Sonofanump;1059072 wrote:I don't agree with this term. Don't go all out and cheat all day. Make it a cheat snack or cheat meal, but make you other meals semi healthy.

I agree. I think a cheat meal makes more sense. Maybe 1 or 2 per week, rather than a cheat day.

sleeper;1059042 wrote:The goal is to win, not to be honest and get the right feedback.

This pretty much nullifies anything you've ever said.

Raw Dawgin' it;1059107 wrote:This pretty much nullifies anything you've ever said.

Attack the man, not the ideas. I do have to admit that's a brilliant strategy that a mature, rational individual would execute.

Alright, I don't have time to go through this whole thread, but can someone just give a quick synopsis of what Paleo eating is and the objectives and basic premise of it? I'm trying to eat healthier but really have no structure, just trying to eat more "healthy" foods and less snacks and fried foods. I've cut out pop completely as well. Thanks in advance.

Terry_Tate;1059144 wrote:Alright, I don't have time to go through this whole thread, but can someone just give a quick synopsis of what Paleo eating is and the objectives and basic premise of it? I'm trying to eat healthier but really have no structure, just trying to eat more "healthy" foods and less snacks and fried foods. I've cut out pop completely as well. Thanks in advance.

PM BR.

sleeper;1059042 wrote:I'd be curious of your definition for successful. I would normally just provide data of what I deem unsuccessful, but then you'll just spend time trying to invalidate the data or lie and say you aren't doing that part of it etc.. That's the problem with internet debating, someone will provide the framework and people will lie about their true story to counter the framework that person has put forth. The goal is to win, not to be honest and get the right feedback.

You really like assumptions don't you? This is yet another assumption of how I will act.

I have no hard feelings one way or the other about this. It's just something I am trying. I am putting my team through one of the workouts also. It's a "test" to see if things work. Peoples' bodies react differently to different things. Some people can eat anything and don't gain weight. Some people have a hard time losing weight. It's just something to see if it helps me. If it does, good. If it doesn't...well, back to the drawing board.

sleeper;1059042 wrote:As far as your second statement, nothing wrong with eating less junk food, but it depends how you treat your "cheat" day. I think cheat days are important to any diet(read: lifestyle change) especially in the beginning. It's almost impossible to just up and change your eating habits without having some slack to transition from your old lifestyle.

There are people on this 4HB "lifestyle change" that eat 1,300-1,400 calories a day through the week and then eat 5,000 calories on their cheat day. Those same people have also lost a good amount of weight while also building muscle mass. So, I'll see what it can do for me.

Sonofanump;1059072 wrote:I don't agree with this term. Don't go all out and cheat all day. Make it a cheat snack or cheat meal, but make you other meals semi healthy.

I explained it a little above. We'll see. I don't plan on eating everything that I see. But I will enjoy some bread, pasta, and cheese. Probably even get to drink some of my favorite cranberry juice. I don't plan on eating terribly, just want to taste some of the foods I miss. I'll try to stay away from a lot of junk food like candy and such. We'll see.

Terry_Tate;1059144 wrote:Alright, I don't have time to go through this whole thread, but can someone just give a quick synopsis of what Paleo eating is and the objectives and basic premise of it? I'm trying to eat healthier but really have no structure, just trying to eat more "healthy" foods and less snacks and fried foods. I've cut out pop completely as well. Thanks in advance.

PM BR or go to www.marksdailyapple.com and there is a getting started tab that will give you everything you need to know.

sleeper;1059087 wrote:http://web.mit.edu/athletics/sportsmedicine/wcrwtloss.html

It's from MIT so expect LJ to find something wrong with it.

I do, who only burns 250 calories during exercise? Everything else makes sense. I do however eat more calories when I am strict, but eat the correct calories that in turn allows HIIT exercise to be productive.

Sonofanump;1059375 wrote:I do, who only burns 250 calories during exercise? Everything else makes sense. I do however eat more calories when I am strict, but eat the correct calories that in turn allows HIIT exercise to be productive.

Depends on the type of exercise. There's a lot of stuff out there that says running only burns 100 calories per mile. Many just go for a run thinking it'll be the best form of exercise and losing weight, but that's not true.

OSH;1059429 wrote:Depends on the type of exercise. There's a lot of stuff out there that says running only burns 100 calories per mile. Many just go for a run thinking it'll be the best form of exercise and losing weight, but that's not true.

Is that a 15 minute mile pace? Who stops after one mile or ten minutes if the goal is to lose weight. I think we know that is not practical. This chart says even at a 12 mm, fatty will burn 149 calories at the slow pace for a mile or 12 minutes.

Exercise & Calories Burned per Hour	130 lbs	155 lbs	180 lbs	205 lbs
Running, 5 mph (12 minute mile)	[RIGHT]472[/RIGHT]	[RIGHT]563[/RIGHT]	[RIGHT]654[/RIGHT]	[RIGHT]745[/RIGHT]

Sonofanump;1059464 wrote:Is that a 15 minute mile pace? Who stops after one mile or ten minutes if the goal is to lose weight. I think we know that is not practical. This chart says even at a 12 mm, fatty will burn 149 calories at the slow pace for a mile or 12 minutes.

That's a common stat that is given for running. Even my marathon-running (they used to) in-laws said it.

RunnersWorld did a study that showed that men burnt 124 calories in a mile and women 105. Obviously it'll be different with different people (as you pointed out). But it's not going to be that much. While you say that a 15 minute mile or a one-mile goal isn't practical...it is for people who are not used to running and who may be completely out of shape. There are definitely better exercises to help cut weight, but no doubt about it that running is a lifelong thing that is good for the heart and lungs.

OSH;1059465 wrote:That's a common stat that is given for running. Even my marathon-running (they used to) in-laws said it.

RunnersWorld did a study that showed that men burnt 124 calories in a mile and women 105. Obviously it'll be different with different people (as you pointed out). But it's not going to be that much. While you say that a 15 minute mile or a one-mile goal isn't practical...it is for people who are not used to running and who may be completely out of shape. There are definitely better exercises to help cut weight, but no doubt about it that running is a lifelong thing that is good for the heart and lungs.

So during the course of a marathon, runners would only burn near 3300 calories, less than a pound? That just does not seem right.

Sonofanump;1059748 wrote:So during the course of a marathon, runners would only burn near 3300 calories, less than a pound? That just does not seem right.

That's what I thought too. But that's what I've heard and seen.

It may vary from person to person, but it's not going to be THAT much more or less. I wouldn't even doubt if it was closer to 100 calories per mile and be closer to 2600 calories total for a marathon. Definitely shows that running isn't THE best for cutting weight and fat, but it doesn't say anything about running not being beneficial for the long run (back to the cardiopulmonary stuff).

With rehydrating before, during and after a triathlon, I am usually down 3 lbs for a sprint and 5-6 for a olympic.

Sonofanump;1059786 wrote:With rehydrating before, during and after a triathlon, I am usually down 3 lbs for a sprint and 5-6 for a olympic.

I don't know in your situation, but it still could be "dehydration" to an extent. Partner a bit of dehydration with burning calories, then you have your weight lost. I had teammates of mine lose 10 pounds during one training session in preseason during my college soccer days. It was so carefully monitored though, the athletic trainers made sure the weight was gained back by the next session, or at least close enough. It's crazy to think that it's possible to lose that much in the short amount of time that we spent on the pitch.

Just a bit of an update, I am in my first "cheat day," I bumped it up a day because of a dinner tonight. I have dropped weight every morning from the previous morning. Pretty excited about that.

I am not going to go "all out" on this cheat day since I'm still in my first week of this. The dinner tonight is chili, so it's not terribly awful for me. We'll see. I'll jump back into the norm tomorrow and try to move my cheat day to Saturdays -- unless I'm better off keeping in on Fridays.

What is "bad" about chili?

OSH;1059938 wrote:I don't know in your situation, but it still could be "dehydration" to an extent. Partner a bit of dehydration with burning calories, then you have your weight lost. I had teammates of mine lose 10 pounds during one training session in preseason during my college soccer days. It was so carefully monitored though, the athletic trainers made sure the weight was gained back by the next session, or at least close enough. It's crazy to think that it's possible to lose that much in the short amount of time that we spent on the pitch.

Where'd you play?

Sonofanump;1060325 wrote:What is "bad" about chili?

Probably nothing. Just thought I'd put that. Some think that beef isn't the best for you...the whole "red meat" stuff. It also depends on what you put in it, some like to load it down with cheese and crackers (that's me!) or other stuff.

I Wear Pants;1060336 wrote:Where'd you play?

A small NAIA school in Kentucky, Asbury [College] University.

The cheat meal is weak. I'm a huge Tim Ferriss fan and have tried almost everything from the 4-Hour Body. A lot of it is legit. Many of his claims in the books are outliers, but the methods aren't bunk like some like to think. However, I totally disagree with him on the outrageous cheat days once a week. It's almost like he includes them for shock value. You shouldn't WANT to do that. Regardless of whether your body can make the proper metabolic adaptations to it, why bother? It seems like a waste of money and time. Just pick and choose your spots to go outside of the norm and you will have the exact same effect.

Congrats OSH on the early success. Keep us updated.

OSH;1060393 wrote:crackers

Now, white flour is evil.

Azubuike24;1060688 wrote:The cheat meal is weak. I'm a huge Tim Ferriss fan and have tried almost everything from the 4-Hour Body. A lot of it is legit. Many of his claims in the books are outliers, but the methods aren't bunk like some like to think. However, I totally disagree with him on the outrageous cheat days once a week. It's almost like he includes them for shock value. You shouldn't WANT to do that. Regardless of whether your body can make the proper metabolic adaptations to it, why bother? It seems like a waste of money and time. Just pick and choose your spots to go outside of the norm and you will have the exact same effect.

Congrats OSH on the early success. Keep us updated.

Thanks man!

After the first cheat day, the scales didn't depress me...only gained one pound from my cheat day. Some people report as much as 7 pounds gained.

The cheat day is valuable to a lot of people. I can understand why. Sometimes it's hard to give up some "comfort" foods and people want to continue to fall back to them. For me, I am happy to do away with a lot of desserts (don't eat much anyway), pop, candy, and stuff like that. Chips are easily something that I crave, I have always been a big chip fan. Then pastas and breads are real good. I always enjoy a tall glass of milk, but that's out, so I make up for it on my cheat day.

Back to the grind with it again!

I've been semi-4HB for the past year. I hope to start following it more strictly this spring. Life has just been crazy lately, but the simple rules are nice and easy to keep in mine while eating (unfortunately I don't always follow)

I find his idea about cheat day to be particularly interesting. One reason for it is to obviously help people be more compliant with the diet as a whole because they can look forward to eating junk in a couple days.
But his other thought about it preventing the body from entering starvation mode is very interesting. It make sense in theory that if you continue to eat a calorie deficit your body will begin to conserve calories (starvation mode) but if you glutton yourself once a week it prevents the body from doing this and allows fat to come off more quickly overall.

I dont think 4HB is a silver bullet by any means. I've followed forums for a year or so where some people have excellent results and other have none. I think it just simplifies paleo/glycemic index to a point where people can make decisions easier. Which is a good thing, but it still requires discipline and dedication.

Best of luck OSH. Keep us posted with your results and struggles.

'Starvation mode" is a fallacy.

4. Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".

Truth

Efficient adaptation to famine was important for survival during rough times in our evolution. Lowering metabolic rate during starvation allowed us to live longer, increasing the possibility that we might come across something to eat. Starvation literally means starvation. It doesn't mean skipping a meal not eating for 24 hours. Or not eating for three days even. The belief that meal skipping or short-term fasting causes "starvation mode" is so completely ridiculous and absurd that it makes me want to jump out the window.

Looking at the numerous studies I've read, the earliest evidence for lowered metabolic rate in response to fasting occurred after 60 hours (-8% in resting metabolic rate). Other studies show metabolic rate is not impacted until 72-96 hours have passed (George Cahill has contributed a lot on this topic).

Seemingly paradoxical, metabolic rate is actually increased in short-term fasting. For some concrete numbers, studies have shown an increase of 3.6% - 10% after 36-48 hours (Mansell PI, et al, and Zauner C, et al). This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Epinephrine and norepinephrine (adrenaline/noradrenaline) sharpens the mind and makes us want to move around. Desirable traits that encouraged us to seek for food, or for the hunter to kill his prey, increasing survival. At some point, after several days of no eating, this benefit would confer no benefit to survival and probably would have done more harm than good; instead, an adaptation that favored conservation of energy turned out to be advantageous. Thus metabolic rate is increased in short-term fasting (up to 60 hours).

Again, I have choosen extreme examples to show how absurd the myth of "starvation mode" is - especially when you consider that the exact opposite is true in the context of how the term is thrown around.


http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

I always thought of it as a caloric deficit for weeks at a time, not as much intermittent fasting. But that is good info.

Thanks