Health & Exercise Thread! 2.0

[Nitey]

Congratulations on the 70lb weight loss!

Regarding the loose skin. I've been told that if you're younger there is a higher chance it will just tighten up - then again, if it's a lot of skin, which I would assume it is after losing that amount of weight, then surgery may be your best bet. Another thing is if the weight has come off really quickly, like 3-4+lbs a week then the chances of the loose skin tightening up are lower

[The Black Wolf]

More weight lost! It's a little less, 1 pound, but I'll take it!

[HellsJester]

Congratulations on the 70lb weight loss!

Regarding the loose skin. I've been told that if you're younger there is a higher chance it will just tighten up - then again, if it's a lot of skin, which I would assume it is after losing that amount of weight, then surgery may be your best bet. Another thing is if the weight has come off really quickly, like 3-4+lbs a week then the chances of the loose skin tightening up are lower

Thank you.
Its not a lot of skin. I only notice it being loose when i do push-ups. When i was very overweight it was very compact for some reason and alot of people didnt believe my weight when i told them so maybe there is hope for me.

[PeanutButterMunky]

Anyone have any tips on controlling appetite? For the past few months I've had some pretty great control over it, but recently I've been eating a lot more than usual and I don't seem to want to stop eating. I don't want to back track on all the progress I've made.

Drinking more water can help stave appetite. Another good thing to do is to eat a LOT of veggies when you're hungry. Very filling, but very few calories. Also a lot of fiber, which is healthy as well.

What time of the day are you feeling the hunger the worst?

[podsaurus]

Well I've been going pretty good for a few weeks with cardio workout. I'm just waiting on a squat rack to come in so I can finally get down to business. I'm going to do the cardio like I am now and Starting Strength and then see where things go from there after a few months. I'm going for general fitness and strength so I'm probably stick with simple workouts and add variations where I can. Can't do the same stuff all the time.

[SchaffinOSX]

Alright, so I've been reading up on "cycles", i.e. alternating between losing fat with a strict caloric deficit diet and strength training with an indulgent but clean diet, and I'm interested in beginning something similar to that. I think it would give my plan a more long-term plan, which I feel my current regime is lacking.

So, a few questions for the pros:

- Which is best to start with? The fat loss cycle or the strength training cycle?
- How long should each cycle last? I've heard no longer than 2 months for the fat loss cycle. Is this correct? How about for the strength training cycle?
- During the fat loss cycle, do I shift gears entirely to cardio or can I continue hitting the gym? I don't want to backtrack on strength training when I'm on the fat loss cycle, and vice versa.

Right now, I'm finding that although I've lost a great deal of fat, I'm still holding onto some in the abdominal and lower back regions. I think that I need a good balance between lowering my body fat percentage and gaining muscle mass so that my body gains a slimmer, straighter (i.e. not pear / curved shaped) physique.

[spyrde]

Depends what your goal is. You have to be realistic and realize that you're going to possibly gain fat when trying to gain muscle, so if you're not satisfied with your bodyfat percentage then cut down.

When you're losing fat it's good to keep hitting the weights so you don't lose muscle too easily. Going to failure is definitely not recommended though.

[J3ff3]

Anyone have any tips on controlling appetite? For the past few months I've had some pretty great control over it, but recently I've been eating a lot more than usual and I don't seem to want to stop eating. I don't want to back track on all the progress I've made.

mate, don't worry about how much you eat, or calories - eat as much as you want, or feel you need to, just eat clean and lift weights/stay active.

i'm not sure what your situation is, but i eat every two or three hours and pay no attention to 'how much', but 'what'. i'm shedding weight like no-ones business.

if you do want to eat less though - put your knife and fork down between every mouthful and spend time tasting the food.

[x6Teen]

mate, don't worry about how much you eat, or calories - eat as much as you want, or feel you need to, just eat clean and lift weights/stay active.

i'm not sure what your situation is, but i eat every two or three hours and pay no attention to 'how much', but 'what'. i'm shedding weight like no-ones business.

if you do want to eat less though - put your knife and fork down between every mouthful and spend time tasting the food.

the sentence in bold is just as bad as substance's spot-reduction post.

when i was reading your post at first i thought you just mixed it up by accident but then i realized it was intentional lol

there's no such thing as eating 'clean' unless you dropped your food on the floor and rinsed it afterwards.

losing weight is all about how much you eat and calories. i could eat nothing but fast food and lose shit tonne of weight.

