>JUSTIN:
>I don't think there's any reason to exclude lots of vegies in a fat >loss
>program.  They provide satiety, they're low in carbs and >calories, and
>they're pakced with vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, >phytochemicals,
>bioflavinoids, blah blah....  The best way to lose fat >is low calories
>(primarily from reduced carbs and fat), adequate >protein intake, a little
>weight training, drink enough water to stay >hydrated, and maybe throw in a
>little cardio to prevent thyroid down->regulation.

>PHILIP:
>It worked the opposite for me: *low* veggie/fruit mass vs. meat mass.
>Best way to lose fat: *high* meat calories with enough fat for workout
>(pump) energy, heavy weights, walking for aerobics.


We're in agreement in keeping fruit out of a dieting phase - my post didn't
even mention fruit at all.  When you say that "low vegie mass vs meat mass"
is the best way to lose bodyfat, we are not in disagreement.  What we're
both talking about is the insulin to glucagon ratio.  My version of low fat,
low carbs, high protein provides high glucagon and low insulin.  Your
version of high fat, low carbs, high protein also provides high glucagon and
low insulin.

Where we DISagree is this:
Fat will provide you energy for a workout, but so will carbs for that
matter.  There are no top bodybuilders (referring to both the lifetime
naturals and pros) who use ketogenic diets year round.  Insulin is
considered to be very anabolic (just like testosterone and GH)
so carbs are needed when one wants to pack on quality lean muscle mass.  As
far as a "pump", you'll lose your pump faster with a low carb diet b/c your
muscle will be glycogen depleted (unless you're eating a lot of protein, and
then the glycogen stores have been restored through gluconeogenesis).

We also disagree with taking a very high fat approach when dieting.  For
people with fast metabolisms, then is just fine and dandy, but someone with
a slower metabolism isn't going to be able to lose fat eating 3000-5000
calories per day even if their doing carb depletion (unless they are doing
tons of cardio).

And there's no reason to believe that lifting heavy provides for more fat
loss than using high reps.  As far as bodybuilding is concerned, it doesn't
matter whether or not someone does 2-3 failure sets in the 6-8 rep range or
3-4 failures sets in the 10-15 rep range.  The important thing is that
growth is stimulated.  If rep ranges we're important, we wouldn't see such a
huge difference in the upper level of the sport.  Dorian Yates (6 time Mr.
O) used 6-8 reps.  Ronnie Coleman (reigning Mr. O) uses 12-15.  They are
both freeeeeks of nature and their size is credited to genetics and drugs,
not magical rep ranges.  This rep range difference is also seen in the
natural levels of the sport.

As far as aerobics, thyroid down-regulation is a genetically mediated trait.
  Will Brink has noted this in several articles where he discussed studies
that observed the effects of T4 to T3 conversion when dieting.  The thyroid
down-regulates to preserve lean tissue.  Some people have a lot of
down-regulation, other's have almost none.  If someone fits in the former
category, then they'll have to do some cardio to keep the liver converting
T4 (an inactive thyroid hormone) to T3 (an active thyroid hormone).

Justin Hasselman




________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com