TIME: What Really Makes You Fat

[Island Son]

This week's TIME magazine cover story is "What really makes you fat".
It's free for a week.

They go a bit into nutrition, and there's a short discussion of low-fat vs low-calorie diets.

I thought one of the more interesting parts was where it explained how the brain responds to various hormones.

Here's a quote:
---
Leptin, which exercises an influence on appetite and thermogenesis, is thought to be key to maintaining this balance. For as we layer on fat, we pump out more leptin, which signals the hypothalamus that it's time to accelerate energy output and brake caloric intake. The problem is, people who gain weight have now been shown to develop a remarkable resistance to leptin's power. The fatter they get, and the more leptin they make, the more impervious the hypothalamus becomes. Eventually the hypothalamus interprets the elevated level of leptin as normal—and forever after misreads the drops in leptin caused by weight loss as a starvation signal. This phenomenon provides a biochemical explanation for why so many of those who lose weight end up putting it back on. Our bodies, backed by millions of years of evolution, fight us at every turn.
--

Hope ya like it

 

[SteelWeaver]

Thanks I.S. - very interesting. What's funny is they don't seem to mention a key cornerstone of taking fat off and keeping it off - regular weight training.

What's even funnier is that that woman in the picture is a MOLECULAR BIOLOGIST and she still hasn't clued into the above fact.

Tsk. Tsk.

 

[MS]

Actually SteelWeaver, I don't think you'll find much evidence to suggest that your bodyfat "setpoint" or whatever you call it can ever go back down...it can only ever go up. It also seems to be set pretty early in life. So a strong willpower and weight training will help, but without the willpower to stick to a reduced calorie diet I'm afraid your brain neurochemistry will always be fighting your desire to stay leaner than you highest stable %bf. As Island Sun surmised, when you let your bodyfat stabilize at a certain level, your body takes this as the new 'normal' and anything below that throws it into a feeding frenzy. The general public REALLY needs to understand this. The only cures for obesity (other than death) are prevention or a lifetime of feeling deprived/dieting. Just don't get fat. It's a one way ticket to a place that's not fun.

I would say regular weight training is more important for prevention of obesity than cure. But if you are already overweight, weight training is still good. You won't lose much weight, but it improves insulin sensitivity enough to prevent or delay a lot of the health complications of obesity.

 

[SteelWeaver]

Oh , I wasn't really referring to Island Son's quote - more to the article itself, and the sidebars there - weight training wasn't mentioned. I understand the stuff about setpoints and so on - I read what Lyle McD. etc wrote about it - but even so, which is likely to be more effective, no matter what your setpoint is: diet alone or diet with regular hard weight training?

 

[MS]

More effective for what?

In terms of preventing obesity, any activity is better than none, including just walking. In terms of preventing insulin resistance, heart disease and other ills once you're already obese, any activity is better than none. I don't think weight training per se makes a big difference either way. Certainly diet is the most important for weight loss, and studies on obese folks generally indicate that diet + exercise doesn't give you much more weight loss, but it certainly improves your risk factors for a host of obesity related diseases.

 

[MS]

Ooops, I just reread what you said and realized you're talking about " they don't seem to mention a key cornerstone of taking fat off and keeping it off - regular weight training."

I have never personally or scientifically seen any evidence to support that notion. As a bodybuilder myself I have never lost fat except when I put myself on a calorie restricted diet. Weight training, without conscious calorie control for the majority of westerners, will merely lead to a more muscular fat person IMHO. On the other hand I was always lean before I took up bodybuilding. Bodybuilding has made me heavier but not leaner. Given the percent of gym-goers I've known over the years who are regularly weight training AND getting fatter each year, I don't think my results are unusual. So the short answer is that I think diet IS the key for fatloss or preventing obesity, and exercise is an accesory that keeps you healthy. Of course restricting calories AND burning more off with exercise is the best of all, but it doesn't need to be heavy weight training.

 

[SteelWeaver]

Apparently I'm not making myself very clear here. I agree with what you're saying - I read all those papers, and I have exactly the same experience myself - I didn't experience much in the way of changing the shape of my body or losing fat just weight training until I realised nutrition (and calorie control) was the key - I got bigger muscles, but I also put on fat.

HOWEVER - I'm fairly sure that if I had simply dieted, and dieted only, I would be back to the same place I started at - (somewhat) skinny fat - which, I suppose if you're Ms General Public, is perfectly acceptable. But Ms Gen Pub seems to always get fat AGAIN as soon as she comes off her diet.

Thus, my statement: "a key cornerstone of taking fat off and keeping it off - regular weight training". Note: *a* key cornerstone - ONE of them, the others being calorie control, light resistance/cardio training, willpower, attitude, blah de blah - I'm sure you can think of more.

Regular training of any kind by definition requires some sort of rather large lifestyle change - you have to make room in your schedule, start learning about it, get a trainer, whatever - you actually have to get off your butt and do it ... instead of just making your food portions smaller, which is what most diets do. It's not a quick fix. Then hopefully by the time you're in the lifestyle, you've kind of got used to it, and all those other good self-image things that come along with exercise, then before you know it, you're naturally CHOOSING healthier food, smaller portions, whatever ...

Or, well, this is how one would HOPE it would go, ideally, if people could be taught something about nutrition at school. And discounting human nature, genetics, and my quickly-becoming all-time favourites: hormones.

Anyway, my main point is just that's it's irritiating when supposedly in-depth analyses of fat and how to get rid of it neglect the really obvious basic stuff. I suppose whoever's in charge of disseminating info to the general public is wary of causing a mass depression by telling the real truth, i.e. what you said: "The general public REALLY needs to understand this. The only cures for obesity (other than death) are prevention or a lifetime of feeling deprived/dieting. " AND that it's HARD, and time-consuming, and there ARE no quick fixes.

Well, not yet ...

 

[MS]

I might be more willing to listen to your point of view in 5 or 10 years time if you have proven that you not only reduced you bodyfat temporarily (for a show) but have managed to keep it off long term without feeling like you're constantly 'dieting'. Weight training is not a cornerstone of fat loss or maintenance of fatloss. Diet is. Exercise (of any sort, NOT just weight training) will make you a fitter fat person, but will not stop your body's demands to return to it's perceived setpoint. In other words there is no evidence that weight training can reset your setpoint.

I'm not picking on you, it's just that the original post (and article) was about the hormones controlling how fat we are and that keep us from losing fat permanently. I have never seen or read anything to make me think that weight training is the holy grail of permanent fatloss. Once your setpoint is at a certain level you will struggle with diet and exercise for the rest of your life to stay at a lower bodyfat.

For me, my setpoint is around 17-18%bf. At 120lbs (many years ago) that meant that I had around 21lbs of fat and a body that MOST women in the western world would be totally envious of (except I had small boobs). Now I'm at 160lbs and same %bf, I have ~29lbs of blubber (thanks to my setpoint) and a body that MOST women would run a million miles to avoid. Personally I was a lot fitter at 120lbs, so I can't really say that weight training has benefitted me in any way in the long term. What's important is to make sure the next generation does not get fat in the first place, but for THIS generation I think we need to get real and stop giving them the message that they can achieve and maintain a svelt body for life if they've already become overweight. I think it's more important to give them the message that exercise is important for long term health and NOT weight loss, and that eating a healthy diet may not in itself make them lean (unless they restrict their calorie intake and are miserable forever more), but it will also improve their chances of long term health and possibly keep them from getting even fatter. It's all about damage control now. I know there are a LOT of overweight people that are waiting for someone to develop a magic pill that will change what I just said.. This is not only naive, it is endangering the next generations since this whole downward spiral starts very early in life, quite possibly in the womb.

OK, there's a shitload (millions) of westerners who do NOT want to hear this or accept it. Tough. Unless we become more practical in our approach to obesity and obesity related diseases, we will never solve the problems. It is NOT all about starting that diet and exercise program in the new year (after putting on another 10 lbs because "what the heck, I'm going on a diet next year"). It's about accepting your situation in the here and now and realizing it can only get worse, so the sooner you start your lifestyle changes the better.

 

[valerie]

Thank you for the interesting posts. This gives a lot of great info. Food for Thought. Do I detect a feeling that Ms is carrying more muscle than she wants? I ask because I am wondering that for myself. I'm not huge but have considered lossing some of this muscle. I'm 5'6' 136lbs @17%, four years ago I was 123lbs at 22%. I'm fitter and stronger than ever,but I don't want to get any bigger.

