Is 0.25 lb / week deficit too small?

[SunsetRunner]

I really bumped up my cardio goals.  I'm working out harder than I ever have in my life.  The downside is that I'm hungrier.  Although my ideal deficit is 1lb/ week, sometimes this is just too difficult for me to stick to.  If I slip as low as 0.25 lb/ week, will this even amount to anything?  I don't have a goal date in mind, I just want to make changes that I can maintain for the long haul.

[OldPup]

I burn the highest rate of fat at 122-142bpm vs carbs though I think the window is generally smaller. It peaks at 122, then goes down slightly and then back up. I am still trying to wrap my brain around the science but it making a bit of sense with a slower burning fat as opposed to burning through carbs. I just have a hard time staying away from carbs but slowly adjusting.
Eating good snacks at intervals even when I am not really that hungry so that I don't over-indulge on the regular meals, drinking more water, eating more veggies and making a conscious effort to cutting back on the sugar. Not trying to to get too drastic, just starting a pattern so I am less likely to bail on it.

[SunsetRunner]

I can't validate the science behind this but intuitively this makes sense based on my recent experience 

[GershonSurge]

---

@OldPup wrote:

If I am exercising above my MEP (metabolic efficiency point), then I am mostly burning carbs (burning through my carbs more like) and less fat.  Going through the carb roller-coaster causes crashes (hunger) in me, whereas working out within my MEP and eating good fats and balanced diet keeps things a little more constant.  

If you don't know your MEP, get with a professional that can run you through the test and find out your personal info and then center your workouts to maximize fat burning.  Being carb dependent is a rough ride.

---

@OldPup,

Dr. Phil Maffetone did about 30 years of research on this. Fat burning is aerobic and carb burning is anaerobic. He found people burn 70% fat and 30% carbs at a heart rate of 180 minus their age. It reverses to 70% carbs and 30% fat at only a few beats above this. The variation among people was only a few beats. There are some minor adjustments for physical condition. 

It takes carbs to burn the fat, so eliminating carbs isn't the answer. 

He recommends exercising below the cross-over point until only a couple weeks before racing season. 

According to Dr. T. Colin Campbell and others, there is no such thing as healthy fats except for those naturally in plant based foods, and then only in moderation. Moderation means keeping the total fat below 10% of calories consumed. Those with a low body fat percentage can eat more so they can maintain their weight. (Olive oil and other processed oils give essentially the same risk of heart problems as animal based fats.)

[OldPup]

I am trying to focus on more of the good fats as my HDL numbers a little low, but overall cholesterol numbers are ok.  Eating more fish and plant based proteins and less beef and pork, plain yogurt instead of sugary flavored ones, and other tweaks.  I eat fairly well as is, but as I near 50, my body acts a little differently so trying to go easier on it in that aspect.  That's why I am OldPup...I am getting older but still try to do the things the way when I was much younger.  

[Dominique]

---

@OldPup wrote:
I burn the highest rate of fat at 122-142bpm vs carbs.

---

@OldPup: regardless of the carbs to fats ratio at various HR, if you are in a caloric deficit, you will always end up using some fats stored in your fat cells. Check my rapid fat loss experiment: I lost 4.3 kg in January, without worrying what HR zones I was exercising in. All I paid attention to was my caloric intake on four days of the week, and my total energy expenditure on all days. I had 180 active minutes per day in average in January, and didn’t experience any crash. During my low-calorie days, I only ate 66 grams of carbs and 23 grams of fat. Unless you’re super-lean, your body can supply a lot of fat for fuel, without having to go for a low-carb/high-fat diet. Oh, and if you think you’re old, I’ll soon turn 56 .

[GershonSurge]

---

@OldPup wrote:

I am trying to focus on more of the good fats as my HDL numbers a little low, but overall cholesterol numbers are ok.  Eating more fish and plant based proteins and less beef and pork, plain yogurt instead of sugary flavored ones, and other tweaks.  I eat fairly well as is, but as I near 50, my body acts a little differently so trying to go easier on it in that aspect.  That's why I am OldPup...I am getting older but still try to do the things the way when I was much younger.  

