A weight loss plan that works for average cyclists?



Blair P. Houghton wrote:
|| Roger Zoul <[email protected]> wrote:
||| Preston Crawford wrote:
|||||| Nothing is a "big problem" except total calories in minus total
|||||| calories out being a positive number.
|||||
||||| I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps that's my problem and perhaps
||||| keeping track is the answer. In the end, though, I wonder about
||||| *what* I'm eating as well.
|||
||| I've lost 125 lbs on LC and I count and track calories as well as
||| carbs. It works.
||
|| You've accelerated your rate of muscle loss by restricting your
|| carbs.

That's funny. I have more muscle now than before.

||
|| Depending on how hypertrophic you were in places you didn't
|| want to remain hypertrophic (and why would a bikie ever want
|| big legs?) that may or may not be a bad thing.

I have lots of muscle in my legs.
 
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
|| Preston Crawford <[email protected]> wrote:
||| On 2004-12-28, Blair P Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
|||| Hard to do on veggies. Takes a *lot* of calories to maintain
|||| 250 lbs of bulk. I know. I used to eat in a meal what I now
|||| eat in a day, and I'm eating pretty hearty now.
|||
||| Oh, I definitely didn't eat all veggies. There's a little salad
||| dressing here. Or cheese there, etc. So by vegetarian I don't mean
||| vegan, nor do I mean that my diet didn't contain only veggies. When
||| I lost it and afterwords it was mostly veggies, fruits, and a
||| decent helping of carbs every day. I've tried to shift some of
||| those carbs to meat, but with no success so far.
||
|| Some carbs have a lot of protein.

Some carbs have a lot of protein? Are you kidding, Blair?

Some meats have way more
|| fat than you think and some (many modern hams, for instance)
|| have way less. But most can be assume pretty fatty if
|| you don't see the fat content in numbers.
||
|||| Atkins is nuts. All the research shows that it just bores people
|||| into eating fewer calories.
|||
||| In the interest of not pooring gasoline on flamewars I wanted to
||| avoid, I won't comment on that except to say that I think there are
||| definite benefits to avoiding certain carbs. So I believe there is
||| some truth to what the low-carbers are pushing. But the science on
||| it right now is so confused as to be hard to figure out.
||
|| The hype is hard to figure out. The science is biology
|| and Atkins wasn't the only doctor who knew about persistent
|| ketosis, he's just the only one who thought it was part
|| of a "diet". The rest consider it a disease. I'm on their
|| side. Drastic measures aren't necessary.

Ketosis is not a disease. You're very much ignorant of the matter.

||
|||| Nothing is a "big problem" except total calories in minus total
|||| calories out being a positive number.
|||
||| I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps that's my problem and perhaps
||| keeping track is the answer. In the end, though, I wonder about
||| *what* I'm eating as well.
||
|| Get Tom Venuto's book. www.burnthefat.com. It will tell
|| you everything I'm telling you, and it won't forget the
|| things I'm forgetting.

A hyped up website for sure. people don't need this book to lose weight.

||
|||| It has, but if you were still significantly fat at 238,
|||| you weren't close to having a problem metabolism.
|||
||| I wasn't really fat at 238, actually. By the BMI charts, yes. But
||| unless there are hidden stores of fat between my thigh muscles, I'm
||| extremely muscular in my lower body and thus I don't really see (at
||| that weight) where I could have lost more weight.
|||
|||| I don't know where that is for you, but even if you're a
|||| tall, broad guy, it's probably when you're under 200 lbs.
|||
||| Maybe.
||
|| Could be right near 200 lbs.
||
|| You should get a bodyfat caliper and measure yourself.
||
|| There are cheap ones available online.
||
|| It's an educated guess at the actual value of your bodyfat
|| percentage, but it's a great way to know when your weight
|| loss is coming from fat rather than muscle.
||
|| And it gives you one more trackable item to take solace in
|| when the scale says you didn't lose any. If the caliper
|| says you've got fewer millimeters of fat in any one of the
|| tested locations, you know you're still progressing and the
|| scale is just reading the last glass of water you had.
||
|||| Define "eating right". Do you know exactly how many calories
|||| you're eating now? Do you know how many you will eat tomorrow?
|||
||| No clue. I just try to eat the right things.
||
|| Lots of things I used to think were the right things
|| turned out to be hard to fit into a weight-loss diet.
||
|| Avocados have a ton of fat, "good" fat or not. Olive oil
|| is very "good" fat, but has the same problem: It's still
|| a lot of fat. Lean roast beef has three times the fat
|| of turkey. Roast chicken breast with the skin vs. without
|| the skin. Fruit juice has several times more sugar than
|| the same weight of the fruit it came from. Cheese has as
|| many grams of fat as protein.
||
|| They can be fit in, especially in small and carefully used
|| quantities. But they're not in the base set of things that
|| fit.
||

That makes little since. Do you plan to have a glass of olive oil with your
dinner?

It's very easy to lose weight eating high fat items you listed above. You
simply don't eat huge amounts of them.




|||| If you knew how many you were eating on average over the last two
|||| weeks, and that your weight was stable at that rate, and that your
|||| exercise is consistent (even if it's zero) and not merely
|||| occasional, could you then be disciplined and reduce your calories
|||| by 300-800
|||| per day? Or reduce your calories and increase your exercise to
|||| total
|||| a 300-800 calorie difference per day?
||||
|||| Because if you can do that, you'll lose 0.5 to 1.5 pounds a week.
||||
|||| Period.
|||
||| Thanks for the advice. I snipped because there was nothing more to
||| say. I'll look into what you suggested. Thanks.
||
|| Yer welcome.
||
|| --Blair
|| "It'll work."
 
"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>|| Preston Crawford <[email protected]> wrote:


<snip discussion of different diets, and discussion of whether what
you eat affects weight loss in any way other than by its caloric
content>

For me, the most important factor in food choice for weight loss is
the ratio of satiety per calorie. Foods that are high in protein
and/or fiber satiate a lot per calorie; foods that are high in
refined carbohydrates satiate less per calorie. Fats seem to satiate
differently depending upon whether they are eaten in the context of
protein and fiber, or with refined carbohydrates.

If I eat a 1000 calorie meal of steak, baked potato, and broccoli, I
am full for many hours. If I eat 1000 calories of pizza, pasta,
bread, white rice-based dishes, or other combinations of refined
carbohydrates and fats, I feel as though I have hardly eaten
anything.

This is why *what* you eat is important beyond its caloric content:
what you eat now determines how hungry you will be later. The
biological drive to eat to is so powerful that it is a sucker's game
to think that this drive can be suppressed or controlled once it
arises. The key is to eat now in a way that naturally leads to less
hunger later. For me, this means high protein, high fiber meals with
moderate amounts of carbohydrates--preferably unrefined--and whatever
fat "goes along for the ride".

--
Mike Nitabach
 
On 2004-12-29, Michael Nitabach <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is why *what* you eat is important beyond its caloric content:
> what you eat now determines how hungry you will be later. The
> biological drive to eat to is so powerful that it is a sucker's game
> to think that this drive can be suppressed or controlled once it
> arises. The key is to eat now in a way that naturally leads to less
> hunger later. For me, this means high protein, high fiber meals with
> moderate amounts of carbohydrates--preferably unrefined--and whatever
> fat "goes along for the ride".


Thank you. I tried to make this argument earlier (based partly on science
and partly on personal experience and it wasn't well received). Once
again, I return to the idea that 3000 calories of Pixie Stix are just as
healthy as a 3000 calorie potato. Now, I wouldn't know for sure, but
science and intuition tell me that the Pixie Stix are going to get turned
into fat quicker and are going to raise my blood sugar quicker, thus I'll
be craving another *fix* quicker.

