How do you burn body fat while retaining muscle mass?

On Nov 26, 10:32 am, davidlee
wrote:
I have been doing 1 hour of stationary biking daily for the past month
in a bid to burn off body fat from my abdominal area. I also do weights
training 4 times a week. I consume roughly 2000-2200 calories daily
which is the recommended/slightly below recommended quantity to
maintain body weight for a 22 yr old male. It has not been very
successful as there is still body fat on my torso. I am not keen to go
on a high protein low carbohydrate diet. If you are going to suggest
one, could you kindly explain the need to exclude carbohydrates? I do
not understand the need to exclude carb when the calorie totals of 2
different diets(1 balanced and 1 low carb high protein) are equal. Any
advice is appreciated, thanks!

It's the hormonal thing. The carbs turn to blood sugar. The blood
sugar
causes insulin to be large in the hormonal profile. When insulin is
big,
fat goes into storage, not out. If you want to burn the fat off,
cutting your
carbs is going to be the best bet.

In terms of muscular development, muscle is made primarily of protein
and water. It takes some carb and insulin to build the muscle too, but
not
anything like a large plate of pasta (wrong kind of carb anyway, you
want
something faster). So, if you want to build muscle with your lifting,
you're going to need to get adequate protein. On the order of .7 -
2.0g/lb
of lean bodyweight.

Other plans may activate other mechanisms, but this is how, in an
isocaloric setting ("the calorie totals of 2 different diets are
equal"), two
different diets can perform differently. In this case, at any given
caloric
intake point, low carb, adequate protein is going to out perform
"balanced"
whatever that may be.

davidlee writes:

I have been doing 1 hour of stationary biking daily for the past month
in a bid to burn off body fat from my abdominal area. I also do weights
training 4 times a week. I consume roughly 2000-2200 calories daily
which is the recommended/slightly below recommended quantity to
maintain body weight for a 22 yr old male. It has not been very
successful as there is still body fat on my torso. I am not keen to go
on a high protein low carbohydrate diet.

Then don't. Do a moderate-protein, low-carb diet, where you get as much
protein as your lean body mass needs, based on your activity level. The
book "Protein Power," available at most libraries (or Amazon.com has
used copies for basically the price of shipping) will walk you through
the process of determining that amount with a few simple measurements.

If you are going to suggest one, could you kindly explain the need to
exclude carbohydrates?

You don't exclude them; you lower them to the point where they don't
cause problems. More below.

I do not understand the need to exclude carb when the calorie totals
of 2 different diets(1 balanced and 1 low carb high protein) are
equal.

Because there's a lot more going on inside your body than the simple
burning of calories. The short, short version: all carbohydrates
(except for fructose, which is in a dangerous category all its own, and
fiber) are converted into glucose before being transferred from your
intestine to your blood stream. Insulin is released in response to this
increase in blood sugar. Insulin also triggers insulin receptors on
your cells, including the fat cells, telling them it's feedin' time.
While this is going on, your cells *cannot* take fat out of storage and
get rid of it. This surge of insulin must stop before fat can be lost,
and that's where a low-carb diet comes in. A low-carb diet keeps those
insulin surges short or non-existent, so your cells are able to take fat
out of storage any time it's needed for energy.

The only reason it's even possible to lose weight on a high-carb,
low-calorie diet is that by restricting calories enough, there will be a
good portion of the day when you have burned up all the calories you
took in, even if they were 100% sugar, and your endocrine system can
shift out of this high-insulin mode and into a fat-burning mode. So the
recommended low-calorie, low-fat, high-carb diet "works" to the extent
that it gets you into a low-carb state part-time. It's just a lot less
fun; and if you're in the 75% or so of the population whose pancreata
can't handle that blood sugar roller coaster for a lifetime, it will
eventually damage your health in all sorts of ways.

Like I said, that's the short, short version. For the longer version,
"Protein Power" covers the basics, and "Protein Power Life Plan" (a
newer book) really gets into the details. Gary Taubes's new book "Good
Calories, Bad Calories," which I think someone else already recommended,
covers a lot of the same science, but also explains the history of how
we got so mixed up on this stuff over the last century.



