1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Weight loss advice (Plateau)

Discussion in 'Health and Fitness' started by dWreck, Jan 18, 2013.

  1. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Explain how? As I mentioned to you previously, an individual is for the most part (Which I think is generous) is incapable of understanding themselves fully and completely. There are a tremendous amount of issues with this attitude, ranging from objectivity to methodology. It's been proven time and time again, under controlled environments, where researches are meticulous in their approach and methodology, results are outrageously different from those results in uncontrolled environments. This is proven, far beyond just nutrition.

    DY is accomplished as a mother ****er. Kudos to him for that he has accomplished. If he is satisfied with his results and his training/nutrition, then fine. However, it's proof of nothing. Any reasonable and logical person will understand that.

    What are we studying, exactly? How might the ages and gender be relevant in the results? What about body fat %? Body composition? I think maybe, you might be misunderstanding me. And perhaps it's because I haven't made my position clear (although considering the time we spent in my thread and UFC's, I would think it's pretty clear). Let me try and fix that. There are different sets of rules regarding nutrition and weight lifting that are applicable based on gender, age, body fat %, lean body mass %, and a whole host of things.

    For example. Proper protein intake for an obese individual trying to lose fat will be different than proper protein intake for someone 10% body fat, trying to get into contest shape. The obese person simply has so much fat, his protein intake is almost irrelevant. His body will simply shed fat and never once think about touching muscle. The opposite is true for the contest dieter at 10% body fat. Hormonal and physiologically, they're on different planes. The contest dieter would serve himself well to eat 1.2-1.5g of protein per lbs of body weight. Unlike the obese dieter, the contest dieter's body simply doesn't want to part with anymore fat. In case of famine, it will need that fat to survive. It would rather part with muscle, which isn't as necessary for a survival (in context) situation. So the contest dieter must protect the muscle differently.

    A beginning weight lifter, 100% should have a different routine than an intermediate lifter/pro BB. There's a clear line of progression of what's optimal given the circumstances. But the context of how to build muscle efficiently is pretty much the same.

    So yes, athletes have different sets of rules than say, the obese. Hell, even the obese could have different sets of rules than each other based on health markers (insulin tolerance being a big one big one). I'm not disputing these things. Never have. However, when we talk about the fundamentals, they're the same and apply to everyone. Most of what we're debating at this point (body building nutrition) has little application to anyone here. If it did, they would already know this information.

    Not true at all. Again, this is what makes peer reviewed studies relevant. In a peer reviewed research study (the only legitimate kind, as anyone who knows anything about research understands) there are plenty of qualifiers, conditions, etc... when selecting candidates. I'm not sure where you get this idea that 100 Joes are picked up off the street and thrown into a study. The studies I read are only from legitimate sources. The nutritionists I read, only use legitimate studies to discuss nutrition.


    There's an old broscience expression in lifting. "Eat big to get big." It's an interesting statement. It's right and wrong. Without clearly defined contexts, I'm sure broscientists could twist it a million ways and thus end up with "if it works for you, it's the best." When in reality, that what an individual did and what could of been accomplished if variables were changed, are different things.

    As I said, this topic is really similar to evolution vs. creationism. One side holding all the evidence and presenting it when asked. And yet, it's never good enough, despite the fact it is.
     
  2. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Problem being, take a NIH study, it is a broad swath of the populace, the purpose of the study is not to focus on the individual it is to take general information and find general similarities in different categories of the study.

    Now where the protagonist in the twitter squabble is disputing the scientists findings he is also assuming his results can be everyone's results, which is mistake in assumptions as well.

    As for a study, take say one done in Iowa, the sample is likely to mainly include subjects who have had very different diets from say the same sample size as found in Miami.
     
  3. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    What are we studying? Would the differences in common daily food choices/diets be relevant? In what way?

    These types of questioned are relevant (which is why you mentioned it). Any peer reviewer (and there are multiple) would slight any study and not allow for it to be published by credible journals if the context you described, skewed the results.

    P.S.
    And to be honest, I think you're vastly overestimating the differences in diets between Iowa and Miami or anywhere other two places in the US. The food we eat, a lot of processed food, is all from the same markets and regions. The american diet isn't all that regional save a few examples (Alaska pops into mind PDQ).
     
  4. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 New Member

    13,099
    6,464
    0
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    Many of these studies, like surveys, are skewed. Broscience studies refute other accomplished studies. What do you have at the end of the day? One group of random test subjects vs another, and their gurus claiming 100% truth in their cookie cutter science scenarios. I give you credit for reading up on and quoting a lot of Internet bodybuilding/nutritionist. And I'm not being snarky, I hope the results are great for you. Because that's what it's all
    about after all.

    The point with layne is that, a legend like Dorian is not going to entertain his debate. Call it what you will, it's beneath a 6 x Mr.O to debate a Internet quasi-guru.

    And the things that scream out in your argument are, "eating once a day is no different that 8 times." And "the body can utilize any amount of protein." And "I can eat all the cake I want, that's not what matters." I think this is reckless in a laymen's discussion.

    And your gurus are also on record saying other than you suggest. That only so much protein can metabolize in the muscle at once. Meals should not be too infrequent. Just because spotmebro mods believe a particular study proved that eating does not spike your metabolism, does not make it gospel for me. Maybe I believe the opposing study. And I could see if you were quoting mayo clinic or John Hopkins, but some of these sites...

    I think what legends in bodybuilding used to do, trumps a never was' from bro science. Like Dorian once said about HIT, the proof is in the pudding. He did it, and look at him and his accomplishments. The proofs not on a piece of paper, or a website page, gathered from sparse, questionable data.
     
  5. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Here is why, the body adjusts to diets, for example the Iowan more than likely has had a diet of beef/pork etc, the Miami area resident more than likely has had a diet of seafood with less beef etc

    I base that on the Duke approach that bans caffeine and basically puts enrollee's on a rice diet to attempt to rebuild their metabolisms.

    Another example that springs to mind is serious drunks who basically survive on booze and nothing else, instead of being overweight they are usually severely underweight, same calories, just no protein to rebuild muscle and organs.

    The body adapts to it's diet.
     
  6. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    These phony broscience studies can refute whatever they wish, they're not credible unless published in medical and science journals and reviewed by their peers. This is the only acceptable form of research. Anything less, is bunk.

    The word guru, it's kind of irksome to me. I feel it's implying something other than, highly respected, highly educated (Ph.D's), highly experienced (personally and professionally) nutritionist. Maybe you mean nothing by it, but I sense you're looking down upon my sources, who're vastly credible in every way. And to be clear, I have tons and tons of articles/studies bookmarked and URL's saved on word I can give you. And even more information from other "gurus," like Alan Aragon, Eric Helms, etc... The legitimate research community is not split, despite what you seem to believe/say.


    Is it really fair to call Layne Norton a internet quasi-guru? He's a tremendously accomplished pro bodybuilder and holds a Ph.D in nutritional science. I have no problem with Yates considering a study flawed, but it's beneath him to justify it with his title as 6x Mr.O. It's not only immature, it holds no water.


    Reckless? It's not only the truth, but far from reckless. Anyone dieting should understand the fundamentals, as this understanding can be the difference in succeeding long term or failing.

    1. Eating once a day is no different than eight times a day. You can eat whenever you please, however many times it pleases you. If eating 6 meals a day works for you, by all means do so. But if you don't like eating 6 meals a day, you don't have to. You and I have vastly different eating approaches. I think eating bird sized meals kind of sucks. You seem to feel it helps stabilize energy throughout the day. Neither of us are wrong in approach (I eat 3x daily, within an 8 hour window, for the record) because it's personal preference that will not impact results. Do what feels right.

    What links did I give you that were head scratching? The interview with Lyle on smartass guide to fitness?

    Anyway, here's a John Hopkins study for you. Want more? I've got plenty.
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/4/981.full

    The metabolism doesn't work in the manner in which you seem to think it does. It's not a fire that needs to be stoked by small twigs (the example usually given).

    OFF TOPIC: In fact, intermittent fasting may have health benefits. It has shown so in animal models (which may meal nothing, animals aren't humans) and in human models, although very little IF studies have been preformed on humans. So the available data isn't enough to determine a legit conclusion (which is why I won't EVER write "IF is best").

    Currently, UCLA is doing the largest IF study ever done with human candidates. Should be interesting to see their results. And then it will be interesting to see future results. When we have a large enough pool of data, conclusions can be drawn. Until then, meal frequency has no relevance in body composition.

    2. Protein digestion is what it is. You will digest all of it that you eat. Your own example of eat 6x daily disproves it. Your body cannot process all your protein in between your meals, every three hours. Three hours is about the minimum it takes for protein to digest completely (Whey being an exception). That doesn't even begin to include the variables of other macros like fat, carbs, fiber, etc... within a given meal. In that case, you're looking at 7+ total hours. Hell, Casein protein takes 7 hours or so to digest alone.

    If you eat every three hours, 6x daily (as an example), by the time you're on your next meal, consuming more protein, you will still be processing the protein (along with other macros) from the previous meal. And so on and so fourth.

    Whether you eat 6 meals or 1 is therefore irrelevant. You're still not going to be finished digesting either way. Your two theories on meal frequency and protein digestion cannot co-exist. Neither are true. Eating frequency should be done based on personal preference.

    3. And yes, you can eat nothing but cake and lose weight. That's also been proven... That said, it's not an intelligent thing to do (which I also made extremely clear) for reasons of macro and micro nutrient needs and the ill effects of neglecting those needs. Calories count, regardless of the source.

    Layne, a multiple time champion in bodybuilding and powerlifting, as well as a Dr. in nutrition is a never was? He's not 6x Mr.O, but... OK. Whatever.

    And quite frankly, it was a mistake to even discuss pro bodybuilding. Since the discovery of testosterone, the sport has been juiced. Yates, Arnold, whoever, all juiced. They're not natty and the natural rules of nutrition don't apply to them anyway. It was a mistake to even discuss it. Let's drop any pro bodybuilding talk for the sake of clarity. I can still prove (repeatedly) my points regardless.
     
  7. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    They're made to eat rice (likely) because the two biggest influences in raising metabolism are
    1.Calories consumed
    2. Carbs.

    If you eat a surplus, your metabolism is higher than at maintenance. Eat in a deficit and it's lower than maintenance. This is why I recommended OP refeed and take a diet break in the very first post I had in this thread. Carbs will also boost metabolism short term. They need calorie balance for long term benefits. One reason I don't recommend low carb diets. Leptin is heavily influenced by carbs (starches and sugars are best) and that needs to be elevated to speed metabolism up. Leptin is the master hormone for a reason.

    As for your alcohol example. Yes, the body does adapt. Alcoholics don't process the calories in alcohol the same way a social drinkers does. The body becomes more efficient in expelling it. Plus it has a high TEF. There's a bunch of flaws in an alcohol example, but I'm not sure you meant it literally, but rather as an illustration of your point?
     
  8. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    40,429
    22,542
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    ... isn't that why cardio in the morning prior to breakfast does more to burn fat b/c there's less available glucose to burn off as the primary energy source, in turn allowing the body to delve into the fat storage quicker <provided the cardio is aerobic in nature rather than anaerobic>?
     
  9. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Yes, fasted cardio has more/better whole body fat oxidation than non fasted cardio. However, because of energy balance (energy in and energy out), it's irrelevant.

    That is to say, if you burn 3000 calories daily and eat 2000 calories daily, you will have burned 1000 more calories than you have consumed. Regardless of fasted or non fasted cardio, the caloric deficit will be 1000. That 3000 calories burned through the course of a day has to be balanced. It's the law of physics.
     
  10. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 New Member

    13,099
    6,464
    0
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    I'm not good at breaking down posts quote by quote, but I'm enjoying this, so I want to try and be clear for you.

    I used guru, because in my brief research of Layne, thats the term he uses when talking down to his contemporaries. Him doing so seemed hypocritical, so i thought it worthy to give him the same title. At the end of the day, all bodybuilders have some $5 trophies on their mantle, and all PHD's have a body of research and work merely achieved en route to their title. I give Layne credit for being able to make a living in the bodybuilding/health field though, as it is dog eat dog. And that's why some of these guys are vicious towards eachother. There's a lot of ego and a lot of bad mouthing, for sake of self promotion...like the martial arts.

    1. Are you saying if you eat once a day, it will yield the same results as eating 6 or 8 times a day? Muscularly, digestively, absorption wise? I disagree with this. I have read research that it is optimal to spread meals out 4-5 hurs a day from your sources. And all top competitive pro bodybuilders eat every 2-3 hours. I'm glad you shared what your schedule is. I actually tried to spread mine out more, because I see some validity to the other sides argument. And reading that over lapping protein intake can make the muscle less receptive is a theory worth investigating. Can you give me an example of what you eat in your three meals? YEs, I eat 6, but I wouldn't call them bird size. 2 are protein shakes, and the other 4 are big full meals. Most importantly, I try to eat around my life's dietary obstacles (kids, work, etc).

    2. What I gathered from the Hopkins link you sent, is that eating once a day eating does change the dieter. Lowering cortisol and fat is great, but the negatives here were profound too.

    3. With protein intake. There is protein digestion and there is muscle absorption. From some of the studies I've read, save for whey, most proteins are optimally distributed to the muscle in 3-4 hours. And Casein is a whole other story, after reading the China Study. In a 6 meal a day scenario, when one meal is right before bed, and 2 others are fast absorbing supplements, it is reasonable to hit 6 meals.

    4. And oh come on now. Don't tell me, with all your progressive dietary insight, that you are still in the dark ages with steroids. Because all those cheaters will certainly pay for it in the long run:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    In this day and age, when you can get your medical insurance to cover test. When its produced naturally in the body like creatine. When the side effects data and research is as unproven and scatterbrained as anything else out there. Don't tell me you hate on these guys? When most "natural" bodybuilders take steroids at some point or another, and often. Natural body builders end up competing with physiques like Michael Phelps. And I gave Layne credit for making a living in the industry. But a 190lb, young, pre-juice amateur Phil Heath, looked better than Layne ever would. Or an amateur Ronnie, or Arnold.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    Competing against other "natural" athletes and their swim meet physiques does not wow me on a professional/adult level. Especially with the unsavory fact that most of those guys are juicing at other times of the year anyway. Not to mention, you think any of these small time shows have the coin to test for HGH? The NFL doesn't even have the $$$ for it.
     
  11. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    More or less and it is an extreme example.

    Have seen when alcoholics stop drinking and eat a regular diet, same calories, but they tend to add weight quickly.
     
  12. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    True and i think that's fair. The ego's of all these men are through the roof. Lyle being the poster boy. Alan Aragon is a personal favorite of mine for that reason, he's a really chill guy, and the of most credible sources around. I would quote him more, but his site is subscription based. But he does do tons of interviews. One reason I enjoy Lyle, his site is free.

    I agree eating once a day may be bad (at least not ideal) for a highly trained athlete (which is what Lyle was saying). They're doing so much training (both resistance and cardio) throughout the day, at various times, that eating only once a day would put them in a net catabolic state for most of the 24 hour a day cycle. They shouldn't eat once a day. They should eat pre and post workouts at minimum, regardless of workout frequency. Once a day eating doesn't apply to them, I don't believe. Will agree with that statement. For everyone else who doesn't fall into highly trained athlete, that's another story.


    My eating schedule is from 2pm to 10pm (dieting or otherwise). I basically skip breakfast, and eat a late lunch, late dinner and then a "snack" esk meal. My personal strategy is to make my first meal very high protein. Like 80g or more. I eat about 180g of protein daily. Protein has the highest satiety and the slowest digestion rate (highest thermogenic effect of any food) so eating in an eight window makes me extremely full. Getting that head start on protein will make it easier for it to hit my protein goals as well as allow for meal flexibility with my next meals. NOTE: The If protocol I follow is 16/8. I can eat as many or few meals as I wish. ***There are also different IF protocols out there with different eating times. The one I follow was created by fitness model/nutritionist Martin Berkhan. He's considered the father of IF as he was the one who brought it to the mainstream. Obviously he didn't create fasting, but created a protocol designed for lifters and brought tons of science and research into the field.***

    *As a side note, eating one meal a day is extremely improbable. If I'm eating 180g of protein, there's no way I can consume 180g of whole food protein in one sitting, nevermind the fats and carbs I need with it as well. I will agree 100% with you if you say eating once a day is highly impractical.

    So for example, yesterday, I started my first meal of the day by eating chicken breast and taco seasoned ground beef w/ avocado, sour cream, and some cheese. Mixed it all together. *** I also cycle fats and carbs on lifting days and non lifting days. So yesterday was a non lifting day, kept fat high and carbs low. I eat high carb on lifting days to max insulin sensitivity and partitioning.***

    8oz 80/20 beef: 540 calories, 42g fat, 40g protein, 0 carbs.
    5oz chicken breast: 138 calories, 0g fat, 0 carbs, 28.8g protein
    2oz avocado: 100 calories, 9g fat, 6g carbs, 1g protein
    2tbls sour cream: 60calories, 5g fat, 1g carbs, 1g protein
    1oz shredded cheese (sargento): 9g fat, 0 carbs, 7g protein
    1tbsp taco seasoning: 20 calories, 0 fat, 0 protein, 5g carbs

    Total for meal 1: 968 calories , 68g fat, 12g carbs, 78g protein.

    Meal 2:

    Moes southwest grill (****ty version of Chipotle) burrito, Steak "Homewrecker" (black beans, rice, cheese, avacado, sour cream, onions,): 940 calories. 35g fat, 105g carbs, 46g protein.

    Meal 2 Total: 940 calories. 35g fat, 105g carbs, 46g protein.

    Meal 3:

    9oz (1 small bag) Shrimp cocktail: 300 calories, 4.5g fat, 0 cabrs, 63g protein
    2 tbsp sweet and sour sauce: 60 calories, 11g carbs, 0 fat, 0g protein
    9.5oz (4 serving sizes) bryers fat free ice cream: 360calories, 0g fat, 84 carbs, 12g protein.

    Totals meal 3: 4.5g fat, 96 carbs, 75g protein.

    Daily totals: 108g fat, 213 carbs, (29g fiber), 199g protein. 2628 calories (2600 was my goal). All food was measured (except moes burrito), and logged into myfitnesspal journal. Didn't take my fish oil supplement because I ate shrimp (not a daily thing lol). On a day where I eat no seafood, I will take it.

    Filling and delicious. Don't sleep on bryers fat free ice cream either! So good. I exceeded protein by almost 20 grams. Will only aim for 150-160 or so today. Will eat far less fat and far more carbs too (workout day).



    Yeah, very true. Like I said, I will 100% agree with ANYONE who says eating once a day is highly, highly impractical. It really is. If you look at my 3 meals, how the **** could I eat that in one sitting? I couldn't. Even if I could or wanted to, I would feel disgusting, bloated, etc... Eating one meal a day for someone serious about training is dumb. Just not physiologically detrimental or worse.

    When I say "eat like a bird" I'm speaking in general. Imagine a 5'6" woman, 120lbs. Her daily maintenance is likely around 2200-2400 hundred calories. In order to lose 2lbs per week, she would have to eat 1200-1400 calories daily. In order to lose 1lb a week, 1700-1900 calories daily. 1900/6= 316 calories per meal (avg). That's really ****ing tough. You'd be in a constant state of hunger. Even me at 2600 is 433.3 cals per meal. If you're eating very, very "clean" (lean meats, lots of fruit, veggies, etc...) it's doable. However, in my experience, that diet is boring, tedious, and time consuming. Not practical for me. I love IF, so our marriage works perfectly. I'm never hungry in the mourning (not because of IF but in general) anyway, only start feeling it around noon, sacrifice 2 more hours, pound the **** out food from the on, never feeling hungry once when I begin breaking my fast.


    Careful with that China study. It's been debunked many, many times over. Methodology was crappy and results were cherry picked according to the major nutrition community. I will give you tons links to research, "guru's", etc... on that one if you wish.



    No, no, no... I don't hate these guys, I don't think steroids are bad at all. I'm all for them to be legalized, tbh. I think they should be legal and medically supervised. I read a story not to long back about a child (boy age 10) who believed he was a girl. Acted like one, dressed like one, etc... Parents took him to the doctors. Together, they determined this boy should be given hormones to block puberty and not allow for him to become a man. They also were planning on giving hormons to make him female.

    If that **** is legal... Why is it wrong for another human being to get a doctor prescribed and supervised hormone treatment for the purposes of better health? The data available on lean body mass is astronomically in favor of superior health. It's hypocritical and bull****. Just as one example... Diabetes (2). HGH has proven the ability to strip fat from the body (HGH creates an environment for ideal fat burning for various reasons I won't get into), add lean body mass (improves insulin sensitivity dramatically), and is an antagonist to insulin. Yet, illegal for the most part (only legal for certain conditions, not relating to general health and well being). It doesn't make any sense. At some point, we as a society need to embrace reality...

    Steroids are not the boogyman they're made out to be. Certainly, being illegal, thus made no different than street drugs and used by morons who have no idea how to do them is what creates danger. Both could be eliminated, easily. Yet we as a society have deemed them bad, "cheating," or some other negative description.

    All I'm suggesting, is when we discuss athletes and bodybuilders, steroids will impact their nutrition. For example, you and I couldn't synthesize the same amount of protein that Arnold could in his hay day. We're not physiologically capable without unnatural enhancement. We could not properly consume the same amount of carbs and have them partitioned appropriately (to the muscle for healing) as Arnold in his hay day. So to discuss athletes diets and nutritional needs and paint ourselves with the same brush, wouldn't be ideal or accurate, I don't think. I worded that funny, does it make sense?

    Basically, Arnold, Heath, any top athlete in the world, is a genetic monster with or without PEDs. They make up the top .5% of the worlds population (if that). They would be superior in every facet of athleticism and nutrition regardless. We simply shouldn't apply their needs and capabilities with ours for the purposes of accuracy/clarity.
     
    Sethdaddy8 likes this.
  13. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 New Member

    13,099
    6,464
    0
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    Good stuff CK. Do you eat a whole food meal right after training? or Supplement.
     
  14. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    I eat after training. I prefer whole foods on a diet just because its filing.

    I'm not a huge fan of whey when cutting. Although controlled labs has a new cake batter line of whey I hear amazing things about. I'm tempted...

    Right now I only take three supps. Orange triad multivitamin, fish oil, and creatine mono. All proven, all pretty cheap.
     
  15. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 New Member

    13,099
    6,464
    0
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    Triad help you with your joints and soreness?

    You look into Chondroiton sulfate and its accused links to prostate cancer?
     
  16. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    40,429
    22,542
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    I don't agree with the notion that all calories are the same in regard to digestion and metabolism b/c obviously some foods are digested slower than others and nutrient dense foods have a different impact than processed foods and other crap our bodies aren't meant to eat/digest, especially if the person has any type of food intolerance like gluten.

