veganmaster

The main way testosterone levels (and hormone levels in general) are affected is via overfeeding. Excess energy consumed in excess of expenditure triggers a chemical orchestra in which many hormones are increased. For example, Table 1 of this study: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/49/4/608 shows that testosterone levels increased by 32% in females who were overfed for 3 weeks (insulin increased 48%). Besides the general principle that hormones adjust to higher and lower amounts of work to be done (i.e., how much is required for the job of metabolism) - studies notice the contributing factors of Fat intake/the amount of adipose tissue in the body, & also of course exercise considerations. There are many studies showing a drop in hormone levels when kcal are restricted, for example. Basically, you can experiment with your hormone levels by varying kcal intake and especially by limiting or increasing the amount FAT in the diet & exercising... Regardless, I think it's important to avoid the mainstream trap of obsessing individual trees without seeing the giant forest. If you give the body biologically appropriate fuel (plant food), regular exercise+recovery, & some sunshine - the body's superly refined evolutionary design will give you good health.

Check out my post on this page (especially the 2 links I provide, which document why we are biological herbivores - actually the whole thread is good): viewtopic.php?f=6&t=13766&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30 Simply put, biological science and nutritional science robustly support the fact that humans are biologically herbivorous primates, designed via millions of years of evolution to specialize in processing plant foods (when you look at the long checklist of characteristics of herbivores, we match up perfectly - there is simply no substantial evidence supporting the silly contention that we are carnivores). We can only handle very occasional intake of animal foods without severe long term consequences.

You guys are hitting upon a very important topic when you ask "what is healthy." Most people simply do not realize that even eating small amounts of animal foods can lead to chronic disease. The China Study showed this in spades - even amounts of meat that might seem trivial increased disease risk. Animal foods and their waste products (high-sulfur, acidic proteins, cholesterol, saturated fats, toxins, etc.) cause disease in human beings in a dose-dependent fashion. When I say a healthy diet, I mean a diet that keeps arteries clean and organs and the whole body functioning on a very high level - a NORMAL level, in fact. The body only falters when the wrong fuel is regularly used for energy needs. For example, in my experience, a healthy body fights off an average cold virus in just a couple days, with only a mild sore throat at most. On the SAD diet, I thought occasionally getting a lingering chest cold was "normal." Yet I only perceived it as normal because everyone else I knew was eating significant amounts of animal foods. If you go to a Dr. in the U.S. and are told you "are doing fine" and you have a "normal cholesterol" - then you are likely NOT healthy, because any cholesterol level over 150 (indicating animal food consumption) likely means your arteries are lined with plaque. Every day someone is given a thumbs-up on their cholesterol test, and then they drop dead soon after. The wonderful George Carlin may be an example of this. He had chest pains, then died - yet he looked healthy outwardly. The point is, the human body has X potential for healing, and X is maximized via a plant diet + exercise. Every gram of Y (animal foods) you add to the equation directly increases the workload required to maintain and detoxify the human body. The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly shows that primates and humans (and all herbivores for that matter) can easily develop disease when animal products are eaten. Whenever the body is given TIME to heal without ANY additional burden of animal food (vegan diet or fasting) - the disease processes begin to reverse. The problem is most people eat animal foods many times a day, which guarantees development of disease. For example, autopsy studies reveal that even children and sometimes babies ALREADY have artery disease - because as soon as the body's healing potential is overwhelmed with the regular intake of animal food, the consequences begin to mount, the arteries begin to be lined with plaque, the bones begin to dissolve to buffer the acid load, etc. Often you will hear strength/bodybuilders talk about eating "clean" - which to them just means avoiding processed food and eating meat/dairy/fruits/grains/veggies. But they ignore the evidence if they believe eating meat daily leads to good health - and every day this is proven when fitness enthusiasts drop dead from heart attacks, just like the founder of jogging so famously did. Simply put, exercise will not clean your arteries or internal organs - only time away from the causative factors will allow the body to heal! People fail to realize just how quickly animal foods can harm - I think Supersize Me is a rare antidote to this. So, yes, theoretically one can be as healthy as an exercising vegan and eat meat - but the catch is the person would HAVE TO include long periods of vegan eating and/or fasting to keep up with reversing the damage. In fact this is exactly what caloric restriction is about, though it's participants do not usually understand it - they simply think "less kcal = better health" without realizing the lopsided effect of animal foods on human health. Oh, also on the B12 issue, I recommend reading this: Vitamin B12 Deficiency—the Meat-eaters’ Last Stand http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/nov/b12.htm

Yes, it's amazing that the obvious can be denied so easily via popular meme regurgitation - people who are so misinformed to think humans are carnivores should be forced to prove it by eating live prey - like all other blood- and guts-loving carnivores on the planet (kidding, of course). But sheeple believe whatever memes are most popular inside their own brains, and dismiss all evidence to the contrary. So you get people who think our tiny, vestigial canine teeth somehow proves we are carnivores, despite the fact that dozens of other physical characteristics match up perfectly with other herbivores, and a mountain of scientific evidence implicating animal foods in chronic disease, and the itty bitty fact that we are genetically 99+% identical to chimps! But I suppose that is just god testing our "faith" LOL. Cognitive dissonance defines us.

Sweet - new desktop picture, thank you I am trying to focus my non- muscle-building energy on astronomy/science instead of energy/biosphere issues - it's a whole lot more interesting and gives you a wide perspective (well it's less depressing at least)!

If you're going by appetite, you will have enough energy to build muscle, certainly, but for faster accumulation of muscle you must overfeed kcal above needs. I've posted before about studies showing net PRO accretion despite total energy deficits of around -500kcal (both groups added net 24h PRO, 11g for mixed diet and +17 g for Hi-CHO low-fat). The body is extremely durable when run off of plant fuel - as long as kcal needs are met and a decent portion of your food is unprocessed, you will meet needs. It's important to recall that the body is designed to withstand fairly long periods of fasting - thus our actual need for nutrients is pretty easy to meet, in fact it is almost impossible not to meet if you eat real plant food regularly. I've used soy protein + Maltodextrin shakes often instead of regular vegan food, and have not noticed any decline in my immune function. I used to take a lot of supplements, and have researched that area extensively as well - I've taken 10-20 grams of Vitamin C a day, for example. One thing I've learned: I take Zero supplements now, yet have the same great health as before - in fact I'm far stronger and have more muscle than ever, despite hardly eating fruits/greens, etc. (simple sugars kill my teeth, so I eat no fruit, and I've never like salad). People can live well off very simple plant diets - I see no reason for people to worry so much about "getting enough" because 99.9% of illness is either caused by overeating animal foods/grease or simply starvation. Hell, my body is basically built from wheat, legumes, potatoes, rice, soy, lol. My point is not to understate the healthfulness of fruits and veggies, but to highlight the resiliency of the human body when it is fed the biologically appropriate fuel.

Don't forget there are many non-lethal devices that will disable an attacker (not that I have any or know of a good brand). As crime continues to worsen due to economic probs from Energy Descent/Climate, I will probably buy a stun gun or even a real gun, but I'm still waiting... as James Kunstler notes about the south, gun culture + hyperindividualism may not present a pretty picture as Peak Oil ratchets down.

Each baby is accusing the other of being at fault for overpopulation, lol. Trying to deal with climate change, biosphere destruction, Peak Oil, Peak Everything, without tackling the prime cause of overpopulation is like trying to mop up a spill with the faucet running. Humanity is in gross overshoot, and nature is about to pull the carpet of cheap fossil fuels out from underneath us. Sometimes "reproductive rights" of women seems to be placed above the health of the biosphere - by refusing to address overpopulation we ignore the fact that about 70 million net humans are dumped on this planet EACH YEAR. How can one notice the problems in the world and not see that adding millions of resource-exploiting humans to a finite globe is the ultimate environmental problem (rhetorical question, I know the answer is our DNA). Also it is a geological fact that cheap oil is over; oil imports are drying up faster a raisin in the sun (and the US imports over 2/3). It will become geometrically more expensive as time passes and infrastructures built on the silly premise of infinite growth on a finite planet begin to crumble. Permaculture is the future, but transitioning would sure entail a lot less human suffering if we would control population. IMO, the longer the balloon of population inflates, the greater the suffering when it pops - and physics and science tells us, in no uncertain terms, that it will pop. Food riots and other various protests are occuring daily around the world, is it so bad to say that we're stocked up on people, let's stop ordering inventory? The stakes could not be higher - if we do not curb our numbers, nature will soon do it old-G style: dieoff. When an organism's population explodes exponentially, it inevitably comes crashing down, simply because of physics. In my opinion (and I've done a ton of research in these areas) if you can't tackle overpopulation, let alone Peak Energy, massive dieoff is inevitable. Yes, dealing with it isn't going to be pretty, but you have to choose the lesser of evils, and unless one wants a global dieoff, that means educating people that baby-making is actually the #1 cause of human problems (certainly a vegan baby in 3rd world country uses a lot less resources than a vegan baby raised in the U.S., for example, but it is still a net strain on the web of life). But honestly, this means the clever monkey must get around its DNA, and clearly that is the greatest challenge because ALL life by definition excels at producing offspring - that's what allowed us survive. So maybe I can understand why overpopulation is so ignored - the truth is just too damn ugly, and the solution is anything but clear. But ethically speaking, the path of least suffering appears to lead through some scary territory - but isn't that what ethics is all about - making difficult choices? We must choose the path of LEAST suffering even when it causes significant suffering, right? Or do we do nothing and simply await the reaper? I would love to be proven wrong, but I have near-zero hope that we can outsmart our DNA and repair the damage done to the biosphere... I'd love to be shown the error of my ways: I've spent too much time reading http://www.theoildrum.com obviously - steer clear of that site if you want to keep your sanity - knowledge is an abusive bitch, I tell you! I've got the pessimistic black-eyes to prove it!

You would be better served by keeping you protein intake modest but jacking up CHO intake (in high-CHO overfeeding studies using a 4300 kcal diet and "only" 90 grams of protein, about 2/3 of the PRO was deposited PER DAY- that's more than 1/2 lb LBM - with ZERO exercise). The reason for this is very high levels of CHO minimize the amount of Nitrogen (protein) lost via urine, sweat, etc., by jacking up insulin. Remember the big picture: if you are not gaining muscle, increasing you total energy intake above energy expenditure will inevitably cause net deposition of PRO, GLYCOGEN, and FAT stores. The key is a high ratio of CHO relative to FAT kcal (read my other posts for more info). All overfeeding studies show this pattern: higher surplus energy intake (kcal you eat above maintenance) = increased energy deposition (75-95% efficient, depending on macronutrient ratios). Additionally, the higher the ratio of CHO:FAT - the better the result in terms of body composition (read my other posts for much more on this too, including references). Another thing to remember is that the more processed and liquid the meal, the faster it digests and the quicker you become hungry again. LBM:FAT ratio of weight gained is best when the overfeeding diet is very high CHO, very low FAT, moderate PRO (over 90 g) - scientific studies referenced in my other posts.

Well, so many people are not taught critical thinking skills, or they simply do not have the capacity for independent though, so they just grab onto whatever the most popular memes are and always defend the status quo (no thought required, just regurgitation). To be fair, industry has spent billions and billions on the propaganda, and people want to believe it anyway because they don't want to know the truth, that YES, what you are feeding your family is also what's killing your family and causing suffering. They'd rather accept the myth that you can't cure yourself of diseases - cuz my Dr. would tell me if he knew that, right? Yes, if he doesn't mind making a lot less money - because once you are educated to the truth, you realize that what you eat and how well you exercise determine human health - and you only really need to visit the emergency room for acute trauma. Doctors are worshipped, and yet they are only knowledgeable about 2 things: pills and surgery/technology - they are nearly all grossly ignorant of basic nutrition, which by any sane measure, is the KEY TO HEALTH. But as Dr. McDougall himself has noted, it's a lot harder to make money doing it the right way, by actually educating people on vegan nutrition. That reminds me of his first patients in hawaii - business was hard, precisely because it only took a few visits before the patient's had no NEED of a Dr! So they had monthly vegan potlucks so the "patients" could get to see their "doctor" - and that is the true place for a doctor - teaching people to heal themselves. Be sure to check the chart about halfway down for a quick comparison of carnivorous & herbivorous traits, and how humans stack up: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

This is the exact kind of correlational study that should be soundly ignored by all. The research is extremely clear when you ignore the B.S. correlational, theoretical studies and focus on the big picture. The science robustly supports some indisputable facts: #1. Humans are biological herbivores, designed via millions of years of evolution to process plant foods. It's crazy that even vegans are ignorant of this basic biological FACT, but propaganda works. For example, carnis and omnis have short intenstinal tracks maybe 2-6 times their body length, while humans match up with herbivores since we have long intestines 11 times bodylength. Meat needs to be excreted quickly, while plant foods must be kept longer to extract and the vitamins and minerals, etc. Numerous other examples abound, check these links to explore the surprising truth (ONLY HERBIVORES have Seminal Vesicles, for example,): Dr. McDougall article (check his book "Digestive Tune-Up" for more in depth): http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/030700pumeatinthehumandiet.htm http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html - CHECK OUT THE CHART halfway down! It is actually pretty amazing that so many people are brainwashed to think humans are biological omnivores, considering most would admit we are cousins to chimps, gorillas, and other herbivorous primates. I find it frustrating that the "hunter/gatherer," Weston Price/Cave Man Diet nonsense is so successful. People don't seem to realize that what groups of humans did in the recent past has absolutely ZERO bearing on the BEST fuel for the human body, or on how the body is designed. Humans, like any creature, will consume whatever energy sources are available (Ex: eskimos and others have lived on high-meat diets - and despite getting 2500mg Calcium a day, they have horrible osteoporosis, because the high ratio of sulfuric amino acids in meat must be buffered by calcium from the bones). My point is, it is short-sighted to base you nutrition habits on something other than biology - you can feed an alligator broccoli all you want, but it will not change the fact that its carnivorous biology is better fueled by meat. And humans can eat all the chicken and fish and milk they want (and get chronic disease in the process) - but it does not change the FACT that the human body excels on plant foods for fuel, and EVERY time people eat a diet containing significant animal foods, they are using "dirty fuel" for the human machine - yes it supplies energy and a few nutrients, but it comes with an acid burden, cholesterol, saturated fats, and many other chemicals which the human body is NOT perfectly adapted to process. The scientific evidence is has established the FACT that animal products cause chronic disease in humans, even at fairly low levels of consumption (China Study showed this well). If you only look at the evidence, you must reach the conclusion that the only thing to be debated is whether the optimal human diet should be 95% vegan or 100% - but either way informed opinions must accept what biological science & nutritional science both reveal: humans are herbivorous primates, and are specifically adpapted to processing plants for energy. Just as your cat can process the grains present in cat food, people can process animal foods, but that doesn't change the underlying biology of either the cat or the human. #2 One of the other major misconceptions IMO is thinking that chronic disease is caused by DEFICIENCY of nutrients/genes. The truth is, starvation is almost always what causes actual deficiency diseases (and ALL of these "scary" deficiency diseases, including pernicious anemia from lack of B12, are all extremely rare compared to animal food caused disease). Artery disease, cancer, diabetes - basically all chronic diseases are from animal-food OVERNUTRITION not undernutrition of any kind. The body is constantly healing, but if you eat animal foods with every meal it cannot overcome that rate of waste breakdown, so problems slowly build up - the arteries become lined with plaque, gallstones form, cancer growth is supported, autoimmune diseases begin, etc.etc. It is such a pathetic joke when vegans are hassled about extremely rare possibilities of deficiency, while most of the meat-eaters doing the attacking know relatives who've died from their diets, or in fact they are on prescription drugs themselves due to their own diets. Artery disease and cancer are the biggest killers - in 1988 Dean Ornish published the pioneering studies showing reversal of artery disease via near vegan diet. In 2005 Ornish published a study showing a reversal of early prostate cancer via a low fat vegan diet - every single vegan eater got better PSA wise, while many in the control group got worse and had Chemo. If these results were from a little red pill, every single person in the country would know about it - but because it requires change and effort, and because it completely eliminates the gravy train of drugs/surgery that is the backbone of "modern" medicine, it is buried and propagandized. The human body, when fed enough plant food to meet energy needs, even from just one good source like potatoes or wheat, etc., not only survives but thrives. The fact that peasants thrive of simple plant food was known by royalty hundreds of years ago - thus their toast to each other to have "the health of a peasant." Their health was terrible, because they of course ate a lot of dairy and meat - they were the early Americans . If you eat a vegan diet, I don't see the justification for getting freaked out about eating conventional produce or toxins from plastic or worrying about nutrients - just by being vegan and satisfying your appetite you are giving your body the right fuel, and plenty of room to heal, which the body does very well (of course as everyone here knows, exercise is the other determining factor). Eating high on the food chain has consequences for those organisms evolutionarily adapted to processing plant foods, and these consequences become more and more severe as the damage progresses, one bite of animal food at a time.

