New To The Bpd

Hi all I am looking to drop body fat and wondering if the bpd would help me to do this. I am not looking to just dropping body weight but more at body composition and body fat in particular.  I am currently at 37% body fat and need to drop the fat fast. How do I go about it with the BPD?


«134

Comments

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Hi all I am looking to drop body fat and wondering if the bpd would help me to do this. I am not looking to just dropping body weight but more at body composition and body fat in particular.  I am currently at 37% body fat and need to drop the fat fast. How do I go about it with the BPD?




     


    Yes, this diet is for you. Focus on the low-carb thing to lose weight fast. However, I don't recommend dropping too much body weight/body fat all at one time. It is better to balance yourself over a period of time. Lowering carbs in general will make you lose weight. I have heard of too many people getting leaky gut from super low-carb diets. I can't recommend them anymore. Figure out how much carbs you eat, and then probably cut that amount in half. You will start to lose weight, especially if you follow all of the BPD's other principles of food quality (choosing low-toxin, noninflammatory, organic foods).


    For exercise, the BPD recommends not doing cardio, but instead focusing on HIIT. HIIT will help you lose fat without losing muscle. It's a perfect solution for you. Put down any other questions you have on this page. I would love to hear if this helps.

  • Thank you very much Modern Life Survivalist.  I will come back to this page if I have further questions for you :) and I will keep you posted on progress.


  • Hello Modern Life Survivalist - I tried doing HIT yesterday.. could only manage about 20 mins of it - I guess I am a tad unfit at 55  :(  I spirited for maybe less than a minute of the treadmill but it my HR went to 171 very quick so I   reduce and walked and then sprinted again - I did this three times -  and then decided to do the stair climbing for 20 minutes .  Will this be the sort of thing I do to reduce body fat?


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited February 2016


    Hello Modern Life Survivalist - I tried doing HIT yesterday.. could only manage about 20 mins of it - I guess I am a tad unfit at 55  :(  I spirited for maybe less than a minute of the treadmill but it my HR went to 171 very quick so I   reduce and walked and then sprinted again - I did this three times -  and then decided to do the stair climbing for 20 minutes .  Will this be the sort of thing I do to reduce body fat?




     


    That's great! No, you did it exactly right for the HIIT, as long as you listened to your body. My sprints are only about 20 seconds each, and I never take 20 minutes to get them all done. It usually takes me 10-15 minutes tops with all the rests inbetween, but the actual time I spend sprinting is well below 7 minutes.


     


    Also, what's with the 20 minutes of stair-climbing? LIke I said, you don't need to mess with that stuff at all. It must just be so ingrained in your mind that this is "exercise" that you felt you needed to do it anyway? It actually doesn't qualify as exercise at all. It is activity, and arguably, it is not beneficial activity in any sense of the word, unless you're already in shape and your body registers it as a brisk walk or something. That is the bad kind of cardio that will just stress your heart and raise your cortisol (which stifles fat loss). Especially after your good cardio with the sprints/HIIT. However, I bet you had more energy after the sprints to do the steady-state, didn't you? That's just how it goes, because HIIT is so amazing.


     


    Yeah, but the stair climbing isn't necessary at all. I can't stress this enough. When you do HIIT, you will burn fat/calories for the rest of the day with no need for traditional "workout" time. So do your sprints, go hard, go strong, really quick, and just enjoy the rest of the day eating good Bulletproof food and getting enough water.


    How is the diet going?


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    Actually you have it a bit wrong MLS, steady state exercise is not high stress and doesn't cause cortisol issues, it is a low stress activity that is part of a healthy lifetstyle.  The issue you are referring to is found in individuals that do very long durations of it which obviously causes a large caloric expenditure, these individuals tend to couple this with low caloric intake, very large caloric deficits are stressful to the system (especially over long periods of time.


     


    Also, as an additional note, you can easily lose muscle while doing HIIT training if your diet is off, inadequate protein, inadequate carbs, and inadequate total calories will contribute to this, fat will have minimal to no effect on muscle.




     


    While I agree about protein, and that's good info, I absolutely disagree about steady-state cardio. I find it to be absolutely worthless, and if it has no benefit, there is no need for one who will be stressed by a new diet and exercise routine to partake in it at all in any shape or form (other than a long/brisk walk). Most BPers, if they're strict adherents (and if they have any sense), would agree it is a waste of time, or at the very least very inefficient.

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited February 2016


    You are totally within your right to personally disagree, but facts are facts and do not change based on opinion.  I'd be way more afraid to listen to someone that said going for a daily 45 minute walk was worthless with no benefit and a inefficient waste of time.




    I didn't say 45-minute walks were bad. I was saying 15-45 minute jogs are worthless.


     


    If you think aerobics are a safe or appropriate way to lose fat, you're not only misrepresenting the facts, but you are horribly misrepresenting the Bulletproof philosophy. Even if you could show from studies that steady-state cardio is slightly effective, you'd be misleading this lady if you said that it was worth doing steady-state anyway. HIIT is not only safer, it's 4 times more effective. I would link an article or a study, but there are too many to even begin. It's just known at this point.


     


    And it has born out in my experience. I have never had any luck with steady-state (and I used to run 5 miles every other day). I mean, sure I lost weight, but that weight loss plateaued pretty fast, and I was flabby. Not getting stronger. In the process, I figured out that it didn't help with arthritis or joint pain, and even made them worse; whereas HIIT and weight-lifting only two or three times a week almost completely eliminated them. Come on, why are we still making apologies for LISS. Let's just give it up, why don't we?


  • dazdaz today is a good day ✭✭✭
    nobody's jogging...just saying

    fake it till you make it

  • Hey thanks Guys  - as I went to the gym with a bunch of people I did stair climbing to while the time as I was pretty spent on the HIT thingy.. but I did the stairs with the elevation of up to 100% and at a level from 8 - 13 so it was like walking uphill in mud ..LOL it did get my hr up but I did enjoy the challenge.  I do walk my dog 6.5kms some days during the week, but I don't consider that exercise as its so enjoyable and stress less - if no other dogs come to disturb us LOL

  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited February 2016


    Hey thanks Guys  - as I went to the gym with a bunch of people I did stair climbing to while the time as I was pretty spent on the HIT thingy.. but I did the stairs with the elevation of up to 100% and at a level from 8 - 13 so it was like walking uphill in mud ..LOL it did get my hr up but I did enjoy the challenge.  I do walk my dog 6.5kms some days during the week, but I don't consider that exercise as its so enjoyable and stress less - if no other dogs come to disturb us LOL




    Ma'am, I'm sorry about the confusion. I am towing the BP line on this matter, and I promise, you won't be disappointed if you heed my advice. As I was saying, it is absolutely unnecessary and counterproductive (especially for someone your age) to partake in traditional cardio. What some people fail to consider is that your body essentially becomes immune to that kind of cardio. Also, doing moderately intense exercise (uphill in the mud) for 20 minutes straight is bad for anyone, especially someone at your age. I am only 32, and if I did something like that, I would probably experience a tachycardia, shortness of breath lasting well past the workout, and numb/cold extremities. That happened to me on a steady incline hiking outdoors for an hour at 40 degrees (and I almost got frostbite in my hands on the way down). This is because I have a condition called Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (CIRS), where my body quickly cascades into massive bouts of inflammation from certain negative stimuli, including allergenic foods, chemicals, moldy environments, and stressful activities. However, HIIT has the opposite effect on me. It makes me stronger and stronger as I do it. The next time I hiked, I was doing it in spurts, and I was passing people who were talking about how they come out every week. This is evidence to me that it is a better exercise (and it actually is exercise, whereas steady-state is not), and not just for me, but everyone. The science bears out that this is true.


    Your body may burn more fat when you're doing traditional cardio, but you start to eventually become "immune" to the weight loss, because your metabolism adapts pretty quickly to the calorie expenditure. HIIT burns fat for the next ~24 hours after you do it (so you ultimately burn the same and more as your metabolism increases). With traditional cardio, you also will start to lose muscle, which is obviously very negative. As your body becomes accustomed to steady-state, you'll just eat more calories (usually in carb form) and you're playing an endless game of calories in, calories out. So you'd benefit just about the same from cutting a couple hundred calories from what you eat. But we are enlightened here at the Bulletproof Forum (except for people who disregard the Bulletproof philosophy), and we know that cutting calories isn't healthy either. Here's some more good information on HIIT so you can make up your own mind. The concensus is pretty much that HIIT is leaps and bounds (quite literally) above cardio in every department. 


     


    I can't stress enough that joining the poor uninformed souls on the machines and "getting your heart rate up" for 20 mins. or more on those things is not doing your body any favors. At the very least, even if you get a benefit (as opposed to no exercise at all), it is far inferior and will have diminishing returns, leading to actual negative consequences down the road (mainly in the stress on your heart if you do it enough). I hope the awkwardness of this thread doesn't distract you from the truth.


  • edited February 2016

    Thank you so much Modern Life Survivalist - I will heed your advice and only do HIT .. question though do you also lift?   I do some weight training but not really heavy weights maybe once a week Is that ok?


    I was reading the link you sent - it seem interesting so I will do HIT and hopefully my body fat will decrease :)


  • J-rockJ-rock
    edited February 2016


     I tried doing HIT yesterday.. could only manage about 20 mins of it - I guess I am a tad unfit at 55  :(




     


    20 minutes of HIIT is pretty good for a beginner. Be careful doing HIIT on a treadmill. I'd only advise that if you don't have access to train outside right now to use an elliptical or bike next time instead of a treadmill.


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited February 2016


    Thank you so much Modern Life Survivalist - I will heed your advice and only do HIT .. question though do you also lift?   I do some weight training but not really heavy weights maybe once a week Is that ok?


    I was reading the link you sent - it seem interesting so I will do HIT and hopefully my body fat will decrease :)




    Lifting is great! Especially for the elderly (EDIT: sorry, I don't think you're elderly. 55 is young! Let's just say it's better when you're a little bit older). You will strengthen your bones along with your muscles and generally just improve the quality of life. It will also help with body composition. Once a week is just fine. When I was working out, I did 2 or 3 lifting sessions a week, and then I did one day of sprints once a week, but my goals were not fat loss. Can someone else chime in on the best ratio you've found for lifting vs. HIIT for fat loss?


    You may want to consult a good trainer for the weight-lifting portion, or read some books on form to make sure you don't hurt yourself. The basic idea is to lift as heavy as you can without risking injury, for 5-8 reps, 2-3 sets, rest like a minute inbetween. It's basically HIIT, but slightly different, because you're targetting specific muscles. However, be wary of trainers, because trainers are still pushing steady-state cardio, which as BPers we know is not helpful. When I had a trainer, I would have to tell him over and over again to not put me on a treadmill. I told him i wanted sprints, and he eventually understood that I was never going to go jogging. 


    J-rock is absolutely right that treadmills aren't great for sprints. I really should have said that. Yes, it's kind of dangerous. The elliptical would be better for right now if you're indoors, and you can still do the intervals.


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭


    nobody's jogging...just saying




    Stair-climbing for 20 minutes can have the same "aerobic" effect as jogging. When I was getting terrible inflammation from cardio, I was using a stair climber, and it felt the same on my system and my heart as jogging used to. 

  • I'm no expert here, but I try to read a lot, stay current, and ask a lot of questions.  I think that it is important to evaluate someone's current state of fitness before programing workouts.  The short run aggregate (SRA) for a beginner is going to look way differently than of an advanced athlete.  You need to start with lower intensity (just outside your comfort zone) and higher frequency and build up to higher intensity.  You could start with high intensity, but there are three problems 1) your body hasn't adapted to even perform at high intensity 2) your in a nutritional deficit to lose weight 3) your recovery is slower.  You will not progress as quickly, and likely give up.


     


    A lot of money goes into sport science because of the money that professional sport generates.  If you look at the data coming out of the NFL combine, IMG, Hot Springs, and cross disciplinary centers, it is very consistent.  Stimulus (workout) -> nutrition -> recovery duration patterns are very uniform.  The athlete's state of fitness goes into consideration before constructing the workouts, because the goal is to improve as quickly as possible during the training camp.  Their predictive models are very accurate and based on your initial data, they can tell you exactly how much you are going to progress.  Not everyone comes into camp in good shape.  In these cases, they lower the intensity and increase the frequency.  They pay a lot of money so that their athletes makes the biggest improvements.  There is a huge economic incentive to develop the best workout programming, and this is what they use.  If someone develops something better, everyone will be doing that, but as of today, this is the best information anyone has right now.  To suggest an alternate model implies that you know something that the highest paid trainers in the world don't know and their job security depends on using the most up-to-date, cutting edge training methods.  That's pretty arrogant.


  • Modern Life SurvivalistModern Life Survivalist Saturated Fat Truther ✭✭
    edited February 2016


    I'm no expert here, but I try to read a lot, stay current, and ask a lot of questions.  I think that it is important to evaluate someone's current state of fitness before programing workouts.  The short run aggregate (SRA) for a beginner is going to look way differently than of an advanced athlete.  You need to start with lower intensity (just outside your comfort zone) and higher frequency and build up to higher intensity.  You could start with high intensity, but there are three problems 1) your body hasn't adapted to even perform at high intensity 2) your in a nutritional deficit to lose weight 3) your recovery is slower.  You will not progress as quickly, and likely give up.


     


    A lot of money goes into sport science because of the money that professional sport generates.  If you look at the data coming out of the NFL combine, IMG, Hot Springs, and cross disciplinary centers, it is very consistent.  Stimulus (workout) -> nutrition -> recovery duration patterns are very uniform.  The athlete's state of fitness goes into consideration before constructing the workouts, because the goal is to improve as quickly as possible during the training camp.  Their predictive models are very accurate and based on your initial data, they can tell you exactly how much you are going to progress.  Not everyone comes into camp in good shape.  In these cases, they lower the intensity and increase the frequency.  They pay a lot of money so that their athletes makes the biggest improvements.  There is a huge economic incentive to develop the best workout programming, and this is what they use.  If someone develops something better, everyone will be doing that, but as of today, this is the best information anyone has right now.  To suggest an alternate model implies that you know something that the highest paid trainers in the world don't know and their job security depends on using the most up-to-date, cutting edge training methods.  That's pretty arrogant.




    Intensity is relative. I was saying you follow the general model of HIIT and you'll get better results. My concern is that a moderate intensity held for a certain duration (e.g., 20 minutes on a stair-stepper) is counterproductive and even inflammatory. This has been my experience. 


    I'm not recommending anything but to follow the model of intense (relatively) spurts followed by rest/recovery periods of about a minute or more. I don't think anyone would disagree that this is ideal. The intensity can build up, and the frequency can build up in the form of doing more and more sprints. This is what has worked for me, and I was very very ill when I started. In short, HIIT tells you to listen to your body, and that's what I want to impart to odar1330. What I do find dangerous isn't high intensity, it's moderate intensity (steady-state at about 75-85% of maximum), because this was in my own experience the only time I ever felt like I was close to a heart attack. I even went to the emergency room. I have never had this experience from intervals, except when I made the intervals too close together and didn't allow myself to recover. 


    And yes, I do (however arrogant it may seem) feel that the majority can be wrong in an opinion, especially about health and fitness. Look at Ancel Keys and the lipid hypothesis.


     


    But please, if you have some links to share on starting with low intensity for a longer time (to start), please share.


Sign In or Register to comment.