公主的例子。。具体我不详不做评述。。。但是我相信她她一定不是“长时间”cut cals too much... it may work for a few weeks or even months, but eventally the body will wake up and to survive.
公主的例子。。具体我不详不做评述。。。但是我相信她她一定不是“长时间”cut cals too much... it may work for a few weeks or even months, but eventally the body will wake up and to survive.
10年，是长是短？ 她去年还贴过食谱，大概每天1000-1200卡的摄入，身高179.5。这个算不算cut too much calories?
best leg workout is STRENGTH train :p True of False
那啥。。。我一个字儿一个字儿滴认真读了他的blog...基本同意他的结论。 但是有一点，他说：'Lifting with high repetitions creates a pump in your muscles." 这个我回想了下自己的经历和看过的真人。。。木能彻底理解。我的赶脚是，high reps的问题其实还是出在low weight上。。
Muah x 1000 以下是引用无风自飞在1/7/2013 0:17:00 AM的发言： 那啥。。。我一个字儿一个字儿滴认真读了他的blog...基本同意他的结论。 但是有一点，他说：'Lifting with high repetitions creates a pump in your muscles." 这个我回想了下自己的经历和看过的真人。。。木能彻底理解。我的赶脚是，high reps的问题其实还是出在low weight上。。
那啥，摄卡跟身高关系不大，跟体重和运动量关系更密切。 完全同意最后两行。。。就是我说的第二种减肥的人～～～ 因为： Starvation mode is a state in which the body is responding to prolonged periods of low energy intake levels. During short periods of energy abstinence, the human body will burn primarily free fatty acids from body fat stores. After prolonged periods of starvation the body has depleted its body fat and begins to burn lean tissue and muscle as a fuel source. Ordinarily, the body responds to reduced energy intake by burning fat reserves first, and only consumes muscle and other tissues when those reserves are exhausted. Specifically, the body burns fat after first exhausting the contents of the digestive tract along with glycogen reserves stored in muscle and liver cells. After prolonged periods of starvation, the body will utilize the proteins within muscle tissue as a fuel source. People who practice fasting on a regular basis, such as those adhering to energy restricted diets, can prime their bodies to abstain from food without burning lean tissue. Resistance training (such as weight lifting) can also prevent the loss of muscle mass while a person is energy-restricted.
People who practice fasting on a regular basis, such as those adhering to energy restricted diets, can prime their bodies to abstain from food without burning lean tissue.--这个能zkss么？很有兴趣，后边那句我已经知道了 ：P
以下是引用无风自飞在1/7/2013 12:22:00 AM 的发言：
那啥，摄卡跟身高关系不大，跟体重和运动量关系更密切。 完全同意最后两行。。。就是我说的第二种减肥的人～～～ 因为： Starvation mode is a state in which the body is responding to prolonged periods of low energy intake levels. During short periods of energy abstinence, the human body will burn primarily free fatty acids from body fat stores. After prolonged periods of starvation the body has depleted its body fat and begins to burn lean tissue and muscle as a fuel source. ★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
People who practice fasting on a regular basis, such as those adhering to energy restricted diets, can prime their bodies to abstain from food without burning lean tissue.--这个能zkss么？很有兴趣，后边那句我已经知道了 ：P
这个你别说，我在现实生活中认识一老头（BTW, Standford medical school 毕业的：），fasting了有十几年了，非常瘦，没啥肌肉的那种瘦。。。他还相信中国道教，老庄把我讲的一楞一楞的那种。。。下回我跟他好奇一小下。。。万一有paper, 也顺几篇来：）
常见的一些健身理论问题，我心目中一直的基础理论偶像大师的书里面都白纸黑字写的特别好。。。摘抄过来，分享给刨根问底的同学们参考～～～：） An Interview with Lyle McDonald Lyle McDonald is a physiologist and author who has spent over a decade obsessively finding ways to apply cutting-edge scientific research to sports nutrition, fat loss and muscle growth.
Q. For those readers who don't know much about you, please give them a bit of background information about who you are and what you do. A. I got interested in this field back in high school, a former fat kid I had mandatory sports in school and as I started to get into shape, my obsessive compulsiveness took over. I got into cycling one summer and did a few triathlons, got involved in martial arts and eventually gymnastics (via cheerleading). This led me to UCLA to pursue a degree in kinesiology (exercise physiology) where I got even more embroiled in the research and science of human performance. Basically, I was a mediocre athlete who wanted to figure out how to get better. At that time, I was involved in cycling and got into inline skating. I started racing, did moderately well (despite being horridly overtrained in hindsight) until I burned myself out, and 'retired'. I futilely tried my hand at some strength sports, although I had always been in the weight room, finding that it improved my skating performance. Around 1996, Dan Duchaine's seminal book "Bodyopus" came out, it quite literally changed my life. It got me interested in low-carbohydrate dieting and led to the publication of my first book. Several more followed after a rather long break. The second was an odd little drug booklet (although it dealt mostly with bodyweight regulation), then came the Ultimate Diet 2.0 which was an update on the original from over 20 years ago. Last year I released two books, the Rapid Fat Loss Handbook and a Guide to Flexible Dieting. Over the years, I've worked with folks ranging from total beginners to a couple of female powerlifters, prepped a few bodybuilders for natural shows and trained the occasional endurance athlete in the weight room. Right now I'm in Salt Lake City following my own athletic quest, training full time for ice speed skating (I came out of retirement a couple of years ago) with my coach Rex Albertson. Basically, I'm an obsessed physiology nerd who is fascinated with all aspects of human performance. This includes training, nutrition (I seem to be most well known for diet stuff but exercise physiology was actually my first passion), supplements and, to a much lesser degree, drugs. Fat loss and bodyweight regulation fascinates me because I still see the fat kid in the mirror, sports performance fascinates me because I've always been a middle of the road athlete looking for solutions. And the rest of it fascinates me because I'm just a great big obsessed nerd that way.
Q. One topic that almost always seems to cause debate and controversy is the issue of calories. Some claim that there is some kind of 'metabolic advantage' associated with low-carbohydrate diets?
A. Okay, this is going to be a very long-winded answer since there's a lot to cover. I want to point out that more detailed discussions of most of this (everything except the more recent studies) are in my first book The Ketogenic Diet. The metabolic advantage of low-carbohydrate diets is an idea that has cropped up again and again since the late 60's, first popularized by Dr. Atkins in his best selling book. The idea then was based on a series of very short (4-9) day studies looking at weight loss for high- and low-carbohydrate diets at either the same or different calorie levels. Many found that weight loss was higher in the low-carbohydrate condition. Some found that even at maintenance calories, weight was lost. Aha, a metabolic advantage. Here's the basic problem: low-carbohydrate diets cause a significant amount of water weight loss through a variety of mechanisms (including the relationship of glycogen and water, a reduction in insulin which leads to greater fluid and electrolyte excretion via the kidneys, and a direct diuretic effect of ketones). I'm a fairly little guy and I can drop 5-7 pounds (about 2.5 kilograms) in about 2 days just from water loss. Bigger folks can drop more. Powerlifters often drop 10-15 pounds (nearly 7 kilograms) or more by cutting out carbohydrates the day before a meet. By the same token, I'll gain that same 5-7 pounds back when I carbohydrate-load. It's just a shift in water balance. And those shifts tend to predominate in the short-term. So when you're just looking at weight loss, the water loss becomes a very significant issue as it often more than exceeds the reported difference between the two different diets. When the difference in total weight loss is only a few kilograms, and you have several kilograms of water being lost, that hardly makes a good case for a metabolic advantage. The idea has been recently re-advanced in a couple of papers with two different mechanisms being thrown out. As well, a lot of people have been using the results of a series of recent studies that found greater weight and/or fat loss for low- versus high-carbohydrate diets as evidence for this. I'll address those as well. The first is the easiest to deal with so I'll get that out of the way, it rests on the thermic effect of protein. As your readers probably know, processing of dietary protein burns more calories than processing of carbohydrate or fat. So diets that vary in protein quite often find differences in fat loss (and muscle mass retention). But here's the thing, now we're not talking about carbohydrates are we? No, we're talking about protein, comparing high and low protein intakes. In addition to the thermic effect, studies also show that protein is the most filling nutrient; in one study, folks on a higher protein intake spontaneously ate significantly less and lost fat. Because they ate less. I'm going to come back to this point. Now, if you're looking at ad libitum food intake, which means that people eat as much as they want, typically you do see higher protein intakes on low-carbohydrate versus high-carbohydrate diets. Which is great and all. But it's still not a carbohydrate issue directly. And, of course, when I set up a fat loss diet for someone, after setting calories, the first thing I do is set protein at adequate amounts: 1-1.5 grams per pound of lean body mass. Basically, I consider this protein thing
a. a non-sequitur
b. irrelevant to the issue of carbohydrate intake. You can eat 1-1.5 grams of protein per pound of lean body mass on a carbohydrate-based diet just as easily as on a low-carbohydrate diet. Quite in fact, you should. Fine, if you want to argue that high-protein is better than low-protein, I'm with you. One researcher (Westerterp-Plantenga) has argued that the higher protein intake, rather than the low-carbohydrate intake itself, is the cause of the differences in the first place. But don't pretend that it has anything to do with low- versus high-carbohydrate. Frankly, that I should have to make such a mickey mouse point to a couple of PhD's (or their lapdog, Anssi Manninen) is beyond me. But apparently, they can't understand that differences in protein intake have zero to do with differences in carbohydrate intake per se. The next theoretical explanation for a metabolic advantage has to do with gluconeogenesis. This is just an unwieldy word for the production of new glucose from other stuff. The other stuff in this situation is amino acids, glycerol (the fatty acid backbone) and lactate. And it's true that
a. this process requires energy
