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
Grandma Knew Best!
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

marcrph

Portugal

Did she really know?

Good Calories, Bad Calories: What Really Makes Us Fat?


http://www.motherearthnews.com/...lth-Weight.aspx
Open User Options Menu

Nick1971

Texas, USA

I found that to be a good read, and it makes sense that carbs can lead to obesity, though I believe exercise and monitoring caloric intake is still important for regulating bodyfat as well.
Open User Options Menu

FortCollinsFan

Good read, I have his book but this is a nice overview of the subject at hand. The lobbyists for the farming industry have changed the landscape of "what's healthy" many years ago. Corn and it's by-products (HFC) are killing this country fast.

HFC, high fructose corn syrup, is cheap and plentiful and has the US government backing it (ADM, Archer Daniels Midland) is a major lobbyists in DC, they also supply the US with most of their HFC. When sugar was replaced with HFC in the early 1980's the obesity rates took off in adults and children. You cannot outlift/outrun the fork and we are digging are graves with knives and forks. Hope you all enjoy ur breakfast today :o
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

"Gramma" and "grandpa" suffered from lots heart disease, stroke and other chronic disease.

I think i'll take my nutritional cues from good CURRENT science. :)
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

NIck1971 wrote:
I found that to be a good read, and it makes sense that carbs can lead to obesity, though I believe exercise and monitoring caloric intake is still important for regulating bodyfat as well.


Glad you enjoyed the article!
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

FortCollinsFan wrote:
Good read, I have his book but this is a nice overview of the subject at hand. The lobbyists for the farming industry have changed the landscape of "what's healthy" many years ago. Corn and it's by-products (HFC) are killing this country fast.

HFC, high fructose corn syrup, is cheap and plentiful and has the US government backing it (ADM, Archer Daniels Midland) is a major lobbyists in DC, they also supply the US with most of their HFC. When sugar was replaced with HFC in the early 1980's the obesity rates took off in adults and children. You cannot outlift/outrun the fork and we are digging are graves with knives and forks. Hope you all enjoy ur breakfast today :o


Glad you enjoyed the article.

It is a shame politics (mostly a dirty word now a days) has played such a prominent role in good and bad things pertaining to the food industry!

Would like to hear more about HFC from you. Please enlighten the forum.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

southbeach wrote:
"Gramma" and "grandpa" suffered from lots heart disease, stroke and other chronic disease.

I think i'll take my nutritional cues from good CURRENT science. :)


The clown speaks!
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

southbeach wrote:
"Gramma" and "grandpa" suffered from lots heart disease, stroke and other chronic disease.

I think i'll take my nutritional cues from good CURRENT science. :)


If you think cherry-picking (pun intended) studies that fit your argument or endorsement, while totally ignoring the ones that don't, is science, then you are sadly mistaken.

It's what I call Subjective Statistics. It's where people with agendas take "do the math" to a whole other, twisted level.

The start of the trend of increasing fat-assedness and the incidence of diabetes in this country can be directly traced to when the government began endorsing the food pyramid.

Get a clue.
___________________________

Here's my own anecdotal evidence:

My Grandpa ate eggs and bacon nearly every day of his 83 years on this planet. Heart disease was never on his menu.

People of his time had a lower incidence of cardio problems because they were active their whole lives.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Sugar or carbs don't make you fat, excess calories make you fat.

Two diets compared in this study. Same calories (1100), same 11% fat, same 19% protein and same 71% carbs. One group SUGAR comprised 43% of the calories, the other only 4%.

30 DAILY teaspoons of sugar compared to 3 teaspoons.

Both diet groups showed EQUAL significant reductions in weight, % of bodyfat, blood pressure and FASTING GLUCOSE.

"We therefore conclude that the use of sucrose in a weight-loss regimen is unlikely to cause problems for the average patient, as long as total energy intake is restricted."
Am J Clin Nutr. 1998 Jan;67(1):150-1.

Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss.
Surwit RS, Feinglos MN, McCaskill CC, Clay SL, Babyak MA, Brownlow BS, Plaisted CS, Lin PH.
PMID: 9094871


I certainly don't recommend sugar HFCS or refined processed carb sources but this nonsense of 'insulin spiking' with mixed meals as a cause for weight gain and obesity must be nipped once and for all.

IT'S THE TOTAL CALORIES NOT THE CARBS!!
Open User Options Menu

FortCollinsFan

The Murky World of High-Fructose Corn Syrup

By Linda Joyce Forristal, CCP, MTA

Think of sugar and you think of sugar cane or beets. Extraction of sugar from sugar cane spurred the colonization of the New World. Extraction of sugar from beets was developed during the time of Napoleon so that the French could have sugar in spite of the English trading blockade.

Nobody thinks of sugar when they see a field of corn. Most of us would be surprised to learn that the larger percentage of sweeteners used in processed food comes from corn, not sugar cane or beets.

The process for making the sweetener high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) out of corn was developed in the 1970s. Use of HFCS grew rapidly, from less than three million short tons in 1980 to almost 8 million short tons in 1995. During the late 1990s, use of sugar actually declined as it was eclipsed by HFCS. Today Americans consume more HFCS than sugar.

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is produced by processing corn starch to yield glucose, and then processing the glucose to produce a high percentage of fructose. It all sounds rather simple--white cornstarch is turned into crystal clear syrup. However, the process is actually very complicated. Three different enzymes are needed to break down cornstarch, which is composed of chains of glucose molecules of almost infinite length, into the simple sugars glucose and fructose.

First, cornstarch is treated with alpha-amylase to produce shorter chains of sugars called polysaccharides. Alpha-amylase is industrially produced by a bacterium, usually Bacillus sp. It is purified and then shipped to HFCS manufacturers.

Next, an enzyme called glucoamylase breaks the sugar chains down even further to yield the simple sugar glucose. Unlike alpha-amylase, glucoamylase is produced by Aspergillus, a fungus, in a fermentation vat where one would likely see little balls of Aspergillus floating on the top.

The third enzyme, glucose-isomerase, is very expensive. It converts glucose to a mixture of about 42 percent fructose and 50-52 percent glucose with some other sugars mixed in. While alpha-amylase and glucoamylase are added directly to the slurry, pricey glucose-isomerase is packed into columns and the sugar mixture is then passed over it. Inexpensive alpha-amylase and glucoamylase are used only once, glucose-isomerase is reused until it loses most of its activity.

There are two more steps involved. First is a liquid chromatography step that takes the mixture to 90 percent fructose. Finally, this is back-blended with the original mixture to yield a final concentration of about 55 percent fructose--what the industry calls high fructose corn syrup.

HFCS has the exact same sweetness and taste as an equal amount of sucrose from cane or beet sugar but it is obviously much more complicated to make, involving vats of murky fermenting liquid, fungus and chemical tweaking, all of which take place in one of 16 chemical plants located in the Corn Belt. Yet in spite of all the special enzymes required, HFCS is actually cheaper than sugar. It is also very easy to transport--it's just piped into tanker trucks. This translates into lower costs and higher profits for food producers.

The development of the HFCS process came at an opportune time for corn growers. Refinements of the partial hydrogenation process had made it possible to get better shortenings and margarines out of soybeans than corn. HFCS took up the slack as demand for corn oil margarine declined. Lysine, an amino acid, can be produced from the corn residue after the glucose is removed. This is the modus operandi of the food conglomerates--break down commodities into their basic components and then put them back together again as processed food.

Today HFCS is used to sweeten jams, condiments like ketchup, and soft drinks. It is also a favorite ingredient in many so-called health foods. Four companies control 85 percent of the $2.6 billion business--Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Staley Manufacturing Co. and CPC International. In the mid-1990s, ADM was the object of an FBI probe into price fixing of three products--HFCS, citric acid and lysine--and consumers got a glimpse of the murky world of corporate manipulation.

There's a couple of other murky things that consumers should know about HFCS. According to a food technology expert, two of the enzymes used, alpha-amylase and glucose-isomerase, are genetically modified to make them more stable. Enzymes are actually very large proteins and through genetic modification specific amino acids in the enzymes are changed or replaced so the enzyme's "backbone" won't break down or unfold. This allows the industry to get the enzymes to higher temperatures before they become unstable.

Consumers trying to avoid genetically modified foods should avoid HFCS. It is almost certainly made from genetically modified corn and then it is processed with genetically modified enzymes. I've seen some estimates claiming that virtually everything--almost 80 percent--of what we eat today has been genetically modified at some point. Since the use of HFCS is so prevalent in processed foods, those figures may be right.

But there's another reason to avoid HFCS. Consumers may think that because it contains fructose--which they associate with fruit, which is a natural food--that it is healthier than sugar. A team of investigators at the USDA, led by Dr. Meira Field, has discovered that this just ain't so.

Sucrose is composed of glucose and fructose. When sugar is given to rats in high amounts, the rats develop multiple health problems, especially when the rats were deficient in certain nutrients, such as copper. The researchers wanted to know whether it was the fructose or the glucose moiety that was causing the problems. So they repeated their studies with two groups of rats, one given high amounts of glucose and one given high amounts of fructose. The glucose group was unaffected but the fructose group had disastrous results. The male rats did not reach adulthood. They had anemia, high cholesterol and heart hypertrophy--that means that their hearts enlarged until they exploded. They also had delayed testicular development. Dr. Field explains that fructose in combination with copper deficiency in the growing animal interferes with collagen production. (Copper deficiency, by the way, is widespread in America.) In a nutshell, the little bodies of the rats just fell apart. The females were not so affected, but they were unable to produce live young.

"The medical profession thinks fructose is better for diabetics than sugar," says Dr. Field, "but every cell in the body can metabolize glucose. However, all fructose must be metabolized in the liver. The livers of the rats on the high fructose diet looked like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic."

HFCS contains more fructose than sugar and this fructose is more immediately available because it is not bound up in sucrose. Since the effects of fructose are most severe in the growing organism, we need to think carefully about what kind of sweeteners we give to our children. Fruit juices should be strictly avoided--they are very high in fructose--but so should anything with HFCS.

Interestingly, although HFCS is used in many products aimed at children, it is not used in baby formula, even though it would probably save the manufactueres a few pennies for each can. Do the formula makers know something they aren't telling us? Pretty murky!
Open User Options Menu

SanSooMan

Video lecture by Gary is also real good. Dr. Sears' new book "Toxic Fat" is a fine and "scary" read.
Open User Options Menu

SanSooMan

For those really into evolutionary eatting and fitness you may want to take a look at Arthur De Vancy's site.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

SanSooMan wrote:
Video lecture by Gary is also real good. Dr. Sears' new book "Toxic Fat" is a fine and "scary" read.


Thanks,

Sounds interesting!
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

You know, ole Arthur Jones may have HIT the nail on the head when he wanted the minimal amount of exercise necessary to get maximal results.

Maybe David Landau with his once weekly workouts, and Dr. McGuff weekly workouts are right also, in that once weekly exercise minimizes appetite stimulation and workout frequencies. Thus, once weekly workouts may be optimal for fat loss!

Gary Taubes just plain out says exercise makes one hungry, the ONLY thing one can say for a certainty about exercise.

http://nymag.com/...s/sports/38001/
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

Carbs and sugar do not make people fat, inactivity and too many calories do.



Open User Options Menu

McNultyEssex

Thanks Marc. I like the point that carbohydrate restricted diets are criticised for being "fad diets", despite the fact that before the 60s, this was the way people ate. It's only because of mass advertising of the dangers of high fat diets, and messages such as, "you are what you eat", that most people sincerely believe that when you eat fat, it just goes and sits in your arteries.

