Body fat target.
Discussion
Eleven said:
You've not grasped what protocol means in this context. Poliquin, it would appear, has a number of protocols that can be applied to a specific requirement. Saying that someone is on "The Poliquin Protocol" is like saying that someone is on the "food diet". It's meaningless.
I've just given you its meaning: Measurement followed by client specific diet/training. There's a bit more to it than that but that doesn't change the basic procedure.Eleven said:
The approach is not to spot reduce fat, it's to use measurement of fat at prescribed locations to obtain an indication of the cause of fat accumulation.
Come off it, it's attempted spot reduction by another method that's all. Eleven said:
You asked:
Q: What problems, if you don't mind me asking?
A: Trouble shifting accumulated body fat whilst apparently training very hard, eating cleanly and not over eating.
You said: "Lots of good information out there, along with the rubbish".
The problem being that everyone on the Internet is an expert. Everyone thinks they know the answers, and wants to pooh-pooh any theory that is incongruous with their own. Present company excepted obviously.
I think one problem is you are not able to sift through and act upon the good information that's out there. I'm honestly baffled why, after '30 years' of training, you seem unable to recognise good training/dietary practice and adapt it to suit your long term needs. Q: What problems, if you don't mind me asking?
A: Trouble shifting accumulated body fat whilst apparently training very hard, eating cleanly and not over eating.
You said: "Lots of good information out there, along with the rubbish".
The problem being that everyone on the Internet is an expert. Everyone thinks they know the answers, and wants to pooh-pooh any theory that is incongruous with their own. Present company excepted obviously.
Eleven said:
You also said: "If you've been training for as long as you say you have you must have an idea what works?"
Well I have been training for as long as that and as I mention above what used to work for me has ceased to be effective. Hence my quest for a solution. Which also answers I think your question:
"If, as you say, other diets/regimes have worked then why try something unproven based on Poliquin/Biosig?"
I would add that I didn't seek out this chap because he is a Poliquin bod, he was recommended to me by a sports physio whose opinion I trust.
That help?
Thanks.Well I have been training for as long as that and as I mention above what used to work for me has ceased to be effective. Hence my quest for a solution. Which also answers I think your question:
"If, as you say, other diets/regimes have worked then why try something unproven based on Poliquin/Biosig?"
I would add that I didn't seek out this chap because he is a Poliquin bod, he was recommended to me by a sports physio whose opinion I trust.
That help?
Why do you think what used to work for you became ineffective?
goldblum said:
Thanks.
Why do you think what used to work for you became ineffective?
I am not going to address your other points because I have covered them previously and I don't think you will be any more persuaded by my explaining it to you again. Suffice it to say that you've got it round your neck.Why do you think what used to work for you became ineffective?
Why did things I did before cease to be effective? Age in a word. Until about 40 I could achieve my goals with the use of fairly blunt instruments. It doesn't work now. In the 90s I lived on Evian, fags and fresh air. I slept only about 4 nights a week and when I did eat food it usually came out a can or carton. I had very low body fat, looked great. If I did that today I'd look like I'd survived Auschwitz.
Eleven said:
goldblum said:
Thanks.
Why do you think what used to work for you became ineffective?
I am not going to address your other points because I have covered them previously and I don't think you will be any more persuaded by my explaining it to you again. Suffice it to say that you've got it round your neck.Why do you think what used to work for you became ineffective?
Why did things I did before cease to be effective? Age in a word. Until about 40 I could achieve my goals with the use of fairly blunt instruments. It doesn't work now. In the 90s I lived on Evian, fags and fresh air. I slept only about 4 nights a week and when I did eat food it usually came out a can or carton. I had very low body fat, looked great. If I did that today I'd look like I'd survived Auschwitz.
goldblum said:
Eleven said:
goldblum said:
Thanks.
Why do you think what used to work for you became ineffective?
I am not going to address your other points because I have covered them previously and I don't think you will be any more persuaded by my explaining it to you again. Suffice it to say that you've got it round your neck.Why do you think what used to work for you became ineffective?
Why did things I did before cease to be effective? Age in a word. Until about 40 I could achieve my goals with the use of fairly blunt instruments. It doesn't work now. In the 90s I lived on Evian, fags and fresh air. I slept only about 4 nights a week and when I did eat food it usually came out a can or carton. I had very low body fat, looked great. If I did that today I'd look like I'd survived Auschwitz.
As I have said my gut feeling was that my diet needed modifying and rapid changes to my body as a result of this process suggest I was right.
Running - yes I was getting a lot of calf problems. I would run for a few weeks and then get injured again. I don't fully know what caused it but my best GUESS is that I am heavy (14.5 stone as I type) and have a foot strike that is supinated but which quickly rolls to neutral (pronated without the right shoes). I THINK the combination of these two factors was stressing the calf muscle unduly and causing problems. This is both calves by the way.
The nutritionist told me to stop all cardio, but if I felt absolutely compelled to do it I should do sprints. However, I have reduced rest time between sets to 40 seconds (strictly times) when weight training and I am therefore getting quite a cardio workout as I am weight training.
Hoofy said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85PcMJ9D8X0
I'm assuming you have a clean bill of health from your doctor... .
Eleven said:
As I have said my gut feeling was that my diet needed modifying and rapid changes to my body as a result of this process suggest I was right.
Could you describe these changes?Eleven said:
Running - yes I was getting a lot of calf problems. I would run for a few weeks and then get injured again. I don't fully know what caused it but my best GUESS is that I am heavy (14.5 stone as I type) and have a foot strike that is supinated but which quickly rolls to neutral (pronated without the right shoes). I THINK the combination of these two factors was stressing the calf muscle unduly and causing problems. This is both calves by the way.
Sounds like a chronic calf injury with possible compensation affecting the other leg. Not made better by poor gait/foot position.Eleven said:
The nutritionist told me to stop all cardio
In order to not exacerbate the injury?Eleven said:
but if I felt absolutely compelled to do it I should do sprints.
Nothing to do with the injury then. Is this an exercise intensity thing?Eleven said:
However, I have reduced rest time between sets to 40 seconds (strictly times) when weight training and I am therefore getting quite a cardio workout as I am weight training.
Unfortunately all this means is you won't recover enough between sets and if you're really pushing it the weights will drop.. aerobic endurance is essential for anaerobic recovery. Cycling may be an interim alternative to running.Eleven said:
I was cycling. He told me that cardio wasn't necessary to achieve my BF goal, diet and weights being what is required.
Fair enough. OK, now we're getting somewhere.You've tried diet and weights before, and it's worked for you. So the only difference now is the supplements. Is this correct?
goldblum said:
Eleven said:
I was cycling. He told me that cardio wasn't necessary to achieve my BF goal, diet and weights being what is required.
Fair enough. OK, now we're getting somewhere.You've tried diet and weights before, and it's worked for you. So the only difference now is the supplements. Is this correct?
GranderTransit said:
Goldblum, why is it you feel Biosignature doesn't work?
I said I was sceptical.GranderTransit said:
Quite clearly results are being gained.
A pity you can't tell whether the results are from the diet or the exercise with Biosignature. The fact that people have weightloss and lean mass gains when exercise is a factor isn't exactly rocket science. GranderTransit said:
Yes it doesn't fit the usual calories in vs out bulls
t but if it gets the client / athlete the desired results what is the issue?
Actually it does 'fit the usual calories in vs out bullst but if it gets the client / athlete the desired results what is the issue?t'. I don't imagine his diet is so calorie laden he'll put on weight without exercise and as Eleven states he's actually increased the intensity. Perhaps I'm wrong and the nutritionist has given him several thousand more calories than he actually needs... .Eleven said:
The supps are different, but so is the diet. I haven't eaten this many carbs for years, and I am struggling to do so actually. Not hitting my carb macros at all actually.
What is the desired effect of eating a lot of carbs and what are the carbs?Apologies if I'm coming across as a bit nosey...I'm genuinely curious.
goldblum said:
Actually it does 'fit the usual calories in vs out bullst'. I don't imagine his diet is so calorie laden he'll put on weight without exercise and as Eleven states he's actually increased the intensity. Perhaps I'm wrong and the nutritionist has given him several thousand more calories than he actually needs....
No, you're right, you cannot tell the difference between the effect the exercise or the diet has. But the body doesn't have a difference response to exercise and diet.t'. I don't imagine his diet is so calorie laden he'll put on weight without exercise and as Eleven states he's actually increased the intensity. Perhaps I'm wrong and the nutritionist has given him several thousand more calories than he actually needs....If the cells become more sensitive to insulin, through exercise or diet, they have become more sensitive. Which one did it, the body still reacts in the same way.
Which leads to why it isn't the same. Modern life has made us very inefficient at a cellular level. We can get away with many things and still live a long life. Biosignature looks to improve these inefficiencies. As an example, a man eats 3000kcal. F-30%, C-40%, P-30%. If you increase the efficiency with which his body is dealing with the carbs, the body will store less of it as fat and use more of it as energy within the cells.
To get from the start to finish, you may have needed to alter the ratios before bringing them back, or used supplements, or exercise. But no reason why you cannot get back to the starting ratio.
Last time I saw biosignature discussed on here, I was in Rhode Island studying with the Poliquin Group. I offered to answer / have answered any questions that were raised.
I have a case study starting next week. It will be near enough zero exercise to start with. Happy to share the results.
goldblum said:
Eleven said:
The supps are different, but so is the diet. I haven't eaten this many carbs for years, and I am struggling to do so actually. Not hitting my carb macros at all actually.
What is the desired effect of eating a lot of carbs and what are the carbs?Apologies if I'm coming across as a bit nosey...I'm genuinely curious.
My recovery times do seem to have improved, I am pretty energetic and my shape is good. My arms and legs look chunky and my waistline seems to have shrunk. BUT I've still got a covering of wobbly stuff. I couch it in those terms because I'm unsure whether it is fat or water. It's both probably. My skin tone is way better than before and I look younger - I attribute this to carbs / better hydration.
I have been sticking to rice and quinoa. But as I mention I am struggling to hit my macros without feeling like I have over eaten.
GranderTransit said:
Which leads to why it isn't the same. Modern life has made us very inefficient at a cellular level. We can get away with many things and still live a long life. Biosignature looks to improve these inefficiencies. As an example, a man eats 3000kcal. F-30%, C-40%, P-30%. If you increase the efficiency with which his body is dealing with the carbs, the body will store less of it as fat and use more of it as energy within the cells.
Surely if the body was more efficient it would require less energy and thus would be able to store more as fat? The various (now illegal) diet pills such as DNP work by making cellular respiration less efficient so more energy is wasted as heat rather than being stored as fat.Flibble said:
GranderTransit said:
Which leads to why it isn't the same. Modern life has made us very inefficient at a cellular level. We can get away with many things and still live a long life. Biosignature looks to improve these inefficiencies. As an example, a man eats 3000kcal. F-30%, C-40%, P-30%. If you increase the efficiency with which his body is dealing with the carbs, the body will store less of it as fat and use more of it as energy within the cells.
Surely if the body was more efficient it would require less energy and thus would be able to store more as fat? The various (now illegal) diet pills such as DNP work by making cellular respiration less efficient so more energy is wasted as heat rather than being stored as fat.GranderTransit said:
Modern life has made us very inefficient at a cellular level. We can get away with many things and still live a long life.
Look, if we're having an non-argumentative discussion can we stay away from this type of spiel? I'm interested to see if there are any detected differences between the actions of exercise/and a healthy diet and its effect on hormone production and the actions of exercise + diet via Poliquin and any effect on hormone production. Just the provable bits, please. Thanks.goldblum said:
Flibble said:
GranderTransit said:
Which leads to why it isn't the same. Modern life has made us very inefficient at a cellular level. We can get away with many things and still live a long life. Biosignature looks to improve these inefficiencies. As an example, a man eats 3000kcal. F-30%, C-40%, P-30%. If you increase the efficiency with which his body is dealing with the carbs, the body will store less of it as fat and use more of it as energy within the cells.
Surely if the body was more efficient it would require less energy and thus would be able to store more as fat? The various (now illegal) diet pills such as DNP work by making cellular respiration less efficient so more energy is wasted as heat rather than being stored as fat.GranderTransit said:
Modern life has made us very inefficient at a cellular level. We can get away with many things and still live a long life.
Look, if we're having an non-argumentative discussion can we stay away from this type of spiel? I'm interested to see if there are any detected differences between the actions of exercise/and a healthy diet and its effect on hormone production and the actions of exercise + diet via Poliquin and any effect on hormone production. Just the provable bits, please. Thanks.Eleven said:
The chap did mention that my life isn't helping me. I do sometimes have to deal with massive stress. Stress produces cortisol, which I gather can encourage fat accumulation. I'm sure it's more complex than that, but that's the bit I remember.
He's right, more or less. That's why exercise is particularly good in that respect - it helps raise testosterone which exists in proportion to cortisol. So - more exercise of the right type = more testosterone, which = less cortisol which = less fat.Flibble said:
Surely if the body was more efficient it would require less energy and thus would be able to store more as fat? The various (now illegal) diet pills such as DNP work by making cellular respiration less efficient so more energy is wasted as heat rather than being stored as fat.
I looked for DNPErgh.
Have to be pretty desperate.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-h-word/2014...
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff