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.
hard to comment from that unless one has read the book. Perhaps you could post a synopsis or at least some of the theory that could then be commented upon?
Slow oxidizers require a higher % of carbs than of fat and protein and should strive for 60% carbs, 25% protein, 15% fat.
Balanced oxidizers require and equal % an should go for 40/30/30
Fast oxidizers require higher % of protein and should go for 30/40/30
She says each of us have individual biochemical needs and apart from eating the right NUMBER of calories you need to be eating the kinds of foods that give you the best ratio for the way your body metabolized food. She then gives a 40 question quiz to help you identify which category you're in.
Interesting. I know I don't do well on lower carb. I did South Beach and didn't lose anything until I added fruit and grains back into my diet (after the first two weeks) I barely had energy to walk up the stairs. Yet I see people here eating only 5% carbs and doing NROL workouts. So really a YMMV sort of thing.
I'd like to hear some opinions on that too. I've often wondered whether there is any thruth to that. I know that I lose a lot more weight when I eat very limited carbs, and for some people the same diet just doesn't seem to work. For them, it's more about the calorie count. I don't know why we are all so different, but I'd like to find out a little more about it. I'm probably going to get a copy of that book. Sounds like it's got some interesting stuff in it.
__________________ Give Truth About Abs a try. It's working really good for me.
Interesting idea. I'm curious as to how she came up with these ideas and what kind of research supports it.
I'm a little suspcious, perhaps only because she's a celebrity trainer.
__________________ The trick is in what one emphasizes. We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy. The amount of work is the same. -- Carlos Castaneda
So she's the girl off of Biggest Loser? I know this may sound stupid, but I really like her on the show. IO wouldn't think se's be writing quack opinions. She just came accross as someone who genuinely cared about health, but I guess anyone can get caught up in their strange beliefs. I hate that; it's like who do we trust?
__________________ Give Truth About Abs a try. It's working really good for me.
So, we have fast, balanced and slow rather than meso and ectos and such? Seems like she is merely coming up with new terms for old ideas. Did she at least attempt to discern the difference between her terms and the different morph body types?
So, we have fast, balanced and slow rather than meso and ectos and such? Seems like she is merely coming up with new terms for old ideas. Did she at least attempt to discern the difference between her terms and the different morph body types?
I read the section pertaining to this in her first book.
No, she did not discern the difference between the terms used and the morph body types. However, she also did not present this as some new or novel system or as the magic formula to dieting. She presented it as if it were old scientifically proven ideas and not something that she came up with. If you have gotten the impression that she took old ideas, slapped a new name on them, and then tried to pass it off as some new breakthrough, that is not the case. In fact she presented right after and in a similar tone and manner as calculating your BMR and as just one of the steps in setting up the nutritional section of the total program.
Now, does this system have any real scientific base? Hell, if I know. I'll leave that type of determination to the people like Alan A who are much more qualified than I.
I will say that even though I don't have an ample background to dissect research studies, I would have been much more comfortable if she had posted studies that support what she is presenting.
She's got a radio show here in S. Cal (640 KFI), which is podcast, as well. It's really a show aimed at the newbie, so don't get all excited (unless you think she's hot and has a sexy voice).
She talks about this stuff, but in general, when someone asks a question about diet, she talks about whole foods and calorie balance. It's only when someone claims to have some special issue that she brings this stuff up at all. But, she got it from somewhere. It's not her invention/discovery.
I don't know how much weight to put on this stuff. I'm sure there's something to it, but what percentage of your calorie jumble is effected could be trivial. It's like doing the math on fasted cardio. Sure, you'll burn more fat over six months (like a whole pound), but you could also just eat one less cookie per week and get the same result (135 calories x 26 weeks = 1lb worth of calories/trivial). But, I digress...
it strikes me that to say a particular person has a magic RATIO rather that a threshold min or max amount in gms is off somehow. What if the person is eating 2400 cals a day for maintenance vs. 1200 cals a day for cutting? At the same ratio the absolute amount of any macro is double/half that of the other amount. If I NEED 200g CHO a day and only get 100g but it is the right ratio -- what does that mean for metabolism? I don't buy it as described.
that's not to say some people do well on fewer CHO and more PRO/FAT -- and others seem to do poorly on lower CHO and better on more CHO -
but in practical terms it seems like advice to get at least XXX g protein and at least ZZg of good fats and at most YYYg CHO (or at least YYYg CHO) and to fill in the remainder of your calories as meets your calorie goals makes more sense. But maybe that's too hard to articulate in a book for the mass market.
I assume she is refering to Metabolic Type Diet as originally prescribed by Walcott. The explanations for different metabolic type diets are not supported by science. I have never seen any primary research data to support the classification systems described by Walcott. This diet is covered in Knowledge and Nonsense
I'm happy to hear that most of you guys agree that her claims aren't worth much weight. It just makes things too complicated. I understand that everybody is different but then again calories are calories. If you burn more than your eat, you'll lose weight. Lets just keep it simple.
__________________ Give Truth About Abs a try. It's working really good for me.
While that's generally true ^^, the food you're eating has a pretty big difference in your state of health.
Creating a calorie deficit while living solely off Wonder Bread, velveeta, and Pepsi isn't exactly health-promoting, just from the insulin spikes alone.
__________________
"If 'toning' is the goal, strength is the method." ~ Mark Rippetoe
While that's generally true ^^, the food you're eating has a pretty big difference in your state of health.
Creating a calorie deficit while living solely off Wonder Bread, velveeta, and Pepsi isn't exactly health-promoting, just from the insulin spikes alone.
You're definitely right about that. As far as weight goes, I guess calories are calories. But it's probbaly not a good thing to live off od cheetos and chocolate even if you are only eating 1200 calories per day. When it comes to health, you've got to take into account calories as well as ingredients. Didn't mean to over simplify. I guess calories aren't only calories.
__________________ Give Truth About Abs a try. It's working really good for me.
Soooo, according to Jillian's test I am a fast oxidizer. She recommends my diet be higher protein and fats. Very minimal carbs
and according to John B, I can get away with a higher carb diet (ectomorph)
One of my clients had the book and let me read it.
what's a girl to do, low carb or high carb...it's all so confusing.
Jillian Michaels Metabolic Types: Fact or crap?
) think about this?
Give Truth About Abs a try. It's working really good for me.
Linear Mode