Reminds me of a great quote that Arthur Jones mentioned in his writings - "if we fail to learn from history, we will be forced to repeat it".
Open User Options Menu

McNultyEssex

I don't agree with Taubes that exercise has no effect on fat loss. Of course, if the point he is making is that attempts to exercise for burning calories is an exercise in futility, then I understand. But to say that all exercise makes us do is feel hungry, and thus causes us to take in more calories seems a circular argument; his major point seems to be that calories in vs. calories out is not the problem.

I've witnessed several people, who I've trained, that have lost significant amounts of fat from hard exercise alone, with no change in diet. My opinion is that the number of calories burnt isn't a factor in the weight loss.

Instead, just as insulin is the primary reason for us getting fat in the first place, my feeling is that the growth hormone released from intense exercise causes metabolism of fatty acids from the fat stores to provide the energy to repair the damaged muscles.

If we can agree that getting overfat is a result of excess fat storage over fat breakdown, losing fat indicates that more fat is being burnt and utilised, than is being pulled in by the adipose tissue. By exercising, we are turning our bodies into "fat burning machines" again.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

The less you workout the more you'll need to eat less and cut calories. Daily cardio certainly helps to keep me lean all year round. My plant-based diet does the rest.

"Hunger" is largely habit. Most of us never experience true dyed-in-the-wool hunger. We eat too frequently for that to ever happen.

We are CRAVING something that tastes good, largely for our entertainment (pun intended ;)

Here's a question for you.. SO WHAT if you feel a little hungry? Is it so bad that you must respond immediately by stuffing a steak down your throat?
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

McNultyEssex wrote:
Thanks Marc. I like the point that carbohydrate restricted diets are criticised for being "fad diets", despite the fact that before the 60s, this was the way people ate. It's only because of mass advertising of the dangers of high fat diets, and messages such as, "you are what you eat", that most people sincerely believe that when you eat fat, it just goes and sits in your arteries.

Reminds me of a great quote that Arthur Jones mentioned in his writings - "if we fail to learn from history, we will be forced to repeat it".


People throughout history have eaten lots of bread. Any kind of diet without exercise is unhealthy.
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

simon-hecubus wrote:
southbeach wrote:
"Gramma" and "grandpa" suffered from lots heart disease, stroke and other chronic disease.

I think i'll take my nutritional cues from good CURRENT science. :)

If you think cherry-picking (pun intended) studies that fit your argument or endorsement, while totally ignoring the ones that don't, is science, then you are sadly mistaken.

Thats what everyone does, you need to do some reading if you think otherwise, anyone with an opinion can not be truly objective.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

southbeach wrote:
IT'S THE TOTAL CALORIES NOT THE CARBS!!


Well said.

I have too side with southbeach here, as the people of older times did not live as long, ok that could be dew to other things, but what they did eat to much of was the wrong kinds of fats, but I would think I eat far more than southbeach, as I need to eat about 23 calories per bodyweight.

I go for too gain bodyweight, muscle and obviously a little fat, higher of the right carbs, good high protein, and good fats.

The Scientist and the Stairmaster
.? In other words, despite half a century of efforts to prove otherwise, scientists still can?t say that exercise will help keep off the pounds. They found that everyone regains weight


I have no time for people like the above, as I said in another thread, some so called Doctors and Scientists are very confused themselves, and like to promote drugs for everything, as they are in with the big pharmaceuticals. Of course they would gain the weight back, are they Doctors, Scientists or comedians, as you have to keep the exersices and diets up.

The Scientist and the Stairmaster
This is not to say that there aren?t excellent reasons to be physically active, as these reports invariably point out. We might just enjoy exercise. We may increase our overall fitness; we may live longer, perhaps by reducing our risk of heart disease or diabetes; we?ll probably feel better about ourselves.


Very true.

The Scientist and the Stairmaster
(Of course, this may be purely a cultural phenomenon.


How in hell can it be a a cultural phenomenon ???

The Scientist and the Stairmaster
It?s hard to imagine that the French, for instance, would improve their self-esteem by spending more time at the gym.)


Why pick on the French, they/some keep fit like any other nation.

The Scientist and the Stairmaster
But there?s no reason to think that we will lose any significant amount of weight, and little reason to think we will prevent ourselves from gaining it.


So why are all the people that keep fit, sportspeople and alike far more muscular and slim ???
However if you can lose weight on a low carb fine, but looking are the digestive tract, it stays far heather when given more carbs and fibers.

And one more think I am sick of is people picking on southbeach for his views on diets, IF you have a disagreement with him, please do not lower yourself to your schoolchildren days and call him silly little names, try to debate him wrong, as ALL people that MOCK are people who KNOW THEY are WRONG are not man enough to state it, so they act like children, Albert Einstein, Steven Hawkins, and many a great men have admitted when wrong, this is the way to learn and go forward. If you can NOT debate your way out of the debate, and start to mock, you HAVE LOST the debate, same as if you can NOT answer questions and observations, you have LOST the debate, and are WRONG.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

I can't believe that anyone who claims to be intelligent actually listens to these out of shape 'experts', their opinion on health & fitness is meaningless. Anyone who says people are fat due to carbs is wrong, I'll say this again in case people are too stupid to understand plain English, people are fat due to inactivity and too many calories, thats it.

Now people can stop trying to find something other than themselves to blame for their fatness.
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

McNultyEssex wrote:
Thanks Marc. I like the point that carbohydrate restricted diets are criticised for being "fad diets", despite the fact that before the 60s, this was the way people ate.


Hi McNultyEssex,
Have you any research on the above ???

McNultyEssex wrote:
It's only because of mass advertising of the dangers of high fat diets, and messages such as, "you are what you eat", that most people sincerely believe that when you eat fat, it just goes and sits in your arteries.


Very true, the good fats are good for us, you burn/use fats and carbs at the same rate of fuel, up until hard exersices, carbs only take over at very very hard exersices.

McNultyEssex wrote:Reminds me of a great quote that Arthur Jones mentioned in his writings - "if we fail to learn from history, we will be forced to repeat it".


Wow great quote.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

simon-hecubus

Texas, USA

simon-hecubus wrote:
If you think cherry-picking (pun intended) studies that fit your argument or endorsement, while totally ignoring the ones that don't, is science, then you are sadly mistaken.


Mr. Strong wrote:
Thats what everyone does, you need to do some reading if you think otherwise, anyone with an opinion can not be truly objective.


Speak for yourself. I have changed my mind on various subjects by objectiely reviewing differing takes, studies, and papers.

If I have an agenda, it's the truth. Lobbyists and low-carb aerobics moonies, however, have agendas that are much more nefarious.

Continued problems with objectivity would suggest one who has too much emotional investment in their opinions. This probably stems from fear and insecurity.
Open User Options Menu

karma50

marcrph,

My personal experience is that "aerobic" activity makes little difference. I am retired and just walk the dogs every day, and do some house and maybe a little yard work. I have the same weight and body composition I had in my 30's when I ran 40+ miles a week. I do a couple of bw/db workouts a week. That's it. My blood parameters (HDL/LDL, etc) are excellent, according to the doc's. I don't eat low fat, low carb, or low/high anything. Just moderate and satisfying portions or real food. My wife and I almost always cook and eat together at home. ( I think this is key) I do cut back on starches and sweets if my weight starts to creep up a bit.

Dr. Stephen Blair of the Cooper Aerobics institute says he has run about 50 miles a week for 30 years and has gotten fatter. My wifes grandparents (I didn't know mine) lived to 88 years, and in good health. They didn't jog, lift, or "diet", and they never got fat. I think most of these arguments about macronutrients and "aerobics" miss the point entirely.

A balanced lifestyle is really the secret. the only reason I do the strength training is because it has helped me maintain my body comp in my sedentary lifestyle very effectively. I lost strength and leanness in my 40's in spite of a very active lifestyle. I agree with you about Dr. McGuff, BTW. His health related articles are great.
Regards,
Griff
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy