Weight Loss Thread

Which is what I said. Short term it'll only be an issue for people who already have a liver or kidney issue. Long term is different. Perhaps you should go back and read my posts.

I don't think of it is as meaningless. Sorry if I am addressing the actual biochemistry.

The Master_sl said:

Which is what I said. Short term it'll only be an issue for people who already have a liver or kidney issue. Long term is different. Perhaps you should go back and read my posts.

I don't think of it is as meaningless. Sorry if I am addressing the actual biochemistry.

Click to expand...

Right, but you don't get to change what things mean when speaking to other people because that just confuses everyone. Low-carb doesn't refer to the molecule your body biochemically uses for energy, it refers to what you eat.Ketosisspecifically refers to the biochemical nature of there that energy comes from. Thus all ketogenic diets are low-carb but not all low-carb diets are ketogenic. Just clarify next time instead of doubling (tripling) down on a simple communication mistake.

Then why say there is a serious risk to eating a lot of protein when speaking to a healthy person when there isn't a risk at all for him or anyone like him? I think you should read your posts again too.

I went to pains to explain exactly what I meant and was pretty obviously discussing the actual biochemistry. The reason things actually work the way they do is of primary interest to me and ought to be of primary interest to anyone actually interested in their health. Calling a diet "low-carb" when biochemically it isn't is what is misleading, I prefer a great degree of precision when I am discussing science, particularly anything involving biology where things are messy compared to physics or chemistry.

Well, because, as the article notes, you can have kidney issues without knowing you have them and you should get checked by a doctor before subjecting yourself to the risk all unknowing. Minor kidney issues are not something you'd necessarily notice until you do something to make them serious. Hedoesn'tknow if he has any risk factors, or if he checked with his doctor first he didn't mention it. Long term you still have potential issues, as the article notes.

The Master_sl said:

I went to pains to explain exactly what I meant and was pretty obviously discussing the actual biochemistry. The reason things actually work the way they do is of primary interest to me and ought to be of primary interest to anyone actually interested in their health. Calling a diet "low-carb" when biochemically it isn't is what is misleading, I prefer a great degree of precision when I am discussing science, particularly anything involving biology where things are messy compared to physics or chemistry.

Well, because, as the article notes, you can have kidney issues without knowing you have them and you should get checked by a doctor before subjecting yourself to the risk all unknowing. Minor kidney issues are not something you'd necessarily notice until you do something to make them serious. Hedoesn'tknow if he has any risk factors, or if he checked with his doctor first he didn't mention it. Long term you still have potential issues, as the article notes.

Click to expand...

Any time you change your diet or plan on starting to attack weight loss aggressively you should consult a doctor. It doesn't matter what your plan is you should figure out the downsides. In his book Doctor (yes Doctor) Atkins (and now his companies new doctors and researchers) mention all the threats for people with certain conditions and ailments. He tells people to go make sure they are healthy enough to proceed before they do anything. The biggest problem with a diet like the Atkins diet is ignorance. People don't take the time to actually understand it and 99% of the people who "do it" don't even come close to doing it correctly. And then the naysayers latch onto that ignorance while ignoring the science behind it as well. That article ignores the truth behind the Atkins diet and latches onto the the ideas behind the first phase of that four phase lifestyle. The Atkins diet is not supposed to be a high protein diet. He even mentions how much you should limit your protein intake each day. If you want to call it anything you call it a high fat diet. The article ignores the Atkins program and instead latches onto people who call what they are doing Atkins but are doing it inappropriately and flat out wrong.

If you really are interested in the science and research behind the diet as you say do yourself a favor and read his book and then read all the research done on people who were doing the diet appropriately under his and his staffs proper supervision.

But let's face it. An overwhelming majority of obese people aren't going to take the time to check their health before changing their lifestyle to see if there are any potential issues. They got to where they were because they never cared about being healthy in the first place. You can't expect someone who used to drink garlic sauce to go get a physical before they go on a diet. And you can't expect them to actually read a book about the proper way to approach something either. All they know is it's ok to eat eggs and cheese and they think that means "ALL THE EGGS AND CHEESE I WANT" which is not even close to proper. Even on the most aggressive first phase of the diet you aren't supposed to eat more than 2 eggs daily or more than 4 ounces of cheese. But how many people actually know that?

Thanks for explaining the 4 calories per gram of protein, that makes sense. I think I'll just limit myself to 200 grams of protein a day. It's not like I'm body building anyways.

As a generally healthy person I'm willing to accept whatever minor kidney damage may occur in the month or so between now and when I get my yearly checkup. But I will ask my doctor when I go.

On another note, I woke up today and have a pain on the front right side of my neck. It feels like a swollen lymph node, but I'm not sick and the other side is fine. I suspect it is from straining during my crunches. Any ideas? Is there a better ab workout I can do in my hotel room? Sometimes I feel like I'm not hitting the lower part of my abs as hard as the upper part, though I make an effort to contract them while doing the exercise.

Ossoi has an alien head.

Ossoi_sl said:

Based on your logic eating bread in Church is a high protein diet because in the mouth it undergoes a Supernatural conversion to the body of Christ, transforming from bread (carbs) into flesh (protein)

Click to expand...

Only some sects of Christianity believe in the miracle of transubstantiation. Details matter when you want to be right, even about nonsense.

@Khane: Think I got the science part covered and yes I am familiar with Dr. Atkin's work. Since the article is addressing high protein consumption and that was the subject at hand, whether it is or isn't the Atkin's diet is tertiary. Ignorance was the exact issue I was trying to help with and I'm aware there is a lot of it out there. The actual Atkin's diet does not advocate consuming 200-300 grams of protein per day so the potential issues... aren't. If you do it correctly. If I talk to people about any "low-carb" diet I almost always call them "hight-fat" diets because that is really what they are, both in terms of your diet and what your body is actually doing biochemically.

The Master_sl said:

@Khane: Think I got the science part covered and yes I am familiar with Dr. Atkin's work. Since the article is addressing high protein consumption and that was the subject at hand, whether it is or isn't the Atkin's diet is tertiary. Ignorance was the exact issue I was trying to help with and I'm aware there is a lot of it out there. The actual Atkin's diet does not advocate consuming 200-300 grams of protein per day so the potential issues... aren't. If you do it correctly. If I talk to people about any "low-carb" diet I almost always call them "hight-fat" diets because that is really what they are, both in terms of your diet and what your body is actually doing biochemically.

Click to expand...

I just took umbrage with the article because they were targeting "diets like Atkins" as high protein and dangerous which is completely incorrect. Why link an article that is written on baseless assumptions? It fools the layman into thinking the completely wrong things about a very healthy lifestyle (Atkins, not high protein). I champion the Atkins diet because it completely changed my life (I've posted the before and after pics in this thread) and I constantly hear about how bad it is for you which couldn't be further from the truth.

Ok so regarding weight loss as opposed to fat loss, or getting leaner and fitter... I had a shot of myself from 2 summers ago at around 170 lbs (left) and then one of myself now at 185(ish). It's hard to tell in the pictures but I feel like I look much better at 185. More filled out. Definitely look better with a shirt on. I'm also much stronger at this weight. I could be leaner but if this was my max fattyness I'd be fine with that. Note: it's not max fatty for me. I will definitely put on more flab as the cold weather gets in full swing.

Goal now is for my upper body to catch up with my lower body in terms of lifts/strength/numbers and then get leaner.

Denaut said he couldn't find any articles. That was the first hit on google. Granted it is inaccurate about Atkins in the sense that someone doing the Atkins diet correctly would not have the high protein issue, but a lot of people who it incorrectly would. Primarily it was addressing the issue at hand, excess protein consumption. I could actually go dig up Atkins foot notes for studies that formed the basis of why he said to manage your protein intake, but I'm not even sure they are online. I'm all for high fat diets done correctly. For that matter I am for anything that works for you and makes you healthy. In any of those cases however, understanding plays a key role, and understanding things is really about the details.