--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Aaron Baugher wrote:

Because there's a lot more going on inside your body than the simple
burning of calories. The short, short version: all carbohydrates
(except for fructose, which is in a dangerous category all its own, and
fiber) are converted into glucose before being transferred from your
intestine to your blood stream. Insulin is released in response to this
increase in blood sugar. Insulin also triggers insulin receptors on
your cells, including the fat cells, telling them it's feedin' time.
While this is going on, your cells *cannot* take fat out of storage and
get rid of it. This surge of insulin must stop before fat can be lost,
and that's where a low-carb diet comes in.

This isn't a 100% thing, so the above description is exaggerated.
No matter the insulin level, some amount of fat will drift out of
storage each day. What matters is the net and that net is
effected by insulin.

A low-carb diet keeps those
insulin surges short or non-existent, so your cells are able to take fat
out of storage any time it's needed for energy.

Further, low carb diets tend to trigger glucagon release and
glucagon in the absence of insulin pulls fat out of storage.
The net movement of fat out of storage is higher. This is why
low carbing works better than low fatting during the loss phases,
and part of the reason why low carb is more lean sparing so it
actually works more better than studies tend to show.

The only reason it's even possible to lose weight on a high-carb,
low-calorie diet is that by restricting calories enough, there will be a
good portion of the day when you have burned up all the calories you
took in, even if they were 100% sugar, and your endocrine system can
shift out of this high-insulin mode and into a fat-burning mode. So the
recommended low-calorie, low-fat, high-carb diet "works" to the extent
that it gets you into a low-carb state part-time. It's just a lot less
fun; and if you're in the 75% or so of the population whose pancreata
can't handle that blood sugar roller coaster for a lifetime, it will
eventually damage your health in all sorts of ways.

Given that there's a minimum daily flow of fat out of storage, no
matter your insulin level as long as you reduce any flow into
storage the net will end up negative. That's how low fat works.
Eat low enough dietary fat that it is all burned for your daily
calories and none is available to be stored. That plus conversion
of carbs to fat is very inefficient so staying low fat continues to
work during maintenance. The problem with this loss by net
flow of fat is higher insulin means more hunger for most people,
so low fat plans have higher dropout rates than low carb plans.

"Roger Zoul" wrote:
"Bobo Bonobo(R)" wrote:
"Roger Zoul" wrote:

If you exclude carbs, you can replace them with protein.

You can't just replace all your carbs with protein. You will get
sick. You should replace most carb calories with fat.

But that's the bad PR end of low carb. Folks with irrational fear
of fat see the relatively high fat levels and incorrectly worry.

Who said you need to replace all your carbs with protein?

Scarsdale, to name one formerly popular plan that was a disaster.

If you eat meat, you get more protein and fat.

Thus the fat to protein ratios tend to be determined by how lean
or fatty the meat is in many cases. Turns out 500 calories of
very lean grilled and drains turkey breast is no more filling than
500 calories of high fat pepperoni, but the turkey is sure bigger
and folks initially think in terms of portion sizes. Until they learn
about the relative filling and taper their portions. But here again
we tend to get people who haven't actually tried it freaking out
over false theories - People eating fattier meats will eat more
calories. Easy to claim based on preconceived notions until
you actually try it in real life.

Some of those carbs are being replaced with
protein and you can think one-for-one since they have equivalent caloric
value. Outside of protein powder, I know of no way to eat only protein.
Perhaps I should have said meat or a "protein source", but practically
speaking, he's going to be eating food, hopefully.

What is this "you will get sick" stuff?

Plenty of people died on Scarsdale. Go even as non-lean as
turkey breast and you probably won't end up sick though.

A 22 year old who is weight lifting and doing cardio and trying to get lean
will benefit from the extra protein.

Not if they started at protein intake levels common in the US where
we already tend to eat well in excess of our protein needs.

It's OK to up your protein intake, but if you were formerly getting
20% protein/20% fat/60% carbs, you should not go to 70% protein/20%
fat/10% carbs.

That's going to be really hard to do unless one is eating only protein
powder. Most protein comes with plenty of fat.

I think the Scarsdale folks used protein powder.

And where is the data that says if you go to 70/20/10 you'll get sick? It
will be damn boring, for sure, but I don't think you can provide any proof
of it being harmful.

It will also get harder and harder to eat over time. Consider
trying it as an experiment - The body will reduce appetite for protein
if it gets far too much without mixed fat and/or carbs.