    Raw foods with enzymes still intact will be digested quicker than a pizza, cheeseburger, or any cooked/processed food for that matter, so in that regard a person can eat more often than once every 8 hours in order to speed up metabolism. Ditto if a digestive enzyme supplement is taken with all cooked meals where the heating process has destroyed the natural enzymes. Plus, if a quality greens supplement and probiotics are taken daily, you're keeping your digestive system healthy and working optimally, and that paired with enzyme-rich raw foods or enzyme supplementation does wonders to aid the digestive process, maximize nutrient absorption, and speed up the metabolism when compared to eating meat, flour products, wheat products, starches, or any processed crap. You can feel the obvious difference between the two. I can eat 800 calories worth of salmon, brown rice, raw almonds, a field green or spinach salad, and a few digestive enzymes and be hungry again much sooner than 800 calories worth of pizza or burgers. Not to mention the affect on insulin levels.

    For me personally, I start off with a shake for breakfast b/c it's easy and I know exactly what I'm getting.
    2 scoops of Garden of Life "Raw Meal". (awesome stuff)
    1 scoop of whey (to quickly replenish my protein storage)
    4 ounces of plain Stoneyfield yogurt (for my probiotics)
    about a cup of frozen organic fruit (stick to berries and peaches)
    --then I'll eat a small banana and a small handful of raw almonds.
    ** For breakfast I like foods that quickly replete everything I've burned off while sleeping, hence the above meal. Ditto for after workouts when the body and its cells are in absorption mode. I like the same type of shake after a workout but with only 1 scoop or Raw Meal and 2 scoops of whey.

    For lunch I switch to an actual meal. low glycemic stuff. Complex carbs for sustained energy. I use a lot of garlic, pepper, herbs, and mineral-rich sea salt.
    -wild caught salmon (b/c it contains significantly more astaxanthin <a major antioxidant> than farm salmon. The deeper/darker in color the better.)
    -cup brown rice or red potatoes
    -sliced tomato (full of seasoning)
    -green apple, peach, or equivalent amount of berries (I like a mix of complex & simple carbs for lunch)
    -handful of raw cashews (for extra good fat. raw nuts also have nutrients & enzymes intact that cooked nuts don't)
    -I'll drink my greens with lunch.

    For dinner I stick to raw veggies and protein to keep my digestive system as least taxed as possible while sleeping.
    I also use Garden of Life's liquid "Vitamin Code" since it's the only whole food based, non synthetic, vitamin-mineral supplement on the market.
    I'd recommend everyone to supplement with 2000-3000 mg of MSM (Opti-MSM). Your body will thank you for it.
     
  17. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    40,429
    22,542
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    Personally, I'd rather take Garden of Life's liquid "Vitamin Code" (since it's not synthetic) and take my MSM (OptiMSM) separately, 2000-3000 mg's worth since it's amazing stuff for connective tissue. I also add a few drops of Trace Mineral Liquid to my water to improve PH and absorption.
     
  18. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    I believe so. For example, low bar squats used to kill my shoulders. I would be sore to the point of unfortableness. When I began OT I felt relief. But I didn't start taking OT until a few months in training. So OT could be helping or I could be becoming more flexible. Or fixed a muscle imbalance?. Or all 3. Since its my daily vitamin, I don't want to stop taking it to find out.

    I haven't heard of that imgredient before. Having no knowledge of it, my initial guess is the FDA is pretty strict and wouldn't allow it... But that's a guess. When I get home, I will research it though and post anything of interest. Is that ingredient in OT?
     
  19. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 New Member

    13,099
    6,464
    0
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    Yes it's in OT.

    I've been having elbow issues lately. So ive been looking into supps. (Fyi, OT shows up often when searching for joint support) MSM, is one of the big joint support supps, the others are Glucosamine sulfate and Chondroiton sulfate. But the latter has had reports linked to prostate cancer as of late.

    Cissus and UC II are other highly praised joint supps. With glucosamine and MSM, that is the direction I went in.

    I take men's life force multi.
     
  20. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Heard some good things about GOL. Pretty highly reviewed. Only negatives I've read we're smell. Never tried or smelt it, you'll have to let me know. How much is it?

    (Not ignoring your post. I'm at work goofing off on my ipad. Wil gt to it later).
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  21. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    MLF is good **** I hear. Best rated multiple out there. Great quality ingredients at balanced ratios. Very jelly. It's on sale right now for like 20 bucks at bb.com. I would buy it in second but it's on back order. Really want to try it.
     
  22. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    40,429
    22,542
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    It can range between $25-$33 depending on which one you buy. I prefer the liquid b/c it's the best they have. The smell and taste are terrible, but it goes with the territory of getting real s*** rather than synthetic.

    I love all the GOL products. Raw Meal is awesome, great for breakfast.... and their greens "Super Food" packs one of the best ounce for ounce servings.

    I mix the liquid multi with water + a high ORAC supplement like "Super ORAC 7", a cap full of liquid amino complex (Amino Fuel or similar), and the greens (Super Food). I find that all the terrible tastes combined tend to mellow it out to the level of tolerable. lol
     
    Clark Kent likes this.
  23. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 New Member

    13,099
    6,464
    0
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    $20!!!
     
  24. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 New Member

    13,099
    6,464
    0
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    I take the green superfoods powder still. And bioastin. You still take that too or get enough through Salmon?

    Another my wife added to my list, royal jelly. Worth looking into.
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  25. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    40,429
    22,542
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    Yup, still take bioastin since I don't eat Salmon everyday. I think it's a supplement that's good to continuously keep in the system.... and I notice a difference in energy when I'm not taking it. You? Royal jelly is in something I take or used to take, but I can't remember what.

    How's the Jeep been treating ya? I'm thinking of getting an older Sahara, like a 2000. I love that year/model.
     
