The "I just got back from the gym" and this is what I have eaten thread.

[SenselessChiefsFan]

Okay, so there are a ton of guys in here that are working out, trying to work out, or 'thinking' about working out.

So, I figured I would start a thread. I am all about making myself accountable. The more people that I tell about working out, the more people I would let down by not going.

If you go to the gym.... then post here when you get back. If you do P90X, post here when you get done. If you ride the excercise bike.... post it here.

Anything you do to get in shape.... share with the board. I know I have gotten some great advice and feedback.

Also, post what you eat. If you post everything you eat, and you know others will be critical, you may think twice before you grab a Twinkie.

Okay, so, I went to the gym. I did five minutes on the cross climber to warm up. I stretched for about three minutes.

Then, I did three sets of squats with just 135. I did back extensions and hanging leg lifts. Three sets each. I did leg curls, calf extensions, abductor and adductor excercises as well.

On my leg day, I do very light chest exercises to work on my explosive power. I do three sets of six pushups as explosively as I can. I throw the excercise ball up like a chest pass while laying on the bench.

Then, I finished off my workout with 30 minutes on the eliptical.

As far as my diet.

Breakfast two pieces of peanut butter whole wheat toast, protein shake, and banana.

I have had another banana, two yogurts, and a handful of cashews as snacks.

I didn't have a 'lunch' per se.

Kids had sloppy joes with lean beef (as if that makes it great).... I took a baked potato, and put a serving of sloppy joe over it, with jalapenos and 2 oz's of lowfat cheddar cheese.

I have also had shotgun with water, and synthesize with water.

I won't eat again before bed.


Okay, I know putting everything down here will open me up to criticism. I know some will think that I am doing things all wrong. I appreciate any advice, but I have done a lot of reading and talking to trainers.... so, I have an idea of what I am doing.... or at least what I think I am doing.

The point of this thread, isn't to get into pissing matches about how to do things.... but rather to give ourselves a gold star for making an effort.

Try not to beat anyone down on this thread, because this is about encouragement.

[SenselessChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by Silock

There should be no performance decrease due to fasting:

http://www.begin2dig.com/2010/01/fas...-workouts.html

If you read closely, you will note four things:

#1) These studies specifically address endurance training, not strength training.

There is a huge distinction there in my mind.

#2) These athletes felt 'subjectively' less ready to train.

Training is very much mental in the average guys workout. These guys were on a team, and were pushed by coaches, and anyone who has ever been on a team knows that coaches often push you harder than you would push yourself. The average guy who feels, (subjectively or not) less ready to train will not push himself as hard.

#3) These are among the best athletes in their sport.

These guys are some of the best conditioned athletes on the planet. Soccer requires incredible endurance. Studies based on some of the greatest conditioned athletes in the world would probably be skewed. The reality is that these guys are genetically gifted. To ignore this and assume an average guy would experience the same results is misguided.

#4) These guys have a training table.

While we can all eat well, very few of us have a nutritionist at our beck and call. So, if you go 11 hours without eating, but eat very well on both sides. You are getting a solid breakfast, and a solid dinner. That is a little different than a 24 hour fast, or fasting all day (Including breakfast), and then going to workout.



In summary, every person is different, and every body responds to different things in completely different ways. Otherwise, there would be one single way to train and eat. And, we all know that there are 100's of different ways to do both.

[Silock]

I appreciate the post, SCF, and I'll address your points. Just to warn you, I'm really tired but I'm not trying to be combative, so I apologize in advance if it comes off that way.

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

#1) These studies specifically address endurance training, not strength training.

There is a huge distinction there in my mind.

Physiologically, it shouldn't matter. Muscle glycogen is muscle glycogen. It's either there or it's not, and it gets replenished either way by the same processes. You have enough glycogen in your muscles to last a pretty long time, and certainly long enough to work out. The average lifting session, for most people, probably burns at the most optimistic level, 600 calories per hour. Maybe more, but probably less. Your body has thousands of calories worth of energy in its muscles (the average person has about 1500-2000 calories worth). It takes a lot to burn through that, and it's not specific to either strength training or endurance training. It's simply calories burned. Your body doesn't use a different KIND of fuel just because you're doing a specific type of exercise. It's just like a car... it all runs on gas, but the more you push the pedal down, the more gas it uses.

#2) These athletes felt 'subjectively' less ready to train.

Training is very much mental in the average guys workout. These guys were on a team, and were pushed by coaches, and anyone who has ever been on a team knows that coaches often push you harder than you would push yourself. The average guy who feels, (subjectively or not) less ready to train will not push himself as hard.

Just speaking from personal experience, as well as the results of the studies, the results don't bear this out. While I "felt" more tired, my actual performance wasn't any different. The "push" created by another person is exactly the same for a fasted vs. non-fasted person and is one of the prime reasons why a workout partner for the average person is a great motivator. It's why gym classes are popular. So, that "push" factor is present whether you are fasted or not, but I can see that for some people, that could be a big deal. However, that's a psychological limitation and not a physiological one (although I realize that it can have an impact if you're a mental pussy ).

Studies based on some of the greatest conditioned athletes in the world would probably be skewed. The reality is that these guys are genetically gifted. To ignore this and assume an average guy would experience the same results is misguided.

This is a fact not in evidence. What I mean by that is that there is no proof that these results cannot be transferred to a regular joe.

#4) These guys have a training table.

While we can all eat well, very few of us have a nutritionist at our beck and call. So, if you go 11 hours without eating, but eat very well on both sides. You are getting a solid breakfast, and a solid dinner. That is a little different than a 24 hour fast, or fasting all day (Including breakfast), and then going to workout.

The body doesn't differentiate. A thousand calories of a high quality breakfast is going to be used for fuel in the exact same way a thousand calories of low quality breakfast will be, given the same macronutrient ratios. Realistically, the body doesn't care whether the eggs you're feeding it are organic, free-range eggs or factory eggs as long as the caloric content is the same. So, they may only need to eat 3 organic eggs to get 210 calories from it, while you may need to eat 4 factory eggs to get the same calories. But as long as the caloric content is the same, the body doesn't care. Now, there are other benefits to high-quality food, but those tend to be more long-range types of things, like not ingesting chemicals or growth hormones or antibiotics for the animals. Those types of things aren't going to have a measurable day-to-day impact in the way that the number of calories are.

In summary, every person is different, and every body responds to different things in completely different ways. Otherwise, there would be one single way to train and eat. And, we all know that there are 100's of different ways to do both.

And yet, there are things that are common to everyone because we're human -- things like how the body stores fat in the presence of excess calories, turns both carbs and fats into energy, etc. There are absolutely minor differences in people's bodies, but the overall results are still generalizable. No matter how you train or what diet you're on, it ALL always ultimately comes down to calories in vs. calories out. There is no exception to this rule. As long as you feed the muscles in between sessions and get adequate rest, the muscle glycogen WILL be there, whether it comes from stored fat or new caloric intake.

I think a lot of the literature leads one to believe that the body simply stops doing things when we don't eat. That couldn't be further from the truth. I see articles that say "You could burn through your glycogen stores in a day if you don't eat!" Totally misleading. As long as you have excess body fat (and everyone who isn't starving to death DOES), the body has a ready supply of energy to provide its muscles; it just takes longer to mobilize fat stores to provide this energy than it does to ingest carbohydrates to replace it (hence getting adequate rest and not fasting every single day). The body prefers these quick carbs for energy, but not in a "you can only perform tasks with carbohydrate intake" kind of way. That's why the mechanism for fat storage exists in the first place. These processes in the body don't stop. If they did, we'd never make it through a night's sleep.

The body is in a constant state of trying to achieve equilibrium through the regulation of its hormones. If we eat something, it releases insulin to deal with the increased blood glucose and either store it as fat or shuffle it to muscles. When blood glucose levels drop too low, the body releases glucagon, which tells the liver to start releasing fat to be turned into glucose. This will then be shuttled around to whatever cells need energy. This insulin/glucagon dance is happening all the time, even when you are eating on a regular schedule. It is no different with fasting, except you might have longer periods of higher glucagon levels. That's not a bad thing; it's just how the body copes.

[Demonpenz]

I have been on the calories in vs calories out deal for 10 years or so I dropped a shitload of weight out of highschool only to put it back on. That being said 3 musketeers says like low fat on the back but it has 260 cals. I could have atleast got a snickers if I was going to use that 260 cals haha. It was damn delicious though!

[SenselessChiefsFan]

Silock. First and foremost, if I worried about you being a prick... I would put you on ignore.

In all seriousness, I just want to address a couple things here.

#1) Based on what I have read, lifting weights tends to catabolize (I think this is the right term) muscle tissue more than endurance training IF you do not have adequate carbohydrates.

#2) When I mentioned the training table, it was not necessarily the quality of the food, but specifically the exact right food. In other words, I eat well. Yet, I know that if I had a nutritionist measuring every portion, examining my every choice, and changing my meals based on my specific needs at any given time...then it is hugely beneficial.

#3) The facts are not in evidence about the average Joe, which was my point. You can either choose to assume that it is the same way or that it isn't.... either way, it is an assumption. I do believe that highly conditioned genetically gifted athletes would respond better to different stressors, be it diet or otherwise.... but that is clearly an assumption, or an opinion. However, belief that the this data translates fully to the average Joe, is also an assumption or an opinion.

#4) You have said that you are highly disciplined. I am less disciplined than you. Yet, I am still MUCH more disciplined that the average person. In six months, I have dropped 21.5lbs (as of this morning), and I have increased my bench by 65 lbs. I have increased my pull ups from 0 to 10. I don't have a trainer. I don't even have a dependable workout partner. This is based on my own personal drive and desire to get in better shape.

All that said, there are nights that I don't feel like working hard. And on those nights, my workouts do not benefit me as much as the ones where I feel like a beast. If not eating contributes to feeling poorly.... I just can't see that as a good thing...regardless of the purely physiological aspect.

The other thing that I mentioned that I didn't see you address was the fact that these were athletes that fasted during the daytime. They still had breakfast and dinner. And, to me, that is much different than fasting for a full day without breakfast.

I don't ever take this stuff personally, and I do believe that every body is genetically different and as such, everyone's results with every single training method will vary. This is a free exchange of ideas, and I am not saying your 100% wrong, just giving a different side to the debate.

[SenselessChiefsFan]

Originally Posted by Demonpenz

I have been on the calories in vs calories out deal for 10 years or so I dropped a shitload of weight out of highschool only to put it back on. That being said 3 musketeers says like low fat on the back but it has 260 cals. I could have atleast got a snickers if I was going to use that 260 cals haha. It was damn delicious though!

I will say, Silock has completely converted me on the avoidance of fat. I still try to mix in more fiber, which he doesn't really talk much about. But, total calories is the main thing.

I would have grabbed a Snickers for sure, because it has more protein and more fiber. Either that, or the all peanut bar.... I think it is called Munch.

I watch my intake of sugars, and try to make sure that I get foods high in fiber and protein. I don't worry about fat much. I mean, I try to choose low fat protein sources and I drink skim milk. But, I have learned from Silock to avoid 'fat free'... as it typically increases sugars which are worse than fats.

See, Silock, I do pay attention, even if I don't always agree.

[Silock]

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

#1) Based on what I have read, lifting weights tends to catabolize (I think this is the right term) muscle tissue more than endurance training IF you do not have adequate carbohydrates.

Endurance training sheds muscle far more than lifting ever will. Growing muscle is a response to stimulus, which is lifting weights. Endurance training wants to shed all excess weight, which is why your muscles shrink if you don't weight train. But your muscles don't just shrink if you miss a meal or an entire day's worth of meals as long as you're still lifting. This is covered in great detail in Eat Stop Eat. But it's basically a response to stimuli. It's not the level of carbs that dictate energy levels. If carb energy isn't available, your body switches to fat energy. Only if fat energy isn't available will your body begin to break down tissue for energy (again, provided you are still lifting weights). If you fast AND stop lifting weights, yes, your muscles will shrink. Again, this is the body trying to be efficient. But as long as you give the muscle reason to stick around by TRAINING it, no, they won't shrink and can still grow.

#2) When I mentioned the training table, it was not necessarily the quality of the food, but specifically the exact right food. In other words, I eat well. Yet, I know that if I had a nutritionist measuring every portion, examining my every choice, and changing my meals based on my specific needs at any given time...then it is hugely beneficial.

I think you're vastly overrating this. I agree that it's a huge benefit, but it's not as though athletes don't also eat McDonald's A calorie is a calorie. If you need the energy, your body will find it as long as you've got energy to give it (either in the form of stored fat or ingested food).

#3) The facts are not in evidence about the average Joe, which was my point. You can either choose to assume that it is the same way or that it isn't.... either way, it is an assumption. I do believe that highly conditioned genetically gifted athletes would respond better to different stressors, be it diet or otherwise.... but that is clearly an assumption, or an opinion. However, belief that the this data translates fully to the average Joe, is also an assumption or an opinion.

It's not an assumption. There are a lot of studies about the effects of intermittent fasting on exercise intensity and levels. They're just not covered in this particular series of studies.

All that said, there are nights that I don't feel like working hard. And on those nights, my workouts do not benefit me as much as the ones where I feel like a beast. If not eating contributes to feeling poorly.... I just can't see that as a good thing...regardless of the purely physiological aspect.

It's not. I apologize if I came off saying that it is. What I mean is that it isn't a physiological factor that's limiting performance, which is an important distinction. Lots of people feel that they can't lift without taking NO2 supplements before they lift, even though they have no proven benefit. It's a mental thing. For some people, fasting workouts won't work, but that's a mental thing. It's not that they CAN'T do it.

The other thing that I mentioned that I didn't see you address was the fact that these were athletes that fasted during the daytime. They still had breakfast and dinner. And, to me, that is much different than fasting for a full day without breakfast.

It's not. Like I said, the insulin/glucagon dance is going to make sure the muscles have plenty of glycogen. Think of it this way: You work out in the morning. Some of the calories you eat after that workout go back into filling up the muscles with energy. After that, they simply cannot absorb any more glycogen. They're full. So, it doesn't matter if you eat breakfast, because you can't stuff any more energy into the muscles than what is already in there. It won't have an impact.

I don't ever take this stuff personally, and I do believe that every body is genetically different and as such, everyone's results with every single training method will vary. This is a free exchange of ideas, and I am not saying your 100% wrong, just giving a different side to the debate.

I agree that everyone is different, but we're not SO different that calories in/calories out doesn't apply and the way that we use and store energy doesn't vary. That's what I was trying to get across. Certainly, everyone has different levels of insulin resistance, mitochondrial efficiency, stored ATP and a thousand other things. What I'm talking about are things that are generalizable to being human.

[Silock]

Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan

I will say, Silock has completely converted me on the avoidance of fat. I still try to mix in more fiber, which he doesn't really talk much about. But, total calories is the main thing.

I would have grabbed a Snickers for sure, because it has more protein and more fiber. Either that, or the all peanut bar.... I think it is called Munch.

I watch my intake of sugars, and try to make sure that I get foods high in fiber and protein. I don't worry about fat much. I mean, I try to choose low fat protein sources and I drink skim milk. But, I have learned from Silock to avoid 'fat free'... as it typically increases sugars which are worse than fats.

See, Silock, I do pay attention, even if I don't always agree.

[NewChief]

Went in this morning early. Sort of weird being at the gym late at night, then being back there in the morning like 10 hours later. Anyway, did a little more traditional lifting (triceps and shoulders) in conjunction with a kettlebell circuit involving snatches and swings.

[SenselessChiefsFan]

Well, I got to the gym. I did forearm curls, reverse forearm curls and I worked on my grip by holding two 10 pound plates as long as I could. Then, I did 3 five pound plates, then single 45lbs plates. I did incline sit ups with a medicine ball and tossed it up when I got to the top. I did three sets of 15. I did planks, side planks, weighted side bends, leg lifts, and a weighted abs machine.

I also did 50 reps of the empty barbell to increase my blood circulation to my chest, and increase the number of capilaries (sp?) in my chest.

[Carlota69]

I did back and chest on Monday, and I still havent recovered. I'm not sure why. It was a really difficult workout. I felt like passing out a couple of times. I lifted very heavy, heavier than normal. So I thought that was the problem at first, but its Wednesday and I still feel tired, bone tired.

I wasnt able to do cardio yesterday--I could barely get out of bed in time. I was able to do some today. I go back to gym 2morow.

Any ideas on a good recovery plan for those days when I absolutely get my ass handed to me?

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Lifting weights has absolutely kicked my weight loss in the ass. In the last 9 days I've lost 9lbs. The only difference is that I'm lifting. Diet hasn't changed, cardio hasn't changed, nothing has changed.

Folks, if you're trying to lose weight, lift some.

[Silock]

Grats, man! Lifting is FTW!

Kicked my own ass today. Loved it, but I can barely walk.

[Silock]

from alwyncosgrove.com

Soccer for Fat Loss?
March 3rd, 2010
Check out this study that Craig Ballantyne forwarded to me:

Recreational soccer is an effective health-promoting activity for untrained men
Krustrup et al.
British Journal of Sports Medicine 2009;43:825-831

36 healthy untrained men were randomised into a soccer group, a running group and a control group.

Training was performed for 1 hour two or three times per week for 12 weeks; at an average heart rate of 82% of HRmax for both training groups.

During the 12 week program, the soccer group improved maximal oxygen uptake (a measure of aerobic fitness) 62% more than the running group. The soccer group also lost an average of 50% more fat than the running group (6lbs vs 4lbs)

The soccer group had an increase in lean body mass of 3.75lbs, an increase in lower
extremity bone mass, a greater decrease in LDL-cholesterol and an increase in fat oxidation
during running at 9.5 km/h. The running group saw none of these changes.

The number of capillaries per muscle fibre was also almost 50% higher in the soccer training group than in running. Both groups reduced blood pressure equally.

The researchers concluded that participation in recreational soccer training, has significant beneficial effects on health profile and physical capacity and in some aspects it is superior
to frequent moderate-intensity running.

What does this tell us?

Well, think about soccer. The difference is more than adding a ball while running.

Soccer is essentially a form of interval training (although the work and recovery periods are randomized – CHAOS training as my friend Robert Dos Remedios calls it).

It’s also multi-directional, multi-movement (jumping, heading, running, sprinting, kicking, tackling, with contact) and multi-planar.

Basically this study shows that open interval training, using multiple movements and directions is superior for conditioning, muscle building and fat loss when compared to the same intensity of running.

I just wish they’d discovered that watching soccer was just as good…..

–
AC
PS – I hate calling the game “soccer”…. it’s FOOT-ball. Played with your feet….

[Mr. Flopnuts]

If they had a fat guy league I'd be inclined to give it a shot. But I'm not going to go out there and embarrass myself with the average soccer player. Many of them would thank me for that too I'm sure.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Speaking of which, how does one find an adult league to play in? I remember reading something about fat guy basketball and I'm pretty interested in that. If it's half court I won't even bother.