Once again, I stand on personal experience. When I changed to sprouted
wheats and ditched the soda, etc. my energy levels increased and my desire
to snack decreased. The most dramatic example I can give is that when I
started eating better at 400+lbs. I started eating breakfast. "Most
important meal" and all that Jazz. I started with what I considered
healthy, Raisin Bran. Every morning at work I would be dead tired and
craving more to eat by 10 am. I did some research on the glycemic index
and picked a serial lower on the index, Special K. Almost overnight, the
switch to that cereal yielded immediate results. I didn't have the spike
in energy followed by the dip. I wasn't tired all day. That change alone
made a huge difference in terms of my energy level and thus what I felt I
had to eat later in the day to sustain my energy level.

So I really don't believe it's as simple as pure calories. I think what
you eat does matter.

Preston
 
Preston Crawford wrote:
> On 2004-12-29, Michael Nitabach <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This is why *what* you eat is important beyond its caloric content:


> > what you eat now determines how hungry you will be later. The
> > biological drive to eat to is so powerful that it is a sucker's

game
> > to think that this drive can be suppressed or controlled once it
> > arises. The key is to eat now in a way that naturally leads to less


> > hunger later. For me, this means high protein, high fiber meals

with
> > moderate amounts of carbohydrates--preferably unrefined--and

whatever
> > fat "goes along for the ride".

>
> Thank you. I tried to make this argument earlier (based partly on

science
> and partly on personal experience and it wasn't well received). Once
> again, I return to the idea that 3000 calories of Pixie Stix are just

as
> healthy as a 3000 calorie potato. Now, I wouldn't know for sure, but
> science and intuition tell me that the Pixie Stix are going to get

turned
> into fat quicker and are going to raise my blood sugar quicker, thus

I'll
> be craving another *fix* quicker.
>
> Once again, I stand on personal experience. When I changed to

sprouted
> wheats and ditched the soda, etc. my energy levels increased and my

desire
> to snack decreased. The most dramatic example I can give is that when

I
> started eating better at 400+lbs. I started eating breakfast. "Most
> important meal" and all that Jazz. I started with what I considered
> healthy, Raisin Bran. Every morning at work I would be dead tired and


> craving more to eat by 10 am. I did some research on the glycemic

index
> and picked a serial lower on the index, Special K. Almost overnight,

the
> switch to that cereal yielded immediate results. I didn't have the

spike
> in energy followed by the dip. I wasn't tired all day. That change

alone
> made a huge difference in terms of my energy level and thus what I

felt I
> had to eat later in the day to sustain my energy level.
>
> So I really don't believe it's as simple as pure calories. I think

what
> you eat does matter.
>
> Preston



Lets separate out several different issues. They are all important but
they are still different.Combining them makes seeing solutions
increasingly complex.And leads to arguments when they may not really
exist at a more fundamental level.
1) weight loss or gain is simply related to the amount of
calories-regardless of source- that you take in relative to what you
burn. that's it!!

2)It is probably possible (as several folks have suggested) to help
limit ones caloric intake with more comfort (less feeling of hunger) by
selecting foods that accomplish this. I have no argument that certain
foods are better at this than others. But this is a psychological
comfort variable and does not change the algebra of 1)

3) It is of course a good idea to have a balanced diet that provides
the broad range on needed nutrients. No argument that this is important
for health. But it does not change the basic algebra of 1)

So, my conclusion is that if you want to lose weight you have to pay
attention to 1) and limit intake so that you have a caloric deficit.
Without this weight loss is impossible.
And, to make this regimen easier one should choose foods that seem to
alleviate feelings of hunger and one should certainly choose foods that
provide needed nutrients.

The fact is that you can lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies if the
calories in < the calories burned. I don't think it a good idea and it
isn't going to be healthy but you can lose weight this way.
 
"Preston Crawford" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Thank you. I tried to make this argument earlier (based partly on science
> and partly on personal experience and it wasn't well received). Once
> again, I return to the idea that 3000 calories of Pixie Stix are just as
> healthy as a 3000 calorie potato. Now, I wouldn't know for sure, but
> science and intuition tell me that the Pixie Stix are going to get turned
> into fat quicker and are going to raise my blood sugar quicker, thus I'll
> be craving another *fix* quicker.


Preston, the Pixie Stix already *are* mostly fat. It's not mysterious.

[snip]

> So I really don't believe it's as simple as pure calories. I think what
> you eat does matter.


What is the antecedent of "it"?

If "it" is the totality of what you eat vs how much you weigh, then yes, it
is that simple. You cannot lose weight if you eat more than you burn.

If "it" is how what you eat affects how you feel, how it affects your health
and nutrition, and how easy or hard it is to control your weight via diet,
then you're not talking about pure diet any more.

Because IMO you are not making this distinction, you appear to be looking
for a solution that will let you lose weight while still taking in more
calories than you burn -- or at least a solution that doesn't require you to
count calories.

Not counting calories can work during the first stages of a major
weight-loss program, where the combination of almost any exercise with
almost any reduction in food intake, as long as it's consistent, will result
in weight loss.

But now the margin is smaller, you're more fit, and it doesn't take as much
to tilt the scale in the other direction. A couple hundred more calories (of
anything, no matter how "healthy") combined with a couple less hours a week
of exercise, can be enough to make you gain weight again.

You have to count calories, whether you do it literally or via
portion-control/logging methods. And you have to eat less if you're still
gaining weight.

It's not mysterious. It's not complicated. There's no secret.

RichC
 
On 2004-12-29, Rich Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> Because IMO you are not making this distinction, you appear to be looking
> for a solution that will let you lose weight while still taking in more
> calories than you burn -- or at least a solution that doesn't require you to
> count calories.


Not at all. I'm looking for a solution that allows me to lose weight,
period. I've been on Weight Watchers. Counted the calories, etc. for
month. Little success. I don't food log, but I have a pretty good idea of
what I eat. So at some point I have to wonder if it's partly what I'm
eating, the balance (protein vs. carbs vs. fats, etc.). That's why I'm
asking. I'm not looking for an "escape" or anything.

> But now the margin is smaller, you're more fit, and it doesn't take as much
> to tilt the scale in the other direction. A couple hundred more calories (of
> anything, no matter how "healthy") combined with a couple less hours a week
> of exercise, can be enough to make you gain weight again.


I understand. And maybe in the end that's the solution. But I haven't
found a plan for counting calories that's easy to fit into my busy
schedule. Like I said, I tried Weight Watchers and didn't have much luck.

Preston
 
"Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Preston, the Pixie Stix already *are* mostly fat. It's not mysterious.


Clearly, you are someone who has never eaten Pixie Stix. My guess is that
Pixie Stix are 100% simple sugar, with a little coloring and flavoring.
Indeed a quick trip to google confirms -- the ingredients list is: dextrose,
citric acid and artificial flavors, colors.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
 
"Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Preston, the Pixie Stix already *are* mostly fat. It's not mysterious.

>
> Clearly, you are someone who has never eaten Pixie Stix. My guess is that
> Pixie Stix are 100% simple sugar, with a little coloring and flavoring.
> Indeed a quick trip to google confirms -- the ingredients list is:
> dextrose,
> citric acid and artificial flavors, colors.


You're right. From the context (comparing them to a cooked potato) I assumed
they were a brand of "potato stix."

When I must eat candy, I confine myself to Atomic Fireballs. Difficult to
eat them too fast.

RichC
 
On 2004-12-29, Rich Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Preston, the Pixie Stix already *are* mostly fat. It's not mysterious.

>>
>> Clearly, you are someone who has never eaten Pixie Stix. My guess is that
>> Pixie Stix are 100% simple sugar, with a little coloring and flavoring.
>> Indeed a quick trip to google confirms -- the ingredients list is:
>> dextrose,
>> citric acid and artificial flavors, colors.

>
> You're right. From the context (comparing them to a cooked potato) I assumed
> they were a brand of "potato stix."
>
> When I must eat candy, I confine myself to Atomic Fireballs. Difficult to
> eat them too fast.
>
> RichC


That's precisely why I compared them to a potato (and put them in all
caps, so people would know it was a brand name, I figured everyone knew
what they were). Because I assumed comparing a bag of refined sugar
against a potato was an apt way of explaining that while calories are
calories some are digested more quickly and thus worse for you if you're
trying to stay sated and lose weight. Nothing more.

I suppose one could lose weight eating nothing but Pixie Stix, but I don't
think any reputable doctor would tell you that that's all find and dandy.
Otherwise, why don't they give diabetics Pixie Stix (not making a joke
about diabetics here, my dad is one)?

Preston
 
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:21:15 -0600, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in
message <[email protected]>:

>Perhaps I overreacted a bit. I am just so tired of people attributing some
>kind of moral failure to other people for being overweight.


Hey, I know I used to be very touchy about that subject myself ;-)

Actually - ahem - I must confess to a bit of post-festive bloat
syndrome myself. Which I attribute to my having eaten too much and
cycled too little over the last couple of weeks, But all is not lost
- I have a Cunning Plan :)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 15:40:03 -0600, Preston Crawford
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

[snip much agreement]

>All I know is that my high veggie high carb lifestyle has me stuck.


But is that really a problem? You don't look fat to me. Maybe you
need to keep a stable weight for a while and then try again, or maybe
you're genuinely big-boned, to quote another perennial excuse ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:46:08 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

[snip stuff]

(sorry, I'm losing the will to live and have decided to bow out of the
Atkins debate).

>I don't know what Fat Land is. Is that a book?


Yes, "Fat Land : How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World"
by Greg Critser. Very sobering reading.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
|| On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 16:46:08 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
|| <[email protected]> wrote in message
||
||| I don't know what Fat Land is. Is that a book?
||
|| Yes, "Fat Land : How Americans Became the Fattest People in the
|| World" by Greg Critser. Very sobering reading.
||
|| Guy

Thanks. I'll check it out.
 
"Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> Preston, the Pixie Stix already *are* mostly fat. It's not mysterious.

> >
> > Clearly, you are someone who has never eaten Pixie Stix. My guess is

that
> > Pixie Stix are 100% simple sugar, with a little coloring and flavoring.
> > Indeed a quick trip to google confirms -- the ingredients list is:
> > dextrose,
> > citric acid and artificial flavors, colors.

>
> You're right. From the context (comparing them to a cooked potato) I

assumed
> they were a brand of "potato stix."


And so, I think you missed Preston's point -- a potato has nutrition far
beyond a pixie stick. In fact, I have heard that, if it weren't for the
Vitamin C in french fries, most Americans would have scurvy.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
 
"Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> And so, I think you missed Preston's point -- a potato has nutrition far
> beyond a pixie stick. In fact, I have heard that, if it weren't for the
> Vitamin C in french fries, most Americans would have scurvy.


If you say so. But of course a baked potato has nutrition far beyond an
equal weight of potato stix as well. And it wouldn't surprise me if the
Vitamin C in both fries and potato stix is destroyed during processing
anyway. There's little more in a 230 calorie serving of McDonald's fries
that makes them worth eating than there is in a similar load of refined
sugar.

I understand Preston's point, but the reason for choosing the potato over
the candy is because of its nutrient-to-calorie ratio, taken in the context
of one's overall diet. They'll both make you fat if you don't burn the
calories.

RichC
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> writes:

> In fact, I have heard that, if it weren't for the
> Vitamin C in french fries, most Americans would have scurvy.