The Cacti Offer Nourishment; We Suckle Like Overgrown Blowfish 1. art flourishes and its slave is momentarily unbled nothing calms the raging bloodstream like creativity unleashed even those that don't write, or paint, or compose, the density of the sky must still haunt them 2. making art is like falling asleep in a quiet desert oasis as the sun steadily rinses the earth's surface with radiance the beauty of a solitary yellow cactus flower is revealed http://www.pathetic.org/library.php?i_memberid=5697" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sounds fine - I think as long as you understand how body recomposition works, then you can track your progress and make adjustments - as long as you aren't gaining much FAT increase your total kcal, etc. - if you get chubby exercise more and/or throw in some fasting for quick FAT oxidation. Personally, I wouldn't mind doing traditional bodybuilder method of massive overfeeding (high CHO, low fat of course), getting huge, then cutting down - but the GF won't have it So I fast to burn the fat. There is one Swedish trainer with a pretty good understanding of these issues, his blog is http://www.leangains.blogspot.com/ - he helps clients melt the FAT while often building muscle via short-term fasting (not vegan-style of course).

Thanks so much for your interest - I appreciate it VERY much. The thousands of hours I've spent researching have educated myself but rarely get passed along, because people are so brainwashed with false memes about nutrition. Human metabolism (& nutrition) is actually pretty damn clear, but only if you are willing to dig deep, do the research yourself, and look at the big picture science (especially the few studies using whole-body, or indirect calorimetry). Most nutrition studies are poorly controlled, BS correlational studies whose intent is to support industry interests via lying with statistics. #1 MYTH in nutrition: humans are somehow NOT herbivorous primates like our cousins, chimps, gorillas, etc., - it's insane! The science clearly shows we are biological herbivores who are designed to perfectly process plant foods - and the majority of plant food is very high in CHO, modest in PRO, and low in FAT. #2 myth is that poor health is from lack of nutrients/variety/chemical toxins, when the truth is 99.9% of chronic disease is the inevitable results of putting the wrong fuel (animal foods) in the human gas tank - our herbvorous biology can certainly process animal foods, as we are built Ford-tough by millions of years of evolution - but sooner or later parts of the body breakdown when you energize it with the wrong fuel, especially if you never give your body a rest from animal foods via either exclusively plant foods or fasting. As far as my own habits, I have been experimenting and exercising for a couple years now, and I have basically settled upon a plan for building muscle and minimizing FAT gain. I've reasoned that the fastest way to reach my goals is to make progress everyday. #1 Fat oxidation/minimization: I fast completely until 2 p.m. or so - this burns approximately 30 grams of FAT, 6 g PRO, 60g CHO for someone my size (170). Yes, you lose a slight amount of muscle - but nothing burns fat faster, and notice you lose a lot more FAT than PRO. I have found that fasting is easy, because the body produces chemicals which dampen the appetite (catecholamines). I also try to eat as little FAT as possible during the rest of the day, but I often "falter" and eat peanut butter + fat-free crackers, thus I utilize regular fasting so that as long as I eat less than 50 or so grams of FAT a day, I will not increase FAT stores, and definitely decrease them on strict days. Even during massive overfeeding studies people oxidized at least 20 grams of FAT/d, and as I mentioned previously studies show that with zero fat intake and with total kcal needs met, the body has a net loss of fat of a little over 1 gram/d. #2 2-11p.m. - Energy intake should be significantly higher than Energy Expenditure. Frankly, I'd like to eat as many kcal as I can without getting fat, lol - if the girlfriend remarks about any FAT gain, I know it's time to focus on fasting Since processed, liquid kcal speeds gastric emptying I use 900 kcal "shakes:" 25 g Soy PRO 200g Maltodextrin (glucose polymers, low in simple sugars) ZERO added FAT + a little kool-aid flavoring (pure maltodextrin needs help, hehe) My goal is to have at minimum a shake at 2 and 11 p.m. - eating more normal low-fat vegan foods in between. I understand many vegans would rather choose whole-foods, and that will work too, but the fact is the more total High-CHO kcal you take in, the more net protein you will deposit, and I find it very hard to overfeed on low-fat vegan food, for obvious reasons (high fiber, bulk). It's not hard to gain when you are eating milkshakes, colas and doughnuts like an average American lol - obese people indeed do have large accumulations of LBM & even more FAT due to overfeeding on FAT + refined CHO combos - but for maximum muscle partitioning you want to overfeed via liquid kcal, but with an eye on minimizing FAT deposition. #3 Exercise. Significant muscle work, whether via one of my favs: full-body pulsing isometrics (I like to flex my entire body in waves - it can drench you with sweat in minutes) or via push-ups and squats. I actually like using heavy weights too but I'm a hermit with no home gym. But accessories are not necessarrily needed, you can make muscle contractions as difficult as you like. Something to recognize metabolically though, is that exercise increases energy expenditure - so it is vital if you do a ton of exercise that you eat a ton of kcal - exercise does push down the pedal of net protein accretion significantly - but one must remember than basic physics means the more low-fat kcal you consume, the more muscle you will gain. This is why those with naturally big appetites + interest in bodybuilding tend to do so well. In my opinion genetics is overplayed - physics is the same for everyone, and even steroid users built that muscle via megacalorie diets & exercise, not just from a pill. Often guys will talk about their "body types" and their "maximum potential" - and I think it is instructive to realize the science shows that excess energy with be deposited with 75-95% efficiency, depending on the CHO:F:PRO ratio. Think of sumo wrestlers and imagine how much muscle they have accumulated under all that FAT - clearly we don't want all that fat but I think it's useful to recognize they have gotten so huge because excess energy will be deposited into glycogen, FAT & PRO, that's basic physics. Glycogen stores are limited, but FAT & PRO stores are only limited by the health of the organism - so I am still fairly small IMO, but I know if I pursue my goals and overfeed daily while also preventing FAT gain, I will gain PRO - it is a universal law. Obviously, these ideas aren't very popular, because we are hard-wired to love FAT, because it is such a concetrated energy source. To be clear, exercising regularly and eating a very low fat vegan diet will indeed build muscle, that's the beauty of human metabolism - our bodies prefer to maintain our PRO stores - FAT & CHO are our main fuels, after all.

WOW ....maybe that would have helped a lot if i had known before, so you are saying that i can have a high-carb off course all whole grains fruits, natural sweeteners (very little) diet and as long as i decrease my fat intake i would gain lean muscle, definition and decrease my BF%???? that sounds wwwwaaaayyyy too good to be true, perhaps that is why as soon as i started splurging on PB and AB i started gaining some fat Could you elaborate a little more into this veganmaster...it would be extremely appreciated. Thanks for the response! Check out what I just wrote in the "can raw make you fat" thread: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=13468&start=15 Ah yes, yummy peanut butter, my nemesis. I've been studying metabolism with a vengeance for a few years now (I like to read the full studies myself), so I'm happy to share my hard-earned knowledge. Muscle gain factors: 1. Total kcal intake. Whenever you eat more kcal than you expend, you will increase energy stores, in the forms: glycogen, protein, fat. The greater the kcal excess the more energy will build up in your body. The largest muscle protein gains are seen in very high CHO studies, with averages of up to 65 g/d (starch overfeeding studies achieved this with 4300 kcal diets 71% CHO/20% FAT/9% protein). During overfeeding all three energy stores increase, though glycogen stores are limited to 700-1100 grams. 2. Ratio of FAT:CHO:PRO A key insight is that there is a difference in how excess CHO, PRO, and FAT are dealt with by the body. Fat is already in the chemical form of storage, so it takes a mere 3% or so loss of energy to deposit the fat. CHO (& PRO), on the other hand, must be converted to FAT via De Novo Lipogenesis, an inefficient process that uses up to 30% of the energy during the conversion. So right there you can begin to see why eating FAT is logically the best way to increase fat stores. Now, another important factor in this is that as CHO intake increases, less Nitrogen (protein) is excreted by the body (via urine, sweat, etc). So to maximize PRO while limiting FAT you actually want a very high CHO diet with modest protein (90 grams a day is fine - in fact the best studies show 50-65 grams out of 90 grams of protein deposited as muscle, multiply by 5 to get LBM). Now, these diets still included 20% FAT, so the fat gain was at least equal or double the muscle gain - but for overfeeding that's pretty good because I've calculated the FAT:PROTEIN ratio and when fatty diets are used in overfeeding studies, the result can be as much as 13 grams of FAT gained PER gram of muscle protein gained. 3. Energy Expenditure/increased protein synthesis - exercise on an empty stomach increases PS, but also protein breakdown, putting the body into a catabolic state unless food is present in the stomach. Exercise burns mostly CHO and FAT, about half of kcal from each. But still, it is quite easy to eat in one mouthful the amount of FAT it took you an hour jogging to burn off. Certainly, if you are in a caloric deficit you'll lose energy stores overall, that's the basic physics, but you certainly influence WHICH energy stores are used via diet. So for example this study: "Metabolic effects of a mixed and a high-carbohydrate low-fat diet in man" found a HCLFD to be superior to a mixed diet in terms of muscle gain on a caloric deficit diet (they did lots of cycling on a machine). The interesting thing is that despite a greater kcal deficit in the HC group (-458) compared to the MD (-340), the hi-CHO group gained 17 grams of net protein compared to only 11 grams gained in the mixed diet group. In addition, the CHO group oxidized 80.5 grams of fat while the MD group oxidized 75 grams. In other words, in terms of body recomposition, maximizing CHO, minimizing FAT and getting moderate protein was much more effective despite the fact that the total amount of energy consumed was the same. The HCLFD diet was 17% PRO, 4% FAT, 78%CHO. While just one study, the science is not controversial - here's a practical example of the same thing: "Effects of high-calorie supplements on body composition and muscular strength following resistance training" "BACKGROUND: Seventy-three healthy, male subjects randomly divided into 3 groups participated in a study to determine the effects of 2 high-calorie nutritional supplements on body composition, body segment circumferences, and muscular strength following a resistance-training (RT) program. METHODS: In addition to their normal diets group 1 (CHO/PRO; n=26) consumed a 8.4 Mj x day(-1) (2010 kcal) high calorie, high protein supplement containing 356 g carbohydrate and 106 g protein. Group 2 (CHO; n=25) consumed a carbohydrate supplement that was isocaloric with CHO/PRO. Group 3 (CTRL; n=22) received no supplement and served as a control. All subjects were placed on a 4-day x week(-1) RT program for 8 weeks. RESULTS: Dietary analysis revealed no significant differences in total energy consumption or nutrients at any time in the non-supplemented diets of the 3 groups. Significant (p= or <0.05) increases in body mass (BM) and fat-free mass (FFM) were observed in CHO/PRO and CHO compared to CTRL. Mean (+/- SD) increases in BM were 3.1+/-3.1 kg and 3.1+/-2.2 kg, respectively. Fat-free mass significantly (p= or <0.05) increased 2.9+/-3.4 kg in CHO/PRO and 3.4+/-2.5 kg in CHO. Muscular strength, as measured by a one-repetition maximum in the bench press, leg press, and lat-pull down increased significantly (p= or <0.05) in all groups. No significant differences in strength measures were observed among groups following training. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that high-calorie supplements are effective in increasing BM and FFM when combined with RT. However, once individual protein requirements are met, energy content of the diet has the largest effect on body composition." If megadoses of protein built muscle, the high CHO group would not have gotten the best body recomposition - but they did, because high-CHO, low-fat is the best for Maximum Partitioning. Hope that's helpful, what do ya think?