b. this process is up regulated on a ketogenic (very low-carbohydrate diet) Unfortunately, the theorists advancing this idea didn't really quantify the effect that well in their paper (as I recall) in terms of how many extra calories per day it should amount to. As well, it has to be weighed against the loss of thermic effect for replacing carbohydrate with fat (the effect is mild but contributes). One study I recall found that the higher-carbohydrate diet (compared to higher fat but not ketogenic) had about a 100 calories per day advantage (due to the differences in the thermic effect of carbohydrate versus fat) and you lose this when you stop eating all carbohydrates, any effect of gluconeogenesis has to be weighed against that. Perhaps more importantly, one of the primary adaptations to ketosis (a state where blood ketone levels go above a certain concentration) is to decrease gluconeogenesis. That is, over the first 2-3 weeks of being in ketosis, the body switches to using ketones for fuel instead of glucose, which decreases the need for gluconeogenesis. A metabolic advantage that becomes almost insignificant after 2-3 weeks seems hardly worth pinning the success of a diet on. On this note, I would like to mention that, empirically (and realize that I've been getting feedback on ketogenic diets for nearly a decade now, man that makes me feel old), folks do seem to report somewhat more fat loss in the first 2 weeks on a ketogenic diet than you'd expect based on the deficit. Of course, it could just be the extra water loss throwing off the calipers too. In any event, after those 2 weeks, the effect is gone. Again, for the typical person, the average overweight individual who may be dieting for weeks or months (or longer) to achieve their goals, an effect that disappears after a couple of weeks seems hardly worth pinning the success of the diet on. And now we come to the final data point, the recent studies suggesting greater weight and/or fat loss. There have been at least a half dozen (perhaps more, I lose count) over the past several years, usually finding slightly greater weight loss (the average difference is usually on a few kilograms) and some have noted greater fat loss (using DEXA or other accurate methods to measure body fat). Now, I mentioned that the difference in weight loss could probably be attributed to water loss anyhow. But what about the fat loss? Well, in the first place, many of them reported protein intake being higher in the low-carbohydrate group. See my comments above. We're not just talking about the carbohydrate content of the diet here when 4 different nutrients (protein, carbohydrate, fat and fiber) may all be changing. Drawing conclusions about only the carbohydrate content of the diet and ignoring the rest seems a bit myopic to me. Beyond that, here's the bigger issue: without exception, all of the studies done have relied on self-reporting of food intake. And this is not a trivial issue. We've known for many years now that people on a mixed diet tend to underestimate their food intake by up to 50%. That is, someone eating a carbohydrate-based diet who says they are eating 1500 (6300 kilojoules) calories may really be eating 3000 calories (12,600 kilojoules). But what about on low-carbohydrate diets? Well, nobody has really looked to see whether people under- or over-report their food intake but we have other data. Studies done decades ago often reported spontaneous food intakes of 1600-1800 calories on low-carbohydrate diets. A recent study in diabetics found a 1000 calorie per day reduction in food intake with the shift to a low-carbohydrate diet. Basically, people on high carbohydrate diets tend to underreport their food intake (they are eating more than they say) while people on low-carbohydrate diets tend to spontaneously eat less (for a number of reasons). So when you have the low-carbohydrate group saying they ate 1600 calories and the mixed diet group saying they ate 1500 calories, yet the low-carbohydrate group lost more weight/fat, you tend to question it. The carbohydrate-based group could be eating 3000 calories, based on previous studies of underreporting. Quite in fact, a recent study, by Brehm (who had done an early metabolic advantage study) directly measured a couple aspects of metabolic rate for high and low-carbohydrate diets. Finding no difference in anything (if anything, the high-carbohydrate group was slightly superior, as the thermic effect of food in response to a meal was higher). The researchers concluded that the difference in weight/fat loss is probably due to under-reporting of food intake in the carbohydrate-based group. Along with this, there are several key studies (which the metabolic advantage people like to ignore) where calories were rigidly controlled. In one, a group of patients in a hospital was placed on a variety of experimental diets for 2 weeks. Protein was kept static and carbohydrate was varied from 0 to 70% of total calories, while fat varied in the opposite direction. Activity was controlled since they were bedridden. Calories were controlled with liquid diets. They found no difference in the number of calories needed to maintain bodyweight. And this is really my big issue with the whole idea: if low-carbohydrate diets generate a metabolic advantage, it should be measurable with current technology. If it's not measurable, it either doesn't exist is far too small to worry about. And all of the theoretical calculations for what should occur don't change that. Especially when we have much more likely mechanisms for the effect. The more likely explanation in my mind is that any 'metabolic advantage' inherent to low-carbohydrate diets come from the fact that they tend to blunt hunger (and this is especially true in people who are overweight and hyperinsulinemic, people with insulin resistance) and make people eat less. And even that isn't guaranteed, people who don't have their hunger blunted, or who fall into the "I can eat whatever I want as long as it's low carb" camp and end up overeating calories don't lose weight or fat at all. The bottom line in my mind: even if low-carbohydrate diets turn out to have a small metabolic advantage (I remain open to the idea but skeptical based on the data to date), it still comes down to caloric intake.
Q. Some claim that that your body will go into 'starvation mode' if you eat too few calories, preventing you from losing weight and that trying to lose weight by eating fewer calories doesn't work. What do you think? A. Well there is no doubt that the body slows metabolic rate when you reduce calories or lose weight/fat. There are at least two mechanisms for this. One is simply the loss in body mass. A smaller body burns fewer calories at rest and during activity. There's not much you can do about that except maybe wear a weighted vest to offset the weight loss, this would help you burn more calories during activity. However, there's an additional effect sometimes referred to as the adaptive component of metabolic rate. Roughly, that means that your metabolic rate has dropped more than predicted by the change in weight. So if the change in body mass predicts a drop in metabolic rate of 100 calories and the measured drop is 150 calories, the extra 50 is the adaptive component. The mechanisms behind the drop are complex involving changes in leptin, thyroid, insulin and nervous system output (this system is discussed to some degree in all of my books except my first one). In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more excessive caloric deficits (and this is true whether the effect is from eating less or exercising more); as well, people vary in how hard or fast their bodies shut down. Women's bodies tend to shut down harder and faster. But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit. In one of the all-time classic studies (the Minnesota semi-starvation study), men were put on 50% of their maintenance calories for 6 months. It measured the largest reduction in metabolic rate I've ever seen, something like 40% below baseline. Yet at no point did the men stop losing fat until they hit 5% body fat at the end of the study. Other studies, where people are put on strictly controlled diets have never, to my knowledge, failed to acknowledge weight or fat loss. This goes back to the under-reporting intake issue mentioned above. I suspect that the people who say, "I'm eating 800 calories per day and not losing weight; it must be a starvation response" are actually eating far more than that and misreporting or underestimating it. Because no controlled study that I'm aware of has ever found such an occurrence. So I think the starvation response (a drop in metabolic rate) is certainly real but somewhat overblown. At the same time, I have often seen things like re-feeds or even taking a week off a diet do some interesting things when people are stalled. One big problem is that, quite often, weekly weight or fat loss is simply obscured by the error margin in our measurements. Losing between 0.5 and 1 pound of fat per week won't show up on the scale or calipers unless someone is very lean, and changes in water weight, etc. can easily obscure that. Women are far more sensitive to this. Their weight can swing drastically across a month's span depending on their menstrual cycle. Thing is this, at the end of the day, to lose weight or fat, you have to create a caloric deficit, there's no magical way to make it happen without affecting energy balance. You either have to reduce food intake, increase activity, or a combination of both. Since my Rapid Fat Loss Handbook actually uses an extremely large deficit, I discuss the issue of metabolic slowdown (and what to do about it) fairly extensively.
Q. Most of the questions I get are from people who want to gain muscle and lose fat at the same time. Can you explain why it's so difficult to lose fat and gain muscle simultaneously, if there are any exceptions to the rule, and what you recommend instead? A. Well, it's actually quite easy to gain muscle while losing fat if you are either
a. a fat beginner
b. coming back from a layoff and regaining lost muscle
c. willing to take the right drugs Unfortunately, if you're not in that group it tends to be very difficult to do both to any significant degree at once, claims in the muscle magazines not withstanding. The fundamental issue is that the requirements for optimal muscle growth (in terms of hormones, nutrient intake, and cellular metabolism) are diametrically opposed to what's optimal for fat loss. Simplistically, muscle growth requires a caloric and nutrient surplus and a cellular metabolism oriented towards tissue building; fat loss requires at least a caloric deficit, a certain hormonal profile, and a cellular metabolism oriented towards breakdown. And, outside of one of the three situations mentioned above, you can't do both. So the typical suggestion is to either focus on one or the other and alternate cycles. In general, I think this is good advice. Spend 6-8 weeks in a slight caloric surplus while training your brains out and gain some amount of muscle and fat. Now diet for 6-8 weeks and take the fat off while keeping the muscle. Do this in an alternating fashion over a year or two and you end up bigger and leaner. Of course, not everybody is happy with that, and nobody likes gaining fat. So what's the solution? One of them is my Ultimate Diet 2.0. An update of the original Ultimate Diet by Dan Duchaine and Michael Zumpano over 20 years ago, it couples a short (3.5-4 day) diet phase with a short anabolic phase. By doing a lot of interesting things with diet and training, it allows you to lose fat during the diet phase and put those calories back into muscle during the overfeeding phase. I've had people use it to consistently lose 1-1.5 pounds of fat with zero muscle loss as well as to 'clean bulk,' which means gaining muscle gradually with almost no fat gain. It's not the easiest system in the world, mind you, but it does work. [此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 3:06:47编辑过]
Q. Although you're probably best known in the industry for your diet books, you also have a massive amount of knowledge and experience in other areas, particularly strength training. One subject I think readers might be interested in is the hormonal response to exercise. Many people are told to keep the length of their workouts down to 45 minutes or less on the basis that testosterone levels drop and cortisol levels rise after this point. Is this good advice or not?
A. This is going to be another one of those yes and no types of answers. On the one hand, the idea that testosterone drops after 45 minutes is one of those ideas that falls into the "If you repeat something enough times, it will become accepted dogma." The idea supposedly came from Bulgarian Olympic lifting coach Ivan Abadjaev who claimed that androgen levels dropped after 30-40 minutes and who pioneered the idea of keeping his athletes in the gym all damn day by having them train for 30 minutes, rest 30 minutes, train again, etc. As time has passed, it's come out that the main impetus behind his training schedule had more to do with controlling his athletes, simply exhausting them every day to keep them from partying and staying up late. Just keep them in the gym for 12 hours per day by breaking training up into lots of tiny segments (this probably also allowed them to train intensely at each session) and they go home and sleep when training is over. Bulgaria, under new coaching has moved to a much more traditional system of training with 2-hour workouts as the norm. As well, what I've seen of American research has never supported the idea of a drop in testosterone, and you can find plenty of successful athletes who spend far more time than that in the gym. Powerlifters, who are often taking very long rests between sets and having to muck with gear are often training 2-3 hours at a stretch. This isn't to say that the idea of keeping your workouts high quality is a bad one. Certainly, I think that most bodybuilders spend too much unproductive time in the weight room doing too many sets of too many unnecessary exercises. For the natural athlete, quality should predominate over quantity for sure. But I think setting some arbitrary time limit like 45 or 60 minutes is missing the point. Basically, I think the idea may be useful as sort of a check to keep people from wasting energy and time doing endless sets of useless exercises in the gym, but I don't think it's an absolute. When I train people, I'd say 60-90 minutes is about average. Much more than that and quality falls off too much. Certainly, shorter workouts tend to be higher quality. By the end of a 2-hour workout, you're unlikely to be putting much effort into things. There is also the issue of crashing blood glucose and a potential increase in cortisol because of it. That can readily be
ameliorated
by sipping a carbohydrate or carbohydrate plus protein drink during training. That will keep insulin higher and keep cortisol down during extended training sessions. It may also help to improve intensity. [此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 3:08:15编辑过]
Q. Are there any tricks you have for women who want to lose the last bit of 'stubborn' fat? Do they need to do things significantly differently to men? A. Women's hip and thigh fat has been a perennial problem as it tends to be the most stubborn of all bodyfat to lose. Men's abdominal fat, although many men will disagree with me here, is relatively easy: men mainly need to be more patient and the abdominal fat will come off. In contrast, hip and thigh fat is very difficult to mobilize and burn off. This is why you get women with absolutely ripped upper bodies who are still carrying significant fat in their lower bodies. The reason is clearly evolutionary, women's hip and thigh fat exists to support pregnancy and milk production. Quite in fact, during lactation, women's hip and thigh fat becomes the easiest to mobilize but I haven't figured out a good way to take advantage of this...yet. There are a number of reasons for the stubbornness of women's body fat, not the least of which is poor blood flow. If a woman feels her hip and thigh fat, she'll tend to notice that it's colder than other parts of her body; this is due to poor blood flow. It turns out that aerobic activity can overcome this limitation; women tend to need more cardio than men to come in ripped (many men can get ripped on nothing but lifting and calorie restriction). But even regular cardio doesn't solve the problem. Other reasons include the type of fat that is stored there and the fact that stubborn body fat is more resistant to fat mobilizing stimuli. Dan Duchaine was probably the first to come up with a solution and that was oral yohimbe. Falsely touted as a testosterone booster, yohimbe blocks the receptor on fat cells (called an alpha-adrenoreceptor) that makes fat mobilization so difficult. Regular use of oral yohimbe with caffeine prior to morning fasted cardio can have a noticeable effect on women's fat loss. As I discuss in the Ultimate Diet 2.0, it turns out that low-carbohydrate diets (20% or less calories from carbohydrate for 3-4 days) tends to automatically inhibit those same alpha-adrenoreceptors. The third and fourth day of the UD2 are good for mobilizing and burning off stubborn body fat.
Q. What about supplements? Which ones do you think are the 'essentials' that most people should be using? A. The single most essential supplement in my book would have to be preformed fish oils (EPA/DHA, the two key long-chain omega-3 fatty acids). It's not an over-exaggeration to say that they do everything and are almost totally insufficient in our modern diet. Six 1-gram capsules per day (and I prefer this to flax oil) should be mandatory. Honestly, this should be considered a food anyhow. After that, I'd probably say a good basic multi-vitamin/mineral. Doesn't even have to be an expensive one, I use the supermarket generic and just take two per day, one morning and evening with food. I don't consider protein powder essential but it can be convenient when used around workouts. Beyond that, I don't think there is much that is essential. Women should probably worry about calcium and iron status, especially if they don't eat dairy or red meat respectively. Most of the sports supplements are bogus in my opinion and you can get big or lean without any of them. For dieting, although not essential, the ephedrine/caffeine stack is still probably the single best product out there. Two decades of data, it works, and it's safe unless you take it like a moron. [此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 3:09:13编辑过]
Thanks for sharing! Now I know one more reason why my hips and thighs got smaller faster than my waist last year: "...during lactation, women's hip and thigh fat becomes the easiest to mobilize ..."
how many people eat 1-1.5 grams of protein per pound of lean body mass? I do. :)
----------------------------------
"And, of course, when I set up a fat loss diet for someone, after setting calories, the first thing I do is set protein at adequate amounts: 1-1.5 grams per pound of lean body mass. Basically, I consider this protein thing a. a non-sequitur b. irrelevant to the issue of carbohydrate intake. You can eat 1-1.5 grams of protein per pound of lean body mass on a carbohydrate-based diet just as easily as on a low-carbohydrate diet. Quite in fact, you should. Fine, if you want to argue that high-protein is better than low-protein, I'm with you. One researcher (Westerterp-Plantenga) has argued that the higher protein intake, rather than the low-carbohydrate intake itself, is the cause of the differences in the first place. "
Studies done decades ago often reported spontaneous food intakes of 1600-1800 calories on low-carbohydrate diets. A recent study in diabetics found a 1000 calorie per day reduction in food intake with the shift to a low-carbohydrate diet. [此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 10:29:53编辑过]
Q. Some claim that that your body will go into 'starvation mode' if you eat too few calories, preventing you from losing weight and that trying to lose weight by eating fewer calories doesn't work. What do you think? A. But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.
In one of the all-time classic studies (the Minnesota semi-starvation study), men were put on 50% of their maintenance calories for 6 months. It measured the largest reduction in metabolic rate I've ever seen, something like 40% below baseline. Yet at no point did the men stop losing fat until they hit 5% body fat at the end of the study.
Other studies, where people are put on strictly controlled diets have never, to my knowledge, failed to acknowledge weight or fat loss.
This goes back to the under-reporting intake issue mentioned above. I suspect that the people who say, "I'm eating 800 calories per day and not losing weight; it must be a starvation response" are actually eating far more than that and misreporting or underestimating it. Because no controlled study that I'm aware of has ever found such an occurrence.
Thing is this, at the end of the day, to lose weight or fat, you have to create a caloric deficit, there's no magical way to make it happen without affecting energy balance. You either have to reduce food intake, increase activity, or a combination of both. [此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 3:05:20编辑过]
completely agree with this. 减不下去就是吃多了动少了，代谢再怎么降，也不会降得比热量摄入快。再说担心代谢低下的，一律送去山西挖煤，每天两顿饭，挖煤12小时，看你瘦不瘦！
以下是引用无风自飞在1/7/2013 3:08:00 AM的发言： Q. Although you're probably best known in the industry for your diet books, you also have a massive amount of knowledge and experience in other areas, particularly strength training. One subject I think readers might be interested in is the hormonal response to exercise. Many people are told to keep the length of their workouts down to 45 minutes or less on the basis that testosterone levels drop and cortisol levels rise after this point. Is this good advice or not?
A. This is going to be another one of those yes and no types of answers. On the one hand, the idea that testosterone drops after 45 minutes is one of those ideas that falls into the "If you repeat something enough times, it will become accepted dogma." The idea supposedly came from Bulgarian Olympic lifting coach Ivan Abadjaev who claimed that androgen levels dropped after 30-40 minutes and who pioneered the idea of keeping his athletes in the gym all damn day by having them train for 30 minutes, rest 30 minutes, train again, etc. As time has passed, it's come out that the main impetus behind his training schedule had more to do with controlling his athletes, simply exhausting them every day to keep them from partying and staying up late. Just keep them in the gym for 12 hours per day by breaking training up into lots of tiny segments (this probably also allowed them to train intensely at each session) and they go home and sleep when training is over. Bulgaria, under new coaching has moved to a much more traditional system of training with 2-hour workouts as the norm. As well, what I've seen of American research has never supported the idea of a drop in testosterone, and you can find plenty of successful athletes who spend far more time than that in the gym. Powerlifters, who are often taking very long rests between sets and having to muck with gear are often training 2-3 hours at a stretch. This isn't to say that the idea of keeping your workouts high quality is a bad one. Certainly, I think that most bodybuilders spend too much unproductive time in the weight room doing too many sets of too many unnecessary exercises. For the natural athlete, quality should predominate over quantity for sure. But I think setting some arbitrary time limit like 45 or 60 minutes is missing the point. Basically, I think the idea may be useful as sort of a check to keep people from wasting energy and time doing endless sets of useless exercises in the gym, but I don't think it's an absolute. When I train people, I'd say 60-90 minutes is about average. Much more than that and quality falls off too much. Certainly, shorter workouts tend to be higher quality. By the end of a 2-hour workout, you're unlikely to be putting much effort into things. There is also the issue of crashing blood glucose and a potential increase in cortisol because of it. That can readily be ameliorated by sipping a carbohydrate or carbohydrate plus protein drink during training. That will keep insulin higher and keep cortisol down during extended training sessions. It may also help to improve intensity. [此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 3:08:15编辑过]
哈哈哈。。倒不是因为介位同学没有生物PhD，而是因为他在这个领域的实践世界里摸爬滚打了很多年，有大量理论结合实践的经验。fitness world 里，大小忽悠很多，Lyle McDonald 是我一直敬佩的大师，he is a real thing !：） 去年我在楼里多次提到他的书，非常值得读。这个interview只能算high level 的蜻蜓点水吧。
鉴定啥？ 如果是第一个照片，那腿不错～～～！：P
best leg workout is STRENGTH train :p
True of False
以下是引用无风自飞在1/6/2013 11:43:00 PM 的发言：
公主的例子。。具体我不详不做评述。。。但是我相信她她一定不是“长时间”cut cals too much... it may work for a few weeks or even months, but eventally the body will wake up and to survive.
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
以下是引用无风自飞在1/6/2013 11:43:00 PM 的发言：
木明白。。。说啥：）
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
对了我有一个重大发现！我现在做不了ATF squat
barre课里面，面对bar，拉着杆子做half squat 到 ATF的后半截部分耶！
我人生完整了！
哈哈哈哈哈。。。。嗯～～～QQ好：P
嗯，举例，蹲自重。。。才算入门。。。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
矮马你别说，我觉得progressive WT给我自信心boost，性格乐观很多~哪怕只是5磅小杆儿到25磅。
这也是instant gratification
人家这么有知识的人。。。她manipulate过好多次BF的，破平台的办法和水平都一流。。。不过她自己也说力量和有的运动能力也损失了很多。。。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
嗯。。。我道听你们途说公主的事迹，初步印象是公主是个phD+神仙，她能manipulate的大部分东西，一般人民群众估计都木戏。。。
嗯，举例，蹲自重。。。才算入门。。。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
我说减肥呢。。。你说啥捏？
公主的例子。。具体我不详不做评述。。。但是我相信她她一定不是“长时间”cut cals too much... it may work for a few weeks or even months, but eventally the body will wake up and to survive.
10年，是长是短？
她去年还贴过食谱，大概每天1000-1200卡的摄入，身高179.5。这个算不算cut too much calories?
如果总摄入少于总消耗，自然就会烧脂肪来补充热量
燃烧1磅脂肪能提供3500卡的热量，光这就能活两天呢
只要真的是大胖子，真的有大肥油，少吃几百卡根本没问题
出问题的都是本来就不胖还折腾要减肥的
人家这么有知识的人。。。她manipulate过好多次BF的，破平台的办法和水平都一流。。。不过她自己也说力量和有的运动能力也损失了很多。。。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
力量受损那是因为长期吃得少，我个人觉得她是减过头了
短期少吃多cardio减肥 力量不受损反倒见长的也有，阿诺是一个，睡袋是一个
以下是引用flyingplate在1/6/2013 11:52:00 PM 的发言：
矮马你别说，我觉得progressive WT给我自信心boost，性格乐观很多~哪怕只是5磅小杆儿到25磅。
这也是instant gratification
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
以下是引用无风自飞在1/6/2013 11:54:00 PM 的发言：
嗯。。。我道听你们途说公主的事迹，初步印象是公主是个phD+神仙，她能manipulate的大部分东西，一般人民群众估计都木戏。。。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
以下是引用无风自飞在1/6/2013 11:55:00 PM 的发言：
我说减肥呢。。。你说啥捏？
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
以下是引用purplebasil在1/7/2013 12:09:00 AM 的发言：
力量受损那是因为长期吃得少，我个人觉得她是减过头了
短期少吃多cardio减肥 力量不受损反倒见长的也有，阿诺是一个，睡袋是一个
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
best leg workout is STRENGTH train :p
True of False
那啥。。。我一个字儿一个字儿滴认真读了他的blog...基本同意他的结论。 但是有一点，他说：'Lifting with high repetitions creates a pump in your muscles." 这个我回想了下自己的经历和看过的真人。。。木能彻底理解。我的赶脚是，high reps的问题其实还是出在low weight上。。
以下是引用无风自飞在1/7/2013 0:17:00 AM的发言：
那啥。。。我一个字儿一个字儿滴认真读了他的blog...基本同意他的结论。 但是有一点，他说：'Lifting with high repetitions creates a pump in your muscles." 这个我回想了下自己的经历和看过的真人。。。木能彻底理解。我的赶脚是，high reps的问题其实还是出在low weight上。。
define＂少吃＂？他们象公主那样少吃，是不可能保住力量滴，你去看飞姐，跑了俩星期BP就少10几磅哪。。。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
你又不是不知道诺诺吃多少，每顿吃拳头大小的一份，每天5-6顿。
他和睡袋不损力量，是因为他们做了很多力量训练，而公主没有。
飞姐受伤以后不能练力量，能不掉BP吗？？？
无风先define她的“cut too much calories” 吧！不然没法界定
每天净热量亏空几百卡，一点问题都没有
[此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 0:22:08编辑过]
以下是引用无风自飞在1/7/2013 12:14:00 AM 的发言：
那啥。。。我一个字儿一个字儿滴认真读了他的blog...基本同意他的结论。 但是有一点，他说：'Lifting with high repetitions creates a pump in your muscles.
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
10年，是长是短？
她去年还贴过食谱，大概每天1000-1200卡的摄入，身高179.5。这个算不算cut too much calories?
如果总摄入少于总消耗，自然就会烧脂肪来补充热量
燃烧1磅脂肪能提供3500卡的热量，光这就能活两天呢
只要真的是大胖子，真的有大肥油，少吃几百卡根本没问题
出问题的都是本来就不胖还折腾要减肥的
那啥，摄卡跟身高关系不大，跟体重和运动量关系更密切。
完全同意最后两行。。。就是我说的第二种减肥的人～～～
因为：
Starvation mode is a state in which the body is responding to
prolonged periods of low energy intake levels. During short periods of
energy abstinence, the human body will burn primarily free fatty acids
from body fat stores. After prolonged periods of starvation the body has
depleted its body fat and begins to burn lean tissue and muscle as a
fuel source.
Ordinarily, the body responds to reduced energy intake by burning fat
reserves first, and only consumes muscle and other tissues when those
reserves are exhausted. Specifically, the body burns fat after first
exhausting the contents of the digestive tract along with glycogen
reserves stored in muscle and liver cells.
After prolonged periods of starvation, the body will utilize the
proteins within muscle tissue as a fuel source. People who practice fasting on a regular basis, such as those adhering to energy restricted diets,
can prime their bodies to abstain from food without burning lean tissue. Resistance training (such as weight lifting) can also prevent the loss of muscle mass while a person is energy-restricted.
力量受损那是因为长期吃得少，我个人觉得她是减过头了
短期少吃多cardio减肥 力量不受损反倒见长的也有，阿诺是一个，睡袋是一个
嗯。这个对。。。我刚贴了一段starvation mode ... that's how our body works:)
以下是引用purplebasil在1/7/2013 12:17:00 AM 的发言：
你又不是不知道诺诺吃多少，每顿吃拳头大小的一份，每天5-6顿。
他和睡袋不损力量，是因为他们做了很多力量训练，而公主没有。
无风先define她的“cut too much calories” 吧！不然没法界定
每天净热量亏空几百卡，一点问题都没有
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
她和你，从根本上，那就是twin！！！
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
哈哈哈。。。你俩，特别是紫苏，貌似都是公主的代言人
以下是引用无风自飞在1/7/2013 12:25:00 AM 的发言：
哈哈哈。。。你俩，特别是紫苏，貌似都是公主的代言人
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
那啥，摄卡跟身高关系不大，跟体重和运动量关系更密切。
这个我知道，但是我不知道公主的确切体重
180的个子，怎么也得有130磅吧？
不想损失肌肉的人，减肥的时候一定要练力量，谢谢你贴starvation mode，绝对赞同 :)
以下是引用无风自飞在1/7/2013 12:22:00 AM 的发言：
那啥，摄卡跟身高关系不大，跟体重和运动量关系更密切。
完全同意最后两行。。。就是我说的第二种减肥的人～～～
因为：
Starvation mode is a state in which the body is responding to
prolonged periods of low energy intake levels. During short periods of
energy abstinence, the human body will burn primarily free fatty acids
from body fat stores. After prolonged periods of starvation the body has
depleted its body fat and begins to burn lean tissue and muscle as a
fuel source.
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
以下是引用purplebasil在1/7/2013 12:29:00 AM 的发言：
这个我知道，但是我不知道公主的确切体重
180的个子，怎么也得有130磅吧？
不想损失肌肉的人，减肥的时候一定要练力量，谢谢你贴starvation mode，绝对赞同 :)
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
你带有色眼镜！我不曾代言过你么！？
哈哈哈。。。那啥，咱俩不是经常同台么。。。你出现的时候，我基本还没等被代言，就主动抢过话筒啦。。。哈哈哈哈哈
我也理解不了，要看具体动作吧，比如bicep curl，必然是起个小bump，不过也就是小bump。。。
哈哈哈哈哈哈。。。那啥，lower reps 时， 哪怕举50lbs的来一个，也是bump啊。。。还是大bump。。。哈哈哈
这个我知道，但是我不知道公主的确切体重
180的个子，怎么也得有130磅吧？
不想损失肌肉的人，减肥的时候一定要练力量，谢谢你贴starvation mode，绝对赞同 :)
这是一定的。。。就是我的第一种分类。。。：）
哈哈哈。。。你俩，特别是紫苏，貌似都是公主的代言人
是啊，我以前根你一样，对节食很反感，觉得阿氏是邪教，跟着她学了很多，才知道减肥关键在控制饮食，阿氏虽然难搞，也不是洪水猛兽。
以下是引用无风自飞在1/7/2013 12:31:00 AM 的发言：
哈哈哈。。。那啥，咱俩不是经常同台么。。。你出现的时候，我基本还没等被代言，就主动抢过话筒啦。。。哈哈哈哈哈
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
People who practice fasting on a regular basis, such as those adhering to energy restricted diets, can prime their bodies to abstain from food without burning lean tissue.--这个能zkss么？很有兴趣，后边那句我已经知道了 ：P
这个你别说，我在现实生活中认识一老头（BTW, Standford medical school 毕业的：），fasting了有十几年了，非常瘦，没啥肌肉的那种瘦。。。他还相信中国道教，老庄把我讲的一楞一楞的那种。。。下回我跟他好奇一小下。。。万一有paper, 也顺几篇来：）
以下是引用purplebasil在1/7/2013 12:35:00 AM 的发言：
是啊，我以前根你一样，对节食很反感，觉得阿氏是邪教，跟着她学了很多，才知道减肥关键在控制饮食，阿氏虽然难搞，也不是洪水猛兽。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
公主140多。。。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
就算x10, 也要1400cal maintanence level啊。。。低于这个的都是calorie deficit state。。。1200极限了我觉得，1000的话那真是cut too much了。。。IMO.
以下是引用无风自飞在1/7/2013 12:36:00 AM 的发言：
这个你别说，我在现实生活中认识一老头（BTW, Standford medical school 毕业的：），fasting了有十几年了，非常瘦，没啥肌肉的那种瘦。。。他还相信中国道教，老庄把我讲的一楞一楞的那种。。。下回我跟他好奇一小下。。。万一有paper, 也顺几篇来：）
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
哈哈哈，矮马，以后低调点。。。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
矮马。。。你看错了，我是说我抢话筒。。。
还是我看错了，你让我以后低调点儿。。。等你代言完，再抢：P
以下是引用无风自飞在1/7/2013 12:38:00 AM 的发言：
就算x10, 也要1400cal maintanence level啊。。。低于这个的都是calorie deficit state。。。1200极限了我觉得，1000的话那真是cut too much了。。。IMO.
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
以下是引用无风自飞在1/7/2013 12:39:00 AM 的发言：
矮马。。。你看错了，我是说我抢话筒。。。
还是我看错了，你让我以后低调点儿。。。等你代言完，再抢：P
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
是啊，我以前根你一样，对节食很反感，觉得阿氏是邪教，跟着她学了很多，才知道减肥关键在控制饮食，阿氏虽然难搞，也不是洪水猛兽。
我比你还惨， 我在工作中，经常看到eating disorder的临床病人。。。坚信不科学节食有生命危险。。。毕竟不是每个同学都能有坚实的生物理论基础呀。特别是那些本来就不属于胖子的认为自己胖然后想靠节食减肥的。。。
人家不要那么瘦啦。。。最好是鸡肉也要有，fasting也要有 ：PPPPPP 神道道的，你可擦亮眼睛啊。。。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
矮马。。。我最喜欢神道的。。。太正常的就没劲啦。。。哈哈哈
我的理解是天然胖一方面吸收好，另一方面能源利用的效率高，比如跑1埋比我们少用10卡？
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
嗯。。。thyroid, leptin 这些事儿。。。我不知道你们讨论过不？ 这都是70%的基因部分啦。。。
哦，哈哈哈，你抢吧，抢得好啊，我通常就一句话，还得你来糖。。。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
话说这种讨论还是有积极意义的。。。希望能让板上的同学们，对减肥和塑形有更科学和深入的认识吧。 不求十全十美，只求抛砖引玉：D
话说真理往往是在辩论中脱颖而出，真的假不了，假的也真不了。。。真正的经典，如同罗马建筑，和莎士比亚戏剧一样，经得起时空的考验～～～
矮马。。。我最喜欢神道的。。。太正常的就没劲啦。。。哈哈哈
呵呵，道家是最讲求性命双修的。
清净的身体才有健康的心灵。
不过好羡慕无风姐姐的线条啊， 尤其是腿和腰。
嗯。。。MUA～～～大爱嫩的头像～～！哈哈哈
以下是引用无风自飞在1/7/2013 12:43:00 AM 的发言：
我比你还惨， 我在工作中，经常看到eating disorder的临床病人。。。坚信不科学节食有生命危险。。。毕竟不是每个同学都能有坚实的生物理论基础呀。特别是那些本来就不属于胖子的认为自己胖然后想靠节食减肥的。。。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
以下是引用无风自飞在1/7/2013 12:46:00 AM 的发言：
嗯。。。thyroid, leptin 这些事儿。。。我不知道你们讨论过不？ 这都是70的基因部分啦。。。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
矮马，不然说你们twin呢。。。公主搞nc康复的（不是开玩笑），专门唐过ED
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
啊。。。我貌似赶脚她在后方，我在前线～～～打的是同一场战役：P you mean neuro recovery...right?
就算x10, 也要1400cal maintanence level啊。。。低于这个的都是calorie deficit state。。。1200极限了我觉得，1000的话那真是cut too much了。。。IMO.
我也这么认为的。很凑巧的，我也觉得“体重（LB）x10 ------ 体重（LB）x12“ 是减肥diet的guideline，差不多就是维持量，然后靠运动来制造calorie deficit。我这么搞效果很好，不饿也不晕，20天7磅就下去了，后来也没反弹。
[此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 1:10:11编辑过]
话说这种讨论还是有积极意义的。。。希望能让板上的同学们，对减肥和塑形有更科学和深入的认识吧。 不求十全十美，只求抛砖引玉：D
话说真理往往是在辩论中脱颖而出，真的假不了，假的也真不了。。。真正的经典，如同罗马建筑，和莎士比亚戏剧一样，经得起时空的考验～～～
其实咱们的观点，本来差距就没有那么远啊，只是一件事有多个方面，侧重点不同而已
以下是引用无风自飞在1/7/2013 1:05:00 AM 的发言：
啊。。。我貌似赶脚她在后方，我在前线～～～打的是同一场战役：P you mean neuro recovery...right?
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
一样都坚持不了的，只有胖了，呵呵。。。
i believe so，nc康复是她自己说的lol。。。矮马，姐，难道你果然在做我的dream job？
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
哈哈哈。。。矮马。。。你继续dream着～～～：P
万一哪天想换工作。。。来好好贿赂下偶～～～：D
[此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 2:02:51编辑过]
今天的话题太喜欢了。。。总的来说，要减肥，运动，少吃，结合，三样估计能做到一样应该都行。。。。
一样都坚持不了的，只有胖了，呵呵。。。
嘻嘻。。要想好看，还得加点儿wt。。。
建新楼了，找了会儿才找到，新年快乐，大家一起进步，幸福生活
呵呵。。。新年快乐～～～！
以下是引用无风自飞在1/7/2013 1:49:00 AM 的发言：
那啥，bobo, 你刚blog里那妞儿的腿，可是跟你以前贴的dream body (i.e. fitness model) 腿俩境界啊。。。。啥情况？：）
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
你看差啦，那是飞盘贴的，我们就那么象么？：P
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
矮马。。。姐又昏花啦～～～哈哈哈哈哈哈：D
谁让你后来回答我小bump的问题涅。。。嘻嘻嘻～～～那，那偶就放心啦～～～偶等着看fitness model的大腿呢还～～～～：P 自己不想的，全靠你啦。。。
An Interview with Lyle McDonald Lyle McDonald is a physiologist and author who has spent over a
decade obsessively finding ways to apply cutting-edge scientific
research to sports nutrition, fat loss and muscle growth.
Q. For those readers who don't know much about you, please give them a
bit of background information about who you are and what you do.
A. I got interested in this field back in high school, a former fat kid I
had mandatory sports in school and as I started to get into shape, my obsessive
compulsiveness took over. I got into cycling one summer and did a few triathlons,
got involved in martial arts and eventually gymnastics (via cheerleading).
This led me to UCLA to pursue a degree in kinesiology (exercise physiology)
where I got even more embroiled in the research and science of human performance.
Basically, I was a mediocre athlete who wanted to figure out how to get better.
At that time, I was involved in cycling and got into inline skating. I started
racing, did moderately well (despite being horridly overtrained in hindsight)
until I burned myself out, and 'retired'. I futilely tried my hand at some
strength sports, although I had always been in the weight room, finding that
it improved my skating performance.
Around 1996, Dan Duchaine's seminal book "Bodyopus" came out, it
quite literally changed my life. It got me interested in low-carbohydrate dieting
and led to the publication of my first book. Several more followed after a
rather long break.
The second was an odd little drug booklet (although it dealt mostly with bodyweight
regulation), then came the Ultimate
Diet 2.0 which was an update on the original from over 20 years ago. Last
year I released two books, the Rapid
Fat Loss Handbook and a Guide
to Flexible Dieting.
Over the years, I've worked with folks ranging from total beginners to a couple
of female powerlifters, prepped a few bodybuilders for natural shows and trained
the occasional endurance athlete in the weight room. Right now I'm in Salt
Lake City following my own athletic quest, training full time for ice speed
skating (I came out of retirement a couple of years ago) with my coach Rex
Albertson. Basically, I'm an obsessed physiology nerd who is fascinated with all aspects
of human performance. This includes training, nutrition (I seem to be most
well known for diet stuff but exercise physiology was actually my first passion),
supplements and, to a much lesser degree, drugs.
Fat loss and bodyweight regulation fascinates me because I still see the fat
kid in the mirror, sports performance fascinates me because I've always been
a middle of the road athlete looking for solutions. And the rest of it fascinates
me because I'm just a great big obsessed nerd that way.
[此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 3:19:47编辑过]
the issue of calories. Some claim that there is some kind of 'metabolic advantage'
associated with low-carbohydrate diets?
A. Okay, this is going to be a very long-winded answer since there's a lot
to cover. I want to point out that more detailed discussions of most of this
(everything except the more recent studies) are in my first book The
Ketogenic Diet.
The metabolic advantage of low-carbohydrate diets is an idea that has cropped
up again and again since the late 60's, first popularized by Dr. Atkins in
his best selling book.
The idea then was based on a series of very short (4-9) day studies looking
at weight loss for high- and low-carbohydrate diets at either the same
or different calorie levels. Many found that weight loss was higher in the
low-carbohydrate condition. Some found that even at maintenance calories, weight
was lost.
Aha, a metabolic advantage.
Here's the basic problem: low-carbohydrate diets cause a significant amount
of water weight loss through a variety of mechanisms (including the relationship
of glycogen and water, a reduction in insulin which leads to greater fluid
and electrolyte excretion via the kidneys, and a direct diuretic effect of
ketones).
I'm a fairly little guy and I can drop 5-7 pounds (about 2.5 kilograms) in
about 2 days just from water loss. Bigger folks can drop more. Powerlifters
often drop 10-15 pounds (nearly 7 kilograms) or more by cutting out carbohydrates
the day before a meet.
By the same token, I'll gain that same 5-7 pounds back when I carbohydrate-load.
It's just a shift in water balance. And those shifts tend to predominate in
the short-term.
So when you're just looking at weight loss, the water loss becomes a very
significant issue as it often more than exceeds the reported difference between
the two different diets. When the difference in total weight loss is only a
few kilograms, and you have several kilograms of water being lost, that hardly
makes a good case for a metabolic advantage.
The idea has been recently re-advanced in a couple of papers with two different
mechanisms being thrown out. As well, a lot of people have been using the results
of a series of recent studies that found greater weight and/or fat loss for
low- versus high-carbohydrate diets as evidence for this. I'll address those
as well.
The first is the easiest to deal with so I'll get that out of the way, it
rests on the thermic effect of protein. As your readers probably know, processing
of dietary protein burns more calories than processing of carbohydrate or fat.
So diets that vary in protein quite often find differences in fat loss (and
muscle mass retention). But here's the thing, now we're not talking about carbohydrates
are we? No, we're talking about protein, comparing high and low protein intakes.
In addition to the thermic effect, studies also show that protein is the most
filling nutrient; in one study, folks on a higher protein intake spontaneously
ate significantly less and lost fat. Because they ate less. I'm going to come
back to this point.
Now, if you're looking at ad libitum food intake, which means that
people eat as much as they want, typically you do see higher protein intakes
on low-carbohydrate versus high-carbohydrate diets. Which is great and all.
But it's still not a carbohydrate issue directly. And, of course, when I set
up a fat loss diet for someone, after setting calories, the first thing I do
is set protein at adequate amounts: 1-1.5 grams per pound of lean body mass.
Basically, I consider this protein thing
a. a non-sequitur
b. irrelevant to the issue of carbohydrate intake. You can eat 1-1.5 grams
of protein per pound of lean body mass on a carbohydrate-based diet just as
easily as on a low-carbohydrate diet. Quite in fact, you should.
Fine, if you want to argue that high-protein is better than low-protein, I'm
with you. One researcher (Westerterp-Plantenga) has argued that the higher
protein intake, rather than the low-carbohydrate intake itself, is the cause
of the differences in the first place.
But don't pretend that it has anything to do with low- versus high-carbohydrate.
Frankly, that I should have to make such a mickey mouse point to a couple of
PhD's (or their lapdog, Anssi Manninen) is beyond me. But apparently, they
can't understand that differences in protein intake have zero to do with differences
in carbohydrate intake per se.
The next theoretical explanation for a metabolic advantage has to do with
gluconeogenesis. This is just an unwieldy word for the production of new glucose
from other stuff. The other stuff in this situation is amino acids, glycerol
(the fatty acid backbone) and lactate.
And it's true that
a. this process requires energy
b. this process is up regulated on a ketogenic (very low-carbohydrate diet)
Unfortunately, the theorists advancing this idea didn't really quantify the
effect that well in their paper (as I recall) in terms of how many extra calories
per day it should amount to.
As well, it has to be weighed against the loss of thermic effect for replacing
carbohydrate with fat (the effect is mild but contributes). One study I recall
found that the higher-carbohydrate diet (compared to higher fat but not ketogenic)
had about a 100 calories per day advantage (due to the differences in the thermic
effect of carbohydrate versus fat) and you lose this when you stop eating all
carbohydrates, any effect of gluconeogenesis has to be weighed against that.
Perhaps more importantly, one of the primary adaptations to ketosis (a state
where blood ketone levels go above a certain concentration) is to decrease
gluconeogenesis.
That is, over the first 2-3 weeks of being in ketosis, the body switches to
using ketones for fuel instead of glucose, which decreases the need for gluconeogenesis.
A metabolic advantage that becomes almost insignificant after 2-3 weeks seems
hardly worth pinning the success of a diet on.
On this note, I would like to mention that, empirically (and realize that
I've been getting feedback on ketogenic diets for nearly a decade now, man
that makes me feel old), folks do seem to report somewhat more fat loss in
the first 2 weeks on a ketogenic diet than you'd expect based on the deficit.
Of course, it could just be the extra water loss throwing off the calipers
too. In any event, after those 2 weeks, the effect is gone.
Again, for the typical person, the average overweight individual who may be
dieting for weeks or months (or longer) to achieve their goals, an effect that
disappears after a couple of weeks seems hardly worth pinning the success of
the diet on.
And now we come to the final data point, the recent studies suggesting greater
weight and/or fat loss. There have been at least a half dozen (perhaps more,
I lose count) over the past several years, usually finding slightly greater
weight loss (the average difference is usually on a few kilograms) and some
have noted greater fat loss (using DEXA or other accurate methods to measure
body fat).
Now, I mentioned that the difference in weight loss could probably be attributed
to water loss anyhow. But what about the fat loss?
Well, in the first place, many of them reported protein intake being higher
in the low-carbohydrate group. See my comments above. We're not just talking
about the carbohydrate content of the diet here when 4 different nutrients
(protein, carbohydrate, fat and fiber) may all be changing. Drawing conclusions
about only the carbohydrate content of the diet and ignoring the rest seems
a bit myopic to me.
Beyond that, here's the bigger issue: without exception, all of the studies
done have relied on self-reporting of food intake. And this is not a trivial
issue. We've known for many years now that people on a mixed diet tend to underestimate
their food intake by up to 50%. That is, someone eating a carbohydrate-based
diet who says they are eating 1500 (6300 kilojoules) calories may really be
eating 3000 calories (12,600 kilojoules).
But what about on low-carbohydrate diets?
Well, nobody has really looked to see whether people under- or over-report
their food intake but we have other data. Studies done decades ago often reported
spontaneous food intakes of 1600-1800 calories on low-carbohydrate diets. A
recent study in diabetics found a 1000 calorie per day reduction in food intake
with the shift to a low-carbohydrate diet.
Basically, people on high carbohydrate diets tend to underreport their food
intake (they are eating more than they say) while people on low-carbohydrate
diets tend to spontaneously eat less (for a number of reasons).
So when you have the low-carbohydrate group saying they ate 1600 calories
and the mixed diet group saying they ate 1500 calories, yet the low-carbohydrate
group lost more weight/fat, you tend to question it. The carbohydrate-based
group could be eating 3000 calories, based on previous studies of underreporting.
Quite in fact, a recent study, by Brehm (who had done an early metabolic advantage
study) directly measured a couple aspects of metabolic rate for high and low-carbohydrate
diets. Finding no difference in anything (if anything, the high-carbohydrate
group was slightly superior, as the thermic effect of food in response to a
meal was higher).
The researchers concluded that the difference in weight/fat loss is probably
due to under-reporting of food intake in the carbohydrate-based group.
Along with this, there are several key studies (which the metabolic advantage
people like to ignore) where calories were rigidly controlled.
In one, a group of patients in a hospital was placed on a variety of experimental
diets for 2 weeks. Protein was kept static and carbohydrate was varied from
0 to 70% of total calories, while fat varied in the opposite direction. Activity
was controlled since they were bedridden. Calories were controlled with liquid
diets. They found no difference in the number of calories needed to maintain
bodyweight.
And this is really my big issue with the whole idea: if low-carbohydrate diets
generate a metabolic advantage, it should be measurable with current technology.
If it's not measurable, it either doesn't exist is far too small to worry about.
And all of the theoretical calculations for what should occur don't change
that. Especially when we have much more likely mechanisms for the effect.
The more likely explanation in my mind is that any 'metabolic advantage' inherent
to low-carbohydrate diets come from the fact that they tend to blunt hunger
(and this is especially true in people who are overweight and hyperinsulinemic,
people with insulin resistance) and make people eat less.
And even that isn't guaranteed, people who don't have their hunger blunted,
or who fall into the "I can eat whatever I want as long as it's low carb" camp
and end up overeating calories don't lose weight or fat at all.
The bottom line in my mind: even if low-carbohydrate diets turn out to have
a small metabolic advantage (I remain open to the idea but skeptical based
on the data to date), it still comes down to caloric intake.
[此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 3:04:34编辑过]
eat too few calories, preventing you from losing weight and that trying to
lose weight by eating fewer calories doesn't work. What do you think?
A. Well there is no doubt that the body slows metabolic rate when you reduce
calories or lose weight/fat. There are at least two mechanisms for this.
One is simply the loss in body mass. A smaller body burns fewer calories
at rest and during activity. There's not much you can do about that except
maybe wear a weighted vest to offset the weight loss, this would help you burn
more calories during activity.
However, there's an additional effect sometimes referred to as the adaptive
component of metabolic rate. Roughly, that means that your metabolic rate has
dropped more than predicted by the change in weight.
So if the change in body mass predicts a drop in metabolic rate of 100 calories
and the measured drop is 150 calories, the extra 50 is the adaptive component.
The mechanisms behind the drop are complex involving changes in leptin, thyroid,
insulin and nervous system output (this system is discussed to some degree
in all of my books except my first one).
In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more excessive
caloric deficits (and this is true whether the effect is from eating less or
exercising more); as well, people vary in how hard or fast their bodies shut
down. Women's bodies tend to shut down harder and faster.
But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic
rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say
that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic
rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily
deficit.
In one of the all-time classic studies (the Minnesota semi-starvation study),
men were put on 50% of their maintenance calories for 6 months. It measured
the largest reduction in metabolic rate I've ever seen, something like 40%
below baseline. Yet at no point did the men stop losing fat until they hit
5% body fat at the end of the study.
Other studies, where people are put on strictly controlled diets have never,
to my knowledge, failed to acknowledge weight or fat loss.
This goes back to the under-reporting intake issue mentioned above. I suspect
that the people who say, "I'm eating 800 calories per day and not losing
weight; it must be a starvation response" are actually eating far more
than that and misreporting or underestimating it. Because no controlled study
that I'm aware of has ever found such an occurrence.
So I think the starvation response (a drop in metabolic rate) is certainly
real but somewhat overblown. At the same time, I have often seen things like
re-feeds or even taking a week off a diet do some interesting things when people
are stalled. One big problem is that, quite often, weekly weight or fat loss
is simply obscured by the error margin in our measurements.
Losing between 0.5 and 1 pound of fat per week won't show up on the scale
or calipers unless someone is very lean, and changes in water weight, etc.
can easily obscure that. Women are far more sensitive to this. Their weight
can swing drastically across a month's span depending on their menstrual cycle.
Thing is this, at the end of the day, to lose weight or fat, you have to create
a caloric deficit, there's no magical way to make it happen without affecting
energy balance. You either have to reduce food intake, increase activity, or
a combination of both.
Since my Rapid
Fat Loss Handbook actually uses an extremely large deficit, I discuss
the issue of metabolic slowdown (and what to do about it) fairly extensively.
[此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 3:05:20编辑过]
and lose fat at the same time. Can you explain why it's so difficult to lose
fat and gain muscle simultaneously, if there are any exceptions to the rule,
and what you recommend instead?
A. Well, it's actually quite easy to gain muscle while losing fat if you are
either
a. a fat beginner
b. coming back from a layoff and regaining lost muscle
c. willing to take the right drugs
Unfortunately, if you're not in that group it tends to be very difficult to
do both to any significant degree at once, claims in the muscle magazines not
withstanding. The fundamental issue is that the requirements for optimal muscle
growth (in terms of hormones, nutrient intake, and cellular metabolism) are
diametrically opposed to what's optimal for fat loss.
Simplistically, muscle growth requires
a caloric and nutrient surplus and a cellular metabolism oriented towards
tissue building; fat loss requires at least a caloric deficit, a certain hormonal
profile, and a cellular metabolism oriented towards breakdown. And, outside
of one of the three situations mentioned above, you can't do both.
So the typical suggestion is to either focus on one or the other and alternate
cycles. In general, I think this is good advice. Spend 6-8 weeks in a slight
caloric surplus while training your brains out and gain some amount of muscle
and fat. Now diet for 6-8 weeks and take the fat off while keeping the muscle.
Do this in an alternating fashion over a year or two and you end
up bigger and leaner.
Of course, not everybody is happy with that, and nobody likes gaining fat.
So what's the solution? One of them is my Ultimate
Diet 2.0. An update of the
original Ultimate Diet by Dan Duchaine and Michael Zumpano over 20 years ago,
it couples a short (3.5-4 day) diet phase with a short anabolic phase.
By doing
a lot of interesting things with diet and training, it allows you to lose
fat during the diet phase and put those calories back into muscle during the
overfeeding phase. I've had people use it to consistently lose 1-1.5 pounds
of fat with zero muscle loss as well as to 'clean bulk,' which
means gaining
muscle gradually with almost no fat gain. It's not the easiest system in the
world, mind you, but it does work.
[此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 3:06:47编辑过]
you also have a massive amount of knowledge and experience in other areas,
particularly strength training. One subject I think readers might be interested
in is the hormonal response to exercise. Many people are told to keep
the length of their workouts down to 45 minutes or less on the basis that
testosterone levels drop and cortisol levels rise after this point. Is this
good advice or not?
A. This is going to be another one of those yes and no types of answers.
On the one hand, the idea that testosterone drops after 45 minutes is one
of those ideas that falls into the "If you repeat something enough times,
it will become accepted dogma."
The idea supposedly came from Bulgarian
Olympic lifting coach Ivan Abadjaev who claimed that androgen levels dropped
after 30-40 minutes and who pioneered the idea of keeping his athletes in
the gym all damn day by having them train for 30 minutes, rest 30 minutes,
train again, etc.
As time has passed, it's come out that the main impetus behind his training
schedule had more to do with controlling his athletes, simply exhausting them
every day to keep them from partying and staying up late.
Just keep them in
the gym for 12 hours per day by breaking training up into lots of tiny segments
(this probably also allowed them to train intensely at each session) and
they go home and sleep when training is over. Bulgaria,
under new coaching has moved to a much more traditional system of training
with 2-hour workouts as the norm.
As well, what I've seen of American research has never supported the idea
of a drop in testosterone, and you can find plenty of successful athletes who
spend far more time than that in the gym. Powerlifters, who are often taking
very long rests between sets and having to muck with gear are often training
2-3 hours at a stretch.
This isn't to say that the idea of keeping your workouts high quality is
a bad one. Certainly, I think that most bodybuilders spend too much unproductive
time in the weight room doing too many sets of too many unnecessary exercises.
For the natural athlete, quality should predominate over quantity for sure.
But I think setting some arbitrary time limit like 45 or 60 minutes is missing
the point. Basically, I think the idea may be useful as sort of a check to
keep people from wasting energy and time doing endless sets of useless exercises
in the gym, but I don't think it's an absolute. When I train people, I'd say
60-90 minutes is about average. Much more than that and quality falls off too
much.
Certainly, shorter workouts tend to be higher quality. By the end of a 2-hour
workout, you're unlikely to be putting much effort into things. There is also
the issue of crashing blood glucose and a potential increase in cortisol because
of it.
That can readily be
ameliorated
by sipping a carbohydrate or carbohydrate
plus protein drink during training. That will keep insulin higher and keep
cortisol down during extended training sessions. It may also help to improve
intensity.
[此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 3:08:15编辑过]
of 'stubborn' fat? Do they need to do things significantly differently to
men?
A. Women's hip and thigh fat has been a perennial problem as it tends to be
the most stubborn of all bodyfat to lose. Men's abdominal fat, although many
men will disagree with me here, is relatively easy: men mainly need to be more
patient and the abdominal fat will come off.
In contrast, hip and thigh fat is very difficult to mobilize and burn off.
This is why you get women with absolutely ripped upper bodies who are still
carrying significant fat in their lower bodies.
The reason is clearly evolutionary, women's hip and thigh fat exists to support
pregnancy and milk production. Quite in fact, during lactation, women's hip
and thigh fat becomes the easiest to mobilize but I haven't figured out a good
way to take advantage of this...yet.
There are a number of reasons for the stubbornness of women's body fat, not
the least of which is poor blood flow. If a woman feels her hip and thigh fat,
she'll tend to notice that it's colder than other parts of her body; this is
due to poor blood flow.
It turns out that aerobic activity can overcome this
limitation; women tend to need more cardio than men to come in ripped (many
men can get ripped on nothing but lifting and calorie restriction). But even
regular cardio doesn't solve the problem.
Other reasons include the type of fat that is stored there and the fact that
stubborn body fat is more resistant to fat mobilizing stimuli.
Dan Duchaine was probably the first to come up with a solution
and that was oral yohimbe. Falsely touted as a testosterone booster, yohimbe
blocks the receptor on fat cells (called an alpha-adrenoreceptor) that makes
fat mobilization so difficult. Regular use of oral yohimbe with caffeine prior
to morning fasted cardio can have a noticeable effect on women's fat loss.
As I discuss in the Ultimate
Diet 2.0, it turns out that low-carbohydrate diets
(20% or less calories from carbohydrate for
3-4 days) tends to automatically inhibit those same alpha-adrenoreceptors.
The third and fourth day of the UD2 are good for mobilizing and burning off
stubborn body fat.
[此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 3:11:00编辑过]
most people should be using?
A. The single most essential supplement in my book would have to be preformed
fish oils (EPA/DHA, the two key long-chain omega-3 fatty acids). It's not an
over-exaggeration to say that they do everything and are almost totally insufficient
in our modern diet. Six 1-gram capsules per day (and I prefer this to flax
oil) should be mandatory. Honestly, this should be considered a food anyhow.
After that, I'd probably say a good basic multi-vitamin/mineral. Doesn't even
have to be an expensive one, I use the supermarket generic and just take two
per day, one morning and evening with food.
I don't consider protein powder essential but it can be convenient when
used around workouts.
Beyond that, I don't think there is much that is essential. Women should probably
worry about calcium and iron status, especially if they don't eat dairy or
red meat respectively. Most of the sports supplements are bogus in my opinion
and you can get big or lean without any of them.
For dieting, although not essential, the ephedrine/caffeine stack is still
probably the single best product out there. Two decades of data, it works,
and it's safe unless you take it like a moron.
[此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 3:09:13编辑过]
话说这种讨论还是有积极意义的。。。希望能让板上的同学们，对减肥和塑形有更科学和深入的认识吧。 不求十全十美，只求抛砖引玉：D
话说真理往往是在辩论中脱颖而出，真的假不了，假的也真不了。。。真正的经典，如同罗马建筑，和莎士比亚戏剧一样，经得起时空的考验～～～
身材好会拍照啥的就不说了，情商也高。赞一个 =)
谢谢你这么多好帖子。
以下是引用purplebasil在1/6/2013 3:35:00 PM的发言：
既然现在Gilda也过来了，我提倡“健身问无风，减肥问公主”。
[此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/6 15:35:29编辑过]
这个blog的中心意思是妹子们应该train for strength，而不是induce muscle hypertrophy with high reps。
[此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 9:10:34编辑过]
----------------------------------
"And, of course, when I set up a fat loss diet for someone, after setting calories, the first thing I do is set protein at adequate amounts: 1-1.5 grams per pound of lean body mass.
Basically, I consider this protein thing
a. a non-sequitur
b. irrelevant to the issue of carbohydrate intake. You can eat 1-1.5 grams of protein per pound of lean body mass on a carbohydrate-based diet just as easily as on a low-carbohydrate diet. Quite in fact, you should.
Fine, if you want to argue that high-protein is better than low-protein, I'm with you. One researcher (Westerterp-Plantenga) has argued that the higher protein intake, rather than the low-carbohydrate intake itself, is the cause of the differences in the first place. "
我个人是不相信什么boost matabolism的说法的，除非做基础代谢测量，可是大部分文章都没有这种数据。但是，低碳水的确是减少每天卡路里摄入的窍门，调整饮食结构说的就是这个。阿氏那种极端的低碳水说的也不是boost metabolism，而是人体进入酮代谢状态，直接分解脂肪而不是糖元。
--------------
Studies done decades ago often reported spontaneous food intakes of 1600-1800 calories on low-carbohydrate diets. A recent study in diabetics found a 1000 calorie per day reduction in food intake with the shift to a low-carbohydrate diet.
[此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 10:29:53编辑过]
Q. Some claim that that your body will go into 'starvation mode' if you eat too few calories, preventing you from losing weight and that trying to lose weight by eating fewer calories doesn't work. What do you think?
A.
But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still have a 40% daily deficit.
In one of the all-time classic studies (the Minnesota semi-starvation study), men were put on 50% of their maintenance calories for 6 months. It measured the largest reduction in metabolic rate I've ever seen, something like 40% below baseline. Yet at no point did the men stop losing fat until they hit 5% body fat at the end of the study.
Other studies, where people are put on strictly controlled diets have never, to my knowledge, failed to acknowledge weight or fat loss.
This goes back to the under-reporting intake issue mentioned above. I suspect that the people who say, "I'm eating 800 calories per day and not losing weight; it must be a starvation response" are actually eating far more than that and misreporting or underestimating it. Because no controlled study that I'm aware of has ever found such an occurrence.
