Lost weight now need help building/define
Discussion
Yep, still need more veg.
Veg is better than fruit too as it contains less sugar and often quite a lot of protein (broccoli is 11.6g protein / 100g), but a banana chopped up on your cereal or a handful of raisins is better than nothing.
I'm quite happy to just munch on a raw carrot as a snack though.
Veg is better than fruit too as it contains less sugar and often quite a lot of protein (broccoli is 11.6g protein / 100g), but a banana chopped up on your cereal or a handful of raisins is better than nothing.
I'm quite happy to just munch on a raw carrot as a snack though.
Strudul said:
Yep, still need more veg.
Veg is better than fruit too as it contains less sugar and often quite a lot of protein (broccoli is 11.6g protein / 100g), but a banana chopped up on your cereal or a handful of raisins is better than nothing.
I'm quite happy to just munch on a raw carrot as a snack though.
This statement is incorrect. While some fruit contains more calories than a similar portion of veg, often fruit has more fibre and, as fruit is often eaten uncooked has lost no minerals in the cooking process, unlike veg.Veg is better than fruit too as it contains less sugar and often quite a lot of protein (broccoli is 11.6g protein / 100g), but a banana chopped up on your cereal or a handful of raisins is better than nothing.
I'm quite happy to just munch on a raw carrot as a snack though.
popeyewhite said:
Strudul said:
Yep, still need more veg.
Veg is better than fruit too as it contains less sugar and often quite a lot of protein (broccoli is 11.6g protein / 100g), but a banana chopped up on your cereal or a handful of raisins is better than nothing.
I'm quite happy to just munch on a raw carrot as a snack though.
This statement is incorrect. While some fruit contains more calories than a similar portion of veg, often fruit has more fibre and, as fruit is often eaten uncooked has lost no minerals in the cooking process, unlike veg.Veg is better than fruit too as it contains less sugar and often quite a lot of protein (broccoli is 11.6g protein / 100g), but a banana chopped up on your cereal or a handful of raisins is better than nothing.
I'm quite happy to just munch on a raw carrot as a snack though.
See below a table comparing nutrients in the best fruit / veg fibre sources as well as a selection of common choices.
As you can see, veg is consistently as good if not better for fibre, protein, and low sugar.
As for cooked vs uncooked:
1) There's loads of veg that is often eaten raw (e.g. lettuce / salad, carrots, celery, peppers, cucumber), and many more than can be if desired (e.g. brussel sprouts, corn, asparagus, artichokes, broccoli).
2) Cooking doesn't necessarily reduce the nutrients (steaming / microwaving are great options, and with boiling you can add the juices containing any lost nutrients back to your dish to retain them)
3) Cooking can actually increase absorption of nutrients
Table shows they're both pretty evenly placed. While veg may have a tiny bit less sugar (if you cherry pick your internet diagram), fruit has in turn a tiny bit less fat. Your diagram, not mine. Most people boil veg, and most veg loses nutrients when boiled.
Like I said, you are incorrect, veg is not better than fruit.
Like I said, you are incorrect, veg is not better than fruit.
popeyewhite said:
Table shows they're both pretty evenly placed. While veg may have a tiny bit less sugar (if you cherry pick your internet diagram), fruit has in turn a tiny bit less fat. Your diagram, not mine. Most people boil veg, and most veg loses nutrients when boiled.
Like I said, you are incorrect, veg is not better than fruit.
Are we looking at the same table?Like I said, you are incorrect, veg is not better than fruit.
- Apart from raspberries, every fruit in that table is higher in sugar (best case is 1.15x more for blackberries vs carrots, worst case is 20x more for grapes vs collard greens).
- Comparing averages, veg has 3x less sugar, 3.6x more protein, and 1.4x more fibre.
- The diagram isn't from the internet, I chucked it together in excel based on nutrition facts found here
- The foods selected were a mix of the highest fibre options in each category and a random selection of common choices
- I actually meant to add bananas too, but at 13.8g sugar, 1.2g protein, and 2.9g fibre per 100 cals, that just goes further against your case.
- I have no idea how you can state for a fact that most people boil veg, but since a) they don't have to, b) you can advise the OP not to, and c) the nutrients are lost into the water, which you can still consume by adding it back to your meal (e.g. into the sauce or a gravy), your point is just invalid.
Question.
Had my 4th session at the gym yesterday, next is tommorow, for a couple of days after my first session I was very sore, the 2 sessions I’ve had this week I’ve only felt a little discomfort, although it’s still a struggle to lift my arms high in the shower etc.
Does this sound about right, is the fact I’m eating way more protein easing the muscles, or am I just not pushing myself hard enough, should I be “wrecked” the next day
Had my 4th session at the gym yesterday, next is tommorow, for a couple of days after my first session I was very sore, the 2 sessions I’ve had this week I’ve only felt a little discomfort, although it’s still a struggle to lift my arms high in the shower etc.
Does this sound about right, is the fact I’m eating way more protein easing the muscles, or am I just not pushing myself hard enough, should I be “wrecked” the next day
Ben-imhe8 said:
Question.
Had my 4th session at the gym yesterday, next is tommorow, for a couple of days after my first session I was very sore, the 2 sessions I’ve had this week I’ve only felt a little discomfort, although it’s still a struggle to lift my arms high in the shower etc.
