This would be a question or observance mostly for John Stone, but I invite any response.

Reading John Stone's 2003 transformation (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/trans5.htm), we are almost exactly alike in every aspect.

Except one..

Looking at his 2003 food logs (http://www.johnstonefitness.com/menus/feb_2003_history.html), I notice a big difference between he and I; our calorie intake. I've read everywhere that you shouldn't drop your intake below X amount, like 2500 for me. Because an extremely low calorie intake pushes your body into starvation mode and begins to store fat like crazy, making it harder to lose weight.

Well, it looks like it worked for him. Should I drop my intake from 2500 down to as low as 1200? My 2500 is 40/40/20 and all clean fat and carbs. The problem is that he dropped the pounds and fat EXTREMELY quickly and I am just shedding a few pounds of fat slowly. I have a BodyBlog in my signature that shows daily training and nutrition if you want details. Yes I want muscles, but losing fat is priority.

What works for some people may not work for others. Just because John ate that way doesn't mean you should. He is the first to admit that he wasn't as educated as he is now and would have done it differently knowing what he knows now.

The only advice I can offer is to try a few different things and see what works for YOU and stick to it.

John isn't a normal person.. 99% of all people can't follow through on an extremely low calorie diet such as that.

He made a decision that was as serious as life and death that he would achieve his goal. It was the mental toughness that got him to his end-point.

My question is, if you know 2500 cal a day and proper exercise/meal timing can reach your goal, why would you make life more difficult and go for 1200/day?

I started out at about 210 I guess.

August I averaged 1250 calories
Sept 1350
Oct 1450
Nov 1700
Dec 1800
Jan 2200
Feb 2500

It worked for me but a few points.

The first few months I wasn't working out at a great intensity level. I couldn't. Not because of the food but I wasn't in good enough shape. If I had been pushing my self harder the food wouldn't have been enough.

I hit various platues in my weight loss. I blame these at least partly on the low calories.

It worked for me but I've always been pretty good about giving stuff up and not having cravings etc. Stubborn can be good some times.

My idea of a cheat meal was tuna and lettuce. :spaz:

Looking at his 2003 food logs (http://www.johnstonefitness.com/menus/feb_2003_history.html), I notice a big difference between he and I; our calorie intake.

Hi Clint,

This might be of interest to you: http://www.johnstonefitness.com/news/jan_2007_news_archive.php#01192007

That's cool, I understand. It's just that I see what you did in first 30 days and I feel like I'm still carrying my same gut from 45 days ago. The numbers show some progress, but I don't see or feel it. But my wife and daughter say they can see it.

I may still cut the calories a little more but I have to maintain or build muscle also. I think I have a good bit of muscle to keep, which is more important than a fast gut shrinkage. It's hard but my determination is unmatched, I can take the punishment! Feels good!

http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/img/495880/profilepic/34740orig.jpg

I'm still carrying the same gut I had from when I started a YEAR ago.

Of course that's hogwash. I look nothing like what I did when I started a year ago. In fact I just started a new push back in late January and I look much different now than I did then.

Here's the secret though. You're going to have a gut for a long time and a gut is a gut is a gut. You get up and look in the mirror and see a gut. You don't notice that it's getting smaller. I went from having a HUGE gut to having a large gut. I look in the mirror and I see a gut and I think "My gut hasn't gone away." It's tempting to say "I'm not making progress." That's complete BS. It is true that my gut hasn't gone away but it has shrunk considerably. My belly flap starts towards the front of my torso more now instead of towards my back like it used to. The point is guts are fairly binary things. Either you have one or you don't. Anyone over probably 20% BF has a gut. You look and you still see the gut it doesn't matter. You're going to have that gut for awhile. You are making progress though.

I guess that gets to the 'gut' of the matter. :spaz: I'll just go with my 'gut' feeling. :spaz:

Is there a liposuction home kit? Or a do-it-yourself stomach stapler? How bout a self-service tummy tuck?

I have this 'gut' feeling I should just stick with it and eventually the work will pay off. :bb: :flex:

Is there a liposuction home kit? Or a do-it-yourself stomach stapler? How bout a self-service tummy tuck?


Yep, go buy yourself a Stanley Razor, a 750 mL bottle of Jose Cuervo, and a Swingline Stapler.. Anatomy book optional..

That's the quick and cheap way..


http://www.gothamist.com/images/milton_looks.jpg

Well, it looks like it worked for him. Should I drop my intake from 2500 down to as low as 1200? My 2500 is 40/40/20 and all clean fat and carbs. The problem is that he dropped the pounds and fat EXTREMELY quickly and I am just shedding a few pounds of fat slowly. I have a BodyBlog in my signature that shows daily training and nutrition if you want details. Yes I want muscles, but losing fat is priority.

It really isn't healthy and can definitely slow your metabolism right down. Your body has certain things it has to do which happen to require 2500 calories in your case (or 3000 if you're in a 500 calorie deficit already). If you knock your calories down to 1200, what's your body going to do? Stop pumping blood? Stop growing hair? Of course not, it's cleverer than that -- it's going to try and do the same things using less calories, hence your metabolism slowing right down.

In John's case, it would be almost impossible for his metabolism to slow down, because he did pre-breakfast cardio EVERY DAY until he reached his goals AND ate a healthy meal every few hours. It most definitely wasn't a "starvation diet" in the traditional sense.

Also, where you start from is pretty important. To be honest, I don't think John's method harmed him much. Since he was fairly overweight to begin with without a particularly muscular body underneath the flab, you have to ask whether he'd have much to gain by losing the weight much slower on a smaller deficit. I think in the end he'd have looked the same at 160lbs anyway.

If he did it now? Well, that would be a totally different story.

Then the issue becomes health. Is it worth the "health risk"? But then again, when you've been smoking pot, eating lasagne and garlic bread and drinking soft drinks constantly for a long time, is 3-4 months of a low caloric intake really a concern when it's full of vegetables and nutrients that were completely absent before? And if it is, then does that mean he shouldn't get a tan either because of the UV rays?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that someone will always tell you the ideal answer, but it's not always as black and white as that.

I prefer to succeed at my diet coming out with a muscular build also. Don't want to be a skinny runt. So I'll stick with a small calorie defecit, suppliments, lots of protein, and lots of cardio, among other things. Who says you can't have both worlds? You just have to work harder, smarter, and a little longer. :bang: But in the end I think it'll be better and faster than doing them seperate, cutting fat vs. building mass.

Scratch what I said above. Last night I did some soul searching after recording my weekly progress measurements and photos. This week makes about 7 weeks of dieting, cardio, and weight training. No cheating, hitting it hard, being consistant and determined. I went from eating hot dogs and ice cream to eating tuna, vegies, and chicken, cutting out almost all fat. I went from 20/40/40 to 40/40/20.

Any ways, I see no progress what so ever. None, nothing!! Its freaky. Only 10 lbs lost in 7 weeks!!

To hell with it, damn the torpedos, full steam ahaed. Change of plans. This is do or die time. I'm cutting calories to ~1500 per day. I'm increasing my water intake considerably, supplimenting my fiber, and cutting ALL fat except 2 spoons of natural peanut butter a day.

My reasoning: Muscle takes a long time to build. You have to consume the fuel to do it. Fuel that would be detrimental to someone dieting. You can do both but the fat will melt so slowly that it wouldn't be noticable, maybe even never until you really cut. Working on building muscle is a lifetime habit and takes a certain lifestyle. Dieting is another type of habit and lifestyle. Do one or the other then switch when ready. Concidering how long it takes to build muscle, I will sacrifice a few pounds to lose the fat first. Besides, it is easier to build muscle coming from skinny than to try to build muscle trying to get skinny.

So, muscle loss or not I am losing this freaking fat if it kills me. Do I want to try to lose fat for 12 months or 3 months? Once the fat is off I can concentrate on muscle mass. Following John's food log I can get some ideas about things to eat. I'll still eat 5-6 meals a day but not to equal over ~1500 calories. This is it, I'm doing it!! I'll be gearing up my BodyBlog to record daily progress instead of weekly, photos, food, training, everything. Stay tuned for a miracle, or a death.

Good luck Clint! I wish you luck with your cutting diet. I know I'm struggling with mine. At best I manage to eat my allotment of calories until 10PM for maybe 2 days in a row, and then the 3rd day I splurge with a late evening snack of tortilla chips or nuts. I'm on a mission myself to go at least 4 days in a row with no cheating. If I can make it to Tuesday night w/o cheating, I know I can do it and that will motivate me even further to extend it.

Clint,

I would suggest that you DO NOT cut your calories to 1500/day. You look like you have a really solid base of muscle under there. You honestly do not want to lose that in a short-term fix for a long-term goal.

I think you can learn a lot from John Stone's initial weight loss program. You probably don't want to follow that. A low calorie diet is very catabolic (meaning, muscle wasting), and if you were to eat upwards of 2000-2500, while constructing a low volume, high intensity lifting program, coupled with some cardio, you could spare a lot of that muscle while losing fat. And you may put on some muscle while you do it.

Just take your time. Remember, it took you a long time to get to the size you are. It should take you some time to drop the fat. Don't get caught up in reaching your goal too quickly. It will happen if you are persistent and smart about it.



Scratch what I said above. Last night I did some soul searching after recording my weekly progress measurements and photos. This week makes about 7 weeks of dieting, cardio, and weight training. No cheating, hitting it hard, being consistant and determined. I went from eating hot dogs and ice cream to eating tuna, vegies, and chicken, cutting out almost all fat. I went from 20/40/40 to 40/40/20.

Any ways, I see no progress what so ever. None, nothing!! Its freaky. Only 10 lbs lost in 7 weeks!!

To hell with it, damn the torpedos, full steam ahaed. Change of plans. This is do or die time. I'm cutting calories to ~1500 per day. I'm increasing my water intake considerably, supplimenting my fiber, and cutting ALL fat except 2 spoons of natural peanut butter a day.

My reasoning: Muscle takes a long time to build. You have to consume the fuel to do it. Fuel that would be detrimental to someone dieting. You can do both but the fat will melt so slowly that it wouldn't be noticable, maybe even never until you really cut. Working on building muscle is a lifetime habit and takes a certain lifestyle. Dieting is another type of habit and lifestyle. Do one or the other then switch when ready. Concidering how long it takes to build muscle, I will sacrifice a few pounds to lose the fat first. Besides, it is easier to build muscle coming from skinny than to try to build muscle trying to get skinny.

So, muscle loss or not I am losing this freaking fat if it kills me. Do I want to try to lose fat for 12 months or 3 months? Once the fat is off I can concentrate on muscle mass. Following John's food log I can get some ideas about things to eat. I'll still eat 5-6 meals a day but not to equal over ~1500 calories. This is it, I'm doing it!! I'll be gearing up my BodyBlog to record daily progress instead of weekly, photos, food, training, everything. Stay tuned for a miracle, or a death.

Thanks for your help everyone, really. But my minds made up this time. And when I set my sails for something, I don't look back.

I've started this: http://www.cfcdeveloper.com/stuff/weightloss/

It's on my BodyBlog also. If I'm really successful, I may start a dedicated web site. We'll see.

Fitness_Wannabee, good luck to you also. I don't have a problem with cheating. I have "cheated" once in the past 30 days. Cheating is not an issue. Very low calorie diets don't work for most people because the body will push you hard into eating something. It takes a strong will to get past it without it bothering you. For most, it's just a matter of time, how long can you last. Some forever, most a few days. I've proven myself for 30 days now, I know I can do it.

Good luck with your plan. I've lost 80lbs before doing an extreme low calorie diet (under 1000 calories on average daily)

I've read everywhere that you shouldn't drop your intake below X amount, like 2500 for me. Because an extremely low calorie intake pushes your body into starvation mode and begins to store fat like crazy, making it harder to lose weight.

You'll read that everywhere, just like the myths that one pound of muscle burns 50 extra calories per day at rest and so on and so forth, but many of these are people regurgitating what they here and have no real foundation.

For example, what is starvation mode? People swear up and down by this but I challenge you to find a real definition. Sure, I've seen the claims that if you eat low calories, your body "goes into starvation mode" - it makes it sound real scary.

But there is a real starvation mode, and that's when you do not have any sort of food for a prolonged period of time. Lots of ugly things happen like cortisol levels going through the roof, ketone bodies being manufactured, etc. However, this is NOT the same as low calories.

Your body is trying to maintain homeostasis. For this reason, if you overfeed chronically, your metabolism will raise. This is why people tend to level out at an obese weight but don't keep gaining ad infinitum. The same with cutting calories. It doesn't matter if you drop from 3000 to 2800 or 3000 to 1200, your body will slow in the response to calories.

This isn't starvation, it's the normal process.

I've had to always drop to 1700 calories to get down to 6% body fat. No, my muscle didn't magically start melting away and no, my metabolism didn't suddenly grind to a halt. I cut the fat, looked great, took my photos, and that was that.

The thing is that metabolism is complex and calories are only part of it. First, 1200 calories from donuts WILL be different than 1200 calories from fresh vegetables, fruit, lean proteins, etc. The fiber, healthy fats, and other nutrients absolutely play a role in metabolism and fat loss.

Second, the idea that you "store fat like crazy" is completely whacked. How can you store fat if you are taking in fewer calories than you are consuming? There is no shred of evidence anywhere that if you are in a calorie deficit, you somehow magically STORE fat. By definition, if your calories are low, your body is forced to tap into its reserves to burn for energy because it's not getting adequate supplies from food. Why on earth would it suddenly start storing fat when the fat is there in the first place to provide energy when food is scarce?

It's another, "he said it, so I repeated it, so now it's on 1000 websites and people assume its true" instead of a real fact. The fact is, I know some women who are 4'11" where 1200 is maintenance calories. I know some menu who lose weight at 3000 calories. Everyone is different and there is no magical number. I get more nutrients on 1700 calories than some people I know get with 4500 ... metabolism is part of a much bigger picture.

If you aren't losing fat, you have to do something. You either need to burn more calories and add extra exercise, maybe do split sessions, and/or cut down your calories. I've always had to do both - I end up doing cardio every day (so I do weight training and then cardio on weight training days, cardio on other days) and cutting calories low. I ramp my calories down, hit my target body fat, and then cycle them back up to bulk again. I don't suddenly lose slabs of muscle and my metabolism doesn't go to nothing and I don't somehow store fat when calories are low ... and that is the experience of many other people as well.

The fact is it sometimes takes an extraordinary effort to reach ultra low body fat. Many people cannot fathom making those sacrifices or having the discipline, so it becomes easier to manufacture reasons not to do what it takes. People selling fat loss systems also find it easier to market to those people who are afraid of following strict nutrition and training, so they can market their special programs and magic pills.

Do you always have to go low calories? Of course not. I was cutting fat on Swole's program and his calories were higher and it was the way he combined foods and macronutrients that made the difference. But I had to be strict ... it wasn't about "I eat clean most of the time" it was "I was 100% on the plan without deviation" to see results.

Jeremy

YES! Thank you Jeremy for putting some sense back into the discussion.

John- can you somehow sticky that reply? :tu:


You'll read that everywhere, just like the myths that one pound of muscle burns 50 extra calories per day at rest and so on and so forth, but many of these are people regurgitating what they here and have no real foundation.

For example, what is starvation mode? People swear up and down by this but I challenge you to find a real definition. Sure, I've seen the claims that if you eat low calories, your body "goes into starvation mode" - it makes it sound real scary.

But there is a real starvation mode, and that's when you do not have any sort of food for a prolonged period of time. Lots of ugly things happen like cortisol levels going through the roof, ketone bodies being manufactured, etc. However, this is NOT the same as low calories.

Your body is trying to maintain homeostasis. For this reason, if you overfeed chronically, your metabolism will raise. This is why people tend to level out at an obese weight but don't keep gaining ad infinitum. The same with cutting calories. It doesn't matter if you drop from 3000 to 2800 or 3000 to 1200, your body will slow in the response to calories.

This isn't starvation, it's the normal process.

I've had to always drop to 1700 calories to get down to 6% body fat. No, my muscle didn't magically start melting away and no, my metabolism didn't suddenly grind to a halt. I cut the fat, looked great, took my photos, and that was that.

The thing is that metabolism is complex and calories are only part of it. First, 1200 calories from donuts WILL be different than 1200 calories from fresh vegetables, fruit, lean proteins, etc. The fiber, healthy fats, and other nutrients absolutely play a role in metabolism and fat loss.

Second, the idea that you "store fat like crazy" is completely whacked. How can you store fat if you are taking in fewer calories than you are consuming? There is no shred of evidence anywhere that if you are in a calorie deficit, you somehow magically STORE fat. By definition, if your calories are low, your body is forced to tap into its reserves to burn for energy because it's not getting adequate supplies from food. Why on earth would it suddenly start storing fat when the fat is there in the first place to provide energy when food is scarce?

It's another, "he said it, so I repeated it, so now it's on 1000 websites and people assume its true" instead of a real fact. The fact is, I know some women who are 4'11" where 1200 is maintenance calories. I know some menu who lose weight at 3000 calories. Everyone is different and there is no magical number. I get more nutrients on 1700 calories than some people I know get with 4500 ... metabolism is part of a much bigger picture.

If you aren't losing fat, you have to do something. You either need to burn more calories and add extra exercise, maybe do split sessions, and/or cut down your calories. I've always had to do both - I end up doing cardio every day (so I do weight training and then cardio on weight training days, cardio on other days) and cutting calories low. I ramp my calories down, hit my target body fat, and then cycle them back up to bulk again. I don't suddenly lose slabs of muscle and my metabolism doesn't go to nothing and I don't somehow store fat when calories are low ... and that is the experience of many other people as well.

The fact is it sometimes takes an extraordinary effort to reach ultra low body fat. Many people cannot fathom making those sacrifices or having the discipline, so it becomes easier to manufacture reasons not to do what it takes. People selling fat loss systems also find it easier to market to those people who are afraid of following strict nutrition and training, so they can market their special programs and magic pills.

Do you always have to go low calories? Of course not. I was cutting fat on Swole's program and his calories were higher and it was the way he combined foods and macronutrients that made the difference. But I had to be strict ... it wasn't about "I eat clean most of the time" it was "I was 100% on the plan without deviation" to see results.

Jeremy

For example, what is starvation mode? People swear up and down by this but I challenge you to find a real definition. Sure, I've seen the claims that if you eat low calories, your body "goes into starvation mode" - it makes it sound real scary.


Well...it seems here that you are just arguing semantics. When people say "starvation mode", they of course are not referring to the metabolic and physiological processes that occur with extended food deprivation -- but rather, as you mention, they are really just talking about the adjustment of the metabolism that your body makes in response to reduced calories. It doesn't much matter what you call it.

Second, the idea that you "store fat like crazy" is completely whacked. How can you store fat if you are taking in fewer calories than you are consuming? There is no shred of evidence anywhere that if you are in a calorie deficit, you somehow magically STORE fat. By definition, if your calories are low, your body is forced to tap into its reserves to burn for energy because it's not getting adequate supplies from food. Why on earth would it suddenly start storing fat when the fat is there in the first place to provide energy when food is scarce?

I think that he is referring to the notion that in order to lose fat, many people believe that you have to cut calories way down to very low levels -- Not realizing that the body will simply compensate for the reduced calories and hence, slow fat loss.