    Sethdaddy8 likes this.
  26. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 New Member

    13,099
    6,464
    0
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    I'm always taking it so I'm not sure!

    Jeeps great, kids get a kick out of it. Nice taking the top off in good weather. Def no buyers remorse.
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  27. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 New Member

    13,099
    6,464
    0
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    Incase anyone cares, my diet is finally on track. I have always been lazy at home, but I kicked things into gear this January. The training has always been there. Anyhow:

    Meal 1: 9am est.
    I'm never hungry in the morning, and I move slow, so rather than stumble and choke through a dozen egg whites... I start with a tablespoon of Green Superfood in a few oz water. Then I take a ON's Pro Complex Gainer Shake(80g carbs, 60g protein, 650 calories). And a large banana, and whatever left over fruit my kids leave.

    Meal 2: 11:30am est.
    10ish oz of chicken breast, 1.5 cup dry of brown rice. 6 or 7 pieces of broccoli. teryaki sauce to help it go down. Multi vit, omega 3-6-9, royal jelly, bioastin.

    Meal 3 2:30pm: salmon fillet and spinach or field greens salad, or 2 cans sardines in salad. couple slices of ezekial bread.

    Meal 4: 5:30pm: Training days I'll eat a lean steak, 10ish oz. and a salad and carb(usually whole brown rice again) sometimes, I just eat my wifes family dinner though.

    6:45: White flood pre workout drink, heaping tsp of ON's Bcaa powder, Con-Cret(creatine).

    9:30pm: (this is post workout)More Green superfood powder, ON's Gold standard Whey shake, 2 servings wth 3 tbs of NOW's Dextrose powder. Vit c, Vit d, Elderberry(especially in winter and flu season), royal jelly & bioastin again. About 4 rice cakes, and another banana.

    12:30am: 6 or 7 oz of chicken breast, tuna, or some form of meat. Greek yogurt. Try to avoid carbs at this meal because they tend to keep me awake.

    When my joint supplements get in, I will try to find the window where I'm on an empty stomach to take them. For what its worth, I'm the heaviest I've ever been, while appearing to keep the same general body fat %. My measurables are all up, and my weight is up about 7 or 8 lbs since late December. That's from a time I was training hard, but not dieting well. Note, I am trying to bulk.
     
    Clark Kent likes this.
  28. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Three quick points here.

    1. You're correct that different macros require more or less energy by the body to digest. This is known as the thermic effect of food. TEF is a very complicated subject with so many different variables and values. Suffice it to say, the listed value of a calorie will be altered by how difficult it is for the body to process. We do not count calories by TEF values for reasons of variability.

    2. Metabolic disorders play a role, certainly. I said so in my original post in this thread. Diabetes, food allergies, etc... augment facets of nutritional needs. If you believe you have some kind of metabolic disorder, allergy, whatever, go get tested properly. I do believe it's inappropriate just to assume an issue just because. The vast majority of person likely have no issues of the kind you're describing. If you really are in the minority, get checked out for confirmation. Apply dieting response accordingly. Note: You seem to have a negative opinion on insulin. If so, why is that?

    3. I think we're discussing apples and oranges. My point was to discuss body composition and I believe yours is to discuss ideal health.



    Digestion has almost negligible results on metabolism. Yes, the thermic effect of food exists, it's real, but it's not going to be the difference you believe it to be. For instance, protein is 4 calories per gram. Due to digestion (hardest macro for the body to digest) it's true value is estimated at 3.2 grams. So for example. If I eat 160g of protein and you eat 120g of protein, the difference in metabolism (assuming 3.2 is correct, which it may not be depending on other variables) is 32 calories. I will have burned 32 calories more than you. It takes 3500 calories to gain/lose one pound of fat. TEF is negligible regarding metabolism. It's not worth worrying about. And If we eat our protein with different meal frequency, times, etc... It would make no difference. It will mathematically be the same.

    Metabolism is not of function of specific foods, meal frequency, calories/macros per meal, etc...

    Metabolic rate is first determined by basal metabolic rate. This is determined by how much energy is optimally required to run your vital organs, skin, central nervous system, sex organs, muscles, etc... Your basic physiology. Height, weight, gender, and age are the primary factors involved in your bodies natural BMR. Calories consumed is a big variable for BMR. If you eat less calories than you require, your body will limit energy only to sufficient needs because it knows it's running low. BMR is decreased. The opposite is also true. A surplus of calories will result in a faster metabolism. Hormones absolutely play a role in this too (I'm specifically thinking of Leptin and it's association/relationship with carbs), but that's more complicated than I want to get in to. In the end, metabolism mostly comes down to energy requirements and availability.

    Activity does play a role too(EAT/NEAT/ETC... - Exercise activity thermogenesis and Non EAT) . For instance, a person doing 3x a week, full body resistance training will likely increase their BMR and caloric burn 200-300 calories more per day, everyday. This is because the body is constantly in a state of repair and energy requirements go up. One of many reasons weight lifting > cardio. Although cardio can impact metabolic rate too. High intensity interval training has shown to speed up metabolism ("After burn effect") more than low/medium/high, steady intensity cardio. Only cardio must be done everyday to have metabolic effects, unlike weight lifting.

    There are certainly variables in metabolic rates, but the things you're describing are not involved or not involved in a manner that's important enough to worry about.

    Couple of issues with this. I'm not too familiar with digestive enzymes. Maybe they do help digestion. Which would make for better absorption of minerals and vitamins. I have no idea, not really my area of interest. Wish I could participate more in that discussion, but I would be flying blind.

    Lastly, In your example, you may feel hungrier sooner after eating that meal of salmon, rice, and veggies than pizza and burgers. And it may be because of enzymes... But I'd bet the farm it's more because of macronutrient and caloric consumption (calories are derived from macros and macros only). A meal of burgers and pizza is likely ridiculously higher in fat content and protein (thus calories). Both of which are extremely hard to digest. Length of digestion isn't necessarily an indicator of better digestion if you're consuming foods with a vastly higher TEF in that scenario.

