carb-protein or protein-fat food combination for meals to maintainmuscles and lose fat?

[Scott]

Doug Freese <[email protected]> wrote:
> "cguttman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > I used the word "fasting" as eating 500-1000 calories less a day
> > according to average requirements + exercise.
>
> Why in the world would you want to eat so few calories AND exercise?
> This is like trying to walk the Mohave Desert with a pepple in your
> mouth and no water.

I think you misunderstood his statement. He is eating a 500 - 1000
calorie deficit after taking exercise into account, not 500 - 1000
calories total. This is perfectly reasonable for a loss of 1 to 2 lbs
per week.

--Scott

 

[cguttman]

Scott is right - that is what I meant!
Chris

Scott wrote:
> Doug Freese <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"cguttman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]
>>
>>>I used the word "fasting" as eating 500-1000 calories less a day
>>>according to average requirements + exercise.
>>
>>Why in the world would you want to eat so few calories AND exercise?
>>This is like trying to walk the Mohave Desert with a pepple in your
>>mouth and no water.
>
>
> I think you misunderstood his statement. He is eating a 500 - 1000
> calorie deficit after taking exercise into account, not 500 - 1000
> calories total. This is perfectly reasonable for a loss of 1 to 2 lbs
> per week.
>
> --Scott

 

[Doug Freese]

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> I think you misunderstood his statement. He is eating a 500 - 1000
> calorie deficit after taking exercise into account, not 500 - 1000
> calories total. This is perfectly reasonable for a loss of 1 to 2 lbs
> per week.

Mea culpa. Whew!

-DF

 

[adak]

Hi Doug,

Every person's nitrogen loss, and needed amount to balance that loss
out, is different, however this much is certain:

The muscular atrophy is relative to the amount of negative energy
balance. Diet a little, and (other factors being equal), you'll lose a
little muscle mass. Diet moderately, but continue it for a longer time,
and you'll lose muscle slower, but longer. Diet more severely, and
you'll lose muscle mass, severely.

There is no "magic number" that you can keep your caloric deficit
below, and experience no muscle atrophy.

There are some exceptions, but these occur despite the normal atrophy,
not because of a change of the natural biological laws.

1) Steroid/hormonal assistance.

2) Someone who is "muscularly challenged", and has suddenly devoted
themselves to stenuous strength training, ala "The Biggest Loser".
Their atrophy does occur, but their muscles are underdeveloped to begin
with, and over time, and with DILIGENT strength training, they can
minimize their losses.

People who are already athletes, or people who do not suddenly take up
a large amount of strength training, can NOT avoid muscle atropy while
dieting.

Bodybuilder's (and lots of other elite athletes), have been trying to
do this since forever. Unsuccessfully.

Think of the muscles as a living storage container for energy - like a
battery for an electric car, with one difference - when it get's more
amps in it, it actually grows, and when it loses power, it actually
shrinks.

Now imagine that every day for a month you ran exactly 10 amps out of
this electric car battery, but only charged it back up with 9.5 amps.
Every day, 10 amps out, 9.5 amps get put back in.

At the end of the month, no matter what, that battery has less total
energy than it had before, and it will have "shrunk".

Arnold may not be a world class politician (far from it), but he has
integrity that Gray Davis, and lots of other politicans, can only
dream about. When he says he means to put California back into good
shape, he actually means it. Whether he can get that done or not,
depends on a lot of other politicians, and of course, the agencies and
the voters he has to have supporting him. Without that, he can do
nothing.

adak

 

[adak]

cguttman wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> > Google on nitrogen balance while in negative energy balance, and muscle
> > atrophy from restrictive diets, etc.
>
> ok. My question is now: Can I keep a positive nitrogen balance while in
> negative energy balance?
>
> My approach to keep a positive nitrogen balance would be to make sure
> that I have enough complete proteins in my blood throughout the day.
> That means that I would eat/drink ~10grams of complete protein every 2-3
> hrs. Sounds reasonable?
>
> Chris
>

No, you can't keep a postive nitrogen balance, while in negative energy
balance. The nitrogen is just a "tag" used to get a handle on the
actual energy balance. Your body does not get it's energy from
nitrogen.

Yes, to minimize your atrophy, you should try and keep your insulin
levels within a moderate range, never too high, and never too low, and
keep optimum nutritional building blocks (not just complete protein),
available for the muscles, immediately AFTER your workouts.

Having too much protein is a bad idea - it can seriously stress your
kidney's. I see no reason to keep taking protein that often. Take your
protein (complete protein), along with your essential fatty acids,
etc., right AFTER (and I mean RIGHT after), your workout and shower,
ASAP. Definitely within the hour.

To help your workouts, you may want to add a small complex carb snack
or drink, 30 minutes to an hour before your workout. With your after
workout meal, you'll want to also include some carbs to help increase
your insulin level SLIGHTLY, for a greater cellular transport to take
place.

adak






>
>
> PS: I came across a few articles about nitrogen balance, here is one...
> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson75.htm

 

[cguttman]

Hi Adak,

It seems you are mixing up nitrogen balance and energy balance.

Nitrogen balance pertains to protein metabolism and not energy
metabolism. You seem to say that nitrogen balance pertains to energy
metabolism.

Also, regarding your examples about bodybuilders and top athletes. I
think it is clear that someone whose body has almost no body fat and a
lot of muscles, and wants to lose weight *will* lose muscles - whether
you take nitrogen balance into account or not, they have nothing else to
lose but muslces really, dont they?

Chris


adak wrote:

> cguttman wrote:
>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>
>>>Google on nitrogen balance while in negative energy balance, and muscle
>>>atrophy from restrictive diets, etc.
>>
>>ok. My question is now: Can I keep a positive nitrogen balance while in
>>negative energy balance?
>>
>>My approach to keep a positive nitrogen balance would be to make sure
>>that I have enough complete proteins in my blood throughout the day.
>>That means that I would eat/drink ~10grams of complete protein every 2-3
>>hrs. Sounds reasonable?
>>
>>Chris
>>
>
>
> No, you can't keep a postive nitrogen balance, while in negative energy
> balance. The nitrogen is just a "tag" used to get a handle on the
> actual energy balance. Your body does not get it's energy from
> nitrogen.
>
> Yes, to minimize your atrophy, you should try and keep your insulin
> levels within a moderate range, never too high, and never too low, and
> keep optimum nutritional building blocks (not just complete protein),
> available for the muscles, immediately AFTER your workouts.
>
> Having too much protein is a bad idea - it can seriously stress your
> kidney's. I see no reason to keep taking protein that often. Take your
> protein (complete protein), along with your essential fatty acids,
> etc., right AFTER (and I mean RIGHT after), your workout and shower,
> ASAP. Definitely within the hour.
>
> To help your workouts, you may want to add a small complex carb snack
> or drink, 30 minutes to an hour before your workout. With your after
> workout meal, you'll want to also include some carbs to help increase
> your insulin level SLIGHTLY, for a greater cellular transport to take
> place.
>
> adak
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>PS: I came across a few articles about nitrogen balance, here is one...
>>http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson75.htm
>
>

 

[adak]

Hi again Doug,

Athletic performance labs tend to stress (and athletes need to eat), a
lot of carbs, because they safely supply a large quantity of calories,
in a form that the athletes can stand to eat.

What they say has NOTHING to do with the situation when fat folk are
trying to lose body fat. It's not that the labs don't know about losing
weight, it's just that they don't usually deal with overweight
non-athletes. Their subjects are already quite muscular with little
body fat.

When an average person loses weight, his muscles will decrease in size,
despite anything he / she does to resist it. The muscle will be more
prominent to the eye, because it is no longer covered by so much fat,
it's outline is more distinct, and sometimes even the individual
"heads" of the muscle (like the triceps' three heads), become visible -
but it will actually be a somewhat smaller muscle.

When a person has a positive energy balance, then he can hypertrophy
his/her muscles.

Regardless of the energy balance, however, the muscles can still be
(and should be), trained, including endurance, speed, and strength, for
best athletic performance.

Doug, you don't need to believe me or anyone else. Try it for yourself.
Get a close up of your biceps, before, and then one afterward, from the
very same camera position and lens setting. And compare your strength
before, and your strength afterward.

