***The official health and fitness thread***

[Mulletperm]

I used to be a fairly fit 'big' guy, having done weight training since I was around 16. Obviously as I've got older and not being as active that fitness has waned a little and rather than being 'big (muscular)' I'm now getting a bit lardy.

This has become even more apparent since the birth of my son 20 months ago. I simply have no energy (or time it seems) to train and it's driving me crazy.

He wakes us up at around 5:30, I leave for work at 6:30 then leave work at 4 to pick him up from daycare. When I get home it's time for me to play with him/feed him/bathe him etc. It's then knocking on 7 when the wife gets in from work. By the time we get him to bed it's 7:30 to 8 and we have just enough time for some dinner, a shower and then back in bed by around 9 to 9:30!

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

Yes, I should've been clear that when this is the goal, this is the path, apologies. My main point is that light weight/high-reps in conjunction with a good diet will help tone muscle you have/regenerate it to an extent, as opposed to high weights which will help you 'bulk up' muscle-wise..

First things first. People commonly use the term muscle tone to describe how firm or tight a muscle looks. A muscle has the same tone whether you are fat, thin, in shape, out of shape. It's tone does not change with exercise. The appearance of the muscle is determined by the amount of fat covering it and the elasticity of the skin. Lifting light weights for high reps will not tone your muscle, nor will Heavy weight for low reps. 'Toning' as the health and fitness world has come to know it, is a result of maintaining muscle mass whilst reducing body fat.

With all due respect, the sentence in bold is nonsense. A muscle cannot differentiate between 'light' and 'heavy' weight. You lift weight, muscle fibres become damaged and in the presence of enough protein the muscle is repaired. 'Bulking up' is the result of lifting wieght in the presence of a caloric surplus (aka eating more than you expend day to day) and enough protein. 'Toning up (in the context you are using it)' is the result of lifting weight in the presence of a caloric defecit (aka eating less than you expend day to day) and enough protein. That's it. Like I said, 'toning up' is just maintaining the muscle you have and removing fat from on top of it.

The body know's only one thing, survival. At a cellular level, that is all it is there to do. So in the case of a caloric deficit (that you need to be in to 'tone up') it will do what it can to keep you alive. Muscle is more metabolically 'expensive' than fat, it costs the body more calories to maintain. Therefore in the absence of a stimulus to tell the body 'keep me, I'm useful for keeping you alive' (i.e lifting weights) the body will prefer to metabolise muscle in order to obtain enough calories to maintain homeostasis and essentially, keep you alive. You will lose muscle as well as fat and although you will lose weight, you will not 'tone up' because the muscle you had previously will reduce in strength and size.

If this is the case, then you may ask why I think 'heavy' weights low rep is better than 'light' high reps. The body tries to remain in a constant state of homeostasis, it will fight against change. If your normal basal metabolic rate (the number of calories you burn in a day) is 2,000 calories, your body wants to continue using 2,000 calories no-matter what you are eating. Therefore before dropping your BMR (which eventually happens and is one of the reasons why weight loss tends to slow down the longer you stay on a diet, remember survival is number 1) it will use it's own tissue to make up the deficit. In order to convince the body not to use up the muscle (remember it's 'more expensive' than fat and will be used primarily) a stimulus is required. In someone who is untrained (i.e most people in this discussion), heavy weights, low rep will always produce a higher stimulus to the central nervous system and the muscle than low weight high reps. 'Light' weight in an untrained individual is not heavy enough to promote the optimal stimulus to maintain as much muscle as possible. That being said purely due to the fact they are a novice it will still promote a stimulus and they will maintain more muscle than if they done nothing, but heavy, low rep is optimal.

And with a cardio-blast upping your burn, light-weights and high reps absolutely help that fat burn/shaping up…and weight loss if you are prone to bunterism (which genetics and the occasional extra burger in my life have left me with!)…thus the combination of a careful way of eating, plenty of water, good cardio, light-weight/high-reps and plenty of walking leaves me achieving said-goal.

Can you explain to me what cardio-blast upping your burn means? I assume you are trying to say here that light weight and high reps burns more calories? Explain to me how squating 70kg ten times burns more calories than 140kg 5 times.

You would acheive your goal more quickly and optimally if you were to lift heavy.

I presume what you're talking about is GAINING weight/muscle-weight if you are in need of bulking up, which would require high protein and yes (as you say) heavy lifting.

No, I'm talking about losing body fat, for either option you should be eating lots of protein and lifting heavy. There is an arguement (which I laid out in my previous post) that lighter weight high rep in addition to heavy low rep stuff is of benifit for bulking. But lets not get into that! :lol:

Apologies for the long post, but there is so much **** fed into people nowadays about training and exercise it's unreal and it frustrates me at times!

 

[Grays_1890]

I have learnt a lot about fitness lately due to my Personal Trainer and due to some research.

I think there is a great deal of emphasis on cardio here, which is a big mistake and its one that I made too. I think weight training and calisthenics are essential and more important than Cardio. Its not necessarily losing weight thats the prime objective, its more to do with changing the composition which im trying to do and is a shift from when I was all about losing weight.

Why dont you guys focus on weight training? Im not saying that cardio is ****e but the emphasis should shift from cardio to more strength training.

Since shifting my focus from cardio to weights, I am not losing as rapidly granted but my composition is changing. Im definitely getting trimmer as clothes are getting looser and definitely becoming more agile and stronger.

See my personal trainer informed me that although weight training does not take alot of cardio based fitness to complete (you can lift weights regardless of how unfit you are) you should in theory only start weight training when you have a decent level of fitness, for optimum results. I.E concentrate on getting a decent fitness level first then hit weights....

 

[thfcsteff]

First things first. People commonly use the term muscle tone to describe how firm or tight a muscle looks. A muscle has the same tone whether you are fat, thin, in shape, out of shape. It's tone does not change with exercise. The appearance of the muscle is determined by the amount of fat covering it and the elasticity of the skin. Lifting light weights for high reps will not tone your muscle, nor will Heavy weight for low reps. 'Toning' as the health and fitness world has come to know it, is a result of maintaining muscle mass whilst reducing body fat.

With all due respect, the sentence in bold is nonsense. A muscle cannot differentiate between 'light' and 'heavy' weight. You lift weight, muscle fibres become damaged and in the presence of enough protein the muscle is repaired. 'Bulking up' is the result of lifting wieght in the presence of a caloric surplus (aka eating more than you expend day to day) and enough protein. 'Toning up (in the context you are using it)' is the result of lifting weight in the presence of a caloric defecit (aka eating less than you expend day to day) and enough protein. That's it. Like I said, 'toning up' is just maintaining the muscle you have and removing fat from on top of it.

The body know's only one thing, survival. At a cellular level, that is all it is there to do. So in the case of a caloric deficit (that you need to be in to 'tone up') it will do what it can to keep you alive. Muscle is more metabolically 'expensive' than fat, it costs the body more calories to maintain. Therefore in the absence of a stimulus to tell the body 'keep me, I'm useful for keeping you alive' (i.e lifting weights) the body will prefer to metabolise muscle in order to obtain enough calories to maintain homeostasis and essentially, keep you alive. You will lose muscle as well as fat and although you will lose weight, you will not 'tone up' because the muscle you had previously will reduce in strength and size.

If this is the case, then you may ask why I think 'heavy' weights low rep is better than 'light' high reps. The body tries to remain in a constant state of homeostasis, it will fight against change. If your normal basal metabolic rate (the number of calories you burn in a day) is 2,000 calories, your body wants to continue using 2,000 calories no-matter what you are eating. Therefore before dropping your BMR (which eventually happens and is one of the reasons why weight loss tends to slow down the longer you stay on a diet, remember survival is number 1) it will use it's own tissue to make up the deficit. In order to convince the body not to use up the muscle (remember it's 'more expensive' than fat and will be used primarily) a stimulus is required. In someone who is untrained (i.e most people in this discussion), heavy weights, low rep will always produce a higher stimulus to the central nervous system and the muscle than low weight high reps. 'Light' weight in an untrained individual is not heavy enough to promote the optimal stimulus to maintain as much muscle as possible. That being said purely due to the fact they are a novice it will still promote a stimulus and they will maintain more muscle than if they done nothing, but heavy, low rep is optimal.




Can you explain to me what cardio-blast upping your burn means? I assume you are trying to say here that light weight and high reps burns more calories? Explain to me how squating 70kg ten times burns more calories than 140kg 5 times.

You would acheive your goal more quickly and optimally if you were to lift heavy.



No, I'm talking about losing body fat, for either option you should be eating lots of protein and lifting heavy. There is an arguement (which I laid out in my previous post) that lighter weight high rep in addition to heavy low rep stuff is of benifit for bulking. But lets not get into that! :lol:



Apologies for the long post, but there is so much **** fed into people nowadays about training and exercise it's unreal and it frustrates me at times!

OK, sorry if I upset you mate, you're obviously a trainer…I have tried various stuff over the last 20 years, and in my experience as a man who has battled weight issues, what I outlined worked (and works!)best FOR ME.

I will define the 'cardio-blast' thing, which to me is giving your system 20 minute high-cardio 'pump' which 'ups' my metabolic rate and thus gets maximum benefit from the weight training you then do. Look, I cannot argue with your well-written response, I can only argue that in MY case, when I train they way I've explained, I lose weight and it stays off. So for ME the proof is irrefutable.

What I would add (and I suspect even you would agree with this) is that light weights at high reps give you a much better chance to get the full benefit of the weight being lifted in terms of form and pace. Slow, steady curls versus urgent fast 'jerks'…12 evenly-paced, slow, steady movements as opposed to less 'rapid' ones.

I suspect what you're also getting at is the plateau, at what happens once you've hit your stride and the body has figured you out. In that case yes, an increase weight I can see BUT I always like to simply change days/change types of exercise/disrupt the rhythm so as my body gets a jolt that way. Let's be honest, I am not Stallone by a long shot (seriously!) but this works for my 46 year old middling portly tendencies.


The unwritten bit of all of this is diet of course…

How long have you been a trainer?

p.s. I think one of the things you have to remember too is how 'the word' changes…when I first got into any of this in 1991, the trainers here were all radiantly displaying ripples and bumps on muscles thanks to this 'steroid' thing LOL…then a new way came in…then in 96 I got into Bikram yoga and other types of training because 'weights were bad'…then I got back into eating and drinking too much, by the time i got out of it, there was new stuff…it changes all the time as I'm sure you know.

Off-topic question for you…how do you feel about ice on muscles after games? I have, for years, enjoyed a nice, relaxing hot bath after a game, and suddenly I'm faced with wisdom which says ice is the way to go? Interested in your thoughts.

Again, thanks for taking the time to respond in detail, good discussion.

 

[Grays_1890]

I read an article by a golfer once, might have been Levet who blasted the theory of heat on aches due to that being promoted in the 90s but actually doing more damage than good in the long run and the basis of his back problems

 

[spursman17]

Want to lose fat? High protein diet and lower the carbs. Reduce calorie intake but maintain 5 to 6 meals throughout the day. Exercise should consist of cardio interval training. By interval training I mean a 30 minute run of rotating heart-rate (4mins walking, 2 mins jogging, 1 min full sprint and repeat). This has not only proven to be far more efficient but also maintains your metabolism for hours post-workout.

Most important thing in my opinion? Diet. I lowered to 6% body fat last year hardly doing any cardio. Cardio will however speed up the process and is important for people who are usually inactive or extremely overweight.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

OK, sorry if I upset you mate, you're obviously a trainer…I have tried various stuff over the last 20 years, and in my experience as a man who has battled weight issues, what I outlined worked (and works!)best FOR ME.

You've not upset me at all mate, the fitness industry in general upsets me. From reading your post it sounds like you are exercising rather than training. By that I mean someone who is going to the gym a few times a week because they enjoy it, it makes them feel good and stops them from being a lard ****. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that and I commend you for doing something rather than nothing. I'd written my post from the perspective of someone who is training towards a certain goal. Here's a decent article on the difference (although it's kind of written from the perspective that EVERYONE should be training which I don't really agree with) http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/rippetoe_throws_down

I'm not actually a personal trainer. I've considered it as a side to my 9-5 job (project manager), but to be honest, I haven't got the physique for it. Most PT's are sub 10% bodyfat guys, I have far too many things more important in my life like my daugther and playing music to be bothered to dedicate myself to remaining below 10%. I have trained family members and friends in the past though.

My understanding of muscle physiology etc etc stems from my degree. I studied Pharmacology and took a particular interest in physiology. The systems of the body and how they work together amaze me. One of my other passions is sport (keen footballer) so I made a natural jump to combine the two. Started reading up on sport science studies etc etc. Started lifting weights and made all the normal mistakes that everyone makes when starting out. Combined with this my Uncle has a keen interest in lifting so I discussed alot with him (we don't always agree though).

I will define the 'cardio-blast' thing, which to me is giving your system 20 minute high-cardio 'pump' which 'ups' my metabolic rate and thus gets maximum benefit from the weight training you then do. Look, I cannot argue with your well-written response, I can only argue that in MY case, when I train they way I've explained, I lose weight and it stays off. So for ME the proof is irrefutable.

What you've described here is basically HIIT (high intensity interval training) which you're quite right is fantastic for burning fat. I would do your weights first though HIIT second. The upping of your metabolic rate will start when you start the HIIT training and continue throughout the day. This is the benifit of HIIT over Low intensity steady state work (eg running on a treadmill for an hour). The reason I'd do the weights first is that the metabolic increase is going to happen anyway, so you might as well get your weights in without being nackered from the HIIT. Lifting weights will not negatively effect your HIIT as much as HIIT will negatively impact your lifting if you know what I mean.

What I would add (and I suspect even you would agree with this) is that light weights at high reps give you a much better chance to get the full benefit of the weight being lifted in terms of form and pace. Slow, steady curls versus urgent fast 'jerks'…12 evenly-paced, slow, steady movements as opposed to less 'rapid' ones.

I would never advocate fast 'jerks' nomatter what the weight (unless you are training an explosive movement like a powerclean for example). If you have to jerk it it's too heavy (that's what she said :lol.

With someone who is a complete novice I would always use a 5 rep scheme, reason for this, it's much easier to maintain form over 5 reps.

There are different phases of training novice, intermediate and advanced. At the novice stage it takes very little stimulus to disrupt homeostasis, and because of this the body recovers very quickly. All that is required is very simple programming Squats, Deadlifts, Bench Press, Over head press, maybe some chins. At this point everyone (no-matter who they are) providing they eat correctly can handle linear progression. This means increasing the weight by reasonably small increments every single workout (5kg on squat and deads, 2.5kg on everything else). Once the body becomes accustomed to this and increasing the weight no longer disrupts homeostasis enough to promote a change (You'll know because you'll fail on the lifts) then more complex programming is required and you move onto the intermediate stage.

At this stage weekly progression is more likely and often people will go on the become body builders, power lifters, fitness models and will tailor their training accordingly. Most people will never get out of this stage because basically they don't need to (unless your competing in elite power lifting or something like that)

At the advanced level folks are looking at monthly, quarterly even yearly progression depending on what they do.

I suspect what you're also getting at is the plateau, at what happens once you've hit your stride and the body has figured you out. In that case yes, an increase weight I can see BUT I always like to simply change days/change types of exercise/disrupt the rhythm so as my body gets a jolt that way. Let's be honest, I am not Stallone by a long shot (seriously!) but this works for my 46 year old middling portly tendencies.

As I explained above you need to alter your routine to continue to progress once the body has caught up and stimulus is no longer enough to disrupt homeostasis, but another myth of the fitness industry is 'muscle confusion' where people tell you to completely change your routine every 6 weeks or your muscles will magically stop growing. This is bull****, as I said, muscles cannot be 'confused', they only know stimulus and response. So yes, once the stimulus no longer gets the desired response you make slight changes (eg. moving to weekly progression, adding volume on assistance lifts) not complete wholesale changes to 'confuse the body'.

The unwritten bit of all of this is diet of course…

How long have you been a trainer?

p.s. I think one of the things you have to remember too is how 'the word' changes…when I first got into any of this in 1991, the trainers here were all radiantly displaying ripples and bumps on muscles thanks to this 'steroid' thing LOL…then a new way came in…then in 96 I got into Bikram yoga and other types of training because 'weights were bad'…then I got back into eating and drinking too much, by the time i got out of it, there was new stuff…it changes all the time as I'm sure you know.

Off-topic question for you…how do you feel about ice on muscles after games? I have, for years, enjoyed a nice, relaxing hot bath after a game, and suddenly I'm faced with wisdom which says ice is the way to go? Interested in your thoughts.

Again, thanks for taking the time to respond in detail, good discussion.

You are 100% correct about the diet, and other than getting enough protein each day, it's the part I'm not particularly good at. Still working on it though.

Your point about the many changes is basically what annoys me so much about the fitness industry. Rather than create programs and advertise programs for people that work (compound lifts, linear progression, hard work) they have you balancing on a bosu ball with a 5kg dumbell held up in the air because it 'strengthens your core' (another buzz word). They pay folks who have spent time lifting sensibly and look like someone who has dedicated their life to it to advertise the latest fad so kids who don't know any better think that if they do 6 weeks of p90x then they will look like Arnie.

With regard to the ice thing, as far as I can see there are two schools of thought;

One recommends no ice because ice prevents inflammation and inflammation is the bodies natural response to training. They other thinks that it is inflammation that slows down the healing process and therefore recommend icing. Personally, unless you are an elite athalete I don't think you'll ever get to the level where it actually matters. For injury though, I'd always advocate it. I play football and have been plagued by hamstring injuries over the past few years. Any time I've iced them, they always heal more quickly.

Apologies if this post is littered with typo's/spelling errors, I can't be bothered to proof read it!

 

[thfcsteff]

Interesting reading…and an interesting viewpoint indeed.

Yeah, I have the fortune to work from home, so my health and fitness is dovetailed around work/family…I combine my gym work with twice a week footy and hikes with the dog.

Yeah, I ice direct and severe stuff like hamstrings and whatnot (thought thankfully since yoga stuff, I haven't had to worry about that) but will continue a nice hot bath for relaxing purposes.

I agree with the 'bozu ball' thing, I believe that you get back what you put in and nothing is for free, thus you need to up your heart rate, you need to sweat and you need to eat properly.

I control type 2 diabetes with exercise and diet (hereditary) and as such am a careful carb counter but not the point of stupidity. Processed white flour and processed sugars are really not my personal friend, and when they are greatly greatly reduced, I prosper. Brown pasta, etc, but generally not much pasta, rice or bread (I get a flour-free brown bread which is great, a loaf lasts a week)…oatmeal, some fruits, lots of veg, good GOOD amount of protein, none of it rocket science really…

Anyway, enjoying the conversation.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

Interesting reading…and an interesting viewpoint indeed.

Yeah, I have the fortune to work from home, so my health and fitness is dovetailed around work/family…I combine my gym work with twice a week footy and hikes with the dog.

Yeah, I ice direct and severe stuff like hamstrings and whatnot (thought thankfully since yoga stuff, I haven't had to worry about that) but will continue a nice hot bath for relaxing purposes.

I agree with the 'bozu ball' thing, I believe that you get back what you put in and nothing is for free, thus you need to up your heart rate, you need to sweat and you need to eat properly.

I control type 2 diabetes with exercise and diet (hereditary) and as such am a careful carb counter but not the point of stupidity. Processed white flour and processed sugars are really not my personal friend, and when they are greatly greatly reduced, I prosper. Brown pasta, etc, but generally not much pasta, rice or bread (I get a flour-free brown bread which is great, a loaf lasts a week)…oatmeal, some fruits, lots of veg, good GOOD amount of protein, none of it rocket science really…

Anyway, enjoying the conversation.

What's your opinion of yoga? I thought about giving it a go a few times when I was getting repetative injuries, but never actually took the plunge. Foam rolling works quite well for me in terms of recovery.

 

[Flannerz]

They run a yoga class where I do Muay Thai. I might give it a go

 

[Nezza]

This website is full of interesting and often very opinionated stuff. But unlike a lot of sites it tends to back up its claims with actual data, or research, or at least some stated assumptions and logical deduction.

I don't have a background in biological or sports sciences so I don't know how much is true. But he seems to go out of his way to dispel a lot of bull**** that gets repeated on the internet which can only be a good thing in my view.

 

[Rock Strongo]

I used to be a fairly fit 'big' guy, having done weight training since I was around 16. Obviously as I've got older and not being as active that fitness has waned a little and rather than being 'big (muscular)' I'm now getting a bit lardy.

This has become even more apparent since the birth of my son 20 months ago. I simply have no energy (or time it seems) to train and it's driving me crazy.

He wakes us up at around 5:30, I leave for work at 6:30 then leave work at 4 to pick him up from daycare. When I get home it's time for me to play with him/feed him/bathe him etc. It's then knocking on 7 when the wife gets in from work. By the time we get him to bed it's 7:30 to 8 and we have just enough time for some dinner, a shower and then back in bed by around 9 to 9:30!

Christ, that schedule must wear out the whole family.

I haven't had the energy/desire to train for years, or so I thought. Now we're expecting our 2nd kid in February and I figured it would be good for us all if daddy had some extra energy, so I started running. Been out 5 times since new years and already I feel fitter and have more energy to do stuff in the evenings. Using an app with GPS really helps my motivation.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

This website is full of interesting and often very opinionated stuff. But unlike a lot of sites it tends to back up its claims with actual data, or research, or at least some stated assumptions and logical deduction.

I don't have a background in biological or sports sciences so I don't know how much is true. But he seems to go out of his way to dispel a lot of bull**** that gets repeated on the internet which can only be a good thing in my view.

Yep, Lyle Macdonald is one of the best about when it comes to nutrition.

Another myth of the fitness industry that he (and other intelligent people) are trying to de-bunk is that there is such a thing as 'good calories' and 'bad calories'. There aren't.

 

[thfcsteff]

What's your opinion of yoga? I thought about giving it a go a few times when I was getting repetative injuries, but never actually took the plunge. Foam rolling works quite well for me in terms of recovery.

I think yoga is excellent. I personally find it very helpful in terms of preventative with regards to playing football. I don't go to as many classes as I used to (work, kids, other exercise, etc) but the stretches always go with me. I did Bikram for a while (hot room) which is great but which could cause an over-work of a warm muscle I'd imagine...ashtanga is tough but a good one. I like what it taught me about my body too i.e. no two days yoga will be the same as your body is never the same, psychological benefits are good too. Ah the foam roller! I need to be more consistent with that, I only use it hen m left IT band plays up ( I get left side issues sometimes, doubtless posture related)...if I were a Prem manger Id have all young players do yoga twice a week as part of the routine. I know it's counter to weight training, but in the hands of a good trainer it works very well ( Giggs is the poster child).

 

[thfcsteff]

Thanks Nezza, bookmarked for later reading...this is a great thread, good conversation...

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

I think yoga is excellent. I personally find it very helpful in terms of preventative with regards to playing football. I don't go to as many classes as I used to (work, kids, other exercise, etc) but the stretches always go with me. I did Bikram for a while (hot room) which is great but which could cause an over-work of a warm muscle I'd imagine...ashtanga is tough but a good one. I like what it taught me about my body too i.e. no two days yoga will be the same as your body is never the same, psychological benefits are good too. Ah the foam roller! I need to be more consistent with that, I only use it hen m left IT band plays up ( I get left side issues sometimes, doubtless posture related)...if I were a Prem manger Id have all young players do yoga twice a week as part of the routine. I know it's counter to weight training, but in the hands of a good trainer it works very well ( Giggs is the poster child).

I wouldn't say Yoga and weight training counter each other. If anything they compliment each other. Increased strength will allow you to hold poses for longer which in turn increases flexibility. Increased flexibility in hips lower back etc help you to hit depth in the squat.

 

[thfcsteff]

Yep, Lyle Macdonald is one of the best about when it comes to nutrition.

Another myth of the fitness industry that he (and other intelligent people) are trying to de-bunk is that there is such a thing as 'good calories' and 'bad calories'. There aren't.

…but certain types of food, and the way they're processed or not, make a MASSIVE difference in how they're metabolized. Processed white flour is not great. Processed sugar/high fructose corn syrup is not great.

The common sense/intelligent person knows that the best diet involves whole foods as much as possible with minimal processing. And I will (for reasons previously stated elsewhere!) say that IMO, too many carb-based calories are not good for your system. Again, common sense is that it has to be a balanced intake. I think the biggest myth of the fitness industry was how 'fat was bad' and that very low-fat diets were good. Now THAT was some grade A bull****!

 

[Dorothy]

Just remember that if someone tells you that 1kg of muscle weighs more than 1kg of fat you should burn some calories by poking the stupid twunt in the eye.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

…but certain types of food, and the way they're processed or not, make a MASSIVE difference in how they're metabolized. Processed white flour is not great. Processed sugar/high fructose corn syrup is not great.

The common sense/intelligent person knows that the best diet involves whole foods as much as possible with minimal processing. And I will (for reasons previously stated elsewhere!) say that IMO, too many carb-based calories are not good for your system. Again, common sense is that it has to be a balanced intake. I think the biggest myth of the fitness industry was how 'fat was bad' and that very low-fat diets were good. Now THAT was some grade A bull****!

Yep this is 100% correct, but in terms of weight loss/gain, how it's metabolised doesn't really matter. Of course you need carbs, protein, and fat, but the source of the carbs (strictly from a fat loss point of view) doesn't really matter.

From a health, nutrition and performance perspective then I'd always advise whole foods but there is no need to stop eating chocolate when trying to lose body fat providing your macros and overall calories are in check. Obviously eating whole foods makes it much easier to do this. Yep, the fat thing is another thing that does my head in.

Here is a good article that explains things farily well in terms of macros and calories for someone starting out, although it's written more from the weight gain perspective.

http://barbellmedicine.com/2012/07/29/584/

 

[Mulletperm]

Fitness people I need advice.
I play indoor footy once a week and for past couple weeks my rught hammy had been painful when I kick/run.
Whats the best thing for sorting it?
I'm going to skip a few weeks games and need to know what else to do.