BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > Articles on the Main Site
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Unread 04-23-2009, 10:28 AM
AllGenetix's Avatar
AllGenetix AllGenetix is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 763
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weib View Post

Interesting to note, your gflux sig doesn't link to anywhere btw.
b/c you have to go run intervals and walk 5 miles to find the article of g-flux. so you learn by doing.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 04-23-2009, 11:19 AM
Espi Espi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,497
Default

LOL.. no , the link is broken. I'd fixed it in one place but not here

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_..._ultimate_body

is the correct one
__________________
Ergo-log: news & KB on legal and illegal ergogenic aids
Poliquin: "There's no overtraining , only undereating ---> to undereat, don't overtrain!"
Burgener: "There's no overtraining, only underrecovery" --> sleep, rest & recover
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 04-23-2009, 12:57 PM
Weib Weib is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 817
Default

lol, i tot it was a special forum post or something ha
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 04-23-2009, 06:27 PM
BWTrainer BWTrainer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Espi View Post
It's not as ridiculously high as the G-flux (see sig) but to some extent it really works that way. Friend of mine even devoted an entire website to it.
Women not losing weight at around 1200kcal/day are advised to up calories by 100 kcal/week and preferably start lifting weights.
A whole LOT of them start losing weight at around the 1500-1600kcal mark.. that's still below their normal maintenance, but more than they used to eat.
They're eating more, but they're burning even more than what they're eating. Nothing magic, or unexpected, about that.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 04-25-2009, 04:32 AM
Espi Espi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,497
Default

It seems magic to a lot of them.. after all, you'd expect to lose more weight on a bigger (theoretical) deficit , rather than on a smaller (theoretical) deficit.
And this is exactly what happens: they apparently get so lethargic on say 1200kcal/day that upping intake by 400kcal is totally compensated by becoming more active.
Especially when they'd follow the advice to take up lifting weights. But I've read plenty reports from (mostly) women that don't lift wts at all and still see the same phenomenon happening.
__________________
Ergo-log: news & KB on legal and illegal ergogenic aids
Poliquin: "There's no overtraining , only undereating ---> to undereat, don't overtrain!"
Burgener: "There's no overtraining, only underrecovery" --> sleep, rest & recover
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 04-28-2009, 03:05 PM
Hannah Hannah is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England
Posts: 195
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWTrainer View Post
Could it be possible that eating a little more actually results in a bigger deficit? I'm not talking Berardi numbers here. What I mean is, could a sharp reduction in cals cause an even greater metabolic slowdown through leptin, thyroid, subconsciously moving less, etc?

Say maintenance is 2500, but dieting at 1800 cals slows maintenance to 2400, a 600 cal deficit.

Now say that person drops cals to 1500, but 'maintenance' slows down to 2000 because of it. You're eating less, but the deficit is only 500 now.
This study suggests that might be the case:
PLoS ONE. 2009;4(2):e4377. Epub 2009 Feb 9.
Metabolic and behavioral compensations in response to caloric restriction: implications for the maintenance of weight loss.Redman LM, Heilbronn LK, Martin CK, de Jonge L, Williamson DA, Delany JP, Ravussin E; Pennington CALERIE Team.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...gdbfrom=pubmed

It's interesting though that exercise and calorie restriction combined didn't cause the same drop in daily energy expenditure as calorie restriction alone, suggesting that at least some of the drop was caused by reduced activity which was presumably compensated for in the exercise group.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 04-29-2009, 07:47 PM
itawolf itawolf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 39
Default

Good post Hannah!!

---and like was said --your eating alot more than you think--well cal wise---a
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 09:33 AM.


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