    If you feel your setup is optimal for health purposes, have at it. I'm not really versed in the subject matter to comment otherwise. I can only comment to the things relating to body composition[/QUOTE]
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  29. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    I'm going to write a thread on Intermittent fasting today or tomorrow (maybe split it up). Just out of curiosity, would you be interested in trying it (I'll detail the protocols, post all sorts of info)? I ask because I noticed you said you are not a mourning hunger guy (like me) and said that carbs keep you up at night (good insulin sensitivity). Usually that's a great combination when doing IF. People who hate IF often are the opposite. Plus, I remember you mentioned earlier that when you ate at random times only a few times daily, you were in a bad state of health. I wonder if you ate with the same pattern, with a focus on your diet (as you're now, with 6x daily) if that would change.

    Don't have to. No pressure. I'm hoping the 4 people who'll likely read it, try it. Maybe post daily their experience for like a week or two.
     
  30. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    40,429
    22,542
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    I'm not a morning hunger guy either which is why I've found the breakfast shake I mentioned to be perfect b/c I can chug it within a minute and get everything I need and then some. Probably not telling most of you what you don't already know but I thought I'd share it anyways. The "Raw Meal" is loaded with whole food nutrients BTW (no synthetic vitamins like every other meal replacement). Here's the label if anyone wants to read it. It's $35 per container, 14 servings each, $2.50 per serving. Sometimes I'll do 1 scoop instead of 2 and then double up on the whey if I want to keep the cost down.
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Clark Kent likes this.
  31. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    That's interesting stuff. I wouldn't say I have a very balanced diet regarding micros. Awhile back, I was searching for good ways to get vitamins and minerals as a way to cover my bases. This is when I looked into vitamins, but I never really found anything like this. Interesting fiber content too. Do you think that insoluble fiber will effect absorption of the other minerals any? I know it will to a small degree, but I'm not sure at what grams it becomes a serious issue.

    Looking at that label, another question comes to mind. What are good sources of magnesium? I remember reading that a lot of people are likely pretty deficient in it and the RDA may be too low. It's an extremely important mineral and electrolyte as I understand. Any good food sources with lots of it?
     
    ToddPhin likes this.
  32. ToddPhin

    ToddPhin RIP Phinsational Luxury Box Club Member

    40,429
    22,542
    113
    Jul 6, 2012
    NC
    That's a good question. If it does affect it, I don't think it'd be by much knowing the effort Garden of Life puts into their products. Regardless, I like to do my liquid multi mix during lunch (separate from the morning Raw Meal) as I like the afternoon boost from it that keeps me pretty even keel all day, and I'll add a few drops of "ConcenTrace" liquid minerals to it. Vitamin Shoppe's brand actually is ConcenTrace but under Vitamin Shoppe's name, but it's cheaper so I go with it. 72 ionic trace minerals that are as soluble as you can get. One bottle lasts forever and it's not expensive. I don't trust the soil quality today b/c there's too many depleted minerals, so IMO this stuff is the best and easiest way to go. Plus add a few drops to all your water whenever possible so your body can better utilize it (the water) rather than passing it right through you. We were meant to drink water that actually had some nutrient value rather than this empty stuff we drink today, so I try to make it as close to what was originally intended as possible, and since the good water gets expensive, I find it easier to add a few drops of this stuff to normal filtered bottled water.
    [​IMG]
    That's an easy one for you. Lots of nuts (almonds, cashews, and Brazil), dried herbs (which are also great for your digestive system), sesame & sunflower seeds, dark chocolate, and I think bran is the best but I'm not a bran person, myself. That's why I try to eat a handful of raw almonds & cashews every day. There's a lot of mineral deficiencies now with how we misuse the soil. I think I read there are a few minerals that in the 60's you could get from 1 head of lettuce that requires nearly a bathtub full today.

    Another thing that's great to mix in when possible is horseradish & wasabi for their glucosinolates. Horseradish is a superfood that flies under the radar.
    Here's an easy link/read: http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/nov2009_Horseradish-Protection-Against-Cancer-And-More_01.htm

    Ditto for ginger.
     
  33. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 New Member

    13,099
    6,464
    0
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ
    I'm willing to look at it and consider it. Especially if inter-mitten, its a singled out day here or there and I can do on a weekend. I do eat a bit differently on the weekend. Just with family and doing things and odd schedules. I just take Vits, maybe 1 gainer shake, but go to basically 4 larger(junkier)meals a day. 5 tops. By junky I mean, Pancakes, Subs, buffalo wings, cheese steaks, whole eggs(w/yolks), etc.
     
  34. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Hmm, recently ran across th 4 hour diet concept and found it fascinating, anyone else hear of this?

    The slow carb portion is what I've been thinking of

    http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blo...of-fat-in-30-days-without-doing-any-exercise/



    http://www.fitandhealthylivingblog....-really-makes-the-slow-carb-diet-work-part-1/

    Hmm, and it played out here as well, I do come down on the side that content counts as much as intake amounts so it is good to see someone else had the same experience and the same observations.

    As I looked into more, he explains it by pointing out that Calories also have hormonal effects and the body is not a closed system thermo dynamically speaking

    Long interview:


    [video=youtube;rDMVbTxPP1Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDMVbTxPP1Q[/video]
     
  35. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    Too long for me to watch lol. But yeah, the doctor is talking TEF. Protein is the hardest macro to digest. Fiber is number 2. So if you eat a lot of both, you're going to burn more calories to digest it. However, the extra burning isn't going to be significant, really. And too much fiber isn't terrific either, as it will mess with absorption of vitamins and minerals.

