bran987's Diet Journal with Pics: Must Get In Shape.

[The Shadow]

The problem is the following:

if you cut cals too much below a certain threshold you will lose fat/weight... that is a given. The issue is how sustainable that is. I have done this with no breaks for 9 months straight. Any reduction in cals below BMR will create a decrease in metabolic rate. Bran's BMR is about 1600 already, why risk it going down to that level when he can stay at a easier BMR+100 or 200 cals?


IF HIS BMR IS 1600...THEN 1600 CALS IS HIS BREAK EVEN POINT.....THE MINIMAL AMOUNT OF CARDIO WILL BE WHAT SPURS THE WEIGHT LOSS....WHY WOULD YOU RECOMMEND EATING OVER YOUR BMR TO LOSE WEIGHT - THAT MAKES ZERO SENSE

The plan seems adequate, but I still have a problem for a man to drop to 1600 cals/day. Hell, women are in this caloric range and you cannot compare that.


YOU JUST STATED HIS BMR IS 1600 CALS - THAT IS WHAT HE IS EATING....

ADEQUATE - LOL


QUESTION: DID YOU HAVE A BF TEST BEFORE AND AFTER TO SEE IF YOU LOST ANY LBM??



Having said that, we also need to take into account that everybody is different and the 2 extremes (no cardio or cardio 6x/week) will not work for most people. I decided for the all out cardio cause I wanted results fast (more than wanted them, I needed them...).


BRAN WILL MATCH YOUR RESULTS ON A %AGE OF BODYWEIGHT BASIS


Would the diet have worked with no cardio, probably yes, since diet is accountable for most of the results. but for sure it would have been slower

Ultimately a diet is something so personal, that any recomendation we make should only be taken as that, is up to Bran to try and see what works best for him.

About the Cortisol, I'm an advocate of steady state cardio ( not HIIT, which is the biggest cortisol-inducing and carb-burning form there is) at a higher pace... so far, the lost of LBM in my case is really insignificant (over 95% of weight lost is fat).


HIIT NOT ONLY BURNS MORE OVERALL CALS(MORE AFTERBURN CALS) AS WELL AS MORE CALS FROM FAT THAN STEADY STATE CARDIO....

Seems we have here 2 plans that work, albeit following different roads.

I enjoy eating, so I wouldn't really enjoy a too restrictive program, I prefer to be able to have my oat with milk in the morning and not with water (that is about 200 cals diff) and be done with it... at the end, I know I can burn it off and be happy.

AND THAT IS TOTALLY FINE.....MY PROBLEM IS THAT YOU RIPPED INTO A PLAN THAT YOU HAVENT TRIED.....THAT SEVERAL OTHER HAVE AND HAVE HAD GREAT SUCCESS WITH

 

[pintoca]

No offense but that is a ridiculous statement....


By your logic, a man who weighs 250 pounds should eat 1800 cals to lose as well as a man who weighs 180.

I never actually implied that, and no offense taken, I know what I know

This is just the minimum amount of cals men should go down to. Women are recommended not to go below 1200..

the formula to calculate your BMR and TDEE basically takes into account the amount of muscle you have in your body, since only muscle is metabolically active.

this means that 2 people weighting 250lbs each, one with 10% and the other with 40% will require completely different caloric intakes to lose weight (while keeping muscle, that is).

that is, in my view, a more sensible way to calculate caloric calculation than simply saying: body weights times X amount of cals... this treats fat exactly as muscle..., which is a sure way to overeating if you don't have an "average" body composition...

I say this form experience, I was 265 at 40% BF...how many cals would you have recommended to me using your body weight times cals formula? 265 x 10 cals??? 2650 cals/day? I don't think I would have lost much on that...

 

[The Shadow]

I never actually implied that, and no offense taken, I know what I know


This is just the minimum amount of cals men should go down to. Women are recommended not to go below 1200..


the formula to calculate your BMR and TDEE basically takes into account the amount of muscle you have in your body, since only muscle is metabolically active.

this means that 2 people weighting 250lbs each, one with 10% and the other with 40% will require completely different caloric intakes to lose weight (while keeping muscle, that is).

that is, in my view, a more sensible way to calculate caloric calculation than simply saying: body weights times X amount of cals... this treats fat exactly as muscle..., which is a sure way to overeating if you don't have an "average" body composition...

I say this form experience, I was 265 at 40% BF...how many cals would you have recommended to me using your body weight times cals formula? 265 x 10 cals??? 2650 cals/day? I don't think I would have lost much on that...

THE QUESTION IS HOW MANY DID YOU EAT PER DAY?

 

[bran987]

let me remind you guys of something: shadow recommended 10 to 12 times bodyweight:

the range there is 1,600 to 1,920

I will keep my calories within that range, so Pintoca, the 1,800 you are arguing for is actually within the range shadow recommends. I think you two are more in line with caloric requirements than you realize, but are in disagreement with regards to cardio.

 

[pintoca]

Shadow, Bro... let's not turn this into a pissing contest.


One last thing:

"HIIT NOT ONLY BURNS MORE OVERALL CALS(MORE AFTERBURN CALS) AS WELL AS MORE CALS FROM FAT THAN STEADY STATE CARDIO....

HIIT can burn more cals than steady state cardio at 65% MHR in a shorter period of time (completely agree on the Afterburn factor)... but HIIT WILL NEVER burn more cals from fat than regular cardio. that is wrong... the more you approach your anabolic threshold, the more sugar you burn for fuel... There is a reason why the longest sprint is 200 mts.

not that it matters, since what really matters is calories in vs cals out... where they come from is actually not a great deal. My cardio is 75-85% MHR, which is also very close to the anaerobic threshold.

Anyway, I said what I wanted to say, let's hope Bran can get the best out of the two programs (or out of the one he decides to pursue), at the end, if he reaches his goal I would be happy for him, the important thing is to get there, how is a second consideration.

 

[pintoca]

THE QUESTION IS HOW MANY DID YOU EAT PER DAY?

2000-2100 5 times/week

2500 2 times/week (carb up days)

Right now, I am at 1800 x 6 days and 2200 for 1 day (carb up)

 

[pintoca]

let me remind you guys of something: shadow recommended 10 to 12 times bodyweight:

the range there is 1,600 to 1,920

I will keep my calories within that range, so Pintoca, the 1,800 you are arguing for is actually within the range shadow recommends. I think you two are more in line with caloric requirements than you realize, but are in disagreement with regards to cardio.

fuh real??? lol

I you

 

[The Shadow]

2000-2100 5 times/week

2500 2 times/week (carb up days)

Right now, I am at 1800 x 6 days and 2200 for 1 day (carb up)

So.....right now - you are averaging 1850 cals per day?


Subtract the cals burned from cardio during the week and see how many cals UNDER 1600 per day you are......

 

[bran987]

Meals 6/8/05:

Meal 1 8am: 30g protein powder, 1.5 cups skim milk, 1 teaspoon glutamine

Meal 2 11am: Can of Tuna raw, 1 oz. raw almond slices

Meal 3 2:15pm: Can of Tuna raw, 5 large strawberries, spinach with 1 teaspoon low cal caesar, 5 wheat ritz crackers

Meal 4 5:10pm: 3/4 of a chicken breast, 1/2 TBSP flax oil

 

[bran987]

So.....right now - you are averaging 1850 cals per day?


Subtract the cals burned from cardio during the week and see how many cals UNDER 1600 per day you are......

does he need to subtract cals burned from weightlifting as well?