Weight Loss Thread

Lanx said:

are you just dumping in the matcha and swirling it around?

matcha is like really clumpy, you really need to wisk that shit around like so

but don't worry, thats too much work for my ocd ass

i just use a milk frother

it has a built in wisk and heats it up at the same time to 150f, sure it should be 20degrees hotter but i like it not that hot too

trust me, i have the regular bamboo wisk and funky ass spoon to measure, now i just dump 1/2tsp of matcha to 4oz of water or 1tsp for 8oz of water, it's not bad that it can hold 8oz... admittedly it's "slower" in heating up than my electric kettle so i'll give the water a quick boost to 130f on my kettle first then dump it in.

if you want measurements 1g is about 1/4tsp.

i'll try that matcha brand, thats a lot of match for 15bucks lulz

Click to expand...

It’s good cold or hot, I prefer cold and don’t have any experience doing it hot sorry. I just get a spoon and stir the shit out of it. That’s the brand I use for my Apple cider and when I break a fast and eat with a meal and do so with a little stevia because who cares my insulin is going to spike from the meal anyways.

When I do green tea during lunch I like Pique tea packets and I just put them in a water bottle and shake the fuck out of it.

Pique Tea Organic Mint Sencha Green Tea Crystals - Immune Support, Gut Health, Fasting - 14 Single Serve Sticks (Pack of 1) Amazon product ASIN B01D8SKGKE

Lanx said:

yea, maybe your wife took a clump of matcha when it wasn't mixed in heh

Click to expand...

My wife hates apple cider vinegar and will only take the pills, I hate the shit to but I think because I’ve cut out sugar from my life anything remotely sweet taste good. During the holidays when I relented on my diet and had some pie, when the first bite touched my tongue it was like a shock went from my tongue to my head like I stuck a 9 volt battery to my tongue, but in a good way.

Falxy-US said:

I only drink diet drinks, ever. I have the same reaction with even a sip of regular coke, it's so fucking sweet. I'm not a desert person at all thank god. Like at a fancy restaurant if we are indulging ourselves I'll go for whatever bullshit they have, but on the regular I don't touch deserts.... unless it's 3am on a stressful shift and some sales rep has dumped off a plate of cookies in our hospital. Then I turn into Fat Albert. My biggest weakness.

Click to expand...

Diet drinks illicit an insulin response you know that yes?

Falxy-US said:

I only drink diet drinks, ever. I have the same reaction with even a sip of regular coke, it's so fucking sweet. I'm not a desert person at all thank god. Like at a fancy restaurant if we are indulging ourselves I'll go for whatever bullshit they have, but on the regular I don't touch deserts.... unless it's 3am on a stressful shift and some sales rep has dumped off a plate of cookies in our hospital. Then I turn into Fat Albert. My biggest weakness.

Click to expand...

That’s good to hear that you get the same thing because I’ve never known anyone whose had the same thing and thought it was weird. My wife says I look like my two year old daughter after she ran into a wall full speed chasing our puppy “you shake your head and get a confused ass look on your face”. Thanks for sharing that, appreciate it makes me feel better lol.

Ossoi said:

The issue in this thread was the blanket statements and the refusal to adjust or retract when presented with clear evidence to the contrary.

I'll give you an example from Fungs Instagram:

Click to expand...

I see nothing problematic with his statement there. Reducing refined carbs like pasta, breads, and sugars will reduce the intensity and duration of an insulin response. Insulin not only directly blocks lipolysis but also indirectly by downregulating the production of the hormones that trigger lipolysis. You cannot access your energy stored as fat while insulin is high. The mechanism behind this is pretty well understood. I don't know if its an all or nothing threshhold (i.e. insulin raises above some threshhold concentration and shuts off all lipolysis) or a graduated response (i.e. the higher the insulin, the harder it is to access fat stores). But insulin appears to be the gatekeeper here and its inhibitory response is stronger than your bodies attempts to mobilize fat energy.
Proteins raise your insulin to a lesser degree and for shorter duration. Fats raise your insulin the least and for the shortest duration. So reducing processed carbs does lead to lower insulin levels, which are critical to weight loss.

Ossoi said:

As I've already said repeatedly, I was eating 200-400g of carbs and achieving a recomp effect. Yes that recomp was a "one off" due to 11 months of no training. But for other cuts, I don't drop carbs significantly until I'm close to single digit body fat, and that's only because my protein intake never changes and the body needs a minimum intake of fat.

Therefore whilst the advice in the picture may be right for some people, it's clearly not relevant for everyone - do you agree?

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you. Burnem is saying that IF is the most efficient way of losing weight. I would say that IF and LCHF are probably the most efficient way to eliminate or redistribute fat stores away from the mid section. You are in a different territory though in that you are actively trying to build lean muscle, and cut body fat to single digit percentages. So the question becomes is IF better for weight loss AND lean muscle retention/addition and I don't know the answer to that. Having as little fat as you do with as high of an activity level, you are going to need a good amount of calories to build muscle. Being metabolically healthy and active, there is more leeway in your diet to achieve your results. A better discussion for you, I think, would be if you were achieving your goals in spite of those 200-400g, or because of them. Have you done a comparison of maintaining your protein and calorie intake, but shifting carbs into fats during a similar training phase? You may find that achieving your goals is easier and faster by reducing carbs. Maximizing your goals is definitely outside my knowledge area.
That guy Thomas Delauer went from a huge fatty to an absolute beast and he is all about IF and LCHF eating.

Ossoi said:

Also, if you follow what l posted earlier:


You get to his page: Meal frequency, intermittent fasting, and dietary protein | The poor, misunderstood calorie

Which is interesting because he's got a screenshot of Fung replying to him

Summary of the page:

"This wasn’t well-received in social media because bro-science & many low carb advocates say grazing is no longer in vogue — “it’s much better/healthier/whatever to eat once or twice daily, because intermittent fasting and all that jazz” …however, this may be problematic when it comes to meeting overall protein needs, which is particularly important when you’re losing weight."

And the above is Fung replying with the "science study fallacy" - if a study supports your worldview it's good science, if it contradicts your worldview it's bad science.

Conclusion summary:

"6 meals per day was better for body composition than 2 meals per day. But context is everything, and this hypothesis has been tested from a variety of different angles, so what does it mean?

Result: “a diet with a high-protein concentration, fed as frequent small meals, is associated with better preservation of lean tissue than an isoenergetic diet with lower-protein concentration fed as fewer meals.”


"If you’re losing weight (ie, in an energy deficit), then intermittent fasting is cool if protein intake is high (above “adequateTM“)… the bigger the energy deficit, the more protein is necessary to optimize changes in body composition."


As should be obvious by now, I'm interested in body composition, preservation of muscle etc

Which is why Burnem Wizfyre advice or belief of "hahaha you could have fasted and you would have got better results" is clearly contrary to what the science says.

Click to expand...

This article is interesting. I would agree with Fung initially that you shouldn't draw sweeping conclusions from such a short study with so few participants. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean the study is wrong though. An initial problem I see with the study is that you have metabolically unhealthy women doing very short fasts with an extreme calorie deficit. Eating 2 meals a day is probably a 16:8 schedule for them. Its the Nickelback of IF. All participants probably have serious issues with insulin resistance, and fasting for 3-4 hours a day more than their normal does not give them enough time in a low insulin state for their body to compensate for the 1200 calorie deficit. That calorie deficit has to be zeroed out by either reduced metabolism or mobilizing of energy from body tissues. The abstract said their metabolism wasn't greatly affected in the 6 meals/day vs the 2 meals/day, so if you hold metabolism constant here, then the deficit is made up from body tissue. Using made up numbers to illustrate a point, people with insulin resistance problems doing short fasts could say make up 600 additional calories from fast stores during their fasting period. The other 600 would come from other non-fat parts of the body, like connective tissue and muscle.

My supposition would be that these people would see identical fat loss and increased muscle retention by eating a significantly smaller calorie deficit. They'd be functionally stronger, their bodies would look better, and they wouldn't be miserable from only consuming 800 calories a day. The problem I see with this study isn't that IF causes muscle breakdown. Its that you can't put people with hormone regulation problems on such a huge calorie deficit. Looks like an absolutely terrible diet plan to me, unsustainable and unhealthy. But yeah, you can mitigate it by increasing the percentage of protein in that 800 calories per day.

If fasting caused muscle consumption, our ancestors would have a decreasing chance to obtain food with every day they went hungry. Its very unlikely that the species would have survived with such a negative response. What you would expect to see is what we see. Increases in metabolism, energy, hgh levels, etc... after fasts approaching 24 hours that give us an increased chance to catch food

Falxy-US said:

Yes, I am aware that there is research that suggests diet sodas containing sweeteners like aspartame may elicit (not illicit ) a small insulin response through pathways that are still under investigation. There is even insulin released during the cephalic phase of digestion. But I don't follow your diet! I calorie restrict where I can, and I work out hard because I have different goals and things that I love. I'm also aware of the research that suggests diet drinks lead to weight gain, but we know that drinking a diet coke itself doesn't directly make you fat, but has indirect effects that can lead to weight gain (ie, eliciting a stress response producing cortisol, etc, etc). However, if I'm going out to eat, and I know I'm already having a steak, sauce, etc, and no desert, the diet coke saves hundreds of calories per meal, and I prefer the taste.

View attachment 340149

This is one of my rides, I show this one because it was my first time going for 100 miles, not super fast, but still a hell of a ride. My heart rate monitor estimated 5,719 calories, but I believe that (total work) is a better 1:1 indicator at 3,071 calories burned. I couldn't keep up with fluids and lost multiple pounds in one ride. The last 20 miles were very difficult and I was almost at exhaustion, where even riding slow had my heart rate pegged. I had to bring numerous carbohydrates with me, I stopped once for a snickers (it's actually an amazing energy device), because people who workout need energy and carbohydrates and you can't fast your way through activities like this.

My point is that we all have different goals. I think your diet works well for you because of your life style. But I would never be able to follow it. There are multiple pathways to health. And I am genuinely happy you got off DM2 meds and was able to lose so much weight.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree different regimens for different goals, everyone is different. It’s why I’ll go with tea for dinner but use stevia and the only time I ever do any drink that’s not water or coffee or green tea with a sweetener is with a meal. My wife has been doing OMAD and won’t do a strict keto, she doesn’t have the will power to do what I do and she loves certain foods. She loses weight and after a little over a year she’s 30 pounds from her goal and on her current trajectory should reach it by August. She could have been done long ago if she had done what I did as she wasn’t nearly as big as me but she’s doing what makes it easiest for her to stick with and adherence is the biggest role in weight loss in my opinion do what’s best for you so you don’t give up.

Ossoi said:

Burnem Wizfyre made blanket statements like "you can't lose weight whilst spiking insulin"

And refused to retract when I showed him that you could, using photos, weight logs, mfp logs and dexa scans, lol

He then doubled down and claimed that he could have optimised my results.

That's pretty funny when my dxa scan shows that in six months I gained something like 9lbs of lean mass, lol

Click to expand...

This is probably another semantic argument. Insulin increase after eating has magnitude and duration. The science is pretty clear that you are not burning fat in an appreciable way when your insulin is elevated. Being healthy and active to a level far greater than the general population, you are able to use that glucose energy faster and as such the duration of your increased insulin is shorter. Meaning you get back to a low insulin state with access to fat stores far faster than normal people. I don't believe you are burning any fat at all while your insulin is high.

Take me as a comparison. I'm 42 years old, 6'1" and 205 lbs. I am non-diabetic, taking no medications. I'm in ok cardiovascular shape but have some visceral fat around my midsection. Kind of a typical dad bod. I'd like to be about 185. I probably have some level of insulin resistance and my metabolism is almost certainly lower than yours. So if I ate 200-400g of carbs in a day, my insulin after each meal would stay higher than yours for longer. Neither one of us would burn fat while the insulin was elevated, but yours would be elevated for a shorter period of time, which is why you can eat the way you do and it wouldn't work for me.