Originally Posted by ThaVirus (Post 10752821)

I tried a 72 hour fast recently for shits and giggles. Made it 26 and felt like death.

**** that shit.

Originally Posted by lewdog (Post 10750407)

Anyone notice the phenomenon of the quarter squats at the gym who load the bar up with tons of weight and barely squats down and the one exercises they never do???.............Deadlifts, because their legs are so ****ing weak they can't pickup a bar off the floor. I've been taking mental notes of all the quarter squatters in the gym and deadlifts are never on their program.

Originally Posted by epitome1170 (Post 10752671)

In an effort to gain better understanding of Macros and metabolism, I am hoping one of you can shed some light for me.

I have been a fairly rigorous diet lately in order to cut weight fast, but also to keep as much lean body weight as possible.

My daily totals are 1202 calories, 202g Protein, 27g Fiber, 13g Carbs, 26g Fat. So a high protein, low carb, low fat diet.

I would also implement intermittent fasting in this routine (24 hours to as much as 72 hours), but I would have just my standard meal (i.e. 300+/- calories) to break my fast as opposed to a large carbo load.

First of all, I would like to know your thoughts on this.

Secondly, I have been reading more and more lately that this is not as an effective way of losing weight and that being more effective would be to either have consistently more calories (1500-1700 calories a day instead of 1200) or to have the diet I have (1200 calories) for 5 days, but then do a 36 hour carb load. The reasoning behind this is for the glycogen levels and to maintain the optimal metabolism rates. All of this seems contradictory to the basic calories in < calories burned. What say you?

Originally Posted by epitome1170 (Post 10752965)

I understand that. I just have a hard time rationalizing that eating 500 calories more per day can actually be beneficial in my weight loss. That is why I am wondering if what I am reading is correct.

My other thing is... is my current diet detrimental to my lean muscle mass?

Originally Posted by Aspengc8 (Post 10752958)

I'm about 5 days in on carb nite solution, so I'm going to give the cyclical keto diet a try for a bit to try to get down to just under 220.

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 10753691)

Let me know how that goes. A friend of mine did it, but constantly blew through a ton of fat on the weekends and didn't lose much. CN is essentially UD 2.0 without the structured workouts or fat limits.

Originally Posted by epitome1170 (Post 10752970)

I actually don't think it is that bad. To each their own.

Personally, I am usually on the 36-48 hour range more often than anything else when I choose to fast though. After that it, I just feel like I have done enough and I don't want to overdue it.

Originally Posted by Eric Fisher (Post 10754479)

For religious reasons? I always thought that fasting for dietary purposes was bad for you. With that said, my knowledge of nutrition rivals Sarah Palin's knowledge of a world map.

Originally Posted by epitome1170 (Post 10763847)

So based on the aforementioned diet, I have been getting a lot of cramps in my feet and legs. (I usually run 2-4 miles at night in addition to my morning workout.) I drink plenty of water (2-3 gallons per day).

Am I drinking too much and flushing out nutrients? Or with my depleted diet am I missing something that would help the cramps?

Originally Posted by jiveturkey (Post 10763928)

That's a shit ton of water. You might consider adding some electrolytes. I've used this stuff in the past.


http://www.amazon.com/Emergen-C-Elec...s=electrolytes

Originally Posted by Silock (Post 10763813)

Shoulders go on squat day. Deads usually go on back day.