Question about P90X

[swarthmoreCY]

How is calories in vs. calories out a "starvation plan"?

The need to eat more meals throughout the day to increase your metabolism and lose more weight is old science.

Not calories in vs calories out, but the singular "calories in vs calories out" mantra you have presented several times in this thread. Again, net caloric intake requires a duration of time.

Getting your calories in 3 meals throughout the day is absolutely better than eating all your calories at once. For the same amount of calories in per day, you will lose at least the same weight, but more of it being fat. For some, it may be better enough to lose more weight from the same amount of calories in per day.

 

[3TrueFans]

Getting your calories in 3 meals throughout the day is absolutely better than eating all your calories at once.

Prove it to me. I personally haven't read that to be true.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

There's no measurable change in metabolism for a normal human being over a days time due to variations in eating habits. Your macronutrient intake and workouts will be the deciding factor in your body composition during weightloss. The frequency of meals is largely irrelevant.

Go back and read what I originally posted:
Eating less calories more frequently better matches supply and demand, which when facotring in fluctuating metabolism, will give many people better weight loss results then the mindset "calories in vs calories out".

Eating all 3000 of a person's daily caloric intake needs in one sitting will not lead to the same weight loss results as spreading those 3000 out throughout the day. Again, knowing exactly how you are meeting demand with supply is what it is about, not necessarily "calories in vs calories out". That demand curve is not an impulse function of 3000 calories.

 

[PabloDiablo]

So, I'm overweight @ about 230 and want to get down to about 200 or less. I've been trying to find something that would help me get down to that. Just wondering what your experiences are with it and what not. Would you recommend it?

The only thing I would caution about p90x is too make sure you modify activities that "overstress" your body in a bad way, meaning not working the muscles but causing pain. I have a p90x "casualty list" on the wall at my clinic that has 5 people on it from 2012, who just figured no pain no gain and pushed through until they had a shoulder issue or something like that.

Overall with weight loss, I always try to recommend that people focus on resistance training to build lean muscle mass. This will essentially raise your resting metabolic rate which is the amount of calories you burn from just being awake and conscious. This quantity of burned calories largely outnumbers the calories burned in individual workouts and can be increased by consistently working towards improving lean muscle mass through resistance training.

 

[bufante]

CrossFit is kicking my ***...

Pay some money at one of our local weight loss programs (Kosama/Farrells/Max Life) and you'll feel guilty for not going. Join with a group and you form a bond with your classmates, which will hold you accountable. It's a good start, not the end answer, but will get you going in the right direction.

 

[jdoggivjc]

Ever hear of starvation mode? The whole "eat less, exercise more" theory is flawed because if you don't put enough calories into your body your body will shut off weight loss. You have to consume enough calories or you won't lose weight and your exercise is futile if that's the goal.

That's what happened to me. I was around 1600-2000 calories and working my ares off doing P90X and couldn't figure out why I wasn't losing size. I then took the diet guide seriously, pushed my caloric intake up to around 2400 calories, and suddenly the size started coming off.

Sorry, it's not as simple as "eat less, exercise more" - that theory has derailed more programs than anything else.

By the way, I own both P90X and P90X2. Both are great programs. They say that you can start with P90X2, but if you're new to extreme fitness, I'd probably start with P90X first, as there's an off balance component to 2 that, even as a veteran of P90X I was not prepared for. But now I love it.

 

[3TrueFans]

Again, meeting demand with supply is what it is about, not necessarily "calories in vs calories out"

That's exactly what "calories in vs. calories out" mean though. You have a certain number of calories that you burn in a given day, for exercise, for basic functions of living. If the number of calories you consume is less than that, regardless of when you eat them, you will lose weight.

 

[cyhiphopp]

To me, eating 5 smaller portions vs. 2 or 3 large meals make me feel less bloated. My stomach also doesn't feel as empty between meals.

 

[3TrueFans]

Ever hear of starvation mode? The whole "eat less, exercise more" theory is flawed because if you don't put enough calories into your body your body will shut off weight loss. You have to consume enough calories or you won't lose weight and your exercise is futile if that's the goal.

So if I eat 500 calories a day you think my body will somehow shut off and not lose weight? (Note this is an extreme circumstance meant to prove a point, not something someone should actually do.)

 

[cyhiphopp]

So if I eat 500 calories a day you think my body will somehow shut off and not lose weight? (Note this is an extreme circumstance meant to prove a point, not something someone should actually do.)

If you drastically cut your calories like that, your body will try and burn less calories to prevent you from starving. Your metabolism will slow down and, because you are burning less calories, you will have less energy.

You would lose weight, just like someone starving to death would, but it would be really hard on your body. Also, you would lose weight less efficiently than if you ate a moderate amount of calories to fuel your excercise routine.

 

[nfrine]

You have to learn how to eat. I have exercised all my life but don't get weight loss without proper diet. And if you don't change your eating patterns, you will gain all the weight back.

I coupled diet with a reasonable exercise program (cardio three times a week/weight training three times a week, one hour max sessions) and lost over 40 pounds from the end of August to Christmas. Since that time I have maintained my new weight (within 2 pounds).

The diet I used followed the priciples of the Ideal Protein diet (I think Medi-fast may be similar). I did not buy all the snacks/meals...there is plenty of variety available with everyday foods to be successful. The Ideal Protein diet emphazized the importance of new eating patterns.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

That's exactly what "calories in vs. calories out" mean though. You have a certain number of calories that you burn in a given day, for exercise, for basic functions of living. If the number of calories you consume is less than that, regardless of when you eat them, you will lose weight.

Which is why my first response was:

Actually, those are the largely the same concepts.

The mantra "calories in vs calories out" requires some type of duration of time. Eating less calories more frequently better matches supply and demand.

Eating more often does a better job in "calories in vs calories out". Most people I know mean fat loss when they say weight loss, mean fat loss. That is done better by eating throughout the day, sometimes a little in surplus, sometimes not, and exercise.

 

[3TrueFans]

Which is why my first response was:

Actually, those are the largely the same concepts.

The mantra "calories in vs calories out" requires some type of duration of time. Eating less calories more frequently better matches supply and demand.

Eating more often does a better job in "calories in vs calories out"

Well that just comes down to self control, which will be the killer of many a diet plan. Some people have lifestyles that make it easier to eat more often, some will prefer to eat less often, but at the end of the day if the number of calories they eat are the same it will have basically the same result.

 

[swarthmoreCY]

Well that just comes down to self control, which will be the killer of many a diet plan. Some people have lifestyles that make it easier to eat more often, some will prefer to eat less often, but at the end of the day if the number of calories they eat are the same it will have basically the same result.

The bold is what I disagree with. Someone that eats 3000 calories at once every day will not have the same results as someone that spreads that out. 24 hours is too large of duration. To trivialize my point, would someone that eats the same amount of calories in a week, but all in one day (in one sitting) have the same results as someone that ate many meals throughout the week?

 

[Tre4ISU]

Well that just comes down to self control, which will be the killer of many a diet plan. Some people have lifestyles that make it easier to eat more often, some will prefer to eat less often, but at the end of the day if the number of calories they eat are the same it will have basically the same result.

No it won't. Your metabolism doesn't kick in unless there is something jump starting it. That's why breakfast is important to losing weight. You need to get that jump started after sleeping and if your body runs out of calories, it slows down. I don't get what is so hard about this.

 

[The_Architect]

Insanity is so much harder than P90x it's not even close. However, the workouts are shorter. I'd suggest not doing Insanity until your in halfway decent shape.

 

[CyFever]

I agree 100% with the concept of calories in vs calories out. Someone is going to have to revolutionize the field of thermodynamics for this not to be true.

I think some people are arguing that how/when you take those calories in has an effect on the rate at which those calories are burned. Spread the calories out and the body will burn more, thinking that a plentiful supply is going to be available. Consume the calories all at once and the body will burn net less, not sure when the next calories are going to come.

To me, this seems plausible. The body has some amazing feedback mechanisms. (Also note that this does not violate calories in vs calories out. It is only altering the calories out side of the equation.) However, I don't know if this view is scientific. The one piece of evidence in this thread seems to conclude that it does not affect weight loss (net calories out), but stops short of saying that there is no affect on metabolism.

 

[CyFever]

Forgot to add:

I am planning on getting the Insanity videos. I'm fairly big already so I don't want to bulk up in any way. I just want to lose some of the pudge that is developing and also improve cardiovascularly. Bonus that Insanity doesn't require any additional equipment.

 

[ThatllDoCy]

P90x is fun, and effective. The variation of workouts and rest weeks are important. To lose weight remember it is 80% Diet. So make that adjustment and you will see dramatic results. Bought to start another round myself. Personally my favorite is the Yoga which is an $%^kicker.

 

[3TrueFans]

No it won't. Your metabolism doesn't kick in unless there is something jump starting it. That's why breakfast is important to losing weight. You need to get that jump started after sleeping and if your body runs out of calories, it slows down. I don't get what is so hard about this.

The effect breakfast has is greatly exaggerated, your metabolism isn't going to be reduced any significant amount simply by not eating for 10 hours, maybe when you get into 20+ hours. It's much more important to just get your required nutrients in during the day, regardless of how or when.