Certainly you are correct about basic physics: excess energy (kcal) will be stored. How much though depends on the macronutrient. FAT is 97%+ efficient, but when CHO & PRO are converted to FAT via DNL they are only about 70% efficient, according to robust metabolism science using the gold standard calorimetry. A raw food diet very low in fats like avocados, olive oil, etc, would be quite a challenge to get fat on - studies show that even a 85% CHO, ZERO fat, 15% PRO diet (at maintenance) results in a net loss of FAT, above 1 g/hr. The fact is, dozens of well-controlled studies reveal exactly how metabolism works - the higher the ratio of CHO:F, the better the ratio of LBM:F gained. In other words, if you want to gain muscle with minimal fat gain, you choose high-carb, very low fat. If you wanted to gain a higher % of Fat you eat lots of fat, plus refined carbs to help push the fat into storage (so your body burns the CHO for energy, and just stores the fat). I've studied the overfeeding science in depth, and it matches up very well - the higher the % FAT, the lower the ratio of LBM:F gained (the worse body recomposition, in other words). The studies getting the best results in terms of the normal goal of increased protein stores and minimizing the increase in fat stores are very high CHO overfeeding diets. It is well-established why: CHO raises insulin, which then protects LBM via reducing Nitrogen excretion. It is the same reason why protein needs are so exaggerated - it depends on how much CHO you eat. I have studies using a diet of only 3% protein - and LBM was maintained while the subjects ate a 3000 kcal, very high CHO diet. Certainly a fatty raw food diet will cause fat gain, if excess kcal are eaten. After all FAT contains 9 kcal/g, while CHO & PRO are around 4 kcal/g! But a very low-fat vegan diet, raw or not, is difficult to get fat on because the foods are so filling, and CHO conversion to FAT via De Novo Lipogenesis is a "quantitatively minor metabolic pathway" in people. If you load up on CHO today, your body will just burn more CHO for energy, and lower the amount of FAT burned for energy. When scientists take fat samples from people they can tell what kind of fats you've been eating - this is because fat from DNL is tiny to non-existant in average diets. You'd have to eat a hell of a lot of bananas and grapes to gain much fat from DNL - I don't think you could do it unless you used processed food (grape juice + banana juice all day long). In fact that combined with exercise would put on some significant muscle

Exercise oxidizes small amounts of FAT, but one can easily overcome that by eating FAT. Each gram of FAT that passes your lips, it will be stored with 97%+ efficiency. CHO and PRO are not converted to FAT in significant amounts, especially if you are not overfeeding. Thus, increase your energy expenditure and reduce FAT intake. Focus on foods rated high on the "Satiety Index" potatoes with no added fat, for example, got the highest score. Many studies on starches (pasta overfeeding, for example) show that starches are simply not converted to FAT in significant amounts, especially when combined with exercise - in fact one study showed concomitant fat loss. I have binders full of metabolism and overfeeding studies, and what you learn just elucidates exactly why the most successful fat loss diets are McDougall, Pritikin, etc - diet high in starches, very low in fat, moderate in PRO - are ideal for staying trim. Protein-Sparing Modified Fasts, or just fasting in general, is an option too, because then the overall kcal deficit causes fat loss, and the protein maintains LBM. But overall if you don't limit fats greatly you are fighting an uphill battle because the fat burned off during an hour of exercise can be packed back on in a just a few minutes of eating. Thus, willpower becomes vital, as always

Read my posts in this thread for detailed references and info: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8318&p=103995#p103995 Basically, muscle work does not require anything but your body. I'm focusing on full body muscle contractions (you go from zero to bucketloads of sweat in just a few minutes) + my other focus is on push-ups and squats - you can make them as hard as you want, with goals like 1 armed or 1 legged PUs/squats etc. If you stimulate Muscle protein synthesis regularly, with (low-fat high CHO, moderate PRO) food in your stomach - you will increase PRO stores, especially if you overfeed. It takes energy to work muscles, regardless of whether you are holding something or nothing in your hand. And the bodyweight exercises help strengthen the joints, which is possibly the only shortcoming of static or flowing isometrics. And if you want to gain muscle without FAT gain, the key is very low fat, very high CHO and moderate PRO (and the faster you want it, the more total kcal you eat). Remember, the fat you eat is the fat you wear . Of course that's easier said than done - I love my peanut butter and crackers, but I'm trying to focus on acheiving my goals first.

Yes, the beauty of isometric muscle contraction is that it is far safer than weights, and as you learn to do it - you are in control and can make it hellishly intense, or nice and easy - whatever difficulty you want. Personally I prefer very intense full or half body muscle contractions, done in a pulsing manner, cuz it's more interesting and induces the most metabolic stress. Though to be fair, muscle fibers can be fully stimulated at lower intensities, for example the hands @ 50% MVC, with pretty much all muscles being fully utilized @ 75% intensity. Weights are certainly a luxury and not at all necessary to perform muscle work. Two more recent pics of Marlon Birch, the isometric natural bodybuilder: http://www.bronzebowpublishing.com/images/various/marlon_1.jpg http://www.bronzebowpublishing.com/images/various/marlon_2.jpg

Caloric restriction is really for those who choose to eat unhealthy foods, in the "healthiest" manner possible. The science shows that chronic diseases are caused by animal products, period. The whole point of a healthy low-fat vegan diet is you eat as much as you want and you stay in robust health. Certainly if you only eat 1500-2000 kcal/d, regardless of the food you are giving your body quite a bit of room to heal. But why torture yourself for benefits that can be accrued through delicious low-fat vegan foods?

Wolfy - good news, I strenuously disagree. There are quite a few scientific studies on isometric training, which prove that you don't need weights to gain strength and muscle (and besides, you always have the resistance of your own body to use as well). As an aside, total energy intake is the key to muscle gain (I have read just about every overfeeding study available, and yes the science is clear: you can gain muscle without exercising at all - of course muscle tension + exercise is optimal). Back to that other important factor: simple muscle contraction. I experienced my first muscle and strength gains without using weights at all. Try this simple experiment: flex your whole upper body fairly hard, for example, do some bodybuilding poses at 70% of your max (MVC: Maximum Voluntary Contraction is the scientific term). Now try to keep continuously flexing for a couple minutes. After you pick yourself off of the floor you will realize that your muscle fibers don't care whether you are actually holding anything in your hands - it is scientific fact that it took metabolic stress (ENERGY) to make those muscle contractions! There are a couple key points to effective isometric training: 1) contraction times (TUT) for effective hypertrophy should be at least 30 sec to a minute 2) several studies show that the angle needs to be at least 100 degrees for the adaptations to happen in the entire range of motion (in other words, make sure a good deal of contractions are with arms/legs extended beyond 90 degrees). In fact I like to do full body isometric contractions. You can coat yourself with sweat in just a few minutes by trying to flex all your muscles at once (be careful though if you’re not used to it. Isometrics is as difficult as you want it to be. More important than my opinion, of course, are these excerpts from some of the scientific studies: 1. Comparison of weights and isometric contractions. Result: both forms of exercise led to strength and hypertrophy. "Increases in strength and size of the quadriceps muscle have been compared during 12 weeks of either isometric or dynamic strength training... Similar changes in strength and muscle cross-sectional area were found after the two forms of exercise...In both cases there was an approximate 5% increase in cross-sectional area." D A Jones et al. Human muscle strength training: the effects of three different regimens and the nature of the resultant changes. J Physiol. 1987 October; 391: 1–11. 2. Study compared 3 second contractions and 30 sec contractions. Result: 30 sec contractions at a mere 70% MVC led to both strength and hypertrophy. “The right leg was trained using four sets of ten contractions, each lasting 3 s with a 2-s rest period between each contraction and 2 min between each set. The left leg was trained using four 30-s contractions with a 1-min rest period between each. Both protocols involved isometric contractions at 70% of a maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVC). “ “There were significant increases in muscle CSA for the CC leg only… These findings suggest that factors related to the greater metabolite changes during CC training results in greater increases in isometric strength and muscle CSA.” The role of metabolites in strength training. II. Short versus long isometric contractions. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1995;71(4):337-41. 3. Study on tendon stiffness showed that both short- and long-duration isometrics increased muscle volume ~7%, and the long contractions increased tendon stiffness most (increased stiffness leads to increased torque). “Both protocols resulted in a significant increase in MVC: 31.8 ± 17.2 % for the short-duration protocol and 33.9 ± 14.4 % for the long-duration protocol. Moreover, the training produced significant increases in the muscle volume of the constituents of the quadriceps femoris, with similar relative gains for the two protocols: 7.4 ± 3.9 % for the short-duration protocol and 7.6 ± 4.3 % for the long-duration protocol… The present study demonstrates a greater increase in stiffness of human tendon structures following isometric training using longer duration contractions compared to shorter contractions. This suggests that the changes in the elasticity of the tendon structures after resistance training may be affected by the duration of muscle contraction.” Kubo et al. Effects of different duration isometric contractions on tendon elasticity in human quadriceps muscles. Journal of Physiology (2001), 536.2, pp. 649-655 4. This study using “flowing isometrics,” which just means muscle tension+movement. Results: “Training significantly increased the muscle volume ( V(m)), fascicle pennation angle of the triceps brachii, and torque output during concentric and eccentric elbow extensions at three constant velocities” Kanehisa H et al. Effects of equivolume isometric training programs comprising medium or high resistance on muscle size and strength. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Jun;87(2):112-9. 5. This one had sedentary subjects do mere 30% MVC contractions for a few months, and they grew muscle even from this light workout. “The mean area of type I and type II fibres in the soleus increased by approximately 30%... The data further demonstrate that substantial fibre hypertrophy is achieved by training with low-intensity contractions.” Alway SE, Sale DG, MacDougall JD. Twitch contractile adaptations are not dependent on the intensity of isometric exercise in the human triceps surae. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1990;60(5):346-52 Not to give you guys the wrong idea – I don’t use isometrics exclusively, though my first gains came that way. Actually I really want some heavy weights, as I do enjoy carrying around heavy objects, etc. But I also enjoying using flowing isometrics, keeping a continuous flex and then doing various movements. John Peterson is probably the most well known isometric guy, check transformetrics.com – their previous forum was interesting, and had a natural bodybuilder from the Caribbean there who uses isometrics exclusively. He won his division: AMATEUR MEN Lightweights 1st – Marlon Birch http://www.inbf.net/caribbean.html Unfortunately, Peterson is a religious nut, and thus has a big following of fellow cult members . Way too much nonsense on that forum for this vegan Skeptic Found some Marlon Birch pics from 2004: http://bronzebowpublishing.com/images/marlon/Marlon1.jpg http://bronzebowpublishing.com/images/marlon/Marlon2.jpg http://bronzebowpublishing.com/images/marlon/Marlon3.jpg http://bronzebowpublishing.com/images/marlon/Marlon4.jpg I think he's writing a book on isos as well... [/img]