If you, as an athlete, can keep all your muscle mass, despite the
weight loss, just let the bodybuilding world know - you'll be the
wonder of the 21st century. But don't be surprised if they don't
believe it.

In my case, my muscles are certainly more prominent than they were
before losing 91 lbs., but they are also (clearly), smaller.
With a more "V" shaped torso, my shoulders appear wider (they aren't,
of course), and the overall appearance may be taken as more muscular,
but that's just the appearance, not the fact.

For heaven's sake, don't let a minor thing like muscle atrophy (which
may be both minor and temporary), stop you from losing excess body fat!
That would just be very wrong.

adak

 

[cguttman]

Additionally, regarding your comment on protein intake, I have read
several times now that people need to eat more protein because:

- they do a lot of workout, especially those that do endurance training.
- they want to build muscle.
- they lose weight and want to prevent muscle loss.

RDA of protein is 0.8/per kilo/per day (based on the assumption that
people do not workout a lot, do not want to prevent muscle loss while
losing weight, and do not want to build muscle). People that are in one
or more of the categories that I have outlined above should eat more
protein.

I can provide references, but you will find these infos on the Internet.

Chris

adak wrote:

> cguttman wrote:
>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>
>>>Google on nitrogen balance while in negative energy balance, and muscle
>>>atrophy from restrictive diets, etc.
>>
>>ok. My question is now: Can I keep a positive nitrogen balance while in
>>negative energy balance?
>>
>>My approach to keep a positive nitrogen balance would be to make sure
>>that I have enough complete proteins in my blood throughout the day.
>>That means that I would eat/drink ~10grams of complete protein every 2-3
>>hrs. Sounds reasonable?
>>
>>Chris
>>
>
>
> No, you can't keep a postive nitrogen balance, while in negative energy
> balance. The nitrogen is just a "tag" used to get a handle on the
> actual energy balance. Your body does not get it's energy from
> nitrogen.
>
> Yes, to minimize your atrophy, you should try and keep your insulin
> levels within a moderate range, never too high, and never too low, and
> keep optimum nutritional building blocks (not just complete protein),
> available for the muscles, immediately AFTER your workouts.
>
> Having too much protein is a bad idea - it can seriously stress your
> kidney's. I see no reason to keep taking protein that often. Take your
> protein (complete protein), along with your essential fatty acids,
> etc., right AFTER (and I mean RIGHT after), your workout and shower,
> ASAP. Definitely within the hour.
>
> To help your workouts, you may want to add a small complex carb snack
> or drink, 30 minutes to an hour before your workout. With your after
> workout meal, you'll want to also include some carbs to help increase
> your insulin level SLIGHTLY, for a greater cellular transport to take
> place.
>
> adak
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>PS: I came across a few articles about nitrogen balance, here is one...
>>http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson75.htm
>
>

 

[cguttman]

Adak - when you say hi Doug... do you actually mean hi Chris?

adak wrote:

> Hi again Doug,
>
> Athletic performance labs tend to stress (and athletes need to eat), a
> lot of carbs, because they safely supply a large quantity of calories,
> in a form that the athletes can stand to eat.
>
> What they say has NOTHING to do with the situation when fat folk are
> trying to lose body fat. It's not that the labs don't know about losing
> weight, it's just that they don't usually deal with overweight
> non-athletes. Their subjects are already quite muscular with little
> body fat.
>
> When an average person loses weight, his muscles will decrease in size,
> despite anything he / she does to resist it. The muscle will be more
> prominent to the eye, because it is no longer covered by so much fat,
> it's outline is more distinct, and sometimes even the individual
> "heads" of the muscle (like the triceps' three heads), become visible -
> but it will actually be a somewhat smaller muscle.
>
> When a person has a positive energy balance, then he can hypertrophy
> his/her muscles.
>
> Regardless of the energy balance, however, the muscles can still be
> (and should be), trained, including endurance, speed, and strength, for
> best athletic performance.
>
> Doug, you don't need to believe me or anyone else. Try it for yourself.
> Get a close up of your biceps, before, and then one afterward, from the
> very same camera position and lens setting. And compare your strength
> before, and your strength afterward.
>
> If you, as an athlete, can keep all your muscle mass, despite the
> weight loss, just let the bodybuilding world know - you'll be the
> wonder of the 21st century. But don't be surprised if they don't
> believe it.
>
> In my case, my muscles are certainly more prominent than they were
> before losing 91 lbs., but they are also (clearly), smaller.
> With a more "V" shaped torso, my shoulders appear wider (they aren't,
> of course), and the overall appearance may be taken as more muscular,
> but that's just the appearance, not the fact.
>
> For heaven's sake, don't let a minor thing like muscle atrophy (which
> may be both minor and temporary), stop you from losing excess body fat!
> That would just be very wrong.
>
> adak
>

 

[cguttman]

> When an average person loses weight, his muscles will decrease in size,
> despite anything he / she does to resist it.

Can you send me a scientific article about this, please? There is an
article that shows the opposite of what your claim. Check:

Zuti, W.B. & Golding, L.A. The Physician and Sports Medicine. 4 (1):
49-53, 1976.

A summary is on http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/DietExStudy.html.

Person who were on a diet actually gained a little bit of muscle mass!

>
> Doug, you don't need to believe me or anyone else. Try it for yourself.
> Get a close up of your biceps, before, and then one afterward, from the
> very same camera position and lens setting. And compare your strength
> before, and your strength afterward.

It is not about believing - I always prefer to follow reasonable and
tested hypothesis.

> For heaven's sake, don't let a minor thing like muscle atrophy (which
> may be both minor and temporary), stop you from losing excess body fat!
> That would just be very wrong.

I am discussing this topic, because I want to find an optimal approach
to lose weight while remaining with a lot of muscle.


I am taking this seriously, because a vague answer is no answer for me.

 

[Matthew Venhaus]

cguttman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Thanks.
>
> > Google on nitrogen balance while in negative energy balance, and
muscle
> > atrophy from restrictive diets, etc.
>
> ok. My question is now: Can I keep a positive nitrogen balance while
in
> negative energy balance?
>
With sufficient protein intake, sure. But for hormonal reasons, I
think the more important factor for optimal muscle hypertrophy is a
positive energy balance.

You've also mention doing "heaploads" of exercise. In some cases, less
is more. Perhaps you could be more specific about what you are doing
in terms of exercise?

> My approach to keep a positive nitrogen balance would be to make
sure
> that I have enough complete proteins in my blood throughout the day.
> That means that I would eat/drink ~10grams of complete protein every
2-3
> hrs. Sounds reasonable?
>
Is that waking hours? If you are eating 80g of protein per day (16
walking hours, 10g every 2 hours) it doesn't sound like enough. At an
energy deficit, your body will be using protein as an energy source so
you will need a bit more protein to compensate.

Another factor I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is rest and
recovery.

 

[cguttman]

Comments below...

Matthew Venhaus wrote:

> cguttman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>
>>>Google on nitrogen balance while in negative energy balance, and
>
> muscle
>
>>>atrophy from restrictive diets, etc.
>>
>>ok. My question is now: Can I keep a positive nitrogen balance while
>
> in
>
>>negative energy balance?
>>
>
> With sufficient protein intake, sure. But for hormonal reasons, I
> think the more important factor for optimal muscle hypertrophy is a
> positive energy balance.

Why is positive energy balance more important because of hormonal
reasons? I dont understand.

>
> You've also mention doing "heaploads" of exercise. In some cases, less
> is more. Perhaps you could be more specific about what you are doing
> in terms of exercise?

Typical week:
Mon - Upper body weights, 1 hr in the morning, 1 hr in the evening
Tue - Jogging on beach 1 hr (sometimes afternoon as well)
Wed - Lower body weight, 1 hr in the morning, 1 hr in the evening
Thu - Soccer - 2hrs
Fri - Swimming 2km
Sat - Squash - 2-3hrs
Sun - Rest

>
>
>>My approach to keep a positive nitrogen balance would be to make
>
> sure
>
>>that I have enough complete proteins in my blood throughout the day.
>>That means that I would eat/drink ~10grams of complete protein every
>
> 2-3
>
>>hrs. Sounds reasonable?
>>
>

> Is that waking hours? If you are eating 80g of protein per day (16
> walking hours, 10g every 2 hours) it doesn't sound like enough. At an
> energy deficit, your body will be using protein as an energy source so
> you will need a bit more protein to compensate.
>

Yes, waking hours. And I meant at least 10gr every 2-3 hrs. So,
sometimes I eat 20-40gram of protein, sometimes less. My daily intake is
around 150-170 gram of protein (~2.0/per kilo/per day).

> Another factor I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is rest and
> recovery.

Very important indeed. I sleep enough (even after training sometimes) ,
and I make sure that after weight training for a particular muscle, I
wait at leat 5-7 days before I train this muscle again with weights.

Is this information helpful?

Chris

 

[adak]

Remember, that your body's chemistry lives "in the now", and notions of
"time", etc., are our own idea's.

So, say you're on a well-planned diet, and the lab tests show that
"VOILA!", you have gained muscle mass!!

Muscular growth is subject to the some "cycles". Just because a study
shows "WE GOT MUSCLE HYPERTROPHY WHILE ON A DIET", it doesn't mean said
hypertrophy will remain, etc. It's just a small up-tick in a bear
market of weight and muscle, loss.

You don't need to follow anyone's hypothesis, just lose some
significant weight, while doing everything they did in the study
(within your ability of course), and see how it works out.

You will see that you have also lost muscle mass. But don't believe me,
and let's not argue and debate it endlessly. You try it. I did.
And you can ask anyone who has lost a significant amount of weight.
They may LOOK more muscular, but that's just because their fat is no
longer hiding their muscles nearly as much as before.

I'm not saying "belive", I'm saying "test it", on the one subject that
won't lie to you (hopefully!) - yourself.

The approach, is fairly simple:

1) Exercise. Use all types of exercise: strength, endurance, speed,
skill, cross-training, whatever you can do to regularly stimulate your
muscles, fully.

2) Eat properly, and time it so you have energy for your workouts, and
all the nutritional elements you need to rebuild your muscles, after
the exercise. You don't just want complete proteins, for instance, you
want balanced, complete proteins, and you want them immediately
available after a workout. Your muscles do not have a "storage shed" to
hold nutritional components that are not complete to the needs of the
muscle. Either all the components are there, in the quantity needed, or
the protein it has will not be able to be used.

There are a few exceptions to this general rule, and they can be
important to vegetarians, but don't count on them. If you don't know
why you need more calcium when you increase your protein intake, find
out, or just increase your calcium when you increase your protein
intake.

It takes about 20 different enzymes to make dietary calcium into
calcium for bones. Similar complexities are at work throughout your
body. Everything must be in place at the same time, in the quantities
necessary, for the optimum result.

3) Get Lots of rest/sleep. Avoid caffeine or diuretic drinks, after a
workout. Drink lots of water. Avoid stress AMAP. A restful mind is a
real asset for an optimum physical result.

4) Keep your energy deficit, relatively small and steady. If you're
losing 2 lbs. a week or more, you're also losing more muscle than you
have to. One to one and 1/2 lbs. per week is better than 3 lbs. per
week of weight loss.

When you've reached your optimum weight goal, (and your energy balance
shifts to neutral or slightly positive), THEN is when you can seriously
expect some muscular hypertrophy to be made, if you train right, eat
right, and rest lots.

Regarding muscle hypertrophy, you should know that while everyone can
improve their muscle size and shape, there are genetic limitations for
everyone. A slim East African (Ethiopian runner) type of physique, will
never be most muscular in a physique contest, no matter what he/she
might do.

One step at a time.

adak

 

[adak]

Hi Chris,

In the systemic sense, nitrogen balance is an indicator of energy
balance within the system.

Yes, and more on-topic to this group, energy is lost from the body as a
whole, during dieting. And where do we store energy?

1) Fat (Adipose)
2) Muscles
3) Protein
4) Glucose

But in what order are they used up by the body?

1) Glucose
2) Muscles
3) Protein
4) Fat (Adipose)

When the glucose is lowered too much, we can't completely restore our
muscle size and strength.

And this is true whether we're a bodybuilder, or a dog-walker, or an
olympic athlete.

adak

 

[adak]

People who work out, or involved in more physical workloads, do require
more protein.

But it's a measured amount of protein, not shovel-fulls, which I took
the OP to be referring to ingesting.

I have references on it already, thanks. (Dr. Lemon from Kent), whose
studies are imo, among the most accurate, of any that have been made on
protein needs in athletes under different types of training.

adak

 

[adak]

Ok, I looked at the url study summary.

Sorry, losing 1 or 2 lbs. in a 16 week program, is not what I would
call, a diet.

Perhaps I'm just not that patient, (OK, I'm not, sometimes), but if I
only lost 1 or 2 lbs. in almost 4 months, I'd call that diet a total
failure and start on another kind of diet/exercise, program.

That's a small uptick, and they could not sustain it. Clearly, you lose
less muscle mass while including significant exercise and the right
food and rest, as part of the program. And you will have less muscle
atrophy in subjects who are "muscularly challenged", to begin with.

But you will NOT avoid it, in the longer run.

adak

 

[cguttman]

Adak -

subjects lost 13 lbs fat in 16 weeks - not 1 or 2 lbs of fat! They
*gained* 1 lbs in lean mass, and lost 12 lbs in fat. You misread the figure.

Please take your time when you interprete the diagram - here is the link
again. http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/DietExStudy.html

Chris


adak wrote:
> Ok, I looked at the url study summary.
>
> Sorry, losing 1 or 2 lbs. in a 16 week program, is not what I would
> call, a diet.
>
> Perhaps I'm just not that patient, (OK, I'm not, sometimes), but if I
> only lost 1 or 2 lbs. in almost 4 months, I'd call that diet a total
> failure and start on another kind of diet/exercise, program.
>
> That's a small uptick, and they could not sustain it. Clearly, you lose
> less muscle mass while including significant exercise and the right
> food and rest, as part of the program. And you will have less muscle
> atrophy in subjects who are "muscularly challenged", to begin with.
>
> But you will NOT avoid it, in the longer run.
>
> adak
>

 

[cguttman]

Sorry, typo:

Fat: -13 lbs
Muscle: +1 lbs

Total weight: -12 lbs

Subjects were on a diet while exercising for 16 weeks.

Chris


cguttman wrote:

> Adak -
>
> subjects lost 13 lbs fat in 16 weeks - not 1 or 2 lbs of fat! They
> *gained* 1 lbs in lean mass, and lost 12 lbs in fat. You misread the
> figure.
>
> Please take your time when you interprete the diagram - here is the link
> again. http://www.exrx.net/FatLoss/DietExStudy.html
>
> Chris
>
>
> adak wrote:
>
>> Ok, I looked at the url study summary.
>>
>> Sorry, losing 1 or 2 lbs. in a 16 week program, is not what I would
>> call, a diet.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm just not that patient, (OK, I'm not, sometimes), but if I
>> only lost 1 or 2 lbs. in almost 4 months, I'd call that diet a total
>> failure and start on another kind of diet/exercise, program.
>>
>> That's a small uptick, and they could not sustain it. Clearly, you lose
>> less muscle mass while including significant exercise and the right
>> food and rest, as part of the program. And you will have less muscle
>> atrophy in subjects who are "muscularly challenged", to begin with.
>>
>> But you will NOT avoid it, in the longer run.
>> adak
>>

 

[adak]

Your're right, I mis-read the graph.

I'll stand on my claims, however. You can't keep it up.

Good to see that they can keep up the muscle gain as long as they did,
however. I'll have to check out the methodology involved.


adak

 

[cguttman]

Hi Adak,

that would be interesting - I do not have access to the actual paper,
should you have the chance to read it, maybe you can let me/us know.

Chris

adak wrote:
> Your're right, I mis-read the graph.
>
> I'll stand on my claims, however. You can't keep it up.
>
> Good to see that they can keep up the muscle gain as long as they did,
> however. I'll have to check out the methodology involved.
>
>
> adak
>