Any comments MS?

 

[MS]

It's an entirely individual thin valerie. Before I took up bodybuilding I was an excellent rock-climber, mountaineer, hiker etc...I was fit both cardiovascularly and flexibility wise. I was slim but well toned, and fit easily into a size 2-4 at 5'5". I had a superioir strength to weight ratio. Admittedly I am older now, which normally decreases fitness and flexibility by itself, but because I am heavier, my tendons are damaged from handling too much weight for too long, I have neglected my endurance fitness because it was 'catabolic' and and 'counterproductive to muscle gains', I am less flexible and can no longer do those activities that I excelled at when I was lighter. On top of that I am just plain old bigger, and unless I am going to stand naked in public and flex for all I'm worth, no one would even know the extra size was mostly muscle. Now that IS the goal of traditional bodybuilding, and it IS what I set out to achieve. But for me to downsize now means that I will have to eat less (forever more if I wish to maintain lower bodyweight) and I LIKE eating. I'm also concerned that my body may now think that 29lbs of fat is what it needs to be happy, and 120lbs bodyweight with 29lbs of fat is basically 25%bf instead of 17-18%.

None of this means I'm unhealthy, and at my age I don't even care whether I have an envious figure or not. I'm certain most women would benefit from some resistance exercise because it helps maintain bone mass and insulin sensitivity, and also helps women to feel less vulnerable and weak. But I do not advocate that most women should eat and train like a bodybuilder. Aside from all of that, there is the growing body of research that indicates caloric restriction as a means of life extension. This is in direct contrast to a bodybuilder's goals of eating more and getting bigger. In other words, I think for the majority of people they should focus more on reducing calorie intake than heavy weight training with the intention of gaining muscle. But it's really just my opinion and ignores the small number of women who really WANT to look like a bodybuilder.

 

[valerie]

Thanks for the response MS. You have given me more to think about. I appreciate your opinion . We are about the same age,I'm 44. My plans for this summer were to have stayed lean after competing and spend more time doing outdoor activities. Now I understand why I could'nt stay as lean as I'd hope. But I have been doing lots of hiking and still lifting. I wo by myself so am limited to using wts I can handle on my own. Still I increased my lbm.

I had hoped that I could just shrink a little bit and eat normally. I now understand how its more complicated than that. My body isn't wanting me to be under 15% and I'll have to go with that. Thanks for clearing that up.

Just one more question please. You eluded earlier in a post on the womens board on refeeds about the amount of carbs to upregulate all the hormonal stuff. The carb ups I've used in the past were quite minimal around 100grams,twice per week. Any suggestions as to a higher amount? This would be for a pre contest diet.

I suspect that the answer is an individual thing too. -Valerie

 

[MS]

Yes, it's individual, but it also varies with your dieting progress. When you start out, you don't need refeeds at all. As you get leaner you need them larger and more frequent. I also increase daily calories as folks get leaner, in addition to refeeds. The duration of your refeeds also makes a difference. But I usually work in a one-on-one basis to dial this in for each individual. It's hard for me to give a solid program on the internet. With practice you can tell by changes in mood, cravings, energy, flatness, sleep patterns etc.....It's best to act early before your brain goes off the deep end and you end up on a week long high fat high sugar binge!!!

 

[valerie]

Gotcha! Many thanks MS. I won't be competing until next year so I've got plenty of time to fiqure out what works. I have noticed all the symptoms of low carbs so can make the judgement calls. -Valerie

 

[SteelWeaver]

I might be more willing to listen to your point of view in 5 or 10 years time if you have proven that you not only reduced you bodyfat temporarily (for a show) but have managed to keep it off long term without feeling like you're constantly 'dieting'.

Well, then, I'll see you in 5 years. Wait, watch, and see. Assuming you're not talking about maintaining competition levels of bf, but a point somewhere between there and the point I started at (which I assume is at or near my setpoint). I'm not kidding myself that it's not going to be hard work, and there's nothing in my post above to suggest that I believe keeping it off long term would not feel like one is constantly "dieting". But ... I have enough motivation, desire, focus, energy and persistence to accomplish anything I set my mind to. So - bring on the struggle

We're both arguing the same point - lifestyle change. I didn't say anything about it being easy, and I didn't say anything about being able to reset setpoints. I just said weight training PLUS diet is easier to stick to long term IMO.

Are you really saying that if you take two people with about the same setpoint, same level of obesity, etc, and have one diet and the other diet and train (weights and cardio) that the one will not lose a greater percentage of muscle mass, setting them up physically for worse subsequent rebound, and also that they thus will not end up having to eat MUCH less than their training counterpart, thus fucking them up psychologically and making it even MORE certain that they will rebound?

AND, is a smaller fat body not less satisifying to achieve than a smaller, more solid, stronger and more shapely fat body?

Personally I was a lot fitter at 120lbs, so I can't really say that weight training has benefitted me in any way in the long term.

Really? Well, I guess it depends on your priorities. What about, you know, stronger bones and better insulin sensitivity? No psychological benefits?

It's about accepting your situation in the here and now and realizing it can only get worse, so the sooner you start your lifestyle changes the better.

Lifestyle changes here being ....? Only diet? Diet with exercise? Maybe some ... er ... weight training? lol

Pick away, MS - how else is one to learn anything!

 

[MS]

"I have enough motivation, desire, focus,
energy and persistence to accomplish anything I set my mind to"

That's great, and I think this is where we may have our wires crossed. A very few people have this. The vast VAST majority do not. I'm not really talking about you, I'm talking about the issues we have to address for the millions (getting close to billions) of already overweight people who do not and never will have this will power to deny themselves food for the rest of their lives. Aside from desire etc...., there are personality problems involved, and the old sayings
"lean and mean"
"fat and happy"
"no happy medium"

come to mind.
I'm not sure I would WANT to live in a world where everyone was constantly grumpy and agro becuase of self inflicted caloric restrictions. The world is already a pretty grumpy place. So I'm just putting forward the opinion that we should not try to convince overweight people to make dramatic lifestyle changes that they can only stick to at the risk of being miserable for life. Better to teach them good habits but not focus so much on weight loss per se, but to focus on not gaining any more weight, and to have some control over their kids eating habits. As part of this, weight training AND ANY OTHER REGULAR EXERCISE will help prevent more damage by reducing insulin resistance, increasing aerobic fitness etc...

"Are you really saying that if you take two people with about the same setpoint, same level of obesity, etc, and have one diet and the other diet and train (weights and cardio) that the one will not lose a greater percentage of muscle mass,"

Ummm, pretty much. In fact, work in identical twins has shown that a period of endurance training with constant (below maintenance) energy intake resulted in ~5kg loss which was almost entirely fat, and that the differences in distribution of fat loss and other hormonal factors was almost entirely due to genetics. In other words it's very consistent within identical twins and very little LBM is lost with endurance training while on a mild calorie restricted diet.

Another study compared endurance training to resistance training over a 12 week period. They found
"These results suggest that both endurance and resistance training may help to prevent an
attenuation in RMR normally observed during extended periods of negative energy balance (energy intake less than expenditure) by either preserving or increasing a person's fat-free weight."

Of interest in this second study is that the %bf was the same at the end of the study in both groups, even though the resistance trained group had *slightly* increased LBM. In other words the resistance trained folks had more total bodyfat (which is also my experience).

In women in particular, we have studies such as
"There exists considerable controversy regarding the impact of different modes of exercise training on . To examine this question, young, nonobese women were randomly assigned to a supervised 6-month program of endurance training, resistance training, or control condition. total daily energy expenditure was measured before and 10 d after a 6-month exercise program was completed with doubly labeled water. Body composition was determined from dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, maximum aerobic capacity from a treadmill test to exhaustion, and muscular strength from one-repetition maximum tests. Results showed that body composition did not change in endurance-trained women, but maximum aerobic capacity increased by 18%. Resistance-trained women increased muscular strength and fat-free mass (1.3 kg). Total daily energy expenditureid not significantly change when measured subsequent to the endurance or resistance training programs. No change in physical activity energy expenditure was found in any of the groups. These results suggest that endurance and resistance training does not chronically alter total daily energy expenditure in free-living young women. Thus, the energy-enhancing benefits of exercise training are primarily derived from the direct energy cost of exercise and not from a chronic elevation in daily energy expenditure in young, nonobese women."

There seem to be two separate issues here. The first is the feasability of overweight people to permanently lose weight without dieting for the rest of their lives. This is not going to happen. If you are not willing to return to your previous level of body fat, even YOU will be consciously restricting your food intake (ie dieting) for the rest of your life. The second issue, which is where I think we disagree, if your assertion that weight training is somehow superior or the holy grail of fat loss and maintenance. It is not IMHO. And if I had continued to be a 120lb endurance type of person instead of taking up bodybuilding, I'm pretty sure that my insulin sensitivity would still be very good given the same diet and %bf. I think you're confusing what is theoretically possible with enough willpower, to what is the reality for the majority of people. For this majority, improving their dietary habits is the most important thing to start with. If we can then get them to start doing SOME exercise, ANY exercise, that is also gonna help them to be healthy, but they still won't lose fat unless they diet.

As far as exercise's contribution to long term weight maintenance it is also pretty important to understand adaptive responses to exercise. The body becomes much more effeicient at exercise it does chronically. Every bodybuilder knows this! But for Joe Average this basically means that over the long haul the energy cost of doing X minutes of Y exercise each day diminishes. In other words they will burn less calories doing the same thing all the time.

In an ideal world everyone would know as much as us and be as comitted etc... In the real world fat folks are are not ever going to be lean for life unless someone discovers a pretty amazing drug.

 

[valerie]

What is so interesting is the effect all the various brain chemicals,etc,etc have. We may conciously want to restrict our diet but the brain really works againist us. This thread has really made me rethink my approach to dieting and exercise. Thank you both-Valerie

 

[SteelWeaver]

Mmm. OK. I see what you mean. I remember you posting the study about the direct energy cost of exercise vs. RMR increase, or lack of ... I also remember you saying you were going to get back to us with some studies on sprints in women - lol, I have a short memory for some things, but others I never forget

I guess I was just thinking that with weight training and caloric restriction, one could lose some fat and gain some LBM, which would make it possible to eat more, thus making one feel less deprived in the long term ... I think the psychological effect of having to eat miniscule amounts of food forever could crack anyone's head.

I have a question about your point about the diminishing returns for x minutes of exercise: taking into account the principles of progressive resistance and SAID, surely it makes more sense to train with weights, rather than just aerobically, since if one is doing it properly, one will always be taking the level/intensity higher - in the same number of minutes? So you never reach a point of diminishing returns. With endurance exercise you're gonna end up running a marathon every day. It's just more practical to train with weights.

And if caloric restriction and cardio have been shown to be effective for fat loss without LBM loss, why do bodybuilders spend so much time training so hard with weights pre-comp? Those twins were obese, right? The relative percentages change radically the leaner one gets, yes?

With regard to "dieting" forever - well, even eating clean all the time feels like dieting, so a bit of caloric restriction on top of that isn't gonna change the way it feels much, and the truth is, I think for ANYONE who tries to eat healthily in a social environment where fast food, instant meals, processed everything is a reality of a "convenience-driven" lifestyle, there is a sense that they are "dieting". Even being veggie kind of feels like dieting, since food choices in restaurants or whatever are limited. That's never bothered me much - for me, personally, being conscious of food choices, amounts, etc. is pretty much normal - it's been with me for so long. As for the vast majority - another story altogether. Here's a conversation I had with my father yesterday - illustrates the point perfectly:

Him: the doctor says I need to lose weight - I have hypertension, kidney stones, etc etc (many obesity-related health issues), so I've hired a dietician - she's going to make up a plan for me.
Me: Great! Very good idea - you're not as young as you used to be, gotta watch your health. I wonder what she'll give you.
Him: Ah, well, she told me she's not going to give me a temporary thing - rather a lifestyle idea that I can live with forever.
Me: Perfect, because that's what it's really all about, isn't it?
Him: Yeah, but I told her she should just cancel the appointment if the plan doesn't include whiskey. I'm not giving up the whiskey.
Me: Well, I'm sure you could fit in a shot or two here and there. How much do you drink?
Him: Oh ... half a bottle a night .....
Me: DAD!!!!!!!!

Oh, well. It's his life .... She asked him to have his wife there so they could talk about how the meals should be prepared etc. So he told her, well, no - he's not married and he eats out at restaurants every night.

