugar-burning, so bodybuilding ketogenic diets are more concerned with converting the liver to a catabolic ketogenic state than with trying to burn every molecule of muscle glycogen because the type of "fat catabolism" they're looking for will be driven by the liver.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reddarin View Post
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.
Studies on adaptive metabolic down-regulation in obese subjects are complicated by the fact that the obese subjects typically lose significant enough body mass to naturally take them down to a lower metabolic burn rate. Losing 30 pounds of fat, for example, means that the muscles will have to do less work and expend less energy managing and maintaining the body. So it's impossible to separate the down-regulation that comes with a smaller body mass from the down-regulation that is caused by changes in the energy intake and output of dieting and/or exercise.

And it's further complicated by the fact that researchers can't get a baseline metabolic rate based on body composition because they can't compare the metabolic rate of two people who have the same body composition if one of those people achieved that body composition through weight loss. Rudolf Liebel did extensive studies on the metabolic rate of people who have the same body composition and, in every case, people who gained weight to achieve a particular body composition had a higher metabolic burn rate than people who lost weight to achieve the same body composition. This phenomena has even been studied in genetically identical twins. Losing weight, through whatever mechanism, appears to result in a lower metabolic rate than that which is produced by gaining weight.

There are also issues with the hormone "leptin" in high-bodyfat environments. Large stores of bodyfat make the tissues less sensitive to leptin, so a person who loses a large amount of bodyfat will become more sensitive to the metabolic up-regulation of leptin. HOWEVER, leptin production is dramatically reduced during periods of caloric restriction so the smaller body won't experience the metabolic up-regulation of leptin until the calorie level is raised. So studies that are done during periods of caloric restriction can't fully show the metabolic advantages of increased leptin sensitivity that occur as a result of losing the additional fat stores.

The largest recorded rate of metabolic down-regulation as a result of diet and exercise was in the Minnesota Starvation Study, which was done during World War II, in which the subjects were put on starvation rations and forced to go on extended daily marches. The largest individual metabolic down-regulation the researchers recorded was 40%, after the subject had lost more than 25% of his starting body weight over a period of 24 weeks, while literally starving and enduring intense periods of forced exertion. The loss of 40% of starting metabolic rate is huge, but it came under conditions of massive tissue loss and other significantly detrimental health challenges from a nutritionally-deficient diet.

It's really difficult to pinpoint how significantly the combined stress of dietary restriction and physical exertion down-regulates the metabolism, as opposed to the other physical changes that happen when a body loses a substantial amount of mass. The subjects change as a result of the study's intervention and those changes have an impact on the recorded results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reddarin View Post
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.
Cortisol is definitely a catabolic hormone. Every study of the body's hormonal response to different levels of starvation record elevated levels of cortisol, which makes sense, because cortisol helps mobilize the fuel that maintains sufficient blood glucose levels while dietary intake is low. Cortisol is vital to bodybuilders because it has an important role in managing their energy system during weight training, they need to maintain steady blood glucose levels during the stress of training. Cortisol is a response to stress, it isn't a stressor in and of itself but this is often forgotten. And as with the issue of gluconeogenesis, a lot of bodybuilders take information from inapplicable studies and create a quirky set of concerns around an ultimately beneficial physical mechanism.

Quote:
Thyroid function and sympathetic nervous system function dramatically decrease as bodybuilders lose significant percentages of bodyfat, and/or when they drastically cut calorie
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddarin View Post
A sad truth that is unpopular to talk about.
Sweet Lord, bodybuilders talk and obsess and complain about this CONSTANTLY! It just never ends! Just the sight, smell, or mere suggestion of food can lead to hours of discussion about freakin maintenance calories. On many occasions, I have had to be the "relatives and friends" representative that gets them to shut up about this while at a wedding or picnic or public event.