    I have a few issues with this quote from Dr. Tim.

    1). All carbs spike insulin, regardless of fast or slow.
    2). Protein also spikes insulin, just as hard as some fast carbs (whey especially).
    3). The body is in a constant state of either storing or burning fat. Even if you're dieting, the food you eat stores as fat. Your body makes up for the caloric imbalance (deficit in this example) by burning more fat than is stored.

    I highly recommend checking out James krieger's work. It's a six part article on Insulin. Lots of visual aids too. Good stuff for those who have interest. http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

    The "whole, non processed food" being better for weight loss thing is important for two reasons. They're better for adhering to the diet (stay full longer), and certainly those with poor insulin sensitivity may have a blood sugar crash causing hunger to return quickly, but the function of calories in and out doesn't change regardless.

    Actually, maybe even a third reason too... More accurate counting. Whole, unprocessed food is easier to accurately count because it's easier to measure without variables.

    A Mcdouble at Mcdonalds is listed at 390 calories. the FDA requires all calories from all sources to be within 20% of the listed number (for all food, fast food or otherwise). So a McDouble could be 78 calories more or less than listed. I seriously doubt it would be less though. By eating that burger, you could be miscounting to a degree.

    Extrapolate a 20% miscalculation because of eating processed food (like fast food or otherwise) over the course of a week, every meal. A 2500 calorie diet (for example) and 20% inaccuracy could be 500 calories. 500 calories over the course of a week is 1lb. Your diet could of produced less than you thought, despite counting. And so we debate the merit of eating "clean" and "healthy" foods over the "dirty" and "unhealthy" when calories in and out function hasn't changed at all.
     
  36. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    I promise I'll get my IF post up one of these days. Just been a little busy and now I'm paying more attention the Dolphins than else on the site.


    The four hour diet. Never heard of it. But it's obviously within the realm of IF. Just checked out the site via the link you posted. Couple of issues there too lol.

    The site promises 20lbs of fat in 30 days. 3500 calories is 1lb of fat. So to lose 20lbs of fat in thirty days would require a 30 day deficit of 70,000 calories. That's not really possibly, outside of the morbidly obese. Or someone very heavy, eating a protein sparing modified fast (about 700-800 calories a day). a PSMF is not recommended to those who aren't dangerously overweight. Because of the lack of carbs (simply from veggies), more likely, the 20lbs of fat will be 12lbs or more water weight. Right off the bat my spider sense is tingling with notions of scam. Then I read he added 10lbs of muscle in six weeks. .5 lbs of muscle a week is around the maximum. So 6 (weeks) x .5 (lbs of muscle) = 3lbs. Noob's can get 1lb a week at the start. Where did he get the number 10 from? 3lbs of muscle in 6 weeks on a deficit is also impossible, aside from complete beginners. Muscle repair requires energy. Which requires a surplus. This guy is a clown. Don't buy his book!

    The diet proposed is wayyyyy too low in fat. Anyone thinking about the diet, as it's constructed, is going to be miserable with mood swings, goof'd up hormones, and have vitamin deficiency in vitamins which are fat soluble.

    His "eat whatever you want" day is basically a refeed. A refeed is eating in a surplus to spike the hormone Leptin. Leptin is the master control hormone, very important in losing weight. However, most refeeds are controlled. Very low fat (50g or less), high protein, and super high carb (anywhere from 400g-700g) ("fast" carbs, specifically). Not really digging his interpretation of it.

    Not a huge fan of "eat the same thing, everyday," either. It's harder to stick with that for a number of reasons. Eating the same number of calories per day, is a much better strategy. But that's the least of my concerns considering everything else.
     
  37. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Not quite so CKent, he said 20 pds of weight, not neccessarily 20 pds of fat alone.

    As he points out there are more ways to lose weight then just burning calories, for example such a high fiber diet will lead to more excretion of waste and the reduction would also count as weight loss.

    Like his idea about taking cold baths or showers.
     
  38. Clark Kent

    Clark Kent Fighter of the Nightman

    8,472
    4,017
    113
    May 9, 2008
    The title of the article is "How to Lose 20 lbs. of Fat in 30 Days… Without Doing Any Exercise."

    Reading things like...

    - It is possible to lose more than 2lbs a week. Not sure why he suggests otherwise? It's kind of dumb, unless very obese.
    - 20lbs of muscle in a month? That's physiologically impossible without steroids. Not sure if steroids could even help get 20lbs of muscle in a month.
    - Losing fat and building muscle at the same time is the holy grail of fitness. Beyond beginners who're below a normal threshold, it's impossible without steroids. The last thing your body wants to do is hand over calories to build muscle with a caloric deficit because it needs whatever calories are available to function correctly.

    This guy is selling the dream, not reality.


    What does he say about cold showers?
     
  39. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Well, since switching to the 30 grams of protein for breakfast on 3/10 I've lost 5 pds and 1 pants size by the 3/19 (today).

    W/o proper measuring equipment, cannot say if it were all Fat or water weight as well, do know 5 pds in 9 days is no small feat and this with no real diet other than the 30 grams of protein and lots of locally crafted beer.

    As for the cold showers or baths, that I'm not 100% on, as I don't own the actual book just watched people on youtube speak about it.
     
  40. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,465
    37,345
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    Hmm, I read "lost 20 pds of fat and gained 10 pds of muscle"?

    I watched the process and surprisingly enough, he did not use free weights, he used kettle balls and isometrics, he has his proof photos on his lectures but as you say "ain't got time for that".

    [​IMG]

    Rather interesting, make of it what one will.

    [video=youtube;qTBO5cMmDco]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTBO5cMmDco[/video]

    Cold baths trigger Adapeneptin (sp) among other things.

    And I looked into the workout and it basically is a power lifting style of workout, tension on both the down and upward portion of the rep for 5 seconds each movement for 7 reps.
     

Share This Page