Does this sound about right, is the fact I’m eating way more protein easing the muscles, or am I just not pushing myself hard enough, should I be “wrecked” the next day
That's expected. As I mentioned in a previous reply, you will stop getting sore, as your body adapts to the stresses you are applying.Had my 4th session at the gym yesterday, next is tommorow, for a couple of days after my first session I was very sore, the 2 sessions I’ve had this week I’ve only felt a little discomfort, although it’s still a struggle to lift my arms high in the shower etc.
Does this sound about right, is the fact I’m eating way more protein easing the muscles, or am I just not pushing myself hard enough, should I be “wrecked” the next day
Soreness may become apparent again if you either take a break for a few weeks, or work a muscle extra hard (e.g. drop sets).
V8covin said:
If you can't lift your arms I'd suggest a bit more rest between sessions.
Are you doing warm up sets before the actual workout sets ?
I’m currently on a Monday, Wednesday, Friday routine, full body workouts, I did originally plan on certain muscles per session but was advised this wasn’t necessary to begin with.Are you doing warm up sets before the actual workout sets ?
No I haven’t been doing warm ups?
Ben-imhe8 said:
I’m currently on a Monday, Wednesday, Friday routine, full body workouts, I did originally plan on certain muscles per session but was advised this wasn’t necessary to begin with.
No I haven’t been doing warm ups?
You don't go straight into your working weights, do a couple of sets at say,50% and then 75% of your working set weight 1st.Do some googling for more information,some people will do a lot more,it gets your muscles primed and you'll be able to lift more and have less chance of injuryNo I haven’t been doing warm ups?
V8covin said:
You don't go straight into your working weights, do a couple of sets at say,50% and then 75% of your working set weight 1st.Do some googling for more information,some people will do a lot more,it gets your muscles primed and you'll be able to lift more and have less chance of injury
Ok thanks for this Seem to be knowledgeable people in here, so hopefully someone can enlighten me.
To lose 1lb you need to have a deficit of 3500cal, to gain 1lb a surplus of 3500cal, on the loss side it doesn’t matter about the nutritional content of the food, so why does it matter on the gain side, is it purely to ensure the gain is muscle and not fat, but if that’s the case I’m confused, because to build muscle you tear and rebuild, as long as your in a surplus shouldn’t the muscle rebuild anyway?
Take protein, as far as I understand protein helps to speed up the rebuild process, isn’t the key thing here speed up, so in theory even if you had little protein in your diet, the muscle would still repair itself albeit slower?
And In the OP’s case, been advised to consume 2000cals, which is still a deficit, so what should he be hoping to achieve there ?
To lose 1lb you need to have a deficit of 3500cal, to gain 1lb a surplus of 3500cal, on the loss side it doesn’t matter about the nutritional content of the food, so why does it matter on the gain side, is it purely to ensure the gain is muscle and not fat, but if that’s the case I’m confused, because to build muscle you tear and rebuild, as long as your in a surplus shouldn’t the muscle rebuild anyway?
Take protein, as far as I understand protein helps to speed up the rebuild process, isn’t the key thing here speed up, so in theory even if you had little protein in your diet, the muscle would still repair itself albeit slower?
And In the OP’s case, been advised to consume 2000cals, which is still a deficit, so what should he be hoping to achieve there ?
usn90 said:
Take protein, as far as I understand protein helps to speed up the rebuild process, isn’t the key thing here speed up, so in theory even if you had little protein in your diet, the muscle would still repair itself albeit slower?
Yes, but there are recommended amounts of protein. In the western world most people's everyday diets contain enough not to require any protein supplementation.usn90 said:
And In the OP’s case, been advised to consume 2000cals, which is still a deficit, so what should he be hoping to achieve there ?
No idea. What did the OP say he was trying to achieve? Lose fat gain lean mass?It need not be complicated.
If not conditioned at all from a young age, you need to ease into it gently.
Do a mixture of:
Intense "circuit training" -local gym classes or boxing club
Heavier resistance training, incorporating balance and control.
Walking/running of different intensities and a variety of terrain.
Maybe swim and/or cycle
Try playing sports
Eat meat, plenty of veg, nuts and some fruit. Go easy on the stodge.
Don't snack on cakes or biscuits.
Counting calories is not necessary
Stick at it. It takes time
You will become "fit" and more physically capable. Being "big" is not the only aspect.
Discover what you enjoy, do them and your body will adapt to those activities.
(personally, doing only barbell power lifting exercises would bore me)
If not conditioned at all from a young age, you need to ease into it gently.
Do a mixture of:
Intense "circuit training" -local gym classes or boxing club
Heavier resistance training, incorporating balance and control.
Walking/running of different intensities and a variety of terrain.
Maybe swim and/or cycle
Try playing sports
Eat meat, plenty of veg, nuts and some fruit. Go easy on the stodge.
Don't snack on cakes or biscuits.
Counting calories is not necessary
Stick at it. It takes time
You will become "fit" and more physically capable. Being "big" is not the only aspect.
Discover what you enjoy, do them and your body will adapt to those activities.
(personally, doing only barbell power lifting exercises would bore me)
Edited by MC Bodge on Friday 8th July 10:22
popeyewhite said:
No idea. What did the OP say he was trying to achieve? Lose fat gain lean mass?
Lost fat gain muscle Simultaneously.At 2000 cals he should have the loss side covered, but how is the gain lean mass covered if he’s eating in a deficit? Just say for arguments sake that 2000cal is stacked full or protein, it’s still a deficit?
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff