p*********l
发帖数: 26270 | 1 转一个英文长帖过来，这层楼我先留着，写点总结
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
关于碳水
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
１ － low carb diet并不能促进新陈代谢
２ － high protein diet更饱腹，蛋白质吃得多的人，总热量就吃得少，容易减肥。
建议每磅lean mass要吃1-1.5克蛋白质。
３ － 人体进入酮代谢以后，头两个星期体重会大跌，但是主要减的是水。
两三周以后，这种新陈代谢的优势就没有了。实验表明，超低碳水饮食在减
肥和减脂上都更明显，但是他认为与其说是低碳水的功劳，不如说是高蛋白质的效果。
数据表明，人在增加蛋白质以后，会自动少吃，维持1600-1800大卡的饮食，比高碳水
的饮食要少1000卡。
４ － 吃高碳水饮食的人，通常会严重低估自己的热量，明明吃了3000卡，以为自
己才吃了1500。
结论：还是总热量最关键，你要是低碳水每天吃大几千卡，那也是瘦不下来的。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
少吃会不会降代谢？
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
１ － 热量吃少了，代谢的确会降，女性尤其敏感
２ － 但是，代谢下降带来的副作用远远低于减少热量带来的正面作用。你少吃50%的
热量，代谢只会下降10%，仍然不会影响减肥。有个实验让人们只吃50%的热量，持续6
个月，这些人一直减肥减到了5%的体脂，虽然代谢下降很明显。
结论：降代谢是存在的，但是效果被夸大了，如果有人号称自己吃得很少还是减不下来
，那多半是低估了热量。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
减肥与增肌
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
结论：两者不能同时进行，要交叉进行。小心计划，减一两磅肥肉而不流失肌肉是可行
的。也有慢慢长瘦肉不长肥肉的办法，但是很复杂。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
关于力量训练时间长短
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
１ － 有人称testosterone会在45分钟后下降，但是没有任何研究支持这个说法。运动
员们每天训练的时间远远超过45分钟。power lifting运动员虽然组间休息长，都是一
口气练2-3小时。
２ － 虽然训练的质量比数量更重要，他不赞同设定一个固定的45分钟或60分钟之类的
标准。他当教练的时候，一般训练时间是60-90分钟。
３ － 可以在训练中间喝点carb或者protein，增加训练强度。
结论：力量训练时间不能超过45分钟是没有根据的。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
怎样减掉最后那点顽固的肥肉
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
１ － 女人的屁股和大腿，男人的肚子，通常都是减肥最后的壁垒
２ － 女人的屁股和大腿大，是因为女人要生娃和哺乳，通常哺乳其间屁股和大腿减得
会快些
３ － 血液循环差是屁股大腿肥大的原因之一。有氧运动对女人更重要，男人可以只做
力量和饮食控制就能瘦下来，女人得做有氧
４ － 另一个原因是那里的脂肪种类导致不易减掉。口服yohimbe是个解决办法，定期
在早晨有氧运动前口服yohimbe和咖啡因有显著效果。
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
关于补剂
－－－－－－－－－－－－－
１ － 首推鱼油。
２ － 其次是维生素。
３ － 蛋白粉不是必须的，但是很方便。
４ － 女人也许需要补钙和铁，如果不吃红肉的话。
５ － 其他的都没用。减肥的人可以吃点 ephedrine/caffeine stack。 | p*********l
发帖数: 26270 | 2 Q. One topic that almost always seems to cause debate and controversy is the
issue of calories. Some claim that there is some kind of 'metabolic
advantage' associated with low-carbohydrate diets?
A. Okay, this is going to be a very long-winded answer since there's a lot
to cover. I want to point out that more detailed discussions of most of this
(everything except the more recent studies) are in my first book The
Ketogenic Diet.
The metabolic advantage of low-carbohydrate diets is an idea that has
cropped up again and again since the late 60's, first popularized by Dr.
Atkins in his best selling book.
The idea then was based on a series of very short (4-9) day studies looking
at weight loss for high- and low-carbohydrate diets at either the same or
different calorie levels. Many found that weight loss was higher in the low-
carbohydrate condition. Some found that even at maintenance calories, weight
was lost.
Aha, a metabolic advantage.
Here's the basic problem: low-carbohydrate diets cause a significant amount
of water weight loss through a variety of mechanisms (including the
relationship of glycogen and water, a reduction in insulin which leads to
greater fluid and electrolyte excretion via the kidneys, and a direct
diuretic effect of ketones).
I'm a fairly little guy and I can drop 5-7 pounds (about 2.5 kilograms) in
about 2 days just from water loss. Bigger folks can drop more. Powerlifters
often drop 10-15 pounds (nearly 7 kilograms) or more by cutting out
carbohydrates the day before a meet.
By the same token, I'll gain that same 5-7 pounds back when I carbohydrate-
load. It's just a shift in water balance. And those shifts tend to
predominate in the short-term.
So when you're just looking at weight loss, the water loss becomes a very
significant issue as it often more than exceeds the reported difference
between the two different diets. When the difference in total weight loss is
only a few kilograms, and you have several kilograms of water being lost,
that hardly makes a good case for a metabolic advantage.
The idea has been recently re-advanced in a couple of papers with two
different mechanisms being thrown out. As well, a lot of people have been
using the results of a series of recent studies that found greater weight
and/or fat loss for low- versus high-carbohydrate diets as evidence for this
. I'll address those as well.
The first is the easiest to deal with so I'll get that out of the way, it
rests on the thermic effect of protein. As your readers probably know,
processing of dietary protein burns more calories than processing of
carbohydrate or fat.
So diets that vary in protein quite often find differences in fat loss (and
muscle mass retention). But here's the thing, now we're not talking about
carbohydrates are we? No, we're talking about protein, comparing high and
low protein intakes.
In addition to the thermic effect, studies also show that protein is the
most filling nutrient; in one study, folks on a higher protein intake
spontaneously ate significantly less and lost fat. Because they ate less. I'
m going to come back to this point.
Now, if you're looking at ad libitum food intake, which means that people
eat as much as they want, typically you do see higher protein intakes on low
-carbohydrate versus high-carbohydrate diets. Which is great and all. But it
's still not a carbohydrate issue directly. And, of course, when I set up a
fat loss diet for someone, after setting calories, the first thing I do is
set protein at adequate amounts: 1-1.5 grams per pound of lean body mass.
Basically, I consider this protein thing
a. a non-sequitur
b. irrelevant to the issue of carbohydrate intake. You can eat 1-1.5 grams
of protein per pound of lean body mass on a carbohydrate-based diet just as
easily as on a low-carbohydrate diet. Quite in fact, you should.
Fine, if you want to argue that high-protein is better than low-protein, I'm
with you. One researcher (Westerterp-Plantenga) has argued that the higher
protein intake, rather than the low-carbohydrate intake itself, is the cause
of the differences in the first place.
But don't pretend that it has anything to do with low- versus high-
carbohydrate. Frankly, that I should have to make such a mickey mouse point
to a couple of PhD's (or their lapdog, Anssi Manninen) is beyond me. But
apparently, they can't understand that differences in protein intake have
zero to do with differences in carbohydrate intake per se.
The next theoretical explanation for a metabolic advantage has to do with
gluconeogenesis. This is just an unwieldy word for the production of new
glucose from other stuff. The other stuff in this situation is amino acids,
glycerol (the fatty acid backbone) and lactate.
And it's true that
a. this process requires energy
b. this process is up regulated on a ketogenic (very low-carbohydrate diet)
Unfortunately, the theorists advancing this idea didn't really quantify the
effect that well in their paper (as I recall) in terms of how many extra
calories per day it should amount to.
As well, it has to be weighed against the loss of thermic effect for
replacing carbohydrate with fat (the effect is mild but contributes). One
study I recall found that the higher-carbohydrate diet (compared to higher
fat but not ketogenic) had about a 100 calories per day advantage (due to
the differences in the thermic effect of carbohydrate versus fat) and you
lose this when you stop eating all carbohydrates, any effect of
gluconeogenesis has to be weighed against that.
Perhaps more importantly, one of the primary adaptations to ketosis (a state
where blood ketone levels go above a certain concentration) is to decrease
gluconeogenesis.
That is, over the first 2-3 weeks of being in ketosis, the body switches to
using ketones for fuel instead of glucose, which decreases the need for
gluconeogenesis. A metabolic advantage that becomes almost insignificant
after 2-3 weeks seems hardly worth pinning the success of a diet on.
On this note, I would like to mention that, empirically (and realize that I'
ve been getting feedback on ketogenic diets for nearly a decade now, man
that makes me feel old), folks do seem to report somewhat more fat loss in
the first 2 weeks on a ketogenic diet than you'd expect based on the deficit
.
Of course, it could just be the extra water loss throwing off the calipers
too. In any event, after those 2 weeks, the effect is gone.
Again, for the typical person, the average overweight individual who may be
dieting for weeks or months (or longer) to achieve their goals, an effect
that disappears after a couple of weeks seems hardly worth pinning the
success of the diet on.
And now we come to the final data point, the recent studies suggesting
greater weight and/or fat loss. There have been at least a half dozen (
perhaps more, I lose count) over the past several years, usually finding
slightly greater weight loss (the average difference is usually on a few
kilograms) and some have noted greater fat loss (using DEXA or other
accurate methods to measure body fat).
Now, I mentioned that the difference in weight loss could probably be
attributed to water loss anyhow. But what about the fat loss?
Well, in the first place, many of them reported protein intake being higher
in the low-carbohydrate group. See my comments above. We're not just talking
about the carbohydrate content of the diet here when 4 different nutrients
(protein, carbohydrate, fat and fiber) may all be changing. Drawing
conclusions about only the carbohydrate content of the diet and ignoring the
rest seems a bit myopic to me.
Beyond that, here's the bigger issue: without exception, all of the studies
done have relied on self-reporting of food intake. And this is not a trivial
issue. We've known for many years now that people on a mixed diet tend to
underestimate their food intake by up to 50%. That is, someone eating a
carbohydrate-based diet who says they are eating 1500 (6300 kilojoules)
calories may really be eating 3000 calories (12,600 kilojoules).
But what about on low-carbohydrate diets?
Well, nobody has really looked to see whether people under- or over-report
their food intake but we have other data. Studies done decades ago often
reported spontaneous food intakes of 1600-1800 calories on low-carbohydrate
diets. A recent study in diabetics found a 1000 calorie per day reduction in
food intake with the shift to a low-carbohydrate diet.
Basically, people on high carbohydrate diets tend to underreport their food
intake (they are eating more than they say) while people on low-carbohydrate
diets tend to spontaneously eat less (for a number of reasons).
So when you have the low-carbohydrate group saying they ate 1600 calories
and the mixed diet group saying they ate 1500 calories, yet the low-
carbohydrate group lost more weight/fat, you tend to question it. The
carbohydrate-based group could be eating 3000 calories, based on previous
studies of underreporting.
Quite in fact, a recent study, by Brehm (who had done an early metabolic
advantage study) directly measured a couple aspects of metabolic rate for
high and low-carbohydrate diets. Finding no difference in anything (if
anything, the high-carbohydrate group was slightly superior, as the thermic
effect of food in response to a meal was higher).
The researchers concluded that the difference in weight/fat loss is probably
due to under-reporting of food intake in the carbohydrate-based group.
Along with this, there are several key studies (which the metabolic
advantage people like to ignore) where calories were rigidly controlled.
In one, a group of patients in a hospital was placed on a variety of
experimental diets for 2 weeks. Protein was kept static and carbohydrate was
varied from 0 to 70% of total calories, while fat varied in the opposite
direction. Activity was controlled since they were bedridden. Calories were
controlled with liquid diets. They found no difference in the number of
calories needed to maintain bodyweight.
And this is really my big issue with the whole idea: if low-carbohydrate
diets generate a metabolic advantage, it should be measurable with current
technology. If it's not measurable, it either doesn't exist is far too small
to worry about. And all of the theoretical calculations for what should
occur don't change that. Especially when we have much more likely mechanisms
for the effect.
The more likely explanation in my mind is that any 'metabolic advantage'
inherent to low-carbohydrate diets come from the fact that they tend to
blunt hunger (and this is especially true in people who are overweight and
hyperinsulinemic, people with insulin resistance) and make people eat less.
And even that isn't guaranteed, people who don't have their hunger blunted,
or who fall into the "I can eat whatever I want as long as it's low carb"
camp and end up overeating calories don't lose weight or fat at all.
The bottom line in my mind: even if low-carbohydrate diets turn out to have
a small metabolic advantage (I remain open to the idea but skeptical based
on the data to date), it still comes down to caloric intake. | p*********l
发帖数: 26270 | 3 Q. Some claim that that your body will go into 'starvation mode' if you eat
too few calories, preventing you from losing weight and that trying to lose
weight by eating fewer calories doesn't work. What do you think?
A. Well there is no doubt that the body slows metabolic rate when you reduce
calories or lose weight/fat. There are at least two mechanisms for this.
One is simply the loss in body mass. A smaller body burns fewer calories at
rest and during activity. There's not much you can do about that except
maybe wear a weighted vest to offset the weight loss, this would help you
burn more calories during activity.
However, there's an additional effect sometimes referred to as the adaptive
component of metabolic rate. Roughly, that means that your metabolic rate
has dropped more than predicted by the change in weight.
So if the change in body mass predicts a drop in metabolic rate of 100
calories and the measured drop is 150 calories, the extra 50 is the adaptive
component. The mechanisms behind the drop are complex involving changes in
leptin, thyroid, insulin and nervous system output (this system is discussed
to some degree in all of my books except my first one).
In general, it's true that metabolic rate tends to drop more with more
excessive caloric deficits (and this is true whether the effect is from
eating less or exercising more); as well, people vary in how hard or fast
their bodies shut down. Women's bodies tend to shut down harder and faster.
But here's the thing: in no study I've ever seen has the drop in metabolic
rate been sufficient to completely offset the caloric deficit. That is, say
that cutting your calories by 50% per day leads to a reduction in the
metabolic rate of 10%. Starvation mode you say. Well, yes. But you still
have a 40% daily deficit.
In one of the all-time classic studies (the Minnesota semi-starvation study)
, men were put on 50% of their maintenance calories for 6 months. It
measured the largest reduction in metabolic rate I've ever seen, something
like 40% below baseline. Yet at no point did the men stop losing fat until
they hit 5% body fat at the end of the study.
Other studies, where people are put on strictly controlled diets have never,
to my knowledge, failed to acknowledge weight or fat loss.
This goes back to the under-reporting intake issue mentioned above. I
suspect that the people who say, "I'm eating 800 calories per day and not
losing weight; it must be a starvation response" are actually eating far
more than that and misreporting or underestimating it. Because no controlled
study that I'm aware of has ever found such an occurrence.
So I think the starvation response (a drop in metabolic rate) is certainly
real but somewhat overblown. At the same time, I have often seen things like
re-feeds or even taking a week off a diet do some interesting things when
people are stalled. One big problem is that, quite often, weekly weight or
fat loss is simply obscured by the error margin in our measurements.
Losing between 0.5 and 1 pound of fat per week won't show up on the scale or
calipers unless someone is very lean, and changes in water weight, etc. can
easily obscure that. Women are far more sensitive to this. Their weight can
swing drastically across a month's span depending on their menstrual cycle.
Thing is this, at the end of the day, to lose weight or fat, you have to
create a caloric deficit, there's no magical way to make it happen without
affecting energy balance. You either have to reduce food intake, increase
activity, or a combination of both.
Since my Rapid Fat Loss Handbook actually uses an extremely large deficit, I
discuss the issue of metabolic slowdown (and what to do about it) fairly
extensively. | p*********l
发帖数: 26270 | 4 Q. Most of the questions I get are from people who want to gain muscle and
lose fat at the same time. Can you explain why it's so difficult to lose fat
and gain muscle simultaneously, if there are any exceptions to the rule,
and what you recommend instead?
A. Well, it's actually quite easy to gain muscle while losing fat if you are
either
a. a fat beginner
b. coming back from a layoff and regaining lost muscle
c. willing to take the right drugs
Unfortunately, if you're not in that group it tends to be very difficult to
do both to any significant degree at once, claims in the muscle magazines
not withstanding. The fundamental issue is that the requirements for optimal
muscle growth (in terms of hormones, nutrient intake, and cellular
metabolism) are diametrically opposed to what's optimal for fat loss.
Simplistically, muscle growth requires a caloric and nutrient surplus and a
cellular metabolism oriented towards tissue building; fat loss requires at
least a caloric deficit, a certain hormonal profile, and a cellular
metabolism oriented towards breakdown. And, outside of one of the three
situations mentioned above, you can't do both.
So the typical suggestion is to either focus on one or the other and
alternate cycles. In general, I think this is good advice. Spend 6-8 weeks
in a slight caloric surplus while training your brains out and gain some
amount of muscle and fat. Now diet for 6-8 weeks and take the fat off while
keeping the muscle. Do this in an alternating fashion over a year or two and
you end up bigger and leaner.
Of course, not everybody is happy with that, and nobody likes gaining fat.
So what's the solution? One of them is my Ultimate Diet 2.0. An update of
the original Ultimate Diet by Dan Duchaine and Michael Zumpano over 20 years
ago, it couples a short (3.5-4 day) diet phase with a short anabolic phase.
By doing a lot of interesting things with diet and training, it allows you
to lose fat during the diet phase and put those calories back into muscle
during the overfeeding phase. I've had people use it to consistently lose 1-
1.5 pounds of fat with zero muscle loss as well as to 'clean bulk,' which
means gaining muscle gradually with almost no fat gain. It's not the easiest
system in the world, mind you, but it does work. | p*********l
发帖数: 26270 | 5 Q. Although you're probably best known in the industry for your diet books,
you also have a massive amount of knowledge and experience in other areas,
particularly strength training. One subject I think readers might be
interested in is the hormonal response to exercise. Many people are told to
keep the length of their workouts down to 45 minutes or less on the basis
that testosterone levels drop and cortisol levels rise after this point. Is
this good advice or not?
A. This is going to be another one of those yes and no types of answers.
On the one hand, the idea that testosterone drops after 45 minutes is one of
those ideas that falls into the "If you repeat something enough times, it
will become accepted dogma."
The idea supposedly came from Bulgarian Olympic lifting coach Ivan Abadjaev
who claimed that androgen levels dropped after 30-40 minutes and who
pioneered the idea of keeping his athletes in the gym all damn day by having
them train for 30 minutes, rest 30 minutes, train again, etc.
As time has passed, it's come out that the main impetus behind his training
schedule had more to do with controlling his athletes, simply exhausting
them every day to keep them from partying and staying up late.
Just keep them in the gym for 12 hours per day by breaking training up into
lots of tiny segments (this probably also allowed them to train intensely at
each session) and they go home and sleep when training is over. Bulgaria,
under new coaching has moved to a much more traditional system of training
with 2-hour workouts as the norm.
As well, what I've seen of American research has never supported the idea of
a drop in testosterone, and you can find plenty of successful athletes who
spend far more time than that in the gym. Powerlifters, who are often taking
very long rests between sets and having to muck with gear are often
training 2-3 hours at a stretch.
This isn't to say that the idea of keeping your workouts high quality is a
bad one. Certainly, I think that most bodybuilders spend too much
unproductive time in the weight room doing too many sets of too many
unnecessary exercises. For the natural athlete, quality should predominate
over quantity for sure.
But I think setting some arbitrary time limit like 45 or 60 minutes is
missing the point. Basically, I think the idea may be useful as sort of a
check to keep people from wasting energy and time doing endless sets of
useless exercises in the gym, but I don't think it's an absolute. When I
train people, I'd say 60-90 minutes is about average. Much more than that
and quality falls off too much.
Certainly, shorter workouts tend to be higher quality. By the end of a 2-
hour workout, you're unlikely to be putting much effort into things. There
is also the issue of crashing blood glucose and a potential increase in
cortisol because of it.
That can readily be ameliorated by sipping a carbohydrate or carbohydrate
plus protein drink during training. That will keep insulin higher and keep
cortisol down during extended training sessions. It may also help to improve
intensity. | p*********l
发帖数: 26270 | 6 Q. Are there any tricks you have for women who want to lose the last bit of
'stubborn' fat? Do they need to do things significantly differently to men?
A. Women's hip and thigh fat has been a perennial problem as it tends to be
the most stubborn of all bodyfat to lose. Men's abdominal fat, although many
men will disagree with me here, is relatively easy: men mainly need to be
more patient and the abdominal fat will come off.
In contrast, hip and thigh fat is very difficult to mobilize and burn off.
This is why you get women with absolutely ripped upper bodies who are still
carrying significant fat in their lower bodies.
The reason is clearly evolutionary, women's hip and thigh fat exists to
support pregnancy and milk production. Quite in fact, during lactation,
women's hip and thigh fat becomes the easiest to mobilize but I haven't
figured out a good way to take advantage of this...yet.
There are a number of reasons for the stubbornness of women's body fat, not
the least of which is poor blood flow. If a woman feels her hip and thigh
fat, she'll tend to notice that it's colder than other parts of her body;
this is due to poor blood flow.
It turns out that aerobic activity can overcome this limitation; women tend
to need more cardio than men to come in ripped (many men can get ripped on
nothing but lifting and calorie restriction). But even regular cardio doesn'
t solve the problem.
Other reasons include the type of fat that is stored there and the fact that
stubborn body fat is more resistant to fat mobilizing stimuli.
Dan Duchaine was probably the first to come up with a solution and that was
oral yohimbe. Falsely touted as a testosterone booster, yohimbe blocks the
receptor on fat cells (called an alpha-adrenoreceptor) that makes fat
mobilization so difficult. Regular use of oral yohimbe with caffeine prior
to morning fasted cardio can have a noticeable effect on women's fat loss.
As I discuss in the Ultimate Diet 2.0, it turns out that low-carbohydrate
diets (20% or less calories from carbohydrate for 3-4 days) tends to
automatically inhibit those same alpha-adrenoreceptors. The third and fourth
day of the UD2 are good for mobilizing and burning off stubborn body fat. | p*********l
发帖数: 26270 | 7 Q. What about supplements? Which ones do you think are the 'essentials' that
most people should be using?
A. The single most essential supplement in my book would have to be
preformed fish oils (EPA/DHA, the two key long-chain omega-3 fatty acids).
It's not an over-exaggeration to say that they do everything and are almost
totally insufficient in our modern diet. Six 1-gram capsules per day (and I
prefer this to flax oil) should be mandatory. Honestly, this should be
considered a food anyhow.
After that, I'd probably say a good basic multi-vitamin/mineral. Doesn't
even have to be an expensive one, I use the supermarket generic and just
take two per day, one morning and evening with food.
I don't consider protein powder essential but it can be convenient when used
around workouts.
Beyond that, I don't think there is much that is essential. Women should
probably worry about calcium and iron status, especially if they don't eat
dairy or red meat respectively. Most of the sports supplements are bogus in
my opinion and you can get big or lean without any of them.
For dieting, although not essential, the ephedrine/caffeine stack is still
probably the single best product out there. Two decades of data, it works,
and it's safe unless you take it like a moron. | p*********l
发帖数: 26270 | 8 Q. For those readers who don't know much about you, please give them a bit
of background information about who you are and what you do.
A. I got interested in this field back in high school, a former fat kid I
had mandatory sports in school and as I started to get into shape, my
obsessive compulsiveness took over. I got into cycling one summer and did a
few triathlons, got involved in martial arts and eventually gymnastics (via
cheerleading).
This led me to UCLA to pursue a degree in kinesiology (exercise physiology)
where I got even more embroiled in the research and science of human
performance. Basically, I was a mediocre athlete who wanted to figure out
how to get better.
At that time, I was involved in cycling and got into inline skating. I
started racing, did moderately well (despite being horridly overtrained in
hindsight) until I burned myself out, and 'retired'. I futilely tried my
hand at some strength sports, although I had always been in the weight room,
finding that it improved my skating performance.
Around 1996, Dan Duchaine's seminal book "Bodyopus" came out, it quite
literally changed my life. It got me interested in low-carbohydrate dieting
and led to the publication of my first book. Several more followed after a
rather long break.
The second was an odd little drug booklet (although it dealt mostly with
bodyweight regulation), then came the Ultimate Diet 2.0 which was an update
on the original from over 20 years ago. Last year I released two books, the
Rapid Fat Loss Handbook and a Guide to Flexible Dieting.
Over the years, I've worked with folks ranging from total beginners to a
couple of female powerlifters, prepped a few bodybuilders for natural shows
and trained the occasional endurance athlete in the weight room. Right now I
'm in Salt Lake City following my own athletic quest, training full time for
ice speed skating (I came out of retirement a couple of years ago) with my
coach Rex Albertson.
Basically, I'm an obsessed physiology nerd who is fascinated with all
aspects of human performance. This includes training, nutrition (I seem to
be most well known for diet stuff but exercise physiology was actually my
first passion), supplements and, to a much lesser degree, drugs.
Fat loss and bodyweight regulation fascinates me because I still see the fat
kid in the mirror, sports performance fascinates me because I've always
been a middle of the road athlete looking for solutions. And the rest of it
fascinates me because I'm just a great big obsessed nerd that way. | p*********l
发帖数: 26270 | | c********e
发帖数: 1339 | | | | s*******t
发帖数: 7746 | | p*********l
发帖数: 26270 | 12 感激啊。。。辛苦看了，转了，翻译了，看的居然没几个人。多好的知识贴！ | w***n
发帖数: 9040 | | Y*******o
发帖数: 3323 | 14 我在看呢，苏苏的贴子当然要第一时间看，呵呵
【在 p*********l 的大作中提到】
: 感激啊。。。辛苦看了，转了，翻译了，看的居然没几个人。多好的知识贴！
| p*********8
发帖数: 501 | | p*********l
发帖数: 26270 | | p*********8
发帖数: 501 | 17 光看总结了，辛苦辛苦！！
【在 p*********l 的大作中提到】
: 谢谢大家观赏和顶帖，总算没白忙活 :)
| p*********l
发帖数: 26270 | | L*********h
发帖数: 2617 | 19 问题是这年头网上专家的话可靠性成问题，scientific的东东总是两面都能说，不知道
该信谁的
anoia,gilda的研究又深又广，兼听则明，可惜他们都不来发表意见了 | j******l
发帖数: 459 | | | | p*********l
发帖数: 26270 | 21 嘻嘻，这个人好象还真是个牛人，后面英文部分最后一帖有他的介绍
Gilda在华人已经评价了：
其他的都很同意，只是highlight的那一条，几乎每句话都是错的。。。。
３ － 人体进入酮代谢以后（atkins），头两个星期体重会大跌，但是主要减的是水。
两三周以后，这种新陈代谢的优势就没有了。实验表明，超低碳水饮食（Atkins）在减
肥和减脂上都更明显，但是他认为与其说是低碳水的功劳，不如说是高蛋白质的效果。
数据表明，人在增加蛋白质以后，会自动少吃，维持1600-1800大卡的饮食，比高碳水
的饮食要少1000卡。
http://www.huaren.us/dispbbs.asp?boardid=341&id=1352885&page=1&
【在 L*********h 的大作中提到】
: 问题是这年头网上专家的话可靠性成问题，scientific的东东总是两面都能说，不知道
: 该信谁的
: anoia,gilda的研究又深又广，兼听则明，可惜他们都不来发表意见了
| p*********l
发帖数: 26270 | 22 Gilda:
这个人优点是很勤奋，很认真。比如提到ｔｈｅｒｍａｌ ｅｆｆｅｃｔ，很跟ｌｉｔ
ｅｒａｔｕｒｅ的前沿走。不吃ketogenic的食谱下，吃高蛋白也是对的。
缺点是完全不懂基础生化说脂肪的backbone是甘油，产生glucogenesis。。。。这方面
亮点太多就不一一找了。--反正对网友也没有太大意义。
Bottomline是，low-carb，不只是ketogenic一种（还有地中海等等），ketogenic也不
只是atkins一种。Atkins主要贡献是低碳水。不是高蛋白。
实际上atkins本人说，不让太高蛋白，以免肾脏负担重。
既Ketogenic又高蛋白，是Dukan了.我个人很不喜欢Dukan了--因为它比atkins其实危险
多了，但是总是搞一些“政治手腕”，大众吃这一套。。。
Atkins本人是很可怜的人。在于他是懂生理科学，但是不懂政治的人。所以才在生前死
后，被很多人或好心，或恶意的批评。其实很多是误解
我以前系统review写atkins是怎么死的，就说过这件事。
http://www.huaren.us/dispbbs.asp?boardid=341&id=1352885&page=1&
------------------------
他说的有些地方前半句是对的：（1）比如atkins的advantage最后会没有--这个无可否
认，确实是。不论高碳水，低碳水，坚持6个月至一年，最后效果都差不多。但是
atkins的advantage是差不多能hold住6个月的，不像说的2-3个星期就没有了
(2)减重一开始会大量减水--这也对。但是没有一种减重方法，开始时不减水的。而且
减水量都很大。
所以才要hold住，不论采取哪种办法，hold住半年以上，才是王道
http://www.huaren.us/dispbbs.asp?boardid=341&id=1352885&page=1& | x*r
发帖数: 213 | 23 请问lean mass 如何计算？
【在 p*********l 的大作中提到】
: 转一个英文长帖过来，这层楼我先留着，写点总结
: －－－－－－－－－－－－－
: 关于碳水
: －－－－－－－－－－－－－
: １ － low carb diet并不能促进新陈代谢
: ２ － high protein diet更饱腹，蛋白质吃得多的人，总热量就吃得少，容易减肥。
: 建议每磅lean mass要吃1-1.5克蛋白质。
: ３ － 人体进入酮代谢以后，头两个星期体重会大跌，但是主要减的是水。
: 两三周以后，这种新陈代谢的优势就没有了。实验表明，超低碳水饮食在减
: 肥和减脂上都更明显，但是他认为与其说是低碳水的功劳，不如说是高蛋白质的效果。
| p*********l
发帖数: 26270 | 24 你得先测一个body fat percentage (bf%)
fat = weight * bf%
lean = weight * (1 - bf%)
【在 x*r 的大作中提到】
: 请问lean mass 如何计算？
| w******a
发帖数: 2057 | 25 使劲儿跳起来顶一个！苏苏，这可是个花功夫的活儿，赞劳模一般的无私奉献任劳任怨
为人民服务的精神，这才是leadership啊
【在 p*********l 的大作中提到】
: 转一个英文长帖过来，这层楼我先留着，写点总结
: －－－－－－－－－－－－－
: 关于碳水
: －－－－－－－－－－－－－
: １ － low carb diet并不能促进新陈代谢
: ２ － high protein diet更饱腹，蛋白质吃得多的人，总热量就吃得少，容易减肥。
: 建议每磅lean mass要吃1-1.5克蛋白质。
: ３ － 人体进入酮代谢以后，头两个星期体重会大跌，但是主要减的是水。
: 两三周以后，这种新陈代谢的优势就没有了。实验表明，超低碳水饮食在减
: 肥和减脂上都更明显，但是他认为与其说是低碳水的功劳，不如说是高蛋白质的效果。
| p*********l
发帖数: 26270 | 26 leader是不干活的，我是当奴才的命 :p
【在 w******a 的大作中提到】
: 使劲儿跳起来顶一个！苏苏，这可是个花功夫的活儿，赞劳模一般的无私奉献任劳任怨
: 为人民服务的精神，这才是leadership啊
| x*r
发帖数: 213 | 27 谢了
不过我没测过bodyfat
【在 p*********l 的大作中提到】
: 你得先测一个body fat percentage (bf%)
: fat = weight * bf%
: lean = weight * (1 - bf%)
| w***n
发帖数: 9040 | 28 占体重大部分的水被无视了。。。
【在 p*********l 的大作中提到】
: 你得先测一个body fat percentage (bf%)
: fat = weight * bf%
: lean = weight * (1 - bf%)
| p*********l
发帖数: 26270 | 29 没办法啦，又没有测水的指标，再说肌肉肥肉里面都有水嘛！难道你的肌肉长得跟牛肉
干一样？
【在 w***n 的大作中提到】
: 占体重大部分的水被无视了。。。
| L*********h
发帖数: 2617 | 30 hehe 显然最引人注目的就是这一段了
要是atkins达人anoia来发表一下意见就好了
也不知道他现在还戒carb不
【在 p*********l 的大作中提到】
: 嘻嘻，这个人好象还真是个牛人，后面英文部分最后一帖有他的介绍
: Gilda在华人已经评价了：
: 其他的都很同意，只是highlight的那一条，几乎每句话都是错的。。。。
: ３ － 人体进入酮代谢以后（atkins），头两个星期体重会大跌，但是主要减的是水。
: 两三周以后，这种新陈代谢的优势就没有了。实验表明，超低碳水饮食（Atkins）在减
: 肥和减脂上都更明显，但是他认为与其说是低碳水的功劳，不如说是高蛋白质的效果。
: 数据表明，人在增加蛋白质以后，会自动少吃，维持1600-1800大卡的饮食，比高碳水
: 的饮食要少1000卡。
: http://www.huaren.us/dispbbs.asp?boardid=341&id=1352885&page=1&
| | | d*********n
发帖数: 2477 | | P**********r
发帖数: 77 | | m*********e
发帖数: 378 | 33 啥都不干的哪有人搭理，像我老板自己休假让员工加班的早都被边缘化了，还是苏苏这
样的有leader的赶脚
【在 p*********l 的大作中提到】
: leader是不干活的，我是当奴才的命 :p
|
|
