Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
So I was at the grocery store today, looking for a ZMA supplement as per the GSD instructions. But all I found was this store brand bottle of Zinc, Magnesium, Calcium ("Bone health"). It contains 33% of the DV of each of these - that means 5mg of Zinc. My multivitamin has 15mg. Will this supplement still give me the sleep aiding benefits that ZMA would or should I go buy ZMA? I have not been sleeping well since I started GSD, though it also coincides with jet lag.
Why are you crash dieting? Highschool reunion in a month? Also, if you're taking an excess of stimulants, ain't no mineral supp gonna fix your sleep problems.
I'm using the GSD because: a. GSD is designed to achieve six packs (or at least those low levels of bodyfat) without major plateaus b. I'm graduating college, I'd love to look good at the school pool for once!
As far as supplementation goes, I am not going to be taking any hot rox. I am drinking a large amount of green tea (i brew 64 oz with 2 tea bags each morning). I'm very used to drinking 2-3 cups of coffee and I have stopped that now that I drink all this tea...I don't think its the caffeine in the tea (which I usually finish hours before bed, anyway).
It doesn't seem to have plateaus because the deficit is so great that you're always losing something. But, it still has fast and slow rates of loss, like a more traditional diet.
A more traditional diet's slow rate for one week just isn't enough to budge the scale, while GSD's rate keeps the scale moving. But, are you only losing fat? I don't know?
Also, what will happen when you come off of it? There's a whole article on getting off the GSD when GSD is done.
And, if you're eating non-compliant items daily, is it even the GSD? Will it still work the same way?
I don't know if this is even important to note, but in the diet article, Berardi says that it's not for the person who wants the six pack, it's for the person who has it and wants to get dramatically lean. Whether it's true that a super lean dude finds it harder to lean out more or not, I don't know. But, when you've still got enough fat to not have a sixer, more normal diets are probably going to work fine and help you maintain what muscle you have.
ZMA does nothing for me that normal magnesium and zinc don't. I've used them all. I don't know that they do anything, anyway. I take them because I had a lot of muscle cramps, but I sleep the same, regardless of whether I take drug store minerals together, separately, or as ZMA. I also sleep the same if I take nothing.
I'm using the GSD because: a. GSD is designed to achieve six packs (or at least those low levels of bodyfat) without major plateaus b. I'm graduating college, I'd love to look good at the school pool for once!
As far as supplementation goes, I am not going to be taking any hot rox. I am drinking a large amount of green tea (i brew 64 oz with 2 tea bags each morning). I'm very used to drinking 2-3 cups of coffee and I have stopped that now that I drink all this tea...I don't think its the caffeine in the tea (which I usually finish hours before bed, anyway).
I just checked out that diet real quick... To follow it to the letter would require taking 8 supplements, lol.
Are you doing this as a temporary crash diet to drop a bunch of fat for a target date (muscle be damned), or are you planning on living like this? That's the big question. If you're just gonna crash towards a target, it's not a bad plan, but it's a little low on the protein side. Also, the refeeds are too infrequent, and an all-out all-day binge is suggested every 14th day. Sounds like a good way to foster an eating disorder or two. I'd opt for something more linear & less extreme if you want the results to last.
I appreciate the comments and input so far. It is something of a crash diet - I want to get a six pack by graduation in May. Not sure if its possible but I'm gunning for it.
Alan: How would you handle the refeeds on the diet, any how would you suggest increasing the protein content? I think if I broke down my average day so far I'd be looking at like 20% carbs, 30% fat, 50% protein or something around there. Rough guess.
Also, I'm trying to get 100% compliant but I have this beautiful fruit laying around and I can't stand to let it rot!
I appreciate the comments and input so far. It is something of a crash diet - I want to get a six pack by graduation in May. Not sure if its possible but I'm gunning for it.
Alan: How would you handle the refeeds on the diet, any how would you suggest increasing the protein content? I think if I broke down my average day so far I'd be looking at like 20% carbs, 30% fat, 50% protein or something around there. Rough guess.
Also, I'm trying to get 100% compliant but I have this beautiful fruit laying around and I can't stand to let it rot!
See, what you said about having to waste the fruit really gets to me. It reminds me of what pisses me off so much about the quacky, unfounded extremism that pervades the fitness industry. Instead of doing a 5000-cal binge every 14 days, why not omit the bingefest, and eat about 300-400 carb-dominant calories on your training days, fruit included. You'll still eat the same amount of calories (or less) by the end of 2 weeks, but you'll have MUCH better workout performance, recovery, & general health. Not to mention, you won't be wallowing around in the world of disordered eating. I understand that May is right around the corner, so my suggestion to you is to crank up your training output and be more linear with your caloric input, then the adaptations will be closer to ideal.
See, what you said about having to waste the fruit really gets to me. It reminds me of what pisses me off so much about the quacky, unfounded extremism that pervades the fitness industry. Instead of doing a 5000-cal binge every 14 days, why not omit the bingefest, and eat about 300-400 carb-dominant calories on your training days, fruit included. You'll still eat the same amount of calories (or less) by the end of 2 weeks, but you'll have MUCH better workout performance, recovery, & general health. Not to mention, you won't be wallowing around in the world of disordered eating. I understand that May is right around the corner, so my suggestion to you is to crank up your training output and be more linear with your caloric input, then the adaptations will be closer to ideal.
Sounds like great advice. I appreciate it and will put it into use tomorrow. I have some beautiful pears in the fridge!
I tried the GSD. I have no fucking clue how anyone does it unless you're taking mountains of stims. My appetite crashed, fat loss cratered, and work output was dismal. I tried to ease my way off of it (totally didn't happen) and blew the fuck up.
Do what that Alan guy says - I hear he knows what he's talkin' about .
Protein: 1.5g/lb of Target Bodyweight (so 165)
Carbs: 1g/lb of TBW on training days, 0.7g/lb of TBW on off/cardio days, 2g/lb 1 - 2x a week on hardest training days. If you're doing HIIT just keep carb intake linear @ 1g/lb.
Fat: 0.5g/lb of TBW
I don't think it is consistent with anorexia nervosa at all, particularly because people on that diet are not trying to achieve sub normal weight. To the contrary, they are typically well above normal weight and are trying to reach sub normal levels of body fat, often for athletic reasons.
The level of calorie restriction is also far from extreme. 1500 Calories for a 150 pound person. Call Weight Watchers and ask them how many calories a 150 pound person is consuming on their plans.
I also don't think that a person can display disordered eating in a 6-12 week period essentially by definition.
actually, 6-12 weeks of seriously reduced eating could lead to disordered thoughts about eating.
Maybe, but GSD doesn't broadly restrict any foods and advocates 10 Calories per day per pound of body weight which is at least as high as what is advocated by most popular diets intended for long term use.
The Ornish and Pritikin diets are more extreme in terms of the macro nutrient guidelines and calorie restriction.
How carefully did you read the description of the diet that John Berardi wrote?
Maybe, but GSD doesn't broadly restrict any foods and advocates 10 Calories per day per pound of body weight which is at least as high as what is advocated by most popular diets intended for long term use.
The Ornish and Pritikin diets are more extreme in terms of the macro nutrient guidelines and calorie restriction.
How carefully did you read the description of the diet that John Berardi wrote?
The GSD is a) slightly too low in protein, b) too low in calories at 8-10 kcal per lb, c) humorously high in supplements, d) the little carbs it does have are in the form of a sugar-based workout drink, or the mondo-binge every 14 days. Sound like a good plan to you?
Ornish, WW, & pritikin are too low in fat & protein. Does this make the GSD a better plan then those? Not necessarily, it's like comparing a car without the engine to a car without wheels - both suck. You're comparing a group of diets that are ALL inferior to a more sensible, balanced approach involving adequate daily nutritional support which nixes the need for refeeds or binges.
For what it's worth, here are a few of my favorite sources of magnesium:
Pumpkin Seeds (has good zinc too) : 200 cals per serving, only 5g carbs (+5g fiber). Package lists it as containing 50% of your DV of magnesium in each serving.
COST: About $2.00 for 3-4 days worth, probably cheaper if you find generic.
Cactus Pears (Prickly Pears) : Only about 40 cals per fruit, includes 3g fiber, 200+mg potassium and listed as 22% DV of magnesium.
COST: $1.00 per fruit
Figlets : 110 cals per serving, 26g carbs here (so may not fit your current plan at all), 6% of magnesium, and good little doses of calcium, iron and copper too.
The GSD is a) slightly too low in protein, b) too low in calories at 8-10 kcal per lb, c) humorously high in supplements, d) the little carbs it does have are in the form of a sugar-based workout drink, or the mondo-binge every 14 days. Sound like a good plan to you?
Ornish, WW, & pritikin are too low in fat & protein. Does this make the GSD a better plan then those? Not necessarily, it's like comparing a car without the engine to a car without wheels - both suck. You're comparing a group of diets that are ALL inferior to a more sensible, balanced approach involving adequate daily nutritional support which nixes the need for refeeds or binges.
I'm not sure how you would infer that I think it is a good plan from any of my posts.
None of what you posted changes the fact that anorexia nervosa necessarily involves a desire to acheive a below normal bodyweight and that millions of people follow similarly or more restrictive diets without developing eating disorders.
I'm not sure how you would infer that I think it is a good plan from any of my posts.
None of what you posted changes the fact that anorexia nervosa necessarily involves a desire to acheive a below normal bodyweight and that millions of people follow similarly or more restrictive diets without developing eating disorders.
This doesn't change the fact that there are also "millions" of people who get their initiation into the world of disordered eating via severe dieting for what they think will be a one-time temporary thing. I work with clients who have eating disorders from anorexia or binge eating & other disorders along the continuum, so I have a good handle on aspects of their diet history that have contributed to dysfunctional eating. Plans such as GSD possess some key triggering characteristics. Do you work with any clients/patients with eating disorders? If so, do you have any documentation of the potential etiology of their conditions?
For what it's worth, here are a few of my favorite sources of magnesium:
Pumpkin Seeds (has good zinc too) : 200 cals per serving, only 5g carbs (+5g fiber). Package lists it as containing 50% of your DV of magnesium in each serving.
COST: About $2.00 for 3-4 days worth, probably cheaper if you find generic.
Cactus Pears (Prickly Pears) : Only about 40 cals per fruit, includes 3g fiber, 200+mg potassium and listed as 22% DV of magnesium.
COST: $1.00 per fruit
Figlets : 110 cals per serving, 26g carbs here (so may not fit your current plan at all), 6% of magnesium, and good little doses of calcium, iron and copper too.
Hope maybe it helps some in your shopping!
Figlets are...figs? right? mini figs?
Pumpkin seeds are delicious, but I never thought to have them outside of Halloween time!
This doesn't change the fact that there are also "millions" of people who DO attempt severe diets and get their initiation into the world of disordered eating. I work with people who have eating disorders, so I have a good handle on what in their diet history has contributed to their development, and it's plans such as GSD that possess some key characteristics. Do you work with any clients/patients with eating disorders? If so, do you have any documentation of the potential etiology of their conditions?
Over the past few years, I've followed mostly sensible diets, but I've also tried a few "extreme" diets (which were very low calorie with "refeeds" periodically). I also have several friends who've done the same.
The changes in behaviors and cravings were unpleasant and brought guilt and binging (or the desire to binge) along with them. After a "refeed," bad food and lots of it, was all I could think about for days. Sometimes, I'd cave, then be wracked with guilt. Guilt that made me wish I could puke up the food or drop even lower the next day to make up for the binge. I really didn't like what I was feeling, so I don't do them anymore.
You probably have to have a certain personality to be driven to living a disorder, just like you would with gambling or drinking, but if it's still risky bevavior, why do it.
Diets like the GSD or the V-Diet might mean well, and many people might do fine on them, but they were designed by and for people who are somewhat obsessive about their own nutrition to begin with. For good or bad, right?
Disclaimer -- I'm no expert. I've also done the Velocity Diet, which has no refeeds or binges, btw. I've never recommended it to anybody, as it doesn't work any better than any other diet with similar calories or protein levels.
I'd say that for me, the positives I got from it was...
1. the ability to look at food more like fuel less as something to gain enjoyment from. I still enjoy food, but I can now make the right choice between a healthy, but possibly unexciting, item from my cooler and a far more delicious, but calorie heavy burrito from the drive-thru. I still don't crave broccoli like Shugart says, but I get what he means.
2. I have a better understanding of the difference between being hungry and merely wanting more to eat. The first week of the v-diet, I was constantly hungry, because liquid leaves the stomach pretty fast. Plus, you never get the "full" feeling with those shakes. After two weeks, you start to discount the feeling in your stomach and better read your body's true signs of hunger.
There may have been far better and safer ways to accomplish these two things, though.
This doesn't change the fact that there are also "millions" of people who get their initiation into the world of disordered eating via severe dieting for what they think will be a one-time temporary thing. I work with clients who have eating disorders from anorexia or binge eating & other disorders along the continuum, so I have a good handle on aspects of their diet history that have contributed to dysfunctional eating. Plans such as GSD possess some key triggering characteristics. Do you work with any clients/patients with eating disorders? If so, do you have any documentation of the potential etiology of their conditions?
I don't disagree with you; I think you are continuing to argue against inferences you've drawn from my posts rather than things I have actually said. Perhaps that is due to the quality of my communication.
I have said that:
1. It is not true that "GSD is glorified anorexia".
2. It is not possible for someone who is at or above a healthy weight and wants to gain weight (the typical T-Nation reader) to have anorexia nervosa because a desire to acheive a sub normal weight or refusal to correct a sub normal weight are what define anorexia nervosa.
3. The GSD diet in and of itself does not represent disordered eating.
4. In the big scheme of things, GSD is not particularly extreme. In particular I think it is less extreme than McDougall, Pritikin and Ornish. I don't say that because I think it justifies GSD but I say that because if someone is willing to say that "GSD is glorified anorexia" they should be prepared to make even stronger statements about those more extreme diets. Reductio ad absurdum, blame my math education, apparently that argument style doesn't translate well to the real world.
I agree with you that disordered eating often has its genesis in crash diets and that crash diets are not health promoting in general and should not be followed except for under guidance from a medical or dietary professional.
I also agree that following GSD to the letter would result in making a very generous gift to the owners of BioTest but a lot of T-Nation articles have similarly outrageous supplement suggestions and it seems that most readers are savvy enough to seperate that out from the less biased portions of the articles.
I don't disagree with you; I think you are continuing to argue against inferences you've drawn from my posts rather than things I have actually said. Perhaps that is due to the quality of my communication.
I have said that:
1. It is not true that "GSD is glorified anorexia".
2. It is not possible for someone who is at or above a healthy weight and wants to gain weight (the typical T-Nation reader) to have anorexia nervosa because a desire to acheive a sub normal weight or refusal to correct a sub normal weight are what define anorexia nervosa.
3. The GSD diet in and of itself does not represent disordered eating.
4. In the big scheme of things, GSD is not particularly extreme. In particular I think it is less extreme than McDougall, Pritikin and Ornish. I don't say that because I think it justifies GSD but I say that because if someone is willing to say that "GSD is glorified anorexia" they should be prepared to make even stronger statements about those more extreme diets. Reductio ad absurdum, blame my math education, apparently that argument style doesn't translate well to the real world.
I agree with you that disordered eating often has its genesis in crash diets and that crash diets are not health promoting in general and should not be followed except for under guidance from a medical or dietary professional.
I also agree that following GSD to the letter would result in making a very generous gift to the owners of BioTest but a lot of T-Nation articles have similarly outrageous supplement suggestions and it seems that most readers are savvy enough to seperate that out from the less biased portions of the articles.
1) Depends on the individual's definition of "glorified anorexia", a term which in and of itself is open to interpretation.
2) We're not talking about weight gain here.
3) How does a cyclic alternation of deprivation and binging NOT represent an eating disorder?
4) I know that you're not mentioning the other crap diets to justify GSD, but to say it's less extreme than Ornish, Pritikin, etc, is incorrect. The latter diets are simply extreme in other aspects.
I disagree that "most" readers are able to completely discern the bull from the good. "Most" is a strong word. Most people are confused about the right way to do things regarding nutrition & supplementation. I would say that some readers are savvy enough to take ideas & adapt them to more reasonable protocols with less supps, etc. But then again, we're talking about the GSD protocol, not some morphed adaptation of it. The author explicitly states that the battery of supplements are necessary to fill in the nutritional gaps you'll incur via the diet. The supps are not suggested or optional, they are listed as required/necessary. This is yet another aspect of this diet that makes it more extreme than many possible methods of dieting for fat loss.
The GSD also relies on the purported "magic" of ketosis (and the congruent ratio of fat intake) as somehow superior in its muscle-sparing capacity vis-a-vis adequate protein intake. The diet is designed in as backward manner as possible, ensuring inadequate fuel for exercise and, hence, relying on supplements to stim you into the stratosphere for your workouts.
GSD sounds like a recipie for disaster to me. But if you want a six pack by graduation, why not take a sensible approach so you can enjoy it if you get it and not have hurt your body if you don't?
You are already in good shape. Why not go to 6 or 8 small meals a day to help with weight loss and work on muscle definition for the abs?
Zinc, Magnesium...Calcium?
.
Linear Mode