Thing is this, at the end of the day, to lose weight or fat, you have to create a caloric deficit, there's no magical way to make it happen without affecting energy balance. You either have to reduce food intake, increase activity, or a combination of both.
[此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 3:05:20编辑过]
completely agree with this. 减不下去就是吃多了动少了，代谢再怎么降，也不会降得比热量摄入快。再说担心代谢低下的，一律送去山西挖煤，每天两顿饭，挖煤12小时，看你瘦不瘦！
Q. Although you're probably best known in the industry for your diet books, you also have a massive amount of knowledge and experience in other areas, particularly strength training. One subject I think readers might be interested in is the hormonal response to exercise. Many people are told to keep the length of their workouts down to 45 minutes or less on the basis that testosterone levels drop and cortisol levels rise after this point. Is this good advice or not?
A. This is going to be another one of those yes and no types of answers.
On the one hand, the idea that testosterone drops after 45 minutes is one of those ideas that falls into the "If you repeat something enough times, it will become accepted dogma."
The idea supposedly came from Bulgarian Olympic lifting coach Ivan Abadjaev who claimed that androgen levels dropped after 30-40 minutes and who pioneered the idea of keeping his athletes in the gym all damn day by having them train for 30 minutes, rest 30 minutes, train again, etc.
As time has passed, it's come out that the main impetus behind his training schedule had more to do with controlling his athletes, simply exhausting them every day to keep them from partying and staying up late.
Just keep them in the gym for 12 hours per day by breaking training up into lots of tiny segments (this probably also allowed them to train intensely at each session) and they go home and sleep when training is over. Bulgaria, under new coaching has moved to a much more traditional system of training with 2-hour workouts as the norm.
As well, what I've seen of American research has never supported the idea of a drop in testosterone, and you can find plenty of successful athletes who spend far more time than that in the gym. Powerlifters, who are often taking very long rests between sets and having to muck with gear are often training 2-3 hours at a stretch.
This isn't to say that the idea of keeping your workouts high quality is a bad one. Certainly, I think that most bodybuilders spend too much unproductive time in the weight room doing too many sets of too many unnecessary exercises. For the natural athlete, quality should predominate over quantity for sure.
But I think setting some arbitrary time limit like 45 or 60 minutes is missing the point. Basically, I think the idea may be useful as sort of a check to keep people from wasting energy and time doing endless sets of useless exercises in the gym, but I don't think it's an absolute. When I train people, I'd say 60-90 minutes is about average. Much more than that and quality falls off too much.
Certainly, shorter workouts tend to be higher quality. By the end of a 2-hour workout, you're unlikely to be putting much effort into things. There is also the issue of crashing blood glucose and a potential increase in cortisol because of it.
That can readily be ameliorated by sipping a carbohydrate or carbohydrate plus protein drink during training. That will keep insulin higher and keep cortisol down during extended training sessions. It may also help to improve intensity.
[此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 3:08:15编辑过]
为毛这位同学说的话我句句都赞同涅？还有人宣扬运动时间长了就会自动储藏脂肪，那么说来，职业运动员个个都该是大胖子。
这一个要出书卖，一个坚决＂三不一没有绝对不商业化＂hmmm....各种耐人寻味
公主在买卖提讲减肥有好几年了，是我们窜掇她出书的
很多网络名人都这样，A大，微酸糖果，BBS上信徒多了，就会有人建议出书，建议得多了，当事人也就心动了，挺自然的事儿，没啥
身材好会拍照啥的就不说了，情商也高。赞一个 =)
谢谢你这么多好帖子。
夸的我。。。哈哈哈：D 亲！
以下是引用KAMom在1/7/2013 9:57:00 AM 的发言：
Thanks for sharing! Now I know one more reason why my hips and thighs got smaller faster than my waist last year:
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
为毛我奶了两个娃还是大pg？555！
条件反射，我听到PG两个字就流着口水跳出来了。
在讨论饮食中插个话， 希望无风jj有时间介绍一下Barre Workout （简单介绍一下你的 Typical Routine?)。 搜了一下现在这个很红的说，它比Pilates有啥明显的优势？如果我不喜欢举重的Weights, 或者觉得那个枯燥， 可以用这个代替 Weight Training不？谢谢
1）我自己刚练几个月，时间还不够足以证明明显优势。为了避免大家盲目跟风，我先等等再写。同时继续拍照对比：）2）我自己认为这个不能取代wt...只是在局部范围tweaking...
昨儿不小心呼呼过去了，我回来回答： pump in muscle 应该指的是 hypertrophy, increased water content in muscles, the culprit for my bulky man quads in December.
这个blog的中心意思是妹子们应该train for strength，而不是induce muscle hypertrophy with high reps。
[此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 9:10:34编辑过]
en...我跟boboli不解的不是hypertrophy, 是为什么high reps 会create bump but not low rep....我还是觉得重量更是根本。
1）我自己刚练几个月，时间还不够足以证明明显优势。为了避免大家盲目跟风，我先等等再写。同时继续拍照对比：）2）我自己认为这个不能取代wt...只是在局部范围tweaking...
矮马，我觉得barre的好处是：
1 老师是美女，学生是美女，看得赏心悦目
2 Low impact运动，controlled movements，不容易受伤
3 地毯上穿袜子，不用背着运动鞋挤地铁
4 challenging enough to beat gym的各种哑铃操
先不说效果，周末背着贵妇包穿着lulu跟朋友在barre studio见面，也是有水平有品位的装B。比那些football bar里面喝啤酒（俺LG）的高雅！
en...我跟boboli不解的不是hypertrophy, 是为什么high reps 会create bump but not low rep....我还是觉得重量更是根本。
为毛这位同学说的话我句句都赞同涅？还有人宣扬运动时间长了就会自动储藏脂肪，那么说来，职业运动员个个都该是大胖子。
哈哈哈。。倒不是因为介位同学没有生物PhD，而是因为他在这个领域的实践世界里摸爬滚打了很多年，有大量理论结合实践的经验。fitness world 里，大小忽悠很多，Lyle McDonald 是我一直敬佩的大师，he is a real thing !：） 去年我在楼里多次提到他的书，非常值得读。这个interview只能算high level 的蜻蜓点水吧。
为毛我奶了两个娃还是大pg？555！
亲，Lyle 没好意思说的，我小声说；基因真TM的NB啊！：D
矮马，我觉得barre的好处是：
1 老师是美女，学生是美女，看得赏心悦目
2 Low impact运动，controlled movements，不容易受伤
3 地毯上穿袜子，不用背着运动鞋挤地铁
4 challenging enough to beat gym的各种哑铃操
先不说效果，周末背着贵妇包穿着lulu跟朋友在barre studio见面，也是有水平有品位的装B。比那些football bar里面喝啤酒（俺LG）的高雅！
哈哈哈哈哈。。。你这一句＂先不说效果＂就撒气啦：P 哈哈哈，太逗了，你：）亲
条件反射，我听到PG两个字就流着口水跳出来了。
我也是！今年的一个目标就是把屁股练大点！
以下是引用无风自飞在1/7/2013 11:12:00 AM 的发言：
亲，Lyle 没好意思说的，我小声说；基因真TM的NB啊！：D
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
lol。。。人一辈子，拼的就是基因（命）啊。。。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
俺不是不支持这个说法，只是认为，在基因允许的范围内，have to work hard for a "hard" body :D
很多妹子还挂着29%的BF，却已经开始嘟囔基因，我看了蛋疼。
lol。。。人一辈子，拼的就是基因（命）啊。。。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.7
本贴从去年到今天，想说的就是这个：D
不过爱折腾还得折腾，1）别＂瞎＂折腾；2）别＂瞎＂跟风；3）别跟别人＂比＂。当然了，能不能真听懂，还是看＂基因＂：P
本贴从去年到今天，想说的就是这个：D
不过爱折腾还得折腾，1）别＂瞎＂折腾；2）别＂瞎＂跟风；3）别跟别人＂比＂。当然了，能不能真听懂，还是看＂基因＂：P 太对了！
公主在买卖提讲减肥有好几年了，是我们窜掇她出书的
很多网络名人都这样，A大，微酸糖果，BBS上信徒多了，就会有人建议出书，建议得多了，当事人也就心动了，挺自然的事儿，没啥
为毛我奶了两个娃还是大pg？555！
为毛我奶了两个娃还是大pg？555！ 这不是让我等小屁股的羡慕嫉妒嘛！
★ 发自Android 华人阅览器 5.5
矮马，我觉得barre的好处是：1 老师是美女，学生是美女，看得赏心悦目2 Low impact运动，controlled movements，不容易受伤3 地毯上穿袜子，不用背着运动鞋挤地铁4 challenging enough to beat gym的各种哑铃操先不说效果，周末背着贵妇包穿着l...... 画面感很强
★ 发自Android 华人阅览器 5.5
那就等书写出来，再来帮她四处做广告？
哎哟，原来你觉得我写那么多字是为了给她做广告？要不是无风说阿氏是呼悠，我还懒得说话呢。
好，我来做个广告：欢迎减肥的姑娘们去某提的减肥版(loseweight)，本人常年驻扎，没有任何出书的打算。
[此贴子已经被作者于2013/1/7 11:41:24编辑过]
本贴从去年到今天，想说的就是这个：D不过爱折腾还得折腾，1）别＂瞎＂折腾；2）别＂瞎＂跟风；3）别跟别人＂比＂。当然了，能不能真听懂，还是看＂基因＂：P 哈哈哈哈无风你真是绝了！
★ 发自Android 华人阅览器 5.5
哎哟，原来你觉得我写那么多字是为了给她做广告？要不是无风说阿氏是呼悠，我还懒得说话呢。 好，我来做个广告：欢迎减肥的姑娘们去某提的减肥版(loseweight)，我常年驻扎，本人没有任何出书的打算。 莫非我该去哪里逛逛。。。
★ 发自Android 华人阅览器 5.5
莫非我该去哪里逛逛。。。
★ 发自Android 华人阅览器 5.5
入门信息挺好的，合适新手，但是男的太多了，天天叫嚣让你奔，然后说你丑，哆嗦。。。。
我的玻璃心啪嗒啪嗒掉了一地，你小心别扎脚丫子。