Question about P90X

[nhclone]

For those still worryng about starvation mode, I'd suggest a quick google of that phrase and reading any study published in the last few years. Short-term, the body doen't change metabolic rate based on intake. Meaning if you eat 1-2000 calorie meal today and 20-100 calorie meals tomorrow, your body will essentially be at the same rate the entire time. Even over extended period, the decrease in metabolic rate will be almost entirely due to loss of LBM, rather than an adaptation from the body.

As for all of the studies from back then quoting breakfast as "the most important meal," I would challenge anyone to find causation in the study rather than correlation. Yes, more than half of healthy people eat breakfast in those studies, that doesn't mean it's what caused them to be healthy.

 

[Tre4ISU]

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.

Yes it is. IF THERE ARE NO CALORIES TO BURN, YOUR BODY SLOWS METABOLISM. This is a simple concept. If you eat all 3000 in one meal, your body cannot burn all of them and they will be converted to fat.

 

[Clonefan94]

You said "this" and then argued the opposite point. Did I read that wrong?

I didn't explain it very well. I should have bolded the calories in vs. Calories out part of your statement.

Basically, I was saying 3 meals a day worked for me and others, not because of the 3 meals a day = better metabolism and buring of calories as much as by eating 3 meals a day I actually consumed less calories than I did when eating one meal a day. It had less to do with what time I was eating and more to do with the fact I wasn't consuming extra calories all day long without paying attention to it.

Apologies, my point wasn't very well explained.

 

[CycloneErik]

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.

That's nice and simple, but it doesn't actually work exactly that way. That's overly simplistic.

 

[nhclone]

Yes it is. IF THERE ARE NO CALORIES TO BURN, YOUR BODY SLOWS METABOLISM. This is a simple concept. If you eat all 3000 in one meal, your body cannot burn all of them and they will be converted to fat.

Here's another simple concept. Metabolism is the process of your body using energy to perform life-sustaining functions. Do you really think your body slows those processes down that quickly?

 

[3TrueFans]

Yes it is. IF THERE ARE NO CALORIES TO BURN, YOUR BODY SLOWS METABOLISM. This is a simple concept. If you eat all 3000 in one meal, your body cannot burn all of them and they will be converted to fat.

Old science is old. I'd love to see a study that says metabolism is decreased by a statistically significant amount from fasting for a short time, 10 hours or so. There are even studies that show the opposite, that metabolism is increased a small amount after a short fast.

 

[3TrueFans]

That's nice and simple, but it doesn't actually work exactly that way. That's overly simplistic.

Tell me why.

If you want to lose weight eat at a mild deficit, 500 calories or so is typically recommended for sustainable weight loss without sacrificing too much muscle.

 

[nhclone]

That's nice and simple, but it doesn't actually work exactly that way. That's overly simplistic.

If it isn't that way, then it's awfully close. Either way, simplicity is a good thing when people are trying to lose weight. It's very simple to be fat, eat when you have a craving and don't force yourself to get off the couch and do something. Then people over-complicate the weight loss process by saying things like you need to eat 300 calories meals spaced out over 2 hour increments. If you lift weights before running your body uses excess glucose so you will only burn fat during the run, but don't workout more then 45 minutes at a time or you stop getting optimal results. Stay away from carbs after 6 pm because your body will use it all as fat, no matter what you've eaten or done that day. Also, don't eat white bread.

No doubt, being fat is easy and as simple as it gets, but it's really not THAT much more complicated to lose weight.

 

[3TrueFans]

It's super easy to gain weight, so it would stand to reason it's super easy to lose weight too. One just takes more will power and self control than the other.

 

[benjay]

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.

Most studies show that breakfast is very important, although not in the way others are suggesting. People who skip breakfast have a tendency to binge later in the day.

 

[Tre4ISU]

Old science is old. I'd love to see a study that says metabolism is decreased by a statistically significant amount from fasting for a short time, 10 hours or so. There are even studies that show the opposite, that metabolism is increased a small amount after a short fast.

I know this: I used to eat about once a day doing the same exercise routine and I would say my total calories were less than what they are when I eat three times a day. When I eat 3 times, I have better luck losing weight. Like I said, same routine. About 30 mins of lifting and 45 mins of cardio.

 

[CycloneErik]

I didn't explain it very well. I should have bolded the calories in vs. Calories out part of your statement.

Basically, I was saying 3 meals a day worked for me and others, not because of the 3 meals a day = better metabolism and buring of calories as much as by eating 3 meals a day I actually consumed less calories than I did when eating one meal a day. It had less to do with what time I was eating and more to do with the fact I wasn't consuming extra calories all day long without paying attention to it.

Apologies, my point wasn't very well explained.

Don't worry. I just wanted to make sure I understood, since it looked like we were saying the same thing. Turns out we were!

For me, the balanced meals also eliminated some dumb snacking habits, which helped the keep healthy eating habits going.

 

[3TrueFans]

Most studies show that breakfast is very important, although not in the way others are suggesting. People who skip breakfast have a tendency to binge later in the day.

That is more about people's issues with self control again though, not any physiological affect breakfast might have. I agree, people who don't eat breakfast could be more prone to not eating healthy. But if someone has any type of self control it shouldn't matter.

 

[longtimeclone]

If you want to lose weight eat at a mild deficit, 500 calories or so is typically recommended for sustainable weight loss without sacrificing too much muscle.

That number seems really low to me because I think you would be sacfricing a lot of muscle. I don't know if I have heard much lower than 1500 for a typical male diet.

I realize that people are talking about calories but I think it is a lot more important what is made up of those calories. A cup of raw vegetables/fruit has a lot few calories than many snack items.

 

[3TrueFans]

That number seems really low to me because I think you would be sacfricing a lot of muscle. I don't know if I have heard much lower than 1500 for a typical male diet.

I realize that people are talking about calories but I think it is a lot more important what is made up of those calories. A cup of raw vegetables/fruit has a lot few calories than many snack items.

500 calorie deficit, not 500 calorie total for the day. You'd have to find your total calorie requirement for the day, for just living and exercising and whatnot, and subtract 500.

 

[Hawkeye11en1]

I am in the 4th week of Insanity. I have taken the last week off due to a few vacations, but I still watch what I'm eating (but not drink. I have drank a ton of beer.). It's very good. Highly recommend. I only needed to lose about 15 lbs so it's not that big of deal for me. I lost 10 in the first 3 weeks and am noticeably thinner and more in shape. And like Tre said, they don't care if you take breaks. Hell, at this point, I go longer without a break than a few of the models on the DVD.

I do recommend you get in a little better shape before doing Insanity. It starts you off hard and you go hard 5 days a week (Sunday is rest day and then a small workout midweek that isn't AS hard). But if you want to see results quickly, Insanity is for you.

 

[CyBer]

Thanks for all the info people, I ordered insanity last night. I will be following whatever diet thing comes with it (so I can stay on track) and then create meals with the same amount of calories after I'm done with it to maintain.

 

[3TrueFans]

Thanks for all the info people, I ordered insanity last night. I will be following whatever diet thing comes with it (so I can stay on track) and then create meals with the same amount of calories after I'm done with it to maintain.

Sounds like a recipe for success, good luck!

 

[longtimeclone]

500 calorie deficit, not 500 calorie total for the day. You'd have to find your total calorie requirement for the day, for just living and exercising and whatnot, and subtract 500.

Ah I see. When I was reading your post I skipped over that word. That makes a lot of sense now.

 

[ThatllDoCy]

That number seems really low to me because I think you would be sacfricing a lot of muscle. I don't know if I have heard much lower than 1500 for a typical male diet.

I realize that people are talking about calories but I think it is a lot more important what is made up of those calories. A cup of raw vegetables/fruit has a lot few calories than many snack items.

Training based on your heart rate can address this concern. Muscle will be burned if you are under nourished. However, you can target fat by training in a specific Heart Rate zone.

Nothing will lose weight like starvation, but of course it is unsustainable. Don't think that to lose weight you have to lose muscle however. By varying your training and eating appropriately you can lose fat and gain muscle.

Now, for body building purposes, maybe not, as I think they bulk up and go lean consecutively. I have had success, however, gaining muscle and losing fat by using weight lifting and long low intensity cardio workouts. Eating appropriately after both.