Best way to lose weight?

[3PedalJake]

Originally Posted by chassis

Thanks @3pedaljake. Metabolic flexibility is the goal, and keto/intermittent fasting/time restricted eating is the means to achieve the goal. Is this the correct understanding?

That is my take on it. Disclaimer, I don't have any medical credentials, this is my belief after several years of self study. If you can transition smoothly between feasting and fasting you'll never have to be concerned with the specifics of "diets", that will just take care of itself. Understanding the role of Insulin is the biggest step you can take in deciphering nutrition as a whole. Keto and fasting are just the most expedient way to get there.

[F32Fleet]

I think fasting is just the current fad and unless the research has changed it can really mess up your metabolism.

Ultimately it's not about losing weight. it's the ratio of muscle : fat.

Muscle burns calories.

[3PedalJake]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

I think fasting is just the current fad and unless the research has changed it can really mess up your metabolism.

Ultimately it's not about losing weight. it's the ratio of muscle : fat.

Muscle burns calories.

From an evolutionary perspective fasting is the norm, it's a condition we evolved under, the difference being historically it was not voluntary fasting. What is a "fad" is our current 24/7/365 supply of endless variety of food. Voluntary fasting can be challenging at first, not because fasting "messes up your metabolism", but because your metabolism is already compromised from an excess of feasting and zero fasting.
The body stores energy in 2 ways, first could be considered your capacitor, it is carbs stored in the liver and muscle tissue as Glycogen with a capacity of a few hundred grams. Second is as adipose tissue (fat), this is your battery. Too frequent eating and no fasting conditions your metabolism for a constant stream of energy input leaving no need to retrieve from storage, insulin levels stay high and you are effectively locked out of using your stored energy. This is a "messed up" metabolism, and is the condition that the majority find themselves in today. You should be able to seamlessly transition from a fed state to using your glycogen stores to metabolizing fat stores with no appreciable change in metabolic rate. For prolonged fasts, once you're able to do them, basal energy expenditure actually increases after around 36 hours.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by 3PedalJake

From an evolutionary perspective fasting is the norm, it's a condition we evolved under, the difference being historically it was not voluntary fasting. What is a "fad" is our current 24/7/365 supply of endless variety of food. Voluntary fasting can be challenging at first, not because fasting "messes up your metabolism", but because your metabolism is already compromised from an excess of feasting and zero fasting.
The body stores energy in 2 ways, first could be considered your capacitor, it is carbs stored in the liver and muscle tissue as Glycogen with a capacity of a few hundred grams. Second is as adipose tissue (fat), this is your battery. Too frequent eating and no fasting conditions your metabolism for a constant stream of energy input leaving no need to retrieve from storage, insulin levels stay high and you are effectively locked out of using your stored energy. This is a "messed up" metabolism, and is the condition that the majority find themselves in today. You should be able to seamlessly transition from a fed state to using your glycogen stores to metabolizing fat stores with no appreciable change in metabolic rate. For prolonged fasts, once you're able to do them, basal energy expenditure actually increases after around 36 hours.

Yes being in a negative caloric state was the norm however that doesn't mean it should be mimicked. Fasting, as I understand it, can cause a reduction in your post-fast metabolism. It creates a circle where the more you fast the easier it is to put the weight back on. It's less noticeable when you're younger because the metabolism is at a higher starting point. It's why for example a lot of inactive people gain more weight when they go off some low caloric fad diet.


In the end it's about burning as much or more than what you're consuming and managing insulin as well as corrtisol (sp?) levels.

[3PedalJake]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

Yes being in a negative caloric state was the norm however that doesn't mean it should be mimicked. Fasting, as I understand it, can cause a reduction in your post-fast metabolism. It creates a circle where the more you fast the easier it is to put the weight back on. It's less noticeable when you're younger because the metabolism is at a higher starting point. It's why for example a lot of inactive people gain more weight when they go off some low caloric fad diet.


In the end it's about burning as much or more than what you're consuming and managing insulin as well as corrtisol (sp?) levels.

Being in a negative caloric state long term could never have been the norm, there would have been feasting along with the fasting, so caloric sufficiency would be the long term trend. Our ancestors certainly went through constant cycles of abundance and lack, in your scenario they would have become fat and lethargic. Fasting doesn't cause any metabolic slowdown, that is caused by chronic caloric insufficiency aka "dieting". Eating to satiety then fasting is the direct opposite of chronic calorie deprivation, and the hormonal response is entirely different as well.

Agree with the last paragraph, controlling hormone levels is the key to it.

[King Rudi]

I need to lose 10 pounds of fat and add 10 pounds of muscle. I'd like to complain to whoever for not making this possible at the same time.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by King Rudi

I need to lose 10 pounds of fat and add 10 pounds of muscle. I'd like to complain to whoever for not making this possible at the same time.

Speaking from experience, losing fat is easier than adding muscle.

I started cycling about 3-1/2 years ago and dropped 80lbs the first year. I keep it off by continuing to ride 100 miles/week, but I've stopped counting calories (which is a nice way of saying I eat whatever I want now), so the weight loss has stopped. But riding allows me to maintain my current weight.

I've no doubt strengthened my leg muscles from all the riding, but riding a bike does nada for your upper body strength. I really need to find the motivation to do some upper body and core exercises regularly.

[King Rudi]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Speaking from experience, losing fat is easier than adding muscle.

I started cycling about 3-1/2 years ago and dropped 80lbs the first year. I keep it off by continuing to ride 100 miles/week, but I've stopped counting calories (which is a nice way of saying I eat whatever I want now), so the weight loss has stopped. But riding allows me to maintain my current weight.

I've no doubt strengthened my leg muscles from all the riding, but riding a bike does nada for your upper body strength. I really need to find the motivation to do some upper body and core exercises regularly.

Good for you sir!

I started the gym 3 years ago last month. You are 100% correct on losing fat is easier than building muscle. I'm 45, around 145 (I stopped weighing myself) and BMI (guessing around 13% BF at the moment, just started a bulk cycle) is unknown at this point. Aside from the lingering lose skin/tiny bit of fat left, I'm pretty lean.

When I started the gym I had dropped from 240 to 211 in the prior months. I lost all the big fat really fast. Eating 1500 cal/day and doing an hour of cardio 5 days a week. I dropped 70 pounds in a matter of a few months. It's crazy looking back at pictures. December 200 pounds, March 130. I also made myself crazy catabolic. If I sat down for 5 minutes and something wasn't keeping my attention, I feel asleep. At work, watching TV, etc. This is not the way to lose weight, but I did it. My weight resistance training, in the first year, was 30 minutes of weights, and then an hour of cardio...intense cardio. I'm talking 1100 - 1250 calories burned. Let's not discuss the amount of preworkout and other caffeine I was abusing. There were seriously times that I would get off one elliptical or treadmill and jump on the one next to it so I didn't have to wait on the computer to reset. The clocks only go to 1 hour 15 minutes on treadmills and ellipticals btw.

Now, I reversed the entire process. I do no form of cardio as I'm trying to use every calorie I can to build muscle. I'll do occasional cardio when cutting. The goal is to get to about 155 and between 10-12% BF. September I was 137 at 8.3%. Lots of work to be done.

[JP10]

Originally Posted by King Rudi

I need to lose 10 pounds of fat and add 10 pounds of muscle. I'd like to complain to whoever for not making this possible at the same time.

Steriods. That is about all that will allow that at your BF % haha.

[Chihuahua]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Speaking from experience, losing fat is easier than adding muscle.

I started cycling about 3-1/2 years ago and dropped 80lbs the first year. I keep it off by continuing to ride 100 miles/week, but I've stopped counting calories (which is a nice way of saying I eat whatever I want now), so the weight loss has stopped. But riding allows me to maintain my current weight.

I've no doubt strengthened my leg muscles from all the riding, but riding a bike does nada for your upper body strength. I really need to find the motivation to do some upper body and core exercises regularly.

Has cycling helped you build leg mass at all?

[JP10]

Originally Posted by Chihuahua

Has cycling helped you build leg mass at all?

Cycling definitely helps build leg mass, but at certain intervals it can become detrimental - similar to running. Look at the legs on a sprinter compared to a marathon runner - same goes for track cycling vs endurance cycling.

[Dang3r]

Originally Posted by King Rudi

I need to lose 10 pounds of fat and add 10 pounds of muscle. I'd like to complain to whoever for not making this possible at the same time.

There was this girl who'd stated: I want the whole 9 inch and it had to hurt.
Simple answer: Got banged twice and booty slapped, mission accomplished

Your turn, Rudi.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by Chihuahua

Has cycling helped you build leg mass at all?

Not that it's noticeable. I do know my legs are stronger because I can maintain a constant pedal cadence now where I couldn't when I first started riding. Plus my avg speed has increased from 12-13MPH to 17MPH. But I don't think there is any more muscle mass in my legs than I had before.

That said, I don't do interval training or any other leg training other than just riding. I know you can train in such a way as to build leg muscle. I just don't do it.

[TiMSport]

Originally Posted by King Rudi

.....There were seriously times that I would get off one elliptical or treadmill and jump on the one next to it so I didn't have to wait on the computer to reset. The clocks only go to 1 hour 15 minutes on treadmills and ellipticals btw.

Lol, that's crazy man. I own my own elliptical trainer (Life Fitness) and treadmill (Landice) and they aren't limited to 75 minutes so that's one way around that.

[King Rudi]

Originally Posted by TiMSport

Lol, that's crazy man. I own my own elliptical trainer (Life Fitness) and treadmill (Landice) and they aren't limited to 75 minutes so that's one way around that.

Yeah man, I used to watch people come in the gym and finish their workout before I was halfway through my cardio. Pansies.

[TiMSport]

Originally Posted by King Rudi

Yeah man, I used to watch people come in the gym and finish their workout before I was halfway through my cardio. Pansies.

Haha. I'll bet a good chunk of their time was devoted to their phone and trying to cue up their music before even setting foot on either apparatus. Pansies indeed.

[King Rudi]

Originally Posted by TiMSport

Haha. I'll bet a good chunk of their time was devoted to their phone and trying to cue up their music before even setting foot on either apparatus. Pansies indeed.

The new trend is to do about 3 reps of weight they can't control, then spend 15 minutes in front of the mirror taking selfies. I've started intentionally stepping in front of them and peering over their shoulders in the mirror to ruin their selfies. I've also started telling people "If you're only taking pictures, I'm going to use this."

[TiMSport]

Ugh. Shit like that is why I don't like going to a gym.

[AlexKull]

Hello. There is a simple truth
We need to understand that our body does not live in daily cycles, and not even weekly.
To lose weight or gain weight, we must observe a monthly calorie content.
If, for example, we are in a calorie deficit all week, but at the same time you allow yourself to get fat on the weekend) We need to understand how to put this into the total calorie of the month.

[its55]

There is only one way to lose weight. Determine how many calories you should normally need per day for the weight you want to be. Consume, without ever failing, no more than that number of calories per day, perhaps a little less. There's no magic to it in spite of the hype and advertisements.

[chassis]

Agree with the above two comments. Bodily disorders such as hypo/hyperthyroidism, diabetes, etc do not change the thermodynamic reality of the relationship between calories in and calories out.

Denial of calories in-calories out relationship also plays a role in ability or inability to lose weight.

[3PedalJake]

Originally Posted by chassis

Agree with the above two comments. Bodily disorders such as hypo/hyperthyroidism, diabetes, etc do not change the thermodynamic reality of the relationship between calories in and calories out.

Denial of calories in-calories out relationship also plays a role in ability or inability to lose weight.

How do you suggest applying this knowledge to achieve practical results? Does it involve scales and labels and lists?