# What type of diet did you use to get your leanest?



## Sos123

Just wondering I planned to just low carb and eventually just ingest carbs pre and post wo. I'm on tbol and thermo lipid as well if that makes any diff prob not.


----------



## NoGutsNoGloryy

Havn't really done low carb properly before. I started not to long ago and I actually prefer it to being on moderate carbs surprisingly I actually have more energy. I just alternate between high fats moderate protein and high protein moderate fat.


----------



## Sos123

Thing is I find despite not going over my calories I can't shift any more fat (despite loads of cardio too) so dropped carbs to 100-150g daily and I'm taking tbol and thermo lipid (clen+t3) so boost fat loss. Looks like to get leanish 12/14% that I'll need to lower carbs so much that I can only consume them pre and post wo. So wondering what other diets are everyone else rates, suppose each to their own maybe I have no choice but to lower carbs it seems which his **** tbh :-/


----------



## seandog69

if you're not shifting fat with calorie counting AND cardio then you are prob not counting correct or need to drop the calories a bit more


----------



## andyhuggins

OP you need to take another look at your diet tbh.


----------



## FelonE1

I just kept protein high and dropped cals


----------



## Ricky12345

Keto when I first started fat melted off ever since then multiple diets tryed keto or tkd for the win


----------



## Sos123

I use my fitnesspal I'm on 2000cals most days eat less and def under on workout days. I could drop to 1800 but not yet dropping below 1800 is tad drastic. I'm about 189 lbs. it's not my diet it's my genetics I put on fat easy, can lose the first lbs nb then it's gets tough and I need to lower carbs it seems. I'm prob willing to drop to 1600.


----------



## Sos123

I usually do weights 3 times a week intense for 45-1hour and 3/4 sessions of intense football for 1 hour.


----------



## Guest

The one where I ate less calories than my body needed.


----------



## ConP

How do you know you're not dropping body fat?

After the initial water loss when you begin a diet fat loss is not very fast.

1-2lb (2lb being extreme fat loss) per week is achievable with a decent calorie minus each day.

If you think you can go from having no abbs to full abbs in a few weeks you're sorely mistaken.


----------



## Sos123

I find my waist a very good indicator of fat loss as I store most fat around my lower ab region. I think people think I'm a beginner but I'm far from it don't let the post count fool you's. Just posted up to see how everyone gets to their leanest ie what diet protocol you follow. I'm aware there lots of diff diets etc I only know of some.


----------



## Sos123

Ricky12345 said:


> Keto when I first started fat melted off ever since then multiple diets tryed keto or tkd for the win


I take it you were drained on keto but got used to it after a few days?


----------



## SwAn1

1 hour fasted cardio per morning every day and drop carbs from my diet. It flies off


----------



## Fishheadsoup

Increased cardio diet


----------



## Sos123

Well weight is down 3 lbs and waist is down 0.75" from last week so looks like thermo-lipid provided a jolt. I plan to cut for another 5 weeks or so and want to lose another 2" off my waist.

I've got several plans in mind to turn things up a notch

1 - lower cals to 1800

2 - lower carbs even more (@150g per day atm).

Bearing in mind i got 5 weeks left on my cut should i just go for it and lower carbs to 100g and lower cals to 1800 then gradually lower carbs more? i was thinking gradual change is best as we know but whats everyone's thoughts?


----------



## Sos123

SwAn1 said:


> 1 hour fasted cardio per morning every day and drop carbs from my diet. It flies off


What type do you do for an hour, brisk walking just mate? Already doing intense football for 3/4 sessions a week altogether prob around 5 hours worth tbh which should be more than enough.


----------



## Sos123

Fishheadsoup said:


> Increased cardio diet


see above comment bud


----------



## SwAn1

Sos123 said:


> What type do you do for an hour, brisk walking just mate? Already doing intense football for 3/4 sessions a week altogether prob around 5 hours worth tbh which should be more than enough.


An hour on the treadmill with a slight incline brisk walking, I have tunes going and just make sure you pick the right treadmill with some a55 in front of you to stare at as it helps pass the time. It's boring


----------



## Ultrasonic

FelonE said:


> I just kept protein high and dropped cals


Same here.

Personally I would avoid very low carb. The evidence strongly suggests it is best to do so when training naturally, and I suspect it is even when on gear. Have a read of this is you want more info.:

http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/nutrition-diet-articles/270474-evidence-based-recommendations-natural-bodybuilding-contest-preparation.html

I would also avoid fasted cardio. It is more catabolic, more unpleasant to do, doesn't result in more body fat being lost and I suspect is poorer at improving CV health. See here:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5193843


----------



## 1manarmy

Carb back loading while reducing carbs every 2 weeks of prep. Eventfully depleting and upping fat to cur final bits


----------



## Sos123

SwAn1 said:


> An hour on the treadmill with a slight incline brisk walking, I have tunes going and just make sure you pick the right treadmill with some a55 in front of you to stare at as it helps pass the time. It's boring


Fair play mate, ill keep this in mind should i need it as an extra tool. ta mate


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> Same here.
> 
> Personally I would avoid very low carb. The evidence strongly suggests it is best to do so when training naturally, and I suspect it is even when on gear. Have a read of this is you want more info.:
> 
> http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/nutrition-diet-articles/270474-evidence-based-recommendations-natural-bodybuilding-contest-preparation.html
> 
> I would also avoid fasted cardio. It is more catabolic, more unpleasant to do, doesn't result in more body fat being lost and I suspect is poorer at improving CV health. See here:
> 
> http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5193843


Thanks mate ill have a look, i think im at the stage were i have no choice but to low carb tbh mate.

I wouldnt be fond of morning cardio anyway dont think id do it unless necessary but have other tools before i would resort to that.


----------



## Ultrasonic

FWIW, there is also evidence to suggest that HIIT cardio is the best option:

http://www.biolayne.com/contest-prep/best-form-of-cardio-for-bodybuilding/


----------



## Boshlop

very strict keto, no cheat or refeed for a good 3 month then a slow refeed over 10 days and it worked a treat.


----------



## SwAn1

Sos123 said:


> Fair play mate, ill keep this in mind should i need it as an extra tool. ta mate


I'm currently walking pitbulls and Japanese Tosa's, GSD's etc for ten miles per day down side is getting bitten lol


----------



## UkWardy

Sos123 said:


> I use my fitnesspal I'm on 2000cals most days eat less and def under on workout days. I could drop to 1800 but not yet dropping below 1800 is tad drastic. I'm about 189 lbs. it's not my diet it's my genetics I put on fat easy, can lose the first lbs nb then it's gets tough and I need to lower carbs it seems. I'm prob willing to drop to 1600.


If you feel you need to drop to 1800 - 1600 calories at 189 lbs you're doing something wrong


----------



## Sos123

1manarmy said:


> Carb back loading while reducing carbs every 2 weeks of prep. Eventfully depleting and upping fat to cur final bits


Im doing abit of reading on carb back loading now to see whats its about, will come back to you with questions no doubt.


----------



## Sos123

UkWardy said:


> If you feel you need to drop to 1800 - 1600 calories at 189 lbs you're doing something wrong


I honestly dont think so, when i get to a certain point its just really tough to lose fat so i have to resort to lowering carbs. 1800 is th lowest i would go tbh.


----------



## Ultrasonic

Sos123 said:


> I honestly dont think so, when i get to a certain point its just really tough to lose fat so i have to resort to lowering carbs. 1800 is th lowest i would go tbh.


Fat loss becomes increasingly hard for everyone. If you drop calories too low your BMR falls through the floor so you don't actually achieve anything.

Personally I'm a fan of body fat calipers, as I can track even relatively slow body fat reduction much better than with a mirror, and know I am still making progress when otherwise it would seem that I am not.


----------



## FelonE1

SwAn1 said:


> I'm currently walking pitbulls and Japanese Tosa's, GSD's etc for ten miles per day down side is getting bitten lol


You got a Pit?


----------



## cas

I got to my leanest eating sausages, burgers, eggs, tomatoes bacon. ....pretty much fry up food


----------



## Trevor McDonald

Keto. 0 Carbs.


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> FWIW, there is also evidence to suggest that HIIT cardio is the best option:
> 
> http://www.biolayne.com/contest-prep/best-form-of-cardio-for-bodybuilding/


Im a fan of HIIT but find it can be slightly counter productive in a way, as it raises your metabolism a hell of alot and makes you really hungry, but overall is a good tool that i may use by boxing, like ive done before.


----------



## SwAn1

FelonE said:


> You got a Pit?


Nope, I recently lost my job so help out walking dangerous dogs before they are destroyed  Edit:grammar


----------



## FelonE1

SwAn1 said:


> Nope, I recently lost my job so help out walking dangerous dogs before they are destroyed  Edit:grammar


Good on ya.Shame they have to be destroyed though.Are they dangerous because they've attacked or just because of the breed?


----------



## maverick1888

I just lost over a stone this week on the constant diarrhea diet,this week i have ate 3 cuppa soup, 2 rolles, slice of fish, 2 slice of pizza and 2 ginger nuts.


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> Fat loss becomes increasingly hard for everyone. If you drop calories too low your BMR falls through the floor so you don't actually achieve anything.
> 
> Personally I'm a fan of body fat calipers, as I can track even relatively slow body fat reduction much better than with a mirror, and know I am still making progress when otherwise it would seem that I am not.


Well you would achieve weight loss very short term then it would halt yeah your right. I did my bodyfat with calipers at the start of my cut haven't since. Thats true every bit counts i guess.


----------



## Sos123

SwAn1 said:


> I'm currently walking pitbulls and Japanese Tosa's, GSD's etc for ten miles per day down side is getting bitten lol


LOL


----------



## Sos123

cas said:


> I got to my leanest eating sausages, burgers, eggs, tomatoes bacon. ....pretty much fry up food


lol low carbs then it seems.


----------



## Sos123

maverick1888 said:


> I just lost over a stone this week on the constant diarrhea diet,this week i have ate 3 cuppa soup, 2 rolles, slice of fish, 2 slice of pizza and 2 ginger nuts.


I dont know if your being sarcastic or serious ! lol


----------



## SwAn1

FelonE said:


> Good on ya.Shame they have to be destroyed though.Are they dangerous because they've attacked or just because of the breed?


Some are seized because they are just a banned breed, some have attacked, some, (probably most) the owner has gone to prison for murder or whatever.

Some are lovely dogs and shouldnt be destroyed and some are sh!t bags, either way its not their fault there previous owner was a c.unt and made the dog viscous so they get walked before the court orders them to be destroyed


----------



## FelonE1

SwAn1 said:


> Some are seized because they are just a banned breed, some have attacked, some, (probably most) the owner has gone to prison for murder or whatever.
> 
> Some are lovely dogs and shouldnt be destroyed and some are sh!t bags, either way its not their fault there previous owner was a c.unt and made the dog viscous so they get walked before the court orders them to be destroyed


I own a Pitbull and she's a lovely family dog brought up with love.I also know a lot of people round here with them who are good dogs too.BSL is bullsh1t,it's like racism for dogs.Saying a dog should be put down because of it's breed is wrong.It's like saying that because a few Muslims are terrorist all Muslims are.Just wrong


----------



## SwAn1

FelonE said:


> I own a Pitbull and she's a lovely family dog brought up with love.I also know a lot of people round here with them who are good dogs too.BSL is bullsh1t,it's like racism for dogs.Saying a dog should be put down because of it's breed is wrong.It's like saying that because a few Muslims are terrorist all Muslims are.Just wrong


Yeah one of the Tosa's is lovely and the other is a bastard he bit me twice yesterday I have a hole and a big bruise lol.


----------



## FelonE1

SwAn1 said:


> Yeah one of the Tosa's is lovely and the other is a bastard he bit me twice yesterday I have a hole and a big bruise lol.


Lol I've been bit by more Jack Russells than any other breed,little cvnts


----------



## Wheyman

the two finger diet


----------



## Ricky12345

Sos123 said:


> I take it you were drained on keto but got used to it after a few days?


The first time I did it mate was a walk in the park ever since then just seems so fcking hard


----------



## SwAn1

FelonE said:


> Lol I've been bit by more Jack Russells than any other breed,little cvnts


Yeah they are the most annoying dogs always yapping and always biting, they try it on with massive dogs too.


----------



## Sos123

Ricky12345 said:


> The first time I did it mate was a walk in the park ever since then just seems so fcking hard


I see mate, i tried zero carbs once by the end of day 2 i was ready to kill myself lol so hopefully dont have to go as far as keto as im not looking to get ripped just down to decent bf 12%ish.


----------



## Ultrasonic

Sos123 said:


> lol low carbs then it seems.


Very low carb does definitely work for fat loss but the problem is that you also lose a lot of muscle.


----------



## banzi

Ultrasonic said:


> Very low carb does definitely work for fat loss but the problem is that you also lose a lot of muscle.


Not this garbage agin, no you dont lose muscle, you get flat and depleted, a carb up fills you out again.

Those people who claim muscle loss are people who didnt have any muscle under all the blubber in the first place.


----------



## banzi

Sos123 said:


> I see mate, i tried zero carbs once by the end of day 2 i was ready to kill myself lol so hopefully dont have to go as far as keto as im not looking to get ripped just down to decent bf 12%ish.


You should stick it out for 4 days, you get a new lease of life after 4 days no carbs, your energy levels pick up.


----------



## Ultrasonic

banzi said:


> Not this garbage agin, no you dont lose muscle, you get flat and depleted, a carb up fills you out again.
> 
> Those people who claim muscle loss are people who didnt have any muscle under all the blubber in the first place.


For natural trainees it is absolutely not garbage, read the article that I posted above.


----------



## Ultrasonic

Here is a slightly more readable article if the first one is a bit too scientific for you:

http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> Very low carb does definitely work for fat loss but the problem is that you also lose a lot of muscle.


I take it you mean due to strength decreasing therefore muscle loss occurring? this shouldnt be as much as an issue with me on tbol, that should help and it will also help if i lower them gradually rather than just going super low id say.


----------



## maverick1888

Sos123 said:


> I dont know if your being sarcastic or serious ! lol


Im serious think its food poison took it last Monday,I was 15st 4 now I am 14st 3


----------



## KletoReese

Boshlop said:


> very strict keto, no cheat or refeed for a good 3 month then a slow refeed over 10 days and it worked a treat.


How to follow a Keto regiment? I've tried it recently and gained weight... In the past I didn't have a problem.

Any help and direction will do.

Thanks!


----------



## KletoReese

banzi said:


> You should stick it out for 4 days, you get a new lease of life after 4 days no carbs, your energy levels pick up.


Didn't work for me


----------



## Boshlop

KletoReese said:


> How to follow a Keto regiment? I've tried it recently and gained weight... In the past I didn't have a problem.
> 
> Any help and direction will do.
> 
> Thanks!


I go 500-700 below maintenance, and get 1.3 g of protein per lb of weight, rest from fats, all types of fat.

Works for me, but your fat: protein ratio might differ


----------



## banzi

KletoReese said:


> How to follow a Keto regiment? *I've tried it recently and gained weight..*. In the past I didn't have a problem.
> 
> Any help and direction will do.
> 
> Thanks!


What was your exact diet?


----------



## Vivid

I've tried most including carb cycling, keto etc but my best results came from a simple high protein, low cal diet and managed to get to 8% with little to no muscle loss. It's true that some diets can better aid body composition but this would be minimal, even if ran for long periods of time. Find one that you find easy to stick to and run with it, consistency is the key and being able to stick to one is the most important aspect of any diet and the reason most people fail. As long as the diets below maintenance, has sufficient/high protein and is clean then you can't go much wrong... And for anyone thinking they can't get shredded, i started at 25%+ and like most believed it wouldn't be possible but veins down my abs proved different.


----------



## banzi

Vivid said:


> I've tried most including carb cycling, keto etc but my best results came from a simple high protein, low cal diet and managed to get to 8% with little to no muscle loss. It's true that some diets can better aid body composition but this would be minimal, even if ran for long periods of time. Find one that you find easy to stick to and run with it, consistency is the key and being able to stick to one is the most important aspect of any diet and the reason most people fail. As long as the diets below maintenance, has sufficient/high protein and is clean then you can't go much wrong... And for anyone thinking they can't get shredded, i started at 25%+ and like most believed it wouldn't be possible but veins down my abs proved different.


Good post


----------



## KletoReese

banzi said:


> What was your exact diet?


Moderate Protein 1g/lb of lean BM, 50g Carbs and high fats - all types


----------



## banzi

KletoReese said:


> Moderate Protein 1g/lb of lean BM, 50g Carbs and high fats - all types


calorific deficit?


----------



## KletoReese

banzi said:


> calorific deficit?


1,700 cals. Below this and I would be flat...


----------



## Sos123

Vivid said:


> I've tried most including carb cycling, keto etc but my best results came from a simple high protein, low cal diet and managed to get to 8% with little to no muscle loss. It's true that some diets can better aid body composition but this would be minimal, even if ran for long periods of time. Find one that you find easy to stick to and run with it, consistency is the key and being able to stick to one is the most important aspect of any diet and the reason most people fail. As long as the diets below maintenance, has sufficient/high protein and is clean then you can't go much wrong... And for anyone thinking they can't get shredded, i started at 25%+ and like most believed it wouldn't be possible but veins down my abs proved different.


What about your carb and far intake and by low calories intake it your talking 1600/1800?


----------



## Sos123

I believe my maintenance calories is 2500 so my current diet I'm at 2000 cals so 500 under maintenance.


----------



## banzi

KletoReese said:


> 1,700 cals. Below this and I would be flat...


flat isn't a bad thing you know, it means you are carb depleted and at the stage where your body is burning fat.

I dont think you dieted hard enough.

Just saying.


----------



## banzi

Sos123 said:


> I believe my maintenance calories is 2500 so my current diet I'm at 2000 cals so 500 under maintenance.


height weight and job?


----------



## Ultrasonic

Sos123 said:


> I take it you mean due to strength decreasing therefore muscle loss occurring?


Only in part, do read the link I posted, it's full of good info.

I know bugger all about Tbol, so I won't comment on that! As I was careful to say above, the links I provided give real data relating to natural training. The trouble is I doubt anyone has really studied these things in relation to AAS.


----------



## Sos123

banzi said:


> height weight and job?


6 foot / 186lbs


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> Only in part, do read the link I posted, it's full of good info.
> 
> I know bugger all about Tbol, so I won't comment on that! As I was careful to say above, the links I provided give real data relating to natural training. The trouble is I doubt anyone has really studied these things in relation to AAS.


I had a look at the first two links in your first post will have a look at the others mate cheers


----------



## banzi

Sos123 said:


> 6 foot / 186lbs


Its like pulling teeth.

Im done here.


----------



## Sos123

banzi said:


> Its like pulling teeth.
> 
> Im done here.


I've posted what you've asked lol.


----------



## Sos123

Thanks for everyone's opinions think I'm going to go with low carbing just.


----------



## Vivid

Sos123 said:


> What about your carb and far intake and by low calories intake it your talking 1600/1800?


Macro's were protein 250g, carbs 175g and fats 60g, low cal for me's 2250.


----------



## darren.1987

Sos123 said:


> I've posted what you've asked lol.


He asked what job role you do..

As obviously a desk sitter wont burn as many calories as someone on say dispatch at a warehouse job


----------



## spaglemon

SwAn1 said:


> Yeah they are the most annoying dogs always yapping and always biting, they try it on with massive dogs too.


talk about breed racism lol, have always had jacks, wouldn't have anything else, none of mine have ever bitten another person or dog, fantasic, intelligent and easily trained breed imho, very healthy too with no particular bred in health issues.

Fwiw I hate to hear the way so called dangerous breeds are portrayed, they're all individuals as anyone that's had more than one dog already knows

Cheers


----------



## Northern Lass

Calorie deficit


----------



## Ultrasonic

Sos123 said:


> I had a look at the first two links in your first post will have a look at the others mate cheers


Sorry, I'd forgotten I'd posted a few! This was the one I meant:

http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-...ting-diet.html


----------



## banzi

darren.1987 said:


> He asked what job role you do..
> 
> As obviously a desk sitter wont burn as many calories as someone on say dispatch at a warehouse job


Dont worry mate, the guys just trolling, go back to the start of the thread and read his posts.

He managed 6 pages of responses from people, not a bad attempt.


----------



## UkWardy

I'm currently cutting with my macros as this

Fat: 76g 30%

Carbs: 146g 25%

Protein: 258g 45%

Has anyone got any input? I don't want to drop my carbs down to 0 but surely I'm not hindering progress or slowing it down by dropping my carbs?


----------



## SwAn1

spaglemon said:


> talk about breed racism lol, have always had jacks, wouldn't have anything else, none of mine have ever bitten another person or dog, fantasic, intelligent and easily trained breed imho, very healthy too with no particular bred in health issues.
> 
> Fwiw I hate to hear the way so called dangerous breeds are portrayed, they're all individuals as anyone that's had more than one dog already knows
> 
> Cheers


Fair enough I can only go by my families views having homed 50, 000 yes 50,000 dogs and they are the worst in their eyes for yappy and nippy, no offence intended


----------



## spaglemon

SwAn1 said:


> Fair enough I can only go by my families views having homed 50, 000 yes 50,000 dogs and they are the worst in their eyes for yappy and nippy, no offence intended


none taken, your family has rehomed 50,000 dogs ? That's awesome, well done, there's hope for the human race after all, I've rescued several dogs but nothing to compare to that many, you should be very proud of yourselves.

Cheers


----------



## Sos123

banzi said:


> height weight and job?


Sorry mate forgot to say about job, im mostly sedentary but workout alot weights 3 times a week and intense indoor football for 3/4 sessions a week.


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> Sorry, I'd forgotten I'd posted a few! This was the one I meant:
> 
> http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-...ting-diet.html


it says 'it seems this article is outdated and has been removed' bud


----------



## Sos123

banzi said:


> Dont worry mate, the guys just trolling, go back to the start of the thread and read his posts.
> 
> He managed 6 pages of responses from people, not a bad attempt.


Im not trolling mate was a genuine post ive made.


----------



## Sos123

banzi said:


> Dont worry mate, the guys just trolling, go back to the start of the thread and read his posts.
> 
> He managed 6 pages of responses from people, not a bad attempt.


now you mention the 6 pages its impressive yes lol. but 100% not trolling, dont like trolls myself, def wouldnt be one.


----------



## banzi

Sos123 said:


> I use my fitnesspal I'm on 2000cals most days eat less and def under on workout days. I could drop to 1800 but not yet dropping below 1800 is tad drastic. I'm about 189 lbs. it's not my diet it's my genetics I put on fat easy, can lose the first lbs nb then it's gets tough and I need to lower carbs it seems. *I'm prob willing to drop to 1600.*


Drop to 1000 for 6 days then have 2000 on day 7, rinse and repeat.

If you are not trolling that is.


----------



## rsd147

banzi said:


> Its like pulling teeth.
> 
> Im done here.


Heres here again....Cant believe how rude you are.


----------



## BoomTime

People harping on about weight loss and using more cals than your body needs is rubbish Weight loss is not fat loss!! there is a massive difference!!!

i am currently putting on weight and bf % is dropping. with the right diet and timings you can do both.


----------



## KletoReese

BoomTime said:


> People harping on about weight loss and using more cals than your body needs is rubbish Weight loss is not fat loss!! there is a massive difference!!!
> 
> i am currently putting on weight and bf % is dropping. with the right diet and timings you can do both.


How would one achieve this? I'm struggling to lose. I'm an Endo type and can't do a lot of high carbs. What protocol do you follow?


----------



## BoomTime

what are your goals do you want to loose weight or just burn fat?


----------



## xjx

KletoReese said:


> How would one achieve this? I'm struggling to lose. I'm an Endo type and can't do a lot of high carbs. What protocol do you follow?


I think it's also dependent on a persons sensitivity to carbs. I feel it's important that people mention whether they achieved their results drug free or not.

Maybe a diet that worked for someone on gear won't met the same results for someone off of it.

When I go low carb I keep carbs to less than 30g's a day and have high protein and fat. I have read that in order to actually start breaking down fat tissue for energy, carbs need to be this low. In order to prevent a metabolism and hormonal function decrease, one must have a preferably high GI clean carb refeed once a week.

To me a high carb diet is 210g Protein, 70g fat and 150-200g carbs. I'm scared to push it above that in fear of just adding fat. I understand my view on diet might be incorrect and am also open to advice from someone more experienced.


----------



## AlexB18

Im still roughly 30% bf but im the leanest ive been in god knows how long, does that count? :lol: currently doing timed carbs and like a few people have said i much prefer it to moderate carbs, i found for some reason on moderate carbs i was much more incline to having multiple cheats through the week for some reason :s


----------



## KletoReese

xjx said:


> I think it's also dependent on a persons sensitivity to carbs. I feel it's important that people mention whether they achieved their results drug free or not.
> 
> Maybe a diet that worked for someone on gear won't met the same results for someone off of it.
> 
> When I go low carb I keep carbs to less than 30g's a day and have high protein and fat. I have read that in order to actually start breaking down fat tissue for energy, carbs need to be this low. In order to prevent a metabolism and hormonal function decrease, one must have a preferably high GI clean carb refeed once a week.
> 
> To me a high carb diet is 210g Protein, 70g fat and 150-200g carbs. I'm scared to push it above that in fear of just adding fat. I understand my view on diet might be incorrect and am also open to advice from someone more experienced.


This is a brilliant protocol for me and will work! How many grams of Prot and Fats were you consuming with low carbs? And were you on gear while doing so?

One more thing I am certainly carb sensitive.


----------



## KletoReese

BoomTime said:


> what are your goals do you want to loose weight or just burn fat?


Burn Fat!


----------



## xjx

KletoReese said:


> This is a brilliant protocol for me and will work! How many grams of Prot and Fats were you consuming with low carbs? And were you on gear while doing so?
> 
> One more thing I am certainly carb sensitive.


No gear, I'm still trying to find out as much as I can about a cycle before I decide to finally get on, it'll probably be a while.

The way I understand, it depends on your body weight. Keep in mind I'm no expert, I'm here to re I've help also and to help where I can.

It's actually the Carb Nite protocol, in case your interested in looking it up. It calls for 1g Protein/BW, 1/2g Fat/Bw.


----------



## ConP

BoomTime said:


> People harping on about weight loss and using more cals than your body needs is rubbish Weight loss is not fat loss!! there is a massive difference!!!
> 
> i am currently putting on weight and bf % is dropping. with the right diet and timings you can do both.


Plus you're using drugs, correct?


----------



## xjx

ConP said:


> Plus you're using drugs, correct?


Exactly my point!


----------



## a.notherguy

intermittent fasting and IIFYM


----------



## KletoReese

ConP said:


> Plus you're using drugs, correct?


I am on low dose TRT as per a Doctor.s protocol. That's it. I do use a fat burner from time to time but lately those don't seem to work.


----------



## Ultrasonic

xjx said:


> When I go low carb I keep carbs to less than 30g's a day and have high protein and fat. I have read that in order to actually start breaking down fat tissue for energy, carbs need to be this low.


Possibly you meant something else, but that statement is patently untrue. Literally millions of people have lost body fat without dropping carbs to such an absurdly low level.


----------



## KletoReese

xjx said:


> No gear, I'm still trying to find out as much as I can about a cycle before I decide to finally get on, it'll probably be a while.
> 
> The way I understand, it depends on your body weight. Keep in mind I'm no expert, I'm here to re I've help also and to help where I can.
> 
> It's actually the Carb Nite protocol, in case your interested in looking it up. It calls for 1g Protein/BW, 1/2g Fat/Bw.


Thanks for the info! Will certainly research this protocol. 0.5g/lb of fat is doable!


----------



## KletoReese

Ultrasonic said:


> Possibly you meant something else, but that statement is patently untrue. Literally millions of people have lost body fat without dropping carbs to such an absurdly low level.


Wouldnt that depend on an individual.s body type and how insulin sensitive

s/he may be?


----------



## KletoReese

xjx said:


> I think it's also dependent on a persons sensitivity to carbs. I feel it's important that people mention whether they achieved their results drug free or not.
> 
> Maybe a diet that worked for someone on gear won't met the same results for someone off of it.
> 
> When I go low carb I keep carbs to less than 30g's a day and have high protein and fat. I have read that in order to actually start breaking down fat tissue for energy, carbs need to be this low. In order to prevent a metabolism and hormonal function decrease, one must have a preferably high GI clean carb refeed once a week.
> 
> To me a high carb diet is 210g Protein, 70g fat and 150-200g carbs. I'm scared to push it above that in fear of just adding fat. I understand my view on diet might be incorrect and am also open to advice from someone more experienced.


I am certainly carb sensitive! Now do you measure your macros in per lb or kg of lean body weight?


----------



## Ultrasonic

KletoReese said:


> Wouldnt that depend on an individual.s body type and how insulin sensitive
> 
> s/he may be?


No.


----------



## KletoReese

Ultrasonic said:


> No.


How so?


----------



## xjx

Ultrasonic said:


> Possibly you meant something else, but that statement is patently untrue. Literally millions of people have lost body fat without dropping carbs to such an absurdly low level.


I do understand I'm not an expert and that's just something I read. It's acutally out of John Kiefer's CarbNite protocol. I am probably incorrect hence why I created a thread asking for help myself. I do find it hard to loose fat whilest keeping carbs higher than this though, maybe I'm doing something wrong.



KletoReese said:


> I am certainly carb sensitive! Now do you measure your macros in per lb or kg of lean body weight?


I'm from the states, so per LB of body weight. Lol sorry


----------



## KletoReese

a.notherguy said:


> intermittent fasting and IIFYM


I trief IF. It's not for me. I work as a Software Engineer and I was brain dead with no food for hours on end, I couldn't afford that.


----------



## Ultrasonic

I must be missing something as this 'debate' is just too daft for words. The statement that I said is nonsense is this one:



xjx said:


> When I go low carb I keep carbs to less than 30g's a day and have high protein and fat. I have read that in order to actually start breaking down fat tissue for energy, carbs need to be this low.


Let's suppose we take a group of 1,000 people. They can be the most "carb sensitive" on the planet for all I care. Now let's put them on a diet of nothing but water and 50g of sugar per day for one week. At the end of that time, how many do you seriously think will have lost absolutely no body fat?

The human body has evolved to use body fat as a reserve energy supply when food is short. If prehistoric man had a tough day and could only find a few hundred calories worth of blackberries to eat in a day, he was OK because his body had stored some extra energy away as body fat for just such an occasion.

Now you can argue about how different macro splits may favour fat loss or muscle catabolism to a degree, including how this will vary between individuals. But to make a statement that in order to lose any body fat at all anyone needs to drop their carb intake to less that 30g per day is just nonsense.

If you are natty xjx then I would strongly recommend that you read the links I included in posts 20 and 54.


----------



## KletoReese

Ultrasonic said:


> I must be missing something as this 'debate' is just too daft for words. The statement that I said is nonsense is this one:
> 
> Let's suppose we take a group of 1,000 people. They can be the most "carb sensitive" on the planet for all I care. Now let's put them on a diet of nothing but water and 50g of sugar per day for one week. At the end of that time, how many do you seriously think will have lost absolutely no body fat?
> 
> The human body has evolved to use body fat as a reserve energy supply when food is short. If prehistoric man had a tough day and could only find a few hundred calories worth of blackberries to eat in a day, he was OK because his body had stored some extra energy away as body fat for just such an occasion.
> 
> Now you can argue about how different macro splits may favour fat loss or muscle catabolism to a degree, including how this will vary between individuals. But to make a statement that in order to lose any body fat at all anyone needs to drop their carb intake to less that 30g per day is just nonsense.
> 
> If you are natty xjx then I would strongly recommend that you read the links I included in posts 20 and 54.


This is not a debate but a knowledge base for us all to learn from. If this is getting you all worked up then all you can do is switch off.

However I do appreciate your info and value your point.

So then if, as you say, it does not depend on lowering carbs so such a grotesque amount, what do you reckon is a sweet spot? Also do you favor Carb Cycling or a combination of Carb Cycling and Keto?

By the way which are posts 20 and 54? I would like to read them as well.

Many thanks!


----------



## Dazza

My leanest is my current state.

High protein, low carb moderate fats with cardio 5xPw


----------



## Ultrasonic

KletoReese said:


> This is not a debate but a knowledge base for us all to learn from. If this is getting you all worked up then all you can do is switch off.


Sorry if I somehow came across as angry, I'm not in the slightest  .



> So then if, as you say, it does not depend on lowering carbs so such a grotesque amount, what do you reckon is a sweet spot? Also do you favor Carb Cycling or a combination of Carb Cycling and Keto?
> 
> By the way which are posts 20 and 54? I would like to read them as well.


If you look you'll see every post has a number at the top right :wink: . But these are the articles; the first is more readable and the second summarises what scientific studies actually say:

http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html

http://www.jissn.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-11-20.pdf

If rapid fat loss is your number one priority then I'd consider very low carb diets, but personally I would take a more measured approach to preserve muscle.

I don't claim to be an expert BTW, but those links provide advice from people who are. (In the context of natural training.) My advice would therefore be to follow their advice.


----------



## 36-26

Calorie deficit consistently is how I got to my leanest.


----------



## solidss

I'm currently doing a LeanGains cut along with my Test-e cycle...not at my leanest but definitely I'm gonna get there in 4 weeks time...also 4 times per week mild cardio 45mins each.


----------



## banzi

rsd147 said:


> Heres here again....Cant believe how rude you are.


I just dont have time to waste, if people want advice and help they should be more forthcoming.


----------



## Ultrasonic

I forgot to say, my guess is that the 30 g of carbs figure is relates to achieving ketosis, but this is very different to saying this is required to lose any body fat.


----------



## Nuts

Leanest I have ever been is now, last 12 weeks, carb cycling, high, moderate, low, high moderate low, day seven very high with high gi carbs 1000g of carbs on day 7, but only 6g of fat, worked a treat :thumb:


----------



## Mikkeltaylor

Nuts60 said:


> Leanest I have ever been is now, last 12 weeks, carb cycling, high, moderate, low, high moderate low, day seven very high with high gi carbs 1000g of carbs on day 7, but only 6g of fat, worked a treat :thumb:


Good work. What the hell didu eat to get 1000g of carbs and such low fat??


----------



## xjx

Ultrasonic said:


> I must be missing something as this 'debate' is just too daft for words. The statement that I said is nonsense is this one:
> 
> Let's suppose we take a group of 1,000 people. They can be the most "carb sensitive" on the planet for all I care. Now let's put them on a diet of nothing but water and 50g of sugar per day for one week. At the end of that time, how many do you seriously think will have lost absolutely no body fat?
> 
> The human body has evolved to use body fat as a reserve energy supply when food is short. If prehistoric man had a tough day and could only find a few hundred calories worth of blackberries to eat in a day, he was OK because his body had stored some extra energy away as body fat for just such an occasion.
> 
> Now you can argue about how different macro splits may favour fat loss or muscle catabolism to a degree, including how this will vary between individuals. But to make a statement that in order to lose any body fat at all anyone needs to drop their carb intake to less that 30g per day is just nonsense.
> 
> If you are natty xjx then I would strongly recommend that you read the links I included in posts 20 and 54.


Hi Ultrasonic, thanks for your response and please note I never took this as an argument/debate. I simply stated what low carb was to me, the protocol that I followed and even openly admitted that I may be incorrect. I've actually read the SimplyShredded article you posted months before, and realized it completely contradicts my program. That's why I'm also open to suggestions. There's so many different diets, whether they differ in permissible macros, ratios or timing of those macros. It would just be nice to know which is the best most efficient method.


----------



## Ultrasonic

Debate simply means discussing different points of view over an issue, which this is. It's not a negative term


----------



## xjx

Nuts60 said:


> Leanest I have ever been is now, last 12 weeks, carb cycling, high, moderate, low, high moderate low, day seven very high with high gi carbs 1000g of carbs on day 7, but only 6g of fat, worked a treat :thumb:


I'd just look like a bloated pig if I was to smash 1000g in one day. Muscle stores glycogen. The more muscle one has, the more glycogen they store, therefore the higher amount of carbs they can tolerate? Just wondering as I've seen this mentioned numerous times across the web.


----------



## Ultrasonic

xjx said:


> It would just be nice to know which is the best most efficient method.


Agreed. This is why I posted links to Eric Helms' rewiew of what the scientific evidence actually says. I am also very open to new ideas, provided they are evidence based.


----------



## xjx

Ultrasonic said:


> Debate simply means discussing different points of view over an issue, which this is. It's not a negative term


Understood. Although Kiefer has tons of references backing up his claims, but the same can be said for the claims in that article. For instance, Kiefer's "bulking" program is basically, keto up until post work out, then you eat a predetermined amount of clean, high GI carbs all throughout the night. Basically carb cycling. You're correct, the 30g carb limit is to be in a keto state. 10 days of no more than 30g carbs to make the glucose to keto switch. Towards the end of the 10th day you refeed, preferably with fat free High GI carbs. Then you go back to 30g carbs a day for 5-7 days and with a refeed on one of those day's nights. Just describing the diet though, not looking to debate.


----------



## xjx

Ultrasonic said:


> Agreed. This is why I posted links to Eric Helms' rewiew of what the scientific evidence actually says. I am also very open to new ideas, provided they are evidence based.


I'm definitely going to be reading that link, thanks! And if you want, just out of curiosity, look up Carb Backloading and Carb Nite. One thing I know for sure is his statements are backed by tons of references. Those diets logically make sense, but then I read articles like the one you posted from simplyshredded (which also provides references to back up it's claims) which is in complete contradiction. So I'm at a point where I myself am confused as to what is the optimal method.


----------



## Ultrasonic

xjx said:


> Understood. Although Kiefer has tons of references backing up his claims, but the same can be said for the claims in that article. For instance, Kiefer's "bulking" program is basically, keto up until post work out, then you eat a predetermined amount of clean, high GI carbs all throughout the night. Basically carb cycling. You're correct, the 30g carb limit is to be in a keto state. 10 days of no more than 30g carbs to make the glucose to keto switch. Towards the end of the 10th day you refeed, preferably with fat free High GI carbs. Then you go back to 30g carbs a day for 5-7 days and with a refeed on one of those day's nights. Just describing the diet though, not looking to debate.


If he cites any particular studies that you think are useful, please share them  .

I did just have a quick look at his book on Amazon. One key point is that the focus of his book seems to be fat loss, right? Whereas the info I have provided by Helms and Norton is bodybuilding specific, i.e. factoring in maintaining the muscle gains that we all work so hard to achieve. I completely believe you could lose more fat more rapidly using lower carb diets, but with the significant downside of increased loss of muscle mass.


----------



## banzi

Ultrasonic said:


> Agreed. This is why I posted links to Eric Helms' rewiew of what the scientific evidence actually says. I am also very open to new ideas, provided they are evidence based.


What about self evidence?

Stop reading scientific studies telling you whats likely to happen to 67 people out of 100. They are bullpoo.


----------



## banzi

Ultrasonic said:


> If he cites any particular studies that you think are useful, please share them  .
> 
> I did just have a quick look at his book on Amazon. One key point is that the focus of his book seems to be fat loss, right? Whereas the info I have provided by Helms and Norton is bodybuilding specific, i.e. factoring in maintaining the muscle gains that we all work so hard to achieve. I completely believe you could lose more fat more rapidly using lower carb diets, *but with the significant downside of increased loss of muscle mass.*


Total nonsense.


----------



## Ultrasonic

banzi said:


> Total nonsense.


Prove it. I would be genuinely interested if you can  . I have offered you info. and evidence to explain why I believe this is not nonsense.


----------



## xjx

Ultrasonic said:


> If he cites any particular studies that you think are useful, please share them  .
> 
> I did just have a quick look at his book on Amazon. One key point is that the focus of his book seems to be fat loss, right? Whereas the info I have provided by Helms and Norton is bodybuilding specific, i.e. factoring in maintaining the muscle gains that we all work so hard to achieve. I completely believe you could lose more fat more rapidly using lower carb diets, but with the significant downside of increased loss of muscle mass.


Yes, he has two books actually. One is aimed at reducing body fat levels, while sparing (and possibly increasing lean mass/recomp). The other protocol is aimed at body building. He states you use fat for fuel in the first part of the day, and load on carbs post workout, which in turn gives you fat loss and lean gains in one step. I'm simply describing his programs. I myself found them very interesting, and took the time to look at his many references/citations. I don't mean to be rude, but lately all I do is read up on nutrition and dieting methods. I don't feel like digging up the references. Again, I'm not trying to get you to switch to this method, just explaining that it wasn't something I just randomly spewed out. 

I admit, the simplyshredded article is in fact very well written, seems logical and has references to back up it's claims, but so do many other diets. See what I mean?


----------



## banzi

Ultrasonic said:


> Prove it. I would be genuinely interested if you can  . I have offered you info. and evidence to explain why I believe this is not nonsense.


I can diet on 1200 cals and not lose any muscle, Im around 220 at the moment at around 10% BF.

You will have to prove it to yourself.

Seriously, where do you think the muscle tissue goes that took you years to develop?

Does it disappear overnight?


----------



## xjx

banzi said:


> I can diet on 1200 cals and not lose any muscle, Im around 220 at the moment at around 10% BF.
> 
> You will have to prove it to yourself.


Impressive stats good sir, what are your secrets damn it!!


----------



## banzi

xjx said:


> Impressive stats good sir, what are your secrets damn it!!


Consistency with everything.

There are no secrets, its just doing the same things over and over again.


----------



## xjx

banzi said:


> Consistency with everything.
> 
> There are no secrets, its just doing the same things over and over again.


There has to be a magic pill.. kidding. Congrats on your progress. Care to share your diet, supplement and gear (if any) info?


----------



## banzi

xjx said:


> There has to be a magic pill.. kidding. Congrats on your progress. Care to share your diet, supplement and gear (if any) info?


BCAAs

I eat eggs, chicken, steak, oats ,whole milk and eat one 'normal' meal a day (with my Mrs)

Just over TRT and add in other things every 10 weeks or so depending on my goals (holidays)


----------



## Ultrasonic

xjx said:


> I don't mean to be rude, but lately all I do is read up on nutrition and dieting methods. I don't feel like digging up the references.


That's a shame :sad:. If you feel you do have info. that would be of interest to everyone here then please do share it. That's what makes forums like this good  .



> I admit, the simplyshredded article is in fact very well written, seems logical and has references to back up it's claims, but so do many other diets. See what I mean?


I would rate the Helms article over Norton's FWIW. In case you aren't aware, bear in mind that both Norton and Helms are natural bodybuilders (pro and amateur respectively) who have earned PhDs for their research into BB related nutrition. They are also not trying to sell a book. I'm sure I would be interested to read Kiefer's book, but from what you have said so far I would suggest that in the BB context, Norton and Helms are better guides.

One very specific point. If I read what you posted obove correctly you are saying Kiefer is suggesting to train on very low carbs and to only consume carbs post-workout? I really wouldn't do that, and will refer back to the fasted cardio article I posted earlier as some evidence for why not.


----------



## banzi

Ultrasonic said:


> That's a shame :sad:. If you feel you do have info. that would be of interest to everyone here then please do share it. That's what makes forums like this good  .
> 
> I would rate the Helms article over Norton's FWIW. In case you aren't aware, bear in mind that both Norton and Helms are natural bodybuilders (pro and amateur respectively) who have earned PhDs who have earned for their research into BB related nutrition. They are also not trying to sell a book. I'm sure I would be interested to read Kiefer's book, but from what you have said so far I would suggest that in the BB context, Norton and Helms are better guides.
> 
> One very specific point. If I read what you posted obove correctly you are saying Kiefer is suggesting to train on very low carbs and to only consume carbs post-workout? I really wouldn't do that, and will refer back to the fasted cardio article I posted earlier as some evidence for why not.


Seriously, bodybuilding isnt that complicated, its guys like Layne and the other gurus who want it to appear complicated to sell it as a concept.

You can stop reading science books and get in the gym and see what works.

If eating clean and lifting 5 days a week doesnt do it for you then nothing will.


----------



## Ultrasonic

banzi said:


> I can diet on 1200 cals and not lose any muscle, Im around 220 at the moment at around 10% BF.


With respect, that is about as far from proof as you can get.



> Seriously, where do you think the muscle tissue goes that took you years to develop?


Your body converts it to glucose to provide energy.


----------



## Ultrasonic

banzi said:


> Just over TRT and add in other things every 10 weeks or so depending on my goals (holidays)


Please remember that absolutely everything I have been talking about relates to natural training. What works for someone on AAS is a whole different thing.


----------



## banzi

Ultrasonic said:


> With respect, that is about as far as you can get from proof.
> 
> Your body converts it to glucose to provide energy.


Have you posted a picture yet?

Whats your current stats?


----------



## banzi

Ultrasonic said:


> Please remember that absolutely everything I have been talking about relates to *natural training*. What works for someone on AAS is a whole different thing.


Enjoy the next ten or twelve years gaining what you could in two if you wanted to.


----------



## xjx

banzi said:


> Enjoy the next ten or twelve years gaining what you could in two if you wanted to.


This is exactly where I find myself now, I've come to the conclusion that my next step will be gear.


----------



## xjx

Ultrasonic said:


> That's a shame :sad:. If you feel you do have info. that would be of interest to everyone here then please do share it. That's what makes forums like this good  .
> 
> I would rate the Helms article over Norton's FWIW. In case you aren't aware, bear in mind that both Norton and Helms are natural bodybuilders (pro and amateur respectively) who have earned PhDs for their research into BB related nutrition. They are also not trying to sell a book. I'm sure I would be interested to read Kiefer's book, but from what you have said so far I would suggest that in the BB context, Norton and Helms are better guides.
> 
> One very specific point. If I read what you posted obove correctly you are saying Kiefer is suggesting to train on very low carbs and to only consume carbs post-workout? I really wouldn't do that, and will refer back to the fasted cardio article I posted earlier as some evidence for why not.


You're right, some time today or later I'll try and dig those references up for you and others to pick at. Kiefer explains that pre workout carbs are unnecessary. Some of the carbs eaten post workout store in your muscle tissue as glycogen, that glycogen is what your body uses for energy, not necessarily the carbs you eat post workout. I don't know if this is true or not, but I feel that I perform the same whether I do or don't have carbs pre workout. It's an interesting diet nonetheless.


----------



## Ultrasonic

banzi said:


> Enjoy the next ten or twelve years gaining what you could in two if you wanted to.


That's an entirely different debate that I won't get into. My own stats are also irrelevant (but I'm smaller than you if that makes you feel good). I have not been talking about what has worked for me, but rather what the evidence suggests is best. And I have very deliberately made it clear that this is in the context of natural training.

I will not reply to any further posts of yours on this thread, as it won't do anyone any good.


----------



## Ultrasonic

xjx said:


> You're right, some time today or later I'll try and dig those references up for you and others to pick at. Kiefer explains that pre workout carbs are unnecessary. Some of the carbs eaten post workout store in your muscle tissue as glycogen, that glycogen is what your body uses for energy, not necessarily the carbs you eat post workout. I don't know if this is true or not, but I feel that I perform the same whether I do or don't have carbs pre workout. It's an interesting diet nonetheless.


The problem is that glycogen gets depleted when on a low carb diet. Also, as my fasted cardio link explains, even an overnight fast is enough to make cardio more catabolic.


----------



## xjx

Ultrasonic said:


> The problem is that glycogen gets depleted when on a low carb diet.


Yes this is exactly true, you deplete all glycogen stores so that the body has to change it's main source of energy to ketones. According to the protocol, once you're in a keto state and only after strength training, eating a predetermined amount of carbs will store only as glycogen in the muscles, (There's studies showing that strength training, especially in the evening, makes most fat tissue resistant to insulin. Therefore only muscle grows.) I believe the study was done on diabetics. Remember, I still remain a little skeptical myself, but it is interesting though.

Just a quick search turned this up.

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/53/2/294.full


----------



## banzi

Ultrasonic said:


> That's an entirely different debate that I won't get into. My own stats are also irrelevant (but I'm smaller than you if that makes you feel good). I have not been talking about what has worked for me, but rather what the evidence suggests is best. And I have very deliberately made it clear that this is in the context of natural training.
> 
> I will not reply to any further posts of yours on this thread, as it won't do anyone any good.


Just as I suspected, all theory and no practice.


----------



## Ultrasonic

xjx said:


> http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/53/2/294.full


I'm afraid that study tells us nothing about catabolism in a low carb state, which is the point at issue. See my my fasted cardio link which does.

I should add that I do accept that training while in actual ketosis is possibly a little different, but it will take data from studies specifically of this to convince me. I am open to being convinced though


----------



## saxondale

banzi said:


> Just as I suspected, all theory and no practice.


Theory goes out the window the minute you walk in the gym.


----------



## FelonE1

banzi said:


> Seriously, bodybuilding isnt that complicated, its guys like Layne and the other gurus who want it to appear complicated to sell it as a concept.
> 
> You can stop reading science books and get in the gym and see what works.
> 
> If eating clean and lifting 5 days a week doesnt do it for you then nothing will.


For once I agree lol.Some people do overcomplicate things.Me personally when I cut I just keep protein high and drop cals and carry on working out the same


----------



## Ultrasonic

saxondale said:


> Theory goes out the window the minute you walk in the gym.


The point of the Helms review is that he lists and summarises results of studies of people weight training while on different diets and the effect this has on body composition. They are very applied studies, not studies on rats or weird hypotheses extrapolated from disparate biochemical tidbits. The latter I would also be much more sceptical of!

Ideas of exercise in the absence of adequate carbs leading to increased acute muscle loss are pretty well established as far as I'm concerned. So too is the fact that exercise performance also is. I would therefore suggest that the ideas of Norton and Helms therefore also match with common sense.

Extremes such as a keto diet might work, but there is currently no good evidence to support this that I am aware of. And the best evidence that we do have would suggest it is unlikely, but not impossible, to be optimal.

I have cut quite successfully FWIW, but my own example is worth a hell of a lot less than data from properly controlled studies which is why I don't try to use this to make my point. As I posted way before this discussion got bogged down in detail, I have cut most successfully as FelonE described, keeping protein high and dropping other calories to give a deficit. I did so by mostly cutting carbs, but I didn't track macros. This will have achieved something in the ballpark of the advice from Helms and Norton however.

What I have simply offered up here is the best evidence based advice, for natural trainers. I'm not saying everyone has to follow this  .


----------



## simonthepieman

basically a combination of IF, IIFYM and extreme calorie cycling


----------



## rsd147

Simple calorie deficit with 0.8-1g of protein per lb of bodyweight, Fats around 0.4g per lb of bodyweight. Fill the rest with carbs. Similar to @simonthepieman


----------



## simonthepieman

banzi said:


> Seriously, bodybuilding isnt that complicated, its guys like Layne and the other gurus who want it to appear complicated to sell it as a concept.
> 
> You can stop reading science books and get in the gym and see what works.
> 
> If eating clean and lifting 5 days a week doesnt do it for you then nothing will.


whilst i agree with your sentiment on simplicity. I don't agree with your statement.

the amount of times in the gym nor the quality of the food has any major correlation with performance or results. Now I don't want to take this down the IIFYM route. I would like to stick to the theme of simplicity where you are completely right about people over complicating things.

They can normally fall into 3 categories and 90% of newbies fall into these categories.

Skinny guys: 90% of all their problems are, not eating enough. Get enough protein for muscle built, eat enough calories to provide the energy to work out and grow. Until they grasp that, everything else is lost.

Fat Guys: 90% of it comes down to not have a deficit and decent macros. It doesn't matter how many super foods and how often you eat. manipulation of gylcogen or when you eat your carbs. Leptin depletion. If you don't have a deficit. You stay the the same weight.

Wheel spinners: teens and newbies after often a mixture of this one and one of the above. These are the people always changing routines, looking at the perfect formula, the newest diet and the newest techniques. Constantly adding exercises and swapping things about trying to get the 'optimal' workout. sadly they never stick to anything long enough to create progressive overload or learn to train at an intesity that grows muscle. an average routine given 100% effort, dedication and intensity will give pretty good results. If they applied they attitude to procrastination to lifting the god damn barbell, they would miles ahead of their goals.


----------



## ohh_danielson

Keto for me which I coped with fine...

Although next time around I will probably just decrease my carbs so I am in a deficit (keep protein and fats about the same) then slowly reduce my carbs more and more as I lose weight.

Then for the final 3-5 weeks of cutting I might do keto again.


----------



## banzi

simonthepieman said:


> whilst i agree with your sentiment on simplicity. *I don't agree with your statement.*
> 
> the amount of times in the gym nor the quality of the food has any major correlation with performance or results. Now I don't want to take this down the IIFYM route. I would like to stick to the theme of simplicity where you are completely right about people over complicating things.
> 
> They can normally fall into 3 categories and 90% of newbies fall into these categories.
> 
> Skinny guys: 90% of all their problems are, not eating enough. Get enough protein for muscle built, eat enough calories to provide the energy to work out and grow. Until they grasp that, everything else is lost.
> 
> Fat Guys: 90% of it comes down to not have a deficit and decent macros. It doesn't matter how many super foods and how often you eat. manipulation of gylcogen or when you eat your carbs. Leptin depletion. If you don't have a deficit. You stay the the same weight.
> 
> Wheel spinners: teens and newbies after often a mixture of this one and one of the above. These are the people always changing routines, looking at the perfect formula, the newest diet and the newest techniques. Constantly adding exercises and swapping things about trying to get the 'optimal' workout. sadly they never stick to anything long enough to create progressive overload or learn to train at an intesity that grows muscle. an average routine given 100% effort, dedication and intensity will give pretty good results. If they applied they attitude to procrastination to lifting the god damn barbell, they would miles ahead of their goals.


I 100% agree with what you have written so I fail to see what you are disagreeing with?


----------



## simonthepieman

banzi said:


> I 100% agree with what you have written so I fail to see what you are disagreeing with?


That all you need to do is eat clean and train 5 days a week and results will come.


----------



## banzi

Ultrasonic said:


> The point of the Helms review is that he lists and summarises results of studies of people weight training while on different diets and the effect this has on body composition. They are very applied studies, not studies on rats or weird hypotheses extrapolated from disparate biochemical tidbits. The latter I would also be much more sceptical of!
> 
> Ideas of exercise in the absence of adequate carbs leading to increased acute muscle loss are pretty well established as far as I'm concerned. So too is the fact that exercise performance also is. I would therefore suggest that the ideas of Norton and Helms therefore also match with common sense.
> 
> Extremes such as a keto diet might work, but there is currently no good evidence to support this that I am aware of. And the best evidence that we do have would suggest it is unlikely, but not impossible, to be optimal.
> 
> I have cut quite successfully FWIW, but my own example is worth a hell of a lot less than data from properly controlled studies which is why I don't try to use this to make my point. As I posted way before this discussion got bogged down in detail, I have cut most successfully as FelonE described, keeping protein high and dropping other calories to give a deficit. I did so by mostly cutting carbs, but I didn't track macros. This will have achieved something in the ballpark of the advice from Helms and Norton however.
> 
> What I have simply offered up here is the best evidence based advice, for natural trainers. I'm not saying everyone has to follow this  .


You can give people advice based on scientific studies, however there are no gurantees any of it will work

99 people out of 100 respond well to x, now what if you are the 1 it doesnt work for, is that statistic and study any use whatsoever?

I advise people on what works for me, why, because I know it works for me.

You on the other hand keep referring back to stats and studies.

Why not just advise people on things you know work.(real life experience)

I know I'm wasting my time but would you care to show us what you have achieved with all you Google studying?


----------



## banzi

simonthepieman said:


> That all you need to do is eat clean and train 5 days a week and results will come.


You will get results if you do that of course, if you dont get results then maybe its not for you.

Gain weight= eat more

Lose weight= eat less

Maintain weight = eat sensibly and watch the waistline.

IIFMM = Generation nothingness garbage, mobile apps and crap.

I can guarantee most people who use a phone app to track macros are way off when they actually eat the food.

Whos going to weigh out 37grms of carbs, lol, what a farce.


----------



## simonthepieman

banzi said:


> You will get results if you do that of course, if you dont get results then maybe its not for you.
> 
> Gain weight= eat more
> 
> Lose weight= eat less
> 
> Maintain weight = eat sensibly and watch the waistline.
> 
> IIFMM = Generation nothingness garbage, mobile apps and crap.
> 
> I can guarantee most people who use a phone app to track macros are way off when they actually eat the food.
> 
> Whos going to weigh out 37grms of carbs, lol, what a farce.


If you add the in the caveat

Gain weight= eat more

Lose weight= eat less

to your original post, i'm far more in line with what you said. However I would also add that for training you should list it as 'a tried and tested training routine that focuses on incremental advancement and progressive overload' for training 3 times well is better than 5 days of fluff, but I think you were deliberately over simplifying things to make a point

However, I've done IIFYM to great success. so long as you do it intelligently it's guaranteed and I mean guaranteed success.

when it comes to the small things. be approximate. When cutting round up the macros/cals. When bulking, round down.


----------



## simonthepieman

banzi said:


> You can give people advice based on scientific studies, however there are no gurantees any of it will work
> 
> 99 people out of 100 respond well to x, now what if you are the 1 it doesnt work for, is that statistic and study any use whatsoever?
> 
> I advise people on what works for me, why, because I know it works for me.
> 
> You on the other hand keep referring back to stats and studies.
> 
> Why not just advise people on things you know work.(real life experience)
> 
> I know I'm wasting my time but would you care to show us what you have achieved with all you Google studying?


I think the point he's trying to show is what has been show to work for the masses, rather than the individual. When basing in on yourself there are a whole heap of bias' and interdependences that can shroud judgement and facts


----------



## 3752

Sos123 said:


> Thing is I find despite not going over my calories I can't shift any more fat (despite loads of cardio too) so dropped carbs to 100-150g daily and I'm taking tbol and thermo lipid (clen+t3) so boost fat loss. Looks like to get leanish 12/14% that I'll need to lower carbs so much that I can only consume them pre and post wo. So wondering what other diets are everyone else rates, suppose each to their own maybe I have no choice but to lower carbs it seems which his **** tbh :-/


so just to recap, your doing loads of cardio and eating under your maintenance but you not losing fat? and you are measuring your body fat how?? by that in built body fat measuring device you have in your head?

you are doing something wrong:

1 - far to little calories

2 - far to much cardio (loads is not a measurement of time)

3 - both of the above

are you losing weight?


----------



## 3752

Studies are only useful in the whole to those who took part in the study, to everyone else they can only be used as a base point nothing else, studies should not be used as absolute fact unless the individual who is using the study is using the exact same criteria used in the study......

Studies are not useless but an opinion should be formed by the individual by comparing a decent study and there own results.


----------



## 3752

and to answer the question....

Carb Cycling


----------



## squatthis

Pscarb said:


> and you are measuring your body fat how?? by that in built body fat measuring device you have in your head?


That device that loves to play tricks on you when you look in the mirror while dieting.


----------



## night06

well id prefer low carb / keto for endomorph type of guys and high carb low fat for skinny / ectomorph types.. at the end of the day there is no right or wrong answer, find what works for YOU.. just trial and error


----------



## Ultrasonic

I think I may be about to make banzi very happy :wink: .

This is something that I should have done sooner, but I've just taken a bit of time to investigate the references that Helms cites in relation to his recommended carbohydrate intake. To be perfectly frank the evidence pathetic, so even I can't make a case for this paper being much use right now!

As you were  .


----------



## Bull Terrier

Right now I do a near total fast on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday and do 2 cardio sessions (morning and late afternoon) on these two days. The other days (3 training days + 1 rest day) I eat above maintenance calories.

Seems to be working nicely.


----------



## lachu543

Pscarb said:


> and to answer the question....
> 
> Carb Cycling


How's it look right now?  Can You say something more?


----------



## 3752

lachu543 said:


> How's it look right now?  Can You say something more?


Don't understand? The question if the thread is what diet has got you the leanest, which is carb cycling, there are many ways to cycle carbs I cannot go into every way in detail I just do not have time buddy.

The general concept of carb cycling is to raise and lower your carb intake whilst maintaining calories at an approx static level


----------



## anthony_85

IIFYM has worked wonders for me. Its straightfdorward simple science take in less than you require and you will lose weight.


----------



## MFM

Also, starvation mode exists and is not a myth as some people claim, so it's possible you're eating too few calories.

We went on a 6 month cut end of last and beginning of this year and got to around 12% bf on 2000 cals a day and progress stalled. I got help from a nutritionist who immediately bumped my calorie intake up to 2500 cals a day and the fat that was left melted off in a few weeks after.


----------



## cas

MFM said:


> Also, starvation mode exists and is not a myth as some people claim, so it's possible you're eating too few calories.


Tell that to the Africans lol

Mother fvckers that's why you fat!


----------



## banzi

anthony_85 said:


> IIFYM has worked wonders for me. Its straightfdorward simple science take in less than you require and you will lose weight.


And allows you to eat junk in the process, thats why its so popular.


----------



## saxondale

MFM said:


> Also, starvation mode exists and is not a myth as some people claim, so it's possible you're eating too few calories.
> 
> We went on a 6 month cut end of last and beginning of this year and got to around 12% bf on 2000 cals a day and progress stalled. I got help from a nutritionist who immediately bumped my calorie intake up to 2500 cals a day and the fat that was left melted off in a few weeks after.


You would give up way before starvation mode became an issue, but you do need to keep varying the cals as you saw.


----------



## anthony_85

banzi said:


> And allows you to eat junk in the process, thats why its so popular.


It allows you to enjoy a little 'junk' food in moderation yes but thats not a bad thing. its improtant to strike a balance and unless competing why would you want to deny yourself things that you enjoy?


----------



## Jay0205

anthony_85 said:


> It allows you to enjoy a little 'junk' food in moderation yes but thats not a bad thing. its improtant to strike a balance and unless competing why would you want to deny yourself things that you enjoy?


Exactly this...if its just a hobby why restrict yourself of everything deemed as 'junk'? Surely if you only consume it in moderation along with non-processed food it cant do much harm? I follow IIFYM and the only junk I eat is on a Saturday anyway!


----------



## banzi

anthony_85 said:


> It allows you to enjoy a little 'junk' food in moderation yes but thats not a bad thing. its improtant to strike a balance and unless competing why would you want to deny yourself things that you enjoy?


If you are not a serious athlete or not competing why would you have to bother tracking macros and calories at all?

It doesnt have to be that complicated.

Just pic some wholesome nutritious foods and proteins carbs and fats and watch the mirror.

I laugh when I see these guys counting every single calorie and rubbing their hands saying "I can have a kit kat with my cup of tea before bed, my app says its OK"


----------



## anthony_85

banzi said:


> If you are not a serious athlete or not competing why would you have to bother tracking macros and calories at all?
> 
> It doesnt have to be that complicated.
> 
> Just pic some wholesome nutritious foods and proteins carbs and fats and watch the mirror.
> 
> I laugh when I see these guys counting every single calorie and rubbing their hands saying "I can have a kit kat with my cup of tea before bed, my app says its OK"


because its easy its not time consuming so why not?

also a lot of people may not know what wholesome nutritious foods are as there is a lot of misguided info in mainstream media particularly around 0% fat foods with ridicoulous mounts of sugar etc.

out of interest how many times have you 'seen' a guy counting his calories then rubbing his hands over a kit kat??

what exactly is your issue with IIFYM? its clearly an effective method of losing weight whilst maintaining a balanced lifestyle - no brainer to me.


----------



## Gacheru

Hehe I def rub my hands if I have 200kcal left end of the day for a nice candy bar lawl.


----------



## banzi

anthony_85 said:


> because its easy its not time consuming so why not?
> 
> also a lot of people may not know what wholesome nutritious foods are as there is a lot of misguided info in mainstream media particularly around 0% fat foods with ridicoulous mounts of sugar etc.
> 
> out of interest how many times have you 'seen' a guy counting his calories then rubbing his hands over a kit kat??
> 
> what exactly is your issue with IIFYM? its clearly an effective method of losing weight whilst maintaining a balanced lifestyle - no brainer to me.


I hear idiots in the gym talking about going to McDonalds and KFC because it fits their macros.

My issue with it is that its a passing fad and totally pointless.


----------



## anthony_85

banzi said:


> I hear idiots in the gym talking about going to McDonalds and KFC because it fits their macros.
> 
> My issue with it is that its a passing fad and totally pointless.


you shouldnt listen to idiots in the gym stick earphones in and get training!

its not pointless thouugh its proven to work...


----------



## banzi

anthony_85 said:


> you shouldnt listen to idiots in the gym stick earphones in and get training!
> 
> its not pointless thouugh its proven to work...


Eating less calories than maintainance is proven to work, WOW theres a revelation.

My point is you would be better off eating something nutritious micro nutrient wise than a bag of Wotsits.

I do wear ear plugs when training, I occasionally chat to the guy on the desk, thats when I hear the nonsense.


----------



## anthony_85

i dont eat wostsits but dont see whats wrong with having a bag of crisps every now and then if i wanted one why deny yourself? balance in life is key.

im curious what is your own diet like say over a week?


----------



## banzi

anthony_85 said:


> i dont eat wostsits but dont see whats wrong with having a bag of crisps every now and then if i wanted one why deny yourself? balance in life is key.
> 
> im curious what is your own diet like say over a week?


Off season I eat steak , chicken ,oats again helthy nutritious foods, I eat one meal a day with my Mrs and eat anything.

I stay away from junk food most of the time but I occasionally eat junk at weekend, I never count cals, not even when dieting.


----------



## Big ape

banzi said:


> Eating less calories than maintainance is proven to work, WOW theres a revelation.
> 
> My point is you would be better off eating something nutritious micro nutrient wise than a bag of Wotsits.
> 
> I do wear ear plugs when training, I occasionally chat to the guy on the desk, thats when I hear the nonsense.


Of course eating something more nutritious and micro dense is more wise and ideal and likely to have more volume

the simple fact is if your craving wotsits u can fit them into your daily macros and be done with it

not restrict your self day after day after week then end up binging and eating 8 packs of wotsits


----------



## anthony_85

banzi said:


> Off season I eat steak , chicken ,oats again helthy nutritious foods, I eat one meal a day with my Mrs and eat anything.
> 
> I stay away from junk food most of the time but I occasionally eat junk at weekend, I never count cals, not even when dieting.


which is fair enough you clealry have a good basis of what is healthy and nutritious for youand what is not .....others dont which is why working out your splits and using an app to track really aids peple can you not take that point?


----------



## Clubber Lang

i lower carbs best i can tell i either find the hunger pains too much, or, this is usually the case, i get aggressive from hunger and about rip peoples heads off.

i normally eat as little carbs as possible and let large amounts of tren and mild dose T3s do the job ha.


----------



## banzi

anthony_85 said:


> which is fair enough you clealry have a good basis of what is healthy and nutritious for youand what is not .....others dont which is why working out your splits and using an app to track really aids peple can you not take that point?


EVERYBODY knows whats healthy and whats not, anyone with a scrap of common sense that is.

If you need an APP to tell you that you have a lot more to worry about in life than your weight.


----------



## rsd147

banzi said:


> EVERYBODY knows whats healthy and whats not, anyone with a scrap of common sense that is.
> 
> If you need an APP to tell you that you have a lot more to worry about in life than your weight.


It seems you criticize everyone's diet to be honest mate but if it works for them what's the problem?

You keep contradicting yourself saying you don't count calories but yet earlier you mentioned when dropping body fat you have around 1200 cals, people may not agree with your diet but at the end of the day it works for you so give up trying put people's diet down.


----------



## banzi

rsd147 said:


> It seems you criticize everyone's diet to be honest mate but if it works for them what's the problem?
> 
> You keep contradicting yourself saying you don't count calories but yet earlier you mentioned when dropping body fat you have around 1200 cals, people may not agree with your diet but at the end of the day it works for you so give up trying put people's diet down.


I dont count cals, I just drop all carbs and eat very little, I only know what cals it is because someone here worked it out if i recall.

I eat around a 1000 cals when dieting give or take a couple hundred either way.


----------



## rsd147

banzi said:


> I dont count cals, I just drop all carbs and eat very little, I only know what cals it is because someone here worked it out if i recall.
> 
> I eat around a 1000 cals when dieting give or take a couple hundred either way.


So if it works for you then fair enough but it does not give you the right criticize everyone else's (if it works for them)


----------



## Big ape

banzi said:


> I dont count cals, I just drop all carbs and eat very little, I only know what cals it is because someone here worked it out if i recall.
> 
> I eat around a 1000 cals when dieting give or take a couple hundred either way.


What do u do when u hit a plateau?


----------



## banzi

Big ape said:


> What do u do when u hit a plateau?


I dont really have to diet that long for it to happen, I only would need to follow that regime for 4-6 weeks max.


----------



## banzi

rsd147 said:


> So if it works for you then fair enough but it does not give you the right criticize everyone else's (if it works for them)


Im passing comment and having an opinion , wouldn't be much of a forum if we all just 'liked' the first post in every thread would it?


----------



## Nuts

Mikkeltaylor said:


> Good work. What the hell didu eat to get 1000g of carbs and such low fat??


1000g carbs and still 200g protein 6g fat. Carbs consist of crumpets with maple syrup, kids cereals such as frosties, pasta with homemade tomato sauce (choped tomatoes and garlic) haribos 2 bags !! Protein egg whites and whey isolate. :thumb:


----------



## Getting-Lean

I always get on better when doing low carbs, medium fat and high protein...

Slightly higher carbs on training days with carb meals always round workout, rest of the time just protein and fats!


----------



## Nuts

xjx said:


> I'd just look like a bloated pig if I was to smash 1000g in one day. Muscle stores glycogen. The more muscle one has, the more glycogen they store, therefore the higher amount of carbs they can tolerate? Just wondering as I've seen this mentioned numerous times across the web.


This day is the toughest of the week it sounds good but it's hell, yes the bloat is huge but it is only water, the idea being glycogen replenishment and a metabolism kick, the bloat is gone within 2 days.


----------



## saxondale

anthony_85 said:


> i dont eat wostsits but dont see whats wrong with having a bag of crisps every now and then if i wanted one why deny yourself? balance in life is key.
> 
> im curious what is your own diet like say over a week?


Fits my macro mate

View attachment 154929


----------



## Ultrasonic

Nuts60 said:


> 1000g carbs and still 200g protein 6g fat. Carbs consist of crumpets with maple syrup, kids cereals such as frosties, pasta with homemade tomato sauce (choped tomatoes and garlic) haribos 2 bags !! Protein egg whites and whey isolate. :thumb:


Not that it really matters, but I struggle a bit to believe there was only 6g of fat from that lot. What did you get the 200g protein from? 100g of carbs from pasta gives about 4g fat for instance too, and there is fat in crumpets. Although all the sugar from Frosties and Haribo will certainly help!


----------



## andyhuggins

Sos123 said:


> Just wondering I planned to just low carb and eventually just ingest carbs pre and post wo. I'm on tbol and thermo lipid as well if that makes any diff prob not.


what ever works.


----------



## Nuts

Ultrasonic said:


> I struggle a bit to believe there was only 6g of fat from that lot. 100g of carbs from pasta gives about 4g fat for instance.


It is surprising 350g of Gnocchi 105g carbs 1.4g fat, each crumpet has 0.2g fat, haribos contain 0.8g per 215g bag and every 150g bowl of frosties contain 0.5g of fat last Sunday was 950g carbs with 5.8g fat.


----------



## Ultrasonic

Nuts60 said:


> It is surprising 350g of Gnocchi 105g carbs 1.4g fat, each crumpet has 0.2g fat, haribos contain 0.8g per 215g bag and every 150g bowl of frosties contain 0.5g of fat last Sunday was 950g carbs with 5.8g fat.


Ah, gnocchi rather than normal pasta! Still surprising as you say though. Was there any fat from your 200g protein though?


----------



## Nuts

Ultrasonic said:


> Ah, gnocchi rather than normal pasta! Still surprising as you say though. Was there any fat from your 200g protein though?


No none at all my protein whey isolate and egg whites fat zero :thumb:


----------



## Ultrasonic

Nuts60 said:


> No none at all my protein whey isolate and egg whites fat zero :thumb:


There will be some fat from the isolate and egg whites, but not much. A diet combining bags of Haribo 200g isolate is impressively extreme!

Out of interest, do you think the very low fat is necessary for your carb cycling approach?


----------



## andyhuggins

no tbh.


----------



## Nuts

Ultrasonic said:


> There will be some fat from the isolate and egg whites, but not much. A diet combining bags of Haribo 200g isolate is impressively extreme!
> 
> Out of interest, do you think the very low fat is necessary for your carb cycling approach?


This is not quite like that 6 days a week high protein moderate to high fat and low gi carbs, the 1000g of carbs is only one day a week


----------



## Ultrasonic

Nuts60 said:


> This is not quite like that 6 days a week high protein moderate to high fat and low gi carbs, the 1000g of carbs is only one day a week


Oh yes, did realise you didn't do this every day!


----------



## Nuts

Ultrasonic said:


> Oh yes, did realise you didn't do this every day!


The reason for the extremely low fat on this day is because all the carbs are high gi carbs which gives me a huge insulin spike and puts my body into massive fat storage mode, but there is no fat to store, so glycogen replenishment and an anabolic state coupled with a metabolic kick, perfect for fat loss, and muscle growth simultaneously! :thumb:


----------



## night06

for me i found myself getting best results from keto / very low carb diet combined with intermittent fasting, because the insulin level is real stable and since im really insulin sensitive its the best way to cut for me. only problems i have on keto / very low carb diets is the taste of fat, it gets really boring and nasty after couple of days / weeks..

i keep my diet really really simple eating bacon, eggs, chicken / ground beef, spinage / broccoli and nuts

for my sweet tooth i have a quest bar or diet soda

keeping calories very low with a huge deficit and have 1 cheat day per week

thats what i do.


----------



## Sos123

a.notherguy said:


> intermittent fasting and IIFYM


Ive done IF before and think it actually is easier to hold onto muscle and im doing it atm along side lowish carb diet.


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> Possibly you meant something else, but that statement is patently untrue. Literally millions of people have lost body fat without dropping carbs to such an absurdly low level.


I think he meant something else to what you interpreted Ultrasonic. I think the poster meant to use fat as energy rather than lose fat in general as on low carb glycogen is depleted so the body turns to fat for energy?


----------



## Ultrasonic

Sos123 said:


> I think he meant something else to what you interpreted Ultrasonic. I think the poster meant to use fat as energy rather than lose fat in general as on low carb glycogen is depleted so the body turns to fat for energy?


If you read some of the discussion that followed you'll see that what was meant was that the extreme low level of carbs mentioned was that required to achieve a ketogenic state (roughly what you were getting at I think). Whenever body fat is lost I think it is pretty much exclusively used to provide energy under all circumstances though.


----------



## Sos123

Nuts60 said:


> Leanest I have ever been is now, last 12 weeks, carb cycling, high, moderate, low, high moderate low, day seven very high with high gi carbs 1000g of carbs on day 7, but only 6g of fat, worked a treat :thumb:


What numbers we talking mate? high 200g, moderate 100g and low 30-50g ?


----------



## Ultrasonic

Sos123 said:


> What numbers we talking mate? high 200g, moderate 100g and low 30-50g ?


I'm pretty sure high is 1000g :wink: .


----------



## Sos123

Pscarb said:


> so just to recap, your doing loads of cardio and eating under your maintenance but you not losing fat? and you are measuring your body fat how?? by that in built body fat measuring device you have in your head?
> 
> you are doing something wrong:
> 
> 1 - far to little calories
> 
> 2 - far to much cardio (loads is not a measurement of time)
> 
> 3 - both of the above
> 
> are you losing weight?


I am now, but had to lower carbs and thermolipid def seems to be helping.

I do alot of cardio (football for 4hrs ish a week) as its best to increase cardio than lower calories.


----------



## Sos123

Pscarb said:


> so just to recap, your doing loads of cardio and eating under your maintenance but you not losing fat? and you are measuring your body fat how?? by that in built body fat measuring device you have in your head?
> 
> you are doing something wrong:
> 
> 1 - far to little calories
> 
> 2 - far to much cardio (loads is not a measurement of time)
> 
> 3 - both of the above
> 
> are you losing weight?


I took skinfold measurements at the start of my cut. A guideline that personally works well for me is keeping tabs on my waist measurements around my bellybutton as most fat is stored there.


----------



## Ultrasonic

Sos123 said:


> I do alot of cardio (football for 4hrs ish a week) *as its best to increase cardio than lower calories.*


According to whom? I suspect lots of cardio on low carbs runs the risk of increasing muscle loss. There is a balance to be reached. I'm just starting a 2 week mini-cut before I go on holiday, and I must admit I plan on doing no cardio at all! Not saying this is right, and cardio is clearly great for CV fitness, but I'm not sure it is as clear cut as you may think either. Not saying you should stop playing football which you presumably enjoy either, just putting these ideas out there.

Edit: lots of people find it easier to do more cardio rather than drop calories further though. I tend not to struggle too much with eating less, as a naturally skinny ectomorph with a small stomach.


----------



## Sos123

Clubber Lang said:


> i lower carbs best i can tell i either find the hunger pains too much, or, this is usually the case, i get aggressive from hunger and about rip peoples heads off.
> 
> i normally eat as little carbs as possible and let large amounts of tren and mild dose T3s do the job ha.


LOL

thats my plan but only im using thermolipid (clen + t3) and tbol


----------



## Sos123

banzi said:


> I dont count cals, I just drop all carbs and eat very little, I only know what cals it is because someone here worked it out if i recall.
> 
> I eat around a 1000 cals when dieting give or take a couple hundred either way.


*question already answered

I may take this approach for the last couple weeks.


----------



## 3752

Sos123 said:


> I am now, but had to lower carbs and thermolipid def seems to be helping.
> 
> I do alot of cardio (football for 4hrs ish a week) as its best to increase cardio than lower calories.


to a degree this is true but if your doing 4hrs football and then daily cardio on top of that on a deficit diet then i can guarantee that you will be burning muscle. there is a point when low calories will do nothing for fat burning at all and your metabolism will stall



Sos123 said:


> I took skinfold measurements at the start of my cut. A guideline that personally works well for me is keeping tabs on my waist measurements around my bellybutton as most fat is stored there.


fat is stored everywhere, skin fold measurements are fine to gauge progress as i do this with some clients but they do not tell you an accurate body fat not even close so yes they will gauge progress to a degree but they will not give you a body fat total that is for sure.

listen you seem to be happy with what your doing so carry on i am sure you will reach your goals one day.


----------



## Sos123

night06 said:


> for me i found myself getting best results from keto / very low carb diet combined with intermittent fasting, because the insulin level is real stable and since im really insulin sensitive its the best way to cut for me. only problems i have on keto / very low carb diets is the taste of fat, it gets really boring and nasty after couple of days / weeks..
> 
> i keep my diet really really simple eating bacon, eggs, chicken / ground beef, spinage / broccoli and nuts
> 
> for my sweet tooth i have a quest bar or diet soda
> 
> keeping calories very low with a huge deficit and have 1 cheat day per week
> 
> thats what i do.


Cheers mate, well i would be doing the same just need to lower carbs more now. I also usually have a cheat day on sundays. Ill drop calories much more the last couple of weeks of my cut i think.


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> If you read some of the discussion that followed you'll see that what was meant was that the extreme low level of carbs mentioned was that required to achieve a ketogenic state (roughly what you were getting at I think). Whenever body fat is lost I think it is pretty much exclusively used to provide energy under all circumstances though.


yeah i did mate. im just a few days behind so was starting from like page 8 or so and just posting as i went along lol.


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> I'm pretty sure high is 1000g :wink: .


that was on his super high day but  lol


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> According to whom? I suspect lots of cardio on low carbs runs the risk of increasing muscle loss. There is a balance to be reached. I'm just starting a 2 week mini-cut before I go on holiday, and I must admit I plan on doing no cardio at all! Not saying this is right, and cardio is clearly great for CV fitness, but I'm not sure it is as clear cut as you may think either. Not saying you should stop playing football which you presumably enjoy either, just putting these ideas out there.
> 
> Edit: lots of people find it easier to do more cardio rather than drop calories further though. I tend not to struggle too much with eating less, as a naturally skinny ectomorph with a small stomach.


It seems to make sense increasing output rather than decreasing calories no? i reckon its best for me to increase cardio rather than decrease cals but each to their own as you say mate.

I wouldnt say 4hrs of football is excessive cardio though? and i eat 1g per lb of protein per day plus im on tbol, so muscle loss isnt an issue atm anyway.


----------



## Sos123

Pscarb said:


> to a degree this is true but if your doing 4hrs football and then daily cardio on top of that on a deficit diet then i can guarantee that you will be burning muscle. there is a point when low calories will do nothing for fat burning at all and your metabolism will stall
> 
> fat is stored everywhere, skin fold measurements are fine to gauge progress as i do this with some clients but they do not tell you an accurate body fat not even close so yes they will gauge progress to a degree but they will not give you a body fat total that is for sure.
> 
> listen you seem to be happy with what your doing so carry on i am sure you will reach your goals one day.


Im just doing football as cardio mate, im not doing any other form of cardio outside of football bud.

I know fat is stored everywhere but for alot of people its visible were the majority is stored for me its my lower ab region. Honestly i didnt find them overly accurate either but will still be a diff when i compare before and after.


----------



## Ultrasonic

Sos123 said:


> It seems to make sense increasing output rather than decreasing calories no?


Why?

I suspect most people achieve the majority of their calorie deficit my reducing food intake rather than cardio FWIW, but for many this will partly be due to hating cardio whereas presumably you enjoy football which definitely helps  . Not doing cardio also saves time. Losing muscle from too much cardio is a factor as well though, along with focusing the energy you do have on weight training.

I'm sure this is obvious but do listen to Pscarb, he's a real expert. (Unlike me!)


----------



## 3752

Sos123 said:


> Im just doing football as cardio mate, im not doing any other form of cardio outside of football bud.
> 
> I know fat is stored everywhere but for alot of people its visible were the majority is stored for me its my lower ab region. Honestly i didnt find them overly accurate either but will still be a diff when i compare before and after.


In that case you are not doing loads of cardio buddy, 4hrs a week is not a lot to be honest, yes accuracy for a BF% they are worthless but if you use the same callipers in the same areas and just compare mm then you can gauge progress


----------



## Ultrasonic

Sos123 said:


> I know fat is stored everywhere but for alot of people its visible were the majority is stored for me its my lower ab region. Honestly i didnt find them overly accurate either but will still be a diff when i compare before and after.


I like to use calipers to track progress too, as it's less subjective than a mirror, and I find it reasuring to know body fat is dropping even if I can't be sure I can see it. I never use the numbers from my calipers to tell me what my body fat level actually is though. (Right now the table that came with my calipers would say I'm about 8% body fat, but I'm definitely more than that.)


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> Why?
> 
> I suspect most people achieve the majority of their calorie deficit my reducing food intake rather than cardio FWIW, but for many this will partly be due to hating cardio whereas presumably you enjoy football which definitely helps  . Not doing cardio also saves time. Losing muscle from too much cardio is a factor as well though, along with focusing the energy you do have on weight training.
> 
> I'm sure this is obvious but do listen to Pscarb, he's a real expert. (Unlike me!)


Not doing cardio means super strict diet, cardio means you have abit of space to monouvere with your diet, i prefer this way tbh. And yeah cardio is boring in relation to weight but when its cardio you enjoy its all good  Weights is my priority as i know its critical i keep lifting heavy to keep muscle cardio is usually later in the day or on separate days.

You seem to know your stuff too mate so all good  thanks


----------



## Sos123

Pscarb said:


> In that case you are not doing loads of cardio buddy, 4hrs a week is not a lot to be honest, yes accuracy for a BF% they are worthless but if you use the same callipers in the same areas and just compare mm then you can gauge progress


I suppose 4 hrs is a medium amount more the higher threshold id say but  lol. yeah ill do that mate


----------



## night06

Sos123 said:


> Cheers mate, well i would be doing the same just need to lower carbs more now. I also usually have a cheat day on sundays. Ill drop calories much more the last couple of weeks of my cut i think.


sounds good to me


----------



## Nuts

Sos123 said:


> What numbers we talking mate? high 200g, moderate 100g and low 30-50g ?


Yes high 250 moderate 150 low <50 alternate days mon to sat then Sunday carb reload


----------



## musio

Pscarb said:


> so just to recap, your doing loads of cardio and eating under your maintenance but you not losing fat? and you are measuring your body fat how?? by that in built body fat measuring device you have in your head?
> 
> you are doing something wrong:
> 
> 1 - far to little calories
> 
> 2 - far to much cardio (loads is not a measurement of time)
> 
> 3 - both of the above
> 
> are you losing weight?


I'm really interested to find out more about this. How does eating too little calories negatively impacted him? I know it's generally accepted eat above your intake and you'll put on weight and below you'll lose. Are you referring to some way he's messed up his metabolism?

Anyone else chime in, maybe this is where a lot if people go wrong


----------



## xjx

musio said:


> I'm really interested to find out more about this. How does eating too little calories negatively impacted him? I know it's generally accepted eat above your intake and you'll put on weight and below you'll lose. Are you referring to some way he's messed up his metabolism?
> 
> Anyone else chime in, maybe this is where a lot if people go wrong


I think the recommended amount of a calorie deficit is around 500 calories, give or take. I'm at the point to where I've forgotten a lot of the nutritional mumbo jumbo, but I believe the reason is that furthering a calorie deficit of more than 500 calories makes your body breakdown lean tissue for energy. I might be wrong, but I think* that's why you don't want to intake too little calories.


----------



## Ultrasonic

Having too high a calorie deficit for a prolonged period causes the BMR to drop dramatically, often referred to as starvation mode. This makes fat loss harder.


----------



## 3752

musio said:


> I'm really interested to find out more about this. How does eating too little calories negatively impacted him? I know it's generally accepted eat above your intake and you'll put on weight and below you'll lose. Are you referring to some way he's messed up his metabolism?
> 
> Anyone else chime in, maybe this is where a lot if people go wrong


As you lower calories your body lowers your metabolism if they are lowered to much then this can ultimately bring your metabolism to a stop, this is through a complex mechanism involving leptin, thyroid etc......

its not about him messing up his metabolism as such but slowing it down and when this happens human nature will have you either increasing output or lowering calories even more.....this is why you cannot lose fat (this is very different to losing fat) no matter how low you go calorie wise.


----------



## banzi

Pscarb said:


> As you lower calories your body lowers your metabolism if they are lowered to much then this can ultimately bring your metabolism to a stop, this is through a complex mechanism involving leptin, thyroid etc......
> 
> *its not about him messing up his metabolism as such but slowing it down and when this happens human nature will have you either increasing output or lowering calories even more.....this is why you cannot lose fat (this is very different to losing fat) no matter how low you go calorie wise.*


So if you take that to its literal conclusion you can stop eating altogether and live forever.


----------



## Boshlop

banzi said:


> So if you take that to its literal conclusion you can stop eating altogether and live forever.


Sort of the opposite, no metabolism no energy and to eventually just a dead stop. Running on less and less may be efficient if you take it literally like you have, but if we stop and hit 0 we don't come back, well at least until we invent cryogenic freezing


----------



## 3752

How do you get that?? If you lower calories to much your body will slow metabolism down as a survival method, this is from a bodybuilding fat loss point of view, how do you get you can stop eating and live forever, stupid comment


----------



## banzi

Pscarb said:


> How do you get that?? If you lower calories to much your body will slow metabolism down as a survival method, this is from a bodybuilding fat loss point of view, how do you get you can stop eating and live forever, stupid comment


Care to explain this?



> this is why you cannot lose fat (this is very different to losing fat) no matter how low you go calorie wise.


Your body will continue to burn fat as long as you are in a reduced calorific state.

You want to add calories to increase the fat burning process?

I think we need to stop giving starving kids food and upping their metabolisms, its not going to help.


----------



## 3752

banzi said:


> Care to explain this?
> 
> Your body will continue to burn fat as long as you are in a reduced calorific state.
> 
> You want to add calories to increase the fat burning process?
> 
> I think we need to stop giving starving kids food and upping their metabolisms, its not going to help.


care to explain what? your stupid comment??


----------



## jayDP

High protien 400g, low carb 200g, minimal fat 20g


----------



## banzi

Pscarb said:


> care to explain what? your stupid comment??


My stupid coment?

read it again, (third time now)



> this is why you cannot *lose fat* (this is very different to *losing fat*) no matter how low you go calorie wise.


You seem to be of the opinion that you stop burning fat in a calorific deficit, now I agree the process slows down but it simply doesnt stop.

And super low cal diets work , you just dont need to stay on them that long.

And a serious athlete should never be more than 10% over his show weight so low cal for 4-6 weeks is more than enough to strip off 6-8lbs of fat.


----------



## Boshlop

Who seriously argues with paul when their main argument there methods work is a picture of himself?


----------



## Big ape

ain't it paul?


----------



## 3752

banzi said:


> My stupid coment?
> 
> read it again, (third time now)
> 
> You seem to be of the opinion that you stop burning fat in a calorific deficit, now I agree the process slows down but it simply doesnt stop.
> 
> And super low cal diets work , you just dont need to stay on them that long.
> 
> And a serious athlete should never be more than 10% over his show weight so low cal for 4-6 weeks is more than enough to strip off 6-8lbs of fat.


yes it does stop, your body will stop burring fat if the calories are taken to low, the metabolism will slow and the body will go into starvation mode and will preserve fat (higher calories for survival) and will begin to break down muscle tissue, hence why i said in my reply that you will stop losing fat but will lose weight.

this can be seen in many countries where they have malnutrition humans, they are not shredded (very low fat levels) they are small skinny and weak.........

a super low calories diet does work if your goal is to lose weight but losing weight and losing fat are two totally different things.....


----------



## 3752

Boshlop said:


> Who seriously argues with phil when their main argument there methods work is a picture of himself?


its Paul lol

i am all up for intelligent debate but this guy has no clue what he is talking about, losing weight is easy losing fat is not, dropping calories to a super low levels with excessive output slows the metabolism (this is fact by the way) then the body drops weight because it is eating muscle and preserving fat levels hence the term skinny fat. but hey what do i know, i have only being doing this for 25yrs....


----------



## musio

Thanks for the explanation pscarb! Yes, loosing fat and not muscle is the presumed goal here.

So presumably, the best way to get out of this state is increase calories for a while. Do you recommend any cycling or know how long it best to stay in a deficit and then come out? Ie

week 1-6 under 500 of maintenance

week 7-8 over 300

week 9- 14 under 500

etc

hormonally, would 2 weeks of maintenance of over be ok for the metabolism


----------



## Boshlop

Pscarb said:


> its Paul lol
> 
> i am all up for intelligent debate but this guy has no clue what he is talking about, losing weight is easy losing fat is not, dropping calories to a super low levels with excessive output slows the metabolism (this is fact by the way) then the body drops weight because it is eating muscle and preserving fat levels hence the term skinny fat. but hey what do i know, i have only being doing this for 25yrs....


i knew it was paul, but i still wrote phil, i blame the strong pain killers making me hazy!

i agree fully with you, you see it all the time in training when people become skinny fat and wonder why. but its like arguing with a brick wall, i have only seen the phrase "its impossible to burn muscle, it only deflates and loses glycogen when you cut on extreme diets" from him.

there is no intelligent debate to be had, few ppl have tried and failed but there is no changing or reasoning with stubbornness :/


----------



## rsd147

Just like when people stall in fat loss because their calories are too low, hire a coach and their calories are increased and bingo...Fat loss starts again


----------



## 3752

Boshlop said:


> i knew it was paul, but i still wrote phil, i blame the strong pain killers making me hazy!
> 
> i agree fully with you, you see it all the time in training when people become skinny fat and wonder why. but its like arguing with a brick wall, i have only seen the phrase "its impossible to burn muscle, it only deflates and loses glycogen when you cut on extreme diets" from him.
> 
> there is no intelligent debate to be had, few ppl have tried and failed but there is no changing or reasoning with stubbornness :/





rsd147 said:


> Just like when people stall in fat loss because their calories are too low, hire a coach and their calories are increased and bingo...Fat loss starts again


exactly guys, i come across all the time as a coach, i have people come to me on diets of 1000cals whilst training 5 days a week and doing double cardio 5 days a week, they are confused to why they are not losing fat, but losing weight and they look worse. the answer is simple they are eating to little and there metabolism has crashed.

the example above is a woman who came to see me 6 months ago, the first thing i did was double her calories and lower the cardio/training she gained weight and lost fat within 3-4 weeks and looked 100% better......

whilst lowering calories is the way to lose fat there is a base point where you will stall and lowering calories is not the answer, people should look into the role Leptin has for fat loss.....


----------



## saxondale

Boshlop said:


> Who seriously argues with paul when their main argument there methods work is a picture of himself?


In b4 bazai posts the same 4 year old picture of himself.


----------



## lachu543

It can show too why a lot of poeple is leaner three days ( when water retention go away ) after cheat day while cutting. Reason? Boost in metabolism which is crashed from too little calories.


----------



## Shaftie

Ricky12345 said:


> Keto when I first started fat melted off ever since then multiple diets tryed keto or tkd for the win


What's tkd?


----------



## musio

musio said:


> Thanks for the explanation pscarb! Yes, loosing fat and not muscle is the presumed goal here.
> 
> So presumably, the best way to get out of this state is increase calories for a while. Do you recommend any cycling or know how long it best to stay in a deficit and then come out? Ie
> 
> week 1-6 under 500 of maintenance
> 
> week 7-8 over 300
> 
> week 9- 14 under 500
> 
> etc
> 
> hormonally, would 2 weeks of maintenance of over be ok for the metabolism


I'll found the answer 

One should also incorporate re-feeds into their diet plan. Re-feeds help boost a hormone called *leptin*, which is the mother of all fat burning hormones. As one diets, leptin levels drop in an attempt by the body to spare body fat. Periodic, proper re-feeding can raise leptin levels and help one continue to burn fat an optimum rate. A person who is lean will need to re-feed more frequently than someone who has a higher body fat percentage. For those who are below 10%, it is probably a wise idea to incorporate re-feeds two times per week.

For those people who are in the 10-15% range, re-feeding every 6-12 days will probably be adequate, for those who are above 15%, re-feeding will probably not need to be done more than once every week to two weeks. Obviously as one loses body fat they will need to re-feed more often.

http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html

plus see this video

Not Losing Fat? How to Reset your #1 Fat Loss Hormone Naturally to Lose Fat


----------



## humanchemistry

keto diet shifted fat off me the quickest, not a pleasant experience though due to the extremely low calories i was consuming (1500 cals per day whilst working 8 hours in a gym and 1.5 hours training afterwards). This was my own fault for drastically wanting to lose fat quickly due to a deadline, maybe keto and just a reasonable size calorie deficit would be a good way to go or carb backloading.


----------



## Growing Lad

Pscarb said:


> yes it does stop, your body will stop burring fat if the calories are taken to low, the metabolism will slow and the body will go into starvation mode and will preserve fat (higher calories for survival) and will begin to break down muscle tissue, hence why i said in my reply that you will stop losing fat but will lose weight.
> 
> this can be seen in many countries where they have malnutrition humans, they are not shredded (very low fat levels) they are small skinny and weak.........
> 
> a super low calories diet does work if your goal is to lose weight but losing weight and losing fat are two totally different things.....


Because they aren't consuming adequate protein, lifting weights and. Taking gear.

Starvation thing is massively overplayed at no point does the body stop burning fat completely and purely burn muscle. Maybe once your down to the essential fat only before you die. In the Minnesota starvation study, at no point did the men stop burning fat until they all got to 5% body fat. They were eating at 50% of maintenance.

Agree with banzai. Not losing weight so up your calories lol more like your lying and not accurately tracking calories as all overweight people do.


----------



## saxondale

humanchemistry said:


> keto diet shifted fat off me the quickest, not a pleasant experience though due to the extremely low calories i was consuming (1500 cals per day whilst working 8 hours in a gym and 1.5 hours training afterwards). This was my own fault for drastically wanting to lose fat quickly due to a deadline, maybe keto and just a reasonable size calorie deficit would be a good way to go or carb backloading.


I don't get that because everytime I actually calorie count I struggle to get over 1600 calories.


----------



## 3752

Growing Lad said:


> Because they aren't consuming adequate protein, lifting weights and. Taking gear.
> 
> Starvation thing is massively overplayed at no point does the body stop burning fat completely and purely burn muscle. Maybe once your down to the essential fat only before you die. In the Minnesota starvation study, at no point did the men stop burning fat until they all got to 5% body fat. They were eating at 50% of maintenance.
> 
> Agree with banzai. Not losing weight so up your calories lol more like your lying and not accurately tracking calories as all overweight people do.


Reference the study please

This is my point, if you are not losing weight yet you are eating very low calories then the last thing you should do is lower calories even more, as your metabolism will shut down (not exactly) after only 1 week of reduced calories your leptin levels drop 30% they keep dropping then you will come to a point where you do not drop fat.

If it was as easy as just dropping calories to lose fat and when that stalls just drop them more then getting to 5% would be easy! but it is not.........

The goal for most on this forum is to lose weight whilst maintaining or at least reduce the amount of muscle you burn, lowering calories is not the answer when you are all ready at a very low point.


----------



## humanchemistry

I'm tempted to say your miscalculating your total calories, almost any average male would lose weight on 1600 calories. My gf is 124 lbs and is currently dieting on 1100 calories and losing weight fairly quickly.

Are you using 4 cals per gram of carbs and protein and 9 cals per gram of fat.



saxondale said:


> I don't get that because everytime I actually calorie count I struggle to get over 1600 calories.


----------



## saxondale

humanchemistry said:


> I'm tempted to say your miscalculating your total calories, almost any average male would lose weight on 1600 calories. My gf is 124 lbs and is currently dieting on 1100 calories and losing weight fairly quickly.
> 
> Are you using 4 cals per gram of carbs and protein and 9 cals per gram of fat.


Using my fitness pal and barcodes. Had the same conversation when I first started on here, just dont seem to eat as much as other people.


----------



## humanchemistry

saxondale said:


> Using my fitness pal and barcodes. Had the same conversation when I first started on here, just dont seem to eat as much as other people.


My fitness pal works well, 1600 calories is very low, I consume that much in my pwo meal and shake


----------



## saxondale

I lied, we went out for tea and I got to 2000 that day

View attachment 155083


----------



## Dan94

Pscarb said:


> Reference the study please
> 
> This is my point, if you are not losing weight yet you are eating very low calories then the last thing you should do is lower calories even more, as your metabolism will shut down (not exactly) after only 1 week of reduced calories your leptin levels drop 30% they keep dropping then you will come to a point where you do not drop fat.
> 
> If it was as easy as just dropping calories to lose fat and when that stalls just drop them more then getting to 5% would be easy! but it is not.........
> 
> The goal for most on this forum is to lose weight whilst maintaining or at least reduce the amount of muscle you burn, lowering calories is not the answer when you are all ready at a very low point.


which way/diet would you recommend an average gym goer to use in order to lose fat? Do you rate keto or just create a simple calorie deficit, with re feeds every 10-14 days? Interested in your opinion


----------



## 3752

Anyone will lose weight if they eat less than they burn, keto is a good way for very fat people to drop fat but for the average gym rat I do not like to use it, I prefer carb timing or carb cycling


----------



## Boshlop

Growing Lad said:


> Because they aren't consuming adequate protein, lifting weights and. Taking gear.
> 
> Starvation thing is massively overplayed at no point does the body stop burning fat completely and purely burn muscle. Maybe once your down to the essential fat only before you die. In the Minnesota starvation study, at no point did the men stop burning fat until they all got to 5% body fat. They were eating at 50% of maintenance.
> 
> Agree with banzai. Not losing weight so up your calories lol more like your lying and not accurately tracking calories as all overweight people do.


Find a woman who tries to starve herself to lose weight but fails and looks dreadful and sickly instead. Its horrible to use as an example, but there is a true show of eating too little to effectively lose fat.


----------



## humanchemistry

saxondale said:


> I lied, we went out for tea and I got to 2000 that day
> 
> View attachment 155083


Is your current goal to lose weight? Based on your diet you definitely cant be overweight.


----------



## Ultrasonic

humanchemistry said:


> Is your current goal to lose weight? Based on your diet you definitely cant be overweight.


You don't know that. For starters it would depend on Saxondale's height and activity level. Plus how many pies he has eaten in the past .


----------



## humanchemistry

Ultrasonic said:


> You don't know that. For starters it would depend on Saxondale's height and activity level. Plus how many pies he has eaten in the past .


He said he struggles to eat 1600 calories so im pretty sure he hasnt been eating many pies in the past which is why i said based on his diet.

I hope your joking with regards to his height and activity level otherwise im very curious as to how short he would have to be and how lazy he would have to be in order for 1600 calories to be enough calories to maintain on (as you suggested would be variables).


----------



## Ultrasonic

humanchemistry said:


> He said he struggles to eat 1600 calories so im pretty sure he hasnt been eating many pies in the past which is why i said based on his diet.
> 
> I hope your joking with regards to his height and activity level otherwise im very curious as to how short he would have to be and how lazy he would have to be in order for 1600 calories to be enough calories to maintain on (as you suggested would be variables).


Saxondale can clear this up, but my reading was he struggled to eat over 1600 calories when on a keto diet, not normally.


----------



## humanchemistry

saxondale said:


> I lied, we went out for tea and I got to 2000 that day
> 
> View attachment 155083


He posted a food diary which was non keto that was barely over 1600 cals



Ultrasonic said:


> Saxondale can clear this up, but my reading was he struggled to eat over 1600 calories when on a keto diet, not normally.


----------



## MrGRoberts

confused...

when dieting on tren why do you look better when you eat whatever you want and don't count calories rather than counting macros etc..

is there any point even dieting on tren if you look better when your eating whatever??


----------



## Ultrasonic

humanchemistry said:


> He posted a food diary which was non keto that was barely over 1600 cals


No. He said he ate 2000, and I think the picture shows he ate 2135.

I'll leave this now and let Saxondale discuss this if he wants.


----------



## humanchemistry

Ultrasonic said:


> No. He said he ate 2000, and I think the picture shows he ate 2135.
> 
> I'll leave this now and let Saxondale discuss this if he wants.


What do you mean no. How can you think your right.... The diet he posted is not keto so your wrong there, the total calories for that day we're more than usual as a one off because he went out for a meal so your wrong there too.

Got yourself involved without having a clue what your on about and then remaining adamant your right without making a single valid point...


----------



## Ultrasonic

humanchemistry said:


> The diet he posted is not keto so your wrong there,


I didn't say the day's diet posted was a keto diet.

You made a pronouncement without knowing all the required facts. That was the contribution of no value to this thread. Although in hindsight I should have just ignored it like everyone else.


----------



## humanchemistry

Ultrasonic said:


> Saxondale can clear this up, but my reading was he struggled to eat over 1600 calories when on a keto diet, not normally.


So you didn't say this.

My involvement was to offer help and advice to saxondale based on the information he provided which was enough to make an assumption.

What has your involvement been exactly, to try and criticise my remarks by attempting to be a smart ass which really didn't work out too well considering I provided reason for my assumptions which overruled your smart ass comments. Also you seem to think you possess a great deal of knowledge so why not be kind enough to pass on your knowledge to saxondale since you clearly don't think I'm educated enough to do so...


----------



## Ultrasonic

humanchemistry said:


> So you didn't say this.


I said EXACTLY what you quoted, which does not refer to the posted image from myfitnesspal, but rather an earlier comment about struggling to eat 1600 calories in the context of a discussion about keto diets.

You stated that someone you have never met cannot be overweight, which you flat out don't know. This is not being a smart ****. I should have just left it, but I replied as I thought your post was rude to Saxondale. He certainly didn't need me to post on his behalf and I will certainly be more careful about responding in this way again as I do think both of us can agree this particular discussion has not added to a thread that has many interesting posts.

I'll not respond again so as not to drag this out further.

I've just been disputing facts BTW, I have no problem with you at all .


----------



## humanchemistry

Please find me someone who eats 1600 calories a day who is overweight and I'll shut my mouth otherwise my assumption stands correct.

I asked the question is he trying to lose weight because it seemed more likely he was struggling to gain weight and had simply posted in the wrong thread.


----------



## Kristina

What are your stats? Something doesn't sound right if your maintenance is 2000 cals at 189lbs. Are you in a hurry to drop fat? I'd suggest increasing your calorie intake and have your metabolism adapt to a higher BMR before you start messing with the regions of 1800 and 1600. I only say this because that's getting into the realms of 'struggle'. It's not necessary to really struggle to drop the fat if you have a good margin to play with. To give you an idea, over the past few months I've been upping my intake to around 3000 cals per day for maintenance, and about to start a diet down with plenty of food to keep me satiated, even in a deficit. Then, when it gets really tough I'll start to add in the 'last resort/cardio' etc.

Personally I'm a big fan of CBL just because I function better on it, but it's also a very effective way to promote fat burning. Also, contrary to popular belief, you don't need to carb up to keep strength up. In the morning I'll usually train fasted (and I train heavy) - FYI my strength is not compromised at all. Those who feel they need carbs to be strong, mainly do so because it's all in their mind. Adrenaline is in fact what starts the breakdown of muscle glycogen and is the main releasor of glycogen stores within muscle tissue, so if you don't eat carbohydrates before your workout, the absence of insulin results in a much greater and more rapid spike of adrenaline, and also the muscles are more receptive to the adrenaline... so essentially you'll be able to utilise adrenaline more efficiently and tap into those muscle glycogen energy stores - resulting in greater strength.

I'd highly recommend looking into John Kiefer who's done a lot of research and written a lot on the subject in depth. In fact, here's a fantastic interview that will be really useful for you!






Hope that helps!


----------



## Ultrasonic

humanchemistry said:


> Please find me someone who eats 1600 calories a day who is overweight and I'll shut my mouth otherwise my assumption stands correct.
> 
> I asked the question is he trying to lose weight because it seemed more likely he was struggling to gain weight and had simply posted in the wrong thread.


OK, just to wrap this up since I think we frankly got our wires crossed earlier.

There are shed loads of fat blokes in the world eating 1600 calories or less per day, but they didn't get fat eating so little. I was assuming that Saxondale was eating 1600 at the moment, possibly while trying to lose fat, you that he has been eating this way for years. Either could be true.

Reading back through the posts I do though think you may be right that the struggling to eat more than 1600 was wider than just keto diets. And you have a point that struggling to eat so little is unusual.

@saxondale - sorry this turned into a discussion about you like this. Also, having checked out some of your pictures on this forum, you aren't fat either!


----------



## Growing Lad

Ultrasonic said:


> OK, just to wrap this up since I think we frankly got our wires crossed earlier.
> 
> There are shed loads of fat blokes in the world eating 1600 calories or less per day, but they didn't get fat eating so little. I was assuming that Saxondale was eating 1600 at the moment, possibly while trying to lose fat, you that he has been eating this way for years. Either could be true.
> 
> Reading back through the posts I do though think you may be right that the struggling to eat more than 1600 was wider than just keto diets. And you have a point that struggling to eat so little is unusual.
> 
> @saxondale - sorry this turned into a discussion about you like this. Also, having checked out some of your pictures on this forum, you aren't fat either!


They wouldn't be fat for long if they consistently ate 1600 calories for a few months-year. Also I agree there is a lot of fat people that say they eat 1500-1600 calories a day..double it tho and you'd be closer to the truth. They tend to forget the odd chocolate bar, crisps. Finishing kids dinner here and there.


----------



## Ultrasonic

Growing Lad said:


> They wouldn't be fat for long if they consistently ate 1600 calories for a few months-year. Also I agree there is a lot of fat people that say they eat 1500-1600 calories a day..


To drag this back on topic, this would depend a bit on how big they really are and consequently how far below maintenance this is. If it is too low for too long then their fat loss will become minimal as discussed above. Also of course many overweight people fail to stick to low calorie diets very long, leading to their body weight repeatedly yoyoing.


----------



## saxondale

Someone can work this out

Breakfast

Slice wholemal toast, butter, jam

Black coffee

Lunch

2slices roast beef, 2 boiled eggs

Water

Diner (just got in)

Tin tuna, packet micro rice, half tin of mixed beans

Will have 2 glasses of cordial, been fitting cctv all day and will take dog a half hour walk about 9

175cms, no idea of weight but usually circa 76KG


----------



## Ultrasonic

Nobody could give you an accurate total from that, but it's not very much to be honest. (We'd need to know weight of beef, rice and beans, plus type. You may as well use myfitnesspal for an estimate really.) And not enough protein either. What are you primarily aiming for right now, muscle gain or fat loss? Might be best you start your own thread actually in case many have given up on this one?


----------



## banzi

lachu543 said:


> It can show too why a lot of poeple is leaner three days ( when water retention go away ) after cheat day while cutting. Reason? Boost in metabolism which is crashed from too little calories.


That would be the glycogen back in the muscle filling it out.

When you are carb depleted you always look fatter and in worse shape.

Nothing at all to do with a boost in metabolism.


----------



## Sos123

I'm at 1800 cals, around 100g carbs and I'm basically intermittent fasting (fasting for about 15-17 hrs) since Monday, last week weight and waist measurements remained the same pretty much hence the above changes. Btw I do tend to have a cheat day on Sundays were I would consume loads of carbs to try and jolt my metabolism.

I'm also on 75mg clen and 87mcg t3 with 50mg tbol. I plan to weigh in and check my weight on Sunday morning and I'll carb up that day. And I'm an endomorph not using it as an excuse but I put on fat easily and it's tough going losing it.

I'll report back on Sunday morning and really hope the waist is down abit, as we know weight lost isn't a big deal but would be nice if I was about 2lbs lighter but not overly bothered about weight. Oh and I do go on holiday in about 4/5 weeks time so I do have a deadline.


----------



## gov400

I tried the anabolic diet (ckd) for 12 months with huge 48 hour refeeds. My weight pretty much remained the same but lost about 5% bodyfat. However decided to come off it as eating out was a nightmare and my football performance suffered without carbs. Now on IF with an 8 hour eating window with about 150g of carbs a day around workout.


----------



## KRSOne

banzi said:


> I can diet on 1200 cals and not lose any muscle, Im around 220 at the moment *at around 10% BF.*
> 
> You will have to prove it to yourself.
> 
> Seriously, where do you think the muscle tissue goes that took you years to develop?
> 
> Does it disappear overnight?


There lies the caveat. for someone who has a lot more to lose, (i.e more than 2-4 weeks of dieting) like me, that is just not applicable what you are suggesting.

im aiming to diet for around 20 weeks, so I don't destroy everything I have worked for, and 20 weeks on a low calorie fast would just not be the right way to do anything


----------



## hotchy

I done keto. Easy to follow, if I felt hungry is eat some chicken lol, jerky, etc. By no.means did I get to six pack level, only a slight outline. Last time I had a full 6 pack was primary school when I was 10 ish lol


----------



## FelonE1

Vi Shakes


----------



## dtlv

For me it was a herbalife detox.... joke! :lol:

Have had very similar success fat loss on several very different macro diets where calories were pretty much equal - best diet for me in terms of feeling less hungry, more energetic, buoyant mood, better gym performance and no gut issues however was starting at roughly 45/30/25 c/p/f and then gradually reducing carbs and dietary fat... I kept exercise volume and duration fairly constant (no increases as I went) but exercised more than I would normally do when maintaining with maybe 2hrs extra combined weights and cardio a week (6hrs compared to 4hrs). Food choices were mostly unprocessed but a bit of junk now and again - I used the 80/20 rule for 'has to be clean' vs 'can be clean or junk' that Alan Aragon talks about as a guideline.


----------



## saxondale

banzi said:


> I can diet on 1200 cals and not lose any muscle, Im around 220 at the moment at around 10% BF.
> 
> You will have to prove it to yourself.
> 
> Seriously, where do you think the muscle tissue goes that took you years to develop?
> 
> Does it disappear overnight?


Mine lasts about 3 weeks mate, talking to a surgeon today he says that's about bang on


----------



## banzi

saxondale said:


> Mine lasts about 3 weeks mate, talking to a *surgeon* today he says that's about bang on


 :confused1:


----------



## Fortis

get on the intermittent fasting hype!


----------



## saxondale

banzi said:


> :confused1:


Posh doctor mate,

Guy who did surgery on my kid last month, we were talking about the damage where they cut through his pec. He said about three weeks is right for your muscle to go back to its normal state once stop training.


----------



## banzi

saxondale said:


> Posh doctor mate,
> 
> Guy who did surgery on my kid last month, we were talking about the damage where they cut through his pec. He said about three weeks is right for your muscle to go back to its normal state once stop training.


So if you stop training after 10 years you are back where you were when you started after 3 weeks.

makes sense.


----------



## saxondale

banzi said:


> So if you stop training after 10 years you are back where you were when you started after 3 weeks.
> 
> makes sense.


In my case probably a lot quicker lol.


----------



## Ultrasonic

saxondale said:


> Guy who did surgery on my kid last month, we were talking about the damage where they cut through his pec. He said about three weeks is right for your muscle to go back to its normal state once stop training.


I'm not 100% sure what that doctor meant, but there is no way muscle growth that has taken months/years to achieve disapears after three weeks of not training. Provided you ate maintenance calories you'd lose virtually none in that time frame.


----------



## saxondale

Ultrasonic said:


> I'm not 100% sure what that doctor meant, but there is no way muscle growth that has taken months/years to achieve disapears after three weeks of not training. Provided you ate maintenance calories you'd lose virtually none in that time frame.


I was confused too


----------



## Ultrasonic

saxondale said:


> I was confused too


In that case I would completely ignore what the doctor said - most likely he meant something different to what you thought, and if not he didn't have a clue what he was talking about! I work for the NHS and work with many consultants BTW, and whilst they are experts in their field, there is generally no reason at all they should know about exercise induced muscle hypertrophy, so generally speaking, they don't.


----------



## Fortunatus

Cutting carbs for me it's doable and effective


----------



## Sos123

Any tips on how to look your best for after pics in regards to manipulating lighting, water intake, anything else etc? I took before pics and plan to take after pics and wanna look my best.


----------



## Ultrasonic

I'd say downlighting - any abdominal definition you have will be more apparent due to the little shadows they cast.


----------



## Sos123

I would only be down to about 13/14% so maybe manipulating water intake is pointless?

Downlighting is that when the light is basically above were you stand mate is that what you mean?


----------



## saxondale

Ultrasonic said:


> In that case I would completely ignore what the doctor said - most likely he meant something different to what you thought, and if not he didn't have a clue what he was talking about! I work for the NHS and work with many consultants BTW, and whilst they are experts in their field, there is generally no reason at all they should know about exercise induced muscle hypertrophy, so generally speaking, they don't.


Possibly, possibly not. I have hundreds of Dr's on my books, I'll ask again


----------



## banzi

I think he means that muscle that has developed starts to reduce in size with zero training.

the muscle loss Im referring to is the alleged muscle loss whilst dieting.

Just a quick one for all the guys who think you cant gain muscle while in a deficit, think about when you are actually in a deficit.

Just because you have eaten less calories than your maintenance doesn't mean you are in a deficit calorie wise.

:whistling:


----------



## FelonE1

Sos123 said:


> Any tips on how to look your best for after pics in regards to manipulating lighting, water intake, anything else etc? I took before pics and plan to take after pics and wanna look my best.


Take them first thing in the morning before you eat or drink anything


----------



## Sos123

Cheers


----------



## Sos123

Down 4lbs (prob bc of increased t3 dosage of 87.5mcg) waist still the same, been the same for 2 weeks now, I found when I've got to 34 before to get lower I'd have to starve myself to get below it. Any thoughts now with updates? I want to get down to 32 for 4 weeks time. I'm going to have a refeed day today like I do every Sunday.


----------



## Ultrasonic

Sos123 said:


> I would only be down to about 13/14% so maybe manipulating water intake is pointless?
> 
> Downlighting is that when the light is basically above were you stand mate is that what you mean?


Yes. Oh, and a bit a high rep low weight warmup to get some blood in your muscles wouldn't be a bad idea either .


----------



## Ultrasonic

Sos123 said:


> Down 4lbs (prob bc of increased t3 dosage of 87.5mcg) waist still the same, been the same for 2 weeks now, I found when I've got to 34 before to get lower I'd have to starve myself to get below it. Any thoughts now with updates? I want to get down to 32 for 4 weeks time. I'm going to have a refeed day today like I do every Sunday.


What size is your waist right now? Dropping two inches in four weeks sounds a bit optimistic to me I'm afraid, although I've never used T3 to be fair.


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> Yes. Oh, and a bit a high rep low weight warmup to get some blood in your muscles wouldn't be a bad idea either .


That sounds great mate  i will do just that


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> What size is your waist right now? Dropping two inches in four weeks sounds a bit optimistic to me I'm afraid, although I've never used T3 to be fair.


34" mate i measure around my bellybutton. dropping 0.5" a week isnt that unrealistic but given im so far into my cut and losing fat is harder then i would def be inclined to agree yeah.


----------



## Sos123

Maybe once i get down to 34" waist then my body starts to lose fat elsewhere before losing more from my waist could this be true?


----------



## Galaxy

Sos123 said:


> Down 4lbs (prob bc of increased t3 dosage of 87.5mcg) waist still the same, been the same for 2 weeks now, I found when I've got to 34 before to get lower I'd have to starve myself to get below it. Any thoughts now with updates? I want to get down to 32 for 4 weeks time. I'm going to have a refeed day today like I do every Sunday.


How many cals, carbs are you on?


----------



## Ultrasonic

Sos123 said:


> Maybe once i get down to 34" waist then my body starts to lose fat elsewhere before losing more from my waist could this be true?


The lower your body fat level gets a higher proportion of what is left will be round your abdomen, so you will therefore see greater losses in waist size for the same loss in fat mass.

Re. it getting harder to lose fat, you do have refeed days in your diet to get your leptin levels back up, right? These also need to become more frequent as body fat gets lower FWIW.

Must admit I've never measured changes in my waist, I use calipers to track fat by my hip and belly button. Going from 34" to 32" in 4 weeks sounds like a huge drop to me, but good luck  .


----------



## Sos123

Galaxy said:


> How many cals, carbs are you on?


182lbs / 13st 6ft 1800 cals, -100g carbs.


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> The lower your body fat level gets a higher proportion of what is left will be round your abdomen, so you will therefore see greater losses in waist size for the same loss in fat mass.
> 
> Re. it getting harder to lose fat, you do have refeed days in your diet to get your leptin levels back up, right? These also need to become more frequent as body fat gets lower FWIW.
> 
> Must admit I've never measured changes in my waist, I use calipers to track fat by my hip and belly button. Going from 34" to 32" in 4 weeks sounds like a huge drop to me, but good luck  .


Refeed day every Sunday were I eat what I want ie loads of carbs. Thing is i don't think I'm lean enough to do anymore than one refeed day a week I'm like 18% bf roughly. I would settle for 33'' but just need to shift it lower than 34'' I'll be very disappointed if I don't with about 4 weeks left.


----------



## banzi

Sos123 said:


> Refeed day every Sunday were I eat what I want ie loads of carbs. Thing is i don't think I'm lean enough to do anymore than one refeed day a week I'm like 18% bf roughly. I would settle for 33'' but just need to shift it lower than 34'' I'll be very disappointed if I don't with about 4 weeks left.


Unless you are sub 10% refeeds will hold you back.


----------



## PHMG

banzi said:


> Unless you are sub 10% refeeds will hold you back.


Hmmm. Yes and no.

Ultimately in terms of maximum fat loss I'm shortest space of time, you are correct.

However, if having that one day a week allows the person to be very strict all other 6 days and allows them to keep dieting for a greater length of time without just sacking it off after 3 weeks, then they are very useful.

Not everyone is as strong mentally as everyone else. The mind is like the body in that for some it also needs training.


----------



## Ultrasonic

PHMG said:


> Not everyone is as strong mentally as everyone else. The mind is like the body in that for some it also needs training.


The point of a refeed day is not to give someone a break (although it does have that benefit) but rather to get the leptin levels back up, and consequently the BMR. Refeed days should be very specifically high carb (and not fructose) to do this.


----------



## PHMG

Ultrasonic said:


> The point of a refeed day is not to give someone a break (although it does have that benefit) but rather to get the leptin levels back up, and consequently the BMR. Refeed days should be very specifically high carb (and not fructose) to do this.


Lol. Thanks for that. Totally unaware...

... :lol:


----------



## Sos123

banzi said:


> Unless you are sub 10% refeeds will hold you back.


I do it to keep me sane and due to reboot my metabolism, so binge on Sunday and remain strict the rest of the week.


----------



## Sos123

PHMG said:


> Hmmm. Yes and no.
> 
> Ultimately in terms of maximum fat loss I'm shortest space of time, you are correct.
> 
> However, if having that one day a week allows the person to be very strict all other 6 days and allows them to keep dieting for a greater length of time without just sacking it off after 3 weeks, then they are very useful.
> 
> Not everyone is as strong mentally as everyone else. The mind is like the body in that for some it also needs training.


Yeah precisely mate


----------



## Ultrasonic

Sos123 said:


> I do it to keep me sane and due to reboot my metabolism, so binge on Sunday and remain strict the rest of the week.


Ah, that doesn't sound good to be honest. By binge do you mean you eat loads (more than maintenance) and include fatty foods? That will be undoing some of your good work during the week. If you are serious about optimising your fat loss over the next four weeks you really need to stop doing this. I think you said you are doing IF, right? If this forces you to feel you need to do this I would suggest switching to a less extreme diet so that you don't. A key factor in any good fat loss diet is how sustainable it is IMO. I started cutting just over a week ago, broadly following this approach, and to be honest I'm not finding it tough. Although obviously it will depend how much of a calorie deficit you are going for (I'm eating probably about 500-600 kcal below maintenance).


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> Ah, that doesn't sound good to be honest. By binge do you mean you eat loads (more than maintenance) and include fatty foods? That will be undoing some of your good work during the week. If you are serious about optimising your fat loss over the next four weeks you really need to stop doing this. I think you said you are doing IF, right? If this forces you to feel you need to do this I would suggest switching to a less extreme diet so that you don't. A key factor in any good fat loss diet is how sustainable it is IMO. I started cutting just over a week ago, broadly following this approach, and to be honest I'm not finding it tough. Although obviously it will depend how much of a calorie deficit you are going for (I'm eating probably about 500-600 kcal below maintenance).


Good point mate, I'll turn it down a notch and be semi strict on Sunday then I guess for the next 4 weeks mate hopefully that will move things along nicely , good suggestion mate. A less extreme diet would mean I wouldn't lose any more fat tbh mate so I'll have to plough on hard the last 4 weeks. Tbh I'm happy to miss breakfast I used to have porridge or fruit and fibre but that's excess carbs I don't need and I'm used to missing it and training fasted alot of the time. IIRC my maintenance is about 2500 cals so I'm on 1800 atm which is 700 under, i think I possibly got to eat less due to being an endomorph, just speculating btw before I get called out on it.


----------



## Dan94

Ultrasonic said:


> Ah, that doesn't sound good to be honest. By binge do you mean you eat loads (more than maintenance) and include fatty foods? That will be undoing some of your good work during the week. If you are serious about optimising your fat loss over the next four weeks you really need to stop doing this. I think you said you are doing IF, right? If this forces you to feel you need to do this I would suggest switching to a less extreme diet so that you don't. A key factor in any good fat loss diet is how sustainable it is IMO. I started cutting just over a week ago, broadly following this approach, and to be honest I'm not finding it tough. Although obviously it will depend how much of a calorie deficit you are going for (I'm eating probably about 500-600 kcal below maintenance).


According to that, I need to eat 1600 to lose 1 - 1.5 lb a week, yet my BMR is 1740?


----------



## Ultrasonic

Sos123 said:


> I get what you mean but I burn so many calories through exercise I doubt I undo my work...


I said some of your good work, not all of it  . How much you undo will depend how bad the binge is of course! What you want to try to do is keep your refeed day high carb but as close to zero fat as you can manage.

Good luck  .


----------



## Ultrasonic

Dan94 said:


> According to that, I need to eat 1600 to lose 1 - 1.5 lb a week, yet my BMR is 1740?


Think you need to read it again...

Edit: where are you getting that BMR from actually? And if that really is your BMR (not your maintenance calories), that 1600 figure could be just about be sensible depending on your activity level, although it is probably too low.


----------



## Dan94

Ultrasonic said:


> Think you need to read it again...
> 
> Edit: where are you getting that BMR from actually?


3 different calorie calculators online all within a few 10's of eachother


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> Ah, that doesn't sound good to be honest. By binge do you mean you eat loads (more than maintenance) and include fatty foods? That will be undoing some of your good work during the week. If you are serious about optimising your fat loss over the next four weeks you really need to stop doing this. I think you said you are doing IF, right? If this forces you to feel you need to do this I would suggest switching to a less extreme diet so that you don't. A key factor in any good fat loss diet is how sustainable it is IMO. I started cutting just over a week ago, broadly following this approach, and to be honest I'm not finding it tough. Although obviously it will depend how much of a calorie deficit you are going for (I'm eating probably about 500-600 kcal below maintenance).


Just seeing your link mate I came across this couple weeks back and skimmed through it, it's states for 15%+ a refeed should be about once a week or twice a week so that's were I got the refeed idea from, According to it my maintenance is 2300 so -500 is 1800 so I'm spot on (endomorph). So would say stay at 1800 cals but drop refeeds completely?


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> I said some of your good work, not all of it  . How much you undo will depend how bad the binge is of course! What you want to try to do is keep your refeed day high carb but as close to zero fat as you can manage.
> 
> Good luck  .


Sorry bud I edited my above post as seen your wrote some, apologies  usually it's high carb like choc, sweets, subway lol


----------



## Ultrasonic

Dan94 said:


> 3 different calorie calculators online all within a few 10's of eachother


So your objection to the article is the calculation of your maintenance calories ("Endomorphs - bodyweight x 13-14" or whatever)? That's bound to be the least accurate part since it is trying to give a single equation without considering variations in activity level. I'll be honest I've never paid any attention to that, although having just checked it is a pretty good estimate for me. Just go with 500 kcal below maintenance to lose 1 lb per week. If you know what your maintenance calories actually are then this will obviously be more accurate than the approximate equation.


----------



## Ultrasonic

Sos123 said:


> Sorry bud I edited my above post as seen your wrote some, apologies  usually it's high carb like choc, sweets, subway lol


Fat free sweets would be good, but chocolate and subway is very definitely bad due to the high fat content. The reason to avoid high fat is that your body will be in a state where it will be very prone to just directly storing the dietary fat as body fat. Not trying to be the diet police here (!), just letting you know what is likely to be optimal...


----------



## Dan94

Ultrasonic said:


> So your objection to the article is the calculation of your maintenance calories ("Endomorphs - bodyweight x 13-14" or whatever)? That's bound to be the least accurate part since it is trying to give a single equation without considering variations in activity level. I'll be honest I've never paid any attention to that, although having just checked it is a pretty good estimate for me. Just go with 500 kcal below maintenance to lose 1 lb per week. If you know what your maintenance calories actually are then this will obviously be more accurate than the approximate equation.


Yeah I know mate, but the maintenance calories were pretty much spot on for me too. Always thought it was bad to eat under BMR though. Guess just need to eat slightly over and do more cardio...


----------



## Ultrasonic

Sos123 said:


> Just seeing your link mate I came across this couple weeks back and skimmed through it, it's states for 15%+ a refeed should be about once a week or twice a week so that's were I got the refeed idea from, According to it my maintenance is 2300 so -500 is 1800 so I'm spot on (endomorph). So would say stay at 1800 cals but drop refeeds completely?


Missed this; the article also explains that refeeds should be about maintenance calories and high carb, very low fat. Not free-for-all eat whatever you feel like days!

I have not read anything more than this article re. the frequency of refeeds (others here will have far more experience). My take from it would be for you to refeed something like once every 10 to 14 days. But this is obviously written from the point of view of following the whole diet, whether things would be different with IF I have now idea! They certainly could be. It would depend how fasting affect leptin levels.


----------



## Ultrasonic

Dan94 said:


> Yeah I know mate, but the maintenance calories were pretty much spot on for me too. Always thought it was bad to eat under BMR though. Guess just need to eat slightly over and do more cardio...


Must admit I've never heard anything about not eating under your BMR before, so I didn't realise that was what you were questioning. The numbers for me (as an ectomorph) have me eating about 100 kcal over my BMR based on the Harris-Benedict equation FWIW. Out of interest, do you have any references for why it might be a bad idea to eat less calories than your BMR? It's not really obvious to me why this should be the case?

Eating a deficit of 500 kcal per day to lose 1lb of fat per week (assuming all lost weight is fat) is just basic maths though, and not specific to Norton's article. If the maintenance calories calculated for you is about right, then you'd be in the same position with any diet, it's nothing specific to the one in the article. Unless there is some other point I am missing here?

And for the record I'm not saying Norton's article is perfect or anything, I just posted the link again as it sounded like Sos123 was finding his diet tough, whereas this one I'm really not. But obviously we are very different, and being an ectomorph I don't generally have a hard time losing the fat I want.


----------



## PHMG

Maintenance calories??? Are people still doing this crap?!?!

F.ucking train hard, eat good and do your cardio...then stick a needle in your ass.

Trying to picture Zane and Arnold asking which online calculator they use to work out their daily macros and what their BMI is :lol:


----------



## Ultrasonic

PHMG said:


> Trying to picture Zane and Arnold asking which online calculator they use to work out their daily macros and what their BMI is :lol:


 

I've always gone with what the scales tell me to know what my maintenance calories are FWIW. But having a rough idea is helpful as a guide to how much to eat when cutting or bulking IMHO.


----------



## PHMG

Ultrasonic said:


> I've always gone with what the scales tell me to know what my maintenance calories are FWIW. But having a rough idea is helpful as a guide to how much to eat when cutting or bulking IMHO.


I've just always gone by the amount of food I eat.

If I'm getting fat...I'll eat less.

If I'm getting too ripped...oh, that doesn't exist.


----------



## aad123

I'm currently cutting and I have to say its going well on a 40/30/30 split. Energy levels are good and training is going very well. I have in the past used a low carb diet with good results but the energy and drive didn't seem to be there, it was sometimes a chore to get to the gym but current this is not an issue. I would say the fat loss is very similar with both diets but for me the low carb wasn't sustainable but it did get me lean.


----------



## Ultrasonic

PHMG said:


> I've just always gone by the amount of food I eat.
> 
> If I'm getting fat...I'll eat less.
> 
> If I'm getting too ripped...oh, that doesn't exist.


Of course, any calculated numbers are just starting points  . I do find I need to at least approximately calorie count to be consistant though, particularly when cutting, which is also the only time so far that I've paid attention to macros. Not saying everyone has to though!


----------



## PHMG

Ultrasonic said:


> Of course, any calculated numbers are just starting points  . I do find I need to at least approximately calorie count to be consistant though, particularly when cutting, which is also the only time so far that I've paid attention to macros. Not saying everyone has to though!


Are you natural. If yes then I'd agree.


----------



## Ultrasonic

PHMG said:


> Are you natural. If yes then I'd agree.


Yes, natty.


----------



## PHMG

Ultrasonic said:


> Yes, natty.


....Yeah, fuc.k that :lol:


----------



## bail

PHMG said:


> Maintenance calories??? Are people still doing this crap?!?!
> 
> F.ucking train hard, eat good and do your cardio...then stick a needle in your ass.
> 
> Trying to picture Zane and Arnold asking which online calculator they use to work out their daily macros and what their BMI is :lol:


Arnold did work out his macros along with meal timings have you read his book?


----------



## PHMG

bail said:


> Arnold did work out his macros along with meal timings have you read his book?


Yep.

Arnold was also notorious for lying


----------



## AlexB18

banzi said:


> Unless you are sub 10% refeeds will hold you back.


I have clean refeeds on a Saturday and Sunday and I've been making decent progress, plus I won't lie I don't think I'm mentally tough enough yet to take having no carbs what so ever for longer than the five days I currently do lol


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> Fat free sweets would be good, but chocolate and subway is very definitely bad due to the high fat content. The reason to avoid high fat is that your body will be in a state where it will be very prone to just directly storing the dietary fat as body fat. Not trying to be the diet police here (!), just letting you know what is likely to be optimal...


I get you mate, taken on board no more big refeeds lol


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> Missed this; the article also explains that refeeds should be about maintenance calories and high carb, very low fat. Not free-for-all eat whatever you feel like days!
> 
> I have not read anything more than this article re. the frequency of refeeds (others here will have far more experience). My take from it would be for you to refeed something like once every 10 to 14 days. But this is obviously written from the point of view of following the whole diet, whether things would be different with IF I have now idea! They certainly could be. It would depend how fasting affect leptin levels.


Whats your thoughts after skimming through the below if any mate?

Intermittent fasting and leptin

Generally speaking, studies show a neutral effect on average leptin levels during intermittent fasting. While the fasting period decreases circulating leptin, this is compensated by a big boost when refeeding. In comparison to conventional meal frequencies, intermittent fasting induces a "peak and valley"-pattern in leptin synthesis. Leptin secretion is thus entrained to the meal pattern and shifting meal timing causes a comparable shift in plasma leptin rhythm.

However, there are some interesting discrepancies here in that women actually show a big increase in mean leptin levels during intermittent fasting. This occurs even in the absence of weight gain which is all the more fascinating. In the quoted study, despite calorie intake being elevated in comparison to baseline intake, the women actually lost weight and lowered waist circumference and body fat percentage. Intermittent fasting was also shown to decrease neuropeptide-Y, a hormone that stimulates hunger. This could probably be explained by elevated leptin levels, but there was no linear correlation between the two in this case.

Similar effects have also been shown to occur in men. That is, fat loss occurred without any reduction in leptin - and these were fairly lean athletes to begin with.

Intermittent fasting may also be of benefit when dieting in the single digit range due to the effect of fasting on the fat mobilizing hormones epinephrine and norepinephrine. When you're in the single digit body fat range, you're likely to have low circulating levels of leptin. One of leptin's downstream effects is on epinephrine and norepinephrine output. Low leptin equals impaired output of the aforementioned hormones. This is part of how leptin regulates metabolic rate. However, it seems that these hormones increase regardless during fasting. That is, leptin is not able to exert it's usual power over these hormones. In this case, their increase cannot be mediated by leptin which allows fat mobilization to go on unabated during fasting.

http://www.leangains.com/2010/03/intermittent-fasting-set-point-and.html


----------



## Sos123

Ultrasonic said:


> Fat free sweets would be good, but chocolate and subway is very definitely bad due to the high fat content. The reason to avoid high fat is that your body will be in a state where it will be very prone to just directly storing the dietary fat as body fat. Not trying to be the diet police here (!), just letting you know what is likely to be optimal...


When leptin can be spiked, through the process of intermittent fasting feeding windows, it can help burn more body fat. From a body composition perspective, it is actually better to have a day with higher calories and carbs. Some promote a "cheat day" that allows for eating whatever is desired, however I would suggest something far more conservative. I incorporate a high calorie day, which corresponds with high intensity training. My poison is 85% dark chocolate and almond butter.

http://www.thehackedmind.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-intermittent-fasting/

Think I may let loose abit on sundays still and eat more carbs etc but without binging, as it seems it still may be beneficial from what im reading.


----------



## Ultrasonic

Sorry, been busy, just skim read your posts quickly. Is the first one saying you don't want refeed days at all? I think it might be.

On traditional diets, you want refeed days to be low fat for two reasons. Firstly more fat means less carbs and therefore less boost to leptin levels. Secondly, particularly if you eat a calorie excess, the carb induced insulin spikes will cause the body to store dietary fat as body fat. I'll admit I'm unsure if this is significant if you stick to maintenance calories, I'm just learning about this myself really.

There are also many types of IF, out of interest what are you actually doing?


----------



## Irish Beast

Low carbs, increased cardio. Intermittent fasting

Or tons of cocaine


----------



## Gacheru

I am doing IF too but still fat. We will see if I need to do cardio or drop carbs but so far stuff is going well with kcal dropping


----------



## xjx

What if, the only way to make reasonable progress is with gear?

That's what I'm starting to conclude after years of hard work and dedication. 

It's like we are all wasting time without it. Lol


----------



## KRSOne

banzi said:


> Unless you are sub 10% refeeds will hold you back.


If it is one meal, and in a controlled manner I personally don't think it will make the slightest bit of difference overall.

if you are eating 7 meals a day, that's 49 meals per week. 1 meal of 49, especially if you are in a deficit and are training hard, will only help ramp up leptin levels and metabolism and in the long term keep you sane


----------



## Ultrasonic

KRSOne said:


> If it is one meal, and in a controlled manner I personally don't think it will make the slightest bit of difference overall.
> 
> if you are eating 7 meals a day, that's 49 meals per week. 1 meal of 49, especially if you are in a deficit and are training hard, will only help ramp up leptin levels and metabolism and in the long term keep you sane


But by the same token isn't it therefore unlikely that a single meal will do much to elevate leptin levels?


----------



## Silvaback

A sustainable one that keeps me in a deficit.


----------



## KRSOne

Ultrasonic said:


> But by the same token isn't it therefore unlikely that a single meal will do much to elevate leptin levels?


well for 6 days a week, if you keep your carbs around workout, your insulin levels stay at a constant non spiked level. If you go for dinner, have a meal (especially when you are on low carb), and say you have steak and chips, a glass of coke, and maybe a desert, that will cause a pretty big insulin response in comparison to what you have had the previous 6 days. imo a whole day is counter productive, but one meal is enough to give your metabolism and insulin levels a spike to carry you through the next week


----------



## KRSOne

There are obv other ways of doing it

Large depletion workouts on keto, followed by glycogen supercompensation, cheat days, carb cycling etc etc

just for the average dieter, 1 meal of 49 is the chance to maybe sit with the family, have a meal together and not have to worry too much (as long as you don't take the absolute p!ss). Ive done a few of the above before, and found them as huge setbacks because they couldn't be controlled easily. In one meal, its very easy to put a finger on what you are eating. Plus if you are in a 500 cal deficit per day, there is no way you would use up the meal allocated for the cheat meal, plus an extra 500 cals. In that respect alone, how could it be a setback?


----------



## Ultrasonic

KRSOne said:


> well for 6 days a week, if you keep your carbs around workout, your insulin levels stay at a constant non spiked level. If you go for dinner, have a meal (especially when you are on low carb), and say you have steak and chips, a glass of coke, and maybe a desert, that will cause a pretty big insulin response in comparison to what you have had the previous 6 days. imo a whole day is counter productive, but one meal is enough to give your metabolism and insulin levels a spike to carry you through the next week


Yes a single meal will give an insulin spike, what I'm not sure of is if that is sufficient to reset leptin levels. Given that normal recommendations are for a whole day of high carb intake I rather suspect it isn't.

As a side note, eating no carbs doesn't mean insulin levels remain constant, protein meals cause insulin levels to spike too (particularly whey), although I'm not sure of the relative effects - it's on my to do list to find out.


----------



## KRSOne

Ultrasonic said:


> Yes a single meal will give an insulin spike, what I'm not sure of is if that is sufficient to reset leptin levels. Given that normal recommendations are for a whole day of high carb intake I rather suspect it isn't.
> 
> As a side note, eating no carbs doesn't mean insulin levels remain constant, protein meals cause insulin levels to spike too (particularly whey), although I'm not sure of the relative effects - it's on my to do list to find out.


But that also is down to the individual. the variables are in the diet itself (in terms of fats, carbs and protein keeping hormone levels consistent), metablolic slowdown, whether the individual uses gear or is natural, and the bodyfat of the person in question.

No one template will answer ever question, but im my opinion, for a natural a whole day reefed is unnecessary, whereas someone who is smashing a load of gear will benefit a lot more from it. there is a video of an IFBB called Juan Morel smashing 20k calories in a cheat day, but that wouldn't be recommended for the average person, or even the average gear user. all of this is from my own person experience though, so where I cant provide actual facts and figures, I am speaking from personal experience


----------



## Ultrasonic

I need to find time to look for real data on this...


----------



## Big ape

A refeed is a increase in carbs for given day to boost leptin .... ie 200g carbs for the week then refeed day 400g ... it don't matter if them 400g of carbs are consumed with 5 meals through out the day or 3 meals .. overall carb intake is higher which is gonna boost leptin = successful refeed


----------



## Ultrasonic

xjx said:


> What if, the only way to make reasonable progress is with gear?
> 
> That's what I'm starting to conclude after years of hard work and dedication.
> 
> It's like we are all wasting time without it. Lol


Given that the topic of this thread is getting lean, not huge, the short answer is no .


----------



## banzi

Ultrasonic said:


> I need to find time to look for real data on this...


Dont let it eat into your gym time.


----------



## Ultrasonic

banzi said:


> Dont let it eat into your gym time.


Definitely not, I'm one of the few here that rate training as more important than diet .


----------



## Prophecy

Fasted HIIT and workout several days a week. Eat clean and as little as possible with the occasional treat. It's not rocket science, but it's not easy either.


----------



## PHMG

xjx said:


> What if, the only way to make reasonable progress is with gear?
> 
> That's what I'm starting to conclude after years of hard work and dedication.
> 
> It's like we are all wasting time without it. Lol


I understand your frustration. Wouldn't tell you not to use gear, but know this.

Once you start gear, you don't stop until you don't care about being bigger anymore....and when has any of us got to a size and thought "yeah, I'm happy with how I look" :lol:


----------



## PHMG

Ultrasonic said:


> Fat free sweets would be good, but chocolate and subway is very definitely bad due to the high fat content. The reason to avoid high fat is that your body will be in a state where it will be very prone to just directly storing the dietary fat as body fat. Not trying to be the diet police here (!), just letting you know what is likely to be optimal...


Depends if the sweets are glucose based or not.


----------



## Ultrasonic

PHMG said:


> Depends if the sweets are glucose based or not.


Would there be a problem with a sucrose based sweet? Surely this would be fine?


----------



## PHMG

Ultrasonic said:


> Would there be a problem with a sucrose based sweet? Surely this would be fine?


If they are sucrose, then that's 50% glucose, 50% fructose. And seeing as we are looking to spill over muscle and not liver glycogen, it a not ideal.

But that is if you are going by strict "internet guidelines".

Personally, I don't give a crap but then I'm natural quite lean and can spend they day eating whatever and still not put on fat.

To be honest, so long as salt content of food is low, I don't even wake up with more sub q water.

Again though, I'm using gear which changes everything. Stick insulin in the mix and you can do whatever the f.uck you want.


----------



## Ultrasonic

PHMG said:


> If they are sucrose, then that's 50% glucose, 50% fructose. And seeing as we are looking to spill over muscle and not liver glycogen, it a not ideal.


Excellent point! I have also read that fructose doesn't have an impact on leptin levels, so sucrose based sweets certainly aren't ideal. And neither I suppose are other high sugar carb sources. Not that everything has to be bang on ideal of course, but interesting all the same.


----------



## xjx

PHMG said:


> I understand your frustration. Wouldn't tell you not to use gear, but know this.
> 
> Once you start gear, you don't stop until you don't care about being bigger anymore....and when has any of us got to a size and thought "yeah, I'm happy with how I look" :lol:


That's very true, thanks for your input. Means a lot coming from you!


----------



## KletoReese

Sos123 said:


> This is my pre cut pics, bodyfat guesstimates?
> 
> 6ft
> 
> 199lbs / 14st 3
> 
> Waist (around bellybutton 38 inches)
> 
> Biceps 16ish
> 
> View attachment 156644
> 
> 
> View attachment 156645
> 
> 
> View attachment 156646
> 
> 
> View attachment 156647
> 
> 
> 26% is my tough guess.


I'm curious, did you have a tummy tuck?


----------



## saxondale

View attachment 156707


----------



## pooledaniel

I got my leanest running moderate carbs, no cycling. Ran around 240g carbs for duration of last cut, with 3x40m cardio for the last 4 weeks only. Worked a charm.


----------



## PHMG

I got my leanest currently (avatar pic) doing the seefood diet.

If I see something and want to eat it....then I do.


----------



## Sos123

KletoReese said:


> I'm curious, did you have a tummy tuck?


No mate.


----------



## Sos123

Sos123 said:


> This is my pre cut pics, bodyfat guesstimates?
> 
> 6ft
> 
> 199lbs / 14st 3
> 
> Waist (around bellybutton 38 inches)
> 
> Biceps 16ish
> 
> View attachment 156644
> 
> 
> View attachment 156645
> 
> 
> View attachment 156646
> 
> 
> View attachment 156647
> 
> 
> 26% is my tough guess.


Body fat guesses?


----------



## PHMG

Sos123 said:


> Body fat guesses?


Do you really need a number? It's too high for someone who is into training, put it that way. Good thing is, it only takes hard work to lower it! And thats free!


----------



## Sos123

PHMG said:


> Do you really need a number? It's too high for someone who is into training, put it that way. Good thing is, it only takes hard work to lower it! And thats free!


That is true. Thing is I train hard and don't even pig out and eat crap all day I just put on fat easy, but diet will be tighter this time round. Just to be clear this is my before pics, a rough number would be nice as I would like to know roughly how much bodyfat I have lost. I'm guessing somewhere between 25-30 ? Closer to 25. I'd say I'm about 14%ish atm.


----------



## troponin

Sos123 said:


> That is true. Thing is I train hard and don't even pig out and eat crap all day I just put on fat easy, but diet will be tighter this time round. Just to be clear this is my before pics, a rough number would be nice as I would like to know roughly how much bodyfat I have lost. I'm guessing somewhere between 25-30 ? Closer to 25. I'd say I'm about 14%ish atm.


Got pics of where.your at now?


----------



## PHMG

Sos123 said:


> That is true. Thing is I train hard and don't even pig out and eat crap all day I just put on fat easy, but diet will be tighter this time round. Just to be clear this is my before pics, a rough number would be nice as I would like to know roughly how much bodyfat I have lost. I'm guessing somewhere between 25-30 ? Closer to 25. I'd say I'm about 14%ish atm.


Well that's great then mate. I still don't get the need for numbers though, if you know you look a lot better then does it matter the exact percentage lost.

Could be just because I think this way, but I've never understood why everyone is so hung up on a number??

Not having a go mate, I just struggle to get it.


----------



## saxondale

Sos123 said:


> That is true. Thing is I train hard and don't even pig out and eat crap all day I just put on fat easy, but diet will be tighter this time round. Just to be clear this is my before pics, a rough number would be nice as I would like to know roughly how much bodyfat I have lost. I'm guessing somewhere between 25-30 ? Closer to 25. I'd say I'm about 14%ish atm.


36% plus mate.


----------



## Sos123

troponin said:


> Got pics of where.your at now?


Plan to diet til fri/sat could get them up.


----------



## Sos123

PHMG said:


> Well that's great then mate. I still don't get the need for numbers though, if you know you look a lot better then does it matter the exact percentage lost.
> 
> Could be just because I think this way, but I've never understood why everyone is so hung up on a number??
> 
> Not having a go mate, I just struggle to get it.


I'm going to post my before and after pics along with how much weight I've lost, how much I've lost off my waist and would like to know how much bf I've lost to go along with them figures tbh that's the reason, all in all it's how you look that counts your right. Would you like to hazard a rough guess?


----------



## Sos123

saxondale said:


> 36% plus mate.


Don't know if your jokin or not, highly doubt I'm over 30 in them pics but that's just my opinion looking for quite a few opinions then can maybe come to a rough figure


----------



## xjx

Useless addition to this thread, but yesterday was my refeed day after 14 days of less than 30g's of carbs a day. I had 5 baked sweet potatos, about 2lb + of chicken tenderloins, 1lb of ham, about half a pot of boiled rice, 2 sugar cookies and a bowl of low fat, very low sugar, ice cream. That was the "cleanest" re-feed I've ever done. Ahh man was it fun! 

I've been doing a keto type diet with timed re-feeds. I've been considering switching to a low fat, moderate carb, moderate protein cut.

There's always two sides to whatever diet one follows, with "research" to back each one of them up. I guess it really comes down to what works best for someone. I feel as if I'm "carb sensitive" and don't tolerate carbs very well, but I might switch to a complex carb, low fat moderate protein diet and see how that goes. Until I can get some gear that is..


----------



## xjx

Sos123 said:


> Don't know if your jokin or not, highly doubt I'm over 30 in them pics but that's just my opinion looking for quite a few opinions then can maybe come to a rough figure


You look roughly about the same bf level I used to be before my cut, so I'd say you're about 26'ish in your pictures.


----------



## saxondale

Sos123 said:


> Don't know if your jokin or not, highly doubt I'm over 30 in them pics but that's just my opinion looking for quite a few opinions then can maybe come to a rough figure


No, Not joking mate


----------



## Sos123

Any ideas how to lose abit more water weight? I plan to diet for another 4 days or so? I'm on 30-40g carbs daily atm. Not looking to purchase anything supplements but have some vit c and potassium tabs if that would help in any way and heard if you drink loads of water it helps, should I then try and dehydrate the last day? Just want to look abit sharper in my pics. If your going to take the **** don't bother commenting serious answers only thanks.


----------



## Sos123

xjx said:


> You look roughly about the same bf level I used to be before my cut, so I'd say you're about 26'ish in your pictures.


I think I'm around 26% too roughly mate


----------



## xjx

Sos123 said:


> Any ideas how to lose abit more water weight? I plan to diet for another 4 days or so? I'm on 30-40g carbs daily atm. Not looking to purchase anything supplements but have some vit c and potassium tabs if that would help in any way and heard if you drink loads of water it helps, should I then try and dehydrate the last day? Just want to look abit sharper in my pics. If your going to take the **** don't bother commenting serious answers only thanks.


That's about the easiest way of dropping water weight, dropping carbs. I don't think anything else will really make much more of a difference considering high'ish body fat levels. If it was some sort of contest prep, I believe pros lower sodium intake, take diuretics and vitamin C amongst other extreme measures, but they're usually already at near shredded levels.


----------



## Growing Lad

Sos123 said:


> I think I'm around 26% too roughly mate


25% ish but to high to look good anyway.

Just simple deficit with adequate protein should drop fat very rapidly, don't need anything drastic till 10% and below


----------



## saxondale

Sos123 said:


> Any ideas how to lose abit more water weight? I plan to diet for another 4 days or so? I'm on 30-40g carbs daily atm. Not looking to purchase anything supplements but have some vit c and potassium tabs if that would help in any way and heard if you drink loads of water it helps, should I then try and dehydrate the last day? Just want to look abit sharper in my pics. If your going to take the **** don't bother commenting serious answers only thanks.


Water weight? I think your disillusioned mate - thats a serious answer for you.

Hard dieting required, serious calorie deficit.


----------



## Sos123

Why do you think I'm delusional? Bc I asked how to lose abit more water weight to look sharper in my after pics?? I mean there's no way I'm holding zero water or anywhere near it. Tbh I'm usually on 1700 cals. On Monday I had 1500 and yesterday about 1300 so last few days I've cut cals to lose a couple extra lbs quickly. I plan to keep cals at 1300-1500 or so for wed, thur, fri, take pics sat or fri evenin. Not sure if lowering this much may make me look flat as pancake though!?


----------



## PHMG

Sos123 said:


> Why do you think I'm delusional? Bc I asked how to lose abit more water weight to look sharper in my after pics?? I mean there's no way I'm holding zero water or anywhere near it. Tbh I'm usually on 1700 cals. On Monday I had 1500 and yesterday about 1300 so last few days I've cut cals to lose a couple extra lbs quickly. I plan to keep cals at 1300-1500 or so for wed, thur, fri, take pics sat or fri evenin. Not sure if lowering this much may make me look flat as pancake though!?


The point he's making is that at your body fat level, dropping a bit of sub q water weight won't make any difference visually because there is still such a think lining of fat under the skin.


----------

