Comments on: All Diets Work: Qualification

By: Terry

Terry — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:14:58 +0000

I apologize, I guess my cut and paste didn’t come through – I was referring to this statement:

proper resistance training (which sends a ’signal’ to maintain muscle)

I guess I don’t know enough about resistance training in general, to understand the difference between what would be considered proper vs. improper.

Trying to learn more about that…and searching around. thanks

By: lylemcd

lylemcd — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:23:48 +0000

What statement, you didn’t quote anything?

There are tons of idiotic ways to train out there. They don’t work becuause the principles are wrong. Either they don’t apply proper overload, or no overload at all (e.g. a lot of bodybuilding programs tell you that you don’t have to increase weight, just focus on feel). Etc.

By: Terry

Terry — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:05:02 +0000

Could you explain this statement a little further. ?..

For example, what would be improper resistance training?

Thanks much

By: Bodybuilding.com - My Body Blog - Cut Progress: So Far So Good

Bodybuilding.com - My Body Blog - Cut Progress: So Far So Good — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:48:29 +0000

[...] or low glycemic carbs). Again, seems obvious, but was what I needed to hear. One final tip from Lyle McDonald, who has a great website was that any caloric restricted diet should help you cut, provided you are [...]

By: Phaedrus

Phaedrus — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:02:12 +0000

Looking forward to the next post on this topic. it’s so hard to get people to realize that, for the average “overweight” person, any diet that had adequate protein and results in a caloric deficit will induce weight loss. it’s thermodynamics people. sure there is some degree of “biochemical individuality” and it’s obvious to any trainer who has even a modicum of real word experience that people fare better on certain (calorically equivalent) ratios of macronutrients. However, to be fair, I’ve often found that when someone says “I can’t do carbs” because they think that higher protein intakes are better for them for fat loss, that when i collect their journals, they are consuming way more total calories on their “high carb” “diets” then on their high protein diets, which accounts for the discrepancy. Other times, the difference is water weight, glycogen, etc. But sometimes, even in significantly overweight individuals who truly eat a fixed caloric intake (what an amazing notion, right?) that some do lose fat faster on higher protein intakes but this is by no means standard. While higher protein intakes at equivalent calories are usually more satiating for people who are eating significantly below maintenance, I’ve found that some of my clients enjoy their diets (which means greater compliance) when they can eat pasta, rice, etc. but for the clients that need to create a huge caloric deficit to get the weight moving, you’re more or less forced to eat “high protein” because you have to cover protein requirements first, especially at significant caloric deficits for a variety of reasons and the only calories left need to come from essential fats.
But anyway tangent aside, it seems that the magic formula for the average client looking to lose weight, is to determine caloric deficit, set protein and EFA requirements and find a diet that meets these requirements, with the rest of the “allowed” calories coming from what ever foods that will allow them to stick to this set caloric intake. This will work most of the time and will allow the client to stay compliant on the diet so long as you firmly stress protein and total calorie requirements. I had one client that, I shit you not, did better when she could have 1/2 cup of ice cream and pretzels after her lunch. We worked in the calories into her diet and she was way more compliant than when she had to eliminate all junk food.
Yes, this was officially a “tangent”, sorry Lyle!