Good luck to her, I say! Sounds like a thankless profession.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about setpoint, though - those studies and what you've said so far point to the setpoint being a PERCENTAGE of bodyweight. Thus your body, if you drop the extra 40lbs muscle, should just maintain that same percentage, right? Rather than keeping 29lbs. And dropping muscle and fat shouldn't be much of a problem, should it? I dunno what she used, but Kim Chisevsky did a pretty good job of dropping a ton of muscle.

And something else I was thinking about in terms of maintaining a certain, lower than setpoint level of bodyfat - one doesn't have to feel like one is dieting ALL the time if one DOESN'T, but rather cycles periods of "normal" eating with periods of strict dieting. The fat's gonna creep up anyway, especially if one is trying to gain muscle, so ... yum yum - caloric excess for 2 months, then restriction for 2 or so ... EASY! That's fairly typical BB'ing style, isn't it?

Valerie - did you check out the link MS put up to misc:fitness:weights? TONS of good info on refeeds there. And read anything Par Deus posts - he, Lyle McDonald and Elzi Volk have studied/explored leptin/refeeds pretty extensively.

 

[SteelWeaver]

Ha ha. Look at this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1664381.stm

 

[MS]

“However, their machine has so far only been tested on pigs” LMAO That should be a perfect model for humans!!!!

Gosh, your dad sounds just like my mom (though she doesn’t drink whiskey…that’s MY vice). It’s even worse when your parents/family members ASK you to draw up a plan for them and then you have to sit back and watch them make excuses, rationalizations blah blah blah as to why they can’t do it/stick to it. And they IMPLY it’s your fault for not giving them a plan that’s easy, painless and fits perfectly with their current lifestyle L

Bodybuilders are a different kettle of fish when it comes to dieting. First of all, a LOT of them use a LOT of drugs. Secondly, they’re trying to lose fat at the outer limits of what’s humanly possible through willpower alone. Overweight people can lose almost nothing but fat by simply dieting. But the leaner you get, the more you risk losing muscle until it becomes inevitable. At that stage, weight training may assist with retention of LBM. More importantly, bodybuilders also START their diets with LBM that is acquired through intense weight training. As such, they need to continue to supply that stimulus if they wish to retain that muscle. This is true even if you’re NOT dieting. Use it or lose it.

As for setpoint and %bf, I don’t actually know that your body can tell what your %bf is. This is a human concept. All I know is it’s much easier to lose muscle than fat if you’ve been a bodybuilder and stop training. As for Kim C, well DUH. She just needed to back off the AAS and go on her usual diet (but not diet so hard or so long). But there’s that 4 letter “D” word again. She did not get lean by just stopping the AAS and easing up on her training. She still had to diet (and prolly do some of that cardio and weight training stuff too).

Ummmm, ‘normal eating’ followed by dieting works well as long as you can sustain it. This is prolly closest to how we evolved to handle calorie balance. Unfortunately most people go too long before their next round of dieting, thus forever increasing their ‘setpoint’. To make this work, you have to plan things well and stick to it. Dieting sucks, so most people avoid this for as long as possible. When they finally DO get around to some good old fashioned diet and exercise, the irreversible damage is already done. Again it comes down to discipline and willpower. It will always be more tempting to go for the short term satisfaction of eating pizza and beer than the long term sacrifice needed to stay lean. BTW it’s a fine line between cycling normal eating/diet versus binge eating type disorders. Be careful.

On the UP side of all of this, it means that lean and muscular physiques will always be admired in Western societies because they are so rare and hard to obtain! On the down side (as you're finding out) the impact on your social life and attitudes can be difficult to handle because you're swimming against the tide.

 

[makedah]

A fantastic thread. It addresses a LOT of the issues I've been struggling with recently.

MS - I enjoy your posts at Elite. I LOVE the way you 'tell it like it is.'

 

[valerie]

I haven't seen that link, where is it? I have read some of the writings of PD,Lyle,and Elzie.


A couple of points- when you are done competing, Steel a lot of this will become very obvious to you. After dieting so hard your body will really drive you to eat. I've experienced this and inspite of my resolve I still ended up with a higher bf% than I'd wanted. MS also mentioned that it took a year for her to normalize her eating.

Your idea of cycling calories is a good one, I will be doing this myself this fall. The difference is that I will keep the higher calorie period much shorter perhaps only one or two weeks. I will get it fiqured out before I start.

I guess the fact is that we will always have to be aware of how and what we eat. Food is way too easy to get in this day.

Valerie

 

[Naxis]

Actually, your body does know it's %bf to an extent. I saw some research that girls were starting to get their periods at a younger and younger age (coincidently correlating to the explosion of the fat-epidemic) and they found that it *did* actually have to do with the fact that kids carry more body fat these days. As they neared 11% body fat and I think it was 97 lbs, regardless of age, the body identifies the environment as being suitable for handling childbirth and menstruation begins. I don't know what triggers are for males, but I suspect it is the onset of puberty. If it is that sensitive in adolescence, I'd be surprised if it lost it's gague later on. Just less obvious responses, possibly? I just thought it was interesting.

 

[MS]

Usually well over 17% body fat...."The minium percentage for the onset of menstrual
cycles is 17.3% and corresponds to percentile 10. However, there is a 5% of girls who start to menstruate with a 15.5% of fat and
none of them is below that value."

The average %bf in that study was 24%. In another study, most young women were closer to 21-22% bodyfat, and this is probably close to the norm.

But none of these girsl are 'bodybuilders' and as such they all had VERY similar LBMs at start of menarche (35kg LBM +/- 3kg). Hard to say if their bodies were sensing TOTAL bodyfat or % bodyfat because of the similarities in their height, weight, fat and LBM. Weight and height seemed to be more consistent : 155 +/- 0.5cm height and 46 +/- 0.5kg weight.

It doesn't really matter. Losing 8-9lbs of fat is still hard work when you're not exactly obese to begin with Whether or not I could easily maintain that new weight is something I will probably never find out.......As you can see though, women are truly screwed from the beginning as Elzi Volk is found of saying. Your pubertal hormones force you into the low to mid 20's (percent fat) and it's a battle to get back to prepubertal bodyfat levels once you've been that fat. NOT that that's fat....it's pretty healthy in terms of reproductive fitness. The big problem is that young women are getting there earlier each generation, and the earlier you reach puberty, the greater you chances of being obese as an adult! Image is another problem. It's no longer considered sexy to be a 25% fat female, and it definitely doesn't make for good bodybuilders. But in terms of obesity related diseases, osteoporosis, mood and general well being there is nothing wrong with a female being 25% fat. If we could stop young women from getting any fatter than 25%, we could stop a lot of suffering and health costs later on. If we could get obese people down to 25% it would also be an amazing accomplishment.

 

[SteelWeaver]

Here's the link, valerie. It was in my panicky refeed thread.

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=...fitness.weights

While you're there just do a search on variations of the word "refeed" - there's a ton of good info.

I know what you mean about one's body telling you to eat eat eat post comp - I hit my limit for the start of this current diet 3 weeks early after the last one - I was eating PUHLENTY, including a non-clean item quite regularly (my downfall), trying to gain as much muscle as possible quickly, and I still craved chocolate like it was going out of style. I put on more fat than I should have, probably, but I also gained a pretty fair amount of muscle, I think. I wonder how much muscle one could gain on a 2-weekly rotation as opposed to a 2-monthly rotation? Mmm - I think I'm just going to try different things for the next couple of years. Then when it comes time to compete again I'll be an old hand at it

Heh heh, MS - I mentioned Kim C. just to illustrate the point that it IS, of course, possible - just depends how badly you want it. On the up side, you get to eat a lot more than you would otherwise. So in that sense my point about about weight training as a means of maintaining fat losses (or even preventing gains) isn't entirely off - whatever is easier to stick to i.e. not thinking you're on a starvation diet because you get to eat a reasonable amount. I don't know anything about the subject really, but I imagine the psychological benefits of seeing more food on one's plate, and feeling one is actively doing something, you know, ACTIVE, to control one's physical shape must be quite empowering, in contrast to the deprived, IMPOSED upon feeling that one has when simply dieting. No??

Didn't the research into caloric restriction for longevity point to EXTREME caloric restriction? I think that would tax even the most dedicated bodybuilder, never mind the man/woman in the street.

I think I'm just going to work on secretly watering down my dad's whiskey for now heh heh

 

[MS]

"I think I'm just going to work on secretly watering down my dad's whiskey for now heh heh" ---------------trust me, that won't work. All it will do is increase how much money he spends on whiskey. It seems alcoholics are reasonably immune to placebo effects!

"I imagine the psychological benefits of seeing more food on one's plate"--------------------if it were THAT easy then male bodybuilders would find dieting a lot easier than females. But it's the other way around I've watched a guy with close to twice my LBM diet down by eating twice as much food as me 5 times a day and trust me, it looked like paradise to me and it was sheer torture for him. Women are also much more prone to binges and many other problems associated with calorie restriction.

The research on longevity indicates an overall caloric intake similar to that of the Hunzas is optimal. This is ~ 1600-1800 calories for males and 1400-1600 for females. This is not extreme in my opinion, and I know i COULD survive on this average intake if I had to without too much stress provided there were good times to balance the bad (ie refeeds). Keep in mind this is an AVERAGE, and they eat a LOT more than that in times of plenty, and a LOT less than that in tough times. They also feed their women up on dairy, meat and grains before marriage to 'fatten them up' for child bearing. Of course they marry pretty young by our standards. But that's really more a topic for the longevity board since most bodybuilders have different agendas!

 

[Island Son]

As an aside:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2002/leicester_2002/2246450.stm
"Average weights have increased significantly over the last 20 years.
In 1980, the average man weighed 73.7 kg and a woman 62.2. By 2000, that had increased to 81.6 and 68.8 kg respectively. "

Personally I'll pass on the caloric restriction, it's a little extreme for my taste.

I always wonder.... why is it that calorie restriction is measured in terms of quantity? Since one of the signals of satiety is fullness, what about larger portions of low-calorie food, or less easily digested stuff?

 

[MR. BMJ]

I've been busy and off the boards for the past 1-2 months, and this thread is a very good one to come back to. I am enjoying this thread as it touches upon a lot of interesting parameters to fat loss, muscle gain, health, and life.

Sorry about not keeping in touch MS...i'll email ya soon. I've been pretty busy since we last talked this summer. All is well out here though, hopefully the same in return for you.

I was wondering though, has your added size 'totally' keeped you from doing your rockclimbing?

BMJ

 

[MS]

Hi MR BMJ. Been wondering how you've been.

"I was wondering though, has your added size 'totally' keeped you from doing your rockclimbing? "

It prevents me from rockclimbing at the cutting edge of the sport. The extra weight not only stresses tendons to the extreme, but heavy weight training has also resulted in some permanent damage to my tendons. Rockclimbing is a sport where strength to weight ratio and flexibililty are ALL that matters. You try hanging off a 1/2 inch, two finger hold with an extra 45lbs tied around your waist and you'll see what I mean!

 

[MR. BMJ]

MS, i'll try to send ya an email out this weekend to catch ya up, and vice-versa.

I was just wondering if it got to the point to where you just had to debit it from your outside activities...knowing that you are 'outdoorsy'. I imagine it's even harder with your foot as well, as I am not sure, but I vaguely remember you mentioning something about having rods placed in your ankle(s).

About the discussion though....

I agree that it would be easier to stay lean if you never really got out of shape to begin with. I have experienced the same effects as MS when I have risen my LBM and overall BM. I don't necessarily think people that are eating a hypercaloric diet necessarily need to go overboard on calories, juicing or not. There comes a point where fat gain starts to accumulate faster than muscle gain, from what I have experienced. Also, I too have read research indicating that a hypocaloric diet is more favorable for health and longivity. I think Dan Duchaine mentioned this in a past Muscle Media as well. However, I believe the time it favors life extension was kind of small, especially once you get up into your 80's and stuff....I hope I croak over without experiencing all those old age illnesses and lonliness.

I think I am gonna print this whole thread out...this is some good stuff, and could continue awhile with interesting points of view (and scientific data of course).

BMJ

 

[SteelWeaver]

Does weight training necessarily mean a loss of flexibility? I'm sure I've seen pics of enormous pros doing the splits and various other feats of flexibility ...

I suppose it comes down to making choices, and the limits that specific paths place on other paths: if one wishes to eat cake one must face the long-term reality of being fat and sick. If one wishes to strip and flex large muscles, there's the down-side of not being good at a few other sports.

MS - before you set out to gain so much muscle, did it worry you that the extra weight would slow you down for other stuff? Did you think about it? Would you change it now that you're where you are? I mean, I know you've said you would like to, but WOULD you actually? Has the thrill of achieving better and better condition every time been worth what you gave up?