---

@OldPup,

The three most important numbers for predicting heart disease are obesity, blood pressure and total cholesterol. These, and diet, also predict most other non-contagious diseases. Let's leave the diet until the end.

Blood pressure, without medication, should be about 120/80. It doesn't need to be treated until the bottom number is above 100.  Heart disease is virtually unknown if the total cholesterol is below 150. Triglycerides factor in the equation, but they are usually good if the other numbers and the diet is good. Lowering the cholesterol through drugs seems to have little effect on heart disease except for people with extremely high cholesterol levels.

Let's address a major culprit in all kinds of diseases -- animal protein. The protein in dairy products (casein) is one of the most potent carcinogens. Other animal proteins act in a similar way. These proteins also come with fat, which is related to high cholesterol, and of course, heart disease.

The current fad is to eat more protein. That's exactly the wrong advice. In 1943, the FDA did a study of active soldiers to determine the protein requirements. They found the average person only needs 5% of their calories in protein. They increased the recommendation two standard deviations and found people only need 10% of their calories from protein. This study has been repeated every five years since 1943, and the results have always been the same.

The FDA currently recommends 10% of a person's calories from protein. This is NOT a minimum requirement. More is NOT better. It's virtually impossible to design a diet with less than 10% of the calories from protein, so there is no need for supplements. In fact, they are harmful as they do not come along with the other needed nutrients. 

I've made some unsupported assertions, and there is no reason for you to trust me. For that, I'll send you off to do some independent research. 

1. Watch or listen to these videos by Dr. McDougall. In my opinion, he does the best job explaining a starch based, whole food plant based diet. Alternatively, read his book "The Starch Solution." The slight downside is he gets a little too scientific at times. The upside is he does a great job referencing research and answering the questions people often have.

2. Listen to as many of these videos by Dr. T. Colin Campbell as you can stand. They are repetitive, which helps retention. His strength is he explains that different foods act in symphony. Research funding focuses on single nutrients and tries to create a drug to give people or find some slight deficiency and focus on that. 

Alternatively, you can read his book, "Whole."

Dr. Campbell has found a whole food, plant based diet can prevent, cure, or arrest most non-contagious condition. He has over 50 years of research to back it up. 

Dr. Campbell's suggests people don't try to convince others of the science. Just get them to try the way of eating for 10 days. If you want to be scientific, get a cholesterol test done (they are about $29 from your local lab. You usually don't need a prescription.) Check your blood pressure. Then follow the diet for 10 days with no deviations. Then have another blood test and blood pressure check.

At 63, I don't consider 50 as being an OldPup. That doesn't need to start until somewhere in the early 80's. Even then, there is no reason to suffer from disease, stiffness and aches and pains. Sure, I'm just a little slower than I was in my 40's, but my endurance is greater. I'll address the physical activity needs in another post if you express interest. 

[OldPup]

Thanks for both of your replies.  

I may not be as old as you both, but I am the oldest I have ever been.  Ha!  Besides, I am not a Pup anymore either and that is what I am wrapping my brain around.  I am 6'3" 188lbs and generally fluctuate a couple pounds on either side of that, so I am not what I would consider fat but I could use some losing of fat and strengthening of my lesser used muscles which would +/- to whatever.  I am not hung up with how much I weigh, just trying to give myself the best fighting chance to continue doing what I want to do.  Just got back from yoga which I am working into my routine and it is hard, but feel great after.  I just feel I want to get some changes/tweaks to what I am doing for this next stretch run of years.  I will check some of those books/articles out.  It is all just continual learning.

Now I feel like I have hijacked OP's thread, so I apologize for that.  But good stuff. 

[RobertoME]

I been reading all your posts and I see is mentioned "Healthy fat" and I wonder what exactly is this? I've seen many talk about this, but I still trying to figured out what separate the regular fat from the healthy Fat. By the way your post @GershonSurge is very interesting and thank you for sharing this with us.

By my recent experience, I've learn about having a good diet and structure on this help a lot to stay fit and loose fat. I returned to the gym after I get fat in a period of 2 years and it was hard at the beginning since I spent almost 2 hrs in the gym doing cardio and weight lifting but my weigh wasn't changing at all. On the contrary, mi weight increased..

It was until I started paying attention to my calorie deficit (Calories In vs Out) and stick to a good structure on my diet. Preparing food on my home to avoid cravings during the day and a constant  routine at the gym combining cardio and weight lifting, I can tell it has been the most efficient. I removed from the equation junk food, bread, sodas, not healthy snacks, but I kept the carbs, in low portions though and I haven't seen a great impact on my diet. But everyone is different so what it works for me it may not work for others.

[Dominique]

---

@RobertoME wrote:

I see is mentioned "Healthy fat" and I wonder what exactly is this?

---

It depends on whom you ask. Almost everyone seems to agree on the fact that trans-unsaturated fatty acids (better known as "trans fats") are unhealthy. For the rest, opinions vary: on the one end of the spectrum, you have people like @GershonSurge who think all fats are intrinsically bad for you and you should only consume the minimum dose needed for hormonal balance and other vital functions; on the other end of the spectrum, you have keto/low-carb enthusiasts who will tell you that since they have transformed their bodies into fat-burning machines, they can eat any amount of fat, lose weight and enjoy a great life with plenty of energy; in between, you have people who think that plant-based fats (olive oil, avocados etc.) are good, but animal-based fats (cheese, butter, bacon etc.) are bad, as well as several other views.

[vineviz]

The question is probably way too complicated to boil down to a healthy/unhealthy dichotomy.

I think this Harvard Public Health article captures the current state of science pretty well.

"In the case of dietary fat, most scientists do agree on a number of points. First, eating foods rich in polyunsaturated fat will reduce the risk of heart disease and prevent insulin resistance. Second, replacing saturated fat with refined carbohydrates will not reduce heart disease risk. Third, olive oil, canola oil, and soybean oil are good for you—as are nuts (especially walnuts), which, while they include some saturated fat, are also high in unsaturated fat, tipping the balance in their favor. Finally, omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids are essential for many biological processes—from building healthy cells to maintaining brain and nerve function—and we should eat a variety of healthy foods, such as fish, nuts, seeds, and vegetable oils, to obtain adequate amounts of both fatty acids."

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/is-butter-really-back/

[GershonSurge]

@vineviz, @RobertoME, @Dominique,

Vineviz, there is a critical fallacy in the study referenced in the first paragraph. They defined low-fat as below 40%. They also compared their results to the Standard American Diet (SAD.) Meta-studies with large numbers are relatively useless as people don't accurately report what they eat. The objectives of the studies are often different. This particular study focused ONLY on heart disease instead of all types of disease.

For those who like reading research, I suggest reading this PDF published by Nathan Pritiken. He explains many different studies as well as his own work.

If you prefer something a little less detailed, I suggest listening to these MP3's.

The science hasn't changed and ongoing studies have confirmed his work. 

[RobertoME]

Hi @Dominique, @vineviz and @GershonSurge. Thank you for your replies!

You have talked about very interesting point here, many of the studies focus on different diseases @GershonSurge.

I've been reading about this topic and I found unsaturated fats which apparently are good guys, include polyunsaturated fatty acids and monounsaturated fats. Both can help lower cholesterol levels and reduce your risk of heart disease. Polyunsaturated fats, found mostly in vegetable oils, help lower both blood cholesterol levels and triglyceride levels. One type of polyunsaturated fat is omega-3 fatty acids, whose potential heart-health benefits have gotten a lot of attention.

Omega-3s are found in fatty fish (salmon, trout, catfish, mackerel), as well as flaxseed and walnuts. And it's fish that contains the most effective, "long-chain" type of omega-3s.

Plant sources are a good substitute for saturated or trans fats, but they are not as effective as fatty fish in decreasing cardiovascular disease. 