95% of people that "eat clean and lift weights/stay active" look like shit and only make noob gains. and once their noob gains phase is over and still continue that way of training, they will make 0 progress.

[PeanutButterMunky]

the sentence in bold is just as bad as substance's spot-reduction post.

when i was reading your post at first i thought you just mixed it up by accident but then i realized it was intentional lol

there's no such thing as eating 'clean' unless you dropped your food on the floor and rinsed it afterwards.

losing weight is all about how much you eat and calories. i could eat nothing but fast food and lose shit tonne of weight.

95% of people that "eat clean and lift weights/stay active" look like shit and only make noob gains. and once their noob gains phase is over and still continue that way of training, they will make 0 progress.

+1

I don't know how many times this has been reiterated in this thread. Obviously eating crappy food is not as intelligent as eating healthy food, but calories are everything and shouldn't be neglected since they are THE reason for weight gain or loss.

Alright, so I've been reading up on "cycles", i.e. alternating between losing fat with a strict caloric deficit diet and strength training with an indulgent but clean diet, and I'm interested in beginning something similar to that. I think it would give my plan a more long-term plan, which I feel my current regime is lacking.


So, a few questions for the pros:


- Which is best to start with? The fat loss cycle or the strength training cycle?
- How long should each cycle last? I've heard no longer than 2 months for the fat loss cycle. Is this correct? How about for the strength training cycle?
- During the fat loss cycle, do I shift gears entirely to cardio or can I continue hitting the gym? I don't want to backtrack on strength training when I'm on the fat loss cycle, and vice versa.


Right now, I'm finding that although I've lost a great deal of fat, I'm still holding onto some in the abdominal and lower back regions. I think that I need a good balance between lowering my body fat percentage and gaining muscle mass so that my body gains a slimmer, straighter (i.e. not pear / curved shaped) physique.

The best cycle to start with is… just going to the gym. You really shouldn't worry about gaining or losing weight at first. The best thing you can do for yourself is to just start exercising… getting into the habit of it.


When you finally feel comfortable exercising and are getting into the swing of things… there isn't any set "cycle" period. Having said that… every few months you should take a week or so off to let your central nervous system/body recuperate. This will prevent feeling burned out.


You can work out the same if you want on your fat loss cycle as you do your muscle gain cycle. The only thing you need to "shift gears" on is your caloric intake. It will be less when you're losing weight and more when you're gaining weight.


As for difficult areas… your body will lose weight wherever it wants at whatever time it wants. For men, the midsection is usually the last place to go. The only way to get rid of it is to keep losing fat until it's gone around your midsection. Obviously the more lean muscle you gain, the easier it is to burn fat, but for motivational purposes… it might be best if you just try and shed all undesired fat first before deciding to put muscle weight back on. That's what I did after rehabbing my knee. I shed every ounce of fat I could, then started packing on muscle and began a carb-loading cyclic timed diet.


What does your current diet/routine look like?

[The Black Wolf]

Sorry I didn't post weight and update Sunday. I went to stay with my parents for a few days and they didn't have a scale. So it's not that I had another setback, it's that I couldn't get to a scale. I'll weigh myself this coming Sunday.

I'm getting a lot of compliments from people, saying they can tell I'm losing weight. My pants fit looser.

If you don't lose a lot of weight, is it possible that you're gaining muscle?

[PeanutButterMunky]

Sorry I didn't post weight and update Sunday. I went to stay with my parents for a few days and they didn't have a scale. So it's not that I had another setback, it's that I couldn't get to a scale. I'll weigh myself this coming Sunday.

I'm getting a lot of compliments from people, saying they can tell I'm losing weight. My pants fit looser.

If you don't lose a lot of weight, is it possible that you're gaining muscle?

It is highly improbable, especially for women, to gain any sort of muscle while in a caloric deficit. The sheer amount of estrogen in contrast with a male alone is one of the defining factors for such improbability. It's already hard enough for women to gain muscle when they're TRYING without "assistance" (anabolic steroids). You may not be losing weight, but you may be losing inches around your waist or various other signs of progress. If your pants are fitting looser then great! Keep at it! You're doing great and you're going in the right direction. Just stick with this until you've reached your goals.

Just remember as well to make multiple small goals that ultimately lead to one large goal. Achieving small goals is not only easier, but it's continuously motivating as well. Keep it up!

[Ghost-Rhayne]

Can someone please explain to me the difference in effect between lifting heavy/low reps vs lifting lighter high reps. I know that high weight/low reps is a muscle bulker, but what effect does the latter have?

[PeanutButterMunky]

Can someone please explain to me the difference in effect between lifting heavy/low reps vs lifting lighter high reps. I know that high weight/low reps is a muscle bulker, but what effect does the latter have?

Lower weight and higher reps are good for endurance training. In reality, both will put on muscle, but heavier weight, lower reps will increase the tonus of the muscle, making the muscle denser and harder to the touch. Low weight/high reps can also be used to warm up the muscles before a heavy load. If the weight is too light, it can become aerobic instead of anaerobic, which breaches the realm of strength training.

You should definitely mix up your routine with both to balance out the body. Don't neglect stretching either as it's a crucial part of training no matter what your goals are.

[J3ff3]

the sentence in bold is just as bad as substance's spot-reduction post.

when i was reading your post at first i thought you just mixed it up by accident but then i realized it was intentional lol

there's no such thing as eating 'clean' unless you dropped your food on the floor and rinsed it afterwards.

losing weight is all about how much you eat and calories. i could eat nothing but fast food and lose shit tonne of weight.

95% of people that "eat clean and lift weights/stay active" look like shit and only make noob gains. and once their noob gains phase is over and still continue that way of training, they will make 0 progress.

no, it isn't.

losing weight, or making gains, is about what you eat, and when - relative to the excercise you have.

trying to restrict calories or appetite, which schaffin said he was attempting to do, is counter-productive, and a very simplistic view, if you have a good excercise regime in the gym. if you are in calorific deficit your body will not expend energy on building muscle. as long as you have ample calories then the protein in your diet will be effectively used.

and packing on muscle is the best way for him to lose 'fat' - not counting calories, reducing his metabolism and eventually falling off the wagon.

the problem is that once people start working out, and counting calories, they massively underestimate their energy/calorie requirements - and so they stall at the gym.

which is why it is better/easier to eat as much as you want, or feel you need, as long as it isn't junk. it is far more likely to leave you with the proteins, carbs and fats needed to ensure that muscle glycogen levels are kept high when working out.

honestly - 'eating clean' is bullshit?? i don't know why i'm eating eggs in the morning over a good bowl of crunchy nut cornflakes

+1

I don't know how many times this has been reiterated in this thread. Obviously eating crappy food is not as intelligent as eating healthy food, but calories are everything and shouldn't be neglected since they are THE reason for weight gain or loss.

as i said, that is too simplistic a view. your body fights hard to maintain its current weight - whatever that weight is. if you are in an extreme calorific deficit (which many tend to be in when 'dieting' or restricting appetites) you can have just as hard a time losing weight - any food you do eat is grabbed and stored by your body, rather than being used efficiently - for example muscle protein synthesis is inhibited when liver and muscle glycogen levels are low - which they will be if you're afraid of eating. hence 'eating cleanly'. its better to skip the junk and eat as much as you want. being 'afraid of food' - which most people who diet and calorie count appear to be - is much more detrimental. just don't eat crap and hit the gym.

The best cycle to start with is… just going to the gym. You really shouldn't worry about gaining or losing weight at first. The best thing you can do for yourself is to just start exercising… getting into the habit of it.

exactly what my point was. schaffin shouldn't be concerned with restricting his appetite - just making sure he isn't eating crap all day, and going to the gym.

i don't know why this is such a contentious issue - its not like i'm advocating low fat or low carbs

[PeanutButterMunky]

no, it isn't.


losing weight, or making gains, is about what you eat, and when - relative to the excercise you have.


trying to restrict calories or appetite, which schaffin said he was attempting to do, is counter-productive, and a very simplistic view, if you have a good excercise regime in the gym. if you are in calorific deficit your body will not expend energy on building muscle. as long as you have ample calories then the protein in your diet will be effectively used.


and packing on muscle is the best way for him to lose 'fat' - not counting calories, reducing his metabolism and eventually falling off the wagon.


the problem is that once people start working out, and counting calories, they massively underestimate their energy/calorie requirements - and so they stall at the gym.


which is why it is better/easier to eat as much as you want, or feel you need, as long as it isn't junk. it is far more likely to leave you with the proteins, carbs and fats needed to ensure that muscle glycogen levels are kept high when working out.


honestly - 'eating clean' is bullshit?? i don't know why i'm eating eggs in the morning over a good bowl of crunchy nut cornflakes






as i said, that is too simplistic a view. your body fights hard to maintain its current weight - whatever that weight is. if you are in an extreme calorific deficit (which many tend to be in when 'dieting' or restricting appetites) you can have just as hard a time losing weight - any food you do eat is grabbed and stored by your body, rather than being used efficiently - for example muscle protein synthesis is inhibited when liver and muscle glycogen levels are low - which they will be if you're afraid of eating. hence 'eating cleanly'. its better to skip the junk and eat as much as you want. being 'afraid of food' - which most people who diet and calorie count appear to be - is much more detrimental. just don't eat crap and hit the gym.




exactly what my point was. schaffin shouldn't be concerned with restricting his appetite - just making sure he isn't eating crap all day, and going to the gym.


i don't know why this is such a contentious issue - its not like i'm advocating low fat or low carbs

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It's as simple as that. This is getting to the point of ridiculousness. There's nothing to argue here. Calories in vs calories out is the first law of thermodynamics. It is not a hypotheses to be counter-argued with opinions. It is a fact.


You're making the assumption that when people count calories, they are grossly under-eating… and yes… if you aren't eating enough… the body will activate defense mechanisms to prevent starvation by slowing down the body's metabolism and storing as much ingested food as possible as adipose tissue. The opposite is also true, if one becomes too fat, the body activates self defense mechanisms and becomes diabetic to prevent fat tissue from growing further, but thanks to the miracle of modern medicine, diabetic medication bypasses this mechanism and allows the diabetic individual to keep gaining fat until they die. Be that as it may, I've outlined several times in this thread how to appropriately calculate individualistic caloric needs in detail. So if that advice is taken into consideration, nobody is going to grossly underestimate their needed calories. No matter what diet, no matter how clean or dirty, no matter what activity levels or training regimen a person is on… the only determining factor that will contribute to weight loss is if more calories are being burned than consumed. That is it. Regarding muscle and liver glycogen… 99% of the time low glycogen levels aren't an issue for most normal individuals. Inhibited protein synthesis only occurs in the extreme of cases in which an individual is malnourished.


There is nothing wrong with eating "clean". The point being made here is that you can lose weight eating nothing but McDonald's and still lose weight as long as you are meeting caloric needs that allow for weight loss.


As for putting on muscle to aid in fat loss… sure… the more lean mass you have, the easier it is to burn fat. But building muscle in itself is one of the most calorically taxing processes in the body and building muscle while burning fat simultaneously requires micro-managing nutrient timing surrounding insulin control at specific times of the day with a cyclic carb loading diet that is just too complicated for the average person to deal with when trying to simply lose weight.


You cannot build muscle while in a caloric deficit. The role of strength training in a caloric deficit is to keep reps low and heavy to make the body hold onto existing muscle tissue while burning mostly fat. A high protein diet and heavy weight/low reps is optimal for this type of fat loss and muscle/protein sparing. Another benefit of strength training to lose weight is that even after the activity is stopped, your RMR (resting metabolic rate) is increased and you continue burning calories throughout the day. I would never advocate eating garbage food over healthy food, I was simply trying to make a point... a point that has been made 800 times already in this thread. Getting into the habit of making healthier food choices should be a priority, but there is no "bad food" in terms of stunting weight loss when in a caloric deficit. All that matters is the deficit in accordance with the body's individual needs. Once the appropriate calories are found, weight sheds off consistently. Exercise is not needed for weight loss, but it certainly helps... such as increasing metabolism, reducing blood pressure, and many of the other quintillion health benefits. But exercise will not do anything if more calories are being consumed than are burned. That is the point. Eating healthy and exercising while maintaining a consistent deficit optimal for that person's needs allows for consistent weight loss.


There's no reason to be afraid of food, but "just don't eat crap and hit the gym" is really silly advice. Especially for those trying to put on any appreciable amount of muscle or see consistent weight loss. "Skip the junk and eat as much as you want" is also the worst piece of advice I've read in a very long time and seems to contradict your previous statement. And if people were able to "feel" how much they needed to eat, they wouldn't be seeking advice.

[J3ff3]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It's as simple as that. This is getting to the point of ridiculousness. There's nothing to argue here. Calories in vs calories out is the first law of thermodynamics. It is not a hypotheses to be counter-argued with opinions. It is a fact.


You're making the assumption that when people count calories, they are grossly under-eating… and yes… if you aren't eating enough… the body will activate defense mechanisms to prevent starvation by slowing down the body's metabolism and storing as much ingested food as possible as adipose tissue. Be that as it may, I've outlined several times in this thread how to appropriately calculate individualistic caloric needs in detail. So if that advice is taken into consideration, nobody is going to grossly underestimate their needed calories. No matter what diet, no matter how clean or dirty, no matter what activity levels or training regimen a person is on… the only determining factor that will contribute to weight loss is if more calories are being burned than consumed. That is it. Regarding muscle and liver glycogen… 99% of the time low glycogen levels aren't an issue for most normal individuals. Inhibited protein synthesis only occurs in the extreme of cases in which an individual is malnourished.


There is nothing wrong with eating "clean". The point being made here is that you can lose weight eating nothing but McDonald's and still lose weight as long as you are meeting caloric needs that allow for weight loss.


As for putting on muscle to aid in fat loss… sure… the more lean mass you have, the easier it is to burn fat. But building muscle in itself is one of the most calorically taxing processes in the body and building muscle while burning fat simultaneously requires micro-managing nutrient timing surrounding insulin control at specific times of the day with a cyclic carb loading diet that is just too complicated for the average person to deal with when trying to simply lose weight.


You cannot build muscle while in a caloric deficit. The role of strength training in a caloric deficit is to keep reps low and heavy to make the body hold onto existing muscle tissue while burning mostly fat. A high protein diet and heavy weight/low reps is optimal for this type of fat lass and muscle/protein sparing. Another benefit of strength training to lose weight is that even after the activity is stopped, your RMR (resting metabolic rate) is increased and you continue burning calories throughout the day.


There's no reason to be afraid of food, but "just don't eat crap and hit the gym" is really silly advice. Especially for those trying to put on any appreciable amount of muscle or see consistent weight loss. "Skip the junk and eat as much as you want" is also the worst piece of advice I've read in a very long time.

realistically, you say "i'm wrong", but every paragraph you've written, short of the last, mirrors what i've said.

the whole 'calories in vs calories out' rule, yes, is in theory, spot on. but in reality someone dieting is likely going from an inactive lifestyle, with an appreciable amount of trans-fats, and a reasonably low calorific intake (relative to what you'd need when going to the gym 3 times a week), to one where they are going to reduce that intake even further AND start excercising. most are doomed to failure because they neither have the energy levels to adhere to their excercise regieme or the nutrients to build any muscle to increase their bmr. you say this is an assumption - it is, but one based on observation. it is just as much of an assumption to say they will correctly alter their intake, even with the relevant tools/calculators on the net.

perhaps i should've phrased my advice better - because essentially im just agreeing with your earlier post - "You really shouldn't worry about gaining or losing weight at first. The best thing you can do for yourself is to just start exercising… getting into the habit of it." this is, in effect, the same advice as "eat as much as you want and hit the gym", because someone pre-diet / excercise is doing exactly that - eating whatever the fuck they want, which is why they are considering curbing their appetite. i was just trying to suggest to schaffin that instead of restricting his diet AND excercising - which leaves him very open to failure - he should clean up his diet and eat what he wants (which he was doing pre-diet anyway) and excercise.

in all fairness, when eating clean it is pretty difficult to hit your required calories when lifting 3x a week. most people need to make an effort to get what they need, even those experienced in the gym. yes with junk you can lose weight, but it is definitely not as hard to hit those required figures. its why many lifters eat shit when bulking - which i'm sure you know. so in effect i'm telling schaffin to 'eat what he wants' knowing full well that by eating clean he will actually be reducing his calories without even knowing it.

like i said, most likely it was poorly explained - but i really do think that to a beginner it is more helpful to tell them to watch 'what' they eat, and not 'how much', with a major emphasis on protein and excercise. 'calories in vs calories out' is possibly one of the most unhelpful, or at least misunderstood, 'rules' out there for the beginner, however correct it is, in a world where fats are bad and diets are good.

[PeanutButterMunky]

realistically, you say "i'm wrong", but every paragraph you've written, short of the last, mirrors what i've said.

the whole 'calories in vs calories out' rule, yes, is in theory, spot on. but in reality someone dieting is likely going from an inactive lifestyle, with an appreciable amount of trans-fats, and a reasonably low calorific intake (relative to what you'd need when going to the gym 3 times a week), to one where they are going to reduce that intake even further AND start excercising. most are doomed to failure because they neither have the energy levels to adhere to their excercise regieme or the nutrients to build any muscle to increase their bmr. you say this is an assumption - it is, but one based on observation. it is just as much of an assumption to say they will correctly alter their intake, even with the relevant tools/calculators on the net.

perhaps i should've phrased my advice better - because essentially im just agreeing with your earlier post - "You really shouldn't worry about gaining or losing weight at first. The best thing you can do for yourself is to just start exercising… getting into the habit of it." this is, in effect, the same advice as "eat as much as you want and hit the gym", because someone pre-diet / excercise is doing exactly that - eating whatever the fuck they want, which is why they are considering curbing their appetite. i was just trying to suggest to schaffin that instead of restricting his diet AND excercising - which leaves him very open to failure - he should clean up his diet and eat what he wants (which he was doing pre-diet anyway) and excercise.

in all fairness, when eating clean it is pretty difficult to hit your required calories when lifting 3x a week. most people need to make an effort to get what they need, even those experienced in the gym. yes with junk you can lose weight, but it is definitely not as hard to hit those required figures. its why many lifters eat shit when bulking - which i'm sure you know. so in effect i'm telling schaffin to 'eat what he wants' knowing full well that by eating clean he will actually be reducing his calories without even knowing it.

like i said, most likely it was poorly explained - but i really do think that to a beginner it is more helpful to tell them to watch 'what' they eat, and not 'how much', with a major emphasis on protein and excercise. 'calories in vs calories out' is possibly one of the most unhelpful, or at least misunderstood, 'rules' out there for the beginner, however correct it is, in a world where fats are bad and diets are good.

Looks like we're on the same page. I agree completely. It is very difficult to consume too many calories when eating completely healthy. An entire bowl of veggies, for instance, is around 40-60 calories... and the fiber makes it filling. Junk food is chock full of fat, and although some fat itself is an essential nutrient, it is easily eaten in excess by today's average consumption. Junk food is scientifically engineered to make people get fatter easier, unfortunately.

[x6Teen]

by eating clean he will actually be reducing his calories without even knowing it.

what do you mean by eating clean?

[PeanutButterMunky]

what do you mean by eating clean?

I believe he means eating healthy food, which tends to have drastically less calories than junk food.

As for putting on any appreciable amount of muscle, I've found it literally impossible to eat purely "clean" when bulking, especially since at one point I was eating 6,000 calories a day. Things gotta get a little dirty if you want to put on mass.

[J3ff3]

what do you mean by eating clean?

in simplest terms? as far away from processes you can get i guess. anything that walks, swims, grows and flys. basically stay away from trans-fats/polyunsaturates (imo for the latter). have more protein than carbs, but don't cut them out (i assume your earlier reference to 'looking like shit' was a paleo comment), and eat a decent amount of good fat. basically avoid anything 'ready made' or deep fried. common sense really . i personally stay away from wheat and grains (apart from oats) because they really stall any progress i make and bloat me, but that's just personal experience. i still eat them on occasion without batting an eyelid. they just make me feel pretty shit.

i still eat 'unhealthy' things, but in moderation. i eat a shit load of pepperami for example, just to up my protein when i'm busy. anything to pile on protein and stop my fucking muscles hurting

@peanutbuttermonkey - thats what i'm getting at..... if you're working out regularly, you are naturally creating a calorie deficit by eating healthy - no way your average noob is going to hit 3500 calories (what i have to hit to maintain) when avoiding junk. its a much better way to be in deficit than by calorie counting and trying to eat crap, but less of it. imo of course

that was all i was getting at.

[PeanutButterMunky]

in simplest terms? as far away from processes you can get i guess. anything that walks, swims, grows and flys. basically stay away from trans-fats/polyunsaturates (imo for the latter). have more protein than carbs, but don't cut them out (i assume your earlier reference to 'looking like shit' was a paleo comment), and eat a decent amount of good fat. basically avoid anything 'ready made' or deep fried. common sense really . i personally stay away from wheat and grains (apart from oats) because they really stall any progress i make and bloat me, but that's just personal experience. i still eat them on occasion without batting an eyelid. they just make me feel pretty shit.

i still eat 'unhealthy' things, but in moderation. i eat a shit load of pepperami for example, just to up my protein when i'm busy. anything to pile on protein and stop my fucking muscles hurting

@peanutbuttermonkey - thats what i'm getting at..... if you're working out regularly, you are naturally creating a calorie deficit by eating healthy - no way your average noob is going to hit 3500 calories (what i have to hit to maintain) when avoiding junk. its a much better way to be in deficit than by calorie counting and trying to eat crap, but less of it. imo of course

that was all i was getting at.

Why would you suggest eating less carbs than protein? They are just as essential as protein for building any appreciable amount of muscle mass.

Also, why are you avoiding polyunsaturated fats? They're unsaturated... and they are required by the body... not to mention the plethora of health benefits including aiding in muscle hypertrophy. Or are you saying replacing trans fat with polyunsaturated fat?...

[J3ff3]

Why would you suggest eating less carbs than protein? They are just as essential as protein for building any appreciable amount of muscle mass.

Also, why are you avoiding polyunsaturated fats? They're unsaturated... and they are required by the body... not to mention the plethora of health benefits including aiding in muscle hypertrophy. Or are you saying replacing trans fat with polyunsaturated fat?...

yeah, sorry, I should've said that's what i'm doing - rather than making it appear like a general rule i recommend. i find i shed fat like anything if i replace some carbs with protein. i'm still eating a decent amount. probably about 2gs/pound as a rough guess.

i'm avoiding, or at least cutting down on, polyunsaturated fats, mainly due to sleep difficulties and a lack of energy. a guy called ray peat has written a few interesting pieces on the thyroid and gut health that i found interesting, so i thought i would give it a shot. it has made a bit of difference to be honest, but i'm not really sticking to it that strickly. have a look at his site (avoid some of the quacks that write about him), he goes against the grain / accepted beliefs about EFAs that i'm sure would get some backs up in bodybuilding, but like i said, its made some difference to me personally.

[PeanutButterMunky]

yeah, sorry, I should've said that's what i'm doing - rather than making it appear like a general rule i recommend. i find i shed fat like anything if i replace some carbs with protein. i'm still eating a decent amount. probably about 2gs/pound as a rough guess.

i'm avoiding, or at least cutting down on, polyunsaturated fats, mainly due to sleep difficulties and a lack of energy. a guy called ray peat has written a few interesting pieces on the thyroid and gut health that i found interesting, so i thought i would give it a shot. it has made a bit of difference to be honest, but i'm not really sticking to it that strickly. have a look at his site (avoid some of the quacks that write about him), he goes against the grain / accepted beliefs about EFAs that i'm sure would get some backs up in bodybuilding, but like i said, its made some difference to me personally.

Whatever's helping you, more power to you. There's a lot of "common knowledge" regarding nutrition that doesn't parallel with actual scientific evidence. A lot of these folks "going against the grain" are actually people that are looking into the actual science of the body instead of accepting whatever they read online. If something peaks your interest, however, I would highly advise searching for peer/reviewed scientific journals regarding the area of discussion to verify scientific evidence with theories. One such resource is PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?

[robvandam111]

Need some knowledge here. This is the third consecutive time that my mother has bursitis. Near her shoulder blade its inflamed. It happens once every year and around this time. I got the basic treatments from anti-inflamatory drugs, warm patches or an ice bag. Is there another way atleast get rid of it?