Vægttab pr uge med og uden ECA

[ziwe]

Hejsa,

jeg har tænkt mig at cutte mig selv i bund til denne sommer og vil starte nu her pr 1 marts.

Her på forummet er der en fælles konsensus om at man ikke skal tabe sig mere end 500gr pr uge hvis man vil holde på muskemassen.

Der er dog et par ting jeg må holde mig lidt undrende over for i denne sammen hæng, som jeg håber jeg kan få svar på :)

de 500 gr må være et eller andet estimat, jeg mener en person på 60 kg og en på 120 der begge vil tabe sig 5 kg kan vel næppe have den samme grænse for hvor meget fedt de maks kan smide om ugen uden der ryger muske med ?? (det er vel lidt som at sige at en mus og en elefant begge kun må smide 500 gr om ugen).

en sidste ting, når man bruger ECA til at hjælpe i et cut ændre det vel også denne mængde, men hvor meget ?

[MaxPower]

Her på forummet er der en fælles konsensus om at man ikke skal tabe sig mere end 500gr pr uge hvis man vil holde på muskemassen.

Der er dog et par ting jeg må holde mig lidt undrende over for i denne sammen hæng, som jeg håber jeg kan få svar på :)

Det er netop den overfortolkning der helst ikke skal ske.

500g pr uge er en fornuftig tommelfingerregel der virker rimelig godt i de fleste tilfælde, men som alt andet kan den slags kun bruges indenfor et normalområde.

500g pr uge kan nås uden alt for voldsomme ændringer i en persons kost og træning - med mindre man selvfølgelig er en chipsædende sofakartoffel. Og selv i det tilfælde skal der nok ikke meget andet til end 30min moderat aktivitet dagligt og 5-10% mindre indtag.

Er man nede på etcifrede fedtprocenter er 500g/uge måske for hurtigt og vil resultere i at der tabes væsentlig muskelmasse uanset om man gør alt andet optimalt. For en overvægtig med 20+ kg bare ned til normalvægt kan man med alt sandsynlighed tillade sig et større underskud, hvis det kan realiseres.

[Keki]

Interessant artikel om ECA-Stacks: http://www.bodyzone.dk/forum/viewtopic.php...ac0401fc844c74d

Edited February 25, 2007 by Keki

[ptpoul]

Hvis man har massiv overvægt, kan man skære endda MEGET hårdt ned. Jo tættere man kommer på sin ideal vægt jo mindre skal underskuddet dog være.

ECA stacks + kcal underskud kan give mærkbart større fedttab end underskud alene. Men spørgsmålet er om det er det værd.

Jeg har selv prøvet produkterne og oplevede ingen depression efterfølgende. Bare en udtalt udbrændthed fysisk og mentalt. Min træning blev voldsomt nedsat efter cutte/ECA perioden fordi jeg var voldsomt overtrænet og ikke kunne mærke det pga. det boost ECA'erne gav.

Søvn blev det også endnu lettere at sjuske med, for man blev ikke træt når man bare nappede ECA stacken dagligt.

Jeg var heldig og slap med en gedigen omgang overtræning, med de mentale og fysiske risici der er forbundet med brugen af ECA, ville jeg aldrig have prøvet dem, hvis jeg vidste hvad jeg ved nu.

Depression er bare ikke en sjov potentiel bivirkning, ligesom hjerneblødninger og andre fysiske risici ikke er så fede at udsætte sig for, bare for at kunne cutte lidt mere effektivt.

Risikoen er ikke voldsomt høj, men tænk hvis ens livskvalitet varigt blev skadet, fordi man ville cutte lidt hurtigere?

[ptpoul]

Hastigheden af vægttab:

I've addressed this before in one of my columns but I'll review the concept now with some new data. Basically, it's been shown time and time again that when following a hypocaloric diet, the fatter you are at the start, the less lean mass you lose. The body is smart. When holding on to excess fat, it drops the fat first. When starting a diet already pretty lean, both fat and lean mass are lost. Here are just a few examples of data demonstrating this phenomenon:

1) Researchers in Brazil monitored weight loss in eight people on a 43-day hunger strike. These individuals, who ate no food during the strike, began at 50% body fat and ended 43 days later at 20% bodyfat with minimal loss of lean tissue.

2) Researchers at Northeastern Illinois University put obese men and women on very low calorie diets (<1000 kcal) for 12 weeks. The average rate of weight loss was 2 kg per week (4.4 lbs.) and 75% of this loss was fat mass (25% was lean body mass with only a minimal loss of actual muscle protein).

3) In another study done at Cambridge, two groups of overweight women were fed hypocaloric diets yielding weight losses of 3.5 lbs./wk or 2.2 lbs./wk and there were no differences in the proportions of fat and lean mass lost.

These data are pretty clear in demonstrating that the rate of weight loss is relatively unimportant in the composition of the loss in obese individuals. So let's change the focus to something more important. Let's look at what happens after severe hypocaloric diets (such as the diets above) end.

While the same results may be achieved during the diet, those who lose weight faster as a result of a lower calorie intake tend to have reductions in metabolic rate during and after the diet. In the second study above, the resting metabolic rate decreased by 23.8% during the 12 weeks of the study despite the minimal loss of "metabolic tissue" (i.e. muscle).

In addition, in refeeding studies in rats, the already depressed metabolic rate can remain depressed even after normal feeding is resumed. In this case, "refeeding" calories are then "saved" as a result of this metabolic adaptation (as opposed to tissue mass adaptation) and are deposited as fat rather than protein. After the energy cost for depositing the extra fat is accounted for, the metabolic component represents a net 15% lower energy expenditure when normal food intake is resumed. Therefore, after a diet, it's the undereating itself that causes the problem and not the loss of lean mass.

At this point you may notice that most of this information comes from over-fat humans and rats. The data in lean individuals is lacking. However, since lean individuals tend to lose more lean mass when dieting, they may have to pay closer attention to their rate of weight loss. Otherwise their demands for an even lower calorie diet to drop the fat will lead to a measurable loss of lean mass and especially a loss of metabolic power during and after the diet.

But don't make the mistake that most trainees do. They assume it's easy to lose muscle mass when dieting. Please understand that it's simply not possible to lose a lot of muscle mass when following a short-term weight lifting and smart hypocaloric regimen. So muscle loss isn't the problem, it's the loss of metabolic rate that will lead to the need to drop calories even further. This will end up decreasing performance in the gym and a further loss of metabolic power.

In the end, we need more data on lean individuals. But as it now stands, I believe that if you're overly fat, your rate of weight loss can safely approach an average of four pounds per week for short periods of time (12 weeks). However, if you're already lean you should stick to slower rates of fat loss. But this is more due to the fact that a fast rate of fat loss in these individuals is indicative of a very low calorie diet and this type of diet will decrease their performance and their metabolism, making fat loss harder and making them more prone to fat gain after the diet. Patience is, in fact, a virtue.