Switching to 40% protein/50% fat/10% carbs is still
doubling your protein intake. Any more than doubling protein is
something that a bodybuilder might do with medical supervision, but
otherwise it's a bad idea.

I'm with Jackie Patti in pointing out that percentages are very
poor ways to measure intake. Since percentages make no
distinction between 1000 calories and 3000 calories, they are
not useful compared to gram counts and calorie counts. And
since there are lower limits to essential nutrients that are
measured in grams not percentages, percentages are a
secondary number compared to grams and calories.

What's it going to do, kill your kidneys?

The Scarsdale folks who died had problems with electrolyte
balance IIRC. Even at those high protein intakes, it wasn't
kidney damage but biased potassium levels that did them in.

Low carb DOES NOT imply HIGH PROTEIN.

Which is why folks who come in discussing high protein
diets are either ignorant of what low carbing actually entails,
or are using the term as a deliberate PR ploy to avoid using
the workds "high fat", or have not learned about Scarsdale
problems.

But it can be high protein in comparison to a standard low fat diet.

Sure. After the optimum levels of carb (Atkins CCLL IMO),
protein (Eades PP system IMO) and fat (does anyone have a
good system for optimum fat? Probably some mild low fat
plan would have it.) then there's still the daily caloric needs.
Getting to a calorie guideline means adding protein and/or
fat on a low carb plan.

davidlee wrote:

I do
not understand the need to exclude carb when the calorie totals of 2
different diets(1 balanced and 1 low carb high protein) are equal.

Where does understanding come into it? I don't understand how
gravity works, but if I step off a cliff I don't get an effect like in
a
Bugs Bunny comic. I fall even though I don't understand.
Understanding is indeed a good thing, but it is entirely optional.
Low carbing works no matter if anyone in the world understands it
or not.

Get a book about a popular low carb plan. Read it carefully.
Follow the directions, including the directions you don't understand.
Remember that the authors spent decades working on the plan
so it's going to work no matter whether you understand it or not.
Heck, it works even whether the author understands or not because
some authors focused more on the results than on understanding.

Understanding is good, but understanding isn't needed.

Originally Posted by Hollywood

On Nov 26, 10:32 am, davidlee
wrote:
I have been doing 1 hour of stationary biking daily for the past month
in a bid to burn off body fat from my abdominal area. I also do weights
training 4 times a week. I consume roughly 2000-2200 calories daily
which is the recommended/slightly below recommended quantity to
maintain body weight for a 22 yr old male. It has not been very
successful as there is still body fat on my torso. I am not keen to go
on a high protein low carbohydrate diet. If you are going to suggest
one, could you kindly explain the need to exclude carbohydrates? I do
not understand the need to exclude carb when the calorie totals of 2
different diets(1 balanced and 1 low carb high protein) are equal. Any
advice is appreciated, thanks!

It's the hormonal thing. The carbs turn to blood sugar. The blood
sugar
causes insulin to be large in the hormonal profile. When insulin is
big,
fat goes into storage, not out. If you want to burn the fat off,
cutting your
carbs is going to be the best bet.

In terms of muscular development, muscle is made primarily of protein
and water. It takes some carb and insulin to build the muscle too, but
not
anything like a large plate of pasta (wrong kind of carb anyway, you
want
something faster). So, if you want to build muscle with your lifting,
you're going to need to get adequate protein. On the order of .7 -
2.0g/lb
of lean bodyweight.

Other plans may activate other mechanisms, but this is how, in an
isocaloric setting ("the calorie totals of 2 different diets are
equal"), two
different diets can perform differently. In this case, at any given
caloric
intake point, low carb, adequate protein is going to out perform
"balanced"
whatever that may be.

Beware that abdominal body fat (especially when it's only a little) is the most difficult to get rid of for a man. I lost about 10 lbs and maybe 2-3 inches from my gut my doing cardio every day and weight training 4-5x / week. Even though you provided some good info, there's still a lot missing that may be the culprit:

- How do you space out your 2000-2200 cal/day? Eat your bigger meals before your workouts and in the AM while smaller meals should be during the day and close to bedtime. Increase your daily calories on w/o days and lower it on others.
- What intensity level is you training at? 1 hr of stationary cycling could burn between 350-1000 calories in an hour. For weight training, what percentage of your 1 rep max are you training at? I had a client who was doing 10 reps on the leg press with about 50lbs, and we found that he could easily do 120 lbs for 10 reps.
- Try varying your workout to include interval training. The change of intensity throughout the workout increases performance and burns more calories.
- What does your diet look like? You should load up on high fiber like beans and drink close to 1 gallon of water per day.
- How much is you looking to lose? What does your stomach look like today? The closer you are to your goal, the more strict and intense you will need to be, whereas if you are just starting almost any change will cause an improvement.

On Nov 29, 2:36 am, davidlee
wrote:
Hollywood;401990 Wrote:




It's the hormonal thing. The carbs turn to blood sugar. The blood
sugar causes insulin to be large in the hormonal profile. When
insulin is big, fat goes into storage, not out. If you want to burn
the fat off, cutting your carbs is going to be the best bet.

In terms of muscular development, muscle is made primarily of
protein and water. It takes some carb and insulin to build the muscle
too, but not anything like a large plate of pasta (wrong kind of carb
anyway, you want something faster). So, if you want to build muscle
with your lifting, you're going to need to get adequate protein. On the
order of .7 - 2.0g/lb of lean bodyweight.

Other plans may activate other mechanisms, but this is how, in an
isocaloric setting ("the calorie totals of 2 different diets are equal"),
two different diets can perform differently. In this case, at any given
caloric intake point, low carb, adequate protein is going to out
perform "balanced" whatever that may be.

Beware that abdominal body fat (especially when it's only a little) is
the most difficult to get rid of for a man. I lost about 10 lbs and
maybe 2-3 inches from my gut my doing cardio every day and weight
training 4-5x / week. Even though you provided some good info, there's
still a lot missing that may be the culprit:

You asked, "could you kindly explain the need to exclude
carbohydrates?" I think I explained that. There could be more to it,
but
my understanding of the question was a strict limitation to how, in an
isocaloric setting, low carbohydrate, adequate protein might out
perform some undefined balanced diet.

I'm game though, so I'll weed through and see what I think I know vs.
what you think you know.

- How do you space out your 2000-2200 cal/day? Eat your bigger meals
before your workouts and in the AM while smaller meals should be during
the day and close to bedtime. Increase your daily calories on w/o days
and lower it on others.

I'm unclear on why. First, why 2000-2200? Why not 1500? Or 2500? I've
lost
weight and gained muscle at both extremes. I think it's a lot more
complicated
than our gross metric of calories really implies. It's false
simplification.

But that said, you could structure it like you say. Or you could just
go for
5-6 evenly spaced meals. For me, I take protein before workout, in
shake
form. Or right after. I take some eggs, maybe some meat, some cottage
cheese and maybe a small dose of carbs in the form of candy post
workout.
I eat a lunch of meat and veg. I eat a snack of almonds. I eat a
dinner. I get
my sleep. This works for me. When it stops working (New Rule: Most
everything works a little, nothing works forever)

- What intensity level is you training at? 1 hr of stationary cycling
could burn between 350-1000 calories in an hour. For weight training,
what percentage of your 1 rep max are you training at? I had a client
who was doing 10 reps on the leg press with about 50lbs, and we found
that he could easily do 120 lbs for 10 reps.

David, Please don't take this wrong. But you started as someone with
questions and now you are a professional trainer with clients and
answers. This feels like trolling.

I'll bite anyway. I couldn't tell you my 1 rep max on anything I do. I
work
to failure. I do HIIT. I don't do an hour of stationary or non-
stationary
anything in a sitting. I do 20 minutes of Intervals. 1-3 times a week.
I lift hard 2-4 times a week. Maybe 40 minutes on the long side.
This burns body fat with retaining muscle.
That was the original question.

Oh yeah, I employ periodization in my weights. And my intervals. If
there is one thing that violates the New Rule (everything works some,
nothing works forever), it's periodization. But you'd figure,
something
that's perpetual change, that's outside of the no single thing works
forever rule, right?

- Try varying your workout to include interval training. The change of
intensity throughout the workout increases performance and burns more
calories.

I don't recall asking for advice. I do recall you asking. But I agree
about
intervals. It doesn't necessarily burn more calories during the
activity, but
it necessitates changes that create caloric afterburn. But again,
calories
are so oversimplified as to not be particularly useful, right?

- What does your diet look like? You should load up on high fiber like
beans and drink close to 1 gallon of water per day.

Uhm, what good is fiber exactly? Why would I want to push stuff
through
my system, potentially damaging the tubing with this force?

64 ounces of water seems to be the standard recommendation, though no
one can really explain what is magical about 64 ounces, and why it's
so
important, or even where this recommendation originated. FWIW, I
generally
drink 2L+ of water a day, sometimes as many as 4L.

- How much is you looking to lose? What does your stomach look like
today? The closer you are to your goal, the more strict and intense you
will need to be, whereas if you are just starting almost any change will
cause an improvement.

How much grammar is you got in school? ;-)

I thought YOU were looking to burn bodyfat while retaining muscle
mass.
If you have the answers (high intensity exercise, fiber, water,
intervals,
and the inverted meal plan), why ask the question?

FWIW, I dunno how much more I'm looking to lose. My stomach looks
fine. I agree with the diminishing return curve. Wholeheartedly. So,
for
my undefined goals, it really comes down to how much further along the
intensity/strictness curve I'm willing to push it. Given limited time,
I might
not want to push harder given that time invested in other things might
yield greater return on investment, measured in happiness. And really,
that's the goal, right. Maximize your time/utility-happiness ratio.

Last thing: make your clients squat and deadlift. Leg Presses are nigh
useless in the real world and lead to muscular imbalances. Squats are
real world, better exercise, and use everything in concert. You, as a
trainer with clients, have a responsibility to your customers to
improve
them, not screw them up. PS- a 50 lb leg press is kind of sad. A 120
lb
leg press is less sad but nothing to crow about. That probably
translates
to a 20 lb squat.

SkinnyBilly wrote:
On Nov 26, 12:47�pm, Susan wrote:
Susan

Muscle is only 20% protein and 75% water. Low-carb is not a good idea
for someone who is very active. Also, not all starches are
crap...baked potatoes are very nutritious especially if you eat the
skin, and whole wheat pasta is also a good starch.

One can be very active and still be diabetic and/or overweight and/or
have metabolic syndrome, any of which would indicate low-carb is a good
idea.

Potato skins are low-carb. The middle is starch and biochemically
pretty much identical to pure sugar.

Whole wheat pasta is an improvement over white pasta, however, not by
much. Someone who eats grains is much better off eating whole grains,
like wheat berries, rather than processed crap. Barley is one of the
best, it has more phytochemicals than blueberries. Buckwheat is good
also. Whole wheat pasta is crap though - it's nearly entirely sugar.

I use either shredded stirfried cabbage or zucchini as "pasta". Both
have much more nutrition in terms of micronutrients than any type of pasta.


David, low-carb diets are mostly for people who want quick results
with little effort.

Yes, that's what I want. But I'm diabetic, so I don't get what I want
and instead low-carb, as I've been doing for a decade.


And "results" on a low-carb diet usually means
weight loss due to water loss. It may work temporarily in the form of
fat loss for someone who does little physical activity and is very
overweight but is a bad idea for someone like you.

Yup, I lost 50 lbs of "water" and a couple dress sizes a few years back
over the course of a year and have maintained it since.

It's easy to see what is *really* water. I was hospitalized for ten
days on an IV and gained twenty pounds. The next couple weeks out of
the hospital, with *no* exercise (I could barely get out of bed), I lost
25 lbs. That is water.

The first week of low-carb, some folks lose 8, 10 even 15 lbs. That is
water. When they go on to lose 2-5 lbs per month for a year or two,
that's not water.


--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 03:32:55 -0800 (PST), SkinnyBilly wrote:

Muscle is only 20% protein and 75% water. Low-carb is not a good idea
for someone who is very active.

Horsehit.

Originally Posted by MU

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 03:32:55 -0800 (PST), SkinnyBilly wrote:

Muscle is only 20% protein and 75% water. Low-carb is not a good idea
for someone who is very active.

Horsehit.

I'm on a low carb diet, and it works beautifully for me. My mother is very overweight and has high blood pressure. She asked me to find out if it is a good diet for her to start.