BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > My products > Rapid Fat Loss Handbook
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 01-13-2009, 01:02 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default Rapid Fat Loss Handbook FAQ - Please Read this First

Q: What is the Rapid Fat Loss Handbook?

A: The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook has been completely updated for 2008 and comes bundled with the Beginner Home Exercise Program and an Online Calculator to set up the diet. The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook can be ordered as a hardcopy book or e-book, both come with digital downloads of the Exercise Handbook and Online Calculator. You can read more about them here.

The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook is an integrated approach of nutrition and exercise to drop fat and bodyweight rapidly in the safest way possible. By focusing only on the essential nutrients, and doing the right kind of weight training, you can drop fat and bodyweight rapidly.

This comes in handy when you only have a short time to generate huge changes. The Rapid Fat Loss Diet approach can also be used to kickstart a more moderate fat loss diet.

Click here to read more

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fireproof
Many folks may notice that questions or diet logs around the forums mention PSMF. So for those that are wondering what the heck they are talking about...

PSMF = Protein Sparing Modified Fast.

Lyle's Rapid Fat Loss book is a PSMF type approach. Of course Lyle tweaks it and optimizes it and has improved upon traditional PSMF diets in many ways, and covers much more dieting goodness.

But in some of the forum discussions, PSMF and Lyle's Rapid Fat Loss diet have been used somewhat interchangeably (right or wrong).
  #2  
Unread 01-13-2009, 01:03 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Q: Are there acceptable amounts of carbohydrates and fat per meal on The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook Plan?

A: 3-5 grams of each per meal is about the max before you're no longer doing the diet in any way shape or form. That assumes 3-4 meals/day by the way and less would be better.

But allowing small amounts (and lest we forget most foods have trace amounts already so it's easy to let things get out of hand) can allow much more food variety which may help with adherence in the long-term.

The big danger is letting small amounts here and there add up to large amounts over time.
  #3  
Unread 01-13-2009, 01:06 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Q: Where can I find ephedrine, I thought it had been banned?

A: Only the herbal ephedra was banned, ephedrine HCL (which I recommend) can be found many places. Online, the best source I've found is

http://www.westburyonline.com/

Search for 'Bronkaid' and you can find pure ephedrine HCL.
  #4  
Unread 01-13-2009, 01:09 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Q: How much cardio is acceptable on the RFL diet?

A: This may be perhap the most common question that comes up regarding the diet, perhaps the problem is that the idea of doing very little (or no) cardio while dieting is so foreign to people. I thought I had made this clear in the book but apparently that isn't the case so I'm going to state it one last time here.

As the book states (2nd Edition, Page 32), the RFL diet (and most extreme diets) turns out to perform worse when too much cardio is performed, the same would go for high intensity cardiovascular activity which is absolutely prohibited on the diet. But how much is too much?

20-30 minutes of brisk walking per day (and this has more to do with adherence to the diet than any significant calorie burn) is plenty (40 minutes per session would be an absolute maximum and it should be low intensity ONLY) and many people have gotten their best success from doing no cardio at all. Invariably people who have tried to do more cardio than this have had poorer results.

If you want, need to (for performance reasons) or feel that you must be doing a lot of cardio while dieing, the Rapid Fat Loss plan is not the right diet for you, please pick something else.
  #5  
Unread 01-13-2009, 01:25 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Q: I have the first edition of the book that doesn't include any specific workouts, can you tell me what a good weight training program would be for an intermediate lifter?

A: Here is an example of the type of workout that would be appropriate for someone who was already involved in a training program and wanted to do the Rapid Fat Loss Handbook program.

This fits the guidelines described in the book and would be done twice per week.

***
Sample Full Body Exercise Routine

Exercise Sets Reps RI
Squat or leg press 2-3 6-8 2-3’
RDL or leg curl 1-2 6-8 2-3’
Bench press or 2-3 6-8 2-3’
Incline DB press
Rowing or chins 2-3 6-8 2-3’
Lateral raise 1-2 8-10 1-2’
Biceps 1-2 8-10 1-2’
Triceps 1-2 8-10 1-2’
Weighted crunch 1-2 6-8 1-2’
Back extension 1-2 6-8 1-2’

RI = rest intervals and the values are in minutes.
  #6  
Unread 01-14-2009, 07:14 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Q: WHY is the combination of high intensity and/or long duration activity a mistake when calories are being severely restricted?

A: Here's a precis on some of what's going on:

As someone else pointed out, the body seeks homeostsasis and it is very good at fighting back in terms of fat loss.

Moreso for women's bodies than men.

So what's up with the high intensity thing and fat loss especially in the context of hardcore caloric restriction?

A few things to consider
1. What is burned (calorically or energetically) during activity is only part of the equation, of more relevance is that happens the other 23-24 hours of the day. Sometimes, when people try to train intensely and this is magnified on low calorie diets, it means that they compensate elsewhere during the day for their activity. Why? Because they are tired.

And you tend to be more tired from high intensity stuff. So you do less later in the day. If training too intensely for that 30-45 minute span (and say you burn 25% more calories) means that you sit around more for the other hours that you're awake (burning 30% less calories), that can more than compensate for what you did in training.

The problem is that folks are overfocusing only on the calorie burn of that activity itself when there are other important factors at work. Who cares if you burned 200 more calories during activity if it means that you sit around so much later in the day that you burn 300 less?