The Master_sl said:

I could actually go dig up Atkins foot notes for studies that formed the basis of why he said to manage your protein intake, but I'm not even sure they are online. I'm all for high fat diets done correctly. For that matter I am for anything that works for you and makes you healthy. In any of those cases however, understanding plays a key role, and understanding things is really about the details.

Click to expand...

In this regard do you think I would see better weight loss replacing my "wasted" protein with high fat foods? I'm at the point where I should really only lose 3-4 more lbs. I would say.

Dashel_sl said:

Ok so regarding weight loss as opposed to fat loss, or getting leaner and fitter... I had a shot of myself from 2 summers ago at around 170 lbs (left) and then one of myself now at 185(ish). It's hard to tell in the pictures but I feel like I look much better at 185. More filled out. Definitely look better with a shirt on. I'm also much stronger at this weight. I could be leaner but if this was my max fattyness I'd be fine with that. Note: it's not max fatty for me. I will definitely put on more flab as the cold weather gets in full swing.

Goal now is for my upper body to catch up with my lower body in terms of lifts/strength/numbers and then get leaner.

Spoiler

Click to expand...

It's honestly hard to tell much of a difference due to the different poses. You certainly look more "filled out", as you put it, but I can't say it looks like you put on much muscle. Then again, you said you're stronger now so clearly you did something right and strength isn't always reflected in huge muscle sizes.

The time difference between the pictures is about 2 years, so did you slowly bulk/increase strength during that time or was it a mix of cutting/bulking?

Let's clean up the insults in this thread and stick to coherent arguments. I appreciate biological discussion and scientific talk that's relevant to a thread but it's getting a bit unwieldy when discussing the potential gains of believing in transubstantiation and how much cardio one gets from submersion baptism vs infusion.

If you guys want to make an argument for people looking to lose weight, make the argument for or against ketosis, atkins, low carbs, high protein, twinkies only or whatever, post the facts and be done with it. Going tit for tat with dumb bullshit helps no one.

Click to expand...

Welcome to Ossoi's standard contributions to weight loss thread discussions.

Eat carbs people. Eat lots of them.

McCheese i put on ~30 lbs in 3-4 months doing Starting Strength and eating a lot of food. Most of my numbers gains were in the squat. I went from around #255 for one to #405 for a 1rm. I had a sizable gut though at 200 lbs. I then leaned out to around 180-185. Squats made me generally filled out, my traps and back got much bigger and broader but most muscle was probably in my lower body. So now I'm working on upper body.

It's actually one of the knocks I've heard on Starting Strength, arms dont get a lot of work. By comparison though, I love how it broadened my back and shoulders:



I'll try to find other pics of me at 170 and I just felt I looked scrawny. Now even when I'm fairly lean I dont look that way so i'm happy. I need to work on my arms though.

Dashel_sl said:

McCheese i put on ~30 lbs in 3-4 months doing Starting Strength and eating a lot of food. Most of my numbers gains were in the squat. I went from around #255 for one to #405 for a 1rm. I had a sizable gut though at 200 lbs. I then leaned out to around 180-185. Squats made me generally filled out, my traps and back got much bigger and broader but most muscle was probably in my lower body. So now I'm working on upper body.

It's actually one of the knocks I've heard on Starting Strength, arms dont get a lot of work. By comparison though, I love how it broadened my back and shoulders:

Spoiler

I'll try to find other pics of me at 170 and I just felt I looked scrawny. Now even when I'm fairly lean I dont look that way so i'm happy. I need to work on my arms though.

Click to expand...

Curious to know what % of that 30lbs you gained you think was muscle.

Best guess is 50%. I ate everything, including a lot of Smashburgers. Was 170, put on 30, leaned out to ~185 at roughly same bodyfat percentage all over the course of a year. If I ate clean I may or may not have had the same results. SS just made me so hungry.

Yeah you look better at 170 than 185 imo. Could just be the shitty angles you gave us tho.