Not to diminish the extreme difficulty of what they have to do to cut to 3% bodyfat, but it's a relatively short period of time and they immediately up-regulate after contests. And these guys have so much active muscle tissue, most average people would kill to have their baseline metabolic rate so I don't always treat their complaints with kindness and sensitivity. I've been on Atkins for 10 months, just trying to get to a "normal" level of bodyfat, so when my brothers start complaining about 8 or 12 weeks of restriction to diet down to basically just nervous system fat, I've been giving them an earful of grief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reddarin View Post
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.
A lot of people disagree with Layne Norton on this! For one thing, Norton is a fanatic (in kind of an impressive/amazing way). He's a bodybuilder AND a powerlifter, which require different sets of extremely difficult approaches to training. He isn't a person who believes "enough" is enough, but is instead a conqueror who seems to believe that if you haven't done something, it's because you made the choice not to do it rather than the accomplishment being unmanageable or impossible. I think the bodybuilding culture is kind of split between Norton-type personalities who refuse to believe in physical limitations and more practical-minded journeymen who push against the boundaries in a more cautious way. I think the position on overtraining depends on individual personality and an individual's basic philosophy to facing training challenges.

With regard to Doug McGuff, there is definitely a personality and philosophical gulf between him and Norton -- I think it's kind of like different denominations of a single religion. McGuff comes from the (late, great) Mike Mentzer old school of "go heavy" or leave my sight. It's a process that some bodybuilders believe in, and they can point to incredible past champions who became champions by going heavy with lots of recovery time. But Norton is from the modern science school that believes in complexity and change. These are the guys who do research reviews of random scientific studies, looking for underlying information that might reveal something useful about tiny physiological mechanisms in the human body.

One of my cousins is a bodybuilder who is currently getting a graduate degree in biomedical engineering and he's definitely in the Norton camp. We had a conversation that, somehow, led to talking about death and I was, like, "Well, everybody eventually dies." He was, like, "So far. But there was a time when man-made objects couldn't fly. Things change." He's serious! It's a mindset and a personality that just refuses to accept limitations, so guys like that are never going believe in an "optimal" approach to training -- their personalities are never going to accept that a simple formula of going heavy once per week will be "enough." I don't know if they're bodybuilders because they believe in excess or if they believe in excess because they're bodybuilders, but there's definitely a correlation.

Quote:
OR they actually experience decreases in strength and gym performance
Quote:
Originally Posted by reddarin View Post
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.
There are actually decrements in strength and performance that sometimes happen. There are different theories about *why* this happens -- hormones, adrenal receptors, energy management, over-adaptation, the common cold, etc -- the same situation probably comes from different causes in different bodies, though, in my un-expert opinion. Usually a coach will just change the training routine and/or nutrition to correct the problem. And a really good coach will have enough insight into the underlying problem to directly address it. One of my uncles had an old-school Eastern Bloc coach back in the 1980s and when my uncle had a few bad training sessions, this coach told him to eat some yeast -- seriously, yeast! -- and my uncle says he ate the yeast as instructed and had the best performances he'd had in his life. Apparently, it had something to do with his B-vitamin balance. Crazy, right?!

People who don't have coaches don't know how to deal with these problems. People like Lyle McDonald and Alan Aragon get a lot of emails from people who experience decrements on routines/nutrition that had been giving them fantastic results, and these people write emails in incredible pain not knowing what to do to get out of the hole. It's unfortunate, but it happens quite frequently.
Trillex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 02:23 PM   #68
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
May I ask how much potassium you take as a supplement? Do you eat a particular before or after workout meal?
My potassium intake varies. It's typically 2-3g per day as part of a comprehensive electrolyte supplement that contains potassium, sodium, phosphates, etc. But on Tabata days and weight training days, I take more based on how I feel. It's probably not *wise* but when I *feel* thirsty, I take more electrolytes. My trainer, who is a bodybuilder, doesn't think I take enough. My brothers, who are bodybuilders, think I take too much. There is just no consensus on electrolytes so I just kind of do what feels right.

For the first six months, I ate before workouts because my trainer required wanted me to get some protein into circulation a couple of hours before training. During the past 4 months, though, I've convinced my trainer to let me train while fasted -- I just feel a bigger pump and more energy in the fasted state. Both of my brothers are competitive bodybuilders and they feel the same way, which is not too common, so I think it may be genetic. I take a sugar-free BCAA supplement before weight training, which my trainer and brothers all believe is BS and completely unnecessary. But Martin Berkhan, the guru of fasted training, says the BCAAs support protein synthesis during fasted weight training so I'm going with Berkhan's opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reddarin View Post
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.
Training journals used to be graph-paper notebooks that looked like the ravings of a psychotic person. But now bodybuilders mostly use phone or tablet apps. They'll just take them into the gym and record performance during or at the end of the session. Or their coach will record the data -- my trainer records my data, but I make personal notes about how I felt about my performance. Heart rate monitors and motion recorders integrate with the app and automatically record data. The really high-end ones use algorithms that can build predictive models based on past performance. The really good ones come amazingly close to predicting mass gains, fat loss, and performance improvements.

That's probably more than anyone ever wanted to know about life with bodybuilders! Embarassingly long but I feel like people have no way of knowing a lot of this stuff if they don't spend a lot of time with bodybuilders. And some of it might be helpful to someone.
Trillex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 02:38 PM   #69
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 mom23kids View Post
Small highjack, but is it possible to do a weight training regiment out of your home, or is it something you have to go to a gym to do? I'd love to tone up my arms, but don't even know where to start Can't afford a gym though. I have 5 and 10lb weights and could possibly buy other weights, if that would help?
In addition to the other suggestions, you should definitely check out Mark Lauren's "YAYOG" (You Are Your Own Gym).

It's kind of a *thing* now that even bodybuilders who worship free weights respect. Lauren is the guy who trains US special ops guys for physical strength and endurance. He uses an approach that lets you build bodyweight training routines, with no weights, that can be done in confined spaces. He has a video, too, but I've been told that it isn't as good as just getting the basic information and using that info to build your own routine. But that feedback is coming from bodybuilders who believe that anything they can't control is just wrong.

The program is apparently cheap (free), simple, effective, customizable and he has a cult following.
Trillex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 03:41 PM   #70
Established
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,489
Gallery: mom23kids
Stats: Maintenance
WOE: JUDDD for WL/5:2 IF for maintenance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trillex View Post
In addition to the other suggestions, you should definitely check out Mark Lauren's "YAYOG" (You Are Your Own Gym).

It's kind of a *thing* now that even bodybuilders who worship free weights respect. Lauren is the guy who trains US special ops guys for physical strength and endurance. He uses an approach that lets you build bodyweight training routines, with no weights, that can be done in confined spaces. He has a video, too, but I've been told that it isn't as good as just getting the basic information and using that info to build your own routine. But that feedback is coming from bodybuilders who believe that anything they can't control is just wrong.

The program is apparently cheap (free), simple, effective, customizable and he has a cult following.
Thank you! I actually found a really good deal on a local gym today ($7 a month!), but I talked about it with my dh and he's really against it-he's been my biggest cheerleader, but I think he's dealing with some insecurities now that I've hit my goal weight and I'm starting to care about my appearance again. I suggested we do it together, but he's not 'there' yet (though he has agreed to cut back on carbs yay!). Anywhooo, for now I'll be doing my working out from home. I'm kind of excited to get started, just need to get a plan in place!

Eta: my library has You are Your Own Gym so I'm picking it up tomorrow There's also another one, Body By You, by Lauren, geared towards women, and my library has that too. Going to get both of them-thanks again for the recommendation!

Last edited by mom23kids; 04-09-2013 at 03:52 PM..
mom23kids is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 03:33 PM   #71
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
Took me a bit to respond. I wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trillex View Post
Then, that lactate goes through what is called the "Cori Cycle" and produces new glucose, which is used as fuel during the workout. It is actually impossible to *completely* deplete muscle glycogen, partly because the "pyruvate" products of weight training are also recycled into fuel through the "Krebs Cycle"
Thanks to McGuff and Kevin Ahern I followed what you said there It is super awesome to have watched those vids and then read your text and groc it in a brought all together sort of way.

Quote:
in every case, people who gained weight to achieve a particular body composition had a higher metabolic burn rate than people who lost weight to achieve the same body composition
Interesting. Were the workouts and macro plans controlled with calories being the only change? If so, isn't this more proof of the down regulation of the thyroid and metabolism in general in this situation rather than the superiority of workout related gains for metabolism?

Quote:
the Minnesota Starvation Study
I read some of the participants post study interviews. I bet some people that believe they have to starve themselves to lose weight, and try to do that, would be surprised at how some of their inner thoughts resemble what these men said.

Quote:
Cortisol is definitely a catabolic hormone
It has a dual nature doesn't it?

"My potassium intake varies. It's typically 2-3g per day as part of a comprehensive electrolyte supplement"

Wow! That is a lot of potassium!
reddarin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 05:44 PM   #72
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 mom23kids View Post
Thank you! I actually found a really good deal on a local gym today ($7 a month!), but I talked about it with my dh and he's really against it-he's been my biggest cheerleader, but I think he's dealing with some insecurities now that I've hit my goal weight and I'm starting to care about my appearance again. I suggested we do it together, but he's not 'there' yet (though he has agreed to cut back on carbs yay!). Anywhooo, for now I'll be doing my working out from home. I'm kind of excited to get started, just need to get a plan in place!

Eta: my library has You are Your Own Gym so I'm picking it up tomorrow There's also another one, Body By You, by Lauren, geared towards women, and my library has that too. Going to get both of them-thanks again for the recommendation!
I hope you like the program! I've heard only good things about it but I haven't personally done it, although I know that my trainer gets some of my lower body exercises from YAYOG.
Trillex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 07:00 PM   #73
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
Interesting. Were the workouts and macro plans controlled with calories being the only change? If so, isn't this more proof of the down regulation of the thyroid and metabolism in general in this situation rather than the superiority of workout related gains for metabolism?
It varies because there are actually quite a few studies that note this phenomena, across several decades. As far as I can tell from what I've read, there are a lot of theories but there's no conclusive research evidence for *why* downsized body composition burns less than upsized body composition in comparable bodies. Some of the studies have been done with exercise and diet, some with just diet, a few with just exercise. The only consistent factor is that bodies that have gained weight up to a particular body composition burn more than bodies that have lost weight down to that same body composition.

Lyle McDonald has a weird little book called Bromocriptine, in which he closely examines the leptin/dopamine process in the body and some of that information seems, to me, to explain this phenomena but the book isn't about that so McDonald doesn't directly discuss this situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reddarin View Post
I read some of the participants post study interviews. I bet some people that believe they have to starve themselves to lose weight, and try to do that, would be surprised at how some of their inner thoughts resemble what these men said.
I know! It's crazy to see how physical deprivation messes with the human psyche. They were all paranoid and despondent by the end. My dad is from Haiti and reading that report made me think of the social dynamics in countries with limited food resources. How can you have a stable political system when the populace is being made clinically anti-social by hunger?

Quote:
Originally Posted by reddarin View Post
Wow! That is a lot of potassium!
It is a LOT. No one should do this because it's potentially dangerous -- my brothers are convinced I'm going to have a fatal arrhythmia. I'm not kidding, they are legitimately angry about this. My brothers have been friends with my trainer since we were all kids, and I've never seen them as furious with anyone as they were when they found out how many minerals I'm taking every day.

These may become my famous last words, but my trainer has a *theory*... His master's thesis was on mineral management in strength athletes. You know how it is commonly believed -- at least in the bodybuilding community -- that you can't develop significant muscle hypertrophy without a level of high-carb feeding that bodybuilders believe is inherently anabolic. My trainer's theory is that it isn't the carbohydrates but rather mineral management that is the problem. All bodybuilders and coaches know that bodybuilders need a higher than average mineral intake during a ketogenic cycle. That's been established since the 1980s. But my trainer believes we're underestimating the level of mineral intake we need to maintain the consistent tissue concentration of minerals that it takes to support maximum protein synthesis on a very low-carb diet. So we are unadvisedly testing that theory. And I am pretty much an idiot for going along with this.

My trainer has collected years of nutrition and training data from my brothers, which cover a variety of different nutritional cycles, and they are two males who have the same parents as me. And he collected medical data on my blood pressure, heart rate, fasting and post-meal blood glucose levels, markers of systemic inflammation, etc, during the 30 days before I started the diet and exercise program. I've had periodic serum tests and tissue biopsies and the tissue concentration of minerals has been consistently higher than the serum concentration, and both levels have been within the "normal" range so I don't *seem* to be prone to developing mineral toxicity. (I haven't had a bone biopsy so we can't be sure about the magnesium, though.)

Clearly, my test case of one woman isn't going to prove anything. But I tend to be a curious person so I just really wanted to see if this would be a process that could help me develop some level of muscularity while losing a significant amount of bodyfat. I'm honestly just curious. And I'm the kind of person whose curiosity can make me a bit reckless.

If I have a heart attack, I've left instructions for my oldest brother to inform the forum -- dark humor!
Trillex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 11:39 AM   #74
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
Quote:
If I have a heart attack, I've left instructions for my oldest brother to inform the forum -- dark humor!

Last edited by avid; 04-11-2013 at 11:40 AM..
avid 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 06:05 PM.


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