3 ms·
As mentioned in the first sentence, I started at 210 and am currently 160 (I'll have to see if I can make that more clear). Thanks, the BF% is a good point; not
by buu700 12y ago
As mentioned in the first sentence, I started at 210 and am currently 160 (I'll have to see if I can make that more clear). Thanks, the BF% is a good point; not sure about starting BF%, but right now it's roughly 14%.
Where do you see anything about insufficient protein? The point of not ingesting excessive protein is avoiding unnecessary gluconeogenesis.
As far as I can tell, I haven't lost any amount of muscle (and might well have a net gain). Either way, that doesn't contradict my point that exercise purely for the sake of weight loss isn't valuable as a first line of attack.
- fasteo 12y agoI just inferred it from your post, as you don´t explicitly say anything about protein. "exercise purely for the sake of weight loss". I agree here, but "weight loss" is very misleading. We should always talk about "fat loss". In this "fat loss" context, exercise - weight lifting - is a must.
- buu700 12y agoWell, the LCHF link in that section header specifically states "high-fat, adequate-protein, low-carbohydrate", but then maybe I should be including TL;DRs of the relevant information from important links like that. Well, I'll change the document to say "fat loss" instead, but my opinion is the same. Even if a small amount of muscle were lost in the process, the strategy works so quickly that I don't think it matters to anyone who isn't already a bodybuilder or otherwise physically active. (A 250-pound/22%-BF sedentary office worker is way less healthy than the same person at 12% BF with slightly less muscle.) Edit: So far, this is the diff of what I've gotten from your feedback -- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mM9Mt2HSz82prkmIZSrO9VLYKb5gPTf6qTotrpTbZc8/pub https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mM9Mt2HSz82prkmIZSrO9VLY.... Thanks!