Cabbage is such an humbly noble crucifer. Cap'n Cook insisted
on sauerkraut included in his crews' diets when the fresh fruits
and veggies ran out. Coleslaw (home-made, from scratch of course)
gives me a tonic boost, especially with a splash of dill pickle
juice poured in. Steamed savoy cabbage along with bangers & mash
is to die for. Red cabbage stewed in blackberry jelly is
Holiday-y. Bok choi, sui choi -- excellent vehicles for black bean
sauce. Weiners & sauerkraut, and a slab of black rye bread on the
side often keeps me alive after a hard day's work.

I luvs cabbage. It's cheap and good. And unlike onions or beans,
I suffer no deleterious after-effects from it; not even from
Brussels sprouts. I like onions, too. They just don't like me
anymore. Cabbage can be benignly nonconfrontational if it's
cooked right.

Spuds are okay, but cabbage is king, in my book. Although
my all-time favourite veggie is beet tops. Beet tops instead
of spinach makes a hum-dinger sukiaki.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca
 
Preston Crawford wrote:

> The body does weird things when you go and
> lose that much weight. And I plateaued so abruptly that it's hard for me
> to know if maybe there isn't some truth that idea, that basically I got
> to a certain weight and my body said "enough" and my metabolism changed.


I just want to throw out a possibility that may or may not be
pertinent to your situation: When you lose weight rapidly, the body
grabs fuel from whatever sources it can find. Some of those sources
are muscle, and the result is a lower lean body mass. This results
in a reduced metabolism, and your daily calorie requirement drops.

Some clinics can do a basal metabolic rate test, which will give you
a daily calorie requirement. It's very quick and simple, you just
breathe into a device that measures O2 consumption.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/
 
Tom Keats <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Atkins is teh ********, and exercise helps control weight
>> by allowing a more satisfying food intake at the same
>> calorie deficit.

>
>I notice folks are talking lots about eating, but
>not much about exercise/activity/doing stuff.


In terms of weight loss, exercise has three effects:

1. It directly burns calories;
2. It increases the metabolism for a short period (up to 24 hours)
3. It increases the body's muscle mass and metabolism for a long period
(until the growth is reversed).

If you start at a maintenance level of intake vs. output,
adding 500 calories of effort (effect 1) per day will
create slightly more calorie deficit than subtracting 500
calories of food per day (because of effects 2 and 3).

Plus, it means you don't have to subtract 500 calories of
food, which goes a long way to making your food-psychology
happier.

--Blair
"Pass the protein."
 
Roger Zoul <[email protected]> wrote:
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>|| Roger Zoul <[email protected]> wrote:
>||| Preston Crawford wrote:
>|||||| Nothing is a "big problem" except total calories in minus total
>|||||| calories out being a positive number.
>|||||
>||||| I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps that's my problem and perhaps
>||||| keeping track is the answer. In the end, though, I wonder about
>||||| *what* I'm eating as well.
>|||
>||| I've lost 125 lbs on LC and I count and track calories as well as
>||| carbs. It works.
>||
>|| You've accelerated your rate of muscle loss by restricting your
>|| carbs.
>
>That's funny. I have more muscle now than before.


You have less muscle than if you'd given your body the
carbs it needs to anabolize muscle properly.

And are you sure it's overall more muscle, or has
your body simply shifted it from one place to another?
It can build one muscle at the expense of another even in
calorie deficits. (It will also build contralateral and
opposing muscles if only one muscle is worked out; e.g.,
if you do only right-bicep curls, your left bicep and right
tricep will get a little bigger...go figure...)

>|| Depending on how hypertrophic you were in places you didn't
>|| want to remain hypertrophic (and why would a bikie ever want
>|| big legs?) that may or may not be a bad thing.
>
>I have lots of muscle in my legs.


I was being sarcastic about that.

--Blair
"Need to type slower."