MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
MSNBC's Latest Diet Study
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Tom Traynor

As consistent with the latest studies. Looking at it, I am basically Mediteranian with some lean beef every so often.

i'd like to find the study to see particulars.

Anyways--good. I MIGHT now live until my blood work comes back. Stay tuned. I could go ahead and predict a very positive outcome--but I will just remain silent. Wish others posting exact opposite of what many here follow--and this study supports--had my grace and aplomb. :)

Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Is this the study you refer to?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/146...
Open User Options Menu

Tom Traynor

It might be. I agree that the low fat wasn't very low fat. But why doesn't the author GET that insulin control and higher protein content is VASTLY different metabolically and one can get away with eating a few extra calories--WHILE losing MORE weight (his 200 extra calorie comment). IT is NOT a "calorie is a calorie". That is flat-earth thinking. It really is and it will take ten years for you all to catch up.

My blood work will be MY personal study--and it may NOT be all that good.....we will see.
Open User Options Menu

Butters

Here's a bit more of an objective look at the study than Ornish's article. I think it's fair to say he has an agenda against Atkins.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25...
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Tom: Health or Leanness? Leanness - a calorie is a calorie for me and it will take a long time to "catch up." (weightwise - gradual descend of total cals). Health - maybe, maybe not. I for now will live in my Dark Ages with a total calorie descend, which I am now. A doctor I train (Gastroenterologist), his both parents are Dieticians and we agree on descending caloric applications. more later...
Open User Options Menu

Larry T

North Carolina, USA

The amount of weight lost wasn't significantly different between the three approaches. Dr. Tim Johnson on Good Morning America seemed at a loss for words as to the lipid profiles being best with Atkins and worst with Ornish.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

But if you want to make a great deal of $$$$$ - it has always been far more traditionally profitable to put a "sexy" word, style, or name in front of the word diet. The Mediterranean Diet sounds sexy and palatable, therefore you might have a chance - Fat Chance?
Open User Options Menu

Butters

Landau wrote:
Tom: Health or Leanness? Leanness - a calorie is a calorie for me and it will take a long time to "catch up." (weightwise - gradual descend of total cals). Health - maybe, maybe not. I for now will live in my Dark Ages with a total calorie descend, which I am now. A doctor I train (Gastroenterologist), his both parents are Dieticians and we agree on descending caloric applications. more later...


Do you understand that you make zero sense in most of your posts?
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Yes
Open User Options Menu

Tom Traynor

Landau wrote:
Tom: Health or Leanness? Leanness - a calorie is a calorie for me and it will take a long time to "catch up." (weightwise - gradual descend of total cals). Health - maybe, maybe not. I for now will live in my Dark Ages with a total calorie descend, which I am now. A doctor I train (Gastroenterologist), his both parents are Dieticians and we agree on descending caloric applications. more later...


Well--like this: Eat a diet of 2000 cals of greens/veggies, 200 gms of protein from lean sources--say chicken and fish (800 cals for the protein load), olive oil and nuts for a set time frame. Then eat same calorie load but say--50 gms protein (200 cals for the protein load), then the rest from refined bread, rice cakes and orange juice. I predict you will lose weight on both but more FAT on the "Medeteranian diet"--plus you will look, feel and train better--and be less hungry. Body like stable blood sugar and low insulin levels.

Protein is noted to have a different burn rate. Fats provide saiety. Enough carbs to avoid ketosis (not necessary). Every 3-4 days, carb up a little--cleaner sources--WHOLE GRAINS even.

What I'm wondering is the "low fat" group was at 30% (not that low). What was the macronutrient breakdown of the Medet. diet? Maybe not much higher in fat %--but more protein, better/low glycemic carbs and better fats.

At any rate, have some low glycemic carbs, plenty of protein and some good fats. Done.

If you eat basically the same foods--but then eat less, you WILL lose fat. It DOES get down to calorie load. Lower fats/proteins too low and even Testosterone levels drop.

Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

The most powerful diet tool other than a sound mind, is pencil and paper.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

30 % fat is hardly a low fat diet.

Nathan Pritkin's (low fat guru) diet preaches f-a-a-a-r-r-r lower dietary fat percentages. Little wonder no one can sustain such a diet with such unsound wisdom.

By the 30% standard of this particular study, Dr. Darden's dietary recommendations would be considered low fat also.

Interestingly, Drew Baye has intimated that higher protein/lower carb diets are superior for fat loss. Just as interestingly, we have not heard from him! He seems to have been somewhat vindicated.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Larry T wrote:
The amount of weight lost wasn't significantly different between the three approaches. Dr. Tim Johnson on Good Morning America seemed at a loss for words as to the lipid profiles being best with Atkins and worst with Ornish.


Did you read the part where they told the "Atkin's group" to get their protein from plant sources not animal? I almost fell off my chair laughing so hard. Wonder why they weren't told to eat meat, eggs, bacon, butter etc? They knew that would trash their lipids!! ROFL
Open User Options Menu

TBoneMitch

Quebec, CAN

Hey Southbeach, it doesnt seem that their lipids got 'thrashed', as you say, in that 56 week study:

http://www.springerlink.com/...1l10803t1j9621/

Objective: Various studies have convincingly shown the beneficial effect of ketogenic diet (in which the daily consumption of carbohydrate is less than 20 grams, regardless of fat, protein and caloric intake) in reducing weight in obese subjects. However, its long term effect on obese subjects with high total cholesterol (as compared to obese subjects with normal cholesterol level is lacking. It is believed that ketogenic diet may have adverse effect on the lipid profile. Therefore, in this study the effect of ketogenic diet in obese subjects with high cholesterol level above 6 mmol/L is compared to those with normocholesterolemia for a period of 56 weeks.

Results: The body weight and body mass index of both groups decreased significantly (P < 0.0001). The level of total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides and blood glucose level decreased significantly (P < 0.0001), whereas HDL cholesterol increased significantly (P < 0.0001) after the treatment in both groups.
Conclusion: This study shows the beneficial effects of ketogenic diet following its long term administration in obese subjects with a high level of total cholesterol. Moreover, this study demonstrates that low carbohydrate diet is safe to use for a longer period of time in obese subjects with a high total cholesterol level and those with normocholesterolemia.
Open User Options Menu

Larry T

North Carolina, USA

southbeach wrote:
Did you read the part where they told the "Atkin's group" to get their protein from plant sources not animal? I almost fell off my chair laughing so hard. Wonder why they weren't told to eat meat, eggs, bacon, butter etc? They knew that would trash their lipids!! ROFL


You misquoted the study (accidentally, I assume)and you added your own assumptions not found in the report, but you posted as if the report made the claims you're saying - and it did not.

On page 231 of the report it said the low-carb group were counseled in light of the fact that there were no calorie restrictions to "choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein and avoid trans-fats". They were not counseled to "avoid meat" as you insinuated.

And while you are "rolling on the floor laughing out loud", there was no mention in the paragraph you cited concerning their fear that unless they ate mostly vegetarian fats and protein, the subjects would trash their lipid profiles. I missed that part. What page did you read that on?

The end of the paragraph expicitly states that the diet was based on the Atkins Diet. Unless they were using the little known "Atkins for Vegetarians" diet, by definition the Atkins plan is defined by eggs, bacon, beef... in other words... MEAT.

This must be what you mean by using good scientific research to make your point. If the research doesn't say what you want it to say, just misquote it and maybe no one will be the wiser.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Larry T wrote:
This must be what you mean by using good scientific research to make your point. If the research doesn't say what you want it to say, just misquote it and maybe no one will be the wiser.


Larry T,

You must realize this clown has an agenda!
Open User Options Menu

Larry T

North Carolina, USA

marcrph wrote:
Larry T,

You must realize this clown has an agenda!


I do.
Open User Options Menu

JimBryan

Florida, USA

Check out Randy's research on this in Muscle, Smoke, and Mirrors. There is a difference between counting calories, counting fat, and just counting carbs.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Larry T wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Did you read the part where they told the "Atkin's group" to get their protein from plant sources not animal? I almost fell off my chair laughing so hard. Wonder why they weren't told to eat meat, eggs, bacon, butter etc? They knew that would trash their lipids!! ROFL

You misquoted the study (accidentally, I assume)and you added your own assumptions not found in the report, but you posted as if the report made the claims you're saying - and it did not.

On page 231 of the report it said the low-carb group were counseled in light of the fact that there were no calorie restrictions to "choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein and avoid trans-fats". They were not counseled to "avoid meat" as you insinuated.

And while you are "rolling on the floor laughing out loud", there was no mention in the paragraph you cited concerning their fear that unless they ate mostly vegetarian fats and protein, the subjects would trash their lipid profiles. I missed that part. What page did you read that on?

The end of the paragraph expicitly states that the diet was based on the Atkins Diet. Unless they were using the little known "Atkins for Vegetarians" diet, by definition the Atkins plan is defined by eggs, bacon, beef... in other words... MEAT.

This must be what you mean by using good scientific research to make your point. If the research doesn't say what you want it to say, just misquote it and maybe no one will be the wiser.


You are splitting hairs.

Did Low-Carb Dieters Really Follow the Atkins Plan?
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/...he-atkins-plan/


This study has more holes than swiss cheese.
Open User Options Menu

Larry T

North Carolina, USA

southbeach wrote:
Larry T wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Did you read the part where they told the "Atkin's group" to get their protein from plant sources not animal? I almost fell off my chair laughing so hard. Wonder why they weren't told to eat meat, eggs, bacon, butter etc? They knew that would trash their lipids!! ROFL

You misquoted the study (accidentally, I assume)and you added your own assumptions not found in the report, but you posted as if the report made the claims you're saying - and it did not.

On page 231 of the report it said the low-carb group were counseled in light of the fact that there were no calorie restrictions to "choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein and avoid trans-fats". They were not counseled to "avoid meat" as you insinuated.

And while you are "rolling on the floor laughing out loud", there was no mention in the paragraph you cited concerning their fear that unless they ate mostly vegetarian fats and protein, the subjects would trash their lipid profiles. I missed that part. What page did you read that on?

The end of the paragraph expicitly states that the diet was based on the Atkins Diet. Unless they were using the little known "Atkins for Vegetarians" diet, by definition the Atkins plan is defined by eggs, bacon, beef... in other words... MEAT.

This must be what you mean by using good scientific research to make your point. If the research doesn't say what you want it to say, just misquote it and maybe no one will be the wiser.

You are splitting hairs.

Did Low-Carb Dieters Really Follow the Atkins Plan?
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/...he-atkins-plan/


This study has more holes than swiss cheese.


I'm splitting hairs??? YOU misquote i.e. LIE about the content of the report and I quote the report VERBATIM. This proves even to your most gracious fans that you are full of shit and will do, say, or lie about any and everything to further your agenda. Now, I MIGHT be wrong about all this, so in the interest of accuracy, why don't you post a scientific study proving you're not full of shit - or just make one up.
Open User Options Menu

Tom Traynor

Swiss cheese......Yummmm.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Larry T wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Larry T wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Did you read the part where they told the "Atkin's group" to get their protein from plant sources not animal? I almost fell off my chair laughing so hard. Wonder why they weren't told to eat meat, eggs, bacon, butter etc? They knew that would trash their lipids!! ROFL

You misquoted the study (accidentally, I assume)and you added your own assumptions not found in the report, but you posted as if the report made the claims you're saying - and it did not.

On page 231 of the report it said the low-carb group were counseled in light of the fact that there were no calorie restrictions to "choose vegetarian sources of fat and protein and avoid trans-fats". They were not counseled to "avoid meat" as you insinuated.

And while you are "rolling on the floor laughing out loud", there was no mention in the paragraph you cited concerning their fear that unless they ate mostly vegetarian fats and protein, the subjects would trash their lipid profiles. I missed that part. What page did you read that on?

The end of the paragraph expicitly states that the diet was based on the Atkins Diet. Unless they were using the little known "Atkins for Vegetarians" diet, by definition the Atkins plan is defined by eggs, bacon, beef... in other words... MEAT.

This must be what you mean by using good scientific research to make your point. If the research doesn't say what you want it to say, just misquote it and maybe no one will be the wiser.

You are splitting hairs.

Did Low-Carb Dieters Really Follow the Atkins Plan?
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/...he-atkins-plan/


This study has more holes than swiss cheese.

I'm splitting hairs??? YOU misquote i.e. LIE about the content of the report and I quote the report VERBATIM. This proves even to your most gracious fans that you are full of shit and will do, say, or lie about any and everything to further your agenda. Now, I MIGHT be wrong about all this, so in the interest of accuracy, why don't you post a scientific study proving you're not full of shit - or just make one up.


Actually it is YOU that misrepresents and suggests this study is something that it is clearly not. The diet was not the Atkin's diet ("A Vegetarian Atkin's Diet?") and the "low-fat" was not low in fat. Major methodology flaws rendering any reasonable conclusion impossible.

Do yourself a favor read Ornish's response in Newsweek and the studies found at the end of all those links embedded in the article.
Open User Options Menu

Larry T

North Carolina, USA

southbeach wrote:
Do yourself a favor read Ornish's response in Newsweek and the studies found at the end of all those links embedded in the article.


I'd just as soon get a battery acid enema than read anything dean ornish writes. I'm convinced with this thread as well as others that you have no interest in getting to a higher truth about anything discussed here... and that's...OK. But to outright lie about what's contained in a study on the hope that no one else will take the time to actually read the study says all about you I need to know. I won't respond, react, or reply to any more of your posts on this issue or any other.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

"I'd just as soon get a battery acid enema than read anything dean ornish writes."

TRUE
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau wrote:
"I'd just as soon get a battery acid enema than read anything dean ornish writes."

TRUE


Why is that?
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Phoenix
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy