I never said that you shouldn't eat at night.
Results 1,076 to 1,100 of 1849
Thread: Health & Exercise Thread! 2.0
Last edited by Sub-stance1; 06-26-2012 at 17:25.
Also those video Sub-Stance..... that was almost as bad as last time. First video was the biggest bro you have ever seen and that second video was a $#@!ing promo to a DVD where the dude didn't even tell us anything about it. Guess I have to buy his DVD to be able to find the secret of spot-fat reduction. Great sources you got there man, did you even watch the videos before you posted them? Please, next time post something reminding a scientific research instead of a ripped guy promoting his website.
Now, spot fat reduction is possible, but to a VERY VERY minimal extent. I posted this study last time I think, and it is the best one to prove the point:
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Feb;292(2):E394-9. Epub 2006 Sep 19.
Are blood flow and lipolysis in subcutaneous adipose tissue influenced by contractions in adjacent muscles in humans?
Stallknecht B, Dela F, Helge JW.
Department of Medical Physiology, The Panum Institute, Blegdamsvej 3, DK-2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark. B.Stallknecht@mfi.ku.dk
Aerobic exercise increases whole body adipose tissue lipolysis, but is lipolysis higher in subcutaneous adipose tissue (SCAT) adjacent to contracting muscles than in SCAT adjacent to resting muscles? Ten healthy, overnight-fasted males performed one-legged knee extension exercise at 25% of maximal workload (W(max)) for 30 min followed by exercise at 55% W(max) for 120 min with the other leg and finally exercised at 85% W(max) for 30 min with the first leg. Subjects rested for 30 min between exercise periods. Femoral SCAT blood flow was estimated from washout of (133)Xe, and lipolysis was calculated from femoral SCAT interstitial and arterial glycerol concentrations and blood flow. In general, blood flow and lipolysis were higher in femoral SCAT adjacent to contracting than adjacent to resting muscle (time 15-30 min; blood flow: 25% W(max) 6.6 +/- 1.0 vs. 3.9 +/- 0.8 ml x 100 g(-1) x min(-1), P < 0.05; 55% W(max) 7.3 +/- 0.6 vs. 5.0 +/- 0.6 ml x 100 g(-1) x min(-1), P < 0.05; 85% W(max) 6.6 +/- 1.3 vs. 5.9 +/- 0.7 ml x 100 g(-1) x min(-1), P > 0.05; lipolysis: 25% W(max) 102 +/- 19 vs. 55 +/- 14 nmol x 100 g(-1) x min(-1), P = 0.06; 55% W(max) 86 +/- 11 vs. 50 +/- 20 nmol x 100 g(-1) x min(-1), P > 0.05; 85% W(max) 88 +/- 31 vs. -9 +/- 25 nmol x 100 g(-1) x min(-1), P < 0.05). In conclusion, blood flow and lipolysis are generally higher in SCAT adjacent to contracting than adjacent to resting muscle irrespective of exercise intensity. Thus specific exercises can induce "spot lipolysis" in adipose tissue.
So to cut all the crap, how much fat is burned locally?:
assuming a molecular weight of 860 g/mol for TG, this corresponds to an extra breakdown of 0.6–2.1 mg of TG in 30 min/100 g of adipose tissue adjacent to contracting muscles
Sooooo we get a loss of 0,6-2,1 milligrams towards 100 grams of fat after 30 minutes of training! So if you did 10 of those sessions a week for half a year you would burn 156-546 milligrams/100 grams. lol.
The point I was trying to make that there are some trainers( and health care professionals) out there who do believe its possible to target certain fat areas. Should you do it? Probably not, but that doesn't make it impossible because it has been done before. It will mostly depend on the person, his or her genetics,the program, diet, and where you store the fat. Targeting a certain area with intense exercise has proven to work in certain cases. This has been proven time and time again by fitness trainers throughout the industry but is not recommended.
Throughout the fitness world we are told and taught that it can't be done but there are some exceptions to that rule.... especially when it comes to certain female body types.
Last edited by Sub-stance1; 06-26-2012 at 19:16.
Your above link did not do anything to help your point unfortunately. Having firmer muscles and improving your posture lol, why are you posting crap articles like these when you know they don't help you at all? Where are all the scientific studies? I have asked them in nearly every single post yet you always try to find a way to go around them. You always talk about how ''people have done it'' yet I don't see examples. It's actual studies against your word man.
I have provided plenty to show that there are some that believe that it isn't entirely impossible. Science or no science,spot reducing fat has been done before. You can continue to believe what you want but it doesn't change the information or the opinions of some who have actually seen it done(myself included). You even said it yourself here:
Now, spot fat reduction is possible, but to a VERY VERY minimal extent.
Last edited by Sub-stance1; 06-26-2012 at 19:53.
Holy $#@!ing jesus, half a gram of fat in half a year when working out 10 times a week!!!!!!!!!! Did you even read the results? It's like a grain of sand in a beach, close to nothing. No way is this dependable on a persons genetics. Oh god are you really this ignorant? As a PT you should be open to new information when you are clearly false with this one, you are just harming your clients with your bro-science. It's amazing how you can keep on going when you can't back up anything what you say.
Last edited by spyrde; 06-26-2012 at 20:21.
Nitey likes this post
I have never ever failed a client before and genetics/ body type does play a role in it. As a PT you learn that different things work for different people. No where did I ever say that this is the norm, but it has been done before and it's certainly not impossible. I have trained female clients before who have lost inches on their thighs, as well as hips without doing any cardio at all, and I have trained some that needed cardio to do it. It all depends on the person, their diet, and body type. Either way genetics, as well as other factors(like age ) play a role. Some people have a genetic weakness to burn dietary fat and are more likely to become overweight. This is why some dietary supplements are good because they help compensate for genetic weaknesses.
Last edited by Sub-stance1; 06-27-2012 at 00:45.
Some advice required here; I hope someone can give me some kind of routine.
Ok so I am around 5'4 and weigh around 59kg, (small, for my age of 19, but y'know) And have a slim figure, almost athletic.
I have been smoking for 3 years and stopped around 2/3 weeks ago, (I had one or two during the England game on sunday)..
I used to run 13 miles when I was an amateur boxer at around the age of 15, however now I honestly struggle to run a block.
Anyway, background bio complete, my question is this; 5 weeks today, I travel to Ibiza for two weeks.
Needless today, being at the age I am and going on a lads holiday, I'd enjoy looking good on the beaches, etc (without sounding vein)
In the 5 weeks time I have, potentially how 'ripped' or toned could i get, all round?
I am a member of a gym, so if someone has a really good weekly weights workout routine, that'd rock.
Also, I might just had, i virtually have no body fat, but I'm not skin and bone... Suppose photo's can be provided if necessary.
Thanks in advance guys
I'm not even going to read half the bull$#@! that's been posted above, but there are some seriously silly claims being made. You need to understand one point and one point only... it is the first law of thermodynamics. If you consume more calories than you are expending, you will gain weight. If you consume less calories than you are expending, you will lose weight. It is irrelevant what time you eat as long as you are consuming less calories than you've burned that day. This isn't a hypothesis, it is called a law for a reason, such as the law of gravity. It's not up for discussion, that's how calories work. There are details within the fabric of individual people's diets that affect various aspects of their body such as metabolism, insulin resistance, and about a trillion other things, but the law never changes... even for those with metabolic disorders. You can give advice on dieting on ways to eat healthier or maximize nutrient uptake or formulating a diet plan for a diabetic, but please don't dispute the calorie issue. It's not up for debate.
Last edited by Brandon; 06-27-2012 at 03:53.“Letting go gives us freedom, and freedom is the only condition for happiness. If, in our heart, we still cling to anything - anger, anxiety, or possessions - we cannot be free.”
I just use the "Lose It!" app for iphone, or just loseit.com. Probably the most important part is it doesn't only let you track calories - you can keep an eye on specific nutrient balance too. Plus it lets me customize my plan and gives me more freedom if I think their plan is too hard
I lost 10 pounds in 3 months, which isn't outrageous, but it was a healthy weight loss and I didn't feel like I had to make any big sacrifices in my life.
All calories ARE equal.
Different nutrients have different calorie content though. 1 gram of fat has 9 calories. 1 gram of protein has 4 calories.
(this is of course just about math. of course other nutrients are important and they do matter for health. Calorie count is NOT the only thing you should worry about in a diet.
Just, if you burn more calories than you consume, you lose weight. Period)
Last edited by Marisaur; 06-27-2012 at 05:07.
no, carb, fat, and protein calories ARE the same. The point was that fat has MORE of them per gram than protein. So eating less fat means less calories.
BUT whether you eat 500 calories worth of fat, or 500 calories of protein, it will take the same amount of effort to burn them.
The only different is, there are a lot of fats that are bad for your cardiovascular system, etc. Protein is better for you (generally).
Last edited by Sub-stance1; 06-27-2012 at 05:32.
You're right that people who eat healthy are overall more physically capable of being fit. But NOT because of calories and NOT because of their weight. Its important for clients to know that.
And people do have different metabolisms. But ONE person - no matter what metabolism they were blessed with - will burn the SAME amount of calories from the SAME amount of effort, whether it was from fat, carbs, or protein.
im starting to understand something about our country's health problems now, though. lol
Last edited by spyrde; 06-27-2012 at 16:34.
Quit back peddling. You were wrong. Move on. The subject was clearly calories and weight loss only and your comments regarding the time of day or even the type of food were wholly inaccurate. It is wrong to give people bad information based on myths and outdated information. There is an ungodly mass of awful information out there and it is our duty as PT's to remove the vail of bull$#@!.
Healthy food choices is another topic entirely, but it has nothing to do with weight loss in regards to "bad calories" causing weight gain. The only time bad food causes weight gain is when someone is eating more calories than is required for their body. You can get fat eating healthy food as well if you are consistently eating too much. It swings both ways.“Letting go gives us freedom, and freedom is the only condition for happiness. If, in our heart, we still cling to anything - anger, anxiety, or possessions - we cannot be free.”
Yes, you can get fat by eating anything but you are less likely to if the food is healthy. It all depends on the person. I've never failed a male or female client in helping them reach their goals. I'll stick to my guns on that and any other things I've learned through my experiences. The real vail of bull$#@! comes from thinking the same thing works for everyone, when the reality is that it just doesn't.
You are less active at night and are burning fewer calories
Your metabolism is slowest while you are sleeping
You will release more insulin at night compared to in the morning
Your glycogen stores are fuller after a day of eating so you are more likely to store excess carbohydrate as fat instead of storing it as muscle glycogen
Last edited by Sub-stance1; 06-28-2012 at 16:34.
It all goes back to what i said about it depending on the Individual.
Its difficult to provide a list of foods that apply to everyone but some are great for helping you burn fat because they are low in caloric density. Remember, a food could be healthy and loaded with nutrients, but very high in calories..... On the other hand, a food could be low in calories, but void of nutrients, so it might help you lose fat, but will do nothing for your health.
Last edited by Sub-stance1; 06-29-2012 at 04:01.
I realize the thousand underlying biological processes that are all related to the food we put in our faces... we all agree on that... but the amount of calories people consume is the defining reason for weight loss or gain. I don't know how many different ways to say this to get you to understand, but this will be the last time. Because any more effort toward this simple concept would be moot.“Letting go gives us freedom, and freedom is the only condition for happiness. If, in our heart, we still cling to anything - anger, anxiety, or possessions - we cannot be free.”
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Columbia, MO
- PSN ID
- Rep Power
I'd hate to interrupt the bickering, but the last time I posted my workout I got no comments (or none that I noticed), and I'd really appreciate some feedback. I'm really passionate about getting into shape and want to make sure I'm on the right track. I'm open to all criticism.
- Barbell bench press 3x5 - I've been experimenting with various weights. I'm still bench pressing minimal weight, but I can tell that progress is being made.
- Barbell bent-over row 3x8 - Same as with the bench press. Some progress is being made. I'm still having trouble with getting the correct form on this one. My knees seem to get in the way when I'm lifting.
- Row 3x8 - I've been increasing weight steadily. What used to be enormously difficult is now moderately easy.
- Camber Curls 3x8 - Increasing weight steadily.
- Incline bench press 3x8 - This one is difficult for me, but I've been progressing. (I actually just realized that I completely forgot to do this exercise the other day!)
- Pull-ups 3x8 - Definite progress being made here. I was able to do one unassisted pull-up yesterday, which for me is a sign of definite improvement. Still much progress to be made.
- Sit ups 3x8
- Squats 3x8 - I'm around 128-130 lbs. and have the squatting machine on 140 lbs., so I'm fairly happy with where I am there. These are certainly high intensity.
- Deadlifts 3x8 - Same as with the bent-over row. I seem to have trouble with my knees getting in the way of the bar when I lift. They're still very useful and I can definitely feel my body and back being worked, but I need to work on perfecting my form.
- Dumbell curls 3x8 - I do eight lifts with each hand, three times. Working on increasing the amount of weight I can do.
- Side dumbell lateral raises 2x8 - Getting easier. Still only doing this with very light weights, but I can feel my muscles being worked and I think they're paying off.
- Seated leg press 3x8
- Leg extensions 3x8
- Skullcrushers 3x8 - Tried to lift a bit too much weight with these today, so my form was a bit off. Next time, I plan to decrease the weight and re-focus on getting that perfect form.
So here's how my average week would go. I haven't implemented the running yet, but I'm considering it.
Day 1: Workout A
Day 2: Workout B
Day 3: Run / Jog
Day 4: Workout A
Day 5: Workout B
Day 6: Run / Jog
Day 7: Workout A
Rinse and repeat. Is this an effective workout? Will this help me in my quest for a lean body, and a thin, chiseled physique?
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)