Monounsaturated fats are typically liquid at room temperature but solidify if refrigerated. These heart-healthy fats are typically a good source of the antioxidant vitamin E.. They can be found in olives; avocados; hazelnuts; almonds; Brazil nuts; cashews; sesame seeds; pumpkin seeds; and olive, canola, and peanut oils

Although I'm not an expert on this subject but I have learned a lot from you guys. Also I think you're right @Dominique, it will depend of the individual standpoint of each person.

[GershonSurge]

@RobertoME,

You have been tricked by reductionist thinking. Every animal source and plant oil source you mentioned may have some positive effects, but they have other negative effects that outweigh the positive.

I disagree with saying plants can be a good substitute for the nutrients in animal products. The reality is the nutrients in animal products are a poor substitute for what is in plants.

Please don't take my word for it. I suggest reading "Whole" by Dr. T. Colin Campbell. Don't take his word for it either. Try sticking to the way of eating he and many other experts recommend for 10 days. If you can, get a cholesterol test done before and after and check your blood pressure. The blood test should cost about $29 at your local lab. You shouldn't need a doctor's prescription.

Gershon 

[vineviz]

@GershonSurge I prefer my science to come from scientists who understand science. Nathan Pritikin does not qualify, in my book. 

[GershonSurge]

---

@vineviz wrote:

@GershonSurge I prefer my science to come from scientists who understand science. Nathan Pritikin does not qualify, in my book. 

---

Nathan Pritikin was a scientist. His findings have been confirmed in later studies.

[vineviz]

I'm going to proceed under the assumption that Harvard's School of Public Health has better information in 2017 than Pritikin, a college dropout, had in the 1970s.

As for what scientists have confirmed, I'll repeat the summary from Harvard: "In the case of dietary fat, most scientists do agree on a number of points. First, eating foods rich in polyunsaturated fat will reduce the risk of heart disease and prevent insulin resistance. Second, replacing saturated fat with refined carbohydrates will not reduce heart disease risk. Third, olive oil, canola oil, and soybean oil are good for you—as are nuts (especially walnuts), which, while they include some saturated fat, are also high in unsaturated fat, tipping the balance in their favor. Finally, omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids are essential for many biological processes—from building healthy cells to maintaining brain and nerve function—and we should eat a variety of healthy foods, such as fish, nuts, seeds, and vegetable oils, to obtain adequate amounts of both fatty acids."

[GershonSurge]

@vineviz,

That would be a bad assumption. Polyunsaturated fat CAN reduce heart disease compared to a Standard American Diet. It increases it compared to a whole food plant based diet. From nearly zero to about 35% of the population.

It's your life. Do what you like. It's obvious most scientists are wrong as 70% of the population is taking some prescription drug. 50% are taking two or more. 

If you'd like to increase your chances of great health, I'd suggest going to my earlier post where I listed more references. It's not just Pritikin.

[vineviz]

@GershonSurge It's possible that the poor health of Americans is due, in part, to their propensity to fall for quackery instead of relying on solid science.

If people didn't love a quack, folks like Pritikin and Dean Ornish wouldn't have careers.

[GershonSurge]

---

@vineviz wrote:

@GershonSurge It's possible that the poor health of Americans is due, in part, to their propensity to fall for quackery instead of relying on solid science.

If people didn't love a quack, folks like Pritikin and Dean Ornish wouldn't have careers.

---

As I said, it's your life. You obviously haven't read the sources I gave in an earlier post. I'm done. 

[Dominique]

---

@GershonSurge wrote:

Polyunsaturated fat CAN reduce heart disease compared to a Standard American Diet.

---

The problem with the Standard American Diet (and similar recommendations by official bodies in other countries) is not that it is fundamentally wrong, it’s that few people are actually following it. The SAD doesn’t say "stuff yourself with junk food until you consistently put yourself in a caloric surplus and do your best to avoid any kind of physical activity", which would be more like the real American diet, the one that caused the obesity epidemics, type II diabetes, cardio-vascular diseases etc. So it’s not fair to blame all the above on the SAD. Those people who are actually following the SAD to the letter (assuming there are any) are not likely to develop heart diseases, even if they eat the recommended amount of fats.