Note: numbers are being used for illustration, don't read too much into them.

2. There are also clear hormonal effects. I've talked about leptin endlessly on the site so I'm not retyping it here. Just note that in the original PSMF + lots of cardio study,they noted a larger drop in metabolic rate with the addition of lots of cardio compared to without and that's why I made the suggestions that I made in the book.

Essentially, the body senses caloric availability which is simply intake - output and that determines a lot of what's going on. Women's bodies seem to respond generally more greatly to shifts in this dynamic with negative adaptations. So the combo is probably relatlively worse for them than for men (although neither group does particuarly well with it, women just do worse).

Cortisol is another biggie. Excessive activity, and this is magnified with large caloric deficits, raises cortisol and this has a number of potentially negative effects.

Here are two:

a. Water retention: cortisol binds to the mineralocorticoid receptor (the receptor involved in water retention, well one of them). And although cortsiol has like 1/100th of the effect on water balance of the primary hormones (aldosterone and a cople of others), since there is like 8000 times as much of it it can cause a major effect.

I strongly believe that a lot of the 'metabolic magic' that some people are reporting (e.g. weight loss not scaling with anything logical) is simply water retention. Why do I think this? Because invariably when you get those folks to chill out,and either raise calories or cut activity, the problem goes away. There can also be subclinical thyroid problems present in a lot of women and that too causes water retention.

And, as you'd expect, some women are relatively more or less prone to this.

Consider that, for women under normal circumstances, water shifts over the cycle can be up to 10 pounds. I'm sure some woman go through more while some clearly go through less. That alone can mask fat loss. A woman who should be losing 2 lbs/week would have that fat loss masked for 5+ weeks. On a more moderate 1 lb/week, it would take 10+ weeks for the fat loss to show up against that water balance issue.

Now add to that the stress of hard dieting and excessive high-intensity training. The problem is magnified because this will raise cortisol that much more. I ranted and raved about this in the interval vs. steady state series on teh main site, I'd suggest reading that. But I see dieters trying to follow training programs that no elite athlete could recover from. And the elite athlete is eating enough.

As well, some people have a personality type that can only be described as 'wound a little tight'. They are chronic stress cases under normal circumstances, they are the ones that tend to respond to weird things like a lack of weight loss by 'getting really stressed out about it' and trying to work harder. These folks already tend to overproduce cortisol and it JUST GETS WORSE when they try to do too much activity with too little food.

b. Excessive cortisol, especially chronic elevations cause other problems not the least of which is leptin resistance. Which only magnifies the drop in leptin from dieting. This could be another mechanism behind the greater drop in metaoblic rate for the study I mentioned above.

The bottom line, simply is this: the combination of excessive deficits and either too much or too intense activity doesn't work for the majority. The why is interesting, do'nt get me wrong; at the end of the day, the practical implications are what's important here IMO.

Simply:
  1. If you want to do lots of and/or high intensity cardio, pick a more moderate deficit. Or hell, no dietary deficit at all. If your'e well trained and can do a lot and/or a high intensity of activity, you may only need activity to generate a deficit big enough for good fat loss.
  2. If you want to do an extreme deficit diet, you must not do too much and/or too high intensity of cardio work.
  #7  
Unread 03-13-2009, 11:29 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Q: What are the differences between the first and second editions of the book?

A: The second edition of the book added about 35 pages of information to the original text. This included

1. Some slight modifications to the diet itself (in terms of protein and EFA recommendations).
2. A greatly expanded section on meal planning including eating out and the whole issue with vegetables.
3. An expanded section on training with sample workouts for beginner, intermediate and advanced trainees.
  #8  
Unread 06-16-2009, 01:22 PM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Question: I'm confused about how many veggies I can or should eat on the diet.

Answer: The following is excerpted from the Second Edition of the book where I explained the veggie issue in more detail

Quote:
In the first edition of this book, I said that rapid fat loss dieters could eat essentially
unlimited amounts of fibrous vegetables and I want to amend that slightly here by giving
readers a quick reality check. On the one hand, it’s unlikely that most are going to
consume such a massive amount of fibrous vegetables that they will contribute a huge
number of calories. But it can certainly happen. At the same time, I don’t want to put
some sort of arbitrary intake value or number since this only adds an unneeded level of
complexity to what should otherwise be a fairly simple diet. A couple of examples should
help to make my point.

Consider a light female who only be consuming 400-500 calories per day on the rapid fat
loss plan. If she went nuts with fibrous vegetables, eating several cups of the above at each
of her four meals, she might easily add over 200 calories to her diet; that would represent
nearly 50% of her daily intake, cutting her daily deficit (and fat loss) considerably.
Contrast this to a large male who might be consuming 800-1000 calories (or more), that
same vegetable intake might be absolutely fine.

My point is not that you should automatically limit your vegetable intake; I strongly
suggest you consume some at each meal to keep you full, etc. At the same time, don’t
abuse vegetables to the point that you derail the diet and reduce (or eliminate your
supposed deficit).
  #9  
Unread 09-28-2011, 11:21 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

Q: How many calories should I be eating per day on this diet?

A: The Rapid Fat Loss diet is not set up around a goal caloric intake. Simply set the diet up as recommended in the book in terms of protein, EFA's and the tagalong carbs and fats and the calories will fall where they fall. But the goal is sufficient protein and EFA's and minimal everything else, calories are secondary on this plan.
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.