aj_rock

Not possible. I see no news reports of pigs flying through the streets...

It was St Paddy's day, so I'm still hurting from that All the same, I'm on a planned workout break... so yeah things will be rather quiet from my corner for a week

Meat protein takes the most energy to digest. You produce a helluva lot of heat while digesting meat, especially if you like it on the rarer side... Not to mention, as wildross said, high meat meals from restaurants tend to give you calories in the levels of the 1500+... you have a huge surplus of energy and some of it will go straight into the metabolic fire... turning up the heat so to speak

*Insert repeat of everyone's sentiments here* Honestly, I want to ask for a laptop. I'll go do my work outside. Standing desk, glare cover for the screen. Le sigh. And a chilled beer.

Don't be totally surprised if your LBM decreases when you get closer to your goal BF%, even if you get stronger. You see hypertrophy of body components besides just muscle when you add excess body fat... skin, to cover the fat, blood vessels, to supply the fat cells with nutrients, ligaments and tendons, to heft the extra weight around... Just don't panic when the LBM DOES decrease eventually

What? I know for a fact that doctors can perscribe whatever they want, if they feel it will have a beneficial effect. Off-label use CAN be perscribed by doctors. Maybe the situation is different in Texas, but then again Texas isn't generally referred to as a bastion of open-mindedness in the first place. The only reason I use this single doctor is because this single doctor is what was offered as an example in the first place. Look guys, far be me from suggesting that paleo is a terrible or even bad idea. I give a resounding yes to whether I think paleo is a great improvement over the typical western diet. I DO feel that it is overly restrictive; I fail to see the evidence that says that whole-grain products and dairy are going to kill me slowly inside. I also would not demonize red meat, as I easily eat a net of 5-6 servings of various 'red meat' items a week. I do see a lot of real world evidence of people who practiced limitation of junk food, ate 'healthy', including grains, and moderation in life, and managed to live seeing 100+ years of quality life. Ok, I really do see this discussion winding down; we're starting to repeat ourselves; progress is being lost; feelings are being hurt. If I had to TL;DR all my posts in this thread, it boils down to this. - paleo like diets, while an improvement over the typical western diet, is overly restrictive compared to the actual diet required for optimal health for the majority of people - moderate intake of all things, including junk, grains, vegetables, red meat, saturated fat, startrek, star wars, exercise; will lead best to a long, happy, fulfilling life. - how exactly you choose to meet your body's requirements to function is your choice. You want to paleo, go paleo. You want to subsist on protein shakes and multi-vitamins, hey, whatever floats your boat. If, at the end of the day, you feel full of energy, optimism, and contentedness, then you must be doing something right. That is all. Have a happy St Patricks weekend everyone Edit to say: I'll PVP you on that spatz

I have a heavy lift tonight, and later on I begin my maintenance break with St Practice day! Followed by St Patricks day tomorrow

You list a variety of attempted dieting methods, but non of those methods you just listed represent a 'normal' vision of what healthy eating is seen as. For someone with health issues that can be fixed with a diet, I would personally NEVER perscribe atkins or low-carb or vegan. Just what your average every-day nutritionist would tell you to eat. As with the doctors, you kinda prove my point. We can't fully believe the legions of doctors; we can't fully believe the guy making a stance all on his own either. There are still some wackos in the world that believe the earth is flat; should we give them our ear simply because they hold a controversial opinion? It is something you have to apply your own judgement to I suppose, but nothing about this solitary surgeon screams out enlightened revolutionary to me. I'm not blowing it off; rather, I don't think one doctor's opinion should be seen as equal in weight to everyone elses. Looking at your omega-6 list, all it vaguely lists is 'grains'; this is after stating the body REQUIRES omega-6, but a lot of americans simply get too much of it. Before I even address the actual grain fat content issue, these omega-3 to 6 imbalances can be fixed with an increase in consumption of fish oil and reduction of visits to mcdicks. FAST processed food contributes more to these health problems in general; on that, I think we can agree. But back to the grain fat content; I implose you to check any calorie counting food database and look at the fat contents of most grains; they have 1 or 2 grams per serving, if that, in general. I would hardly call 1 gram of omega-6 as very high, considering the optimal ratio is 4:1 6 to 3 or lower. We don't want to elimate omega-6 intake; simply control it. And can we, as I think Waldo was trying to point out, make a notational difference between macronutrients (fat, carb, prot) and micronutrients (vitamins, minerals)? I think that's where a lot of confusion is coming up. Either way, whole grains DO contain their fair share of micro nutrients, especially B vitamins. Haha thanks! I will do my best to have fun and be safe/attain some happy medium between the two! Anyway, I say it's a straw man, because as we are discussing now, he did not in fact attempt all other accepted healthy eating styles before finding paleo. So theoretically, he could have found that some other style of eating could have had the same results. Not that I'm encouraging him to change; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm only saying that other avenues DO exist, and cannot be discounted thusly. I believe I addressed most of these concerns about the docs above. Does this doctor have no fear of the same sanctions? Or is he a 'knight on a white horse' that cares not for personal reputation? I don't think any negative consequences arose from his taking of this stance, and so I don't see why other doctors wouldn't if it were true. Also, what you say about vitamins as they were first made might be correct, but most multi-vitamins are optimized nowadays to correct for metabolic processing. We'd also be seeing an increased incidence in kidney trouble in populations that have been taking multis for a few decades now if they were simply being processed out, and we simply do not see that occuring. Again, let's start using macro = fat, carbs, or prot, micro = vitamins and minerals; it gets very confusing when people use the word nutrients interchangeably. You're absolutely right that deficiencies in micros can be devastating for a person's health. Actually tracking intake is difficult, and I'd be willing to bet that even those who follow paleo, ESPECIALLY those attempting weight loss while doing so, are not meeting their micronutrient intake requirements. That's only hot air until someone goes in and gets that checked, but I would sincerely like to know. Another point because I can't get quotes from the next page; yes veggies are awesome, and a lot of us could do better by ourselves if we consumed more of them; you can however accomplish a diet that meets all macro and micro requirements without them, albeit I will say adequate vegetable consumption is more sustainable in the long run. I'm very confused as to what the rest of the noise is about. Is no one considering the possibility of putting VEGGIES on yo BREAD? Come on guys I will say that I am thoroughly enjoying this conversation though! Let's continue being constructive.

Technically, you are in a fasted state any time your body must draw from internal resources to fuel energy needs. But, because hormone responses are very time dependant, you will always see stronger responses with longer consecutive time periods spent in a fasting state. Similarly, it takes a rather large meal that puts you in a fed state for a long enough period of time to totally reverse that response, but it still creates it's own hormone response. Basically, a large meal after a long fast tends to create hormonal confusion in the body; tons of glucagon AND insulin around sending conflicting messages. Breaking an 18 hour + fast is better done with a small to medium size meal than a large one. Keep that in mind, monseiur ducati

Only 10 mil? Don't be cheeky now

Low tide for sure. It's extremely difficult to falsify your lowest recorded weight. On the flip side, weighing in 'heavy', and then chugging 500mL of water to add a pound is far too easily accomplished. As a result, my most consistent low weight recordings is after a night out on the town, due to water losses from alcohol consumption and glycogen loss due to excessive party activities. I figure, I'm in the bathroom praying to the porcelain gods, I may as well step on the scale, balance willing.

Call me a terrible person, but I lulled. But no, really guys, lets NOT just end the discussion. We always seem to just peter out at a similar point each time the subject comes up. A la Loren's comment about the heart surgeon and Waldo's less professional (but utterly hilarious) response about Wolfe and Sisson, is that they STILL make up a rather small (yet vocal) portion of the health-oriented committee. If you presented me with legions and legions of heart specialists (not just the surgeons; surgeons do in fact spend more time learning about the practicalities of surgery rather than keeping up with the latest ticks on what causes the heart disease, they're specialists) who could all point at grain-induced inflammation as being a prime mover in heart disease and myocardia, then I would cede the point. I would say again, being able to perform open heart surgery, while an amazing and fantastic feat of skill, does not make you the be-all-end-all of heart knowledge. Of all the heart surgeons, he's the only one to come to this conclusion? Come on. Especially considering that, after reading some of his material, I'd put his whole 'doctorness' on about the same level as Dr. Pinski. Famous, vocal, not necessarily the best authoritative knowledge. Just the one with a heaping of charisma and a good agent. MMyers: that seems like a straw man argument in itself. A known method of dealing with Crohn's is overall improvement of diet. If Loren's diet can in-arguably be defined as better than before, whether it specifically lies within the paleo domain or not, can probably be attributed to his improvement of symptoms. I'd rather not have to go over someone else's lifestyle who is obviously incredibly affected by a serious disease either way though. To bring it up is really not fair; not to us, or to Loren. Too many emotions to get involved, yah know? Ok last point: How can grains be high omega-6 if most of them have maybe 1 gram of fat total? Gluten is bad if you have a sensitivity; no effect if you don't. Grains can all be placed on the GI and are processed like all other food before impacting insulin, which is a hormone you absolutely need, just don't want released in large quantities. I'll give you lower in vitamins and minerals than veggies, but by that argument who would ever bother eating lettuce or celery which have basically water and that's it? I'm out for the night; just booked a trip to cancun Have a good one everyone!

Mm I was referring to the myriad other studies that have been done linking saturated fat intake to health complications. I also really, really, really don't think the scientists conducting these studies would be so stupid as to not notice that there tends to also be a correlation between non-exercising, obesity, and junk food eating. So they do. Over the many many years that studies have been done, these factors have been identified and accounted for. So, say you have three studies. One links lack of exercise and saturated fat intake to CHD. Another links obesity and saturated fat intake to CAD. The third links junk food high in saturated fat to strokes. Not saying these are accurate, but when saturated fat intake seems to pop up every god damn time, you HAVE to think that somethin's fishy. I'm also not really a guinea pig, in that there is lots of data around us showing people that ate according to conventional and lived long, happy, healthy lives. So the data exists for that. Not so much for those who eat bacon all day erry day.

This is what I'm afraid of... So many people on NF are putting a heck of a lot of weight behind paleo and consuming things with no fear of saturated fat or red meat. I could be wrong, and everyone will be fine. I really don't want to have to say 'I told you so' if NF'ers 30 years from now should start dropping like flies from heart attacks that were legitimately caused by over consumption of saturated fat. Like I said, I sure as hell don't want to be THAT guinea pig.

To jet-set around the world on someone elses bill playing rugby. Doesn't even have to be pro; just pay my hotel, flight, and beer and I'll subsist off of that

Well as I said I would in my challenge goals, I've laid out an intermediate plan for further training in my blog. Feel free to wander by and comment

I ate a whole package of bacon once... sure did NOT feel good afterwards And Loren... you aren't being fair. There really is no way to correlate paleolithic diet with longevity and life expectancy because of the myriad complicating factors. So we really can't conclude ANYTHING about the 'healthiness' of paleolithic eating styles. Does it comprise of several accepted better eating habits? Yes, absolutely. Should your average person therefore be barred from consuming the occasional grain product or delicious confectionary? I would say that's a resounding no. I mean, it's absolutely terrific that paleo has helped you reduce/eliminate your symptoms of Crohn's disease. Does that mean that everyone would see similar benefits from paleo? Just because of paleo? You are in the best shape of your life, but I would propose that you would achieve even better shape with good control of saturated fat/red meat intake. You had nothing to lose by going paleo; you have nothing to lose by lowering those intakes as well. Again, you have a specific disease that can be addressed by a specific change in dietary style that would not have the same effect in the whole population.

Pfft I've made that joke on like ten threads. Get with the program All the same, welcome to the rebellion Sneaks!

I'm sorry elastigirl, but anecdotal evidence just should NOT be sized up against scientific research. As Waldo already replied, there are ten and half million ways they could be sabotaging their own efforts, such as under-reporting their food intake, or how people over-estimate their caloric expenditure, or believing that healthy food will make your hormones respond differently. These are by no means conclusive studies, but they all point to the fact that, in general, if someone SAYS they are eating less calories than they burn but aren't losing weight, they are doing it wrong.

I take it then that your goal is to do a triathlon? If so, you are probably actually doing too much weight-lifting work. Triathletes are your stereotypically slim endurance athletes. Not a whole lotta muscle mass, but they can go forever. Again, this is assuming competiting in triathlons is the main goal here; if all you want is overall fitness, then a last qualifier would be your training age. If you feel like you're fairly strong already, then this is fine. If you are still a beginner though, you would benefit from doing less work more often; do full body each day, but less exercises per body part each day.

So what you are trying to say is all cavemen were lactose intolerant right? /end troll

I... I have never seen my views on paleo people put so succinctly and perfectly before. My hat is off to you, good sir. Oystergirl, you are awesome, but you can sometimes act like an example of this. While no one here would ever dream of depriving you of your grass-fed beef, you DO tend to reduce your arguments to just that. Which is problematic, because if everyone reduced their arguments as such, we'd have everyone just walk away being all 'FINE. I DO WHAT I WANT.' and no progress is made; no knowledge is gained nor shared. Yes you can do whatever you want, but I think it would be appreciated by all if you didn't feel the need to say it everytime the discussion comes up. Very rarely in the course of discussing such matters do most of us bring up our personal eating habits. Ah, good ole solid information mixed in with blatant fear-mongering and ad hominem attacks. If you include enough true information, then everything you say must be true, no? All these pendantics aside, it really makes sense on a logic basis to reduce saturated fat intake to a moderate level regardless of correlation between saturated fat intake and other key lifestyle metrics in determining overall health. You can argue about sedentary populations and GH in food and chemical preservatives until the cows come home, but at the end of the day, WE DON'T KNOW. Yes high saturated fat diets tend to correlate with people that eat shitty food and don't exercise. We ABSOLUTELY have NO solid information about the exact correlation value between these two. It's entirely possible that you could eat bacon all day erryday and as long as you restrict calories and exercise, BUT WE DONT KNOW THAT. Personally, I'd rather NOT be the guinea pig that drive tests this theory just because of the chance that maybe ITS WRONG. All your primal and paleo BS and grass vs grain fed doesn't matter if you believe something so fervently and then it kills you at 50. If lowering my sat fat intake is correlated with living a longer, healthier life, then I'm going to damn well moderate my intake. My well-being and the well-being of my loved ones and friends is simply too important to me to risk telling them ANY voodoo hypothesis not based strongly in scientific evidence. rant mode = off

Tis quite alright good sir newb! HIIT = high-intensity-interval-training. Alternates short periods of rest and high-intensity cardio. Usually around 20-40 seconds on, 30-120 seconds off, depending on your condition. Total run time of 10-20 minutes. Not intended for those without base training in regular ole' steady-state and/or interval training. But it's really good training for improving anaerobic output, lactate threshold, and recovery period (in simpler terms, go harder faster with less rest) The way I'd suggest people prioritize is to take a look at your lifts, and see where they all fall compared to lifting standards. The ones that fall below the others should be priorities. Compound/technical lifts should always go before isolation exercises (aka even if you want stronger triceps, still do your bench and over-head press first). The good thing about prioritization is that even if one of your lifts starts outperforming others, you can switch up your exercise order quite easily without too many headaches. Make sure you still rotate through the body parts though. If you're of a mind to do intervals, I'd suggest doing them on non-lifting days. Interval training does use glycogen as fuel primarily so depleting that with squats or intervals and then attempting the other will impact intensity on the one performed later. Since they use different muscle fiber systems, however, you can train them one day after another and not get too many intensity problems. Unless you're eating low-carb (<100g of carbs a day), in which case glycogen recovery and intensity will be permanently lowered due to lack of correct energy substrate. If you so desired (for fat loss), you could easily add a long, slow jog after a workout no problem. Jogging typically uses aerobic pathways and fat for fuel anyways. Sorry if this is a lot of info! If you want to TL;DR this, intervals don't mesh well with heavy leg exercise period, and you should try moving them to seperate days in order to maximize results in both areas. If your primary goal is fat loss (over both strength gains AND cardio improvement), then a nice long, light jog after lifting will yield best results.

Corey: even if you don't enjoy teh running, some short warm-up besides just warm-up sets should be done. The 5-10 minutes is more for increasing blood flow/cardiac output. You really shouldn't be putting enough stress on your legs to deplete any glycogen though... Also, while cardio DOES generally go after lifting, it depends on your goals. If you wanted to do a bout of HIIT, first off, you shouldn't be doing it on the same days as heavy leg training, and secondly, depletion of liver glycogen (totally possible depending on your lifting habits/program) impacts greatly on HIIT abilities. Work capacity in general will go way down. Not saying you won't see results, but it'll definitely be slowed because of reduced work. Similar to how you can build muscle only doing 1 set a week, but it takes forever. Like all fitness aspects, just make sure you perform priority work first. Concerned about your squats? Do them first. Want a bigger bench? Do it first.

That's ok. After you finish, your shadow looks pretty tired too...